The Women of Israel by Grace Aguilar: Two Volumes in One with a New Introduction and Commentary 9781463216368

Citation preview

The Women of Israel by Grace Aguilar

Judaism in Context

15

Judaism in Context contains monographs and edited collections focusing on the relations between Jews, Judaism, and Jewish culture and other peoples, religions, and cultures among whom Jews have lived and flourished.

The Women of Israel by Grace Aguilar

Two Volumes in One with a New Introduction and Commentary

Mayer I. Gruber

9

34 2013

Gorgias Press LLC, 954 River Road, Piscataway, NJ, 08854, USA www.gorgiaspress.com Copyright © 2013 by Gorgias Press LLC

All rights reserved under International and Pan-American Copyright Conventions. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, scanning or otherwise without the prior written permission of Gorgias Press LLC. 2013

‫ܒ‬

9

ISBN 978-1-61719-626-3

ISSN 1935-6978 Second Printing

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data A Cataloging-in-Publication Record is Available from the Library of Congress. Printed in the United States of America

This edition of The Women of Israel is dedicated to Three Special Modern Women of Israel

Liat Gruber, Tovi Gruber, Risa Gruber

TABLE OF CONTENTS List of Illustrations ..................................................................................ix Foreword ..................................................................................................xi Abbreviations ........................................................................................xvii Editor’s Introduction ............................................................................xix Volume One..............................................................................................1 Introduction ..............................................................................................3 First Period. The Wives of the Patriarchs ..........................................23 Chapter I. Eve.........................................................................................25 Chapter II. Sarah ....................................................................................67 Chapter III. Rebekah ...........................................................................127 Chapter IV. Leah and Rachel .............................................................189 Second Period .......................................................................................233 Chapter I. Egyptian Captivity, and Jochebed...................................235 Chapter II. The Exodus—Laws for the Mothers of Israel............259 Chapter III. Laws for the Wives of Israel ........................................277 Chapter IV. Laws Relating to the Widows and Daughters of Israel ..............................................................301 Chapter V. Maid Servants in Israel, and Sundry Other Laws .......327 Third Period ..........................................................................................353 Chapter I. Miriam .................................................................................355 Chapter II. Female Workers of the Tabernacle— Caleb’s Daughter .........................................................................373 Chapter III. Deborah...........................................................................381 Chapter IV. Wife of Manoah..............................................................395 Chapter V. Naomi ................................................................................409 Chapter VI. Hannah.............................................................................433 v

vi

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

Volume Two .........................................................................................463 Fourth Period........................................................................................465 Chapter I. Establishment of the Monarchy.— Patriotism of the Women of Israel. —Michal ........................467 Chapter II. Abigail................................................................................495 Chapter III. Wise Woman of Tekoa. Woman of Abel.—Rizpah. —Judgment of Solomon. — Widow of One of the Sons of the Prophets ............................................................................527 Chapter IV. The Shunammite ............................................................549 Chapter V. Little Israelitish Maid—Huldah—Influence of Women During The Monarchy.................................................569 Fifth Period ...........................................................................................587 Chapter I. The Captivity. Review of Chapters One to Seven of the Book of Ezra. —Suggestions as to the Identity of the Ahasuerus of Scripture, and Date of His Royal Feasts, &c. —Choice Of Esther....................................................................589 Chapter II. Esther (Continued)..........................................................607 Chapter III. Esther (Concluded)........................................................621 Chapter IV. Review of the Events Narrated by Ezra and Nehemiah......................................................................................649 Sixth Period ...........................................................................................663 Chapter I. Review of the Jewish Nation, from the Return from Babylon, to the Appeal of Hyrcanus and Aristobulus to Pompey .........................................................................................665 Chapter II. From the Appeal to Pompey to the Death of Herod 681 Chapter III. General Sketch Continued from the Death of Herod to the War ........................................................................691 Chapter IV. The Martyr Mother ........................................................701 Chapter V. Mother of John Hyrcanus.—Wife of John Hyrcanus. —Alexandra ..............................................................719 Chapter VI. Mariamne.........................................................................743 Chapter VII. Mariamne (Continued).................................................761 Chapter VIII. Maraiamne (Continued) .............................................775 Chapter IX. Mariamne (Concluded) —Alexandra—Salome ........789

TABLE OF CONTENTS

vii

Chapter X. Helena, Queen of Adiabene. —Berenice. ...................809 Chapter XI. General History, and Conclusions Thence Elicited .833 Seventh Period ......................................................................................843 Chapter I. The War. — Its Horrors. — Origin and End. Fulfilment of Prophecy. Real Cause of Jewish Chastisement. —Dispersion. Thoughts on the Talmud. ......845 Chapter II. Ordinances and Tales of the Talmud, Relating to the Women of Israel ...................................................................863 Chapter III. Effects of Dispersion and Persecution. —General Remarks ........................................................................................891 Illustrations............................................................................................959 Bibliography ..........................................................................................967 General Index .................................................................................... 1003 Index of Biblical References............................................................ 1011

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS 1. Grace Aguilar from the frontispiece of Grace Aguilar, The Women of Israel (New York: D. Appleton & Co., 1853) in the Abraham Schechter Collection, Central Libraries, University of Texas at Austin (Courtesy of the University of Texas Central Libraries). 2. Tobias Theodores, photograph reproduced with permission of Manchester Central Library, Manchester, England. 3. The handwritten Hebrew text on parchment from Deuteronomy 6:4–9 and Deuteronomy 11:13–21 contained in the mezuzzah on the right-hand doorpost of a Jewish home as prescribed in Deut. 6:9 and 11:20. 4. The mezuzzah containing a parchment scroll on which are written passages from Deuteronomy 6:4–9 and Deuteronomy 11:13–21 on the right hand doorpost of the entrance to a Jewish home. 5. Rabbi Ilana Rosansky, Ph.D. of Ranaana, Israel (May 2009) wearing the fringed prayer shawl or tallit with white and blue fringes prescribed in Num. 15:37–41 (and Deut. 22:12) as well as the tefillin or phylacteries on left arm and forehead as prescribed in Ex. 13:9, 16 and Deut. 6:8; 11:18. 6. Map of Jerusalem in the time of King Josiah (640–609 B.C.E.) highlighting the Mishneh (the second or relatively newer residential quarter of biblical Jerusalem), the location of Huldah the prophetess. Aguilar, following ancient Jewish tradition and the Authorised Version of the Bible in English from 1611, understood Mishneh to mean a College or yeshivah, over which Huldah presided.

ix

FOREWORD I take pleasure in dedicating this annotated edition of Grace Aguilar’s The Women of Israel to three special modern women of Israel, who are the wives of my three sons—Liat Gruber; Tovi Gruber, and Risa Gruber. I wish to express my sincere thanks to Dr. George Kiraz, Founder and Director of Gorgias Press for accepting this book for publication, and to Dr. Kiraz and the entire staff of Gorgias Press for their help and encouragement throughout every stage of the preparation and publication of this new edition of Aguilar’s The Women of Israel. Gorgias Press acquired a copy of Grace Aguilar, The Women of Israel (2 vols.; New York: D. Appleton & Co., 1871), from which they prepared by optical scanning a machine readable version of the work, from which the text of The Women of Israel in this volume was produced. I am especially grateful for the special efforts of Dr. Katie Stott, Production and Acquisitions Editor at Gorgias Press and to Tatiana Senina (nun Kassia), secretary of “Scrinium, Revue de patrologie, d’hagiographie critique et d’histoire ecclésiastique,” for formatting this book on behalf of Gorgias Press. Indeed, it was Kassia, who found a reasonable way to distinguish between my annotations and Grace Aguilar’s few brief footnotes. Both sets of notes are placed below Aguilar’s text. The author’s few notes are indicated by the symbols *, **, and *** while my annotations are indicated by numbers. Frequently, where I comment on a note by the author, Aguilar’s note introduced by a symbol is followed by a number pointing to my own annotation, which follows immediately. The few corrections I have made to the 19th century text of The Women of Israel are indicated in the annotations. I express my deep appreciation to the Hadassah-Brandeis Institute for a generous grant for partial subvention of the cost of xi

xii

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

publishing this volume. For their encouragement of my research in the subjects of women in the world of Hebrew Scripture and the history of research concerning women in the world of Hebrew Scripture I am pleased to express my gratitude to Judith Baskin of the University of Oregon at Eugene, Oregon; Professor J. Cheryl Exum of the University of Sheffield; Professor Carol Meyers of Duke University; and Professor Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza of Harvard Divinity School. For their encouragement in many matters pertaining to Grace Aguilar, which intersect with their own important publications and research, I express my sincere thanks to Dr. Shlomo Chertok of Beersheva, Israel; Professor Michael Galchinsky of the University of Georgia at Atlanta; and to Dr. Daniel Langton of the University of Manchester. For editing and processing the illustrations I thank Mr. Patrice Kaminsky, graphic artist in the Department of Bible, Archaeology and Ancient Near East at Ben-Gurion University of the Negev. For help and encouragement in more ways than I can possibly enumerate, I thank my esteemed colleague, Dr. Gunnar Lehmann of the Archaeological Division at Ben-Gurion University of the Negev. For helping me to locate obscure works of Modern English literature and for advice on English style and choice of vocabulary, I thank Ms. Judith Appleton of Jerusalem. For supplying me with a photocopy of Grace Aguilar The Women of Israel (New York: New York: D. Appleton & Co., 1853), from the Abraham Schechter Collection in the Central Libraries at the University of Texas at Austin I record my since thanks to Judaica Librarian, Mr. Nathan Snyder, of blessed memory. For supplying me two pictures of Grace Aguilar from that same volume, without charge for either reproduction or publication I thank Mr. Uri Kolodney, Judaica and Hebraica Bibliographer at University of Texas Libraries at Austin and Ms. Jennifer Lee, Head of Preservation Services at University of Texas Libraries at Austin. For supplying me a photograph of Tobias Theodores, who was Aguilar’s principal mentor in matters pertaining to Talmudic literature, I thank Ms. Jane Parr, Library and Information Officer at the Manchester Archives and Local Studies in the Central Library at Manchester in the UK. For a photograph of Rabbi Dr. Ilana Rosansky wearing tallit (prayer shawl) and tefillin (phylacteries) I am grateful to Rabbi Dr. Ilana Rosansky of Ranaana, Israel.

FOREWORD

xiii

For arranging for me to visit Special Collections at University College London to study the Grace Aguilar papers during the period May 12–16, 2008, I express my sincere appreciation to Mandy Wise, of UCL Library Services. I express my sincere appreciation to the staff of the British Library at London and especially to Ilana Tahan, Hebraic Curator at the British Library, for enabling me to research materials related to both Grace Aguilar and to numerous scholars and writers of belles lettres, to whom Aguilar refers in The Women of Israel. Frequently, Aguilar refers to the writings of Josephus, which she had read in the famous translation by William Whiston. In general, my annotations pinpoint the books, chapters, and subdivisions according to Whiston’s enumeration. The new edition of Whiston's translation of Josephus produced by Hendrickson Publishers adds in parentheses the paragraph numbering found in the Greek text of Josephus. About three quarters of the annotations to this edition of The Women of Israel and half of my introduction were composed during the four months—March-June 2009—during which I was a Visiting Scholar at the Roman Catholic Diocese of Dedza, Malawi in Central Africa. During most of that time I resided in the Fathers’ House at St. Kizito Seminary near Dedza. For hosting me there, I am grateful to Fr. Gerald Bwemba, Rector of St. Kizito Seminary and to the Rt. Rev. Emmanuele Kamyana, Bishop of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Dedza. For encouraging me to visit Malawi and for taking me to fascinating sites all over Malawi, I thank Fr. Peter Chifukwa, diocesan priest in the Catholic Diocese of Dedza. Special thanks are due Fr. Claude Boucher, Founder and Director of Kungoni Art and Craft Centre at Mua Mission in Malawi for inviting me to spend a week at the Chamare Museum and Library researching gender issues. Approximately one quarter of the annotations and half of the introduction were completed after my return to Israel in July 2009. The Jewish National and University Library at Jerusalem, Israel was an indispensable source for many obscure historical, biblical and liturgical writings, as well as belles letters and periodical literature, to which Aguilar refers and/or alludes. For late 20th century and early 21st century literature concerning women in the Bible and women in Rabbinic Literature and numerous other subjects touched upon by Grace Aguilar and explicated in the notes, the

xiv

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

Aranne Library at Ben-Gurion University of the Negev is a veritable gold mine. Research concerning both Grace Aguilar and the literature she cites and the history of women and Women’s Studies was facilitated immensely by my having been privileged to spend the academic years 2007–2008 and 2008–2009 on research leave from Ben-Gurion University of the Negev. I express my sincere thanks to Ben-Gurion University for granting me two consecutive academic years of sabbatical leave that enabled me to accept a series of visiting scholar appointments on four continents. These appointments afforded me a series of unique opportunities to acquire a deeper understanding and broader knowledge of both the Israelite and Jewish cultures that Aguilar analyzes and the intellectual biography of Grace Aguilar herself. The former chair of my department, Dr. Oded Tammuz, was helpful beyond words in expediting approval of my request to access my research and travel funds for my visits to the British Library and University College London in the spring of 2008. Dr. Nirmala Jeyaraj, former Principal of Lady Doak College in Madurai, Tamil Nadu, India, invited me to spend November 1, 2007 – February 29, 2008 as Visiting Scholar at Lady Doak College, an institution which epitomizes the empowerment of women, which is the major subject of Aguilar’s The Women of Israel. I am grateful to Dr. Jeyaraj and to Lady Doak College for enabling me to utilize the extensive library holdings at both the Miller Library of the College and the library of the Centre for Women’s Studies at Lady Doak College. I am especially grateful for the help extended to me by the Director of the Centre for Women’s Studies at Lady Doak College, Dr. Jayamathy Grace Frank. I express my sincere gratitude to Professor Bernard S. Jackson and Professor Philip Alexander, co-directors of the Centre for Jewish Studies at the University of Manchester, for arranging for me a Visiting Scholar appointment at the University of Manchester for the period March 1, 2008 – June 30, 2008. This appointment enabled me to interact with the outstanding faculty of the University of Manchester in the fields of biblical literature, Second Temple literature, the languages and cultures of the Middle East, and the history of Judaism in modern times, including the generally obscure subject of Professor Tobias Theodores of Manchester, the mentor of Grace Aguilar in matters pertaining to Rabbinic Literature. In

FOREWORD

xv

addition, the John Rylands University Library is a fantastic resource for the study of biblical literature, Judaism, and the history of women. Professor Claudia Camp of the Department of Religion at Texas Christian University, and Professors Toni Craven and Leo G. Perdue of Brite Divinity School at Texas Christian University kindly arranged for me a Visiting Scholar appointment at Brite Divinity School from November 1, 2008 through February 28, 2009. I am most appreciative of the help and encouragement extended to me by Professors Camp, Craven, and Perdue and by the Executive Vice President and Dean of Brite Divinity School, Professor Nancy J. Ramsay, and Ms. Suzanne Stone, Administrative Assistant to the Dean of Brite Divinity School. I benefited immensely from my conversations concerning Grace Aguilar with Professor David M. Gunn of the Department of Religion at Texas Christian University. Access to the library of Texas Christian University was a tremendous asset in the preparation of both the introduction and the annotations to this edition of The Women of Israel. For their constant encouragement in the preparation of this book and in all my professional endeavors I express my sincere thanks to my children—David, Benjie, Hillel, Tamara, and Shlomit—my sons-in-law, Eliyahu Glick and Yehuda Granot, and my daughters-in-law—Liat, Tovi, and Risa. I thank God Almighty, the Rock of Israel, and I pray that as He has enabled me to complete this project, He may enable me to complete many more books for the glory of God, Torah, and Israel. First Light of Hanukkah December 1, 2010 Beersheva, the City of our Matriarchs and Patriarchs Mayer I. Gruber

ABBREVIATIONS BIBLIOGRAPHICAL ABBREVIATIONS EJ EJ, 2d ed. JE

Encyclopaedia Judaica (1972) Encyclopaedia Judaica, 2d ed. (2006) Jewish Encyclopedia (1901)

ABBREVIATIONS OF THE TITLES OF BIBLICAL TEXTS Hebrew Scripture (commonly called the Old Testament) Ch. Chronicles 1–2 Dan. Daniel Deut. Deuteronomy Eccles. Ecclesiastes Esth. Esther Ex. Exodus Ezek. Ezekiel Gen. Genesis Hab. Habakkuk Isa. Isaiah Jer. Jeremiah Josh. Joshua Judg. Judges Kgs. Kings 1–2 Lam. Lamentations Lev. Leviticus Mal. Malachi Mic. Micah Nah. Nahum Neh. Nehemiah Num. Numbers Sam. Samuel 1–2 Zech. Zechariah

xvii

xviii

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

The Apocrypha Macc. Maccabees 1–2 The New Testament Gal. Galatians Lk. Luke Mk. Mark Matt. Matthew

EDITOR’S INTRODUCTION I. THE GOAL AND THE PROGRAM OF GRACE AGUILAR’S

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

A) The Goal In the face of numerous books, which not only attribute sexism to Hebrew Scripture but also suggest that Hebrew Scripture is responsible for sexism in the modern world, Tikva Frymer-Kensky (1942–2006) argued, “Even though the [Hebrew] Bible failed to eradicate or even notice patriarchy, it created a vision of humanity that is gender neutral.”1 One hundred and fifty-seven years before Frymer-Kensky’s relatively recent discussion of a series of Bible Stories that lead her to deny that Hebrew Scripture either invents or promotes patriarchy, Grace Aguilar (1816–1847), produced a monumental work, The Women of Israel that likewise argues that Hebrew Scripture should not be construed as a work of literature that promotes sexism. On the contrary, like Frymer-Kensky, Aguilar argued that the narratives and the laws and the proverbs found in the Jewish Bible promote a non-sexist view of the world and a non-sexist vision for both the Jewish people and humanity at large. Aguilar puts it this way at the end of her discussion of the Era of the Second Temple and the fall of Jerusalem in the year 70 C.E. and its aftermath: Brought down, as the history of the women of Israel now is, to nearly seventy years after the advance of Christianity, the proofs of our non-abasement and degradation become yet Tikva Frymer-Kensky, Reading the Women of the Bible (New York: Schocken Books, 2002), xvi. 1

xix

xx

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL more important; for there are many to assert, that in the Bibletimes the Hebrew females shared the holy privileges of the males, but that it was the falling-off from this spiritual Judaism, the mingling human with Divine authority, which so degraded and blinded the Hebrews after the Babylonish captivity, as absolutely to demand for our salvation the belief in the atonement of Jesus, and adoption of the new creed which his apostles preached. We trust that we have convincingly proved to our own nation, and from our own history, that this was not the case—that no human additions to the pure law had, between the first and second captivity, lowered the position, or interfered with the spiritual privileges of the Women of Israel.2

Not denying that in modern times some Jewish men do seek to degrade and denigrate Jewish women, Aguilar argues that such men have no right to find justification for sexism in biblical narrative, biblical law, or in the exposition of biblical law in Rabbinic literature: The very prejudice, to remove which this book has been written—the Jewish degradation of woman, her abasement in the social system, as a non-partaker of religious responsibility and immortality—if traced to its source, will be found to have originated in the blinded notions of the Jews of ... Eastern countries.3

Unfortunately, in these last remarks there is not only a defense of Judaism but also a disparagement of “eastern ways,” a kind of prejudice, which is today called “Orientalism.” However, further on, in discussing the salutary effect upon the Jews and upon Jewish women of life in lands of freedom, Aguilar teaches a lesson of religious tolerance, which ought to be heard and applied also in our own day:

Aguilar, Women of Israel, Period VI, Chapter XI. Ibid., Period VII, Chapter III, in her discussion of the “effects of dispersion and persecution.” 2 3

EDITOR’S INTRODUCTION

xxi

The more closely we examine and study our own faith, and in riper years the more we look into the religion of other creeds, the more clearly shall we understand the vital points of difference, and the very many of agreement, and we shall rise from such study with love tenfold increased towards our own faith, and charity redoubled towards our Gentile brethren.

It can well be understood how it is that Aguilar’s The Women of Israel made such a profound impression upon Jews and Christians alike for both opening up to scrutiny the profound lessons of Hebrew Scripture concerning the development of the full potential of women, which was then as it all too often is to this day, a matter of bitter controversy. And it is the purpose of this new edition to make Aguilar’s Women of Israel fully accessible for modern readers, both youth and adults, educated laypersons, students, clergy, and scholars. I have sought to make it accessible by adding footnotes which identify and clarify Aguilar’s biblical and other sources and by explaining in Part V of this introduction how to overcome the difficulties faced by 21st century readers when they are confronted with quotations from the King James Version of the Bible, from which Aguilar quotes extensively. B) The Program of The Women of Israel As Aguilar explains at the end of her own introduction, the author of The Women of Israel treats the account of the empowerment of Jewish women as illustrated in biblical narrative, biblical law, the history of the Second Temple Period, and Rabbinic literature under seven principal headings, as follows: 1) The Wives of the Patriarchs, which discusses primarily the women in the narratives of Genesis. 2) The Exodus and the Law, which discusses both the role of women portrayed in the narratives pertaining to the enslavement of the Hebrews in Egypt and their liberation, and the empowerment of women in biblical law. In this section, Aguilar fully anticipates David E. S. Stein’s recent observations concerning the difference between grammatical gender and social gender in Hebrew Scripture. 3) Between the Delivery of the Law and the Monarchy, which discusses the empowerment of women illustrated in the biblical narratives pertaining to Miriam and other named and unnamed women from the era of the Exodus to the end of the period of the Judges. 4) The Monarchy, where Aguilar waxes eloquent concerning the

xxii

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

power, which was exercised by various named and unnamed women in Israel and Judah from the establishment of the monarchy until the Babylonian Exile. If at the book’s beginning and end Aguilar is reticent to suggest that women in Israel exercised full political and religious leadership, in this section Aguilar expresses herself unequivocally on behalf of the equality of the sexes and the demonstration that such equality is illustrated in the biblical narratives pertaining to Israel’s Golden Age in the Land of Israel. 5) The Babylonian Captivity (and the return). In this section Aguilar discusses at length and in detail the empowerment of women illustrated in the Book of Esther and in the narratives of the Books of Ezra and Nehemiah. This discussion is especially informative, because it challenges various unsubstantiated assumptions about the deterioration of the role of women in post-exilic (i.e., after 586 B.C.E.) Judaism. 6) Continuation of the Second Temple. In summarizing and analyzing the history of the Jews from the establishment of the Second Commonwealth (538 B.C.E.) to the Destruction of the Second Temple (70 C.E.), Aguilar shows that the empowerment of women in Jewish life, which she had already demonstrated with respect to the period of the Judges and the period of the Israelite and Judean monarchies, continued unabated in the period of the Second Temple. In the 7th and final section of The Women of Israel Aguilar discusses Talmudic literature and attempts to illustrate by laws, narratives, and aphorisms, that the high status of women, which she sought to demonstrate with respect to the era of Hebrew Scripture and the eras of the Hasmoneans and the Roman occupation, was not compromised by the Rabbinic Sages. In addition, the final section of The Women of Israel discusses the history of the Jews from antiquity to her own era and the status of Jews and Judaism and especially Jewish women the world over in modern times. In this section Aguilar also offers advice as to what history books and belles letters people, and especially women, ought to read. And Aguilar even goes so far as to distinguish between “favorite authors” and “male writers.” Aguilar concludes The Women of Israel with an expression of profound conviction that the world at large will come to understand that the liberation of Jewish women does not require that they abandon their liberating faith and heritage and that the Jews in turn will learn to respect and honor other faiths both for their dif-

EDITOR’S INTRODUCTION

xxiii

ferences and for the common positive values shared by women and men of all religious persuasions.

II. WHO WAS GRACE AGUILAR? Grace Aguilar was born June 2, 1816 in the section of London known as Hackney,4 to Sarah and Emmanuel Aguilar, both descendants of the Jews who had fled Spain in 1492 and found refuge in England in the second half of the 17th century.5 As noted by Michael Galchinsky, at the time of her death at age 31 on September 16, 1847, “Grace Aguilar had built a multi-faceted career: she was a poet, historical romance writer, domestic novelist, Jewish emancipator, religious reformer, social historian, and liturgist.”6 When she was less than twelve years old she composed a play, “Gustavus Vasa,” no copy of which seems to have been found.7 At age 19, in 1835 she published her first book of poems, The Magic Wreath of Hidden Flowers (Brighton: W. H. Mason, 1835). Grace Aguilar is especially well known for her novel concerning the secret Jews of Spain, The Vale of Cedars, which was published by her mother, Sarah Aguilar, three years after the death of Grace Aguilar.8 Aside from publishing poems in both general and Jewish magazines, Grace Aguilar managed in her lifetime to complete twelve books, six of which were published in her own lifetime.9 Her first book concerning Judaism was Israel Defended, a polemical work translated

Sarah Aguilar, “Memoir of Grace Aguilar,” published in Grace Aguilar, Home Influence: A Tale for Mothers and Daughters (London: W. Nicholson & Sons, 1853), 7 5 Cf. Grace Aguilar, “History of the Jews in England,” in Chambers’ Miscellany, vol. 18, Tract No. 155 (London & Edinburgh: S. R. Chambers, 1847), 12-13. 6 Michael Galchinsky, ed., Grace Aguilar: Selected Writings (Broadview Literary Texts; Peterborough: Broadview Press Ltd., 2003), 11. 7 Ibid., 18 8 (London: Groombridge & Sons, 1850) 9 See Michael Galchinsky, The Origin of the Modern Jewish Woman Writer: Romance and Reform in Victorian England (Detroit: Wayne State University Press,1996), 138. 4

xxiv

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

from the French volume by Orobio de Castro.10 As early as 1840, before the appearance of any of her other book-length works on Judaism, she was invited by Isaac Leeser, the principal spokesperson for Orthodox Judaism in the U.S.A. at the time, to write as the inaugural publication of the just then founded, Jewish Publication Society of America, The Spirit of Judaism. The manuscript was lost at sea, and it had to be rewritten. The book appeared in 1842 with Leeser’s introduction and notes throughout the text indicating where he disagreed with the author.11 In fact, Leeser’s attacking Aguilar in his introduction and notes was cited by Christian missionaries as evidence of the arrogance of Jewish men, from whom only Christianity could save Jewish women.12 Nevertheless, the book established Grace Aguilar in the minds of both Jews and Christians as a major authority on Judaism. Aside from numerous poems on Jewish themes, Aguilar published before her death four additional important books, that dealt with Jewish themes. These were The Perez Family (London: Cheap Jewish Library, 1843); Records of Israel (London: J. Mortimer, 1844); and The Jewish Faith (London, 1846). It was already agreed in Aguilar’s own lifetime that her masterpiece was The Women of Israel (London: Groombridge & Sons, 1845).13 After the death of Grace Aguilar, her mother Sarah published another six volumes of the various fiction and non-fiction works by Grace Aguilar. In 1861 Grace Aguilar’s Collected Works were published in eight volumes (London: R. Groombridge, 1861). While Aguilar’s works continued to be read and to be republished as late as the second half of the twentieth century, the scholarly consensus at the beginning of the 21st century is that Grace Aguilar was

Orobio de Castro, Israel Defended, trans. Grace Aguilar (Brighton, 1838). 11 Grace Aguilar, Spirit of Judaism (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society of America, 1842). 12 See Galchinsky, Origin of the Modern Jewish Woman Writer, 74; cf. id., Grace Aguilar: Selected Writings, 22. 13 Galchinsky, Grace Aguilar: Selected Works, 27 and the nineteenth century sources cited there. 10

EDITOR’S INTRODUCTION

xxv

somehow “forgotten.”14 As we shall see, just as Aguilar is now increasingly being recognized as a major figure in the history of Judaism in modern times so should her most significant work, The Women of Israel, be recognized as a contribution of timeless value to the understanding of Hebrew Scripture. A careful reading of this book with the help of my footnotes that identify Aguilar’s sources, should make it abundantly clear that the book should be read as an abiding contribution to the exploration of gender issues in the literature bequeathed by ancient Israel and ancient Judaism. Moreover, a careful reading of Aguilar together with the notes that identify the sources of Rabbinic aphorisms, laws, and anecdotes she quotes anonymously should put to rest the evil rumor that she had no access to either the Hebrew language or Rabbinic Literature.

III. WHY REISSUE AND ANNOTATE GRACE AGUILAR’S

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL?

I became involved in the field of “Women in the Biblical World” quite by accident. My primary interest was in clarifying the abiding messages of Hebrew Scripture by attempting to determine, insofar as this might be possible, the precise meaning in context of rare words and homonyms in Biblical Hebrew. For this purpose my mentors—Professor H. L. Ginsberg and Professor Yochanan Muffs, both of blessed memory, and, may he be distinguished for life—Professor Shalom Paul—sent me to study Ancient Semitic Languages with Professor Moshe Held, of blessed memory, and— may he be distinguished for life—Professor I. David Marcus—at Columbia University in the City of New York. In the course of my studies there and at the Jewish Theological Seminary of America, my esteemed classmate at the Seminary, Professor Byron L. Sherwin, suggested to the late and revered Rabbi Abraham Joshua Heschel that, as a budding biblical scholar, I be chosen to prepare a study-guide to Heschel’s monumental The Prophets (New York: Galchinksky, Origin of the Modern Jewish Woman Writer, 130; Shlomo Chertok, “From the Vale of Cedars to the Rhine Valley: Grace Aguilar and S. R. Hirsch—Do two walk together if they have not agreed to meet?” Massekhet 9 (Fall 2009), 33–56 (in Hebrew). 14

xxvi

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

Harper & Row, 1962),15 for the use of women’s study groups. It was thus that I became enamored of the biblical Book of Hosea, which includes several important named and unnamed women, including the named Gomer, the named Lo-ruhamah, and unnamed prostitutes and qedeshot. Having lectured concerning the unnamed prostitutes and qedeshot at the annual meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature in 1977, I became known in those far-off days, just after the beginning of what is called the Second Wave of Feminism, as the person you could call upon to lecture about or to write an encyclopedia article concerning the presence of women in the world of Hebrew Scripture. One thing led to another. I found that the subject was fascinating, that it occupied the minds and the scholarship of some of the most talented women and men in the latter half of the twentieth century and the beginning of the twentyfirst century. Again and again I discovered and rediscovered that much of what was written about women in the Bible and women in the biblical world made little or no use of the many ancient Near Eastern texts from—just to name a few—Sidon in Phoenicia; Mari on the Euphrates River; Nineveh, the capital of Assyria; Ur and Akkad in Southern Iraq; ancient Egypt; and the Hittite capital at Hattusas in what is now Turkey—all of which shed abundant light upon women in public life in roles that included but were not limited to poetesses, priestesses, prophetesses, physicians, scribes, queens, and persons engaged in the buying and selling of movable goods, slaves, and real estate. At the same time, I noticed that all too many of the books that are published and marketed and which find their way to the shelves of university libraries and to the reading lists in courses in Ancient Israel assume almost a priori that the division of labor in ancient Israel corresponded to the stereotypic white upper middle class family of the 1950’s in the United States of America. In that stereotypical family, work is done by the husband who goes to the office while the wife stays at home washing

The study guide is Mayer I. Gruber, What is Prophecy? Study Discussion Guide [to] The Prophets by Abraham J. Heschel (New York: American Jewish Congress National Women’s Division and Commission on Jewish Affairs, [1970] (mimeographed). 15

EDITOR’S INTRODUCTION

xxvii

and ironing the laundry, preparing the food, and tidying up the house until the children and the husband come home. Eventually, I branched out from the study of women in the ancient Near East, which is generally defined as coming to an end with the conquest of the Persian Empire by Alexander the Great in 333 B.C.E. I contributed also to the study of women in the Mishnah and the study of women in the Dead Sea Scrolls. At this point I decided to analyze some of the poetry in both Hebrew and Aramaic, which the Babylonian Talmud attributes to women. Naturally, this endeavor, like my previous endeavors, angered the male chauvinists, who wanted to perpetuate the view that the Talmud silences the voices of women. My discussion of women’s poetry in Rabbinic literature also angered various persons, both male and female, who wanted to perpetuate the view that ancient Jewish literature is flawed because it has systematically silenced voices of women. It was at this point that it occurred to me that I would do well to research a relatively forgotten document of my own Reform Jewish heritage, The Union Hymnal (3d. ed.; Cincinnati: Central Conference of American Rabbis, 1932), which contained 292 hymns, including 73 (25%) by twenty-two Jewish poetesses of the 19th and 20th centuries, including Grace Aguilar, two of whose liturgical poems, were included in that hymnal.16 It was about this time that Yael Levine published the following statement: “In the course of time only three [Jewish] prayers meant to be said by the congregation and not by women alone were unequivocally composed by women.”17 Thus a prominent feminist scholar had just written my twenty-two 19th and 20th century Jewish liturgical poets out of history. Moreover, I was told by a prominent Jewish feminist scholar with respect to the list of twenty-two modern Jewish women hymn writers I collected from the Union Hymnal that none of them could have been religious (in the spoken English dialect of Modern Israel the word religious See the aforementioned Union Hymnal, Hymns no. 89, “Ah. Well It is That God Should Read,” and no. 115, “I Bless Thee, Father, for the Grace.” 17 Yael Levin, “Women Who Composed Prayers for the Public: An Historical Study,” Kenishta: Studies of Synagogue Life 2 (2003), 96 (in Hebrew). 16

xxviii

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

means “Orthodox Jewish”) and that none of them could possibly have known anything about Judaism. I took personally this insult, which was blindly and foolishly hurled not only at Grace Aguilar but also at Nina Davis Salaman and Elsie Davis, who had worked with their father, Arthur Davis, in translating the official Orthodox Jewish Holy Day Prayerbook of English Jewry.18 Having begun to study Grace Aguilar’s The Women of Israel, I was determined to find out if she was guilty as charged, in absentia, of being both non-Orthodox and ignorant of Judaism. I soon discovered both in The Women of Israel and in Grace Aguilar’s other writings in both prose and poetry a total commitment to the Orthodox Judaism in which she was raised both at home and in the synagogue, with which she and her family were intimately involved, London’s Bevis Marks Synagogue.19

IV. THE SOURCES OF AGUILAR’S KNOWLEDGE OF JUDAISM With respect to the question that has frequently been asked by persons who were interested in Grace Aguilar, as to what it is that this women who wrote two volumes concerning women in the Hebrew Bible and in the subsequent history of the Jews down to her own time, could possibly have known about Judaism, I found that the Service of the Synagogue, with Hebrew text edited by Chief Rabbi Hermann Adler and English translation by Arthur Davis et al. (6 vols.; London: George Routledge & Sons, 1907–1909) 19 While in Aguilar, “History of the Jews of England,” 17–18 Aguilar appears to describe sympathetically the doctrinal dispute within English Jewry that led to the establishment of the first Reform synagogue around the year 1841, Aguilar’s praise for the six-year-old child who refused to eat non-kosher food (Division IV, Chapter V) and her insistence that the diaspora is exile clearly place Aguilar within the Orthodox camp. In fact, in her discussion of the controversy within British Jewry during the 1840’s concerning the validity of the doctrine of the “Oral Torah” (Period III, Chapter I), Aguilar tries to avoid getting involved in the controversy over the doctrine in question that led to the break-away of the Reformers from the parent congregation at Bevis Marks. Certainly, Aguilar’s belief in the divine origin of the Pentateuch places her within the Orthodox camp within Judaism. 18

EDITOR’S INTRODUCTION

xxix

best answers to these questions were to be found by means of carefully reading the book and identifying the sources of her phenomenal knowledge of Hebrew Scripture and post-biblical Jewish sacred texts. In The Women of Israel Grace Aguilar displays a complete mastery of all of Hebrew Scripture and acquaintance with subtleties of the grammar and lexicography and syntax of Biblical Hebrew In the final chapter of The Women of Israel, which is devoted to Jewish life the world over in her own era, Aguilar herself explains how this came about. There she writes as follows: “In the synagogue our religion is taught; in our households the Bible is our companion; our daughters as well as our sons are instructed as our Great Lawgiver himself commanded.”20 Moreover, she explains there, “The Hebrew language is now taught, studied, known, as any other modern tongue.” She thus indicates that her knowledge of Hebrew was obtained from professional teachers, who made use of dictionaries and grammars of Biblical Hebrew. The textbook of Biblical Hebrew grammar, from which she learned this discipline was, most likely, Hyman Hurwitz, Elements of the Hebrew Language in Two Parts (London; for the author, 1807). Aguilar calls attention to Hurwitz’s Hebrew Tales (London: Morrison & Watt, 1828) in her discussion of Jewish life in her time. It appears from what Aguilar writes about how “our daughters as well as our sons are instructed” that she herself had formal instruction in Biblical Hebrew. Such formal instruction would account for her discussions of Hebrew lexicography exemplified, inter alia, by her examination of the possible meanings of the Hebrew word mal’ak ‘messenger/angel’ in connection with the emissary who appears to the future parents of Samson. In fact, in that discussion she invokes comparative Semitic lexicography, noting that the Arabic cognate of the assumed Hebrew verbal root of the noun mal’ak ‘angel’ means ‘to send’. Aguilar’s having received formal instruction in Hebrew would also account for her discussion of various other Hebrew nouns and phrases which are printed in Hebrew script in the old editions of The Women of Israel and hence also in this new edition. In addition, Aguilar’s not infrequent references to the Bible Commentaries of Rashi and, without mentioning them by name, to the commentaries of both Rashi and 20

See below, p. 933.

xxx

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

Ibn Ezra on Ruth 3:9 point to a high level of knowledge of both Biblical and post-biblical Hebrew. It should be remembered that for Jews from traditional homes the distinction between Biblical Hebrew, Rabbinic Hebrew, Modern Hebrew and several Jewish dialects of Aramaic, which are often taught in distinct academic departments in Israeli universities, is of no consequence. All of these languages are found in the daily liturgy, and educated Jewish lay-persons are expected to make an effort to understand all of them. Moreover, Galchinksy point out that Grace Aguilar taught Biblical Hebrew in a school, which she sponsored together with her mother Sarah.21 It is likely that she made use of David Levi, Lingua Sacra (3 vols.; London, 1785–1787). The latter volume is described as follows on its title page: Part I. contains a complete Hebrew Grammar, with points... Part II. a complete Hebrew-English Dictionary; containing all the words in the... books of the Old Testament (being pure Hebrew), the Chaldee words in Daniel and Ezra, the Targums of Onkelas [i.e. Onkelos], Jonathan, and Jerusalem, and such words in the Talmud and writings of the most eminent Rabbins, as serve to illustrate Scripture ... . Part III. to contain all words ... used in the English Tongue, arranged in alphabetical order, and explained in Hebrew.

The author of the latter work also edited Jewish prayerbooks, a treatise on the rites and ceremonies of Judaism, a series of publications responding to Joseph Priestly’s attempt to convince the Jews

Galchinsky, Grace Aguilar: Selected Writings, 19; contrast id., Origin of the Modern Jewish Woman Writer, 143, who accuses Aguilar of “having no access to Hebrew, she read Protestant sermons and the King James Bible.” Even a cursory reading of The Women of Israel will demonstrate Aguilar’s familiarity with Hebrew lexicography and grammar and her acquaintance with the sermons of Orthodox Jewish preachers of her own day including Samson Raphael Hirsch, who is traditionally designated as the founder of Modern Orthodox Judaism. See below. 21

EDITOR’S INTRODUCTION

xxxi

to adopt Christianity,22 and a treatise countering Thomas Paine’s Age of Reason.23 It should also be taken for granted that Aguilar had seen and read at home and in the synagogue Isaac Delgado’s Jewish version of the Pentateuch and the Haftarot or Prophetic Readings for Sabbath and Festivals and the Five Scrolls with brief comments.24 Later, Joseph Herman Hertz would justify editing his famous 5 volume commentary on the Pentateuch and the Haftarot on the basis of the fact that the Levi and Delgado publications are no longer available while the De Sola commentary on the Pentateuch frequently cited by Aguilar was never completed. De Sola and his collaborators published only a commentary on Genesis.25 It would appear, therefore, that the notion that Aguilar could have had no access either to the Hebrew language or to textbooks and dictionaries derives from a failure both to pay attention to what she tells us directly about her subject and to what is known about the writings that circulated in her community, the Spanish and Portuguese Jewish Community of London in the first half of the 19th century. Moreover, Aguilar’s groundbreaking discussion of gender issues related to biblical laws, which appear in the grammatical masculine but which can be demonstrated to refer to both male and female, presupposes a very detailed knowledge of Biblical Hebrew, which is achieved even today only at the highest echelons of biblical research. In addition, notwithstanding Aguilar’s self-effacing David Levi, Letters to Dr. Priestly in Answer to those he addressed to the Jews (London: Printed for the Author, 1787); Letters to Dr. Priestly, Part II (London: Printed for the Author, 1789). 23 David Levi, A Defence of the Old Testament in a Series of Letters, Addressed to Thomas Paine (London: Printed for the Author, 1797). 24 Isaac Delgado, A New English Translations of the Pentateuch, being a thorough correction of the present translations, together with a comment on such passages as cannot be sufficiently understood by mere translations (London: W. Richardson, 1789); see also later editions such as Isaac Delgado, The Pentateuch with the Haftarot and the Five Megillot according to the German and the Portuguese Rite, accompanied by a revised and correct translation (5 vols.; London: Ann Abrahams and son, 1876) 25 See below, 68, 73, 81, 82, 89, 90. 22

xxxii

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

remark in the course of her discussion of Hannah, “Of the delivery or non-delivery by the Eternal of an oral law, we write not at all, as it is a subject much too learned and too weighty for a woman,” Aguilar’s citing numerous Rabbinic texts especially in her discussion of the biblical institutions of slavery and in her discussion of laws, aphorisms, and narratives found in Talmudic literature demonstrate that contrary to the assertions of both Isaac Leeser26 and Israel Abrahams27 Aguilar by no means disparaged Rabbinical Literature or medieval Jewish exegetes. Aguilar mentions several times that in addition to having read translations and expositions of Rabbinic texts by Professor Tobias Theodores of Manchester she had received from him personal communications on the subject.28 Thus, the answer to the question as to what was the extent of Aguilar’s knowledge of post-biblical Hebrew and post-biblical Hebrew lore,29 is “unbelievably extensive” especially when we consider that there was no institutional framework in her time for a woman to immerse herself in Talmudic literature. Nor was there, in her time, a complete translation into English of any complete work of Rabbinical Literature. Nevertheless, in her discussion of the Rabbinic law of slavery, Rabbinic views of women, and Rabbinic Judaism in general she cites one after another anecdotes, aphorisms, and legal statements from the Babylonian Talmud. She also discusses Rabbinic narratives including two famous stories about Beruria, the wife of Rabbi Meir. One of these is the story of how Beruria offered a better exegesis than did her husband with respect to Ps. 104 recorded in Babylonian Talmud, Berakot 10a.30 Another of these is the story found in Yalkut Shimoni as to how Beruria broke to her husband the sad news of the death of their two sons. Less than a third of the Rabbinic material that Aguilar cites is found in published studies by Tobias Theodores, and almost none of it is found Isaac Leeser, Introduction to Grace Aguilar, The Spirit of Judaism, quoted in Galchinsky, Grace Aguilar: Selected Writings, 365. 27 Israel Abrahams, By-Paths in Hebraic Bookland (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society of America, 1920), 247–253. 28 See below, pp. 738, 839, 863, 874, 875. 29 Cf. Galchinsky, Grace Aguilar: Selected Writings, 19, n. 2. 30 See below in Women of Israel, p. 883. 26

EDITOR’S INTRODUCTION

xxxiii

in Hurwitz’s Hebrew Tales. When Aguilar wrote The Women of Israel the closest thing we have to a complete text of a document of Rabbinic literature in English other than the Ethics of the Fathers (i.e., Mishnah Avot) found in virtually all Jewish prayerbooks, is the translation of Eighteen Tractates of the Mishnah by De Sola and Raphall (1844).31 Consequently, for Aguilar to have amassed evidence from Rabbinic literature of every variety concerning the reasonableness of Judaism and concerning the exalted place of women in Rabbinic Judaism, nothing less than a combination of genius, fortitude, and devotion to two causes—women and Judaism—can account for Aguilar’s achievement. She wrote a book which was almost forgotten but which needs to be studied by scholars and laypersons alike. And she did this without any search engines, internet sites, or concordances. Where did she pick up both her information and her knowledge of where to go to find it? The answer is: in the traditional Jewish home with its bookshelves, in the synagogue, and in the Jewish school and with the generous advice of Tobias Theodores and by reading Jewish periodicals from cover to cover. These publications included The Hebrew Review and Magazine of Rabbinical Literature, ed. Morris Jacob Raphall; Voice of Jacob, ed. Jacob A. Franklin, and Archives Israelites, ed. S. Cahen. It is easy enough to brush aside Grace Aguilar, Nina Davis Salaman and Rahel Morpurgo with the flippant rhetorical question, “What could these women have known anyway?” However, that is not the way of scholarship. The way of scholarship is to shed more light on the known and to try to shed light on the unknown and the forgotten, which, as my late and revered teacher, Theodor Gaster, used to say, “has been lost in the shuffle.” Grace Aguilar’s The Women of Israel, which was an extremely popular book for more than a century after it first appeared in 1845, like many a text from the ancient Near East, simply got lost in the shuffle. My own interest in this work derived from my interest both in understanding the history of the study of women in the Bible and the equally important history of women’s contributions to the study of the Bible and, as I noted above, from my interest in 19th and 20th century Jewish See D. A. De Sola and M. J. Raphall, Eighteen Treatises from the Mishna (2d ed.; London: Sherwood, Gilbert, and Piper 1845). 31

xxxiv

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

women liturgical poets. What began as interest in a kind of curiosity developed into a fascination with Aguilar, a 19th century poet and novelist, who also ought to belong, by virtue of her highly original and scientific biblical exegesis, to the history of both biblical philology and the history of the study of women in the Bible.

V. WHY AGUILAR’S THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL WAS VIRTUALLY FORGOTTEN AND HOW TO DECIPHER IT Some years ago I was asked to trace the history of women’s writings about the so-called Minor Prophets of the Hebrew Bible beginning with Elizabeth Cady Stanton, The Woman’s Bible (2 vols.: New York: Europa Press, 1895–1898). The incorrect assumption, which was indeed made explicit, was that women writing about biblical subjects began with Elizabeth Cady Stanton and the team of women scholars, whom she assembled for the task. I had to explain that worthwhile biblical research by women in modern times did not begin with the latter work but much earlier. For example, Aguilar’s The Women of Israel is a work of abiding worth, whose publication preceded The Woman’s Bible by half a century. Moreover, Grace Aguilar at the very beginning of her introduction to The Women of Israel, cites only by their family names the work of three women scholars, who published works touching upon Hebrew Scripture prior to Aguilar’s work. Aguilar’s citing their works only by reference to the authors’ family names indicates that Aguilar assumes that educated readers will immediately recall both the persons and their writings. I suggest two major reasons why Grace Aguilar’s The Women of Israel, which was presented as a high school graduation gift for more than a century after its first appearance,32 failed to be considered as a canonical work in the study of women in Holy Scripture. The first reason is the tendency of biblical scholars to consider seriously only the work of professional biblical scholars who have earned a doctorate in biblical studies or a cogGalchinsky, Origin of the Modern Jewish Woman Writer, 187 notes that the book was given as a Sunday School prize in churches in England as recently as the 1950’s. 32

EDITOR’S INTRODUCTION

xxxv

nate discipline such as Ancient Semitic Languages, archaeology, or Assyriology. The second reason is the fact that the book is virtually incomprehensible to modern students because Aguilar quotes extensively from the Authorised Version of the Bible produced in 1611 and presented to King James I of England and hence commonly called the King James Version and referred to by the abbreviation KJV from the first letter of each of the words in the phrase King James Version. Usually, Aguilar does not identify the precise sources of her biblical quotations and allusions because she assumes an educated readership, which would be familiar with the vocabulary and the grammar of the KJV and would be able to locate the citations without grave difficulty. It should be remembered that it was only in the second half of the 20th century that editors of Jewish and Christian prayerbooks and hymnals in English broke with the precedent established by Thomas Cranmer (1489–1556), the first Protestant Archbishop of Canterbury, whose Book of Common Prayer established Elizabethan English as the accepted language of prayer and of English versions of sacred texts. Consequently, in the pages of Grace Aguilar’s The Women of Israel the many aphorisms and legal pronouncements taken from Rabbinic Literature also appear in Elizabethan English. Since the task I took upon myself was not to re-write The Women of Israel but to make it comprehensible so that it might be more widely utilized, I have not rewritten the book in 21st century standard academic English. Indeed, I have utilized KJV also in supplying in the footnotes the biblical passages, to which Aguilar alludes without quoting them However, in addition to attempting to identify correctly all of Aguilar’s quotations and allusions, both literary and historical, I provide herewith a key to deciphering the Elizabethan English of the King James Version of the Bible, which, without such a key, is virtually incomprehensible to most American college students. Here are a few simple rules: In contemporary English we employ the following pronouns singular 1st person 2nd person 3d person

subject I you he/she/it

object me you him/her/it

xxxvi plural 1st person 2nd person 3d person

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

subject we you they

object us you them

The English of the KJV, on the other hand, employs distinct forms for the singular and plural of the second person (i.e., you singular and you plural) as follows singular 2nd person

subject thou

plural 2nd person

ye

object thee you

In contemporary English we employ also the following well-known forms, which function variously as possessive pronouns, pronominal adjectives and possessive adjectives: singular 1st person 2nd person 3d person

my, mine your, yours his, her, hers

plural 1st person 2nd person 3d person

our, ours your, yours their, theirs

KJV employs in addition the following forms in the second person singular: thy, thine. In contemporary English the verb in the present and past tenses displays the following forms: singular present past st 1 person I have, walk, do I had, walked, did, I speak I spoke 2nd person you have, walk, do you had, walked, did you speak you spoke 3d person he/she/it has, he/she/it had, walks, does, speaks walked, did, spoke

EDITOR’S INTRODUCTION plural 1st person 2d person

present I have, do, speak you have, walk, do

xxxvii

past I had, did, spoke you had, walked, did

KJV employs the following additional or alternative forms in the 2d person singular in the present thou (you singular) hast, walkest, doest, speakest Likewise, KJV employs the following alternative forms in the 3d person singular in the present he/she/ it hath, walketh, doeth, speaketh In addition, the Elizabeth English of KJV employs the verbal form spake in the past where Modern English employs the form ‘spoke’. Likewise, the Elizabeth English of KJV employs the verbal form ‘bare’ in the past tense where Modern English employs the form ‘bore’ and ‘brake’ instead of Modern English ‘broke’. Insofar as The Women of Israel usually quotes the Hebrew Bible in the KJV, I give all references to chapters and verses according to that version, which often deviates from the chapter and verse numbers found in Bibles printed in Hebrew and in translations published under Jewish auspices. With these few guidelines, for which most college, seminary, and university students of Scripture were afraid to ask, and of which many older college, seminary, and university faculty never thought to inform us, readers of Grace Aguilar and any other texts in what used to be called “Biblical English” or “Prayerbook English” should have smooth sailing.

VI. THE EDITOR’S MINOR CORRECTIONS Gorgias Press was able to secure a copy of The Women of Israel published by D. Appleton & Co. at New York City in 1871 and to produce by optical scanning a machine-readable copy, which is the basis of this new annotated edition. While I have corrected to the best of my knowledge all the errors (misconstrued letters and stray marks) that crept into the text in the scanning process, I have resisted the temptation to make corrections in the text written by Grace Aguilar and published and republished many times in the 19th and 20th centuries principally by D. Appleteon & Co. in New York and Groombridge & Sons in London. I have not tampered

xxxviii

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

with the spelling of words such as connexion (where we would write connection). Nor have I tried to eliminate inconsistencies such as Asmonaean alongside of Asmonean in Aguilar’s discussion of the period of the Maccabees. I did take the liberty of removing the space between the end of a clause/sentence/question and the semicolon, exclamation mark, and question mark at the end of a clause/exclamatory sentence, and question respectively. By-andlarge, it is standard practice today to place final quotation marks before the semicolon but after the period and the exclamation point. However, the old editions of The Women of Israel also place the final quotation marks after the semicolon. And here I have determined not to re-write or stylize. I have corrected without comment minor typographical errors such as the designation of xii (where it should be xiii) as the chapter of the Book of Judges in which the mother of Samson meets an angel, who tells her how she should prepare for giving birth to a very special child. Similarly, where it seemed that the 19th century text simply incorporated a typographical error, I replaced semicolon with colon before a quotation. However, I have commented in footnotes on more substantial emendations such as a reference to Solomon in Period V, Chapter IV where I have corrected “Solomon rejoicing” to “Solemn rejoicing”. In Period VII, Chapter III (p. 894) Aguilar affirms the traditional Jewish belief in immortality, and she castigates those who assert that we have no belief in the immorality of the soul. Here the old editions have “unbelief” where the context calls for the term “belief.” I have corrected this text, but I called attention to my emendation in a footnote.

VII. THE LITERARY GENRE OF GRACE AGUILAR’S THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL AND THE SOURCES OF ITS INSPIRATION In a recent study, Shlomo Chertok, characterizes Grace Aguilar’s The Women of Israel as “a modern midrash.”33 For a number of reaChertok, “From the Vale of Cedars to the Rhine Valley: Grace Aguilar and S. R. Hirsch—Do two walk together if they have not agreed to meet,” Massekhet 9 (Fall 2009), 49 (in Hebrew); so already Galchinsky, 33

EDITOR’S INTRODUCTION

xxxix

sons the possible meanings of this characterization of The Women of Israel need to be both analyzed and corrected. First, for better or worse, in Jewish biblical studies since the time of Rashi (1040– 1105), the most influential Jewish biblical commentator of all time, it has been customary to distinguish between the true contextual meaning of biblical texts (called by Rashi peshuto and by his disciples peshat ) and midrash. Rashi himself indicates that he is willing to employ ancient Rabbinic statements that belong to the category of midrash insofar as they can be utilized to elucidate the contextual meaning of Scripture.34 Characteristic of the use of the term midrash to designate an unreasonable and unacceptable interpretation of Scripture is Rashi’s comment on Gen. 50:5: kariti [I DUG]. According to its literal interpretation this is a form of the same verb which is attested in “when a person digs” (Ex. 21:33). A midrash [creative writing or fanciful interpretation, which Rashi here marginalizes and rejects], which can nevertheless be reconciled with the context treats kariti as a synonym of qaniti ‘I purchased’ (cf. Gen. 49:30 where Jacob pointes out that Abraham purchased [Heb. qanah ] the burial cave, to which Jacob refers in Gen. 50:5).

By designating as midrash the interpretation of the verb kariti to mean ‘I purchased’ Rashi marginalizes and rejects it although he does note that in reference to a burial cave either usage might be contextually appropriate. Thus, the characterization of Grace Aguilar’s The Women of Israel as a “collection of biographical midrashim”35 is unfortunate because it suggests that, contrary to the facts of the case, Aguilar has violated the plain sense of Hebrew Scripture in her highlighting biblical women, their stories, and their many roles in public life. Grace Aguilar: Selected Writings, 50; id., “A Victorian Midrash: Grace Aguilar and Jewish Women’s Literature,” Massekhet 2 (2004), 47–60. 34 See the extensive discussion in Mayer I. Gruber, “Biblical Interpretation in Rabbinic Literature,” in Encyclopaedia of Judaism, 2d ed.; ed. Jacob Neusner, Alan J. Avery-Peck, and William Scott Green (Leiden & Boston: Brill, 2005), 217–218. 35 Galchinsky, Grace Aguilar: Selected Writings, 50.

xl

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

While midrash may be a term employed to designate exegesis of whatever nature that was carried on by the Rabbinic Sages in Late Antiqutiy,36 the term is generally understood in a rather pejorative sense, referring to creative writing, in which the authors of such creative writing claim that the Bible says what no rational person would find in the Bible.37 Therefore, the suggestion that The Jacob Neusner, What is Midrash? And a Midrash Reader (2d printing; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1994), 10, n. 2. 37 Cf. Alexander Samely, Rabbinic Interpretation of Scripture in the Mishnah (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002), 61. Moreover, Rivka Ulmer, “The Boundaries of the Rabbinic Genre Midrash,” Colloquium: The Australian and New Zealand Theological Review 38, no. 1 (May 2006), 59 warns against the recent “vague application of the term midrash to all kinds of interpretive activities, from the use of biblical allusion in Moby Dick to dancing under a tallit (prayer shawl) on the ... synagogue platform.” Strange to relate, some Jewish and Christian feminists in the post-modern era have advocated abandoning the modern emphasis (to which Rashi alludes by the term peshuto in the citation from Rashi on Gen. 50) on “the ‘first’ or historical meaning of the biblical text as a deposit of the definitive meaning of the author.” Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza, Wisdom Ways: Introducing Feminist Biblical Interpretation (Maryknoll, New York: Orbis Books, 2001), 94 argues, that emphasizing the historical meaning of biblical texts “runs the risk of ‘shutting up’ the ‘meaning’ of the text in the past and turning it into an artifact of antiquity that is accessible only to the expert in biblical history or philology.” Indeed, Rashi in his time [see Mayer I. Gruber, Rashi’s Commentary on Psalms, Brill Reference Library of Judaism, vol. 18 (Leiden: Brill, 2004), 130–135] and Aguilar in her time were interested in showing that the Hebrew Bible, which both of them regarded as a gift handed by God to the world through the Jewish people, in its original and historical meaning, need not be replaced by any other creed. It order to demonstrate this, both of these great Jewish writers, sought, to the best of mortal abilities, primarily to expound the original, historical meaning. To have done otherwise would have lent credibility to the false charge that Hebrew Scripture, read on its own terms, is inimical to the interests of women. And David Stein (see below) also reflects the idea that the claim that Hebrew Scripture is essentially inimical to the interests of women runs contrary to the evidence of proper analysis and translation of Hebrew Scripture (see below). Consequently, to label Agui36

EDITOR’S INTRODUCTION

xli

Women of Israel belongs to the category of midrash very well be taken to mean that Aguilar’s attempt to highlight the many and varied roles that women played in public life in biblical times is fanciful and not cogent. In addition, in the literature commonly called midrash from late antiquity until now small segments of Scripture are commented upon primarily in order to highlight theological beliefs, lessons about human behavior, or rules of conduct. Early in the 20th century Louis Ginzberg created an almost continuous narrative from the laconic and essentially disconnected comments on biblical characters and events culled from ancient and medieval midrash.38 The first and most obvious implication of labeling her book a “collection of biographical midrashim” is the implicit suggestion that the plain meaning of Scripture would show that women in ancient Israel and in ancient Judaism did not play the many and varied roles in public and private life, which Aguilar attributes to them. One of the main purposes of the annotations contained in this edition is to indicate when and where Aguilar is right on target (most of the time) and when and where she either exaggerates, errs or ignores data, or expresses attitudes, which ought to be subject to ethical criticism. The characterization of Aguilar’s The Women of Israel as a “collection of biographical midrashim” is most unfortunate for three additional reasons. First, the book deals at great length and with brilliant insights of permanent value not only with biographical biblical narrative but also with biblical law, grammar, syntax, and, most significantly, the proper understanding of biblical laws, which have been misconstrued by readers of most English translations as applying to men only because of the failure to distinguish between grammatical gender and social gender.39 Moreover, the lar’s collection of essays [Women of Israel ] on Jewish history, modern Jewish life, biblical narrative, biblical law, and Rabbinic law and aphorism as “biographical midrash” is not only careless but also inimical to the search for truth. 38 Louis Ginzberg, Legends of the Jews (7 vols.; Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society of America, 1909–1938). 39 See now David E. S. Stein, ed., The Contemporary Torah: A GenderSensitive Adaptation of the JPS Translation, with consulting editors Adele Ber-

xlii

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

second half of The Women of Israel deals with biography, if at all, with respect to persons who belong to post-biblical Judaism. In addition, the three final chapters of The Women of Israel deal extensively with laws, anecdotes and aphorisms in Rabbinic Literature and the history of the Jews and Judaism from antiquity to the time of the original publication (1845). These chapters are filled with information that attests to a phenomenal erudition with respect to history, Jewish affairs in modern times, and Rabbinic lore (at a time when only a minuscule portion of it was available in English). Her goal, which she achieves with phenomenal success is to inform her contemporaries that, contrary to the teaching of some Christian missionaries, the many and varied roles of women in the life of the Israelites and the Jews did not come to an end with the advent of Rabbinic Judaism. Even the broadest definition of midrash does not embrace history, contemporary Jewish life, aphorisms and legal dicta, that are not linked to biblical proof-texts. What Grace Aguilar produced is something entirely different from both ancient and medieval midrash and from Ginzberg’s Legends. Believing that the biblical narratives constitute history, Aguilar succeeds in shedding light on the often telegraphic nature of those narratives. Her treatment of the biblical narratives contained in Hebrew Scripture constitutes a series of essays, in which she analyzes the virtues and the faults of many of the named and unnamed women and some of the named and unnamed men in those narratives. In those same essays Aguilar takes every opportunity to call attention both to powerful women who shaped history and to the virtues of ancient Israelite and Jewish society, which not only allowed but also encouraged women to accept and to excel in positions of leadership. What inspired Aguilar to expound the biographies of biblical and post-biblical Jewish women leaders, enumerate the Pentateuchal laws, which, contrary to the impression fostered by 19th century and 20th century Bible-bashers, can be shown to lin, Ellen Frankel, and Carol L. Meyers (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 2006), v–xxxv, and especially the table on xxxi; and compare the parallel discussion in Aguilar, Women of Israel, Period II, Chapters III–V, which deal with biblical law. See also, David E. S. Stein, “Response to Book Review in Volume 18,” Mo‛ed 19 (2009), 33–38.

EDITOR’S INTRODUCTION

xliii

empower women, and to cite scores of Rabbinic texts, which illustrate the proposition that the high status that women achieved in biblical times did not diminish in the Rabbinic Era? A partial answer to this question is to be found in her intellectual biography. When Grace was fourteen years of age (1830) her father began reading history books to her. Significantly, the first book that Emanuel Aguilar read to his daughter was The Works of Josephus40 in the famous translation by William Whiston (1667–1752), who succeeded Isaac Newton as Professor of Mathematics at Cambridge in 1702. Whiston’s famous edition of The Works of Josephus first appeared in 1737. Not only is Aguilar’s treatment of the history of the Second Temple and the First Jewish War Against the Romans in The Women of Israel largely based upon a critical reading of Josephus’s Antiquities and The Wars but also her extended essays on narratives, persons, laws, and institutions in Hebrew Scripture seem to have been highly influenced by Josephus’s creating and/or adopting what is now called, on the basis of a description of various texts discovered among the Dead Sea Scrolls, “Rewritten Bible.”41 Sarah Aguilar, “Memoir of Grace Aguilar,” 7–8. Contrast Galchinsky, Grace Aguilar: Selected Writings, 13 where Galchinsky characterizes Aguilar’s writing as midrash. Likewise, there, 50 in his chronology of the life and work of Grace Aguilar he writes, “1845 Publishes her collection of biographical midrashim, The Women of Israel.” In fact, midrash is not rewritten Bible but rather ancient and medieval interpretation of Scripture, which expounds Scripture in short segments. What Josephus and Aguilar do, on the other hand, is to compose extended essays on biblical narratives, themes, and persons incorporating both long quotations from Scripture and retelling of biblical stories. Concerning the term “Rewritten Bible” with reference to a genre of texts found among the Dead Sea Scrolls see Geza Vermes, Scripture and Tradition in Judaism: Haggadic Studies (2d ed.; Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1973), 67–126, and see more recently, Moshe J. Bernstein, “‘Rewritten Bible’: A Generic Category Which has Outlived its Usefulness?” Textus 22 (2005), 169–196 and the extensive literature cited there. For the term “Rewritten Bible” to describe Josephus’s retelling of biblical narratives see the monumental work by Louis H. Feldman, Studies in Josephus’s Rewritten Bible, Supplements to the 40 41

xliv

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

Indeed, at the end of his classic discussion of the “rewritten Bible” constituted by Josephus’s paraphrasing of the narratives and the laws of Hebrew Scripture, Feldman writes as follows: A “smartened up,” more credible, more interesting, more philosophical, more penetrating psychologically, second edition of the Bible, so to speak, one particularly designed at once to answer critics of the Jews and to instill in Jews a sense of pride in their history and to teach them how to avoid the mistakes of the past and to learn from them.42

It should not be surprising, therefore, that when Grace Aguilar, who had first been exposed to Josephus’s writings when she was fourteen years of age in 1830, took up the task of highlighting the lessons to be learned from Hebrew Scripture about what had been and what ought to be the role of women in Jewish life, she, like Josephus, sought “at once to answer critics of the Jews” and “to instill in Jews [and especially Jewesses] a sense of pride in their history and to teach them how to avoid the mistakes of the past and to learn from them” especially with respect to her discussion of Second Temple Judaism! It was, therefore, Aguilar’s early encounter with Josephus that accounts for three aspects of The Women of Israel. The first of these is her “smartened up, more interesting, more penetrating psychologically, retelling of biblical narrative.” The second of these is her treatment of biblical narrative and biblical law in a manner designed both to answer critics of the Jews and to instill in Jews (and in her case, especially Jewesses) a sense of pride in their history. The third is her continued fascination with historical writing and her attempt to deal critically with contradictory accounts of what took place in the past according to both ancient records and later historians from Josephus and Tacitus to her own era. Journal for the Study of Judaism, vol. 58 (Leiden: Brill, 1998). More recently, Michael Avioz, “Josephus’ Rewriting of 1 Samuel 25,” Journal of Jewish Studies 59 (2008), 73–85 rehabilitates the term “Rewritten Bible” and carries forward the exposition of Josephus’s rewritten Bible pioneered by Feldman. 42 Feldman, Studies in Josephus’s Rewritten Bible, 570.

EDITOR’S INTRODUCTION

xlv

Consequently, when she reaches the modern era, which she discusses in the latter part of Period VII, almost at the end of the book, her discussion is modeled upon and up-dated from the similar discussions found in two other historians, whose writings were regarded as the state of the art in historical writing when Aguilar penned The Women of Israel. These are Hannah Adams, History of the Jews from the Destruction of Jerusalem to the Nineteenth Century (Boston: John Eliot, Jr., 1812) and Henry Hart Milman, History of the Jews (2d ed.; 3 vols.; London: John Murray, 1830), vol. 3,43 which traces the history of the Jews from the Roman siege of Jerusalem in 69 C.E. through the Napoleonic Era. Likewise, when she discusses the events pertaining to the First Jewish War against Rome she attempts to deal critically with Josephus by comparing some of his assertions with the account by Tacitus (55–120 C.E.) in Book 5 of his Histories.44 Similarly she frequently compares and contrasts Josephus and Milman, attempting to decide which of the two historians is more credible. Aguilar refers also to Oliver Goldsmith (1728–1774), the famous English poet, playwright, and novelist, whose various history books were standard school textbooks and went through many editions, and to John Jahn, History of the Hebrew Commonwealth, translated from the German by Calvin E. Stowe, with an appendix containing the Continuation of the History of the Henry Hart Milman (1791–1868) was the son of Francis Milman (1746–1821), who was physician to King George III of England. Henry Hart Milman studied at Eton and then at Brasenose College, Oxford. He earned his M.A. in 1816 and his D.D. in 1849. He was professor of poetry at Oxford 1821–1831, and thereafter he was dean of St. Paul’s Cathedral in London. His publications included a series of plays on historical themes, and The Fall of Jerusalem: A Dramatic Poem (London: J. Murray, 1825), in which he accounts for the fall of Jerusalem as the punishment of the Jews for their failure to embrace Christianity. In addition to his 3-volume history of the Jews, Milman wrote other important historical works, including The History of Christianity from the Birth of Christ to the Abolition of Paganism in the Roman Empire (New York: Harper, 1872) and Edward Gibbon, The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, with notes by H. H. Milman (New York: Lovell, Coryell, 1845). 44 See below, at the end of Period VI, Chapter X. 43

xlvi

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

Jews to the Reign of Adrian, translated from Basnage (London: Thomas Ward, 1828). Given a widespread tendency to belittle the role of women in ancient Israel and in Judaism, Aguilar’s attempt to show that there is indeed considerable evidence for the empowerment of women in biblical narrative, biblical law, and Jewish history constitutes a contribution of abiding worth to research on women in ancient Israel and ancient Judaism. I decided, therefore, to make it accessible to students, scholars, and laypersons by first of all providing earlier in this introduction a key to decoding the archaic English employed in the biblical quotations, mostly from the King James Version of the Bible. In addition, I have supplied footnotes, which attempt to accomplish three things: 1) I identify Aguilar’s sources because, like the famous medieval authorities, Rashi (1040–1105) and Maimonides (1138–1204), Aguilar herself rarely identifies her sources; 2) I place Aguilar’s discussion in dialogue with classic and contemporary writing on the various subjects she discusses whether it be whether or not women should put on tefillin or whether or not women should be allowed or obligated to study the Torah or the claims and counter-claims of parties within 19th century Judaism concerning the validity of the Rabbinic doctrine of the dual Torah, Oral and Written; 3) Following the sage advice of J. Cheryl Exum with respect to apparently misogynist texts from antiquity, I do not pass over in silence comments made by Aguilar in her less enlightened era, to which the modern reader and the modern exegete must respond with ethical criticism. I trust that my commentary in the form of notes will make Grace Aguilar’s The Women of Israel both accessible to and appreciated by many students and teachers of the history of women as well as educated laypersons.

VII. GRACE AGUILAR’S THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL IN AND NOT ONLY ON THE HISTORY OF WOMEN In discussing the evidence that women served in antiquity in the Middle East before, during, and after Hebrew Scripture as scribes, prophetesses, priests, poetesses, queens, factory workers, owners and traders in real estate, movable goods, and chattel slaves, I am frequently confronted with utter incredulity. Moreover, I find that the incredulity with respect to evidence that in ancient civilizations of the Middle East including ancient Israel women were not confined to their homes and to the drudgery of cooking and cleaning

EDITOR’S INTRODUCTION

xlvii

and intensive child-care while their husbands went off to be kings, priests, prophets, and warriors, finds it way into all too many books, which have been published in recent years concerning women in biblical narrative. And so I asked myself two questions, answers to which I found in the standard histories of the struggle for equality under the law for men and women in the United States of America, including the right of women to vote and to be elected to public office. The first of these questions is when and where were women first confined to the home and the second question is as to when it is that women, like Grace Aguilar in her depiction of Deborah, the Shunammite, Huldah, and other famous women of ancient Israel, sought to challenge the notion that a woman’s place is in the home. And the standard answer found in histories of women and of the struggle for equality of the sexes is as follows: In pre-industrial societies wherein most people were engaged in raising crops and tending livestock both productive work and childrearing (which itself, mirabile dictu, is both productive and work!) took place within the very same area, which was the family farm. Boys and girls, women and men shared in this enterprise. In industrial society, which emerged in modern times, many boys and girls, women and men found themselves living in cities and working unspeakable hours in factories. Among the upper and middle classes in the Victorian era we find the following development with respect to women: Having lost the productive functions that had been theirs in pre-industrial society, they were confined exclusively to the spheres of reproduction, intensive child-rearing, emotional compensation, and the housekeeping functions (with the loss of servants) that free the bourgeois male for the industrial workday.45 Rosemary Radford Ruether, New Woman, New Earth: Sexist Ideologies and Human Liberation (New York: Seabury Press, 1975) 197; see also Naomi Wolf, “The Beauty Myth,” in Women: Images and Realities, ed. Amy Kesselman, Lily D. McNair, and Nancy Schniedewind (4th ed.; Boston: McGraw Hill Higher Education, 2008), 122–123. Joan W. Scott, “The Woman Worker,” in A History of Women in the West, IV: Emerging Feminism 45

xlviii

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

Now it is precisely in the middle of this situation in the Victorian Era that we have the emergence of upper and middle class women, like Grace Aguilar, the prolific writer of poetry, essays, and novels, who is fluent in her native English, as well as in Latin, French, and German, and both biblical and post-biblical Hebrew, suggesting with more or less subtlety that the idea that men go to work and women stay at home is not the natural or normal state of events and that this can be proved from both Sacred History (i.e., the Bible) and Secular History (Josephus, Milman, Adams, et al.). I suggest, therefore, that it is no accident or coincidence that Grace Aguilar’s The Women of Israel appeared in 1845 while the Women’s From Revolution to World War, ed. Geneviève and Michelle Perrot (Cambridge, MA. & London: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1993), 399–426, refers to the idea that in the course of the nineteenth century the aforementioned separation of work from home as a consequence of the industrial revolution “as an implicit causal story ... which was taken for granted” (see there, especially, 400). It will be suggested in Women of Israel and argued in our annotations that the gendered division of labor, which is widely projected upon ancient Israel, derives from middle class life in 19th century industrial countries. Scott, on the other hand, argues that the separation of home and work was less a fact than the expression of a 19th century ideology [I would add, a clearly sexist ideology] according to which it was (Scott, 425), “natural and inevitable ... that they [women] would always be second-class employees whose bodies, productive capacities, and social responsibilities made them incapable of the kind of labor that would win economic and social recognition of them as fullfledged workers.” What I suggest here is that the women’s rights movement, which eventually came to be called both feminism and women’s liberation arose as a response to the sexist ideology, which, tragically, has been projected upon biblical antiquity and blamed upon the Jewish Scriptures. Aguilar’s Women of Israel attempts to mitigate both the projection and the blame. The almost knee-jerk marginalization of Aguilar’s work by labeling it as both midrash and apologetics reflects the inevitable backlash, which derives from the reticence of educated people, even scholars, to part with nineteenth century sexist ideology, or in this case, mythology, which fostered what Scott, 409, calls “clustering women in some jobs and not others, placing them always at the bottom of any occupational hierarchy, and establishing their wages at less than subsistence rates.”

EDITOR’S INTRODUCTION

xlix

Rights Convention at Seneca Falls, New York took place in July, 1848. The two seemingly counter-developments, namely, the separation of work from home that resulting in the idea that work is for men and home is for women, and the attempt to challenge and uproot that idea, seem to have developed in tandem. Consequently, Mary Wollstonecraft, Vindication of the Rights of Women (2d ed.; London: J. Johnson, 1792); Grace Aguilar, The Women of Israel (1845); and Elizabeth Cady Stanton, The Woman’s Bible; and Phyllis Trible, God and the Rhetoric of Sexuality (Philadelphia: Fortess, 1978); and Ilana Pardes, Countertraditions in the Bible (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1992) are all important milestones in the path that led from a world in which men and women, girls and boys, worked together in cooperation to a world in which men went to work while women were turned into second class citizens and the attempt to challenge the legitimacy of that development. There were in every generation men and women who supported the relatively new arrangement of industrial society and who came to believe that it was Nature and Nature’s God that had made it that way and that surely the Bible sanctioned such an arrangement. And there arose again and again from the end of the 18th century through the beginning of the 21st century, in tandem with the devastation wrought by industrialization and urbanization, women and men, who sensed that things had not always been that way and that surely a close reading of Holy Scripture would show that things should not be that way. Elizabeth Cady Stanton, on the other hand, sought to undermine the Bible and to prove that this document, which is invoked to repress women, was in fact not the word of God but the word of men. She attempted unsuccessfully to have The Woman’s Bible endorsed by the National American Woman Suffrage Association in 1896.46 All three trends—invoking the Bible to repress women; invoking the Bible to liberate women; and disparaging the Bible so that it cannot be invoked to repress women—are alive and well as we enter the second decade of the 21st century.47 See Alma Lutz, Created Equal: A Biography of Elizabeth Cady Stanton [1815–1902] (New York: John Day Company, 1940), 295–305. 47 Indeed, J. Cheryl Exum, Fragmented Women: Feminist (Sub)versions of Biblical Narratives (Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement 46

l

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

Hopefully, reissuing Grace Aguilar’s classic The Women of Israel, with a modern commentary will shed considerable light on both this weighty subject as well as numerous passages in Hebrew Scripture, for which she provides one of the finest commentaries ever written.

Series, 163; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993), 11 seems to have been overly optimistic when she declared, “to recover affirmations of women in the Bible nor to attack the Bible as a sexist document. These alternatives marked an earlier generation of feminist criticism, but recently scholars have begun to move beyond this kind of ‘either—or’ approach to explore new and more suitable methods of feminist critique.” The annotations in which I place Aguilar’s recovering of affirmations of women in dialogue with attacks upon the Jewish Bible and Judaism as sexist—all taken from mainstream biblical scholarship, were not meant either to demonstrate or to qualify Exum’s optimism. Perhaps the reader will draw her/his own conclusions concerning Exum’s optimism.

INTRODUCTION Among the many valuable works relative to woman’s capabilities, influence, and mission, which in the present age are so continually appearing, one still seems wanting. The field has, indeed, been entered; detached notices of the women of Israel, the female biography of Scripture, have often formed interesting portions of those works, where woman is the subject; but all the fruit has not been gathered: much yet remains, which, thrown together, would form a history as instructive as interesting, as full of warning as example, and tending to lead our female youth to the sacred volume, not only as their guide to duty, their support in toil, their comfort in affliction, but as a true and perfect mirror of themselves. To desert the Bible for its commentators; never to peruse its pages without notes of explanation: to regard it as a work which of itself is incomprehensible, is, indeed, a practice as hurtful as injudicious. Sent as a message of love to our own souls, as written and addressed, not to nations alone, but as the voice of God to individuals—whispering to each of us that which we most need; thus it is we should first regard and venerate it. This accomplished, works tending to elucidate its glorious and consoling truths, to make manifest its simple lessons of character, as well as precept; to bring yet closer to the youthful and aspiring heart, the poetry, the beauty, the eloquence, the appealing tenderness of its sacred pages, may prove of essential service. In this hope, to bring clearly before the women of Israel all that they owe to the word of God, all that it may still be to them, the present task is undertaken. We are far from asserting that this has not been attempted, and for the larger portion of the sex, accomplished before. Religion is the foundation and mainspring of every work which has been written for the use and improvement of woman. Female biographers of scripture have, we believe, often appeared; though the

3

4

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

characters of the Old Testament are so briefly and imperfectly sketched, compared to those of the New, that but little pleasure or improvement could be derived from their perusal. Yet still, with the writings of Sandford,1 Ellis,2 and Hamilton3 before us, each Here Aguilar refers to Elizabeth (Mrs. John) Sandford (1797/8– 1853) and specifically to her book, Woman in her Social and Domestic Character (London: Longman, Orme, Brown, Green & Longman’s, 1831), and particularly to her chapter entitled “Scripture Illustrative of Female Character,” which is found on pp. 78–95 of the latter book. Other works by Elizabeth Sandford include Lives of English Female Worthies (London, 1833) and On Female Improvement (2 vols.; London, 1836)). Elizabeth Sandford was the daughter of Richard Poole and the first wife of the Anglican clergyman, John Sanford (1801–1873). After Elizabeth’s death in 1853, John Sandford married Anna, the widow of David, Lord Erskine. For additional details see Gerald Le Grys Norgate, “Sandford, John,” in Dictionary of National Biography, ed. Leslie Stephen and Sidney Lee (21 vols.; London: Elder Smith, 1885–1890), 17:764–765. Galchinsky, Grace Aguilar: Selected Writings, 248, n. 1 refers to Elizabeth Sandford as Elizabeth Sanford (sic ), but he has the correct spelling there, n. 2. 2 Here Aguilar refers to Sarah Stickney Ellis (1812–1872). Prior to her marriage to the Congregationalist minister, William Ellis (1794–1872), in 1837, Sarah Stickney was already a well-known writer. Her publications prior to her marriage to William Ellis include Pictures of Private Life (3 series; London: Smith, Elder, 1833–1837); The Poetry of Life (London: Saunders & Otley, 1835); various essays, and her first novel, Home; Or the Iron Rule (London: Saunders & Otley, 1836). Heidi Slettedahl Macpherson, “Ellis, Sarah Stickney,” in Cambridge Guide to Women’s Writing in English, ed. Lorna Sage (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999), 220–221 notes that “her [Ellis’s] views on middle-class gender relations are most clearly seen in the conduct-books for which she is now mainly remembered ... . In her conduct-books and in her short-stories ... a woman’s moral influence exerted within the home becomes the defining feature of a Christian wife and mother; manipulation of men by women is a clearly discernible sub-text.” Sarah Stickney Ellis’s more than thirty published titles include also the following: The Minister’s Family (New York: Carter, 1839); The Women of England; their social duties and domestic habits (London: Fisher, 1837) [the latter book appeared in 20 editions]; The Daughters of England, their position in society, character and responsibilities (London: Fisher, 1

INTRODUCTION

5

1842); The Wives of England, their relative duties, domestic influences, and social obligations (London: Fisher, 1843); The Mothers of England, their influence and responsibility (London: Fisher, 1843); and Family Secrets; or hints to those who would make home happy (London: Fisher, 1841). Clearly, Aguilar sought to provide both for Jewish women the kind of guidance that Ellis sought to provide for Christian women while also making available to Christian women an authoritative volume about the exalted place of women in ancient and modern Judaism so as to dispel the negative stereotypes that were repeated (and which are still repeated) in all too many books that touch upon the subject; for more details concerning Sarah Stickney Ellis and her writings see William Garden Blaikie, “Ellis, William,” [sic; the entry in question refers to our authoress as Miss Sarah Stickney before her marriage. However, by virtue of her having become William Ellis’ second wife, the discussion of her life and works is treated as an appendage to the biography of her husband!] in Dictionary of National Biography, 6:714–715. 3 Here Aguilar refers to Elizabeth Hamilton (1758–1816). The latter in her Letters Addressed to the Daughter of a Nobleman on the Formation of Religious and Moral Principles (2 vols. London: T. Cadell and W. Davies, 1806), 78– 81, comments on the Decalogue (Ex. 20:18–20; Deut 5:19–30), and she writes as follows: “The remainder of the laws which were instituted at this memorable epoch were delivered through the agency of Moses. They are of two distinct species. The first relates to the administration of justice and contains rules and precepts, some of which, like the commandments [Gk. hai entolai, which is Jesus’s term for the Decalogue in Mk. 10:19; annotation by Mayer Gruber] are of universal application; others, adapted to the peculiar situation of the Jewish nation, and calculated for a people in that particular stage of civilization at which they were then arrived. The laws of the other class are avowedly instituted for a special purpose, and for a limited period. They form, as it were, a wall of separation [see New Testament, Ephesians 2:14; annotation by Mayer Gruber] betwixt the Israelites and the other nations of the earth. They chiefly consist of rites and ceremonies, and observances, which were all doubtless of high importance, and of real though mysterious signification, but which we can now but very imperfectly comprehend. Nor is it necessary for us to seek for more than a general view of the intention of Providence in these ordinances; and that is so obvious as not to require either study or research. By laws and usages so peculiar, they were distinguished and prevented mixing with other nations. By all the ceremonies and rites of worship,

6

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

they were reminded of the awful sanctity of Him who is the sole object of all religious praise and veneration. By some of these ceremonies they were reminded of what he had done, in time past, for them and for their ancestors, and of the deliverance he had wrought for them according to his word: by others they were taught to look forward in hope to the completion of the promise of future blessing, which was to be the seal of the covenant, to which all the sacrifices of the law referred, and in which all its ceremonies were to terminate.” Furthermore, she explains (p. 200), “By this sacrament of the Lord’s supper, this ceremony [of Passover] was superseded.” It should be noted that writing the latter collection of letters was inspired by Elizabeth Haimlton’s having served for half a year as the governess of a nobleman’s children. Hamilton also wrote Letters on the Elementary Principles of Education (2 vols.; Bath, 1801–1802). In the latter work, vol. 1, pp. 89–90, Hamilton writes, “The most formidable objection that can be made to an early acquaintance with the Old Testament, arises from the apprehension of the pupils imbibing improper notions of the Deity from the Jewish representation of his attributes ... . But if I may speak from experience, a very little pains bestowed by the parent will sufficiently obviate all grounds of apprehension on this head ... .” In Exercises in Religious Knowledge for the Instruction of Young Persons (2d ed.; Edinburgh & London: T. Cedall and W. Davies, 1810), 20–21, Hamilton writes as follows concerning the fourth commandment of the Decalogue, “Remember the Sabbath Day to keep it holy”: “Let us not imagine that we keep this commandment sufficiently, by refraining from our usual occupations, and spending the Sabbath-day in gloomy idleness. The Jews fell into this error, and were reproved by our Saviour, who shewed by his example, that the Sabbath is hallowed by works of mercy and beneficence.” Elizabeth Hamilton also wrote a novel, The Cottagers of Glenbournie (Edinburgh: Manners & Miller, 1808), which was frequently republished. The aim of the latter work was to create respect and sympathy in England for the rural folk of Scotland. Her other publications include Memoirs of Modern Philosophers (London: G. & J. Robinson, 1800) and Memoirs of the Life of Agrippina, the wife of Germanicus (3 vols.; Bath, 1804). For additional information on this prolific writer, who never married and who therefore would have been called Miss Hamilton but who insisted on being addressed as Mrs. Hamilton (The title Ms. had not yet been invented), see Thomas Wilson Bayne, “Hamilton, Elizabeth,” in Dictionary of National Biography, 8:1031–1032; see also Frederic Boase, Modern English Biography (3 vols.; London: by the au-

INTRODUCTION

7

exhibiting its authoress so earnest, so eloquent in her cause, with “woman’s mission”4 marked so simply, yet so forcibly, in the little thor, 1892; repr., London: Frank Cass & Co., 1965), 1:1300. Boase describes Elizabeth Hamilton as “a promoter of universal education of women in Scotland.” Both Hamilton’s writings on biblical subjects and Aguilar’s Women of Israel must be appreciated in the wider context of modern western civilization in which the suitability of education for women and of women for education were matters of controversy, with respect to which both Aguilar and Hamlton had to fight. 4 Here Aguilar refers to Sarah Lewis, Woman’s Mission (London: John W. Parker, 1842). The name of the author, Sarah Lewis, does not appear on the title page. Consequently, Aguilar refers primarily to the title and to the anonymous, as it were, authoress. In fact, as Lewis explains in her preface (Lewis, Woman’s Mission, x–xi), the author of that work primarily translates Louis Aimé Martin, De l’education des mères de familie (Brussels, 1834). A second, expanded edition was published a year later. The author of the latter work was born in Lyon April 22, 1782 [although other dates are given in various sources], and he died at Paris June 22, 1847. He was the editor of the works of Bernardin de Saint-Pierre as well as his first biographer, having married the latter’s widow, Désirée Pelleport. In addition, Aimé Martin served as secretary of the French Chamber of Deputies, professor of literature, history and morals at the Paris Polytechnic, and keeper of the library of St. Genevieve. In Concerning the Education of Women, Aimé Martin argued that it was worthwhile for men that women would be educated as educated women would make better wives and mothers. The same arguments for the education of women are advanced in Muslim India as shown by Gail Minault, Secluded Scholars: Women’s Education and Muslim Social Reform in Colonial India (New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 1999). Sarah Lewis explains in her preface to Woman’s Mission that the latter book is primarily a translation of Aimé Martin’s Concerning the Education of Women. She explains that wherever she has adapted or embellished Aimé Martin’s work she has placed her own additions within square brackets. Aguilar refers to Sarah Lewis’s influential volume again (also without naming the author) in Period VII, Chapter II, and she explains that her purpose is to provide for Jewish girls and women a book, which would meet their needs in the same way that Woman’s Mission, which assumes that Judaism was superseded by Christianity, meets the needs of Christian girls and women. Concerning Sarah Lewis, see H. S. Twycross-

8

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

volume of that name, has not woman of every race, and every creed, all sufficient to teach her her duty and herself? We would say she had; yet for the women of Israel something still more is needed. The authors above mentioned are Christians themselves, and write for the Christian world. Education and nationality compel them to believe that “Christianity is the sole source of female excellence.”5 To Christianity alone they owe their present station in the world: their influence, their equality with man, their spiritual provision in this life, and hopes of immortality in the next. Nay more, that the value and dignity of woman’s character would never have been known, but for the religion of Jesus; that pure, loving, self-denying doctrines, were unknown to woman; she knew not even her relation to the Eternal; dared not look upon Him as her Father, Consoler, and Saviour, till the advent of Christianity. We grant that the Gentiles knew it not, till the Bible became more generally known, till the Eternal, in His infinite mercy, permitted a partial knowledge of Himself to spread over the world—alike to prepare the Gentile for that day, when we shall all know Him as He is,6 and to render the trial of His people’s faith and constancy Martin, “Lewis, Sarah,” in Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (60 vols.; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004), 33:649–650. 5 Here Ms. Aguilar refers to the title of the fifth chapter of Sandford, Woman, in her Social and Domestic Character, p. 54, “Christianity, the source of female excellence.” Note that the word ‘sole’ is Grace Aguilar’s embellishment! 6 Here Aguilar reflects the doctrine found in the closing pages of Moses Maimonides (1138–1204), Mishneh Torah or ‘Code of Jewish Law’, “Laws of the Kings and Their Wars,” 11:11–12 where he explains that Christianity and Islam have spread a partial knowledge of God and the Torah throughout the world. Naturally, editions of the Mishneh Torah printed in Christian countries had to at least partially expurgate Maimonides’ bold statement since Christianity saw Judaism and particularly Hebrew Scripture referred to as ‘the Old Testament’ as preparing the way for the New Testament and Christianity. Aguilar acquired access to this text written in lucid Rabbinic Hebrew either directly or indirectly. She may have had direct access to this text as she did to D. A. De Sola, I. L. Lindenthal, and Morris J. Raphall, The Sacred Scriptures in Hebrew and English,

INTRODUCTION

9

yet more terribly severe. We feel neither anger nor uncharitableness towards those who would thus deny to Israel those very privileges which were ours, ages before they became theirs; and which, in fact, have descended from us to them. Yet we cannot pass such assertion unanswered, lest from the very worth and popularity of those works in which it is promulgated, the young and thoughtless daughter of Israel may believe it really has foundation, and look no further than the page she reads. How or whence originated the charge that the law of Moses sank the Hebrew female to the lowest state of degradation, placed her on a level with slaves or heathens, and denied her all mental and spiritual enjoyment, we know not: yet certain it is that this most extraordinary and unfounded idea obtains credence even in this enlightened age. The word of God at once proves its falsity; for it is impossible to read the Mosaic law without the true and touching conviction, that the female Hebrew was even more an object of the tender and soothing care of the Eternal than the male. The thanksgiving in the Israelite morning prayer, on which so much stress is laid, as a proof how little woman is regarded, is but a false and foolish reasoning on the subject; almost, in truth, too trivial for regard.7 Vol. 1: Genesis (London: Samuel Bagster & Sons, 1844), which is cited frequently in her discussion of matters pertaining to the biblical Book of Genesis, because it was likely in her parents’ library as well as in synagogue and other Jewish communal libraries to which she had access. Alternatively, her parents and her frequently cited mentor on matters pertaining to Rabbinic Judaism, Tobias Theodores of Manchester (see annotator’s introduction, and see passim in Period VII), may have informed her of Maimonides’s doctrine concerning the role of the other monothesistic faiths in preparing the way for the acceptance by humanity at large of the full and complete Torah cherished, preserved, and observed by members of Jewish communities all over the world. 7 Indeed, it has been said that people who know nothing else about Judaism are familiar with the blessing thanking God for not making me a woman. See, e.g., Susannah Heschel, “Jewish Feminism and Women’s Identity,” Women and Therapy: A Feminist Quarterly, 10, no. 4 (1991), 31–39. Gili Zivan, “The Blessings of ‘Who did not make me a woman’ and ‘Who

10

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

made me according to His will’,” in Jewish Legal Writings by Women, ed. Micah D. Halpern and Chana Safrai (Jerusalem: Urim Publications, 1998), 5–28 (in Hebrew) meticulously traces the history of the problematic blessings from antiquity almost to the end of the 20th century C.E. and recommends that Jewish women and men both replace the problematic blessings with the single blessing, “Praised are You Adonay our God King of the world who made me an Israelite/ess.” Indeed, the formula “who made me an Israelite” is found in the standard printed text of the Babylonian Talmud, Menahot 43b where a marginal note by the editors of the standard text of the Babylonian Talmud (Vilna: Widow and Brothers Romm, 1880–1886) indicates that in the Tosefta and in medieval halakhic works the reading is “Who did not make me a Gentile” rather than “Who made me an Israelite.” Indeed, the editio princeps of the Babylonian Talmud (Venice: Bomberg, 1520–1523) also reads “Who did not make me a Gentile” as does the famous Munich Hebrew Codex 95 of the Babylonian Talmud (the only surviving complete manuscript of the Babylonian Talmud; from the year 1342 C.E.), 270b. It is accepted, therefore, that the reading “Who made me an Israelite,” is an emendation by Christian censors of the Talmud, who interpreted the original formula, “Who did not make me a Gentile,” as offensive to Christians. Indeed, since the oldest attestation of the Jewish version of the three blessings, “Who did not make me,” is found in Tosefta, Berakot 6:18 where it is attributed to R. Judah [son of Ilai] (mid 2d cent. C.E.), the benediction referred to polytheists and not to Christians. Nevertheless, since the emended formula was found in the standard printings of the Babylonian Talmud, which has often been treated as though it were the textus receptus, which is to say the canonical version of the Jewish book, which has a status within traditional Judaism parallel to that of the New Testament in Christianity, and from there found its way into manuscript and printed editions of the Jewish Prayer Book, Zivan and others are able to cite medieval and modern halakhic authorities who treat the formula ‘Who made me an Israelite’ as a legitimate substitute for the three problematic benedictions. Note that in Jerusalem Talmud, Berakot 9:2, as one would expect, both the attribution to R. Judah [son of Ilai] and the text follow Tosefta, Berakot 6:18. Indeed, it was reported in the Israeli daily newspaper Ma‛ariv, Friday October 16, 1998, “Feminist Orthodox Women: To Change the formula of the benediction ‘Praised ... Who did not make me a woman,” that at a meeting of Religious [i.e., Modern Orthodox] Zionists at Kibbutz Lavi, Zivan had

INTRODUCTION

11

proposed substituting “Who made me an Israelite/ss” for the problematic blessings, that various Orthodox rabbis opposed changing the text of the canonical Jewish Prayer Book, and that Zivan countered that the reading “Who made me an Israelite” was indeed found in the prayer books and halakhic compendia produced by major halakhic authorities in medieval and modern times. Indeed, the substitution of the positive formulation “who made me an Israelite” in place of the three problematic benedictions was adopted by the Conservative Movement’s Sabbath and Festival Prayerbook, ed. Robert Gordis and Morris Silverman (New York: Rabbinical Assembly of America & United Synagogue of America, 1946), 381 where the positive formula is justified in a note by Rabbi Israel H. Levinthal on the basis of medieval witnesses. Interestingly enough, Rabbi Levinthal’s daughter, Helen Hadassah Levinthal (later Mrs. Lester Lyons), completed the entire Rabbinical curriculum at the Jewish Institute of Religion in New York City but was denied ordination. See Pamela Susan Nadell, Women Who Would be Rabbis: A History of Women’s Ordination 1889– 1985 (Boston: Beacon Press, 1998), 111. Saul Lieberman, Tosefta Ki-Fshuta, Seder Zeraim, vol. 1 on Tosefta Berakot 6:18 (New York: Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1955), 120 (in Hebrew) following Isidore Levy (1874–1954), La Légende de Pythagore de Gréce en Palestine (Paris: E. Champion, 1927), 261, n. 5, points out that the first modern authority to compare the three problematic benedictions to parallels among the Greek philosophers was the philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer (1788– 1860) in vol. 2 of his The World as Will and Idea (1844). See Arthur Schopenhauer, The World as Will and Idea, vol. 2 trans. R. B. Haldane & J. Kemp (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1883), 96 where the latter argues that Plato was hardly original in that he took all of his ideas from various ancient peoples. Inter alia, Schopenhauer argues that Plato, who thanks Nature for having made him a human and not an animal, a man and not a woman, and a Greek rather than a barbarian has adopted this idea from the Jews as evidenced by the traditional Jewish daily prayerbook, which includes the three blessings thanking God for not making me a Gentile, a woman, or a slave. Like many Jews in modern times, Schopenhauer assumes that the blessing, which we now know first appears in Jewish sources in the Tosefta (3d or 4th century C.E.) was always (perhaps even from the time of Moses; 13th century B.C.E.) part of Judaism and would be the likely source for Plato’s similar formula of thanksgiving. Henry Fischel, “Story and History: Observations on Greco-Roman

12

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

Rhetoric and Pharisaism,” in American Oriental Society, Middle West Branch Semi-Centennial Volume, ed. Denis Sinor (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1969), 74–75 argues that the three problematic blessings now found in traditional Jewish prayerbooks were adapted from the formula which Schopenhauer found in Plato (427–347 B.C.E.) and which others have found attributed to the first Greek philosopher, Thales of Miletus (640– 546 B.C.E.). See Diogenes Laertius (412–323 B.C.E.), Lives of Eminent Philosophers¸ with an English Translation by R. D. Hicks (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press/London: William Heinemann Ltd., 1959), 35: “Hermippus in his Lives refers to Thales the story which is told by some of Socrates, namely, that he used to say there were three blessings, for which he was grateful to Fortune: ‘first, that I was born a human being and not one of the brutes; next, that I was born a man and not a woman; thirdly, a Greek and not a barbarian.’” Consequently, Jews and Jewesses in modern times, who regard the three blessings as offensive can justify the claim that the older Judaism, which they seek to reform/restore to its pristine glory, wrongly adopted the chauvinistic formulae from the Greeks, imitating what was regarded as the highest civilization in late antiquity. For a comprehensive study of the Hebrew blessings and the ancient Greek and Iranian parallels see Joseph Tabory, “The Benedictions of Self-Identity and the Changing Status of Women and of Orthodoxy,” Kenishta 1 (2001), 107–138. See also Ismar Elbogen, Jewish Liturgy (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1993), 78. See also Isaac Hirsch Weiss, Dor Dor Vedorshayw, (5 vols.; New York & Berlin: Platt & Minkus, 1924), 2: 29, 147 (in Hebrew). Since in the Babylonian Talmud the three problematic blessings are attributed to R. Meir, Weiss suggests that R. Meir, who is a scion of proselytes, adopted the blessings, which Weiss regards as foreign to the spirit of Judaism, from the Greeks. In the 19th century and the early 20th century Reform Judaism abolished the recitation of the three problematic blessings. Here in Women of Israel, Grace Aguilar, has, not surprisingly, adumbrated Zivan’s view that Orthodox Judaism at its best should not embrace the formulae attributed in Tosefta to Rabbi Judah b. Ilai. Moreover, she defends Orthodox Judaism against the attempt of persons unfriendly to the Jewish people and the Jewish spiritual and intellectual baggage (many such persons being Jewish) to see these formulae as a yardstick against which to measure the Jewish people and the Jewish heritage. Significantly a number of manuscript prayerbooks written for and possibly by Jewish women in the Middle Ages supply the

INTRODUCTION

13

The very first consequence of woman’s sin was to render her in physical and mental strength, inferior to man; to expose her to suffering more continued, and more acute; to prevent her obtaining those honors and emoluments of which man thinks so much; to restrain her path to a more lowly and domestic, though not a less hallowed sphere; and, all this considered, neither scorn towards the sex, nor too much haughtiness for themselves, actuate the thanksgiving which by our opponents is brought forward against us. It was but one of those blessings in which the pious Israelite thanks God for all things, demanding neither notice nor reproof. To the Gentile assertion that the Talmud has originated the above-mentioned blessing, and commanded or inculcated the moral and mental degradation of woman, we reply that even if it do, which we do not believe it does, its commands are wholly disregarded, and its abolishment is not needed to raise the Hebrew female to that station assigned her in the word of God, and which through many centuries she has been permitted, without reproof or question, to enjoy. The Eternal’s provision for her temporal and spiritual happiness is proved in His unalterable word; and therefore no Hebrew7 can believe that He would issue another law for her degradation and abasement. If, indeed, there are such laws, they must have been compiled at a time when persecution had so brutalized and lowered the intellect of man that he partook the savage barbarity of the nations around him, and of the age in which he lived; when the law of his God had, as a natural consequence, become obscured, and the Hebrew female shared the same rude and savage treatment which was the lot of all the lower classes of women in the feudal ages. The protection, the glory, the civilizing influence of chivalry extended, in its first establishment, but to the baronial classes. We see no proofs of the humanizing and elevating benediction, “Praised are You Adonay our God King of the world who made me a woman” instead of the familiar “Praised are You Adonay our God King of the world who did not make me a woman.” On this phenomenon see the forthcoming study by Kirsten Fudeman and Mayer Gruber, “Who Made Me a Woman.”

14

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

influence of Christianity, either on man or woman, till the reformation opened the BIBLE, the whole BIBLE, to the nations at large; when civilization gradually followed. If, then, the situation of even Christian women was so uncertain, and but too often so degraded, for nearly fourteen centuries after the advent of Jesus, who his followers declare was die first to teach them their real position—was it very remarkable that the vilified and persecuted Hebrew should have in a degree forgotten his nationality, his immortal and glorious heritage, and shared in the barbarity around him? Granting for the moment that such was the case (but we by no means believe it was), if the degradation, mentally and morally, of the Hebrew female, ever did become part of the Jewish law, it was when man was equally degraded, and the blessed word of God hid from him. The situation of many of the Hebrews at the present day proves this. In but too many parts of the world the Israelites are still the subjects of scorn, hatred, and persecution: and their condition is, in consequence, the lowest and most awfully degraded in the scale of man. But it is not to woman that degradation and slavery are confined; as, were it a portion of the law of Moses, would inevitably be the case. It is the consequence of cruelty, of abasement in social treatment; yet even here, when mind, principle, honor, all seem overthrown from such brutalizing influence, the affections retain their power. Whatever of spiritual hope, of human privileges, the word of God bestows on man, and to which the mind, darkened and despairing from the horrors of persecution, may yet be open, are shared by the Hebrew wife, and imparted by the Hebrew mother. Were it a portion of the law of Moses to enslave and degrade us, how is it that we do not see this law adhered to and obeyed, as well as others claiming the same divine origin? Neither Christianity nor civilization would alter or improve our condition, were it indeed such as it has been represented. The Hebrew ever loves, protects, and reverences his female relative; and if, indeed, he do not— if he deny her all share in immortality, and. in consequence, thinks she has no need of religion now, nor hope hereafter, it is because the remnants of barbarism, ignorance, and superstition remain, to have blinded both his spiritual and mental eye; yet whatever he may be accused of believing, his acts deny the belief. Why is he so anxious that his wife and daughters should adhere to every law, attend to every precept which he believes the law of God? If they have no

INTRODUCTION

15

soul, no portion in the world to come, it surely cannot signify how they act, or what they believe in this? Why are they blotted from the minds and hearts of their relatives, if, as it may sometimes happen, they intermarry with the stranger? If they have no spiritual responsibility, no claim, no part in the law of God, why should they be blamed and shunned, if they desert it for another? But it is idle to follow the argument further. The charge is either altogether false, or based on such contradictory and groundless report, as to render it of little consequence, save as it affects us in the eyes of those who uphold, that till Christianity was promulgated woman knew not her own station either towards God or man. Simply to deny this assertion, to affirm, that instead of degrading and enslaving, the Jewish law exalted, protected, and provided for woman, teaching her to look up to God, not as a severe master and awful judge, but as her Father, her Defender, her Deliverer when oppressed, her Witness in times of false accusation, her Consoler and Protector when fatherless, widowed—aye, as the tender and loving Sovereign, who spared the young bride the anguish of separation from her beloved: merely to affirm, that with such laws woman was equally a subject of divine love as she is now, would not avail us much. The women of Israel must themselves arise, and prove the truth of what we urge—by their own conduct, their own belief, their own ever-acting and ever-influencing religion, prove without doubt or question that we need not Christianity to teach us our mission—prove that our duties, our privileges, were assigned us from the very beginning of the world, confirmed by that law to which we still adhere, and will adhere for ever, and manifested by the whole history of the Bible. A new era is dawning for us. Persecution and intolerance have in so many lands ceased to predominate, that Israel may once more breathe in freedom; the law need no longer be preached in darkness, and obeyed in secret; the voice of man need no longer be the vehicle of instruction from father to son, mingling with it unconsciously human opinions, till those opinions could scarcely be severed from the word of God, and by degrees so dimmed its lustre, as to render its comprehension an obscure and painful task. This need no longer be. The Bible may be perused in freedom; the law may be publicly explained and preached to all who will attend. A spirit of inquiry, of patriotism, of earnestness in seeking to know the Lord, and obey Him according to His word, is springing up in lieu of the

16

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

stagnating darkness, the appalling indifference, which had reigned so long. Persecution never decreased our numbers. As the bush which burned without consuming, so was Israel in those blood-red ages of intolerance and butchery. In the very heart of the most catholic kingdom—amongst her senate, her warriors, her artisans— aye, even her monks and clergy—Judaism lurked unconsumed by the fires ever burning round. The spirit was ever awake and active, ready to endure martyrdom, but not to forswear that God whose witnesses they were. Persecution was a crisis in our History; prosperity the reaction; and from that reaction the natural consequence was the gradual rise, growth, and influence of indifference. Indifference, however, has but its appointed time: and Israel is springing up once more the stronger, nobler, more spiritually enlightened, from his long and waveless sleep. Free to assert their right as immortal children of the living God, let not the women of Israel be backward in proving they, too, have a Rock of Strength, a Refuge of Love; that they, too, have a station to uphold, and a “mission” to perform, not alone as daughters, wives, and mothers, but as witnesses of that faith which first raised, cherished, and defended them—witnesses of that God who has called them His, and who has so repeatedly sanctified the emotions peculiar to their sex, by graciously comparing the love he bears us, as yet deeper than a mother’s for her child, a wife’s for her husband, having compassion for his people, as on a “woman forsaken and grieved in spirit.”8 “Can a woman forget her sucking child, that she should not have compassion on the son of her travail; yea, she may forget, yet will I not forget thee.”9 “As a mother comforteth her children, so will I comfort thee.”10 Were not these relations holy and sanctified in the sight of the Lord, would He use them as figurative of His long suffering love? Many terms, similar to those above quoted, prove, without a shadow of doubt, the tender compassion with which He regarded Isa. 54:6; cf. Isa. 60:15; 62:4. Isa. 49:15. 10 Isa. 66:13. Here Aguilar freely translates and captures the import of the verse; contrast KJV: As one whom his mother comforteth, so will I comfort you ... .” 8 9

INTRODUCTION

17

woman long before He used such terms to figure His compassionating love towards Israel, when sinfulness called forth His long averted wrath. Let us then endeavor to convince the nations of the high privileges we enjoy, in common with our fathers, brothers, and husbands, as the first-born of the Lord, by the peculiar sanctity, spirituality, and inexpressible consolation of our belief. Let us not, as women of Israel, be content with the mere performance of domestic, social, and individual duties, but vivify and lighten them by the rays of eternal love and immortal hope, which beam upon us from the pages of the Bible. A religion of love is indeed necessary to woman, yet more so than to man. Even in her happiest lot there must be a void in her heart, which ever-acting piety alone can fill; and to her whose portion is to suffer, whose lot is lonely, O what misery must be hers, unless she can lean upon her God, and draw from His word the blessed conviction that His love, His tenderness, are hers, far beyond the feeble conception of earth; and that whatever she may endure, however unknown to or scorned by man, it is known to Him who smites but in love, and has mercy even while He smites. To realize this blessed conviction, the Bible must become indeed the book of life to the female descendants of that nation whose earliest history it so vividly records; and be regarded, not as a merely political or religious history, but as the voice of God speaking to each individual, giving strength to the weak, encouragement to the desponding, endurance to the patient, justice to the wronged, and consolation unspeakable as unmeasurable to the afflicted and the mourner. Do we need love? We shall find innumerable verses telling us, that the Lord Himself proclaimed His attribute as “merciful and gracious, long-suffering, abundant in goodness and truth, keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity and sin;”11 that “as far as the Heaven is above the earth so great is His mercy,12 extending from everlasting to everlasting.”13 We have but Ex. 34:6–7; for a discussion of the meaning and function of this text in Jewish liturgy and its designation as “the thirteen attributes of God,” to which designation Aguilar alludes here, see below, p. 56, n. 64. 12 Ps. 103:11. 11

18

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

to read those appeals of the Eternal to Israel, alike in Jeremiah and Isaiah, and many of the minor prophets—and if our hearts be not stone, they must melt before such compassionating love, such appealing tenderness, and feel we cannot be lonely, cannot be unloved, while such deep changeless love is ours. Do we need sympathy? Shall we not find it in words similar to these, “In all their afflictions He was afflicted? and the angel of His presence saved them? In His love and in His pity He redeemed them, and He bare them, and carried them all the days of old.”14 Do we need patience and strength? Shall we not exercise it, when we have the precious promise, “Wait on the Lord, be of good courage, and He shall strengthen thine heart?”15 Shall we droop and grieve beneath the wrongs and false judgments of short-sighted man, when we are told the ways of God are not those of man—that He knoweth our frame, and readeth our thoughts—that not a bodily or mental pang is ours which He does not know and compassionate—aye, and in His own good time will heal! To throw together all those verses which confirm and prove the loving-tenderness borne towards us by the Eternal, would be an endless and a useless task. We can but point to that ever-flowing fount of healing waters, and assure those who have once really tasted, and will persevere in the heavenly draught, that it will never fail them, never change its properties, but each year sink deeper and deeper into their souls, till at length it becomes indeed all they need; and they themselves will cling to it, despite of occasional

Ps. 103:17. The source of all three of these quotations, to each of the first two of which Aguilar appends a question mark closing her question, “Shall we not find it [sympathy] in words such as these?” is Isa. 63:9. 15 Ps. 27:14. Many twenty-first century Jewish readers will recognize these words as the final verse of a psalm, which is recited every morning and evening during the penitential season that begins on the New Moon of Elul (in late August or early September) and terminates with the seventh day of Tabernacles (Sukkot). However, the recitation of this psalm at that season of the year is not part of the Spanish and Portuguese Jewish tradition, in which Grace Aguilar was raised. 13 14

INTRODUCTION

19

doubt and darkness, inseparable from our souls while denizens of earth. Nor is it only the verses containing such gracious promises, which will yield us comfort and assistance. We may glean the glad tidings of Eternal Love from the biographies and narratives with which the sacred book abounds—there may be some meek and lowly spirits amongst the female youth of Israel, who would gladly clasp the strength and guidance which we proffer them from the Bible, could they believe that God, the great, the almighty, the tremendous and awful Being16 (as which they have perhaps been accustomed to regard Him), can have love and pity for themselves, or give comfort and aid to trials, which appear even too trivial to ask, or to excite the sympathy of man. We would lead them to look earnestly and believingly into the history of every woman in the Bible, and trace there the influence of God’s holy and compassionating love. We are not indeed placed as the women of Israel before their dispersion, or as the wives of the patriarchs before the law was given; yet their God is our God. It was not to a race so perfect, so gifted, so hallowed, as to be free from all the present faults and failings of the sex that the Lord vouchsafed His love. No, it was to woman, even as she is now. The women of the Bible are but mirrors of ourselves. And if the Eternal, in His infinite mercy, extended love, compassion, forbearance, and forgiveness unto them, we may believe He extends them equally unto us, and draw comfort, and encouragement, and faith from the biographies we read. In a work entitled “The Women of Israel,” some apology, perhaps, is necessary for commencing with the wives of the patriarchs, who may not lay claim to such holy appellation. Yet, as the chosen and beloved partners of those favored of God, from whom Israel traces his descent, and for the sake of whose faith and right-

The biblical source of this series of epithets is Deut. 10:17, but this series is better known to Jews who attend synagogue or recite their daily prayers at home or elsewhere from the first of the series of benedictions commonly called “The Eighteen Benedictions,” recited three times every day, four times on Sabbaths and major festivals and New Moons, and five times on the Day of Atonement. 16

20

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

eousness we were selected and chosen as a peculiar people,17 and the law given to be our guide through earth to heaven, we cannot consider our history complete without them; more particularly as their lives are so intimately blended with their husbands; and that in them, even yet more vividly than at a later period, we may trace the Lord’s dealings with His female children, and derive from them alike warning and support. Eve, indeed, may not have such national claim, but if we believe that her history, as every other part of Genesis, was penned by the same inspired law-giver—that Moses recorded only that which had been—we shall find much, indeed, to repay us for lingering a while on her character and life. To the scepticism, the cavils, the doubts, and (but too often unhappily) the direct unbelief in the Mosaic account of the first disobedience of man, we give no heed whatever. We must either believe in the Pentateuch or deny it. There can be no intermediate path. The whole must be true or none. It is not because much may appear obscure, or even contradictory in the sacred narrative, that we are to pronounce it false, or mystify and poetize it as an allegory. We are simply to believe, and endeavor to act on that belief. So much is there ever passing around us that we cannot solve; our thoughts, in their furthest flight, are so soon checked, can penetrate so little into the wonders of man and nature, that it appears extraordinary how man can doubt and deny, because he cannot understand. In this case, however—the history of Eve—truth is so simple and clear, that we know not how it can supply such an endless fund of argument and doubt. To remove this groundless disbelief, to endeavor to render the narrative clear and simple to the female youth of Israel, and, even through Eve’s sad yet consoling The idea that Israel was “chosen by God,” which is commonly conceptualized as “the doctrine of the chosen people” or “the election of Israel” derives from Deut. 7:6; 14:2 (on which see below, Period II, Chapter IV, s.v., “laws for daughters”, p. 313). This idea is reinforced by Isa. 41:8–9; 43:10; 44:1–2; 48:10. Typical is Isa. 41:8–9 where we read as follows: “But thou, Israel, art my servant, Jacob who I have chosen, the seed of Abraham my friend ... Thou art my servant; I have chosen thee, and not cast thee away.” 17

INTRODUCTION

21

history, to prove to them the deep love borne towards us from the very first of our creation by our gracious God, must be our apology, if apology be needed, for commencing a work entitled “The Women of Israel,” with our general mother. Beginning, then, from the very beginning, some degree of order is requisite in the arrangement of our subject. Our aim being to evince to the nations and to our own hearts, the privileges, alike temporal and eternal, which were ours from the very commencement—to prove that we have no need of Christianity, or the examples of the females in the Gospel, to raise us to an equality with man—to demonstrate our duties and secure us consolation here or salvation hereafter—the word of God must be alike our groundwork and our guide. From the past history which that unerring guide presents, our present duties and responsibilities, and our future destiny, will alike be revealed. In a simple biography each life is a sufficient division; but, with the exception of the wives of the patriarchs and one or two more, we have scarcely sufficient notice of individuals to illustrate our design by regarding them separately. There appear, therefore, seven periods in the history of the women of Israel, which demand our attention. First Period—the Wives of the Patriarchs, including Eve, Sarah, Rebecca, Leah, and Rachel. Second Period—the Exodus, and the Law considered as affecting the condition and establishing the privileges of women. Third Period—Women of Israel between the establishment of the Law and the authority of the Kings, comprising sketches of Miriam, Deborah, the wife of Manoah, Naomi, and Hannah. Fourth Period—Women of Israel during the continuation of the Kingdom, comprising, amongst other sketches, Michal, Abigail, the Shunammite, and Huldah. Fifth Period—Babylonish Captivity, including the life of Esther. Sixth Period—the War and Dispersion, and their effects on the condition and privileges of women in Israel. Seventh Period—Women of Israel in the Present time, as influenced by the history of the Past.

22

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

For five of these periods, then, we perceive the word of God18 can be our only guide, and this at once marks our history as sacred, not profane. If, therefore, there should be parts which resemble more a religious essay than female biography, we reply, that to inculcate religion, the vital spirit of religion, is the sole intention of these pages. We wish to infuse the spirit of truth and patriotism, of nationality, and yet of universal love, in the hearts of the young daughters of Israel; and we know of no means more likely, under the divine blessing, to accomplish this, than to bring before them, as vividly and engagingly as we can, the never-ending love, the compassionating tenderness, the unchanging sympathy, alike in our joys and in our sorrows, manifested by the Eternal so touchingly and simply in the history of our female ancestors,—to lead them to know Him and love Him, not only through the repeated promises, but through the narratives of His word, and to glory in those high privileges which as children, retainers and promulgators of His holy law, are ours, over and above every other nation, past or present, in the history of the world!

I.e., Holy Scripture, or more precisely Hebrew Scripture, commonly called by Christians, ‘the Old Testament’ and known by Jews and by people who like to emulate Jews as TaNaKh, which is an acronym for the three principal divisions of Hebrew Scripture, namely Torah (Pentateuch; 5 books); Nevi’im (Prophets; 8 books) and Ketuvim (Sacred Writings such as Psalms, Proverbs, and Job; 11 books) 18

CHAPTER I. EVE The last and mightiest work of creation was completed. Man,1 in his angelic and immortal beauty, stood erect and perfect, fresh from the hand of his Creator; lord and possessor of the new formed world. Though formed of the dust,2 earth had not, as in the case of the inferior animals, brought him forth.3 Destined from the first to be made in the image of God, that is, to possess an emanation of the spiritual essence,4 and so become a living and immortal soul—the shrine of so glorious a possession was created by God himself. “And God created him,” He did not “call him forth.”5 Here the term man refers to ’adam, i.e., ‘humankind’ in Gen. 1:26–27, which includes both male and female. 2 Here Aguilar refers to Gen. 2:7, “And the LORD God formed man [Heb. ha’adam] of the dust of the ground.” 3 Of the land animals it is stated in Gen. 1:24, “God said, Let the earth bring forth every kind of living creature: cattle, creeping things, and wild beasts of every kind.” 4 Here Aguilar reflects a Jewish understanding of the image of God, which is especially associated with Philo Judaeus of Alexandria in the 1st century C.E. See Philo Judaeus, On the Creation, 69–71 in Philo [in Greek] with an English Translation by F. H. Colson and G. H. Whitaker (10 vols.; Cambridge: Harvard University Press/ London: William Heinemann, 1929), 1:55–56; and see the discussion in Mayer I. Gruber, “God, Image of,” in Encylopaedia of Judaism, ed. Jacob Neusner, Alan J. Avery-Peck and William Scott Green (2d ed.; 4 vols.; Leiden: Brill, 2005), 2:870–875; see also Yair Lorberbaum, Image of God: Halakhah and Aggadah (Jerusalem & Tel Aviv: Schocken Publishing House, 2004) [in Hebrew]. 5Throughout Hebrew Scripture the only subject of the active Hebrew verb bara’ ‘create’ is God. Moreover, the only entities, which are the grammatical objects of this active verb are a) the heavens and the earth (Gen. 1:1); b) humankind (Gen. 1:26–27; 5:1–2); and c) the great sea monsters [Heb. taninim], which are personifications of the forces of chaos 1

25

26

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

For man, the beautiful creation already wrought, was not sufficient; and “He planted a garden eastward in Eden, filling it with every tree that was pleasant for the sight, and good for food”6— animate and inanimate creation brought together by the Eternal in one beautiful and perfect whole. Nor was this all: endowed with capabilities of love, happiness, and wisdom, as much above the other animals as the angelic nature is to man, still he needed more for the perfection of his felicity; and God in his infinite mercy provided for that want. “It is not good for man to be alone,”7 the Eternal8 said; “I will make him a help meet for him.” And therefore woman was created, and brought unto man, who received her as the Eternal in His mercy had ordained, a being beloved above all others, whose gen(tsunami), which, like humans, challenge the rule of God. U. Cassuto, Commentary on Genesis, Part 1: From Adam to Noah, trans. Israel Abrahams (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1961), 49–51, suggested that the point of Gen. 1:21 is that the great sea monsters are not, as they appear in the 2d millennium B.C.E. Canaanite myths recovered from Ugarit, rivals of Baal, the lord of the heavens and the earth, but rather, no less than humans, creatures of the one Creator acknowledged throughout Gen. 1–11 and throughout the religions derived from Hebrew Scripture. Aguilar’s point here is that while all the other objects of creation enumerated in Gen. 1 were called into being by divine fiat—“let there be light” (Gen. 1:2); “let there be a firmament” (Gen. 1:6); “let the earth bring forth grass” (Gen. 1:11); “let there be lights” (Gen. 1:14)—only of the great sea monsters and of humans is it stated, “God created.” 6 Cf. Gen. 2:8–9. In general, Aguilar quotes KJV. Here, however, she substitutes “He” for KJV’s “And the LORD God,” and she substitutes “filling it with” for KJV’s “And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow....” 7 Contrast KJV: “It is not good that the man should be alone.” 8 In 19th century Jewish translations of the Bible in English as in many French versions God and especially the four letter name of God YHWH is translated “the Eternal” based on an understanding of the proper name YHWH as a form of the verb ‘to be’ meaning “He will be (forever). ” The most influential Jewish translation of the Bible that appeared in the 19th century was Isaac Leeser’s version, which consistently renders YHWH “the Eternal.” The latter version was completed only in the year 1853.

FIRST PERIOD. I. EVE

27

tler qualities and endearing sympathy should soften his rougher and prouder nature, and “help” him in all things “meet” for an immortal being.9 The whole creation had had its origin in that Omnific Love which CREATED TO ENJOY,10—called out of darkness and chaos a world teeming with life and beauty, that innumerable sources of happiness might spring forth from what had before been naught; but woman’s creation was a still greater manifestation of love than all which had gone before it. She was created, not only to feel happiness herself, but to make it for others;11 and if that was the design of her existence in Eden, how deeply should we feel the solemn truth, that it is equally so now, and that woman has a higher and holier mission than the mere pursuit of pleasure and individual enjoyment; that to flutter through life without one serious thought or aim, without a dream beyond the present moment, without a feeling higher than temporal gratification, or an aspiration rising beyond this world, can never answer the purpose of her divine creation, or make her a help meet for man.12 Nor is it to wives only this Echoing Rashi, Aguilar notes that the two terms ‘ezer ‘help’ and kenegdo ‘meet’ may have distinct meanings, which provide apt answers to the two obvious exegetical questions, “Help for what?” and “Meet [i.e., appropriate] for what?” Rashi’s interpretation is derived from Genesis Rabbah 17:3. 10 This is a paraphrase of Heb. ’asher bara’ ’elohim la‘asot, the final clause of Gen. 2:3 11 This is an alternative paraphrase of Heb. ’asher bara’ ’elohim la‘asot. 12 Here Aguilar reflects the argument, yet to be won in many places in the world, namely, that girls and women should develop their intellect. This point was made at the end of the 18th century by Mary Wollstonecraft, A Vindication of the Rights of Woman with Strictures on Political and Moral Subjects (2d ed.; London: J. Johnson, 1792; repr., London: Gregg International Publishers, 1970). See also Sue V. Rosser, Biology and Feminism: A Dynamic Interaction, The Impact of Feminism on the Arts and Sciences, ed. Claire Sprague (New York: Twayne Publishers, 1992). Rosser, pp. 3–4 points out, “Although we sometimes labor under the impression that women have only become scientists in the latter half of the twentieth century, early works by Christine de Pizan [1405], Giovanni Boccaccio [1335– 9

28

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

privilege is accorded. Mother or sister, each has equally her appointed duty—to endeavor so to help and influence man, that her more spiritual and unselfish nature shall gradually be infused into him, and, raising him above mere worldly thought and sensual pleasures, compel him to feel that it is not indeed “good for man to be alone,” but that woman may still fulfil the office of help and love for which alone she was created. Although the Mosaic record of man’s residence in Paradise is mournfully brief, we have sufficient scriptural authority for lingering a little while on Eve’s innocent career. Placed in a garden with every capability of felicity within herself,—nature, meditation, commune with the Almighty in thanksgiving, or with Him direct, through the Voice which revealed the invisible presence, the sweet blessed intercourse of kindred spirits, springing from the love she bore to and received from her husband,—simple and imperfect as such sources of enjoyment may appear, they were more exquisite, more perfect, than we can dream of now. The spirit which God had breathed within man when he became a living soul,13 was the likeness or image of God in which 59] and H. J. Mozans [1913] recorded past achievements of women in science. Their works underscore the fact that women have always been in science. However, all too frequently the work of women scientists has been credited to others, brushed aside and misunderstood, or classified as nonscience.” Moreover, she points out, “Eli Whitney was the employee of Catherine Green, the person who really invented the cotton gin [while] Ellen Swallow is ... honored as the founder of home economics rather than as the founder of ecology ... because the work was done by a woman.” There is also a long tradition in many cultures in modern times of justifying the development of the full intellectual potential of women because it will be of benefit to men and to marriage. Cf. Minault, Secluded Scholars, p. 43. Like Rokheya Hossein (1882–1932) [see Minault, Secluded Scholars, pp. 253–256] in Muslim India sixty years later, Aguilar here seems to take advantage of this window of opportunity to uplift women and humanity. 13 Aguilar refers to Gen. 2:7, “And the LORD God formed man out of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life;

FIRST PERIOD. I. EVE

29

“made He man;”14 and this spirit, or essence, enabled both Adam and Eve15 to commune in close and beatified intercourse with the glorified Creator whence that essence sprang. No sin could fling its dark shade between the soul and his God; and so deaden spiritual joy. Naught of doubt could stagnate the love which must have been excited in their hearts towards their Father and their God. All around and within them bore such impress of His hand, as to excite naught but gratitude and devotion. If even now, when once we have realized the love of God and submission to His will—when once we can so put our trust in Him as to give Him “all our heart,”16 and come to Him in sorrow and in joy, convinced that He knows and and man became a living soul.” Here, as elsewhere (see above) she equates having a soul with being created in the image of God. This equation is found in the Sephardic Jewish liturgy in a prayer Jews recite every morning: “The preeminence of the human over the beast is nothing for ‘all is vanity’ (Eccles. 1:2) but for the pure soul which is destined to render account before Your glorious throne.” 14 Gen. 1:27. 15 Here Aguilar reflects the literal meaning of Scripture itself at Gen. 1:26–27 and the Jewish understanding of it, according to which both male and female were created “in the image of God.” Contrast the Apostle Paul at 1 Cor. 11:7: “For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, for as much as he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of the man.” 16 The expression “all our heart” refers to the injunction in the Shema, which Aguilar recited daily upon arising and before retiring at night as well as in the daily morning and evening prayers recited by traditional Jews and Jewesses like Grace Aguilar. The Shema consists of three biblical passages: a) Deut. 6:4–9; b) Deut. 11:13–21; and c) Num. 15:37–41. In the first of these passages every individual Israelite is commanded in the singular, “thou shalt love the LORD thy God with all thine heart and with all thy soul” (Deut. 6:5) while in the second passage the Israelites are enjoined in the plural “to love the LORD your God, and to serve him with all your heart and with all your soul” (Deut. 11:13). It should be noted that in the New Testament in Matt. 22:37–38 Jesus, referring to the Shema, asserted, “... Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart and with all thy soul and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment.” Cf. Mk. 12:29–30.

30

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

loves us better than ourselves—we experience a peace, a blessedness no earthly tempests can remove; how thrice blessed must have been the felicity of Eve! Apart from the spirit which the Eternal gave to lead man to Himself, was the MIND which opened to the creatures formed in His image the inexhaustible resources of wisdom, imagination, knowledge—all that could create that higher kind of happiness, which is synonymous with mental joy. Sources of what is now termed wisdom, that of books and man, were indeed unknown to our first parents; nor did they need them. In the wonders of creation, the tree, the herb, the flower, the gushing rivers, the breezy winds; nay, from the mighty form of the largest beast, to the structure of the tiniest leaf; the flow of the river to the globule of the dew, which watered the face of the whole earth, there was enough to excite and satisfy their mental powers; enough to excite emotions alike of wonder and adoration. Their commune with the angelic messengers of their benevolent Creator, their tidings of Heaven and its hosts, must have excited the highest and purest pleasure of imagination, and so diversified and lightened the mental exercises of wisdom, which the palpable and visible objects of creation so continually call forth. Nor was spiritual and mental felicity the only portion of Eve—the affections, the impulses of the heart, fresh from the creating Hand of Love, had full play—created, as the perfecting finish to man’s happiness, beholding him, the lord of all on which she gazed—earth formed to yield him her fruits—water and air, to unite for his refreshment—every animal obeying his authority— instinctively feeling, too, the mighty power of his intellect.17 the Here Aguilar reflects Philo’s view (in Philo On the Creation, 69–71; see also above) that the divine image in humankind is reflected in the possession of an intellect, which distinguishes humans from other creatures, and she argues that this aspect of humans has always been shared by both male and female. Assuming with Gen. 2 (and 1 Cor. 11:8–9 makes it explicit) that woman was created after man for his happiness and assuming with a common and reasonable reading of Gen. 2 that man (rather than humankind in both sexes) was lord in the Garden of Eden, Aguilar imagines that Eve, the prototype of all women, both adored and loved Adam. 17

FIRST PERIOD. I. EVE

31

strength of his mind and frame, the deepest reverence must have mingled with, and so perfected, her love. Nor would this acknowledgment tend to degrade woman in the scale of creation. Formed, like man, in the immortal likeness of the Lord, he was his equal in his responsibilities towards God and in the care of his creatures; endowed equally with man, but differently as to the nature of those endowments. His mission was to protect and guide and have dominion—hers to soothe, bless, persuade to right, and “help” in all things “meet” for immortal beings. The existence of Eve, then, in her innocence, was, in a word, an existence of love—love towards God and nature and man, which none of the infirmities of our present state could cloud or interrupt. Do we err, then, in saying that, even in the brief record of Scripture, we have sufficient authority for delineating the felicity of our first parents in Eden? And will it not demonstrate appealingly to us, those pleasures which God Himself ordained, and which, even now, might so be cultivated as to bring us happiness, as infinitely superior to the amusements so called as innocence is to sin? But beautiful as is this picture, we must turn from it to consider feelings and events of a sadly different nature. In the most conspicuous part of Paradise, the Eternal had called forth two trees, differing in their magnificence, perhaps in the halo with which they may have been encircled, as peculiar witnesses of their Creator, from every other in the garden. They were the Tree of Life and the Tree of Knowledge. Of the first so little is known that we are justified in supposing the intention of its existence was frustrated by the disobedience of man; a conjecture founded on the solemn fact, that as the Lord created not one thing in vain, that tree must also have had its use and intention, and from the words which follow at a later period, “Lest man put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat and live for ever,”18 we are quite authorized to suppose it possessed some qualities yet mightier than the Tree of Knowledge, with which its taste would have gifted man, But Aguilar is quick to note and here to argue against male chauvinists then and now: “Nor would this acknowledgment tend to degrade woman.” 18 Gen. 3:22b.

32

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

had he not by rebellion frustrated the beneficent design of his Creator, and forfeited the privileges which might have been his own. Of the Tree of Knowledge, its intention and its uses, we have sufficient information. The Eternal knew the nature of the creatures He had formed; that it was but an easy and slender trial of obedience and of love, if they had no temptation to rebel or disobey. Though subject to His sway, though deriving existence from His hand, and enjoying life and all its varied sources of felicity from the same infinite love, yet the Eternal, in His wisdom and His justice, had endowed them with the power of free-will;19 of listening to and following, or struggling with and conquering, the seeds of corruption, which from their earthly shell were inherent, though as yet kept so completely under subjection from the divine and purifying nature of the soul, that, until he was tried, man himself was scarcely sensible of their existence. To have guarded him jealously from every temptation—to have surrounded him with naught but sources of pleasure and enjoyment, and so called forth only the grateful and adoring faculties of the spirit, was not according to that divine and perfect economy of love and justice which, characterized the dealings of the Creator with his creatures. It was deeper, dearer love, to permit man to win his immortality, his eternal innocence, than to bestow them upon him unsought, and therefore little valued. They could be guilty of no crime in the world’s parlance, so termed. They were the sole possessors of the newly created earth: in Here Aguilar elaborates the Jewish doctrine of free will, especially as illustrated in the tale of the Garden of Eden. Free will is a normative doctrine of Judaism. E.g., in Mishnah, Avot (also called “The Ethics of the Fathers”), a canonical text, which is included in the Jewish prayerbook [see, e.g., ArtScroll Siddur, 544–587] so that it can be studied in six installments on each of the six Sabbath afternoons between Passover and the Feast of Weeks (and many continue until the Sabbath before the New Year). There, Chapter 3, Mishnah 15: Rabbi Akiva says, “Everything is foreseen; yet free will is given.” This doctrine is never seriously challenged. See Solomon Schechter, “The Dogmas of Judaism,” in Solomon Schechter, Studies in Judaism: First Series (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society of America, 1917), 147–181, especially pp. 159, 166, 179. 19

FIRST PERIOD. I. EVE

33

daily commune with their creator, and therefore in neither idolatry, blasphemy, Sabbath-breaking, dishonoring of parents, murder, adultery, theft, false-witness, or covetousness,20 could they sin. God knew that all the crimes which might devastate the earth would spring from one alone, DISOBEDIENCE; and therefore was it that His infinite wisdom ordained that the trial of man’s love, and faith, and virtue, should simply be, obedience to His will.21 “And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat; but of the tree of the knowledge of the good and evil thou shalt not eat; for in the day that thou eatest thereof, thou shalt surely die.”22 Whether this threatened chastisement was robed in mystery, or that Adam had beheld death in the inferior animals (for Holy Writ gives us no authority for believing that even they knew not death till after the fall),23 and so could have some idea of what he would become, even as a clod of the earth if he disobeyed, we may not here determine; suffice it, that the Eternal was too merciful, too just, to threaten His creature with a chastisement for disobedience which he could not comprehend.

Here Aguilar enumerates according to the Jewish division the last nine commandments of the Decalogue (Ex. 20:3–17; Deut. 5:7–21), here all worded in the negative. Obviously, she omits the first commandment, “I am the LORD thy God which brought thee out of the land of Egypt from the house of bondage,” which would have had no relevance to Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden. 21 Aguilar suggests that by disobedience Adam and Eve achieved free will, which is part of the achievement of humanity’s full potential. Consequently, in the Jewish view, Adam and Eve engendered not original sin but original forgiveness; concerning the latter idea see below, in the annotations. 22 Gen. 2:16–17. 23 Rashi at Gen 3:6 alludes to a midrash, according to which Adam and Eve shared the fruit also with the animals. Otherwise, as noted by Shabbetai Bass (1641–1718) in his supercommentary Lips of the Wise, on Rashi’s Pentateuch Commentary, there would be no explanation as to why also they die. 20

34

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

Beautiful to look upon, and exquisite in its fragrance,24 we may imagine the Tree of Knowledge extending its rich foliage and tempting fruit in the most conspicuous part of the garden, no doubt frequently attracting the admiration of Adam and Eve, perhaps exciting wishes, which the spirit within them had as yet power to effectually banish, or entirely subdue. Alone, unprotected by the sterner, firmer qualities of her husband, Eve had walked forth, secure in her own innocence, in the consciousness of love lingering within, and all around her;25—the young animals gambolling about her, calling forth her caresses and her smile—the little birds springing from tree to tree in joyous greeting, or nestling in her bosom without one touch of fear—the gorgeous flowers, in all their glowing robes and exquisite fragrance, clustering richly around her—the very buds seeming to look up into her sweet loving face, to reflect increase of beauty from the gaze, so may our fancy picture her, as she neared that tree under whose fair branches so much of misery lurked. Coiled at its root, or twisted in rainbow-colored folds around its trunk, lay the serpent, “who was more subtle than any beast of the field which the Lord God had made.” And he said unto the woman, “Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every This is not what Scripture states in Gen. 3:6. There it is written, “And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes ....” Aguilar suggests that having been commanded by God not to eat of the fruit of this tree, Adam and Eve initially noticed only that it was indeed beautiful to look upon and exquisite in its fragrance. But, Aguilar says, initially Adam and Eve exercised their common free will to avoid temptation. 25 If for Ben-Sira chapter 25 the source of evil was the woman, for Aguilar the woman’s being tempted more easily than the man results from the man’s being by nature more aggressive while the woman is by nature more loving. The idea that men are, like the males of other mammals, by nature more aggressive and that Judaism has attempted to teach men to be less aggressive and in so doing to emulate women is elaborated in Jacob Neusner, Androgynous Judaism: Masculine and Feminine in the Dual Torah (Macon, Ga.: Mercer University Press, 1993). For a similar idea see also Daniel Boyarin, Unheroic Conduct: Heterosexuality and the Invention of the Jewish Man (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1997). 24

FIRST PERIOD. I. EVE

35

tree in the garden? And the woman said, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden, but of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die. And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die, for God doth know, that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil. And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat;” and she gave also unto her husband with her, and he did eat.26 Such are the brief, yet emphatic words in which the inspired prophet of the Lord27 detailed those incidents on which the whole after-history of the world is founded—the mournful detail of that first sin, from which every other sprang, DISOBEDIENCE. Of the various speculations and opinions concerning the instrumentality of the serpent we shall take no heed, save the humble endeavor to reconcile the ways of the Lord. He permitted the trial, but He commanded not the evil interposition of the subtlest of His creatures, the serpent, any more than lie commanded the subtlety of Jacob in obtaining his father’s blessing. Both events were permitted to take place; but the evil means of their accomplishment were NOT of the LORD, and consequently their agents were both subject to His displeasure, and condemned to punishment and wrath.28 In one brief hour, the whole nature of Eve was changed—the seeds of frailty, of whose very existence she had been scarcely conscious before, sprang up into influencing poison. Curiosity, presumption, the overweening trust in her own strength, the desire to act alone, independent of all control—to become greater, wiser, higher than the scale of being, than the station in which God’s love Gen. 3:1–6. I.e., Moses, the traditional author of the Pentateuch according to Babylonian Talmud, Bava Batra 14b which calls the Pentateuch “his [Moses’s] book.” 28 Aguilar treats the tragic events, which KJV’s marginal captions call “Man’s miserable fall,” as a demonstration of God’s granting free will and of humans, including Eve, Adam, and Jacob, exercising that free will to commit evil and suffer punishment. 26 27

36

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

had placed her—discontent—scorn of the blessings which a moment before had seemed so precious, simply because imagination portrayed others more alluring—attracted by novelty, beauty, those idol shrines at which woman so often sacrifices her better, her immortal self—such (and are they not the characteristics of woman, she is-now?)—such were the emotions excited by the wily tempter, through whose baneful influence she fell. Where, at that moment, was the voice of the spirit, warning her of the God she disobeyed? Where the whisper of the mind, telling her that the sources of wisdom, of knowledge, already open, were the purest and the best? Where the fond tones of the heart, urging her to seek the protection, the counsel, the support, of her earthly lord? Hushed, drowned, in the wild tumult of new and terrible excitement of feelings, whose very novelty fascinated and held her chained. The voice of the tempter was in her ear. Sight and smell were filled with the exquisite branch, the delicious fragrance; and if such were revealed, what must be its taste and touch, when to pluck and eat would make her as gods, knowing good and evil? Weak, frail, unguarded, for the still small voice of the soul was lost in that hour’s tempest, was it marvel that she fell? Could she have done otherwise? The bulwark of FAITH was shivered, her heart was open and defenceless—she was alone, alone, for even the guardian within, if not fled, was silent. The God of infinite love and compassion beheld, but approached not; and wherefore? If He permitted, ordained, why did He punish? Oh, had the voice of his creature called on Him in that terrible hour; had but the faintest cry ascended for help, for strength, for mercy; had but the struggling murmur arisen, “Father, thy words are truth, let me but believe” strength, help, faith, would have poured their reviving rays into her sinking soul, and she had been saved—saved for immortality, saved to glorify her God! It was not that she had not the power so to pray. Free-will was her own—to obey, or disobey—to adhere, or to rebel. Of herself, indeed, she could not have resisted; but she had equal power to call upon the Lord, as to listen to the tempter. According to the path she chose, would have been the issue. Infinite, measureless, as is the love of the Eternal, yet how dare we believe He will grant us help and strength, unless they are implored? How dare we believe He will come forward to our aid, if we stand forth in our own strength, as if we needed naught; nay, through presumption, arrogance, selfrighteousness, rebel against, and defy Him? He had said, “Eat not

FIRST PERIOD. I. EVE

37

of the tree of knowledge, for on the day thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.”29 He had not commanded only, though that should have been sufficient from a loving Father to his children; but the command was enforced with a warning, that love should be strengthened by reverential fear. He had given the power to resist temptation, by CALLING UPON HIM:30 but if that power were trampled upon and utterly disregarded; and the creature of His hand, whose whole existence, felicity, strength, wisdom, had their being but in Him, so depended upon herself, as to be satisfied with her own strength, believing it was in her power to become as a god, and so defying Him, is it contradiction to assert, that the All-wise, All-merciful, All-JUST, permitted, and yet punished? Surely, surely, there is not one portion of this mournful history, which, on mature consideration, will be found irreconcilable with the attributes of the Eternal, or with His dealings with His creatures. “She took of the fruit thereof, and did eat.”31 For a brief interval, we may suppose, the tumult within, the struggle between virtue and vice, innocence and guilt, was stilled in a strange, fearful intoxication of sinful joy. She had broken through the barrier which, at the words of the serpent, seemed suddenly of iron, it so degraded her by its harshness and injustice. She was INDEPENDENT, had acted by herself, had shaken off all control; and the full tide of guilty pleasure so swept over her soul as to permit for the moment no thought but of herself. But this lasted not long: the reaction came with the one thought—her husband. Terror of his anger was, in all probability, the first emotion—how might she evade it? Fear, Gen. 2:17. Cf. 2 Sam. 22:7 = Ps. 18:6: “In my distress I called upon the LORD, and cried to my God: and he did hear my voice out of his temple, and my cry did enter into his ears”; cf. also Jer. 33:3: “Call unto me, and I shall answer thee, and shew thee great and mighty things, which thou knowest not.” Moreover, for at least two millennia traditional Jews and Jewesses, like Grace Aguilar, have been reciting three times every day Ps. 145, where in vv. 18–19 the psalmist asserts: “The LORD is nigh unto all them that call upon him, to all that call upon him in truth. He will fulfill the desire of them that fear him; he will also hear their cry and will save them.” 31 Gen. 3:6. 29 30

38

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

notwithstanding her independence, deadened, banished, frustrated every feeling of remorse; repentance, sorrow—all would avail her nothing now; there was but one way to avert her husband’s wrath—to make him disobedient as herself. The crime would appear less could another share it. She recollected the influence she possessed; nay, that she had been created to be his help, to soften his sterner and less yielding nature, and would it fail her now? There was no pause, there could be none; guilt ever hurries on its victims. On her arguments, her persuasions, holy writ is silent. It was enough—“she gave also unto her husband with her, and he did eat.”32 The crime was consummated. Love itself, the purest, noblest, most influencing of those spiritual blessings vouchsafed to man. by his Creator—love, deeper for the creature than the Creator, deeming the gift more precious than the Giver—love it was which to Adam was the tempter, and so converted the richest blessing to the direst curse. The specious offers, the dazzling allurements of the serpent had, perhaps, to his stronger, more steadfast nature, been of no avail. He had no need of ambition, for he was lord over the whole created world.33 A glance from his eye, a stern rebuke from Gen. 3:6. Here Grace Aguilar suggests that husbands are wont to vent their anger on their wives and that wives are wont to do evil to assuage that anger. Indeed, a Rabbinic text, which is recited as part of the Jewish liturgy on Sabbath Eve says precisely that and suggests that husbands by issuing gentle reminders rather than angry demands can prevent wrong-doing. The text from Mishnah, Tractate Shabbat 2:7 reads as follows: “A person is supposed to say three things in one’s home on the Eve of the Sabbath before dark: Have you taken tithes (from the fruits and vegetables that will be eaten on the Sabbath); have you made the erub [the joining together of domains that will make it possible to carry between them on the Sabbath]; light the lamp.” Moreover, in discussing that idea Babylonian Talmud, Gittin 6b reminds us, “A man should never put unnecessary fear into his household,” and it suggests that because the Levite in Judg. 19 did not heed that advice he provoked a chain reaction of tragedies highlighted by the gang rape of his concubine at Gibeah. 33 The basis for the assumption that man, as opposed to woman, or Adam, as opposed to Eve, is lord over the world would seem to be Gen. 32

FIRST PERIOD. I. EVE

39

his lips, had awed even the subtlest of the beasts into silence, and banished him for ever; but strength and firmness fled before the endearing influence of the being, whom, created to perfect his happiness, he loved better than himself. Excuse for his weakness, indeed, there is none; but if such may be the extent of woman’s influence (and it is as powerful even now), how fearful is her responsibility, and how deep should be her humility, how fervent her petitions for grace to guide aright! Not long might the triumph of guilt last. Day declined—the hour of evening34 came which they were wont so joyfully to wel1:28, “And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.” However, in its biblical context the blessing is addressed in the plural to “them,” and the antecedent of the pronoun “them” would seem to be male and female as stated in Gen. 1:27, “male and female created he them.” 34 The Hebrew text reads leruah hayyom, which KJV margin renders literally, “in the wind of the day” while in the body of KJV we find “in the cool of the day.” Aguilar here reflects the interpretation found in Rashi, who writes as follows: “AT THE WIND OF THE DAY. The same wind [in the direction of which] the sun sets, i.e., the westerly wind, for before evening the sun is in the west, and they (Eve and Adam) sinned at the tenth hour [of a day divided into twelve parts from sunrise to sunset].” The expression “the tenth hour” reflects the myth or story of original forgiveness found in Pesikta deRav Kahana (a 6th century midrash), which is alluded to frequently in the liturgy of the Jewish New Year and Day of Atonement. According to this narrative, at the twelfth hour of the day on which the human was created, which happened to be the Jewish New Year, the first day of the month of Tishri, God forgave the first human and told the first human that just as he had been forgiven on the New Year so would all future generations of humans be able on the New Year to express remorse and be forgiven of their sins. For the text see Pesikta de Rav Kahana, ed. Bernard Mandelbaum (2d ed.; 2 vols.; New York: Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1987), vol. 2, chapter 23, paragraph 1; see also the discussion in Max Arzt, Justice and Mercy: Commentary on the Liturgy of the New Year and the Day of Atonement (New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1963), 54–56. While Aguilar and her contemporaries had no

40

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

come, for it brought with it the voice of God. Remorse had come with all its horrors, and now for the first time the extent of their sin stood before them. Terror banished all of love, as all of joy; and when the first sound of the Eternal’s voice reached them, they fled in anguish to hide themselves35 amid the trees of the garden. Vain hope! but proving how all of spirit and of mind was crushed and buried in this first and awful sway of guilt. “And the Lord God called unto Adam, and said unto him, Where art thou? And he said, I heard thy voice in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was naked; and I hid myself. And the Lord God said, Who told thee that thou wast naked? Hast thou eaten of the tree whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldst not eat? And the man said, The woman thou gavest to be with me gave me of the fruit, and I did eat And the Lord God said unto the woman, What is this thou hast done? And the woman said, The serpent beguiled me, and I did eat.”36 Though to Him all was known, yet would not the beneficent, the ever-loving, aye, even at that moment still loving God condemn without question, judge without permitting defence. And how upbraiding, how loving the appeal, “What is this that thou hast done?” breathing a Father’s sorrowing mercy in the very midst of justly deserved punishment. There was no consuming wrath, no terrifying anger, naught to betray that mighty and awful Being at whose first word might be annihilation. The Eternal pronounced not sentence without requiring and waiting for reply: but what was that reply? Accusation of another, not self-abhorrence and lowly repentance. How fearful is the change wrought in the heart, as well as in the spirit of man, by his sin! Where now was his deep love for Eve, that he could say, vainly access to Pesikta deRav Kahana, which was first published from manuscripts by Solomon Buber in the year 1868, the midrash in question was frequently cited in later rabbinic texts and commentaries, and its reflection in the liturgy of the Jewish High Holy Days (New Year and Day of Atonement) was well known. 35 Cf. Gen. 3:8: “And Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God amongst the trees of the garden.” 36 Gen. 3:9–13.

FIRST PERIOD. I. EVE

41

hoping to exculpate himself, “The woman thou didst give me, she gave me of the fruit, and I did eat?”37 She had led him by the power of his love into sin; but from that moment her power was at an end, and he cared not to give her up to justice, so he excused himself. How terrible a commencement of her punishment must have been her husband’s words to the still loving heart of Eve! It was true she had done as he had said; but was he to be her accuser? And to her were those words of sorrowing compassion said, “What is this that thou hast done?” Hast thou indeed so used the power, the beauty, the influence with which I endowed thee for so different a purpose? She denied it not: she said not one word to justify her sin towards her husband; his words had entered her heart with the first sharp pang which human affection knew, and there was no attempt at defence or evasion;—“The serpent beguiled me, and I did eat.” If Adam had stooped to lay the blame of his own weakness upon one whom he had loved, instead of bewailing his own sin, it was no wonder Eve, not yet awakened to what she should have done to avert the temptation, conscious but of increasing misery, thought only of what might seem excuse, “The serpent beguiled me.” The Eternal knew she had spoken truth; and, still guided by that mercy and justice which in God alone are so perfectly united, there is no need of “man’s ways” to reconcile them, proceeded to pronounce sentence according to the degrees of guilt. This is not the place to enter into a dissertation on the punishment awarded to the serpent; suffice it that there seems no hidden or allegorical meaning in the inspired historian’s simple words. The serpent, as a beast of the field, beguiled, and as a beast of the field was punished. Nor can an Israelite acknowledge any allusion to, or any necessity for, a crucified and atoning Saviour, in the very simple words, “I will put enmity between thee and the woman, between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.”38 For a Hebrew, the words can only be taken in their purely literal sense. We are particular on this point; because Gen. 3:12 The Apostle Paul almost at the end of his Epistle to the Romans 16:20 alludes to Gen. 3:15 and declares, “And the God of peace shall bruise Satan under your feet shortly.” 37 38

42

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

thus early, in the perusal of the sacred Scriptures, the Jewish and Gentile readings differ; and from childish readings of Bible histories by Gentile writers,39 we may find ourselves giving credence to an assertion for which we have no Mosaic authority, and which, in after years, we would gladly root out from the mystical and contradictory opinions with which it confuses our ideas. Eve’s chastisement was severer than her husband’s, and it was just that so it was, for she was the first transgressor. Death, indeed,—that the dust of which the frame was composed should return to dust,—was the awful sentence pronounced on both; for such had been threatened from the first if they disobeyed: but during their sojourn upon earth, the sharper and severer trial of pain, of multiplied sorrows, of sinking comparatively in the scale of strength and intellect, of becoming subject to her husband, not, as before, from the sweet obedience of love, but from the sterner mandate of duty; of being exposed, as a mother, to a hundred sources of anguish of which man knows nothing; for his deepest, dearest love for his offspring is not like a mother’s, subject to the thousand petty anxieties and cares which, independent of severer maternal trials, fill her heart from the moment she hears the first feint cry of the new-born until death. And these trials were Eve’s, and they are woman’s. Man had, indeed, his work; the earth was cursed through his sin, and forbidden to yield her fruit without the severest labor; he was to go forth from the Paradise of innocence and love to till the ground whence he was taken—banished, and for ever. The voice of their God, for the first time heard in reproachful though still forbearing inquiry, and then in fearful condemnation, Grace Aguilar and less than a handful of other people including Isaac Leeser of Philadelphia, whom she convinced to produce a Jewish English translation of the Bible (so Galchinsky, Origin of the Modern Jewish Woman Writer, 73, 186), and Rebecca Gratz, who produced Sabbath School lessons, which were used all over the United States, were creating textbooks for children and inspirational and informative books about Judaism in English. In the meantime, Jews were making use of Bible story books written by Christians, which, understandably, did not convey the Jewish point of view. 39

FIRST PERIOD. I. EVE

43

removed the blackening veil of sin.40 The spirit burst from the chains of guilt and sin, and while it bowed in agony and remorse before the Father and the Judge, and acknowledged this awful sentence just, drew them once more to each other. Love was not given only for the happy: to the sorrowing, the repentant, it comes soothing while it softens, seeming, even while it deepens the heavy floods of grief, to banish all of hardness, of selfishness, and of despair. The justice of the Eternal marked the woman as the greater sinner—Adam’s further wrath was needless; remorse too told him that, as the stronger, the firmer, he should have resisted her persuasions, that his disobedience was his own sin, not her’s; and we may believe that, as weak, trembling, bowed to the very dust, not from the thoughts of her own chastisement so much as from the reflection of what she had hurled upon her husband, for such still is woman, Adam once more received her to his heart, the sharer of his future toils, the soother of his threatened cares, even as she had before been the helpmeet of his joy. And already Eve needed all of strength and comfort her earthly lord might give. Still remembering mercy, the Eternal clothed them for their departure, endowing them with those faculties of invention, alike for their personal comfort as for the tillage of the ground, for which they had no need in Eden; but the very gift betrayed the bleak and desert world they were about to seek. Could they but remain in the home of their past innocence and joy, the anguish of the present might be sooner healed. Who that thinks a moment of what we now feel in turning from a beloved home, the scene of all our early hopes and joys and love, adorned with all of nature and of art, to seek another, impoverished, and fraught with toil and danger, apart from every object, animate or inanimate, which has twined round our hearts and bound us there,—who, that pictures scenes like these, will refuse our general mother the need of sympathy as she turned from Eden. A change perhaps her sin had wrought even there. The birds flew aloft, trembling to approach that gentle bosom which had before been their restingHere Aguilar seems to see in Gen. 2–3 not simply the narrative of the fall, which is to say the story of paradise lost, but rather the Rabbinic story of original forgiveness. 40

44

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

place; the young animals fled in terror from her step; and there was that in the changed fierce aspects of the beasts of the field, which caused her heart to sicken with deadly fear. The very flowers hung their heads and drooped when gathered; they could not bear the touch of sin. Yet to that woman’s heart Eden was Eden still—her home, the receiver of all those varied channels of love which could be spared from her husband; and to turn from it, never to approach it more, and from the consequences of her own act, how deep must have been her agony, how touching its remorse, and how necessary the support of love! Though Moses,41 in his brief detail of past events, simply follows the expulsion from Eden by the birth of Cain, we have sufficient authority from the unchangeable attributes of the Eternal, to believe, that the same love which provided Adam and Eve with clothing, directed and blessed their wanderings; and though no longer revealing His gracious presence, as in Eden, yet still inspiring the power of prayer and belief in His constant omnipresence and protection. Their sin had indeed changed their earthly nature,—the good had been conquered by the evil. It was henceforth a Moses is the traditional author of the Pentateuch, which the Jews call “the Torah of Moses.” The latter term probably originally referred to the Book of Deuteronomy and appears already in Josh. 8:31ff. and 23:6; 2 Kgs. 14:6 (when it quotes Deut. 24:16); 2 Kgs. 23:25; and Mal. 4:4. In Ezra 3 (which refers to Lev. 23:37 and Num. 29:18) the expression “written in the law of Moses the man of God” must refer already to the entire Pentateuch; so also Dan. 9:11, 13. It should also be noted that KJV refers to each of the five books of the Pentateuch as respectively the first, second, third, fourth, and fifth “Book of Moses.” The German equivalent is found in German Bibles. Moreover, when Jean Astruc (1684–1766) pioneered source criticism of the Book of Genesis, his goal was not to undermine the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch but to delineate the written sources, which, he believed, Moses had utilized in compiling the Book of Genesis. His intention is borne out by the title he chose, namely, Conjectures sur les mémoires originaux dont il paroit que Moyse s’est servi pour composer le livre de la Genèse: avec des remarques qui appuient ou qui éclaircissent ces conjectures (Brussels: A. Frick, 1753), which means Conjectures on the original memoirs, which Moses seems to have used in composing the Book of Genesis. 41

FIRST PERIOD. I. EVE

45

difficult and weary task to subdue the evil inclinations, the proneness to disobedience and self-righteousness. It was a labor of toil and tears to bring the heavenly essence once more even to a faint and disfigured likeness of its God; the voice of the soul, once silenced as it had been, could only be heard after years of watching and prayer. The Eternal, in His prescience, knew this would be, not so much in Adam himself (for repentance and sorrow brought him back through his punishment to holiness and constant commune with his God), but in his offspring. Further and further, as the children of men advanced from their first father—as the tale of creation, of the Eternal’s visible presence in Paradise, of all which His love had formed for His favored creature, man, became fainter and fainter in the distance of the past,—so would the likeness of the Lord in which man was made, become more and more effaced, and sin become more and more ascendant. For this reason then it was, that the Eternal, alike in His wisdom and justice and MERCY, ordained death as the end of all, the righteous and the wicked; for Solomon42 himself telleth us “there is no man that sinneth not:”43 and we read in the narrative of Moses himself (Gen. vi. 6) that every imagination of man’s heart was only evil continually, and it repented the Lord that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart; and again (Gen. viii.), “I will not curse the ground any more for man’s sake; for the imagination of man’s heart is evil from his youth.”44 But the Mosaic creed of love and perfect justice goes no further. We utterly repudiate, deny, and hold in abhorrence, the awful creed which condemns every man’s soul for the sin of Adam. To use the language of our own venerable sages:—“Although the descendants of Adam inherited the body from him, and with it the The Book of Ecclesiastes is attributed to King Solomon in the Rabbinic Midrash called Canticles Rabbah 1:1:10. This tradition takes account of the fact that the author calls himself “son of David” and “king in Jerusalem” (Eccles. 1:1), and he discourses on wisdom, which is associated with King Solomon (1 Kgs. 3:16–28; 5:9–14). 43 The allusion is to Eccles. 7:20: “For there is not a just man upon earth that doeth good and sinneth not.” 44 Gen. 8:21. 42

46

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

maledictions attached thereto, it is not because they received corporeal existence from him that the souls of all mankind are condemned, for they had not existence from Adam, but are a direct emanation from God. Therefore Noah, Shem, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and all the other just, did not pay the sin of Adam, nor were their souls condemned.”*45 And still more convincing proof from the Word of God; Pentateuch, History, Psalms, Proverbs, and Prophets, almost every page bears witness that each man is responsible for his own individual acts.—“See, I have set before you this day LIFE and GOOD, DEATH and EVIL; therefore choose life, that thou and thy seed may LIVE” (Deut. xxx. 15 and 19). “Then they that feared the Lord spake often one to another; and the Lord hearkened, and heard it: and a book of remembrance was written before Him for them that feared the Lord and thought upon his name. And they shall be mine, saith the Lord of hosts, in that day when I make up my jewels; and I will spare them, as a man spareth his own son that serveth him. Then shall ye return, and discern between the RIGHTEOUS and the WICKED; between him that serveth God, and him that serveth him not” (Mal. iii. 16, 17, 18). “Repent, and turn yourselves from all your transgressions; so iniquity shall not be your ruin. Cast away from you all your transgressions, whereby ye have transgressed; and make you a new heart and a new spirit: for why will ye die, O house of Israel? For I have no pleasure in the death of him that dieth, saith the Lord God: therefore turn yourselves, and live ye” (Eze. xviii. 30, 31, 32). “Turn ye unto me, saith the Lord of hosts, and I will turn unto you” (Zach. i. 3). It would be useless transcribing all the passages in the Bible similar to the above—and teeming with the doctrine of individual responsibility, and individual power to regain the favor of the Eternal—which is completely opposed to the Gentile creed. But while we reject, wholly and utterly, all belief in the Nazarene doctrine, * The Conciliator, vol. ii. page 214. Translated from the Spanish of Manasseh Ben Israel, by E. H. Lindo, Esq.45 45 Manasseh Ben Israel, The Conciliator: A Reconcilement of the Apparent Contradictions in Holy Scripture, to which are added Explanatory Notes, and Biographical Notices of the Quoted Authorities by E. H. Lindo (2 vols. in 1; London: Duncan & Malcolm, 1842).

FIRST PERIOD. I. EVE

47

that we are each and all, even the new-born babe, condemned to everlasting misery unless we acknowledge Jesus—reject it, because it is contrary to the doctrines of Moses; contrary to the whole spirit of the Bible; contrary to every attribute of a just and merciful God; we equally reject the mistaken and sceptical belief that the disobedience of our first parents in no way affects us now. If its effects were only confined to them, where is the mercy, the justice of the Lord, in condemning all their seed to return to the dust? Who that looks into himself and knows the “plague of his own heart,”46 the difficulty to realize spirituality and holiness—who that reads his Bible with faith and prayer, and marks the prevalence of evil even there, the failings and the weaknesses of the holiest men, even those hallowed by the appellation of the “friends of God,”47 will still refuse belief that the disobedience of our first parents so far altered our nature as to give the body more powerful dominion than the soul; and thus, by deadening the spiritual influence within us, exposing us to temptation of every kind, and consequently but too often to sin; and rendering it a difficult and often desponding task to give the spiritual dominion over the corporeal, and to devote our whole hearts—not alone in our closets, but in the duties and occupations of the world still to serve and love our God. What would have been the glorious nature of Adam and Eve if they had not sinned, we know not; for it is a subject far too holy for speculation or conjecture: but that their transgression produced consequences which demanded that not only themselves but their seed should return to dust, is a scriptural truth which no one who believes in Moses and the Prophets can, we think, have sufficient boldness to deny. But the SOUL48 it touched not.—An emanation from God This expression is found in 1 Kgs. 8:38 in the prayer of King Solomon at the Dedication of the First Temple. 47 See Isa. 41:8: “But thou, Israel, art my servant, Jacob whom I have chosen, the seed of Abraham my friend.” 48 Here Aguilar stresses the Jewish doctrine of the immortality of the soul. Where late 19th century Reform Judaism differed from Rabbinic Judaism of the previous two millennia was with respect to Reform Judaism’s rejection of an eschatological bodily resurrection. The latter doctrine, however, is already found in the Bible in Dan. 12:2–3: “And many 46

48

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

Himself, it will return to Him, untouched by any sin but those of the body in whom it was breathed; and there, at the bar of God, our own acts, purified by mercy, judged by the ways and thoughts of the Lord—which are not the ways and thoughts of man— guided by the law his mercy gave, hallowed by faith and justified by love—our own acts must be our witness or our condemnation. Nor is this an individual doctrine lightly and carelessly entered upon or produced from one particular class of reading.49 It has been the thought and study of long years, based on an earnest and powerful study of the Holy Scriptures, and on the spirit pervading of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt. And they that be wise shall shine as the brightness of the firmament; and they that turn many to righteousness as the stars for ever and ever.” In the traditional Jewish liturgy, Jewish men and women reaffirm this belief three times every day, four times on Sabbaths, New Moons, and festivals, and five times on the Day of Atonement, saying, “You [God] fulfill Your promise to those who sleep in the dust, and You can be relied upon to revive the dead.” Likewise at funerals and memorial services for the dead a prayer entitled “God full of Mercy” (See ArtScroll Siddur, 144–145) affirms with Dan. 12:3 that the deceased “will shine as the brightness of the firmament.” It should be observed that the survival of the soul beyond the temporal life is an idea which ancient Israel shared with all the peoples of the ancient Near East, and it is reflected in the account of King Saul’s utilizing the services of a necromancer (KJV: “woman that hath a familiar spirit”) at En Dor in 1 Sam. 28 in order to consult with the deceased Prophet Samuel. Moreover, in the Jewish daily prayers upon awakening Jews and Jewesses say, “My God, the soul which you gave me is pure ... and you will in the future take it away from me but in the more distant future you will give it back to me ... Praised are You, O LORD, who returns souls to dead bodies.” Precisely because many of Aguilar’s contemporaries simply did not pay attention to these facts concerning Jewish doctrine, she found it necessary to set the record straight, especially as she passionately believed in the survival of the soul. 49 Here Aguilar distinguishes between theological notions that are a matter of debate and those that are a matter of consensus. One of the best criteria for determining that a doctrine is or was a matter of consensus is its reflection in the traditional Jewish prayerbook.

FIRST PERIOD. I. EVE

49

the writings of every Hebrew sage which are accessible to woman.50 Aguilar alludes to the fact that in her time not all sacred Jewish texts were available in English and other modern languages. Hence, in western countries, such as England and the United States of America. full access to the riches of Jewish sacred literature was virtually unavailable to all except an Orthodox Jewish male elite, which was unwilling or reluctant to impart to girls and women knowledge of post-biblical Hebrew and Aramaic, in which most Jewish sacred literature had been written for two millennia. Consequently, Grace Aguilar had to battle the all male Jewish establishment in early nineteenth century England to grant girls and women (52% of the Jewish adults) access to their heritage. At this point in Women of Israel, Aguilar is just warming up. She will sound increasingly militant on the subject of providing a proper and thorough education in Judaism to girls and women in the second half of Women of Israel; see, for example, her discussion of Huldah the Prophetess below, Period IV, Chapter V. Aguilar’s contemporary, Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch (1808–1888), the putative founder of Modern Orthodox Judaism, opened a Jewish school for girls at Emden in 1841 while in 1853 Hirsch opened a Jewish Day School in Frankfurt-am-Main, in which girls and boys studied together. The boys and girls were separated already in 1854. See Shlomo Chertok, “From the Vale of Cedars to the Rhine Valley: Grace Aguilar and S. R. Hirsch—Do two walk together if they have not agreed to meet” 47 n. 19 (in Hebrew). Chertok points out there that schools for the formal education of Jewish girls were founded in Prague in 1785 and at Hamburg in 1798. Sarah Schneirer (1883–1935) made it clear that she was inspired by Hirsch to inaugurate in 1917 a network of Ultra-Orthodox schools for girls in Eastern Europe, which she called Bays Ya‛akov ‘House of Jacob’ based upon a traditional Jewish exegesis of Ex. 19:3, “And Moses went up unto God, and the LORD called unto him out of the mountain saying, Thus shalt thou say to the house of Jacob, and tell the children of Israel.” According to the traditional interpretation incorporated in Rashi’s Commentary, the children of Israel denote the males and the house of Jacob denotes the females. Without in any way detracting from the importance of Aguilar, Hirsch, and Schenirer in promoting the education of females, their thoughts and activities and this direction should be seen in the light of trends throughout the world at large far beyond the sphere of Judaism in the modern era. Concerning the development of schools for the formal 50

50

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

We have brought it strongly forward; because, unless we know exactly what we do believe and what we do not believe from the very beginning of the Holy Scriptures, our readings must always be attended with obscurity and pain, and the very attributes of the Eternal difficult to be realized amid the awful scenes of wickedness which the historical books present. We will now proceed with the more private history of Eve. Years must have rolled over the heads of our first parents since their expulsion, ere the fearful event took place, which, although it mentions not their names, must recall our attention to them. Although, in comparison, they had become degraded, and the recollection of their sin must ever have remained with its stinging remorse,—still, repentance and real sorrow, meek submission to their chastisement and acknowledgment of its justice, raised them from their first abject misery, and permitted them once more, through prayer and thanksgiving and sacrifice, to commune with the Lord. Eve’s exclamation on the birth of Cain—“I have gotten a man from the Lord,”51 proves how closely and devoutly she still traced all blessings from His gracious hand:—hallowing her maternal joy by gratitude to Him. His love had bestowed on her a blessing unknown even in Eden—a child—a possession peculiarly her own and her husband’s; and in the exultation of her grateful joy she calls his name ‫ קין‬Cain, from ‫קנה‬, to possess or to acquire. In his early infancy, ere he became awake to right and wrong, his parents could but feel enjoyment to train him up so as to know no sin, to love and serve the Lord, and to give them love and reverence in return for the deep, endless fondness they lavished upon him. But by the name bestowed upon their second son, Abel, we may almost suppose that they had already felt the vanity of these hopes and wishes; that even in his boyhood Cain manifested those evil passions and that headstrong will, which led in after years to such fearful consequences. The effects of Eve’s disobedience were now to be displayed in her own offspring—the child of exultation and joy—whom she education of girls among the Muslims in India in the 19th and 20th centuries see Minault, Secluded Scholars. 51 Gen. 4:1.

FIRST PERIOD. I. EVE

51

had welcomed with such delight, that she almost felt as if no sorrow or suffering could assail her more, was the instrument in the Eternal hand to bring her back meekly and submissively to Him, in prayer for that beloved one, in recognition that her sin was working still. The passions and rebellion of her first-born brought all the agony of remorse fresh upon her heart; and deep as was the joy with which she had hailed his birth, was the anxiety, the suffering, his dawning character called forth. Actuated by such emotions, it was with sorrow, then, more than joy, that the birth of her second boy was hailed. She had already felt the vanity, the transientness of her hopes; and mournfully she called his name ‫ ֶה ֶבל‬Hebel—transientness or vanity, from ‫ָהבל‬ which signifies to follow a vain thing, to cherish vain thoughts. But as is the case (how often even now!) the child of tears and anticipated sorrow, proved as dear and precious a blessing as the son of exultation was of grief. She saw in him the ascendency of the spiritual, the deathless part of their mingled nature, that evil could still be subdued, and man be still acceptable and worthy in the sight of his Creator. The compassionate love of the Eternal, while He chastised through Cain, gave hope and trust and comfort through Abel. He showed through these varying natures, that free will to choose the good and eschew the evil was still given; and that though the latter to the eyes of the world might seem, nay was, the ascendant, He would yet preserve his witnesses among mankind, to keep alive the knowledge of the Lord, and prove the pre-eminence, the beauty, the glory, and the consolation of piety and virtue. So years rolled on: the boys grew up to manhood. And though it is not specifically mentioned, it is evident that Eve must also have borne a daughter, who, as was absolutely necessary in the early stages of the world, became the wife of Cain. Some writers believe that Cain and Abel were both born with twin sisters.52 It Rashi, quoting Genesis Rabbah explains that the superfluous Hebrew particle ’et, the sign of a definite direct object, which is repeated three times in Gen. 4:1–2 before each of the words “Cain,” “his brother,” and “Abel,” implies, according to a rule of Rabbinic rhetoric especially associated with the 2d century Rabbi Akiva, the encoding of “additional information,” in this case additional children. Indeed, according to this 52

52

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

may or may not be, as it must be only conjecture—though Cain’s wife only is mentioned. The words of scripture “and he (Adam) begat sons and daughters,”53 are sufficient for our information. In all probability his family was a large one,—that his seed might fulfill the intention of the Eternal in peopling the world;54 but how many daughters he had before the death of Abel does not appear, and is of little consequence.55 During the growth of their elder children, the lives of our first parents differ little in feeling from those of the present day. Their employments, indeed, were as unlike as patriarchal simplicity is from worldly interest and luxury—the peace of nature from the contention of the world. In reading the narratives of the Bible, we often blend situation with feeling, and believe that as the one is too antiquated for interest and example, so is the other for sympathy and love. But the Bible tells of no character above human nature; and why not then, in perusing the circumstances of their simple lives, try their feelings by the standard of our own? Who that is a mother, does not feel anxiety, pleasure, grief, joy, despondency, and hope, almost all at the same time, according to the differing dispositions of her children? Who that is a parent does not acknowledge that maternal love may combine the intensest joy with the intensest view, Cain had a twin sister, and Abel was delivered together with two other siblings, one hinted at by the ’et that precedes “his brother” and one hinted at by the ’et that precedes “Abel”. 53 Gen. 5:4. 54 See Gen. 1:28: “And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it ... .” 55 The fact that the ancient Jewish exegetes raised the question is of vital importance. After all, the Bible bashers and the male chauvinists keep telling me, “There are very few women in the Bible, and there really is no subject called ‘Women in the Bible’.” In fact the subject of ‘women in the Bible’ has attracted interest for many generations as witnessed by the reception history of Aguilar’s Women of Israel while the unnamed women in the Bible belong to a cast of myriads, whose numbers dwarf the 603,550 non-Levite males “from twenty years old and upward that were able to go forth to war in Israel” (Num. 1:45–46).

FIRST PERIOD. I. EVE

53

grief? And will they not then sympathize in the feelings of Eve?— at one time bowed to the very dust in the anguish occasioned by the sinful inclinations and rude temper of her first born, in selfaccusation that she, perhaps, was the original cause, even as an affectionate mother very often accuses herself for the faults of her offspring—at another, weeping tears of sweet joy, and love, and consolation, on the gentle bosom of her Abel, whose whole life and thoughts were directed to piety and virtue to God and to his parents—whose very existence, as her own had been in Paradise, seemed bright with reverence and love? But even this life of mingled grief and comfort might not last. Not yet had Eve sufficiently atoned for her disobedience, and proved her love and faith, to pass through the awful portals of death to the home prepared for her in heaven. Death, as concerned herself, her husband, her children, was still the dark shadow through which as yet no certain light had beamed. The Eternal, in His mercy, had prepared to reveal it, but through clouds of denser, more appalling blackness than had yet gathered round His creatures. Wrought up to phrensy by the preference manifested towards the pious offering of his younger brother—refusing to acknowledge that it was the temper of his own mind at fault,56 and that he had himself trampled on, and defied the favor he yet coveted, when shown to another—still sullenly and obstinately encouraging the evil, even when the Lord, in infinite mercy, condescended Himself to speak with his rebellious servant, and asking why he was wroth,57 informed him that though sin was ever crouching beside him, he (Cain) had the power to rule over and subdue it, still disregarding The perception that it was “the temper of his own mind at fault” is found already in Rashi’s commentary. As Rashi notes, this view is already found in Targum Onkelos, which was the Babylonian Talmud’s officially sanctioned Aramaic translation of the Pentateuch (see Babylonian Talmud, Megillah 3a; Kiddushin 49a). 57 So KJV; contrast NJV’s “distressed”; and see Gruber, “The Tragedy of Cain and Abel: A Case of Depression,” in Gruber, Motherhood, pp. 121– 131 for the view that the Hebrew text actually means, “Cain became very depressed.” 56

54

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

even this, listening but to the fearful instigations of his own heart,—“it came to pass, when they were in the field together, that Cain rose up against his brother Abel, and slew him.”58 The dark terror of death was mysterious no longer.59 In its most fearful, most appalling shape, it had descended upon earth— the bright, the beautiful, the loving, and the holy, there he lay before the eyes of his agonized parents, his life-blood dyeing the green-sward—that face so fair, so sweet an index of the pure glorious soul—those limbs, so soft and round and graceful, whose every movement had brought joy to his mother’s heart—they gazed upon them still, beautiful as if he slept, save that there was a stillness and a coldness as the earth on which he lay. This, then, was death, and it had been dealt by a brother’s hand. Can any woman, much less a mother, reflect on Eve’s immeasurable agony, and yet pass lightly and heedlessly over this first narration of Holy Writ, refusing sympathy, even interest, in the deep dark floods of misery, with which, though her name is not mentioned, those few words of a brother’s hate and wrath and murder teem? Not alone a mother’s anguish, deprived of both her children in one fearful day—not, not alone the wild yearnings of affection towards the guilty and the exile, struggling with the passionate misery for her own bereavement, but more crushing, more agonizing still—it was her work—she had disobeyed to obtain the knowledge of good and evil,—and how appallingly had that forbidden knowledge poured back its stinging poison into her own heart! Her beautiful had fallen—she might never, never gaze upon him, list his sweet voice more—the dust had gone to its dust—sent to his grave in his youth, his sinlessness—the helpless and the innocent crushed by the strong hand of the guilty—and the Eternal had looked down from his awful throne and interfered not. Why had the only innocent, Gen. 4:8. In her discussion of God’s threat that death would be the punishment for eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge (see above, Period I, Chapter I). Aguilar asks the profound question as to how Adam and Eve could have possibly understood the threat of death as a punishment for eating of the fruit of the tree of knowledge since it is unlikely that they had yet seen anyone or anything die. 58 59

FIRST PERIOD. I. EVE

55

the only righteous, being the first to pay the penalty of death, when his guilty parents and yet more guilty brother were permitted still to live?60 Nay, the doom of Cain, which the hardened one himself declared “was greater than he could bear,”61 was not to die, but live as a wanderer whom none might slay. Why might such things be? Were they reconcilable with those attributes of justice and of love and long suffering, which the Eternal had already proclaimed, through His conduct, to his creatures? They were: for in the death of the innocent, IMMORTALITY was proclaimed!62 The disobedient looked on the death their sin had brought— they felt, in their own bosoms, the deepest agony of bereavement—they saw not the terror, only as the end of existence; but by the scythe cutting down the young in his first beautiful spring, and in the full prime of holiness and good, they learned what their own death, at the moment of disobedience, could not have taught—that the righteous must also be cut off, as well as the guilty—that death was not only chastisement for itself alone, but in the deep agony it inflicted upon the living, in the awful trial of separation and bereavement, and the utter loneliness of heart when a beloved one goes; and, this learned, the world beyond death, the dwelling of the righteous, the reunion of the divine essence with its parent Fount—immortality—was revealed! That the caviller, the sceptic, the thoughtless will deny this, because we can bring forward no written proof of its truth, we are perfectly aware: but we write for the believer, for the Israelite, who not only reads the words of his Bible, but explains them by one only unerring test, the ATTRIBUTES of God. The question is simply this—Do we believe in a God? That He is, as He proclaimed HimHere Aguilar points out the consequence of free will (on which she wrote extensively, above, pp. 30-32) is that “the way of the wicked prospers” (Jer. 12:1) and that righteous people suffer undeservedly (see Job 1– 2). And Aguilar points out here that these are not realities discovered after the Bible but grotesque realities brought home to us on the very first pages of Hebrew Scripture. 61 Gen. 4:13: “My punishment is greater than I can bear.” 62 This is Aguilar’s solution to the dilemma of bad things happening to good people. In the end, death is but the portal to eternal life. 60

56

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

self, “merciful and gracious, long-suffering, and abundant in goodness and truth, keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity and sin,63 yet clearing not the guilty,”64 without repentance and amendment?65 Do we believe in Him, as in every page of His Holy

In quoting this text Aguilar omits ‘transgression’ between iniquity and sin; probably an oversight. 64 Ex. 34:6–7. Judaism refers to this text as “the thirteen attributes of God.” They are recited at penitential services on the Day of Atonement, on most other fasts, and at penitential services during the month before the New Year (among Ashkenazic Jews at least on the four days before the New Year) and during the days between the New Year and the Day of Atonement. A midrash found in Babylonian Talmud, Rosh ha-Shanah 17b explains that after God had forgiven Israel for the sin of the golden calf (Ex. 32:14), God taught Moses that whenever the people of Israel sin, Moses and his successors should recite the thirteen attributes to remind God to forgive them. Here with respect to Ex. 34:7 Aguilar paraphrases KJV, “yet clearing not the guilty” where KJV has “and that will by no means clear the guilty” See next note. 65 The text of the Torah in Ex. 34:6–7 includes the words, “and that will by no means clear the guilty ... generation.” However, when Ex. 34: 6–7 is recited as a prayer for forgiveness, it is read and understood as follows: (1) the LORD; (2) the LORD; (3) God; (4) merciful; and (5) gracious; (6) long-suffering; and (7) abundant in goodness; and (8) [abundant in] truth; (9) keeping mercy for thousands [of generations of the descendants of the righteous] (10) forgiving iniquity; and (11) [forgiving] transgression; and (12) [forgiving] sin; and (13) clearing [the penitent]. The expression translated here ‘clearing’ is a Hebrew infinitive absolute wenaqqeh. In its biblical context this infinitive adds emphasis to the clause which follows, “that will not clear the guilty.” This emphasis is expressed in KJV by the adverbial phrase “by no means.” Rabbinic tradition, however, understood the THIRTEEN ATTRIBUTES in light of the parallels in Joel 2:3 and Jonah 4:2 which conclude with “and renouncing punishment.” Utilizing the fact known today only to advanced students of Biblical Hebrew, that an infinitive absolute, in this case wenaqqeh, can serve not only for emphasis but in place of a finite verb, the Rabbinic sages construe wenaqqeh at the beginning of the second half of Ex. 34:7 to mean “and clearing the penitent.” Aguilar addition of the words “without repen63

FIRST PERIOD. I. EVE

57

Word He is revealed, or do we not? If we do not—if we deny the existence of a just and merciful, though in many instances inscrutable, God, then indeed we may deny our immortality; but if we acknowledge there is a God, aye, and one whose justice and whose love are infinite and perfect as Himself, we must not only believe in our own immortality, but trace its doctrine running through the Holy Scriptures, alike from the death of Abel to the last verses of Malachi,66 pervading, vivifying, spiritualizing its every portion, even as our mortal frame is pervaded, vivified, and spiritualized, by the invisible, yet ever breathing SOUL. We do not doubt and question that we have a soul, because we have nothing palpable and evident

tance and amendment” constitutes a totally brilliant fusing of a summary of KJV with the Rabbinic eisegesis. 66 The last book of the Old Testament in KJV. In Jewish editions of Hebrew Scripture both in Hebrew and in translation the last book is generally Chronicles, occasionally Ezra-Nehemiah. When Aguilar penned Women of Israel¸ there was, as yet, no Jewish translation of the Jewish Bible into English. Responding to the urging of Aguilar, Isaac Leeser (1806– 1868) would complete his translation of Hebrew Scripture only in 1853 six years after Aguilar’s untimely death. See Isaac Leeser, translator, The Twenty-Four Books of the Holy Scriptures Carefully Translated According to the Massoretic Text on the Basis of the English Version, after the best Jewish Authorities, and Supplied with Short Explanatory Notes by Isaac Leeser (Philadelphia: L. Johnson, 5614 [A.M. = 1853 C.E.]). Concerning Aguilar’s having influenced Leeser to produce his Jewish version of the Bible in English see Galchinsky, Origin of the Modern Jewish Woman Writer, 73, 186. By the time Leeser’s complete translation of the Jewish Bible was published in 1853 in the United States of America, Abraham Benisch (1811–1878) had begun but not yet completed A Translation of the Old Testament, Published with the Hebrew Text, which was also issued as The Jewish School and Family Bible. Volume 1 containing only the Pentateuch was published in London by J. Darling in 1851; vol. 2 called The Historical Books, which means “The Former Prophets,” i.e., Joshua-Judges-Samuel and Kings was published in 1852 while volume 3—Isaiah-Jeremiah-Ezekiel, and the Twelve Prophets appeared only in 1856 and volume 4—The Hagiography—only appeared in 1861. Concerning Aguilar’s influence on Benisch see Galchinsky, Origin of the Modern Jewish Woman Writer, 73, 130, 186.

58

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

by which to prove it; and even as the soul is the essence, the spirit of our being so is immortality the essence and the spirit of the Bible.67 Where was the mercy, nay, the justice of the Eternal, had he punished with eternal death the only righteous of His creatures? We can scarcely even dwell upon the idea for a moment without impiety. Abel was taken, that while death in his most fearful form was revealed to manifest all the terrible evil and anguish Eve’s sin had brought, the hope and promise of immortality might be given, and the agonized parents comforted. He was removed “from the evil to come,”68 to that world, where “light had been sown for the righteous”69 from the beginning, and would be for ever.

References to immortality in the Bible are discussed also on p. 47, n. 48. It should be mentioned that both Jesus and the Rabbinic sages sought to ground the belief in immortality in the Pentateuch in order to counter people then as now and as in Aguilar’s time who sought to deny the immortality of the soul because they did not find it in the Bible. Jesus in Mk. 12 counters the “Sadducees, which say there is no resurrection” (Mk. 12:18) as follows: “Have ye not read in the book of Moses [i.e., the Pentateuch] how in the bush God spoke unto him saying, I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? He is not the God of the dead, but the God of the living: ye [Sadducees, who deny the dogma of resurrection] do greatly err.” Similarly, the rabbis prove that resurrection is “from the Torah” by referring to Deut. 11:21, “That your days may be multiplied and the days of your children, in the land which the LORD sware unto your fathers to give them, as the days of heaven upon the earth.” Rashi comments on this verse as follows: “TO GIVE TO THEM. It is not written “to give to you” [the people of Israel collectively, who are about to enter the Promised Land] but TO GIVE TO THEM [i.e.., your fathers: Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob] who are presumed to have died several generations before the entry into the Promised Land. On the basis of this [giving of the land to the patriarchs forever as the days of the heaven upon earth] resurrection is [seen to be a doctrine] from the Torah.” 68 The expression is taken from Isa. 57:1. 69 Ps. 97:11. Rashi (following Babylonian Talmud, Hagigah 12a) points out that the light that was called into being on the first day of Creation (Gen. 1:2) could not be the light of the sun, which was created only on the fourth day of Creation (Gen. 1:14–19). Consequently, the light called 67

FIRST PERIOD. I. EVE

59

But though this revelation must have brought with it comfort unspeakable, yet the heavy trial of Eve might not even, through this beneficent assurance, be entirely assuaged. She could not now, as she had done in Eden, realize so blessedly the pre-eminence of the spirit over the feelings of the clay. Though comforted, the weakness of humanity must still have been too often in the ascendant, and taught her all the bitterness of grief. Even though the thought of Abel might, through the unselfishness of woman’s love, be tranquillized by the idea, that however she might suffer, he was happy, as she had been in Eden, no such comfort could attend the thought of Cain. It was vain to measure maternal love by the worth or unworthiness of its objects. It was not only that he was exiled for ever from her sight, that her yearning heart might never seek to soothe him more; but she knew that he was, he must be a wretched wanderer, and the mother felt his wretchedness, though she saw it not, in addition to her own. Mercy, indeed, had tempered his chastisement, for he had not been cut off in his sin—he had been doomed to length of days on earth, that he might repent and atone; but this, to a weak and suffering parent, though she might struggle to lift up her heart in gratitude, could not afford consolation. There is little more to narrate in the life of Eve; but that little, as every other incident in her life, proves forcibly the Eternal’s still compassionating love. To remove all of utter bereavement from His first created, first beloved, when the first agony of Eve’s heavy trial was over, God gave her another son. “And she called his name ‫ ֵשת‬Seth, because she said, God has appointed me another seed instead of Abel, whom Cain slew.”70 And as from Seth descended a line of venerable patriarchs, one of whom was taken up to heaven, without dying, for his righteousness;71 and from them came Noah, who alone was saved from universal destruction;72 then through

into being on the first day of Creation is the light that is set aside for the righteous in the time to come 70 Gen. 4:25; the quotation is not verbatim, and the opening quotation mark is supplied by the editor. 71 I.e., Enoch; see Gen. 5:21–24. 72 See Gen. 6:5–9:29.

60

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

him Abraham,73 the favored servant and friend of the Eternal74— Abraham, for whose sake Israel was the chosen, and is still the beloved of the Lord, we may quite believe that Eve was not only comforted by the gift of a son, but that even as Abel he was righteous, and that he was the comforter of his parents—that in beholding his opening manhood, the dawning virtue and graces of his spirit, the fiery trial of their early life was soothed, and they could trace the hand of the Lord bringing forth good out of the very midst of evil, and rest satisfied, that however the strong and the guilty might seem to prosper, He would never leave Himself without witnesses upon earth. Although there is no mention of the death of Eve, the words of Holy Writ, informing us that “Adam lived eight hundred years after he had begotten Seth, and had sons and daughters,”75 would prove that she, too, lived that period, there being no mention whatever, as is often the case with the other patriarchs, of Adam taking another wife. The former temptations, trials, and sorrows of our first parents, must have then been looked back upon by them in their old age, as we should look on the events which may have befallen us before the age of twenty, when we have reached the venerable years of fourscore. That long life was evidently granted in mercy. Had they been cut off on the instant of their transgression, it must have been for eternity, or death would have been no punishment. Had they been taken sooner, we will suppose before the death of Abel, though they might have been spared that bitter sorrow, still darkness, and fear for themselves, and doubt as to the ways and attributes of the Eternal, must have crowded round them, and filled them with despair as to the probable effects of their sin on their offspring, and their offspring’s seed, Long life, through the infinite mercy of the Eternal, removed these evils. While they felt, See Gen. 11:26–25:10. Cf. Isa. 41:8: “But thou, Israel, art my servant, Jacob whom I have chosen, the seed of Abraham my friend.” Also in the Quran, in Sura IV, 125 Ibrahim (i.e., Abraham) is called Al-Khalil “the friend,” and the name of the city of Hebron is understood to be related to Heb. haber ‘friend’ and is called in Arabic Al-Halil “the friend.” 75 Gen. 5:4. 73 74

FIRST PERIOD. I. EVE

61

in all the bitterness of remorse, all the evil they had wrought, they were yet comforted by the revelation of immortality, and the consequent incentive for the struggling after righteousness, which, without such blessed incentive, man could never have achieved. They beheld, that though the likeness of God within them had been dulled in all, and in some would be almost entirely effaced, it might in heaven be regained, if while on earth it was sought with faith and works. They learned, that though discord, strife, and oppression, and labor, and care, would reign tumultuously on earth, to the extinction, in appearance, of all that was spiritual and good, there was yet in heaven an omnipresent and ever-acting love, which would so over-rule the world, that even from “transitory evil” would spring forth “universal good,” and every seemingly dark and contradictory event below, tend to the glory, the extension, and the perfection of the divine economy above. To obtain this knowledge our first parents were spared, and not cut off in their sin; and can we, their offspring, even at this length of time, peruse their eventful history, without feeling our hearts glow with grateful adoration of the love which guided and hallowed them throughout? The stream of time which divides us is indeed so wide, that we are apt to feel that events so far distant can concern us little. Yet while we trace in our mortal frame, and painful infirmities, the effects of their disobedience,—shall we not acknowledge, with grateful and adoring faith, that the same love which guided, blessed, and pardoned them, is still extended unto us? To dwell in paradise, to be blessed with direct communings with the Eternal and His heavenly messengers, are indeed not ours; but many a home—aye, many a lot is a sinless paradise to a young and gentle girl; and loving parents will so throng her path with care and blessings, that of evil she knows little, and temptation is afar off. And often, too often, like Eve, these blessings are undervalued and sacrificed, not through her sin and disobedience, but from woman’s unfortunate desire to grasp something more than is her allotted portion;—her discontent with the lowlier station which her weaker frame and less powerful mind76 mark imperatively as her own—her Aguilar has accepted the notion fostered by generations of male chauvinists in the West that females are inferior to males both in physical 76

62

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

mistaken notion, that humility is degradation; and unless she compels man to accede to her her rights, they will be trampled on, and never acknowledged77—her curiosity leading her too often to covet strength and mental capacity. Indeed, Mary Wollstonecraft, Vindication of the Rights of Women, 189 took it for granted that women are physically weaker than men but regarded males and females as equally intelligent and fought against the failure to develop the mental capacity of girls and women. 77 One might imagine that Aguilar was advocating passive resistance rather than an open struggle on behalf of women’s rights. Galchinsky, Origin of the Modern Jewish Woman Writer, 136 argues, “Aguilar produced a trade-off: if Jewish men would provide women with education, women would in turn restrict their sphere of activity to the home. Because she balanced demands with concessions, both in relation to men and the dominant [Christian] culture, she became the most lauded woman writing in Victorian England.” However, as we shall see below, especially in her treatment of Hannah, the Shunammite, and Huldah, the idea that Aguilar thought or even wrote that woman’s place is in the home is a less than accurate picture of what she writes in Women of Israel. The eulogy, which Leeser published upon learning of Aguilar’s untimely death certainly does not suggest that she came across as totally humble and passive in the face of the Jewish establishment’s attempt to deprive Jewish women of access to the literary sources of Judaism. Leeser. in his extensive eulogy published in The Occident 5 (November 1847) 419– 420, writes as follows: “... perhaps her genius was too ardent and too independent to subdue or control. But even so was she enabled to accomplish so much more than one could have expected from her youth and bodily infirmity.” Galchinksy, Grace Aguilar: Selected Writings, 357 supplies only a small portion of Leeser’s eulogy, omitting Leeser’s critique of his inability to subdue or control Miss Aguilar. Nor do her arguments against Christological interpretations (see, e.g., her extensive discussion with respect to the angel who visits the future parents of Samson in Period III, Chapter IV) suggest that she was passive in the face of the attempt of Christian missionaries to convert the Jews starting with the Jewish women, who knew so little of their heritage. The call for women to exercise humility suggests that Aguilar stands at a crossroads between a long tradition of educating middle class women to humility and elegance (against which Wollstonecraft fought vehemently; see Wollstonecraft,

FIRST PERIOD. I. EVE

63

knowledge which she needs not for the continuance of her happiness. Oh! let not woman deny that such too often are her characteristics, and exclaim with scorn of Eve’s weakness, that had she been in Eve’s place, surrounded with felicity as she was, the forbidden tree might have remained for ever ere she would have touched it. She who thus thinks, commits unconsciously Eve’s first sin, trusting too much in her own strength; and, in consequence, is just as likely to fall beneath the very first temptation which assails her. Let her not quiet such fears by the thought that Eve’s particular temptation cannot be hers. No; but snares innumerable, and equally fearful, surround us. Each day brings its own temptations, each day calls upon us to pray against them; for we know not how or in what shape they may arise, and how soon, if we trust in our own strength, they may triumph and lead us to perdition. Had Eve been truly humble she had not sinned. And if in Eden HUMILITY was needed, if even there, without such panoply of proof, woman fell, how much more should we encourage it now! Humility is to woman her truest safeguard, her loveliest ornament, her noblest Vindication of the Rights of Women, 330–331) and a new era in which women begin to regain the intellectual and economic freedom which were systematically taken from women in Renaissance Europe (see Merry E. Wiesner, Working Women in Renaissance Germany [New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers University Press, 1986], 187–198). Perhaps, indeed, Aguilar’s call for woman not to desire more than her allotted portion and, furthermore, her assertion (below) that women need not compel (emphasis hers) men to accede to her her rights” may be a ploy to win the trust of readers, who will not dismiss her as some wide-eyed champion of a feminist utopia, when, having established her credibility through volume 1, which ends with the narrative of Hannah in 1 Sam. 1–2, as an authority on both Hebrew Scripture and Judaism, she will inform us in volume 2 in her discussion of the unnamed wise woman at Abel of Beth-maacah (2 Sam. 20) that indeed in the time of the Israelite monarchy, “The women of Israel must have had a voice even in the senate of their several cities.” On this, see below, Period IV, Chapter III. And further on, she will even assert that the Shunammite woman led the Jewish worship services in her home during her seven year sojourn in Philistia (2 Kgs. 8:2); see below, Period IV, Chapter IV.

64

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

influence, her greatest strength. Teaching her her true station in regard to man, it leads her ever to the footstool of her God, thence to derive firmness, devotedness, fortitude, consolation, hope, all that she needs. While such privilege is hers, let her not repine that God lowered Eve and made her less than man; let her not look back with anger that the sin of one woman should thus punish her descendants. From the very first she was endowed differently to man; had she not been the weaker, the serpent had not marked her as his easier prey. And, as our own nature is even now as Eve’s, let us rather thank God that his love has granted us that lowly station where our natural qualities may best be proved, and our weaknesses and failings have less power to work us harm. Let us cultivate, with all our heart and soul and might, the lovely flower of humility, which, by teaching us to think lowlily of ourselves, will render us contented and thankful for the blessings around us, the gifts bestowed on us, instead of urging us to covet more;—the sweet flower on whose breath our souls are enabled more continually to ascend to God, and whose petals, seemingly so frail and tender, have yet more power to guard us from temptation and presumption than an unsheathed sword. Let us not pause till it is found and worn; and if it make us invisible as itself, save to those who seek and value us, it will shed around us an atmosphere of love and peace and joy, with which no other flower can vie; and in death, as in life, we shall bless God for its possession, as for the dearest gift He has vouchsafed. Would I then, some may exclaim, deny all privileges to women—refuse to acknowledge their equality with man—degrade them as the Jewish religion is falsely accused of doing?78 No! for in the sight of God, in their spiritual privileges, in their peculiar gifts and endowments, the power of performing their duties in their own sphere, in their responsibility, they are on a perfect equality with man. But I would conjure them to seek humility, simply from its She will frequently return to address this accusation; see pp. 262, 274, 275, 294, 300, 307, 334, 342, 344, 346, 370, 380, 407, 427, 461, 469, 472, 521, 522, 525, 543, 581, 584, 703, 726, 767, 814, 840, 866, 871, 876, 881, 883, 887. 78

FIRST PERIOD. I. EVE

65

magic power of keeping woman in her own beautiful sphere, without one wish, one ambitious whisper, to exchange it for another. While there, while satisfied and rejoicing in the infinite love and wisdom which placed us there, we are not only in the privileges enumerated above, man’s equal,—but however in strength of frame, immense capability of physical and mental exertion, in might and grasp of intellect, his inferior; yet in the depth and faithfulness of love, in the capability of feeling and enduring, in devotedness and fortitude—alike in bodily and mental trial—we are unanswerably his superior. Then has not woman enough to call for gratitude? Endowed with influence over the heart of man,—oh! let her remember for what fearful end Eve used that influence, and keep a constant guard of watchfulness and prayer over her heart to preserve her from its similar abuse. Let her remember the employments of Eve in Eden, and so cultivate her intellectual faculties in the study of God and nature, both animate and inanimate, that her mind may be strengthened, and in the contemplation of the beauties of creation, she may learn the true value of the beauty which may be hers. How small is its relative proportion, and yet how blessedly it may be used, even as the beauty of creation, for the glory of God, in its mild, soothing, and benignant influence upon His creatures! Above all, let the history of Eve impress this truth upon the hearts of her young descendants—that however weak and faulty and abased, however sorrowing and bereaved, however reaping in tears the effects of indiscretion or graver error,—yet still the compassion, the long suffering, the exhaustless love of their Father in Heaven is theirs; that no circumstance in life can deprive them of that love, can throw a barrier between woman’s yearning heart and the healing compassion of her God. No; not even departure from Him, neglect, forgetfulness, will make Him forget or cease to compassionate, if she will but return in true repentance, and clinging faithfulness to his deep love once more. We cannot measure that exhaustless fount—for as high as the heaven from the earth,79 so great is its extent. We cannot weary that never-ceasing mercy—for as far as the East is from the West,80 so far, when we return to Him, 79 80

This phrase is taken from Ps. 103:11. This phrase is taken from Ps. 103:12

66

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

doth He remove our transgressions from us.81 And will woman— whose whole existence still is love—neglect or despise these thriceblessed privileges; will the exile, the despised, the persecuted—for such has been, and is, the woman of Israel—will she not receive with grateful adoration the love vouchsafed, and come and make manifest the Sustainer, the Comforter, the Mainspring of her being? To woman of every creed, of every race, of every rank—life, though it may seem blessed, is a fearful desert without God. What then, without Him, is it to the woman of Israel, the exile and the mourner, who hath no land, no hope, no comforter but Him?

Cf. Ezek. 33:11: “I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked; but that the wicked turn from his way and live”; see also Deuteronomy Rabbah 2:12: “the gates of repentance are never closed.” 81

CHAPTER II. SARAH So varied and so important are the incidents comprised m the life of Eve, that, on a mere superficial view, Sarah’s biography appears somewhat deficient in interest. Yet, as the beloved partner of Abraham, she ought to be a subject of reverence and love to her female descendants; and we will endeavor to bring her history forward, that such she may become. Much of the Eternal’s love and pity towards His female children is manifested in her simple life, and also in the life of her bondwoman, Hagar, which is too closely interwoven with hers to be omitted. The real relationship between Abraham and Sarah, before marriage, has never yet been clearly or satisfactorily solved; some commentators asserting she was his niece, the daughter of Haran his elder brother;1 and others, that she was, as Abraham himself declares, his half-sister—“She is the daughter of my father, but not the daughter of my mother and she became my wife.”2 We believe This view is found in Rashi’s commentary at Gen. 11:29. The latter verse states that Haran was the father of Milcah and the father of Iscah. On the basis of a midrash found in Babylonian Talmud, Megillah 14a, Iscah is equated with Sarai. This equation reflects a tendency in Rabbinic literature to equate relatively obscure named persons with famous named persons thought to be living at the same time. Thus Malachi is equated with Ezra. Likewise, the two midwives Shiphrah and Puah in Ex. 1:15 are identified respectively with Moses’s mother Jochebed and his sister Miriam. 2 Gen. 20:12; cf. Rashi there: “Haran (Abraham’s brother) was from a different mother.” Cf. Moses Maimonides, Mishneh Torah, Laws of Kings, 9:5 where it is explained that the children of Noah were commanded not to marry a sister who is the daughter of one’s mother while 1

67

68

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

the latter assertion much more likely to be the correct one, because, in the first place, there is no foundation whatever for the idea that she was Haran’s daughter, except the supposition that Iscah means Sarah (Gen. xi. 29); and, in the second, it is not probable that when questioned by Abimelech, Abraham would have condescended to utter a falsehood. The Bible mentions Lot only as the child of Haran; and Abraham himself says, Sarah was his half-sister. The latter relationship, as preventing marriage, is no proof in favor of her being his niece, as no laws of marriage had yet been issued; and in the early stages of the world, such connexions were not considered sin.3 Leaving this difficult decision to more curious speculators, we will proceed to subjects of greater interest. The first notice we have of Sarai is her accompanying her husband and Lot from the home of her kindred to a strange country, among all strange people, in simple obedience to the word of God. Holy writ is silent on the youth of Abram; but it is the opinion of our ancient fathers, that his earnest desire after divine knowledge—his pure and holy life— his affectionate and virtuous conduct, attracted towards him the blessing of the Lord, and caused him to be selected as the promulgator of the Divine Revelation.4 That Abram was exposed to many dangers on account of his loving obedience to the one sole invisible God, instead of acknowledging the idols of his race, is indeed very possible, and probably originated the first removal of his family to Charran,5 where also his father accompanied him.6 At Charthe prohibition against marrying a sister who is the daughter of one’s father (Lev. 18:9) was added only when the Torah was given to Israel and is not incumbent upon non-Israelites or proto-Israelites (such as the patriarchs and matriarchs). 3 See the previous note. 4 This idea is reflected in the series of midrashim found in Genesis Rabbah 39:1–6; cf. also Ginzberg, Legends of the Jews, 1:186–203. 5 As the Hebrew is spelled with initial het, KJV writes Haran. KJV also writes the name of Abram’s brother, which is spelled with initial heh Haran. Consequently, KJV does not distinguish between the two proper names. Here, however, Aguilar, follows De Sola, Sacred Scriptures in Hebrew and English, 48 at Gen. 11:31, in distinguishing between the two proper

FIRST PERIOD. II. SARAH

69

ran they seem to have dwelt in peace and prosperity, secured from former persecutors, so that it must have been no little trial to go forth again, more particularly without any definite cause for the removal.7 To Sarai the trial must have been more severe than to her husband. She was to go forth with him indeed; but it is woman’s peculiar nature to cling to home, home ties, and home affections— to shrink from encountering a strange world, teeming with unknown trials and dangers. Rather than the parting from a husband, indeed, all other partings may seem light; but yet they are trials to a gentle woman: and the heart that can leave the home and friends of a happy youth—the associations of years—without regret, proves not that its affections are so centred on one object as to eschew all others; but that it is too often wrapped in a chilling indifference, which prevents strong emotions on any subject whatever. We have enough of Sarai in the Bible to satisfy us that such is not her character. One cause for the love of home ties and associations, in the heart of a right-feeling woman, originates in the belief that there she can do so much more good than elsewhere—that, unfitted by the weakness and infirmities of her frame from active toil, and the pursuit of goodly service, as falls to the lot of man, she can yet benefit her friends, children, and domestics, in the hallowed circle of home; and better manifest the blessings of the Lord and the love she bears Him, there than amongst strangers. And this was especially the case with Sarai. By one of our ancient fathers it is said, that as Abram and Lot were permitted to turn many of their own names, designating the place name beginning with het as Charran and the personal name beginning with heh as Haran. 6 See Gen. 11:32: “... and Terah died in Haran”; cf. Genesis Rabbah 39:7. 7 According to Gen. 11:31 it was at Terah’s initiative that the family that included Abram and Sarai left Ur of the Chaldees on their way to Canaan and stopped for a time in Haran. However, ancient Jewish exegesis reflected in Genesis Rabbah 39 suggests that it was God who called Abram first to leave Ur for Haran and then to depart from Haran for Canaan; cf. Ginzberg, Legends, 1:217–218.

70

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

sex from idolatry to the knowledge of the one true God, so also was Sarai granted the hallowed privilege of leading many of her female friends and domestics to the same blessed Fount.8 It was therefore, no doubt, a source of questioning and wonder in her mind, why the Eternal’s mandate to go forth should be given. She had not even experience in the Eternal’s glorious attributes, as displayed in His dealings with His creatures, and through His word, to comfort and be her guide. All was mental darkness in the world around her, except her husband and those few whom he had been enabled to teach a partial knowledge of his God. They stood alone in their peculiar faith; and how often, in such a case, do doubts and fears enter the breast of woman! Yet it was enough that her husband prepared without question or hesitation to obey his God—to leave his aged father, his kindred, and his friends; and, with simple and loving faith, she went with him where the Lord should lead. Well is it for us when we can do so likewise; when, in some of those bitterest trials that woman’s heart can know, the change of home or land, be it with our parents, or, husband, or more fearful still, alone, we can yet so stay upon our God that we can realize His presence, His loving mercy directing our weary way, and resting with us still. His direct communing by voice or sign, or through angelic messengers, is indeed no longer ours; but those that seek to love and serve Him may yet hear His still small voice breathing in the solemn whisper of their own hearts, and through the individual promises of His word.

This idea, which is expressed telegraphically in Genesis Rabbah 39:14 and in Rashi’s Commentary at Gen. 12:5 is inspired by the idiomatic expression nephesh ’asher ‘asu, which really means ‘the persons (i.e., slaves) whom they [Abram and Sarai] acquired. The midrash, responding to a hyper-literal rendering ‘souls whom they made’ suggests that ‘making souls’ means winning proselytes for the faith in the One God, who created heaven and earth. Since Aguilar attributes this midrash to “one of our ancient fathers,” it is reasonable to assume that she is aware of the Rabbinic source in Genesis Rabbah. Note that she includes Lot with Abram in converting the males to Judaism. 8

FIRST PERIOD. II. SARAH

71

Accompanied by Lot and their household—expressed in the term, “the souls they had gotten in Charran”9 who were probably those whom they had instructed in the true faith10—and carrying with them the substance they possessed, Abram and Sarai “went forth into the land of Canaan,”11 which was inhabited by a fierce people, and gave little hope of ever being possessed by the patriarch and his family, for by their constant journeyings it would seem as if they could not even obtain sufficient land to- fix their home. Yet, there again the Lord appeared to the patriarch and renewed His promise’12—thus proving His tender compassion for the human weakness of His creatures, and encouraging their faith, when, without such encouragement, He knew it must have failed. To add to their numerous human discomforts and trials, a famine broke out in the land, so severe and grievous that Abram sought the land of Egypt; and there, rendered fearful by the exceeding beauty of his wife, and the supposed barbarity of the land, he bade Sarai call herself his sister, not his wife.13 In this first deception, however, Abram was much more to be excused than in the second. He had not yet had all the convincing proofs of the Eternal’s tender watchfulness and care, as he had afterwards. He had gone to Egypt without the express command of the Lord, and this very fact, to one accustomed to divine guidance, and not yet perhaps feeling himself sufficiently strong spiritually to go alone, rendered him more fearful than he otherwise would have been. He might also have thought, that as he was destined for a great end, it was his duty to use any means to preserve the life so Gen. 12:5. The primary contextual meaning is “the [slave] persons they acquired in Haran.” For the verb ‘asah, normally ‘make’ in the unusual meaning ‘acquire’ see with Rashi also Gen. 31:1: “he acquired all this wealth”; and, with Rashi, see also Num. 24:18: “Israel acquired wealth.” Unquestionably, the hyper-literal meaning ‘make soul(s)’ inspired, at least in part, the midrash quoted above. 10 Referring again to the midrash cited above, p. 70, n. 8. 11 Gen. 12:5. 12 Gen. 12:7: “And the LORD appeared unto Abram and said, Unto thy seed will I give this land ... .” 13 Gen. 12:10–13. 9

72

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

appointed, without sufficiently considering that life and death were equally in the hands of the Eternal, and that He would preserve His servant alive, without the intervention of human means. Spiritual advancement requires effort, perseverance, and experience, as well as every other; and Abram himself, though the elect of the Eternal, could not obtain perfection and firmness in faith without some human tremblings, which it is enough for us to know, were overruled, compassionated, and forgiven. We perceive by the sacred narrative, that his intention was frustrated, and his words caused the very evil he dreaded;—which is sufficient warning for us to avoid all departure from the straight line of truth—while the continued care and favor of the Lord should check our presumptuous condemnation, and remind us, that if His justice and mercy thought proper to overrule and forgive, and continue, nay increase, His long tenderness towards Abram and his family, it is our part, instead of marvelling, to thank God that such weakness is recorded, that we may not feel it is human perfection alone which calls down His blessing, and so shrink back in terror and despair.14 This part of Sarai’s history gives us information generally very interesting to young female readers—that she was very beautiful. We are wont to imagine that the charms of sixty-five could not be very remarkable; but reckoning according to the age to which mortals then lived, she was not older than a woman of thirty or fiveand-thirty would be now, consequently in her prime; endowed, as her history gives us authority to suppose, with a quiet, retiring dignity, which greatly enhanced her beauty, and rendered it yet more interesting than that of girlhood. Aguilar condemns Abram both for leaving the Promised Land and for attempting to deceive Pharaoh in order to save his own life. A midrash in Genesis Rabbah 40:5 summarized in Rashi’s Commentary at Gen. 12:10 and elaborated upon in Midrash Tanhuma there mitigates Abram’s guilt by suggesting that Abram tried to protect Sarai from the Egyptians by hiding her in a container, which he claimed contained agricultural produce. It was only when the customs officials insisted on opening the container that Abram’s very beautiful wife Sarai was revealed to be hiding therein. And it was in this manner that the customs officials took her immediately to Pharaoh. 14

FIRST PERIOD. II. SARAH

73

Protected from this danger, his substance greatly increased by Pharaoh’s gifts, Abram, his wife, and household, retraced their steps to where “his tent had been at first, between Bethel and Hai.”15 The altar which he had originally erected was still there, and again he and his family “called on the name of the Lord.”16 The command of Pharaoh—“Go thy way,”17 was most probably regarded and acted on by the patriarch as a warning, that his safest and most hallowed home was in the land to which the Lord had originally guided him. In the events which follow—the separation of Abram and Lot18—the battle of the kings19—the imprisonment and rescue of Lot20—the blessing of Melchisedek21—Holy Writ makes no menlion of Sarai. She was performing those duties of an affectionate wife and gentle mistress of her husband’s immense establishment, which are nothing to write about, but which make up the sum of woman’s life, create her dearest and purest sources of happiness, and bring her acceptably before God. Her home was still an unsettled one. The Lord had again appeared to renew His promises to Abram—comforting him in the sorrow which Lot’s choice of a dwelling in the sinful Sodom had occasioned him, by the assurance that all the land which he saw, northward and southward, eastward and westward, would He give unto him and to his seed, and his seed’s seed for ever. That he was to “Arise, and walk through the land, in the breadth of it and in the length of it. for I will give it This is the place commonly called Ai, and she refers to Gen. 13:3. The unusual spelling Hai reflects Aguilar’s making use of David De Sola’s Genesis, which transliterates biblical place names and personal names more or less in approximation to the way they are pronounced in the synagogue lection according to the custom of the Spanish and Portuguese congregations in Amsterdam, London, New York, and elsewhere where the custom still survives. Nevertheless, De Sola et al., 62 use the spelling Ai! 16 Gen. 13:4. 17 Gen. 12:19. 18 Gen. 13:5–12. 19 Gen. 14:1–3. 20 Gen. 14: 12–16. 21 Gen. 14:18–20. 15

74

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

unto thee.”22 In consequence of which, the tent of the patriarch was removed southward, to Mamre in Hebron, and an altar built, at once to claim the land in the name of the Lord, and give to Abram and his household a place where to worship.23 The extent of the patriarch’s household may be imagined by the fact, that at his word, no less than three hundred and eighteen servants, born in his house and trained to arms, accompanied him to the rescue of his nephew.24 Those who were left to attend to his flocks and herds, which he possessed in great numbers, must have been in equal proportion; and over these, during his absence, Sarai, assisted by the steward, had unlimited dominion.25 Gen. 13:14–17. Gen. 13:18. 24 Gen. 14:14. 25 Aguilar was familiar with rural life in early 19th century England where women and men, boys and girls worked together on family farms and women were deemed fully capable of managing farms by themselves. Indeed, Prov. 31:16 praises the woman who acquires a field (apparently with her own resources of which she could legally dispose) and plants a vineyard in addition to numerous other productive and commercial activities (vv. 13–22) while “Her husband is known in the gates, when he sitteth among the elders of the land.” The author of Prov. 31 leaves it to our imagination to decide whether that husband and those elders actually do anything useful in a world that seems to remind one of the feminist utopia described in Charlotte Perkins Gilman’s Herland (1915) or Rokheya Hossein’s “Ladyland” described in her short story, “Sultana’s Dream” (1905). In the former utopian fantasy women reproduced by parthenogenesis for a period of two millennia since the last males were annihilated in a war while in the latter feminist paradise men have been relegated to taking care of babies and cooking while women educated at women’s colleges engage in scientific research, its practical application, and the management of the society. The division between home as the domain of woman and factory/office as the domain of man developed in the course of increasing industrialization in Europe and the United States of America in the Victorian Era. Unfortunately, all too many modern handbooks about women in Hebrew Scripture have read the latter development back into Hebrew Scripture and blamed the Israelites and their God for keeping women in the kitchen and the nursery and out of the university. 22 23

FIRST PERIOD. II. SARAH

75

The beautiful confidence and true affection subsisting between Abram and Sarai, marks unanswerably their equality;26 that his wife was to Abram friend as well as partner; and yet, that Sarai knew perfectly her own station, and never attempted to push herself forward in unseemly counsel, or use the influence which she so largely possessed for any weak or sinful purpose. Some, however, would have found it difficult to preserve their humility and meekness, situated as was Sarai. A coarser and narrower mind would have prided herself on the promises made her husband, imagining there must be some superlative merit, either in herself or Abram, to be so singled out by the Eternal. There is no pride so dangerous and subtle as spiritual pride, no sin more likely to gain dominion in the early stages of religion—none so disguised, and so difficult to be discovered and rooted out. But in Sarai there was none of this; not a particle of pride, even at a time when, of all others, she might have been almost justified in feeling it. She was, indeed, blessed in a husband whose exalted, yet domestic and affectionate character must ever have strengthened, guided, and cherished hers; but it is not always the most blessed and distinguished woman who attends the most faithfully to her domestic duties, and preserves unharmed and untainted that meekness and integrity which is her greatest charm. Abram’s warlike expedition was the only one in which his wife did not accompany him.27 With what joy she must have welcomed Here is Aguilar’s subtle message that it should follow naturally that any aspiring Abraham—i.e., every Jewish man and every Christian man and every male human, should treat his wife as an equal, and she should not have to debase herself to fight for equality. Unfortunately, developments since the publication of Aguilar’s Women of Israel have taught us that women still have to fight for their inalienable rights as equals in a world still managed by men. 27 Here again Aguilar makes the case for equality by citing a wellknown ancient Hebrew narrative, which she regards as an historical source. By-and-large, Elizabeth Cady Stanton in The Woman’s Bible sought to undermine the authority of both the Old Testament and the New Testament in order to undermine the authority of male chauvinist elites in the late nineteenth century United States of America, who claimed to derive 26

76

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

her warrior lord!28 How gratefully must her loving heart have delighted to ponder on his magnanimity, in going instantly to the rescue of his weak and little grateful nephew;—on his courage—his success; and yet more on his noble refusal of all gifts from the king of Sodom, lest the glory should be taken from the Lord, and any mortal should say, “I have made Abram rich.”29 We dwell with delight on the stirring records of chivalry; and it is right we should do so, for the study of all honorable, unselfish, and unworldly deeds must do us good; but where shall we find, in the whole history of chivalry, an instance of such perfect nobility and magnanimity, unstained by one action from which mind or heart could revolt, as in the only warlike expedition of Abram? It was indeed enough for a woman to glory in: and, though nothing is said, for the record of Moses is too important to descend to the thoughts and feelings of woman, we may well imagine the grateful and rejoicing feelings of Sarai, as she welcomed her husband home—forgetting all the pangs of parting and loneliness of separation, in the triumph and delight of such a meeting.30 It was after these things, that we have the first allusion to the patriarch’s being childless. And by the words in which the Lord addressed him—“Fear not, Abram, I am thy shield, and exceeding their power from the Holy Bible. Aguilar, much more like Phyllis Trible in “Depatriarchalizing in Biblical Interpretation,” Journal of the American Academy of Religion 41 (1973), 30–48 shows that Scripture itself points to a greater equality of the sexes than obtained in the second half of the twentieth century C.E. and that Scripture supports rather than stands in the way of the liberation of women. 28 This is totally reasonable as greeting men who have returned victoriously from battle with singing, instrumental music and dancing is one of the characteristic activities of women in public life as described in Hebrew Scripture in Ex. 15:20; Judg. 11:34; 1 Sam. 18:6–7. 29 Gen. 14: 23. 30 Here again Aguilar anticipates Neusner’s Androgynous Judaism and Boyarin’s Unheroic Conduct in suggesting that largesse is both a feminine virtue, which Sarai would especially have admired, and a virtue which if adopted by men, especially those who are forced to be warriors, would make better men of them.

FIRST PERIOD. II. SARAH

77

great reward,”31 we are led to suppose that some anxious thoughts, and perhaps doubts, natural to humanity, were occupying his mind. We, weak and frail as himself, might exclaim, What, still doubting, still fearing, when he has had so many proofs of the Eternal’s providence and care! But God, whose “thoughts are not as our thoughts,”32 instead of reproving, addresses him in terms of the tenderest love and encouragement, for He knew the nature of His creatures, and that faith could not be perfectly attained without years of watchfulness and prayer; that if it were, man would cease to be man, and this life be no longer what it was intended—a life of trial. Abram’s instant reply reveals the painful thoughts which had engrossed him:—“Lord God, what wilt thou give me? seeing I go childless, and the steward of my house is this Eliezer of Damascus. Behold, to me thou hast given no seed, and lo, one born in my house is mine heir.”33 God had promised that the land should be his and his seed’s, but Abram in sorrow beheld years pass, and still he bad no child. Sarai had long passed the age when, humanly speaking, she could be a mother.34 It was much more natural— truly pious and faithful as he was—that Abram should be harassed with contradictory fears and doubts, than that he should have had none. God had promised, but how was that promise to be fulfilled?—unless, indeed, not his own child, but “one born in his house”35 was to be his destined heir. This appeared perhaps the Gen. 15:1. Isa. 55:8. 33 Gen. 15:2–3. 34 Here our author is anticipating Gen. 17:17 where Abraham asks, “Shall Sarah that is ninety years old, bear?” and Gen. 18:11 where the narrator notes, “and it ceased to be with Sarah after the manner of women,” meaning that she had ceased experiencing her monthly cycle. However, these considerations are not mentioned at all in Gen. 16; q.v., which follows immediately upon the account discussed here. 35 Gen. 15: 3. The Hebrew term is yelid bayit, which we now know to be the lexical and etymological equivalent of Akkadian wilid biti, the technical term in the ancient Near East for a person who was born into slavery by virtue of his/her mother being a chattel. In Gen. 15: the biblical narrator takes it for granted that the reader knows that this is the meaning 31 32

78

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

most probable, though it was painfully disappointing; and to soothe this fear and remove it, the Lord addressed him as we have said. The gracious and most blessed promise directly followed— that not one born in his house, but his own son should be his heir; and, bidding him look up at the stars—as countless and numberless they gemmed the clear, bright heavens—promised, that “so should his seed be.”36 And then it was, that—all of doubt and mist and fear dissolving in the heart of the patriarch, before the words of the Lord, as snow before the sun—HE BELIEVED; and that pure FAITH was accounted to him as RIGHTEOUSNESS.37 HOW blessed are those words! In every station of life, however tried, and sad, and mourning, and deprived of all power to serve the Lord as our hearts dictate, we may yet BELIEVE, and Faith is still accounted RIGHTEOUSNESS. On the glorious prophetic vision which followed when the sun went down, we may not linger, as it will take us too far from the subject of our narrative. Great must have been Sarai’s joy when this gracious promise was made known to her. If to Abram the being childless was a source of deep regret, it must have been still more so to her. Loving and domestic, as her whole history proves she was, how often of the term. It can, however, be clarified by reference to Gen. 17:12–27, which enjoins that all slaves who were either “born into the household” by virtue of the mother’s having been slaves or who were “bought with money” must be circumcised. In addition, Lev. 22:11 indicates that one “born in the house” of a priest is considered a member of the priest’s household and may partake of sacred food. Jer. 2:14 employs the terms “slave//a homeborn” in parallel clauses in a rhetorical question. Insofar as the homeborn slave and the purchased slave had to be circumcised, the Jewish imagination concluded that the slave was half-way to becoming a member of the household of Israel. In fact, halakhah declared that if one were short of the requisite quorum of ten Israelites for public prayer one could simply liberate a slave (he had already been circumcised and immersed in a ritual bath) by issuing a writ of emancipation on the spot. See Moses Maimonides, Mishneh Torah, Laws of Slaves, 9:6. 36 Gen. 15:5. 37 Gen. 15:6.

FIRST PERIOD. II. SARAH

79

may she have yearned to list the welcome cry of infancy; to feel one being look up to her for protection and love, and call her by that sweet name—Mother. But this joyful anticipation could only have been of short duration. Sarai, as is woman’s nature, in all probability imagined the fulfilment would. immediately follow the promise. The most difficult of all our spiritual attainments is to wait for the Lord: to believe still, through long months, perhaps years, of anticipation and disappointment, that as He has said it, so it will be, so it must bey though our finite wisdom cannot pronounce the when. Did the Eternal fulfil His gracious promises on the instant, where would be the trial of our faith, and of our confidence and constancy in prayer? Finding still there was no appearance of her becoming a mother, we are led to suppose, by the events which follow, that all Sarai’s joyous anticipations turned into gloomy fears, not merely from the belief that she herself would not be blessed with a child, but that Abram might, as was and is the custom of Eastern nations, take another wife; an idea excited, perhaps, by the recollection that her name had not been mentioned as the destined mother of the promised seed, but precisely the most painful which could find entrance in a heart affectionate and faithful as her own. To prevent this misfortune, and yet to further (as she supposed) the will of the Eternal, Sarai had recourse to human means. All women in her position, and influenced as she was by the manners and customs of the East,38 would have both felt and acted For a woman born and raised in nineteenth century London it was quite natural to apologize for any impropriety on the part of our biblical foremothers and forefathers as characteristic of “the manners and customs of the East.” In modern times this attitude came to be called “Orientalism” just as disparagement of women came to be called “sexism” and disparagement of homosexuality came to be called “heterosexualism.” Ironically, Grace Aguilar herself as a Jewess, albeit a descendant of Iberian Jewish forbears, was stereotypically perceived by her Christian contemporaries as a dark-skinned oriental and her gray eyes were often described stereotypically by her Christian admirers as “brown.” Equally ironic is the fact that surrogate motherhood, which Aguilar here characterizes as belonging to the customs of the East, is now widely adopted in the West. 38

80

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

as she did, but few, we think, would have waited so long. It was ten years after Abram had left Egypt to fix his residence in Canaan, before Hagar became his wife.39 The separation of himself and Lot Unlike the narrative of Sarai, Hagar, and Abram in Gen. 16, in the West today surrogate motherhood is achieved usually not by intercourse, which might be deemed adultery, but by the use of a turkey baster or syringe. In fact, the practice is so widespread that it is likely that many of the readers of these lines are or know surrogate mothers or their children. Concerning “Orientalism” in the less than complimentary sense, to refer to a condescending attitude of Europeans toward the Middle East and especially the Islamic Middle East see Edward W. Said, Orientalism (London: Penguin Books, 1995). Indeed, when some Jews of European origin, who had once been looked upon condescendingly as “Oriental,” exercised positions of power in the State of Israel during the first decades of its existence, they exhibited the same attitude toward Jews of Middle Eastern origin. A prominent Israeli educator Carl Frankenstein produced a whole series of studies in German, English, and Modern Hebrew with respect to improving the intellectual performance of Jewish children of Middle Eastern origin, who belonged to the poor underclass within Israel. See, inter alia, Carl Frankenstein, Impaired Intelligence (New York: Gordon & Breach, 1970); Varieties of Juvenile Delinquency (New York: Gordon & Breach, 1970); They Think Again (New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold Co., 1979); see also Carl Frankenstein, ed., Teaching as a Social Challenge (Jerusalem: Hebrew University School of Education, 1976). Just as an attitude disparaging to the cultures of the Islamic World of the Middle East on the part of some persons, who belong to or who identify with the culture of Christendom in Central and Western Europe, is called Orientalism so is the corresponding attitude of persons of the Middle East and the Far East, who disparage the culture of Christendom in Central and Western Europe called Occidentalism. Ian Buruma and Avishai Margalit, Occidentalism: The West in the Eyes of Its Enemies (New York: Penguin Press, 2004) offer a lucid and comprehensive treatment of the latter subject, which suffers from the fatal flaw by which the authors marginalize themselves and their subject. They scrupulously avoid mentioning either Edward Said or the term “Orientalism.” 39 Gen. 16:3: “And Sarai Abram’s wife took Hagar her maid the Egyptian, after Abram had dwelt ten years in the land of Canaan, and gave her to her husband Abram to be his wife.” The Hebrew expression is

FIRST PERIOD. II. SARAH

81

appears to have taken place in the first year after their settlement in Canaan, the expedition against the kings in the second or third year following. And we are expressly told, that it was soon after these occurrences that the Lord appeared unto the patriarch, and promised him an heir in his own child; the Hebrew word, ‫( אחר‬after), signifying, according to Rashi, that the event about to be related took place soon after the period of the former narration; but when a long period has intervened, the expression ‫ אחרי‬is used.’’* 40 41 le’ishshah, and it means ‘for a wife’ although NJV employs the ad hoc rendering ‘as concubine’. Had she been emancipated from slavery and become Abram’s second legal wife, there would be no justification for Abram to say to Sarah later on in Gen. 16:6, “Look, your slavewoman is your property; do to her as you see fit” (Gruber’s idiomatic translation of the Hebrew). Apparently, the legal status of Hagar vis-à-vis Sarai her owner on the one hand and Abram, who, with the owner’s permission, had sex with her for the purpose of impregnating her and begetting an heir is precisely that which the Rabbinic sages imagine with respect to Ex. 21:4–6 which speaks of the possibility that a person who employs indentured servants (possibly person’s who could not pay off punitive double damages from having stolen movable goods of great value) will provide one of these servants with a “wife” (here NJV does not translate ishshah ‘concubine’). Later, the maximum six years of indentured service terminate, and the erstwhile prisoner loves his wife and his (biological) children, whom she bore him, and he wishes to stay with them. Here the Torah’s solution is not to ask the master to liberate the slavewoman and her homeborn children but rather to offer the erstwhile prisoner the option of himself becoming a permanent slave. Read in the light of this, Sarai’s and Abram’s conspiracy to impregnate Hagar with “a homeborn” i.e., ‘a slave’, is hardly a solution to Abram’s despair expressed in Gen. 15:3: “lo, one born in my house is mine heir.” * See “The Sacred Scriptures, Hebrew and English,” translated by the Rev. D. A. De Sola, &c. Note to verse 1 of chap. xvi. 40 While in the annotations I have frequently noted that Aguilar often cites or discusses interpretations which are found in the commentary of Rashi (acronym for Rabbi Solomon Isaaki, who was born in 1030 or 1040 in Troyes, capital of the province of Champagne in Northern France and who died there in 1105), this is the first time that she cites him by name, or to be more precise, acronym, as he would commonly be cited by virtu-

82

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

ally all Jewish and Gentile writers. Apparently, just as she assumes that she can cite for her middle class Jewish and Christian audience biblical phrases without identifying their sources and previous women writers on women in the Bible by only their last names, she takes it for granted that everyone would know that Rashi’s commentary on the Pentateuch is authoritative. In fact, it is the commentary that was commonly read by Jews the world over almost from the time that it was composed. Consequently, Rashi’s Commentary on the Torah, the Prophets and the Hagiographa was translated into Latin in the 18th century by Johannes Breithaupt. Concerning Rashi and the importance of his commentaries see the introduction to Mayer I. Gruber, Rashi’s Commentary on Psalms, Brill Reference Library of Judaism, vol. 18 (Leiden: Brill, 2004), 1–154. Indeed, Rashi in his commentary on Gen. 15:1 indicates that the Hebrew expression ’ahar in the construct state always means ‘immediately after’. Rashi’s source is the dictum of Rav Huna in Genesis Rabbah 44:5; q.v. 41 In the introduction to the monumental, Joseph Herman Hertz, ed., The Pentateuch and Haftorahs: Hebrew Text, English Translation and Commentary (5 vols.: New York: Oxford University Press, 1929), p. v, the editor of this commentary, which has been used by English-speaking Jews of virtually all Jewish denominations for almost a century and in a Hungarian translation by Hungarian Jews of all persuasions for almost that long, writes as follows: “We do not to-day possess an edition of the Pentateuch and Haftorahs—the Lessons from the Prophets—in Hebrew and English with a popular commentary for use in the Synagogue, School and Home. The glosses on the Pentateuch (without the Haftorahs) by David Levi and Isaac Delgado were published 140 years ago [i.e., 1789], and, are, besides, unobtainable today. In 1844 [exactly one year before the appearance of Aguilar’s Women of Israel !] De Sola, Lindenthal, and Raphall began a commentary on the Sacred Scriptures, of which Genesis alone appeared. The English translation, however, was fantastic, the notes voluminous, and the Haftorahs were not included ... . All other Jewish Scriptural publications in England and America, either omitted the Hebrew text or were without a Commentary for general use. This present work, therefore, which gives the text in Hebrew and English, accompanied by a brief exposition of both the Pentateuch and the Haftorahs, supplies a long-felt and crying want among Jews in English-speaking countries.” Full details concerning the volume by De Sola et al., to which Aguilar refers for the first time in her note here and again not infrequently below and to which Hertz refers

FIRST PERIOD. II. SARAH

83

with great admiration in the introduction to his monumental Pentateuch and Haftorahs, are as follows: D. A. De Sola, I. L. Lindenthal, and Morris J. Raphall, The Sacred Scriptures in Hebrew and English, Vol. 1: Genesis (London: Samuel Bagster & Sons). Aguilar here refers to pp. 75–76 of that volume. The three authors contributed the commentaries to the twelve weekly portions of the Book of Genesis as follows: M. J. Raphall commented on Bereshit (Gen. 1:1–6:9); Noah (Gen. 6:9–11: 60); Toledot (Gen. 25:19–27:10); Wayyetze (Gen. 27:10–32:4); Wayyigash (Gen. 44:18–47:27); and Wayyehi (Gen. 47:28–50:26). D. A. De Sola commented on Lekh Lekha (Gen. 12:1–17:27); Wayyera (Gen. 18:1–22:24); Hayye Sarah (Gen. 23:1–25:19); Wayyishlah (Gen. 32:4–36:42); and Wayyesheb (Gen. 37:1–40:23). I. L. Lindenthal edited the Hebrew text of the Book of Genesis and contributed the commentary to Mikketz (Gen. 41:1–44:17). As for Raphall, he was born in Stockholm, Sweden October 3, 1798 and died in New York City June 23, 1868. In addition to collaborating with De Sola on the Jewish Bible Commentary, of which only Genesis appeared, and a translation of 18 of the 63 tractates of the Mishnah (see below), he edited Hebrew Review and Magazine of Rabbinical Literature, in which he published Tobias Theodores’ translations of and essays concerning halakhah. Raphall himself also produced translations of Maimonides and other important medieval and modern Jewish authors. For additional data concerning Raphall see Joseph Jacobs and Israel Cohen, “Raphall, Morris Jacob,” JE 10:319. As for D. A. De Sola, or more correctly, David de Aaron de Sola, he was born in Amsterdam, Holland in 1796. At the age of 11 he entered the Sephardic Rabbinical College in that city, and at age 19 he received his rabbinical diploma. In 1818 he was appointed as one of the ministers of the Spanish and Portuguese Bevis Marks Congregation of London. On March 31, 1931 he preached the first English-language sermon at that or any other Jewish synagogue in Britain. In addition to collaborating with Raphall on the translation and commentary on Genesis and the translation of 18 tractates of the Mishnah, De Sola translated the prayer book of the Spanish and Portugese Jews (cited frequently below) and the festival prayers of the Ashkenazic Jews. He contributed an historical introduction to a famous work by the world-famous composer, Emanuel Aguilar, brother of Grace Aguilar, namely, The Ancient Melodies of the Liturgy of the Spanish and Portuguese Jews, Harmonized by Emanuel Aguilar, Preceded by an Historical Essay on the Poets, Poetry and Melodies of the Sephardic Liturgy by A. D. De Sola (London: Wessel & Co., 1857). Other works by the prolific

84

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

According to this reckoning, then, full five, or at the very least three, years must have elapsed between the promise made to Abram and his taking Hagar, at Sarai’s own request, to be his wife; and few women would have beheld year after year pass, each year increasing the improbability of her becoming a mother, and yet so believed as to adopt no human means for the furtherance of her wishes. In perusing and reflecting on the blessings promised, and revelations made to the favored servants of the Lord, we are apt to suppose that their lives were preserved from all trouble, all trial of delay, from the fearful sickness of anticipation disappointed, and hope deferred; whereas, a more intimate study of the holy Scriptures would convince us, that though indeed most spiritually blessed, their mortal lives were not more exempt from labor, and all the sorrows proceeding from human emotions, than our own. We only see those periods on which the broad light of sunshine falls. The darker shade of human doubt, the often supposed blighting of hope, the struggles and terrors of the spirit alternating with the rest and confidence which it sometimes enjoys; these we see not, and, therefore, pronounce them unknown to our forefathers; whereas, did we examine more closely, we should not find severer trials in our own lives than in theirs: nor cease to believe, for a single moment, that the God who guided them through the dark shadows of human trials, and strengthened them with the light of His presence, does not equally guide and reveal Himself to us. The first human evidence that Sarai’s scheme would be productive of vexation and sorrow, as well as of joy, was her disapDavid de Aaron De Sola include numerous scholarly articles published in German in Allgemeine Zeitung des Judenthums and in Der Orient as well as the following books: Notes on Basnage and Milman’s History of the Jews (1838); Biography of the Italian Hebrew poet and physician Ephraim Luzzatto [1729–1792] (1840); Biography of Distinguished Israelites in England; and Biography of Isaac Samuel Reggio (1855). A complete Biography of Abraham de Aaron de Sola was published by his son The Rev. Dr. Abraham de Sola of Montreal (Philadelphia: William H. Jones & Son, 5624 [=1864]). As for Lindenthal, his full name is Israel Levy Lindenthal. He was born in Brighton in 1796, and he served as Minister of the New Synagogue of London, England.

FIRST PERIOD. II. SARAH

85

pointment with regard to Hagar’s continued humility and submission. Forgetful that it was to her mistress, humanly speaking, she owed the privileges now hers, the Egyptian so far forgot herself, as to feel and make manifest that Sarai “was despised in her eyes.”42 Alas, how mournfully does that brief sentence breathe of woman’s fallen nature! How apt are we to exalt ourselves for imaginary superiority—to look down on those who have served us, when God has bestowed on us privileges of which they are deprived. We forget, often through thoughtlessness, that those very things of which we are so proud, come not from ourselves, but from Him who might equally have vouchsafed them to others. We may not indeed have the same incitement to pride and presumption as Hagar, but have we never despised others for the want of those accomplishments, those advantages, that beauty, and other gifts from God, which we ourselves may possess? Aye, sometimes, though we trust such emotions are rare as they are sad, the parents who have toiled and labored to give us advantages of dress and education far above what they possessed themselves—the elder sister, who is contented and rejoiced to remain in the background, that younger and fairer ones, whom she loves with almost a mother’s love, may come forward—the homely and older-fashioned aunt, to whom, perhaps, a sister’s orphan family owe their all—these are the beings whom the young and thoughtless but too often secretly despise, as if their superior advantages had come from themselves, not from God, through loving relatives and friends. And this was the case with Hagar. A superficial reading of the Bible often causes Sarai to be most unjustly blamed for undue harshness. We think only of Hagar’s wanderings in the wilderness, and pity her as cruelly treated, and suppose, that as the Most High relieved her through His angel, she had never been in any way to blame. Now, though to sympathize with the sorrowing and afflicted be one of our purest and best feelings, it must not so blind us as to Gen. 16:4, end of the verse. Grace Aguilar utilizes the tragic story of the exploitation of Hagar with humility to chide not her readers but “us” including possibly herself for pride and presumption leading to a feeling of contempt for others who cannot do what we can or who have not what we have. 42

86

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

prevent our doing justice to the inflictor of that affliction. We candidly avow, that until lately we too thought Sarai harsh and unjust, and rather turned from than admired her character: but we have seen the injustice of this decision, and, therefore, without the smallest remaining prejudice, retract it altogether: retract it, simply because the words of the angel are quite sufficient proof that Hagar had been wrong, and Sarai’s chastisement just, or he would not have commanded her, as Sarai’s bondwoman, to return and submit herself to her mistress’s power, without any reservation whatever.43 It must indeed have been a bitterly painful disappointment to Sarai, that instead of receiving increased gratitude and affection from one whom she had so raised and cherished, she was despised with an insolence that, unless checked, might bring discord and misery in a household which had before been so blessed with peace and love. Sarai’s was not a character to submit tamely to ingratitude. There was neither coldness nor indifference about her. In no part of the Bible, either in character or precept, do we perceive the necessity or the merit of that species of cold indifference, which is by some well-meaning religious persons supposed to be the selfcontrol and pious forgiveness of injuries most acceptable to God. The Patriarchal and Jewish history alike prove, that natural feelings were not to be trampled upon. The Hebrew code was formed by a God of love for the nature of man, not angels—formed so as to be obeyed, not to be laid aside as impracticable. The passions and feelings of the East were very different to those of the calmer and colder North; and nowhere in Holy Writ are we told that those feelings and emotions must be annihilated. Subdued and guided indeed, as must be the consequence of a true and strict adherence to the law of God, and impartial study of His word; but in the sight of a God of love, indifference can never be, and never was, religion.44 The annotator prefers to identify with Aguilar’s earlier sympathy for Hagar from which, in the view of this reader, she should not have recanted. 44 In discussing Sarai’s exploitation of another human being, Hagar, whom she held as a chattel, to provide an heir for herself and for Abram, Aguilar apologizes for the offense to the modern sensibilities of herself and her readers and she makes the excuse that Sarai was influenced by the 43

FIRST PERIOD. II. SARAH

87

Yet even this, an affair of feeling entirely between herself and Hagar, could not urge Sarai to any line of conduct unauthorized by customs of the East, which in 1845 in London are presumed to be less civilized and less cultivated. On the other hand, here in discussing and attempting to justify Sarai’s being offended by the insolence of her slave, Aguilar defends the right of persons to express umbrage at having their natural feelings trampled upon even if her readers might have been taught to exercise cold indifference and self-control in the face of insult. To this day hundreds of books are written and marketed every year, which tell us that we have a right to feel insulted and degraded and consequently angry when people attempt to insult us. At the very same time neighbors and friends will tell the insulted person that she/he is simply too sensitive and that maybe the offending person was only joking or really meant well. So who is right? From an halakhic point of view Aguilar happens to be right in that Babylonian Talmud, Bava Mesi‛a 58b states that persons who insult us do greater harm than persons who steal from us because the harm that is done to a person’s feelings cannot readily be mended by monetary compensation. As to the case at hand, it appears that Aguilar was living in the wrong time and place to fully comprehend that the tragedy of Sarai and Hagar is that Sarai utilizes her empowerment to own property to force another human being into what was probably a non-consensual sexual relationship with Sarai’s husband. Living at a time when western countries with their pretentions to fear of God, self-control and discipline were engaging in buying and selling Africans into slavery, Aguilar just did not “get it. ” Not to engage in ethical criticism of Bible commentaries just as we engage in ethical criticism of the sacred text is to be derelict in our task as exegetes. The irony is that Aguilar, who deligitimatizes the repressing of legitimate feelings as a fault of the culture of Northern Europe (and perpetuates the northern idea that Mediterranean peoples have less selfcontrol) and the use of a surrogate mother as a product of Eastern behavior, is also trapped by her buying into 19th century western culture’s toleration of slavery. Daniel A. Harris “Hagar in Christian Britain: Grace Aguilar’s ‘The Wanderers’,” Victorian Literature and Culture 27 (1999), 143–169, presents a highly sophisticated and sensitive analysis of Aguilar’s treatment of Hagar first in “The Wanderers,” Occident 3 (October 1845), 330– 332; later in Women of Israel; and finally “History of the Jews of England” (1847). I am grateful to Dr. Daniel Langton of the University of Manchester for brining this brilliant essay to my attention.

88

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

her husband. Naturally indignant, she complained to him, perhaps, too, with some secret fear that Hagar, favored so much above herself by the hope of her giving him a son, might be unduly justified and protected. But it was not so. Abram’s answer at once convinced her that Hagar had not taken her place; nay, that though Abram could not do otherwise than feel tenderness and kindness towards her, he at once recognised Sarai’s supremacy, both as his wife and Hagar’s mistress, and bade her “do with her what seemeth good to thee.”45 We have so many proofs of Abram’s just, affectionate, and forgiving character, that we may fully believe he would never have said this, if he had not been convinced that it was no unjust accusation on the part of Sarai. He knew, too, that she was not likely to inflict more punishment than was deserved, particularly on a favorite slave; and, therefore, it was with his full consent “Sarai afflicted her, and she fled from her presence.”46 Gen. 16:6. Note that here Aguilar deviates from KJV which renders “do to her as it pleaseth thee” while KJV margin offers the alternative, “do to her that which is good in thine eyes.” 46 Gen. 16:6. KVJ reads “face” instead of “presence”. Aguilar assumes that Sarai was asking for Abram’s consent and that she would need such consent to banish her slave. In these assumptions Aguilar has been victimized by the patriarchal society of England in the first half of the 19th century where married women did not even own their jewelry or their clothing much less other movable goods, real estate, and slaves. Twentieth century commentators who ought to have read cuneiform texts about ancient women who owned real estate and slaves and businesses and who engaged in commerce, also assume that Sarai asked for and received from Abram permission to mistreat her slave. This is not the case. Sarai complains to Abram, “Ever since I let my slave, who is my personal property, have sex with you dear husband, she has been treating me as though I am the slave and she is the mistress around here.” So Sarai blames Abram for having brought about this situation by not only getting Hagar pregnant but also making Hagar feel good about herself as a sexual being, and she asks God to pass judgment as to who is at fault here, Abram or Sarai. Sarai, like Grace Aguilar, does not for a moment seem to understand that the real victim here is Hagar the slave. Abram who knows the legal status of a slave and her mistress in the ancient Near East, in effect tells Sarai, “I 45

FIRST PERIOD. II. SARAH

89

Whatever the nature of this affliction, it could not have been very severe—neither pain nor restraint—for Hagar had the power to fly.47 Reproof to an irritable and disdainful mind is often felt as intolerable, and given too, as it no doubt was, with severity, and at a time when Hagar felt exalted and superior to all around her, even to her mistress, her proud spirit urged flight instead of submission, and not till addressed by the voice of the angel did those rebellious feelings subside. There was no mistaking the angelic voice, and his first words destroyed the proud dreams which she had indulged. “Hagar, Sarai’s bondwoman!”48 he said, and the term told her in the sight of God she was still the same, “whence camest thou, and whither art thou going?” It was not because he knew not that he thus spoke. had more than one great romp in bed with her, and I even got her pregnant the first time around, but so far as your problems with her—leave me out of this; we are not living in 19th century Europe where you would not even own your own jewelry; we are living in the ancient Near East where women, even married women, no less than men, are empowered to enslave other men and women; she is your problem; not mine.” 47 Aguilar seems to have forgotten what she wrote so eloquently on the previous page about the right of Sarai and of all women and men to have and express hurt feelings. Here she seems to assume that this right does not extend to Hagar, who became overnight the battered woman, whose sexual partner has not only condoned Sarai’s abusive behavior but also (in accord with the law of Ex. 21 cited above) surrendered her to her abusive mistress without any protest that maybe he had some feelings for this lady with whom he had sex and whom he impregnated. It is impossible not to respond to Aguilar’s “this affliction ... could not have been very severe ... for Hagar had the power to fly” by noting that this is the kind of remark by the defense attorney for an accused rapist, that is no longer considered acceptable. Indeed, Aguilar cannot be judged by the hopefully higher standards of human behavior at the dawn of the 21st century. However, to pass over in silence her condoning of the abuse of disempowered humans by empowered humans of whatever race or sex would be to acquiesce. 48 Gen. 16:8. KJV reads “maid”. Here Aguilar has utilized the translation by De Sola et al, 77. There is no difference in meaning in the present context.

90

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

The messengers of the Lord need no enlightenment on the affairs of men, but their questions are adapted to the nature of men, to awaken them to consciousness, to still the tumult of human passion, and by clear and simple questioning compel a clear and true reply. Had his command to return been given without preparation, Hagar’s obedience would have been the effect of fear, not conviction. But those simple questions, “whence camest thou? whither art thou going?”49 startled her from the tumultuous emotions of rebellion and presumption. Whence had she come? From a happy, loving home, where she had been the favorite of an indulgent and gentle mistress;50 a home which would speedily be to her yet dearer, as the birthplace of her child; that child who was to be the supposed heir to her master and all his sainted privileges; from friends, from companions, all whom she had loved: and she had left them! And whither was she going? How might she answer when she knew not? Was she about to resign all of affection, privilege, joy, to wander in the wilderness, helpless and alone? How idle and impotent now seemed her previous feelings. Those simple questions had flashed back light on her darkened heart, and humbled her at once; and simply and truthfully she answered, “I flee from the presence of my mistress Sarai;”51 thus meekly acknowledging that Sarai was still her mistress, and that her derision had indeed been wrong. Reproof, Gen. 16:8. KJV reads “and whither wilt thou go?” Aguilar here follows the translation of De Sola et al., 77. 50 It is or should be obvious to enlightened 21st century readers that a chattel would want to return from freedom to her mistress only because she did not know any better and that likewise a victim of domestic abuse would want to return to the abusive environment only because either she did not know any better or had no better options. Clearly, notwithstanding all the misery found in the modern world, it should be obvious that we have come a long way from the time of Grace Aguilar when the movement to emancipate the black slaves in western countries was still under attack and would emerge victorious in the United States of America only twenty years after the appearance of the first edition of Aguilar’s Women of Israel and then only after a bloody civil conflict, the necessity of which is still being debated by some historians. 51 End of Gen. 16:8; KJV reads “the face of my mistress Sarai.” 49

FIRST PERIOD. II. SARAH

91

therefore, followed not; but the angel bade her, “Return to thy mistress, and submit thyself to her power.”52 And, perceiving that her repentance was sincere, and would lead to obedience, he continued graciously to promise that her seed should be multiplied, so that it should not be numbered for multitude; that her son should bear a name which would ever remind her that God had heard her affliction,53 with other promises concerning that son, yet none which This rendering correctly understands Heb. yad here as the metaphoric hand, which denotes ‘power’ or ‘jurisdiction’ while KJV employs the hyper-literal “submit thyself under her hands.” 53 See Gen. 16: 11: “And the angel of the LORD said unto her, Behold thou art with child, and shalt bear a son, and shall call his name Ishmael; because the LORD hath heard they affliction.” Ishmael in Hebrew means “God hears/heard/will hear.” In modern times both speakers of Modern Hebrew and students of ancient Hebrew pronounce the name Yishmael, but in antiquity and into the Middle Ages the Hebrew letter yod pointed with the vowel i (i.e., hiriq) was pronounced i as in Ishmael; hence the biblical names Isaac and Israel correspond to Modern Hebrew Yitzhak and Yisrael. According to Gen. 16:15, indeed Abram named the son Ishmael. Responding to the obvious exegetical question as to how it happened that Abram chose the very name that the angel had revealed to Hagar, Rashi in his commentary at Gen. 16:15 (following a medieval source called Midrash Aggadah) explains: “Even though Abram did not hear the words of the angel who said, ‘You [feminine] shall call his name Ishmael,’ prophetic inspiration [Heb. ruah ha-qodesh, lit. ‘the holy spirit’] rested upon him [Abram] so that he named him Ishmael.” This midrash assumes that Hagar did not simply tell Abram that the angel said that the child should be called Ishmael; contrast Aguilar below, who assumes that with the return of Hagar to Sarai at the bequest of the angel there was a full reconciliation of all parties and that that there were no communication gaps between the members of the happy household of Abram, Sarai, and Hagar. Concerning attitudes toward Sarai’s treatment or mistreatment of Hagar and Hagar’s responses thereto in medieval Hebrew biblical exegesis see Bruria Aran, “The Image of Women in the Pentateuch as Reflected in Medieval Jewish Exegesis” (Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat Gan, Israel, 2009), 80–91, 163–174 (in Hebrew). Inter alia, Aran shows that Abraham Ibn Ezra (1089–1164) takes up the cause of Hagar because he sees in her and her son Ishmael the founders of the 52

92

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

might lead her to the deceitful belief that he would be Abram’s promised seed. Inexpressibly consoled, in the midst of her bitter selfreproach, and convinced, by his supernatural voice and disappearance, that it was indeed an angel direct from the Lord with whom she had spoken, it is evident from the context, although not there mentioned, that Hagar must have unhesitatingly obeyed, and returned to her mistress—convinced of her error—submissive and repentant, and been by Sarai received with returning confidence and full forgiveness. In due course of time the promise was fulfilled, and Hagar, to the great joy of Abram, had a son, whom Abram called Ishmael, thus proving that Hagar must have imparted the visit of the angel, and his command as to the name of her son. Before we proceed, we would entreat our younger readers to pause one moment on the simple facts we have related; and so take it to their hearts, that the first words of the angel may become theirs as well as Hagar’s. We have not indeed the direct communings with the messengers of the Lord, as is recorded in the Bible; but we are not left unguided and unquestioned. We have still an angelic voice within us, that, would we but encourage it to speak—would we but listen to it—can, even as the angel’s, still the wild torrent of passion, awaken us to our neglected duty, and lead us, repentant and sorrowing, to those whom we may have offended. God has not left us without His witness. The VOICE OF CONSCIENCE may be to us what angel visits were to our ancestors of old.54 There is high Islamic culture, in which he himself was reared during Spain’s Golden Age for the Jews. And she concludes her discussion of Sarai and Hagar as follows: “David Kimchi [1160–1235], like Nahmanides [1194– 1270] and Ibn Ezra, express honest concern for the subjugated foreign woman who became pregnant during her time of oppression and who was the mother of a child when she was driven out into the desert. If, indeed, these factors account for their reasonable interpretations of the passages relating to Hagar, these commentators thereby anticipate feminist biblical exegesis by several centuries” (Gruber’s translation from the Hebrew). 54 I have been informed by Prof. Toni Craven of Brite Divinity School in Fort Worth, Texas that it is commonplace for modern persons of the

FIRST PERIOD. II. SARAH

93

no period of our lives in which it is wholly lost; but in youth it is strongest and most thrilling. In youth it is, that we awake from the (often) stagnant sleep of earlier years;—we awake to a consciousness of bright, glowing, beautiful existence;—we become conscious of a deep yearning after the good, and at the same time sorrowfully feel, that it is not quite as easy to attain as we believed it. As our emotions and feelings spring into life, so does conscience. We become aware of a peculiar thrilling sense of joy, when we have accomplished good, either in conquering ourselves—in giving up a selfish inclination—or in showing kindness, affection, and respect to others. There is a glowing sense of joy, when conscience tells us we have done well, unlike the joy proceeding from any other cause; and as it approves, with an angel voice that will be heard, so does it disapprove. We may stifle it—we may refuse to listen to its still small tones—yet we cannot shake off the depression and the sadness which it leaves. We may refuse to know wherefore we thus feel; but it is conscience still. How much better, then, to permit its having voice and power, and, as it dictates, do—to encourage it at times to speak, and ever keep its silent watch, for we need it, oh! how powerfully we need it. How fearful is our responsibility if we permit it to lie unused; for more strongly than aught else does it breathe our Roman Catholic faith to have an angel with whom they communicate and who guides them. Aside from references to an angelic liturgy incorporated at three points in the daily morning prayers of the traditional Jewish liturgy [see ArtScroll Siddur, 86–89; 100–101; 154–155; and in the Afternoon Service as well; see ArtScroll Siddur, 236–237] and the invocation of angels at the beginning of the meal on Sabbath Eve [ArtScroll Siddur, 354–355] and in most but not all traditional forms of prayers at bed-time, modern forms of Judaism have tended to eliminate virtually all references to and reliance upon angels. This is expected to change in the near future in the common western culture under the impact of Angels in America: A Gay Fantasia on National Themes, a play in two parts by American playwright Tony Kushner and first premiered November 8, 1992. Subsequently, the play was made into both a television mini-series of the same name and an opera by Peter Eötvös. By suggesting that the voice of conscience is the functional equivalent of angels, Aguilar intimates that communication between herself and angels is not part of her experience.

94

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

approval, or our condemnation, in the sight of the Lord. Is there one amongst us that has not felt, at one time or other, emotions similar to those of Hagar—anger at reproof, scorn of those who reprove, rebellion against their dictates; and we would fly from their presence with wrath at our hearts, and rebellion on our lips; and at such times does the voice of conscience never steal over us with questions similar to these? “Whence comest thou? Whither wouldst thou flee? What wouldst thou do?” startling us from wrath, often and often into a burst of passionate and selfreproachful, though, as yet, only half-repentant tears. And when that passion in a degree is stilled—when affection and reason softly and pleadingly resume their sway, does not the angel voice bid us also “return” unto those whom we have offended? submit to their control? It is wisest, best, though our wayward spirits shrink from it, proud of their own will, desirous of undue freedom. And at such times, oh! well it is for us, now and hereafter, if, even as Hagar, we return and submit, and thus acknowledge the power of that inward voice! Its angelic whisper will come to us again; we need not fear them, nor shrink from a lonely path—we have within us the “angel of the Lord.” But those who hear yet refuse to heed, drowning that heavenly whisper by plunging anew into gaiety and pleasure, or stifling it by unwonted industry, are exposing themselves to distant but untold of sorrows. It will, indeed, be long ere conscience becomes so silenced as not to intrude, but she will at length; and then, when, in agony of spirit, we wake from our vain dream, and would give worlds, if we had them, to feel as we have felt—to hear once more the voice of conscience thrilling and directing as in happier years—to be awake to the consciousness of our faults, that we might correct and subdue them—and feel once more the glowing approval of our strivings after good, oh! how agonizing must be the conviction—it is we who have spurned, neglected, and so silenced the angel of the Lord, that it must be a long, long, and weary interval of pain, and toil, and watching, ere we may list those sweet low spiritual tones again. Better, far better, the momentary pain and humility of acknowledgment and submission. Better, far better, the too tender conscience, giving pain, in some cases apparently un-

FIRST PERIOD. II. SARAH

95

necessarily, than its silence and stagnation; for it MUST one day awake, and dreadful will be that waking. To obtain this blessed influence—to feel that to us is sent, as to our ancestors, “the angel of the Lord”—we have but to study the word of God55 and ourselves. It may cost us at first many sad and weary hours—many bitter tears—and many a secret pang; for it is hard so to know ourselves as to see faults and failings which others see not.—It is hard to restrain the too frequent indulgence of favorite pleasures, because we know they will do us harm.—It is hard sometimes to perform a disagreeable, nay a painful duty, only because we feel we ought, though our friends see not the necessity;—hard, when friends approve, for our hearts to disapprove; and all this we must encounter, would we study ourselves and God’s word, till our hearts become shrines for his guiding angel.56 But oh! and depressing as all this may seem, it is but a grain in the balance compared to the deep thrilling joy which is its accompaniment.57 Those who have once felt the glow of approving conscience—the strength, encouragement, consolation, hope, which it gives when all around is desolate and dark, who feel that, hand-in-hand with faith and prayer,58 it is leading us safely and I.e., Hebrew Scripture and the other sacred canonical books of Judaism. 56 This is to say that in order for conscience, here conceived not as the incorporation of the values of the culture (the Freudian super-ego), which enable us to avoid temptation to do harm to ourselves and others, but as the divine messenger within us we need to engage in both introspection and study of Torah literature. 57 This is to say that the reward is far greater than the effort that need be expended to cultivate an active conscience, which is the functional equivalent for us of the angel that appeared to Hagar “in the wilderness, by the fountain in the way to Shur” (Gen. 16:7). 58 Raised in traditional Judaism, Aguilar would have prayed every day morning, afternoon, and evening. These prayers would have included the fixed Jewish liturgy, which itself prescribes the insertion of personal prayers for healing the sick in the benediction for healing; see D. A. De Sola, Forms of Prayer According to the Custom of the Spanish and Portuguese Jews: Vol. 1: Daily Prayers (London: J. Wertheimer, 5596 [A.M. = 1836 C.E.]) [this is the version of the Jewish liturgy that Aguilar would have used at 55

96

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

blessedly through the stony paths of earth, even through the dark valley of death,59 up to the glowing and immortal light of heaven, will welcome even its severest pang to call it theirs, and hail it as, indeed, the angel of the Lord.

home and in synagogue], 29 [see now also The Complete ArtScroll Siddur: Nusach Ashkenaz, with a new translation and anthologized commentary by Rabbi Nosson Scherman, co-edited by Rabbi Meir Zlotowitz (3d ed.; Brooklyn, New York: Mesorah Publications, 2007), 104–105], and for one’s heart’s desires (both a) in the 16th section of the so-called Eighteen Benedictions (which became 19 centuries ago but the name stuck [in De Sola, Forms of Prayer, 31; see ArtScroll Siddur, 108–109; and b) at the very end of the Eighteen Benedictions, where Jewish prayerbooks commonly include the personal prayer of Mar son of Rabina from Babylonian Talmud, Berakot 17a [see De Sola, Forms of Prayer, 34; ArtScroll Siddur, 108–109, and where prayerbooks of the Reform Movement make explicit for those whose mothers never told them and whose fathers never knew that this is one of the places to pour out the prayers of one’s own heart. 59 Here Aguilar probably alludes to her own chronic illness, which resulted in her untimely death in September 1847 just two years after publishing The Women of Israel. In addition, there is an allusion here to the KJV of Ps. 23:4, “Yea though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death.” Modern Jewish translations such as NJV translate instead “Though I walk through a valley of deepest darkness,” based on medieval Hebrew lexicographers and commentators and modern comparative Semitic lexicography, which insists that Heb. salmawet is an abstract noun meaning ‘darkness’. KJV reflects the interpretation found in the oldest surviving translation of the Book of Psalms into a language other than Hebrew, the Old Greek or Septuagint. The latter translation assumed that at Ps. 23:4 (but not necessarily everywhere) salmawet is a contraction of two nouns zel meaning ‘shadow’ and mawet meaning ‘of death’. NJV margin has retained the translation ‘the valley of the shadow of death’ either because it respects the judgment of the Old Greek or because it recognizes that this interpretation has been most comforting to generations of women and men at the time when they were accompanying friends and family members to the grave or when they were a witness to the infirmity of themselves or a loved one.

FIRST PERIOD. II. SARAH

97

It may be that Sarai’s correction of Hagar was unduly harsh,60 although we have no warrant in Scripture for so believing;61 but it is evident, as there is no further mention of contention and disagreement between them, that she received62 her submission with gentleness, and restored her to favor. It is well when forgiveness is thus recorded: many and many a young meek spirit would obey the voice of the angel and return, in humility and love, could they but be sure that submission would be gently and lovingly received; and shrink from it only because the chilling reception, the uttered but not felt reconciliation, falls upon their still quivering hearts with a pang and degradation which they feel that as yet they cannot bear. The spirit of that healing and consoling love which has its birth in religion, must guide both the offended and the offender, or reconciliation never can be complete; nor the latter be securely and convincingly led back to that better path to which the angel points. The pang of unrequited confidence, chilled affection, and all the bitterness of unnecessary degradation, will be stronger at first than the approving glow of conscience; while a contrary reception, even though it may heighten the pang of self-reproach, will soothe and Here Aguilar seems to mitigate her previous accusation that Sarai was a totally innocent party and that Hagar was the only guilty party in the altercation recorded in Gen. 16:5–6. Indeed, Aguilar may be seeking a middle way between her own earlier defense of Hagar and condemnation of Sarai (see Aguilar, above, pp. 85-86) and her later decision that Hagar was the perpetrator of insults and Sarai the victim (to which the writer of these annotations was less than sympathetic). 61 With all due respect to Aguilar, the Hebrew verb ‘innah of which Sarai is the subject and Hagar the object in Gen. 16:6 means ‘afflict’ (so KJV margin) and certainly not ‘correct’ (as Aguilar suggests here) or ‘chastise’. It is the same verb that is used of the Egyptians’ oppression of Israel prophesied in Gen. 15:13 and described in Ex. 1:11–12. 62 Aguilar suggests here that regardless of who was at fault what made it possible for Hagar to return home and there to give birth to Ishmael was the willingness of both women to put their previous mutual animosity behind them. Obviously, it is this very same attitude of peace and reconciliation that can on occasion put an end to a cycle of domestic violence. 60

98

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

encourage, for the inward voice whispers—we have done well; and, from that moment, the heavenly messenger assumes her mild dominion in the heart, never to be lured thence again.63 For thirteen years Abram and Sarai must have looked upon Ishmael as the promised seed; for though, not actually so said, there was neither spiritual sign nor human hope of the patriarch having any other child.64 At the end of that period, however, the Most High again appeared unto Abram, proclaiming Himself as the ALMIGHTY,—a fit introduction to the event He was about to foretell; and bidding His favored servant, “Walk before me, and be thou perfect,”65 perfect in trust, in faith, without any regard to human probabilities, for, as Almighty God, all things were possible with Him. The name of the patriarch was then changed,66 as a sign of the many nations over whom he was appointed father—the land again promised him—and the covenant appointed which was to mark his descendants as the chosen of the Lord, the everlasting inheritors of Canaan; and bear witness, to untold-of ages, of the truth of the Lord’s word and the election of His people.67 This proclaimed and commanded, the Eternal commenced His information of the miracle He was about to perform, by desiring Abraham to call his wife no longer Sarai ‫ שרי‬but Sarah ‫שרה‬68—a change Aguilar here suggests that the means to end domestic violence or for that matter altercations in the workplace or among neighbors is for both parties to let God into their hearts by means of a heightened conscience, to which Aguilar refers here and previously as a heavenly angel. Aguilar, it should be noted, assumes that the angel is female. 64 See Gen. 17:24–26: “And Abraham was ninety years old and nine, when he was circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin. And Ishmael his son was thirteen years old, when he was circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin. In the selfsame day was Abraham circumcised, and Ishmael his son.” 65 Gen. 17:1. 66 Gen. 17: 5: “Neither shall thy name any more be called Abram, but thy name shall be Abraham; for a father of many nations have I made thee.” 67 See Gen. 17:1–14. 68 Gen. 17:15. 63

FIRST PERIOD. II. SARAH

99

which our ancient fathers suppose to mean the same as from Abram to Abraham. “Sarai, signifying a lady or princess in a restricted sense, imported that she was a lady, or princess, to Abram only; whereas the latter name signifies princess or lady absolutely, indicating that she would thus be acknowledged by many, even as Abraham was to become the father of many nations.”*69 A meaning perfectly reconcilable with the verse which follows: “And I will bless her, and give thee a son also of her: yea, I will bless her, so that she shall be a mother of nations; kings of people shall be of her.”70 She was, therefore, no longer a princess over Abraham’s household, but a princess in royal rank, from whom kings should descend. Joy must have been the first emotion of Abraham’s heart at this miraculous announcement, mingled with a feeling of wonder * See note to Gen. xvii 15, in the Rev. D. A. De Sola’s translation of the Bible.69 69 See De Sola et al., p. 81, Note that the comment of De Sola is based upon Rashi’s commentary at Gen. 17:15, which in turn is based upon Babylonian Talmud, Berakot 13a, which De Sola et al. cite along with Abarbanel while omitting mention of Rashi. What Rashi states is as follows: “For sry [the final letter of which can be construed as the 1st person pronominal suffix] means ‘my sovereign’ [and here Rashi is not bothered by the treatment of the grammatically masculine form sr as a unisex noun] but not sovereign over others but when He [God] made her name sarah without a pronominal suffix, it was in order that she might be sovereign over all.” In other words, the name Sarah means that she was Queen of the World while the previous name indicated that she was sovereign over Abram/Abraham. One would be hard pressed to find a more feminist utterance concerning Sarai/Sarah anywhere. Grammatical justification for seeing sar, a noun that has no feminine ending as a feminine noun can be found in the noun raham meaning ‘woman’ attested in Judg. 5:30, the singular of which has no feminine ending, the ubiquitous noun ’em meaning ‘mother’ and the ubiquitous feminine noun ’erets meaning ‘earth’. Moreover, the grammatically masculine noun ’adam ‘human’ refers in many cases to humans of both sexes (see above with reference to Gen. 1:26–27) while several nouns such as shemesh ‘son’, derek ‘way’ and mahaneh ‘camp’, which appear not to belonged to the marked (i.e., feminine gender) are treated as both masculine and feminine in various contexts. 70 Gen. 17:16.

100

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

and astonishment how such a thing could be; but then, in his peculiarly affectionate heart, came the thought of his first-born Ishmael, and with earnestness he prayed, “Oh! that Ishmael might live before thee!”71 And though the Eternal could not grant this prayer, for the seed of Abraham, from whom His chosen people would spring, must be of pure and unmixed birth, He yet, with compassionating tenderness, soothed the father’s anxious love, by the gracious promise that, though Sarah’s child must be the seed with whom His covenant should be established, yet Ishmael also should be blessed and multiplied exceedingly, and become, even as Isaac, the father of a great nation. “And for Ishmael I have also heard thee.”72 How blessed an encouragement for us to pour forth our prayers unto the Lord, proving, how consolingly, that no prayer is offered in vain; for if He cannot grant as our infinite wishes would dictate, He will yet hear us—yet fulfill our prayer far better for our welfare, and the welfare of our beloved ones, than our own wishes could have accomplished, had they been granted to the full.73 Gen. 17:18. Gen. 17:20. KJV reads: “And as for Ishmael, I have heard thee.” Here she seems to have been influenced by De Sola et al., Sacred Scriptures, p. 82, who translate, “And as for Yishmael, I have also heard thee.” 73 Many recent books about Hebrew Scripture either defend the ancient Hebrew authors for their alleged gender neutral attitude [so, for example, Tikva Frymer-Kensky, Reading the Women of the Bible (New York: Schocken Books, 2002) or their alleged misogyny [so for example, Esther Fuchs, Sexual Politics in the Biblical Narrative (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2003)]. One gets the distinct impression that for many of these modern authors Hebrew Scripture has nothing to do with religion aside from the fact that it may be sung or recited liturgically at the religious convocation that the author [or her or his benighted parents] may attend on the week-end. For Aguilar, however, Hebrew Scripture is primarily a textbook concerning religious behavior. And here in the account of how Abraham’s prayer that an important role be assigned his biological son Ishmael and that God acceded to the request, Aguilar finds occasion to remind her readers of the general principal of the efficacy of prayer. For biblical teaching concerning the efficacy of prayer see, inter alia, Num. 11:2; 2 Kgs. 4:33–35; 2 Kgs. 19:15–20 (cf. Isa. 37: 15–22). 71 72

FIRST PERIOD. II. SARAH

101

The acceptance of the covenant throughout Abraham’s household, and the change in her own name, must, of course, have been imparted by Abraham to his wile, with the addition of the startling promise, that she too, even at her advanced age, should bear a son.74 Yet. by her behavior, when the promise was repeated in the following chapter, it would appear that, though informed of it, she had dismissed it from her mind as a thing impossible.75 Accustomed to regard Ishmael as the only seed of Abraham—to suppose her scheme had been blessed, more particularly as she had Aguilar responds to the exegetical question as to how it is possible that Sarai/Sarah who is to have such an important role in the events that unfold in Gen. 17 and 21, specifically the promise that she herself would give birth to a son, is not part of the conversation. In respect to Abram’s having known to call the first son Ishmael (Gen. 16:15) [see above. p. 92], Aguilar suggests that Hagar informed Abram of the conversation she had had with God’s angel. Similarly, Aguilar suggests here that Abraham showed to Sarah the same courtesy that Hagar had shown to him when she, according to Aguilar (but contrast Rashi cited above, n. 53) informed Abram that the child is to be named Ishmael. Aguilar intimates that the laconic nature of biblical narrative with its extensive gapping provides not only ample employment for the writers of midrashim ancient and modern but also ample opportunity for Bible-readers to draw the unwholesome inference that family members need not be privy to vital information, which impinges on their lives and their physical and mental well-being. 75 Aguilar accounts for Sarah’s being surprised to overhear the divine messenger inform Abraham that she would indeed bear a son at age ninety (Gen. 18:10) because when Abraham had previously informed him of this knowledge that had been revealed to him by God in Gen. 17: 16–19), she had simply put the information out of her mind as too preposterous to be taken seriously. Nineteenth century biblical source criticism provides the following alternative: Chapter 17 belongs to the post-586 B.C.E. priestly source while Chapter 21 belongs to the 9th century B.C.E. Yahwist source (see, e.g., John Skinner, Genesis, ICC [Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1930]), and the two stories were strangers to each other until a still later redactor simply placed them side by side much as television now affords us the opportunity to hear the news on alternate channels from alternative news agencies, each with a diverse perspective on both the facts and their meaning. 74

102

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

never been named before as the mother of the chosen seed—the hope of being so had long since entirely faded; and, not having attained the simple questionless faith of her husband, she, in all probability, dismissed the thought, as recalling too painfully those ardent hopes and wishes, which she had with such difficulty previously subdued. Engaged, as was her wont, in her domestic duties,76 she was one day interrupted by the hasty entrance of her husband, requiring her “quickly to prepare three measures of fine meal, knead it, and make it into cakes.”77 Patriarchal hospitality was never satisfied by committing to hirelings only the fit preparations for a hearty welcome.78 We see either Sarah herself making the desired Here, like many recent writers on women in biblical narrative, Aguilar leads us to believe that Hebrew Scripture assumes a gendered division of labor, characteristic of the upper middle class in modern times in Europe, which assigns to women “domestic duties,” whatever they might be among tent dwellers. In fact, a likely activity of women among tent-dwellers among the modern-day Bedouin Arabs of the Negev and among the ancient Hebrew matriarchs was the fetching of water from a well. Fortunately, for Abraham, Sarah had at the moment not gone to a well to fetch water probably because Sarah had available a slavewoman named Hagar to perform any domestic duties. Indeed, Mishnah Ketubbot 5:5 suggests that a married woman who is lucky enough to have four slavewomen would not have to do anything at all around the house. She could simply sit in an easy chair and possibly read the latest biblical or post-biblical short story, hot off the quill. It should be recalled that according to the contextual meaning of “the souls they had gotten in Haran” (Gen. 12:5), Abram and Sarai had a number of unnamed male and female slaves at their disposal besides Hagar and Eliezer, who are the only ones who are named. 77 Gen. 18:6. Here Aguilar does not follow KJV verbatim. Indeed, KJV’s “make cakes on the hearth” is not justified as there is no word in the Hebrew text of Gen. 18:6 that designates ‘hearth’. 78 While earlier Aguilar writes enigmatically about Sarah’s “domestic duties,” here she admits that there is no reason that Abraham and Sarah should have had to do any of the food preparation insofar as they both had ample servants at their disposal. Consequently, she offers an explanation based upon the concept of what she calls “patriarchal hospitality.” 76

FIRST PERIOD. II. SARAH

103

cakes, or closely superintending her domestics in doing so; and the patriarch hastening, in the warmth of his hospitality, himself to fetch a calf from the herd, to give it to a young man to dress it, though he had abundance of servants around him to save him the exertion. Yet both Abraham and Sarah were of the nobility of the Eternal’s creating. He had raised them above their fellows, and bestowed on them the patent of an aristocracy, with which not one of the nations could vie, for it came from God Himself. He had changed their names to signify their royal claims—to make them regarded in future ages as noble ancestors of a long line of prophets, kings, princes, and nobles; and there was a refinement, a nobleness, a magnanimity of character in both the patriarch and his wife, which, breathing through their very simplicity, betrayed their native aristocracy, and marked them of that princely race which has its origin in the favor and election of the King of kings. The primitive simplicity of our first fathers generally impresses the mind with the mistaken idea of their being simply farmers or agriculturists, both of which they certainly were, but not these alone, as supposed in the present acceptation of the term. They were princes and nobles, not only in their mental superiority but in their immense possessions—in their large and well ordered households, in the power they possessed both in their own establishments and in the adjoining lands, and in the respect and submission ever paid them by the nations with whom they might have held intercourse. Abraham was never addressed save as “My Lord,” either by his own domestics or other nations;79 thus acknowledged as superior, and of noble if not In fact, throughout Gen. 18:1–16, the account of the visit of the three men, Abraham is never addressed as ‘my lord’. It is Abraham who addresses them as ’adonay ‘my lords’. KJV, however, translates “my Lord,” which reflects a Rabbinic tradition that he is actually addressing God, who is often addressed as ’adonay, literally, ‘my lords’ and commonly translated “the LORD.” Related to this tradition is the Eastern Orthodox Christian icon of the three visitors, which is designated “the Old Testament trinity,” which sees in the three visitors a prefigurement of the trinity. Employed in post-biblical times as an oral substitute for pronouncing the ineffable four-letter proper name of God, YHWH, this epithet already appears in synonymous parallelism with the four-letter name of God in Isa. 3:17 and 79

104

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

royal rank, by those who could scarcely be supposed to understand why he was so, save by the outward signs of landed possession and large establishment. Those who think so much of noble descent and princely connexion, would do well to remember this—that

49:14. In fact, Abraham is addressed as ‘my lord’ in Gen. 18 only by his wife Sarah (v. 12) In Gen. 23 Abraham is three times addressed as ‘my lord’ by the rulers of Hebron, from whom he seeks to buy the Cave of Machpelah for a burial place for his wife Sarah (vv. 6, 11, 15). In Gen. 24 it is Abraham’s senior servant, whom Abraham sends on a mission to Abraham’s native land to find a wife for Abraham’s son Isaac, that repeatedly calls Abraham ‘my lord’, as well we might expect from a slave. However, Rebekah also calls the unnamed servant ‘my lord’ there in v. 18. In any case, Aguilar’s point is that the Jewish people who were looked down upon in her time as an inferior race almost everywhere in the western world should be, as Jews and Jewesses tried to teach their children, “proud to be Jewish” because, after all, they gave the world the belief in one God and Hebrew Scripture, commonly called “the Old Testament.” The very same sentiments that are expressed by Aguilar here are allegedly expressed by her contemporary and patron, Prime Minister of the British Empire, Benjamin Disraeli, who is alleged to have said, “Yes, I am a Jew, and when the ancestors of the right honorable gentleman [Daniel O’Connell] were brutal savages in an unknown island, mine were priests in the temple of Solomon.” Allegedly, Judah P. Benjamin, the erstwhile Secretary of State of the Confederate States of America, similarly stated, “The gentleman will please remember that when his half-civilized ancestors were hunting the wild boar in the forests of Silesia, mine were the princes of the earth.” For the two quotations see John Bartlett, Familiar Quotations, 14th ed., revised and enlarged by Emily Morison Beck (Boston & Toronto: Little, Brown and Company, 1968), 611. Very similar sentiments from the spokesperson of another distinguished Mediterranean people, the Greeks, whose descendants were looked down upon when they settled in the United States, are expressed by the father of the Greek bride vis-à-vis the family of her WASP fiancé, when he declares in a motion picture called, “My Big Fat Greek Wedding”: “When our [the Greeks’] ancestors were writing philosophy, these people were still up in the trees.”

FIRST PERIOD. II. SARAH

105

impoverished, scattered, chastised, for a “little moment,”80 as we are—yet, that if we are children and descendants of Abraham— ISRAELITES not only in seeming but in heart—we are descended from the aristocracy of the Lord—from a higher and nobler race than even Gentile kings may boast; a privilege and glory of which no circumstance, no affliction, no persecution can deprive us—ours, through all and every event of life, unless we cast it from us by the dark deed of forsaking, for ambition, or gold, or power, the banner of our blessed faith—the religion of our God. Yet noble, even princely, as were Abraham and Sarah, it was no sign of rank, with them, to be cold and restrained by false artificial laws. In the Bible, nobility was nature and heart, simplicity and benevolence, cordiality and warmth; no coldness, no indifference, no folding up the affections and the impulses of feeling in the icy garment of pride and fashion, which so often turns to selfishness, and so utterly prevents all of benevolence and social good. Abraham knew not, at his first invitation, the rank or mission of his visitors. His address was one of the heart’s respect, not the mere politeness of the lip; and the warmth of his welcome would not permit of his sitting idly down while hirelings prepared their meal—nay, we find that, even while they sat down to partake of it, their host stood,—a mark of profound respect, which a further consideration of their majestic aspect prompted, by the supposition that they were more than ordinary mortals. Sarah joined not her husband or his guests. The modest and dignified customs of the East prevented all intrusion, or even the wish to intrude.81 Unless particularly asked for, the place of the Referring to Isa. 54:7 where God, speaking through the prophet says referring to the Babylonian Exile, “For a small moment have I forsaken thee; but with great mercies will I gather thee.” 81 In referring to the customs of the East, a term we met in connection with Aguilar’s embarrassment at the fact that Sarai chose to have Abram impregnate her own personal slavewoman in order to provide them with an heir, Aguilar again expresses embarrassment both at Sarah’s being treated as an outsider in the conversation between Abraham and the angels and at Jewish women’s being treated as outsiders to the conversations of men in her own time. In modern times, a Jewess much 80

106

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

Eastern and Jewish wife was in the retirement of home; not from any inferiority of rank, or servitude of station, but simply because their inclination so prompted. The strangers might have business with Abraham, which, if needed, he would impart to her; there was no occasion for her to come forward. But, while seated in the inner tent, engaged in her usual avocations, she heard her own name, “Where is Sarah, thy wife?”82 and her husband’s reply, “She is in the tent,”83 followed by words that must indeed have sounded more sure of herself and of her acceptance as an equal in Western Culture, Anita Diamant turns the tale of Sarah’s exclusion on its head and demonstrates, as it were, in a best-selling novel, The Red Tent (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1997) that most of the really important action in the age of the Hebrew matriarchs and patriarchs took place in the red tent inhabited at various times by the six matriarchs—Sarah, Rebekah, Rachel, Leah, Bilhah (the slavewoman given to Rachel by her father Laban), and Zilpah (the maidservant given to Leah by her father Laban). Developments over the more than a century and a half that intervene between Aguilar’s Women of Israel and Diamant’s The Red Tent have seen some Jewish women move from Aguilar’s approach, which is one of passive resistance to Gentile anti-Semitism and the Christian hope of converting the Jews to Christianity by starting with the Jewish women, whom Jewish men treated as second-class citizens to a militant no holds barred struggle to reaffirm the place of Jewish women in the past, the present, and the future. 82 Gen. 18:9. In fact, the angel is an advocate of women’s liberation for the Hebrew interrogative particle ’ayeh does not mean simply ‘what is the location of?’ which would be expressed by the interrogative particle ’ephoh. The interrogative particle ’ayeh always refers to the absence of someone or some thing that ought not to be absent and means “Why has she been excluded from this forum of angels and people that has been convened for the discussion of matters, which will vitally effect her in every way imaginable?” 83 Gen. 18:9. Given the fact that, as we have noted, the interrogative particle ’ayeh calls more for an explanation and an apology than for the identification of a location, Abraham’s reply is totally ironic and probably meant to lampoon the fact that he just does not understand what is at stake. Aguilar, writing just three years before the Seneca Falls Declaration of the Rights of Women represents an important milestone in the struggle

FIRST PERIOD. II. SARAH

107

strange and improbable, “Sarah, thy wife, shall bear a son;” yet, improbable as they might have seemed, there is no excuse for the laugh of incredulity with which they were received.84 Already prefor the liberation of both the Jews and women and Jewish women in particular. In general, her method seems to be one of passive resistance rather than outright militancy, and she cannot be blamed for not seeing or not wanting to see the irony, which Scripture clearly expresses in Gen. 18:9. However, the author of modern-day annotations to Aguilar’s brilliant book would be derelict in his responsibility to truth and fairness, if he did not make the point that both Abraham in the narrative and Aguilar in her commentary seem have missed something, the missing of which has cost women first and humanity as a whole most dearly for centuries on end. Yet, in light of Aguilar’s assertion in her discussion of the wise woman from Abel of Beth-Maachah that indeed in the time of David and Saul (2 Sam. 20) Israelite women “must have had a voice in the senate of their several cities” (see below, Period IV, Chapter III) and in light of Aguilar’s imagining that the Shunammite women while sojourning in Philistia (2 Kgs. 8:2) must have led the congregation in daily and Sabbath and festival morning and evening worship services, it may well be that there are three special reasons for Aguilar’s not elaborating on the angel’s critical remark, “Where is Sarah, your wife,?” (in which the interrogative particle ’ayyeh means ‘why is she not here?’ rather than ‘what is her location’; see dictionaries). It may be that Aguilar makes a distinction between the greater modesty of women characteristic of the era of the pre-Mosaic matriarchs and patriarchs and the more assertive character of women in the monarchic period. It may be that Aguilar seeks deliberately to disarm her readers, who might not want to read on if she writes with too much militancy on behalf of the equality of the sexes too early on in this book. It is indeed possible that Aguilar herself becomes more militant in the course of her writing so that what she states so boldly in respect of the Shunammite she may not have thought to say when she was writing about Sarah. 84 I suspect that Aguilar has so internalized Scripture’s portrayal of matters, which are totally ironic, that she fails to share in Abraham’s and Sarah’s humor at the following thought: a one hundred year old dad and a ninety year old mom in the context of a corpus of ancient sacred literature that declares that human beings normally live to be seventy and in highly unusual circumstances to be eighty (Ps. 90:10). Indeed, in case we had not

108

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

pared by the previous promise of the Lord, the words should at once have revealed the heavenly nature of those who spake, and been heard with faith and thankfulness; but Sarah thought only of the human impossibility. Strange as it is, that such unbelief should be found in the beloved partner of Abraham, yet her laugh proves that even she was not exempt from the natural feelings of mortality—the looking to human means and human possibilities alone; forgetting that with God all things are possible. Yet, to us, the whole of this incident is consoling. It proves that even Sarah was not utterly free from human infirmities; and yet that the Eternal, through His angel, deigned graciously to reprove, not to chastise. It proves that God has compassion on the nature of His erring children; for he knows their weakness. Man would have been wroth with the laugh of scorn, and withdrawn his intended favor; but “the LORD said unto Abraham, Wherefore did Sarah laugh, saying, Shall I, who am old, indeed bear a child? Is anything too mighty for the Lord? At the time appointed I will return unto thee, and Sarah shall indeed have a son.”85 The gracious mildness of the rebuke—the blessed repetition of the promise—must, to one so affectionate as Sarah, have caused the bitterest reproach; but, weakly listening to fear instead of repentance, she denied her fault, seeking thus mistakenly to extenuate it. But He said, “Nay, but thou didst laugh,”86 proving that her innermost thoughts were known; and, silenced at once, left to the solitude of her own tent, for Abraham accompanied his guests on the road to Sodom, we know quite enough of Sarah’s character to rest satisfied that repentance and selfsurmised it, the narrator reminds us in Gen. 18:11 that Sarah was at this juncture post-menopausal: “and it ceased to be with Sarah after the manner of women.” Similarly, I found numerous students who had so internalized Scripture’s portrayal in Gen. 2 of Eve having come out of Adam rather than both coming out of a woman’s womb that they found the expression yelud ishshah ‘born of woman’ three times in the Book of Job (Job. 14:1; 15:14; 25:4) applied to ’adam, i.e., humans of both sexes an insult rather than a statement of fact. 85 Gen. 18:13–14 The translation does not follow literally KJV; she follows De Sola et al., 94–95 almost verbatim.] 86 Gen. 18:15.

FIRST PERIOD. II. SARAH

109

abasement for unbelief, mingled with, and hallowed the burst of rejoicing thankfulness with which she must have looked forward to an event so full of bliss to her individually, and so blessed a revelation of the Lord’s deep love for Abraham and herself. Nearly twenty years had passed since the first promise of an heir in his own child had been given. Years, long, full of incident and feeling, seeming in their passing an interval long enough for the utter forgetfulness of the promise, save as it was supposed fulfilled in the birth of Ishmael; but now, in the retrospect, the promise flashed back with a vividness, a brightness, as if scarce a single year had passed ere it had been given: and Sarah must have felt selfreproached in the midst of her joy, that she had not waited, had not trusted, had not believed unto the end And many a one, ere life has closed, will feel as she did; not indeed, from the same cause—but often and often a prayer has been offered up, a promise given from the word of God, and both have been forgotten, neglected, mistrusted, through long-weary years—as vainly prayed and vainly answered—and yet, ere life has closed, recalled as by a flash of sudden light, by the divine answer to the one, and gracious fulfilment of the other. Before the birth of Isaac, however, Abraham and his family once more removed their dwelling, partly, it may be supposed, to fulfil the words of the Lord previously spoken: “Arise, walk through the land, in the length of it and the breadth of it, for I will give it unto thee;”87 and partly from the desolate appearance and poisonous vapors of the once beautiful vale of Sodom, and in consequence of the cessation of travellers, to whom Abraham had so delighted to show hospitality. We shall pass lightly over the next event in the life of Sarah, having already made our remarks on a similar occurrence. The fault of the patriarch in again passing his wife for his sister, was indeed much greater than it had been at the first.88 He had now no longer the excuse of not sufficiently know-

Gen. 13:17. Here Aguilar critiques Abraham’s behavior in endangering Sarah by engaging in deceit in Gen. 20:2. Earlier (see above, p. 71) she critiqued also Abraham’s similar act of deception recorded in Gen. 12:11–20; q.v., 87 88

110

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

ing the ways of the Lord to trust in Him, even in the midst of those dangers incidental to mankind, yet seeming too trivial for the interference of the Most High. He had had nearly thirty years’ experience that he was in truth the chosen servant, and the well-beloved of the Lord—that there was not an event in his life which had not been ordered and guided by a special providence; and he ought to have known that this danger, as every other, would be overruled. Yet, while we regret that this incomprehensible weakness should overshadow the beautiful character of our great ancestor, we may not condemn: for, at this distance of time, and complete change in manners and customs, it is impossible for us to know the temptation he may have had to act as he did, or the extent of danger to which he was exposed. The most truly pious, the most experienced in religion, have often to mourn their “iniquities in holy things.”89 but she noted already there that the second act of deception was more reprehensible than the first. 89 Cf. Ex. 28:38: “And it [the plate of pure gold upon which was engraved HOLINESS TO THE LORD] shall be upon Aaron’s forehead, that Aaron may bear the iniquity of the holy things, which the children of Israel shall hallow in all their holy gifts; and it shall be always upon his forehead, that they [the children of Israel] may be accepted before the LORD.” In its narrowest meaning (as explained in Rashi’s commentary ad loc, the aforementioned engraved piece of gold, which the high priest was to wear upon his forehead) was to provide atonement for the sin of unwittingly offering an unfit (specifically, unclean) sacrifice. In a wider sense, it is noted in the Pentateuch commentary of Jacob ben Asher (c. 1270– 1340) that the object placed upon the forehead of the high priest was to atone for the stubbornness of the children of Israel, which is referred to in Ezek. 3:7 as ‘brazenness of forehead’ (so NJV; KJV translates idiomatically ‘impudent’). Aguilar seems to suggest here that just as the particular sin, which in halakhah is designated as “iniquity of the holy things” is committed in error in the course of an attempt to present a proper offering to God, so was Abraham’s lying to Abimelech and endangering the health and well-being of Sarah an act committed in order to save his own life. The severity with which Aguilar condemns Abraham’s actions in Gen. 20:1 is shared by Rashi, who comments: “Here [in Gen. 20:2] he [Abraham] did not ask permission [of his wife as he had done in the ear-

FIRST PERIOD. II. SARAH

111

The painful struggle is always to realize faith, to trust without one doubt, and more particularly in the smaller trials of life, which they deem too trivial for the notice, compassion, or interference of the Eternal. Nor can even proofs of a superintending providence always conquer the weakness of human nature. In this world, the likeness of God will at times be completely hidden in the earthly shell, however it may stand forth at others, as if naught of clay could dull it more. And this was the case with Abraham, who, though the beloved of the Lord, was yet human, and liable to all the weaknesses and frailties of human nature. We are not therefore to condemn, and so withdraw our admiration of his great and most consolingly beautiful character, because in two instances he falls short of our ideas of perfection—but rather thank God that in His Word human nature is recorded as it is, simply that we may not despair. It is enough for us, in this part of our narrative, to notice that our gracious God demands no more of His creatures than He knows they can perform; that Abraham’s faulty weakness in this one instance, could not blot from the recollection of the Lord his pure and simple faith in every other; and that he permitted all that occurred in the kingdom of Gerar to make manifest, alike to Abraham and the nations, His continued watchfulness and miraculous interposition in favor of those whom He loves—His power to protect them from all harm, and also, that nothing was too wonderful for Him.90 Sarah had imagined she was too old to enjoy the felicity of becoming a mother—too old in any way to excite admiration, save to the beloved husband of her youth; and, ignorant that her beauty had been supernaturally renewed, neglected to assume the veil, which was worn by all Eastern women dwelling in towns. This explains lier incident in Gen. 12: 13] but against her will and not to her [possible] advantage as by the very same means she had already been taken to Pharaoh’s house [to be treated there as a sexual object]. 90 Cf. Gen. 20:3–7 where it is reported that God intervened to prevent Abimelech from committing the capital crime of adultery and to prevent the wholly innocent Sarah from becoming a victim. God intervenes by appearing to Abimelech in a dream and informing him that the woman he took home with the intent of having sexual intercourse with her happens to be a married lady.

112

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

Abimelech’s present of a “covering for the eyes,”91 and the words, “thus she was reproved,”92 or warned, that her beauty subjected her to as much danger as had been the case in her youth. Miraculously protected by the Eternal, and publicly vindicated from all dishonor by the King of Gerar, Sarah and her husband continued to dwell in Abimelech’s dominions, some few miles to the south of Gerar; a place afterwards called Beer-Shebang,93 or Well of the Oath, from the covenant of peace there made between the patriarch and the king.94 Here it was that at the appointed time “God visited Sarah as He had said;”95 and the promised seed—the child of rejoicing—Isaac was born.96 What must have been the emotions of Sarah on beholding him? Not alone the bliss of a mother; but that in him the infant claimer of a love and joy which she had never so felt before, she beheld a visible and palpable manifestation of the wonderful power and unchanging love of the Most High God. Devoted, as Sarah had been, to the service and love of the Lord, how inexpressibly must those emotions have been heightened as she gazed upon her babe, and held him to her bosom Gen. 20:16b. Gen. 20:16c. 93 This transliteration of the name of the city which is called in KJV and NJV Beersheba (see, e.g., at Gen. 21:31 reflects the liturgical pronunciation in the Spanish and Portuguese congregations of Amsterdam, London, New York and elsewhere of the Hebrew guttural letter ‘ayin. When this letter occurs at the end of the word it is pronounced as ng as here in Beer-Shebang for Beersheba (in Modern Hebrew Beersheva) and in the recitation of “Hear O Israel: The LORD is our God; the LORD is One” from Deut. 6:4 where Heb. sh-m-‘ ‘Hear’ is pronounced Shemang. An anomalous instance of this treatment of the consonant ‘ayin among Yiddish-speaking Jews of East European origin is in the pronunciation of the name Jacob (Modern Hebrew Ya‘aqov) as Yankuv; for which the diminutive or endearing form is Yankele ‘little Jack’. For the rendering of Heb. Beersheba as “Beer-Shebang” see De Sola et al., Sacred Scriptures, 111 at Gen. 21:31–33. 94 Gen. 21:22–34. 95 Gen. 21:1. 96 Gen. 21:2. 91 92

FIRST PERIOD. II. SARAH

113

as her own, her granted child! To those who really love the Lord, joy is as dear, as bright, as close a link between the heart and its God, as grief is to more fallen natures. We find the hymn of rejoicing, the song of thanksgiving, always the vehicle in which the favored servants of the Lord poured forth their grateful adoration, thus proving that the thought of the beneficent Giver ever hallowed and sanctified the gift; and therefore we believe with our ancient fathers, that though not translated metrically, Sarah expressed her joy in a short hymn of thanksgiving. The peculiar idiom of the Hebrew text confirms this supposition,*97 and we adopt it as most natural to the occasion.98 Her age had had no power, even before she became a mother, to dull her feelings, and her song of thanksgiving well expresses every emotion natural, not alone to the occasion, but to her peculiar situation. As a young mother, full of life, of sentiment, of affection, she felt towards her babe—giving him his natural food from her own bosom—tending his infant years—guiding him from boyhood to youth—from youth to manhood, and lavishing on him the full tide of love which had been pent up so long. The very character of Isaac, as is afterwards displayed—meek, yielding, affectionate almost as a woman’s—disinclined to enterprise—satisfied with his heritage—all prove the influence which his mother had

* See the Rev. D. A. De Sola’s translation; and note thereon.97 De Sola et al., Sacred Scriptures, 106–107. 98 Indeed, the Jewish Publication Society translation of 1985, Tanakh treats graphically by means of indentation the three lines of synthetic parallelism uttered by Sarah in Gen. 21:7. The Hebrew text consists of three lines of text each having three stress accents as follows: Mi millel leAvraham Heniqah banim Sarah Ki-yaladti ben lizqunayw NJV’s attempt at a poetic translation reads as follows: Who would have said to Abraham That Sarah would suckle children! Yet I have borne a son in his old age. 97

114

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

possessed, And that his disposition was more the work of her hand than of his father’s.99 The child grew and was weaned,”100 Holy Writ proceeds to inform us; “and Abraham made a great feast the day Isaac was weaned,”101—a feast of rejoicing that the Eternal had mercifully preserved him through the first epoch of his young existence. He was now three years old, if not more—for the women of the East, even now, do not wean their children till that age.102 The feast, however, which commenced in joy, was, for the patriarch, dashed with sorrow ere it closed. Educated with the full idea that he was his father’s heir though the words of the angel before his birth gave no warrant for the supposition—to Ishmael and his mother, the birth of Isaac must have been a grievous disappointment. And we find the son committing the same fault as his mother previously had done—deriding, speaking disrespectfully of Sarah and her child.103 Here again, as in her discussion of Eve (above, pp. 33-34), Aguilar suggests that the true manliness of a Jewish gentleman is to cultivate the feminine virtues of meekness and affection and to eschew aggression; see our discussion there. 100 Gen. 21:8a. 101 Gen. 21:8b. 102 Concerning the practice of nursing their babies as long as three years in biblical times see the extensive discussion in Mayer I. Gruber, “Breast-Feeding Practices in Biblical Israel and in Old Babylonian Mesopotamia,” in Mayer I. Gruber, The Motherhood of God and Other Studies, University of South Florida Studies in Jewish History, no. 57 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1992), 69–107, especially, p. 35, n. 23 103 Here Aguilar takes for granted Rashi’s interpretation of the Hebrew verb metzaheq in Gen. 21:9 as denoting something really terrible that would somehow justify Sarah’s wanting Hagar and Ishmael thrown out of the house. NJV translates ‘playing’ while Targum Onkelos translates ‘smiling’. Rashi offers three alternatives, each of which by no mere coincidence corresponds to the three cardinal sins in Judaism for which one is supposed to give up one’s life rather than transgress: a) worship of other gods; b) adultery and/or incest; and c) murder; naturally, Rashi, q.v., can offer proof-texts for each of these, which are, respectively, Ex. 32:6; Gen. 39:17; and 2 Sam. 2:14. KJV also understands the expression metzaheq in 99

FIRST PERIOD. II. SARAH

115

The youth of Ishmael, and Sarah’s request that the bond-woman might also be expelled, would lead to the supposition that it was Hagar who had instigated the affront. The age of Sarah, and the decidedly superhuman birth of Isaac, must, to all but the patriarch’s own household, have naturally given rise to many strange and perhaps calumniating reports. In the common events of life all that is incomprehensible is either ridiculed, disbelieved, or made matter of scandal; and, therefore, in a case so uncommon as this, it is more than probable reports very discreditable both to Sarah and Abraham were promulgate! all around them. Hagar, indeed, and Ishmael must have known differently:—that it was the hand of God which worked, and therefore all things were possible; but it was to IshGen. 21:9 in such a way that would somehow justify Sarah’s abusive behavior toward a family member and Abraham’s being more than an accessory after the fact. Hence, KJV renders “mocking.” However, KJV is likely guided by the Apostle Paul’s understanding of the tragic events recorded in Gen. 21:9–19. Paul writes as follows in his Letter to the Galatians 4:28–31: “Now we [Christians], brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise. But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now. [Here Paul refers to the persecution of the Christians by the Jews, in which Paul himself had formerly participated; see Gal. 1:13]. Nevertheless, what saith the scripture? [Answer]: Cast out the bondwoman and her son for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with [Paul here quote’s Sarah’s words to Abraham in Gen. 21:10] the son of the freewoman [for Paul this not only means Isaac the son of Sarah who was a freewoman but also Christianity, which was free of the yoke of the Law, to which the Jews still adhered and to which a party in the early church, opposed to Paul, still adhered]. So then, brethren, we are not children of the bondwoman [Hagar, who is taken by Paul to be the spiritual mother of the Jews and of those Christians who want both Christianity and the Law] but of the free.” If, as George Foot Moore is quoted as having said, “Every religion is to be judged by its highest ideals and its noblest representatives,” the writer of these annotations would ask that both Rashi’s attempt to justify Sarah’s and Abraham’s behavior with respect to Hagar and Ishmael and the Apostle Paul’s attempt to graft his rejection of circumcision as a rite of entry into Christianity onto Gen. 21:10 be stricken from the record of Judaism and Christianity respectively.

116

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

mael’s interest to dispute or deny the legitimacy of Isaac; and therefore it was not in human nature to neglect the opportunity. No other offence would have so worked on Sarah. We are apt to think more poetically than justly of this part of the Bible. Hagar and her young son, expelled from their luxurious and happy home, almost perishing in the desert from thirst, are infinitely more interesting objects of consideration and sympathy, than the harsh and jealous Sarah, who, for seemingly such trifling offence, demanded and obtained such severe retribution. We generally rest satisfied with one or two verses; whereas, did we look further and think deeper, our judgment would be different. In a mere superficial reading we acknowledge Sarah does appear in rather an unfavorable light; as if her love for Isaac had suddenly narrowed and stagnated every other feeling; and, jealous of Ishmael’s influence over his father, she had determined on seizing the first opportunity for his expulsion. That this, however, is a wrong judgment is proved by the fact, that the Eternal Himself desires Abraham to hearken104 to the voice of Sarah in all that she shall say; for in Isaac was to be the promised seed, though of Ishmael also would he make a nation, because he was Abraham’s son. That Sarah’s advice was not to be displeasing to him, because of the lad and his mother.

Gen. 21:12 according to KJV. On the basis of understanding the Hebrew to have precisely the meaning of ‘listen to her voice’ as does the identical expression ‘listen to the voice’ in Ps. 130:2, “Lord, hear my voice//let thine ears be attentive to the voice of my supplication” rather than ‘obey’ as in 1 Sam. 8:7 where God asks the prophet Samuel to accede to the people’s request to appoint a king over Israel, Mayer I. Gruber, “Genesis 21:12: A New Reading of an Ambiguous Text,” in Genesis, Feminist Companion to the Bible (second series), ed. Athalya Brenner (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998), 172–179, argues that what God requests of Abraham is that he listen to Sarah and let her express her feelings. Having done that, Abraham would then have been able to talk Sarah out of the idea of throwing Hagar and Ishmael out of the house. Because Abraham did not do so, God had to send an angel to rescue them. 104

FIRST PERIOD. II. SARAH

117

Now, had Sarah’s advice proceeded from an undue harshness, a mean and jealous motive, the Most High would, in His divine justice, have taken other means for the fulfilment of His decrees.105 He would not have desired His good and faithful servant to be so guided by an evil and suspicious tongue. There are times when we feel urged and impelled to speak that which we are yet conscious will be productive of pain and suffering to ourselves. All such impulses are of God; and it must have been some such feeling which actuated Sarah, and compelled her to continue her solicitation for the expulsion of Hagar and Ishmael, even after the moment of anger was passed. We know that Hagar had ever been her favorite slave; it was impossible for one affectionate as was Sarah, to have regarded Ishmael as her son for thirteen or fourteen years and yet not have loved him, though of course with less intensity than his father. The birth of Isaac naturally revealed yet stronger emotions; still Ishmael could not have been so excluded from her affections as to render her separation from him void of pain. And still she spoke, still urged the necessity, conscious all the time she was inflicting pain not only on her husband but on herself. This appears like contradiction; but each one who has attentively studied the workings of his own heart, will not only feel but pronounce it truth. Anger caused the demand: “Expel this bondwoman and her son; for the son of this bondwoman shall not inherit with my son, even with Isaac;” and calmer reflection continued to see the necessity. Abraham’s possessions were sufficient for the heritage of both his sons; but as the course of nature was changed, and the younger, not the elder, was to be the heir of promise, confusion and discord would have ensued, and the brothers continually have been at war. Sarah’s penetration appears to have discovered this; and as it was necessary for Ishmael to form a separate establishment, it was an act of kindness, not of harshness, to let him depart with Hagar, instead of going forth alone. From her own feelings she now knew the whole extent of a mother’s love; and therefore, though Ishmael Here Grace Aguilar seems to have forgotten her long and profound essay in praise of free will in explaining how God allowed Eve to be tempted by the snake and then Adam to follow Eve’s suggestion that he also eat of the forbidden fruit (see above, p. 32). 105

118

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

had been the sole offender, and the only one whose claims were likely to clash with Isaac’s, she would not separate the mother from the son, and so urged Abraham to separate from both. There is something touchingly beautiful in the patriarch’s love for his elder son, and yet his instant conquest of self at the word of the Lord. His deep affection had blinded him to the probable discomforts which might ensue from his sons remaining together. His gentle and affectionate nature shrank from the pang of separation, causing even displeasure against Sarah for the first time in their long and faithful intercourse. Yet when God spake there was neither complaint nor murmur, nor one word of supplication that the heavy trial might be averted from him. It was enough that the Most High had spoken; and though all was dark before his son, to the fond anxious gaze of parental affection, he knew even from that darkness God could bring forth light, and would do so, for He had promised. We are sometimes surprised at the small provision with which Abraham endowed his son at his departure. The riches of the patriarchs consisted of land, flocks, herds, and servants; nothing which could easily be bestowed. Besides which, Ishmael was to become the ancestor of a nation, through the direct agency of the Lord, not from any provision made him by his earthly father. Had Abraham endowed him, the interposition of the Eternal would not have been so clearly and unanswerably demonstrated. There would have been many to have traced his riches and the princely rank of his descendants from the gifts and power of Abraham, and denied altogether any interposition of the Lord; whereas, sent forth as he was, with nothing but sufficient provision to sustain him till he reached his appointed resting, it was impossible even for the greatest sceptic to trace his future prosperity and wealth to any earthly power alone. The bread and water must not be supposed as meaning only what we now regard them. In the language of the Bible bread is used indiscriminately for every kind of food, and the bottle of water signifies a skinful, such being used by Eastern travellers even now, and containing much more than we imagine is comprised by the term “bottle.” Yet even these were to fail, that the miraculous power and compassionate love of the Eternal might still more startlingly be proved. It was as easy for the Most High to have guided Ishmael and his mother at once to their destined dwelling, as to try them as He did in the ordeal of alike physical and mental suffering.

FIRST PERIOD. II. SARAH

119

But He chose the latter, at once to prove His love to them, and to give to future ages, through his unerring word, comfort in their darkest hours; for as He relieved Hagar, so will He them. The God of the bondwoman is ours still; no time, no change can part us from Him. The narrative of Hagar’s wanderings in the wilderness, her maternal suffering and miraculous relief, is one of the most beautiful and most touching amongst the many beauties of the Bible. Hagar was not of Abraham’s race, but one of a heathen and benighted nation, a bondwoman and a wanderer, a weak and lonely female, exiled from a home of love, overwhelmed with anxious fears for her child, perhaps, too, with self-reproaches for the unguarded words which she encouraged her boy to speak, and which she regarded as the sole cause of her banishment; yet was this poor sufferer the peculiar care of the great and mighty God. He caused the clouds of densest darkness to close around her—from them to bring forth the brightest, most enduring light. He deigned, by His angel, to speak comfort and hope, and even for her human wants provided the necessary aid. He did not guard from sorrow; for it was not until “the water was spent in the bottle, and she cast the child under one of the shrubs, and she went and sat down over against him, a good way off, for she said, Let me not see the death of the child; and she sat over against him, and lifted up her voice and wept”106—not till her trial was thus at its height, that the angelic voice descended from heaven in such pitying and sympathizing accents: “What aileth thee, O Hagar? Fear not, for God hath heard the voice of the lad whence he is. Arise, lift up the lad, and hold him in thine hand, for I will make him a great nation.”107 And the promise was fulfilled.108

Gen. 21:16. Gen. 21:17–18. 108 See Gen. 25:12–18 concerning the many nations descended from Ishmael. Moreover, in post-biblical Jewish lore Ishmael comes to be seen as the progenitor of the Arabs. Furthermore, in medieval times Edom was the Hebrew term for Christendom while Ishmael was the Hebrew term for the world of Islam. Consequently, the rivalry between the three claim106 107

120

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

The whole history of Hagar is fraught with the deepest comfort. She was one of the many in individual character; possessing alike woman’s engaging and faulty characteristics: feeling and affectionate at one time, overbearing and insolent at another—loving Ishmael with impetuous and clinging love, which could not bear to see his supposed heritage become the property of another, though she knew it was the decree of God—reverencing and loving Abraham alike as her master and the father of her child, but unable always to preserve the submission and respect due to Sarah as her mistress and indulgent friend; for, though the mother of Abraham’s child, she was still Sarah’s maid;—such was Hagar. Neither in character superior, nor in station equal, to the daughters of Israel now; yet was she the peculiar charge of the Most High, and twice did He deign, in closest communion, to instruct and console.109 Her life had its trials, in no way inferior in severity or in deep suffering to the trials of the present day. Yet God was with her in them all; and, in His own appointed time, permitted them to give place to prosperity and joy.110 And as He worked then, so He worketh now. It is no proof of His dearest love, when life passes by without a cloud—when sorrow and trial are strangers to our path. His word reveals that those whom He loved the best, alike male or female, endured the severest trials—that His love, His guiding word, were not given to the children of joy. To become His ants to the authentic version of the heritage of Abraham is literally “all in the family.” 109 First in Gen. 16:7–12; and again in Gen. 21:17–18. 110 For this idea see Prov. 3:12: “For whom the LORD loveth he correcteth; even as a father the son in whom he delighteth.” Consequently, in Rabbinic literature the trials of the virtuous are called “chastisements of love.” See also Job. 5:17–27. Moreover, there is widely reflected in Rabbinic literature the idea that Abraham was subjected to ten trials of which the last and greatest was being asked to offer up his son Isaac as a sacrifice (Gen. 22) because God inflicts the greatest trials upon those who are capable of meeting such tests and being rewarded for their faithfulness and endurance under trial. See, inter alia, Shalom Spiegel, The Last Trial, translated and with an introduction by Judah Goldin (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society of America, 1967).

FIRST PERIOD. II. SARAH

121

servant, His loved, His chosen, was to suffer and to labor. We see this throughout His word; and shall we, dare we, expect their exemption now? Oh! no, no! Would we love the Lord, would we truly be loved by Him, would we pray for and seek His paths, would we struggle on to the goal of immortal love and bliss, we must nerve both heart and frame to bear; strengthen and arouse every faculty to endure and suffer; for so did His chosen, His best beloved, and so too must we. We have still His word to be to us as the angelic whisper was to our ancestors. Their hope is ours, and their reward. Few other events mark the life of Sarah. The Most High had brought her forth from the trials, anxieties, and doubts of previous years. He had, in His infinite mercy, fulfilled His word, and bestowed on her the blessed gift for which, in the midst of happiness, she had pined. Continuing His loving kindness, He lengthened her days much beyond the usual sum of mortality, that she might rear her child to manhood, and receive all the blessed fruit of her maternal care in Isaac’s deep love and reverence for herself. In a mere superficial perusal of the life of Sarah, as read in our Sabbath portions,111 we are likely to overlook much of the consoling proofs of the Eternal’s compassionating love for His female children, which it so powerfully reveals. Sarah was ninety years of age when Isaac was born. In the course of nature, ten or twelve years more would either have closed her mortal career, or rendered it, from the infirmities of so great an age, a burden to herself and all around her. There was no need of her preservation to forward the decrees of the Lord. In giving birth to the child of promise, her part was fulfilled, and at the age of ten or twelve the boy might have done without her. But God is LOVE, and the affections of His children Following the custom of the Babylonian Talmud, the Jews divide the Pentateuch into 54 divisions, one (and sometimes two) of which is read during the Sabbath Morning Service each week except when a major festival falls on the Sabbath so that the reading of one of the 54 weekly portions is preempted by a reading appropriate to the theme of the festival. In addition, halakhah provides that each individual study the weekly portion by oneself during the week culminating in the reading of that portion during the Sabbath service. 111

122

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

are, in their strength and purity, peculiarly acceptable to Him. He never bestoweth happiness to withdraw it; and, therefore, to perfect the felicity of Sarah and her child, His tenderness preserved her in life and vigor seven and thirty years after she had given him birth. In this simple fact we trace the beneficent and tender Father, sympathizing not alone in every grief and pang, but in every joy and affection of His creatures. We feel to our heart’s core the truth of the words of Moses, “Who hath God so near to him”112 as Israel? What nation can so trace, so claim the love of the Eternal? Nor was the preservation of Sarah the only proof of our Father’s loving tenderness towards her, and of His condescending sympathy with the love she bore her child. The trial of faith in the sacrifice of his son was given to the father; but the mother was spared the consuming agony which must have been her portion, even had her faith continued strong. God had compassion on the feebler, weaker nature of His female servant. He demanded not from her that which He knew the mother could not bear. He spared her, in His immeasurable love, the suffering which it pleased Him to inflict upon the father,—suffering and temptation not to satisfy the Lord, for His omniscience knew that His faithful servant would not fail; but to prove to future ages the mighty power of spiritual faith and love, even while in the mortal clay. In the early part of his spiritual career, even Abraham’s faith would in all probability have failed. He was not supernaturally endowed with divine grace and strength. All through his life we can trace his gradual advance and improvement, till his faith and love arrived at the climax which permitted even the offered and unmurmuring sacrifice of his dearly beloved and now only child. Even in this we trace the guiding and fostering love of the Lord— demanding not more than He knew could be given, and measuring the trial of faith according to the advancing strength of His servant, each one more than the last. But this consideration has more to do with Abraham individually and Israel at large. It is His loving kindness manifested towards Sarah that we, her female descendants, must take to our hearts, thence to derive alike strength and consolation. The conviction of the Eternal’s love for us individually is nec112

Deut. 4:7.

FIRST PERIOD. II. SARAH

123

essary for woman’s happiness, and peculiarly adapted to its bestowal. It is woman’s nature to yearn and droop for love—to shrink in agony from a lonely path—to long for some supporting arm on which to rest her weakness; and it is woman’s doom too often to find on earth no loving rest, and therefore is her lot so sad. But when she can once realize that she is the subject of a love as immeasurably superior in consolation, strength, and changeless sympathy, to that of man, as the heaven is above the earth:—when she can once feel she has a friend who will never “leave her nor forsake”113—in whose pitying ear she may pour forth trials and griefs, either petty or great, which she would not even if she might confide to man, secure not only of pity but of healing—when she is conscious that she is never lonely—never left to her own weakness, but in her every need will have strength infused—then, then is she so blessed that she is no more lonely, no more sad! And the word of God will give us this thrice blessed consolation, not in His gracious promises alone, though they in themselves would be sufficient, but in His dealings with his creatures. As the ancestor of His beloved,114 we find Sarah’s death and age particularly recorded; being the first woman of the Bible whose death and burial are mentioned.115 The deep grief of her husband and son are simply but touchingly betrayed in the brief words, “And Abraham came to mourn for Sarah, and to weep for her;”116 and, at a later period, not till his marriage with Rebekah, “and Isaac was comforted after his mother’s death.”117 Words that portray the beauty and affection of Sarah’s domestic character, and confirm Ps. 94:14: “For the LORD will not cast off his people, neither will he forsake his inheritance”; so KJV. 114 The beloved being Israel, and she refers to Isa. 41:8: “But thou, Israel, art my servant, Jacob whom I have chosen, the seed of Abraham my friend,” and she takes ’ohabi ‘my beloved’ (‘my friend’ in KJV) as referring back to Israel rather than restricted to Abraham. 115 In fact, an entire chapter of the Bible, Gen. 23, is devoted to the death and burial of Sarah. 116 Gen. 23:2. 117 Gen. 24:67. 113

124

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

our belief that, although perhaps possessing many of the failings of her sex, she was yet a help meet for Abraham—a tender and judicious parent to her son—and a kind, indulgent friend to the large household of which she was the mistress. Her noble or rather princely rank, received as it had been direct from the Lord, is still more strongly proved by the intercourse between Abraham and the sons of Heth, when seeking from them a place to bury his dead: “Hear us, my lord,” is their reply, “thou art a mighty prince of God amongst us in the choicest of our sepulchres bury thy dead;”118 and it was with difficulty Abraham could elude the offered gift, and procure the cave as a purchase. His princely rank, however, and in consequence that of his wife, we see at once acknowledged, even by strangers, and the promise of the Lord, expressed in changing the name of Sarai into Sarah, clearly fulfilled. The grief of Isaac appears to have lasted yet longer than that of his father, and beautifully illustrates the love between the mother and son. Abraham, advanced in years and spiritual experience, felt less keenly the mere emotions of humanity; lie was convinced that Sarah had only gone before him to that world in which, from his great age, he would no doubt speedily join her. His many duties— his close communion with the Eternal—enabled him to rouse himself sooner from the grief, which at first was equally severe; but Isaac was, according to the patriarchal reckoning of time, still a very young man, at the age when feeling is keener, less controlled than at any other; and when, though spiritual comfort is great, human emotions will have full vent. Except the three days’ journey to Mount Moriah with his father, Isaac does not appear to have been separated a single day from his mother; and her care, her guiding and fostering love, had so entwined her round his heart, that for three years after her death her son could find no comfort. How exalted and lovely must have been that mother’s character to demand such a term of mourning from her son; whose youth and sex would, in some, have speedily roused him from sorrow, or urged its forgetfulness in scenes of pleasure! We have little more to add on the spiritual lesson and divine consolation which Sarah’s life presents to her female descendants, 118

Gen. 23:6.

FIRST PERIOD. II. SARAH

125

than those hints already given. Differently situated as we are, with regard to station, land, and customs, we may yet imitate her faithfulness in all her household duties—her love and reverence to her husband—her tenderness to her child—her quiet, unpretending, domestic, yet dignified fulfilment of all which she was called upon to do. We may learn from her to set no value on personal charms, save as they may enhance the gratification of those who love us best; or of rank and station, save as they demand from us yet deeper gratitude towards God, and more extended usefulness towards man. We may learn too from her history that it is better to wait for the Lord—to leave in His hands the fulfilment of our ardent wishes—than to seek to compass them by human means. We may trace and feel that nothing, in truth, is too wonderful for the Lord; that He will do what pleaseth Him, however we may deem it hopeless and in vain. Direct revelations, as vouchsafed to Sarah, indeed we have not, but God has, in His deep mercy, granted us His word—the record of all HE HAS DONE119—that we may feel He is still OUR God; and though He worketh now in secret—for our sins have hid from us His ways—yet He worketh for us still, and hath compassion and mercy and love for each of us individually, even as He had for Sarah, and her bondwoman Hagar. All these to us, as women, her history reveals: as women of Israel, oh! yet more. It is of no stranger in race, and clime, and faith we read. It is of OUR OWN—of one from whom Israel hath descended in a direct, unshadowed line—of one—the beloved and cherished partner of that chosen servant and beloved friend of the Eternal, for whose sake revelation was given to mankind—Israel made not alone the nation, but the FIRST-BORN of the Lord;120 and that law bestowed, The record to which Aguilar here refers is Hebrew Scripture. In Ex. 4:22 God says to Moses, “And thou shalt say unto Pharaoh, Thus saith the LORD, Israel is my son, even my firstborn.” Cf. also Jer. 31:9 where God says, “For I am a father to Israel, and Ephraim is my firstborn son.” The latter verse belongs to a message of consolation to the land of Samaria, most of whose Israelite inhabitants were exiled by the Assyrians in 722 B.C.E. Here, echoing the 8th century B.C.E. prophet, whose writings are found in Hos. 4–14, Jeremiah treats Israel and Ephraim as synonyms. 119 120

126

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

which revealed a God of “love, long-suffering and gracious, plenteous in mercy and truth;”121—instructed us how to tread our earthly path, so as to give happiness to ourselves and fellowcreatures—to be acceptable to Him;—and pointed with an angelfinger to that immortal goal, where man shall live for ever! Is it nothing to be the lineal descendants of one so favored— nothing to hold in our hands and shrine in our hearts, the record of her life from whom the race of promise sprang? Nothing, to peruse the wonderful manifestations of the Lord’s love to her—to feel that from Him direct was Sarah’s patent of nobility, and yet possess the privilege of being her descendant? Will the women of Israel feel this as nothing? Will they disdain their princely birth, their heavenly heritage? Will they scorn to look back on Sarah as their ancestor, and yet long for earthly distinctions, earthly rank? No! oh, no! Let us but think of these things, of those from whom we have descended, and our minds will become ennobled, our hearts enlarged. We shall scorn the false shame which would descend to petty meannesses to hide our faith, and so exalt us in the sight of a Gentile world. Humbled, cast off for a little moment as we are—liable to persecution, scorn, contumely—to be “despised and rejected” of men122—to bear the burden of affliction from all who choose to afflict—still, still we cannot lose our blessed heritage unless we cast it off; we cannot be deprived of our birthright unless, like Esau, we exchange it for mere worldly pelf, and momentary (because earthly) gratification. We are still Israelites—still the chosen, the beloved, the ARISTOCRACY of the Lord.

Ex. 34:6. Isa. 53:3. That entire chapter describes the suffering servant, whom most Jewish interpreters, including Grace Aguilar here, regard as a description of the people Israel in exile. 121 122

CHAPTER III. REBEKAH In the same beautiful country whence, nearly seventy years previous, the son of Terah had been called by the divine command, still dwelt the children of his brother, Nahor.1 Contrary to the long period of childlessness which had been the portion of Abraham, eight sons were born unto Nahor. And when tidings of his family again reached the patriarch, just after the offered sacrifice of his son, he heard that his brother was also a grandfather—Bethuel, one of his sons having married, and possessing sons and one fair daughter.2 The many wanderings of Abraham, the distance to which he had removed, and the almost impossibility of obtaining reciprocal intelligence, had, of course, prevented family intercourse. Yet, by the notice taken of Abraham’s having unexpectedly received intelligence of his kindred, and also by the momentous events recorded in the xxiv. chapter, it is evident that both Abraham and Nahor retained a vivid recollection of, and continued affection towards each other— an affecting illustration of the doctrine we so earnestly uphold— that Holy Writ never fails to inculcate—alike by precept, character, and narrative—the ascendency, necessity, and beauty of the natural affections. Though elected to know and serve the Lord, and to promulgate the knowledge of the true religion throughout the world, still, no forgetfulness, no contempt of the less favored of his father’s house, actuated Abraham. In simple, questionless obedience to his God, he had departed from all the haunts, the friends of his youth; but to a disposition so strongly affectionate as his own, often and often must the yearnings have returned, to learn somewhat of the brother of his love. The characters of the Bible are all 1 2

Gen. 22:20–22. I.e., Rebekah; see Gen. 22:23.

127

128

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

human: though we are but too apt to judge them by any and every other test than that of humanity. Religion, instead of deadening, ever deepens and strengthens mere human feelings. No one has ever yet truly and devotedly loved God without feeling every natural affection heightened and more precious. Indifference in any one single point is utterly banished. It cannot exist with true spirituality; and therefore do we always find in the Bible, the strongest, most affectionate feelings actuating the chosen servants of the Lord. From a careful consideration of this portion of Bible history, and of Laban’s family in the sequel,3 it appears probable that Abraham had other reasons besides those of kindred for wishing his son to choose a wife from the daughters of Mesopotamia, instead of those of Canaan. Had the patriarch’s kindred been merely idolatrous as the other families of the earth, it is not likely that the mere recital of the steward should have called forth Laban and Bethuel’s answering exclamation—“The thing proceeded from the LORD, we cannot speak unto thee bad or good!”4—nor many years afterwards, in Laban’s intercourse with his nephew, his entreaty, “Tarry with me, for I have learned by experience that the LORD hath blessed me for thy sake.”5 It would seem from these simply recorded facts, that though they worshipped images, which are referred to more than once in the sequel,6 their religion was certainly purer than that of the Canaanites. It was from his father’s house Abraham had been elected and called by the Almighty. His firm rejection and abhorrence of idols,7 his meek and gentle unupbraiding conduct, his departure in simple obedience to an unknown Being,8—all this was probably remembered and so comSee Gen. 29. Gen. 24:50. 5 Gen. 30:27 6 Laban’s teraphim, referred to in Gen. 31:19, 34, 35. Moreover, Laban calls them “my gods” in Gen. 31:30, and Jacob, in turn, speaking to Laban, calls them “thy gods” in Gen. 31:32. 7 Here Aguilar refers to the account in Genesis Rabbah. 8 Gen. 12:1: “Now the LORD had said unto Abram, Get thee out of they country, and from thy kindred, and from thy father’s house, unto a land that I will shew thee.” 3 4

FIRST PERIOD. III. REBEKAH

129

mented upon by his kindred, that his memory had more influence than his presence; and vague notions of the religion and the God whom he had followed and preached, mingled with the imageworship which they still retained. These notions, very possibly strengthened by the rumors of Abraham’s continued communings with this mysterious God, and the many manifestations of a superhuman agency vouchsafed to him, which, by slow degrees, reached even Mesopotamia, prepared them to acknowledge and even believe in Him; though from ignorance as to the manner of worship which could be acceptable to a Being so awful and invisible, they adhered to the worship of their fathers. Abraham no doubt felt that it would be easy to impart to the daughter of such a race, the true and spiritual religion of which the Patriarch’s own family was the only witness. There would be no fear of her retaining and secretly promulgating the impure and idolatrous notions which would undoubtedly have been the case with the daughters of Canaan; and this, acting powerfully on the affecting recollections of kindred and home, appears to me the real cause of Abraham’s intense anxiety to take a wife for his son Isaac from the daughters of his father’s house. Meanwhile the daughter of Bethuel had grown into beautiful womanhood, beloved and cherished alike by her parents and brothers, and pursuing with cheerful content and affection the simple routine of domestic life.9 There is no mention in Scripture of her having ever been sought in marriage before the offer of Isaac. We are rather to suppose, that she was scarcely seen or known beyond the precincts of her father’s establishment; and as this was the case also with the daughters of Laban, some years afterwards, the supposition of their superiority to the other heathen nations is confirmed. The daily employments of the young females of the East appear to have been completely domestic;10 and in obedience to these The domestic life portrayed in the account of Rebekah’s first meeting Abraham’s servant consists of the rather strenuous work of pumping water from a well located outside of the city and watering the servant’s ten camels; see Gen. 24:10–20. 10 This is a typically Orientalist evaluation of both the ancient and the modern Middle East; see Said, Orientalism, 311. 9

130

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

daily duties we find Rebekah one evening going as usual to the well with her pitcher on her shoulder to draw water. The group of strangers beside the well must have struck her as something remarkable, but we do not find that she in any way loitered or wavered in the steady performance of her task. “And the damsel was very fair to look upon, a virgin: and she went down to the well, and filled her pitcher and came up. And the servant ran to meet her, and said, Let me, I pray thee, drink a little water of thy pitcher. And she said, Drink, my lord: and she let down her pitcher upon her hand, and gave him drink. And when she had done giving him drink, she said, I will draw water for thy camels also, until they have done drinking. And she hasted and emptied her pitcher into the trough, and ran again unto the well to draw water, and drew for all his camels.’’11 Among the many little exquisite touches of artless and gentle nature with which the Bible abounds, none surpass this for truth and beauty. The same unsophisticated nature that led her quietly to pursue her duty, without turning to the right hand or to the left, also prompted the active and cordial kindness to the stranger when he addressed her, and the respectful deference to his age and sex which the words “Drink, my lord,”12 imply. It was the quiet selfpossession, the modest ease and frankness, the total disregard of self, alike with regard to personal trouble as to the impression her own beautiful face and form might make, which ever proceed from a proper self-esteem, without which no woman, however situated, can happily or with propriety pass, through life. She not only gave refreshment to the steward, but filled the trough for the weary camels to drink also. Many times must she have ascended and descended to the well, burdened with a weighty pitcher—a fair and gentle girl, while so many strong men were standing round—but they were strangers and travellers, and she was in her own land.

11 12

Gen. 24:16–20. Gen. 24:18.

FIRST PERIOD. III. REBEKAH

131

Well might Eliezer,13 “wondering at her, hold his peace, to wit whether the Lord had made his journey prosperous or not.”14 It was difficult to believe that the prayer he had scarcely concluded before Rebekah appeared, should so speedily be answered; and it was, no doubt, with some little trembling he asked, “Whose daughter art thou? Tell me, I pray thee, is there room in thy father’s house for us to lodge in?”15 and how must his heart have bounded with returning confidence at the artless reply: “I am the daughter of Bethuel, the son of Milcah, which she bare unto Nahor. She said moreover unto him, We have both straw and provender enough, and room to lodge in.” Our ancient fathers, with much justice, suppose that the splendid presents of the steward followed this announcement, and were not given, as we might not likely he should bestow them on any one, however beautiful and hospitable, unless perfectly convinced that she was the maiden destined so to be. The little conversation between them, and even the steward’s fervent ejaculation of thanksgiving, probably took place while the camels were drinking; and it was when they had done, “that the man took a golden earring of half a shekel weight, and the bracelets for her hands of ten shekels weight of gold.” Greatly must the maiden have marvelled, not only at the richness of the presents, but that they should be offered at all; and, true to the almost childish nature which the whole narration displays, “she ran and told them of her mother’s house these things.”16 It is by some commentators considered strange, I believe, that in all which follows, Laban, not Bethuel, should be the principal Rashi, in his commentary at Gen. 24:39 equates the unnamed servant who arranges for the marriage of Isaac and Rebekah with the servant Eliezer who is mentioned in Gen. 15:2. Since, in fact, Abraham had numerous servants, it is by no means certain that the unnamed servant of Gen. 24 is, indeed Eliezer. Aguilar here reflects the tendency of Jews, who have been literally raised on Rashi’s commentaries presented to them either in writing or orally, to take for granted that the servant mentioned in Gen. 24 is, indeed, Eliezer. 14 Gen. 24:21. 15 Gen. 24:23. 16 Gen. 24:28. 13

132

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

actor. The Bible appears to tell us, that Laban was decidedly the head of his father’s house; and, as there is no mention whatever of Rebekah’s father, no reference to any relation but her mother and brother, it docs not seem probable that she had a father living, the Bethuel who is mentioned being possibly a younger brother, and one of very inferior consequence.17 We have already perceived that Rebekah “told them of her mother’s house.” And now, without any notice whatever of a father, we read, that “Rebekah had a brother whose name was Laban.” And when he saw the earring and bracelets on his sister’s hands, and when he heard her words, he came unto the man who still stood with his camels beside the well, and accosted him, not only as one who was master, with independent authority, but with an exclamation which confirms our previous suggestion, that some vague notions of Abraham’s God had reached even Mesopotamia. The hurried narration of his sister would not have been sufficient incentive for such greeting;—“Come in, thou BLESSED OF THE LORD;18 wherefore standest thou without? for I have prepared the

Gen. 24:50 actually states, “Then Laban and Bethuel answered and said ... .” Responding to the exegetical question as to why Rebekah’s brother is mentioned here before her father Bethuel, Rashi comments: “He [Laban] was a wicked person, and he jumped to answer before his father.” However, Aguilar is correct, at least from the point of view of ancient Jewish exegesis, in stating that somewhere in the course of the story Rebekah’s father Bethuel seems to have died. Noting that in Gen. 24:55 it is Rebekah’s brother and mother who respond to the servant’s request that he be dispatched at once to his master, Rashi asks the question, “As for Bethuel [the father], where was he?” And Rashi answers his own question, “He would have wanted to postpone action. So an angel came and killed him.” 18 Gen. 24:31. Indeed, it should be strange for a non-Israelite to employ the four letter personal name of God, which is indicated in KJV and most English versions by “the LORD.” In fact, at least one strand of the narratives in Genesis, the strand which modern biblical scholarship refers to as J (the first letter of the four letter Hebrew name JHWH in many European languages; in English it is usually YHWH), portrays also non17

FIRST PERIOD. III. REBEKAH

133

house, and room for the camels. And the man came into the house, and he ungirded his camels. And they gave straw and provender for the camels, and water to wash his feet, and the men’s feet who were with him. And they set meat before him to eat: but he said, I will not eat till I have said mine errand. And he (Laban) said, Speak on.”19 Laban, as the generous, unsuspicious host, had performed his part. And now, the servant of Abraham failed not to perform his. Earnest in his master’s cause, his mission occupying alike heart and mind,—convinced that he was in the Lord’s hands, he would not wait till hunger was appeased and weariness subdued, but at once spoke; his first words refusing all honor to himself by the simple declaration,‫“ עבד אברהם אנכי‬Servant of Abraham am I.”20 It was, indeed, a wondrous tale to which the family of Bethuel listened. By the words of Laban, at its conclusion, “Behold, Rebekah is before thee,”21 we may infer, that the maiden and her mother were both present; though, by no word or exclamation did the former interrupt a narrative which concerned her so deeply; yet as a woman, and a very young one, how many feelings must have stirred within her, as the steward spoke! Eliezer told how his venerable master had grown rich and great by the blessing of the Lord, who had also granted him, in his old age, a son, to whom Abraham had given all that he had:—how anxious he was to guard his son from a connexion with the Canaanites, and to take him a wife from his own kindred; overruling Eliezer’s objection—“Peradventure, the woman will not follow me,”—by the solemn assurance that “the Lord, before whom I walk, will send His angel before thee, and prosper thy way;”—how, in obedience, he had set forth, and, arriving that day at the well, had prayed to the Lord God of his master Abraham, to grant that the virgin who, when he wished for a little water from her pitcher, should reply, “Drink thou, and I will draw for the camels also,” Israelites using this name of God: Eve in Gen. 4:1; the people of the generation of Enosh in Gen. 4:26; and Noah in Gen. 9:26. 19 Gen. 24:31–33. 20 Gen. 24:34. 21 Gen. 24:51.

134

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

should be the maiden whom the Lord had appointed for his master’s son;—how his prayer had been heard and answered, by the appearance and kindly courtesy of Rebekah;—and he concluded, “I bowed down my head, and worshipped the Lord God of my master Abraham, who had led me in the right way, to take my master’s brother’s daughter for his son. And now, if you will deal kindly and truly with my master, tell me; and if not, tell me; that I may turn to the right hand, or the left.”22 Deeply indeed must the simple tale have affected its hearers. The rich, the princely Abraham had remembered and yearned towards his father’s house; even those who, perchance, in his youth had reviled and persecuted him for his rejection of their idols; seeking from them, in preference to every other, a wife for his son. “The thing proceedeth from the Lord” was their instant answer.23 “We cannot speak unto thee bad or good. Behold, Rebekah is before thee, take her, and go, and let her be thy master’s son’s wife, as the LORD hath spoken.”24 Blessed thus far, the richest jewels of gold and silver were presented by the steward to the youthful bride, her mother and brother.25 Surely, if her father had still been living, he would here have been mentioned: but neither here, nor in the 55th and 60th verses following, which are important as relating to her influential kindred, is there any notice taken of his existence.26 One night only, the steward accepted the lavish hospitality of his hosts. Anxious to report the success of his mission, he entreated, “Send me away to my master.”27 But natural ties could not be so quickly severed without pain. How could they so suddenly part with the cherished darling of their house—in all probability never to look upon her again? “Let the damsel abide with us a few days,” her mother and brother said; “at least ten, after that she shall

Gen. 24:48–49. Gen. 24:50. 24 Gen. 24:50-51. 25 Gen.24:53. 26 See n. 17 above. 27 Gen. 24:54. 22 23

FIRST PERIOD. III. REBEKAH

135

go.”28 But the steward entreated them to “hinder him not,” believing that to loiter, would be “displeasing to the Lord who had prospered his way.”29 And they said, “We will call the damsel, and inquire at her mouth.”30 Young and retiring as she was, her own voice was to decide the matter. They would neither retain nor send her away without her own consent; thus proving that even family authority, in the Bible, was an authority of love. “And calling her, they said, Wilt thou go with this man? And she said, I will go;”31—a brief and simple answer, yet suited alike to her character and the occasion. No doubt, there will be some to exclaim against the reply as abrupt and unmaidenly; but have they quite considered all the circumstances of the case? Rebekah’s character, at this period of her life, was a beautiful blending of simplicity and truth. Sought by Abraham for his son, of whom, in all probability, she had already favorably heard; selected by God himself, every natural feeling of woman was satisfied and soothed. Perhaps, now, in this period of ultra refinement, such simplicity will scarcely be understood. Yet, then, her meek assent was in perfect accordance with all that had passed before. Is it not ordained, even by God himself—that woman, even as man, should leave father, mother, and home, to cleave unto her husband?32 Besides, this was no engagement of Gen. 24:55. Cf. KJV at Gen. 24:56: “Hinder me not, seeing the LORD hath prospered my way.” In fact, the Hebrew text employs the conjunctive particle waw, which KJV construes as subordinate in meaning while Aguilar expands upon the implications of that conjunctive particle with subordinate meaning. De Sola at al., Sacred Scriptures, 130, render, “Delay me not, for the Lord hath prospered my way.” Indeed, when Rebekah’s family suggests in v. 55 that Rebekah should stay in her home in the city of Nahor (see v. 10), the servant again says in v. 56, “Hinder me not ... send me away that I may go to my master.” 30 Gen. 24:57. 31 Gen. 24:58. 32 Indeed, Gen. 2:24 says only of the man, “Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother and cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.” However, according to the normative Jewish understanding of Gen. 2:21 reflected in Rashi’s commentary there, it was not a rib that was 28 29

136

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

mere human devising. She was, unconsciously, the instrument in the Eternal’s hand to further His decrees. And her brief assent was his inspiration, as certainly as all the previous incidents. Nor can we doubt for a moment, even while she declared her willingness to go, that natural affections were busy within her. Have not our readers themselves felt, at times, two completely opposing feelings filling their hearts at once? And oh! how blessed would it be at such times, if we could but realize that the words, fraught with a pain and anxiety unknown, unthought of, when we spoke them, proceed alone, as Rebekah’s “I will go,” from the guidance of the Lord, and that therefore, spite of all the sufferings which may gather round us, they will in the end be blessed. Rebekah had accepted the presents of betrothal, and was therefore already of the family of Abraham. How then might his steward go without her? It was not her part to detain him on his way. We may imagine the tears of affection with which the fond blessing was pronounced by her brothers. The mother, though still present, is not mentioned; for her prayers were in her heart. “And they blessed Rebekah, and said unto her, Thou art our sister; be thou the mother of thousands of millions, and let thy seed possess the gates of those which hate them.”33 And Rebekah arose34 taken from an original man in the sense of a male that was made into a woman. Rather, one of the two halves of the original androgyne became ’ish ‘man to the exclusion of woman’ while the other half became ’ishshah ‘woman’. Better still, Aguilar has simply offered an insightful and correct feminist interpretation, which understands that what is said of man searching for his other half which might complete him is equally true of the natural desire of a woman for a man. Obviously, some readers in postmodern times may find both the sexist reading and Aguilar’s feminism to be decidedly expressive of heterosexualism, which is to say an ideology, which disparages homosexuality. Interestingly enough, Rashi, following a midrash found in Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin 57b, q.v., states exactly that! 33 Gen. 24:60. 34 So KJV and even NJV, and Aguilar responds to the exegetical question, “From what or whom is it that she arose?” In fact, the Hebrew verb wattaqom, lit. ‘she arose’ probably serves here as an auxiliary verb meaning

FIRST PERIOD. III. REBEKAH

137

(probably from the detaining arms of her kindred), and with her nurse, and attendant damsels, sought their camels, and accompanied the steward on his homeward way. How many thoughts must have crowded the heart and mind of the young daughter of Bethuel during this journey—the home she had left, and the home she was about to seek—the friends of her childhood, and those unknown; yet towards whom she turned with the yearning to love and be beloved: probably hearing from the lips of the steward so much of his young master, as to render him in her mind no longer a stranger. Simply and beautifully is the last touch to this portion of her history given by the inspired historian.35 Canaan was reached; the tents of the patriarch in sight. And lifting up her eyes, Rebekah beheld a man walking forth in the fertile fields; bearing in his pensive mind and measured tread, the aspect of one in holy meditation.36 It was eventide, that still solemn hour of holy musing, sought only by those who have no thought from which to shrink, who can call up sweet dreamy visions of the past—sad, yet how inexpressibly soothing. That holy hour, when the soul of the departed comes back to the spirit of the bereaved, holding such commune as must proclaim our union with the invisible world, and confirm our immortality.37 The maiden probably guessed who it ‘Thereupon’; see Harry Orlinsky, ed., Notes On the New Translation of the Torah (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1969), 34–35 and passim. 35 I.e., Moses, the traditional author of the Pentateuch, which Aguilar regards as a divinely inspired narrative of events as they were in real time. My late and revered teacher Elias Bickerman was want to employ the similar expression, “the sacred author” while Umberto Cassuto was wont to write, “the Torah.” 36 Contrast Gen. 24:62–64: “And Isaac went out to meditate in the field at the eventide; and he lifted up his eyes, and saw, and behold the camels were coming. And Rebekah lifted up her eyes, and when she saw Isaac, she lighted off the camel. For she had said unto the servant, What man is this that walketh in the field to meet us? And the servant had said, It is my master ... .” 37 In Rabbinic tradition it was during his meditations on this particular afternoon that Isaac instituted the “Afternoon Prayer” or minhah. See

138

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

was on whom she gazed. But when the question was asked and answered by her guide, modesty, refinement, simplicity, and that respect which ever springs from the heart, all impelled her to light off her camel,” and “to take a veil and cover herself.”38 This was true humility, for she knew her own dignity. She demanded no more respect than she paid herself. She waited no ceremonious introduction, but alighting from the camel, completely shrouded in her veil, she proved by the one action, the respect due to the son of Abraham, her destined husband, and by the other retained her own gentle dignity, by concealing every charm, till the servant’s tale was told, and Isaac claimed her as his bride. Personal beauty was in this case as nothing, though she possessed it in no ordinary degree. Her conduct proceeded from an artless, unsophisticated nature, timidly shrinking from the eyes of him whom she most wished to please—a desire to conceal the very beauty which she must have yet ardently hoped that he might prize; and her hope was fulfilled, for “Isaac brought her into his mother Sarah’s tent, and he took Rebekah, and she became his wife, and he loved her, and Isaac was comforted after his mother’s death.”39 How beautifully do those few words illustrate the extent of his love both towards his mother and wife! Though three years40 had passed since Babylonian Talmud, Berakot 26b; equally apropos here is the tradition recorded in the 8th century C.E. Pirke deRabbi Eliezer according to which the ministering angels instituted the second of the blessings of the Eighteen part prayer recited three times daily when Isaac, as it were, expired upon the altar on Mount Moriah but was brought back to life. That second blessing affirms the belief in immortality. Perhaps these traditions belong to the stream of consciousness that lie behind Aguilar’s remarks at this juncture concerning immortality and her own experience of communing with the dead at the time of the afternoon prayer before sunset. 38 Gen. 24:65. 39 Gen 24:67. 40 Seder Olam: The Rabbinic View of Biblical Chronology, translated and with commentary [and a vocalized Hebrew text] by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer (Northvale, New Jersey: Jason Aronson, 1998), 15, quoting the commentary of Tosafot at Babylonian Talmud, Yevamot 61b: “Our forefather Isaac was 37 years of age when he was bound to the altar and at

FIRST PERIOD. III. REBEKAH

139

the death of his mother, he yet mourned for her. Not even the affections of his father could satisfy that painful yearning;—not even religion, with her host of soothing thoughts and blessed images, could wholly comfort him, though she gave him strength to endure, and spiritual love to bless the hand which smote. Nor is this a contradictory assertion. Religion leads us to Him who alone can heal, in deep and most fervid prayer;—that prayer brings us, from Him whose deep mercy hears and answers, support and consolation, by the conviction that we are not lonely—that we shall meet again those whom we love in His presence, who is love itself; and this is comfort. The comfort here alluded to was for the yearnings of the mortal; the immortal could realize consolation, the mortal could not. Though it be in very truth the invisible soul we love, yet we become so knit with the mortal habitation of that soul, that we cannot feel it has perished from our sight for ever, without an agony of heart that time and prayer, and constant communings with the invisible Spirit alone, can in any way assuage. Nor is there one portion in the Holy Bible which would tell us that God condemns such grief. If with the whole fervor of our immortal being, we can bow in much submission, faith, and love, unto His will, He condemns not, nay, feels compassionate, and in His own good time heals the agony which our human nature feels through the human agency of wife, or friend, or child. And so it was with Isaac. Wedded as he was to the memory of his mother, no ordinary woman could have so gained his love as to give him comfort, and fill up the aching void which had existed three long years. He must have seen in Rebekah when she first became his wife, a reflection of Sarah’s endearing qualities; and united as these were to youth and beauty, inspired still deeper and dearer emotions than he had ever experienced before.41 that time, Rebecca was born.” Guggenheimer adds, “and it is written (Gen. 25:20), ‘Isaac was 40 when he married Rebecca.’” Now if we recall the tradition (Rashi at Gen. 23:2 based upon the 8th century C.E. Pirke deRabbi Eliezer) that Sarah died from shock of the news that Isaac was about to be sacrificed, it indeed follows that Isaac married Rebekah three years after the death of his mother Sarah. 41 These musings by Aguilar express in poetic prose ideas found in medieval Jewish exegesis explicated in Pirke deRabbi Eliezer, Chapter 32

140

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

To some dispositions, this sudden elevation in a social and domestic position would have been a dangerous ordeal; but neither presumption, arrogance, nor pride, appears to have marked the conduct of Rebekah. The same steady performance of household duty manifested in her girlhood, probably continued in her higher and more responsible station; and year after year found her calmly following the quiet routine of daily duty happily to herself and to her household. And here, for a brief while, we would pause to gather the sweet blossoms of instruction and guidance proffered by a Father’s love, which Rebekah’s history, thus far considered, can impart. We would linger a moment on the past ere we go forward, for the picture must be changed. Yet it is no marvellous or incomprehensible change—it is no history of woman in an era so long past that we wonder, and scarce believe—the picture is too perfect even now;—it is woman then, and woman now, as we shall see hereafter. Although from the wide distinction between patriarchal and modern times, our position and duties as daughters of Israel can never resemble those of Rebecca, we have, like her, domestic duties to perform, and a station not only to fulfil but to adorn, so as to excite towards us respect and love. The women of the Bible are forcibly portrayed, not for us to follow them exactly, for that we could not do, but from their conduct in their respective spheres to and summarized by Rashi in his commentary at Gen. 24:67. The biblical text in the meaning presupposed by Rashi’s interpretation (and confirmed by Shabbetai Bass (1641–1718 C.E.) in his supercommentary “Lips of the Wise”) reads as follows: “And Isaac brought her into the tent. Sarah his mother.” Rashi’s comment (with the lemmas indicated in capitals) reads as follows: TO THE TENT. SARAH HIS MOTHER. [The meaning is]: He brought her into the tent and behold she is Sarah his mother, which is to say that she became like Sarah his mother for so long as Sarah was alive a lamp was lit in the house every Sabbath eve, and the dough was blessed, and a cloud was hung over the house [Shabbetai Bass in his supercommentary on Rashi, Lips of the Wise, explains: “symbolizing the Divine Presence and the observance of purity, which is to say abstention from sexual activity during the woman’s menses]. When Sarah died all of these things ceased, and when Rebekah arrived they returned.”

FIRST PERIOD. III. REBEKAH

141

guide us in ours; from the approval or reproof bestowed directly or indirectly upon them, to teach their descendants what is acceptable in the sight of our heavenly Father and what is not; and of this we may rest assured there is no contradiction to puzzle us in the Word of God. The precepts of His law are proved by the practice of His servants.42 “Whatsoever thy hand findeth to do, do it with all thy might,”43 was said centuries after by the sage monarch,44 who, in obedience to the command of God relating to Kings, must have been acquainted with the whole of His law;45 and that precept46 was exemplified in Rebecca’s conduct at the well. She had every temptation to turn aside a few moments in her simple task. Had she ever accustomed herself to encourage wandering thoughts in her different employments, to turn from them for every frivolous pretence, she would never have withstood the temptation of idling away her time with the goodly looking strangers, and thus demonstrated a character totally unfit to be the ancestress of God’s chosen race.47 Cf. Deut. 4:6: “Keep therefore and do them; for this is your wisdom and your understanding in the sight of the nations, which shall hear all these statutes, and say, Surely this nation is a wise and understanding people.” 43 Eccles. 9:10. 44 King Solomon, the author of the Book of Ecclesiastes according to Canticles Rabbah 1:10; however, according to Babylonian Talmud, Bava Batra 15a, the Book of Ecclesiastes was written by the school established by King Hezekiah and mentioned in Prov. 25:1. 45 Here Aguilar refers to Deut. 17:18–19: “And it shall be when he sitteth upon the throne of his kingdom, that he shall write him a copy of this law [possibly Deuteronomy refers to the Book of Deuteronomy; the traditional interpretation is that this command refers to the entire Pentateuch] in a book out of that which is before the priests the Levites; and it shall be with him, and he shall read therein all the days of his life: that he may learn to fear the LORD his God, to keep all the words of this law and these statutes, to do them.” 46 Referring again to Eccles. 9:10, which she quoted just a few lines before. 47 The idea that Israel was “chosen by God,” which is commonly conceptualized as “the doctrine of the chosen people” or “the election of 42

142

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

But as she went down to the well and filled her pitcher, and came up, “neither turning to the right nor to the left,”48 so it behooves us to follow our daily duties, would we, like her, receive the blessing of the Lord. It is said to be woman’s nature ever to be unsteady—to be caught by the glare of every new object, every new face—to become frivolous from allowing herself in youth to flutter from one employment to another, seeking but sweets, and terrified at the first sight of all that may seem more harsh or stern. But such frivolity is incompatible with the regenerate and spiritual woman whose guidance is her Bible, whose sustainer is her God. She feels too deeply responsible to Him for every hour of her time to squander its smallest portion needlessly away. She seeks to love Him too earnestly, too continually, not to associate the hope of His approval with her every employment, and so associated it is impossible for them to be frivolously followed or lightly interrupted; and if doIsrael” derives from Deut. 7:6; 14:2 (on which see Women of Israel, Period II, Chapter IV, s.v., “laws for daughters”). It is reinforced in Isa. 41:8–9; 43:10; 44:1–2; 48:10. Typical is Isa. 41:8–9 where we read as follows: “But thou, Israel, art my servant, Jacob whom I have chosen, the seed of Abraham my friend ... Thou art my servant; I have chosen thee, and not cast thee away.” 48 This is not stated with reference to Rebekah in Gen. 24, which, however, does emphasize the alacrity with which she provided water first for Abraham’s servant and then for all of his camels; see Gen. 24:18–20. The expression “neither turning to the right nor to the left” is found in Deut. 17:20 where it is said to be the consequence of earnestly studying the Torah, which the king (see above, n. 45) is supposed to have in his possession at all times. For this expression see also, inter alia, Deut. 5:32; 17:11; 28:14; Josh 1:7; 23:6. Moreover, it is the servant who says to Laban and Bethuel in Gen. 24:49, “And now if ye will deal kindly and truly with my master [Abraham], tell me; and if not, tell me; that I may turn to the right hand, or to the left.” In Aguilar’s use of the expression here, as in the other cases noted, the expression means ‘to do what is right rather than to deviate’. In the servant’s usage it means ‘to go somewhere else’. In all instances right and left represent two alternatives while in Aguilar’s usage based upon Deut. 5:32 and the other texts cited in this note the expression means ‘to deviate from the Torah’.

FIRST PERIOD. III. REBEKAH

143

mestic duties were thus performed by the young daughter of a house who knew not by direct revelation the Lord, how much more devolves upon us her descendants, to whom the Lord himself has vouchsafed, through His holy Word, both guidance and example! O! let us then, in our every pursuit, first ponder well if we may lay it before our God, and upon it ask His blessing; and if we truly can, let us pursue it with all our heart, and soul, and might,49 if we would indeed seek the loving tenderness of our God, the respect of the world, and of ourselves. Nor is her steadiness the only portion of Rebecca’s early character demanding our admiration. The winning and obliging gentleness with which she met the stranger’s address proceeded from the genuine kindness, the real politeness of an utterly unselfish heart. The request was not only granted, but granted with such sweetness of manner and respectful words as threefold to enhance the kindness of the deed. The beautiful laws contained in the 32d, 33d, and 34th verses of the 19th chapter of Leviticus50 had not then been The expression “with all your heart with all your soul and with all your might” is found in Deut. 6:5, which the Jew and Jewess recites as part of the Shema (see above, p. 29, n. 16) every morning upon arising and every evening upon retiring and in the daily morning and evening devotions both at home and in the synagogue. 50 These verses read as follows: “Thou shalt rise up before the hoary head, and honour the face of the old man, and fear thy God: I am the LORD; And if a stranger sojourn with thee in your land, ye shall not vex him; But the stranger that dwelleth with you shall be unto you as one born among you, and thou shalt love him as thyself: for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the LORD your God.” Aguilar reminds her readers, first and foremost Jewish girls and young women, who often received inadequate instruction in their faith because the males who controlled Jewish education in early 19th century England did not see the necessity of girls and women studying the Torah, what fantastic ideas are found in the Torah. Secondly, she reminds all readers that some of the most profound wisdom is found in the Book of Leviticus, especially chapter 19. It is still commonly perceived that the Book of Leviticus deals only with sacrifices and oblations. Moreover, she means to provide ammunition against Christian missionaries, who were telling Jewish girls and women that love of 49

144

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

issued, yet the conduct of Rebecca was a practical illustration of the spirit which they teach. She paid respect to age, and did unto the stranger even as if he had been one born in the land; and this we may all do. It is not enough that we act kindly, and mean kindly, in our intercourse either with friends or strangers. We must make manifest kindly feeling by a kindly and conciliating manner.51 At a pestrangers is foreign to Judaism and quoting to them from New Testament, Matt. 5:43: “Ye have heard that it hath been said, ‘Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy.” In fact, an injunction “hate thine enemy,” which some persons both Jewish and Gentile may indeed follow in every generation, has never been located anywhere in Hebrew Scripture nor in any sacred text of post-biblical Judaism. And it is not sufficiently remembered that when Jesus quotes “Thou shalt love thy neighbor” in Matt. 5:43 as also in Matt. 22:39–40 and Mk. 12:31, he is in fact quoting Lev. 19:18. 51 In other words, Aguilar tell us that being friendly and cheerful and spreading happiness are of the essence of Leviticus, when it teaches us both “love your neighbor as yourself” and “love the stranger.” Indeed, to go around insulting people as though one thought it cute and adorable to do so is certainly not the way to show love either at home to one’s parents, children, siblings, spouse, dinner guests or in someone else’s home to our hostess or host, the members of their family and/or the other guests. Given the large number of people who will tell one that the person(s) who do not enjoy being insulted are the ones at fault, who must learn to change their behavior, it should be clear just how vital for people in our own time is Aguilar’s profound essay on the precepts, which enjoin respect for the elderly and the display of love toward the stranger. Unfortunately, both those who hold that dietary laws and Sabbath regulations have been modified or suspended by a later dispensation and those who do not so hold need to be made aware that no teacher of nor movement within Judaism or Christianity ever suspended the rules of Lev. 19, which are designed to make life more pleasant for everyone. It is indeed amazing that people will tell you that insults cannot hurt you and should be tolerated and that people who do not like being insulted at home, in the workplace, and elsewhere are the ones who need to be reprogrammed. Indeed, governments and other organizations that deal with the public have been posting signs that read, “Our employees have a right to work in a nonabusive environment. And this right will be enforced.” Now if Grace

FIRST PERIOD. III. REBEKAH

145

Aguilar were wrong about the virtue of civilized behavior that includes striving to be pleasant in all places, we would expect that governments and other organizations would instead be posting signs that read, “Please insult and shout at our employees because sticks and stones will break their bones, but words will never hurt them, and we want them to learn not to be hypersensitive.” In fact, in the Ethics of the Fathers, a book of the Mishnah also called simply Avot ‘Fathers’ (on the paraliturgical use of this sacred text see above, p. 32, n. 19), Chapter 3, Mishnah 12, Rabbi Ishmael states, “Greet every human being with joy,” while in Chapter 1, Mishnah 15 Shammai, who is alleged to have rudely sent away a prospective convert to Judaism who sought to be taught all the Torah while standing on one foot (Babylonian Talmud, Shabbat 31a), is quoting as saying, “Greet every person with a smile.” Indeed, in all of Christian and Jewish sacred literature one will not meet with a sage, a prophet, or a priest who teaches, “Thou shalt insult thy neighbor//and thou shalt be delighted to be insulted and thou shalt not take it to heart.” This is to say that people who belittle the simple virtues that Aguilar expatiates upon here, which can drastically improve the quality of life in the home, the workplace, and the marketplace, are the ones in need of correction. I can testify from my own experience in supervisory positions in more than one workplace that making people feel good about themselves and each other by vocal compliments, words of thanks, and a smiling face, and giving them positive feedback for their achievements goes a very long way to detoxifying a workplace and to increasing productivity even in times when there are few or no material bonuses to be distributed. It is no accident that Aguilar emphasizes here the love of strangers for after all it is readily simple for anyone to say that “love your neighbor as yourself” only applies to members of one’s in-group. The falsehood of this contention can, of course, be demonstrated on the basis of Ex. 11:2: “Tell the people to request each man from his neighbor [Heb. re‘ehu; the same word re‘a that is found in Lev. 19:18, “you shall love your neighbor as yourself. I am the LORD”, which denotes ‘a fellow human being’, not necessarily a neighbor and not necessarily a member of one’s own ethnic group, faith community, or other in-group] and each woman from her neighbor [Heb. re‘utah; the feminine counterpart of masc. re‘ehu] objects of silver and gold.” Less some obtuse person assume that maybe the injunction meant that the Israelites were to exchange jewelry with each other before the Exodus, it is related in Ex. 12:35: “And the Israelites followed Moses’s command

146

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

riod when the drift of education sometimes appears to condemn, conquer, and entirely annihilate feeling, this will be difficult, for widely different is the manner which is taught, however perfect may be its propriety, its gentleness, its suavity, to that which springs from the heart, and has its origin in overflowing and unselfish feeling. But has the heart—has feeling anything to do with our behavior to a perfect stranger, and acquaintance of the hour, whom in the whole course of our life we may never meet again? It has, and it may be productive of good, both to ourselves and others. The great, the good, the mighty and most merciful Creator of heaven and earth disdained not, even in the midst of this stupendous creation, to bid the earth bring forth her flowers, not to serve as food, or shelter, or absolute use in the common meaning of the word, but simply to beautify, to enliven, to rejoice, to fling a gladness and a sunshine on the desert waste and weary wilderness, and add beauty and rejoicing even where all around is joy; and as flowers to the earth, so is kindliness to man. It will not remove grief, nor give him what perchance he needs, but it may cause a flower to spring up in the lonely recess or careworn furrow of his heart, whose memory may linger long after the flower itself has perished. And shall we scorn the power that will do this? Shall we think a flower of half an hour’s growth too worthless to be given, too trifling to be gathered? Oh! let us not encourage such a thought. We may know, indeed, nothing of the stranger with whom, for a brief hour, we may be thrown; but that very ignorance should urge us to courtesy and kindliness. His course may have been one of care, his present lot a waste, and a gentle tone and kind manner may be to him as the flower in the desert wiling him a brief while from his own sad thoughts. Or it may be his lot has been and is all joy; and yet will kindliness be sweet, even as the flower in the festive hall, or in the pathway of the bride; its form scarce noticed at the time, yet so blending with its associated images as in memory to be called up again and yet again. We are not placed here to live for ourselves alone, and more powerfully than aught else, if it spring from the heart, and has its birth in feeling, will a kind and gentle manner rivet the links and requested from Egypt objects of silver and objects of gold and clothing.”

FIRST PERIOD. III. REBEKAH

147

of brotherhood, bid us feel we are all children of our common Father, and so strengthen our love in Him, and for each other. On us more especially, aliens and exiles from our own land, is manner, as the mirror of the heart, incumbent. There was a time, but lately passed away, when to perform this duty was impossible, and therefore supposed to be unnecessary. When scorned, persecuted, condemned as the very scum of the earth, hated and reproached, it was as utterly impossible for us to manifest courtesy and kindness, as to receive them. Hatred begets hatred, as scorn begets scorn, more especially when neither emotion may be avowed. What did the cringing manner, the abject tone of the persecuted, tortured Jew conceal? Was it marvel it should be hatred as strong, if not stronger, because utterly powerless, than that of his cruel, his tyrannical oppressor? But now that in some enlightened and blessed realms these fearful times are past, and the right hand of fellowship extended to us, shall the exile and oppressed refuse to meet in amity and confidence, the sons of the land which gives them protection and home? We were commanded to show kindness to a stranger, as to one born amongst us. That blessed privilege is no longer ours, for we are strangers in a strange land;52 yet Aguilar is describing herself and the Jewish community of England, including the Jews whose forbears, like those of Grace Aguilar herself, had been driven from Spain (1492) and Portugal (1497), unless they were willing to convert to Christianity, and who had already been living in England for more than a century and a half at the time of Aguilar’s birth. If, indeed, as Aguilar suggests, the Jews who lived in England at the time when Aguilar first published Women of Israel (1845) had not the wherewithal literally to fulfill the commandment of “love the stranger” as the Jews at that point were all looked upon by their Gentile neighbors as strangers in need of someone else’s love, such an excuse for any Jew evading the responsibility to “love the stranger” is no longer valid in the 21st century. Jewish legal exegesis, it should be observed, recognizes two kinds of strangers. The first kind of strangers, who are designated ger ‘stranger’ certainly since the time of the Dead Sea Scrolls and probably already in some biblical texts (e.g., Ex. 12:48 which speaks of a ger who would like to partake of the paschal sacrifice and is willing to undergo the initiatory rite of circumcision in order to partake in this religious service) 52

148

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

may we still obey the spirit of the law, and in the cultivation of a kindly heart, and manifestation of a kindly feeling, let us remember we have not only an individual, but a national character to support— that a brief half hour’s intercourse with a stranger is endowed with power to exalt or to lower the cause of Israel; and as Rebekah’s kindly cordiality was blessed to her, by making her the wife of Isaac, and so revealing to her the glorious tidings of a God of love, so may the kindly manner of the youngest daughter of Israel be blessed to her, by making her the unconscious instrument, in God’s hand, to exalt His holy faith, and proclaim His truth in the heart and mind of the Gentiles amongst whom she dwells.53 are of course those who were called in the Old Greek (3d century B.C.E.) translation of the Torah proselytes and who are now called “Jews by choice,” who like all newcomers are not always properly welcomed and properly treated (the Torah does not prescribe things that people do almost automatically such as eating and drinking, crawling and walking). The second kind of strangers, which the Torah and its ancient and medieval commentators refer to in connection with the command to love the stranger (Lev. 19:34; Deut. 10:19) and not to oppress the stranger (Ex. 22:21; 23:9; Lev. 19:33; Jer. 22:23) are the genuine outsiders whether they be newcomers to a society, which claims to be a nation of immigrants or members of other faith communities, races, or ethnic groups that have been stereotyped and marginalized because of the unacceptable behavior of some members of their group. Sometimes the stranger may be a single parent and her/his family or a person suffering from a disease or an infirmity, which is not properly understood. The list is endless, and Aguilar’s impassioned statement on the subject of courtesy and kindliness bears reading and re-reading and should be made the focus of seminars and support-groups for persons who are willing to acknowledge that they are challenged with respect to showing love and kindliness and would like to learn how. 53 Here Aguilar describes a specific Jewish precept without employing the technical term, which is Kiddush ha-Shem, which means public sanctification of the Name of the God of Israel and His sacred Teaching (the Torah) by demonstration that being an active member of the Jewish people and an active participant in its faith leads to virtuous behavior. The biblical inspiration for this precept is Lev. 22:32: “Neither shall ye profane my holy name; but I will be hallowed among the children of Israel: I am

FIRST PERIOD. III. REBEKAH

149

Yet, Rebekah’s courtesy to the steward demonstrates neither presumption nor forwardness incompatible with her age or sex. We find her, directly her brother Laban comes forth, retiring to her own modest station in her mother’s tent, and claiming no further notice. We see, therefore, that to act kindly demands not the forsaking our natural sphere. We are not to look abroad for opportunities to act as Rebekah did; but, like her, we shall find them without leaving our home, in the domestic and social intercourse of daily life.54 Let us ponder well upon these things, and, as daughters of

the LORD, which hallow you.” The first clause of the latter verse, it should be noted, “neither shall ye profane my holy name” is the inspiration for an additional precept which enjoins Jews not to engage in unseemly behavior, which would cast aspersions upon the Jewish people, the Torah, and God who gave the Torah. The Talmudic sources include Babylonian Talmud, Berakot 21b; Megillah 23b; Sanhedrin 74a–b. In the extreme, hallowing the name of God can include being willing to die as a martyr for the faith. At the other extreme, hallowing the name of God in public consists of helping maintain the quorum for public worship at your nearest synagogue so that indeed prayers which speak of hallowing the name of God can be recited in the presence of ten (persons or men, depending on the synagogue!) and, hopefully, participating in that quorum (Heb. minyan ) not only because the synagogue or its membership or specific other people such as mourners who need to say the memorial prayer kaddish need a quorum but because you actually have learned to mean it. 54 Having not married at the time of her untimely death on September 16, 1847 at age 31 and having distinguished herself as an important writer of poetry, stories, novels, and treatises on Judaism, Aguilar seems hardly to have followed this advice. Moreover, it is clear from the words of Isaac Leeser, a major spokesperson for Orthodox Judaism in the Englishspeaking world and the translator of the first complete Jewish Bible in English, in his eulogy on the death of Aguilar published in the newspaper he edited, The Jewish Occident, 5 (November 1847), 419–420, that Aguilar neither sought nor was perceived as having sought to be retiring and selfeffacing or to confine herself to domestic affairs either in her parents’ home or in the home of her future husband had she lived long enough to find a husband. This is what Leeser writes: “Perhaps her genius was too ardent and too independent to subdue or control. But even so she was

150

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

Israel, make it our glory and our pride to do our simplest duty “with all our might;”55 our pleasure, to scatter flowers on the path of all with whom we may be thrown; and dwelling with meek and loving contentment in our appointed sphere, remember that the cause of Israel56 is our own, and it is in our power to exalt or degrade it. For twenty years, the lives of Rebekah and Isaac appear to have passed in all the quiet felicity of domestic love and peace. Abraham was still living, happy in the happiness of his son Isaac; for to his other sons “Abraham gave gifts, and sent them away from Isaac his son, while he yet lived, eastward unto the east country.”57 He gave them, in all probability, a knowledge of the Lord enough to recognise and worship him; but in Isaac, Abraham knew was the promised seed, and therefore by him was the aged patriarch’s home. Anxiously he, too, must have anticipated the birth that would prolong his line, but from his personal experience in “waiting for the Lord,”58 his feelings must have been less anxious than those of Isaac. In these twenty years, we hear of no temporal disturbance nor divine interference, as in the earlier life of Abraham; but that spiritual communing with the Lord, and improveenabled to accomplish so much more than one would have expected from her youth and bodily infirmity ... .” 55 Referring again to Eccles. 9:10, quoted above. 56 I.e., the Jewish people, religion, faith community. Far from suggesting as do some Jewish men and women in the early 21st century, that a Jewish woman’s place in the home, the synagogue, and the Jewish federation is in the kitchen, Aguilar argues that the defense of the Jews’ right to continue under freedom to practice their religion, that they had refused to abandon under persecution in Spain and Portugal, is a task which falls upon Jewish women, who must be fully acquainted with the Jewish spiritual and literary legacy and cannot be entrusted only to Jewish men, who govern Jewish communal institutions. 57 Gen. 25:6. 58 Cf. Ps. 130:5: “I wait for the LORD, my soul doth wait, and in his word do I hope.” Heb. qiwwah YHWH ‘wait for the LORD’ is found also, inter alia, in Isa. 25:9; Ps. 27:14. Aguilar will use this expression again repeatedly in the continuation of Women of Israel.

FIRST PERIOD. III. REBEKAH

151

ment in knowledge of and faith in Him, in no ways slackened or diminished, we are called upon to believe by the simple fact of Isaac going to “entreat the Lord for his wife,”59 and the instant answer to his prayer.60 Again we see divine interference, not what is called natural causes, operating for the fulfilment of the Eternal’s promise of a chosen seed.61 Jacob, the father of the twelve tribes, from one or other of whom the wandering Hebrew can still trace descent and claim the promises vouchsafed unto his fathers— Jacob, even as Isaac, was the child, not alone of promise, but of PRAYER. Those twenty years saw Rebekah as we last beheld her, only matured in the graces of womanhood, and so grafted on the house of Abraham, as like him to worship and know the great God alone. She had had, as yet, no temptation to swerve aside from the straight path of duty. A beloved and cherished wife, daughter, and mistress,62 her life passed by so smoothly, her affection so devoted to Gen. 25:21. Note that the first half of Gen. 25:21 reads, “And Isaac intreated the LORD for his wife, because she was barren” while the second half of the verse, which follows immediately reads, “And the LORD was intreated of him, and Rebekah his wife conceived.” 61 See above, p. 79. 62 In 21st century English ‘mistress’ might designate a woman with whom a man is having an extra-marital affair. In the present context, however, mistress, like the masculine counterpart ‘master’ designates a person who owns chattel slaves. See, for example, Ps. 123:2: “Behold, as the eyes of servants [i.e., male chattel slaves] look unto the hand of their masters, and as the eyes of a maiden [Heb. shiphhah; NJV correctly renders slave-girl] unto her mistress; so our eyes wait upon the LORD our God, until that he have mercy upon us.” In the psalm, collective Israel is seen as comprised of both men and women, who are called upon to serve God, and who might properly refer to God respectively as their master and their mistress. Rebekah’s ownership of chattel slaves is mentioned in Gen. 24:61 where it is said that when it was time to leave her childhood home and go with Abraham’s servant to meet her future husband, Isaac, “And Rebekah arose, and her damsels, and they rode upon the camels ... .” The Hebrew term, which KJV translates ‘her damsels’ is na‛aroteyah, which 59 60

152

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

one first object, and thence calmly emanating on all under her influence, that she was, as every other woman in a similar position must have been, still entirely ignorant of the shoals and quicksands in her heart, which might lead to sin, and end in sorrow. Yet her first action, after proof was given of the Eternal’s gracious answer to her husband’s prayer, was one of such childlike simple confidence in the power and wisdom of the Lord to answer all of doubt and fear, that to reconcile her conduct afterwards becomes more difficult. Unusual and incomprehensible suffering so oppressed her as to raise a doubt of the promise being then about to be fulfilled. “If it be so,” she thought, “why am I thus?”63—and without pause or hesitation, went directly “to inquire of the Lord.”64 She asked no advice, demanded no human aid—but in refers also to slave-women owned by women in Ex. 2:5: “And the daughter of Pharaoh came down to wash herself at the river; and her maidens [na‛aroteyah ] walked along by the river’s side ...”; similarly we read in 1 Sam. 25:42: “And Abigail hasted, and arose, and rode upon an ass, with five damsels of hers that went after her; and she went after the messengers of David, and became his wife”; likewise in Prov. 9:3 it is said of Personified Queen Wisdom: “She hath sent forth her maidens [na‛aroteyah] ... .” Likewise, in Esth. 2:9 it is reported that Hegai, keeper of the women, bestowed upon Esther, who was at that point only a candidate for the office of queen, seven maidens. Precisely because the false notion that wives in the world of Hebrew Scripture, like wives in nineteenth century England, by law surrendered to their husbands ownership of their clothing, jewelry, and other personal effects, travels from one book to another like a computer virus from one computer to another, it needs to be noted and carefully assimilated that Sarai/Sarah, Rebekah, and other women in biblical narrative and in the cuneiform records of the ancient Near East owned and traded in durable goods, real estate, and slaves. Needless to say such women hardly qualify as belonging to a patriarchal society as defined by Simone de Beauvoir (1908–1986) in her classic, The Second Sex (1949). This is to say that if one is looking for a society to condemn for its being patriarchal under the classical definition, Hebrew Scripture should be an unlikely target for anyone who has thought through the matter. 63 Gen. 25:22b. 64 Gen. 25:22c.

FIRST PERIOD. III. REBEKAH

153

heartfelt prayer—for in prayer only could she so inquire—laid before Him her every emotion, and from him implored reply. We would humbly ask those, if indeed there can be such, who deny to woman an immortal soul, refuse her the blessed privilege of individual and secret commune with her Creator, and believe man’s prayer alone omnipotent, how they would interpret this very simple narration?65 They may assert, as I believe some commentators do, that it Aguilar refers to the ignorant masses among the Jews in modern times, including many of the powerful leaders of Jewish communities and synagogues, who extrapolated from the fact that for many centuries Jewish women were excluded from being called up to read from the Torah in the synagogue service and from leading the prayers and indeed from being counted among the minyan or quorum of ten adult persons for communal prayer and indeed seated separately from the men in a gallery or behind a curtain that Jewish women are by the law of the Torah and the injunctions of the Rabbinic sages excused from the duty and privilege of prayer altogether. Among the mainstream in Modern Orthodox Judaism and in Ultra-Orthodox Judaism in modern times the self-definition of Orthodoxy includes the maintenance of separate seating in the synagogue for men and women and the exclusion of women from being called up to the public reading of the Torah and the leading of the prayers for congregations that consist of both men and women. There are, however, some Modern Orthodox congregations in Jerusalem and elsewhere in which separate seating for men and women is maintained while women are called up to the reading of the Torah (in recognition of a practice prescribed in one of the oldest compendia of halakhah, specifically Tosefta, Megillah 3:11: “... And all may be counted among the seven [who read from the Torah at the public service on the Sabbath] ... even a woman ... .”) and leading some parts of the worship service. In addition, there are Orthodox Jewish prayer services including public reading of the Torah organized for women only. Perhaps the most famous of these groups is known as “Women of the Wall,” a group of Jewish women, both Orthodox and non-Orthodox, who attempted to hold a public service at the Western (or Wailing) Wall in Jerusalem. Less than totally knowledgeable members of the Ultra-Orthodox community physically assaulted these women on the basis of the mistaken (from the point of view of halakhah) belief that it was forbidden for women to wear a fringed tallit or prayer shawl (in fact, according to the Jerusalem Talmud, Kiddushin 1:7 both women and men 65

154

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

are obligated to wear the fringed garment) or to read from or even handle a scroll of the Torah. In fact, in many Orthodox congregations including the Lubavitch Center of Plano, Texas, it is routine during the procession with the Torah Scroll from the Ark to the Reading Desk for it to be brought to the women’s section of the synagogue for the women to touch and kiss the Scroll! Because of the assaults on the “Women of the Wall” and similar assaults by some Orthodox extremists upon groups of Jews (under the auspices of the Reform Movement and the Conservative Movement) praying without separation between the sexes, the authorities decided to allot these groups of Jews a place for public prayer around the corner, as it were, from the Western Wall, at Robinson’s Arch. Indeed, in a documentary on the “Women of the Wall” produced by the theater department at Beit Berl, a liberal arts college located on the outskirts of Kfar Sava, one spokeswoman for the “Women of the Wall” referred to Robinson’s Arch as the “second-class Western Wall” for Judaism’s second-class citizens, namely, its women. Now Grace Aguilar, who argues continually (see, for example, above, at p. 64, almost at the end of “Chapter I Eve”) that “the Jewish religion is falsely [emphasis by Mayer Gruber] accused of” degrading women is not arguing against an informed Judaism of any kind but against the assumption of many Jews that since men have for long been the leaders of public worship and since women were long relegated to a separate space at public worship in a gallery or behind a screen that women do not have to pray altogether and need not be instructed in Jewish prayers or, for that manner in any aspect of Judaism beyond the preparation of kosher food in the kitchen and the lighting of candles before the commencement of Sabbaths and holidays. Naturally, it is but a small step from neglecting to educate Jewish girls to say their daily prayers to suggest that God only answers prayer uttered by a man. Aguilar is not describing beliefs of Judaism but the sorry state of the belief of some Jews, both male and female, in modern times when in the course of the vast disruptions which accompanied the arrival of Jews in free lands whether from Spain and Portugal and Brazil where the Jews had had to practice their religion in secret because of the threat of the Inquisition or from Eastern Europe where, contrary to some popular assumptions, not every Jew and Jewess was well-grounded in her/his heritage. The only one of the mistaken ideas that Aguilar lists here that I personally did not run into either growing up Jewish in South Carolina between 1950 and 1970 or as an officiating student rabbi and later as an officiating ordained rabbi

FIRST PERIOD. III. REBEKAH

155

was through Abraham she inquired of the Lord, and received reply66—but, as we have no warrant whatever in Scripture, by direct in various places in the United States of America and in the State of Israel is the belief that only men attain immortality. This foolishness is also obviously something that Aguilar heard and knew to be false and with respect to which, inter alia, she resolved to raise the level of Jewish knowledge, first and foremost among girls and women, whose lack of proper education in Judaism was particularly severe. Hence the book before us and hence also Aguilar’s other writings about Judaism. 66 Indeed, in other places in Hebrew Scripture “inquire of the lord/God” means ‘to consult a prophet’. Four occurrences of this expression in that sense are found respectively in 1 Sam. 9:9; 1 Kgs. 22:8; 2 Kgs. 22:13–20; and Ezek. 20:1. In the first of these passages it is explained, “Beforetime in Israel, when a man went to inquire of God, thus he spake, Come and let us go to the seer; for he that is now called a Prophet was beforetime called a Seer.” In 1 Kgs. 22:8 ‘inquire of the LORD’ refers to summoning just one more prophet, Micaiah, the son of Imlah, to arrange a divine oracle to determine whether or not Jehoshaphat, the king of Judah, should join King Ahab of Israel in his projected military campaign against the king of Aram. In 2 Kgs. 22:13–20 it is reported that when the high priest Hilkiah found “a book of the law” (long presumed to be the Pentateuch; modern critical scholarship determined that it was the Book of Deuteronomy) and the scribe Shaphan read it to King Josiah, the king rent his clothes in mourning because it appeared to the king that what had been discovered in the temple was the veritable instruction manual and warranty stipulations for the behavior and well-being of the people of Israel and that by having violated many of the important instructions the warranty for Israel’s continuing to live in peace in the Promised Land was no longer valid. Consequently, the king said (in 2 Kgs. 22:13: “Go ye, inquire of the LORD,” which all understood to mean, “Go find a prophet/ess and ask him/her what is to be one.” Consequently, it is reported that they went immediately to Huldah the prophetess (as for what she said and as for Aguilar’s discussion of Huldah and the incident, see below, Period IV, Chapter V). In Ezek. 20:1 it is reported how certain of the elders of Israel came to inquire of the LORD and sat before the Prophet Ezekiel in Babylonia, and the prophet served as intermediary between God and these elders. In light of these passages, it is perfectly reasonable for one or another commentator to have suggested that Re-

156

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

word or implied inference, to confirm this assertion, we must reject it altogether.67 The long years which Rebekah had passed in the household of Abraham, had not flown by unused and spiritually unimproved. She had seen the Great and Invisible Being acknowledged and adored. She had been taught by example; and we may be scripturally certain,68 though the fact itself is not mentioned, by bekah, like Saul, King Jehoshaphat, King Josiah and certain elders among the exiled Israelites in Babylonia, inquired of the LORD by seeking out a prophet. And, in fact, prior to the appearance of “Miriam the prophetess” in Ex. 15:20 the only biblical character who had been designated a prophet was Abraham, whom God so designates in Gen. 20:7. In addition to reinforcing an idea that Aguilar is here rightly resisting, namely the foolish assumption of ignorant modern Jews that a woman cannot pray to God on her own behalf but needs to be prayed for by a man, the assumption that Abraham here performed the prophetic function of praying on behalf of others is faulty insofar as Abraham died and was buried in Genesis 25:8 while Rebekah’s inquiring of the LORD is reported in v. 22. Significantly, Moses Nahmanides (1194–1270) argues most convincingly that “to seek the LORD” in Gen. 25:22 means simply ‘to pray’ as in Ps. 34:4. Cf. Aran, “Image of Women in the Pentateuch,” 119–120. 67 Indeed, there is no doctrinal necessity to assume that between Rebekah’s inquiry and God’s direct reply there intervened a divine or human messenger. Rashi, it is well known, follows a midrash found in Genesis Rabbah, which suggests that she went to the academy [Heb. bet midrash] established and run by Noah’s son Shem. In his supercommentary on Rashi’s Pentateuch commentary, however, Shabbetai Bass (1641– 1718 C.E.) explains that the only reason for assuming that she consulted the proto-rabbinic sages at Shem’s academy is that Scripture states in Gen. 25:22, “and she went to inquire of the LORD.” Bass explains, “for ‘to inquire of the LORD’ it is not necessary to go anywhere since ‘the whole earth is full of His glory’ (Isa. 6:3).” 68 I.e., convinced; now what is scriptural about it? In Judaism matters are said to be ‘from the Torah’, i.e., ‘from/on the basis of divine revelation’ regardless of whether they are found in the Pentateuch or passed down on the basis of oral tradition given to the people of Israel at Sinai (see Mishnah Avot 1:1 and the standard commentaries thereon). Indeed, in the first complete translation of the entire Babylonian Talmud edited by Isidore Epstein and published at London by Soncino Press (1935-1952),

FIRST PERIOD. III. REBEKAH

157

precept also. The natural impulse of humanity, under all difficulties and suffering, is to pray—and in the beautiful simplicity of the patriarchal ages, no artificial coldness,69 no appalling scepticism, no disheartening doubt, could have crowded round her, whispering that the prayer was vain, that the Creator of heaven and earth was a Being too far removed from woman’s petty griefs to listen and give reply. In the simple trusting confidence of a child, she sought the Parent whose love was omnipotent not only to understand the doubt and pain, but to give relief, and her confidence was answered. How that gracious answer was vouchsafed, whether through Abraham, or directly to herself, is I believe, an argument— but Scripture bids us believe, without hesitation, the latter—“And the Lord said unto her” clear simple words, banishing at once all necessity for mediation either of man or angel; words almost impossible, even wilfully to be misunderstood. The hour she received this answer, whether through the medium of the ear, or by an imthe Hebrew expression ‘from the Torah’ and its Aramaic equivalent de’orayeta is commonly translated ‘scriptural’ ‘biblical’ or ‘Pentateuchal’ depending on which of the brilliant translators on Epstein’s team of translators is responsible for the particular Talmudic tractate (or part thereof) at hand. Mayer I. Gruber, in his essay, “The Meaning of orayeta in the Babylonian Talmud,” in Gruber, Motherhood, 231–247, argued that the this term should usually be translated ‘God’s Law’ because in its Talmudic contexts it usually refers not to what is commonly called ‘the (Jewish Bible), which is commonly called ‘the Old Testament’ but usually to ‘the Oral Torah’, which, as was shown in that same essay, was regarded in Rabbinic literature as of authority equal to and sometimes greater than the literal meaning of the Pentateuch. Indeed, Aguilar’s saying ‘scripturally certain’ like Babylonian Jewish Aramaic de’orayeta is the functional equivalent of Lutherans’ (who are supposed to believe that there is no other authority than Scripture, which for them consists of the Old Testament and the New Testament) saying ‘biblically correct’ or Modern Orthodox Judaism’s assertion that their approach to the Jewish religious heritage is ‘Torah true’. 69 Cf. the remarks more than a century later by Abraham Joshua Heschel, Man’s Quest for God (New York: Charles Scribner’s, 1954), 50 when he writes, “The American synagogue suffers from having a cold.”

158

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

pression on the mind70—can be of very little consequence; and is one of those cavilling inquiries which we could wish banished, ere formed into words; tending as they do to fill up the mind with vain and idle speculations, instead of the pure simple truths of Scripture. It is enough, and a most blessed enough for us, that the “Lord said unto her,” the direct answer to her inquiring prayer. The words were mysterious—that she was already the mother of two opposing nations, one of whom “should be stronger than the other—and the elder should serve the younger.”71 Yet, mysterious as they must have been, they came from the Lord. He had graciously vouchsafed to explain the cause of her unusual sufferings, and Rebekah was satisfied; for we find not another word from her of either wonderment or complaint. And oh! what a blessed incentive have we from this simple narrative, in all our griefs and sufferings, bodily or mental, to inquire of the Lord—to come to Him as our ancestress, in guileless faith and simple-minded prayer. He is our God as He was hers— yea, ours—exiles, wanderers, WOMEN as we are, and who, with the holy word of God within his hand, shall dare to refuse to us, as Aguilar here opens the door for those Jews in the 19th century and the 20th century who were willing to acknowledge that the matriarchs and the patriarchs, the prophetesses and the prophets and other biblical characters received messages from God, but they were not willing to accept ‘verbal revelation’. In the late 1970’s the Jewish Theological Seminary of America in New York introduced a course in biblical theology taught by theologian Robert Gordis whose task included, as it was reported to me by his colleague, Prof. H. L. Ginsberg, explaining that “we [Conservative rabbis or Conservative rabbis in training] believe in revelation but not in verbal revelation.” The logic behind this assertion was once explained to me by a skeptical Jewish Sunday School student about a decade before the aforementioned theology course was introduced. The student phrased his own disbelief in verbal revelation in the following words: “I never met anyone whom God spoke to.” Educated people should know that there is no such logical inference from one’s own limited experience to the experience of Isaiah or Jeremiah or Huldah or Rebekah. 71 Gen. 25:23, which constitutes the LORD’s response to Rebekah’s inquiring of the LORD. 70

FIRST PERIOD. III. REBEKAH

159

women, as Israelitish women, the power, the purify, the privilege of prayer? Who shall dare assert that we are powerless to pray, or need the mediation of man, to bear up our petitions to the throne of grace? Mothers, wives, daughters of Israel, you alone must prove the utter falsity of this charge! Before the law,72 under the law,73 during the captivity,74 we shall still find the Hebrew woman seeking her God in prayer and receiving from him direct reply. Oh! shall we That is before the giving of the Torah at Mt. Sinai (see Ex. 20), which is to say during all the period from Creation until the giving of the Torah. 73 I.e., from the time of the giving of the Torah until this day. Commonly assumed to go back to the Old Greek translation of the Pentateuch known as the Septuagint, which renders Heb. torah by Gk. nomos ‘law’, the equation of Torah with law actually is attested already in the Hebrew Bible in Ezra 7:12 and 21, which give Ezra the priest the designation in Aramaic ‘a scribe of the law (Aramaic data’ from Old Persian data meaning ‘law’) of the God of Heaven’ which corresponds to the designation of that same official in the Hebrew of Ezra 7:6: as “an expert scribe in the Torah of Moses.” Since ‘law’ became the common designation of Torah in translations of the Bible from the Septuagint in the 3d century B.C.E., Aguilar, reflecting both the direct influence of KJV and its influence upon the translations of the Jewish Prayer Book, with which she was familiar, she will continually use the expression ‘the law’ to refer to the Torah both in the narrow sense of the Pentateuch and in the widest sense referring to the Jewish religion. 74 During all the period of time since the destruction of the Second Temple in the year 70 C.E. and the subsequent condition of the Jews as aliens given permission to reside for shorter or longer periods of time in various host countries at the sufferance of the pagan, Zoroastrian, Christian, Muslim, or Hindu majority. In England in Aguilar’s day Jews had every reason to see themselves as aliens. Only by the passing of the Sheriffs’ Declaration Bill on August 21, 1835 were Jews allowed to hold the office of sheriff. Almost ten years later, on July 31, 1845 were Jews in Britain granted the right to be elected to municipal office. And only on July 26, 1858 was Baron Lionel de Rothschild allowed to take the oath of office as a member of the House of Commons without having to swear “on the true faith of a Christian” And it was only from 1870 that a Jew could be admitted to an English university. 72

160

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

not thus prove that we have a soul immortal as that of man—that the very breath of our being, the light of our path, the support of strength, is prayer—that prayer which brings us daily, nay hourly, in commune with a loving Father, whose tender sympathy is endless as His love. Let us prove we need not Christianity either to teach, or direct us how to pray—but, turning to the blessed pages of our own Bible, make manifest that to look further is not needed.75 That there we have indeed sufficient for encouragement and hope; for confidence and faith. As Rebekah prayed, so too may we; and as our Father answered her, so will He us. Not indeed with word direct, but with that blessed calm, and hope, and faith, which prayer only can bestow; and with that heavenly patience which will enable us to “wait for the Lord,”76 in the firm belief that whatever He may will is best. It is worthy of remark that Rebekah is the first recorded instance of woman’s immediate appeal to God, and the condescending reply.77 Aguilar, speaking not only to Jewish women but also for Jewish women had to coax the leaders of the organized Jewish community of England to grant Jewish women access to their heritage including the right to be instructed in the Hebrew of the Bible and the Prayer Book and to argue against the Christian missionaries, who perceived that these Jewish women who were denied access to their own heritage, constituted the weak link in the chain of Judaism, which invited the missionaries to attempt the heretofore largely unsuccessful conversion of the Jews by starting with Jewish women and exhorting them to follow the example of Jesus’s disciples who asked Jesus, “Teach us to pray as John also taught his disciples (Lk. 11:1), at which point Jesus instituted the recitation of what is commonly called “the Lord’s prayer” found in Lk. 11:2–4. For the idea that Christian missionaries saw Jewish women as the weak link in the chain of Judaism see Galchinsky, Origin of the Modern Jewish Woman Writer, 35–36, 50–58. 76 As pointed out above (see above, p. 150, n 58) this expression is found in Ps. 130:5 and elsewhere in the Book of Psalms, and it usually refers to waiting for prayer to be answered (see Rashi’s Commentary on Psalms at Ps. 27:14) 77 To readers in the 21st century ‘condescending’ would imply the aloofness of the divinity who replies. On the contrary, Aguilar here refers 75

FIRST PERIOD. III. REBEKAH

161

At the appointed time Isaac and Rebekah became parents of twin sons, who grew and flourished; and in early youth displayed a contrariety of disposition and pursuits which must have appeared strange, in such nearly allied relations, had it not been rendered clearly intelligible, at least to their mother by the previous words of the Lord. But yet these words do not appear to me sufficient for Rebekah always to have regarded Jacob as the promised seed. The promise, or rather explanation, given in answer to her prayer, was simply, “the one people shall be stronger than the other, and the elder shall serve the younger;”78 not as was the case with Abraham, when the promised seed was specifically named.79 And in the very next revelation which was vouchsafed to Isaac, a few years afterwards, we read, “Sojourn in this land, and I will be with thee, and will bless thee; for unto thee, and unto thy seed, will I give all these countries, and I will perform the oath which I sware unto Abraham thy father.80 And I will make thy seed to multiply as the stars of heaven, and will give unto thy seed all the countries; and in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed;”81 and again, the last verse of this same xxvi. chapter—the Lord appeared unto him the same night, and said, “I am the God of Abraham, thy father; fear not, for I am with thee, and will bless thee, and multiply thy seed for my servant Abraham’s sake.”82 The Eternal expressly says “thy seed.”83 Isaac might be justified in supposing that both his sons were concerned in the promises, until Esau’s reckless disregard of his birthright, and other spiritual blessings, in addition to his intermarrying with the daughto God’s not being aloof as pointed out in Ps. 113:5–6: “Who is like unto the LORD our God who dwelleth on high [yet; clarification by Mayer Gruber] Who humbleth himself to behold the things that are in heaven and in the earth!” 78 Gen. 25:23. 79 Here Aguilar refers to Gen. 21:12 where God says to Abraham, “In Isaac shall thy seed be called.” 80 Gen. 26:3. 81 Gen. 26:4. 82 Gen. 26:24. 83 Gen. 26:4.

162

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

ters of Canaan, must have convinced his father that not from him could spring the chosen84 seed. The revelation that “the elder should serve the younger,”85 must have occasioned Rebekah many mental inquiries; but even if she herself supposed that Jacob was the destined inheritor of Abraham’s line, it is evident that she did not impart it to her husband. Isaac’s love for the reckless and able hunter, Esau, is one of those contradictions of the heart, unaccountable indeed, but very often found. He loved Esau best, because in every respect he was completely his opposite. Isaac was meek, affectionate, faithful, quietly and contentedly dwelling in one spot, moving thence only at the command of the Lord: satisfied with the temporal blessings around him, and the spiritual blessings of promise. Esau, bold, enterprising, ever roving in search of active pursuit; heeding naught but the present; scorning his home and home ties; rude and rough, yet, when excited, deeply and warmly affectionate to his aged father. And Isaac loved him better than his younger son, who, more like himself, “was a plain or upright man dwelling in tents.”86 But The idea that Israel was “chosen by God,” which is commonly conceptualized as “the doctrine of the chosen people” or “the election of Israel” derives from Deut. 7:6; 14:2 (on which see below, Period II, Chapter IV, s.v., “laws for daughters”, p. 313). This idea is reinforced by Isa. 41:8–9; 43:10; 44:1–2; 48:10. Typical is Isa. 41:8–9 where we read as follows: “But thou, Israel, art my servant, Jacob whom I have chosen, the seed of Abraham my friend...Thou art my servant; I have chosen thee, and not cast thee away.” 85 Gen. 25:23 86 Gen. 25:27. By translating ’ish tam “a plain or upright man,” Aguilar attempts to steer a course midway between the original meaning of the expression, ‘faultless person’ and a later negative connotation of Heb. tam meaning ‘plain’ or ‘simple’. The Hebrew adjective tam occurs eleven times in the Hebrew Bible, most frequently in the Book of Job where it is employed three times by the narrator (Job. 1:1, 8: 2:3) to describe Job. In each of those cases KJV translates ‘perfect’ while NJV renders ‘blameless’, which is to suggest ‘lacking any moral blemish’ like the bull that has not yet gored anyone, who is referred to in the Mishnah, Bava Qama as shor tam ‘a blameless bull’. Job twice asserts that he is tam ‘blameless’ in Job. 84

FIRST PERIOD. III. REBEKAH

163

Rebekah loved Jacob. Sacred history does not say why—and we are therefore permitted to infer, that it was simply because it is in woman ‘s nature to love him best who is least loved by his father.87 9:20–21 while in Job 9:22 he asserts that God wipes out the blameless [tam] and the guilty. His friend Bildad, on the other hand, asserts in Job. 8:20: “Surely God does not despise the blameless [tam]” (These verses from Job are all rendered according to NJV). The adjective tam refers also to a person who lacks any moral blemish in its remaining occurrences in Hebrew Scripture: Ps. 37:37; 64:4; and Prov. 29:10. In Mishnaic Hebrew, however, the adjective tam acquires the negative attribute of ‘simple’ reflected in the version of the Midrash of the Four Types of Children found in the Haggadah or Home Service for Passover Eve in which the child who asks simply, “What’s this?” as against the wise child and the wicked child, who pose elaborate questions, is called tam ‘the simple child’, suggesting possibly a child of lower IQ than the other children. Moreover, the Jerusalem Talmud version of the Midrash of the Four Types of Children unequivocally substitutes tippesh ‘fool’ for the ambiguous tam. It is the later, negative understanding of the adjective tam that is reflected in Rashi’s Commentary on Gen. 25:27 where we read as follows: “SIMPLE. Not expert in all these things [the skills of the hunter, which Esau had mastered] but as his heart so is his mouth; a person who is not brilliant enough to deceive is called SIMPLE.” Given Jacob’s later adeptness in repaying Laban for his deceitful behavior, the latter evaluation of Jacob is to be rejected both because of its inapt description of Jacob and because of its sending a message to readers, which might encourage them to violate the Torah precept, “Keep thee far from a false matter” (Ex. 23:7). Aguilar seems to have steered a middle course between the original meaning of tam ‘blameless’, which may refer to the fact that Jacob, like Abel and unlike Cain, did not spend his time killing other living things, and the later misunderstanding of tam in Gen. 25:27 to mean something close to ‘cognitively challenged’. 87 Here Aguilar attempts to account for what is stated in Gen. 25:28, “And Isaac loved Esau ... but Rebekah loved Jacob,” on the basis of a widely observed phenomenon that in a nuclear family one parent may more successfully bond with one child while the other parent may more successfully bond with another child. Tragically, some children are marginalized by both parents, and even greater tragedy occurs when parents and siblings conspire against a particular child.

164

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

But Rebekah’s favoritism, as we shall see in the sequel, was stronger and more culpable than that of Isaac. All such emotions are stronger in woman’s heart than in man’s—because, with the former, feeling is the most powerful, and with the latter, reason.88 Partiality must always occasion injustice, and more particularly in a parent; for no task demands more control and feeling, more complete conquest of self, than that of parental affection.89 The dispositions, the characters of the divers members of one family are so varied, that it is impossible to guide all by one and the same training. An impartial mother will know every light and shadow of every disposition, and guide and act accordingly.90 A partial mother sees but the virtues and qualities of one, and from want of sympathy aid proper management of the other in early years, makes him in reality We can find similar evaluations of the differences between the ways that women and men, respectively, are perceived to think, feel, and communicate also in more recent times of which the writings of Deborah Tannen and John Gray are typical. See, e.g., Deborah Tannen, That’s Not What I Meant (New York: Ballantine Books, 1986); id., You Just Don’t Understand: Women and Men in Conversation (New York: Ballantine Books, 1991); John Gray, Men are From Mars, Women are From Venus: A Practical Guide for Improving Communication and Getting What You Want in Your Relationships (New York: Harper Collins, 1992); id., Mars and Venus: Together Forever: Relationship Skills for Lasting Love (New York: Harper Collins, 1994). Unfortunately, some males utilize the cliché, “the latest research emphasizes the differences between men and women” in order to disempower women in public life and to curtail the education of girls and close off the career choices open to them. 89 Aguilar’s advice here is on a par with the latest good advice on child-rearing and family management from the most expert handbooks, courses, and psychologists. See, for example, Miriam Adahan, Living with Kids: Parents at their Best, The Miriam Adahan Handbook (Southfield Michigan: Targum Press, 1994). 90 Indeed, this is the message of the Midrash of the Four Sons, alluded to above, which serves as a commentary, or, if you will, an extended oral footnote on the rubric, which indicates that after the anomalous preparation of the second cup of wine on Passover Night before supper has been served, the child should ask one or more questions as to what is going on here. 88

FIRST PERIOD. III. REBEKAH

165

all that she believed him.91 Jacob was domestic,92 because a mother’s doting love made his home one of enjoyment, and administered to every want. It was not till after Sarah’s death that Isaac even sought a wife, and not till he was parted from his mother that Jacob loved, proofs all convincing of the strength, the beauty, the fulness of the love which in those simple ages united the mother and the son. To Esau this soothing and blessed love was not given as it was to Jacob; and while his hasty and inconsiderate marriage with the daughters of the Hittite was a grief of mind to Isaac and.Rebekah,93 the latter’s neglect might have been in part their cause. Esau had no kindly woman’s heart to turn to, as had his brother, yet we have proof that his affections were as strong—perchance, from his ruder character, yet stronger—and the very want of female love at home might have first urged him to seek it from the stranger. Oh! it is sad when partiality and its concomitant, injustice, obtains entrance into a mother’s heart. It steals in so silently, so disguisedly, that unless every avenue be guarded, its advances are utterly unknown, till it has gained a strength and substance which hold us chained. Mere human love, omnipotent as in a mother’s breast it is, is not sufficient to guard us from such weakness—no, nor former strength and stability of character. Rebekah had all this, and yet as a mother she fell. It can only be that close communion with the universal Father, who alone knows and feels every secret throbbing of a mother’s heart, and from whose hand alone can come the strength, not only to guide aright her treasures, but to feel aright herself.

Today, child psychologists refer to these unfortunate habits of parents and educators as “labeling” and “self-fulfilling prophecies.” 92 Here Aguilar refers to the assertion in Gen. 25:27, “Jacob was ... dwelling in tents.” 93 Gen. 26:34–35: “And Esau was forty years old when he took to wife Judith the daughter of Beeri the Hittite and Bashemath the daughter of Eglon the Hittite: Which were a grief of mind unto Isaac and to Rebekah.” 91

166

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

During the growth of his sons, Isaac’s temporal riches very greatly increased.94 Abraham’s death did not take place till his grandsons were fifteen.95 He who had believed it next to impossible in his old age to have a son, lived not only to bless his son, but his son’s seed.96 A famine had sent Isaac and his family, by direction of the Eternal, to Gerar, and there he dwelt until he became so rich and great that the “Philistines envied him;” and their king, Abirnelech, said unto him, “Depart from us, for thou art much mightier than we.”97 And he did so, and after some wanderings, fixed his tent at Beersheba; and there again the Lord appeared unto him, bidding him “hear not, for He was with him.” Beersheba, therefore, appears to have been the scene of all the domestic events which followed—Esau selling his unvalued birthright98—his subsequent marriage99—the vexations100 thence proceeding to Isaac and Rebekah—and those bodily infirmities of the former,101 which occasioned his anxious desire to “bless his son before he died.”102 See Gen. 26:12-13: “Then Isaac sowed in that land, and received in the same year an hundredfold: and the LORD blessed him. And the man waxed great, and went forward, and grew until he became very great.” 95 So “Chronological Table for the Book of Genesis” from the German of Dr. L. Zunz in De Sola et al., Sacred Scriptures, 354–355. 96 See Babylonian Talmud, Bava Batra 16b; for numerous other sources see Ginzberg, Legends of the Jews, 1:318–320 and the sources cited there. 97 Gen. 26:1–16. 98 In fact, this event is reported not in Gen. 26, which records Isaac’s settling in Beersheba (see v. 23 there) but in Gen. 25:29–34 99 I.e., Esau’s marriage to Judith and Bashemath (so KJV; NJV has Basemath) recorded in Gen. 26:34 100 Gen. 26:35 where these vexations are called “grief of mind”; see above, n. 93. 101 Gen. 27:1–2: “And it came to pass, that when Isaac was old, and his eyes were dim, so that he could not see, he called Esau his eldest son, and said unto him, My son: and he said unto him, Behold, here am I. And he [Isaac] said, Behold now, I am old. I know not the day of my death.” 102 Gen. 27:3–4 where Isaac says to Esau, “Now therefore take, I pray thee, thy weapons, thy quiver and thy bow, and go out to the field, and 94

FIRST PERIOD. III. REBEKAH

167

Rebekah heard the words of her husband.103 She had seen him call his firstborn to his couch, and bid him seek venison, and bring the savory meat that he loved, that his soul might bless him before he died; and her heart swelled tremblingly within her. Esau? Was Esau to have his father’s blessing? He who had sold his birthright,104 and so spurned his privileges as heir;105 and if he had it, take me some venison; And make me savoury meat, such as I love, and bring it to me, that I may eat; that my soul may bless thee before I die.” 103 Gen. 27:4, which describes the events, which Aguilar summarizes in the preceding sentence, is followed immediately by Gen. 27:5: “And Rebekah heard when Isaac spake to Esau his son.” 104 Gen. 25:31–33. 105 Aguilar seems to imply that by selling his “birthright” Esau had renounced his claim to be the spiritual heir of Abraham and Isaac. Similarly, Rashi, quoting Genesis Rabbah 63:13, imagines that Jacob said to himself, “The priesthood [prior to its being transferred from firstborn sons of every mother to the tribe of Levi; see Num. 3:11–12: ‛And the LORD spoke unto Moses, saying, And I behold, I have taken the Levites from among the children of Israel instead of all the firstborn that openeth the matrix (cf. also Mishnah Zebahim 14:4) among the children of Israel: therefore the Levites shall be mine’] belongs to the firstborn; it is not appropriate that this wicked man should offer sacrifices to the Holy One Blessed be He.” The midrash that Rashi summarizes further imagines that when Jacob asked Esau to sell him the birthright, i.e., the right to serve as a priest, Esau asked, “What is this character of this divine service?” and Jacob responded that there are various prohibitions involved, some of which entail the death penalty. It was to this warning, according to the midrash, that Esau responded in Gen. 25:32, “Look, I am going to die [as a result of the stringencies involved in this priestly office of firstborn] so what do I need it for?” In fact, in its biblical context the birthright is the right of the firstborn son of the father to receive a double portion of the real estate, which a father bequeaths to his sons. It is well known that in various societies of the ancient Near East a father could give this legal right of the firstborn to anyone among his sons and daughters (see Zafrira Ben-Barak, “Inheritance by Daughters in the Ancient Near East,” Journal of Semitic Studies 25 [1980], 22–33). The fact that this right could be transferred explains how, for example, Jacob in Gen. 48:19 transferred the right of firstborn from Joseph’s son Manasseh to Joseph’s son Ephraim

168

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

how could the Lord’s word be fulfilled, and the “elder serve the younger?”106 Why could she not prevent it, and secure to him whom the Lord before his birth had chosen as the mightiest, the blessing of his father? It was easy to be accomplished; and surely, as the Lord had said it, she was justified in using any means to bring it to pass. Such was weak, finite reasoning—such the baneful whisper of our earthly nature, urged on by the rushing torrent of human affections. In that dread moment of temptation, how might she realize the unquestioning faith which would bid her feel, “The Lord hath spoken, and will he not do it?”107 That His will needed no human aid for its fulfilment; that He would do His pleasure in the very face of those contradictory events, which human will and finite wisdom might so weave as to render its fulfilment seemingly impossible. If Rebekah had but “inquired of the Lord”108 in this perplexity, as on a former one, the whole train of deceit and its subsequent suffering would have been averted. But she was still a woman, weak, wavering, a very reed in her mortal nature, and liable, as every child of Adam, to temptation and to sin.

and how in Gen. 49:3 Jacob took away the right of firstborn from his own firstborn Reuben. The abuses and unhappiness that could be generated by the possibility of transferring the right of firstborn at will seem to have prompted the following reform measure recorded in Deut. 21:15–16: “If a man have two wives, one beloved, and another hated, and they have born him children, both the beloved and the hated; and if the firstborn son be hers that was hated; then it shall be, when he maketh his sons to inherit that which he hath, that he may not make the son of the beloved firstborn before the son of the hated, which is indeed the firstborn.” 106 Gen. 25:23, God’s promise in response to “And she [Rebekah] went to inquire of the LORD” (Gen. 25:22), on which see Aguilar, above, p. 156. 107 This quotation is a paraphrase of Amos 3:8b, “The Lord GOD hath spoken, who can but prophesy?” 108 Aguilar refers us back to Rebekah’s prayer in response to the very strong fetal movements characteristic of pregnancy with twins in Gen. 25:22, in response to which God told her in Gen. 25:23, “the elder shall serve the younger.”

FIRST PERIOD. III. REBEKAH

169

Had she even waited but one brief hour, all would have been well—the evil impulse would have been conquered in her pious heart, by a train of thought as above, but there was no time either to wait or think again; and, acting on the impulse, she called Jacob, and after informing him of his father’s directions to his brother, continued in a strain that would lead us to believe, that even at that moment she feared Jacob’s upright nature would shrink from the task she imposed. “Now, therefore, my son, OBEY my voice, according to that which I command thee.”109 She claimed his unquestioning obedience, ere imparting that which she desired, and then proceeded. Surely her heart must have reproached her, when her own son ventured to suggest, though guardedly and respectfully, that it was a fraud, and might bring upon him a curse instead of a blessing.110 Yet still she enforces the command, “Upon me be the curse, my son, only obey my voice.”111 And he did obey her, weakly and mistakenly; for had he resisted, had he submissively, yet firmly braved her momentary wrath, the evil temptation must have been subdued and the mother saved by the unscrupulous honesty of the son. But this was not to be. To make manifest His ways, that suffering must attend deceit, however for the moment it may seem to succeed, the Eternal permitted the plans of finite forming uninterruptedly to proceed, working out indeed His will through them, but punishing even in success. The kid was procured and dressed—the very hands and neck of Jacob disguised, lest their smoothness should betray him; and thus attired by a mother to deceive, he approached the bed-side of his blind father.112 How fearfully must the heart of Rebekah have throbbed at every word uttered by her husband and son! How terrified at the words of the unsuspecting, yet half doubting Isaac! “Come near, I pray thee, that I may feel thee, my son, whether thou be my very son Esau or not.”113 And Jacob went near unto Isaac his father, and he felt him, and said, “The Gen. 27:8. Gen. 27:11–12. 111 Gen. 27:13. 112 Gen. 27:14–18 113 Gen. 27:21. 109 110

170

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

voice is Jacob’s voice, but the hands are the hands of Esau.”114 And, again, as doubting still, he asks, “Art thou my very son Esau? and Jacob answered, I am.”115 The inspired historian116 might not interrupt his brief, yet how deeply impressive detail, to dilate on a woman’s feelings; yet we, her descendants, are surely justified in judging for a moment of Rebekah’s emotions daring this interview, by what our own would be. She could have had no support, no stay, for she had wilfully banished TRUTH, and how, then, might she PRAY? Her whole heart and mind must have been troubled and tossed by every trifling word; discovery and shame, perhaps the very loss or estrangement of her husband’s love, were as likely as the longed for success. How often, during that interim, must she have longed once more to tread the path of truth, for Rebekah was a mere novice in deceit! Her nature, as we have seen, was guileless and open as the day; the mere temptation of the moment, and its consequent anxious and impelling feelings, could not have so changed that nature, as to make her an unmoved witness of that which followed—the very falsehood repeated and insisted upon by those lips which she had taught from infancy to lisp forth truth. But when the blessing was obtained, when she saw her plan had in truth succeeded, we may suppose, judging still by human nature, that these agonizing doubts and fears were for the moment calmed in the triumph of success—conscience was hushed again, in the thought that she had compassed by stratagem that which she believed impossible to have been obtained else—that it must have been right and good so to have acted, or it would not have been permitted to succeed. Alas! how often do we so deceive ourselves! Could we but glance a little, a very little, further on, we should know, and feel (how bitterly!) that the very deceit we believed in-

Gen. 27:22. Gen. 27:24. 116 The narrator of the Book of Genesis, traditionally understood to be Moses; hence the Pentateuch is known in Jewish tradition as “Moses’s Book” (see Babylonian Talmud, Bava Batra, 14b); similarly, in KJV and other English versions, Genesis is designated, “The First Book of Moses, Called Genesis.” 114 115

FIRST PERIOD. III. REBEKAH

171

nocent, because it brought success, has been our first step in the paths of woe. And so it was with Rebekah, though as yet she knew it not. Her feelings of triumph could not, however, have lasted long: “And it came to pass, as soon as Isaac had made an end of blessing Jacob, and Jacob was yet scarce gone out from the presence of his father, that Esau, his brother, came in from hunting;”117 and that interview followed, which, for simple and touching pathos, is not surpassed by any incident in the Bible.118 Rebekah was a partial, but not a weak or unkind mother, She loved Jacob better than his brother, but Esau was still her son, her first-born, and oh! how painfully must her heart have yearned towards him, when she heard his “great and exceeding bitter cry!”119—“Hast thou but one blessing, my father—bless me, even me also, O my father—and Esau lifted up his voice and wept.”120 Esau, the rude, the careless hunter, who had seemed to care for naught but his own pleasures; the chase, the field, the wild! He bowed down by his blind father like an infant, and wept; beseeching the blessing of which a mother and a brother’s subtlety had deprived him. Could Rebekah have been a witness, or even hearer of this scene, without losing all the triumph of success, in sympathy with the anguish of her first-born? It is impossible to ponder on her previous character, without being convinced of this. It is not from one act, one unresisted temptation, that we ought to pronounce judgment on a fellow-creature: yet, from our unhappy proneness to condemn, we generally do so. The character of Rebekah is thus too often supposed to be evil alone, and her unfortunate deception in favor of her best beloved son is the only part of her life brought strongly forward: whereas, if we look and think on all that sacred history has recorded of her, that there is also perfect silence as to any other fault (which, had she committed, we may be Gen. 27:30. Gen. 27:31–40. 119 Gen. 27:34: “And when Isaac heard the words of his father, he cried with a great and exceeding bitter cry, and said to his father, Bless me, even me also, O my father.” 120 Gen. 27:38. 117 118

172

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

sure would have been told for our warning)—it becomes evident that this guilty action proceeded, not from forethought, which would have manifested a naturally evil disposition, but from impulse; the thought, the temptation of a moment, overbalancing by its force the rectitude of years. As forethought, we must condemn both the sin and the sinner. As impulse, we must abhor the sin—but only grief and trembling for the weakness of human nature must attend our reflections on the sinner. Nor are we justified in denying her those emotions of grief and doubt, which must have succeeded the triumphant success of her momentarily formed plan. But self-accusation was not to be her only punishment. Did the blessed word of the All-Just121 relate the deception alone, we might well hesitate to affirm that her conscience brought reproach, and believe that the deed was not as guilty as it seems. But we are not thus left to our own imaginations. The events which followed, so prove, without doubt or question, the displeasure of the Eternal against the deed, that we can have no hesitation whatever in believing that conscience, “the angel of the Lord,”122 was busy within her, ere the bolt of justice fell. Reflecting the traditional belief of Jews and Christians alike that the Book of Genesis was dictated by God to Moses; consequently, God, here called All-Just, is the ultimate author and Moses only the secretary. In Rabbinic literature, in general, God as the author of Scripture is referred to as Rahmana ‘the Merciful One’, which may foreshadow Islam’s referring to God as Al Rahman ‘the Merciful One’. The expression “All-Just” is probably inspired by Psalm 145, which observant Jews and Jewesses (such as Grace Aguilar and her family) recite three times every day—twice in the morning prayer and once in the afternoon prayer. In Ps. 145:17a it is stated, “The LORD is just [zaddik] in all his ways” which KJV characteristically translates, “The LORD is righteous in all his ways” while NJV renders “The LORD is beneficent in all his ways,” a rendering which treats God as zaddik as the ultimate source of zedakah, which in Rabbinic Hebrew corresponds to Latin caritas and English ‘charity’. Aran, “Image of Women,” 122–128 shows that the classic medieval Hebrew exegetes defend Rebekah’s actions. See there. 122 For Aguilar’s belief that the conscience, which modern secular people might identify with the Freudian super-ego, is the functional 121

FIRST PERIOD. III. REBEKAH

173

“And Esau hated Jacob, because of the blessing wherewith his father blessed him. And Esau said in his heart, The days of mourning for my father are at hand;—then will I slay my brother Jacob.123 And these words of Esau her elder son were told to Rebekah.”124 What fearful tidings for a mother! How must her thoughts have returned, with agonizing forebodings, to the first death which had marred this beautiful world. Had not that been fratricide and for envy, the same feeling which now actuated Esau?125 And was not she, as Eve had been, the cause? Still nearer cause; for she it was, who, by leading Jacob to deceive, had armed a brother’s hand against him. How Esau’s intentions could have been revealed to her, when the sacred historian expressly tells us that Esau but spake them in his heart,126 must remain unsolved, unless, as appears most probable, it was Rebekah’s own fears which betrayed them; confirmed by the manner of Esau towards his brother, and by her own equivalent of divine messengers who brought God’s message to our foremothers and forefathers, see above, p. 92. For such an understanding of conscience see already the words of Elihu in Job. 33:14–23: “For God speaketh, once, yea twice, yet man perceiveth it not. In a dream, in a vision of the night, when deep sleep falleth upon men, in slumberings upon the bed; Then he openeth the ears of men, and sealeth their instruction. That he may withdraw man from his purpose, and hide pride from man. He keepeth back his soul from the pit, and his life from perishing by the sword. He is chastened also with pain upon his bed, and the multitude of his bones with strong pain: So that his life abhorreth bread, and his soul dainty meat. His flesh is consumed away that it cannot be seen; and his bones that were not seen stick out. Yea, his soul draweth near the grave, and his life to the destroyers. If there be a messenger [Heb. mala’k, commonly translated ‘angel’] with him, an interpreter, one among a thousand, to shew unto man his uprightness; Then he is gracious unto him, and saith, Deliver him from going down to the pit: I have found a ransom.” 123 Gen. 27:41. 124 Gen. 27:42. 125 She refers to Cain’s killing of Abel his brother narrated in Gen. 4:8. Aguilar assumes that Rebekah knew the biblical narratives relating to events from Creation to the birth of Abram and Sarai (Gen. 1–11). 126 Gen. 27:41.

174

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

knowledge of his character. His strong love for his father, which to me is the redeeming beauty of Esau’s character, might restrain him awhile—but were the death which Isaac himself appeared to anticipate, speedily to take place, the mother’s forebodings well imagined that the haughty Esau would never submit to bow to his brother, and call him heir. Painfully she must have felt, that not for her would Esau restrain his purpose, though the wildest ebullition of his natural anger was subdued by the deep loving reverence he bore his father. Might not she too have claimed that love, had she lavished on his youthful years the same affection she had given to his brother? Was it not her own fault, that in this wild wish for vengeance, the death of the offender, he thought not of the suffering which such a deed would inflict on her? That such thoughts were ascendant, and the voice of self-reproach more loud and thrilling than any anger against Esau for his fearful design, is proved by her counsel to Jacob—when calling him to her, she said, “Behold thy brother Esau, as touching thee, doth comfort himself, purposing to kill thee. Now, therefore, my son, obey my voice and arise, and flee thou to my brother Laban, in Haran. And tarry with him a few days, until thy brother’s fury turn away, and he forget that which thou hast done to him; then I will send, and fetch thee from thence. Why should I also be deprived of you both in one day?”127 There is not one word of invective against Esau. If she still supposed that her act was justified, inasmuch as it seemed to further the designs of the Eternal, Esau’s intention to slay his brother must have seemed too sinful, too horrible, to be passed without some comment either of anger or fear. But far otherwise is the spirit of her words. They breathe but a mother’s anxious agony—a consciousness that Esau’s wrath was but too just. Jacob had no defence to plead, and so avert the threatened wrath. Nothing could save him but flight, till the hasty but not placable Esau was appeased; and from her lips the mandate of exile went forth:—“Why should I also be deprived of you both in one day?” How affectingly do those simple words betray, not alone the love she bore to both her sons, but that her thoughts turned to the history of the past— foreboding Eve’s awful trial for herself! There is no wailing, no 127

Gen. 27:42–45.

FIRST PERIOD. III. REBEKAH

175

complaint, but in those brief words, what a volume of woman’s deepest feeling is revealed! Her real emotions having thus had vent to Jacob, Rebekah was better able to control them before her husband; and she said unto him, “I am weary of my life, because of the daughters of Heth. If Jacob take a wife of the daughters of Heth, such as these which are of the daughters of the land, what good shall my life do me?”128 It would have been the extreme of cruelty to have increased the grief of the infirm Isaac, by a narration of Esau’s evil intentions towards his brother—when Esau himself had controlled his fierce passion for his father’s sake. Nor could Rebekah’s confession of her fault now in any way redeem it. It would but have excited against her the anger of her husband, as being the primary cause of the dissensions between his sons—and have occasioned him increased affliction. It was, in this instance, wiser and better to hide from Isaac the sad cause of Jacob’s departure; and urge him to do that for his son of promise, which Abraham had done for him; and the mother’s fearful anxiety was calmed by the paternal command, coupled with a reiterated blessing, for her younger son “to go to Padan-Aram, the house of Bethuel, thy mother’s father, and take thee a wife from one of the daughters of Laban, thy mother’s brother.”129 “And Isaac sent away Jacob.”130 And thus was the mother parted from the son, for whose beloved sake she had been tempted to turn aside from the straight line of probity and truth which in such guilelessness and beauty she had trodden so changelessly before. And is it not ever thus? When we once turn from the one straight path, can we say, thus far shall we go and no further?131 Can we set a boundary to the rushing flood of pain and sorrow which, when we have removed the barrier of truth, obtains dominion, dashing our fairest dreams to earth,

Gen. 27:46. Gen. 28:2. 130 Gen. 28:5. 131 According to Job 38:11 this is what God said to the primordial waters when He separated the waters from the dry land (cf. Gen. 1:9–10). 128 129

176

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

and bringing misery in the very garments of success?132 And well is it for those whom the Lord so graciously compassionates as to reveal these fatal companions of deception ere it be too late, and the charmed path be trodden till there is no turning back. Who can peruse the history of Rebekah, and yet believe she was not punished for her sin? Wherefore had she pursued such fatal measures for the obtaining of the blessing for her favorite Jacob, save to keep him for ever by her side, even as Isaac had never quitted the tents of his father? As a younger son, his lot would in all probability have been to seek his own fortune. As the inheritor of the blessings vouchsafed to Abraham, there could be no need for him to leave her; and what was the issue? Banishment from his mother's home, or exposure to his brother's wrath,—-the sword of vengeance ever hanging above his head. Was this nothing to a fond mother's heart? Let a parent ponder for one moment on the idea of one beloved child falling by the hand of another, and his heart will give the answer. Parting itself was preferable to such ever present dread, yet what agony must have been that parting! Not then, as now, might the absent ones be united by mutual intelligence. Neither post nor traveller passed between Beersheba and Padan-Ararn. Long weary wastes of country stretched between, and though Rebekah’s command was, “Tarry there a few days,”133 she knew it must be long months ere they met again. Nor will the vague thought of the hour of meeting ever lessen the pang of parting. It is the pang itself which is felt, the looking in vain for the beloved form in its accustomed haunts, the wild yearning to list once more the voice which sounds in memory alone, to feel the fond pressure of the hand, the kiss which welcomed morning and evening, without which day seemed scarce begun, and night came unobserved. The pictured hardships of the lonely wanderer which no mother’s hand may soften, the woe unsoothed, the pain unhealed, the tired frame untended,—these, and a hundred other fears, and thoughts of suffering, haunt a mother’s waking dreams, A most brilliant continuation of the metaphor she introduced in the previous line where she compared the havoc we can do by fostering untruth with the havoc wrought by floods. 133 Gen. 27:44. 132

FIRST PERIOD. III. REBEKAH

177

and nightly pillow,—felt not, dreamed not by the wanderer, yet clinging to woman’s breast with a tenacity and anguish time only can dispel. And because Rebekah lived so many thousand years ago, shall we deny to her these feelings when the hour came, and her beloved one departed—departed and alone, with no manifestation of the fruit of that blessing which she had lured him to obtain? With the departure of Jacob, the history of Rebekah concludes, for her name is no more mentioned.—Even on her death Holy Writ is silent. We only know that she was buried in the cave of Machpelah, by the words of Jacob in Gen. xlix, 31.134 And from there being no mention whatever of her on Jacob’s return to Hebron, we must infer that she died before his arrival, and never had the happiness of folding him to her heart again. How sad and lonely must her declining years have seemed without him who had been so long her stay; even though her long dormant affection for Esau may have been aroused from the injustice she had done him—and he evidently sought, with a softened spirit, to gratify his parents, by a union with a daughter of his uncle Ishmael,135—he could never have been to her as Jacob; and painfully and sadly must she have yearned for the absent, as the “few days,”136 which she had pictured, widened into long months and yet longer years. How changed must her life have seemed, and changed from the impulse of a moment; and as death neared—as she felt it might no longer be averted, and she had waited and prayed in vain to behold In connection with Jacob’s deathbed request that he be buried with his ancestors in the Cave of Machpelah (Gen. 49:29–30), Jacob says there in Gen. 49:31: “There they buried Abraham and Sarah his wife; there they buried Isaac and Rebekah his wife; and there I buried Leah.” 135 See Gen. 28:6-9: “When Esau saw that Isaac had blessed Jacob, and sent him away to Padan-aram, to take him a wife from thence; and that as he blessed him he gave him a charge saying, Thou shalt not take a wife of the daughters of Canaan; And that Jacob obeyed his father and his mother, and was gone to Padan-aram; And Esau seeing that the daughters of Canaan pleased not Isaac his father; Then went Esau unto Ishmael and took unto the wives which he had Mahalath the daughter of Ishmael Abraham’s son, the sister of Nebajoth, to be his wife.” 136 Gen. 27:44. 134

178

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

her son on earth once more—must she not have felt to the full, that, though the deception had been successful, though the blessing had been given, the means of its bestowal137 could not have been “acceptable to the Lord?”138 and had she, as we are privileged to do, beheld the life of trial and disappointment, and retributive deception,139 which marked the earthly course of her favorite son, this solemn truth would have been impressed still more.

Aguilar here expresses the letter and spirit of Judaism, which declares emphatically that the end, however holy it may be, cannot justify means, which are themselves a violation of ethics and morality. The Hebrew expression mitzvah habba’ah be‛averah ‘a precept performed by means of a transgression’ is shown to be an attempt to do the impossible. The classic discussion of this is found in Mishnah, Sukkah, Chapter 3 and its commentaries, which explain that one may not perform the precept of rejoicing before the LORD with the four species of plants collectively called lulav, literally ‘palm frond’ (Lev. 23:40) if one has stolen any of the plants nor may one perform the precept of sitting for seven days in the festival booth (Lev. 23:42) if the latter has been made from stolen materials. 138 This expression is found in the Hebrew Bible in Ps. 19:14: “Let the words of my mouth, and the meditation of my heart, be acceptable in thy sight, O LORD, my strength, and my redeemer.” These words are recited by every Jew and Jewess three times a day every day, four times a day on New Moons, Sabbaths, and Festivals, and five times on the Day of Atonement at the conclusion of the central feature of the worship service which is the so-called “Eighteen Benedictions” (see, e.g., ArtScroll Siddur, 116–119). The expression “acceptable to the LORD” is also found in Ex. 28:38 (on which see above, p. 110, n. 89). 139 Having received the paternal blessing by deception, Jacob fled to Padan-aram to the home of his Uncle Laban who promised to give his daughter Rachel in marriage to Jacob. At the end of their wedding night Jacob discovered that he had been deceived in that Laban had substituted Leah for Rachel. See Gen. 29:21–25; and see the discussion by Grace Aguilar, below, p. 199. Here Aguilar suggests that Jacob’s mistreatment at the hand of Uncle Laban was well deserved considering his having deceived Isaac and Esau. 137

FIRST PERIOD. III. REBEKAH

179

Yet the death of Rebekah was in all probability one of peace, and calm holy reliance on the infinite mercy of her God. He had chastised, but in the midst of chastisement had mercy;140 the fury of Esau had been turned aside, Jacob been saved, and peace preserved in the household of Isaac. Her earthly idol141 removed from her sight, we may well believe that Rebekah returned to her domestic duties with that singleness of purpose and uprightness of heart which had marked her earlier years. The temptation to turn aside, the loving mercy of the Eternal had removed, and the mother, even while her heart bled, must have pronounced the mandate just. If in her youth, before the knowledge of the God of Abraham had been imparted, she had felt with her brother, “It is the Lord, we cannot speak unto thee bad or good,”142 would she not—now that long This phraseology is taken from the final clause of Hab. 3:2, which KJV renders “in wrath remember mercy,” which is found frequently in Judaism’s penitential prayers. 141 Her son Jacob, whom she so adored and for whose advancement she would do anything. 142 The reference is to Gen. 24:50 where the joining of two opposites ‘bad or good’ constitutes a use of the literary device called a merism, a term frequently found in mid-20th century biblical scholarship but seldom found in standard dictionaries of the English language. The term designates the juxtaposition of two opposites such as ‘heaven and earth’, ‘male and female’ ‘from the east to the west’ ‘from human unto beast’ ‘with our youth and our elders’ in order to express ‘everyone, everything, everywhere’ and the like. In Gen. 24:50 Laban and Bethuel say, “The thing proceedeth from the LORD; we cannot speak unto thee bad or good,” which is to say, “Since it is God’s will, we have nothing to add other than to acquiesce.” Rebekah, according to Gen. 24, said nothing one way or the other about the proposal that she be led far away across the desert from Mesopotamia to the land of Canaan to marry a perfect stranger until Laban and Bethuel decided in Gen. 24:57 to ask the young lady “Wilt thou go with this man [the servant]? And she said, I will go” (Gen. 24:58). Aguilar in the present flash-back to the narrative of Rebekah’s betrothal at the end of her recounting the tragic tale of Rebekah’s involving Jacob in her plot to deceive Isaac and rob Esau of the proper paternal blessing glosses over the fact that Laban and Bethuel have made decisions concerning Rebekah without asking her and seem to ask her opinion only as 140

180

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

years had been passed in his service—have felt even in her affliction “it is the Lord,” and, without murmur or complaint, submit herself to His will?143 Are we then, it may be asked, to give Rebekah the meed of unmixed admiration? to rest only on the good points of her character? No. Like all human nature, it was a blending of the good and evil. Had Rebekah been told that, ere her life closed, she should have acted as she did, she would in all probability have felt it impossible; nay, ere her children were born, would have shrunk with horror from the idea of loving one more than the other. All we would urge is simply, that we are not to condemn her, as if the unfortunate propensity of woman, “to compass by stratagem,”144 were the marked failing of her character, and that therefore the evil not the good was ever the ascendant. This is the common error into which superficial thinkers fall; and from such have arisen questions as to the morality of the Bible, that its holiness would be more confirmed were there no such faults recorded. If indeed those, of whom it so impartially writes, were thus faultless, it would be desan afterthought. Aguilar accomplishes this glossing over by telling us that Rebekah “had felt with her brother” what her brother Laban and her father Bethuel had in fact stated in Gen. 24:50, namely, their acquiescence. And here Aguilar may be excused on the basis of the principal in Jewish law, “silence is acquiescence,” which is to say that had Rebekah not acquiesced, she would not have been afraid to say so. 143 Aguilar’s point is that just as, in Aguilar’s reading, Rebekah had already silently concurred with the decision of Laban and Bethuel to marry her off to the unknown Isaac as the three of them perceived that this was the divine will (Gen. 24:50) so now that she had been punished for her deception of Isaac and Esau by never being able to see her beloved son Jacob again so long as she lived she would have been willing to accept this as the divine will/punishment for her misdeeds. 144 An apt description of how Jezebel conspired to have Naboth wrongly convicted of blaspheming God and king so that her husband, King Ahab, could then take possession of Naboth’s vineyard. Compass by stratagem is an equally apt description of the manner by which Athaliah seized the throne of Judah after the assassination of Ahaziah (2 Kgs. 11:1 = 2 Ch. 22:10).

FIRST PERIOD. III. REBEKAH

181

tined for the use of Angels, not of man. But not such was the design of the Eternal. He inspired holy men to write that which would comfort and sustain man, when his immediate presence and guidance were veiled from mortal eyes; and His faithful servants alike, male and female, were depictured in their virtues and their failures, with an impartiality and truth which were to be our hope in our lowly efforts after virtue, and our consolation in our weakness and our sin. Rebekah’s fault was one, her virtues many; and therefore, while we abhor and pray against the sin,145 we can only grieve and lament that human weakness which triumphed in one moment of strong temptation over the virtuous strength of years. We dare not condemn and scorn that weakness; for did we so, we scorn, and condemn, and pronounce judgment on ourselves. How may we assert that, had we been placed as Rebekah in that dread moment, we too should not have done as she did? Can we assert that the promise of the Eternal would have been so strongly impressed within us, that we could have left its fulfilment in His hands, without one effort by our own agency to forward it? Can we say that we should have gone to Him in prayer, beseeching Him to counteract the design of Isaac in favor of his firstborn, and rest contented that the prayer would be heard and answered? There may be some too, loudly and reproachfully to condemn that weak partiality which was the real origin of the evil,—yet let such take heed, lest they too should fall by the same weakness, for they know not how their affections may equally be tried. Oh! not in condemnation of our meek and gentle ancestress shall we reap the benefit of her example, and turn aside from her faults. If, even in her, the weakness of human nature once triumphed over the immortal spirit, what may save us from the same fault? Will the purity Ps. 45:7 praises a virtuous king who loves righteousness and hates wickedness; likewise Ps. 97:10 commands, “Ye that love the LORD, hate evil.” But Lev. 19:17 warns, “Do not hate your brother [i.e., another human being] in your heart.” The lesson to which Aguilar here alludes is that we are to hate sin but not the sinner of whom the Prophet Ezekiel says, speaking in the name of God, “I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked; but that the wicked should turn from his way and live” (Ezek. 33:11). 145

182

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

of youth, the piety of early womanhood, the truth and virtue of long years? Will these obtain such sway as always to be our safeguard and our strength? Alas! not these: it must be the grace of God alone, sought by constant prayer and utter dependence upon Him,—the constant watch over ourselves,—the knowledge of our own weakness,—that which most exposes us to fall beneath temptation,—the consciousness that there is not a domestic duty,—not a home affection,—not an hour’s employment,—not a daily path or nightly thought, in which sin may not creep in and obtain dominion, unless effectually guarded against by unceasing watchfulness and prayer. And to us, yet more than any other nation in the world, is this watchful care and daily petition needed. To ISRAEL IS INTRUSTED THE HONOR OF THE LORD; His chosen,146 His beloved, His witnesses, the recorders of His ways unto man, the promulgators of His eternal love. How may we be lukewarm in His cause, when we are so called upon to exalt His glory? We are scattered among the nations as witnesses of the PAST and pledges of the FUTURE, and shall we with indifference permit others to claim the privileges which are ours, and assert that, until the epoch of Christianity, God had no witnesses upon earth? No, O no! Surely, individually and nationally, we shall use our every effort to proclaim our high and glorious descent amid the nations!147 One point more, and we must conclude this memoir, already so much longer than we intended. It has been said, that as the Eternal ordained that Jacob was to receive the promised blessing, and that the “elder should serve the younger,”148 it must have been obtained in some way; and therefore the means of its accomplishment were of For this idea see above, p. 141, n. 47. Here, as in her discussion of the erstwhile virtuous behavior of Rebekah (above, p. 148), Aguilar refers to the Jewish doctrine/precept of sanctification of the divine Name, which can be brought about by the silent testimony, which is constituted by the virtuous behavior of the Jewish people, individually and collectively. And she takes the opportunity to defend the Jewish religion and its adherents against the challenge of Christian missionaries. On Aguilar’s response to the latter see Galchinksy, Origin of the Modern Jewish Woman Writer, pp. 161–164. 148 The prophecy, which God had revealed to Rebekah in Gen. 25:23. 146 147

FIRST PERIOD. III. REBEKAH

183

little consequence, thus endeavoring to remove all that was reprehensible in the conduct of Jacob and his mother. Nay, some commentators try to make her conduct proceed from a belief that her course of “acting was in such conformity with the divine prediction, that she determined at all risks, and by any means, to secure the blessing for her younger and more worthy son.”* 149 This species of reasoning appears as mistaken as the too violent condemnation of Rebekah, and so completely at variance with the simple, trusting piety of the patriarchs and their families, that we cannot at all suppose it actuating the mother’s feelings. Besides which, to think thus, supposes a pre-determination150 to deceive her husband, whereas the narrative of the Bible clearly marks it the impulse of the moment. Isaac, before his birth, was the child of promise to Abraham: the Lord had promised he should be the father of a multitude, and in him and his seed all nations should be blessed.151 Yet that very child, Abraham was commanded to sacrifice, and without hesitation he prepared to obey, feeling convinced, that though to him the means of accomplishing the divine promise were plunged in darkest mystery—if indeed his child must die—yet still that the promise * Philippson;—See Notes to Mr. De Sola’s Bible.149 149 Aguilar is totally correct in invoking against Philippson’s apologia for Rebekah’s inciting Jacob to an act of deceit (see above, p. 168) the halakhic principle that a good deed cannot be performed by evil means. See the note “h” in De Sola et al., Sacred Scriptures, pp. 169–171 and see also Raphall on p. 150 there. The Philippson, who is frequently cited by De Sola et al., is Ludwig Philippson, who prepared a popular commentary on the Pentateuch in German, which was published in 1840 and an annotated German translation of the entire Jewish Bible, which was completed in 1853. Concerning Ludwig Philippson see also below, p. 918, n. 49. 150 The Calvinist doctrine of Predetermination is at odds with the Jewish doctrine of free will; for Aguilar’s impassioned statement concerning the latter Jewish doctrine, see above, pp. 30-32. 151 Here Aguilar conflates several promises found in Gen. 12:3 (“in thee shall all the families of the earth be blessed”); 17:5 (“for a father of many nations have I made thee”); and 21:12 (“in Isaac shall thy seed be called”).

184

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

would be fulfilled without any intervention of man; his duty was simply to obey, and the promise was fulfilled.152 As the command of the Lord to slay his son was the trial of Abraham’s faith, so were the words of Isaac to Esau the trial of Rebekah’s. She ought to have known, from that very incident in the early life of her husband, that whatever the Lord has once said, He WILL perform, however mysterious may seem the means of its accomplishment—that though Isaac might intend to give the blessing to his first-born, his words would have been overruled, and the blessing reserved for Jacob, without any strife between the brothers or their consequent separation. But her faith was not strong enough for that most difficult duty—to “wait for the Lord.”153 Womanlike, feeling was her weakness, impulse her guide, faith succumbed before these, and so left her unguarded, when its invulnerable defence was more needed than it had ever been before. Rebekah had perhaps some excuse for her momentary fancy that her course of acting was, from its success, acceptable to the Lord; but we have NONE. The idea that human means are necessary to forward any intention of the Most High, cannot be entertained a single moment without verging on impiety, when we have the whole Word of God to prove by precept and example that He is as omnipotent to do as to will. Man is a free agent.154 Rebekah had equal power to “wait for the Lord” as to urge her son to deception. That she chose the latter was human frailty, no pre-ordainment. He indeed permitted the fraud in appearance to succeed, that the ways of the Eternal are not our ways,155 and that His decrees require no aid of man. That human designs, however sinful, however contrary to the pleasure of the Lord, are overruled to further His divine economy—no one who attentively studies and believes God’s Word can Gen. 22. See the discussion of the sources and meaning of this expression above, p. 150, n. 58. 154 Here again Aguilar emphasizes the Jewish doctrine of free will, on which see above, pp. 30-32. 155 Cf. Isa. 55:8: “For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, and my thoughts your thoughts.” 152 153

FIRST PERIOD. III. REBEKAH

185

for a single moment doubt; but this truth in not one tittle156 renders us less responsible beings. That the Eternal ever bringeth forth and worketh universal good from partial evil,157 proves His loving kindness, His beneficence, His all-wise, ever acting mercy alone, Not that man is in any point acquitted,158 or that evil is a necessary adjunct to the bringing forth of good. The workers and the designers of evil are, individually, objects of displeasure, and will suffer the burden of their guilt. The doers of evil the God of Love abhors, even while His compassion overrules the deeds, and turns them in His hand to the furtherance of good. We are earnestly and heartily anxious to impress this important truth on the minds of our younger readers, who, in their early perusal of God’s Holy Word, may and will feel startled, that human weakness should not only be recorded, but its actions be permitted to succeed. Success is not always a proof of the Eternal’s approbation. The history of both Rebekah and Jacob proves the displeasure of the Lord towards themselves individually, though their action was overruled to the accomplishment of His previous will. Rebekah never saw her son again; and Jacob, though spiritually blessed, was in his earthly career more unfortunate than any of his family before or after him. This word refers to the crowns that appear on the following letters of the Hebrew alphabet in the scrolls from which Scripture is read in the synagogue: gimmel, zayin, tet, ayin, shin and both final and medial nun and tsade. Halakhic sources for the tagin include Babylonian Talmud, Menahot 29b; Maimonides, Mishneh Torah, Laws Pertaining to the Torah Scroll, 7:9; and Shulhan Arukh, Orah Hayyim, 36:3 and the commentaries ad loc. In the Sermon on the Mount Jesus refers to these crowns as tittles when he declares in Matthew 5:18: “Till heaven and earth pass away one jot [i.e., Heb. yod, the tiniest letter of the Hebrew alphabet, which often appears to be superfluous] or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.” So also Luke 16:17. In Jewish literature in English in modern times the common term for tittle is the Aramaic tag (plural tagin). 157 Cf. Deut. 23:5: “but the LORD thy God turned the curse into a blessing unto thee, because the LORD thy God loved thee”; cf. also Amos 5:8: [the LORD] who turns deep darkness into morning” [Gruber’s translation]. 158 Ex. 34:7: “will by no means clear the guilty.” 156

186

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

This narrative alone, then, ought to bid us eschew a wandering from the one straight path of single-hearted truth that we never can do so without exciting the displeasure of our Heavenly Father, even though our plans may seem crowned with unmerited success. The attribute of our God is TRUTH:159 how then dare we believe that He smiles upon those who depart from it, or requires human deception to forward His almighty will? As His children, His own, His first-born,160 oh! let our watchword be TRUTH! Let our upright, single-minded, straightforward adherence to truth in every thought,

In Jer. 10:10 the Prophet Jeremiah states, “the LORD God is truth.” Since the three biblical paragraphs that constitute the Shema recited in the morning and evening service of the synagogue contain only 245 words, which number is three short of the sacred number 248, it is customary not only to join the last two words of the final paragraph of the Shema, which are ’Adonay ’Eloheykem ‘the LORD your God’ (Num. 15:41) to the first word of the benediction which immediately follows in the morning and the evening service, which begins with the word ’emet ‘truth’ but also for the prayer leader afterwards to repeat aloud the three words ’Adonay ’Eloheykem ’Emet forming the sentence ‘the LORD your God is truth. Thus we make the Shema add up to the sacred number of 248 words, which corresponds to both the number of bones in the body according to some ancient anatomists and the corresponding number of positive precepts contained in the Torah, which the aforementioned limbs should endeavor to perform. See Shulhan Aruk, Orah Hayyim, 61:3. See De Sola, Forms of Prayer, 27; ArtScroll Siddur, 94–95. When Aguilar says that for the Jew and for the Jewess the attribute of God is truth she is not referring just to what might be for some an obscure verse in the Book of Jeremiah but to an affirmation, which Jews and Jewesses raised in a traditional Jewish environment that included daily prayer (like the home in which Grace Aguilar was brought up) repeated once every morning and once every evening. 160 See Ex. 4:22: “Thus saith the LORD, Israel is my son, even my firstborn.” 159

FIRST PERIOD. III. REBEKAH

187

word, and deed, proclaim WHOSE WITNESSES we are,161 and compel the nations to acknowledge that we are “Israelites indeed!”162

See Isa. 43:10: “Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen”; see also Isa. 44:8: “ye are even my witnesses.” 162 Here Aguilar challenges a widespread belief among many Christians from antiquity to the present day that the Jewish people are the survivors of an Old Israel, which has been replaced by a New Israel, which is Christianity. Consequently, in the captions added by the King James Version of the Bible at Isa. 43, just now referred to, we read “The Lord comforts the church” although the opening verse of the chapter itself addresses itself, “O Israel.” Likewise, the KJV caption at Isa. 44 is “God’s church comforted” although the chapter itself begins, “Yet now hear, O Jacob my servant; and Israel, whom I have chosen,” Notwithstanding, the Apostle Paul’s declaration in Romans 11:1 that God has not cast away his people Israel, it is still necessary in some quarters to remind people that the Jews are still around practicing their ancestral faith. And Aguilar also exhorts Jewesses and Jews to behave in such a way as truly to be worthy of that faith and of God’s having chosen them to be His witnesses. 161

CHAPTER IV. LEAH AND RACHEL It was on the same spot, in the land of the East, where nearly a century previous Abraham’s steward had bowed himself to the earth in prayer,1 that several shepherds and their flocks were assembled, grouped by the side of a well, from whose mouth the great stone covering had not yet been rolled aside.2 It was high noon, when a stranger approached, and courteously addressing the shepherds, inquired: “My brethren, whence be ye? And they said, Of Haran are we. And he said unto them, Know ye Laban, the son of Nahor? And they said, We know him. And he said unto them, Is he well? And they said, He is well, and behold Rachel his daughter cometh with the sheep. And while he yet spake with them Rachel came with her father’s sheep, for she kept them. And it came to pass when Jacob saw Rachel, the daughter of Laban his mother’s brother, and the sheep of Laban his mother’s brother, that Jacob went near, and rolled the stone from the well’s mouth, and watered the sheep; and Jacob kissed Rachel, and lifted up his voice and wept, and Jacob told Rachel that he was her father’s brother, and that he was Rebekah’s son. And she ran and told her father.”3 Such, in the simple yet impressive language of Holy Writ, was the first meeting of Jacob and his beautiful cousin. Lonely and sad the exiled Jacob had turned from the home of his childhood and the parents of his love. The child of promise and of prayer—the inheritor of God’s especial blessing—the ancestor of

Gen. 24:12–14. Gen. 29:1–2. 3 Gen. 29:3–12. 1 2

189

190

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

kings4—was compelled to make his bed on the cold earth, with nothing but stones for his pillow.5 How must his thoughts have clung to his mother and his home! That his heart was once more fitted for the reception and comprehension of holy things, is proved by the dream which Infinite Wisdom vouchsafed, to strengthen and encourage him. The promise would not have been revealed to one unworthy to receive it. Though human weakness may sully and darken even the choicest servants of the Lord, yet not unto the impure, the unholy, the unrepentant, would the Holy One impart the blessing of His spirit and His guidance. Acknowledgment of his fault must have brought Jacob once more to the feet of his Heavenly Father, or the confirmation of the blessed promise would have still been delayed.6 On the beautiful, the most consoling vision vouchsafed to Jacob, consoling, not only to him but to us, we may not linger. Yet, though so spiritually consoled, strengthened, and refreshed, the mortal nature of the wanderer must often have obtained ascendency during his journey, and have rendered it at the very least dreary and sad. Jacob had never been tried till his departure from his father’s house; and, therefore, though awestruck and “afraid”7 at the glorious revelation when its impression was vividly before him, his very vow supposes a slight degree of doubt, natural to one only just called upon to believe: “If the Lord will be with me, and will keep me in this way that I go, give me bread to eat and raiment to put on,8 so that I come again to my father’s house in peace, then the LORD shall be my God.”9 “Bread to eat and raiment to put on.” Even for See Gen. 17:6 where God promises Abraham, “and kings shall come out of thee;” see also Gen. 35:11, which relates that when Jacob had left Padan-aram God spoke to him and said, “and kings shall come out of thy loins.” 5 Gen. 28:11. 6 Here Aguilar refers to the dream in which Jacob saw a ladder reaching from earth to heaven with angels ascending and descending thereon; see Gen. 28:12–17. 7 Gen. 28:17. 8 Gen. 28:20. 9 Gen. 28:20–21. 4

FIRST PERIOD. IV. LEAH AND RACHEL

191

these petty cares and trials he was dependent on the Lord alone; yet that he did not possess even these—that he had literally left the tent of his father with his staff for his sole possession, may give us some idea of the human trials of our forefathers, even of those whom the Lord most blessed. Their greatness, their influence, their riches, were to come from God alone, not from man; their lives were to bear witness to His providence, even as their descendants are witnesses of the fulfilment of His word. As Jacob was subject to all the inconveniences, fatigue, and suffering of travelling through a strange and often hostile country, as any other wanderer—his feelings, on nearing the abode of his uncle, may more easily be imagined than described. In his conversation with the shepherds, and then in his actively rolling aside the stone and watering the sheep, we may read the manly effort to restrain emotion, which, however, spurned all control when, in the simple and beautiful affection of the patriarchal age, “he kissed Rachel, and lifted up his voice and wept.”10 Wept, that God had in His loving mercy guided him thus far, and seemed to promise that newly known, yet instinctively loved, relations should fill up the aching void in his heart, which the sudden separation from his mother must have caused. “And it came to pass, when Laban heard the tidings of Jacob, his sister’s son, that he ran to meet him, and embraced him, and kissed him, and brought him to his house. And he told Laban all these things. And Laban said, Surely thou art my bone and my flesh. And he abode with him the space of a month.”11 Again is family affection vividly brought before us. If the reckoning of some commentators be true, and Jacob was seventy-six12 when he entered the household of Laban, nearly one hundred years must have elapsed since Rebekah had quitted her maiden home. Yet how closely and fondly must her memory have been enshrined in the heart of her brother, and through him

Gen. 29:11. Gen. 29:13–14. 12 So De Sola et al., Sacred Scriptures, 172. 10 11

192

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

cherished by his children, that Jacob was thus so warmly and delightedly welcomed, simply because he was “Rebekah’s son.”13 Youth in Laban had changed to manhood, manhood to age. He had nearer and dearer calls upon his heart in his character of husband and father; yet still the memory of the “hand-in-hand companion of his childhood” remained pure, and beautiful, and strong, as if absence had never come between them. Will not this fact reveal how acceptable in the Lord’s sight14 is the encouragement of those affections which His love has given to his children? And how sad, how wrong it is to permit coldness and indifference to steal in between the members of one family. Would Laban have entertained such fond recollections of Rebekah, had their early youth been passed in that utter want of cordiality and confidence, faithfulness and affection, which but too often mar the unity and beauty of modern fashionable homes? Oh! not to be expended only on the stranger, hath the God of love stored our hearts with affection, with reverence, with all that can make home an earthly heaven! Would we truly love and seek to please Him, our first duty must be, to love and make those happy with whom our daily lot is cast. Two daughters blessed the house of Laban; the elder Leah, the younger Rachel. Now “Leah was tender-eyed, and Rachel beautiful and well-favored.”15 As the sacred historian16 disdains not to mention this, we may be permitted to pause one moment upon the characteristics of the two sisters. That Leah was much less beautiful than her sister is evident from the words of the text, but it does not appear that she was as plain and homely as some commentators Gen. 29:12 relates that Jacob told this to Rachel, and Gen. 29:14 relates that Laban’s response to this fact was to declare, “Surely, thou art my bone and my flesh.” 14 Note that the phrase “acceptable in the Lord’s sight” derives from Ps. 19:14: “Let the words of my mouth, and the mediation of my heart, be acceptable in thy sight, O Lord, my strength and my redeemer.” 15 Gen. 29:16–17. 16 The narrator in the Book of Genesis, traditionally identified with Moses, to whom the Rabbinic Sages attributed the authorship of the Pentateuch, calling it Moses’s Book; see Babylonian Talmud, Bava Batra, 14b. 13

FIRST PERIOD. IV. LEAH AND RACHEL

193

declare her.17 The Hebrew word translated “tender,” “And the eyes of Leah were tender (‫)ועיני לאה רכות‬,” does not signify weak only, as is generally supposed, but soft and delicate, and leads me to suppose that the soft and tender eyes of Leah were her only good feature, whereas her younger sister was “very beautiful and of exceeding beauty,” which is the literal meaning of the Hebrew expression ‫ורחל היתה יפת תאר ויפת מראה‬, though even such translation is far from possessing the force of the original. This difference of appearance occasioned, as would appear by the sequel, a complete difference of character. One month Jacob abode with his uncle, evidently doing him active service in return for the hospitality which he had received.18 That he did so, tells well for the real character of the wanderer; for in his father’s house Jacob had never been accustomed to active service, and it must have demanded some little exertion of will over inclination, to have permitted its steady and active performance. Laban, however, at this period of their intimacy, felt too kindly and generously towards his nephew to permit him to work without wages. “And he said unto him, Because thou art my brother, shouldst thou therefore serve me for naught? Tell me what shall thy wages be?19 And Jacob loved Rachel, and said, I will serve thee seven years for Rachel thy younger daughter. And Laban said, It is better I give her unto thee than to another man. Abide with me. Gen. 29:17, “Leah was tender eyed: but Rachel was beautiful and well favoured,” can be taken to intimate that Leah was less beautiful than Rachel. So the verse was understood by Christian commentators and creators of ecclesiastical art from the 9th century C.E. onwards. These commentators and artists saw the beautiful Rachel as representing Christianity and Leah as representing Judaism, to which they referred as “the blind synagogue,” understanding Leah to be visually challenged. In discussing this, Aran, Image of Women, 133–138, notes that Rabbi David Kimchi (c. 1160–1235) goes out of his way to suggest that Leah also was beautiful while other medieval Jewish commentators—Rashi, Ibn Ezra, and Nahmanides—avoid dealing with the subject altogether. 18 Gen. 29:14: “And he [Jacob] abode with him [Laban] the space of a month.” 19 Gen. 29:15. 17

194

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

And Jacob served seven years for Rachel; and they seemed unto him but 20 a few days, for the love he had to her.” We think much of those tales of chivalry where man performs some great and striking deed—conquers his own passions21— becomes a voluntary wanderer—all to win the smile and love of woman. And we do right, for the motive is pure and the moral good. But such high-wrought volumes should not blind our hearts and eyes to this exquisite narration, wherein the same truth, the same moral is impressed, with equal force and beauty, only in the simple language of the Bible. Jacob’s servitude was a more convincing proof of his love and constancy than those exciting deeds of heroism which chivalry records. His was no service to call upon distant lands and far-off ages to admire. Nothing for FAME, that brilliant meteor, which, equally with love, divided the warrior’s heart in the middle ages. Nothing to vary the routine of seven years’ domestic duty, the wearisome nature of which we find in the 38th and 39th verses of chapter xxxi.22 Yet these “seven years seemed but as a few days for the love he had to her.”23 A brief yet most emphatic sentence, revealing the purest, the holiest, the most unselfish love, unrestrained by one fleeting thought of worldly aggrandizement, or a hope beyond making that beloved one his own. “Consumed by the draught by day, chilled by the frost at night,”24 still he never wavered. Love was his upholder—his sustainer. And it was for this end love was so mercifully given.

Gen. 29:18–20. Cf. Mishnah, Avot 4:1, “... who is a warrior? He who conquers his own passions.” 22 There we read Jacob’s almost parting words to Laban after the latter attempts to prevent Jacob from going back to the land of Canaan with his wives and children: “These twenty years have I been with thee; thy ewes and thy she goats have not cast their young, and the rams of thy flock have I not eaten. That which was torn of beasts I brought not unto thee; I bare the loss of it; of my hand didst thou require it, whether stolen by day or stolen by night.” 23 Gen. 29:20. 24 Gen. 31:40. 20 21

FIRST PERIOD. IV. LEAH AND RACHEL

195

As the word of God disdains not to portray the extent of love borne by one mortal for another, we trust we may be pardoned if we linger a moment on that emotion, the very name of which is generally banished from the education of young females, as if to feel or excite it were a crime, forgetting that, in banishing all idea of its influence, we banish also the proper means of regulating that influence, and subject our young charge unguarded to the very evil that we dread. God gave not love to bind to earth, but to raise to heaven: not to make us earthly idols, but, on the very love we bear each other, to lift up the soul to Him—to lighten toil and soften grief, to heighten joy and bless our earthly sojourn with a bright ray from that exhaustless fount of love which waits for us above. Without some emotion powerful enough to draw us out of ourselves for an earthly brother, how could we ever subject our selfish hearts to the will of our God? how perform those self-sacrifices most acceptable to Him? Stronger than pain and toil, and even death,25 it is the very essence of our being, the spiritual essence, which marks more powerfully than aught else our immortal destiny; and from the reflection of that destiny lends a glow to earth. “Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and soul, and might,” is the command of the Eternal26—an important command—yet not given till after His word had revealed to us that it was possible, nay, that it was a necessary consequence, for those who served and loved Him best, to love and cleave unto each other.27 Had not the heart been See Song of Songs 8:6 “love is strong as death.” Deut. 6:5; indeed, it is the second verse of the first paragraph of the Shema, which a Jew and a Jewess recite daily upon arising and before retiring at night and in the morning and evening prayer at home and in the synagogue every day of the year; moreover, Jesus in Matt. 22:38 says of this commandment, “This is the first and great commandment.” In the parallel version in Mk. 12:29–30 Jesus refers to the first two verses of the Shema (Deut. 6:4–5), “Hear O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord. And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind ...” as “the first of all the commandments.” 27 Here Aguilar refers to Gen. 2:24: “Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother and cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one 25 26

196

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

created with full capacity to love, this command would not have been given; and He who has placed us in a world of beauty, who has gathered around us objects to excite every feeling, demands not that those feelings are to be devoted to Him alone in utter neglect of our fellows. It is not passion to which we allude, though but too often the words are deemed synonymous. Nov do we mean passion when we say that love is the handmaid of religion. No, it is a spiritual, not an earthly feeling; spiritual even when it relates to man, not God. And if, indeed, it be so, and the more we reflect upon it the more we feel it is, or ought to be, why should it be a subject, as it too often is, of jest, of scorn, and those under its influence deemed not far removed from folly and romance? Why should education never allude to it save as a dreadful and unlikely thing, and the sage lesson so often conned, that reason, not affection, is to be our guide? Were the word religion substituted for reason in such educational codes, the young heart would be so trained as to eschew all fear of mere earthly love; it would know itself, its own impulses, its own feelings, and so set a strong guard upon those most likely to lead to error, while it encouraged all that would urge to good. It would feel that love was of God, and therefore not a subject for levity or jest;—that it was sent to lift up the spirit to Him, and therefore not so to expend its force on an earthly idol as to lead to extravagance and folly;—that it was to last for ever, not unto death, but beyond it,28 and therefore not to be given to one whose future was of earth, and who sought in its possession but the gratification of a few fleeting years;—that it was to endure through sorrow and sickness, and trial and woe, not to be the mere harbinger of gaiety and joy, to shine in a ball-room and glitter in a bridal robe;—but to bear with flesh.” Aguilar, we noted above (see p. 135), understands that while the verse speaks of a man leaving his parents and cleaving to his wife so that the husband and wife become one flesh, the verse is meant to be understood as applying also to the woman who must likewise leave her parents and cleave unto her husband so that they become one flesh. 28 The expression “till death do us part” is part of the vows exchanged by bride and groom in the Anglican wedding ceremony; it is not found in the Jewish ceremony.

FIRST PERIOD. IV. LEAH AND RACHEL

197

occasional irritability or even with unkindness and apparent neglect with faults which we must never breathe; with intervals of an utter want of sympathy, even of depreciation, which we must endure, solace, and forgive:—not to suppose that we shall ever be as when that love is first called forth, our wishes granted ere told, our every feeling answered, our every virtue appreciated, our very failings loved. And to be prepared for this—to love thus with a strength, a purity that will bear all this, aye, and more painful still, the very sacrifices of self which love impels, unfelt, unknown, uncared for, or if seen, but deemed our duty, and coldly passed uncheered—will aught but that love which is spiritual sustain us? and will such emotion come to the young heart without some preparatory training? Oh! not while love is deemed romance, not while it is made a jest, or shunned as something guilty or derogatory, will it, can it ever be as the God of love ordained, the purest, dearest blessing earth can know, the loveliest type of heaven.29 Something more than Rachel’s beauty, marvellous as that was, must have so retained Jacob’s love for her in those seven years of domestic intercourse, as to make the time appear but a few days. Beauty may attract and win if the time of courtship be too brief to require no other charm, but it is not sufficient of itself to retain affection. Gift from God, as it is, how may it be abused, and how may Here it is clear that Aguilar has internalized the Jewish understanding that the love between a man and a woman, which is referred to in the narrative of Jacob and Rachel and made the subject of an entire book of the Hebrew Bible, the Song of Songs, is wholly desirous. Contrast the words of the Apostle Paul in his First Letter to the Corinthians 7:7–9: “For I would that all men were even as I myself. But every man hath his proper gift of God, one after this manner, and another after that. I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is good for them to abide even as I. But if they cannot contain let them marry,” which reflect the classic Christian preference for the celibate life and regard marriage as only better than fornication. Aguilar here calls for what is today called in many schools “family education,” which is meant to prepare boys and girls to grow up to be devoted and caring and effective spouses and parents whereas “sex education,” is often concerned primarily with the prevention of the spread of sexually transmitted diseases. 29

198

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

it be wasted in caring only for the lovely shape without, and leaving the rich invisible gems within uncared for and unused! Oh! if there be one among my youthful readers, of beauty exceeding as that of Rachel, who holdeth in her possession this rich gift of God, let her remember that He will demand of her how she hath used it,—that its abuse, its pretended neglect, yet in reality proud value, will pass not unnoticed by its beneficent Giver. It has been granted for some end,—for if to look on a beautiful flower will excite emotions of admiration and love, and consequently enjoyment, how much more deeply would such feelings be called forth by a beautiful face, could we but behold it as the hands of God had formed it, unshaded by the impress of those emotions of pride, contempt; or selfsufficiency, or that utter void of intellect, which are but too often its concomitants, from the mistaken notion that outward beauty is omnipotent, and needs no help within. To hide from a young girl that she is beautiful is the extreme of folly, for her mirror will tell her that she is being deceived, and the influence of such informers will be lost at once, No—let the real value and consequent responsibility of beauty be inculcated, and there will be no fear of its abuse. That Rachel had many most endearing qualities we may quite infer from Jacob’s devoted love to her even to her death.30 The spirit most impatient under contradiction, and loving its own will, is often united to a manner so engaging, and qualities so calculated to win regard, that trivial faults of temper and will are literally engendered from the difficulty it is to reprove a being so beautiful and so beloved; and this would seem the case with Rachel. Young, joyous, and loving, we may fancy her the very star of her father’s

See Gen. 48:7 where in his deathbed exhortation to his son Joseph, Jacob declares, “And as for me, when I came from Padan, Rachel died by me in the land of Canaan in the way, when yet there was but a little way to Ephrath; and I buried her there in the way of Ephrath; the same is Bethlehem.” Note that where KJV renders ‘by me’ meaning that Rachel predeceased Jacob and left him bereft of her, NJV conveys the spirit if not the letter of the Hebrew when it renders ‘to my great grief’, hardly a literal translation, which would be “Rachel died on me.” 30

FIRST PERIOD. IV. LEAH AND RACHEL

199

home, valuing her beauty as it gave her power to obtain whatever she willed uncontradicted, but using it only in the sphere of home. But though Jacob’s affections were devoted to one alone, those seven years of intimate association must have been fraught with suffering and sadness to Laban’s elder daughter, whose strong affection for Jacob the sequel will reveal. Her compelled agency in her father’s fraud must have been fraught with absolute horror to a heart that loved secretly and unreturned, as herself, and heightened the trial of unrequited affection in no ordinary degree. We will not linger on the affairs narrated in Genesis xxix, from the 21st to the 30th verse,31 because they belong so strictly to the manners and customs of the Eastern nations, that it is quite impossible to comment upon them with any justice, prejudiced, as birth and education cannot fail to make us, in favor of the manners and customs of modern Europe. Yet the customs of the East have undergone little or no change; and repeatedly we find that, which in the narratives of the Bible may startle our modern European notions, as strange and improbable, confirmed by events passing in the East at this very day, so that those very narratives would there be scarcely considered a history of the past.32 This is the account of how Laban arranged an elaborate wedding, ostensibly for Rachel and Jacob at the end of which he switched brides on Jacob so that Jacob, who had intended to marry only one wife, namely, Rachel, ended up with two wives. Aguilar is embarrassed by the fact that the Jewish Holy Scriptures contain such a story, and she wishes to skip over it. However, if truth be told, the story reveals that indeed Jacob had no intention to commit bigamy; he was forced into it by the rascal fatherin-law, Laban. 32 Indeed, while the religious system of the sectarian documents among the Dead Sea Scrolls regarded monogamy as divinely ordained (see Mayer I. Gruber, “Women in the Religious System of Qumran,” in Judaism in Late Antiquity V: The Judaism of Qumran, ed. Alan J. Avery-Peck, Jacob Neusner, and Bruce Chilton [Leiden: E. J. Brill, 2001], 173–96), Rabbinic Judaism never regarded polygamy as forbidden either by divine law or by what they believed was the God-given authority of the rabbis to enact by-laws, commonly called “Rabbinic legislation” (Aramaic derabbanan) although there are numerous statements to the effect that monogamy 31

200

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

Though beguiled into another seven years’ servitude for his much-loved Rachel, it is evident that she had become his wife first,33 Jacob honorably performing the word he had pledged, after the wished-for prize had been obtained; and not till those seven is praiseworthy; see the summary in Moshe David Herr, “Monogamy,” EJ 12:258–260. Aguilar has clearly internalized the attitude developed by Jews in the Middle Ages, especially in Christian countries, that monogamy is desirable and that the practice of polygamy would make the Jews look bad in the eyes of their Christian neighbors. The latter attitude, which is often said to be responsible for Rabbenu Gershom’s 1000 year ban on polygamy enacted around the year 1000 C.E. among Ashkenazic Jewry, actually reflects a determination by the Jews that monogamy was one of the virtues of their Christian neighbors. After all, the Jews did not adopt all habits of their neighbors. In any case, that ban would not legally apply to members of the Aguilar family who were Sephardic! 33 KJV’s “fulfill her week” in Gen. 29:27 and Aguilar’s interpretation here both follow Rashi’s understanding based on Jerusalem Talmud, Mo‛ed Qatan 1:7, that Laban asked Jacob to complete the week of celebration on behalf of “this lady” (Heb. zo’t, the feminine demonstrative pronoun), i.e., Leah after which Laban promised to marry him immediately to Rachel. Indeed, Gen. 29:28 confirms that this is what happened: “And Jacob did so, and fulfilled her week: and he [Laban] gave him Rachel his daughter to wife also.” And, as Aguilar stresses, while Jacob had worked seven years before receiving in exchange for those seven years of work the first wife, Leah, Jacob now received Rachel at the end of the seven day celebration of his marriage to Leah, and only then did he begin the next seven years of service as payment of the bride-price for Rachel. Indeed, Rashi and his ancient sources assume that in vv. 27–28 the construct noun shevu‘a, literally ‘unit of seven pertaining to’ refers to the custom in Rabbinic Judaism of seven days of celebration in the form of ceremonial meals at the homes of friends and relatives. Obviously, in other contexts (e.g., Mishnah Sanhedrin 5:1), shavu‘a ‘unit of seven’ can refer to one of the seven units of seven years making up a cycle of fortynine years (see Lev. 25:8 where seven weeks of years is expressed as “seven Sabbaths of years”; so also KJV). Consequently, while Rashi and Aguilar are clearly supported by a close reading of Gen. 29:27–28, were the matter wholly obvious to a cursory reader of the biblical text, it would not have been necessary for commentators to belabor the point.

FIRST PERIOD. IV. LEAH AND RACHEL

201

years were completed, do we hear him utter one word of complaint or one wish to provide for “his own house also.”34 “And when the Lord saw that Leah was hated35 (lit. less loved),36 He gave her children, but Rachel had none. And she called the name of her eldest son Reuben: for, she said, “Surely the Lord hath looked upon my affliction; now therefore my husband will love me.”37 What a volume of woman’s deepest feelings and the compassionating love of the Eternal do these brief lines reveal! He who had, in His inscrutable wisdom, ordained that Leah should be tried in the fiery ordeal of woman’s saddest loneliness, unrequited affection, yet deigned to grant a compensating blessing in all the sweet, pure feelings of a mother’s love. Who that reads but this one verse can uphold that woman is less an object of tender love and compassion to her God than man? Who can say that the Mosaic records are silent on this head? The words of man to point out the proper station and value of woman we need not, for the children of Israel have the WORD OF THEIR GOD.38 And do we not still recogGen. 31:30. So KJV at Gen. 29:31. 36 Here Aguilar anticipates the tendency of modern commentators to mitigate the sense of the Hebrew in which the verb sn’, traditionally ‘hate’ is the clear opposite of the verb ’hb ‘love’; consequently, NJV renders here ‘unloved’. 37 Gen. 29:31–32. 38 With respect to Aguilar’s contention that here the Torah shows a special sensitivity to a woman’s feelings reminds one of Judith Hauptman’s remarks concerning Gen. 25:22, “And the children struggled together within her.” Hauptman writes as follows in Alice Shalvi, Ellen Frankel, Judith Hauptman, and Rochelle Udell, “Women Empowering Women: A Panel Discussion,” Women’s League Outlook 69, no. 3 (Spring 1999), 8–13, 29, quotation 10. There Hauptman writes, “As a mother of twins, I know that pronounced fetal movement is a clear sign of a twin pregnancy. I do not believe that any man who has ever studied the verse recognized that telltale sign.” Aguilar in her comment here on Gen. 29:32 takes the opportunity not only to show that the Torah understands women but that the Jewish people, who are lucky to have a God-given Torah, which is sensitive to women’s issues should not constantly be told 34 35

202

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

nise the God of Leah?39 His ear has not become heavy that it canby Christians that “Judaism is patriarchal, but Jesus ... .” See recently, for example, Foundation Course on Women’s Studies: A Value Based Course (Madurai, Tamil Nadu, India: Lady Doak College, 2006), 92: “We can quote few women leaders from the Old Testament of the Bible who achieved greater things.” This point is then illustrated by mentioning only Miriam, Deborah, and Esther. There, p. 93 the authors continue, “The Bible is the basic evidence to know about the status and role of women of the Christian faith. The Bible is patriarchal and the writings are male dominated. The Old Testament projects women in a different light compared to the New Testament wherein the views about women are different obviously due to Jesus Christ’s attitude toward women. The creation and fall of the first man and woman made men to be dominant and the women to be the property of men. The liberation of women really started from the time of the ministry of Jesus Christ. The position of women changed greatly due to the respect Jesus gave to women’s rights.” Similarly, Gerald G. F. Bwemba, “The Dignity of Women in Chewa Culture: A Challenge to Dedza Diocese—Malawi,” Licentiate Degree in Theology Thesis, Department of Moral Theology, Catholic University of Eastern Africa, Nairobi, Kenya, 2002, pp. 36–61. For example, he states there, on p. 38: “Later, we see how women are mistreated and looked down upon, in the patriarchal Jewish society; yet God constantly intervenes in human history to liberate such oppressed people.” Similar, there, p. 50, Bwemba writes, “God wanted to raise the status of women who were so much despised in the Jewish culture.” Cf. also Kalaneethy Christopher, “Christianity and Women,” in Women and Society: A Reader in Women’s Studies, ed. Nirmala Jeyaraj (Delhi: ISPCK/ Madurai: Lady Doak College, 2005), 302: “The Old Testament projects women in a different light compared to the New Testament wherein the views of women are obviously different due to Jesus Christ’s attitude toward women. Jesus Christ respected women, understood their roles differently and provided opportunities for the women to exercise their freedom in the society during his life and ministry.” 39 Aguilar argues that just as the Jew and the Jewess need not exchange their Bible, which is sensitive to women, for another Bible allegedly more sensitive so they need not exchange their faith and their approach to God for another. The descendants of Leah and Rachel and Bilhah and Zilpah need not look elsewhere than to their own Judaism to find the path to

FIRST PERIOD. IV. LEAH AND RACHEL

203

not hear, nor His arm shortened that it cannot save.40 And though He may not bestow on us a visible and audible manifestation of His tender compassion as on Leah, yet we may be certain that He will grant us some compensating blessing for every joy of which he may think fit to deprive us. And even for those bitter griefs, which from their nature, their seeming selfishness, woman shrinks in trembling from bringing before her God, and buries them in her own heart till it bleeds at every pore,—Leah’s history proves that He will grant peace and healing. It may be that a wiser and kinder will than her own has flung an insuperable barrier between woman’s heart and its dearest object; and impelled her by all that is refined and delicate in her character, to hide deep from every eye the anguish which is her burden. How blessed then that even for such a grief there is the fount of healing waters still in the word of God—that she may God, who answers their prayers. On the contrary, Elisabeth Schüssler Firoenza, Rhetoric and Ethic: The Politics of Biblical Studies (\Minneapolis: Fortess Press, 1999), 1–8 and passim, argues that it was New Testament texts such as 1 Cor. 14:34–35 ( “the women should keep silence ... for they are not permitted to speak”) and 1 Tim. 2:11–15 (“let a woman learn in silence with all submissiveness. I permit no woman to teach or have authority over men”) which “bespeak the centuries of wo/men’s silencing that have shaped all western academic and religious discourses.” However, she hastens to add that it is no longer acceptable to believe that the Apostle Paul [most likely because Paul states in Gal. 3:28: There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.”] was actually responsible for those utterances, which resulted in women being prohibited from speaking in public for much of subsequently western history (Schüssler Fiorenza, Rhetoric and Ethic, 2). It should no longer surprise us, therefore, that Grace Aguilar, whose role models from characters in Hebrew Scripture such as Deborah and Huldah and Esther, and Beruria in the Babylonian Talmud, would have seen no reason to exchange her Jewish heritage for another. 40 Isa. 59:1. Aguilar has reversed the clauses in order to emphasize that God still hears the prayer of Leah’s descendants, i.e., Jewish women, and she continues with the second clause about God’s saving power, intimating that neither are Jewish women in need of salvation through Christianity.

204

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

come there and read, not only the abundance, the fulness of his love, but that He has especial tenderness for those by earth unloved!41 And as He gave Leah children because she was not loved, so will He grant such sufferers a peace, and calm, and joy in the consciousness of His unfailing tenderness, far surpassing even the rich and glowing, but too transient happiness of sympathy on earth. Leah must have known and loved the Lord long before42 the event recorded, else she had not thus welcomed the birth of her first child. Eight years of Jacob’s sojourn in her father’s household would scarcely have been sufficient for her to know and love her cousin’s invisible God, had she not had some vague yet true notions of Him before. That Jacob should often have alluded to the God of his fathers, and narrated the wonderful manifestations of His providence, and that such solemn themes should have fallen with peculiar impressiveness on the heart of Leah, and but lightly on the buoyant impetuous Rachel, may be inferred from the history of both. After the gods of her father, Leah has no hankering whatever; her reference, in both her griefs and joys, is to Jacob’s God alone.43 Here Aguilar has fully anticipated NJV’s translation of Gen. 29:31; see above, n. 36. 42 Here as in her discussion of Gen. 24 where Aguilar notes that Laban greeted Abraham’s servant with the words, “thou blessed of the LORD,” invoking the four-letter ineffable proper name of the God of Israel (see above, p. 132), Aguilar reflects her view that Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob shared not only what we today would call DNA or a gene pool with their relatives in Mesopotamia but also a spiritual-religious heritage, which now stood Leah, daughter of Laban, in good stead in her hour of trial. 43 Notwithstanding the sentiments, which Aguilar expresses in the previous paragraph and notwithstanding my comments in the previous note, here Aguilar suggests that while both Rachel and Leah shared the tradition of venerating “the LORD” (Biblical scholars the world-over and Roman Catholics in Black Africa say Yahweh; Protestants in Black Africa prefer Jehovah; and Orthodox Jews in the post-modern era generally say “Ha-Shem,” meaning ‘the [bearer of the divine] Name’), Rachel had learnt 41

FIRST PERIOD. IV. LEAH AND RACHEL

205

from Laban to venerate also other deities. Only this would explain to any reasonable person why Rachel “stole the images that were her father’s” (so KJV; Heb. teraphim; NJV ‘household idols’) [Gen. 31:19) and which Laban himself calls “my gods” (Gen. 31:30). Rashi, following ancient Jewish exegesis, which finds unacceptable the possibility that Rachel took these divine images in order to venerate them, states that Rachel intended to get her father away from worship of other gods.” Modern exegetes, both Jewish and Christian engage in similar acrobatics. See, for example, E. A. Speiser, Genesis (Anchor Bible; Garden City, New York: Doubleday, 1964), 249–251 for the argument that Rachel took the images not to worship them but to insure her husband’s title to some of Laban’s real estate; similarly, Karel van der Toorn, “The Nature of the Biblical Teraphim in Light of the Cuneiform Evidence,” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 52 (1990), 203–222; he holds that in light of cuneiform evidence the teraphim were probably ancestor figurines rather than deities; Laban, of course, calls them “my gods”; contrast Robert Alter, Genesis (New York & London: W. W. Norton, 1996), 169: “There is no reason to assume that Rachel would have become a strict monotheist through her marriage, and so it is perfectly reasonable that she would want to take with her in her emigration the icons of these tutelary spirits, or perhaps, symbols of possession.” The idea that Rachel took the gods in order to venerate them is reflected in the 13th century supercommentary on the Pentateuch Commentary of Rabbi Abraham Ibn Ezra composed by R. Eleazar b. Mattitya. See Orly Shoshan, “The Philosophical Exegesis of R. Eleazar b. Mattitya on Ibn Ezra’s Commentary on the Torah” (Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Beersheva, 2009), 153. The latter commentary finds in the assumption that both Leah and Rachel venerated idols and encouraged their children to do so as well, an explanation as to why in Gen. 35:2 Jacob had to ask his children to get rid of the idols in their possession. Aaron Mondshein shows in “A Third Commentary of Rabbi Abraham Ibn Ezra on the Torah,” in A Light for Jacob: Studies in the Bible and the Dead Sea Scrolls in Memory of Jacob Licht, ed. Y. Hoffman and F. H. Polak (Jerusalem: Bialik Institute/ Tel Aviv: Chaim Rosenberg School of Jewish Studies, Tel Aviv University, 1997), 167–180 that Rabbi Abraham Ibn Ezra (1089–1164), who has long been known to have composed a shorter and a longer commentary on each of the five books of the Pentateuch, also composed a third commentary on Genesis, fragments of which have survived and are discussed briefly by Mondshein there. There

206

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

By her exclamation at the birth of her second son, we may suppose that the fond hope expressed the year previous, “Now therefore my husband will love me,”44 was still not realized. “Because the Lord hath heard that I am not loved, He hath therefore given me this son also.”45 To many the repetition of a blessing renders it invaluable, and, in the imperfection of our earthly nature, the continued disappointment of our dearest wishes would have rendered the heart callous, perhaps repining, at the very blessing which had before brought joy. But not thus was it with Leah: gratefully she received a second little treasure from the hand of her God; and, bearing again the pang of ever-blighted hope, she utters no wish of an earthly kind, but simply feels she has still the love of God. Another year, and another son is granted; and we may trace a Ibn Ezra explains that Gen. 34:5, in which it is recorded that Jacob exhorted “his household and all that were with him, Put away the strange gods that are among you, and be clean and change your garments,” as follows: “Until now he [Jacob] had not said this to them, and, after all, Rachel had stolen her father’s teraphim for all of the sons and daughters had been living according to their [Rachel’s and Leah’s] father’s doctrine. It is altogether reasonable to suggest that Grace Aguilar has simply turned Rashi’s explanation for the theft of the teraphim on its head and only by coincidence has hit upon the idea suggested here by Ibn Ezra that Rachel took the idols in order to worship them. However, Aran, Image of Women in the Pentateuch, 133–162, shows that there is a long tradition in medieval Jewish exegesis in the lands of Christendom to disparage and find fault with Rachel. Indeed, she demonstrates that finding fault with Rachel and exalting Leah, and thereby turning on its head the treatment of Jacob’s two wives in the narratives of Genesis, reflects the acquaintance with and reaction to the idea found in later medieval Christian theological literature and ecclesiastical art that Leah who was “tender eyed” (so KJV at Gen. 29:17) represents the blind (i.e., ignorant and decadent) Synagogue (i.e., the Jewish people) while Rachel represents the Church. It is likely that the late medieval Jewish antipathy to Rachel and sympathy to Leah has reached Aguilar either by her having read the Pentateuch Commentary of Nahmanides or by her having heard his interpretations presented orally in classes or sermons she attended. 44 Gen. 29:32. 45 Gen. 29:33.

FIRST PERIOD. IV. LEAH AND RACHEL

207

ray beaming even through her earthly darkness, in the new upspringing of buoyant hope—“Now will my husband be joined unto me, for I have borne him three sons.”46 Whether, indeed, the fond wish was realized, and Jacob’s heart was softened towards her, must be but conjecture; yet it would almost appear so, for, at the birth of her fourth son, her pious heart is satisfied with the fervent ejaculation, “Now will I praise the Lord.”47 Drawn closer and closer unto her God, with His every precious gift, she, who gave her first-born a name signifying “the son of affliction,” gave her fourth the beautiful appellation of “praise unto the Lord.” It was not only a gift of children, then, His love bestowed. He had brought light from darkness,48 He had turned her mourning into praise,49 and returned with tenfold blessing her meek enduring confidence in Him. Shall we then, who may be in the darkness of sorrow and heavy care, shrink from walking in her steps, and dwell only on the affliction which is ours? Shall we not also look and strive for some blessing which can bid us too “praise the Lord,” no lot so desolate which, if we seek Him, the Lord will not bless: not, perhaps, by the removal of our present sorrow, but by some compensating mercy. We must not suppose that seeking Him and loving Him will exempt us from affliction. No, for, if it did, where would be that heavenly exercise which alone can fit us for heaven? Nor are we, as some enthusiasts would urge, to regard trials as joys, and welcome them with gladness. When a tender loving parGen. 29:34. Gen. 29:35 where after the birth of her fourth son Leah declares, “Now I will praise [Heb. ’odeh] the LORD.” NJV margin explains the relationship of each of the symbolic names, which the matriarchs gave their children, to the accompanying exclamation of joy. In this case, note the assonance between the exclamation ’odeh ‘I will praise’ and the name of the fourth son, Judah (Modern Hebrew Yehudah). 48 Cf. Isa. 42:16; and cf. also the phrase in the Passover Haggadah, ed. Glatzer, p. 50. 49 Cf. Esth. 9:22 “from mourning into a holiday” (KJV translates literally, “from mourning into a good day”); the phrase from Est. 9:22 is found also in the passage in the Passover Haggadah cited in the previous note. 46 47

208

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

ent chastises a beloved child to keep him from the paths of sin, would he feel that the chastisement had done its work if the little being received it with smiles and rejoicing? Surely the parent would be more hopeful if the child were serious, and even sad. And is it not so with the afflictions sent from our eternal and most tender Father? We may think that we surely need them not; and our lives may even be, in the sight of man, as we ourselves suppose them. Nay, they may be numbered amongst those whom the Bible gives us promise shall be accounted the righteous in the sight of God; yet how know we what we might have been without such affliction? How know we but those very sorrows, lasting but a time, are preparing us to be of those whom the Lord writeth in His book for eternity, who shall be His when He maketh up His jewels? Of this only are we certain, that the Lord loveth whom He correcteth. Then, while like Leah we feel affliction, let us hope on, pray on, with un doubting faith, that one day we too shall cry aloud, “Now will I praise the Lord.” Very different to the meek submissiveness and gentle disposition of her elder sister, is the impetuous temper and sinful feeling of envy which urged Rachel angrily to exclaim, even to her doting husband, “Give me children, or else I die. And Jacob’s anger was kindled against Rachel: and he said, Am I in God’s stead, who hath withheld children from thee?”50 We have been previously told,—“And when Rachel saw that she bare Jacob no children, she envied her sister.”51 Envied whom? even the homely, the unloved Leah. It was not enough that God had endowed her with most surpassing beauty, and given her the perfect love of a husband who had proved, was still proving his devoted attachment to herself alone, by fourteen years’ hard servitude. It signified little that Leah had but her children, and that her own cup of blessings was filled to flowing over. In glancing over the history of the two sisters, must we not feel that Rachel ought to be the happier, as she was the more blessed? Yet it was not so. Leah, with her heavy burden of affliction, Gen. 30:1–2. The editor has added the closing quotation mark, which is missing in the original. 51 Gen. 30:1. 50

FIRST PERIOD. IV. LEAH AND RACHEL

209

was the happier, for she neither envied nor complained, but leaned upon her God—and in consequence, from Him received consolation. Rachel could have had no such stay. “Give me children, or else I die!”52 was the exclamation of a querulous, self-willed spirit, looking only to man, and depending upon him. Yet the knowledge of the Lord must have been equally revealed to Rachel as to her sister. Daughters of the same household, cousins of the same witness of God,—Jacob’s religious education and experience must have been imparted to her also. She may have even listened during the time for Jacob’s sake, banishing its recollection entirely afterwards, as a theme much too solemn and grave for her present joyous days. And are there not such even now, deeming religion and her rich train of holy and blessed thoughts, quite incompatible with youth and beauty, and who believe age is time enough to think of such serious things? That her feeling and its expression were both wrong we perceive by Jacob’s anger and reproof. Loving Rachel as he did, it must have been something very blamable to call severity from his lips. Ignorance may excite our pity, but not our blame. Had Rachel been ignorant who had blessed her sister with children, Jacob would have answered differently—but her impatient words caused his “anger to be kindled against her,”53 because he felt and knew that they must have come from a spirit as impatient as rebellious, and were therefore likely to excite the displeasure of the Lord. “Am I in God’s stead?”54 meaning, can I give you children if God hath withheld them. Words brief, but impressively proving Jacob’s individual dependence on and trust in his God, and which ought to have subdued and humbled the discontent and envy of his wife. But though they checked the querulous words, they had no power to change the inward feelings, and determined at all risks, all sacrifices, to obtain children also, she followed the example of Sarah, and

Rachel to Jacob in Gen. 30:1. Gen. 30:2. 54 Gen. 30:2. 52 53

210

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

forced her husband, by increasing the number of his wives, to undergo all the miseries of a divided household.55 Yet. when Bilhah had a son, we find Rachel welcoming him with such a joyful thanksgiving, and as a gift from God—that we might wonder at her former impatience—did we not know, that there are many who trace the hand of the Lord, and think they love and serve Him, when all of life is smooth and smiling, yet act, at the first trial, for the first cross, as if they knew Him not at all, and denied His power to help and save. “God hath judged me, and hath also heard my voice, and hath given me a son.”56 Had she then prayed—and did she recognise in thoughtfulness the answer to her prayer? Or was her exclamation at the birth of Dan but a presumptuous supposition from a presumptuous spirit—believing without due authority that she had prevailed with God? We have not sufficient authority in Scripture, to pronounce judgment one way or the other on this point, and must therefore leave it to the consideration of our readers. Once only do words of sorrowing reproach escape Leah’s lips towards her sister. “Is it a small matter that thou hast taken my husband?”57 Words simply expressive of the natural pang which must sometimes have entered her heart—when year after year passed, and still beheld her deep affections less valued than the lighter love of Rachel. Two other sons were born unto the elder sister;58 and one daughter,59 a blessing which had never before been vouchsafed the patriarchs. Then it was, “that God remembered Rachel; and God Here Aguilar refers to Rachel’s having suggested in Gen. 30:3 that (like Sarai who had suggested in Gen. 16:2 that the solution to the childlessness of their marriage was for Abram to impregnate her personal slave, Hagar) Jacob and she employ Rachel’s personal slave, Bilhah, as a surrogate whom Jacob would impregnate. And so it is recorded in Gen. 30:4–5: “And she [Rachel] give him [Jacob] Bilhah her handmaid to wife: and Jacob went in unto her. And Bilhah conceived, and bare Jacob a son.” 56 Gen. 30:6. 57 Gen. 30:15. 58 Issachar and Zebulun; see Gen. 30:17–20. 59 Gen. 30:21. 55

FIRST PERIOD. IV. LEAH AND RACHEL

211

hearkened to her and gave her children.”60 “God remembered Rachel.” Had He forgotten? no, neither forgetfulness nor memory dwelleth with God—for He is omniscient as omnipotent, knowing and perceiving all.61 But when speaking of Him, His dealings with His children must be expressed in language, and by images suited to their finite conception,—not according to the adorable and glorious, but unfathomable infinity surrounding Him. He thought upon and hearkened to her—for such is, equally with remember, the meaning of the term ‫—ויזכר אלהים את רחל וישמע אליה אלהים‬words, how full of consolation and encouragement to Rachel’s female descendants! Man would have condemned, and sentenced her to a chastisement of perpetual childlessness—for the tenderest mercies of humanity are cruel compared to the tender mercies of the Most High! but He whom she had offended by mistrust, forgetfulness, impatience, angry emotions towards her sister, had compassion, and not only “remembered” that she was a weak and yearning woman, but “hearkened” to her supplications, and gave reply. “God hath taken away my reproach,”62 Rachel gratefully exclaimed. “And she called his name Joseph, and said, the Lord shall add unto her another son.”63 Could she have penetrated futurity— well indeed might she have felt that God had removed her reproach; for who that reflects on the angelic beauty and faultlessness of Joseph, can recall his mother without bestowing on her a portion of the love and veneration we lavish on her son!64 The first two clauses are taken verbatim from KJV at Gen. 30:22, which reads as follows: “And God remembered Rachel, and God hearkened to her, and opened her womb” while vv. 23–24, q.v., tell of her conceiving and giving birth to Joseph. 61 Cf. Moses Maimonides, The Guide of the Perplexed, Book III, Chapters 15 and 24. 62 Gen. 30:23. 63 Sic. In fact, Gen. 30:24 states, “... the LORD shall add to me [emphasis added by the editor] another son.” 64 Here Aguilar refers to Joseph’s being a victim when he was seventeen years old and was mistreated by his older half-brothers, who, apparently, sold him into slavery (that is the way that Joseph recalled matters eleven years later as recorded in Gen. 45:5). Gen. 37:27 indicates that 60

212

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

It is when bowed down by inward remorse for a consciousness of innate sinfulness, by the impossibility of realizing that perfect holiness which would guard us from approach to wrong either in act and thought towards our fellow creatures, or in mistrust and forgetfulness of God, that we should remember the history of Rachel and take comfort. There are some, who, unable to bear the sting of an awakened conscience, drown it altogether, by fleeing from every holy exercise of prayer and self-examination, and believe that as in this life we must be liable to occasional faults, it is perfectly useless striving, much less praying against them, as such prayer can be of no service, and is but a mockery before God. Some minds may bear this awful state—to others, the young, the deeper feeling, and more yearning hearts, it is a period of absolute anguish—which, without some spiritual help, is impossible to be sustained; and so religion is cast off as a subject of terror, of suffering, and the world and the world’s panaceas substituted in its place. To such, more especially if they be women, we would say, Come but to the word of God—and even for such griefs there is all we need. There the Eternal not only proclaims “Himself a God full of compassion, long suffering, abundant in goodness and mercy, forgiving iniquity, transgression, and sin,”65 but proves these consoling Judah suggested selling Joseph as an alternative to an earlier suggestion of unnamed brothers that they kill him. Gen. 37:28, however, suggests that a group of Midianites found Joseph in a pit where the brothers had left him and that it was the Midianites who sold him to the Ishmaelites, who brought Joseph into Egypt. Further supporting Aguilar’s attributing to Joseph “faultlessness” is the account in Gen. 45:5–8: “Now therefore be not grieved nor angry with yourselves that ye sold me hither: for God did send me before you to preserve life. For these two years hath the famine been in the land; and yet there are five years, in which there shall neither be earing nor harvest. And God sent me before you to preserve you a posterity in the earth, and to save your lives by a great deliverance. So now it was not you that sent me hither, but God ... .” 65 Here Aguilar quotes the thirteen attributes of God (concerning which see in detail, above, p. 56 n. 64). Here it should be noted that in the Sephardic rite, this supplication would be known to Aguilar as part of the daily supplications, confession of wrong-doing and plea for forgiveness,

FIRST PERIOD. IV. LEAH AND RACHEL

213

and most blessed attributes,66 not only after, but before they were proclaimed. Rachel was more faulty than many of her sex, yet her prayers were heard, her affliction compassionated, her wish fulfilled. How may we then despair, or think that the infirmities of our mortal frame and the sinfulness they bring, can throw a barrier between us and our God? It is not to the righteous alone He awardeth mercy and love, but to the contrite and humble spirit, with whom the “High and Holy One who inhabiteth eternity delighteth to dwell.”67 With such proofs we may not despair, we dare not doubt, but we are called to Him as little children sorrowing to be forgiven, in the full consciousness how deeply we are loved. It was after the birth of Joseph, that Jacob’s fourteen years of servitude being completed, he said unto Laban, “Send me away unto mine own place, and to my country. Give me my wives and children for whom I have served thee, and let me go, for thou knowest the service which I have done thee. And Laban said unto him, I pray thee, if I have found favor in thine eyes, tarry; for I have learned by experience, that the LORD hath blessed me for thy sake: and he said appoint me thy wages, and I will give it. And he said unto him, thou knowest how I have served thee, and how thy cattle was with me—for it was little before I came, and now it is increased into a multitude, and the Lord has blessed thee since my coming; now when shall I provide for mine own house also. And he said, what shall I give thee? And Jacob said thou shalt not give me anything.”68 which are recited daily except on Sabbaths and holidays and at certain seasons of the year (inter alia, from the day after the Day of Atonement until the end of the month of Tishri in the fall; the entire month of Nisan in the spring). The biblical source of this assurance of God’s forgiveness of the contrite in heart is Ex. 34:6–7. 66 Alluding to the fact that the just previously quoted text from Ex. 34:6–7 is referred to in Judaism as “the thirteen attributes of God.” 67 Isa. 57:15: “For thus saith the high and lofty One that inhabiteth eternity whose name is Holy; I dwell in the high and holy place, with him also that is of a contrite spirit, to revive the spirit of the humble, and to revive the heart of the contrite ones.” 68 Gen. 30–25–31.

214

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

And that agreement followed which has most unjustly exposed Jacob to the accusation of duplicity and fraud. It is supposed that his plan of placing the peeled rods in the drinking troughs occasioned the greater number of the cattle to be “ring-straked, speckled, and spotted;” and in that manner Laban was defrauded, and Jacob received much more than his due.69 That Jacob refused all gifts from Laban, appears to me to originate in the same feeling which actuated Abraham to refuse gifts from the king of Sodom, “lest he should say, I have made Abraham rich.”70 Depending upon Him who had promised, “I will not leave thee until I have done that which I have spoken to thee of,”71 Jacob neither could nor would accept gifts from man, preferring to work himself, and leave the issue in the hands of God. And this he did, and God blessed him with riches sufficient for his need. Can it be supposed for one moment, after mature consideration, that the cattle could have become ring-straked, speckled, and spotted, without the immediate agency of God, who had determined thus to provide for His believing servant? Can it be believed that it was in the power of man, by however subtle a scheme in appearance, to create a variety in the cattle, unless the Lord also had so willed it? Laban had not behaved as generously or even as fairly by his nephew as his first affectionate welcome aright lead us to suppose. We know from the vows of Jacob himself, which Laban does not contradict, that, “except the God of my fathers had been The account in Gen. 30:31–43 seems not to bear out Aguilar’s defense of Jacob. But see below for the continuation of her argument that, inter alia, the idea that Jacob worked some kind of sympathetic magic is totally implausible not only to modern rational sensibilities but also in the context of biblical narrative, which generally recognizes that the only way by means of which people can overcome what we would call natural laws is by means of prayer to the one God, who may decide to hearken to our prayer. 70 Gen. 14:22–23. 71 Gen. 28:15 in God’s promise to Jacob at Bethel where Jacob spent the night on his way from Beersheba to Haran and where in his dream he saw angels ascending and descending on a ladder that reached from earth to heaven. 69

FIRST PERIOD. IV. LEAH AND RACHEL

215

with me, surely thou hadst now sent me away empty.”72 And we may, therefore, rest perfectly content, that in the affair of the cattle no blame can be attached to Jacob. He was but a secondary cause, whose scheme would have been entirely vain had it not been blessed by the Eternal. Increasing exceedingly in much cattle, and maid-servants and men-servants, and camels, and asses, the wrath and envy of Laban’s sons were excited towards him.73 And he saw that Laban’s own countenance was not towards him as before74—circumstances which must have excited much human anxiety and fear. And then it was the Lord said unto him, “Return unto the land of thy fathers and thy kindred, and I will be with thee.”75 “And Jacob sent and called Rachel and Leah to the field unto his flock.”76 And in the perfect confidence of love and respect, imparted all to them. “I see your father’s countenance is not towards us as before; but the God of my fathers has been with me. And ye know that with all my power I have served your father; and your father has deceived me, and changed my wages ten times; but God suffered him not to hurt me. If he said thus, The speckled shall be thy wages, then all the cattle bare speckled; and if he said thus, The ring-straked shall be thy hire, then all the cattle bare ring-straked. Thus God hath taken away the cattle of your father, and given them to me?77

Gen. 31:42 virtually at the end of Jacob’s long argument with Laban (Gen. 31:26–43), in which Laban accuses Jacob of cheating him and Jacob offers equally strong arguments from Laban’s behavior over a span of twenty years that prove that indeed Laban has continually cheated Jacob. At the end, as in most similar family and workplace arguments, neither one convinces the other of his innocence. However, as in many similar controversies at home, in the workplace, and in international relations, both sides agree upon a modus vivendi to avoid future strife (see Gen. 31:44–53). 73 Gen. 31:1. 74 Gen. 31:2. 75 Gen. 31:3. 76 Gen. 31:4. 77 Gen. 31:5–9. 72

216

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

There is something to me peculiarly beautiful in this simple address of Jacob, spoken as it is to his wives. Not a word of reproach on their father, but the simple truth—infinitely more expressive of the wrong he has suffered than any violence or invective. All that has blessed him, he traces unfailingly to God. The whole of his address, from the 5th to the 13th verse of Gen. xxxi, demands attention from its revealing so much more concerning Laban’s real conduct to his nephew, and in what manner that conduct was regarded and overruled by the Eternal, than we can learn by the bare narration of the previous chapter. Our present subject forbids our lingering on it, except to say, it completely absolves Jacob from all fraudulent dealings with his uncle, while it reveals that he himself was the victim of deceit. The mandate of God was in Jacob’s ear, and every emotion of humanity was urging him to tarry not, but to flee at once. He had dominion over all his household, yet he waits to impart his wishes and his fears to his wives: he will make no step in advance without their concurrence; thus at once proving his love and their equality.78 And, without a moment’s hesitation, Rachel and Leah answered and said unto him, “Is there yet any portion or inheritance for us in our father’s house? Are we not accounted of him as strangers? for he hath sold us, and has quite devoured our money For all the riches which God has taken from our father, that is ours and our children’s. Now then, whatsoever God hath said unto thee do.”79

One hundred and twenty-seven years before Phyllis Trible’s monumental “Depatriarchalizing in Biblical Interpretation,” Journal of the American Academy of Religion 41 (1973), 30–48, Aguilar highlights the patriarch Jacob’s and the Sacred Author’s fostering of equality of the sexes in a family that Jacob meant to be nuclear, but which, by Jacob’s yielding to his father-in-law (who switched wives on him on his wedding night [Gen. 29:25–26]) and the wishes of his wives (both of whom emulated Sarah in suggesting that their own infertility could be remedied by the husband’s impregnating their personal slaves [Gen. 30:3, 9]), ended up being a polygamous family. 79 Gen. 31:4–16. 78

FIRST PERIOD. IV. LEAH AND RACHEL

217

Different as the sisters were in disposition, and placed in a situation most likely to create discord and disunion, yet when the interests of a beloved husband are at stake, they act in perfect unity and love. There is no “mine and thine”—words how often fraught with discord—but simply “ours and our children’s.”80 Seeking even to reconcile him yet more to his flight—enriched as he was—by stating the simple fact, that Laban had failed in his duty towards them, by giving them neither portion nor inheritance; and by having sold them to Jacob for fourteen years of labor. That which God then had marked as Jacob’s share of the flocks and herds, was but their right and their children’s. Yet it must have been a trial to both sisters to remove so hastily and unexpectedly with their young children from the home of their earliest years, without even bidding farewell to the parent they had loved so long, to their brothers and their friends, to venture on a strange and dangerous track to a land they knew not, save that it was far away from their childhood’s home. We already know where Leah’s affliction always led her, and are, therefore, justified in believing that now, as before, prayer was the soother of her natural sorrows, and her confidence, that even if her father pursued them, he would not be permitted to work them harm. But Rachel could not thus realize the ever present, ever protecting arm of the Eternal; and, as before she had sought human means to further her impatient wishes, so now does she bear away with her secretly “the images which were her father’s;”81 superstitiously believing, according to some commentators,82 that by consulting them, Laban would discover their route, and so be enabled to follow and arrest them. It is scarcely possible to peruse the history of these two sisters without being struck with the beautiful unity and harmony displayed in their two characters—distinct from first to last, and each preserving her individual peculiarities. Thrown back upon herself, from Gen. 31:16. Gen. 31:19. 82 So, for example, Midrash Tanhuma ad loc. Moreover, Midrash Tanhuma demonstrates that indeed the images or teraphim spoke because it is stated in Zech. 10:2: “For the idols [teraphim] have spoken vanity, and the diviners have seen a lie, and have told false dreams ... .” 80 81

218

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

wanting the attractions of beauty and vivacity granted to her younger sister, Leah’s graces expanded inwardly and spiritually; her yearning affections always strongest from never finding vent by being called for and appreciated by man. Rejoicingly and gratefully acknowledging and believing the blessed religion which told her of an unchanging Friend and most tender loving Father, she found in such belief enough, and could realize content in the midst of trial, happiness in the midst of grief. Such a character as Leah’s, from the time she is revealed to us, so perfectly free from all wrong feelings in a situation so likely to excite them, is not natural to woman; and we may, therefore, infer that her youth had had its trials, which the grace of God had blessed, in making her rise from them the gentle, enduring, lovable being which His word reveals. The faults of Rachel originated in the very cause which had been a chastening to her sister. Her own surpassing loveliness, while ever the theme of admiration to her fellows, so raised her in her own estimation, that it was difficult to look beyond this world, where she reigned pre-eminent, to another, where she, in all her beauty, was but an atom—a creature of the dust. What to her was the love and protection of an Invisible Being, when she was so surrounded by the love and care of man? What to her needed the tale of future happiness? Was she not joyous and laughter-loving the livelong day? With power in herself to bend all hearts, and direct all circumstances to the furtherance of her own impetuous will? Such we must believe the youth of Rachel, when we see her repining that children were granted to her sister and not to her. We behold her secretly bearing away the gods of her father—whether from the reason mentioned above, or from her own lingering belief in their efficacy and power, still equally reprehensible in the wife of Jacob. If, indeed, Rachel supposed that in removing the images she prevented her father from discovering their route, she very speedily found herself mistaken. Jacob had stolen “away unawares from Laban the Syrian, in that he told him not that he fled; so he fled with all that he had, and he rose up, and passed over the river, and set his face toward the mount Gilead.”83 And there, seven days after their hasty flight, Laban overtook him with all his kindred, and 83

Gen. 31:20–21.

FIRST PERIOD. IV. LEAH AND RACHEL

219

sufficient followers “to do them hurt,”84 “Had not the God of your father,” he said, “spake unto me yesternight, saying, Take thou heed that thou speak not to Jacob good or bad.”85 Anxiously and fearfully, according to their different characters, must Leah and Rachel have awaited the issue of the conference. The number of followers argued ill; yet the words of Laban were at first but mild reproach. “Wherefore didst thou flee away secretly, and steal away from me, and didst not tell me, that I might have sent thee away with mirth and with songs, with tabret and with harp: and hast not suffered me to kiss my sons and daughters? Thou hast done foolishly in so doing.”86 We may well suppose words as these, being fraught with selfreproach to affectionate daughters, that they had indeed so left their father. To Leah his next words, alluding to the “God of thy father,”87 must have been particularly and gratefully soothing. He to whom she prayed was indeed ever around them, turning aside the wrath of men, forbidding him to arouse wrath by “speaking either bad or good.”88 Holy writ does not indeed tell us, that Leah prayed in this instance; but she who welcomed the birth of every child with prayer and thanksgiving—who in no instance had recourse to her father’s gods—was not likely to forget her husband’s God when his protection was so needed We may be permitted to believe she prayed; and can we not imagine the fervor of her grateful thanksgiving when she heard such words from her father? And we may all experience this. There is not one who has addressed the Lord in prayer—the daily prayer for all things, who can say he has had no answer. And oh! who would not realize the glowing of the Gen. 31:22–29. Gen. 31:29. 86 Gen. 31:27–28. 87 Gen. 31:29; in fact, in the text and in KJV Laban says, “God of your (plural) father” suggesting that indeed Isaac was not only the paterfamilias of Jacob but also of Jacob’s wives and their children and their slaves and that the God of Isaac was not only the God of Jacob but also the God of Leah.” And although she does not quote the possessive pronoun correctly, this is precisely the point that Aguilar makes about Leah. 88 Gen. 31:29. 84 85

220

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

heart—the burst of thanksgiving which fills it—when we trace his hand in the daily events of life, and feel that that which we have asked for He has given? But to realize this, we must come to Him in all things.89 We must pray to Him in our hearts as well as with our lips; we must think individual prayer as well as those public petitions framed for us.90 We must be in the constant habit of tracing

Here Aguilar refers to the fact that the middle section of the daily Amidah or Shemoneh Esreh, the basic prayer recited three times every weekday, consists of thirteen requests for daily needs and the affirmation that God indeed is the Provider of these needs; see De Sola, Forms of Prayer, 28–34; ArtScroll Siddur, 102–111. 90 Here Aguilar takes for granted a point, which I have seen necessary to point out from time to time, namely, that steeped in a traditional Jewish upbringing, Aguilar takes almost for granted the recitation of the daily Amidah or Shemoneh Esreh. Moreover, she is so very much steeped in the letter and spirit of traditional Judaism that she knows that even the prescribed prayer presupposes that the individual will insert her/his own personal prayers at the appropriate slots within the thirteen requests for daily needs and at the very end of the recitation of the prescribed prayers before concluding with “Let the words of my mouth and the meditation of my heart be acceptable in thy sight, O LORD, my strength and my redeemer” (Ps. 19:14) as well as whenever the heart may prompt the Jew or Jewess to pray. One of the principle tasks, which Aguilar seems to have set for herself in writing Women of Israel, was to encourage Jewish girls and women to cultivate the art of personal prayer. Unfortunately, in the course of the upheavals which brought Jews to lands of freedom in modern times, Jewish education in home and school was more often than not at such a low level, even when it existed, that it came to be taken for granted in many places that Jewish prayer consists of occasionally attending a synagogue for a Bar Mitzvah or a Bat Mitzvah and hearing prayers chanted in an ancient tongue, which is incomprehensible to most Jews. Unlike Aguilar, who frequently quotes biblical phrases in Hebrew and analyzes the Hebrew vocabulary, syntax, and grammar, most of her contemporaries and most Jewish boys and girls growing up in western lands in the almost two centuries since the first publication of Women of Israel could not even decode the Hebrew alphabet let alone follow her arguments concerning Biblical Hebrew. Yet, this book, which was very popu89

FIRST PERIOD. IV. LEAH AND RACHEL

221

all things to His almighty hand, and believe that his love is as deep, as pitying, for us individually, as his bounty is shown throughout the world. We must so commune with Him, that the hours of prayer91 will feel but the continuation, not the commencement and end of devotion. Did we but do this—bring before Him every care, and thought, and grief, and joy, and doubt, and thankfulness—how many, many instances of answered prayer92 would the briefest life recall. Then, oh how can we keep Him far from us, by withholding from Him the wishes which He alone has power to grant, the sorrows which He alone has compassion sufficient to heal? On Rachel’s ear, the words which filled her sister’s heart with deepest thankfulness must have fallen little heeded, while those which followed them, utterly meaningless to Leah, must have been fraught to her with wildest terror, fearfully increased by the instant answer of her husband:—“And now, though thou wouldst needs be gone, because thou sore longedst after thy father’s house, yet wherefore hast thou stolen my gods?93 And Jacob answered and said (in reply to Laban’s previous words of reproach), Because I was afraid, for I said, peradventure thou wouldst take by force thy

lar among both Christians and Jews, set a standard of knowledge, which Aguilar wanted other Jewesses and Jews to emulate and to surpass. 91 Aguilar here refers to the three daily prescribed prayers of Judaism—Morning (to be recited between sunrise and four hours thereafter, or more precisely, until the end of a third of the daylight hours on a particular day, which, of course, varies from day to day and obviously from season to season), Afternoon (to be recited between nine and one half hours after sunrise [again hours are reckoned as above] until nightfall, and Evening (to be recited after the appearance of three stars in the sky and preferably before midnight. See Shulhan Aruk, Orah Hayyim 39:1; 233:1; 235:1 and the ancient Rabbinic sources cited in the marginal notes there. 92 Indeed, the 16th of the 19 benedictions (of the so-called Eighteen Benedictions), which asks God to hearken to our prayer, includes a space for the insertion of one’s personal requests, and concludes with the affirmation of faith, “Praised are You, O LORD, who hearkens to prayer.” The final clause is taken from Ps. 65:2. 93 Gen. 31:30.

222

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

daughters from me.”94 And then, with regard to the last accusation: “With whomsoever thou findest thy gods let him not live. Before our brethren discover what is thine, and take it to thee. For Jacob knew not that Rachel had stolen them.”95 That she had concealed the theft from her husband proves at once that she knew the feelings dictating it were wrong, yet had not sufficient moral courage to resist them. And now what must have been her terrors? Not only was the plan which she had adopted to prevent a hostile meeting between her father and husband, apparently about to be the very means of dissension, but if discovered, Jacob’s own lips had pronounced her death-doom. We know not if in the patriarchal times death was usually the punishment awarded to criminals convicted of theft;96 but it is evident that Jacob fully intended the criminal in his household to suffer even death for his offence, by the sacred historian so expressly declaring that “Jacob knew not that Rachel had stolen them.” How could he suspect the wife of his bosom—his best beloved—of such theft as might almost convict her of idolatry! Little did he dream whom he was condemning, or the misery he would have drawn upon himself, had not the God who had promised to bring him to his father’s home in peace, here interposed, and saved both him, and for his sake, and the sake of His own great name, the faulty Rachel. Yet during the period of Laban’s search for the images, till the danger of discovery was quite past, how terrible must have been her alarm, and how painful her emotions! How different from the meek quietude of a holy spirit, at peace with itself and its God, which throughout this interview was Leah’s! Yet no doubt, true to Gen. 31:31. End of Gen. 31:32. 96 When Aguilar first published the book now before us in 1845, the cuneiform writing of Ancient Assyria and Babylonia had not yet been deciphered, and the famous stele now standing proudly in the Louvre in Paris containing Hammurabi’s law code, in article 22 of which the death penalty is prescribed for theft, would be uncovered only in 1901 in the course of excavations at Susa, the biblical Shushan where Queen Esther married King Ahasuerus (Esth. 2:17). 94 95

FIRST PERIOD. IV. LEAH AND RACHEL

223

the contrarieties of imperfect humanity, when discovery was averted, and Laban found not the gods, Rachel only felt penetrated with pious gratitude, and resolved to keep her fault more strictly secret from her husband than ever. Some commentators, I believe, accuse her of an inclination to, if not of direct, idolatry; but we do not think that Holy Writ sufficiently authorizes such a charge. Superstition, the remains of childhood’s tales, which urged her to the course of acting with regard to the images already dilated upon, is not in the least incompatible with her recognition of, and belief in, Jacob’s God, even though the images remained with her until Jacob bade them “put away the strange gods that were amongst them,” nearly seven years afterwards.97 As his household98 consisted only of those who had lived with Laban he might easily have supposed the strange gods theirs, and Rachel had thus an opportunity of resigning them, without causing her husband the suffering it would have been, to suspect her of having either stolen them at first, or harbored them so long. There is something very beautiful in Laban’s parting care of his daughters, when the somewhat warm recrimination between himself and Jacob was at an end. The heap of stones was raised by all who had met in wrath, proving their reunion by their united labor, and the feast which all shared in harmony when the work was concluded. “And Laban said, This heap is a witness between thee and me. Therefore was the name of it called Gilead and Mizpah, for he said, the LORD watch between me and thee when we are absent one from another. If thou shalt afflict my daughters, or if thou shalt take wives beside my daughters (though no man is with us), see God is witness betwixt thee and me. This heap be my witness, and this pillar be my witness, that I will not pass over this heap to thee, and thou shalt not pass over this heap and this pillar unto me for harm. Gen. 35:2. I.e., the entourage of male and female slaves, whom Jacob had with him when he was about to meet his brother Esau again after twenty years of separation; see Gen. 32:5. It is likely that Rachel and Leah also possessed more slaves than Bilhah and Zilpah, whom the two wives respectively allowed their husband Jacob to impregnate, on two occasions each (Gen. 30:4–7, 9–11). 97 98

224

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

The God of Abraham, and the God of Nahor, and the God of thy father judge betwixt us. And Jacob swore by the fear of his father Isaac. And Jacob offered sacrifices on the mount, and called his brethren to eat bread; and they did cat bread, and tarried all night in the mount. And early in the morning Laban rose up, and kissed his sons (i. e. grandsons)99 and daughters, and blessed them; and Laban departed, and returned unto his place.”100 Thus were angry feelings calmed and soothed by a mutual covenant of love. While to the wives of the one, and the daughters of the other, how thrice blessed must have been the reconciliation which gave them again the dear privilege of a father’s loving kiss and parting blessing! We learn too, from this simple narrative, that even in the East, a multiplicity of wives101 was decidedly not lawful, and that Laban considered the rights of his daughters would be infringed, and so call upon him to come forward in their defence, even to break the covenant of peace, did Jacob take any other wives. Human nature is indeed the same in all ages—for as Laban spake to Jacob thousands and thousands of years ago, so would a father now. As truly as the Bible reveals the truth, the beneficence, the tenderness of God—so truly does it reveal and answer every emotion of the human heart. As our task is a record only of Leah the wife of Jacob, we must pass lightly over the events of the xxxii. and xxxiii. chapters of Genesis, which belong exclusively to the history of the patriarch himself. The wrath of man was again turned aside, and the blessing of the Lord made Jacob at peace even with his brother Esau. His doubts and fears, which must have extended painfully to the weaker nature of his wives, at news of Esau’s armed approach, were subdued by the influence of his prayer, and the long separated brothers met in mutual tenderness and love.102 They did not, howNot only here in Gen. 31:55 but also in Gen. 31:28 and in Gen. 31:43 Laban refers to Jacob’s sons as “my sons,” apparently meaning “my grandsons.” 100 Gen. 31:55. 101 Gen. 31:50. 102 See Gen. 32:3–20 for the account of how Jacob sent messengers with gifts to attempt to placate Esau. Meanwhile, it is recorded in Gen. 99

FIRST PERIOD. IV. LEAH AND RACHEL

225

ever, long remain together. Jacob and his family proceeded to Succoth,103 and then to Shechem, where he “bought a parcel of a field,” after erecting his tents, and “built there an altar,”104 and there remained, till commanded by the Lord to “arise and go to Bethel.”105 The period of these sojournings between his departure from Padan-Aram, to his proceeding to Bethel, must have been full seven years. The then tender ages of his younger children, and the number of his flocks and herds, in all probability prompted him to settle his residence in the first convenient spot in the land of Canaan. It appears strange that he did not pursue his way without any pause to his father’s house; but it is one of those subjects on which the word of God gives us no information, and therefore may be dismissed without wasting time and thought on what can be only speculation. At Shechem, Leah must have encountered indeed a fiery trial in the insult offered to her daughter,106 and the guilty 3:22–23, Jacob and his family crossed the Jabbok River. The meeting of Jacob and Esau after twenty years separation and the reconciliation of the two twin brothers are reported in Gen. 33:1–15. 103 Gen. 33:17. 104 Gen. 33:18–20. 105 Gen. 35:1. 106 Presumably, this insult refers to the event described in KJV’s caption at Gen. 34, “Shechem defileth Dinah.” Indeed, in the narrative itself in Gen. 34 there are two references to Shechem’s having defiled Dinah. These are found in vv. 5, 13. ‘Defiled’ is, in fact a dysphemism for ‘had sex with a woman’ and derives from the belief that when a man ejaculates semen he defiles himself, clothing upon which the ejaculate falls, and also the person with whom he has sex. This idea is embodied in law in Lev. 15:16–18. The defiling of Dinah may, in fact, simply refer to the fact that Shechem had sexual intercourse with Dinah, and the expression does not indicate whether or not Dinah consented to a sexual encounter with Shechem. Whether, in fact, that encounter was or was not rape is a matter of controversy among ancient, medieval and modern commentators; the view that Shechem raped Dinah appears, inter alia, in Athalya Brenner, I am ... Biblical Women Tell Their Own Stories (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2005), 25–49; but contrast Frymer-Kensky, Reading the Women of the Bible,

226

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

conduct of her sons—Simeon and Levi, Here, as elsewhere, Jacob was punished by deception,107 causing fear and trouble, as he justly says: “Ye have troubled me to make me to stink among the inhabitants of the land, among the Canaanites and Perizzites, and I being few in number, they shall gather themselves against me, and slay me, and I shall be destroyed, I and my household.”108 But though punished for the sin of his youth by mortal anxieties and fears continually darkening around him—the God of his father Abraham, mindful of His gracious promise to that holy man, still watched over Jacob, and relieved him from threatening danger by commanding him to go to Bethel and build an altar there.109 The patriarch without hesitation obeyed—first purifying his household of all strange gods;110—and when “they journeyed, the terror of 179–198; and for the view defended by Frymer-Kensky that Gen. 34 does not describe the rape of Dinah see also Mayer I. Gruber. “A Reexamination of the Charges Against Shechem son of Hamor,” Beth Mikra 44 (1999), 119–127 (in Hebrew); and contrast Yair Zakovitch, “Assimilation in Biblical Narrative,” in Empirical Models for Biblical Criticism, ed. Jeffrey H. Tigay (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, Press, 1985), 187–188. Zakovtich argues there that if there was no rape, there is no justification for Simeon and Levi’s deceiving the people of Shechem and annihilating them. Aguilar seems to hold that indeed Dinah had been insulted (the insult must have been that she was raped); if, in fact, as Gruber (see above in this note) holds, Shechem simply engaged in exogamous marriage with Dinah, there should be no insult. Nevertheless, this does not absolve Simeon and Levi either of their deception or of their annihilating all the males of the city of Shechem or of their taking captive all the women and children of Shechem, all of whom were clearly guiltless. 107 Aguilar’s point is that Jacob, who had deceived his father Isaac in order to wrest from him the blessing, which was meant for Esau (Gen. 27) was subsequently punished for his deception first by Laban’s switching wives on him on what was supposed to be his wedding night with Rachel (Gen. 29:25) and later by the despicable behavior of his sons, Levi and Simeon, whose wreaking havoc upon the city of Shechem reflected badly on Jacob (Gen. 34). 108 Gen. 34:30. 109 Gen. 35:1. 110 Gen. 35:2.

FIRST PERIOD. IV. LEAH AND RACHEL

227

God was upon the cities that were round about them, and they did not pursue after the sons of Jacob.”111 Then, as now, punishment fell not at once upon the sinning ones. They were preserved to work out their own chastisement in furthering the will of their God. At Bethel, God again appeared unto the patriarch, and not only reiterated the promise made to his fathers and to himself, but confirmed the change of name from Jacob to Israel; that holy and blessed name which was to descend through thousands and thousands of ages, associated for ever with the mercy and the love and the glory of the Lord—given by the Eternal; a mark of especial favor from the King of kings, expressing that as a Prince our father Jacob had power with God and with man, and had prevailed.112 Is there, can there be one amongst the descendants of this prince of God’s creating, ashamed of the name he bears? Should it not be our glory, our pride—of which no persecution, no injury, no wrong can rob us? Does not its very sound teem with the wondrous mercies of the past—with the truth, the unanswerable truth of revelation? What scorner, what sceptic can point the finger of doubt or denial at the Bible—while that name is yet heard in every corner of the globe, borne by the very descendants of him, on whom by God himself it was bestowed? The watchword, the banner of our cause, recognised as such in every nation, every land—the man or woman who feels ashamed to call himself of ISRAEL, flings scorn upon his God. Cheered and consoled by this renewed blessing of God, Jacob proceeded on his journey, advancing southward in the direction of Mamre, where Isaac his father then was. Ephrah113 was nearly reached, when the sudden illness of Rachel compelled the whole cavalcade to halt—and Jacob must have beheld with inexpressible anguish his best beloved wife torn from him, at the very moment she had increased his joy and her own by Gen. 35:5. Gen. 35:10–15. 113 She means “Ephrath”; see Gen. 35:16, 19; 48:7. It is explained in Gen. 35:19 that Ephrath is another name for Bethlehem; consequently, the two names for the same city can be employed in synonymous parallelism in Ruth 4:11. 111 112

228

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

giving birth to a second son.114 When in the midst of bodily and mental anguish, she called his name Benoni, Son of my sorrow,115 did she think of her own impatient words—“Give me children, or else I die!”116 and feel that it would have been better for her to have waited for the Lord?117 How may we answer? Enough for us to benefit by the record vouchsafed, and feel His will is better than our own—and in impatient restless longings for blessings granted to another, we may know, that even in the very fulfilment of the wish, the punishment may fall. Rachel committed no fault in wishing for a child—her fault had been envy and its subsequent discontent. Years had passed, the very recollection of her restless discontent may have faded from her mind, but not from His whom she had by want of faith and gratitude offended. In His infinite mercy He forgave, He blessed, for He called her to Himself ere the evil days came, and her beloved one was sold by his brethren, and reported for long long years as dead. He saved the mother this deep suffering, but, in His justice towards her and love to her descendants, He chastised by an early and painful death, the most trying separation of soul and body which human nature (so to speak) may know. Her husband, her Joseph—her new-born—suddenly and fearfully the silver links of love, binding her to all of these, were snapt asunder, and she might know her place on earth no more. “Give me children, or else I die.” Alas! the too impatient cry was heard and answered; children were bestowed, and with them death. How little knew she what she asked! In all her surpassing loveliness, in the full possession of most faithful love, the destroying angel came and snatched her from this world. Oh! will not this teach us to be content with what God has given, and restrain us from looking with secret envy on the

Gen. 35:16–20. Gen. 35:18. 116 Gen. 30:1. Aguilar was previously critical of Rachel when she discussed those words of Rachel earlier; see above, p. 208. 117 For the significance and source of this expression and Aguilar’s use of it, see above, p. 150, n. 58. 114 115

FIRST PERIOD. IV. LEAH AND RACHEL

229

richer (in seeming) blessings of another?118 Will it not bid us beware of seeking aught of good only because it belongs to a companion, or because we fancy we have equal right to its possession, by the lesson that, even were it ours, we might have no power to enjoy it? Death, indeed, may not come between us and its enjoyment; but that which we have coveted loses its value the moment we possess it. Will not the warm young heart shrink from the very anticipation of the sin towards God and man which discontent may bring? Let us think more of our sorrowing and afflicted fellow-creatures, and less of those more blessed in outward seeming. Did we think on the bereaved, the physically afflicted, the poor, how could we still retain discontent of our own lot, or envy of our fellow-creatures? And oh! if no other reasoning will avail, let us remember, our God is not only a merciful, tender Father,119 but a just120 and jealous121 God, who will one day, we know not when or how, call upon us to render an account of the blessings He has given;122 and if we know them not, how may we answer? Long years had passed since Rachel’s offence, yet He who slumbereth not nor sleepeth,123 chastised it in the very hour that the wish which caused it was fulfilled. It may be asked (as in similar cases of bereavement it, alas! too often is), Why, granting that the lot of the departed is blessedness, does the God of love so afflict the survivors? Why did He cause such deep grief to His favored servant Jacob? Because God loved Here Aguilar refers to the 10th of the Ten Commandments, “Thou shalt not covet.” 119 Cf. Ps. 103:13: “Like as a father pitieth his children, so the LORD pitieth them that fear him.” 120 Deut. 32: 4; Jer. 12:1 and many other occurrences. 121 Ex. 20:5 = Deut. 5:9 (in the second commandment [according to the Jewish reckoning] of the Decalogue; Ex. 34:14; Deut. 4:24; 6:15; Josh. 24:19; Nah. 1:2. 122 Cf. Mishnah, Avot 3:1: “Akabya son of Mehalalel says, Reflect upon three things, and you will not fall into sin. Know from where you came; to where you are going, and before whom you must in the future render account ... before the Holy One Blessed be He.” 123 Cf. Ps. 121:3–4: “... he that keepeth thee will not slumber. Behold, he that keepeth Israel shall neither slumber nor sleep.” 118

230

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

him; because His omniscience had seen that Rachel might come between Jacob’s heart and his God; because He would demonstrate to futurity that, to possess His favor, His blessing, does not in any manner emancipate us from trial and suffering in this world; because He would lift up our affections from the narrow limits of this world, He would make His heaven a dearer home than our earth, He would people it with the immortal spirits of those we have loved on earth, that we may look upon it no longer as a strange land; but as the beautiful country where our beloved are gone, and where we shall follow. This is wherefore He bereaves, and therefore even in the bereavement there is love. There is no mention of Jacob’s grief; yet in the very silence of Scripture, in some points, there is eloquence, borne out, as in this case it is, by the deep love he bore towards Joseph and Benjamin. What can more exquisitely express the intensity of that love, than when entreated by his sons to let Benjamin accompany them to Egypt, he answered, “My son shall not go down with you; for his brother is dead, and he is left alone: if mischief befall him in the way which ye go, then shall ye bring my grey hairs with sorrow to the grave.”124 “He is left alone,”125 and yet he had ten brethren— alone of his mother, the patriarch felt—sole record of that beloved one whom he had lost, and how might he let him depart? It is impossible to reflect on Jacob’s intense love for Joseph and Benjamin, without fully imagining the suffering of their mother’s loss. Silent he was, for who might question the decrees of the Most High? but faith and love for our Father in heaven do not forbid us to mourn. We are placed here to love each other; and if we love not those with whom we are in daily, hourly intercourse, how may we love God? Without love, earth would be a desert and heaven a void. The death of Leah is not recorded; we only know that she did not accompany the patriarch and his family to Egypt, and that she was buried with Abraham and Sarah, Isaac and Rebekah, in the cave of Machpelah.126 Left dependent on her tenderness and love, the extent of which we know, Jacob no doubt lavished warmer afEnd of Gen. 42:38. Gen. 42:38. 126 See Gen. 49:31. 124 125

FIRST PERIOD. IV. LEAH AND RACHEL

231

fection upon her, after the death of Rachel than before. How gratefully her pious heart must have traced this tranquil calm, which probably closed her days, to her God, we may infer from the thanksgiving with which every previous blessing had been received. But, as her future life can only be suggestion, much as imagination may love to dwell upon it, our present task must be concluded. We have dilated already at so much length upon the characters of the sisters, and the instruction and consolation therein developed, that we need add little further now, except to notice what has always appeared a remarkable manifestation of the perfect equality of the sisters in their position as mothers of that race which is to last for ever. Ten tribes are lost—not to be discovered till the day which will behold the glorious and stupendous miracle of our restoration.127 The two which remain to bear witness to the mercy and justice of the Eternal, and the truth of His word, are JUDAH, the descendants of LEAH, and BENJAMIN, the descendants of RACHEL, from one or other of which every Israelite (except the representatives of the Levites,128 who were accounted the priests of the Lord, not of the twelve tribes) traces his descent. Shall we then dismiss the beautiful record of Leah and Rachel, which the word of God contains, as a mere relation, concerning an age so long past as to appear almost fabulous and obsolete? Shall we not rather take it to our hearts, and, as women of Israel, feel it is of our own ancestry we read? Shall we not emulate the much enduring piety of Leah; and in all our afflictions—even in that of a lone and unloved heart—turn to her God, and emulate her rejoicing acSee 2 Kgs. 17:19, which, however, does not count the number of tribes that were carried away when Samaria was conquered by Assyria in 722 B.C.E. Moreover, the latter verse states, “There was none left but the tribe of Judah only.” The expression “the ten tribes” referring to the ten tribes, which rejected the kingship of Rehoboam and created a separate Kingdom of Israel ruled by Jeroboam I, is found in 1 Kgs. 11:35. As for whether or not the restoration of the ten lost tribes is part of Jewish eschatology, according to Mishnah, Sanhedrin 10:3 this is a matter of controversy. Rabbi Akiva holds that they will not return while R. Eliezer [son of Hyrcanus] holds that they will return. 128 See Num. 3:41; 18:6. 127

232

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

knowledgment of blessings at His hand? Shall we not take warning of the loved and lovely Rachel, and feel that neither beauty nor love—the dearest love of man—can afford us happiness and joy, unless both are traced to, and held from the grace of God? That not in outward attraction—not even in human love—can blessedness exist, unless the vital spark, to give them rest and life and continuance, hath dwelling within, to lift up the whole soul to God. O better—far better—homeliness of form and face, with a guileless contented heart. Better—far better—a heart desolate of earthly sympathy, with the love of our Father in heaven, than beauty and grace and human love, the fullest, dearest, combined with every worldly blessing—if these be sufficient for our need, and we pass through life without one thought of God.129 END OF THE FIRST PERIOD

Cf. Prov. 31:30: “Favour is deceitful, and beauty is vain: but a woman that feareth the LORD, she shall be praised.” 129

CHAPTER I. EGYPTIAN CAPTIVITY AND JOCHEBED We are now to commence the second period of our history—an interval, differing materially from that which went before, and from that—which will succeed it, yet of vital importance to the women of Israel. Their station is no longer to depend upon the changes of time and states. The protection, tenderness, reverence, and support, which in their varied relations of life they so imperatively need, no longer rest on the will of man alone: the God of Abraham proclaims Himself their Guardian and their Father, and, by innumerable statutes in His Holy Law, provides for their temporal and eternal welfare equally with that of man. The mother, the wife, the daughter, the maid-servant, the widow, and the fatherless—for each and all, His love and mercy so provided, that every social and domestic duty became obedience unto Him, and woman was thus raised to that rank in the scale of intellectual and immortal beings, by the ordinance of God, from which her weakness of frame and gentle delicacy of mind would, had she depended on man’s judgment alone,1 have entirely deprived her. Aguilar concurs with the judgment of Wollstonecraft, Vindication of the Rights of Women, 77 that women are physically weaker than men. Unlike Wollstonecraft, Aguilar accepts the view widely held in the 19th century and still touted in the 20th century that women are, as a group, intellectually inferior to men. This view was used to deny women a proper elementary and secondary education, admission to colleges and universities, admission to the professions of law and medicine, research in natural sciences and professorial appointments (see, e.g., Rosser, Biology and Feminism). But Aguilar also makes an important point that equality under the law (including the right to vote and to be elected to political office), which enlightened western societies denied to women throughout the 19th cen1

235

236

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

For the women of Israel were those laws issued which were to guard the innocence, purity, honor, and well-doing of woman in general throughout the world; for, however other revelations may profess to be the first and purest, however the smile of scorn and unbelief may attend the mention of the Jewish dispensation in conjunction with woman, the truth remains the same, that as from that law every other sprang, so from that law does woman in every age, clime, rank, and race, receive her guardianship on earth, and hope of heaven. That this assertion will meet with scorn and denial on all sides,2 we believe—perchance even from those whom nationality and duty both, should arouse to its defence. Yet firmly and unhesitatingly we retain the position we have advanced, prepared to defend it from the same blessed Book on which it is founded—the Word of God. Much has been said of the wide distinction between ancient and modern Judaism, of Talmudical perversions of Holy Writ, of Jewish degradation of woman, and a melancholy list of similar accusations. With them we neither have nor intend to have anything to do, save boldly to assert, that IF there be this wide distinction between ancient and modern Judaism—IF customs and laws derogatory to God’s changeless truth, and contrary to His holy Word, have crept in amongst us,—the dark and bloody eras of pertury and into the 20th century, was granted by the divine law contained in the Torah or Pentateuch not only to adult single women but also to mother, wife, daughter, maid-servant, and widow, and the fatherless, which also includes fatherless girls and women. 2 And it is still commonplace to read the following: “The recent outpouring of scholarly work on the art or the poetics of the biblical narrative remains, despite its objective posturizing, an androcentric adventure. As they admire the virtuosity of the biblical narrator, and the artistic ingenuity of the biblical narrative, critics choose to ignore the patriarchal ideology that inspires so much of what they glorify.” So Fuchs, Sexual Politics in the Biblical Narrative, p. 7. And this is the sort of misconception that Aguilar had to fight in defense of the Torah while she had also to defend women against the attempt of men of all faiths to deny women their rights including the right to be educated concerning their rights. See Galchinksy, Origin of the Modern Jewish Woman Writer, 68–70, 136 and passim.

SECOND PERIOD. I. EGYPTIAN CAPTIVITY

237

secution are at fault, not the ancient fathers, who knew how to die for their faith, but not to sully or degrade it. And it behoves us, in this blessed age of peace and this land of freedom, to prove the falsity of the charge, to awake and manifest to all men, that the religion of the Jew is the religion of Moses, as given by the Lord; and that if laws have crept in contrary to the spirit and the ordinances of his word, they are not Judaism, but the remnants of an age of barbarism and darkness, when that pure and holy word was almost death to read.3 Oh! why has not Israel joined heart and hand in this holy cause? Why has he not borne, in charity and patience, with those who differ from him in minor points, and thought only how, by union, harmony, and love, he could exalt his nation and his faith in the sight of the Gentile world, and prove that, however close and binding may be the casket, the jewel it enshrines is still the revelation of the Lord, the religion of the Bible? But our present task has not to do with the nation and Judaism at large; it is simply to prove to the women of Israel their position in the sight of God, and their duties towards man. The intricacies of the law, as commented upon and explained by our ancient fathers, are not for us. Woman needs only comfort, strength, and guidance, so simply yet so clearly given, that a little child may read and understand them; and these are ours, alike in the records of our female ancestors and in the precepts of the Lord.4 Here our author refers to the fact that in Spain after 1492 it was forbidden on penalty of death to be found possessing Hebrew texts let alone employ them in the teaching of the younger generation. 4 We have noted previously (see above, p. 49, n. 50) that Aguilar fought for Jewish girls and women to be given access to their heritage by educating them in the fundamentals of their religion and in the Hebrew language, which is the key to unlocking the door to that heritage. In our own day Ultra-Orthodox Jewish girls now benefit from advanced yeshivah learning as do girls and women in the other movements within Judaism. Aguilar, who fought so hard to open the door for women to learn is here willing to leave the study of the intricacies of the law to males. Fortunately, the door which she fought so hard to open just a crack, has, after much struggle, and far too much time now opened wide enough that now both non-Orthodox and Orthodox rabbis and institutions make available 3

238

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

Hitherto we have been regarding His love, mercy, and justice, as manifested to individuals; deriving lessons from example and guidance from the Eternal’s dealings with His creatures. Recorded in His book,5 we know that their lives are now intended for our instruction and benefit, or they would not have been written. But God knew that something yet more was needed, for the religious training and well doing of His elected people; something more than the mere history of the past, bright as that was with the wonderful manifestations of His presence in direct communings with His saints;—and for the love He bore His faithful servant Abraham, it pleased Him to bring from the deepest darkness the purest light, and vouchsafed a law which was to last for ever, and through which not alone His chosen but every nation should be blessed. From the death of Joseph to a short time preceding the birth of Moses, Holy Writ is silent as to the history of the Israelites, both individually and nationally, except the important truth that “they were fruitful and increased abundantly, and multiplied and waxed exceeding mighty, and the land was filled with them.”6 Though no law had been given, they were still, it is evident, a completely distinct people, retaining a pure religion in the midst of barbarous idolatry. With no ordained worship—no revealed ordinances—no appointed sacrifice, or priest; still they were the elect and beloved of the Lord, requiring no mediator, either angelic or human, to bring up their prayers before God, and render them acceptable. Yet God not only “heard their cry, but had respect unto them.”7 This is a point in our history too important to be overlooked, though it concerns Israel generally, not the women of Israel alone. It is very often brought forward as a proof, that we must now be wholly rejected by the Lord, because the daily sacrifice has ceased, and many parts of the law, obligatory upon us in our own land, are scarcely possible to be observed in our captivity—the cessation of sacrifices and atonement offerings especially are perpetually insisted upon, as advanced rabbinic training and rabbinic ordination to both women and men. 5 I.e., the Hebrew Bible, which some call “the Old Testament.” 6 Ex. 1: 7. 7 Ex. 2:23–25.

SECOND PERIOD. I. EGYPTIAN CAPTIVITY

239

proving that unless we acknowledge the atoning sacrifice of Jesus, and regard him as our High Priest, we are lost temporally and eternally. The simple fact that the Israelites in Egypt had neither sacrifice nor high priest, though the former was already ordained, yet were still a distinct people, still the first-born of the Lord,8 and had power to lift up their cry to Him, and be heard, compassionated, and answered, is a sufficiently convincing answer. Israel is now, and has been for eighteen hundred years, as he was in Egypt, with the sole difference that there we were not the captives of the Lord as we are now; nor had we then a law to guide us, and by obedience prove repentance. We are now fulfilling the prophecy, that “Israel shall abide many days without priest or sacrifice,” etc. (Hosea iii. 4): but the same blessed word which foretells this, says not one word of our being utterly cast off, but repeatedly enforces the divine consolation, that we have but to cry unto the Lord, even from the lands of our captivity, to be heard and compassionated as we were in Egypt. We have no need of sacrifice, when God Himself ordained that it should cease; nor can we have the head of the nation, alike of its religious, civil, and even military divisions, while scattered in every quarter of the globe. Were we to accept Jesus, in his blended character of sacrifice, atoner, and high priest, the prophecies would all remain unfulfilled; as we should still possess all these, instead of being, as the prophet so expressly declared, deprived during our captivity of “king, prince, sacrifice, image, ephod, and terephim,” Hosea iii. 4. To Israel in Egypt they were not given; to Israel in her lengthened captivity they have ceased, until she be purified and chastened sufficiently to receive once again the visible manifestation of the Lord’s acceptance, their constant attendant, and which was forfeited by our rebellion. Yet still, even as in Egypt, we are the firstborn of the Lord, and have nationally and individually, equal access to His compassionating love.

See Ex. 4:22 where God says to Moses: “And thou shalt say unto Pharaoh, Thus saith the LORD, Israel is my son, even my firstborn.” 8

240

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

A new king had arisen in Egypt; one who knew not Joseph,9 and saw only in the Israelites, a people harmless indeed in employments and pursuits, but sufficiently mighty in numbers to arouse the jealous fears of tyranny: and the commandment went forth to afflict them, by weighty tasks and heavy burdens. But the more they afflicted them, the more they multiplied and grew; and, in consequence, heavier and heavier grew their afflictions, till at length the fatal command was given to destroy every male child at its birth.10 Yet even this was overruled by a merciful God. The hearts of the women designed for this barbarous office were in His hand, and he so softened them into tenderness and compassion that the innocent babes were saved by the very means adopted for their destruction.11 Finding this scheme unavailing, Pharaoh issued another command more fatal than the first, for it seemed not in the power of man to evade or counteract it.12 And in the power of man it was not; God alone could bring forth delivery; and therefore did He permit the deepest darkness to close around his people, that both they and the Egyptians might know the power to redeem, and the love to accomplish it, were in Him alone.13 The situation of the women of Israel, at this period, must have been terrible indeed. Their infants, born in the midst of sorrow, yet hailed, perhaps, as the sole blessing which they could call their own, snatched from them by ruthless murderers, and flung into the Nile. And where were they to look for redress—for pity? Where but to their God—and “He heard their groaning;”14 and from this very desolation raised up His own. Ex. 1:8. Ex. 1:8–16. 11 Ex. 1:17–21. 12 “And Pharaoh charged all his people saying, Every son that is born ye shall cast into the river, and every daughter ye shall save alive.” (Ex. 1:22) 13 See Ex. 3:19–20 where God says to Moses, “And I am sure that the king of Egypt will not let you go, no, not by a mighty hand. And I will stretch out my hand, and smite Egypt with all my wonders which I will do in the midst thereof: and after that he will let you go.” 14 Ex. 2:24. 9

10

SECOND PERIOD. I. EGYPTIAN CAPTIVITY

241

The family of Amram, a son of Levi, already consisted of himself, his wife, a little son of three years old, and an elder daughter.15 The birth of Aaron must have teen attended with heavy sorrow from the tyrannical oppression under which his father and the other Israelites labored; but dark as was that hour, it must have been almost joyous compared with the awful trial awaiting his mother now. About to add another little one to their family, how agonizingly must the shriek of torture, wrung from her sisters in Israel—marking every fresh assault of the Egyptians within their houses, in search of their babes—have sounded in her ears? Day after day, night after night, one or other dwelling of the miserable Hebrews was searched; and ransacked, if no child were found. Voices of cursing and mockery mingled with the wild entreaties for mercy—the scream of agony—the wailing moan of impotent suffering—the feeble wail of helpless infancy—the sullen splash, that told the work of butchery done;—such must have been the sight and sounds around the home of Jochebed, as she awaited in trembling horror that day which must expose her to the same. It came at length, and a fair lovely babe was born—a boy—whose first wailing cry, if it reached the ears of the Egyptian butchers, would be his death-knell. But the prayers of the mother had not been in vain. Her God was with her, endowing her with wisdom and energy sufficiently effectual to conceal her boy three months. But then, danger once more approached. Suspicions had either been excited, or the increasing age and size of the child rendered the task of concealment no longer possible. Fearful must have been the struggle In Num. 26:59 it is reported as follows: “And the name of Amram’s wife was Jochebed, the daughter of Levi, whom her mother bore to Levi in Egypt: and she bare unto Amram Aaron and Moses, and Miriam their sister.” So how do we know that Miriam was the eldest child of Amram and Jochebed and that Aaron was three years old when Moses was born? Answer: First of all, Ex. 7:7 reports: “And Moses was fourscore years old, and Aaron fourscore and three years old, when they spake unto Pharaoh.” Secondly, when Moses was only three months old and his mother put him in an ark of bulrushes by the river’s brink (Ex. 2:2–3), “his [Moses’s] sister [presumably, Miriam, since no other sister of Moses is ever mentioned] stood afar off, to wit what would be done to him” (Ex. 2:4). 15

242

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

of natural terrors and spiritual confidence, filling the mother’s mind, ere the plan she eventually followed was matured and executed. Faith alone in a God of infinite compassion could have inspired a mode of proceeding apparently so fraught with danger, as herself to expose her babe to the deep and dangerous current of the river; but even while faith impelled, and at times soothed, by the firm conviction that her God would save, natural affections and human fears must often have had the ascendant, breathing but of danger and of death. The future was veiled in impenetrable darkness. The fate of her child, even if his slender ark bore him in safety on the waters, must be one of suffering, or perhaps of starvation— for who would give him food? Did she do right to expose him thus? If he were to be saved, would not the Eternal equally accomplish it without this fearful venture? Such would be mere human reasoning in woman’s feeble heart. But prayer gave her the needful grace and strength to listen only to the immortal spirit, and trust undoubtingly in God. Can we not picture the anxious throbbings of maternal affection as her own hand weaved the ark or basket of bulrushes, in which her babe was to be exposed? Would not merely earthly natures have smiled in scorn on this feeble invention, and pronounced it futile? But the mother of Moses had not such to increase the difficulty of her task. Her husband’s name is never mentioned in this proceeding; for Amram, as the remainder of his miserable brethren, was in all probability too much weighed down and spirit-broken by their multiplied afflictions, to think of the inmates of his home, save with increased affliction and despondency; nay, had perchance closed his heart against all love for his new-born, believing it was destined, as every other, for immediate death. He could have had no time to watch over it, and share his wife’s anxieties. To his mother alone, therefore, under the especial providence of God, did Moses owe his preservation. The ark was completed. Gifted with unusual foresight and wisdom for the task, Jochebed carefully daubed it with slime and pitch, that no water should penetrate within; and with trembling yet still trusting spirit, placed her babe therein, and laid it on the flags by the river’s brink.16 To watch what would be done with it— 16

Ex. 2:3.

SECOND PERIOD. I. EGYPTIAN CAPTIVITY

243

whether it would rest there till some compassionating passer-by should behold and save him, or be indeed launched on the waters and carried from her sight—was indeed a task too fearful for maternal love. We may picture, with perfect truth and justice, her last lingering kiss pressed upon the lips, cheek, and brow of the unconscious babe; her waiting till sleep closed those beauteous eyes, which, in their pleading gaze, seemed to her fond heart beseeching her not so cruelly to abandon him—waiting till slumber, light, pure, beautiful, as only infancy can know, lay upon those sweet features, those rounded limbs—making them seem like some folded flower, waiting but the return of day to brighten into renewed and still lovelier existence. Would that day ever dawn for that sweet unconscious slumberer on earth? Alas! how may she answer? Her look deepens in its silent anguish—its immeasurable love. Faith seems departing in that intensity of human feeling; she will look no more, lest indeed it fail. The light lid closes softly over the sleeping babe. She lays it amidst the flowering flags—looks once, once more. Does the infant moan or weep? How may she leave it, if it does? No: all is silent, voiceless—the boy still sleeps—and she hurries from the spot—bids Miriam stand “afar off,” yet near enough “to know what would be done with him”17 And for herself?—where, where shall she find rest, from the anxiety and suffering of that fearful hour? Where, but at the footstool of her God, in whose gracious hand she has placed her babe? What could calm that heart but prayer? And how can we doubt one moment that to the MOTHER of MOSES prayer was her whole support, strength, and life? Holy writ is silent as to the length of time which elapsed ere Pharaoh’s daughter “came down to wash at the river; and her maidens walked along by the river’s side, and when she saw the ark among the flags, she sent her maid to fetch it. And when she had opened it, she saw the child: and, behold, the babe wept. And she had compassion on him, and said, This is one of the Hebrews’ children.”18 How exquisitely true and touching is this picture of human nature! The simple words, “and, behold, the babe wept,” 17 18

Ex. 2:4. Ex. 2:5–6.

244

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

even in reading, seem to fill woman’s heart with a gush of tears. The utter helplessness, the innocence, the beauty of the poor babe, seem to cling to our affections, as if he were entwined with them by stronger ties than mere narration. And is he not? What woman of Israel can read this touching narrative unmoved? “The babe wept;” and, true to nature, Pharaoh’s daughter had compassion on him. Cold, terrified, hungry, the poor infant might have been weeping long in his bulrush prison; but those tears, sad as they were to him, obtained his human preservation. The compassion of the princess emboldened Miriam to go forward, and respectfully to ask, “Shall I go and call to thee a nurse of the Hebrew women, that she may nurse the child for thee?”19 An address which would almost make us believe that the compassionate and gentle character of the tyrant’s daughter must have been known to the Hebrews, or the young Miriam would scarcely have had sufficient courage so to have spoken. This, however, must be suggestion; the inspired narrative only enforces upon us the hand of God throughout. The same God who inspired Rebekah unconsciously to speak those words which answered the steward’s prayer, and elected her for Isaac’s wife,20 also inspired the youthful daughter of Amram to come forward and speak such words to the princess of Egypt, as, at another time, she would have trembled to utter even in thought. “And Pharaoh’s daughter said to her, Go. And the maid went and called the child’s mother. And Pharaoh’s daughter said unto her, Take this child away, and nurse it for me, and I will give thee thy wages. And the woman took the child and nursed it.”21 Ex. 2:7. In Gen. 24:14 the steward prays, “And let it come to pass, that the damsel to whom I shall say, Let down thy pitcher ... and she shall say, Drink and I will give thy camels drink also: let the same be she that thou hast appointed for thy servant Isaac ... .” And lo and behold, it is reported immediately thereafter in Gen. 24:15, “And it came to pass before he had done speaking, that, behold Rebekah came out ...,” and she said exactly what the servant had asked God that she might say (so Gen. 24:18–19), on all of which see above. 21 Ex. 2:8–9. 19 20

SECOND PERIOD. I. EGYPTIAN CAPTIVITY

245

What must have been the emotions of Jochebed, thus to clasp again to her heart her rescued treasure! Not alone saved from present death, but future suffering and labor—restored to her maternal bosom, to receive thence not only his necessary infant nourishment, but such lessons of his father’s God and his brethren’s faith as would render him invulnerable to the temptations and idolatry of the Egyptian court.22 Her emotions in parting from her child we might try to picture; but on those which must have attended his rescue, his restoration, silence is most eloquent. How had not her simple trusting faith been rewarded! How clearly, how startlingly had the hand of the Eternal been displayed! And how could she prove the grateful devotedness of her overflowing heart, save by devoting the child His love had saved unto His service? Not even poverty and privation had she to encounter. While her brethren were enduring the heaviest burdens from cruel taskmasters, she was receiving wages from the princess of Egypt for the nurture of her own child; and well may we believe those wages were devoted to the needy and the suffering23—from her who in the midst of natural sorrow must have felt herself individually so blessed.

Concerning Moses’s demonstration of intellectual maturity during the time that Jochebed was nursing him see Josephus, Antiquities, 2:9:6. Exodus Rabbah 1:26 assumes that she weaned him at the end of two years. 23 Cf. Exodus Rabbah 1:25: “Said R. Hama b. Haninah: Not only do the righteous obtain restoration of that which they have lost, but they are even rewarded in addition. AND THE WOMAN TOOK THE CHILD AND NURSED IT. Then it was that God granted her part of her reward, for because she helped to keep other children alive [because after the adoption of Moses by Pharaoh’s daughter, the decree to kill all Hebrew male babies was rescinded according to Exodus Rabbah 1:14], God restored her own child unto her and even gave her a reward.” Translation from S. M. Lehrman, Exodus Rabbah in Midrash Rabbah (London: Soncino Press, 1939). 22

246

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

“And the child grew, and she brought him unto Pharaoh’s daughter, and he became her son.”24 But it was in those years he had passed with his own mother his character had been formed; his principles were fixed; his religion obtained living and breathing, and ever-actuating influence. We know not the age at which he left his mother, but we must infer, from all that is narrated of him, that her influence, not that of his adopted parent, made him what he was. No lessons of Pharaoh’s daughter could have endowed him with that feeling of patriotism which bade him rise up against the Egyptian who was smiting an Israelite,25 or interfere between the two Israelites, endeavoring meekly to restore peace.26 Had his early instruction been confined to Pharaoh’s palace, his very birth and race would have been unknown; he would have imbibed only such principles as actuated the Egyptians, and could not fail to have bowed down to their idols. Some very powerful influence must have been at work counteracting these evils; and what influence is so great over the susceptible age of infancy as that of mother or nurse? and Jochebed combined both these endearing relations. Even after the actual task of nursing was accomplished, “and the child grew, and she brought him unto Pharaoh’s daughter,”27 it appears to me more than probable that she was still retained near the person of her child, tending him even after he was called the princess’s son;28 and thus had frequent opportunities of inculcating those divine truths Ex. 2:10. The Hebrew expression means that Pharaoh’s daughter adopted Moses as her own. The corresponding expression is used of Mordecai’s adoption of his cousin Esther in Esth. 2:7. 25 Ex. 2:11–12. 26 Ex. 2:13–14. 27 Ex. 2:10. 28 A lifelong relationship between a wet-nurse and the baby she nursed is attested with respect to Nausicaa and her wet-nurse Eurymedusa in Homer, Odyssey, Book 7; between Juliet and the woman who nursed her in Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet and apparently also with respect to the matriarch Rebekah and her erstwhile wet-nurse Deborah, whose death is mentioned in Gen. 35:8. It is to be taken for granted that the highly educated Grace Aguilar had all of these examples in mind when she imagined the life-long relationship that developed between Moses and Jochebed. 24

SECOND PERIOD. I. EGYPTIAN CAPTIVITY

247

which, though no law was yet given, the past history of his people so vividly revealed.29 That Moses makes no further mention of his parents is no proof of such idea being but fancy. Of everything concerning himself he writes so slightly, so evidently imagining his personal history of no possible consequence, compared with the mighty and solemn matters intrusted to him, that it was not likely the days of his childhood should be recalled and dwelt upon. Nay, he himself might have been perfectly unconscious to what influence he actually owed his peculiar feelings as an Israelite, his gentle lovely virtues as a man. The work of a mother is silent and unseen as dew upon the earth:—the seed must be planted, watched, watered, but unless spared to behold it springing into flower, the hand of the planter may for ever rest unknown. Jochebed was parted from her son, years before this blessed reward could have been given; his childhood alone was hers. His youth, his manhood, when the seed she had sown might have repaid her with abundant harvest, were passed, the one in all the temptations, the luxuries of an Egyptian court; the other in exile—the lowly shepherd of his father-in-law, a priest of Midian,30—apart even from his countrymen. It does not appear that his parents were among those who left Egypt, or their names would have been mentioned with the other relatives of Moses. Jochebed had not the privilege of beholding the spiritual and temporal greatness of her rescued boy; but had the seed of her sowing withered? Were her counsels vain? Can we not trace in the peculiarly gentle, much-forgiving character of our lawgiver, the moulding of a woman’s hand? Is there aught to prove the minion of a court, the favorite of a princess? No, O no. The whole character of Moses displays a mother’s guidance. A mother’s love watching over childhood, and inculcating those high and glowing principles of virtue and patriotism, which the blessing of the Eternal ripened into such a beautiful maturity, as to render Moses a fit instrument

Were this not the case, how would Moses have understand the words of God in Ex. 3:6 at the burning bush, “I am the God of thy father Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.” 30 Ex. 2:15–3:1. 29

248

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

in His hand to lead His chosen people31 from the land of bondage, and to reveal His changeless law. And what will not this beautiful narrative teach us? As Jochebed, we too are in a land of bondage; indeed, in free and happy England, not a bondage of suffering and persecution, but yet as exiles from our own land, and, alas! too often, exiles from our God. We too are in a land of strangers, whose faith is not ours; a faith which, though it be not idolatry, is fraught with yet more temptation and danger. In this blessed land, no cruel taskmaster afflicts us with heavy burdens; yet there are some to look upon us with scorn and hate, who would strew our daily path with the thorns and briers of contempt, calumny, and abuse; and others again who, with kindly yet mistaken zeal, would appal us by the vivid recital of the fearful precipice on which we stand, telling us that but one escape is left us, one only way, or we are temporally and eternally lost; and that way no Israelite can recognise. Yet fearful are the temptations to seek it, and few, too few, his weapons of defence. Worldly rank and worldly honors are closed to the believing Hebrew, and wherever he turns he feels himself a stranger.32 The idea that Israel was “chosen by God,” which is commonly conceptualized as “the doctrine of the chosen people” or “the election of Israel” derives from Deut. 7:6; 14:2 (on which see below, Period II, Chapter IV, s.v., “laws for daughters”, p. 315). This idea is reinforced by Isa. 41:8–9; 43:10; 44:1–2; and 48:10. Typical is Isa. 41:8–9 where we read as follows: “But thou, Israel, art my servant, Jacob who I have chosen, the seed of Abraham my friend ... Thou art my servant; I have chosen thee, and not cast thee away.” 32 Aguilar belongs to the mainstream of Judaism, which throughout almost two millennia never despaired of the hope that the people of Israel would be restored to a sovereign state of their own in the Land of Israel. Secondly, recognizing with a majority of medieval Jewish halakhic authorities that Christianity is not idolatry but a form of monotheism (see, e.g., Moshe Halbertal, “‘Ones Possessed of Religion’: Religious Tolerance in the Teachngs of the Meiri,” Edah 1, no. 1 [2000], 1–25), she refuses to be tempted by the missionaries, who tell her and her contemporary Jews and Jewesses that the only hope for salvation from eternal damnation is by conversion to Christianity. Secondly, she reminds us that in her time Jews 31

SECOND PERIOD. I. EGYPTIAN CAPTIVITY

249

Blest in this land with peace and freedom, yet, ever and anon, the low growl of the tempest of persecution reaches him from distant shores; sometimes sinking into silence, ere more than the heart’s quick throbbing is aroused; at others waxing louder and more loud, till the wailings of thousands, and the shrieks of torture, are borne on the heavy air, breathing that Israel is afflicted still. And wherefore? To bid us still feel we are the captives of the Lord—that Jerusalem lieth desolate and waste for our sins—that the awful prophecy of the twenty-eighth chapter of Deuteronomy33 has been, and in many lands still is, in actual fulfilment—that we are now, as we were in Egypt, afflicted and oppressed—“despised and rejected of men—a man of sorrows and acquainted with grief”34—“as one that gropeth at noon-day, as the blind gropeth in darkness, that shall not prosper in his ways, that shall only be spoiled and oppressed evermore, and whom no man shall save.”35 And if it be so (and who shall say it is not?), oh! does it not devolve on the mothers of Israel to do even as Jochebed, and so influence the childhood of their sons, as to render them indeed faithful to their God, meek and forgiving towards man, and invulnerable to every temptation held forth by the opposers of their faith? The very safety we enjoy, the habits of friendly intimacy which it is right and happy we should cultivate, all call upon the Hebrew mother to instil those principles in the heart of her son which shall guide him through life, and, while they raise him in the estimation of the nations around him, inspire him individually to glory in his own.

who had not abandoned their faith and converted to baptism could not be elected to public office in England. In fact, while Lionel de Rothschild was elected to the House of Commons from the City of London as early as 1847, he could not be seated in the House of Commons until 1858 when it was finally agreed that he could take an oath of office without invoking the Christian faith. 33 Specifically, Deut. 28:15–68. 34 Isa. 53:3. 35 Deut. 28:29.

250

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

We have enlarged, in a former work, on the duty of mothers regarding religion generally.36 We would here conjure them to follow the example of the mother of Moses, and make their sons the receivers, and in their turn the promulgators, of that holy law which is their glorious inheritance. Their faith, in England, may not be tried as that of Jochebed—they may not be called upon to expose their innocent babes to the dangers of the river, to save them from the cruelties of man—but they are called upon to provide a suit of defence for riper years. They must so instruct, so guide, the first ten or twelve years of boyhood,37 that even then they may Grace Aguilar, The Spirit of Judaism (Philadelphia; Jewish Publication Society of America, 1842). 37 Suggesting that at the very least Jewish girls and women be sufficiently educated in Judaism that they may guide their sons to the age of Bar Mitzvah (13). In those days Bat Mitzvah—a girl’s reaching the age of obligation to perform the precepts of Judaism at age 12 such as fasting on the Day of Atonement—happened but was not celebrated. See the long list of halakhic sources in Judah Eisenstein, Otzar Dinim u-Minhagim: A Digest of Jewish Laws and Customs in Alphabetic Order (New York: Hebrew Publishing Co., 1917), 50 (in Hebrew). Such a celebration, which is now universal among secular Jews as well as among Reform, Orthodox, Conservative, and Reconstructionist Jews, was, allegedly, introduced March 18, 1922 at the Jewish Center Synagogue in New York City by Rabbi Dr. Mordecai Kaplan, the seminal Jewish theologian, who founded Reconstructionism. He introduced a ceremony of Bat Mitzvah when Judith, the eldest of his four daughters, was twelve and a half years old. See Mel Scult, Judaism Faces the Twentieth Century: A Biography of Mordecai M. Kaplan (Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1994), 301–301, 415, n. 31. Significantly, the American Reform Jewish Rabbi’s Manual (Cincinnati: Central Conference of American Rabbis, 1928), 152 writes as follows under the heading “Bar Mizvah Ceremony”: “Seeking to equalize woman with man in all religious obligations, Reform Judaism has replaced the ceremony of Bar Mizvah with that of Confirmation for both girls and boys. For reasons of historical association as well as for the sake of affording the individual youth an occasion for the expression of sacred joy, some synagogues continue the Bar Mizvah in addition to Confirmation. The privilege may also be extended to the girls (Bath Mizvah). In such cases, let the boy or girl come up to the Torah on the Sabbath nearest his or her thirteenth birth36

SECOND PERIOD. I. EGYPTIAN CAPTIVITY

251

leave their maternal homes as Israelites rejoicing in their faith. They must infuse some balsam to heal, or some invulnerable shield to eject, the arrows of contempt or pity which, ere they pass through life, they must encounter. They must so lead, that graver years may conduct them to that only study, the blessed word of God, which alone can give peace to their spirits, rest to their minds, and conviction to their hearts—alike in their private hours and their communings with the Nazarene world.38 This is now the Hebrew mother’s task, which may be blessed to their offspring as Jochebed’s was to Moses. It is for this they must have faith, must trust that God will perfect that which is imperfect, fill up every deficiency, and bring the seed to flower, or vain and hopeless will be their task. They must impress upon their offspring their SPIRITUAL ARISTOCRACY,39 day, recite the benedictions and read the weekly portion from the Torah and the Prophets ... .” 38 I.e., the Christian world, which continues to suggest that Jews would find their greatest fulfillment if they would convert to Christianity. Indeed, in Reminiscences of Grace Aguilar dated January 17, 1848 (Manuscript in the Aguilar Papers at University College Library, London), Caroline A. Bowles informs us that she had given Grace Aguilar the New Testament to read. Since reading the New Testament did not immediately convince Grace Aguilar to abandon Judaism and adopt Christianity, Bowles explains that she had decided to rely upon God to convince Grace Aguilar of the truth of Christianity. The efforts of Christians to convert Grace Aguilar and her co-religionists were real and immanent and by no means imagined or exaggerated. 39 Aguilar and other Jews and Jewesses, who had sufficient knowledge of Judaism, sincerely believed that the Jewish people continue to be the continuation of the people of Israel, of whom the Hebrew Bible and the Rabbinic writings speak, and that this people had not been replaced by any other religion, which claimed to be, as it were, the New Israel, which is precisely what Christianity claimed. However, as Aguilar explains a few lines below, it was very hard to convey this in her time either to Jews or to Gentiles precisely because the masses of Jews in Eastern Europe, and especially those among them who sought refuge in England and other lands of freedom, were oppressed and downtrodden physically and economically.

252

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

and so not only remove all temptation to barter their heavenly heritage for earthly rank, but infuse their minds and hearts with that nobility of thought, word, and action, which should be the heirloom, the glory of every Hebrew, be he of what rank, profession, or even trade, he may. Persecution and barbarity in our opposers, and their consequent ignorance and superstition in ourselves, have for long ages so crushed and trampled on this innate nobility, that in all but a very few instances, it seems, and has long seemed, departed from us; its banishment stigmatizing us as degraded to the lowest and vilest of mankind. Can we now then, in those blessed lands where the Jew may walk in freedom, with “none to molest or make him afraid,”40 permit this stigma to remain? Shall we not rather wake every energy, string every nerve, to prove that it is not Judaism, but persecution at fault; and that wherever the Hebrew is FREE, he is NOBLE? That the princely blood of Abraham, Moses, and David still flows within his veins, and incites him to thoughts and deeds as far removed from ignorance and degradation as the sun is from the earth? But not when arrived at manhood can this nobility be infused.41 It must be imbibed with the mother’s milk, and form the very atmosphere of childhood and youth. Let every mother in Israel look upon her infant treasure as direct from the hand of God, and believe that He saith to her, as the princess of Egypt said to Jochebed,—“Nurse this child for ME, and I will give thee thy wages;”42 for HIM, for the LORD, who in every age, clime, and position, calleth Israel His CHILDREN.43 And let her indeed so nurse him, that whenever he may be called to his Father in Heaven he

Lev. 26:6. Even today it is wisely believed that all that is necessary is to prepare the 11 year old girl for a Bat Mitzvah (celebrated at the age of 12 years and one day) or the 12 year old boy for a Bar Mitzvah (celebrated at the age of 13 years and one day) ceremony. 42 Ex. 2:9. 43 See Deut. 14:1: “Ye are the children of the LORD your God.” 40 41

SECOND PERIOD. I. EGYPTIAN CAPTIVITY

253

may be fit to go.44 Let her, weak and feeble of herself as she is, remember that with the Lord all things are possible, and that as He blessed Jochebed in the preservation and nurture of her child, so if we will but blend effort with prayer, perseverance with faith, He will equally bless us—and though it may not be ours to rear a deliverer from Egyptian bondage, yet how will the mothers in Israel rejoice and glory, to receive “their wages” in the elevation of their nation by their sons? To do this, they must be NOBLE; and to become so, let the Hebrew mother teach her boy, from his earliest years, to think of his heavenly heritage, his spiritual election, his eternal life, and leave the interests and ambition of earth till riper years, when even these dull sordid cares shall become ennobled and spiritualized, by the purer atmosphere which he has in his boyhood breathed. We are not, indeed, while denizens of earth, to think so exclusively of heaven as to unfit us for the life of trial and temptation which, in our mortal career, we are commanded to tread; but we are to infuse earth with Heaven, time with Eternity, the soul with GOD. As Israelites, we cannot sever our temporal from our eternal interests, we cannot fling off the memory of, and obedience to, the Eternal, for with every single relation, duty, ordinance, and habit of daily life His commands are blended. We are not Israelites, if we think to live apart from Him, or to do aught in which we cannot associate Him by the entreaty for His blessing, and the looking to Him throughout. We are not Israelites, if we do not feel our every domestic duty and loving tie sanctified by Him, and bringing us nearer, closer, more lovingly to Him, with every passing month. This is to be an Israelite—this is to be the aristocracy of the Lord; for did we so associate our religion with our lives, we must be NOBLE. But how can we attain this, how dare we hope it, if the pursuit of gold, the vain longing for wealth, the idle dream of worldly aggrandizement, the empty rivalship with those richer and higher than ourselves, be the sole end, aim, and being of the Israelite? We look with loud

Cf. Mishnah, Avot 2:10: “Repent one day before your death,” which is explained to mean that since most people do not know when they will die, one should repent every day. 44

254

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

condemnation and scorn on the worshippers of the golden calf45— we contemn the worshippers, more than we tremble at the awful chastisement from the hand of the Lord—yet let us beware, lest our sons too bow before the golden idol. It may take no form, we may not approach it with forms of worship, and priests, and incense, but if it fill up our hearts to the exclusion of all other and nobler thoughts, if its pursuit drag us from the house of God, from our own hearths, deaden us to the love of home ties, prevent the spiritual and enlarged education of our children, what is it to us but as the golden calf to the Israelites of old? And how dare we hope to be exempt from the chastisement of God, when it fell upon our brethren? Oh! let us not case up our hearts, and pursue our way in confident security, because it is deferred. God works not now as He did then. Israel, in his redemption from Egypt, needed constant, visible, and palpable evidences of the providence and the justice of the Lord. We have them not to guide us now, but their record is ours, in which to learn our duty, and the effects of its neglect or disobedience. That which was displeasing to Him then, is displeasing to Him now; but, scattered as we are among the nations, deprived through our iniquities of the visible manifestation of His presence,46 His approval, and His wrath, not on earth may our judgment be known; nor can we “discern between him that serveth God, and him that serveth Him not,”47 till that day when “the Lord

See Ex. 32 for the narrative concerning the golden calf. I.e., the Temple at Jerusalem, which was conceived as a tangible symbol of and indeed the veritable home on earth of the divine Presence, which is called in Hebrew Shechinah. Consequently, in the so-called Amidah or Shemoneh Esreh ‘Eighteen Benedictions’ (on Sabbath and Festivals there are only 7 benedictions; in the ‘Additional Service’ for the New Year there are 9 benedictions) recited at every Jewish worship service and three times a day in the devotions of individual Jews and Jewesses, the third blessing from the end asks God to grant us the privilege of witnessing the return of God’s Shechinah to Zion, i.e., the site of the Temple at Jerusalem, and this blessing also affirms in the present of prophetic certitude that this will take place imminently; see ArtScroll Siddur, 110–111 47 Mal. 3:18. 45 46

SECOND PERIOD. I. EGYPTIAN CAPTIVITY

255

shall make up His jewels, and spare those that love Him, as a man spareth his own son that serveth him.”48 That the long dark ages of persecution originated that fearful indifference to all ennobling pursuits, of which the Hebrew is accused, we quite acknowledge. Deprived of all honorable and elevating employment, of every profession, of every trade, which, bringing them into friendly contact with their fellow-men, would have enlarged their minds, and awakened social affections; cowed, crushed, hunted down, and often persecuted for the sake of their wealth; deadened, stupefied, to all spiritual elevation, even as the Israelites in Egypt; was it marvel they should cling to gold, and seek its increase, as their sole rank and privilege? For them God had compassion, for He knew how they were tried. It was natural too, that, even when in lands of comparative freedom and peace, the habits and associations of past years should cling pertinaciously to them still. But their encouragement is no longer guiltless— prosperity, peace, friendly intercourse with some of the nations, are granted us, that we may come back with heart and soul unto our holy law, and strive with all our might against every idol which comes between us and our God. In England, France, Belgium, and America, it is no longer persecution and intolerance that degrade and pronounce us vile. If such feelings do find entrance, it is the prejudice arising from what we were. They, as is natural, see not the cause of that past degradation, but let us make it manifest—let us evince, more and more, that gold is no longer our sole pursuit; that fraud and cunning, which to the ignorant Gentile are synonymous with the word Jew, are as far from us as from them—that when free we too are noble, honorable, and spiritual to an extent that, if we adhere to our blessed law, only Israelites can be—and prejudice must pass away, and Israel be acknowledged the witnesses of the Lord. It is this noble, this spiritual feeling of independence we would beseech every Hebrew mother to instil into her boy; and which we now humbly, yet earnestly, prayerfully, and heartfully conjure every Hebrew father to aid and confirm. Let not the ears of the infant Israelite be polluted by reference to earthly gain and 48

Mal. 3:17.

256

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

worldly rivalship, but let him hear often from his father’s lips those sweet lessons of heaven and God—of self-denial and its blessed reward—of those purer pleasures of intellect and heart, which, if not infused into his infancy, can never find entrance and dominion in after years. Ably and delightfully would such paternal lessons assist the mother’s task, and lighten the blessed yet exquisitely anxious labor of teaching their offspring their proper station in the sight of God and man, and so ennoble, purify, and spiritualize heart and mind, as to render them fit descendants of the princes, priests, and prophets from whom they spring. And let not such parents fear for their sons’ earthly welfare. Such training will not unfit them for the necessary cares and toils of life. It will but render them less engrossing, less worldly, and annihilate every feeling which they would blush to acknowledge before God and man. It will take from life its dross, its stagnating care, teaching them that their duty indeed is to work and persevere, alike for their families and themselves, but that in the hand of the Lord is their portion, and that He will order their daily lot as will be most fitted for their eternal welfare. It will remove every temptation to turn aside, for lucre or ambition, from their father’s faith. It will open heart and hand towards the suffering and the poor, and, removing every selfish feeling and grovelling thought, prepare them for that day when the Lord again shall call them His, and bid them resume that kingly station in the sight of the nations, of which for “a little moment”49 only they are deprived. The suffering Israelites, under the terrible oppression of Pharaoh, imagined not the rank to which they would be called by the word of the Lord. While groaning under their heavy burdens, toiling day and night, with neither relief nor relaxation, could they have imagined that, in their persecuted offspring, princes should arise;— that, in a brief interval, Chiefs of their tribes,50 Heads of families,51 Captains of well-appointed squadrons52—Priests, sacred in the

Cf. Isa. 54:7: “For a small moment have I forsaken thee.” Deut. 29:9. 51 Num. 7:2. 52 Ex. 18:21, 25. 49 50

SECOND PERIOD. I. EGYPTIAN CAPTIVITY

257

sight of all the people, and acknowledged by the Eternal53— Workers in every elegant art,54 which was needed in the building and embellishment of the Tabernacle—Warriors,55 dauntless in bravery, and skilful in the art of war—Judges,56 gifted to decide causes, award sentences and keep civil peace and order amid a disorderly multitude—Princes, of such wealth and consequence as to make the splendid offerings enumerated in the seventh chapter of Numbers—could they have imagined that such would be?57 Yet such WAS, and such WILL BE. We know not when, we know not how—we only know that the word of God has said it, and that He is a God of truth.58 Shall we not remember this in the education of our sons, and infuse such feelings as will render them indeed but sojourners in the land of the captivity, watchers, as it were, on the frontiers, prepared to arise, and fall into their appointed stations, the moment the Lord shall call? Let us welcome in them the inclination for the liberal professions, all that will enlarge the mind and ennoble the heart, and bid them prove, in the sight of the whole Gentile world, that where the Hebrew is FREE, he is brave, enterprising, self-denying, gifted, wise, magnanimous, as the noblest of Lev. 8–9. A very apt translation of Heb. mele’ket mahshebet in Ex. 35:33 where NJV renders ‘designer’s craft’ while KJV renders ‘cunning work’, which nowadays has a negative connotation, which KJV did not intend. 55 Heb. ’ish milhamah, lit., ‘man of war’ meaning ‘warrior’ is attested, inter alia, in Josh. 17:1; Judg. 20:17; 1 Sam. 16:18. 56 Cf. Judg. 1:1; Ruth 1:1. 57 Num. 7 constitutes the synagogue lection on each of the days of Hanukkah because the biblical passage refers to the dedication of the Tabernacle in the 2d year after the Exodus while Hanukkah commemorates the rededication (164 B.C.E.) of the Temple by Judah Maccabee after its desecration by the Hellenizers. 58 I.e., true to the promise to restore sovereignty to the people of Israel in the land of Israel. Indeed, in Isa. 1:26 God promises the Jews, “And I will restore thy judges as at the first, and thy counselors as at the beginning.” Three times a day on every weekday (when a festival does not fall on that weekday) Jews ask in the eleventh benediction of the so-called Eighteen Benedictions that God fulfill this promise.” 53 54

258

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

the nations around him. Let the Hebrew mother give her boy the solid foundation of his glorious faith, and he may go forth in the Nazarene world unharmed; and in other professions, other lines than that of merchant, in which alone till now the Jew has been known, he will honor the name of Israelite. And if such be the fruit of nursing her child for God, oh! will not every Hebrew mother feel, that she has indeed received “her wages?”59

Again alluding to Ex. 2:9 where Pharaoh’s daughter promises to pay Jochebed her wages for serving as wet-nurse to Pharaoh’s daughter’s adopted son Moses and again suggesting that the real wages for Jewish women nursing their children both physically and spiritually and thus truly emulating Jochebed’s nurturing of Moses are wages paid by God, including the good name she will help the Jewish people to acquire because of the virtue she will have inculcated in her children. 59

CHAPTER II. THE EXODUS— LAWS FOR THE MOTHERS OF ISRAEL We have seen quoted in a Jewish periodical, that it was for the sake of the righteous women the Lord delivered our ancestors from Egypt.”1 Scriptural authority for this assertion we certainly cannot find, as it is expressly said, “the Lord remembered the promises which he had made to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.”2 We only quote it as a proof that the ancient fathers from whom we believe it taken, could not have had the low idea of women with which they are charged, to have put such an opinion forth, even in suggestion; but must have imagined the righteousness of women of no little importance towards the well-doing of the state. That so, in fact, it is, we have direct scriptural authority to believe; as not only a review of the law will make manifest, but the consequences of the sins of the women in a more distant period. Were not woman an equally responsible agent in the sight of God—were He not in His infinite mercy tenderly careful of her innocence, her honor, her well-doing, her protection by man—no law for her in particular need have been issued, nor such especial care taken to cleanse her from impurity and guilt, to free her from false charges and an unjust husband,3 to permit and sanctify her singular vow,4 and give her The source is Babylonian Talmud, Sotah 11b. Ex. 3:6, where God introduces Himself to Moses at the burning bush. 3 Here Aguilar refers to Num. 5:11–31, the so-called ordeal of bitter waters by means of which a woman, who has been wrongly accused by her husband of having committed adultery can have her innocence publicly proclaimed. Aguilar here anticipates, Herbert Chanan Brichto, “The Case of the Sotah and a Reconsideration of Biblical Law,” Hebrew Union 1 2

259

260

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

College Annual 64 (1973), 55–70, who also sees in the so-called ordeal a means of bringing about a reconciliation between an innocent wife and her husband, who has wrongly charged her with unfaithfulness without a shred of evidence. Tikva Frymer-Kensky, “Ordeal,” Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible Supplementary Volume, ed. Keith Crim (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1976), 638–640, expresses the more widely held view that the ordeal prescribed in Num. 5:11–31 is degrading to women. Contrasting Brichto and Frymer-Kensky, one might assume that men and women read texts differently. Juxtaposing with these two scholars of blessed memory the words of Grace Aguilar, the annotator concludes that it is people, who read texts differently. Let the reader of this footnote decide which of the three scholars got it right. 4 Indeed, Scriptural narrative is replete with accounts of vows made by women, the validity of which was upheld without question. On the other hand, Num. 30:3–16 allows a father to annul certain vows made by a daughter “in her father’s house in her youth” (v. 3), and it allows a husband to annul certain vows made by a wife in the hearing of her husband (vv. 6–15). Aguilar has briefly summarized and alluded to the Rabbinic Sages’ understanding that the women’s vows, which might be annulled by a father or by a husband are the exception. In fact, the Rabbinic Sages read between the lines of Num. 30:3–16 to delineate a category of “adult single woman,” which anticipated by almost two millennia the 19th century struggle to recognize women’s rights to their persons and their possessions. See Jacob Neusner, How the Rabbis Liberated Women, University of South Florida Studies in the History of Judaism, no. 191 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1998). In addition, the Rabbinic Sages saw in the possibility of a father annulling the vows of a daughter between the ages of twelve years and one day and twelve and one half years old and in the possibility of a husband’s annulling a wife’s vow a paradigm for the annulment of vows of both men and women by a sage or a court made up of three persons; cf. Jacob Neusner, A History of the Mishnaic Law of Women (5 vols.; Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1980), 3:7. For Aguilar’s discussion of specific instances of vows undertaken by biblical and post-biblical Jewish women see below with reference to Hannah (1 Sam. 1; in Women of Israel, Period III, Chapter VI)); Queen Helena of Adiabene and Berenice the widow of Herod Agrippa of Chalcis (in Period VI, Chapter X). It is especially noteworthy that Aguilar chose, specifically by recourse to texts, which have widely been held up in modern times as parade examples of Hebrew Scripture’s

SECOND PERIOD. II. THE EXODUS

261

every incentive for a chaste, virtuous, and modest life. This need not have been—would not have been—if the Eternal had not, in His compassionating love, regarded His frailer, weaker children5 with even more tenderness than He looked on man, and resolved on fixing her station and her privileges, and so bringing her forward as an object at once of tenderness and respect—of cherishing, as a wife and daughter—of the deepest veneration, as a mother—the especial object of national as well as individual love and protection, as widowed and fatherless—and of the kindest, most fatherly care and gentleness, as the maid-servant. Nay, even the female captive was marked out for fostering and healing kindness, and allowed time for mourning,6 instead of, as in the case of other nations, aye, even those of later days who called themselves followers of Jesus, being hurried to the bed of the brutal conqueror, who was often still reeking with the blood of her relations. How then can it be mistreatment of women, to make the point that God through the instrumentality of the laws contained in the Pentateuch sought to protect women. 5 As noted above (see above, p. 61), Aguilar believes that women are intellectual and emotionally weaker than men (see also above, pp. 30-31 in her account of Eve’s easy victimization by the snake in the Garden of Eden). However, as Aguilar will argue ever more forcefully as her account of the women of ancient Israel and Second Temple Judaism progresses, the still widely fostered (mostly by male chauvinists) view that women as a group might be less intelligent than men as a group (sometimes argued pseudo-scientifically on the basis of the average smaller weight of the female brain vis-à-vis the male brain) does not allow Aguilar to abide the notion that females should be provided with fewer educational opportunities than are extended to males or that political, judicial and religious office and leading of religious services should be denied to women qua women (see below, especially with reference to Deborah, the Shunammite, Huldah, and Second Temple heroines). See, e.g., Ruth Bleier, Science and Gender: A Critique of Biology (New York: Pergamon Press, 1984); Carol Tavris, The Mismeasure of Women (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1992); Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex (London: John Murray, 1871). 6 Deut. 21:10–14.

262

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

said, that in every other religion save that of the Nazarene, woman’s station is degraded, even as the heathen and the slave? With a mighty arm the Lord had brought forth Israel from the land of bondage, enriched by the spoil,7 which they did not borrow8 from the Egyptians, as the usual translation renders it, but had demanded,9 as their right from weary years of unpaid labor,10 and The spoil is commanded in Ex. 3:22 and 11:2, and the carrying out of the command is recorded in Ex. 12:35. 8 So KJV in each of the passages recited in the previous note. 9 Indeed the Hebrew verb sha’al, can mean ‘borrow’ as in Ex. 22:14: “If a man borrow ought of his neighbor, and it be hurt, or die, the owner thereof being not with it, he [the borrower] shall surely make it good.” However, much more often the verb means ‘to request’. Typical is 1 Sam. 1:17: “Then Eli answered and said [to Hannah]: Go in peace: and the God of Israel grant thee thy petition [Heb. she’elatek ] that thou hast asked [sha’alte ] of him.” Cf. also Esth. 7:2: “And the king said again unto Esther on the second day at the banquet of wine, What is thy petition [Heb. she’elatek ], queen Esther? and it shall be granted thee: and what is thy request [Heb baqqashatek ]? and it shall be performed ... .” A century after Grace Aguilar, arose another culture heroine of Jewish learning, Nehama Leibowitz, and she also argued equally convincingly that Ex. 22:14 and its parallels refer to ‘requesting’ rather than to ‘borrowing” what could not possibly be returned. See Nehama Leibowitz, New Studies in the Book of Exodus (Jerusalem: World Zionist Federation Department of Torah Education and Culture in the Disapora, 1969), 129–135 (in Hebrew). There is no reason to assume that with reference to the divine command to collect silver and gold vessels and garments the verb sha’al meant anything other than ‘ask, request’. Nothing in the text suggests that either the divine command or the human fulfillment involved any deception whatsoever. 10 It is reported in the Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin 91a that representatives of the Egyptians in the time of Alexander the Great sought to get back from the Jews the silver, gold, and textiles, which, it was alleged, the Jews had unlawfully taken from Egypt at the time of the Exodus. The story continues that the Jews raised a counter claim of wages for their years of service in Egypt as slaves. As the commission that was appointed spent years deliberating and began to suggest astronomical figures of back pay for the descendants of the former slaves, the Egyptians decided to end the altercation amiably by withdrawing their claim to the silver, gold, 7

SECOND PERIOD. II. THE EXODUS

263

which, terrified at the awful plagues which had befallen them, was granted them at once. “The Lord gave the people favor in the sight of the Egyptians,” are words twice repeated,11 thus doing away at once all idea of the Eternal having favored fraud, even against His enemies and the enemies of His people. They demanded the long arrears of payment, and they were given, in jewels of silver, and jewels of gold; and so, not by deceit, but in justice, they, to use the Bible language, “spoiled the Egyptians.”12 and textiles that the Israelite slaves had taken with them at the time of the Exodus. Leibovitz, Studies in the Book of Exodus, 133–134, argues that, in fact, the three kinds of objects that the Israelites had requested from the Egyptians were meant to correspond to three kinds of objects that are to be given an Israelite indentured servant when she/he is set free at the end of six years of service according to Deut. 15:12–15: “And if thy brother, an Hebrew man, or an Hebrew woman, be sold unto thee, and serve thee six years; then in the seventh year thou shalt let him go free from thee. And when thou sendest him out free from thee, thou shalt not let him go away empty. Thou shalt furnish him liberally out of thy flock, and out of thy [threshing] floor, and out of thy winepress: of that wherewith the LORD thy God hath blessed thee thou shalt give unto him. And thou shalt remember that thou wast a bondman in the land of Egypt, and the LORD thy God redeemed thee: therefore I command thee this thing to day.” Aguilar may likely have taken her contention that in the Exodus narrative the Hebrew verb sha’al means ‘request’ rather than ‘borrow’ from Josephus, Antiquities, 1.14.6 and from Whiston’s note thereon. 11 Ex. 11:3; 12:36. The first of these two texts follows the command in Ex. 11:2 while the second of these two affirmations that no ill-will accompanied the Egyptian’s acceding to the Israelites’ request follows the account of the Israelites’ fulfilling the divine command to request silver, and gold, and textiles in Ex. 12:35. 12 Ex. 12:36 according to KJV (and see also in the command in 3:22 where KJV renders, “and ye shall spoil the Egyptians”). Obviously, spoiling or despoiling does not fit in with the assertion in Ex. 12:36, “And the LORD gave the people [of Israel] favour in the sight of the Egyptians, so that they [acceded to their request]. Consequently, Nehama Leibowitz, in her lectures on the subject would go so far as to argue that in Ex. 3:22 and 12:36 the pi‛el of the verbal root n-ts-l has the same meaning as the hiphil of that verb, which means ‘save’ and that the purpose was to save the Egyp-

264

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

The powers of Nature herself succumbed before the mighty will of her Creator. Fire, earth, air, and water,13 had departed from what is called their natural course, to bring forth Israel from bondage, and to falsify at once the awful denial of a God, in the vain dream of necessity and nature. The sea itself—as the final seal to the stupendous manifestations of Almighty Power displayed in the ten plagues—divided at the word of its Creator, and the host of Israel—men, women, and little children—passed through on dry land, with a watery wall, seeming to unite earth to heaven, on either side.14 And when the unbelieving scoffers followed—when, denying still the sanctity of Israel, the wonders of Israel’s God, the chariots and hosts of Pharaoh dashed on in vain defiance of the Lord—down tumbled the overwhelming mass of mighty waters, and the proud hosts of Pharaoh lay dead before their slaves.15 And when the song of thanksgiving, of adoration, rose from the hearts

tians from the animosity of the Israelites. It is indeed plausible that a means of ending the mutual animosity between the Egyptian masters/mistresses and the Israelites who were male and female slaves was to arrange for the Egyptians to present each slave with a parting gift. Indeed, a tried and true method of turning an enemy into a friend is to ask that enemy for a favor so that the former enemy senses that he/she is respected by his/her erstwhile victim. In fact, it is common in our own time that when an employee is let go by her/his employer that before leaving a party is held to honor the fired employee. Moreover, at such a party the fired employee is presented with a parting gift. Indeed, making a fuss and singing the fired employee’s praises often assuages much of the animosity that is associated with the departure of a fired employee from a workplace. 13 The idea that the cosmos is composed of these four elements goes back to the pre-Socratic Greek philosopher, Empedocles of Sicily (c. 490– 430 B.C.E.) in his long poem, On Nature. Not only did this idea penetrate Rabbinic literature and influence many midrashim but also this theory was accepted as fact in England and other western countries when Aguilar penned this book. 14 Ex. 14:21–22. 15 Ex. 14:23–28.

SECOND PERIOD. II. THE EXODUS

265

and lips of the redeemed, the voice not only of man but of woman16 prolonged the strain. “And Miriam the prophetess, the sister of Aaron, took a timbrel in her hand; and all the women went after her with timbrels and with dances. And Miriam answered17 them, Sing ye to the Lord! for He hath triumphed gloriously, The horse and his rider hath He thrown into the sea.”18 Woman is not gifted with a silvery voice and an ear for harmony, to devote to the pleasure of man alone. Let her devote them sometimes to the praises of the Lord, and bid the psalm of thanksgiving filling the sanctuary of the Lord be answered from her lips; and the sweet sanctuary of home, at morning and evening prayer, behold her leading infant lips to tune their first song in thanksgiving to their Father and their God. As a general view of the beautiful laws constituting the Mosaic religion does not enter into the plan of this work, we shall throw together those portions on which, as they regard woman, we shall somewhat lengthily treat, without any reference to their probable dates. We know that all the laws forming our religion were given between their departure from Egypt and arrival in the promised land, and are contained principally in chapters 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, and 29 of Exodus—in the whole book of Leviticus—in chapters 5, 6, 8, 9, 15, 16, 17, 27, 28, 29, 30, 35, and 36 of Numbers—and in the whole book of Deuteronomy. From these we select and examine all that can give weight to, and throw light upon, the six divisions of our present subject. As the first and most beautiful relationship in which woman is undeniably necessary to man—the object of his first affections, to whom he owes all of cherishing, happiness, and health, from infancy to boyhood, and often from boyhood to youth; and who, in Like 20th century feminist biblical commentators, Aguilar takes note of the fact that Miriam and other women are here given a public role in the celebration of the victory over Egypt and the Sea. 17 So KJV, which construed the lexeme watta‛an as a form of the verb ‘anah ‘answer’ rather than as a form of the homonymous verb ‘anah ‘sing’; see the various dictionaries of Biblical Hebrew; cf. also NJV which renders ‘chanted’. 18 Ex. 15:20–21. 16

266

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

consequence, must be entwined with every fond remembrance of childhood, the recollection of which is often the only soother, the only light, in the darker heart of man—it is but just that we should examine, first, how the holy relationship of a MOTHER in Israel is guarded and noticed by our law. The very first command relative to the duties of man towards man,19 marks out the position of children with regard to their parents, male and female, the representatives of God on earth. It was not enough that such position should be left to the natural impulses of gratitude and affection—not enough that the love and reverence of a child to his parent should be left to his own heart, although in the cases of both Isaac and Jacob such had been so distinctly manifested. No; the same tremendous voice which bade the very earth quake, and the fast rooted mountain reel—which spoke in the midst of thunders and lightnings, “Thou shalt have no other gods but me,”20—also said, “Honor thy father and thy MOTHER,” and added unto its obedience a promise of reward, the only command to which recompense is annexed, that its obedience might indeed be an obedience of love.21 And lest there should be She refers to the fifth commandment of the Decalogue according to the Jewish reckoning, which holds that the first commandment is “I am the LORD thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage” (Ex. 20:2 = Deut. 5:6). The second commandment begins, “Thou shalt have no other gods before me,” and continues with “Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image...And showing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments” (Ex. 20:3–6 = Deut. 5:7–10). Consequently, “Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain ...” (Ex. 20:7 = Deut. 5:11) is the third commandment”; and the fourth commandment is “Remember/Observe the Sabbath day to keep it holy ...” (Ex. 20:8–11 = Deut. 5:12–15). So the fifth commandment is “Honor thy father and thy mother ...” (Ex. 20:12 = Deut. 5:16). 20 Ex. 20:3 = Deut. 5:7. 21 In both Ex. 20:12 and Deut. 5:16 we read, “Honor thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee.” Deut. 5:16 contains a small expansion, which Aguilar cites below. 19

SECOND PERIOD. II. THE EXODUS

267

some natures so stubborn and obtuse that the fear of punishment only could affect, we read in the repetition, and, as it were, enlargement on the ten commandments, “And he that smiteth his father or his MOTHER shall surely be put to death, and he that curseth or revileth his father or his MOTHER shall surely be put to death” (Exodus xxi. 15–17). “Ye shall fear every man his MOTHER and his father, and keep my sabbaths; I am the Lord” (Levit. xix. 3). “For every one that curseth his father or his MOTHER, shall surely be put to death. He that cursed his father or his MOTHER, his blood shall be upon him.” And again, in Deuteronomy v. 16, we have the repetition of the fifth commandment, the reward attending its obedience still more vividly enforced: “Honor thy father and thy MOTHER, as the Lord thy God hath commanded thee, that thy days may be prolonged, and that it may go well with thee in the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee.” With laws like these, bearing on every one of them the stamp of divine truth, of a sacred solemnity which could come from God alone, how can any one believe in, much less assert, the Jewish degradation of woman, or call that Judaism which upholds it!22 How could these solemn and often reiterated commands be obeyed, if the son of Israel beheld his mother merely the ignorant bond-slave of his father? How could he honor her? What could have such influence upon his moments of passion as to restrain him, when so tempted, from smiting, reviling, or cursing her? How could he fear her,23 when he beheld her trembling before his father, Aguilar is fighting a two-front war. She defends Judaism against those who attempt to give Bible-bashing and the teaching of contempt for Judaism a free ride, as it were, on the back of the struggle for the equality of the sexes, and she attacks people in various Jewish establishments then and now, who uphold the degradation of woman in the name of Judaism. See Galchinksy, Origin of the Modern Jewish Woman Writer, 146–150 and passim. 23 Referring again to Lev. 19:3, “Ye shall fear everyone his/her MOTHER and his/her father,” in which the order of mother and father are the reverse of the order in which they are presented in the Decalogue. And it has already been observed in the Rabbinic halakhic midrash on Exodus, Mekilta deRabbi Ishmael, Tractate Bahodesh (see Mekilta de22

268

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

not as her husband, but as her master? But such he saw not. Weaker in frame,24 from her position and her duties; less mighty in mental powers,25 yet possessing every attribute to make home blessed, and her children holy followers of God, virtuous and patriotic citizens of their land; shrined in his heart with every memory of his infancy;—such was the Hebrew mother to her son. Were the laws obeyed, there could be no neglectful or sinning mother. Not even suspicion could attack her. The law guarded her even from Rabbi Ishmael, ed. Jacob Z. Lauterbach [3 vols.; Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society of America, 1933], 2:259) that taken together the Decalogue and Lev. 19 convey the message that mother and father are equally to be honored/feared. The midrash argues that the message of equality is conveyed by having the matter taken up in two distinct corpora of law, one (the Decalogue) in which father appears before mother and the other (Lev. 19) in which mother appears before father. 24 Indeed, it is suggested in Babylonian Talmud, Kiddushin 30b that precisely because the physical power of the mother is perceived to be less awesome and the manner of woman is more gentle, that she had to be placed first in the text (Lev. 19:3), which commands fear while the father is placed first in the text, which commands honor. See Babylonian Talmud, Kiddushin, 30b–31a. 25 It is not impossible that Aguilar actually believed this, especially since 160 years later President Lawrence H. Summers of Harvard University stated the same idea as reported in the Boston Globe of January 17, 2005. However, while Aguilar repeats this idea several times in Women of Israel, she makes it more than abundantly clear that the alleged mental inferiority of women as a group as against men as a group is no excuse for gender-based violence against women nor a justification for not endowing women with judicial and political office. Nor, as she makes it abundantly clear below, is it a reason to deny women the same opportunities as men in respect to education or participation in religious life including the leading of religious services (see her discussion of the Shunammite below in Period IV, Chapter IV). Indeed, it is annoying that this brilliant and inspired and prolific writer of prose and poetry, fiction and non-fiction, secular and religious books could believe this in face of her own genius. Obviously, in a world in which only Oberlin College in Ohio in 1835 had so far admitted women to the pursuit of higher education, Aguilar took for granted the popular notion that women were mentally inferior to men.

SECOND PERIOD. II. THE EXODUS

269

her own relatives, if they falsely wronged her,26 compelled her, even under the fear of death to be chaste, holy, virtuous, and faithful in every duty of domestic and public life; and, therefore, it was a labor of love for her children to obey their God in honoring her, and a crime worthy of death, if indeed there could be found any sufficiently hardened and rebellious as to disobey. Again, we find in Deut. xxi. 18, “If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father or the voice of his MOTHER, and who, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them, then shall his father and his MOTHER lay hold of him, and bring him to the elders of the city, and unto the gate of his place. And they shall say unto the eiders of the city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious; he will not obey our voice. And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones that he die. So shalt thou put away evil from among you, that all Israel shall hear and fear.”27 We here find at length a practical commentary or example, as it were, of the briefer laws on the same subject, given previously. To modern ears, and present notions of false refinement, such commands seem unnaturally harsh and terrible. In those times, they must have been needed, or they would not have been given. And beautifully, even in their harshness, do they demonstrate the reverential duty of Israelitish children to their parents. Still more powerfully do they illustrate the perfect equality of father and mother in respect to their children. It was not only that disobedience to the latter was equally punishable as to the former, but that the voice of the MOTHER was also to condemn her son, or he could not be proved guilty; a peculiarly just law in a nation where more than one wife was allowed. Without it, how often might the more favored work upon the husband to believe false tales of the offspring of her rival! How often might innocence have been condemned, injustice and cruelty permitted, in a man’s own household! Here Aguilar refers again to Num. 5:11–31, which, in Aguilar’s view (see above, p. 259) provides for a test to vindicate the woman’s innocence in case her husband falsely accuses her of unfaithfulness. 27 In fact, Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin 71a declares that there never was an instance of the kind of child portrayed in this law. 26

270

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

Evils effectually prevented by the father’s witness being unavailable without that of the accused’s own mother—one, we must feel, not at all likely to come forward against her own child, unless his crimes had been so heinous as to prevent the possibility of her shielding him any longer. We have no recorded instance of such a fearful evil in Israel; but the severe law given in case of such, should never be forgotten by us, marking, as it does, the wrath and justice of the Lord against all those of His chosen people28 who could forget, neglect, or wilfully abuse, in any one point, their duty to their earthly parents. Although mothers are not individually commanded to instruct their children in the knowledge of God and His Law,29 they are certainly joined with the fathers in the performance of that sacred duty. Every statute, every ordinance, given by the Lord to Moses, was always introduced by the command, “Speak ye to the Children of Israel;”30 “Say ye to the children of Israel;”31 or, “Hear, O Israel;”32 words including the whole congregation, male and FEMALE. See above, p. 248, n. 31. Here Aguilar would seem to accept the idea found in Tosefta, Kiddushin 1:11 (and so also Babylonian Talmud, Kiddushin, 29a–31a and Jerusalem Talmud, Kiddushin, 1:7) according to which fathers but not mothers are enjoined to teach their children Torah. 30 This precise expression is found in Lev. 11:2 and 15:2, in both of which Moses and Aaron together are asked to speak to the children of Israel. 31 Apparently, there is a typographical error for there is no such expression in Scripture “Say ye [that is you plural] to the children of Israel,” However, God addresses Moses and says, “Speak to the children of Israel and say to them [i.e., common plural addressing men and women together] in Lev. 1:2; 18:2; 23:2, 10; 25:2; 27:2. 32 This expression is found in Deut. 5:1; 6:4 [the Shema, on which see above, pp. 29, 143, 195 and below, pp. 273, 280-281, 286, 295, 311, 537, 924, 936, 938, 950, 952]; 9:1; 20:3. In citing these texts from Leviticus and Deuteronomy in support of her contention that we have numerous texts in the Pentateuch, which make it abundantly clear that men and women equally are obligated to know the law, obey the law, and to foster its observance among their children, Aguilar comes across as a highly original 28 29

SECOND PERIOD. II. THE EXODUS

271

Had man only been included, Moses would have addressed them as sons, or as fathers of tribes, as we find Aaron and his sons, and the priests or Levites, in some few instances particularly specified. That woman is intimately joined with man in the religions instruction of her children, is also proved by the fact that the mothers of the kings of Israel and Judah are always mentioned by name,33 as if to them, yet more than to their fathers, they owed their early impressions of good or evil which their after lives displayed. The very commands regarding parents are strong confirmation. A son could not honor, and fear, and love his mother, if he only owed her his first nourand creative biblical scholar, whose insights need to be cherished as gems of biblical research because of what they tell us about the Bible and not only for what they tell us about a poetess and novelist who wrote a book that touches upon feminist issues in Hebrew Scripture half a century before Elizabeth Cady Stanton’s The Woman’s Bible. 33 According to 1 Kgs. 11:26 the mother of Jeroboam I was Zeruah; according to 1 Kgs. 14:21, 31 the mother of Rehoboam son of King Solomon was Naamah; according to 1 Kgs. 15:2, 10 the mother of Abijah son of Jeroboam I was Maachah; according to 1 Kgs. 22:42 the mother of King Jehoshaphat of Judah was Azubah; according to 2 Kgs. 8:26 the mother of King Azariah of Judah (also called Uzziah) was the famous Athaliah (on whom see in Women of Israel, below, Period IV, Chapter V); according to 2 Kgs. 12:1 the mother of King Jehoash of Judah was Zibiah of Beersheba; according to 2 Kgs. 14:2 the mother of King Amaziah of Judah was Jehoaddan of Jerusalem; according to 2 Kgs. 15:2 the mother of King Azariah of Judah was Jecholiah of Jerusalem; according to 2 Kgs. 15:33 the mother of Jotham King of Judah was Jerusha; according to 2 Kgs. 18:2 the mother of King Hezekiah of Judah was Abi; according to 2 Kgs. 21:1 the mother of King Manasseh of Judah was Hephzibah; according to 2 Kgs. 21:19 the mother of King Amon of Judah was Meshullemeth; according to 2 Kgs. 22:1 the mother of King Josiah was Jedidah; according to 2 Kgs. 23:31 the mother of King Jehoahaz of Judah was Hamutal; according to 2 Kgs. 23:36 the mother of King Jehoiakim was Zebudah; according to 2 Kgs. 24:8 the mother of King Jehoiachin, who ruled in Jerusalem only three months before he was carried away captive with his family to Babylonia, was Nehushta; according to 2 Kgs. 24:18 the mother of Zedekiah, the last King of Judah, was Hamutal. Some of these data are found also in 1 Ch. 12:13–2 Ch. 29:1.

272

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

ishment, and received nothing at her hand but the same instinctive care as the brute creation display towards their young. The immortal mind and soul of man must have something more to reverence and fear, even if the natural links binding mother and son were sufficient (which we much doubt) to call for love. In commanding reverence and obedience from children, God knew that He had so gifted the Hebrew mother, and so marked her duties and position, as to render such emotions merely her due. To her, then, as well as to the father, are those important injunctions contained in Deut. vi. 20–25,34 emphatically addressed; and according to the measure of

For the complete text, see below where Aguilar quotes it. First of all, it should be noted that the opening question is construed in the Midrash of the Four Children in the Passover Haggadah, the Mekilta deRabbi Ishmael and the Jerusalem Talmud as the question asked by the wise child. Second, it should be noted that in that midrash the opening words of the question “what testimonies” [which both KJV followed by Aguilar; and the recent NJV construe as “what is the meaning of these testimonies”] is construed as a nominal sentence whose subject is the interrogative pronoun ‘what’ and the first part of whose predicate is ‘testimonies’, which is to say that the wise child wants to know what it is that he/she is supposed to know and to do. And, significantly, since the classic setting for responding to this query is the home dinner ceremony, the Seder, which is held on the first night of Passover (in the Diaspora it is customary to repeat the ceremony on the second night as well), Aguilar, who is right on target in arguing that mothers are involved here as instructors for halakhah, declares that women are obligated equally with men with respect to all aspects of the Seder service [see Shulhan Aruk, Orah Hayyim 473:14). For an examination of the sources see Catherine Heszer, “Passover and Social Equality: Women, Slaves and Minors in Bavli Pesahim, in A Feminist Commentary on the Babylonian Talmud: Introduction and Studies, ed. Tal Ilan, Tamara Or, Dorothea M. Salzer, Christiane Steuer, and Irina Wandrey (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2007), 91–107; see also Judith Hauptman, “From the Kitchen to the Dining Room: Women and Ritual Activities in Tractate Pesahim,” in A Feminist Commentary on the Babylonian Talmud, Introduction and Studies, ed. Tal Ilan et al, 109–126. Now if, in many homes, Jewish women were told that their obligation ends with the cleaning, the food preparation, and the serving, the men and women who told 34

SECOND PERIOD. II. THE EXODUS

273

her obedience to them, so will be the measure of her children’s reverence and love. The same chapter,35 but a few verses previous, had solemnly commanded Israel to love the Lord his God with heart, and soul, and might—to lay his words upon his own heart, and teach them diligently to his children.36 And, after demanding obedience and righteousness in other statutes, proceeds: “And when thy son asketh thee in time to come, saying, What mean these testimonies, and statutes, and judgments which the Lord our God hath commanded you? Then thou shalt say unto thy son, We were Pharaoh’s bondmen in Egypt, and the Lord brought us out of Egypt with a mighty hand; and the Lord showed signs and wonders, great and sore, upon Egypt, upon Pharaoh, and upon all his household before our eyes; and He brought us out from thence that he might bring us in, to give us the land which He sware unto our fathers. And the Lord commanded us to do all these statutes, to fear the Lord our God, for our good always, that He might preserve us alive, as it is at this day. And it is our righteousness if we observe to do all these commandments before the Lord our God, as He hath commanded us.”37 On the weighty all, which to Hebrew parents is comprised in these emphatic verses, we must not at present linger, save to observe, that much as was required from parents, when the law was given,38 and in Jerusalem,39 still more is needed now. We have to add to the history of our bondage and redemption, that of our glory and our sins—of our first captivity and our partial restoration—our renewed and increased iniquities—of the long suffering, them this were ignorant of the halakhah, and because of their own ignorance, they led others to neglect their obligations. 35 I.e., Deut. 6. 36 Here Aguilar summarizes Deut. 6:5–7a, which are the 2d, 3d, and part of the 4th verse of the first paragraph of the Shema. 37Deut. 6:25. 38 Aguilar shares the traditional Jewish view that Deuteronomy was dictated by Moses to God just before Moses’s death, which, in turn, was just before the entry of Israel into the Promised Land. 39 When the Second Temple was still standing.

274

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

long forbearance of an infinitely merciful God—of His averted, yet at length falling wrath—of our exile, our persecution, and misery— all which Moses himself foretold;40 and yet our never-dying hope, our incentive for constancy, even through the flames of martyrdom, or the more lingering martyrdom of a crushed spirit and broken heart; the imperative necessity of a return unto the Lord through humility and righteousness, trusting in Him to purify and save. All this must now be added to the parental instruction enforced by Moses: and all this is equally demanded from the mother as from the father, would they receive to its full extent the reverence ordained by God Himself. For not by precept alone must this instruction be given. The young spirit must be led by example as well as exhortation. Let him see that the instructions of his parents come from the heart as well as lips—influence their thoughts, words, and actions—nay, their very being—and never need they despair. However long it may be before the fruit they have sown appear, it will spring ‘into beautiful maturity at last, and shed its purest fragrance in that hour when the faithful mother watches the rapid approach of that last struggle which shall wing her spirit to the footstool of her God. Will, then, the Hebrew mother rest content with the station assigned her by the ignorant and the prejudiced, and not strain every nerve, rouse every energy, to make the command of the Eternal for her children to honor and fear her, easy, and joyous to obey? She has done, and she does this! Not a slur, not a stigma, not a shadow can be flung upon the conduct of Hebrew mothers to their offspring. Neglect, injustice, partiality, want of affection, harshness, coldness flung by fashion between mother and child, that littleness and jealousy which would keep back youthful loveliness for a longer individual reign,—such things may be known— may be common—among other nations, but to the Hebrew they are utterly unknown. It is easy to assert that the woman of Israel is degraded and a slave; but did such false accusers visit a domestic circle—did they but see a Hebrew mother and her children—they would find it difficult to prove it. Then let every son of Israel receive 40

See Deut. 28:15–68.

SECOND PERIOD. II. THE EXODUS

275

such religious training from his mother, in addition, or rather closely twined, to the moral and intellectual education she has so long given, that he may be ready, from his very boyhood, indignantly to repudiate the charge, and prove, by his whole conduct— alike in public career, as well as his domestic reverence and love— that his mother is as free in the sight of man, as responsible in the sight of God, and as much the possessor of an immortal spirit as his father and himself. To the Mosaic religion, then, and to no other, does not only Israel, but every other nation by whom the Bible is acknowledged divine, owe the elevation, the dignity, the holiness of woman as a MOTHER, a position marked out by God Himself, and proclaimed and held sacred, not only by the awful threat of punishment, but by the solemn promise of divine reward. How sacred then to every son and daughter of Israel must be their duty to their parents! Disobedience, neglect, scorn, are no longer capital offences according to the justice of man; but, oh! let us not for one moment forget, that the same God who commanded that such they should be, is watching over Israel still, will demand from every child if His command has been obeyed—from every parent if they have done their duty, and taught their children from earliest years, that disobedience to them is disobedience to their God, and in His eyes, and in His law, a capital offence. Were this truth more constantly, more impressively enforced, the reciprocal duties of parent and child would be more easily and more happily fulfilled, and the heart-burnings, the anguish, occasioned to parents by neglect and unkindness, and the rebellion and constant struggles of their offspring to fling off an authority which has never been exerted in infancy, and so must gall in youth, alike be at an end, and Israel’s homes, as well as Israel’s law, proclaim the guiding spirit and loving mercy of the Lord.

CHAPTER III. LAWS FOR THE WIVES OF ISRAEL The laws instituted for the protection, the position, the duties, of the wives of Israel, were more peculiar to the manners and customs of the East only, than those relative to mothers, which can be obeyed and attended to in every age and clime. Still much was instituted, even with regard to wives, which marked and fixed their position, and decidedly elevated woman in the scale of being, and proved that, though, as was just and wise, “her desires must bow to her husband, and he should rule over her,”1 yet that this rule was to be one of perfect confidence and love. It has always appeared a mystery, how any person, even among the Gentiles, who has seriously reflected on, and studied the word of God, can assert that it was only through the preaching of Jesus and his apostles that woman took her proper station, and those ordinances were given, which restrained the passions of men, and made marriage a pure and holy tie.2 Centuries before the advent of Christianity, those laws were given, which, regarding and prohibiting too near consanguinity in marriage, are acknowledged and obeyed by the whole civilized world.3 Where do we find, amid Cf. Gen. 3:16 where woman’s punishment for her share in violating the prohibition of eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge includes the following: “and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.” 2 Here Aguilar refers to Sandford [Elizabeth =], Mrs. John Sandford, Woman in Her Social and Domestic Character (cited at the beginning of Aguilar’s Introduction to The Women of Israel ), 54 3 She refers to the list of prohibited marriages found in Lev. 18 where virtually all of the prohibited marriages/sexual encounters are formulated 1

277

278

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

the Gentile nations, the purity, the chastity, the stainless virtue of woman, to the extent which is still the glory of Israel, and which owes its origin simply to the laws which were issued by the Lord through Moses; seeming, indeed, most terribly severe, but blessed in their very severity by the beautiful purity in Israel which they wrought? Were the law of Moses universally received, how different would be the aspect of the world! Polygamy was permitted in Israel, at the period of the delivery of the law, simply because the Eternal’s mercy would not interfere with an immemorial usage, which his wisdom knew, from local customs and long-indulged habit, would demand violence to be relinquished. The laws He instituted in no way interfered with those habits of His people which custom had endeared; His prescience leaving to time that improvement and greater refinement of the human race, which demands ages to accomplish, but which would at length fling aside of itself every fetter that once had linked it to the customs of less enlightened nations. The Eternal never works by superhuman agency, when His gracious plans can be accomplished without it.4 “A thousand years in His sight are but as yes-

as “the nakedness of ... thou shalt not uncover.” Consequently, incest, adultery, and male homosexuality (lesbianism is not mentioned in Hebrew Scripture, which, therefore, cannot be invoked to prohibit it!) are all referred to in halakhic literature as gilluy ‘arayot ‘uncovering of nakednesses’, which term is therefore commonly translated “incest and adultery” while in Modern Hebrew the originally more inclusive term gilluy ‘arayot is used to refer to incest and sexual abuse within the family. 4 Aguilar here argues that the human legislation enacted by Rabbenu Gershom, which banned polygamy among Ashkenazic Jewry (the Jews of England, France, Northern Italy, and the rest of central and eastern Europe) c. 1000 C.E. and the similar customary monogamy among the Sephardic (i.e., Iberian) Jews, who settled in the lands of Christendom as having come about by way of what modern liberal Jews called “progressive revelation,” which is to say the slow unfolding of what should have been implicit in the original revelation from Heaven through Moses but which mortals were able to absorb and appreciate only much later.

SECOND PERIOD. III. LAWS FOR THE WIVES OF ISRAEL 279 terday when passed, and as a watch in the night;”5 but His infinite wisdom knew, that, to finite man, that period is ever fraught with progression, and His omniscience leaves to time, according to the reckoning of humanity, the effect of His law in the amelioration and improvement of the human race. Our very banishment amid the nations, a banishment occasioned by Israel’s sinful abuse of the tender mercies of the Lord6—by his retrogression instead of advancement, in the glorious career to which he was destined—by his indulgence of every guilty passion, and utter forgetfulness of his fathers’ God to bow down before the idols of his idolatrous wives7—this very banishment will purify Israel from the grosser part of his Eastern nature, and render him fitted, by increase of purity and refinement, to become once more the first born of the Lord,8 from whose beautiful land those laws shall issue once again, to emanate in reviving light and gladness over the whole world.9 Ps. 90:4. The entire psalm is especially familiar to Jews, who attend synagogue services, because it is recited in the Morning Service of Sabbath and Festivals (see De Sola, Forms of Prayer, 76; ArtScroll Siddur, 378–381. 6 The idea that the Jews were dispersed among the nations of the world because of their sins is rooted in the warnings of Lev. 26:33 and Deut. 29:28; and it is expressed also in Jer. 7:15; and Ezek. 4:13. The idea is expressed also in the ‘Additional Service’ for festivals in which the Jew prays, “Because of our sins we were exiled from our land” (see ArtScroll Siddur, 678–679). Also rooted in the Torah and the Prophets is the promise that if the Jews repent, in the course of time they will be restored to the Land of Israel. See, e.g., Lev. 26:40–46; Deut. 30:1–4; Jer. 32:37–44; Ezek. 39:25–29. 7 Cf. Deut. 7:3–4 and Neh. 13:23–27. 8 The source for this idea is Ex. 4:22 where God says to Moses, “And thou shalt say unto Pharaoh, Thus saith the LORD, Israel is my son, even my firstborn.” 9 Isa. 2:3: “For out of Zion shall go forth the law [Heb. Torah] and the word of the LORD from Jerusalem.” In this classic example of chiastic synonymous parallelism, Zion and Jerusalem are synonymous as are Torah and ‘the word of the LORD’. Because the never-abandoned hope for the restoration of the people of Israel to the land of Israel is intertwined with Isaiah’s vision of Torah going forth from Zion, the movement to 5

280

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

But, though permitted by the Mosaic law, polygamy was so restricted, that the protection, happiness, and well-doing of both wives were provided for; no partiality could permit injustice; the man that did so was punishable by law. “If a man have two wives, the one beloved and the other hated, and they have borne him children, both the beloved and the hated, and if the first-born son be hers that is hated, then it shall be, when he maketh his sons to inherit all that he hath, that he may not make the son of the beloved first born before the son of the hated, which is indeed the. first born, but he shall acknowledge the son’ of the hated for the first born, by giving him a double portion of all that he hath.”10 The Hebrew term translated hated here, as in the case of Leah, does not signify so strong a feeling, but simply the one less beloved than the other.11 And, as had already been practically illustrated in the wives of the Patriarch Jacob, this law provides for, and fixes the perfect equality of both; guarding the less beloved from all the evil effects of indiscriminate partiality, and utterly preventing the father from doing injustice to her offspring. The care taken of every member of a Jewish family—from the strongest to the weakest—by the law of God, would, had that law been obeyed, have effectually prevented that fearful abuse of the Lord’s mercy in not interfering with the ancient customs of His people, which in the time of the monarchy so disgraced and desecrated Israel. But let not the scoffer cast the odium of such abuse on the Jewish Law. That law was pure—infused with the love, the compassion, the fostering care, the justice, and the severity of the God from whom it came. Its OBEDIENCE would have wrought “the days of heaven upon the earth.”12 Its DISOBEDIENCE, springing from the innate sinfulness hasten the fulfillment of that dream by natural means came to be called “Zionism.” 10 Deut. 22:15–17. 11 See the discussion of this point, above, p. 201, n. 36 in connection with Jacob’s loving Rachel more than Leah. 12 Here Aguilar refers to Deut. 11:21, which promises that if the people of Israel will obey the precepts of the Torah and teach them to their children “your days will be multiplied, and the days of your children, in the land which the LORD sware unto your fathers to give them, as the

SECOND PERIOD. III. LAWS FOR THE WIVES OF ISRAEL 281 of man, wrought evil from the good, and plunged the whole nation of Israel into that fearful abyss of crime, which could only be expiated by ages of misery and blood. But though allowed to exist without being considered a crime at the period of the redemption from Egypt, for the reasons stated above, the laws of Moses, relating to conjugal duties, provided for one wife alone,13 thus proving the superior and holier purity of such unions in the sight of God, and thus forcibly marking the distinction between those customs which were to last for ever, through every age, and race, and clime, and those which were merely nationalized from previous habit and association. The oneness of heart and feeling, of purpose and obedience, which was ordained by God Himself, from the very beginning, to days of the heaven upon the earth.” That verse is the final verse of the second paragraph (Deut. 11:13–21) of the Shema which a traditional Jew and a traditional Jewess, like Grace Aguilar, recites every morning after arising and every night before retiring and in the course of the morning and evening prayers at home and in the synagogue every day of the year. Both the first (Deut. 6:4–9) and the second paragraphs of the Shema are found also in the mezuzzah, which is found on the outer doorpost of every room (except the bathroom) of every traditional Jewish home) and at least on the outer doorpost of the entrance to most Jewish homes the world over. These two passages from Deuteronomy are also found in the tefillin, which are worn by Jewish men (and also more and more Jewish women in the post-modern era) during prayer on weekday mornings. See illustrations 3–5. 13 In fact, Ex. 21:10 states, “If he take him another wife; her [the first wife’s] food, her raiment, and her duty of marriage, shall he not diminish.” In the Hebrew ‘if he take’ is an idiomatic expression meaning ‘if he marry’ while the Heb. expression ’aheret is feminine in gender and thus conveys by itself the meaning ‘another wife’, which KJV must clarify by the additional of the expression wife in italics. The precise meaning of the Hebrew expression ‘onatah remains an enigma. KJV’s ‘duty of marriage’ reflects the halakhic view that the three minimal demands upon a husband in marriage is to provide every wife with food, clothing, and sexual relations at reasonable and regular intervals; see, inter alia, Mayer I. Gruber, “The Midrash in Biblical Research,” in Gruber, Motherhood, 223–230.

282

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

exist between husband and wife,14 and which could only spring from perfect equality, is most beautifully infused throughout the law. Inferred from the simple fact, that in every recorded instance of enumeration at festivals,15 eating of holy meats,16 obedience to This idea is certainly conveyed by the two accounts of the creation of humankind in Gen. 1–2. According to Gen. 1:26–27 ’adam ‘humankind’ was from the beginning male and female while according to Gen. 2:21–24 the male and female were separated from each other so that men and women grow up and seek out their respective missing halves. On these texts and Aguilar’s interpretation of them, see above, p. 135. Note also that the Damascus Covenant Document, which was found in the Cairo Genizah at the end of the 19th century C.E. and which clearly belongs to the sectarian documents of the Dead Sea Scrolls, as evidenced by ancient copies of parts of this document having been found in Qumran Cave #4, invokes Gen. 2 with its description of a man (Adam) and his one wife (Eve) as an argument for the Torah’s requiring monogamy. The author(s) of that document clearly derived the belief in monogamy from his/her/their interpretation of Lev. 18:18, which they understood to mean, “You shall not marry a woman along with another woman,” but which their opponents the Pharisees (who believed that the Torah allowed polygamy) interpreted to mean “You may not marry a woman along with her sister.” Consequently, while the Damascus Covenant Scroll refers to Lev. 18:18, it prefers to invoke also Gen. 2 in hopes of convincing also Pharisees, who shared with the sectarian legislator the same literal understanding of Gen. 2 as saying that in Paradise there was only one man and one woman per family unit. 15 Ex. 23:12–19; Ex. 34:21–26; Lev. 23; Num. 28–29; Deut. 16:1–15. Aguilar is undoubtedly correct. Otherwise, we would have to conclude from the inclusion in Deut. 16:11 and 14 of “thy daughter ... thy maidservant ... and the widow” that wives were excluded but not because they were women, an interpretation, which is supported by no ancient exegetical tradition. The same reasoning would have to be used in order to conclude, contrary to Aguilar and Jewish tradition, that when the Decalogue (Ex. 20:10 = Deut. 5:14) bestows the blessing of Sabbath leisure upon daughter and maidservant it discriminated against the married woman, who, after all, was someone’s daughter! The exception to the rule of the implicit inclusion of the married woman in the ‘thou’ who is called upon to observe the Sabbath and the festivals is the thrice yearly festival pil14

SECOND PERIOD. III. LAWS FOR THE WIVES OF ISRAEL 283 commandments,17 &c., the wife is not distinctly mentioned, although every other domestic relation is expressly stated. As one with her husband, the wife was included in the emphatic thou, to whom the command or ordinance was addressed. The children and servants of a household might have rebelliously turned aside from the precepts of the Lord, but the wife’s duty and happiness were one with her husband’s. Her will was his, when that will was guided and sanctified by the will of God. That she could require the divine grimage, which is required only of “your males” in Ex. 23:17; 34:23; and Deut. 16:16. Gruber, “Women in the Cult According to the Priestly Code,” notes that indeed it was customary in the era of the Judges for whole families including married women to attend festival pilgrimage at Shiloh as recorded in the narrative of Hannah in 1 Sam. 1. However, it is pointed out there, it was Hannah who called for the exemption of nursing women from the stress and strain of travelling long distances (this was before the invention of motorcars!) to attend festival pilgrimages. Moreover, Gruber, there, p. 52 argued that this particular exemption would account for the partial exemption of women from positive time-bound precepts in Mishnah, Kiddushin 1:7, which, unfortunately, has been misconstrued to convey the idea that women are second-class persons in the Jewish religion. In any case, the exemption does not apply to negative precepts (the prohibition of work on the Sabbath and the Day of Atonement; the prohibition of many forms of work on festivals; the prohibition of eating leaven during Passover), fasting on the Day of Atonement and other fast days. 16 The flesh of the sacrifice of peace offerings with the exception of specific portions that are burnt and specific portions that are given to the priests is consumed by the woman or man who presented the offering together with her/his family. See Lev. 7:15–21 and the classic Rabbinic commentary Sifra, ad loc. Moreover, all members of the family of a priest, both male and female were entitled to eat the so-called ‘heave offering’ or terumah, which was assigned to the priest from fruits and vegetables and grain: “everyone that is clean in thy house shall eat it” (Num. 18:11), and the same applies to the first fruits (Num. 18:13). 17 Otherwise, we would have to assume that women are exempt from the prohibitions against murder, adultery, bearing false witness, stealing, and coveting, found on the second of the two tablets of the Decalogue (Ex. 20:13–17 = Deut. 5:17–21).

284

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

command individually to keep holy the Sabbath day, to share the feast of the offerings, &c., was a supposition too utterly at variance with her duty as a daughter and wife in Israel, to demand a distinct law; being counted amongst those to whom Moses proclaimed, “When all Israel is come to appear before the Lord thy God, in the place which He shall choose, thou shalt read this law before all Israel in their hearing; Gather the people together, men, women, and children, and the stranger that is within thy gates, that they may hear, and that they may learn, and fear the Lord your God, and observe to do all the words of this law,”18 no Hebrew wife could have needed more, for she, as well as her husband—one with him— was the recipient, the obeyer, and the promulgator of every law in which there was no specified distinction of individual duties. That the omission of wife in the commandments and ordinances which specify other members of the family, cannot be taken in any other light, is proved by the fact, that wherever there was a possibility of her occupying a distinct position, or being engaged in any devices or employments contrary to the will of her husband, she is expressly named. “Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s wife”19 is emphatically commanded by the same Divine Voice which omitted her, or rather included her in the “thou” to whom the fourth of the same precepts,20 whence the line we have quoted was the tenth,21 was Deut. 31:11–12; Gruber, “Breast-Feeding Practices in Ancient Israel,” 27 notes that by requiring that not only men and women but also hattaph (KJV copied out by Aguilar translates “children”; the term refers to little children who are still nursing) made it possible for nursing mothers to attend the public proclamation of the law once in seven years without fear that some man appointed as an usher might throw his weight around and suggest that women who cannot be separated from their nursing babies should stay at home and attend to the cooking and cleaning! 19 The second clause of the tenth commandment in Ex. 20:17. In Deut. 5:21, however, it is the first clause, and the verb ‘desire’ replaces ‘covet’ in the clause forbidding one to want the neighbor’s wife. 20 I.e., the fourth commandment of the Ten Commandments, namely, “Remember/Observe the Sabbath to keep it holy.” 21 I.e., the tenth of the Ten Commandments. 18

SECOND PERIOD. III. LAWS FOR THE WIVES OF ISRAEL 285 given. Thus guarding her safety, and prohibiting the very first thought towards her which could have led to sin. Again, “if thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or the friend whom thou lovest as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, ‘Let us go and serve other gods, whom thou hast not known, thou nor thy fathers,’ &c., thou shalt not consent unto him, nor hearken unto him; neither shall thine eye pity, neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him.”22 Here, in intimate conjunction with the preceding commandment, is a positive mention of the wife, supposing her to be actuated by feelings and principles so distinct from her husband, as to tempt him to sin. The omission of wives in ordinances where every other member of the household is named, is not then in any way whatever to suppose her a nonentity, a mere name in Israel, but simply to mark her oneness with her husband, in every duty to her God, and in every command and restriction of His law addressed to the CHILDREN” of Israel, and, therefore, binding on them BOTH. “When a man has taken a wife, he shall not go out to war; neither shall he be charged with any business, but he shall be free at home for one year.”23 Were this the whole law, we might justly suppose that the happiness of man was alone regarded; but it is not so. Why was this year of release granted him? For his own enjoyment? his own pleasure? No I but to “cheer up”—or, in other words, to make happy—the wife which he had taken.24 Words how exquisitely descriptive of the Eternal’s tender sympathy in the earthly happiness of his children! He condescended to enter into the minute details of domestic life; He guarded even their earthly happiness from all contingencies, and proved that he demanded not His love to be realized only in sorrow, but that joy, chastened, spiritualized by gratitude and love, was equally acceptable and blessed. Man might find happiness apart from his wife, even in the first year of his marriage. The exciting call of war, or the grosser and more engrossing claims of business, might easily obtain such doDeut. 13:6–8. Deut. 24:5. 24 The final clause of Deut. 24:5. 22 23

286

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

minion as to render him less careful of his home, less anxious for the happiness of his wife, than were he free. Woman has no such claims to share her heart with her husband. Almost more than any other time in her young existence does she need the protecting care and fostering tenderness of man, in the first year of her wedded life. She has left the home of her youth, the fond parents who had lavished on her such love and care, that it seems strange how she can possibly exist without them. She has turned from her occupations, the amusements of her early years, dear from long association, to enter into an entirely new scene, new feelings, new duties, new responsibilities: and for guidance and support, under her God, looks with justice to her husband alone. She may be called upon to battle with sickness and with pain, and she has no longer a mother beside her to give her the fond cares of a tender nurse, and take from her all household duties. She has turned from all for the love of One! And how may she be happy if that one be torn from her by the call to war, perhaps never to return, or by civil duties? which, though the lesser evil, might yet check the daily intercourse of mutual love and confidence for which she pines? But, left “free for one year,” how much of felicity, not only for the present, but the future, would that single ordinance bring to both. And must not we, the lineal descendants of those to whom such a revelation of God’s love was given, feel, to our heart’s core, that God is indeed the God of love which he proclaimed Himself to Moses? Surely no woman of Israel can fear to approach Him, deeming Him a being too awfully holy to look on such as her, when that unapproachable holiness is veiled by such a flood of irradiating love towards her individually, that she is more than weak, is guilty, if she keep aloof, and refuse, under the mistaken plea of too great unworthiness, to clasp the mercy proffered, and fold its healing balsam to her heart. God would not bid us love Him,25 if we were This command is contained in the second verse of the 1st paragraph of the Shema (on which see above, p. 29 n. 16), Deut. 6:5: “Thou shalt love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might.” This command “to love the LORD your God” addressed to Israel in the plural is found in the second paragraph of the Shema in Deut. 11:13. The people of Israel are enjoined “to love the 25

SECOND PERIOD. III. LAWS FOR THE WIVES OF ISRAEL 287 too unworthy so to do. He would not in His every law, His every promise, demonstrate His compassionating care, His appealing love, His long-suffering mercy, did He deem us too unworthy to receive them. Can the flower that gems the grass give back the loving care that there hath placed, guards, and will renew it? Can the bird give back the fostering love which guards its fragile form, teaches the construction of its tiny nest, and guards its helpless young? Can the insect know and return the Father’s love that guards its gossamer life, blesses it with acute sensation, and endows it with such wisdom in the construction of its web, nest, or cell, as to excite man’s envy? Yet, has not the Eternal care for these? and will not therefore all Nature confirm His precious word, and tell us He has equal care and equal love for us? True, we have sinned—we do sin—and, alas! will sin again, till that blessed day when the “stony heart shall be replaced with a heart of flesh,”26 which will, unsullied by mortal frailties, cleave unto the Lord. Yet God has given us power to struggle with and resist the evil, if we cannot in this world wholly conquer it. He has told us, that “His ways are not our ways,”27 and, therefore, however incomprehensible to finite man, “in HIM shall the SEED of ISRAEL be justified, and shall glory.”28 He has taught us in infinite compassion, what we must DO, and how FEEL, to be acceptable in His sight; not in the law alone, for if we study only that in our captivity, we shall be appalled by the ordinances we cannot now perform, but in His prophets and

LORD your God” also in Deut. 11:22; Josh. 22:5; and 23:11 while the individual Israelite is enjoined in the singular “to love the LORD thy God” in Deut. 19:9; 30:6, 16, 20; “and to love Him” in Deut. 10:12. In Isa. 56:6 it is noted that one of the things which “children of the stranger who join themselves to the LORD” (later they will be called proselytes and still more recently “Jews by choice”) do which sets them apart from children of the stranger who do not “join themselves to the LORD,” is “to love the Name of the LORD.” 26 Ezek. 11:19; 36:26. 27 Cf. Isa. 55:8: “For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD.” 28 Isa. 45:25.

288

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

the Psalms, which, as rules of conduct and of feeling, will give us all we need. As a statute of the Israelitish state, the law we have been considering is no longer obeyed; it cannot be, for we are net now in our own land; but it is the spirit of the ordinance which so nearly concerns us, more especially as women. To recognise to its full extent the distinction between the ways of God and the ways of man, so beautifully displayed in this our law, let us think one moment on the policy actuating leaders and lawgivers of more modern times, men professing to be guided by the spirit of love and peace. Where, in feudal times, do we find provision thus made for the newly-wedded?29 A stigma, never to be blotted out, would have clung round the name and reputation of Aguilar refers again to Deut. 24:5, discussed above. Henry H. Shires and Pierson Parker, “The Book of Deuteronomy—Exposition,” in Interpreter’s Bible (12 vols.; New York & Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1953), 2:456 would seem to concur with Aguilar’s evaluation of Deut. 24:5 when they declare, “No other ancient code was so generous.” In fact, Jeffrey H. Tigay, Deuteronomy, JPS Torah Commentary (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1996), 222 points out that the exemption of newly-married men from military service is reflected also in the Ugaritic Keret Epic from the Late Bronze Age, in which the normal exemption is overridden since the purpose of the contemplated war is to obtain a wife for King Keret; so also Duane L. Christensen, Deuteronomy 21:10–34:2, Word Bible Commentary, vol. 6 (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2002), 567. Interestingly enough, Mishnah, Sotah 8:7 declares, however, that the exemption of the newly-wedded husband from military service does not apply in a purely defensive war. In the latter case, the Mishnah declares, “Even a bridegroom leaves his chamber, and a bride her bridal chamber.” One might even assume that the latter passage in the Mishnah suggests that in a defensive war both men and women are conscripted for military service. Interestingly, B. D. Klein in his translation of Tractate Sotah in The Babylonian Talmud Translation into English under the Editorship of I. Epstein (London: Soncino Press, 1936), 223, n. 6 adds the following: “The women provided food for the troops.” Significantly, this understanding of gender roles is not found either in the standard commentary on the Mishnah by Obadiah of Bertinoro (c. 1450 – c. 1516 C.E.) or in the standard commentary on the Babylonian Talmud by Rashi (1040–1105 C.E.). 29

SECOND PERIOD. III. LAWS FOR THE WIVES OF ISRAEL 289 that man who would not turn from his home and young wife, even on his marriage day, at the first rude call to lawless, and often most unnecessary war. Where do we find lawgivers, princes, and nobles, ever taking into consideration the comfort and peace, we will not even say happiness, of their female followers? Where were laws ever issued for her, to guard with fostering tenderness her gentle virtues, her clinging affections, her domestic charms? Where, save in the law of God? To attract attention, to win respect, to obtain protection, she was compelled to be more great than good, to leave her natural sphere, and manifest fortitude, bravery, and devotedness, qualities indeed excellent in themselves, but, as proved in the middle ages, only valued for their near relation to the qualities of the warrior, and departure from woman’s ordinary habits and home. And by what thousands of suffering women, of all ages, must these characteristics have been unattainable, and in consequence how many thousands left to all the misery of deserted homes, crushed affections, and the countless nameless tortures borne by woman in a lonely unprotected path? And much later than the feudal times, a period but very little removed into the past,—shall we say the horrible conscription which devastated France, and every conquered territory owning Buonaparte30 as master, manifested that care of woman, that tender sympathy in her every feeling, which we are told is only found with the believers in the gospel? We must judge of the divinity of laws by the spirit which, from their observance, emanates over those to whom they are binding. The Jewish law is, on many points, during our captivity, impossible to be observed. Yet we see the spirit of its ancient ordinances still guiding our homesteads, impelling the gentlest and most confiding spirit towards woman in every relation of life. The Hebrew may scarcely be conscious what actuates his tenderness towards his wife and children, but it comes from the spirit of that law, given to his fathers, in which woman was marked as the especial care and protection of the Lord. The law, in form, like the human frame, may die for a time, but the spirit of the ordinances, like the soul of the body, is immortal, and will revive again the shell from which awhile it may have flown. 30

Sic.

290

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

The law of Vows is considered by some derogatory to the dignity of woman, by rendering her liable to the will of her husband, and subject to his approval, even in her devoting herself to her God.31 We will endeavor to prove that the supposition is mistaken. Equally acceptable and responsible as man in the sight of God, still, as we have said before, her desires were to bow to her husband.” She neglected her conjugal duty if she pursued any course, even under the pretence of religious motives, contrary. to his will. A singular vow demanded a voluntary relinquishment of domestic duties and enjoyments, to devote herself in some way to His service; it is generally supposed in some employments of the Tabernacle, or in the service of His poor, or in the “binding oath to afflict the soul,”32 giving herself up for a certain time to individual fast and prayer.33 Now few women in Israel, except orphaned single women, and childless widows, could be so independently situated as to make and follow up these vows without interfering with some nearer domestic duty. Woman’s sphere in the law of God, without doubt, is HOME; her noblest attraction, devotedness to those with whom she is there thrown in daily intercourse. Some women there Here she refers to Num. 30, which she discussed previously in Period II., Chapter II; see above, p. 259. 32 Num. 30:13. 33 Indeed, the expression ‘afflict the soul’ elsewhere means ‘to fast’. It appears with reference to the Day of Atonement in Lev. 16:29, 31 (the principal reading from the Torah at the Morning Service of the Day of Atonement); 23:27,32; Num. 29:7 (the maftir read from a second Torah Scroll on the Morning of the Day of Atonement); and Isa. 58:3, 5 (the haftarah or prophetic lection for the Morning of the Day of Atonement). Halakhah finds support in the five occurrences of the expression under consideration in Lev. 16; 23 and Num. 29 for the tradition that there are five distinct ‘afflictions’, which is to say activities prohibited and avoided on the Day of Atonement and the Fast of the Ninth of Av. These are 1) eating and drinking; 2) anointing (i.e., use of cosmetics), 3) bathing; 4) wearing leather shoes; and 5) sexual intercourse. Consequently, one of the Hebrew terms for a fast is ta‛anit ‘affliction’, which is derived from the verb ‘innah ‘afflict’, which is employed in Num. 30:13 and the other texts cited in this note. 31

SECOND PERIOD. III. LAWS FOR THE WIVES OF ISRAEL 291 are, who find not only duty, but pleasure there—not only love, but safety. Others again, restless and discontented, fancy they should be happier, and better, and more useful, anywhere but where they are, and gladly seize the first pretence to turn aside. Spiritual devotedness is too often a worldly snare, and the pride of holiness the most dangerous temptation which can possibly assail us. We have often heard (amongst the Gentiles indeed, not amongst ourselves, for we have unhappily too few enthusiasts of any kind) of what is termed a saint (we abhor the falsity of the term, but we are using now the language of the world). One avowedly devoted to the cause of religion; passing hours in her closet, surrounded by religious books, all, we may observe, commentaries, but not the Word of Life itself; or. with religious friends, wearing a peculiar dress, and most peculiar manners; visiting the poor, more often with tracts than food; censuring every innocent amusement as profane, and temptations of Satan; bearing words of humility on the lips, but of pride in heart; outwardly condemning and abhorring her own sins, but inwardly thanking God that she is so much holier than others; robing religion in such dark and terrible colors, that the young spirit shrinks from it, and plunges in the world with renewed zest, to escape from the faintest semblance of its acceptance.34 If there be such, mistaken they certainly are; but their judgment rests with Him whom they seek after their own thoughts to serve, not with their brother man, who, without some more true and sacred guide, might equally be led astray. We have merely alluded to this class of religious enthusiasts, more clearly to manifest the evil which the law of vows effectually excluded, but which,

Constantly defending Judaism against the accusations of those who would improve the lot of Jew and Jewess by encouraging them to accept Christianity, Aguilar seems here not to have drawn the conclusion that perhaps she might follow her own advice to others and give the religious virtuosi of other faiths, particularly the Roman Catholic nuns, the benefit of her doubt as to the efficacy of their acts of piety. Ironically, she takes the opportunity in this same paragraph to cast aspersions also at the Jewish people, among whom she knows “too few enthusiasts of any kind.” 34

292

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

without such law, might, from the holiness pervading God’s people, have been more than likely to ensue. Man did not need such restraint upon his “singular vows;” because, in the first place, he was more independent than woman; in the next, reason, not feeling,35 being his guide, he was not likely to fall into the temptation of ill-regulated enthusiasm, even in his holiest and dearest duty. Woman’s guide in general is feeling: she is a creature of impulse, ever likely, unless strongly yet tenderly restrained, to turn aside from the safer and less excitable path of daily duty, wherever the affections or the enthusiasm of the moment may lead. More especially is she likely to fall into this temptation when first awakened to the claims, and beauty, and comfort of religion. The simple duties of home then seem little worth, compared to the service of heaven. Herself, her parents and brothers, husband and children, appear of slender consequence compared to the state of her affections and faith towards God. The perfect compatibility of her duties towards God and towards man is unperceived. She cannot realize that the unfatiguing, unexciting duties of domestic usefulness, infused with thoughts of God and of His word, is the path most acceptable to Him; and severing, instead of uniting, she neglects what she deems the lesser, to pursue the greater duty. Many avenues were open to the wives of Israel to tempt the taking “singular vows.” The birth of children, the recovery from illness, escape from danger, receipt of some unexpected blessing, dread of impending sorrow, or misfortune extraordinarily averted, and sin repented of, all these might, in the close links which, when the law was given, bound Israel to the Lord, and in the warm passionate emotions of Eastern women, have impelled either the vow of service, to make manifest their thanksgiving, or the vow of affliction by fasting and prayer, to propitiate the Lord and turn away His wrath. And this vow might be taken in a moment of strong feeling, without sufficient thought as to the possibility of its performance, without interfering with the comforts of her husband and children, or her duties to her household. Was it not, then, just and wise, that

Aguilar is consistent in this her judgment concerning the differences between men and women. See above, pp. 26-31. 35

SECOND PERIOD. III. LAWS FOR THE WIVES OF ISRAEL 293 the impetuous feeling of woman should be guided and tenderly restrained by the calmer, stronger reason and foresight of man? But that this dependence on her husband in no way subjected her to this caprice is proved by the law which we will extract a length. “If a woman shall vow a vow unto the Lord, and bind herself by a bond ... . And if she had at all a husband when she vowed or uttered aught out of her lips wherewith she bound her soul; and her husband heard it, and held peace at her in the day that he heard it, then her vows shall stand, and her bonds wherewith she bound her soul shall stand. But if her husband disallowed her on the day that he heard, then he shall make her vows which she vowed, and that which she uttered with her lips, wherewith she bound her soul, of none effect, and the Lord shall forgive her ... . Every vow, and every binding oath to afflict the soul, her husband may establish it, or her husband may make it void. But if her husband hold his peace at her from day to day, then he established all her vows, or all he?’ bonds which are upon her. He confirmeth them, because he held his peace at her in the day that he heard them. And if he shall any ways make them void, after that he hath heard them, THEN HE SHALL BEAR HER INIQUITY.” (Numbers xxx. 3, 6, 7, 8, 13, 14, 15.) We here find most particular care taken to shield woman from that indecision and caprice from which she is so often the innocent sufferer. The honor, respect, and deference which should characterize a wife’s conduct and feelings towards her husband, are first enforced. For the unperformed vow, or the breaking the vows of the lips, the Lord will forgive her, because they have been disallowed by her husband. But they must be disallowed when taken. If from indecision, or weakness, or unkindness, in the determination to thwart the wishes of his wife, he neither forbids nor confirms, but remains silent, that silence, in the sight of God and to his wife, is CONFIRMATION.36 He has no power capriciously to prevent the fulfilment of her bond or vow by declaring that silence is not consent, and he does not choose that her vow shall be performed. He cannot do this. His very caprice is effectually prevented, for, if he acts thus, Indeed, there is an halakhic principle: “Silence is the legal equivalent of assent.” See Babylonian Talmud, Yevamot 87b. 36

294

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

the woman’s breach of vows will indeed be forgiven to her, but HE SHALL BEAR ITS INIQUITY,—a law whose beautiful justice marks its divine origin more forcibly than almost any other guiding the conduct of husband and wife. No human legislator could have enacted it, for what lawgiver of earth could have gone so deeply into the very heart of man, and guarded the domestic relations of life from such petty yet constant misery as caprice? One most consoling truth we learn by this law: it is in itself a direct and positive refutation of the charge brought against us, that Jewish women have no access to God—no right whatever to interfere with the requirements and ordinances of religion. Were woman the creature of a day, passing hence to be no more, with neither hope of reward nor liability to wrath, beyond this world, why should she have the power of making vows at all; and so solemnly, that did man interfere with their due performance, he should bear her iniquity, and woman—aye, the despised and degraded woman—should be forgiven? The candid and unprejudiced reader of the word of life, be his faith what it may, must perceive how mistaken is such a charge; and let not, then, our young sisters be tempted to quit their native fold for another, where they are told greater privileges await them, both as women and as immortal beings. Let them not be terrified by the charge that, as Jewish women, they are soulless slaves. But let them come to the word of God, and prove that there is their shield, there is their defence. That there their God Himself has revealed a love and care for His weaker children, too deeply, too nearly, too blessedly for them to need aught else; that there is their hope, as there is their consolation. Yet more to protect his feebler creation from the fierce passions and unjust accusations of Eastern natures, the Most High, in his infinite mercy, instituted the law of jealousy, an awful and most terrible law, yet one which every innocent woman must have hailed with thankfulness, and which every guilty woman must have died ere she could have faced. The various sins prohibited by the voice of God Himself, in His Ten Commandments, are all in His sight of equal magnitude, and, therefore, without any reservation whatever, were all punishable with death. And well had it been for the purity, virtue, and happiness of man, had this blessed law continued in force as it was given, and thence had emanated over the whole

SECOND PERIOD. III. LAWS FOR THE WIVES OF ISRAEL 295 world. It has been called a law of fire and blood, given but to destroy and be destroyed. But the charge is false. The Eternal knew the natures of those to whom it was given—that severity was needed for the time; and had that severity been used, and the law literally and purely OBEYED, even as it was intended, each generation would have been purer and more spiritual than the former, till that holiness was at length universally attained, which would indeed have brought “the days of heaven on the earth;”37 and Israel would not now have been persecuted and tortured in some lands, and an exile and a wanderer, houseless and priestless, in them all! Adultery, even as idolatry, sabbath-breaking, murder, &c, was punishable by death.38 In Israel, the ruthless spoiler of man’s dearest shrine—his home, sacrificed not only his honor (which, however high sounding, to such characters must be but a name), not only his standing and his wealth, but his LIFE. Aye, and not the tempter only, but the wife, the mother, who could fling misery upon a tortured husband, and undying shame upon her helpless babes. Yet amid a people irascible and fierce, too liable to jealousy to examine calmly and justly, as we know is the case at this very day with every Eastern nation, a law was imperatively needed to protect the helpless and innocent, alike from false charges and a husband’s unjust hate. No man could take justice into his own hands. He dared not injure the reputation, or take the life of his wife, without having her guilt proved by God Himself. A false accusation had no power to fling shame upon her, or render her station doubtful, as it would now. The Most High Himself interfered in her defence, and This phrase, to which Aguilar gives a twist of her own, is from the final clause of Deut. 11:21, which is the second paragraph of the Shema, which Jews and Jewesses recite every morning about awaking and every night before retiring and in the morning and evening services of the synagogue and home every day of the year; this passage is also the second of two biblical passages in the mezuzzah placed on the doorpost of the Jewish home; and it is the second of four biblical passages in the tefillin worn on the arm and on the head during morning prayer on weekdays; see illustrations 3–5. 38 For death as the punishment for adultery see Lev. 20:10; Deut. 22:22. 37

296

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

proved, in the face of the whole people, her innocence and honor; as, were she guilty, He took into His own hands her punishment, and the manifestation of her guilt.39 The law of jealousy is not in general regarded by the women of Israel as it ought to be. False refinement shrinks from it as a thing perfectly unnecessary and antiquated now. Nay, perhaps as a law so horrible, so indelicate, that they wonder that it is not expunged from the Bible. By us it is welcomed as another most consoling and unanswerable proof of the Eternal’s tender mercy towards us. The full extent of its use and justice can only be realized by contrasting it with the statutes of the southern and eastern nations, with whose quick passions and excitability, Israel, when the law was given, had more in common than with the cooler and more dispassioned north.40 With the followers of Mahomet does not a mere thought, a mere suspicion, unaided by the very shadow of proof, commit the helpless woman to a watery grave, with none to interfere in her behalf, or mourn her when at rest? None to clear her name, or bring the false and cruel husband to justice and to shame? And amidst those bearing the Christian name, do not the Italian and Spaniard make as murderous use of the stiletto or the drugged cup, as the Moslem of the sack? That such misery is seldom heard of in Protestant countries, comes not from actual law, but from that See above, p. 259, n. 3. In this comment Aguilar concurs in the Orientalist attitude of westerners, who regarded people of the East as subject to their passions rather than in full control of them. On the other hand, unlike many of her European contemporaries, she regards the people of ancient Israel as, as it were, atypical of the people of their ancient, oriental cultural environment. Typical of the attribution to Eastern peoples of the inability to control one’s emotions is the following remark by G. M. Mackie, “Gestures,” in A Dictionary of the Bible, ed. James Hastings (5 vols.; New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1899–1904), 2:162b: “Gesture is much resorted to by Orientals in the communication of their thoughts and expression of their feelings ... . Where we [Europeans] control our feelings, they are controlled by them, not because the feelings are always stronger, but because the controlling power is less.” 39 40

SECOND PERIOD. III. LAWS FOR THE WIVES OF ISRAEL 297 greater civilization and refinement, which must spring from public and private communion with the BIBLE. This is the safeguard of Protestant women, and this they owe to the spirit of that law given to us by God Himself. Some among the Gentiles there are, honest and spiritual enough to acknowledge this; and from our very heart we honor such honest lovers of truth. But others, and unhappily the greater number, there are who fling shame and dishonor upon the women of the very people for whose safety those blessed laws were framed, the spirit of which is now guiding the Protestants themselves. By contrasting the law vouchsafed to us with those guiding the Gentiles of all denominations, we learn to know the true value of the blessed faith which we possess, and are armed against all insidious efforts to turn us from it. But this can never be whilst the women of Israel regard the laws of Moses only in a national and local, not in an individual view, believing that, because they are no longer in actual use, they only relate to them in their several positions in Jerusalem,41 and do not in the least concern them now. They do concern us, most nearly and most consolingly. He whose infinite mercy gave them has not cast us from His love, though, for a time, compelled for our sins to bear witness to the nations of His justice and His wrath. Yet for us, as a people, and each of us individually, He bears the same infinite long-suffering love which he bore to our ancestors in Egypt. We learn this from every prophet, who never spoke of sin without holding forth forgiveness,42 who never prophesied dispersion and banishment withI.e., when the Second Temple was still standing, which is a way of saying that the precepts of the Torah are perceived as having only historical rather than immediate ethical interest. 42 Typical is the second chapter of the Book of Joel, which begins with sounding an alarm and ends with deliverance. Equally typical is Chapter Nine of Amos, which begins with “he that fleeth of them shall not flee away” and ends with “And I will plant them upon their land, and they shall no longer be pulled up out of their land.” Likewise, the end of the Book of Malachi, which is also the end of Hebrew Bible prophecy, ends with the following: “And he shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children and the heart of the children to their fathers.” Moreover, virtually 41

298

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

out comforting with the promise of restoration; and we know the extent of our Father’s Love towards us, by every statute of His law. The interference of the Most High in cases similar to those calling for the law of jealousy, the wives of Israel may no longer need: but are there none in minor circumstances wrongfully accused? None needing a Father who knoweth every secret thought and inward struggle, to whom to look when man may wilfully wrong, or blindly misappreciate? None who struggle on in the petty, but how sadly wearing, trials of daily life, to do what seems the best, to act the kindest, to banish every throb of self, and sacrifice all of individual comfort and enjoyment to further the comfort and the wishes of another, yet finds her every effort turned against herself, and armed with acutest woe? In such cases, and who shall say there are none such, where can woman turn, but to her God? Where find consolation, save in the belief that her innocence, her efforts, rest with Him, and He will one day make them known? Where shall her heart, bleeding and torn from its earthly rest, find peace, save in His love? Oh! what woman bearing the name of Israel, can hesitate one moment to pour forth her every grief to him, and feel she is individually his care, and He will plead her cause?43 The express commands relating to the marriages of the priests44 is another beautiful proof of woman’s perfect equality in every haftarah or prophetic reading that has been chosen to be read at the conclusion of the Reading of the Torah in the synagogue ends on a note of consolation, and this note of consolation is reflected also in the singing of the haftarah, which is always in a minor key except for the final phrase, which is sung in a major key. 43 Aguilar suggests that properly understood Num. 5 contains a message for battered women and their battering husbands that at the end of the day the victim of abuse will be vindicated and that God is never on the side of the abuser. This is to say that while Brichto (cited above, p. 259, n. 3) deals with the bitter waters test episodically, Aguilar sees in the biblical account thereof a paradigm for God’s concern (that we need to make our own) in the face of gender-based violence, even if that violence consist only of allusion and innuendo. 44 Lev. 21:7, which forbids a priest [Heb. kohen], which is to say any male, who is a descendant on his father’s side of Aaron the priest, the

SECOND PERIOD. III. LAWS FOR THE WIVES OF ISRAEL 299 Israel, and compatibility to be holy unto the Lord, by sharing the holiness of his elected servants; a proof, also, that in His service the Eternal demanded no sacrifice of human affections. They were, indeed, to be sanctified to Him, to be infused with His spirit, and so to become a blessing and a joy to His servants; but never to be annihilated, and so give temptation for the most awful abuses and crimes, as in the monastic seclusions of the Roman church. The sanctity, the purity, which was to attend the wife of the priest, was a further incentive to the purity and holiness of the women in Israel. Superiority of actual ranks there was none, but superiority in virtue there was, and to gain that superiority was in the power of all women under the guidance of the law. The priests were the very highest and noblest in the sight of the people, being the elect of the Lord, and the ministers of His will. How pure, then, and holy, must have been the ambition to become worthy of selection as the priests’ wives; and how beautifully is the superior holiness and sanctity of the women of Israel brought forward by the simple fact that the priests of the Lord might only choose a wife from “their own people!”45 brother of Moses, from marrying a divorcee or a woman whose parents were a kohen and a divorcee. In the State of Israel, where no civil marriage is available, a kohen and his prospective bride, who wish to be married in contravention of Lev. 21:7, must have their marriage solemnized outside the borders of the State of Israel. 45 To be precise, it is stated in Lev. 21:14 of the “high priest,” “A widow, or a divorced woman, or profane, or an harlot, these shall he not take [i.e., ‘marry’]: but he shall take a virgin of his own people [assumed to mean the daughter of priestly lineage] to wife”; cf. Ezek. 44:22: “Neither shall they take for their wives a widow, nor her that is put away [i.e., divorced]: but they shall take maidens of the seed of the house of Israel, or a widow that had a priest before.” The latter verse would seem to support Aguilar’s view that priests [i.e., kohanim] may marry only women who were born Jewish and may not contract marriages with Jews by choice; indeed, this is the halakhah, notwithstanding the convention in the literature of halakhah that rules of halakhah cannot be derived from the books of Prophets and Hagiographa! The literature of halakhah takes it for granted that accepted precepts, which cannot be found in the Pentateuch,

300

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

It is evident, then, from every law we have regarded, that, instead of being degraded and enslaved, the wives in Israel were peculiarly and especially objects of the Eternal’s love. For their safety, their honor, those laws were issued, now recognised by the greater part of the civilized world; and all those who deny this shake the very foundations of the whole system of morality, under whatever creed it may be found. The Gentile is in very truth “debtor to the Jew” for far more than he acknowledges; for every law unconsciously guiding and sanctifying his domestic relations, refining his own conduct, elevating his own mind, for every law blessing his home with a faithful wife, respected mother, and duteous child. That, therefore, any woman can fling odium on the Jewish law, can only excite our pity towards her. The innocence, honor and purity, and domestic, social, and religious duties of wives, being more clearly and unanswerably developed in the sacred canon of the Mosaic law than in any other, from the very simple fact that every other is founded upon them.

belong to the category of ‘Oral Torah’ in the sense of a body of do’s and don’t’s that were handed down from Moses to Joshua all the way down to the Rabbinic Era when these rules were codified in the Mishnah and the literature, such as the Babylonian Talmud, that was generated by the Mishnah.

CHAPTER IV. LAWS RELATING TO THE WIDOWS AND DAUGHTERS OF ISRAEL Before regarding the laws instituted for the widows of Israel, let us pause one moment on the full tide of anguish and unprotected isolation comprised to woman in that one word “widow,” that we may comprehend our Father’s love to the full extent. What woman’s heart, awake to kind and generous feelings, can look upon a widow without sympathy—without the yearning prayer that consolation may be granted her, and her fatherless babes find friends to guide them through a stormy world? We know no description so thrillingly powerful of this, the heart’s desolation, as the lines we subjoin. “Lone sharer of a widowed lot, Where is the language, though a Seraph hymned The poetry of heaven, to picture thee, Wrecked as thou art, whose life has now become Affliction’s martyrdom? for such is love Doomed to remain on desolation’s rock, And look for ever where the past lies dead What is the world to thy benighted soul? A dungeon! Save that where thy children’s tones Can ring with gladness its sepulchral gloom. Placid and cold, and spiritually pale Art thou. The lustre of thy youth is dimmed, The verdure of thy spirit o’er. In vain The beaming eloquence of day attracts Thy heart’s communion with creation’s joy.

301

302

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL Like twilight imaged on a bank of snow The smile that waneth o’er thy marble cheek.” ROBERT MONTGOMERY.1

Such, indeed, is the earthly sadness of the widow. One with him who has departed, how may she tread the earth’s dark vales alone? Where look for love to supply the place of that now gone? Where find a father for those babes, clinging to her for that support, that love, which in her first bereavement she feels utterly unable to bestow? Where but in Him, who in His law so especially provides for her and for her fatherless children; and, by his prophets, reinforces the statutes already given, and brings forward their neglect as one of the manifold sins which called down His displeasure? We find in his gracious word not alone the command, but the severe penalty attached to its disobedience, first in Exodus xxii. 22, 23, 24: “Ye shall not afflict any widow or fatherless child. If thou afflict them in any wise, and they cry at all unto ME, I will surely hear their cry, and my wrath shall wax hot, and I will kill you with the sword; and your wives shall be widows, your children fatherless.” Can any language more emphatically and forcibly denote the tender mercy of the Eternal? His love made their sorrows His own. As a positive sin against Himself, He threatened to afflict all those who dared afflict them by the infliction of similar suffering. He knew that, left to man’s mercy, the widow and the fatherless would often meet with oppression, fraud, and injustice; be defrauded of their natural rights, and afflicted by hard creditors. Not only as a The English poet Robert Montgomery lived from 1807 to 1855. He was ordained an Anglican clergyman in 1835, and he served as the minister of St. Mercy Chapel in the parish of Saint Pancras in London. His many published works include The Omni-presence of the Deity (1828); The Puffiad (London: S. Maunder, 1830); Satan (London, 1830); and The Christian Life: A Manual of Sacred Verse (London, 1848). The lines Aguilar quotes here are taken from Robert Montgomery, Woman, the Angel of Life, a Poem (London: John Turrill, 1833), 8, lines 1–17. For helping me locate this volume I express my sincere thanks to Judith Appleton of Jerusalem. 1

SECOND PERIOD. IV. LAWS RELATING TO THE WIDOWS 303 widow, called upon to bear “affliction’s martyrdom,” but as a mother, to behold her children a prey to suffering and want. In Israel this could not be. The widow and the fatherless were God’s own, for He knew that not alone the wife, but the mother must be cared for. “Leave thy fatherless children to ME,”2 He said by His prophet Jeremiah, at a time when misery, desolation, and destruction were falling on Judea and her sons for their awful iniquity. “Leave them to ME, and I will keep them alive. And let thy widows trust in ME.” Even then, when disobedience and idolatry had so cursed the land, that His wrath could no longer be withheld, He reiterated the gracious promise given in His law. Sunk into the lowest ebb of iniquity, how could the widow and orphan be protected if left to the care of man? Where might they look, at such a season, but to their God, who for them alone had mercy and long suffering still? The ruin and worldly misfortunes and trials, so often now the portion of the widow, could not exist in Israel. The nation at large was commanded to provide for them, and in every feast of offerings or of festivals, and in the ingathering of their corn, and oil, and fruits, to include the widow and the fatherless; laws not once, but several times repeated.3 “When thou cuttest down thy harvest in thy field, and hast forgotten the sheaf in the field, thou shalt not go again to fetch it, but it shall be for the stranger, and the FATHERLESS, and the WIDOW, that the Lord thy God may bless thee in all the works of thy hands. When thou beatest thy olive tree thou shalt not go over the boughs again, it shall be for the stranger, the FATHERLESS, and the WIDOW. When thou gatherest the grapes at thy vineyard, thou shalt not glean it again, it shall be for the stranger, the FATHERLESS, and the WIDOW.”4 Nor was this all. The tithes of wine, corn, and oil, the firstlings of herds and flocks, all of which were devoted to the service of the Lord, that all worldliness and niggardliness should be banished Jer. 49:11. With respect to inviting the widow and the orphan to celebrate the festivals see Deut. 16:11 (the Feast of Weeks, i.e., Shavuot or Hebrew Pentecost), 14 (the Feast of Tabernacles, i.e., Sukkot). 4 Deut. 24:19–21. 2 3

304

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

from Israel, and “they should learn to fear the Lord their God always.”5 The feast of Weeks and of the Tabernacles, when the families of Israel rejoiced before the Lord in the place which He chose, the WIDOW and the FATHERLESS were included.6 There was to be no affliction, no dependence, no sorrow in Israel (though the poor were not to cease out of the land) at these times. All were to rejoice before the Lord. And yet more in addition: “At the end of three years thou shalt bring forth all the tithe of thine increase the same year, and lay it up within the gates. And the Levite, because he hath no part nor inheritance with thee, and the stranger, and the FATHERLESS, and the WIDOW, which are within thy gates, shall come, and shall eat and be satisfied, that the Lord thy God may bless thee in all the work of thine hand which thou doest.”7 And so important was obedience to this statute, that its profession was necessary in the confession of him who came to offer the basket of first-fruits, as a sign of his having come unto the land of his inheritance. “Then shalt thou say,” proceeded the instruction of the priest, “before the Lord thy God, I have brought away the hallowed things out of mine house, and also have given them to the Levite and the stranger, and the FATHERLESS and the WIDOW, according to all thy commandments which thou hast commanded. I have not transgressed thy commandments, neither have I forgotten them” (Deut. xxvi. 12, 13). Again, in Deut. xxiv. 17, it is not enough that we have already heard, “thou shalt not afflict them,” under the awful penalty of similar affliction from the hand of God, but prohibition as to the manner of that affliction is expressly pointed out. “Thou shalt not pervert the judgment of the stranger, nor of the FATHERLESS, nor take a WIDOW’S raiment to pledge.”8 Why? Because they had no earthly friend to redeem the latter, or plead for the former. Weak and unguarded, they were exposed to all these evils, had not the Eternal, in His tender compassion, taken them under His own especial care; and, instead of compelling them to depend on the inseDeut. 14:23. Deut. 16:11,14. 7 Deut. 14:28-29. 8 Deut. 24:17. 5 6

SECOND PERIOD. IV. LAWS RELATING TO THE WIDOWS 305 cure tenure of man’s compassion, or even justice, instituting laws for their benefit, the disobedience of which was sin unto Himself. Had these laws been obeyed, it was impossible for the widow and the fatherless, however destitute they might have been left, to suffer mere worldly ills. The agony of the widowed wife could not be increased by the thought of how she was to provide for her fatherless little ones. The Lord was their guardian, and He gave her and her children the gentle care and affection of their brethren in Israel; bidding her cry unto Him in sorrow or affliction, for He would assuredly hear her cry, and punish those who called it forth.9 What nation, then, what code, however just, however perfect, ever framed such laws as these?10 “What nation,” in truth, “has God so near to them as Israel in all we call upon Him for?”11 Were no other laws relative to woman instituted, these alone would be sufficient to mark that their very weakness rendered them objects, even more than man, of compassion and love; for where has God provided for man as for woman in the desolation of her widowhood? That modern Judaism cannot obey these laws now, as when they were given, interferes not with the fact of their institution itself. This very charge, reiterated, enforced as it is, elevates woman, and excites towards her, not alone the humanity and tenderness, but the respect of man. How could he feel otherwise towards those whom God Himself has promised to protect? What stronger incentive could he have to be forbearing and gentle towards her, and in no way to afflict her, than that if he failed in kindness, his wife should be widowed, his children fatherless? Where shall we find a law to disannul this, proceeding, as it does, from the mouth of God? To the women of Israel, at the present day, how inexpressibly consoling are these laws! In form they can no longer be obeyed; but, as in the case of the statutes relating to wives, it is the spirit pervading them which we must take to our hearts, till they swell in grateful thankfulness to Him who from His throne in heaven conEx. 22:22–24. Deut. 4:8. 11 Deut. 4:7. 9

10

306

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

descends to make widows His especial care. And He does so now as then. God is immutable—a Spirit of Truth, knowing not the shadow of a change; and, therefore, do we know and feel that the same love from which issued those beautiful laws, actuates His dealings with his people now. It is vain, utterly vain, to say we are cast off, and, therefore, cannot claim it. The Bible teems with passages relating to our banishment alone, and to the Eternal’s deep love borne towards us while in captivity, and, consequently, towards us now. We could multiply passages on passages, from the Pentateuch, Psalms, and Prophets, to prove this. But the very words already quoted from Jeremiah would be almost sufficient. When they were pronounced, the sins of Jerusalem were far more heinous than those of Israel in her captivity. Yet even then God took the fatherless and the widow under His fostering care; separating them for the innocence of the one, and the unprotected weakness of the other, from the mass of iniquity which desecrated Judea.12 As concerns His compassion towards us now, we shall find them so distinctly, so clearly enforced in Leviticus xxiv., particularly from verse 40 to the end, and in the whole of Deuteronomy xxx., that to doubt and keep back, from a supposition of our inability to approach our God, and claim His love in our captivity, becomes actual guilt, and is likely not only to throw a wider and wider barrier between Him and ourselves, but to expose us more dangerously than any other temptation to the sophisms of the Nazarene, who, in mistaken kindness, would terrify us from our sole rock of refuge and strength, by insisting that, cast out from the Lord’s favor as we are, nothing can save us from eternal perdition but the acceptance of their faith. The more solid sense and unimpassioned reason of man may, and do, effectually guard him from such danger; but woman’s quicker feeling and more easily blinded judgment need all the defence and rest in a divine love which the study of her own faith, and its manifold manifestations of the Eternal as a God of truth and love, alone can give.13 No argument is more likely to Jer. 49:11, quoted above. Cf. Galchinksy, Origin of the Modern Jewish Woman Writer, 35–36, 50– 51 and passim concerning Jewish women in Aguilar’s time as the weak 12 13

SECOND PERIOD. IV. LAWS RELATING TO THE WIDOWS 307 weigh with a strong-feeling, unguarded woman, knowing little or nothing but the mere formula of her own religion, than the idea, if pressed at a right moment, that the law of Moses is a law of fire and blood, given only to destroy, and that the religion of Jesus is one of love; that Jewish women can have no comfort in adversity, but that as Christians they will find all they need; that in the one Faith they must feel themselves degraded, as in the other exalted and secure. Now, without affecting actual creed at all, temptations like these, unless fully and faithfully convinced that we, as women of Israel, have privileges still higher, must on some dispositions fall with sufficient weight as so to confuse and entangle, that even belief is adopted ere we are at all aware of what we are about. We allude not to those whom reason only guides—who, cold, unimaginative, passionless themselves, laugh at feeling, because they know it not—who find philosophy always sufficient for their need. But the larger portion of women, creatures of mere feeling and impulse, we would beseech to come to the Word of God, and derive thence, in the days of youth and happiness, that peace, love, and consolation, which if unknown till “the evil days come, and the years when thou shalt say, I have no pleasure in them,”14 may be sought, from link in the chain of Judaism, weakened by virtue of the fact that the male elites of the Jewish community of England did not understand the need to educate girls fully and properly in their own heritage. 14 Eccles. 12:1. The entire verse, to which Aguilar alludes, reads as follows: “Remember now thy Creator in the days of thy youth, while the evil days come not, nor the years draw nigh, when thou shalt say, I have no pleasure in them.” The biblical author’s point is that one should cultivate a relationship with God when one is still young and healthy so that when you get old and sick, you can find help and comfort in prayer, which will be communication with God, who will not be to you a perfect stranger. Aguilar goes further in suggesting that Jews and Jewesses should cultivate a relationship with the total Jewish spiritual baggage when they are young enough and healthy enough physically and mentally to have the energy to do so. The result will be that the spiritual and literary resources will be available in one’s memory or in one’s personal library to be called upon when they are needed. The master educator John Holt wrote similarly that

308

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

very blindness and wilfulness, in a stranger fold. The arguments we have quoted would fall to the ground by the simple answer, that as women of Israel, we have ALL we need; that God revealed His deep love to us ages before He became known to our Gentile sisters; that while we possess His blessed Word, we can never feel too unworthy to claim the tenderness he so proffers. He Himself has given us privileges in every relation and position in life which no other nation has, except as derived from us, and that, instead of fire and blood, the whole Jewish law to woman teems with LOVE. These feelings, inculcated in childhood, felt and experienced in riper years, will be sufficient for woman, and enable her to realize all the blessed consolation which every law relating to her so spiritually bestows. Not to widows only, but to all who are in affliction, the Divine spirit infusing every law must bring comfort, by evincing how closely, how consolingly, she is drawn to God Can the widow and the fatherless in Israel recall this truth, yet not bless God that the record of His law is still our own, granted that in times of dispersion and banishment we might not despair, even though the form of the law must be, till our restoration, at an end? Oh, let the afflicted take comfort! She has but to believe and obey, and the deep compassion of her God will perfect both, and render them acceptable. Let her but think on the magnitude of that love which has provided for her both as widow and mother. That by name she is singled out as especially the object of Divine solicitude, and, therefore, that the Eternal knew and knows the heaviness of her trial, the extent of her deep sorrow, the pressure of her cares. Let her recall every law given for the widow and the fatherless, and remember that He who gave them knows not the shadow of a change, and, therefore, feels for her now as tenderly as He did for her ancestors of old. What is time to Him? We look back with our finite gaze, and think there is such a wide distinction between past and present, that the laws given for the one can in no way the test of whether or not some specific knowledge or skills should be imparted to children is whether or not when the person is an adult it will be worthwhile for the person to have mastered the skill or acquired the knowledge as a child; see John Caldwell Holt, How Children Fail (New York: Pitman, 1964).

SECOND PERIOD. IV. LAWS RELATING TO THE WIDOWS 309 concern the other. Customs, manners, all of earth may change, but not the nature of the immortal soul, nor of the human heart. From the beginning of the world, until the end, these were, are, and will be the same. And so is HE from whom they spring, and who guides and cares for them now as when HE first grafted them into man. What, then, is time to Him? Can frail finite humanity believe that time has changed His tenderness towards His afflicted children? Oh! who would throw such scorn, such disrespect on that word which repeats and enforces in every manner of expression, “I, even I, am He, that changeth not; therefore ye sons of Israel are not consumed?”15 Let the widows of Israel take to their hearts every law which manifests His love towards them as widows. They are as much theirs now as at the moment they were given. Let them not believe, for a single moment, that the superior holiness of their ancestors gave them greater favor in the sight of their God. He saith, “Not for your own sakes will I do this, O Israel, for ye are a perverse and rebellious generation, but for the sake of the covenant I swore unto your fathers, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.”16 And again, in strong confirmation, “For mine own sake, even for mine own sake, will I do it; for how should my name be polluted: and I will not give my glory to another.” (Isaiah xlviii).17 With such words how may we hesitate? Come unto Him, ye widows of Israel, for ye are His. Clasp to your hearts His love. Think not ye can weary it, for “God is not man, that He should lie, nor the son of man that

Mal. 3:6. Ezek. 36:22 states, “... Thus saith the Lord GOD; I do not this for your sakes, O house of Israel.” The second clause of Aguilar’s speech placed in the mouth of God, “For ye are a perverse and rebellious generation” reflects Deut. 32: 5 where KJV reads, “For they are a perverse and crooked generation.” The final clause of Aguilar composition, “but for the sake of the covenant” which reminds one of the so-called Rewritten Torah found among the Dead Sea Scrolls, is based upon 2 Kgs. 13:23, “And the LORD was gracious unto them, and had compassion on them and had respect unto them, because of his covenant with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.” 17 I.e., Isa. 48:11. 15 16

310

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

he should repent.”18 Let no thought of unworthiness keep us back, for not in our own righteousness, but in His, must we trust. And oh believe in Him, trust in Him; and, as the widows of old, in our very affliction we shall be comforted, and to the Gentiles show forth His glory. Our next section, the Daughters of Israel,19 while it principally relates to the duties of our younger sisters as inferred from the laws concerning them, also brings much important matter to light, regarding the equality of women. In every command and ordinance relative to obedience to parents, to the eating of holy things (Levit. xi. 14; Deut. xii. and xvi.), to appearing and rejoicing at the various festivals (Deut. xvi.), daughters, equally with the sons, are so emphatically specified, that it is impossible to believe that the religious as well as the moral duties of the law are not equally incumbent on woman as well as man. It is useless to transcribe the verses which point this out, as they will be found, in their own simple force of expression, in the chapters of the Lord’s own Word quoted above. Were the maidens of Israel to keep aloof from all religious observances, to be bound to household duties and frivolous employments, become authorized to leave all the concerns of an immortal soul and of eternity to the care of fathers, husbands, or brothers, we should find no mention of such a class of beings. Nay, had the Eternal even intended that their fitness or unfitness for His service should depend on the judgment of man, we should still find only the sons mentioned. But to remove this entirely, the attendance of the maidens of Israel at every rejoicing, etc., becomes an absolute command from God, and its disobedience, neglect, or change, was sin against Himself. Such laws as those of Mezuzzot20 or Tephilim21 were given in an indeBased upon 1 Sam. 15:29. The 19th century editions simply leave a blank line to mark off this subdivision from the body of Period II, Chapter IV. The annotator added the bold type to set this division apart more clearly. 20 Literally doorposts, this Hebrew term designates the box made of wood or metal or pottery or glass and today even plastic, which is nailed or cemented to the bottom of the top third of the doorpost of the house or room on the right as one enters. The box contains a handwritten 18 19

SECOND PERIOD. IV. LAWS RELATING TO THE WIDOWS 311

parchment scroll on which is inscribed the first two paragraphs of the Shema, which is to say Deut. 6:4–9 and 11:13–21. The rationale is that both of these passages state, “and thou shalt write them [words of Torah, i.e., words of God’s instruction] on the posts of thy house and on thy gates” (Deut. 6: 9; and verbatim in Hebrew and almost verbatim in KJV, 11:20). The purpose is to remind the Jew and Jewess to remember and to fulfill God’s instructions. Aguilar is correct in intimating that because the command to write them is given in an indeterminate manner (like “thou shalt not kill,” which is not addressed specifically to one or the other sex) there is no reason to suppose that only houses or rooms inhabited by men require a mezuzzah (singular of mezuzzot). Indeed, despite all the foolishness that one hears, one never hears the latter supposition. Unfortunately, some women and men, who have not been sufficiently educated in Judaism assume that only a man or possibly an ordained rabbi should affix a mezuzzah and recite the appropriate benediction, “Praised are You, O LORD, our God, King of the Universe, who hallowed us by His commandments and commanded us to affix a mezuzzah.” Hopefully, people will become better informed. 21 More commonly called tefillin. The im ending is the normal masculine plural in Classical Hebrew while the in ending is the corresponding masculine plural suffix in Mishnaic Hebrew. Tefillin are the pair of black boxes made of the skin of a cow or a sheep and which contain four biblical passages in the following order: Deut. 6:4–9; 11:13–21 (we met these already); Ex. 13:1–10; 13:11–16. The rationale is that these passages all include one or another of the following almost identical requests: “and you shall bind them [words of Torah, i.e., God’s instruction] for a sign on your [singular] hand and for a band on your [singular] forehead” (Deut. 6:8; Gruber’s translation); “and you shall bind them for a sign on your [plural addressed to all Israelites] hands, and they shall be for headbands on your [plural] foreheads” (Deut. 11:18); “and you shall have for a sign on your [singular] hand and for a reminder on your [singular] forehead” (Ex. 13:9); “and there shall be for a sign on your [singular] hand and for a headband on your forehead” (Ex. 13:16). One of the two boxes, which contains a scroll on which are written these four biblical passages is strapped around the forearm of the left hand of a right-handed person and around the forearm of the right hand of a left-handed person while the second box, which contains the four biblical passages, each inscribed on parchment in a separate compartment, is strapped onto the forehead

312

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

terminate manner, requiring the aid of the priest to decide who should wear the latter, and how use the former; but the obedience of the daughters of Israel, with their brothers, unto every ordinance, is so clearly and simply put, that the mind must indeed be perverted who would seek to deprive them of such blessed privileges, and insist that religion is too deep a thing for woman. God bade woman as well as man love Him with heart, and soul, and might; knowing that to all who did so, the comprehension of His will, His attributes, was comparatively easy, and obedience to His every statute a labor of rejoicing and love. To learn and to feel this in youth, woman, equally with man, must be taught to know and love the Lord, not left to the mere practice of forms; must be taught, that to appear at His festivals, to keep His ordinances, to just above the hairline [see illustration # 5]. Babylonian Talmud, Kiddushin 34a states that the obligation to put on tefillin is a time-bound positive precept, from which women are exempt. Consequently, for many generations few women used tefillin. In recent years many Jewish women representing all branches of Judaism have adopted the practice of using tefillin. See the discussion in David Golinkin, “May Women Wear Tefillin?” Conservative Judaism, vol. 50, no. 1 (fall 1997), 2–18. See also Elizabeth S. Alexander, “How Tefillin Became a Non-Timebound, Positive Commandment: The Yerushalmi and Bavli on mEruvin 10:1,” in A Feminist Commentary on the Babylonian Talmud: Introduction and Studies, ed. Tal Ilan, Tamara Or, Dorothea M. Salzer, Christiane Steuer, and Irina Wandrey (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2007), 61–89. Tefiillin are put on before the beginning of the Morning Service (at home or in the synagogue with or without a quorum or minyan of ten persons for a public worship service) and removed at the end of the service, and it is customary to touch them and kiss them when reciting the passages from the Shema (Deut. 6 and 11), which prescribe their use. Aguilar seems to have anticipated and encouraged the proliferation of the observance of the precept of tefillin by women in the post-modern era because when she writes, “the mind must indeed be perverted who would seek to deprive them [the daughters of Israel] of such blessed privileges.” Had she thought that tefillin are not appropriate for women who are, as she often writes, emotionally and physically weaker than men (see passim above), she would not have hesitated to state this.

SECOND PERIOD. IV. LAWS RELATING TO THE WIDOWS 313 obey His commandments, are privileges of joy, granted to them in the fulness of God’s love, and mark the distinction between His rule and that of every other. They would be led to compare their station and their privileges as maidens of Israel, with those of the women of Greece and Rome, and every contemporary nation, and, in more modern times, with the women of many a Gentile land. Civilization, and a study and practice of the moral laws of the Bible, are doing their work, and pervading the customs and feelings of the Nazarene world; but their guiding law breathes not the Eternal’s especial care for woman, in her every relation of life, more forcibly than ours does. That the daughters of Israel must have had the power to obtain influence over their fathers, even to persuade them to evil, is proved by their being specially named in the law already quoted, regarding the punishment of all those, be they brother, son, DAUGHTER, wife, or friend, who enticed to idolatry.22 Again, we are told in Deut. vii. 2, 4, alluding to the care needed to preserve the Israelites a holy people, and prevent all communion with the idolatrous nations around: “Thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor show mercy to them; neither shalt thou make marriages with them; thy DAUGHTER thou shalt not give unto his son, nor his daughter shalt thou take unto thy son. For they will turn away thy son from following ME, that they may serve other Gods, etc. For thou art an holy people unto the Lord thy God. The Lord thy God hath chosen thee to be a special people unto Himself, above all the people that are upon the face of the earth.”23 “Son,” in the sentence “for they will turn away thy son,” etc., evidently signifies both son and daughter, as both are specifically named in the preceding verse, and the Hebrew word ‫בן‬, though always translated son, is equivalent to the English noun child, for which there is no distinct Hebrew term. “Children of Israel,” is written in Hebrew exactly as if it were translated, “sons of Israel” (‫)בני ישראל‬, but it evidently and unanswerably includes both sexes, by the words already quoted: “Gather the people together, men, 22 23

Deut. 13:6–11, which was referred to above, p. 285. Deut. 7:6; 14:2.

314

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

women, and children,”24 and other verses of similar import. As Israel had been already warned against giving his daughter in marriage to a son of Canaan, she is, of course, included in the danger thence ensuing, although only “son” is mentioned; the plural meaning of that “son” being evident from the pronoun following it being they instead of he. “For they will turn aside thy child from following ME, that THEY may serve other gods.”25 Now if nothing depended on women in Israel to uphold and make manifest the glory of their God, in obedience to His law and in serving Him, what necessity was there for this law? If her soul was of less moment than that of man, why should it have been so carefully guarded from pollution? This law of itself would be sufficient to prove to the daughters of Israel their solemn responsibility, not only individually, but nationally; and we shall find still more.

Deut. 31:12. Here Aguilar has fully anticipated by almost a century and a half everything I wrote about the use of the noun ben in Biblical and PostBiblical Hebrew to mean ‘child’ of either sex and the switch from impersonal 3d person masculine singular to common plural to indicate that a regulation applies to both sexes equally. On the former subject see Gruber, “Women in the Cult,” p. 64, n. 36; idem, “Biblical Interpretation in Rabbinic Literature,” in The Encyclopaedia of Judaism, Second Edition, ed. Jacob Neusner, Alan J. Avery-Peck, and William Scott Green (Leiden: Brill, 2005), 228–230. On the subject of the switch from the impersonal 3d person masculine to common plural to indicate that a regulation applies to both sexes equally see Gruber, “Women in the Cult,” 63–65. Here again we see that Aguilar, with no academic training in Semitic Languages and Literatures or the History of Biblical Exegesis has made profound and abiding contributions to both biblical philology and feminist interpretation, and her contributions have until now been lost to the canon of both of these disciplines while, tragically, the book at hand has, at best, excited primarily antiquarian interest. Note also that much of what Aguilar has intuited has now been rediscovered and established with all the necessary scholarly apparatus by David Stein, “The Grammar of Social Gender in Biblical Hebrew,” Hebrew Studies 49 (2009), 7–26; id. “The Noun ish: A Term of Affiliation,” Journal of Hebrew Scripture 8 (2009). 24 25

SECOND PERIOD. IV. LAWS RELATING TO THE WIDOWS 315 In Numbers xxvii., we read that the daughters of Zelophehad came “before Moses, and all the princes of the congregation,” and, boldly stating the death of their father without sons, inquired, “why should the name of our father be done away from among his family because he had no sons? Give us, therefore,” they continued, “a possession among the brethren of our fathers. And Moses brought their cause before the Lord. And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying, The daughters of Zelophehad speak right. Thou shalt surely give them a possession of an inheritance among their father’s brethren, and thou shalt cause the inheritance of their father to pass unto them. And thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel, saying If a man die, and have no son, then shall ye cause his inheritance to pass unto his daughter.”26 Now this simple narration very clearly proves that the civil, as well as religious privileges were protected and insured. Here are five unmarried women, most probably young, and acting on no guidance but their own sense of right and justice, as inculcated by the whole law of Moses, unhesitatingly addressing their great Lawgiver, in presence of all the heads of Israel, and fearlessly stating their case. Their position must have been one of perfect freedom, or they could not so have sought Moses, and not only been heard, but, because he did not feel himself adequate to pronounce a decision on a case never before occurring, their cause was brought by him before the Lord, and God Himself deigned to reply. They had spoken right, the Eternal said; the inheritance should be as they said, not only to them, but ever after, as a law in Israel. We see here, not only the daughters of Israel protected and established in their birthrights, but the practical illustration of the Eternal’s gracious promise repeated in Deut. x. 17,18, “For the Lord your God is a God of gods and Lord of lords, a mighty and a terrible, who regardeth not persons, nor taketh reward, but does execute the judgment of the FATHERLESS and the widow.” The daughters of Zelophehad were fatherless; perchance (for such is human nature), surrounded by those who disputed their right, deeming that woman could have no civil privileges; compelled to do violence to their feminine nature, and make an appeal; whereupon 26

Num. 27:1–8.

316

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

God, not man, took their judgment in His own hands and gave them right. The supposition of their having to encounter human opposition, is further confirmed by the event of the thirty-sixth chapter of Numbers. The chief fathers of the tribe of Manasseh, to which Zelophehad belonged, came before Moses and the heads of Israel, stating the inconvenience of female inheritance, as being likely to be lost by marriage with some other tribe; and in the jubilee, when every man returned to the inheritance of his fathers, the portion inherited by daughters would be amalgamated with the inheritance of the tribe whereunto they were received. This difficulty, to mere human reasoning, would have seemed so to interfere withthe statute already given, that man would have been at a loss how to overcome it. But that which God has once said, He altereth not; and He bade Moses inform the children of Israel, that “the tribe of the sons of Joseph had said well. This is the thing which the Lord doth command concerning the daughters of Zelophehad, saying, LET THEM MARRY TO WHOM THEY THINK BEST; only to the tribe of the family of their father shall they marry. And every daughter that possesseth an inheritance in any tribe of the children of Israel, shall be wife unto one of the families of the tribe of her father, that the children of Israel may enjoy every man the inheritance of his fathers.”27 Even in this law, so important for the peace and harmony of the tribes of Israel, the Eternal disdained not to care also for the temporal happiness of His weaker children, by expressly stating, that their choice was to be whom they think best; bounded, indeed, by the tribe of their father, amongst whom as they principally associated it was most natural their choice should fall. No arbitrary law interfered with domestic happiness. Neither consanguinity, fortune, nor any of the modern reasons, impelling unions of convenience, of ambition, or of any kind but of the heart, interfered with woman’s own choice of happiness. Heiress in her own right, with none daring to interfere with the judgment of God Himself, she might select whom she thought best to share the possessions accorded to her. No human judgment, no thought of man, would have so cared for woman. The law, indeed, might have been given, but those im27

Num. 36:1–7.

SECOND PERIOD. IV. LAWS RELATING TO THE WIDOWS 317 pressive words, “Let them marry whom they think best,” speak but of the omniscient care and infinite love of God. The law of vows we have already enlarged upon in our second section, the wives of Israel; yet, as its ordinance concerns the daughters of Israel also, we must briefly recur to it. The nature of those vows, and in what manner they are liable to abuse, we have already seen. A, daughter might, perhaps, more easily than a wife, devote herself by a singular vow to the service of the Lord, but more easily also be led into its abuse. A young woman (for it is to such the laws refer—see Numbers xxx. 16), while in her father’s house, performs her duty to her God, and proves her zeal in His service to greatest perfection, while evincing her obedience to the fifth commandment, and devoting herself as much as possible to the comfort and happiness of her parents, and to all the unobtrusive claims of home. This, as we have said before, is often neglected during the early enthusiasm of first religious impressions, and the wish to do something great and striking, to evince the fervor of her professions, occupies the mind to the exclusion of all else. This, in Israel, is effectually guarded against, by rendering the daughter dependent in some measure on the will of her father, and by so doing increasing the veneration, love, and submission, which, did she obey the fifth commandment,28 she could not fail to bear him, at the same time guarded, like the wife in Israel, from all capriciousness or indecision, and the petty trials thence proceeding. That she had the power, even when in her youth in her father’s house, of devoting herself by a vow unto the Lord, clearly evinces that even young women had access to the Eternal, and their prayers and service were graciously accepted by Him, without any interference of man.29 This is the spirit of the law concerning us most nearly now, and which every young daughter in Israel should lovingly rememI.e., “Honor thy father and thy mother” (Ex. 20:12; Deut. 5:16). Man here probably refers to ‘adult male’ and alludes to the habit of some men, who think that Judaism is their exclusive domain, to insult women, who are in the act of fulfilling a precept of the Torah such as study of Torah, and to tell them that they should leave that to men and busy themselves in the kitchen. 28 29

318

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

ber, that young, lowly, weak as she is, and dependent as she may be, she has yet the glorious privilege of devoting herself to the service of her God. No longer, indeed, by a singular vow, calling upon her to depart from home duties, and affections, for outward service, nor by a binding oath to afflict the soul30 by departure from her usual food and innocent amusements,31 but simply by associating the love of God and hope of His approval with all her thoughts, and the meek and unpretending effort to make manifest spirituality and holiness in every action, every trial, every blessing of her life. This will be less difficult to accomplish if she do but study, heartfully and prayerfully, His precious word, and read there, borne out by the whole beautiful world of nature, the blessed record of God’s unfailing love; if she will but persevere in trust and prayer, and not despair if many many times she turns seemingly unanswered from the Fount of living waters,32 and her earthly nature tempt her to put her whole trust in “cisterns, broken cisterns that will hold no water.”33 This was Israel’s sin, which, more powerfully than any other, at length hurled on her the Eternal’s long-averted wrath; and, knowing this, we shall sin threefold now if we strain not every nerve to resist all such specious coloring of earth, and cleave under every difficulty, spite of disappointment, of despondency, of doubt, unwaveringly to the Lord. But let not the young daughter of Israel, rejoicing in her fond enthusiasm that she is so specially designated in His law, believe Num. 30:13; see the discussion of this, above, pp. 259, 290. Probably referring to Nazariteship, whose rules are laid out in Num. 6:1–21; concerning women Nazarites in Hebrew narrative and in postbiblical Judaism see Gruber, “Women in the Cult,” pp. 57–58; and see also Aguilar, below with reference to Queen Helena of Adiabene, and Berenice, the widow of Herod Agrippa of Chalcis, Period VI, Chapter X. 32 This metaphoric expression for God is found in Jer. 2:13; 17:13. 33 Jer. 2:13: “For my people have committed two evils; they have forsaken me the fountain of living waters and hewed them out cisterns, broken cisterns, that can hold no water.” The context (specifically Jer. 2:12) proves that Jeremiah, speaking in the name of God, speaks of people who have abandoned the God of Israel, who can help them and come to revere other gods, who cannot help them. 30 31

SECOND PERIOD. IV. LAWS RELATING TO THE WIDOWS 319 that to do His work is easy and all joy, as at first it seems. There must come a time, if she truly seek and pray to love Him, that He will try that love; not, it may be, with the afflictions publicly acknowledged as such, but with the coldness, deadness, utter stagnation of the spirit, as if all of religion, or even interest in religious things, had entirely departed. This is the most fearful period in the religious experience of the young. They doubt every feeling of piety which had been theirs before. They mentally ask, why should they be different to their more worldly companions, who are ever happy, ever gay? Why should they voluntarily resign such pleasures for a service that, instead of bringing comfort, does but make them miserable? Were they not over presumptuous to have supposed for a moment that God could care for such as they, and would it not be wiser and better to join the multitude, who, living but for earth and time, never cast a thought on heaven and eternity for to whom can they express feelings so impossible to be believed or understood? Oh! let not such periods of trial turn the daughter of Israel from that better path which an earlier age has chosen. Come indeed they must, for God thus tries the extent of His children’s love. The truly, sincerely, spiritually religious of every creed, of every class, have experienced all that they may feel. It is the dread “phantom of the threshold,” which must be resisted by its only all-subduing foe—that faith which can ascend on the wings of prayer, and trust in God to give comfort, hope, and joy. It is no proof of superior holiness, of more rapid advancement in the one straight path, where these emotions are unknown. It is rather an unanswerable evidence that the spirit yet sleeps, unawakened to its weakness, its dependence. It does not yet know the workings of the Lord within; or that its fancied strength may be broken as a reed. Oh! let not the young daughter of Israel, when bowed and sorrowing beneath the strange despondency of heart and thought, envy these. God hath not departed from her. He doth but try the strength of her faith and love. If comfort, if spiritual joy always attended on religious service, where would be that necessity for faithfulness and constancy? Where the trial of love, if ever coupled with reward? Where its strength, its durability, if the first moment the object of its aspirings appear to forsake, to darken His countenance towards them, it takes wing to some more rewarding god? Would we love a mortal thus? And shall we do less for God, whose love we know to be so

320

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

unending, so infinite, so exhaustless, and who never in reality withdraws it, though to try us He permits the human infirmities of frame to produce the darkness under which we pine? Would we, in truth, follow the example of our ancestors, and devote ourselves to our God, we must endure this meekly and trustingly, as we would any more tangible evil, or more visible affliction. And even when this is removed, through His loving mercy, and again our souls spring up rejoicing, though more chastened, let us still “remember the days of darkness, for they shall be many.”34 Religion in no way saves us from afflictions, but it supports us under them. It gives us what nothing else can give, the unvarying comfort of a Father’s love, and an unfailing hope in heaven. As in former ages a young woman could not devote herself by a singular vow without the approval of her father, although with her spiritual feelings he had no power to interfere, so now let every daughter of Israel abstain from every public or presumptuous evidence of religious profession which can interfere with the prejudices of her parents. The spirit of that beautiful religion which was granted to us, and which will again be ours, was “to turn the heart of the fathers to their children, and the hearts of the children to their fathers;”35 not to sow dissension and disunion. Whatever a young woman may feel, however grieve at what she may think is wanting in the theoretical or practical religion of her parents, it is her duty to pray and wait. God will answer in His own time, but it is no part of her duty either to condemn or cease to love. No parent will interfere with a child’s religion, if, instead of being obtruded upon him, it does but guide alike conduct and feeling, impel obedience and cheerfulness, and strengthen to endure. The motive of these superior characteristics an irreligious and unbelieving parent may not, indeed, for long years perceive; but, almost unconsciously, he will learn to respect the prejudices of such a child; and if, indeed, it may please God to permit such earthly recompense, she may be the blessed means of leading him to the same God, the same immortal goal.

34 35

Eccles. 11:8. Mal. 4:6.

SECOND PERIOD. IV. LAWS RELATING TO THE WIDOWS 321 But this can never be if she obtrude religion, or in the slightest degree evince a supposition of her own superior holiness. It is indeed one of the hardest trials in life, to see any one of those whom we most love perseveringly reject all we feel the dearest, most important. But if we bring it before God, He will give us strength to continue constant in prayer for them, and lessen the evil we deplore. The case of a parent refusing to let his child serve God, and make religion her first object, is utterly unknown in Israel; but should it be, in this instance only a child is imperatively called upon to disobey.36 The commands of an earthly parent must be disregarded, if they interfere with and compel disobedience to the commands of God. Leviticus xix. 29 authorizes our upholding Babylonian Talmud, Yevamot 5b derives this lesson from the juxtaposition in Lev. 19:3, “Ye shall fear every man his mother and his father, and keep my Sabbaths: I am the LORD your God.” As explained there in the Talmud (see also Rashi in his Pentateuch Commentary at Lev. 19:3), the juxtaposition indicates that one is exempt from obeying parents when they ask us to violate the Sabbath for, as indicated by the closing clause of the biblical verse, “I am the LORD your God,” the source of both the respect due to parents and the observance of holy days is God. When parents and others interpose themselves and their authority between God and the child, such parents and other self-imposed authorities have forfeited their authority. Aguilar indicates that she cannot possibly imagine a parent who would actually do what Rashi and the Talmud describe. Unfortunately, I once had a neighbor who reported to me that her parents had sent her to a Jewish Sunday School where they taught the children to fast on the Day of Atonement. The child proceeded to apply what she had been taught, and the parent insisted that the child eat on the sacred fast day. The neighbor reported that she had acceded to her mother’s wishes but that her sister was force fed by the mother. Not surprisingly, in this story of real life among American Jews in the 20th century, interfering with a child’s following the precepts of the ancestral religion and child abuse go together. No less amazing but not altogether surprising to those who have studied the matter, is the fact that a person with an advanced degree in the sciences would innocently report an incidence of severe child abuse and not indicate an awareness of the severity of the accusation. 36

322

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

this.37 Although the case itself, in which there is a daughter guarded from an unnatural father, be different in details, yet it is equally protective in the present instance; and a child may be fully assured, if the command of her father compel disobedience to her God in any one of His commandments (for all are of equal sanctity to the one alluded to in the verse quoted), her painful duty must be to disobey.38 But a state of things so fearful can never be in Israel, if a daughter’s religion be practised as we have hinted above. There may be indifference, there may be the apparent absence of all spiritual religion; but no man who wishes to be thought an Israelite, ever neglects the peculiar forms of his faith, and his daughter, therefore, has no cause for dividing herself from him, however more earnest, more spiritual, may be her individual views. She may have to bear with the neglect or disregard of some ordinances which her heart tells her are sacred, but if she have the will she has the power to keep her own way undefiled; and if she be truly and sincerely a daughter of Israel, every parental disregard of holy things will bring her to her God yet more earnestly in prayer.

Indeed, by contrast with the instance quoted above from the Talmud and Rashi and by contrast also with the anecdote concerning a neighbor of mine, Lev. 19:29, “Do not prostitute thy daughter to cause her to be a whore ...” supplies an example of the extreme kind of abuse of children in which parents can and do engage unless someone stops them. And neither Scripture nor Grace Aguilar would be totally shocked by the sordid accounts one reads almost daily in newspapers throughout the world. 38 Having presented an extreme case, Aguilar now makes the point that in fact God is the ultimate authority on right and wrong and that parents who use their authority over their children to undermine the source of that authority (God who legislates, “Honor your father and your mother” in Ex. 20:12 and Deut. 5:16 and “Ye shall fear every man [ancient Rabbinic exegesis holds that this injunction, like “Honor your father and your mother,” is incumbent upon both women and men] his mother and his father” in Lev. 19:3) have thereby forfeited any authority that they or others thought that they had. 37

SECOND PERIOD. IV. LAWS RELATING TO THE WIDOWS 323 One other point we would urge ere we quit the subject. Let not Israel’s young daughters fancy, that to devote heart, mind, and soul to God, demands the relinquishment of those innocent pleasures and enjoyments for which God himself has framed our hearts. There are many among the Gentiles who believe religion wholly incompatible with recreation and amusement; that all social pleasures must be resigned; only certain books perused and even some accomplishments forbidden, as likely to lead to sin. The religion of God is, on the contrary, so consistent with man’s capabilities and yearnings, that we never can believe these things incumbent upon us. The first grand object of our lives, in truth, it must be; and that gained—which, if we inculcate the immortal spirit of religion as well as its more perishable form unto our children, it will be—we need not fear that enjoyment either of social intercourse or of intellectual resources will turn us from it. God has framed us to give and to receive pleasure. He has stored our hearts with sweet emotions, our minds with inexhaustible resources. We best make manifest our deep and grateful sense of His loving-kindness by its enjoyment. “God loveth a cheerful giver,” we have somewhere read.39 And in no religion is this sentiment so truly, practically illustrated as in ours, coming, as it does, from God Himself. A knowledge of ourselves, which, if we are accustomed in youth to examine our hearts by the standard of God’s word, we shall undoubtedly obtain, will warn us of those weaknesses and failings most likely to lead us into temptation; and we shall guard against these, and either conquer them through His infused grace, or shun them till the strength we implore is granted. There is no need to become different in seeming from our fellows, and tacitly condemn and chide every innocent amusement and resource by our refusal to join in them. The idea that no amusement is innocent, that nothing we do, think, or feel is free from sin, is not—blessed be God!—the creed of Israel. He hath appointed our religious and moral duties; He hath laid clown our earthly path; He hath taught us how to look to Him, and how by faith we shall be justified,40 and through His infinite mercy be New Testament, Paul’s Second Letter to the Corinthians, 9:7. Hab. 2:4, which is regarded in Babylonian Talmud, Makkot 24a as a summary of all of the Torah. 39 40

324

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

received with Him. He hath stored our souls and minds with exhaust-less capabilities of happiness, even upon earth. He hath gathered around us in His beautiful world a thousand objects to call forth love, gratitude, and joy; and He who is truth and justice would not have done these things, were we so incapable of righteousness, as from our birth to be blackened with such sin as only blood can wash away.41 Let me not be misunderstood, or accused of contradicting my own theory, so to speak, for my theory is the theory of the Bible. Liable to every weakness—more inclined to the evil than the good—we are; but such is inherent from the time that our heavenly origin was changed and marred by the dominion of the passions, infirmities, and weakness of earth. And it was for such beings the law was given, to aid them to subdue natural corruption, to give them opportunities to exercise righteousness, virtue, and faith; to awaken the immortal part of our nature; to arouse all those better, higher, and purer feelings, which, however dormant, cannot die, for they have been breathed into us by the spirit of the Lord; and for which, if we neglect and let them ever sleep, because we fancy we either possess them not, or are too closely bound to arouse them, we shall be called to a fearful account. Not one single point of the Eternal’s precious word—the Bible which we acknowledge— authorizes a belief in the Gentile creed. The particular mention of the superior sanctity of the priests’ daughters, evinces that the holiness of the fathers was shared by the daughters. They were to partake of the holy meats, not only in their youth; but if widows, or divorced, without children, had the power of returning to their father’s house.42 A further proof of the Here Aguilar expounds the Jewish belief that the commandments of the Torah, both those that concern our relationship with God and those that concern our relationship with the world, can indeed be fulfilled with a little effort (contrast Gal. 3:11: “But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, ‘The just shall live by faith’” [Paul quotes Hab. 2:4], and she rejects the Christian belief in original sin, which, in Christian belief, is atoned for by the blood shed by Jesus on the cross. 42 Aguilar refers to Lev. 22:12–13: “If the priest’s daughter also be married unto a stranger [i.e., a non-priest], she may not eat of an offering 41

SECOND PERIOD. IV. LAWS RELATING TO THE WIDOWS 325 holiness incumbent on her as the daughter of the Eternal’s appointed servant, and one who had power by her conduct either to exalt or “profane her father,” we find, in Levit. xxi 9, a different and more awful death appointed for her, if she became sinful, than the usual mode of Hebrew executions.43 These laws, of course, cannot concern us now (though would that they could, our priests being, as they ought to be, the first in rank and consequence of our nation), but the spirit of them, as of every other relative to the women of Israel, tends to mark their equality, their elevation, and their immortal responsibility, so forcibly as to prevent all possible rejoinder. Were the prayers of man sufficient for the welfare of woman—had she no individual soul to render account of—there would be less necessity to notice the wives and the daughters of the priests than any other. The superior sanctity of their husbands and fathers would surely be more than sufficient for them. We trust, however, we have said enough to convince our young sisters that, as Daughters of Israel, they have higher and nobler privileges than the daughters of any other race; that their God Himself has deigned to give laws and ordinances for their especial guidance and protection, which cannot be gainsaid without verging on impiety. And that, therefore, much, very much, depends on them, one and all, to uphold His glory through their own religious and moral dignity, and give evidence, alike to their own hearts, and to those nations, by word, thought, and deed, that they need nothing more than their own beautiful religion to guide them through earth and time, and fit them for eternity and heaven. They can do this, and will they fail?

of the holy things. But if the priest’s daughter be a widow, or divorced, and have no child, and is returned unto her father’s house, as in her youth, she shall eat of her father’s meat: but there shall no stranger eat thereof.” 43 Lev. 21:9 states, “And the daughter of any priest, if she profane herself by playing the whore, she profaneth her father: she shall be burnt with fire.”

CHAPTER V. MAID SERVANTS IN ISRAEL, AND SUNDRY OTHER LAWS Our fifth section alludes to a class which (we say it with grief) no longer exists amongst us, and, therefore, can only be looked upon as a still further proof of the Eternal’s loving care for His female children. It cannot guide us till once more we have maid-servants of our own faith amongst us. How often, how constantly, this subject has engrossed the thoughts and wishes of the writer, that by any possible means, the daughters of our poorer and dependent brethren could be received as domestics in our families, and so enable us to adhere to the laws framed for them, can be known but to the Searcher of all hearts;1 for when spoken to man, the idea is received but as high-flown folly, impossible to be realized. If so considered by the mass, there is no help for it, and so it must remain till it please God to put His spirit once more within us, and enlighten the darkness which, in some instances, has gathered around us, rich and poor. That it is only the rich and influential who can bring about reform in our poorer classes we quite acknowledge.2 Their religious education must be carried on on a different basis. The spirit and Cf. Jer. 17:10: “I the LORD search the heart.” In 1845, Grace Aguilar, a member of the Sephardic elite, who had established themselves in England in the 17th century, here suggests that the daughters of the impoverished Jewish masses newly arrived from Eastern Europe could be both westernized and properly educated in the Jewish faith if members of the Sephardic elite would take them in as maidservants. In the discussion that follows, however, Aguilar appears not to comprehend the distinction between two kinds of maid-servant that are mentioned in the laws of Ex. 21; see below. 1 2

327

328

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

meaning of every form must be inculcated, or they can never rise from the ignorance and superstition in which, through long ages of fearful persecution, they are plunged. The mind and heart alike must be enlarged; their own dignity, their own responsibility inculcated; the distinction between essential and local laws; the superior, the unchangeable sanctity of the law of God, combined with reverence and love for the fence which good, and wise, and holy men have raised around it. Were these things inculcated, there would be many eager to accept the offers of service in Jewish families, and find their obedience to their God quite compatible with their duty to their employers. Of course we allude not to those establishments in which but one or two servants only are kept. We simply mean those classes where there are upper and lower domestics—where one day in the week the former may not be called upon either for servile work, or to break through any of the forms which hallow the Sabbath day. There are such things, we have heard, as head nurses, who, even though Gentiles, have nothing to do with the servile work of their nursery kingdoms. Ladies’ maids, who have nothing to do but needlework, dress hair, and attend to their mistress and young ladies, Housekeepers, even housemaids, where there are upper and lower. All these situations might, were they properly educated for it, be filled by the maid-servants in Israel, without interfering one tittle3 with their adherence and obedience to their Faith. There must, indeed, be a WILL on both sides, the employer? and the employed, but were that WILL found, the WAY would be easy. Every law instituted in Israel for the safety, happiness, and welfare of the man-servant, mentioned by name the maid-servant also.4 In obedience to the fourth commandment,5 in the protection Concerning this expression, see above, Period I, Chapter III, p. 185, n. 156. 4 Aguilar does not mean that every law mentions a specific maidservant by her given name but rather that, unlike the wife, who is (in Aguilar’s view, in the view of Jewish exegetical tradition, and in my view as well) implicitly included in such prohibitions as “Remember the sabbath day to keep it holy” (the 4th commandment of the Decalogue; see above, pp. 282-84), the maid-servant (Heb. ’amah) is singled out for men3

SECOND PERIOD. V. MAID SERVANTS IN ISRAEL

329

of the tenth,6 in every festival and fast,7 every ordinance binding on Jewish families8 as well as individuals,9 we find the maid-servant tion and is not, as it were, included implicitly by the mention of male servant (Heb. ‘ebed ). 5 I.e., the fourth commandment of the Decalogue, “Remember the sabbath day to keep it holy” (Ex. 20:8–11; Deut. 5:12–15), specifically in Ex. 20:10; Deut. 5:14 in the enumeration of those who must be allowed to benefit from the Sabbath leisure. 6 I.e., the tenth commandment of the Decalogue, “Thou shalt not covet” (Ex. 20:17; Deut. 5:21) where one is forbidden to desire both another person’s manservant and another person’s maidservant. 7 This, in fact, is the case only in Deut. 16, which however, limits the invitation of manservant and maidservant to the festivals of Weeks (Shavuot) and Tabernacles (Sukkot) in vv. 11 and 14. Moreover, Deut. 16 lists no fasts. Neither the manservant not the maidservant are mentioned in the rules for festivals in Ex. 34; Lev. 23; and Num. 28–29. Ex. 23:12 extends the Sabbath leisure to “the son of thine handmaid.” Given the distinct possibility that Heb. ben, which KJV translates ‘son’ may actually mean child, whether male or female’ as argued by Aguilar above, pp. 31314, we may possibly infer that both male and female slaves born to one’s handmaid (Heb. ’amah, the same noun, which elsewhere KJV translates ‘maidservant’) are entitled to Sabbath leisure. Obviously, this leaves open two questions, What about the manservant, whom you acquired and who was not born to your handmaid, and what about the maidservant herself? If, as Aguilar argues, and as I concur, ‘you’ (Heb. ’attah, the 2d pers. masculine personal pronoun) in Ex. 20:10 includes both Israelite women and Israelite men, may we likewise infer that ‘your handmaid’ in Ex. 23:12 includes ‘your manservant’? Probably not. After all, the working assumption of ancient and medieval exegesis and also of Grace Aguilar is that rules and statements that apply to men apply also to women unless there is an explicit statement to the contrary or unless there is a good reason for thinking otherwise as in the case of rules and statements that pertain to the physical differences between the sexes. There is no similar working assumption that rules and statements that refer specifically to women apply also to men. 8 During the sabbatical year when the land may not be worked and its produce may not be sold both manservant and maidservant may enjoy the produce along with family members, the hired servant and the stranger

330

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

according to Lev. 25:6. Incidentally, this verse which states ‘you’ (Heb. ’attah, the 2d pers. masculine personal pronoun) but does not add ‘and your wife’ demonstrates the cogency of Aguilar’s contention that ‘you’ here includes both the Israelite man and the Israelite woman. Otherwise, we would have to conclude that wives were not allowed to eat the fruits and vegetables that grew ‘of their own accord’ (cf. Lev. 25:5) and would have to spend that year abroad or starve to death! Consequently, it follows that ‘you’ in the Sabbath command in Ex. 20:10 is indeed addressed to both Jew and Jewess. According to Deut. 12:18–19 Jewish families are to ascend to “the place which the LORD thy God shall choose” and there to eat the tithe of grain, grape, and olive and the firstlings of cattle, sheep and goats, and they are to take with them for this festival celebration both their manservants and their maidservants. Likewise, according to Deut. 12:11, manservants and maidservants are to be included in all other family feasts that involve offerings to be presented in “the place which the LORD your God shall choose.” 9 According to Ex. 21:20 the same punishment applies to a person who physically attacked his/her manservant or a maidservant so that he or she died. According to Ex. 21:26–27, if a slave-owner physically attacked his/her manservant or maidservant so that the servant lost an eye or a tooth, the manservant or maidservant thereby becomes a free person. Likewise, according to Ex. 21:32, the same punishment applies to the owner of a bull who attacked someone else’s manservant or someone else’s maidservant. Indeed, Aguilar’s point concerning the equality of manservant and maidservant before the law of the Torah is well taken. Such is not the case in the law codes recovered from the ancient Near East. For example, G. R. Driver and John C. Miles, The Babylonian Laws (2 vols.; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1956), 1:408 write as follows with respect to the matter at hand: “The same [Hebrew Code in Ex. 21:26–27] punishes the master who wantonly injures his own slave or slave-girl, but the Laws [of Hammurapi] in #199 punish only the man who injures another’s slave. The Hebrew law takes a humane interest in the slave for his own sake, whereas the Babylonian law thinks only of the master’s interest.” Consequently, in making this point without great fanfare and without having at her disposal the law codes of the ancient Near East, that would come to light only more than half a century after Aguilar’s untimely death, Aguilar has made an abiding contribution to the history of women, to the study of biblical law, and to feminist biblical scholarship.

SECOND PERIOD. V. MAID SERVANTS IN ISRAEL

331

expressly named; thus proving that, though her actual rank was subordinate, though her duties were distinct, she was as carefully and tenderly provided for as the daughters of a family themselves. Even in the eating of holy things,10 which some might suppose a privilege only granted to the heirs of households, she was associated. No man could rejoice before the Lord by himself; sons, daughters, widows, fatherless, men-servants, and MAID-SERVANTS, all were included, and so distinctly enumerated, that not one could be omitted without a decided breach of law.11 The twenty-first chapter of Exodus and fifteenth chapter of Deuteronomy treat powerfully on the protection and kindness demanded towards male and female domestics. The simple words, “they shall not go out as men-servants do,”12 reveal the loving care for their protection, that With respect to the provisions of Deut. 12:11 and 12:18 see above under “Jewish families.” 11 Here Aguilar refers to Deut. 16:11, 14, which are discussed above under “festival and fast.” 12 This may be the literal meaning of Ex. 21:7b, “And she shall not go out as the menservants do.” In fact, the rabbis in Mekilta deRabbi Ishmael, ad loc and in Babylonian Talmud, Kiddushin, Chapter 1 understand “go out” to refer to the fact that the female Hebrew slave has more opportunities to be emancipated than does the male Hebrew slave. However, since the rabbis hold that she is purchased from a family that cannot support her so that the male head of the purchasing family or one of his sons may marry her and not so that she may be employed in servile labor, the rabbis ultimately incorporate, albeit in a roundabout way, the literal meaning of Ex. 21:7b, to which Aguilar refers here; see also Moses Maimonides, Mishneh Torah, Laws of Slaves, 4:7. Nevertheless, with all respect to her brilliant philology (already noted several times), Aguilar’s discussion of “laws for servants” in the present chapter suffers from three defects. First, it is incumbent upon any teacher of biblical studies in the post-modern era not to pass over in silence the fact that our brilliant philologist and brilliant historian of women in biblical law, narrative, prophecy, and wisdom suffers from a crucial blind spot. Unlike some of her contemporaries, who initiated the struggle for women’s rights in England and in the U.S.A., Aguilar did not come to the struggle for women’s right to education, women’s property rights, and women’s political rights after participation first in the struggle to emancipate the African slaves, who 10

332

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

were held as chattels in western countries including England and the United States when Aguilar penned this book. Her having made peace with the institution of chattel slavery affects results in her lack of sympathy for Hagar who is emotionally if not physically abused by Sarai/Sarah in the two narratives in Gen. 16 and Gen. 21. While it might be unfair of me to judge harshly Aguilar’s not being an abolitionist as were her younger contemporaries in the U.S.A., Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B. Anthony, the fact is that her utter insensitivity to the issue of human ownership of humans (which the Essenes and other ancient Jewish sects had abolished almost two millennia previously), renders her insensitive to basic issues in Gen. 16 and 21. Consequently, her treatment of those chapters is flawed not only ethically but also exegetically. A second defect in Aguilar’s treatment of “laws for servants” is her elitist, upper class almost supercilious looking down upon the masses of Yiddish-speaking Jewish immigrants from Eastern Europe, whose daughters she would like to make into chattels of the Sephardic elite, who were her and her parents’ peers and co-worshippers at London’s Bevis Mark, Synagogue of Spanish and Portuguese Jewry. Indeed, her looking down upon these young women has one ironically redeeming feature: it is of one piece with her frequent references to “the customs of the East” (pp. 79, 86, 105, 114), a cliché which clearly identifies many of Aguilar’s attitudes with what is now called “Orientalism.” The latter term now refers to an attitude of superiority on the part of the westerner toward peoples and customs of those whose language is neither Germanic nor Romance and whose alphabet is not Latin and whose location is anywhere east of Italy and Germany. Tragically, the Orientalist attitudes which lead Aguilar to propose making chattels of the daughters of Yiddish-speaking immigrants to England have amazingly clear parallels in the behavior of the secularized Jews from Eastern Europe, who established the institutions, which became the State of Israel, and to whose lot fell the task of “absorbing” Jewish immigrants from the Middle East, from India, from Georgia in the former Soviet Union, from Russia, White Russia, and the Ukraine, and from Ethiopia. One might hope that reading Aguilar’s quite innocent caricature (innocent because it was not even meant to be a caricature) of Orientalist attitudes might help persons charged with absorbing newcomers and the children of newcomers to think twice before again falling into the trap, which has proved tragic for the absorbed, for the absorbing, and for the society, which, in the end, the children and grandchildren of both ab-

SECOND PERIOD. V. MAID SERVANTS IN ISRAEL

333

sorber and absorbed must learn to share and repair. Concerning “Orientalism” in the less than complimentary sense see Said, Orientalism. The third flaw in Aguilar’s treatment of the ‘laws for servants’ is her failure to distinguish between two distinct institutions reflected in biblical law, narrative, prophecy, wisdom, and psalmody and now known also from the laws and literatures of the ancient Near East. These are the institution of chattel slavery and the institution of indentured servants. The former is, as explained in Lev. 25:44–46, a condition imposed upon persons of another ethnic group, who are bought and sold and whose children are born into slavery and remain in that condition unless emancipated by the largesse of the master or mistress or, in biblical law (which was considerably more generous than U.S.A. law prior to the Civil War!) as a consequence of the master’s or mistress’s having grossly physically abused the erstwhile maidservant or manservant (Ex. 21:20–21 and Ex. 21:26–27). The indentured servant is a member of the Israelite people (whether by birth, choice, or emancipation from previous status as a chattel is irrelevant here), who had either a) sold himself or herself because of inability to pay debts [Lev. 25:39–43] or b) been sold by one’s parents because they were impoverished [Ex. 21:7; 2 Kgs. 4:1]; or c) had been sold to pay off a debt because of the inability of the sold person to pay punitive damages arising from stealing someone else’s goods [Ex. 22:3]. While a close reading of all the relevant texts in Hebrew Scripture reveals the legal distinction between the chattel slave and the indentured servant, Biblical Hebrew vocabulary does not have distinct terms for the two functions. Consequently, Mishnaic Hebrew created distinct terms. The chattel is called “Canaanite slave” based not upon the ethnic origin of the chattel but upon the biblical statement “Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren” (Gen. 9:25). The indentured servant is called “Hebrew slave” based upon Deut. 15:12: “And if thy brother, an Hebrew man, or an Hebrew woman, be sold unto thee, and serve thee six years; then in the seventh year thou shalt let him go free from thee.” Now Aguilar’s failure to notice the distinction both in biblical law and narrative and in Rabbinic halakhah between the indentured servant and the chattel is reflected already at the beginning of Chapter 5, “Maid Servants in Israel.” First she states that this section of Women of Israel deals with a class, which, she says with grief [her term; my emphasis] no longer exists. And she says that with regard to daughters who were sold by their indigent parents (as in Ex. 21:7) [Rabbinic term: Hebrew maidservant] because her rich Sephardic

334

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

they should not be exposed to all the rougher labor of the field and out-door service incumbent on the males. To sell her to a strange nation, which would be the natural desire of the injurer and the deceiver, to conceal his sin, no man had power; for, if he did so, she could not regain her freedom at the end of seven years, and be restored to her family, as was the law in Israel.13 If he betrothed her to his son, she was to become even as a daughter; and if, as was the custom of the East, another wife were taken, her food, her raiment, her duty of marriage, he had no power to diminish.14 If he failed in either, she was free and spotless, alike in the sight of God and man.15 These beautiful laws appear, not only pretty convincing of the equality of female servants with their male brethren in the same class, but rather a startling manifestation of the falsity of the charge, that wives in Israel are degraded and abased. If even a female slave, when raised to become the wife of her master’s son, was to be regarded as a daughter, to retain her every privilege as firstselected wife, however the capricious heart of her husband might select another of his own rank, we rather imagine that every grade of Hebrew wives was equally protected by the Lord, and that no man whatever had power to degrade them. All injury committed on a female servant exposed her master to punishment of equal severity as the injury of a male. He dared do her no hurt, for if he did, whether through predetermination or momentary passion, she was his slave no longer.16 She had power friends would be able to buy one to help with domestic chores around the house. However, immediately thereafter, she enumerates various situations in which biblical law in Exodus, Leviticus, and Deuteronomy mentions both the manservant and the maidservant. And in all of those cases the texts refer to a chattel as is recognized both by ancient Rabbinic commentary and modern critical exegetes. 13 Ex. 21:7–9. 14 Ex. 21:10. 15 Ex. 21:11. 16 Here Aguilar refers to Ex. 21:20–21, which treats of the nonIsraelite male and female chattel slave while in the previous paragraph she wrote about the Israelite daughter who was acquired by another Israelite family (Ex. 21:7). According to Rabbinic tradition, this woman served for

SECOND PERIOD. V. MAID SERVANTS IN ISRAEL

335

to appeal from him to the representatives of her God, His priests, and she knew justice would be done her, for to do it was the ordinance of God. And, even without injury, the term of servitude was over in the seventh year.17 The extremity of destitution might have compelled a parent to sell, or rather to devote, his child to servitude; or reasons less imperative might urge his doing so, knowing that his children, even though they worked, would be better provided for, and perhaps more easily enabled to keep every ordinance of the Lord, in the family of their master, than struggling on for a scanty subsistence, nominally free. The poor were not to cease out of the land, that the people might obey the words of their God, in which He bade them, “Open thine hand wide unto thy poor brother, to thy poor and to thy needy in thy land;”18 and then, as a practical illustration of how the hand is to be opened wide, we are told that when our brother a Hebrew man, or a Hebrew woman, has been sold, and served in a family six years, we were not only to let him, or her, go free, which, did we act according to the finite judgment of man, there would be many to think sufficient; but they were to be furnished liberally out of the flock and the floor (i. e. barn, meaning corn),19 and out of the wine-press; of all wherewith the Lord had blessed us we were to give unto them. And not satisfied with having already mentioned the Hebrew woman, as ina maximum of six years and would be set free in the seventh. However, the rabbis read that into Ex. 21:7–11 from Deut. 15:12–18. 17 Aguilar here again confuses the institution of Hebrew maidservant with the institution of Canaanite maidservant in that according to halakhah the stipulation that the seriously injured slave goes free does not apply to the so-called Hebrew maidservant for the simple reason that not being a chattel, injury cannot remove her from the status of a chattel. It is clear that with reference to other biblical texts, Aguilar had read Rashi and other Jewish commentators or at least either read about them in Jewish periodicals or been told about them by persons who had read them. If she has read Rashi on Ex. 21 and Deut. 15 with respect to slaves, she has either forgotten or ignored what she read. 18 Deut. 15:11. 19 To be more precise, she means cereal grains such as wheat, barley, spelt, rye, and oats, which are spread on the floor of the barn.

336

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

cluded with the Hebrew man, in these laws, the law again enforces the equal rights of both, by repeating, “and also unto thy maidservant thou shalt do likewise;’’ adding, with that exquisite spirit of love infused through every law, “It shall not seem hard unto thee, when thou sendest him away free from thee, for he has been worth a double hired servant, in serving thee six years, and the Lord thy God shall bless thee in all thou doest.”20 Now, had there been no other mention of woman, these beautiful laws would have been sufficient to prove her equality with man in the sight of the Eternal. The illustration of these laws was given before the precept, in the Most High’s dealings with Hagar, as we have already seen; as a bondslave, and one not even of His chosen.21 He had compassion and love for her; and that His people should endeavor as strongly as lay in their power to follow in His own paths, He laid down statutes, the obedience to which would make every maid-servant as much the object of her master’s care, tenderness, and liberality, as Hagar had been to Him.22 The command relative to the maid-servants’ attendance at the feast of holy things,—on every Sabbath festival, etc., is rather convincing of religion being as incumbent on her as on man; nay, that her master himself was liable to punishment if he neglected to associate her, as well as every other of his household, in his religious exercises.23 Deut. 15:12–18. See above, p. 86, n. 44. 22 By treating Hagar as though she were subject to the law found in Deut. 15:12–18, Aguilar confirms the impression that she was not aware of the distinction in Hebrew Scripture between the Israelite who serves for a maximum of six years according to Ex. 21 and Deut. 15 and the chattel maidservant who serves without limit of time and whose children will inherit her slave status (cf. Lev. 25:44–46). 23 Indeed, the fact that chattel manservants were circumcised when acquired or when born on the Israelite estate (Gen. 17:12–13) and the fact that manservants and maidservants were required to observe the Sabbath and other Jewish festivals fostered the Rabbinic understanding that a slave belonged to a status between Gentile and Jew by choice and the further insight that when emancipated he or she became a full-fledged member of 20 21

SECOND PERIOD. V. MAID SERVANTS IN ISRAEL

337

Some over-refined natures24 are horrified at the idea of being sold to service—of the very term slave (the Hebrew word ‫ עבד‬by the way, signifies servant or domestic also); and, taking up the position that the law of Moses countenanced similar traffic as the slave trade in all its modern horrors, make it the grand objection to regarding the religion as the revelation of God. Yet no one who really studies the Word of God, can entertain an idea so erroneous for a moment. Perpetual slavery—that awful sacrifice of all home affections, all human emotions, that horrible system which permitted man to regard his brother man as a beast of the field, to be bought and sold, live and die at his will—was utterly unknown in Israel.25 the people and faith community of Israel with all the obligations, rights, and privileges appertaining thereto. 24 Aguilar utilizes the frequent mention of the rights and privileges of the maidservant to undermine the attempt of the people whom we today would call male chauvinists on the one hand and the people whom we today would call Bible-bashers on the other to show that women were totally excluded from religious life in biblical law and narrative. The chauvinists make their argument in order to reinforce their contention that women should also be excluded from public religious life today and should be sent to the kitchen to set up the after-worship collation. The Bible-bashers do it to give anti-Judaism and anti-Christianity a free ride on the back of feminism, which is much too important and still much to vulnerable to back-lashes, to be giving free rides to anyone, especially not to bigotry and bigots. Having said all of this, to pass over in silence or to excuse Aguilar’s referring to abolitionists and their sympathizers as overrefined would be to acquiesce. And we cannot even pray, “Father forgive her,” because by referring to abolitionists and their sympathizers as “overrefined” she has, from a halakhic point of view, offended not only God but also the slave men and the slave women of 19th century Europe and America and their would-be emancipators. And halakhah teaches that God forgives our offenses committed against other human beings only after we have made every reasonable human effort to seek the forgiveness of those other human beings. 25 On the one hand Aguilar seems to have overlooked Lev. 25:44–46, which legalizes perpetual slavery. On the other hand, numerous biblical laws, if they were enforced, including the law that a master or mistress who seriously injures a slave forfeits ownership of that slave (Ex. 21:26–27)

338

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

The term “selling” a son or daughter, simply signified the receiving beforehand the price of six years’ labor, in which six years the slave (so called) was equal to his master in everything but actual labor. He was to share in every feast, every rejoicing, sit at his master’s table, listen to the law,26 accept every covenant of God, be clothed, fed, and cared for, and at the term of his release be so liberally treated individually, as to enable him, if he pleased, to quit service, and the law that a master or mistress who kills a slave must be punished (Ex. 21:20) as well as the law that forbids returning a fugitive slave (Deut. 23:16) would, indeed, support Aguilar’s contention that the “horrible system of slavery,” which was practiced in the USA and elsewhere in the nineteenth century is not quite the system that Hebrew Scripture allows. See, inter alia, Robin Blackburn, The Making of the New World: Slavery from the Baroque to the Modern, 1492–1800 (London & New York: Verson, 1997); Pierre Dockès, Medieval Slavery and Liberation, trans. Arthur Goldhammer (London: Methuen & Co. / Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1982); Moses I. Finley, Ancient Slavery and Modern Ideology (New York: Viking Press, 1980); Moses I. Finley, ed., Slavery in Classical Antiquity (Cambridge, Eng.: W. Heffer, 1960); see also Paul Virgil McCracken Flesher, Oxen, Women, or Citizens? Slavery in the System of the Mishnah, Brown Judaic Studies, no. 143 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1988); M. A. Dandamayev, Slavery in Babylonia, trans. Victoria A. Powell, ed. Marvin A. Powell and David B. Weisberg (DeKalb: University of Northern Illinois Press, 1984); concerning the practice of slavery among Jews of Iberian origin in the modern world see also Jonathan Schorsch, Jews and Blacks in the Early Modern World (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004). 26Since she writes here about the so-called Hebrew ‘slave’ and the socalled Hebrew ‘handmaid’, who are full-fledged members of the house of Israel who have been sold for a maximum of six years by themselves or their parents because of indebtedness or by a court of law in consideration of punitive damages arising from stealing movable property including livestock, these persons are, of course, obligated to hear the periodic reading of the law prescribed in Deut. 31:11–12 and, of course, they are included in the covenant, which involves ‘every Israelite person’ (Deut. 29:10 where KJV translates ’ish ‘man’ rather than person; but the Hebrew text in v. 11 has already clarified the matter by saying that this includes “your little ones, your wives, and thy stranger that is in thy camp, from the hewer of thy wood to the drawer of thy water.”

SECOND PERIOD. V. MAID SERVANTS IN ISRAEL

339

and enter into independent business for himself, or remain, from pure affection or voluntary relinquishment of freedom, for ever with his master. This was the actual state of slavery in Israel, productive of a three-fold good. It saved many a parent from beholding the utter destitution of his children; gave him the means of working for himself by the price received for their six years’ labor, assured him of their temporal and spiritual welfare and of their being cared for, on their rebase, far better than he could for them, much as he loved them; prevented all those horrible incentives to crime and misery produced by the abject destitution of many a Gentile land; united master and servant in the sweet and holy ties of brotherhood, alike of religion, tribe, and land; subject to one law, worshipping one God, caring for the helpless and the weak, and making every household where the laws of God were obeyed one of heavenly harmony and love. In Israel there was no surplus of hands for work; none of those fearful temptations to sin in being thrown out of employ, in the inability to meet the heavy taxes and other drains upon the poor. The law in its every item spoke of God, and revealed Him as a God of love. He alone could have framed statutes entering into every man’s household, guiding his conduct from his parents to his very servants; shielding, compassionating, loving every individual in Israel, from the high priest to the lowest slave. Having now regarded all the laws27 instituted expressly for woman, in her several positions of mother, wife, widow, daughter, maid-servant, we have but to throw together all the remaining statutes relating to her generally. In every offering, be it of trespass, of thanksgiving, or of purification, we find in Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy, woman was so emphatically included as to be the subject of laws set apart for herself. The ordinances were binding on both man and woman, and care expressly taken to mark the guiding line of obedience for both. There was nothing left for inference, but all which was necessary was distinctly laid down. In the In the chapter heading Aguilar indicates that this Chapter also includes “sundry other laws.” She calls attention here to the new division within Chapter V of Period I by leaving a blank line. The annotator has attempted to add clarity by use of bold type at the beginning of this subdivision. 27

340

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

very particular law for lepers, woman was named as well as man.28 Nothing was left to human judgment; every item concerning its treatment, its cure, and its purification, precisely written down. In the laws for the Nazarite (Numbers vi.), woman is specified so clearly, that it is utterly impossible to retain a doubt of her service being equally acceptable, or that she had not the same power as man, to separate herself by a vow unto the Lord. That which was to guide man in this devotion, must equally have been given to guide her, or we should not see it so expressly stated, “when man or WOMAN shall separate themselves to vow the vow of a Nazarite,” etc. A woman who could wish to devote herself, appears to us to have been an independent single woman, and, therefore, not one of the daughters and wives specified in the latter law regarding vows, which, judging from the beautiful precision of the laws of God, would, had it alluded to the Nazarites, have been so expressed.29 The singular vow mentioned in Leviticus xxvii., including, as every other ordinance, woman as well as man, may or may not relate to the same kind of vows as mentioned in Numbers xxx. But whether it be or not, the law for the respective valuation of male and female service, proves that woman could make a singular vow, and either fulfil or redeem it with equal freedom and acceptance as man. That her service was valued at a less rate, is no proof of her inequality, but simply that the service she could render the Temple was, from the weakness of her frame, and the retiring nature of her sex, of less use and importance than man’s. Compare the work and capability of a man from the age of twenty to sixty, to those of a woman during the same period. There would be full the worth of “twenty shekels” difference. After the age of sixty, or in early childhood, the difference of valuation was much less, because

Lev. 13:29,38. Here, of course, she anticipates by almost a century and a half the remarks of Gruber, “Women in the Cult,” 57. 29 Married women, who are reported to have been Nazirites, include apparently, the mother of Samson (Judg. 13:7) and Queen Helena of Adiabene in the first century B.C.E. See Gruber, “Women in the Cult,” 57–58; concerning the mother of Samson, and concerning Queen Helena see also below in Women of Israel. 28

SECOND PERIOD. V. MAID SERVANTS IN ISRAEL

341

the capabilities of both drew nearer each other.30 We see, then, the real meaning of these differing estimations. The law of God, while it elevates and spiritualizes woman to an equal share of immortality and responsibility before Him, in no way permits or encourages her coming unduly forward or exalting herself above man. Her weaker frame, her less mighty mind, her more easily excited emotions, all mark the necessity of a more retiring and dependent station. She may contend for equal earthly rights, she may deem our assertion of her inferior capabilities of frame and mind an unfounded aspersion cast upon her, she may say she is equally independent, equally strong, in reason and power, yet to prove this, we fear she will not find quite so easy. Certainly not by the word of God, her only sure test of reason and feeling. And how much more just and graceful is her voluntary adherence to her own allotted path, and her determination to adorn that path with all the winning qualities, the devotedness, the affections, peculiar to her own sex, than the vain struggle to be in all things as man; a struggle in which she can but make manifest her weakness, and finally be so vanquished, that even

To be precise, the over-60 woman is valued at 33% of her value under the age of sixty while the man over 60 is valued at only 30% of his former value. And Rashi (quoting Babylonian Talmud, Arakin 19a where, in fact, this anti-male dictum is the concluding sentence of the Talmudic tractate; so much for the idea that Babylonian Talmud reflects only patriarchal values!) explains that an elderly man is a bother around the house while an elderly woman is a source of good luck around the house. This is to say that Rashi, followed to some extent by Aguilar, finds a way to turn a sacred text, which is commonly construed as unfavorable to women into a text, which teaches something no less unfavorable about men. One might even say that the commentary of Rashi, which for the last 900 years has been joined to the study of the Pentateuch, like a horse to a carriage, has mitigated the apparent sexist sting by turning it around much as Lev. 19:3 mitigates the precedence given to father over mother in the command to honor parents in the Decalogue (Ex. 20:12; Deut. 5:16) by giving preference to mother over father in the command to fear or reverence parents. 30

342

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

her natural claims are denied her, or conceded as a favor, not as a right.31 The equality which we contend for (and which we uphold is so clearly demonstrated, in not only our holy law itself, but in the mention of every female of the Bible), is not, in our capability, our station, humanly considered, but simply as immortal children of the Most High; having equal access to His gracious ear, equal power to win his condescending reply, equal responsibility in the performance of our every duty, in the just exercise of our several faculties; which faculties, so peculiarly adapted by our merciful Father to our wants, happiness, and duties, are of equal valuation in His sight as those of man. This is woman’s equality, proved by the very law which, by some misguided spirits, may be twisted into her abasement. What would be the need of marking her human valuation, if she had not the power of devoting herself by a singular vow unto the Lord, in any period of her life, from a month old to above sixty? Or, if she have no access to God, save through man, what could be the use of her vow? Were she to be degraded morally and mentally, where would be even her inclination for this spiritual serHere, as previously, Aguilar seizes the opportunity to express her view that women are weaker than men both physically and intellectually (see above, pp. 61, 64, 122, 224, 235, 261, 268, 294, 316). Nevertheless, Aguilar should be commended for having pointed out that Lev. 27, which is commonly condemned in feminist biblical scholarship for assigning a lesser value to women than for men, can be utilized most creatively to argue for the equality of women before the law and before God. For this, we must read on in Aguilar’s text concerning Lev. 27. Moreover, she argues further on (see p. 447) that when Hannah dedicated her son Samuel to the service of the sanctuary she did so under the provisions of Lev. 27, which made it possible for a person to dedicate oneself or one’s child to the service of the sanctuary. She will argue in the next pages that the monetary value placed upon the vowed person, which varies according to both sex and age reflects the value of the physical labor that a person could perform, which normally varies according to both sex and age. Moreover, she immediately notes here (a few lines below) that the right of women to equality in religion, education, and society does not require that one ignore the differences between men and women. 31

SECOND PERIOD. V. MAID SERVANTS IN ISRAEL

343

vice? Surely there need not have been any reference to her in this law, if the women of Israel were to be considered slaves and heathens. By this twenty-seventh chapter of Leviticus, we see too that female infants might be devoted by their parents to the Lord,32 another beautiful and unanswerable manifestation of their perfect equality with their brothers from their very birth, and must entirely do away with the idea that has been so idly brought forward, that the festival attending the naming of male children in Israel, compared with the quiet reception of the female, at once proves in what an inferior light the latter is regarded. The festivity which hails the entrance of the new-born son of Israel into the holy covenant of his fathers, is an immemorial national usage, descending to us from “the time that Abraham made a great feast, the day that Isaac was weaned,”33 and has nothing whatever to do with the claims of one sex over the other. To my own heart, the different reception of male and female children is an exquisite illustration and type of their respective paths. The world and man must be the theatre and the fellow-actor of the boy; he must go forth armed with a religious heart and unbending spirit to meet the temptations of pleasure, ambition, and a host of other passions and emotions, which must Lev. 27:6. Gen. 21:8. Rashi in his comment there notes that (in keeping with common practice in biblical times) Isaac had to have been weaned at twenty-four months of age. Another Jewish tradition, to which Aguilar refers here, utilizes the information about a feast Abraham made in honor of baby Isaac and transforms this into a feast Abraham made on the day of Isaac’s circumcision at the age of eight days. The latter feast is, consequently, seen as the precedent for the custom of making a feast on the occasion of the circumcision of a Jewish boy on the eighth day after his birth (for circumcision on the eighth day see also Lev. 12:3). Indeed, support for the eighth day feast is found in the Hebrew expression hgml “was weaned’ since the numerical value of the first letter of that Hebrew expression is 5 while the value of the second letter thereof is 3, and the two together make 8, the day of the circumcision and feast. And the final two letters of hgml spell out ml ‘he circumcised’. See, inter alia, the 12th century Hebrew commentary, Da‛at Zekenimn in the Rabbinic Bible at Gen. 21:8. 32 33

344

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

assail his more public path. But, to the girl, home is her theatre, her God her only stay. Why should festivity and idle revelry hail the birth of one, in whose own heart must be her purest pleasures, distinct from every pleasure (so called) of the world; whose path must be one of quiet and unostentatious retirement and usefulness? Her name is given in the house of God, arid by one of His elected servants. Taken to the most holy place, which, in our captive and desolate state, His house presents, by that ceremony to be received into the congregation of His people, does the female babe need more? Cannot the Hebrew mother thus realize the devoting her child to the faith and service of her God, more powerfully, more solemnly, than in even the festive circle which gathers round to hail the naming of her boy? We think, were these several rites more seriously considered, the idle charge we have quoted above, merely to disprove it, would find little resting in the heart of our fellows. The express prohibition relating to woman’s adopting, on any pretence whatever, the garments of the male, is another beautiful ordinance marking her natural sphere, and proving that any departure from it was not acceptable to the Lord. It was not only the act itself which is so forcibly brought forward, that Deut. xxii. 5 tells us, “All that do so are abomination unto the Lord thy God,” but the thoughts and feelings included in such an act, the temptation to depart from the retirement, the modesty, the purity of that home station which woman should so quietly fulfil. Were she not an equally responsible moral and religious agent as man, why need this law have been given? Again, we find that women who have wrought wickedness, women who have a familiar spirit (that is, sought to deceive by pretended spells and enchantments), women who have enticed to idolatry—all these, as well as similar sinners amidst the males, were to be stoned to death on the evidence of two witnesses. Now the very power to work such wickedness, supposes a perfect freedom of thought and will, wholly distinct from the power of man. Were woman so entirely the slave of man that her very prayers must be guided by his, and could only be acceptable through him, there could be no justice in condemning her as a free agent; her sins must be the sins of her father or husband, not her own, if her merit were only acceptable through his. She could not possibly be bound to obey the law, or punished for its disobedience, if it were only given to, and incumbent on, man. If she were to be made a slave and hea-

SECOND PERIOD. V. MAID SERVANTS IN ISRAEL

345

then, how does it happen that, wherever there can be a doubt as to both sexes being included, either in religious observances, or prohibiting of customs which were abomination unto the Lord, WOMAN is expressly mentioned in conjunction with man? The very wrath threatened in case of her transgression proves her equality quite as powerfully as the rewards promised to obedience, and the laws instituted for her adherence.34 Three times a year it was a positive enjoinment for every male to appear before the Lord in the place appointed for His temple.35 That woman was not included by name, was, instead of being a proof of her lesser importance and responsibility, a beautiful manifestation of that divine tenderness and justice, which, in their perfection and prescience, God only could display. A nameless variety of causes might intervene to prevent woman’s leaving her home in the distant provinces of Judea to accompany her father and husband to Jerusalem. Many a man might be enabled to obey the law himself, who would have been prevented doing so, had he been under a positive command to bring with him wife and children. Locomotion is man’s native element, and he can more often indulge in it without interfering with home duties than woman. It Who could do better than Grace Aguilar in turning the prohibition of the work of necromancers found in Lev.19:31; 20:6, 27; Deut. 18:11 into evidence of the Torah’s recognition of woman’s freedom of thought and will, which men should not seek to curb? In the paragraph that ends here Aguilar also refers to “women who have enticed to idolatry,” which is mentioned in Deut. 13:6 where we read as follows: “If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known ... .” There in Deut. 13:10 we are told, “And thou shalt stone him with stones, that he die,” which demonstrates that frequently the masculine singular third person pronoun or pronominal suffix refers equally to men and women. And Aguilar makes the point here that according to a law, which is found three times in the Pentateuch (Num. 35:30; Deut. 17:6; 19:15) capital punishment can be carried out only for an offense that was observed by two witnesses. 35 This law is repeated three times: Ex. 23:17; 34:23; Deut. 16:16. 34

346

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

was right and just, that he who so frequently travelled for pleasure should do so three times a year in obedience to the will of God. But many causes, in her own physical inability or maternal anxiety in the illness of some member of her family, might occur to prevent woman, and therefore the law was not made binding upon her, as it was on man.36 That this distinct mention of “all thy males” in no way degraded her, however, is clearly proved by the simple fact of her being required, when it was possible, and in all her positions in life, to rejoice before the Lord in his appointed festivals,37 to listen to the reading of His law at the Feast of Tabernacles,38 to attend to the offerings instituted expressly for her,39 to abstain from all wickedness and idolatry, and to come unto the Lord in every event, thought, act, desire, public or private, of her life. “Ye stand this day all of you before the Lord your God,” Moses exclaims, in the twenty-ninth chapter of Deuteronomy; “your captains of your tribes, your elders, and your officers, with all the men of Israel, your little ones, your WIVES, and the stranger that is in thy camp, from the hewer of wood to the drawer of water, that thou shouldst Cf. Gruber, “Women in the Cult,” 51–53. Here Aguilar refers to Deut. 16:11 (the Feast of Weeks) and 16:14 (the Feast of Tabernacles) in which she holds that “thou” includes both the male and the female adult (see above, p. 282, and see there, n. 15 for my demonstration of the cogency of this idea) while the mention of the daughter and the maidservant proves that females, as such, were not excluded. See now also Stein, “The Grammar of Social Gender in Biblical Hebrew,” 7–26. 38 The septennial reading of the law prescribed in Deut. 31:10–13, to which men, women and children are invited; see above, p. 284. 39 Examples of offerings, which a woman herself must present include the burnt offering and the sin offering that a mother presents after the birth of a child according to Lev. 12:6–8; the offerings required of a recovered leper after his or her (see Lev. 13:29, 38) recovery (Lev. 14:1–32); the burnt offering and the sin offering required of a woman after she recovered from an abnormal genital discharge (Lev. 15:29–30); and the offerings to be presented by a Nazirite (for women Nazirites see Num. 6:2) at the end of the term of Nazariteship (Num. 6:13–21) 36 37

SECOND PERIOD. V. MAID SERVANTS IN ISRAEL

347

enter into covenant with the Lord thy God, and into His oath, that He may establish thee to-day for a people unto Himself, and that He may be unto thee a God, as He hath said unto thee, and as he hath sworn unto thy fathers, to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob. Neither with you only do I make this covenant and this oath, but with him that standeth here with us this day before the Lord our God, and also with him who is not here with us this day, Jest there should be among you any man, woman, family, or tribe, whose heart turneth away this day to go and serve the gods of these nations.” In these few verses, and yet more powerfully in the whole chapter, to which we entreat our readers to turn, we have all which, as women of Israel, we need to-seal the scriptural truth and basis of the position which we have adopted and set forth. Every class, grade, and condition of women, as of men, must have been present when Moses spoke these emphatic words—all included in the terms, “little ones and WIVES.” And they heard, that Moses addressed not only them, but their descendants, lest any man, WOMAN, family, or tribe, should, by their idolatry, or other transgression, hurl down on the whole nation the awful curses which he proceeds to enumerate. Would he, need he, have been thus particular, were the women of Israel destined to be but slaves to man, nonentities before God? Alas! whatever the falsely accusing Gentile,40 or mistaken Hebrew,41 may assert, we have but fearful evidence in the I.e., non-Jews who take for granted the repeated assertion that Hebrew Scripture and even more the ancient rabbis denied women access to God and that Christianity opened a door for women, which Jewish women ought to enter. Aguilar makes the point repeatedly that Christian missionaries sincerely believe that Jewish women need not only to be saved by baptism from eternal damnation but also to be saved in this life from a religion that does not recognize Jewish women as persons equal to men in the sight of God; see above, pp. 259-263. 41 Having presented significant evidence that women are not ignored in Hebrew Scripture, that women are given a prominent role in religious celebrations, and that many rules that are addressed to ‘you’ (masculine singular Hebrew pronoun) or described as being done by ‘him’ apply equally to men and women, Aguilar reiterates the point that many Jewish men, especially many who hold power in the Jewish community, would 40

348

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

monarch of Israel42 of the influence of woman, manifesting too terribly the prophet’s prescience43 in including her, as leading herself and man to sin, and so hastening the great and terrible wrath of the Lord. We have now drawn to the conclusion of our Second Period, the women of Israel’s most momentous era: the delivery and establishment of that law, which, in the very midst of revolutions, changes, new creeds, and their awful persecutions,—in the very midst of denial, abuse, and heavy darkness,—yet remains the hope, the guide, the protection, the defence, the elevation of woman, whatever her station, whatever her country, aye, and whatever her creed may be;—more especially the blessed inheritance of the females of that people on whom our God Himself bestowed it, and one, therefore, which should be their glory, their privilege, their delight, to render so exalted, by their individual and national conduct, in the sight of a Gentile world, that none dare fling odium on the female Jewish name, or seek to heathenize and degrade them. We have sought to bring together every law relative to woman; but the subject is so momentous, the field so wide, we can scarce hope we have accomplished it as fully as we could wish. We deny women their place outside of the kitchen in Jewish private and public life, and she expresses the hope that the data she presents in Women of Israel may yet change the minds of both the accusing Gentiles and the mistaken Hebrews. Given the great esteem in which Aguilar was held, it would seem that Aguilar succeeded. Hopefully, this new edition, will carry forward the cause of showing that Hebrew Scripture should not be used either to degrade women or to paint a picture of Aguilar’s ancestral faith as a religion that seeks to degrade women. 42 She refers to King Solomon, of whom it is said in 1 Kgs. 11:3–4: “And he had seven hundred wives, princesses, and three hundred concubines: and his wives turned away his heart. For it came to pass when Solomon was old, that his wives turned away his heart after other gods: and his heart was not perfect with the LORD his God, as was the heart of David his father.” 43 She refers to Moses, the traditional author of the Pentateuch, and she attributes to his prophetic gift the description of Eve leading Adam into sin in Gen. 3:6.

SECOND PERIOD. V. MAID SERVANTS IN ISRAEL

349

can only hope and pray, that a perusal of these pages may lead our sisters in Israel to seek their foundation yet more earnestly than the frail superstructure, and find for themselves, in their Bibles, all that we may have omitted, or failed to treat as largely as we might. The more our beautiful law is studied, the more must we feel, that, as women, we are especially objects of the Eternal’s loving protection and care; that we are privileged in every feeling as well as every act to come to Him, alike in thanksgiving and prayer; that we have no need whatever, in obtaining our eternal welfare, for the aid and interference of man.44 The more we study, the more we must feel that we have, as women of Israel, a station to uphold alike before God and man; that as the first, the only people to whom God Himself deigned to provide a law, we should be the vary first in holiness, purity, spirituality, and divine love, amid the nations. We may be captives, we may be awhile under the Eternal’s wrath, but that truth in no way lessens our responsibility, or diminishes the necessity for our firmly upholding our heavenly heritage and guiding law. We may be captives, but, and oh! let the blessed truth be remembered and clasped to our hearts, we are NOT CAST OFF.45 Martin Noth Leviticus, trans. J. E. Anderson, Old Testament Library (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1965), 98 commenting on Lev. 12:6–8, which prescribes that a woman after childbirth shall present two offerings, expresses amazement that it is not her husband who is asked to present the offerings on her behalf. Apparently, many Jewish men in Aguilar’s time (and perhaps even now) assume that a man must pray on behalf of a woman in both good times and bad times. Aguilar makes the point here and will do so again, more forcefully, in connection with the narrative of Hannah in part 3, chapter 6 below that such men are simply misinformed and need to be reeducated in Judaism. 45 Granted that it is stated in Jer. 52:3, “For through the anger of the LORD it came to pass in Jerusalem and Judah, till he had cast them out from his presence,” however it is also stated in the very same Hebrew Bible in Zech. 8:23, which was spoken after the restoration of the Jews who been cast out, “Thus saith the LORD of hosts: In those days it shall come to pass, that ten men shall take hold out of all languages of the nations, even shall take hold of the skirt of him that is a Jew, saying, We will go with you: for we have heard that God is with you.” 44

350

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

Our chastisement is not the sign of divine wrath alone, but of that which punisheth to save, to amend, to bring back to the blessed paths which we have deserted, NOT to annihilate, as in the case of so many other nations.46 Our very existence through so many centuries of darkness would alone prove this, even had we not the whole word of God to assert that so it would be. Every prophet abounds in the divine entreaty, so fraught with forbearing love, “O Israel, return unto the Lord thy God; why hast thou fallen by thine iniquity?”47 And shall we, as women, reject these gracious proffers? Oh, let us indeed ever come unto the Lord our God, and make manifest to the Gentiles, to ourselves, how deeply, how earnestly we feel, that alike our protection, innocence, honor, purity, elevation, all that can make life dear and holy, all that is provided to lighten our temporal toil, with eternal hope to strengthen our weakness, to guide our daily path, and bless our daily work, is of the Lord, not man. That every pure throb of love, every sweet tie of life, every aspiring prayer and grateful thanksgiving, comes from and is hallowed by Him, who, in His deep love, entered into the heart and home of woman, and so fenced them round with just and beautiful laws, that It was impossible to perform a single duty, social or domestic, parental, filial, conjugal, or fraternal, without being holy unto the Lord!48 Can we think on this important and DEEP LOVE

For Grace Aguilar as a believing Orthodox Jewess the nations of the world where Jews have been scattered over the last two millennia are not simply “the Diaspora,” but “Exile,” which the Jews brought upon themselves because they did not handle their affairs properly in the days of the Second Temple. But she also regards the sufferings of the Jews as “chastisements of love.” Concerning this Jewish doctrine see above, p. 120, n. 110. 47 Hos. 14:1, the opening words of the prophetic lection or haftarah for the Sabbath which falls between the Jewish New Year and the Day of Atonement. 48 This phrase was to be engraved on the piece of gold worn on the forehead of the high priest (Ex. 28:36; 39:30). Later, Zech. 14:21 speaks of a time when upon the bells of the horses in Jerusalem shall be written those same words and that every cooking pot in Jerusalem shall be holy unto the LORD. Aguilar notes that by means of the observance of the 46

SECOND PERIOD. V. MAID SERVANTS IN ISRAEL

351

most blessed truth without lifting up our yearning hearts in the fervent prayer for that guidance, that blessing, which will enable us to remember our solemn responsibility, our heavenly heritage; and, in the midst of captivity, and its varied ordeals of adversity, stagnation, and prosperity, that we may still join heart to heart and hand to hand in the persevering effort to make manifest to our God, that we would indeed be once more His own, and to the nations, that, cast off for a “little moment”49 as we are, WE ARE STILL, and SHALL EVER BE, the CHOSEN PEOPLE of the LORD?50

weekly Sabbath, the rules of what food may or may not be consumed, the rules that govern conjugal life (now commonly called “family purity”) and a host of other acts of piety performed day in and day out the Jewish home is a place where the eschatological vision of Zechariah is realized daily. 49 Referring to Isa. 54:7: “For a small moment have I forsaken you; but with great mercies will I gather thee.” 50 Isa. 41:9: “I have chosen thee, and not cast thee away.”

CHAPTER I. MIRIAM Having now considered the law of God under all its various bearings relative to woman, it only remains to prove, from the female characters of Scripture, in what manner that law was obeyed; and whether it be possible to discover any trace of statutes, which, in direct contradistinction to the changeless law of the Eternal, tend to degrade, instead of to elevate, the female character; or whether we cannot bring forward some sufficiently convincing arguments in favor of our deeply studied theory, that the law of the Eternal is explained, by its practical illustration, through the whole history of the Bible. To the oralist, or non-oralist, this consideration ought to be of equal weight. Keeping aloof entirely from the discussion which has of late too painfully agitated the whole Jewish nation,1 we would Here Aguilar refers to the controversy surrounding the founding in 1840 of the West London Synagogue, which was the first Reform Synagogue in Britain. One of the characteristics of early Reform Judaism in Britain, exemplified in the person of David Marks, the first minister of the West London Synagogue was a Biblicism, which denigrated and denied the divine authority of the Talmud. Indeed, this Biblicism has often been characterized by scholars as a kind of Neo-Karaism. David Feldman, Englishmen and Jews: Social Relations and Political Culture 1840–1914 (New Haven & London: Yale University Press, 1994), demonstrated that the rejection of the Oral Law by David Marks and his followers among early Reform Judaism in England can be accounted for by reference to the acceptance of Christian attacks upon Rabbanism. However, the roots of the antiRabbinism of the founders of the West London Synagogue, which drew half of its membership from the Spanish and Portuguese Bevis Marks Synagogue (the first Jewish congregation to be established in England after Oliver Cromwell allowed the Jews to settle in England legally) can also be traced to the Portuguese Jewish community in Amsterdam, mem1

355

356

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

bers of which had founded Bevis Marks. See Y. Kaplan, “Ha-tesisah haruchanit ba-kehillah ha-Sefaradit—ha-Portugalit be-Amsterdam ba-me’ah ha-yod-zayin,” in H. Beinart, ed, Moreshet Sepharad: The Sephardi Legacy (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1992), 600–621 (in Hebrew). On all of the issues raised her see the penetrating analysis and abundant data in Daniel R. Langton, “A Question of Backbone: Contrasting Christian Influences upon the Origins of Reform and Liberal Judaism in England,” Melilah, 3 (2004), 1–47. The anti-Rabbanism, which had affected some portions of the Sephardic Diaspora also had its impact upon the rhetoric of the Reformed Society of Israelites, which was incorporated in Charleston, South Carolina in 1826; see Charles Reznikoff with the collaboration of Uriah Z. Engelman, The Jews of Charleston (Philadelphia; Jewish Publication Society of America, 1950), 132. Aguilar claims here to steer clear of the controversy within Anglo-Jewry during the years before the initial publication of Women of Israel. However, her defense of the Talmud in Period VII, Chapter VII demonstrates clearly that she fully understood that the denigration of Rabbinic Judaism and the charge that the Jews had long ago abandoned the biblical religion of God for a man-made religion of the rabbis was simply anti-Judaism and anti-Semitism. In this regard her position, despite her efforts not to rekindle the controversy between the Sephardic Bevis Marks and the Ashkenazic London Great Synagogue on the one hand and the West London (Reform) Synagogue on the other, is similar to that of the second Ashkenazic Chief Rabbi of the British Empire, Nathan Adler, who argued that without the Talmud, “every doctrine, every ordinance, and every law [in the Hebrew Bible] would be a sealed book, a riddle without solution.” (So Adler in Solomon’s Judgement: A Picture of Israel [London: Wertheimer, 1854], 8–9. cited by Langton, “A Question of Backbone,” 11). Ironically, while refusing to surrender an inch to the Christian attack upon Rabbanism, Aguilar claims to rely for most of her knowledge of the content of Rabbinic Literature upon writings by and oral communications from Tobias Theodores, the ideologue of the Manchester Reform Synagogue, who, like David Marks of the West London Synagogue, denied the validity of the claim of the Talmud to be based upon an Oral Tradition of divine origin. As argued by the Tannaite Sage, Rabbi Meir (see Babylonian Talmud, Hagigah 15b) with respect to his teacher Elisha son of Abuya, One can learn much even from teachers with whose ideology one cannot abide. It was in the course of the debate within the Bevis Marks synagogue concerning the divine origin of the Oral Law that, as it

THIRD PERIOD. I. MIRIAM

357

yet present to both parties the simple fact, that the supposed degradation of the women of Israel can have no existence whatever in the Oral Law,2 or we must find some trace of this abasement in this is explained by D. A. De Sola and M. J. Raphall in the preface to the second edition of their Eighteen Treatises from the Mishna (London: Sherwood, Gilbert, and Piper 1845), iii: “During one of the public discussions that took place at the vestry board of the Sphardim Synagogue, on the subject of revising the liturgy used in that Synagogue, and for improving its Public Worship, the opponents to alteration took shelter under the authority of the Mishna, and this led the advocates of improvement to express their long entertained doubts as to the divinity of the Oral Law. These gentlemen, on being taunted with using arguments derived from partial extracts furnished by Christian writers, urged the necessity of being supplied with an English translation from persons of their own faith. In consequence of this application, the meeting passed a resolution authorizing the Rev. D. A. De Sola to translate the Mishna. Mr. De Sola having at the same time been empowered to call a coadjutor, made choice of the Rev. M. J. Raphall, and the following translation (comprising such parts of the work as more immediately relate to Israel in their present dispersion) is the production of their joint labours.” In a footnote there they explain that they have omitted “The Treatise Nidda not being suited to the refined notions of the English reader ... and for the same reason the Hebrew in some places has been substituted for English. In Treatise Yebamoth it has been deemed necessary to omit, for similar reasons, chapters VI, and VIII, as well as several sections in the same Treatise....” The first edition of De Sola and Raphall, Eighteen Tractates of the Mishnah in English (London: 1843) must have been available to Grace Aguilar when she wrote Women of Israel, which first appeared in 1845. Israel Abrahams in his By-Paths in Hebraic Bookland (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society of America, 1900), 247– 253 treats Grace Aguilar as a major writer on Judaism, but he criticizes her not taking seriously the Oral Torah. However, a careful reading of Women of Israel, especially the discussion of Talmudic laws, legends, and aphorisms in Period VII, will reveal that Abrahams was mistaken in his assertion that Aguilar did not take seriously the literature of the Oral Torah. 2 As fundamental as is to Christianity the Holy Bible containing the Old Testament and the New Testament so is fundamental to Judaism the acknowledgment that Hebrew Scripture contains only part of the Instruction (Heb. Torah), which God gave to Israel, the other part being ‘the

358

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

Oral Law’ or ‘the Oral Torah’. It was more than a century after Grace Aguilar that there arose in the USA a Jewish rabbi and scholar, my revered teacher, Jacob Neusner, who succeeded in cogently expounding to Jew and Gentile, men and women, the Jewish doctrine, which he called “the dual Torah of Moses our Rabbi,” consisting of the Pentateuch, which is the Written Law, and the Oral Torah, which is expounded in the Rabbinic canon consisting of the Mishnah and its ancient commentaries called Tosefta, Jerusalem Talmud, and Babylonian Talmud and commentaries on Exodus (Mekilta deRabbi Ishmael), Leviticus (Sifra meaning ‘the book’), Numbers, and Deuteronomy (several books called Sifre, meaning ‘the books’). The reader is referred here to Neusner’s corpus of more than a thousand books including The Way of Torah (Belmont, CA.: Dickenson, 1970); and The Theology of the Oral Torah: Revealing the Justice of God (Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 1999). Here in Women of Israel Aguilar alludes to the fact that some 19th century Jewish thinkers and laypersons thought to make Judaism more credible to themselves and their Christian neighbors if they abandoned belief in the Oral Torah and redefined themselves as the religion of the Old Testament. It is clear from what she writes here that she accepts the belief in the Oral Torah and rejects the idea that were the Jews to adhere only to the Written Torah— the Pentateuch—the status of women among the Jews would have improved. Since she does hold that the Jewish understanding of Hebrew Scripture and of the obligations of the Jews, individually and collectively, was rooted in ancient tradition, she argues here that in the stories collected in Hebrew Scripture we would have found the deleterious influence of the Oral Torah played out in the post-Pentateuchal history of Israel if, indeed, the Oral Torah had taken away from women what the Written Torah had given. She takes it for granted that in the previous sections of Women of Israel she has amply demonstrated that the degradation of women has no place in the Pentateuch! Notwithstanding her addressing both “the oralist” and the “non-oralist,” which is to say two parties, which made themselves heard in Portuguese Jewish congregations in the time of Aguilar, one still believing in the Oral Torah and the other one claiming not to, Aguilar clearly does not take seriously the idea that the rabbis of the post–70 CE era fabricated the doctrine of the Oral Torah. In any case, the argument about whether Hebrew Scripture is good or bad for women has by now moved into another realm. The reason that this argument has moved into another realm is that Judaism-bashers found out already in the

THIRD PERIOD. I. MIRIAM

359

and the succeeding periods of our history. If both were given at the same time, the women of Israel whom we are about to bring forward, must have lived under the jurisdiction of both; and as their lives, feelings, and actions, are all in exact accordance with the spirit and the form of the written law, it is clearly evident, that the modern accusation against us can have no foundation whatever in the Oral Law, or we must have discovered it in the female characters of Scripture. Nor will the groundless assertion of our individual inferiority and social abasement find confirmation in the writings of

19th century long after Aguilar had died at the early age of 31 that Judaism can be bashed both by bashing Rabbinical Literature as a perversion of Hebrew Scripture and by bashing the Old Testament. Furthermore, it has been discovered that one can bash the Old Testament whether one holds that the Pentateuch was written by Moses or by named and unnamed prophets in the days of the First Temple (ending in 586 B.C.E.) or by unidentified persons during the Persian hegemony (539–333 B.C.E.) or later. Nevertheless, two questions still remain as framed by Aguilar. The first of these questions is “Can and should Hebrew Scripture and the subsequent history and sacred literature of the Jews honestly be utilized by persons within the Jewish community who want to deny women their equal status with men in the eyes of God?” The second question is, “Will a close reading of Hebrew Scripture and the subsequent history of the Jews and their sacred literature support the contention that Jewish women and women the world over would best be served by abandoning the Old Testament and Jewish sacred literature altogether in favor of some other creed?” Books and articles on “women in the Bible” and “feminist interpretation of the Bible” and “women scholars/rabbis/ministers commenting on the Bible” generally have three main goals: a) attacking the Bible and the Jews as the source of many of the ills that beset women the world over; b) defending the Bible as an untapped source for the liberation of women; c) collecting data on both sides of the question either because that is what honesty demands or because that is what the author(s) find interesting. Obviously, Aguilar’s book for better or worse belongs to category b. The notes to this as to the previous section will attempt to identify the sources for her assertions and the texts and the people to whom she refers and to critique her when modern ethical sensibilities demand that the annotator not imply assent by silence.

360

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

our ancient fathers,3 whose beautiful parables and tales all tend to illustrate alike the spirit of our law, and the axiom of our wise man,4 “Who can find a virtuous woman, for her price is far above rubies?”5 We will proceed, then, without further introduction, to our history, convinced that were the word of the Eternal more deeply studied, the love and peace it breathes must infuse themselves unconsciously in every human heart, and strife and discord melt away before the inspired transcript of the love and mercy of our God. The character of Miriam is one of the most perfect delineations of woman in her mixed nature of good and evil which the Bible gives. Her first introduction we have already noticed—a young girl, watching, at the command of her mother, the fate of The writings of our ancient fathers is Aguilar’s term for ancient Rabbinic Literature, including the two Talmuds and the Midrash Books such as Genesis Rabbah, Leviticus Rabbah, and the like. Our ancient fathers corresponds to the persons commonly designated today in English as “the rabbis” or “the rabbinic sages” or in Modern Hebrew, “Our sages of blessed memory.” 4 Presumably, she means King Solomon, the traditional author of the Book of Proverbs, as is hinted by the opening line of the Book of Proverbs, “the Proverbs of Solomon.” However, Babylonian Talmud, Bava Batra 15a attributes the writing (or editing) of the Book of Proverbs to King Hezekiah and his associates. The latter idea is probably inspired by Prov. 25:1, which may suggest only that Prov. 25–29 were copied out by people associated with King Hezekiah. 5 The first line of the acrostic poem in praise of the virtuous woman found in Prov. 31:10–31. At least since the 16th century under Kabbalistic influence this poem has been sung at the dinner table on Friday Evening before the singing of the Kiddush ‘the Sanctification of the Sabbath over a cup of wine’. The Kabbalists intended that the poem from Prov. 31 be sung as a hymn in praise of the Shechinah, which is conceived of as the feminine aspect of God, which is embodied in the Sabbath. Nevertheless, it is widely assumed that the husband and children sing Prov. 31:10–31 in praise of the wife and mother who has prepared the beautifully set table in honor of the Sabbath and will soon serve the sumptuous repast, for which all wish to express their gratitude. 3

THIRD PERIOD. I. MIRIAM

361

the ark which held her baby brother, and boldly addressing the princess of Egypt in the child’s behalf.6 Her next mention is her sharing the holy triumph of that brother, and responding, with apparently her whole heart, to the song of praise bursting forth from the assembled Israelites on the shores of the Red Sea. “And Miriam the prophetess, the sister of Aaron, took a timbrel in her hand, and all the women went out after her, with timbrels, and with dances. And Miriam answered them, Sing, sing ye to the Lord, for he hath triumphed gloriously, the horse and his rider hath he thrown into the sea.”7 The Hebrew word, ‫הנביאה‬, here used, and translated prophetess, means also, a poetess, and the wife of a prophet,8 and is applied sometimes to a singer of hymns.9 In this latter meaning, and Ex. 2:1–8; see above, p. 244. Ex. 15:20–21. 8 Aguilar undoubtedly bases this assertion on Isa. 8:3 where the prophet Isaiah son of Amoz says, “I went in unto the prophetess; and she conceived, and bare a son.” It was long assumed that the wife of a prophet was designated nebi’ah ‘Mrs. Prophet’ just as the wife of the king (Heb. melek) was presumably designated malkah meaning Mrs. King. Later it was observed that wives of kings are not usually designated malkah in the Hebrew Bible. The two famous persons, who are designated in Hebrew Scripture as malkah ‘queen’ are the Queen of Sheba, who appears to be the reigning monarch of her realm, and Queen Esther, who seems to be portrayed in the Book of Esther as having shared power with King Ahasuerus. Consequently, there is no clear basis for assuming that nebi’ah literally means ‘wife of the prophet’. On the contrary, it appears that since Isaiah tells us that he slept with the nebi’ah and impregnated her so that she bore him a son, this nebi’ah was likely a prophetess in her own right. It follows that the prophet Isaiah and the unnamed prophetess constituted a two-career family. 9 This assumption can be supported by the fact that both Miriam the prophetess and Deborah the prophetess are accredited with having composed and sung elaborate hymns of victory found respectively in Ex. 15:21 and Judg. 5. Almost twenty years before the “second wave of feminism” in the 70’s of the twentieth century Frank Moore Cross and David Noel Freedman, “The Song of Miriam,” Journal of Near Eastern Studies 14 (1955), 237–250 suggested that the Hymn of Victory at the Sea in Ex. 15 6 7

362

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

perhaps, also, as a poetess, it must be applied to Miriam, as she was neither the wife of a prophet, nor, as in the case of Deborah,10 and afterwards Huldah,11 endowed by the Eternal with the power of prophecy itself.12 She appears to have been one of those gifted beings, from whom the words of sacred song flow spontaneously. The miracles performed in their very sight were sufficient to excite enthusiasm in a woman’s heart, and awaken the burst of thanksgiving; and Miriam might have fancied herself at that moment as zealous and earnest in the cause of God as she appeared to be. But for true piety, something more is wanted than the mere enthusiasm of the moment, or the high-sounding religion of flowing verse. By Miriam not being permitted to enter the promised land, it is evident that she “had not followed the Lord fully,”13 but had probably was originally composed by Miriam and that later its authorship was transferred to Moses. See especially Phyllis Trible, “Bringing Miriam out of the Shadows,” Bible Review 5 (1989), 14–34; for additional literature see Carol Meyers, “Mother to Muse: An Archaeomusicological Study of Women’s Performance in Ancient Israel,” in Recycling Biblical Figures: Papers Read at a Noster Colloquium in Amsterdam, 12–13 May 1997, ed. Athalya Brenner and Jan Willem van Henten (Leiden: Deo Publishers, 1999), 71, n. 60. 10 Deborah’s prophetic pronouncements are found in Judg. 4:6–14; q.v.; and see below in Women of Israel, Period III, Chapter III. 11 See 2 Kgs. 22:13–20; and see below, in Women of Israel, Period IV, Chapter V. 12 Indeed, there is no reference anywhere in Scripture to Miriam’s having prophesied. Consequently, Rashi in his commentary on Ex. 15:20 asks, “Where did she prophecy?” And Rashi, having copied this question out from Babylonian Talmud, Sotah 12a, replies to this question on the basis of the latter source, as follows: “When she was Aaron’s sister before the birth of Moses she prophesied that her mother would give birth to a son, who would redeem Israel from Egyptian bondage.” 13 The Hebrew expression mille’ ’aharey ‘follow fully’ is attested in Num. 14:24 where God says, “But my servant Caleb ... hath followed me fully.” See also Deut. 1:36 and Josh. 14:14 where it is said that Caleb ‘wholly followed the LORD’ (see below, p. 378). Moreover, Joshua says of himself in Josh. 14:8, “I wholly followed the LORD my God.” Since Joshua and Caleb were the only Israelites who left Egypt who were so totally loyal to God that they merited entry into the Promised Land, Agui-

THIRD PERIOD. I. MIRIAM

363

joined in the rebellions and murmurings which characterized almost the whole body of the Israelites during their wanderings in the wilderness. The very next mention of her after her song of praise, is her presumptuous attack upon Moses, and daring insult to the power of the Lord, contained in the twelfth chapter of Numbers. Some chronologists14 believe this incident occurred only one year after the passage of the Red Sea, a period not sufficiently long for circumstances to have changed the character of Miriam so completely, had not jealousy and presumption been secretly inmates of her heart before; unknown, perhaps, even to herself, for how few of us know our “secret sins,” until they are roused into action by some unlooked-for temptation in an unguarded moment, and we are startled at ourselves.

lar concludes that Miriam, who was denied entry into the Promised Land, must not have followed the LORD fully. 14 The biblical Book of Numbers places the account of Miriam’s and Aaron’s attack upon Moses (Num. 12) just before the account of Moses’s sending twelve spies to report on conditions in Canaan in preparation for an immediate entry into the Promised Land (Num. 13). Such a chronological sequence would suggest that both of these events took place at the end of the second year after the Exodus. The third book of Josephus, Antiquties culminates with the narration of those two events, and Josephus prefaces the third book of his Antiquities noting that two years transpired from the Exodus to those events. However, according to Numbers Rabbah 16:6, the juxtaposition of the account of Miriam’s and Aaron’s speaking against Moses (Num. 12) with the account of ten of the twelve spies speaking ill of the Land of Canaan (Num. 13) is an instance of chronological displacement. In fact, that midrash intimates, Miriam’s offense and its punishment took place long before the end of the second year after the Exodus. However, the midrash explains, the tale was recounted in the Torah just before the sending of the spies in order to warn them of the dire consequences of slander so that they might avoid slandering the Holy Land. However, the midrash concludes, they did not understand the message, which the Torah sought to convey by means of chronological displacement. Note that the midrash, here referred to, is alluded to also in Rashi’s Commentary at Num. 13:2.

364

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

The feelings of Miriam, recorded in this chapter, are so perfectly accordant with woman’s nature, that surely no woman of Israel will turn from it, believing the length of time which has elapsed removes all the warning which it should inculcate. One of the most prominent of female failings is secret jealousy, quite distinct, however, from the fearful passion so called. We allude simply to that species of secret and unconfessed jealousy, which is the real origin of detraction, so often, unhappily, practised by woman upon woman. We are not now writing of any class, or creed, or people in particular, but of women in general. There never yet was gossip, without some species of detraction spoken or implied; and never yet has detraction been probed candidly and fairly (disregarding the pain of so doing) to its root, without being traced to either jealousy or envy of some quality, or possession, of the more favored being so unkindly judged. Women, and single women more especially, are more liable to petty failings than men, simply because they have less to engross their minds, and less of consequence to employ their hands. Unless taught from earliest years to find and take pleasure in resources within, they must look without, and busy themselves with the characters, and conduct, and concerns of their neighbors. Now acknowledged merit to such characters gives very little food for cosy chat; it wants esprit, and so they are never content, till something doubtful or suspicious is discovered, or supposed to be, and then the lovers of gossip may be found in full conclave, marvelling, and wondering, and turning, and twisting, and blaming, and pitying, till the very object of such animadversion might find it difficult to trace of whom they speak, and know infinitely less of her own concerns, intentions, and feelings, than her reporters. As Miriam acted, so would most women, unenlightened by that pure spirit of religious love, which alone can conquer the natural inclination towards detraction, and subdue secret jealousy, by making us aware of its existence. “And Miriam and Aaron spake against Moses, because of the Ethiopian woman whom he had married.”15 The very thing to arouse jealousy and disturbance in an unenlightened woman’s mind. 15

Num. 12:1.

THIRD PERIOD. I. MIRIAM

365

Miriam had never been thrown in contact with her sister-inlaw till within the last few months: Moses having sent his wife for safety, with his two sons, to her father Jethro, during the troubles in Egypt and their subsequent redemption. From the silence with regard to Zipporah, we are led to infer that she was a woman of meek and retiring habits, but of course, as the wife of their great leader Moses, held in higher repute by the people than his sister. And this, trifling as it seems, is now, as it always has been, a trial to some of our sex. Few single women there are who can look upon the elevation of a brother’s wife without some secret feelings of pain, which will be subdued and changed into warmest affection, or gain ascendency and violence, finding vent in petty malice or halfconcealed detraction, according as religion, and candor, and selfknowledge are, or are not, predominant in the sister’s character. Perhaps it is hard, in some cases, to see one younger and fairer, and only known but a few years or months, as the case may be, usurp entire possession of a beloved brother’s heart; wherein we, who have been his hand-in-hand companions from earliest infancy, must now be content with but a very secondary place; but such is one of the many trials peculiarly woman’s,—permitted, that from her very loneliness below, she may look above for that fulness of love and tenderness for which she yearns. And thrice happy is that woman who, conscious of this, can yet be content with, and value as before, the love her brother has still to spare for her; who will so subdue natural feeling as to find in very truth a friend and sister in a brother’s wife, and subjects of deepest interest in her children. Miriam, as we may infer from her punishment, was not one of these. That an Ethiopian should be raised above herself, who was a daughter of Israel, was, to one of her evidently proud spirit, unendurable. Unable, however, to discover aught in Zipporah herself for a publicly-avowed scorn, she sought to lessen the holiness and greatness of her brother, by daring to declare that the Lord had spoken through her and Aaron also. That this jealousy arose because of the “Ethiopian woman whom he had married,” Holy Writ itself informs us; and from Miriam’s name being mentioned before that of Aaron, and yet more, from the wrath of the Lord being manifested

366

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

towards her alone, it is evident that hers was the greater sin.16 Her individual assumption of prophetic power, she knew, would avail her nothing, but, uniting Aaron in the declaration, she sought to make it appear that God had breathed His spirit into every member of Amram’s family. She had too much policy to endeavor to deprive Moses of all his granted and allowed privileges. Her only wish was, to decrease the value and spirituality of those privileges to him individually, and elevate herself and Aaron on his descent; emboldened so to do by the excessive meekness and forbearance of Moses, which she knew would shield her from all human reproof. She might, perhaps, have so dwelt upon her own imaginary importance, as really to believe what she asserted, and so feel more and more galled at the little account in which she was held. Otherwise, why was she punished and not Aaron? Elizabeth Cady Stanton in The Woman’s Bible, 1:102 responds to the same exegetical question that motivates Aguilar here, namely, why was Miriam punished while Aaron was not punished. Stanton’s answer is that in Hebrew Scripture and in law women are mistreated more often than men. This is what Stanton writes: “A mere excuse for man’s injustice; had he been a woman he [Aaron] would have shared the same fate. The real reason was that Aaron was a priest. Had he been smitten with leprosy, his sacred office would have suffered and the priesthood fallen into disrepute. As women are supposed to have no character or sacred office, it is always safe to punish them to the full extent of the law.” And Stanton continues, “As a class, women were treated among the Jews as an inferior order of beings, just as they are to-day in all civilized nations. And now, as then, men claim to be guided by the will of God.” Moreover, Stanton writes, “In criticizing the discrepancies in Moses’s character and government, Miriam showed a keen insight into the common principles of equity and individual conduct, and great self-respect and self-assertion in expressing her opinions— qualities most lacking in ordinary women.” Rashi, who may have inspired Aguilar’s comment, writes as follows: “Miriam instigated the gossip, and therefore she is mentioned before Aaron [in Num. 12:1]. Ziporah happened to remark that whenever a man is called to prophesy he must separate from his wife as Moses had to separate from me, and Miriam went and reported this information to Aaron.” Rashi’s source is Sifre Numbers 99. 16

THIRD PERIOD. I. MIRIAM

367

It is quite possible for woman so to feel and so to act, and for all to proceed from the petty feelings of jealousy and malice, first excited by the higher grade and more considered position of a brother’s wife. “Hath the Lord indeed spoken only by Moses? hath he not spoken also by us?”17 were the words they said; brief, and perchance of little weight considered by themselves, but in a people ever ready to revolt and murmur, more than likely to kindle sedition and disturbance. “And the Lord heard it, and the Lord spake suddenly unto Moses, and unto Aaron, and unto Miriam, Come out ye three unto the tabernacle of the congregation: and they three came out, and the Lord came down in the pillar of the cloud, and stood in the door of the tabernacle, and called Aaron and Miriam; and they both came forth.”18 Where now could have been the presumptuous self-importance of Miriam, called thus by Him at whose word might be annihilation? With what fearful terror must she have heard that summons, and listened to the reproving words of the Eternal?— exalting Moses above even His inspired prophets; for to them He declared He would make Himself known in a vision, and speak unto them in a dream, “but my servant Moses is not so, who is faithful in all mine house. With him will I speak mouth to mouth, even apparently, and not in dark speeches; and the similitude of the Lord shall he behold: wherefore then were ye not afraid to speak against my servant Moses? And the anger of the Lord was kindled against them; and He departed. And the cloud departed from off the tabernacle; and, behold, Miriam was leprous, as snow: and Aaron looked upon Miriam, and, behold, she was leprous.”19 It is from this awful chastisement, inflicted by the Lord Himself, that we must judge of the heinousness of her sin; that presumption and arrogancy are no small crimes in His sight, and that God Himself was insulted in the insult offered to His chosen servant. “My servant Moses,” He ever designates him; implying the severest reproof in those simple words. Even were they endowed with prophetic power, He tells them they would be less than Num. 12:2. Num. 12:2b, 4–5. 19 Num. 12:6–10. 17 18

368

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

Moses; for to Moses alone would He deign to speak mouth to mouth. Had Miriam’s sin been but the impulse of the moment, the reproof would have been sufficient, as we see in other cases in Scripture; but, effectually to root out the sinful presumption which probably had lain dormant for months, the Eternal, in His perfect justice, inflicted such chastisement as would cause her to be shunned and loathed by the very people whom she had sought to impress with her individual importance. Human reproof, indeed, she had not; for Moses, “meek above all the men which were on the face of the earth,”20 had not even answered the detracting words, conscious that his power was not his own, and that He who gave it, would, if needed, appear in his defence. Had Miriam’s heart been perfect towards God, neither her sin nor her punishment would have taken place. Pride and presumption cannot exist with true piety; and we are therefore justified in supposing, that the awful infliction was not only a chastisement for present sin, but to awaken her to all the neglectfulness and presumption dividing her from the Lord in years long past. She was now not only to feel His stupendous power, but the true forgiving meekness and piety of the brother she had scorned and spoken against, only “because of his Ethiopian wife.” Stunned and appalled with the suddenness of the infliction, and dumb perhaps from awakening shame, Miriam herself stood silent before Moses: and Aaron therefore appealed for her.21 “Alas, my Lord, I beseech thee, lay not the sin upon us, wherein we have done foolishly, and wherein we have sinned Let her not be as one dead, of whom the flesh is half consumed as in the moment of his birth.”22 And Moses, without pause, without one word of reproof, or just indignation at being thus appealed to by the very persons who had sought to injure him, lifted up his Num. 12:3. As though to convey in form as well as in content the message concerning Moses’s humility, KJV places this parenthetical remark about Moses literally in parentheses, suggesting that God may have had this remark added to the Torah by an amanuensis other than Moses, whose humility would not have permitted him to record this remark. 21 Num. 12:11; and cf. Sifre Numbers ad loc. 22 Num. 12:11–12. 20

THIRD PERIOD. I. MIRIAM

369

voice in earnest prayer unto the Lord, saying, “Heal her now, O God, I beseech thee.”23 And God heard the prayer, and in His infinite goodness so answered it, as to temper justice with mercy, promising to withdraw His hand after seven days, during which time, in obedience to the already instituted laws for lepers,24 she was to be shut out from the camp. “And the people journeyed not till she was healed.”25 As there is no further mention of Miriam, except her death, in Numbers xx., we may infer that her chastisement had its effect, and that her haughty and seditious spirit was sufficiently subdued. We learn, from her brief history, much to guide us as women in general, and much to support our position as women of Israel. In the former, we see in what light presumption is regarded by the Lord— that would we retain His favor, we must be content with our own position, and in no way interfere, or seek to depreciate those whom, even in our own families, it may have pleased Him to set above us; that even from so small a beginning as jealousy of a brother’s wife, simply because she was the daughter of a stranger, sin gained such powerful ascendency, as to demand the most awful punishment for its subjection. We learn, that according to the nature of our transgression, so will be its chastisement.26 Miriam sought to raise herself not only above her brother’s wife, but to an equality with that brother himself; and, by the infliction of a loathsome disease, she sank at once below the lowest of her people. No one dared apNum. 12:13. Lev. 13:4. 25 Num. 12:15 where the text does not say that she was healed but “till Miriam was brought in.” 26 Cf. Mishnah, Sotah 2:7–9: “According to the measure [of evil] which a person dishes out, do they dish out to him [punishment] ... and so also with respect to the good [that a person does], do they dish out [reward greater than the good one dished out]: Miriam waited a short while for Moses, as it is stated in Scripture, ‘And his sister stood afar off to wit what would be done to him’ [Moses in the basket; Ex. 2:4], therefore Israel tarried on her behalf seven days in the wilderness, as it is stated in Scripture, ‘and the people journeyed not till Miriam was brought in’ (Num. 12:15).’ 23 24

370

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

proach her; she was cut off even from employment, from every former object of interest, banished from the camp; and she would have thus remained till her death, had not Moses interfered to beseech and obtain forgiveness. The direct interposition of the Lord in punishing sin, and rewarding virtue, is no longer visible; but few who study His word, their own hearts, and the face of the world, both past and present, will not acknowledge that He is still the same retributing and rewarding as when His ways were made manifest to all. By the example of Scripture characters, He reveals to us now that which is still acceptable or unacceptable to Him. Presumption, jealousy, the scorn of individual blessings, in the coveting others, may no longer be punished by leprosy, but “the Lord’s arm is not shortened,”27 and He may afflict us in a variety of ways, and through the very feelings which we so sinfully encourage. Let us beware, then, of detraction, of jealousy, of presumption; for our Father in Heaven abhors these things. Let us look only for the blessings granted us individually, in our inward and outward lot, and comparing them with the sorrowing and afflicted, bless God for what He has given us; not insult Him, by looking with an eye of envy only on those to whom His wisdom has given more. There is not a thought, not a feeling, unknown to Him; and oh! let us so guard our hearts, that we may be aware of the first whispering of sin, and banish it, even if it be in seeming but a thought. As women of Israel, the history of Miriam is fraught with particular interest, from its so undeniably proving that woman must be quite as responsible a being as man before the Lord, or He certainly would not have deigned to appear Himself as her judge. Were woman unable of herself to eschew sin, Miriam’s punishment would have been undoubtedly unjust. Nay, were she not responsible for feelings, as well as acts, God would not thus have stretched forth His avenging hand. Her feelings had only been formed into words, not yet into actions; still the Lord punished. And would He have done so, did he not wish to make manifest, in the sight of the whole people, that both sexes were alike before Him? Were woman in a degraded Isa. 50:2; 59:1, in both of which verses the reference is made to the redeeming/saving hand of God rather than to the punishing hand. 27

THIRD PERIOD. I. MIRIAM

371

position, Miriam, in tie first place, would not have had sufficient power for her seditious words to be of any consequence; and, in the next, it would have been incumbent on man to chastise—there needed no interference of the Lord. We see, therefore, the very sinfulness of Jewish women, as recorded in the Bible, is undeniable evidence of their equality, alike in their power to subdue sin, and in its responsibility before God. That the Eternal graciously pardoned at the word of Moses, is no proof that Miriam needed the supplication of man to bring her cause before the Lord, but simply that forgiveness and intercession from the injured for the injurer, are peculiarly acceptable to Him, and will ever bring reply. Miriam had equal power to pray and be heard, as Rebekah, Hannah, and other female characters of Scripture; but her punishment was no doubt to be increased by the painful feelings which, if she were not quite hardened, must have been excited by the appeal of Moses in her favor, and in receiving the remission of her sentence through him. It at once proclaimed his power with the Lord, which she had sought to depreciate, and his still continued affection for herself. That the whole camp of Israel should halt in its march seven days for her alone,—that she should suffer less than were she shut out from her fellows in the act of travelling, argues pretty strongly, that her being a woman in no degree lessened her importance, or rendered the men of Israel less careful for her comfort. They could not have done more, had the chastised been Aaron in her stead.

CHAPTER II. FEMALE WORKERS OF THE TABERNACLE— CALEB’S DAUGHTER In a history of the women of Israel, we must not forget those who are mentioned as aiding the holy work of the tabernacle. Proclamation was made throughout the camp, that every man and woman who had a willing heart1 should bring an offering unto the Lord, either of gold, silver, or brass, blue, purple, and scarlet, and fine linen, and goats’ hair, and oil, and spices, and sweet incense, and onyx stones, and stones of all kinds; and that every one who was wisehearted among them should come and make all that the Lord had commanded, which Moses proceeds to enumerate (see Exod. xxxv. and xxxvi.). The congregation then departed to their several tents, but speedily came every one whose heart stirred him up, and every one whom his spirit made willing. “And they came, both men and WOMEN, as many who were willing-hearted, and brought bracelets, and earrings, and rings, and tablets of gold,” &c.2 “And all the women who were wise-hearted did spin with their hands, and brought that which they had spun, both of blue, and of purple, and of scarlet, and of fine linen. And all the women whose heart stirred them up in wisdom, spun goats’ hair. The children of Israel brought a willing offering unto the Lord, every man and woman, whose heart made them willing.”3 In such quantities were these free offerings, that another proclamation was soon made; for “they spake unto Moses, saying, The people bring much more than enough for the service of the Ex. 35:21–22. Ex. 35:22. 3 Ex. 35:25–29. 1 2

373

374

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

work, which the Lord commanded to make. And Moses gave commandment, and they caused it to be proclaimed throughout the camp, saying, Let neither man nor woman make any more work for the offering of the sanctuary. And the people were restrained from bringing.”4 We have quoted all these verses, at the risk of being thought tedious, on account of the very important truths they contain. In the first place, we see that, notwithstanding the innumerable rebellions, seditions, and murmurings of the Israelites, there was still a vast multitude, whose hearts so stirred them up for the service of the Lord, as to bring more valuable offerings than could be used. In the text, by the constant allusion to the willing hearted, and to those whose spirits made them willing, we read, that only those gifts were acceptable which were offered from the heart. No mere formal profession could here avail. The spirit within was to be the prompter, not the outward appearance. In the third, the frequent mention of the wise-hearted, or those whose hearts stirred them up in wisdom, we learn, from the context, specified more especially those whom God Himself had gifted for the work; and that all those arts of engraving, of embroidery, of weaving, of cunning work, of spinning, nay, every kind of male and female work, came originally as much from His inspiration, as every other higher branch usually denominated “natural gifts,” “talents,” or “genius.” Spinning, weaving, engraving, and embroidery, are now so common, that we have quite forgotten from whose inspiration they originally came; and were we told that these very resources of the mind and fingers should be amongst the innumerable daily blessings for which we should thank God, we might be accused of enthusiasm and religious romance; yet who can read this chapter of Exodus, without feeling the truth of our position, and bidding the heart glow with thanksgiving for the innocent and happy resources of daily life? In the fourth place, by both proclamations being addressed to WOMAN as well as man, we have another unanswerable proof of their equality, not only in the power and freedom to bring offerings, but in their being equally gifted by the Eternal for the work. We 4

Ex. 36: 5–6.

THIRD PERIOD. II. FEMALE WORKERS

375

peruse with admiration the self-devotion of the women of Carthage, when bringing together all their gold and silver ornaments to form arms for the defence of their city, even cutting off their hair to make strings for bows and other weapons;5 and our admiration is just: but how much more strongly should it be excited towards the women of Israel of old, who, from pure love of God, and zeal in His holy service, brought all their ornaments, bracelets, earrings, tablets, rings, jewels of gold and silver, every article of value which they could collect, and set themselves, heart and hand, to spin, weave, embroider, and use all their talents in His service by whom they had been bestowed. The women of Carthage were roused by a sense of rapidly approaching danger, by the excitement of war, by that pure love of home and land which God has implanted in every breast. The women of Israel were under no excitement; nay, they were wandering in a wilderness fraught with much to exhaust and weary mere human nature, however the immortal spirit might be sustained by the presence and revelation of the Lord. Their goal was in perspective. The voice of murmuring, of disbelief, was constantly sounding around them. “Wherefore is it, that thou hast brought us up out of Egypt, to kill us and our children?” were words, not once nor twice, but countless times repeated, with every new trial of their faith.6 And what is so infectious in a “mixed multitude”7 as

In 146 B.C.E. during the war in which Carthage fell to Rome it is related that indeed the women and men of Carthage worked day and night to produce weapons to defend themselves. Indeed, it is recorded that the women of Carthage cut off their hair to be used as strings for catapults. See Appian of Alexander (95–165 C.E.), History of Rome, in Greek with English translation by Horace White (4 vols.; London: William Heinemann / Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1912–1913), 1:562–563 (Book VIII, Chapter XIII, paragraph 93). 6 Indeed, the quoted expression is found in Ex. 17:3; cf. Num. 11:20; 20:4; 21:5. 7 It is stated only once, in Ex. 12:38, “And a mixed multitude went up also with them [i.e., with Israel from Egypt].” Nevertheless, Rabbinic midrash occasionally blames this mixed multitude for the shortcomings of the people of Israel in the course of their journey from Egypt to the 5

376

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

unbelief—ay, even in the very face of miracles performed in their behalf? Yet, at the first call, there were still very many wise and willing-hearted to come forward. The women of Carthage were actuated by the mere feelings of humanity, by palpable danger, by the clearly traced issue of their efforts. The women of Israel worked through FAITH. Hoping for no earthly reward, seeking no worldly glory, sacrificing ornaments most prized (for dress, as we shall presently see, was considered rather too much than too little by our ancestors), knowing that once given they could not be recalled, keeping neither time nor talent back, but using both perseveringly and indiscriminately, and all simply and solely out of pure love to God. There is something both beautiful and consoling in this portion of our history. It informs us, that in the very midst of constant rebellions and constant fallings away, there were, and will always be found, many to love and serve their God. That He will never leave Himself without witnesses upon earth; and that, therefore, however we may mourn the lack of energy and spirituality in Israel— however we may grieve and deplore the cases of infidelity or indifference, or even direct departures from His most Holy Law—still God is with us to retain many an unsuspected one in fidelity and zeal. Despondency, even in His cause, is more than wrong; it is sinful, for it doubts Him who is so strong to save; whose word is passed, that “Israel shall never cease to be a nation before Him;”8 and who, even from the deepest darkness, can and will bring forth light. It causes feelings towards our fellows, both of injustice and pain; and in ourselves deadens every effort after holiness and righteousness, by the supposition, that the struggles of one individual must be all in vain. Despondency treads so closely upon indifferPromised Land. Rashi, however, in his comment on Ex. 12:38 specifies that these people were gerim ‘proselytes’ or, if you will, ‘Jews by choice’. 8 Jer. 31:35–36: “Thus said the LORD, who established the sun for light by day, the laws of moon and stars for light by night, who stirs up the sea into roaring waves, whose name is LORD of Hosts: If these laws should ever be annulled by Me—declares the LORD—only then would the offspring of Israel cease to be a nation before Me for all time.” Translation according to NJV.

THIRD PERIOD. II. FEMALE WORKERS

377

ence, that every effort should be put in force to prevent its ascendency. We cannot have faith either in God or man if we despond, and thus we are gradually led into sin, alike against our Father in Heaven, our brother man, and ourselves. To us as women, the particular mention of our female ancestors, as bringing offerings and working for the tabernacle, is inexpressibly consoling. It assures us that, lowly as we are, retired as is our natural sphere, incapable as is our weaker frame for the exertions of man in the Lord’s service, still we are acceptable—still He will graciously look down on our “willing hearts,” and the humble work of our hand, and bless them with such love, as will give us peace even upon earth. It tells us, that from Him comes every employment and resource, alike of mind and hand; and that, in consequence, all should be used to His glory; not, indeed, for the service of the tabernacle, for we are not now so called upon to work, butin the happiness which His gifts should bestow upon ourselves and our fellow-creatures. Had we but these two chapters in our Holy Law, we should have sufficient to confirm our spiritual privileges;—that our Father asks but a willing spirit, a heart that is stirred within us to do His service, whatever it may be; to resign whatever He may call; but it MUST BE a willing heart: mere lipservice is mockery and sin. Let it not be said that the Jewish religion is a religion of mere form, incumbent only on the males, and therefore debarring woman from all religious exercises, all access to God. Bid those who throw such foul wrong on Israel, come hither to the pure unadulterated fount of the Living God, and then say, if the religion of the Nazarene were the first, and only one, to teach woman her holy privileges, and to preach that pure spiritual piety of the heart, that simple working through faith, which is revealed so blessedly in our Law, and confirmed by every inspired prophet of the Lord. And that religion of the heart is ours still. We need no other to replace it. The age of chivalry is generally supposed to be a powerful proof of the respect and consideration with which women were regarded amongst the Gentile nations during the middle ages. Their position was marked; their love, their hand, the greatest reward, the most powerful incentive for the young warriors to distinguish themselves. Marvellous deeds were done, and dangers dared, all for the smiles of woman; nay, evil passions were often subdued: generosity, magnanimity, kindness, and many other virtues, were called

378

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

into play by woman’s influence, without which those ages would have been dark indeed. Her individual position might have been too elevated; but still, that elevation was far more often used for good than evil. Chivalry did bring forth good with regard to woman’s influence on man, and no one assuredly will deny, but that to have been held up as the rewarder of valor, the incentive of virtue, must have made her a subject of consideration, respect, and love, very different to slavery and degradation. Now, the very first instance of chivalry which history records, is found in the Bible, and in the history of that very people to whose women similar privileges are denied. “And Caleb said, he that smiteth Kirjath-sepher [also called Debir], and taketh it, to him will I give Achsah my daughter to wife. And Othniel, the son of Kenaz, Caleb’s younger brother, took it: and he gave him Achsah his daughter to wife. And it came to pass, as she came unto him, she moved him to ask of her father a field; and she lighted off her ass; and Caleb said unto her, What wouldst thou? and she said unto him, Give me a blessing; for thou hast given me a south land; give me also springs of water. And Caleb gave her also the upper springs and the nether springs.” We find all these verses, first in Joshua xv. 16–19, and repeated without any variation in Judges i. 12–15. Caleb was a prince of the tribe of Judah (Numb. xiii. 6), so high in favor with the Lord, as to be joined with Joshua in being permitted to enter the promised land, and designated by the Eternal as “My servant Caleb, who hath followed me fully.”9 Caleb seems to have been, like Joshua, a prince and warrior of high repute, dauntless, and faithful before God and before man. His daughter (though not an only child, for we read in 1 Chron. iv. 15, that he had also three sons) shared the consideration proffered to her father. Caleb must have seen the high respect and admiration in which she was held, or he never would have dreamed of offering her as the reward of valor. That which is of no value, lightly won, and lightly held, and, when obtained, to sink merely into a household slave, was not at all likely to excite young men to the arduous task of smiting and taking a fortified city, defended as Num. 14:24. Cf. Deut. 1:36 and Josh. 14:14, both of which state that Caleb “wholly followed the LORD.” 9

THIRD PERIOD. II. FEMALE WORKERS

379

it was by the sons of Anak, whose immense stature and extraordinary prowess had formerly caused them to be considered as “giants,” in whose sight the children of Israel were but as “grasshoppers.”10 Nor can we regard this as merely a solitary instance: it is a proof of the general condition of Hebrew women at that period; and also that Othniel was not Achsah’s only admirer. “He that smiteth and taketh it, to him will I give Achsah my daughter to wife,”11 is a general appeal, supposing her hand to be a sufficient incentive to all the young men of the tribe; and that His Law, regarding the inheritance of daughters, should not be transgressed, the Eternal blessed the valiant efforts of Othniel, Caleb’s own nephew, with success; and the coveted maiden became his wife.12 That it was solely Achsah herself who was sought and won, with no idea of her wealth, is clearly proved by the simple words “she moved him [her husband] to ask of her father, a field or piece of land;”13 the wish for possession came from her, not from Othniel, who was in all probability fully satisfied with the recompense he had gained; and when Caleb had granted this request, as we know by the words in which she afterwards addresses him, she approached him herself, and lighting off her ass, a token of the respect natural to Israel, Caleb asked her, “What wilt thou?” and she answered him, “Give me a blessing:” meaning, possibly, a further token of his love for her; “for thou hast given me a south land [alluding to that already given at Othniel’s request], give me also springs of water: and Caleb gave her the upper and the nether springs.”14 Without springs, land, in so hot a country as Judea, was of little value; and therefore is it that Achsah craves this boon in addition to that already granted. The affectionate confidence subsisting between the father and daughter is beautifully illustrated in this simple little incident. Though Achsah held her father in such reNum. 13:27–33. Josh. 15:16 = Judg. 1:12. 12 Josh. 15:17 = Judg. 1:13. 13 Josh. 15:18 = Judg. 1:14. 14 Josh. 15:19 = Judg. 1:15. 10 11

380

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

spect as not to prefer her request while sitting on her ass before him, yet she feared not to make her wishes known, fully conscious that, were they in his power, he would grant them unhesitatingly; and his instant reply proves how much reason she had for her confidence. We learn too from this, that woman must undoubtedly have had the power of possessing landed property in her own right, and in a degree exclusive of her husband;* else Caleb would have made over the portion intended for her to Othniel on his marriage, instead of waiting for Achsah to ask, and granting it to her alone.15 The beautiful law of our God was then in full force among every rank and condition of man; and surely we can find no trace in the history of Achsah to confirm the false position of our being degraded. Does it not rather elevate us to a perfect equality with our brother man, and prove undeniably that the Israelites were the very first nation in the world to hold forth the love and hand of woman as the pure and holy incentive to deeds of manliness and valor?

* And exclusive also of her brothers; for if landed inheritance were to be man’s only, she could have had no claim to any portion. The above was written originally, under the impression that Achsah was Caleb’s only child: a further study of the genealogies in Chronicles proves that she was not. 15 The point made here is no small matter because this simple fact about the rights of women as portrayed in the literature that has come down to us from ancient Israel, to wit, Hebrew Scripture, has not yet penetrated the minds of all too many recent (late 20th century and early 21st century) writers on the subject of women in biblical narrative. Moreover, Aguilar’s highlighting the fact that Hebrew Scripture attests to the idea that women could own real estate in their own right is especially poignant in view of the fact that at the time she wrote (1845) married women in England and the United States of America did not own even their jewelry and their clothing, which became the husband’s possession upon their marriage.

CHAPTER III. DEBORAH The promised land was gained, deeds of extraordinary valor and military skill and prowess marked its conquest and subdivision; but God’s express command was disobeyed; and, in consequence, the tribes, even after they had settled in their respective territories, were continually “doing evil in the sight of the Lord,”1 and at war, as a chastisement, with their idolatrous neighbors. God had ordained the extermination of the former inhabitants of Palestine, because of their fearful state of idolatry, and various abominations. He had deferred bringing in the seed of Abraham to their appointed land, because “the iniquity of the Amorites was not yet full.”2 He might in His wisdom have exterminated them by fire, water, or disease; but He appointed the swords of the Israelites as the instruments of His wrath, simply to try their faith and obedience, and bid them earn the rest, peace, spiritual and temporal glory, which he had held forth as the recompense of perfect obedience. This fact is very frequently disregarded in a mere superficial reading of the history of Canaan. There are those even to doubt and cavil at the ways of their God, because He commanded His people to obtain possession of the promised land at the edge of the sword; forgetting that so doing was at once a punishment for those who had insulted Him by their awful iniquities (having full power to subdue sin, and keep in the straight path, as did the inhabitants of Mesopotamia even without direct revelation), and also to try the obedience of His people. Disease, fire, or flood, would have accomplished the first of these designs equally with the plan adopted; but not the second. Yet the former would at once have been rec1 2

Judg. 2:11; 3:7, 12; 4:1; 6:1; 10:6; 13:1. Gen. 15:16.

381

382

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

ognised as the hand of God; no one questioning the agency of either the deluge, the destruction of Sodom, or the earthquake and the plague, punishing the rebellion of Korah. Why then should not the sword of slaughter be traced to the same Divine ordination, whence alone in fact it proceeded?3 The Israelites, however, failed in their commanded obedience. Instead of exterminating, they entered into friendly leagues with the enemies and insulters of their God; and the Eternal, in His just anger, permitted them, in consequence, to remain as “thorns, and pricks in their sides, and their false gods as a snare unto them.”4 And so it was: “They took their daughters to be their wives, and gave their daughters to their sons, and served their gods; and the children of Israel did evil in the sight of God, and forgat the Lord their God, and served Baalim and the groves.”5 And this fearful Aguilar’s book will always remain valuable for having noted almost a century and a half ago the tremendous role of women in the building of the Tabernacle and the right of women to own real estate as expounded in Chapter II of this Part III of Women of Israel. Nevertheless, it would be sacrilegious to pass over in silence Aguilar’s attempt to justify holy war. 4 Num. 33:55; Josh. 23:13; Judg. 2:3. 5 Judg. 3:5–7. “Groves” is KJV’s rendering of Heb. Asheroth (so NJV), which KJV construed as a reference to ‘trees’, which were planted as appurtenances in Canaanite worship (cf. Deut. 16:21: “Thou shalt not plant thee a grove of any trees near unto the altar of the LORD thy God, which thou shalt make thee”; in the latter verse the three Hebrew words that KJV renders “grove of any trees” are ’asherah kol ‘ets, which NJV renders “a sacred post—any kind of pole”). The discovery of a number of 8th century B.C.E. Hebrew inscriptions that may refer to “YHWH (the LORD or Jehovah in KJV) and His Asherah” has generated a new subdiscipline in the study of ancient Israel, called “Asherah Studies.” For surveys of the literature and current opinion see Steve A. Wiggins, A Reassessment of “Asherah”: A Study According to the Textual Sources of the First Two Millennia B.C.E., AOAT 235 (Kevelaer: Butzon & Bercker/NeukirchenVluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1993; id., “Asherah Again: Binger’s Asherah and the State of Asherah Studies,” Journal of Northwest Semitic Languages 24 (1998), 231–240. Apparently, the Hebrew term may refer, inter alia, to a female deity or to trees associated with the worship of that deity. And 3

THIRD PERIOD. III. DEBORAH

383

state of things occurred repeatedly; rousing the anger of the Lord each time to sell them into the hands of their enemies, and yet whenever they cried unto Him in returning faith and repentance, His infinite mercy raised up deliverers in whom He put His spirit, and saved them. Othniel, the nephew and son-in-law of Caleb, Ehud, and Shamgar, had each in his turn been thus selected by the Lord; and during their respective sways Israel was at rest and obedient. But between each, they had relapsed into idolatry and rebellion; and after the deaths of Ehud and Shamgar, who appear contemporaries, falling anew into evil, the Eternal sold them into the hands of Jabin, king of Hazor, who mightily oppressed them twenty years, and caused them again to cry unto the Lord.6 But even in these periods of anarchy and rebellion, all were not idolatrous. There must still have been many “seven thousands who had not bowed the knee to Baal,”7 else would not the Lord have thus repeatedly compassionated and relieved them. Amongst these faithful few, the law was of course followed, and the people judged according to the statutes given through Moses. Had there been the very least foundation for the supposition of the degrading and heathenizing the Hebrew female, we should not find the offices of prophet, judge, military instructor, poet, and sacred singer, all combined and all perfected in the person of a woman; a fact clearly and almost startlingly illustrative of what must have been their high and intellectual training, as well as natural aptitude for guiding and enforcing the statutes of their God, to which at that time woman could attain.8 some have seen in the aforementioned inscriptions support for the view that YHWH had a female consort. See William Dever, Did God Have a Wife? (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005). 6 Judg. 3:8–4:3. 7 1 Kgs. 19:18, which refers to the period of Elijah. 8 Indeed, it would seem that one could not read the story any other way unless one is inclined to believe, as do a number of recent writers on the subject, that the Hebrew Bible compiled over many centuries was systematically written by male chauvinists in diverse times and places who had shared the common goal of male gender politics; see passim in Fuchs,

384

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

“And Deborah, a prophetess, the wife of Lapidoth, she judged Israel at that time. And she dwelt under the palm tree of Deborah, between Ramah and Bethel, in Mount Ephraim: and the children of Israel came unto her for judgment.”9 This simple description evinces that the greatness of Deborah consisted not at all in outward state, in semblance of high rank, or in any particular respect or homage outwardly paid her; but simply in her vast superiority of mental and spiritual acquirements which were acknowledged by her countrymen, and consequently revered. The office of judge in Israel was not hereditary. It only devolved on those gifted to perform it: and, by the example before us, might be held by either sex: rather an unsatisfactory proof of the degradation of Jewish women. We are expressly told that Deborah was a prophetess, and “the wife of Lapidoth.” Now, by the arrangement of this sentence, confirmed by the context, it is very evident that Deborah was a prophetess in her own person, wholly and entirely distinct from her husband, who was a mere cypher in public concerns. The Eternal had inspired her, a WOMAN and a WIFE in Israel, with His spirit expressly to do His will, and make manifest to her countrymen how little is He the respecter of persons;10 judging only by hearts perfect in His service, and spirits willing for the work: heeding neither the weakness nor apparent inability of one sex, compared with the greater natural powers of the other. Yet so naturally are her public position and personal gifts described, that we cannot possibly believe her elevation to be an extraordinary occurrence, or that her position as a wife forbade her rising above mere conjugal and household duties. We never hear of a slave, or leper, or heathen, being intrusted with the prophetic spirit of the Eternal, simply because the social condition of such persons would and must prevent their obtaining either the respect, obedience, or even attention of the people. For the same reason, had woman really been on a par with these, as she is by some deSexual Politics in Biblical Narrative; and see also Lilian R. Klein, From Deborah to Esther: Sexual Politics in the Hebrew Bible (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2003). 9 Judg. 4:4–5. 10 Deut. 10:17.

THIRD PERIOD. III. DEBORAH

385

clared to be, she would never have been intrusted with gifts spiritual and mental, which Deborah so richly possessed. She never could have been a prophetess, for her words would only have been regarded as idle raving. She could never have been a judge, from the want of opportunities to train and perfect her intellect,11 and to obtain the necessary experience. Now it is clear that instead of this, her natural position must have been so high, that there needed not even adventitious state and splendor to make it acknowledged; and her intellect and judgment so cultivated, as not only to bring the people flocking to her for judgment, but to occasion Barak’s refusal to set out on a warlike expedition unless she accompanied them.12 We find the first recorded instance of her using her prophetic power in Judges iv. 6: “And she sent and called Barak the son of Abinoam out of Kedesh Naphtali, and said unto him, Hath not the Lord God of Israel commanded, saying, Go and draw toward Mount Tabor, and take with thee ten thousand men of the children of Naphtali and the children of Zebulun? And I will draw unto thee Sisera, the captain of Jabin’s army, and his chariots and his multitudes; and I will deliver him into thine hand. And Barak said unto her, If thou wilt go with me, then I will go: but if thou wilt not go with me, then will I not go. And she said, I will surely go with thee: notwithstanding the journey shall not be for thine honor; for the Lord will sell Sisera into the hand of a woman.”13 We should be at a loss to understand the feeling in Barak, which impelled his reply, might we not infer it from Deborah’s In other words, notwithstanding the fact that Aguilar seems not to have concurred in Wollstonecraft’s view that women and men are endowed with the same intellectual powers (see, for example, above, pp. 6162), Aguilar, nevertheless agrees with Wollstonecraft that women should be given the same opportunity as men to develop and put to use their intellect. Moreover, she argues here and will so argue again in her consideration of Huldah and other heroines of the mind in ancient Israel that Hebrew Scripture testifies that women in ancient Israel were allowed to develop their full intellectual potential and that modern societies should follow the example of ancient Israel. 12 Judg. 4:8. 13 Judg. 4:6–9. 11

386

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

rejoinder. It would appear that, like many of his countrymen, while he obeyed, he was still wanting in the perfect faith which would have given him a glorious triumph in his own person. The presence of Deborah could in no way give him greater increase of safety and glory, than had he gone without her. She was but the instrument of the Lord, making His will known to her fellows. The words were not hers, but God’s; and Barak should have acted on them without either reservation or doubt. Instead of which we find him making a condition to his obedience; and refusing to obey, if that condition were not complied with. What could the presence of a woman avail him? Her being a prophetess gave him no more assurance of conquest than the word of the Lord had already done; and because he trusted more in the woman than in her God, the journey would not be to his honor; a woman’s hand should accomplish that complete downfall of Sisera, which would otherwise have accrued to his individual glory. It is evident that this is the real rendering of this rather obscure sentence, else we should not have it so expressly stated that the “journey would not be for his honor.” Deborah however arose, and went with Barak, first to collect the necessary troops from Zebulun and Naphtali, and then to Mount Tabor, where Sisera and his immense armament of nine hundred chariots of iron, besides infantry, marched to meet them. Still we find Barak but secondary, doing nothing without the word of the Lord through Deborah. And Deborah said, “Up! for this is the day in which the Lord hath delivered Sisera into thine hand: is not the Lord gone out before thee? So Barak went down from Mount Tabor, and ten thousand men after them;” and the Lord gave them such complete victory, that but Sisera escaped, to receive his death at the hand of a woman, according to the Eternal’s word. Nor was it a single victory, for “the hand of the children of Israel prospered and prevailed against Jabin, king of Canaan.”14 We next find Deborah exercising that glorious talent of extempore poetry only found amongst the Hebrews; and by her, a woman and a wife in Israel, possessed to an almost equal degree with the Psalmist and prophets, who followed at a later period. Her song is considered one of the most beautiful specimens of Hebrew 14

Judg. 4:10–24.

THIRD PERIOD. III. DEBORAH

387

poetry, whether read in the original, or in the English version.15 We find her taking no glory whatever to herself, but calling upon the princes, and governors, and people of Israel, to join with her in “blessing the Lord for the avenging of Israel.”16 In the fourth and fifth verses, she alludes, by a most beautiful figure, to the power of the Eternal. That before Him “the earth trembled, and the heavens dropped, and the clouds dropped water. And the mountains trembled, even Sinai, before the Lord God of Israel,” thus manifesting that his power, not man’s, had brought delivery to Israel. Then in the sixth and eighth verses she describes the condition of the people before she arose a mother in Israel; that they were compelled to travel in by-paths, because of the high roads all being occupied by their foes; and from the villages all the inhabitants had ceased, from their being continually exposed undefended to the enemy. Nor was there a shield or spear seen in the forty thousand of Israel. The simplicity and lowliness of the prophetess’s natural position, is beautifully illustrated by the term she applies to herself—neither princess, nor governor, nor judge, nor prophetess, though both the last offices she fulfilled—“until that I, Deborah, arose, until I arose a MOTHER in Israel.” She asked no greater honor or privilege for herself individually, than the being recognised as the mother of the people whom the Lord alone had endowed her with power to judge. “My heart is towards the governors of Israel,” she continues, “that offered themselves willingly among the people. Bless ye the Lord,” meaning those who, rising from the idolatry and sloth which had encompassed the people, offered themselves willingly for the service of the Lord. She bids them speak,—all classes of people,— from those princes who rode on white asses, and those who sat in judgment, and those who walked by the way, to even the drawers of water who had before been harassed by the noise of the archers coming forcibly to disturb their domestic employments; and all So much for the absurd idea that to appreciate the literary features of the Hebrew Bible is ipso facto to reinforce male gender politics. Contrast Fuchs, Sexual Politics in the Biblical Narrative, p. 7: “As they admire the virtuosity ... and the artistic ingenuity ... critics choose to ignore the patriarchal ideology that inspires so much of what they glorify.” 16 Judg. 5:2. 15

388

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

were to rehearse the righteous acts of the Lord, for to Him alone they owed their preservation. “The Lord made ME have dominion over the mighty,” she says, in verse thirteen, thus retaining her own dignity and power in Israel, yet tracing it to the Eternal, not to herself. The poetry describing the downfall of their foes, calling forth the imagery of nature to give it force and life; the death of Sisera, and the waiting and watching of his mother at her lattice—“Why is his chariot so long in coming? why tarry the wheels of his chariots?” and the answer, alike from her ladies, and her own heart, “Have they not sped? have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two; to Sisera a prey of divers colors, a prey of divers colors of needlework, meet for the necks of them that take the spoil?” as if to fail with his mighty armament were impossible; and thus sung by the lips of the conquerors, infused with a species of satire, giving indescribable poignancy to the strain; and then the glorious conclusion, “So let all thine enemies perish, O Lord: but let them that love thee be as the sun when he goeth forth in his might;” form altogether one of the sublimest strains of spiritual fervor in the Bible; and mark forcibly, by her conduct, both as prophetess and judge, that in Deborah, even as in Gideon, David, and the prophets of later years, God disdained not to breathe His spirit, but made a WOMAN His instrument to judge, to prophesy, to teach, and to redeem. “And the land had rest forty years,” we are told at the conclusion of Deborah’s song; words which, as no other judge is mentioned, would lead us to infer that Deborah continued “a mother in Israel” all that time, retaining the people in fidelity, and consequently in temporal and spiritual peace. Even if she did not live herself to govern all those years, it is evident that her influence and instructions were remembered and acted upon, for it was not till after these forty years that “Israel again did evil in the sight of the Lord,” and so again required a redeemer, which was granted in the person of Gideon.17 The silence preserved regarding the subsequent life and death of Deborah, is a simple confirmation of the meekness and humility with which we found her judging Israel under her own palm-tree, 17

See Judg. 6.

THIRD PERIOD. III. DEBORAH

389

before being called to a more stirring scene. The land was at peace, the power of prophecy and foresight in military matters was no longer needed, and Deborah resumed her personally humble station, evidently without any ambitious wish, or attempt to elevate her rank or prospects. It was enough that she was useful to her countrymen; that she was a lowly instrument in the Eternal’s hand to work them good. What, now, did she need to satisfy the woman nature, which she still so evidently retained? Her judgments, her works, are covered with the veil of silence, but we learn their effects by the simple phrase, that “the land had rest forty years”—the land, the whole land, not merely that which was under her direct superintendence. Virtue, holiness, and wisdom, though the gifts of but one lowly individual, are not confined to one place, when used, as were Deborah’s, to the glory of God, and the good of her people. Silently, and perhaps unperceived, they spread over space and time; and oh! how glorious must be the destiny of that woman, who, without one moment quitting her natural sphere, can yet by precept, example, and labor produce such blessed effects as to give the land peace, and bring a whole people unto God! In a practical view, perhaps, the character of Deborah cannot now be brought home to the conduct of her descendants, for woman can no longer occupy a position of such trust and wisdom in Israel;18 but, theoretically, we may take the history of Deborah to our hearts, both nationally and individually. With such an example in the Word of our God, it is unanswerably evident that neither the WritAguilar wrote this in 1845. Fortunately, virtually all religions and all states and all professions are today blessed with the accomplishments of both exceptional women and also not necessarily exceptional women, who perform today as in many times in the past, all of the functions that not necessarily exceptional men perform everywhere, and the world is richer for it. As Mahatma Gandhi pointed out, no people undertakes an enterprise utilizing only 49% (the usual percentage of adult males in the adult population) of its human resources. And Deborah and many other famous women, including Grace Aguilar, whose Women of Israel contains numerous abiding insights into the language, the style, and the messages of the Bible, have too often been forgotten, ignored or insufficiently appreciated largely because they were women. 18

390

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

ten nor the Oral Law could have contained one syllable to the disparagement of woman. Men were in no condition to have permitted the influence of woman, had they not been accustomed, by the constant and emphatic enjoinments of the law, to look on her with respect, consideration, and tenderness. Mentally and spiritually, Deborah was gifted in an extraordinary degree, leading us to infer that the women of Israel must have had the power to cultivate both mind and spirit, and to delight in their resources, for we have the whole Bible to prove that the Eternal never selected for the instruments of His will, any but those whose hearts were inclined towards Him, even before He called them—witness the history of Abraham, Joseph, Moses, David, and others. All and every talent comes from God, but will not work and influence by His sole gift alone. They are given to be improved, persevered in, perfected, by those to whom they are intrusted, and then used in the service of their Giver. It is evident, then, that Deborah had the inclination and the power to cultivate, perfect, and use the gifts of her God; and this would have been quite impossible, had her social condition been such as the enemies of scriptural and spiritual Judaism declare. With the history of Deborah in their hands, the young daughters of Israel need little other defence or argument, to convince their adversaries that they require no other creed, nor even a denial of the Oral Law, to teach them their proper position, alike to themselves and their fellows, and in their relative duties towards God and man. Deborah being a wife, confirms this yet more strongly. There must not only have been perfect freedom of position, but of action; even more than is found in the history of any modern nation, for we do not find a single instance of a wife being elected to any public office requiring intellect and spirituality, secular and religious knowledge, so completely distinct from her husband.19 Yet the hisThis was written in 1845, and women have come a long way, and consequently the human race has come a long way. Grace Aguilar summons us even now to renew our appreciation of women of Scripture and of other past ages and of other ancient and modern literatures, who, have all too often been omitted from history although they are vital to understanding not only herstory but our common human story. In this connec19

THIRD PERIOD. III. DEBORAH

391

tory of Deborah in no way infers that she was neglectful of her conjugal and domestic duties. There is an unpretending simplicity about her very greatness. The very fact of those she judged coming to her under her own palm-tree, supposes her quiet and retired mode of living. She never leaves her home, except at the earnest entreaty of Barak, which urges her to sacrifice domestic retirement for public good. To a really great mind, domestic and public duties are so perfectly compatible, that the first need never be sacrificed for the last. And that Lapidoth in no manner interfered with the public offices of his wife, called as she was to them by God Himself through His gifts, infers a noble confidence and respectful consideration towards her, evidently springing at once from the nation the following facts, which defy numerous stereotypes ought to be mentioned: For more than a century ending in 1926 the State of Bhopal in Central India was ruled by four generations of women. In 1819 at the age of 18 upon the assassination of her husband, Nawab Nazar Mohammed Khan, Qudsia Begum became the ruler (Nawab) of Bhopal. Before her death in 1837 she had arranged for her then two-year old daughter, Sikandar, to succeed her as ruler of Bhopal. Sikandar ruled in her own right from 1844 until her death in 1868. Upon her death Sikandar was succeeded as ruler of Bhopal by her daughter Sultan Shajahan Begum, who reigned until her death in 1901. Sultan Shajahan Begum was succeeded as ruler of Bhopal by her daughter, Sultan Kalikhusrau Jahan in 1901. The latter ruled until 1926 when she abdicated in favor of her son. She contributed funds for the establishment of a school for women, Sakhavat Memorial Girls’ School, which was founded by Rokheya Hossein, a crusader for the education of girls and women, who published a feminist utopian short-story “Sultana’s Dream” in Indian Lady’s Magazine in 1905. See Minault, Secluded Scholars, 258. Minault, p. 25 relates that Shajahan Begum wrote an autobiography, in which she reports that when she was growing up she received daily lessons—all taught by men—in the following subjects: the Quran, Persian, English, Pushto (another language), arithmetic, handwriting, riding horses, and fencing. Moreover, Minault, p. 26 notes that both the people of Bhopal and British officials drew parallels between the Begums and Queen Victoria. A comprehensive history of the women rulers of Bhopal was published by one of their descendants, Shaharyar M. Khan, Begums of Bhopal: A Dynasty of Women Rulers in Raj India (London: I. B. Tauris, 2000).

392

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

tional equality and freedom tendered to Jewish women; and from a mind great enough to appreciate and value such talents even in a woman; a greatness not very often found in modern times. To follow in the steps of our great ancestress is not possible, now that the prophetic spirit is removed from Israel, and the few public offices left us fall naturally to the guardianship of man; yet many and many a Jewish woman is intrusted with one or more talents direct from God; and if she can stretch forth a helping hand to the less enlightened of her people, let her not hold back, from the false and unscriptural belief that woman cannot aid the cause of God, or in any way attain to religious knowledge. His word is open to her, as to man. In Moses’ command to read and explain the Law to all people, woman was included by name.20 And now the whole Bible, Law, Historical books, Psalms, and Prophets, are open to her daily commune, and shall it be said that she has neither the right nor the understanding to make use of such blessed privilege? Shame, shame on those who would thus cramp the power of the Lord, in denying to any one of His creatures the power of addressing and comprehending Him, through the inexhaustible treasure of His gracious word!21 Here Aguilar refers to Deut. 31:10–13: “... At the end of every seven years, in the solemnity of the year of release, in the feast of tabernacles, when all Israel is come to appear before the LORD thy God in the place which he shall choose, thou shalt read this law [the Torah] before all Israel in their hearing. Gather the people together, men, and women, and children, and thy stranger that is within thy gates, that they may hear, and that they may learn, and fear the LORD your God, and observe to do all the words of this law.” 21 And how much the more so in the 21st century when all of the ancient Rabbinic Literature—Mishnah, Tosefta, the Talmuds, and the Midrashim, which expound both the Written and the Oral Torah—are available in the original Hebrew and Aramaic with classic and modern user-friendly commentaries and lucid translations into modern languages. And yet Aguilar, who fights on almost every page of Women of Israel to convince Jewish women to reclaim their intellectual and spiritual heritage, still has important lessons to teach us in a world that is inundated with possibilities for Jewish learning. In the above paragraph the order of the 20

THIRD PERIOD. III. DEBORAH

393

Every married woman is judge and guardian of her own household. She may have to encounter the prejudices of a husband,22 not yet thinking with her on all points; but if she have really a great mind, she will know how to influence, without in any way interfering. She will know how to serve the Lord in her household without neglecting her duty and affection towards her husband; and by domestic conduct influence society at large, secretly and unsuspectedly indeed, but more powerfully than she herself can in the least degree suppose. To unmarried women, even as to wives, some talent is intrusted, which may be used to the glory of its Giver. Life is not lent us to be frittered away in an unmeaning little satisfactory run of amusements, or often in their mere fruitless search. There surely is some period in a single woman’s existence, when the hopes, ambition, and even favorite amusements, of girlhood must come to an end. Because unmarried, is woman still to believe herself a girl, hoping for, and looking for, a change in her existence, which will in reality never come? Would it not be wiser and better, aye, and incalculably happier, if woman herself withdrew from the sphere of exciting hopes and pleasures which she had occupied in girlhood? If she sought perseveringly and prayerfully some new objects of interest, affection, and employment, which she might justly hope biblical books that she cites points to the fact that in her time the whole Bible in English was available to Jewish men and women only in translations produced under Christian auspices, with Christological captions and an order of books which placed the Psalms before the Prophets and did not even recognize the threefold division of the Jewish Bible into Torah, Nevi’im and Ketubim, the first letters of which create the acronym TaNaKH, the title of the versions published now by the Jewish Publication Society, now also in a bilingual Hebrew-English edition. 22 Indeed, it has been reported of a contemporary of Aguilar, the Italian Jewish poetess Rahel Morpurgo (1790–1871), who penned original liturgical poetry, most of which appeared only posthumously, that her husband showed virtually no interest in her work. See Nina Davis Salaman, Rahel Morpurgo and Contemporary Hebrew Poets in Italy, with a foreword by the chief Rabbi; and an afterword by Herbert Loewe (London: G. Allen & Unwin, 1924), 39.

394

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

would become a stay and support in rapidly advancing years, and thus entirely prevent the ennui, and its attendants, love of gossip, frivolity, and often sourness and irritability, which are too generally believed to be the sole characteristics of single (and so of course supposed disappointed) women? Have we not all some precious talent lent us by our God, and for the use of which He will demand an account? Is there not the whole human family from which to select some few objects of interest, on whom to expend some of our leisure time, and draw our thoughts from all-engrossing self? Were there but one object on whom we have lavished kindness, and taught to look up to God and heaven. and to walk this earth virtuously and meekly—but one or two whom, had we the pecuniary means, we have clothed and fed—a sick or dying bed that we have soothed—a sorrowing one consoled—an erring one turned from the guilty path—the repentant, or the weak, strengthened and encouraged—we shall not have lived in vain; or, when we come to die, look shudderingly back on a useless life and wasted gifts; on existence lost in the vain struggle to arrest the flight of time, and still seek hope and pleasure in thoughts and scenes, whose sweetness has been too long extracted for aught to remain but bitterness and gall. Deborahs in truth we cannot be; but each and all have talents given, and a sphere assigned them, and, like her, all have it in their power, in the good performed towards man, to use the one, and consecrate the other to the service of their God.23

One cannot escape the impression that Grace Aguilar, who wrote these lines two years before her untimely death at age 31 and who suffered from ill-health for many years, knew that her days on earth were numbered, and so true to her own advice on this page left a lasting legacy of novels and poems and treatises on Judaism, including Woman of Israel, whose abiding worth is revealed almost at a glance and certainly when one engages with her extended essays on subjects as diverse as the role of the maidservant in ancient Israel and the personality and accomplishments of Deborah the Prophetess. 23

CHAPTER IV. WIFE OF MANOAH Several years passed since the death of Deborah. Gideon, Tola, Jair, Jepthah, Ibzan, Elon, and Abdan, had successively judged Israel, often with interregnums of rebellion, apostasy, and anarchy.1 After the death of the last mentioned judge, “the children of Israel again did evil in the sight of the Lord, and He delivered them into the hands of the Philistines forty years.”2 We now come to another incident in the history of the women of Israel demanding our attention. In the tribe of Dan was a certain man of the city of Zorah, named Manoah, whose wife had no children,3 always a source of grief in the families of Israel; not, as the Christians believe, from the idea of becoming the mother of the promised Messiah (who is scarcely mentioned till the time of the prophets, when the awfully threatened chastisement of the Eternal needed such consolatory promises),4 but because children were always considered proofs of See Judg. 5–12. Judg. 13:1. 3 Judg. 13:2. 4 Indeed, during the period of the Roman occupation of the Land of Israel from the end of the 1st century B.C.E., the Hebrew term Messiah (Modern Hebrew mashiah) is associated with the idea of a Davidic king, who will, in the near or distant future restore Jewish sovereignty, free the Jews from Roman oppression, and establish a reign of peace and harmony throughout the world. As pointed out by H. L. Ginsberg, “Messiah,” in EJ, 11:1407–1408; the roots of this idea within the Hebrew Bible are the following: 1) the idea that God had chosen King David and his descendants to reign over Israel forever (2 Sam. 7; 23:1–3, 5); 2) the doctrine that the Davidic dynasty will at some time in the future again rule over all Israel (Amos 9:11–12; Isa. 11:10); and 3) the hope for a beneficent ruler 1 2

395

396

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

the Lord’s love, a privilege granted from Him as the recompense of faithful service; as we read in the words of David, “Lo, children are an heritage of the Lord: and the fruit of the womb is His REWARD,” Psalm cxxvii. And, again, “Thy wife shall be as a fruitful vine by the sides of thine house: and thy children like olive plants around thy table. Behold, thus shall the man be blessed that feareth the Lord. Thou shalt see thy children’s children, and peace on Israel,” Psalm cxxviii. To go down childless to the grave, and so prevent the name from being “built up”5 in Israel, was deemed a heavy affliction, inferring, for some secret sin or public transgression, the anger of the Lord. Sacred Writ is silent as to the reason of the Eternal’s selection falling on the family of Manoah for a deliverer in part from the Philistines, but we are justified in inferring from the context, that they were one of the few faithful followers of Israel, by whom the Law was in all points obeyed. Be that however as it may, this is certain, that it was to the WOMAN, not to the man, the Most High deigned to send His angelic messenger, with not only the blessed revelation that He would grant her a son; but deigning to instruct her as to the food and drink she was to refrain from taking herself, and to the devoting her babe as a Nazarite to the Lord, even from his infancy; thus making the direct commands of the Immutable agree in all points with the Law which His wisdom and mercy had already given.6 who will strive to establish justice and who will have a Solomonic intuition into every case brought before him (Isa. 11: 2-4) 5 Cf. Ruth 4:11: “... the LORD make the woman [Ruth] that is come into thine [Boaz’s] house like Rachel and Leah, which two did build the house of Israel ... .” 6 Judg. 13:3–5; cf. the law of the Nazirite in Num. 6:1–21. Precisely because, contrary to Aguilar, the rules that Samson and his mother (the rabbis provide her with a name, Hazlelponit; see Babylonian Talmud Bava Batra 91a) are not precisely the rules laid down in Num. 6, the rabbis intimate in Mishnah, Tractate Nazir 1:2 that the Oral Torah [which, may be implicit in the Mishnah but is not mentioned by name until the postMishnah Rabbinic literature], which, in their belief, supplements the Written Torah, provides for more than one kind of Nazirite!

THIRD PERIOD. IV. WIFE OF MANOAH

397

Naturally astonished, for such revelations were not even then common in Israel, we find “the woman” following the impulse of her confiding nature, hastening on the instant to her husband, and informing him that a man of God had come unto her, and his countenance was very terrible (signifying, not actually terrible, but grand and imposing), like the countenance of an angel of the Lord; but “I asked him not whence he was, neither told he me his name.”7 From this description of the heavenly messenger, it appears that the woman did not consider him in reality an angel, supposing him a man of God or prophet, bearing a message from the Most High, as was usual in Israel, yet still struck by the imposing beauty of his countenance, and feeling it possessed something beyond mortality.8 Equally astonished, but believing, Manoah lost no time in idle speculation, but betook himself instantly to prayer; thus confirming our idea of his faithfulness and piety, and proving one grand and important national truth, that the Israelites needed no mediator whatever, be he man or angel, to bring up their prayers before God, and obtain His gracious reply. Here was Manoah, living on his own estates, in his own tribe, far removed from the priests of the Lord and the tabernacle, through the first of whom alone it is declared, by our opponents, that the prayers of Israel could be acceptably offered up. No priest near, of whom he could either ask or obtain counsel; no wise man or judge, of whom he might demand advice or explanation. Yet the law was then in force all over Israel, and if it had been illegal and derogatory to the dignity of the Lord to address Him in prayer from any place, or at any time, we should have found Manoah hastening without a moment’s delay to the appointed spot, and offering sacrifices to obtain the mediation of the anointed priest, knowing that through him only he could obtain reply. Instead of which, we find him, without even pause or hesitation, believing the words of his wife so implicitly, as to offer up a prayer of such simple construction that it clearly proves how little the Most High regards mere formula in prayer, when springing, as 7 8

Judg. 13:6. Judg. 13:6–7.

398

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

did Manoah’s, from humility and faith. “Then Manoah entreated the Lord, and said, O my Lord, let the man of God which thou didst send come again to us, and teach us what we shall do unto the child that shall be born.” Here is no doubt expressed as to the reality of the blessing proffered: “The child that shall be born,” reveals how fully he believed in the promise; but, as was natural to humanity, he entreated a confirmation of the instructions vouchsafed, not knowing how far the imagination and the fears of his wife might have tinctured her relation.9 “And God hearkened to the voice of Manoah.”10 Did we need any further incentive to “entreat the Lord” in all things, surely we have it here. Manoah had simply spoken the thoughts of his heart in words, which would be their natural vehicle of expression. He had prayed through the merits of neither dead nor living, man nor angel, but in lowly trusting faith, and God hearkened and answered. Again His messenger appeared unto the woman as she sat in the field, Manoah not being with her, and she ran to inform her husband, saying that the man had again appeared unto her, the same who had come previously; and Manoah, no doubt in secret adoring the Beneficent God who had thus deigned to answer his prayer, went with his wife, and demanded of the messenger, if he were indeed the man who had visited them before. And being answered in the affirmative, he besought a repetition of how to “order the child;” and the angel condescended a full reply, reiterating all his previous instructions. Still believing him a man, as himself, only gifted with the spirit of the Lord, Manoah, with the hospitality peculiar to the Hebrew, besought him to remain until “we shall have made ready a kid for thee.” And the angel of the Lord said unto Manoah, “Though thou detain me, I will not eat of thy bread. And if thou wilt offer a burnt-offering thou must offer it unto the Lord; for Manoah knew not that he was an angel of the Lord. And Manoah said, What is thy name? that when thy sayings come to pass, we may do thee honor. And the angel of the Lord said unto him, Wherefore askest thou thus after my name, seeing it is secret? So Manoah took a kid with a meat-offering, and offered it upon a rock unto the 9

Judg. 13:8. Judg. 13:9.

10

THIRD PERIOD. IV. WIFE OF MANOAH

399

Lord. And it came to pass, when the flame went up toward heaven from off the altar, the angel of the Lord ascended in the flame of the altar, and Manoah and his wife looked on it, and fell with their faces to the ground. And the angel of the Lord did no more appear unto Manoah and his wife: then Manoah knew he was an angel of the Lord. And Manoah said, We shall surely die, for we have seen God [i. e. a messenger direct from God.] But his wife said unto him, If the Lord were pleased to kill us, He would not have received a burnt-offering and a meat-offering at our hands, neither would He have showed us all these things, nor would as at this (second) time have told us such things as these.” (Judges xiii.) We have quoted this chapter almost at length, because it contains so much which it is almost imperative for us to consider in a national point of view, before we can come to regard it in its bearings on our history as women. Any elucidation or defence of our national belief will not, we trust, be deemed out of place in a Jewish work, however little it may be pronounced to have to do with the main point of its subject. In an age when so much of controversy is going on, when even the intimate association, and often friendships, between Hebrew and Gentile may bring forward peculiar points of belief, to inquire their differences or varying modes of interpretation—it becomes imperatively necessary for the young Hebrew of either sex to be provided with such defence as will, at least, satisfy his own heart and conscience, and render him invulnerable to the peculiar expositions proffered to his attention, however little such defence may weigh with the hereditary prejudices of his opponents. There is a wide difference between an argument seeking the conversion of another, and that merely defending our own belief in the same sacred authority as gives a supposed foundation for the belief of an opponent. As long as the Christian confines his arguments and quotations to the New Testament, the Israelite feels perfectly secure, from his entire rejection of such authority as Divine. But when the words of the Old Testament are so explained as to bear almost startlingly upon the creed of our adversaries, then it is we need careful, though perfectly simple, training, to provide us both with reply and defence. To be kept in ignorance of the Nazarene readings of the Bible does no good whatever; for there are very few who can hope to pass through life, particularly now that social intercourse is so unrestrained, without some approach to the differences of belief, and their causes. Much better is

400

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

it to know clearly the danger we are not unlikely to encounter, and how to avert it, than to come upon it wholly unprepared. Not in childhood indeed, for it would be folly to perplex the young mind with the tenets of two beliefs: then it is simply necessary to impress and explain the essentials of their own creed; but in maturer years, when the opening mind is not only capable of understanding, but feels itself restless and anxious for something more than the mere education of childhood: then let them compare their belief with that of others; let them know what and why their opponents so believe, through the enlarged and liberal views of a spiritually Jewish instructor; let the light of reason and revelation be their guide, and we shall find both male and female of the Hebrew youth so confirmed in their own blessed faith, as to live and die for it, yet eschewing all of illiberality, uncharitableness, and scorn, towards those of other and less enlightened creeds. The chapter under consideration is one of those much regarded by the Nazarene, and always brought forward in controversial discussion. From Manoah’s simple words, “We have seen God,” they believe, that wherever the “angel of the Lord” is mentioned, it signifies the second person of the Godhead; and that as He took visible form to our ancestors of old, so we might equally believe in His taking the form of Jesus to save the world.11 To a mere superficial thinker this argument might prove dangerous; and we are therefore anxious to explain this chapter according to the Israelite’s belief. In the first place, we refuse to see in this messenger anything more than the Word of God12 declares,

In Judg. 2:1 KJV reads “And an angel of the LORD,” which reflects standard Christian interpretation of the passage. A note in KJV margin reads “Or, messenger.” Most but not all Jewish interpreters from antiquity to the present understand the messenger in that context to designate an anonymous prophet while a strong tendency in Christian exegesis understands the passage to refer to a heavenly messenger. See, inter alia, George Foot Moore, Judges, International Critical Commentary (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1895); Y. Kaufmann, Judges (Jerusalem: Kiryath Sepher & Israel Society for Biblical Research, 1962), 32 (in Hebrew). 12 I.e., the Hebrew Bible. 11

THIRD PERIOD. IV. WIFE OF MANOAH

401

“an angel of the Lord,”13 simply because the Eternal said unto Moses, in answer to his earnest entreaty, “Show me thy glory, THOU CANST NOT SEE MY FACE: FOR THERE SHALL NO MAN SEE ME, AND LIVE.”14 And we therefore know, that no man has or ever can see His face, and live; for God is a God of truth, and knows not the very shadow of a change.15 That which He has once said is immutable, unwavering, changeless as Himself. That there may be, even in the books of Moses, one or two verses seeming to contradict this assertion, as in Exodus xxiv., verses 10 and 11, and in verse 11 of chapter xxxiii., is of no importance, being either a wrong translation, or the mere manner of writing, to bring down the solemn appearance of the glory of God to the comprehension of the mixed multitude,16 and impossible to be weighed a single Judg. 13:3. Ex. 33:20. 15 Cf. Mal. 3:6: “For I am the LORD. I change not.” 16 This expression occurs only once in the Bible in Ex. 12:38 and seems to refer, as Rashi explains in his commentary there, to persons of non-Hebrew ethnicity, who joined the Hebrew slaves in their Exodus as proselytes, or, as we would say, ‘Jews by choice.’ Unfortunately, Aguilar reflects a tendency to assume that newcomers are less sophisticated than the people who are “already here a long time.” And indeed, not withstanding the Scriptural admonition, “Love ye therefore the stranger [Heb. ger; in halakhic and aggadic contexts this term in this verse and in similar biblical admonitions can have three distinct meanings: a) Jew by choice; b) a non-idolatrous person, who has not adopted the Jewish faith; c) any outsider, who lives in your community]: for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt” (Deut. 10:19), even Rabbinic midrash contains some disparaging statements about the mixed multitude that joined Israel’s departure from Egypt. In Sifre Numbers at Num. 11:4 the idea that the “riffraff” [Heb. ’asapsup] is to be identified with the “mixt multitude” (see below) that according to Ex. 12:38 joined the Israelite Exodus from Egypt as Jews by choice (so Rashi at Ex. 12:38) is only one suggestion while another suggestion is that this “riffraff” is “the elders.” Interestingly, not only does Rashi in his commentary at Num. 11:4 adopt the suggestion that the “riffraff” is ‘the mixed multitude’ but so also KJV, which at Num. 11:4 renders Heb. ’asapsup by means of the expression ‘mixt multitude’. 13 14

402

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

moment with the words of the Most High Himself. Would He declare the solemn truth in one part of His Holy Word, confirming it by every prophet, and in another part command His people, as a condition of their salvation, to believe on His appearing on earth, and conversing face to face with man, first as an angel, and then in human form? The very words of Manoah confirm this belief, and prove it was entertained as strongly by the ancient as the modern Jews. The Nazarenes take only the last member of this sentence, forgetting the important fact, “We shall surely die, if, indeed, we have seen God,” for such is the real meaning of his words, and that he did not die; and the simple truth of his wife’s suggestion convinced him, no doubt, as it convinces us, that it was not God whom he had seen, but one of those angelic messengers whom it sometimes pleased the Lord to employ to deliver His missions unto man. The nature of such beings it needs not now to inquire; but the belief in the existence of angels is so twined with the belief in the Bible, that if we disbelieve the one, we must disbelieve the other. The very word ‫מלאך‬, derived from the Arabic ‫ לאך‬to send, or employ,17 signifies merely a messenger, a legate, used indiscriminately for one employed by a king as ambassador,18 or by the Lord as an angel, prophet, or priest; and sometimes also applied to whatever is sent by the Eternal to execute His will, even as winds and plagues.19

Here again we see reference to Aguilar’s erudition, reflected in her correct understanding of the etymology of the Hebrew noun mala’k ‘angel, messenger’. In 1845 the Semitic languages, which biblical scholars and their students used to shed light on Hebrew were Arabic and Aramaic. Akkadian would be deciphered only in 1857, and the Ugaritic tablets would be discovered only in 1929. In the second half of the twentieth century and later scholars would be more likely to cite Ugaritic lik ‘to send’ both because Ugaritic is closer to Biblical Hebrew than Arabic and because knowledge of it is more accessible to western biblical scholars and their students than Arabic. 18 E.g., 2 Sam. 5:11: “And Hiram king of Tyre sent messengers [Heb. mala’kim ] to David ... .” 19 E.g., Ps. 104:4: “He makes the winds his messengers [Heb. mala’kayw] ... .” 17

THIRD PERIOD. IV. WIFE OF MANOAH

403

The grand and imposing aspect of the angelic countenance, as we have seen, struck Manoah’s wife; but that neither she nor her husband supposed him anything more than a prophet or priest, is evident by their manner of addressing him, and their entreating him to tarry for refreshment. The angel’s reply is strong confirmation of what we have already stated concerning his real office. To eat of their bread would be confirming their idea that he was but a man; to accept their burnt-offering would be arrogating to himself what was due only to his Heavenly Master. “If thou offer a burntoffering thou must offer it unto the LORD;”20 not to him, who, though of an angelic nature, was still nothing but a messenger. Still ignorant that he was an angel, Manoah asks his name, to do him honor; and because he knew how liable were even believing Israelites to turn aside from the worship of the immutable God to worship others, and jealous for the glory of his Master, the angel refused to tell his name, declaring it was secret—that when his words came to pass, Manoah or his wife might not have even a name to turn aside their thoughts from the one sole God; still, to convince them he was not a mere mortal, but came direct from the Lord, he ascended, or disappeared, in the flame of the altar, as had been the sign of the divine acceptance of the offering, from the sacrifice of Abel downwards.21 And it was

So says the angel in Judg. 13:16. With reference to Abel’s offering, the Bible says (Gen. 4:4), “the LORD paid heed to Abel and his offering” (NJV). And Rashi comments: “Fire came down and consumed his offering,” and Shabbetai Bass (1641– 1718 C.E.) in his supercommentary on Rashi’s commentary explains, “Thereby it was known that He [God] paid attention ... .” Since this manner of God’s conveying to Abel His acceptance of both Abel and his offering is not mentioned in Scripture, it is clear that Aguilar is in touch with traditional Jewish exegesis. Indeed, she specifically cites Rashi (see above, p. 81) and frequently refers to his interpretations without mentioning him by name. Biblical evidence for the contention that God responds to sacrifices by sending down fire from heaven to consume them is found in the narrative of Elijah’s contest with the priests of Baal where Elijah says, “and the God who answereth by fire, let him be God” (1 Kgs. 18:24), and so it happened that God did send fire to consume Elijah’s sacrifice that 20 21

404

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

knowing this, and recognising the immediate agency of the Most High, in thus sending one of His own messengers, that so overwhelmed Manoah and his wife with religious awe, as to cause them to fall with their faces to the ground, not daring to look even upon the semblance of His glory.22 A layman, and a lowly individual of his father’s tribe, it was not unnatural that Manoah should even be more awe-struck than rejoiced, at the revelation so graciously vouchsafed; and whilst the mistaken idea engrossed him, if, indeed, it ever did, that he had conversed with God, he could not do otherwise than fear instant death, for, like all his brethren, he knew the God of Israel was a God of truth; and, therefore, if he had seen him, he must cease to live. The ready answer of his wife removed these groundless fears; and while it told him, that if it had pleased the Lord to kill them, He would not have accepted offerings at their hands, or so revealed His will, it must equally have convinced him, as a believer in the revelation of the Lord through Moses, that it was not God, but his messenger whom He had seen.23 Such is the simple rendering of this very simple chapter; while the second commandment,24 and the words already quoted, “No was designated for the LORD God of Abraham, Isaac, and of Israel (1 Kgs. 18:36–38). 22 Judg. 13:20. 23 Judg. 13:21–23. 24 In Jewish tradition, which is reflected here, the second commandment of the Decalogue is “Thou shalt have no other gods before me. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me; And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me and keep my commandments” (Ex. 20:3–5 = Deut. 5:7–10). In Jewish tradition the first commandment of the Decalogue is “I am the LORD thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage” (Ex. 20:2 = Deut. 5:6). Since Christians do not consider the latter verse one of the ten commandments, what they have done (from a

THIRD PERIOD. IV. WIFE OF MANOAH

405

man can see me, and live,’’25 with the firm belief that God is TRUTH,26 are all sufficient wherewith satisfactorily to explain, both to our own hearts and to those of our children, every verse that may seem to read slightly contradictory, and supply us with an impenetrable shield, against which the reasonings of our opponents must fall blunted and harmless to the ground. Regarding this narrative in its bearings on our history as Women of Israel, it is confirmation strong of our always attested declaration, that neither Written nor Oral Law interfered with the perfect equality of man and wife. The chapter before us displays a simple and natural picture of conjugal confidence and equality, and of the respective peculiarities of man and woman. It is impossible to read this chapter, without perceiving that Manoah’s wife was a Jewish point of view) is to divide what Jews regard as the second commandment into two so that “Thou shalt not make unto thee a graven image ...” is a separate commandment, which they count as commandment #3 so that both Jews and Christians end up with a total of ten. Interestingly, Aguilar usually quotes the King James Bible because in 1845 there is no other complete Bible in English available to her (Leeser’s Jewish translation of the Bible, a project which Aguilar urged upon him, will make its appearance only in the year 1853). We have seen also that she demonstrates a more than cursory knowledge of Christological interpretations of the Bible and how a Jew might refute them on the basis of biblical philology (exactly what Rashi does in his commentary at Ps. 2 and in his commentary on Song of Songs). Nevertheless, she seems to take it for granted that her readers would know that “Thou shalt not make unto thee a graven image ...” is part of the second commandment of the Decalogue and not the third. Her point is that Jews are not allowed to make an image and bow down to it because, after all, God, even if he had a physical form, cannot be visualized. Whoever would see God, she insists, would die (Ex. 33:20). 25 Ex. 33:20. 26 Jer. 10:10: “And the LORD God is truth.” This is my rendering which reflects Aguilar’s understanding and also the understanding that underlies the Jewish liturgical adaptation of this clause in the Morning and Evening Services of home and synagogue. On the latter, see above, in the final note to Period I, Chapter III. KJV renders “But the LORD is the true God” while NJV renders “But the LORD is truly God.”

406

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

perfectly free agent, only bound by the links of love and confidence which the marriage law enjoins. As the mother of the child selected to deliver Israel in part from the Philistines, she was even of more importance in the sight of God than her husband, a fact inferred from the angel appearing both times to her, and only addressing Manoah when addressed by him. We find, too, Manoah including her alike in all he said and did. “Let us detain thee, until we have prepared a kid,” &c. In the religious observance of the burntoffering, and in the lowly prostration acknowledging the divine power, Manoah and his wife are separately named, proving her perfect equality in all religious observances, and her right to partake of them. That the angel never again appeared either to Manoah or his wife, is the proof to them that he was a messenger from the Lord.27 The words, “we shall surely die,” included her in the penalty supposed to have been incurred, and mark the female as equally a responsible agent as the male. Still more clearly demonstrative that the Hebrew wife really occupied the free and equal position which the laws of God Himself assigned her, is the fact that it was her ready wit, and quickness of intellect, which reassured her husband. She had been awe-struck like himself, but yet, perfectly in accordance with woman’s nature, was the first to comprehend the real intention of the revelation. Man’s more solid nature and deeper thought, require time for mature judgment—woman’s quicker fancy, and often more easily excited feeling, give her the advantage in the rapidity of comprehension, and, very often, in the correctness of judgment, which man’s greater solidity strengthens and matures. But that Manoah’s wife could thus comprehend, and thus correctly judge, implies a domestic and social position which not only permitted, but exercised these peculiar faculties. In an enslaved and This is stated in Judg. 13:21: “But the angel of the LORD did no more appear to Manoah and to his wife. Then Manoah knew that he was an angel of the LORD.” Aguilar perceives a causal relationship between the two clauses, namely, that because the figure did not appear again it was known to Manoah and his wife that the figure was an angel. In fact, Aguilar here takes for granted an ancient Jewish doctrine, “Each angel performs only one mission” (Rashi at Gen. 18:2, based upon Genesis Rabbah 50:2). 27

THIRD PERIOD. IV. WIFE OF MANOAH

407

degraded position, their possession was practically and theoretically impossible. We find, then, much even in this brief chapter to interest and instruct us, alike as Hebrew women, and as women taken generally. In the latter, we shall do well to reflect on the simple trusting confidence of Manoah’s wife, seeming the more tender and deferential from the greater correctness of judgment manifested afterwards. And so it should always be. However woman may be naturally endowed with superior attainments, with, perhaps, even a greater share of strength and firmness, and a quicker aptitude for intellectual acquirements, still it is her bounden duty so to guide and use these gifts, that they shall never in any way jar upon the feelings of the one chosen as her husband; and check mutual confidence and love by that assumption of superiority, even granted it exist, of all things most irritating to man’s nature. It is woman’s province to influence, never to dictate; to conceal, rather than assume superiority. She may find many and many an opportunity to use it for the good of her husband and children, as was the case with the wife of Manoah; but never let her display it—never let her permit her husband to feel his inferiority—never let her withhold confidence, from the mistaken notion that as her judgment is as good, if not better than his, she cannot need his advice or interference—for if she does, she may rest assured that from that instant her influence is at an end for ever.

CHAPTER V. NAOMI We now come to a portion of our history as women of Israel, which, from the loveliness of female character that it displays, has in neither history nor romance been equalled. In the Bible it is termed the book of Ruth; but as Ruth does not properly belong, by birth and ancestry, to the women of Israel, Naomi must be the subject of our consideration. With her history, however, Ruth is so entwined, that we cannot reflect on the one without also pausing on the touching beauty of the other. The country of Moab, situated in the north-east part of Arabia Petraea, was separated from Judea by the desolate tract of the Dead Sea, and the river Arnon. It could not probably be said ever to have formed part of the land of Canaan; but was one of those nations which the Eternal expressly commanded His people to spare: see Deut. ii. 9. The Dead Sea was also the boundary of the tribe of Judah; and it is rather a remarkable fact, that Judah and Simeon are the only tribes of Israel who appear to have driven out all the previous Canaanitish possessors. Judah was the first appointed by the Most High to go up against the land; and, accompanied by his brother Simeon, evinced not only more obedience but more valor and military skill.1 We do not read of them, as of Benjamin, Manasseh, Judg. 1:1–3: “Now after the death of Joshua it came to pass, that the children of Israel asked the LORD, saying, Who shall go up for us against the Canaanites first, to fight against them? And the LORD said, Judah shall go up: behold I have delivered the land into his hand. And Judah said unto Simeon his brother, Come up with me into my lot, that we may fight against the Canaanites: and I likewise will go with thee into thy lot. So Simeon went with him.” 1

409

410

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

Ephraim, Zebulun, Asher, Naphtali, and Dan, who, with scarcely any fighting, entered into peaceful covenants with the Canaanites, and permitted them to dwell with them even in their cities.2 Nor, in consequence, do we find recorded of the tribe of Judah those awful crimes and willful idolatries practised by his brethren. In the early part of Jewish history, Judah was undoubtedly the most faithful tribe, else had he not been the chosen branch, from which, in God’s own time, will spring our Restorer and Messiah. Elimelech was a man of this valiant tribe, and, in consequence of a severe famine which devastated Judea (the punishment, in all probability, of national sin), he removed his family, consisting of a wife and two sons, to the country of Moab, not far distant from their native city, Bethlehem-Judah or Ephratah. Elimelech died in Moab, not very long after he sojourned there; and his two sons, Chilion and Mahlon, took them wives of the women of Moab, and dwelled there about ten years.3 Such unions were contrary to the given Law of God; and we may infer that, notwithstanding the virtue and attractions of those selected, the act itself as disobedience was displeasing in the sight of the Lord, from the early deaths, without leaving children, of Elimelech’s two sons. This, however, is a mere suggestion which may or may not be, and does not infer Divine displeasure against either Orpah or Ruth; as those not under the Law were not bound by its instructions.4 During the lifetime of her husband and sons, we hear nothing of Naomi; but it is by her conduct and sentiments in adversity, and the strong affection borne towards her by her daughters-in-law, that we may judge of her previous character. A faithful wife, an affectionate mother—gentle, meek, trusting—manifesting a simple, guileless piety in every relation, every cir-

Judg. 1:21–34. Ruth 1:1–4. 4 Aguilar refers to Deut. 23:3: “An Ammonite or Moabite shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD; even to their tenth generation shall they not enter into the congregation of the LORD for ever.” Concerning the Rabbinic Sages’ interpretation of this in the Mishnah, see below. 2 3

THIRD PERIOD. V. NAOMI

411

cumstance of life; such she must have been, or we should not find her in affliction the character which the Word of God displays. It is not always in prosperity that we discover the true graces of a spiritual character. The quiet, unostentatious discharge of domestic duty—the fond, unwavering affections of domestic life— these strike us not; nay, we often pass them by, wondering at the simplicity and tame-spiritedness which can rest content in such unexciting scenes. But when adversity comes, and strength and piety is to an extraordinary degree displayed, then it is we learn that it is in unexciting scenes woman’s character is best matured; and we may chance to envy those whom we had before almost despised. The heart of the Hebrew widow yearned towards that lovely land, from which she had been so long a willing exile for her husband and children’s sake—yearned towards it, for it was the land of her brethren, where the Lord had set up His only Tabernacle;5 where His law had assured her of His especial protection—for she was a widow in Israel; where her full heart could pour itself before Him in the congregation of her people—could worship Him in all points according to His law. In Moab she was alone of her race and faith. No wonder she yearned once more to rest in her native land; or that, lonely and aged as she was, she should yet set forth on the weary way, Another reason, also, might thus have urged her: she heard that “the Lord had visited His people with bread,”6 and, therefore, she was no longer guiltless in continuing to sojourn in a heathen land. Accompanied by her daughters, she departed from “the place where she was;”7 but, after going some little way together, she tenderly besought them to return, each to her mother’s house, praying that the Lord might deal kindly with them, even as they had dealt with the dead and with her; and grant them each rest and peace, with a husband of their own people. Then she kissed them, and they lifted up their voices and wept, saying, “We will surely return with thee unto thine own people.”8 They had lived with her ten years—a The Tabernacle in those days was situated at Shiloh; see Josh. 18:1. Ruth 1:6. 7 Ruth 1:7a. 8 Ruth 1:7b–10. 5 6

412

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

long period for the character and conduct to have been tried—and we see what Naomi’s must have been, by the grief of her two daughters—unable to part with her, even to return to their own parents. To Naomi, such separation must also have been a heavy trial; but she was too unselfish to wish them to accompany her to a land of strangers. With renewed tenderness, then, she sought to turn them from their purpose, telling them she might no longer give them husbands;9 thus alluding to the law of her people, which commands the brother or nearest kinsman of the deceased to take unto himself the childless wife;10 and then only do we hear this meek and pious mother in Israel revert to her heavy affliction. “It grieveth me much, for your sakes, that the hand of the Lord11 is gone out against me.”12 She recognised the hand of the Lord, and met her individual sorrows not only with uncomplaining resignation, but feeling yet more deeply for her daughters than for herself, and seeking to console them—leaving her own consolation to Him who had smitten and would heal. No wonder that her fond words increased their grief and bade them weep again: but the effect on the sisters was different. Orpah was one of the many, feeling painfully at the moment, passionately desirous to evince that she felt, but liable to be easily diverted from her purpose. Penetrating no deeper than the surface, she, perhaps, believed Naomi’s words as neither desiring nor requiring her further company; and, therefore, repeatedly she kissed her mother-in-law and wept, but at length Ruth 1:11–12. Deut. 25:5–10. 11 While Ezra the scribe employs the expression “The hand of our God is upon all them for good that seek him ...” in Ezra 8:22 and while Nehemiah likewise mentions in Neh. 2:18 “the hand of my God which was good upon me,” the expressions ‘hand of the LORD’ and ‘hand of God’, like the Ugaritic cognate yd il ‘hand of a god’, generally refer to a plague or other natural disaster like Eng. ‘act of God’. This is the meaning here in Ruth 1:13, and it is found also, inter alia, in Ex. 9:3, “Behold the hand of the LORD is upon thy cattle” (referring to the 5th of the 10 plagues, which was ‘pestilence’ [Heb. deber]); see also Deut. 2:15; 1 Sam. 5:6, 9, 11. 12 Ruth 1:13. 9

10

THIRD PERIOD. V. NAOMI

413

turned back to her own home.13 Much as she loved the aged Naomi, earnestly as she wished to serve her, she had not sufficient firmness and steadiness of character to act of herself and set at naught the persuasions of affection. Gentle and yielding, it was easier for her to grieve than to act; and is not this the nature of many women? They fear to abide by their own judgment when two alternatives are presented to them. They hesitate and linger, fearing to commit themselves by decision, and so are guided by a breath. Accustomed to express all their own impulses and feelings without regarding others, such natures cannot possibly understand those firmer and less selfish ones, who would do violence to their own wishes, to secure what may seem the greater share of happiness for another. That Orpah was one of these, solves her conduct far more justly and agreeably than to suppose her, as many do, merely professing a love and regret which she could not really feel—else, she too would have followed Naomi. Orpah was woman in her weakness; Ruth, woman in her strength; and both are as beautifully true to woman’s nature now as then. Ruth’s own unselfish, character gave her the clue to her mother-in-law’s words. She could understand that Naomi might persuade them to return home, and yet cling to them as her last ties on earth. To Ruth action was better than passive grief, deeds than the tenderest words; and, therefore, when Naomi besought her to follow her sister-in-law, and return to her own people, Ruth’s sole answer was couched in words exquisitely illustrative of the deep tenderness, the firm devotion, the beautiful deference of her individual character:—“Entreat me not to leave thee, or to return from following thee. Whither thou goest, I will go; and where thou lodgest, I will lodge. Thy people shall be my people, and thy God my God. Where thou diest, I will die, and there will I be buried. The Lord do so to me, and more also, if aught but death part me and thee!”14 Not the most carefully studied oration could breathe more undying, changeless, self-submitting devotion, than these few and simple words. Naomi was evidently poor. The riches of the He13 14

Ruth 1:14–15. Ruth 1:16–17.

414

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

brews did not consist then of such wealth as would provide for their families after their death; land and its produce constituted their possessions; and these, where there were no males to cultivate, could not prevent the female survivors from being poor as well as bereaved. Naomi’s return to her own land would, of course, according to the law of God, secure her provision;15 but in the constant rebellion and disobedience of the people,16 it was precarious and uncertain—she might not even be recognised by her countrymen, so long a time had elapsed since she had left Ephratah. By her earnest entreaties for her daughters to return, it is evident that sufficiency and comfort marked their own homes. Yet Ruth unhesitatingly resigned them all to share her mother-in-law’s fate, whatever it might be. Bidding farewell to the friends, scenes, and associations of her youth, not for a time, but for a life, some cause for this pure devoted love there must have been. Ruth’s simple words not only reveal the beauty of her own character, but that of the aged Naomi. Affection is ever the impulse to devotion and unselfishness. The human heart ever needs something to which so to cling as to be drawn out from self, and Ruth was not a character to devote her affections and energies to an unworthy object. We know what the character of Naomi must have been in those ten or twelve years of which we hear nothing, by the simple devotedness of Ruth in her adversity. Here Aguilar refers to the obligation to provide material support to widows (Deut. 14:29; 26:12–13) and to invite them to celebrate holidays with families (Deut. 16:11, 14). 16 Ruth 1:1 sets the scene of the Book of Ruth in the period of the judges. While the Book of Ruth paints a wholly idyllic picture of life in Israel in the time of the Judges, the Book of Judges stresses that “when the LORD raised them up judges, then the LORD was with the judge, and delivered them out of the hand of their enemies all the days of the judge: for it repented the LORD because of all their groanings by reason of them that oppressed them and vexed them. And it came to pass, when the judge was dead, that they returned and corrupted themselves more than their fathers, in following other gods to serve them ... and the anger of the LORD was hot against Israel ... and the LORD sold them into the hand of ... “ (Judg. 2:18–20; 4:2). 15

THIRD PERIOD. V. NAOMI

415

And what a comfort to that lone heart must have been the soothing words and “steadfast mindedness”17 of the Moabitish damsel. Must not she whom we shall find, under every circumstance of joy or grief, looking to the Lord alone, and tracing all things from His Almighty hand, have felt this comfort came from him— and that even then she had not trusted in vain. In the midst of affliction He sent consolation; in her deepest loneliness, raised up an earthly friend. Here, as we have already seen in the love of Isaac for Rebekah, we find the tender compassion of the Eternal for His creatures manifested in giving human comfort; He not only pours spiritual balm into the bleeding heart, but provides some being on whom its quivering affections may again find rest, and whose faithful love shall fill the aching void. To the bereaved wife and mother, left in her old age alone, a withered tree from which every leaf and flower has gone, with no hope of ever bearing more, Ruth’s affection must have been indeed a precious balm. Without her, Naomi had been alone, and oh, at all times, how fearful is the suffering included in that word! Yet more in the adversity of bereavement and old age! We do not hear how long the travellers journeyed, but Holy Writ simply, yet forcibly, brings before us the wonder and sympathy excited by the Bethlehemites on Naomi’s return, “and it came to pass, when they were come to Bethlehem, that all the city was moved about them, and they said, ‘Is this Naomi?’ ”18 Can we not fancy the whole city flocking to look upon the travellers, to discover if indeed the rumor of Naomi’s return could be correct—and anxious, if it were, to give her kindly welcome? Struck by her look of years and sorrow, remembering her only as the fair and pleasantlooking wife of Elimelech, then in her freshest prime, marvelling one to another, can this indeed be Naomi? It is a complete picture of that primitive union of family and tribe, peculiar to early Judaism. Men were not then so engrossed with self, as to feel no sympathy, no interest, out of their own confined circle. They could spare both time and feeling to “be moved” at the return of a country-woman, who had been absent so long; and to grieve with her at 17 18

Ruth 1:18. Ruth 1:19.

416

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

those heavy afflictions which caused her to reply to their eager greetings, “Call me not Naomi, call me Mara, for the Almighty hath dealt very bitterly with me; I went out full, and the Lord hath brought me home again empty. Why then call ye me Naomi, seeing that the Lord hath testified against me, and the Almighty hath afflicted me?” Again we find Naomi in meek submission referring all the events of her life to her God, yet uttering no complaint; she alludes to her heavy afflictions indeed,—alludes to them as afflictions, as God himself ordained—not as some enthusiasts would seek to persuade us, that all bereavements are to be considered joys, and so received with thanksgiving and praise, that pain is not to be pain, if sent by the hand of the Lord. This is not the spirit of the Jewish religion, as taught and practised in the Bible. Our Father demands not such violence done to the heart which He hath so mercifully and so wisely stored with such vast capabilities of pleasure and of pain. He demands not that sorrow is to be looked on as joy, and joy to be despised as leading us far from Him When He tries us in affliction, where would be its spiritual improvement in faith and submission, if we are to welcome it as joy? Where would be the trial of pain, if it be not pain? No! God loves us too well to forbid the healing and saving influence of that holy grief, which, without detaching us from the sweet and lovely links of earth that He Himself vouchsafed, will yet lead us to Him, convinced that He afflicts for our eternal good; that He acts, even in bereavement, through His changeless love, and that He who smote, in His own time will heal.19 No sorrow has yet been soothed by the vain philosophy which would seek to lessen either its pang or its extent. The sufferer must weep and mourn awhile; but if it be in the spirit of Naomi there will still be comfort found. Naomi makes no complaint; but how deeply she feels the contrast between her return to, and her departure from, Bethlehem, we read in her shrinking from the name of her youth, which, signifying pleasantness, sweetness, and grace, too painfully recalled the days when those terms were applicable, not only to the charms of her personal character, but the pleasantness and sweetness of her daily life. 19

Cf. Hos. 6:1; cf. also Job. 5:17–27.

THIRD PERIOD. V. NAOMI

417

Bitterness and sadness were more applicable to her present lot, than the sweetness and joyance which had characterized it heretofore; and therefore she bids them call her Mara—but it is not complaint; it is but the natural shrinking of humanity from the memory of the past, contrasted with the suffering of the present. It was at the beginning of the barley harvest Naomi and her daughter-in-law arrived at Bethlehem.20 There, it appears from the context, the former sought a retired and very humble dwelling. Notwithstanding that she had a wealthy kinsman, of the family of Elimelech, who, had she applied to him, was bound by the law to give her all the relief she needed, the gentle, unassuming nature of the widow preferred retirement and lowliness, to claiming the attention of her wealthy kinsman. The contrast between their respective positions was too great; and how beautifully does this shrinking from making herself known to Boaz, or even from revealing his existence to Ruth, betray her gentle dignity!—and that self-esteem, ever proceeding from true piety. The character of Naomi is consistent in all its parts, forcibly marking one who, from youth to age, was found true to herself and to her God.21 The holy narration tells us, that “it was Ruth’s hap to light on a part of the field belonging to Boaz.”22 Had she known his near connexion, her refinement and delicacy of feeling would have led her to any other field in preference. The whole scene which follows is a most beautiful illustration of the domestic manners and customs of the early Jews, and all in exact accordance with the given law. The kind and conciliatory manner of Boaz, “the mighty man of wealth,” to his dependents; his salutation, and their reply; evince how completely the thought and recollection of the God of Israel was entwined with the daily work of his people. The intimate acquaintance which Boaz must have had with all his household, male and female, from his instant discovery of the youthful stranger, are the reply of the reapers, all breathe a refinement and civilization of Ruth 1:22. Aguilar draw these conclusions from the biblical narrator’s juxtaposition of Ruth 2:1, “And Naomi had a kinsman of her husband’s a mighty man of wealth ...” and Ruth 2:2–3, on which see below. 22 Ruth 2:3. 20 21

418

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

feeling and action, found at this period only amidst the people of the Lord. Boaz confirmed the kindness of his dependents, by addressing Ruth in words of such gentle courtesy, peculiarly adapted to reassure and soothe her. He not only tells her to glean in his field alone—there was no need for her to go further—but to abide by his maidens, thus removing unconsciously all painful feelings on her being a Moabitish stranger, which would keep her aloof. He told her, too, to follow close after the reapers, that she should receive neither harshness nor insult, and when she was athirst, to drink freely from that which the young men had drawn.23 With the respect ever proffered to real goodness, and astonished at such unexpected kindness, Ruth replied in words, the meekness and humility of which increased Boaz’s prepossession in her favor, and confirmed all which rumor had already proclaimed concerning her. “Why have I found grace in thy eyes,” she said, “that thou shouldst take this knowledge of me, seeing I am a stranger?”24 And how must her heart have throbbed with natural pleasure at Boaz’s rejoinder, “It hath been fully showed me all that thou hast done unto thy mother-in-law, since the death of thine husband: how thou hast left father and mother, and the land of thy nativity, and art come unto a people which thou knewest not heretofore. The Lord recompense thy work, and a full reward be given thee of the Lord God of Israel, under whose wings thou art come to trust.”25 Deserved approbation is sweet, however some stem Stoics may say that virtue is its own reward, and if conscience approves we need no more. Ruth must at once have felt that it was not the mere kindness springing from a good heart, which dictated Boaz’s conduct to her, but that she was known and appreciated, stranger as she was. A coarser and more worldly nature than that of Boaz, even while it equally benefited, would have exalted itself, not the being it served; would have manifested kindness only because it would obtain personal praise, and care little for the feeling of the person served. Boaz, on the contrary, removed the idea of obligaRuth 2:4–9. Ruth 2:10. 25 Ruth 2:11–12. 23 24

THIRD PERIOD. V. NAOMI

419

tion to himself by elevating Ruth, and making her believe that to her own virtue, not to his kindness, she owed the attention she received. “Let me still find favor in thy sight, my lord,” was her grateful reply; “for thou hast comforted me, and hast spoken friendly to thy handmaid, though I be not like one of thine own handmaidens.”26 We never find Ruth forgetting her origin, nor in any way assuming the privileges which her acceptance of and belief in Naomi’s God might naturally have assigned her; a lowliness which secured her, unasked, the privileges which, from a contrary conduct, would, no doubt, have been refused. Not content with desiring her freely to share the meal provided for his reapers, Boaz himself reached her the “parched corn,”—seeing that she ate till she was sufficed; and when she rose up again to glean, he gave orders to let her glean amid the sheaves, and reproach her not, and also “to let fall some handfuls on purpose for her.”27 His generosity, and her own perseverance, enabled her to take home an ephah of barley.28 And Naomi, eager to bring her child refreshment, not knowing how she might have fared during the day, “brought forth and gave to her the food which she had reserved for her;” affectionately asking from her, at the same time, where and what she had gleaned, and fervently blessing him who had thus taken knowledge of her. Ruth’s reply elicited a burst of thanksgiving from Naomi. “Blessed be the Lord, who hath not left off his kindness to the living and the dead.”29 She felt it was no chance, but her God, who had guided Ruth to the field of their kinsman, and infused his heart with kindness towards her. Convinced now that their restoration to their rights would be brought about by the direct agency of her God, she no longer scrupled to impart to Ruth the near relationship of Boaz; and when Ruth repeated his injunctions, to keep fast by his young men until they had ended all his harvest, Naomi, still tracing divine agency, gladly replied, “It is good, my daughter, that thou go out with his maidens,

Ruth 2:13. Ruth 2:14–16. 28 Ruth 2:17. 29 Ruth 2:18–20. 26 27

420

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

that they meet thee not in any other field.”30 And Ruth, in unquestioning obedience, “kept fast by the maidens of Boaz, to glean unto the end of the barley and wheat harvest, and dwelt with her mother-in-law.”31 Not all that was in all probability reported of her devotion and beauty, could tempt her to turn aside from her lowly path of usefulness and good. Novelty and change could have had no glare for her, or she might have restlessly longed to join the gleaners of other fields. She was too grateful for the friendly kindness of Boaz, too devoted to her mother-in-law, to wish to go beyond the field of the former, or the humble house of the latter. “Where thou lodgest I will lodge.”32 she had said, and her words were but the index of her actions. But the time had now come when her earthly lot was to undergo a material change. Naomi, who had, in all probability, passed the intervening days in thought and prayer, determined on seeking the rest and prosperity of her devoted daughter, according to the dictates of the law. She therefore gave Ruth the necessary directions—directions which to us may appear strange, and even revolting, but which seem, in the time of Naomi, to have been authorized by custom, and therefore containing nothing whatever indelicate or forward. To Ruth, as a Moabitess, the whole proceedings might have felt unusual, and perhaps even painful; but we have neither remark nor hesitation. She asks not wherefore, but simply says, “All that thou sayest unto me I will do.”33 She had proved the affection and wisdom of her mother-in-law much too long to doubt them now, however her own feelings and judgment might shrink from the course of action proposed. Naomi’s influence had ever been that of love, not of authority, and therefore was she ever sure of unquestioning obedience. Human means Naomi refused not to adopt, but still she left the entire end of these means to the justice and mercy of her God. Ruth 2:22. Ruth 2:23. 32 Ruth 1:16. 33 Ruth 3:5. Note that Aguilar, finding Naomi’s instructions not only strange but also revolting to her Victorian sense of propriety, summarizes but quotes nothing from Ruth 3:1–4. 30 31

THIRD PERIOD. V. NAOMI

421

She knew that in His hand was the heart of Boaz, and therefore she merely told Ruth how to obtain his attention, leaving it to him “to tell thee what thou shalt do;”34 convinced that the Lord, in whom she trusted, would order the end aright. All took place as she had anticipated. Waking in tenor at midnight—a terror not a little increased by finding some one lying at his feet—Boaz demanded, “Who art thou?”35 and received such a reply as at once calmed his affright, and roused him to a renewal of all the nobleness and generosity of his character. Some of our Hebrew translators of this book suppose Ruth’s words, “Spread, therefore, thy skirt over thine handmaid, for thou art a near kinsman,”36 to signify, “Give me thy protection as a husband;” and, as such, was in exact accordance with the law; we rather incline towards the opinion.37 The reply of Boaz reassured the trembling suppliant; for steadily she had adhered to the straight path of duty, “following neither young men, neither rich nor poor,” so that the whole city “knew that she was a virtuous woman.” He proceeded to inform her that he was indeed their near kinsman, but there was one still nearer, whose duty it was to perform the husband’s part; but that if he refused, even he, Boaz, pledged himself to do so, as the Lord Ruth 3:4. Ruth 3:8–9. 36 Ruth 3:9. 37 The interpreters to whom she refers are most likely Rashi (1040– 1105) and Abraham Ibn Ezra (1089–1164), whose commentaries on Ruth are printed in the so-called Rabbinic Bible or Mikra’ot Gedolot that would be found in every traditional Jewish home. In fact, the Book of Ruth in Hebrew, with an Aramaic translation or Targum and the commentaries of Rashi and Ibn Ezra as well as the supercommentary Sifte Hakamim (Lips of the Wise) by Shabbetai Bass (1641–1718) on Rashi’s Commentary is normally printed in the back of the commentaries on the Book of Numbers in the so-called Rabbinic Bible because the Book of Ruth is commonly read on the Festival of Shavuot or Hebrew Pentecost, which is celebrated in May or June (the 6th of the Hebrew month of Sivan; the 6th and 7th in the Diaspora), the time of the year when the weekly Pentateuchal readings are taken from the Book of Numbers. 34 35

422

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

liveth, bidding her lie down till morning; but ere the day broke so that one could recognise another, Ruth rose to depart, encouraged so to do by him with whom she had so fearlessly trusted herself, and whose care for her reputation was tender and thoughtful as a brother’s. Nor did he send her away empty. Fearful lest she and her mother-in-law might be in want ere the business could be settled, he filled her veil with six measures of barley, with which she returned to her home; and Naomi bid her sit calmly down until they knew how the matter would fall. There is no need to transcribe the events detailed in the fourth chapter, from the 1st to the 12th verse. A reference to the word of God itself is all that is needed on the part of our readers, to impress them forcibly with the beautiful picture of the manners and customs of our ancestors which it presents. The gate of the city was always the place of public judgment, that all the people might be aware of what was going on, and give their suffrages, and witness for or against. Thither Boaz repaired the very next morning after his interview with Ruth, and sat him down, waiting the appearance of the person he had named as the nearer of kin than himself. He hailed him on his approach, and the man willingly turned aside from his intended path, and sat down by the gate. Boaz next assembled ten elders, and stated his business. The field which Naomi wished disposed of, the kinsman seemed willing to redeem:38 but the remainder of his duty, to raise up the name of the dead to his inheritance, he refused, on the plea that to do so would interfere with his own inheritance; requiring Boaz, in consequence, to redeem the right for himself, as he, the nearest kinsman, could not; loosening at the same time his shoe, or glove, as some commentators believe, and giving it to his neighbor, as confirmation of his words. Boaz then addressed the elders and the people, bidding them be witness that he had purchased of the hand of Naomi all that was Elimelech, Chilion, and Mahlon’s, and Ruth, the wife of Mahlon. to be his wife, that he might raise up the name of the dead, and so let it not be cut off from his brethren, or the gate of his Ruth 4:4: “And he said, I will redeem it.” The redemption of ancestral real estate by a relative is discussed in the laws of the Pentateuch in Lev. 25:24-31. The matter is also referred to in Jer. 32:6–14. 38

THIRD PERIOD. V. NAOMI

423

place. And the elders of the people bore witness joyfully, coupled with earnest aspirations that the LORD might make the woman he had chosen, like Rachel and like Leah, who had built up the house of Israel; and that he himself might “do worthily in Ephratah, and be famous in Bethlehem.”39 And so he was: for as the great-grandfather of David, the name of Boaz must indeed be still famous in Judah, and dear to Israel. The uncomplaining submission and lowly trust of Naomi, and the filial obedience and devotion of Ruth, were both alike rewarded; for the latter not only became the wife of the generous and noble-minded Boaz, but, in due course of time, God granted her a son; and Naomi, who had believed herself but a withered branch, to which neither joy nor fruitfulness might ever return, “took the child, and laid it on her bosom, and became nurse to it.”40 We may read in the lively greetings of the women of Bethlehem, the joy which this event occasioned, and their affectionate sympathy in Naomi’s previous affliction. “Blessed be the Lord,” they said, “who hath not left thee this day without a kinsman, that his name may be famous in Israel. And he shall be unto thee a restorer of life, and a nourisher of thine old age, for thy daughter-in-law, who loveth thee, and who is better to thee than seven sons, hath borne him.”41 How beautifully do these words express the women of Israel’s appreciation and love of the gentle Moabitess! The babe would be a restorer of Naomi’s life, and a cherisher of her old age, for he was Ruth’s son. She who had been to Naomi better than seven sons (in the Hebrew the number is unlimited), would not fail to rear up her child in such virtue and holiness as would make his name indeed precious in Israel, and a blessing to his grandmother. Nor can we doubt that the affection and devotedness marking their mutual intercourse in adversity, was lessened in prosperity. The love which had been so mutually proved was not likely to decrease, but would rather deepen with every passing year.

Ruth 4:5–11. Ruth 4:12–16. 41 Ruth 4:14–15. 39 40

424

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

With the genealogy of Boaz, down to David, this most interesting book concludes;42 and before we proceed to notice the beautiful lessons of domestic life which it inculcates, we would endeavor to prove how mistaken is the objection, sometimes brought forward, that Ruth, a Moabitess, should have been the ancestress of David, the elected servant of the Lord. When Ruth resigned alike home, parents, and the gods of her youth, she voluntarily engrafted herself upon the children of God; and we know that such engrafting was permitted, not only from the Law, but from its afterexplanation by the prophets. In the Law we repeatedly find the command to save the virgins alive, even of those nations whom they were commanded to exterminate, that they might be brought to the worship of the One true God, and multiply Israel.43 In the Prophets we read, that those of the stranger, whether male or female, who voluntarily accepted the covenants of the Lord, and kept His sabbaths and appointed feasts and ordinances, even had they been only eunuchs before, were (see Isaiah, chap. lvi. 3–8),44 instead of being despised, to receive a place and a name in His house, better even than sons and daughters, an everlasting name which shall not be cut off, to be brought to the holy mountain, and made joyful in His house of prayer; and their burnt-offerings and sacrifices, the essential privilege of the Holy People, accepted on God’s altar. In the Law, too, we find repeated injunctions,—“love ye the stranger, for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt;”45 and by the whole history of Ruth we see how precisely this law was obeyed. She was one of those coming under the denomination of “the stranger,” and who yet, from her acceptance of the Lord’s sabbaths, covenants, &c., all of which is implied in her own words, “thy God shall be my God,” deserved and received the privileges enumerated above.46 Ruth 4:17–22. Num. 31:18. 44 The 19th century editions read incorrectly lxvi rather than lvi. 45 Deut. 10:19. 46 In fact the Rabbinic text, which lays out the halakhic procedure for conversion to Judaism in Babylonian Talmud, Yevamot 47b, adopts Ruth’s declaration in Ruth 1:16–17 as the paradigm for both instruction 42 43

THIRD PERIOD. V. NAOMI

425

She was yet more than a daughter in His sight, because her acceptance of, and obedience to the Law, were entirely voluntary; not merely received from education and as heritage. That God is no respecter of persons, we read throughout the whole of His changeless word.47 Faithfulness and virtue, the heart,—but neither birth nor appearance—are valued by Him. And when, therefore, Ruth turns from all the associations and scenes of her youth, to adopt and accept the religion of Naomi, and faithfully serve her God, she is in act no longer a Moabitess (and is only called so to designate her as a stranger amidst Israel), but as worthy, if not even more so, to be the ancestress of David, than the lineal descendants of Abraham, who were Israelites, because God had selected them so to be; not for their own sakes, or their own worth, but simply for the love He bore, and the promise He made unto His favored servants.48 Ruth became an Israelite from voluntary adoption. Her filial devotion and reverence was the most exquisite illustration of how she not only accepted, but obeyed the Law; and, from the character of David, still more than even his selection, we may easily infer how faithfully she not only obeyed the Law herself, but transmitted it to her descendants. That the Eternal should have selected a king whose great-grandmother was of Moabitish descent, cannot, then, we think, with any justice be brought forward as matter either of wonder or objection. If it were unlawful for any stranger to be engrafted upon Israel we should not find so many laws regarding “the stranger” in the Mosaic code itself,49 nor their practical commentary in of converts in some of the major and minor precepts of Judaism and the acceptance into full membership in the Jewish faith community of persons who are willing to commit to make the same commitment as did Ruth. See also Maimonides, Mishneh Torah, Laws of Forbidden Marriages 14:1–6; Shulhan Aruk, Yoreh Deah 268:2. 47 Deut. 10:17: “For the LORD your God is God of gods, and Lord of lords, a great God, a mighty, and a terrible, which regardeth not persons, nor taketh reward.” 48 This idea is based upon Deut.7:8. 49 Ex. 22:21, “Thou shalt neither vex a stranger, nor oppress him: for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt”; Ex. 23:9, “Also, thou shalt not oppress a stranger: for ye know the heart of a stranger, seeing ye were

426

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

Isaiah, as quoted above. Her virtue and goodness gave her favor in the sight alike of God and man, and rendered her worthy of being the ancestress of that holy line whence the Messiah himself will spring—while her voluntary acceptance” of the God, and of course the faith, of Naomi, removed from her own Moabitish birth all reproach, and gave her yet a dearer name in the eyes of God and of His people than even that of daughter.50 strangers in the land of Egypt”; Deut. 10:19, “Love ye therefore the stranger: for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt”; Deut. 24:17, “Thou shalt not pervert the judgment of the stranger, nor of the fatherless; nor take a widow’s raiment to pledge.” 50 For all the erudition she presents concerning the fact that the Pentateuch, the Prophets, and the Hagiographa all favor treating proselytes (Jews by choice) as first class members of the Jewish people, Aguilar has not mentioned either the prohibition in Deut. 23:3, “An Ammonite or Moabite shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD; even to their tenth generation shall they not enter into the congregation of the LORD” or the manner in which the rabbinic sages interpreted that verse to create a legal loophole for the biblical Ruth and her descendants. In fact, it is explained in Mishnah Yadayim 4:4 that the prohibitions found in Deut. 23:3 no longer apply since King Sennacherib (704–681 B.C.E.) of Assyria has amalgamated the nations of the world so that one can no longer speak of any person as belonging to an interdicted ethnic group. Mishnah, Yevamot 8:3 has gone further and solved the enigma of King David’s being descended from a Moabitess (before Sennacherib effectively abolished race!). There we find the following solution: Deut. 23:3 prohibits a Jewess from marrying a Moabite, but it does not prohibit a Jew from marrying a Moabitess! “The Ammonite and the Moabite are forbidden [after acceptance of the Jewish faith to marry a Jewess], and the prohibition concerning them is permanent, but their women [i.e., the Ammonitess and the Moabitess, like Ruth] are permitted immediately [upon their acceptance of the Jewish faith to marry Jews].” Aguilar has, it appears, spared her target audience the casuistry and simply glossed over Deut. 23, which, in fact, she mentions earlier in her noting (see above, p. 410) that Chilion and Mahlon were prohibited by the divine law from marrying the Moabitesses, Orpah and Ruth, but that Orpah and Ruth, not having been Jewesses at the time and therefore not having been subject to the law of the Torah, were not culpable! However, we saw that the Mishnah has so

THIRD PERIOD. V. NAOMI

427

To us, as women of Israel, the whole book of Ruth teems with unspeakable consolation and support. It is a picture so vivid of the manners, customs, aye, and even feelings of Israel at that period, that even Gentile writers are struck by it, and refer to it with high eulogiums on its touching beauty and impressive truth. Shall we then value it less, and refuse to draw from it the strong confirmation which it contains of our contested point—the refined and elevated position of the women of Israel themselves, and the tender yet respectful consideration with which they were regarded by their brethren? Will any one point of Naomi’s character permit us to suppose, that during her husband’s lifetime she was merely a slave, with neither religious, moral, nor intellectual training? Had she been such in Elimelech’s lifetime, such she must have remained. Instead of which, from her determination to return to her own land, and worship her God once more amongst her own people, we perceive that she was a woman of strong mind and unfailing energy; while from the affection of both her sons’ wives, and the devotion of one, we must equally infer that she possessed, and in her domestic duties must have displayed, such winning and amiable qualities, as to call such affection forth; these characteristics, and all which follow—the refined and retiring dignity, the correct judgment, and also the patient faith in her God—all were quite incompatible with a degraded position either individually or socially. It is very clear, then, that not in any received Law of Israel could the position of the women of Israel have been that which our enemies so ignorantly report. If two Laws were in action at this period, one must have been an exact repetition of the other, or in a book like that of Ruth, so strikingly illustrative of the national character and customs, some difference must have been discernible. If, then, the charge on modern Judaism be really founded on apparent truth, it must be a state of things brought about by the awful horrors of persecution, and their natural effect in narrowing and brutalizing the human mind. In all that relates to Ruth too, we see the real light in which the Hebrew woman was regarded, very clearly. We should not find her filial devotion and individual goodinterpreted Deut. 23:3 as to make it permissible for Mahlon, Chilion, and Boaz all to marry Moabitesses.

428

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

ness so appreciated by all the Bethlehemites, female as well as male, were not virtue and goodness in woman subjects of admiration, of cherishing, and respect. It was not only in obedience to the Law, which commanded love and kindness to be shown towards the stranger, that Boaz so encouraged and cherished her when first gleaning in his field. He expressly states the wherefore, because of her devotion to her mother-in-law, and her having given up her father’s gods to accept Him under whose wings she had come to trust. “A full reward shall be given thee from the Lord,” he says; thus marking her as accepted and cherished by God as well as man. The most reverential yet fatherly care marks the whole of his conduct towards her; and here we see very strongly marked the obedience to the law instituted for the benefit of the stranger; he not only “showed kindness,” but literally left for her the “gleanings of his field.”51 The third chapter of the sacred story most emphatically proves the superiority of morality and civilization in Israel, over the known world. In what other nation could Ruth have so trusted herself, as she did to the honor and justice of Boaz? How fully must Naomi have been assured of the safety of her child, or how could she have counselled such a mode of proceeding? and how completely she was justified in her confidence, we read in Boaz’s anxiety to save Ruth from all insulting remarks, by letting it “not be known that a woman had been to the floor.”52 Again, in Boaz’s instant pursuance of Ruth’s suit, we very clearly perceive that women must have been considered of some account; and also another important point in a national view, Boaz’s exact obedience to the formula of the Law, in calling the nearest kinsman to give his attention to the subject, and decide, notwithstanding his own evident anxiety to obtain Ruth as his wife, unquestionably proves, that as the Law was so strictly kept in one point, so it would be in all; and consequently there could, have been, neither practically nor theoretically, any one single statute to the disparagement of woman.

51 52

Ruth 2:11–15. Ruth 3:1–14.

THIRD PERIOD. V. NAOMI

429

The very joy of the whole people in Boaz’s decision to make Ruth his wife; their hearty congratulations, and earnest wishes for his welfare, and hers, that she might be as Leah and Rachel; the delight of the women, and their joyous sympathy with Naomi at the unexpected issue to all her misfortunes; all prove the beautiful unity and love marking the people of the Lord. All seemed to vie with each other in making their respective tribes as one affectionate family, bound by the same ties, hoping the same hope, trusting the same God, weeping with those that wept, and rejoicing with those that joyed. Such a state of things could never have existed if the women of Israel had not been, morally, spiritually, and intellectually, on a perfect equality with man. Regarding the book of Ruth in its final bearings—that is, as it concerns women in general—we are particularly struck with the exquisite lesson of maternal and filial affection which it teaches. The beauty of Ruth’s words and actions sometimes occupies attention alone, to the exclusion of the tenderness characterizing Naomi, which, to our feelings, is equally touching and impressive. Ruth’s determination to quit her own land, her parents, and their gods, was indeed one of beautiful self-devotion; but it was evidently LOVE, not duty, which impelled it, and that love must have been called forth by the tenderness she had originally received. Seldom is the love of the young excited to such an extent towards an elder, unless by affection and appreciation from that elder, invited so to love; and not only invited but retained by unwavering kindness and regard. That such feelings had always actuated Naomi towards her daughter-in-law, we infer, from the caressing tenderness with which, in all that passes between them, she invariably addressed her. We never can read either coldness or indifference, much less the harsh mistrust, breathing often more in tone than actual words, which sometimes characterizes the manner of an elder towards a younger. All she says, either in persuasion to return, or in advice or inquiry, is with the same caressing love. In her bringing forth on Ruth’s return the remains of the day’s meal, which she had been compelled to take while Ruth was absent, how touchingly we read the love lingering with her absent child, the thought of saving for

430

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

her the evening meal, and bringing it with eager haste the moment Ruth appeared, not knowing how she might have fared during the hot and weary day.53 Oh! while we would have our young sisters imitate, as they cannot fail to love, the conduct of Ruth, will not their elders do well to ponder on, and imitate, the tenderness of Naomi? Youth will not, cannot love, a pure unselfish love, unless invited so to do; no, not even in the sanctuary of home, not even parents, unless love, not only felt but displayed in confidence and caressing kindness, marks the parental conduct. Duty done on either side is not enough, for it is not according to the spirit of the Lord, and of His word. There love predominates, and so should it predominate in the homes of His children. We do not deny that it does, but we would have it displayed as well as felt, by every member of that hallowed temple, HOME. Brothers and sisters, parents and children, twined together in that sacred silvery link, unbroken even by death; for they know it is immortal. Love not only felt, but breathing in every tone, and actuating every deed; confidence and trust— mutually given, mutually felt. How thrice blessed would such things make home! The parental heart would not then bleed in secret, at what seems like neglect and unkindness, if not an utter want of love. Nor would the young spirit shrink within itself, chilled and sad—yearning for affection spoken as well as felt; and utterly unconscious how truly and how deeply they may still be loved. How different is that home where no gentle word is heard—no caress asked for, or voluntarily bestowed—no interchange of mutual thought; but each member walks alone, seeking no sympathy save from the stranger, caring not to shed one flower on the parental hearth, and believing they have no place in the parental heart save as a child, words of which, until they are parents themselves, they know not, guess not, the unutterable meaning. How different is such a home to that where love is visible! Where parents and, as its natural consequence, children vie with each other, as to who can prove it most; and by the words and manners of daily life, throw such a beautiful halo even over its cares and sorrows, as inexpressibly heightens its sweetest joys. 53

Ruth 2:18.

THIRD PERIOD. V. NAOMI

431

There are some to doubt the love that dwells in caressing words and a loving manner. Yet why should it be doubted, till its absence has been proved? Why should the gentle power be despised, which will make daily life happier, and so inexpressibly soothe the sickness and sorrow which ask but love alone. No! It is the icy surface we must doubt, for never yet were there warm and unselfish loving hearts, who could think it necessary to suppress such fond emotions in the sweet sanctuary of home. It is the cold at heart who never give domestic affections vent, and can therefore never hope so to attract the young, as to rouse them to evince the love they could have felt, or proffer more than the cold, dull routine of daily duty. We must love to be loved—we must evince that love, would we so unite young hearts to our own, as, if needed, to sacrifice all of self for us, or to devote life, energy, hope, all to our service. Would we have our daughters Ruths, we must be Naomis; we have no right, no pretence, to demand more than we evince, as well as give. Reserve, coldness, command, may win us duty, but duty in the domestic circle is a poor substitute for love. Even kindness in act is often undervalued, nay, absolutely unknown, if it be not hallowed by the kindness of manner and of word. In the world, words and manner may be deceiving, but not in the temple of home; for the love which would there dictate kindness of manner must equally incite kind deeds. The latter may exist without the former, and if only one may have existence, we may grant the superiority of good deeds though there are some griefs, some trials, which kindly words may soothe, where action has no power. Oh! let us unite the two as Ruth and Naomi—and however dark and troubled our earthly course, a light will shine within our homes, which no sorrow, nor care, nor even death, will have power to darken or remove. God is Love—the spirit of His word is Love; and would we indeed walk according to His dictates, Love, proved alike in word and deed, must be the Guardian Angel of our homes!

CHAPTER VI. HANNAH In the history of the Jews by Josephus, the story of Hannah is mentioned as taking place before that of Ruth.1 We prefer following the arrangement of the Bible, although it is not improbable that Ruth and Hannah lived much at the same time; for we find the son of Hannah, when a very old man, visiting the grandson of Ruth, then in his prime, to choose from his household his youngest born as the anointed of the Lord.2 The period of the existence of these two beautiful female characters is in itself of little importance; but it is interesting to trace the intimate connexion of their descendants, thrown together as they were so closely in after life. There was a certain man, living in the city of Rama Sophim of Mount Ephraim, an Ephrathite by descent, named Elkanah, who had two wives, Hannah and Peninnah.3 It is a remarkable fact, that this is the very first mention of a man having two wives since the Josephus, Antiquities, 5.9 dates the events recorded in the Book of Ruth to the time when Eli (see 1 Sam. 1–2) was priest at Shiloh, and he states that Eli was governor of the Israelites after Samson. In Rabbinic tradition, on the contrary, Boaz is identified with Ibzan of Bethlehem [Babylonian Talmud, Bava Batra 91a], who appears in Judg. 12:8 after Jephthah. The end of Ibzan’s seven year term as judge preceded the birth of Samson by at least the eighteen years of the combined terms of Elon and Abdon (see Judg. 12:11–15). 2 Here Aguilar refers to 1 Sam. 16:1–13 where God sends the Prophet Samuel, the son of Hannah, to Bethlehem to the home of Jesse to anoint Jesse’s son David as king in place of Saul. And Jesse, it is explained in Ruth 4:13–22, is the grandson of Boaz and Ruth, specifically the son of Obed, whom Ruth bore to Boaz. 3 1 Sam. 1:1–2. 1

433

434

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

days of Jacob. Joseph, Moses, Aaron and his sons, Caleb, Othniel, Lapidoth, Manoah, Elimelech, Chilion, and Mahlon, all had but one wife; a striking confirmation of our former assertion, that though polygamy was permitted, from its being an immemorial usage, it was not, in the early days of Israel, considered a necessary part of their domestic policy; and that almost every great and good man selected by the Eternal to work His will, before the monarchy, had but the one wife for whom the laws were given; and so evinced, in their own persons, the incipient dawnings of that more refined and elevated state of being and society, which in the natural progression of humanity would undoubtedly ensue.4 The abuse of the permission to have more than one wife without transgressing the Law, which grew to such an awful height during the continuance of the monarchy, is no evidence of the degrading nature of the Law, but is the literal fulfilment of the threatened wrath of the Eternal, when the people insisted upon having an earthly king to rule over them, like other nations.5 That he would not only take unto himself their store and their fields, and their olive-yards and vineyards, but even their sons and their daughters to minister to his service and his pleasures;6 and, of

One cannot but concur. Moreover, the central document of Rabbinic Judaism, the Mishnah takes monogamy almost for granted when it suggests in Tractate Yoma 1:11 that a stand-in wife should be readied for the high priest so that he can be married to her if, God forbid, his wife died just before the Day of Atonement when the high priest must be able to pray for his household, which is understood to include a wife. Now there would be no thought of an understudy wife if the high priest envisioned by the Mishnah were polygamous. 5 In 1 Sam. 8:4–5 it is reported that “all the elders of Israel gathered themselves together and came to Samuel unto Ramah, and they said unto him, Behold thou art old, and thy sons walk not in thy ways: now make us a king to judge us like all the nations.” 6 Summarizing 1 Sam. 8:11–17 where Samuel describes under the rubric of “This will be the manner of the king” the worst possible scenario. 4

THIRD PERIOD. VI. HANNAH

435

course, the licentious conduct of the sovereign would be followed by equal license in his subjects.7 But before the monarchy, though the people were ever in rebellion and disobedience, still no such domestic abuses had existence. Even when there were two wives, as in the case we are about to consider, we find the beautiful laws, instituted for domestic equity and peace, entering and guiding a man’s household, as the Eternal had intended in their bestowal.8 Yet even these, while they prevented all justice on the part of the husband, could not entirely do away with the evils of a divided household, which Sacred Writ never fails to record for our warning. “And Elkanah, with his wives and household, went up out of his city yearly to worship and sacrifice unto the Lord in Shiloh,”9 then the residence of God’s holy ark, and of his priests,—a practical confirmation of the law so to do, which we have already noticed. At these times, “he gave to Peninnah his wife, and to all her sons and daughters, portions, but unto Hannah he gave a double portion; for he loved Hannah: though the Lord had not granted her any children,”—loved her for herself, even above Peninnah, though she had given him a goodly progeny, and Hannah had but her own gentle virtues, which were sufficient for her husband.10 But in Israel the denial of children was considered too sad a reproach, too painfully a proof of individual unworthiness in the sight of God, for the meek spirit of Hannah to endure it without Aguilar suggests that because King Solomon “had seven hundred wives, princesses, and three hundred concubines” (1 Kgs. 11:3), the men of Judah followed the negative example of their king and became licentious. 8 Ex. 21:10, “If he take him another wife, her food, her raiment, and her duty of marriage, shall he not diminish”; Deut. 21:15–16, “If a man have two wives, one beloved, and another hated, and they have born him children, both the beloved and the hated; and if the firstborn son be hers that was hated: Then shall it be, when he maketh his sons to inherit that which he hath, that he may not make the son of the beloved firstborn before the son of the hated, which is indeed, the firstborn.” 9 1 Sam. 1:1–3. 10 1 Sam. 1:4–5. 7

436

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

bitter grief; a grief painfully aggravated by the provocations of her more favored rival, whose unkind reproaches increased with every year that diminished Hannah’s hope.11 Still, Holy Writ tells us of no complaint on the part of Hannah against Peninnah. As the more beloved by her husband, had she told him of the continual provocations she received, she might have been sure of such interference as would have effectually shielded her from them in future, though at the expense of alienating Peninnah from her husband, and causing domestic strife. But such a course of acting was not according to Hannah’s character. It was easier far to suffer than to complain; sweeter far to endure herself than seek revenge upon another.12 Each visit to Shiloh excited anew the reproaches of Peninnah; and as this took place some years before Elkanah noticed the deep grief of his favorite wife, we may in a degree suppose the extent of Hannah’s gentle forbearance.13 Hers was no trial of a day, or even a month, but of years; and can we imagine anything more trying to the heart and temper, than to live with one whose tongue was ever bitter with reproach? because it is not likely that it was only during their visits to Shiloh that “Peninnah provoked her sore, to make her fret,” and provoked her for no fault; for nothing which Hannah herself could remedy, but simply for being less favored by the Lord. And yet, how many are there like her! How many love to reproach instead of soothe, as if sorrow and disappointment were the fault of the sufferers, not the loving sentence of the Lord! How many there are who thus make a daily life bitter to their fellows, instead of, as they might do, rendering grief less sad, and inexpressibly heightening joy.

1 Sam. 1:6–7. Aguilar here fills in the gaps in the laconic Hebrew narrative and draws a lesson for all people at all times: if you strike back at an enemy, you usually increase unpleasantness all around you; if people who do strike back would have learned first to play chess and learn that every move invites another move by the other party, people would avoid striking back and find other means to deal with obnoxious people at home, at work, and elsewhere. 13 This cogent interpretation is based upon 1 Sam. 1:7–8. 11 12

THIRD PERIOD. VI. HANNAH

437

Their visits to Shiloh must have been fraught with deep suffering to Hannah. It was not only the signal of Peninnah’s aggravated unkindness; but the very sight of all her fellow-countrymen flocking to the temple of the Lord,* with their goodly show of sons and daughters, must have made her pious heart shrink deeper and deeper within itself in its own unspoken woe: and it is shown in her spirit’s sad but unmurmuring inquiry, “Why had the Lord whom she loved and sought to serve, so reproached and forsaken her?”14 That this was really the case, and her grief was never spoken, never found vent in reproachful words, we know by Elkanah’s gently reproving address.15 “Hannah, why weepest thou?” he said, “why eatest thou not? and why is thy heart grieved? Am not I better to thee than ten sons?” Here there is no reference to anything but Hannah’s visible sorrow, and to Elkanah’s natural supposition as to the cause of her grief; and in perfect accordance with the meek * Though that the house of God which we are accustomed to regard as the Temple was not built till the reign of Solomon, the residence of the Ark of God was always called the Temple. See 1 Sam. i. 9. 14 In 1 Sam. 1:10 it is reported, “And she [Hannah] was in bitterness of soul, and prayed unto the LORD, and wept sore.” Furthermore, it is reported in vv. 12–13: “And it came to pass, as she continued praying before the LORD, that Eli [the head priest at Shiloh] marked her mouth. Now Hannah, she spake in her heart; only her lips moved, but her voice was not heard: therefore Eli thought she had been drunken.” While v. 11 records a vow that Hannah vowed, the biblical narrator does not reveal the words of Hannah’s apparently long silent prayer. It is the content of this prayer that Aguilar attempts to reconstruct in part on the basis of Ps. 22:1, “Why hast thou forsaken me?” 15 Contrast Lillian R. Klein, From Deborah to Esther: Sexual Politics in the Hebrew Bible (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2003), 49 citing Virginia Satir, The New Peoplemaking (Mountain View, CA.: Science and Behavior Books, 1988), 87: “Elkanah’s ... questions are typical of what psycholinguist Virginia Satir classifies as the ‘Blamer Mode’. Such speakers ‘don’t bother about an answer, that is unimportant. The blamer is much more interested in throwing weight around than really finding out anything.’ Elkanah is depicted as imposing himself without regards for the Other, who happens to be his suffering wife.”

438

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

enduring beauty of her true womanly character, she makes no complaining answer. It would have been easy for her to exculpate herself for too repining sorrow by invectives against her happier rival; but she who had borne so much and so long, was far too spiritual for such petty revenge. Answer to man, save such as affection would dictate, the struggle to smile and be happy for a loved one’s sake, she made none; but sought relief, where alone it might be found, at the footstool of her God—woman’s best and surest refuge. For how may man, even when most loving, most beloved, so know the secret nature of a woman’s heart, as to bring the balm it seeks, and give the strength it needs? Elkanah’s words reveal the extent and truth of his love; and had it not been for the daily provocations of Peninnah, he might indeed have been to Hannah “better than ten sons:” but she had griefs and trials of which he knew nothing,—peculiarly her own, as what woman has not?—and these, in childlike faith and voiceless prayer, she brought unto her God. The condition of married women amongst the Jews, in the time of the Judges, must have been perfectly free and unrestrained. We find her rising up after they had eaten and drunk in Shiloh, and without even imparting her intentions to her husband, much less asking his consent, going perfectly unattended and unrebuked to the temple of the Lord. There, in bitterness of soul weeping, she prayed unto the Lord of Hosts; and, in perfect accordance with the Mosaic Law, which expressly provided for such emergencies, she vowed a vow,16 that if the Eternal would in His infinite mercy remember His handmaid, and grant her a male child, she would devote him unto the Lord all the days of his life, and not a razor should come near his head.17 But she prayed not aloud, nor in any stated formula of prayer; she prayed merely as the heart dictated: “she spoke in her heart,” as Aguilar refers to the laws concerning vows in Num. 30 and intimates that the sort of vow, which Hannah vowed here in 1 Sam. 1:11, does not belong to the category of vows, which, according to Num. 30, a husband might have the right to annul if he actually heard it and annulled it on the spot. See above, p. 290 for Aguilar’s discussion of Num. 30. 17 1 Sam. 1:11. 16

THIRD PERIOD. VI. HANNAH

439

we have it in the touching language of Scripture,—only her lips moved, but her voice was not heard; and Eli, the high priest, who sat beside one of the posts of the temple, marked her mouth, and hearing no word, combined with the agitated figure before him, believed she was drunken, and, reproaching her, bade her put her wine from her.18 It must have been an aggravation of her sorrow to find herself so misunderstood by one, who, as high priest, she might with some justice believe would have required no explanation on her part, but, in the name of the Eternal, have proffered her relief at once. Still we find nothing in her touchingly beautiful reply to evince a failing in the firm faith which brought her there. “No, my lord,” she answered, “I am a woman of a sorrowful spirit; I have drunk neither wine nor strong drink, but have poured out my soul before the Lord. Count not thine handmaid for a daughter of Belial; for out of the abundance of my grief and complaint have I spoken hitherto.19 Then Eli answered and said, Go in peace, and the God of Israel grant thee thy petition that thou hast asked of Him:” and, without doubt, without question, Hannah simply answered, “Let thine handmaid find grace in thy sight,”—meaning, to remember her in his prayers,—and then “she went her way, and did eat, and her countenance was no more sad.”20 The exquisite lesson and consolation which these verses contain (1 Sam. i. 9–10) we will defer to our concluding observations, now merely narrating the history itself. At the conclusion of the festival, Elkanah and his family returned to Ramah, where the Eternal in His mercy remembered His faithful servant, and taking from her her reproach, in due course of time granted her the son for which she had so earnestly prayed; and in joyful acknowledgment that it was in answer to her prayer he had been given, she called him Samuel, or “asked of the Lord.”21 The time again came round for Elkanah and his family to make their yearly offerings in Shiloh; and by the allusion to a vow 1 Sam. 1:12–14. 1 Sam. 1:15–16. 20 1 Sam. 1:17–18. 21 1 Sam. 1:19–20. 18 19

440

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

of Elkanah’s (see verse 21) we may infer that Hannah had of course imparted to him her vow, and received not only his unqualified sanction, but that he was anxious, in his next visit to the temple of the Eternal, himself to confirm it. We find, too, as we ought previously to have noticed, the day after Hannah had been to the temple, that they (probably herself and her husband) rose up in the morning early, and “worshipped before the Lord;” a worship, possibly, of thanksgiving and rejoicing on the part of both; on Elkanah’s that his beloved wife was no longer sad, on Hannah’s that her prayer was heard; for that it was heard, it is evident she never entertained a doubt, long before she could have had proof that it really was so. That this early worship had to do with the vow is, however, of course a mere suggestion: the Word of God is open to all; we would not compel the adoption of any suggestion, to which both reason and feeling cannot give reply. Hannah, however, when the time of the yearly sacrifice arrived, refused to go up, saying to her husband, “I will not go up, till the child is weaned; and then I will bring him, that he may appear before the Lord, and there abide for ever:” a resolution freely approved of by Elkanah. “Do what seemeth thee good,” he replied, “tarry until thou hast weaned him.” This incident is a striking confirmation of all which we brought forward in the Second Period of our history, regarding the appearance and the non-appearance of the female part of a Jewish household in the Temple at the times appointed. The history of Elkanah and his family illustrates this law exactly. That women as well as men were to appear in the house of the Lord, and join in his worship, is proved by both Hannah and Peninnah, with the latter’s children, attending their husband to Shiloh; and that the law to go up thrice a year was only binding upon males from the many causes which might prevent females, particularly mothers, from so doing, we perceive by Hannah’s tarrying till her child was weaned, and having her husband’s free permission so to do.22

See above in Aguilar’s discussion of Ex. 23:17; 34:23; Deut. 16:16, and note again that she has largely anticipated my reading (Gruber, 22

THIRD PERIOD. VI. HANNAH

441

The time at length came, when in obedience to her voluntary vow, Hannah must part from her boy, and deliver him up to the service of the God whose mercy had bestowed him to her prayer. Her only one, precious beyond all price! yet we find no hesitation, no thought of delay, no idea of forgetting that which she had vowed, though the nature of her vow, nay, that she had vowed at all, was unknown to all, even to the high priest, who had promised that her prayer should be granted without knowing what it was. Without listening to the maternal anxieties that must have engrossed her, we find her, directly the child was weaned, taking him with her to Shiloh, and three bullocks, and one ephah of flour, and a bottle of wine,—offerings from the store, and the field, and the vineyard,—all in exact accordance with the written Law, and they came unto the house of the Lord, and they slew a bullock there, and brought the child to Eli. “And she said, O my lord, as thy soul liveth, my lord, I am the woman that stood by thee here praying unto the Lord. For this child I prayed, and the Lord hath given me my petition which I asked of Him, and therefore also have I lent him to the Lord: as long as he liveth he shall be lent to the Lord. And he worshipped the Lord there,”—rather an obscure phrase, but probably signifying that Eli worshipped the Lord, in acknowledgment of His divine goodness, in thus permitting his words to come to pass, and giving the woman that which she desired. The prayer, or rather hymn, of thanksgiving in which Hannah poured forth her gratitude to her God in a strain of the sublimest poetry and vivid conception of the power and goodness of Him whom she addressed, is a forcible illustration of the intellectual as well as the spiritual piety which characterized the women of Israel, and which in its very existence denies the possibility of degradation applying to women, either individually, socially, or domestically.23 “Women in the Cult,” in Gruber, Motherhood, 52) of these verses in tandem with Hannah’s creating a legal precedent in 1 Sam. 1:21–23. 23 Here and in what follows immediately, Aguilar refers to Hannah’s sublime hymn of thanksgiving found in 1 Sam. 2:1–10, which, like the entire narrative beginning with 1 Sam. 1:1 and ending in 1 Sam. 2:10 forms the haftarah or prophetic lection for the First Day of the Jewish

442

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

Their intellect must have been of a very superior grade; while the facility of throwing the aspirations of the spirit into the sublimest poetry, evinces constant practice in so doing, and proves how completely prayer and thanksgiving impregnated their vital breath. It is New Year. And, Aguilar suggests that a deep appreciation of Hannah’s hymn of thanksgiving, which might even go beyond its sublime contents and engage with what is today called poetics, which is the study of the intimate interrelationship of form and content, part of what is also called “the Bible as literature,” is not, God forbid, as suggested by Fuchs, Sexual Politics in the Biblical Narrative, p. 7, an exercise in reinforcing male gender politics, which is to say the subjugation of women by men! Of course, there are some Bible-bashers and some male chauvinists who will tell us that it is not possible that a woman actually penned the hymn of thanksgiving at 1 Sam. 2:1–10 or the hymn of victory assigned to Deborah in Judg. 5 because “we [whoever we are] all know that all of Hebrew Scripture was composed by male elites while the women were locked in the house staring out the window (for the latter idea see Nehama Aschkenasy, Woman at the Window: Biblical Tales of Oppression and Escape [Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1998]). If, indeed, all the biblical compositions assigned to and/or spoken by women were actually composed by male elites because biblical women were all illiterate and unskilled in the poetic arts because they have been marginalized and excluded by the male elites of ancient Israel, then one would have to conclude that all of the biblical compositions assigned to or sung by women’s voices are the product of an egalitarian utopian fantasy dreamed up by some unusual men among the masses of male chauvinist elites. This annotator would suggest that Aguilar’s interpretation of the compositions assigned to women as testimony to the high status of women in the culture of ancient Israel is to be preferred because of the law or principle of parsimony: it is a much simpler explanation whereas the only viable alternative, which I have proposed, reminds one of what is called in the yeshivah world, scratching the left ear with the right hand. In this section by and large I have had occasion to make few annotations because there has been relatively no reason for ethical critique of anything Aguilar states here; the biblical references are largely obvious; and there are no obscure allusions other than the few to which I have called attention. Contrast Susan Ackerman, Warrior, Dancer, Seductress, Queen: Women in Judges and Biblical Israel (New York: Doubleday, 1998).

THIRD PERIOD. VI. HANNAH

443

useless quoting this beautiful song of praise, when the blessed word which contains it is open to all classes and ages of readers; but we would beseech our young friends not to be satisfied with this uninspired notice, but to turn to the word themselves, and mark the soul-felt clinging piety throughout. It is as exact a transcript of the swelling gratitude of a truly pious heart, as her prayer before had breathed its bitterness of grief. Some there are who gladly come to their God in sorrow, but quite forget that the seasons of joy should be devoted to Him as well. Hannah was evidently not of these; but one of the most perfectly spiritually pious characters of the Bible. There was no self-exaltation in her song of praise; no supposition that for any individual worth her reproach had been removed; or even that any peculiarly meritorious fervor in her prayer had wrought reply. No; all was of the LORD. All came from His exceeding mercy—His omnipotent power. It was he who had made bare His holy arm, and to the barren given children. he who gave strength to those that stumbled, while the arms of mighty men were broken—He who maketh poor, and maketh rich—He who bringeth low, and lifteth up—He who killeth, and maketh alive— for “by strength no man shall prevail.” Nor was it only because she was permitted thus to rejoice, and behold the power she exalted, that Hannah so magnified the Lord, and believed in His wisdom and love to do all that He willed. She must have known and felt all her hymn expressed in her time of grief, else we should not have seen her in lowly supplication, prostrate in the court of the Lord’s house—beseeching His relief. She must have believed, else she could not thus have prayed. Lonely and sad must have been the feelings of this true Hebrew mother when she returned to her house at Ramah, leaving her beautiful boy with the high priest, and knowing that but three times in the year might she behold him; and then not to receive from him the service and caresses of a son, but only to look on him as one devoted to his God and to His service! How must her heart have yearned for the engaging prattle, the caressing playfulness, the lovely looks of clinging love, which had so blessed her since his birth! What a blank in her existence must have been his absence! and what but spiritual trust and devoted love to her God, could have brought her consolation? The feelings alike of her human and spiritual nature are so exquisitely portrayed by that beautiful delineator of woman’s spiritual character, Mrs. Hemans, that we can

444

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

but refer our readers to her pages, convinced that it will aid them to enter into the full beauty of Hannah’s character, and the extent of her trial in parting from her boy.*24 * See Mrs. Hemans’s Poems, vol. iv. p 109.24 24 The poetess here referred to is Felicia Dorothea Browne Hemans. She was born 25 December 1793 at 15 Duke Street in Liverpool, England, and she died in Dublin May 16, 1835. In 1812 she married Captain Alfred Hemans, but they separated in 1818. Her collected poems appeared in six volumes in 1839. The character “Egeria” in Maria Jane Jewsbury’s novel, Three Histories (1830) is inspired by Felicia Dorothea Browne Hemans, to whom Jewsbury also dedicated her book Lays of Leisure Hours (1829). The poem referred to here by Aguilar is “The Hebrew Mother.” It can be found in Poems of Felicia Hemans: A New Edition (London: William Blackwood and Sons, 1854), 372–373. Concerning Felicia Dorothea Browne Hemans see Charles William Sutton, “Hemans, Felicia Dorothea,” in Dictionary of National Biography, ed. Sir Leslie Stephen and Sir Sidney Lee (London: Oxford University Press, 1921), 9:382–383; and see also Robin Sheets, “Felicia Dorothea Browne Hemans,” in Women Writers of Great Britain and Europe: An Encyclopedia, ed. Katharina M. Wilson, Paul Schlueter, and June Schlueter (New York & London: Garland Publishing, 1997), 198–199. The latter describes Hemans as “the most popular woman poet of the nineteenth century.” Dorothy Hemans’s poem, “The Hebrew Mother,” reads as follows: The rose was in rich bloom on Sharon’s plain, When a young mother, with her first-born, thence Went up to Zion; for the boy was vow’d Unto the Temple service. By the hand She led him, and her silent soul, the while, Oft as the dewy laughter of his eye Met her serious glance, rejoiced to think That aught so pure, so beautiful was hers, To bring before her God. So pass’d they O’er Judah’s hills; and whereso’er the leaves Of the broad sycamore made sounds at noon, Like lulling rain-drops, or the olive boughs, With their cool dimness, cross’d the sultry blue Of Syria’s heaven, she paused, that he might rest; Yet from her own meek eyelids chased the sleep That weigh’d their dark fringe down, to sit and watch

THIRD PERIOD. VI. HANNAH

The crimson deepening o’er his cheek’s repose, As at a red flower’s heart. And where a fount Lay, like a twilight star, midst palmy shades, Making its bank green gems along the way, There, too, she linger’d, from the diamond wave Drawing bright water for his rosy lips, And softly parting clusters of jet curls To bathe his brow. At last the fane was reach’d, The earth’s one sanctuary—and rapture hush’d Her bosom, as before her, through the day, It rose, a mountain of white marble, steep’d In light like floating gold. But when that hour Waned to the farewell moment, when the boy Lifted, through rainbow-gleaning tears, his eye Beseechingly to hers, and half in fear, [her arm Turn’d from the white-robed priest, and round Clung even as joy clings—the deep spring-tide Of nature then swell’d high, and o’er her child Bending, her soul broke forth in mingled sounds Of weeping and sad song. “Alas!” she cried,— “Alas! my boy, the gentle grasp is on me, The bright tears quiver in thy pleading eyes; And now fond thoughts arise, And silver cords again to earth have won me, And like a vine thou claspest my full heart— How shall I hence depart? “How the lone paths retrace where thou wert playing So late, along the mountains, at my side? And I, in joyous pride, By every place of flowers my course delaying, Wove, e’en as pearls, the lilies round thy hair, Behold thee so fair! And, oh! the home whence thy bright smile hath parted, Will it not seem as if the sunny day Turn’d from its door away? [hearted, While through its chambers wandering, weary— I languish for they voice, which past me still Went like a singing rill? “Under the palm-trees thou no more shalt meet me, When from the fount at evening I return, With the full water-urn; Nor will thy sleep’s low dove-like breathings greet

445

446

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

Licentiousness and sin had crept into the very bosom of the Temple, through the conduct of the high priest’s sons. Yet, in the midst of impurity, under the too indulgent control of an aged man whose laxity of parental discipline exposed him to the anger of the Lord, still was the child Samuel kept pure and undefiled even as he left his mother’s roof and while yet a child, ministered before the Lord. His so doing explains and confirms the law of the Nazarite, and singular vow, to which we alluded in our Second Period, as implying devotion to the Lord’s service, which even children might perform (see Lev xxvii. 6) by some personal service. It is thus we so repeatedly find the Hagiography,25 or historical parts of the Bible, As midst the silence of the stars I wake, [me, And watch for thy dear sake. “And thou, will slumber’s dewy cloud fall round thee, Without they mother’s hand to smooth thy bed! Wilt thou not vainly spread Thine arms, when darkness as a veil hath wound To fold my neck, and lift up, in thy fear, [thee A cry which none shall hear? “What have I said, my child! Will He not hear thee, Who the young ravens heareth from their nest? Shall He not guard they rest, And in the hush of holy midnight near thee, Breathe o’er they soul, and fill its dream with joy? Thou shalt sleep soft, my boy. “I give thee to thy God—the God that gave thee, A well-spring of deep gladness to my heart! And precious as thou art, And pure as dew of Hermon, He shall have thee, My own, my beautiful, my undefiled! And thou shalt be His child. “Therefore, farewell! I go—my soul may fail me, As the hart panteth for the water brooks, Yearning for thy sweet looks. But thou, my first-born, droop not, nor bewail me; Thou in the Shadow of the Rock shalt dwell, The Rock of Strength—Farewell!”

Here Aguilar refers to what is today called “biblical narrative.” In its present context the term she uses, ‘hagiography’, means ‘sacred biography’ and is today employed with reference to sentimental accounts of the lives 25

THIRD PERIOD. VI. HANNAH

447

containing the practical illustration of the theoretical statutes, exactly as Moses gave them, and so rendering the Holy Scriptures in very truth the verified transcript of the Eternal will.26 Moses’ instructions to the elders regarding the practical obedience to the law, must have been in exact accordance with that which, being written, was, and is still, open to our perusal; or we should have found some traces of its difference in the manners and customs of our ancestors. All, therefore, in Modern Judaism, which is accused of contradicting the spirit of the eternal holy word, cannot have had its origin in either of the laws, oral or written, transmitted by Moses. We are anxious always to notice, as forcibly as may be, those portions of the Bible containing the practical confirmation of the written laws of Moses, because we have heard (though we can scarcely believe it) of Hassidic Rebbes and heads of yeshivot, which portray these people as virtual plaster saints. The term was not meant to be confused with the term Hagiographa ‘Holy Writings’ or simply ‘Writings’ (Heb. ketuvim) referring to the third division of Jewish editions of the Scriptures. 26 Aguilar attempts to show from incidents recorded in the Historical Books such as the Book of Samuel that the Law of Moses or the Pentateuch was known and applied in biblical antiquity. In the same vein, Wellhausen in his Prolegomena points to discrepancies between the laws of the Pentateuch and details of the narratives in books of the Former Prophets (Joshua, Judges, Samuel and Kings) to prove that the Pentateuch was composed later than the Former Prophets. Thus, for example, Aguilar here tries to show that Lev. 27:1–8, which apparently allows a man or woman to dedicate oneself or one’s child to the service of the sanctuary was operative in the era of the Judges and is illustrated by Hannah’s dedication of her son Samuel to the service of the sanctuary at Shiloh. Modern Christian critical scholarship, on the other hand, took it for granted that the lists of fauna prohibited for food in Lev. 11 and Deut. 14 were devised “centuries later than this” account of Manoah’s wife’s (the rabbis give her a name, Hazlelponit) being asked not to eat anything unclean while she is carrying Samson in her womb. Consequently, G. W. Thatcher, Judges and Ruth, Century Bible (London: Caxton Publishing Co., 1904), 120, argues that “unclean” in this context must refer to prohibitions, which antedate Leviticus and Deuteronomy, both assumed to have been written long after the period of Samson.

448

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

that the written word of the Eternal is pronounced by some as imperfect and incomplete. The promulgators of such a fearful doctrine are not perhaps aware that by so doing, and so depriving our females and youth of both sexes of their only stay, and strength, and consolation, they are opening a wider avenue and offering a greater temptation to embrace Christianity,27 than was ever proffered by Just as Aguilar was accused of being influenced by Christianity to suggest that women should be treated as equals and just as she argues that Jewish women should not have to become Christian in order to be treated as the equals of Jewish men, since the Mosaic Torah, already granted equality to the sexes, so now does she adopt the weapon which had been used against her. She accuses those who talk about an oral law which supplements the Written Torah of Moses as opening the door to defection from Judaism to Christianity. Similarly, when I was growing up in America more than a century after Aguilar, Reform Jews and Orthodox Jews each accused the other of being the back door to Christianity. It should be remembered that when Jews accuse each other of assimilating to Christianity it is functionally equivalent to persons of other backgrounds accusing each other of neo-colonialism or fundamentalism. As Aguilar has indicated previously (see above, p. 355), at least one party among the elite male establishment in English Jewry reverenced the Oral Law doctrine, which is fundamental to Rabbinic Judaism of the last two millennia. At the same time, the male elite would not grant Jewish women access to Rabbinic literature. Therefore, she surmises that either this oral law agrees with the Written Law of Moses, or it contradicts it. And, if the latter is the case, she offers the hypothetical conclusion that Judaism shares with Christianity the view that Hebrew Scripture is improved upon by some other body of material (see above, p. 357 n. 2 for a similar formulation). However, Grace Aguilar and other Jewish women have not been granted access to this lore. Why then should Aguilar or anyone else in their right mind prefer this unknown Jewish functional equivalent, as it were, to Christianity’s sectarian Scriptures to the New Testament, which is readily available to everyone? The irony is that by way of Rashi and various midrashim that she quotes, and by way of De Sola’s commentary on the Pentateuch, the traditional Jewish prayerbook, which she has internalized, the Ethics of the Fathers and other selections from Talmudic literature contained in the prayerbook, which she knows well, Aguilar was, like most Jews from a traditional Jewish home, steeped in the Judaism of the Dual 27

THIRD PERIOD. VI. HANNAH

449

our opponents. To guard the women of Israel from such insidious danger, we are tempted to wander from our main subject, whenever the opportunity offers, to give them refuge and strength by the conviction that for them, at least, the Word of the Most High is allsufficient, containing, as it does, in the historical books, the practical illustration, and in the prophets the spiritual explanation, of the whole Mosaic system, whether imparted by word of mouth or dash of pen. Of the delivery or non-delivery by the Eternal of an oral law, we write not at all, as it is a subject much too learned and too weighty for a woman; and we are ready and willing to submit our opinions on all points to the wisdom and piety of our venerable sages. We only affirm, what we think no Hebrew will contradict, that as the God of Israel is a God of changeless truth and wisdom, He would not have desired Moses to write that which speech was to deny; in other words, that each law must be so perfect and so exact a counterpart of the other, that in our present captive state, the Bible provided through the eternal mercy for this very emergency, must be the key to both laws, and so perfect in itself.

Torah of Moses our Teacher without being totally aware of this and certainly not calling it by that term, which would be coined by Jacob Neusner more than a century and a half after Aguilar’s untimely passing. She appears not to have found anyone including Isaac Leeser, with whom she corresponded at the time of the writing of this monumental Women of Israel, who could explain to her that the Rabbinic literature of the dual Torah is indeed “not hidden from thee, neither is it far off” (Deut. 30:11) and indeed “very nigh unto thee, in thy mouth, and in thy heart” (Deut. 30:14). The miracle is that without that encouragement and explanation, she was nevertheless imbued with the letter and the spirit of the dual Torah, which together with her phenomenal logic and penetrating insights into biblical philology and stylistics enabled her to produce an abiding contribution to the study of women in Hebrew Scripture and Second Temple Judaism. The neglect of this work in the 20th century has forced scholars armed with degrees in ancient languages to recreate what she had already achieved rather than stand on her shoulders to reach even greater heights.

450

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

Though the evil conduct of the sons of Eli was well known,28 Hannah does not appear to have entertained a fear as to the effect of their example upon the tender years of her child. It was not likely that she who, in all her individual joys and sorrows, came to her God in prayer, should neglect that holy duty for the welfare of her boy. She had experienced too consolingly the effect of faith and prayer, to doubt them now; and as a mother, a Hebrew mother—one whose whole heart was love and praise to God, we may quite believe that, day and night, her meek and humble orisons29 arose for her boy, that he might become all that would make him indeed a faithful servant of his God; for in being such, he would be all her heart could wish. Some mothers, indeed, there may be, who, when they send their children from them, and provide them with all things needful for temporal welfare, think they have done sufficient, and only remember them with mere human, and consequently perishable, affections; rejoicing in their prosperity, anxious when ill, desirous for them to “get on,”—an emphatic though not elegant phrase for the world’s success. And if they do all they can to forward this “getting-on,” in the way of education and lavish expenditure, what more could be required of them? Some will answer, “Nothing.” Others may feel, as Hannah must have felt, that though their children may no longer be beneath their roof— though all of human means is done, to further their advancement, what will it all avail without the blessing of the Lord? And how may such blessing be attained, save with faithful and unceasing PRAYER? Prayer, that unites us in spirit alike with our beloved ones, and our God. Oh, is there one who really loves, be it as a parent, wife, child, betrothed, or friend, and can yet rest secure and happy Here Aguilar refers to the report contained in 1 Sam. 2:13–17 that the priests, the sons of Eli, committed sacrilege by taking for themselves sacrificial meat before the fat had been offered up and the report in 1 Sam. 2:22 that when women came to the sanctuary to worship the priests, the sons of Eli, made them have sex with them. 29 The noun ‘orison’ is an archaic English term for ‘prayer’, employed mostly in the plural. In fact, the term, derived from Latin oration, meaning ‘speech’ is in the words of Oxford Englih Dictionary, 2d. ed. (1989), 10:937, “etymologically a doublet of [Eng.] oration.” 28

THIRD PERIOD. VI. HANNAH

451

without prayer? If we have never prayed before, we must when we feel love. Can we love in any single relation of life, and yet not feel the craving, the desire, the absolute necessity to pour out our hearts to our God for our beloved ones, and in them for ourselves? Can we rest quiet, incapacitated, perhaps, from active service by circumstances, and not at least seek to serve by fervent prayer? And if in every relation of life this must be the effect of love, oh! more than in any other must we find it in a mother for a child! What love can be like hers, so watchful, so changeless, so unwearied? And how may she still the anxious throbbings of her heart, when divided from its earthly treasures, save by simple trust and fervid prayer? And when we look back on the character of Hannah, as it has already been displayed, can we doubt that such were her feelings, that she could have supposed merely to leave her child with the high priest was sufficient—that nothing more depended on herself? She who in all things had prayed? No, prayer must have sanctified her offering, not only when offered, but when apart from him. She had naught but prayer for him on which to rest. And might it not have been, nay, was it not, that mother’s prayer, which retained her boy in such pure and lowly piety, in such singleness of purpose and faithfulness of heart, in the very midst of the licentiousness reigning around? Long before Samuel could have prayed for himself, must Hannah’s prayers have ascended for him, and in his favor, both with the Lord and with men—she had her answer.30 Every time of her visit to Shiloh, we find Hannah bringing a little coat, or robe, for her child, the work of her own hands, which had fondly lingered on the task from month to month, in the periods of absence;31 and Eli blessed Elkanah and his wife, and said, “the Lord give thee seed of this woman, for the loan which is lent In fact, Babylonian Talmud, Berakot 31a–b lists nine features of proper prayer to God that can be learned from Hannah’s silent prayer of supplication in 1 Sam. 1:12–13. In addition, Babylonian Talmud, Berakot 29a states that the division of the Additional Service for the New Year into nine parts is meant to recall the nine invocations of the divine name YHWH ‘the LORD’ in Hannah’s hymn of thanksgiving found in 1 Sam. 2:1–10. 31 Here Aguilar refers to 1 Sam. 2:19. 30

452

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

to the Lord.”32 Now, though not till several verses after the narration of Hannah’s address to the high priest, when leaving Samuel with him, these words were most probably spoken when he first accepted the offering of the child; and the Lord did visit Hannah, and granted her three more sons, and two daughters,33 thus powerfully proving, that the Eternal ever returns double, and more than double, that which we devote to Him; be it the affections, the intellect, the will; or that more active service, charity and good works. Hannah devoted to him her all, her only one, caring not for the conquest of self which this resignation of her treasure must have demanded; and the Eternal, in His infinite mercy, granted her five in the place of one. And what was it which had originally turned aside her reproach, and inclined the Lord towards her? No great work—no mighty sacrifice—no wealthy offering; it was none of these, but simple faith and heartfelt prayer. With the information that she became the mother of five children, Holy Writ concludes the history of Hannah; but knowing the longevity of Scriptural characters, we are justified in inferring that she was spared to feel to the full, all the happiness which her firstborn’s matured character must have excited. We hear of not one failing from his earliest childhood. We read of his unvarying integrity and single-minded obedience to the 1 Sam. 2:20. Here Aguilar quotes the text according to KJV. However, in light of both common sense and Aguilar’s noting above, pp. 262263 in connection with Ex. 3:22 and 11:2; 12:35 that in a number of cases the Hebrew verb sha’al does not mean ‘borrow’ but ‘ask, request’ and that therefore the assent to such a request would not be ‘lend’ but ‘give, bestow’, the little boy Samuel seems not to have been lent to the LORD but given to or bestowed upon the LORD. Indeed, NJV at Ex. 12:35 translates the hiphil of the verb in question ‘they let them have their request’. Strangely, however, NJV at 1 Sam. 2:20 simply echoes KJV by rendering the verse as follows: “May the LORD grant you offspring by this woman in place of the loan she made to the LORD.” In light of the demonstration that sha’al often means request, Eli’s blessing should, therefore, be translated as follows: “May the LORD give you offspring by this woman in place of the gift she gave to the LORD.” 33 1 Sam. 2:21. 32

THIRD PERIOD. VI. HANNAH

453

word of his God, from his first repetition to Eli of the Eternal’s awful sentence,34 to the conclusion of his career; interfering as that obedience so repeatedly did, with his own private feelings, alike towards Eli, in the selection of a king,35 and in all his conduct towards Saul.36 If Hannah lived until the monarchy, she must indeed have been blessed in the innate goodness and love, and in the popularity of her child, and have felt that in nursing him for the Lord, she had indeed received “her wages.”37 The history we have been regarding, though brief in itself, is yet so fraught with importance to us as women of Israel, and as women in general, that we trust we shall be pardoned for dwelling upon it in all its bearings at some length. Forcibly as the stories of Naomi and Deborah marked the real position of the Israelitish women, and proved their powers alike of intellect, judgment, and spirituality, as well as the deferential light in which they were regarded by their countrymen, the history of Hannah brings their 1 Sam. 3:13–14 where God tells Samuel, “... his [Eli’s] sons made themselves vile, and he restrained them not. And therefore I have sworn unto the house of Eli, that the iniquity of Eli’s house shall not be purged with sacrifice nor offering for ever.” 35 1 Sam 8:6–7 reports that Samuel did not want to appoint a king over Israel but that God told Samuel to accede to the wishes of the people. 36 1 Sam. 15:35–16:1 reports that while God had decided to replace Saul with another king, Samuel remained grief-stricken because of Saul. In both of these cases as in numerous instances throughout the Early and the Later Prophets the prophet and the narrator distinguish between the personal sentiments of the prophet and the message, not his own, that the prophet must deliver in the name of God. In the State of Israel, Bible teachers of a secular bent habitually tell their pupils that in antiquity the prophets said, “God said,” to give authority to their own words. If so, why does the prophet and the anonymous narrator so often relate that the prophet himself habitually disagrees with God? 37 Here Aguilar compares Hannah who nursed Samuel (according to the commentaries it was for at least two years) to Jochebed, the mother of Moses, who nursed Moses and received wet-nurse wages from Pharaoh’s daughter. See Ex. 2:9 and see Aguilar’s discussion, above, pp. 244-258. 34

454

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

perfect freedom and equality, even in the marriage state, yet more distinctly forward. Deborah was inspired to do the will of the Lord; gifted, extraordinarily and expressly, to judge and deliver her countrymen. Naomi was a widow, unshackled by either conjugal or household duties, and with no relation whatever to interfere with her proceedings. Hannah was one of two wives, her husband living, and the head of a wealthy household; consequently, she must have had all her part of the domestic economy to look after and perform; yet there could not have been the very smallest restraint upon either her temporal proceedings or spiritual feelings. She does not even ask her husband’s acquiescence, much less depend upon his consent to seek the house of God. Her very going to pray must have excited remark, and even scandal, if such had not been the common custom of the nation. And if women were not permitted to pray for themselves, Eli would have rebuked her presumption, and desired her to send her husband, as the only chance of her wishes being granted; instead of which, when once convinced she was praying with earnestness and in sorrow, he bids her “go in peace,” for God would hearken to her.38 Again, had she not possessed perfect freedom, of will and action, she could not have vowed her child to God. Unless she had been perfectly sure that her husband reposed sufficient confidence in her, to abide by her decision, she could not have so devoted him, without, as it were, mocking the majesty of the Lord, by making a promise which she had not the power to perform. Aguilar here summarizes three points that she has made before and will continue to make throughout Women of Israel. First, there is much to be learned from Hebrew Scripture about the variety of possibilities open to women who are treated, as they should be, as the equals of men. Second, the biblical narrator intimates that women acted independently in both the private and the public sphere as did Deborah and Hannah and that their having done so was taken in stride by their contemporaries and caused no raised eyebrows and no male chauvinist backlash. Third, the male elites, who manage Jewish life in her time in England, ought to learn from Scripture and cease and desist from suggesting that women need not attend the synagogue or say the prayers and blessings because that is men’s work. 38

THIRD PERIOD. VI. HANNAH

455

That her vow was subject to the approbation of her husband, we believe, because such deference was commanded in our law.39 But Elkanah’s full acquiescence throughout, clearly proves the high esteem in which he held her. She does not ask even his permission to remain at home, till her child were old enough to be left with the priest. In all relating to Samuel, Elkanah was completely secondary. Even in the bullocks, flowers, and wine, provided for the offering, it was Hannah who brought and offered them; Hannah, who addressed Eli; Hannah, who chanted the song of thanksgiving to her God; and Hannah, who devoted her child. The husband and father had no more to do with it, than the simple acts of acquiescence and approval, which he would not have so unhesitatingly bestowed, had he not possessed the most perfect confidence in the judgment and actions of his wife. That no severe restrictions as to the time, form, or words of prayer, existed in the time of Hannah, is proved by her seeking the Temple to pray when it was not the appointed time of service, when there was no one there but the high priest and herself; by her speaking in her heart the words which sorrow and entreaty dictated, without any regard whatever to instituted forms, which, though indispensable for public service and national interests, will not give all that is needed to individuals. Eli marked the lips of Hannah move, but he heard no voice, for she spake in her heart, and as her heart dictated. And in her song of thanksgiving, though she prayed aloud, still it was from the heart alone. That forms of prayer were not needed in the time of Hannah, as they are now,40 we acknowledge; and also with all our heart and She refers to Num. 30:6–8, which allows a husband to annual certain kinds of vows made by his wife if he annuls them immediately. See Aguilar’s discussion of that text, above, p. 290. 40 Cf. Moses Maimonides, Mishneh Torah, Laws of Prayer 1:4: “Since Israel went into exile in the time of the wicked Nebuchadnezzar ... and they had children ... who did not know how to speak proper Hebrew ... Ezra and his legislature responded to the problem by devising the Eighteen Benedictions [the basic prayer recited by Jews and Jewesses three times every weekday]. 39

456

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

soul do we reverence their institution, and acknowledge their full value, both nationally and individually. Many and many a one, from incapacity to frame words of prayer, would be fearfully and painfully bereft, did they not possess the invaluable treasure of words of prayer, framed by good and learned men expressly for their use, and hallowed by long years. We are no advocate for the abolishment of established forms; for fully and heartfully we feel their sanctity and value. We would only beseech our young sisters to accustom themselves sometimes in their private hours, to pray and to praise from the heart, not always to depend on printed words; not, indeed, to neglect the latter, but to hallow and add to them, by individual petitions from individual hearts. Self-knowledge must be their first step to such secret prayers; for by self-knowledge alone can they discover their natural sins, their greatest temptations, their most secret weaknesses, their favorite faults. Self-knowledge alone can teach them where they are most likely to fail, and where to be unduly elevated; and display broadly and unsoftened, the true motives of their every action. Self-knowledge alone can teach them their true position with regard to eternity and God, and for all these things it is, that every individual needs individual prayer, wholly and utterly distinct from established forms; not, as we said above, to take the latter’s place, but so to be added to them, as to give them life and breath. The history of Hannah is all-sufficient for us to be convinced, that such individual and heartfelt prayers are not only legal,41 acEarlier (see p. 96, n. 58) we have noted that Judaism’s fixed and prescribed liturgy itself provides opportunity for the individual to insert her/his personal petitions and prayers of thanksgiving. Here Aguilar reveals herself at once as both a spiritual mentor for Jewish women (and men) of her time and, indeed, for the present and future as well. Moreover, it should be noted that Aguilar herself composed liturgical compositions, which she was hesitant to publish lest she be accused of trying to reform the Jewish faith and thereby marginalize herself and her writings, which were meant to educate women and men, Jew and Gentile, on the endless possibilities revealed in the Jewish heritage which she had been bequeathed her for personal spiritual and intellectual and emotional development, performance of good deeds, and the development of the un41

THIRD PERIOD. VI. HANNAH

457

cording to the laws, but acceptable to the Lord. No restrictions of man can alter or interfere with that which is divine; and, therefore, nothing which may be told concerning the inefficacy of individual prayer, unless guided by certain rules, forms, and words, can do away with the consolation and example afforded us by the history of our sweet and gentle ancestress, alike in the manner of her prayer and its reply, and in her unhesitating, unquestioning, and allconfiding FAITH. We are thus particular, because we would at once remove the foul stigma flung by scoffers on our blessed faith, that her female children have no power to pray, and are, consequently, soulless nonentities before their God; and bring forward, from the word of God itself, the unanswerable assurance, that woman’s prayers are heard, and are acceptable to Him, needing nothing more than childlike faith in His power to hear and answer, and a loving heart to dictate the imploring words. It is idle for us to say that we cannot pray, for we know not how appropriately to address the Supreme; His awful attributes appall us, and prevent all connected words. Such may be the sentiments of those who keep the Eternal far from them; but not of Israel, His first-born,42 first-beloved, whose very sins have no power to separate him from His God, if he will but repent and believe. “What nation hath God so near them as tapped potential of women. Concerning Aguilar’s liturgical compositions see Galchinsky, Grace Aguilar: Selected Writings, 29: “She [Sarah Aguilar, Grace’s mother] also collected, culled, and edited the manuscripts that became Essays and Miscellanies.” The full title is Essays and Miscellanies: Choice Cullings from the Manuscripts of Grace Aguilar, ed. Sarah Aguilar (Philadelphia: A. Hart, Late Carey and Hart, 1853). Galchinksy, Grace Aguilar: Selected Writings, 307–312 provides some selections from Essays and Miscellanies under the heading “Sabbath Thoughts and Sacred Communings,” along with a preface by Grace’s mother Sarah. There, on p. 29 Galchinksy explains, “Sarah Aguilar gives an account of her difficult decision to ignore her daughter’s wishes in several letters to Miriam and Solomon Cohen ... . She also explains that she held back those prayers and meditations that she felt were unfit. None of those she held back has been recovered.” 42 Ex. 4:22: “Thus saith the LORD, Israel is my son, even my first born.”

458

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

Israel, in all we call upon Him for?” were the precious words of Moses,43 confirmed by the whole after-records of the Bible.— Hagiography,44 Psalms, Proverbs, Prophets, all and every one teem with the same consoling truth, proclaim our God as LOVE, the hearer and answerer of prayer, its gracious receiver, whenever it comes from the heart, and is offered up in faith. “Call upon me, and I will deliver thee,”45 is the blessed assurance repeated again and again, in different modes of expression, in every part of the Bible. It is folly, it is guilt to keep away from prayer, under the misleading plea that God is a being too pre-eminently holy to be approached. Did we but really love Him as He commands, with heart, and soul, and might; did we but trust in Him, as Abraham did, when “his faith was accounted righteousness;”46 we should find words enough wherewith to pray and praise. Love would bring us to Him, believing and rejoicing in that inexhaustible love which would in such infinite mercy bend down its reviving rays on us, and lift up the wearied spirit, till it found rest on the healing sympathy of its allcompassionating God. Deut. 4:7. The term Hagiographa, which is the English via the Greek equivalent of Heb. kitve qodsheka ‘Your holy writings’, which is employed in the Jewish liturgy to designate the third of the three divisions of the Hebrew Bible, namely ‘the Writings’, which consist of the following eleven books: Psalms, Proverbs, Job, Song of Songs, Ruth, Lamentations, Ecclesiastes, Esther, Daniel, Ezra-Nehemiah, and Chronicles. Here as earlier on p. 449 Aguilar uses the similar sounding and cognate term Hagiography ‘sacred writings’ to designate biblical narrative and primarily the narratives found in the books which Jewish editions of the Bible designate as “The Former Prophets.” The four books of the latter subdivision of the Hebrew Bible are Joshua, Judges, Samuel, and Kings. The tales told in those books narrate the stories of ancient culture heroes and culture heroines of the people of Israel, which, in Aguilar’s view, portray the embodiment of the laws of the Torah of Moses in the life of ancient Israel. 45 See, for example, Judg. 10:12: “Ye cried to me, and I delivered you”; 2 Ch. 20:9: “If ... we ... cry unto thee in our affliction, then thou wilt hear and help.” 46 Gen. 15:6. 43 44

THIRD PERIOD. VI. HANNAH

459

It was thus that Hannah came to Him, loving Him, trusting Him, yet more than she loved and confided in her husband, the nearest and dearest tie on earth. She did not think herself too unworthy to approach and beseech Him, because she knew that the Law which she obeyed, and the whole history of her people, teemed with His invitations so to do, and His promises to answer. She came to Him, because she knew he loved her, and would have compassion; and because she so loved Him, that it was far easier to pour into His gracious ears her silent sorrows than breathe them unto man. She came to Him, because she not only loved, but believed with such a pure and child-like faith, that when the high priest bade her “Go in peace, and God grant thee thy petition,”47 she returned to her own home so calmly, so trustingly, that she “did eat, and her countenance was no more sad:”48—words that convince us how fully she must have believed when she prayed, and not only then, but through her lifetime, for faith is of no instantaneous growth. It is a plant so foreign to this cold, sceptical, questioning world, that it must be nursed and tended into life; it must be a habit, not a feeling; it must attend our every prayer, our every spiritual aspiration, or when most needed, it will fail us, and plunge us into gloom. But it may be asked in what need we have such perfect and constant faith. Hannah’s position will not bear upon us now, as we have neither high priest nor Temple,49 nor any visible manifestations of the Eternal’s interference in human affairs. We have not, indeed; but we have still His WORD, the BIBLE, wherein so to learn His attributes, His promises, that during our captivity we need no more; for if we disbelieve that Word, no priest, no temple, no apparently visible reply, would give us the faith we need, and which Hannah proved. We need faith to believe that God is love, and our souls immortal; that every precious promise in His word is addressed as emphatically to us individually as to us nationally; to feel that there is another and a brighter World, where “eye hath not seen, neither 1 Sam. 1:17. 1 Sam. 1:18. 49 This phraseology is found in the daily Jewish liturgy, and unquestionably Aguilar took it from there. See ArtScroll Siddur, 40–43. 47 48

460

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

hath ear heard, what He hath prepared for those that love Him.”50 Faith to know that we are individually objects of His love and care, as surely as that every blade of grass and invisible insect are alike the work of His hand, and the constant renewal of that power which at a word called forth creation. We need faith, to discern the workings of an eternal Love and infinite Goodness in the History of Man, Past and Present; to mark through the evil which is often alone visible, the furtherance of that Divine Will and Perfect Good, which runs as a silver thread through the darkest web, and links this world with heaven—man with God. It is for all these things we need Faith: that faith which, instead of banishing Reason, welcomes and rejoices in her as her companion and handmaid. Faith may exist without reason; but let reason attempt to exclude faith altogether, let the materialist and scoffer laugh and mock at all things which cannot be substantially proved, and on his bed of death what shall support him? Let him explain, if he can, birth and death, the beginning and the end: and then, and not till then, may he contemn and deride those who, contented to be less wise and less inquiring, walk calmly and happily through this dark valley of earth with the angel, Faith, at their side; sending up their lowly petitions on his aspiring wings: and calmly sinking, when the tale of life is done, secure, through faith’s simple readings of the word of God, of that everlasting bliss which awaits him in another and purer world. With the history of Hannah our Third Period concludes; and from the length with which we have treated each separate notice, we have little further to add, save the earnest hope that an impartial and unprejudiced study of all that we have brought forward, will convince our readers, that no law for the degradation and heathenizing the Women of Israel could have had existence from the Exodus to the Monarchy; that therefore all statutes to that effect, which may be quoted, must be Human not Divine, and cannot be charged to the Law of God, or regarded as characteristic of the manners and customs of His people. To us, as women, the whole of the Third Period teems with guidance and consolation, and, as Women of Israel, must satisfy us 50

Isa. 64:4.

THIRD PERIOD. VI. HANNAH

461

with the confirmation of our equality and elevation. Shall we, then, feel ashamed of the faith which provides such laws, and the lineage which counts such characters as Deborah, Naomi, and Hannah, amongst our ancestry? Shall we prefer listening to the mistaken zeal which would persuade us that, as Hebrew females, we are lowered and degraded, and can only become spiritually free by deserting the faith of our ancestors, to looking through the Word of God, and, tracing our privileges there, make it our glory to reveal them, through our faith and conduct to the whole Gentile world? Oh! will not every woman nerve heart to prove that her religion comes from that God of Love and Truth, whose words once spoken will last for ever,51 whose Law once given will know no change;52 that she has in that faith enough to give her strength to live, and hope to die; aye, and to glory in that blessed Law which cared for woman first, and will care for her for ever? END OF VOL. I.

Ps. 119:89. This clause is taken from Maimonides’ Thirteen Essential Beliefs (originally found in his Arabic commentary on the Mishnah, Tractate Sanhedrin, Chapter 10), which in the poetic form in the hymn Yigdal is sung at the close of services on the eve of Sabbath and Festivals. Unquestionably, Aguilar took it from there. See ArtScroll Siddur, 12–15 where it appears near the beginning of the daily morning service, where, in fact, it is rarely recited. 51 52

CHAPTER I. ESTABLISHMENT OF THE MONARCHY— PATRIOTISM OF THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL MICHAL We are now come to an important change in the history of Israel; the first step to her downfall, and the first opening for the fearful flood of misery and crime which nationally and individually deluged Judea. We allude to the election of an earthly king, and the establishment of a temporal monarchy. In vain the prophet Samuel reasoned and implored, beseeching them to rest contented with the government already established; and in the deepest humility of spirit prayed unto the Lord. “Hearken unto the voice of the people, in all that they say unto thee,” was the gracious answer, “for they have not rejected thee, but they have rejected ME, that I should not reign over them.”1 Awful words, and most awfully fulfilled! The infinite mercy of Israel’s God would not reject His people, though they had rejected Him; but in the very gratification of their desire to have a king they received their chastisement; a chastisement not of a year’s or a century’s continuance, but lasting through ages and ages of crime, misery, expulsion, persecution and working against unhappy Israel even at this present day. But the Eternal would not expose them to these terrible effects of their own choice without warning, and by the mouth of Samuel He told them of all the evils they would experience under earthly kings, and that they would cry out in their distress unto the Lord, and then He would not hear them;2 but still they persisted in 1 Sam. 8:7. This is God’s response to Samuel’s prayer with respect to his being “displeased ... when they [the people of Israel] said, Give us a king to judge us” (1 Sam. 8:6). 2 1 Sam. 8:10–18. 1

467

468

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

the very face of that prophetical word.3 God granted indeed their request.4 The people, with the wildest rejoicings, received a king, and beheld a monarchy established; but the awful effects thence ensuing ought to convince us, that the granting our requests is not always the evidence of the Lord’s love and approbation. Better, far better, to rest in Him, and submit to His will, however it may interfere with our own short-sighted wishes, than persist in their accomplishment, and so weary our Father in heaven with repinings and complaints, as to make Him grant that in anger, which in love He would refuse. We should, indeed, bring before Him all our wishes, through the blessed medium of prayer; but such prayers should ever be coupled with the entreaty for grace to meet his will, whatever it may be; to submit unmurmuringly to His decision; and still to realize His love, however He may ordain disappointment. To such prayers we are assured, through the promises of His Word, that he will deign to reply; but for the mere entreaty for the gratification of earthly wishes, the proneness to complain and repine at the faintest semblance of denial, oh! let us remember the misery hurled upon Israel by the granting their request for a king, and take warning. It is thus that, even in our history, the Word of God may instruct and guide us, and give us lessons for daily life and individual petitions from national examples. The monarchy of Israel lasted for the period of four hundred and fifty years,5 and thus presents us with a fourth division of our 1 Sam. 8:19: “Nevertheless the people refused to obey the voice of Samuel; and they said, Nay; but we will have a king over us.” 4 1 Sam. 8:22: “And the LORD said to Samuel, Hearken unto their voice, and make them a king. And Samuel said unto the men of Israel, Go ye every man unto his city.” 5 These 450 years end with the conquest of Jerusalem, the destruction of Solomon’s Temple, and the exile of many of the inhabitants of Judah to Babylonia on the seventh day of the fifth month (i.e., Av, which falls usually in July or August) in the year 586 B.C.E. (cf. 2 Kgs. 25). According to this reckoning of 450 years the monarchy would have been established in 1036 B.C.E. This reckoning does not differ appreciably from the dates commonly conjectured in standard histories of ancient Israel. John Bright, A History of Israel (2d ed.; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1972), 479 tentatively 3

FOURTH PERIOD. I. ESTABLISHMENT OF THE MONARCHY 469 subject; the social and domestic condition of the Women of Israel during its continuance being a remarkable proof for or against our argument, that no law transmitted to us by Moses commanded our degradation. By a careful study of their positions, as displayed in the various sketches of female character found in the historic books, we shall be able at least to discover if indeed there were any human laws or customs at work counteracting the elevating and spiritualizing influence of the statutes for woman’s benefit enjoined by Moses. The fearful crimes, and awful state of anarchy and rebellion, during the kingdom, will not indeed allow us either the variety or the completeness of female characters, as displayed in our first and third periods; nor shall we find such beautiful lessons guiding us individually; still, in the brief sketches brought before us, there is sufficient for our conviction that, as women of Israel, we are as elevated and spiritualized as the most exacting nations can require; and that if we are degraded, socially and individually, in the mind of any man, bearing the honored name of Jew,6 it is in direct contradiction to the laws of God, and completely opposed to the practice of Judaism, even in that period when her followers were sunk to the lowest ebb of misery and sin. The establishment of the kingdom had in all probability less influence on the social position of the Hebrew women than on any other class, until the universal wickedness spread even to them, and caused the prophetical denunciations against their sins, as distinct from those of man. The first mention of women in this period, is their coming forth from all the cities of Israel, singing and dancing, dates Saul’s brief reign to the years 1020–1000 B.C.E. As yet we have no extra-biblical corroboration of dates for events of the Israelite monarchy prior to the 9th century B.C.E. When Aguilar wrote there was no available correlation whatsoever because archaeological research in the lands of the Bible had not yet begun, and the inscriptions of ancient Western Asia had yet to be discovered, let alone deciphered. 6 Here again Aguilar makes the point that Jewish men who would denigrate women and attribute their denigration to Judaism are at fault and that Judaism should not be blamed for the fact that some Jewish men even in high places in the organized Jewish community seek to anchor in the Torah their denigration of women.

470

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

to meet King Saul, after the destruction of Goliath by David, with tabrets, with joy, and with instruments of music;7 evidently a voluntary act, and marking their social position to have been one of perfect freedom, and also of some influence, else their ascribing to David the glory of slaying his ten thousands, and Saul only his thousands, would not have caused the king so much disturbance.8 We learn too, from this account, that the gifts of song and the dance, and playing upon divers instruments, had not at all degenerated in the Israelitish women since the time of Miriam, when they

1 Sam. 18:6. Indeed, Gruber, “Women in the Ancient Levant,” p. 135 points out, “In the twelfth and eleventh centuries B.C.E. it was customary for Israelite women to greet their heads of state, military leaders, and the victorious return of their armies with singing and dancing accompanied by the hand-drum called top (plural tuppim; Judges 11:34; 1 Samuel 18:6–7; 21:11; 29:5). Women playing this kind of drum are frequently depicted in clay figurines recovered form Iron Age Cyprus as well as from the Levant.” See also Jer. 31:3; Ps. 68:26; and see Carol L. Meyers, “Of Drums and Damsels: Women’s Performance in Ancient Israel,” Biblical Archaeologist 54 (1991), 16–27; id., “Mother to Muse,” 50–77; id., “A Terracotta at the Harvard Semitic Museum and Disc-holding Figurines Reconsidered,” Israel Exploration Journal 37 (1987), 116–122. Meyers shows that playing the hand-drum (rendered tabret in KJV) was a stereotypic role of women in the public life of the ancient Levant. Similarly, Gruber asserts that greeting heads of state and military leaders with song and dance was a stereotypic role of women in the public life of ancient Israel. Aguilar, on the other hand, sees in the public performance by women recorded in 1 Sam. 18:6–7 “a voluntary act, and marking their social position to have been one of perfect freedom.” 8 It is reported in 1 Sam. 18:7, “And the women answered one another as they played, and said, Saul hath slain his thousands and David his ten thousands.” It is reported in the following verses, 1 Sam. 18:8–9, “And Saul was very wroth, and the saying displeased him; and he said, They have ascribed unto David ten thousands, and to me they have ascribed but thousands: and what can he have more but the kingdom. And Saul eyed David from that day and forward.” This event is referred to again in 1 Sam. 21:11 and 29:5). 7

FOURTH PERIOD. I. ESTABLISHMENT OF THE MONARCHY 471 echoed back Moses’s song of praise.9 The skill in these accomplishments argues an education both polished and refined, very superior to the instruction accorded to the women of contemporary nations.10 Examples of intellect and judgment we have had Ex. 15:20–21: “And Miriam the prophetess, the sister of Aaron, took a timbrel [Heb top; which is rendered tabret in KJV in 1 Sam.] in her hand; and all the women went out after her with timbrels and with dances. And Miriam answered them, Sing ye to the LORD, for he hath triumphed gloriously ... .” 10 Indeed, lest it not be self-evident, it is reported to me by members of the Moroccan Jewish community that members of the guilds of keening women who perform at both funerals and joyous occasions (as depicted, for example in the motion picture, “Turn Left at the End of the World”) are taught systematically the skills of their art. References in Hebrew Scripture to the training and the curriculum of women (and men) for singing at public events include 1 Ch. 25:5–7: “... And God gave to Heman fourteen sons and three daughters. All these were under the hands of their father for song in the house of the LORD, with cymbals, psalteries, and harps, for the service in the house of God, according to the king’s order to Asaph, Jeduthun, and Heman. So the number of them with their brethren that were instructed in the songs of the LORD; even all that were cunning, was two hundred fourscore and eight.” Similarly, 2 Ch. 35:25 asserts that Jeremiah’s lament composed for the funeral of King Josiah was part of the curriculum studied by “singing men and singing women...to this day.” Contrast the suggestion by Lillian R. Klein, From Deborah to Esther: Sexual Politics in the Hebrew Bible (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2003), 30-31 that many of the intelligent and educated women portrayed in Hebrew Scripture received no formal instruction. Klein projects upon the world of Hebrew Scripture the reticence in European culture in modern times to allow women to be educated and the effort expended to prevent them from pursuing advanced degrees and the effort expended to prevent women with advanced degrees from receiving appointments in laboratories and universities. See Rosser, Biology and Feminism, 30–44 and passim. Aguilar, we should remember, is writing in 1845 just four years after Oberlin College in Oberlin, Ohio, which was founded in 1833, and which became co-educational from 1835, became in 1841 the first institution of higher learning in the western world to grant women (three women, in fact) the Bachelor of Arts Degree. Aguilar attempts to utilize 9

472

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

already, and shall have again; therefore it is also clear that their education was not confined to mere superficial accomplishment, which is often supposed the only instruction necessary for woman. The song, and dance, and knowledge of musical instruments, were but a small portion of the female Hebrew’s acquirements; but that they are expressly named more than once in the word of God, should encourage us alike in their cultivation and in their enjoyment, granted as sources of recreation, of innocent pleasure, and yet more as the means of sacred rejoicing. To abuse them, by making them sources of envy and display, and all kinds of ill-feeling, or to undervalue and despise them as snares and foolishness, must both alike be wrong, and prevent the perfection of the heart towards God. He endowed us not with talents to lie unused, but to make others happy, and to increase our own innocent and healthful resources, and create an ever-gushing spring of gratitude towards Him. Nor did the women of Israel refrain from national rejoicing. They were not confined to their own narrow spheres, feeling no interest beyond. They did not smile to scorn the holy feeling of patriotism, which should awaken every female heart to the joys and griefs, triumphs and defeats of her country, as if they were her own. They encouraged, they rejoiced in it; and its very possession and display proves their equality with man as citizens of Israel, and children of the Lord. We never find patriotism in a degraded position—the slave knows not even its name, much less the glow, the enthusiasm with which it lights up our being. It is in itself a refining and spiritual principle, intimately connected with our higher selves. the clear evidence from Scripture (now illustrated pictorially by artifacts recovered from archaeological excavations) that public musical performance by women presupposes the institutionalization of a high level of education of women in matters other than home economics to argue that rather than projecting upon the Bible modern day misogyny (as does Klein), the Bible should teach us to educate women to achieve their full intellectual and spiritual potential. This is the argument that has been made since the dawn of what today is called ‘women’s liberation’ in modern times with the appearance almost at the end of the 18th century C.E. of Mary Wollstonecraft, Vindication of the Rights of Women. See there, especially, 387–413.

FOURTH PERIOD. I. ESTABLISHMENT OF THE MONARCHY 473 To the Israelites it must have been yet more powerful than to any other nation, for their beautiful land was the direct gift of God; and bearing every sabbatical year miraculous witness of His unceasing love, in permitting the sainted earth to give forth of itself sufficient for the holy people, that they might not have the temptation of necessity to disobey their law.11 Israel in captivity may not indeed be enabled to realize the same feeling of amor patriae12 as Israel in Judea; yet let us not forget that we are exiles, and sometimes cast a longing look of lingering love to that land which is still ours, and which will once again, at the mandate of the Lord, spring up in renewed and renovated loveliness, to welcome home the weary wanderers13 “from the north, and from the south, and from the Here Aguilar refers to Lev. 25:3–6: “Six years thou shalt show thy field, and six years thou shalt prune thy vineyard, and gather in the fruit thereof; But in the seventh year shall be a sabbath of rest unto the land, a sabbath for the LORD: thou shalt neither sow thy field, nor prune thy vineyard. That which growth of its own accord of thy harvest thou shalt not reap, neither gather the grapes of thy vine undressed; for it is a year of rest unto the land. And the Sabbath of the land shall be meat [Heb. le’oklah means simply ‘for food’ as did the word ‘meat’ when KJV was composed] for you ... .” 12 Latin for ‘love of one’s native land’. Aguilar assumes that her readers, having had an elementary education, know the Bible in the King James Version, some Hebrew, and, of course, Latin. From the same noun patria meaning ‘native land’ or literally, fatherland, we derive also the term patriotism, meaning loyalty to or love of one’s country and expatriate to designate a person living away from her/his native land. 13 This hope was achieved slightly less than 103 years after Aguilar’s untimely death when on Friday Afternoon, May 14, 1948 David BenGurion proclaimed the establishment of the Jewish State in the Land of Israel, saying, “it is the State of Israel.” The fulfillment of the dream was fostered throughout the generations by Jews and Jewesses who recited in their daily prayers three times a day every weekday, in the 10th of the 19 benedictions of the Amidah, “Sound the great ram’s horn (shofar) for our liberation and lift up an ensign for the gathering of our exiles, and gather us together from the four corners of the earth to our land. Praised our You, O LORD, who gathers the dispersed of His people Israel.” See De Sola, Forms of Prayer, 30; ArtScroll Siddur, 106–107. 11

474

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

east, and from the west.”14 Did we sometimes think of Judea as our own land, we should not regard our destined return to Jerusalem either with direct unbelief, or as a change from the creature comforts which we may be enjoying in our captivity, not at all to be desired. Daily is the prayer for the rebuilding of Jerusalem offered up;15 yet how very many are those who, while they would think the Cf. Ps. 107:1–3: “O Give thanks unto the LORD, for he is good: for his mercy endureth for ever. Let the redeemed of the LORD say so, whom he hath redeemed from the hand of the enemy. And gathered them out of the lands, from the east, and from the west, from the north, and from the south.” Most likely, this psalm was originally addressed to the exiles who returned to Judah in 538 B.C.E. following the Edict of Cyrus. Appropriately, the singing of this Psalm begins the Service of Worship on the Eve of Israel Independence Day celebrated on the 5th of the Hebrew month of Iyyar. See Rinnat Israel Prayerbook: Nusah Sefarad, ed. Shlomo Tal (Jerusalem: Moreshet, 1999), 441–442 (in Hebrew). 15 Here Aguilar refers to the 14th of the 19 benedictions of the Amidah recited three times every weekday wherein Jews and Jewesses pray, “And to Jerusalem Your city return in mercy, and dwell therein as You have promised, and speedily establish therein the throne of David, and build it [Jerusalem] speedily in our days and in perpetuity. Praised are You, O LORD, who rebuilds Jerusalem.” Also, at the conclusion of a meal at which bread or matzah has been consumed observant Jewish women and men and girls and boys, such as Grace Aguilar, recite the grace after meals, which consists of four benedictions or sections. The third of these parts is called “the blessing of Jerusalem,” which concludes as follows: “And rebuild Jerusalem the holy city speedily in our days. Praised are You, O LORD who in His mercy rebuilds Jerusalem. Amen.” In Aguilar’s time the benediction in question was already available in both Hebrew and an interlinear English translation in D. A. De Sola, The Blessings, or Expressions of Thanksgiving (London: J. Wertheimer, 1829), 66; [see also ArtScroll Siddur, 190–191]. In addition, after drinking grape wine or consuming any comestible other than bread (which is covered by the Grace After Meals referred to above), which is a product of any of the seven plants for which the Land of Israel is praised in Deut. 8:8 (wheat, barley, grapevines, fig trees, pomegranates, olive, and honey), Jews and Jewesses recite a three-part mini-grace, which also includes the following, which constitutes slightly less than half of the entire benediction: “Please have mercy, O LORD, 14

FOURTH PERIOD. I. ESTABLISHMENT OF THE MONARCHY 475 omission of that petition almost sin, yet so little enter into its spirit, as to shrink from even the thought of returning unto our own most holy land!16 our God upon Israel Your people, and upon Jerusalem Your city, and upon Zion the Tabernacle of Your Glorious Presence, and upon Your altar and upon your Temple. And rebuild Jerusalem the holy city speedily in our days. And enable us to ascend into it [Jerusalem], and let us be privileged to rejoice in the rebuilding of it and let us be privileged to eat of its fruit and to be satisfied from its sweetness and let us recite a blessing to You over it in holiness and in purity.” To put it simply, for two millennia a Jew or Jewess could not eat a biscuit without asking God to restore the Jewish people to Jerusalem. For the benediction in Hebrew and interlinear English translation see De Sola, Blessings, 76–78; see also ArtScroll Siddur, 200–201. Consequently, the ideal was for every Jewish girl and boy to be sufficiently knowledgeable in the Holy Tongue to be able to recite the benediction after consuming one of the seven fruits of the Land of Israel. Obviously, this elementary knowledge of the Holy Tongue opened the door to knowledge of both the Scriptures and the Mishnah as well as the Jewish prayerbook. Aguilar’s two volumes of Women of Israel continually bring home the message that any Jewish community that does not enable all of the girls and boys to achieve that minimum knowledge has not fulfilled its mission. As for the Hebrew word devash in Deut. 8:8, which is commonly translated ‛honey’, this term is traditionally understood to denote jam made from dates (precisely the usual meaning of the cognate terms in other ancient and modern Semitic languages). Another term nophet and its cognates in other Semitic languages unequivocally designates bee honey; my esteemed colleague, Dr. Tova Forti has, I think, put an end to the doubts as to whether or not in biblical times bee honey was consumed in Israel; see Tova Forti, “Bee’s Honey: From Realia to Metaphor in Biblical Wisdom Literature,” Vetus Testamentum, 56 [2006], 327–341. 16 Already in Aguilar’s day Jewish religious reformers sought to remove from the liturgy the petitions for a return to Zion because those reformers sincerely believed that Jewish hope for a better day yet to be was being fulfilled by the granting of full civil and political rights to Jews in America and in Europe and that there was no longer a need for Jewish civil and political rights to be realized by the reestablishment of an independent Jewish state in the Land of Israel with its capital at Jerusalem. Aguilar here alludes to the fact that most Jews then and now oppose re-

476

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

Nor does this feeling towards Jerusalem interfere with the emotions which we all ought to experience towards the lands of our adoption17—“Seek the peace of the city (or land) whither I vising the prayerbook and regard revisers of the prayerbook as sinners. Indeed, at the dawn of the 21st century when Reform Judaism has experienced phenomenal growth throughout the world, that same moment has embraced Zionism so completely as to have restored the prayers for the restoration of the people of Israel to the Land of Israel, with Jerusalem as its capital. See, e.g., the latest official prayerbook of the Reform Movement in the State of Israel Ha‛Avodoah She-ba-Lev (Jerusalem: Movement for Progressive Judaism in Israel, 2003), 13–14; similarly, the latest prayerbook of the Reform Movement in Britain, Seder Ha-Tefillot: Forms of Prayer (London: Movement for Reform Judaism, 2008), 79, 81, 84; and see now also the latest American Reform Jewish prayer book, Mishkan T’filah: A Reform Siddur (New York: Central Conference of American Rabbis, 2007), 90, 92 and passim. Aguilar here expresses the proto-Zionist ideal that Jews should actually believe and want to act upon what is expressed in the various prayers for the restoration of Zion, to which she has alluded, and which we have spelled out in the notes. She intimates that those who preserve the prayers intact but do not sincerely believe in what we today would call Zionism are hypocrites. 17 Here Aguilar attempts to deal with the dilemma faced by all Jews who do not define themselves as anti-Zionist Reform Jews. Anti-Zionist Reform Jews of the 19th and 20th centuries believed that the hope for a return to Zion was antiquated and that therefore Jews could and should be loyal only to the states in which they lived and which granted them citizenship. The last bastion (the veritable Alamo) of anti-Zionist Reform Jews was an organization called the American Council for Judaism, which opposed the creation of the State of Israel and opposed Jewish support of that state after its establishment. Before the outbreak of the Six-Day War in 1967 the enemies of the State of Israel called for throwing all the Jews into the Sea. Most rational Jews and most of their rational supporters believed at that time that without a miracle this was the end of the Jewish State and probably the end of Judaism. In the euphoria that followed the miraculous victory of the few against the many, the American Council for Judaism folded its tent. Anti-Zionist Orthodox Jews of the 19th, 20th and 21st centuries believe that until the coming of a divinely sent Redeemer or Messiah, Jews can and should be loyal citizens of the countries in which

FOURTH PERIOD. I. ESTABLISHMENT OF THE MONARCHY 477

they live. Extremists among them, both within the borders of the State of Israel and elsewhere refuse to recognize the State of Israel, and they regard its existence as an impediment to the coming of the Messiah. According to the Zionist ideology accepted by many living in Israel or planning to live there when they can find employment and solutions for their elderly relatives living elsewhere, ultimately virtually every country which has been a safe-haven for Jews and which Jews have served loyally, be it Germany before the triumph of Nazism in 1933 or Spain before 1492 or any large number of other examples, will decide to define itself in such a way as to decide that Jews have no place within that nation. A similar ideology is expressed by the Crypto-Jews in the Southwest of the United States, who refuse to come out of the closet as Jews, knowing that they fled to what was then New Spain from Old Spain because to identify publicly as Jews was suicidal. Another large group of Jews in the post-modern era believes that the State of Israel must exist for the benefit of “other Jews” who have no other place to go while they themselves can be at once totally loyal citizens of other nation states and supporters of the State of Israel. In this position they seem to be supported both by the Prophet Jeremiah quoted below by Aguilar and by the parallel phenomenon of persons of Greek descent, Irish descent, Russian descent, African descent, etc., who are totally loyal citizens of the USA, who also maintain a unique relationship with both the country of their origin and their sisters and brothers around the world, who share their ethnicity. Aguilar here adumbrates this point of view. It is important to note, however, that in Aguilar’s time even when there was as yet no Jewish State of Israel to compete with their country of residence for the loyalty of Jewish persons, Jewish persons living in England, whether they were totally English-speaking women and men of Iberian origin (like the Aguilar family) or immigrants newly arrived from Germany or Poland or elsewhere in Eastern Europe, the host culture considered the Jews as outsiders. The outsider status, to which Aguilar refers again and again in Women of Israel is expressed also in accounts of Aguilar by her Christian admirers. For example, Camilla Toulmine in a memorial tribute published in La Belle Assemblée November 1847 and copied out by hand by Grace Aguilar’s mother Sarah in a booklet of memorial tributes in the Grace Aguilar Papers now housed at University College Library London, writes as follows: “The countenance was very different from what we are accustomed to consider the Hebrew type; for her eyes were of that expressive grey, which seems to change its hue

478

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

have caused you to be carried away captives,” the Lord Himself proclaimed through His prophet Jeremiah, “and pray unto the Lord for it; for in the peace thereof shall ye have peace.”18 What injunction can be stronger or more solemn than these words, directing even our prayers,19 and thus at once reproving the scoffers who scorn the idea of individual petitions benefiting a nation? That Israel is deeply susceptible of a love of country distinct from the with every emotion, and her hair was of that expressive grey, which seems to change its hue with every emotion.” In fact, as will be noted by another admirer, Caroline A. Bowles, Aguilar had blue eyes. Apparently, some persons could not perceive them as blue because Jews, being Oriental outsiders, could not possibly have blue eyes. For Aguilar’s frontal attack upon those who would deny that the Jews still constitute a nation see the final chapter of Women of Israel, s.v., “French Jews” (pp. 920-922). It is also important to know that among the Christians who admired her we find also the hope that eventually Aguilar might become a Christian. Thus writes Caroline A. Bowles January 17, 1848, also among the memorial tributes copied out by Sarah Aguilar and found now in the Aguilar Papers at University College London: “I knew that the Gospel had been carefully read by her, and unlike many who wish to force their belief, I left, in prayer, the result with Him, who doeth all things but ‘whose ways are not our ways’.” 18 Jer. 29:7. 19 Virtually every Jewish prayerbook includes in the worship service for Sabbath and major festivals just before the ceremonial procession with the Holy Scroll of the Torah around the synagogue on the way back to the Holy Ark a prayer for the well-being of the head of state, the government, and the country. The prayer with which Aguilar would have been familiar from services at London’s Bevis Marks Synagogue is found in De Sola, Forms of Prayer, 92. The ArtScroll Siddur, designed to be used by Englishspeaking Jews in many countries of the world simply indicates on pp. 450–451, “In many congregations, a prayer for the welfare of the State is recited ... at this point.” After the establishment of the State of Israel, Shmuel Yosef Agnon, later a Nobel Prize laureate in literature, composed a prayer for the well-being of the State of Israel and its leaders. This prayer is recited both in synagogues in the State of Israel (except by antiZionist congregations) and in synagogues throughout the world. See, for example, Siddur Rinat Yisrael, Nusah Sefarad, 281.

FOURTH PERIOD. I. ESTABLISHMENT OF THE MONARCHY 479 love borne towards Judea, is beautifully and forcibly exemplified in the history of her expulsion from Spain,20 and of her secret existence there in the very midst of danger, and death if discovered,21 when so many other lands offered a secure retreat.22 And shall not we, respected and at peace as we are, in free and happy England, encourage this refined and holy feeling, and “pray unto the Lord for it,”23 as for our own bright land? By woman, even more than man, should this emotion be experienced—for how heavy would be her burden, if the peace of home were liable to be disturbed. Let us then remember our privileges and duties as women of Israel, and bid our own hearts to glow with patriotism, alike in mourning fondness for Judea, as in grateful and prayerful affection for the lands blessing the exile with liberty and rest; that we may unconsciously imbue the hearts of our sons with the same elevating and purifying emotions, and behold them, while glorying in the sacred name they bear, as heritors and future denizens of the land of promise, ever ready to stand forward as able citizens and valiant defenders of their adopted homes. In confirmation of our theory, that in the earlier history of Israel one wife was the natural and legal position of woman,24 we find that Saul had no more—or more than the one would have See, inter alia, Haim Beinart, Expulsion of the Jews from Spain, trans. Jeffrey Green (London: Litmann Library of Jewish Civilization, 2005). 21 The traditions concerning the secret Jews in post-1492 Spain inspired Aguilar’s famous novel, The Vale of Cedars, or the Martyr, which was published posthumously (London: Groombridge & Sons, 1850). Grace Aguilar had begun writing this novel in 1831. See Galchinksy, Grace Aguilar: Selected Writings, 18. 22 The Jews were welcomed into the Ottoman Empire by Sultan Bayazid II (1481–1512). See Moise Franco, Essai sur l’histoire des Israelites de l’Empire ottoman depuis les origines jusqu’a nos jours (Paris: Dularcher, 1897); and see also Richard David Barnett and Walter Manfred Schwab, eds., The Western Sephardim: The History of the Communities Formed in Europe, the Mediterranean and the New World After the Expulsion of 1492 (Grendon, Northants: Gibraltar Books, 1989). 23 Again citing Jer. 29:7. 24 See Aguilar, above, p. 199, and see our discussion there. 20

480

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

been specified, as in the case of the other kings.25 He had two Of Saul’s wife it is stated in 1 Sam. 14:50, “And the name of Saul’s wife was Ahinoam, the daughter of Ahimaaz.” Here, however, Aguilar, perhaps deliberately, neglects to mention that Saul had also a concubine named Rizpah daughter of Aiah, whose heroic deed, recounted in 2 Sam. 21:10 will be discussed below; see, pp. 537-539. Of King Solomon it is stated explicitly in 1 Kgs. 11: 3, “And he had seven hundred wives, princesses, and three hundred concubines: and his wives turned away his heart.” It is widely agreed that we are meant to understand that the number of wives, whom Solomon married violated the injunction found in Deut. 17:17, “Neither shall he [the king] multiply wives to himself that his heart not turn away.” Rashi, commenting on the lemma “neither shall he multiply wives to himself,” states, “[The king is permitted to marry] only eighteen for we find that David had six wives, and it was said to him [by the prophet Nathan in 2 Sam. 12:8 speaking in the name of God after the incident with Bathsheba the wife of Uriah and the attempted cover-up], ‘If it is too little, I shall add to you like these and like these.’” “Add to you” would mean another six in addition to the six wives of David listed in 2 Sam. 3:2–5. “Like these” would give us another six while “and like these” would give us still another six for a total of eighteen wives. For other reasons why David must have had eighteen wives, see below in this note. Thus David, the larger number of whose wives is nowhere disparaged in Scripture, would be exonerated of having violated the prohibition found in Deut. 17:17. The author(s) of the Cairo Damascus Covenant document, who hold(s) that the Torah (in Lev. 18:18) prohibits polygamy accounts for David’s having more than one wife by the assertion that David was ignorant of the law. After all, according to 2 Kgs. 22:8, the book of the law (almost everyone agrees that this book included Deut. 17), which was found in the Temple in the course of repair-work undertaken there in the 18th year of King Josiah (622 B.C.E.), and its contents (including the prohibition against a king having many wives) was largely unknown to those to whom the contents of the scroll were read. The eight wives of David known by name were as follows: 1) Michal daughter of Saul and Ahinoam (1 Sam. 18:27); 2) Ahinoam the Jezreelitess (2 Sam. 3:2); 3) Abigail, the former wife of Nabal the Carmelite (2 Sam. 3:3); 4) Maacah, the daughter of Talmai king of Geshur (2 Sam. 3:3); 5) Haggith (2 Sam. 3:4); 6) Abital (2 Sam. 3:4); 7) Eglah (2 Sam. 3:5); 8) Bathsheba (2 Sam. 11:27). In addition, it is stated in 2 Sam. 5:13, “And David 25

FOURTH PERIOD. I. ESTABLISHMENT OF THE MONARCHY 481 daughters, Merab and Michal26 Of the former, little is mentioned; except that she it was, who was the first offered to David as an incitement to fight for Saul; who, already envious and malignant, thought to slay the valiant youth by the hands of the Philistines, and thus save himself all shame. But the Lord was with David, and had departed from Saul; and the young man must evidently have won the promised reward, for we read in Holy Writ, “It came to pass at the time when Merab should have been given to David, that she was given unto Adriel the Meholathite to wife;”27 a course of acting exactly such as we should expect from the capricious tyrant which Saul had become. Still David, with a single-mindedness and simple confidence only found in early youth, and in a youth of virtue, seems to have trusted and fought again; and this time, evidently with so much settled foresight and determination, that we might almost infer that the love which Michal, Saul’s second daughter, bore towards David was fully returned, and so inspired the dangerous expedition on which he ventured.28 We have not very much of Michal, nor any particularly pleasing portraiture of character, yet our history will not be complete without noticing all that is recorded concerning her. The deep love that in her youth she appears to have borne David, must have exposed her many times to an intensity of suffering which throws a degree of interest around her, and enlists us more warmly in her took him more concubines and wives out of Jerusalem after he was come from Hebron... .” Since, according to 2 Sam. 5:13–16, eleven sons were born to David in Jerusalem while six sons were born to him in Hebron, each to a different wife, and since 2 Sam. 6:23 reports that Michal died childless, we may conclude that each of the eleven Jerusalem wives bore David one son each. Apparently, the first son of Bathsheba, who is not named in the narrative of 2 Sam. 12:13–23, and who died is neither enumerated nor named in the list of eleven Jerusalem-born sons in 2 Sam. 5:14–16. 26 1 Sam. 14:49 reports, “Now the sons of Saul were Jonathan, and Ishui, and Melchishua, and the names of his daughters were these; the name of the firstborn Merab, and the name of the younger Michal.” 27 1 Sam. 18:19. 28 See 1 Sam. 18:20–28.

482

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

favor than we could otherwise have been. Jonathan’s faithful friendship for David always receives the meed of our admiration, the more so from his being the son of his deadliest foe. The love borne towards him by the daughter of Saul, must have been a yet stronger emotion; and in consequence subjected Michal to still deeper suffering. It does not appear that Merab loved David; and therefore Michal’s first suffering must have been excited by beholding him destined for another who loved him not; while she who had given him the first freshness and fervor of her affections was set aside and disregarded. Even when this sorrow was removed by the union of Merab with Adriel, and her love being reported to her father it pleased him as the means of ensnaring David, how little confidence could she have placed in her father’s promise, when she remembered how he had already deceived! Her fears of Saul’s caprice were, however, at this time without foundation. She became the wife of David, whom, we are told, she continued to love as fondly after marriage as before. In her case it was not “because the current of true love never will run smooth”29 that she loved him, and consequently that, when the desired happiness was obtained, its glow dissolved. Peace indeed, and rest from anxiety, she had not, even when the wife of David. The love she bore him must continually have exposed her to terror for his safety, for her father “grew yet the more afraid of David,”30 and repeatedly gave orders that he should be slain; fortunately, he had taken his son Jonathan into his confidence, and the young man boldly and firmly stood forward in his friend’s defence, venturing even to call the king’s desired deed a sin against David, who had ever done his duty alike to Saul and to his country.31 For a time his pleadings succeeded, and as David was again with Saul, as in times past, Michal’s terror might have in a degree subsided, and the heart alike of the daughter and the wife been a brief while at peace. But, again, there was war with the Philistines: and David, true to his heroic character, went out and fought Here Aguilar paraphrases the words of Lysander in Shakespeare, Midsummer Night’s Dream, Act I, Scene 1, line 134, where he states, “The course of true love never did run smooth.” 30 1 Sam. 18:29. 31 1 Sam. 19:1–6. 29

FOURTH PERIOD. I. ESTABLISHMENT OF THE MONARCHY 483 with them, and slew them with such great slaughter that they fled from him: yet how might Michal rejoice in the glorious heroism of her husband, when his deeds of valor ever recalled the king’s deadly hatred, and exposed him to renewed peril? Even in the very act of charming, by his exquisite skill on the harp, the evil spirit from the monarch’s heart, Saul flung the javelin which he had in his hand with such fierce and deadly aim, that David only escaped instant death by starting aside, and the instrument struck the wall. He fled from the royal presence to his own home, revealing by his sudden return the danger he had incurred, and recalling all Michal’s fears.32 Nor was the danger over. Messengers sent to David’s house to watch and slay him in the morning, at once roused the terror and the energy of his devoted wife. David was so universally beloved, that information of the king’s intentions towards him had in all probability been transmitted to Michal by the messengers themselves, or through the agency of Jonathan, who, like his sister, was ever on the alert for David’s preservation. In whatever way she received tidings of his danger, it is certain that she it was whose energy and judgment saved him; arousing him “to save thy life tonight, else to-morrow thou wilt be slain.”33 We find neither complaint nor bewailing on the part of Michal, though she was parting from her husband for an indefinite period, during which time suffering and horror of every description might assail both him and her; that she felt, even to anguish, we must believe, for we have been twice told that she “loved David.”34And those who love, can alone have an adequate idea of all that parting must have been; yet feeling itself succumbed before the energy of will, which only sought his preservation, scarcely allowing time even for words of kindness or one farewell embrace. “She let him down through a window, and he went, and fled, and escaped;”35 and Michal, not daring to give way to emotion, busied herself in carrying out her stratagem to obtain sufficient time for his escape, ere he was pursued. She laid an image in David’s bed, and put a 1 Sam. 19:8–10. 1 Sam. 19:11. 34 1 Sam. 18:20, 28. 35 1 Sam. 19:12. 32 33

484

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

pillow of goat’s hair for his bolster, and covered it with a cloth; and when the morning came, and Saul’s messengers demanded David, she calmly told them he was sick; and with that information they evidently returned to their sovereign, probably not at all sorry that David was unable to accompany them. The wrath of the king, however, was not to be turned aside; he commanded them—“Bring him up to me in the bed, that I may slay him” And, again proceeding to his house, the deceit was discovered, and Michal herself brought before her father.36 “Wherefore hast thou deceived me so,” he demanded, “and sent away mine enemy that he has escaped?” And Michal answered Saul, “He said unto me, Let me go; why should I kill thee?” an answer which, though by the previous narrative not strictly true, was perhaps allowable from the dangerous and difficult position in which Michal was placed. To avow the share she had in his escape, would only have aggravated her father’s anger; and though the enemy and persecutor of her innocent husband, yet Saul was still her father; and Michal, who had, no doubt, been brought up in the peculiarly strict and reverential feelings of Hebrew children to their parents, might not have felt justified in exciting her father’s wrath towards herself, more than David’s escape had already done. The answer appears to have satisfied Saul so far as his daughter was concerned; but the search and pursuit after David continued unabated.37 During the immediate pressure of danger, the mind and heart are supported by their own energy; and we know not how fearfully the nerves have been overstrained till the period of action is past, and we can only be still and endure. How sadly this must have been the case with Michal we may well imagine, when we remember that, from the hour of his escape by her means until he was established in the sovereignty of Israel, an interval of five or six years, she never looked on the husband of her love again. Month after month, year after year, if she heard of him at all, it must have been still as a wanderer flying from place to place, at the imminent risk of his life, either from the emissaries of Saul, or from the treachery and spite of the various courts in which he was compelled to take a 36 37

1 Sam. 19:13–17. 1 Sam. 19:18–23.

FOURTH PERIOD. I. ESTABLISHMENT OF THE MONARCHY 485 refuge. At one time even the inmate of caves and deserts—at another forced to feign madness—often in want of actual food and other necessaries of daily life; and yet more than these;38—Michal was a woman, and a loving woman; and though the custom of marrying many wives was not illegal in Judea, and not felt as it would be now, we have already seen that it was productive of sometimes sorrow and vexation;39 and to the absent and the loving Michal, the thought that David had found others to supply her place, and that therefore he could not need or think of her as she did of him, must have been fraught with no little degree of bitterness greatly aggravating the pang of separation.40 Nor was this all. We are told (1 Sam. xxv. 44), “that Saul had given Michal his daughter, David’s wife, to Phalti, the son of Laish,” an act of capricious tyranny in direct disobedience to the laws of Israel. A divorce might permit a woman to become the wife of another man, but no divorce whatever had taken place between David and Michal;41 and consequently Saul’s action must only have 1 Sam. 20–24. Cf. the narratives of Sarai/Sarah and Hagar (Gen. 16; 21); the narratives concerning the rivalry of Jacob’s wives Leah and Rachel (Gen. 30); and the narrative concerning the rivalry of Elkanah’s wives Hannah and Peninah (1 Sam. 1) all treated by Aguilar in great detail above, and not always in the manner in which many readers have been taught. 40 Indeed, it is reported in 1 Sam. 25 that in the midst of his constant fleeing from Saul, David found time to marry Abigail (1 Sam. 25:39–42. And, without pausing to take a breath, Scripture continues in 1 Sam. 25:43, “David also took Ahinoam of Jezreel, and they were also both of them his wives.” 41 Aguilar does not realize this, but here she interprets biblical narrative in the light of Israel’s “Oral law,” on which see above, pp. 356-359, which takes for granted that when Deut. 24:1–2 states, “If a man betroths a wife and marries her and then it so happens that she fails to please him because he finds something offensive about her and he writes for her a bill of divorce and gives it to her and sends her away from his house and she leaves his house and goes and becomes someone else’s wife,” the text is 1) prescribing the procedure by means of which a divorce is effected (the writing of a bill of divorce by the husband or his agent and his hand38 39

486

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

proceeded from that determined persecution of the Lord’s Annointed, which urged him to annoy him in every possible way, even if to do so occasioned disobedience to the law. That Michal herself could never have voluntarily acquiesced, when we know how “she loved David,”42 is neither possible nor probable. Saul had become a tyrant even to his own family; and the same man who could cast a javelin at his noble son Jonathan, with the hope to slay him, after heaping on him all manner of abuse, only because of his love for, and defence of David,43 would not scruple to outrage every feeling of his daughter, and compel her, by the most iniquitous force, to annul her brief period of connexion with David, and become the wife of another. That Michal was the unhappy sufferer, not the agent in these nefarious and most illegal proceedings, is clearly evident from two circumstances. In the first place, we are expressly told, “that Saul

ing it over to her directly or by a messenger in the presence of a Rabbinic court); and 2) declaring that if that procedure has been followed, she may indeed contract a second marriage. In reality, Deut. 24:1–3, which is frequently invoked in support of some (but not all) of the necessary procedures for effecting a divorce and remarriage after divorce in Rabbinic Judaism, is actually the protasis of a conditional sentence, whose main concern is to prohibit the remarriage of a couple in the event that the divorced wife has in the interim been married to someone else, a law, which it has been believed, at least since the Middle Ages, was meant to close a legal loophole, which might have been utilized to justify wifeswapping or swinging as a form of kosher sex. Characteristically, KJV, influenced by ancient and medieval Jewish halakhic exegesis, translates Deut. 24:2 not as part of a long protasis but simply as an halakhic statement: “And when she is departed out of his house, she may go and be another man’s wife.” In an halakhic context the truth of that statement is conditional upon the assumption that the divorce procedures including the writing of the bill of divorce were properly carried out by a competent Rabbinic ecclesiastical court and that the competence of that court is recognized by the second bridegroom and by his rabbi! 42 1 Sam. 18:20, 28; see above. 43 1 Sam. 20:33.

FOURTH PERIOD. I. ESTABLISHMENT OF THE MONARCHY 487 gave Michal his daughter,” &c.44 Her name, as agent is not mentioned, whence we infer that it was her father’s tyranny, against which a weak and defenceless woman had no power to rebel. In the second, it is clearly demonstrable that she herself was blameless, else would not David have made her restoration to himself one of the very first proceedings of his regal power. Had there been even the semblance of a divorce, he could not have done this, the law expressly forbidding it; but the iniquitous tyranny of Saul, in this outrage to his child, completely justified David’s after-proceedings. lie would not visit on a blameless child the sins of a guilty father, by leaving her in a position to which parental tyranny had assigned her; but recalled her to his heart and to his home, at the very time when, had his noble spirit retained any spark of enmity towards the house of Saul, he might, and with some appearance of justice, have permitted her to remain neglected and uncared for, in the equivocal station which, as no divorce had taken place between her and himself, she must unavoidably have occupied in Phalti’s house.45 The next mention we have of Michal after her restoration to David, is indicative of a feeling very contrary to that which at first attracted us towards her, and displays an imperfection of character which we might perhaps expect from the daughter of Saul, but certainly not from the wife of David. For the last twenty years, the ark of God had remained in Kirjath Jearim, in the house of Abinadab, whose son, Eleazer, had

441

Sam. 25:44. The account of Michal’s restoration to David is found in 2 Sam. 3:12–16. Abner, King Saul’s general offered to switch his loyalty from Saul to David. David agreed to negotiate with Abner on one condition, namely that he bring back Michal to David (2 Sam. 3:13). Meanwhile, “David sent messengers to Ish-bosheth Saul’s son, saying, Deliver me my wife Michal, which I espoused to me for an hundred foreskins of the Philistines. And Ish-bosheth sent, and took her from her husband, even from Phaltiel the son of Laish. And her husband [Phaltiel] went with her along weeping behind her to Bahurim. Then said Abner unto him. Go return. And he returned” (2 Sam. 3:14–16). 45

488

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

been sanctified to keep it.46 Through all the troubles of the reign of Saul it had quietly remained there; no inclination having been demonstrated by either king or subjects to remove it, and so arguing an indifference to its sacred presence, only too fully borne out by the many illegal acts of Saul. David could not feel this indifference. The ark of God was to him so inexpressibly sacred, that his heart yearned for its holy influence in the city where he dwelt; and therefore every preparation was made for conducting it to Hebron with all befitting sanctity and honor. The fear, however, excited by the smiting of Uzzah for his irreverence, urged his turning it aside from the direct road to the city, and bringing it into the house of Obededom, the Gittite.47 There it abode three months; and the Lord so blessed Obed-edom, and all his household, that David again coveted its presence in his own city, believing with a child-like and loving faith that the presence of the Lord dwelt there, and would bless all those who sought to do him reverence and honor. “So David went and brought up the ark of God from the house of Obededom, to the city of David, with gladness.”48 It was a very jubilee of rejoicing to the inmates of Hebron. Trumpets and holy songs marked its progress, and every six paces sacrifices of oxen and fatlings were offered to the Lord; and the king himself, disrobed of all regal ornaments, and attired simply in a linen ephod as one of the inferior priests, joined with his whole heart in the solemn rejoicing, by leaping and dancing before the Lord. The mode of this holy rejoicing may read strangely to our refined ears; but the song and the dance were ever the natural symbols of rejoicing in Israel. Amusements, which are by many deemed so profane as to be excluded from all professors of religion, were, in Judea and by the chosen people of God,49 not only allowed, but In 1 Sam. 6:21–7:1 it is reported that the men of Kirjath-jearim went to Beth-Shemesh and brought the Ark up to Kirjath-jearim “into the house of Abinadab in the hill, and sanctified Eleazar his son to keep the ark of the LORD.” Moreover, 1 Sam. 7:2 reports that the ark remained there for twenty years. 47 2 Sam.6:1–10. 48 2 Sam. 6:11–12. 49 See above, p. 248, n. 31. 46

FOURTH PERIOD. I. ESTABLISHMENT OF THE MONARCHY 489 sanctified and hallowed, by their intimate association with the service of the Lord.50 “And as the ark came into the city of David, Michal, Saul’s daughter, looked through a window, and saw the king rejoicing, &c. And she despised him in her heart.”51 Despised him she who had once so loved him? How could contempt exist with love? Michal was a very woman; it was not the leaping and dancing she despised, but that King David should, without any semblance of royalty or state, clothed in the lowly garments of an inferior priest, mingle with the crowds, and become for the time as one of them. We know that such were her feelings by her scornful address to the king, when on the conclusion of the burnt-offerings and peaceofferings David returned to bless his household, and was met by Michal, eager to give vent to her contempt. “How glorious was the king of Israel to-day, who uncovered himself (meaning removed the coverings of royalty)52 in the eyes of the lowest of his servants, even as one of the vain fellows shamelessly uncovereth himself,” alluding to the lowest class of the people, who were often compelled to remove their long upper garment, lest it should hinder them in their work. “And David said unto Michal, It was before the Lord, which chose me before thy father, and before all his house, to appoint me ruler over the people of the Lord, over Israel: and therefore will I rejoice before the Lord. And I will yet be more vile than thus, and be base in my own sight; and (yet more) of the maidservants of which thou hast spoken, shall I be had in honor;”53 a calm yet emphatic reproof, bringing forcibly before her the folly of her contempt. What were the trappings of state, the distinction of ranks, before the Eternal? In His sight king and serf, prince and peasant, were the same, judged only by the rendering of the heart towards Him, by their zeal or indifference in His service. It was the Lord who had made David what he was, and therefore what was he more in His sight than the lowest of his subjects? Nor did he rejoice merely from individual thanksgiving. It was the purest joy to a 2 Sam. 6:14-15. 2 Sam. 6:16. 52 2 Sam. 6:20. 53 2 Sam. 6:21–22. 50 51

490

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

heart like David’s, that to him the blessed privilege was granted of bringing the ark of the Lord into his city; a proof that the Eternal deigned to bless the city of David with His immediate presence, and must in itself have created not only individual, but national rejoicing. The allusion to his having been chosen in lieu of Michal’s father, and all his house, cannot in any way be regarded as unkind and uncalled-for reproach from David to his wife.54 The extent of the love he bore her, we infer not only from the fact of his recalling her, but from his making her restoration an absolute condition with Abner ere he would accept that warrior’s allegiance. Abner was a person of the greatest consequence in Israel, alike from his near connexion with the family of Saul, his great influence with the people, and his skill and courage as a warrior. To obtain his subjection and allegiance was of almost vital importance to the popularity of David; yet did that monarch refuse to receive him, even at the risk of sacrificing his offered submission, unless he would bring him back his wife. No feeling, therefore, actuated him towards Michal as Saul’s daughter. Nor would a syllable of reproach have escaped his lips concerning her parentage, had he not been roused to just indignation, by her reproaching him with his zeal in the service of his God. Nothing is more painful, or more difficult to be borne with patience, than a contemptuous attack on our zeal in devotion, or on our ardent wish to serve the Lord, either in glorifying him, or doing good to our fellow-creatures; and the nearer and dearer the person who utters such reproach, the more exquisitely painful is it to bear. Michal does not appear to have been a religious woman. In no part of her history can we trace the workings of that secret, yet everacting piety, which characterized so many of her countrywomen. Her very love for David would seem to have been excited, not so much from his beautiful and unwavering piety, but from the dazzling beauty and chivalric qualities which had so distinguished him. Aguilar here refers to 2 Sam. 6:21: “And David said unto Michal It was before the LORD, which chose me before thy father, and before all his house, to appoint me ruler over the people of the LORD, over Israel: therefore will I play before the LORD.” 54

FOURTH PERIOD. I. ESTABLISHMENT OF THE MONARCHY 491 Had she been religious, her joy and thanksgiving that the ark of her God was permitted to abide in her husband’s city would have occupied her mind, to the exclusion of every petty and contemptuous feeling. Had she loved David for those spiritual qualities which had so gained him the loving favor of the Lord, delight and admiration that to him this privilege was accorded, must utterly have prevented all thought and emotion but veneration and rejoicing; but that it was merely exterior beauty and brilliant qualities which had attracted her, is clearly evident from the scornful contempt with which she regarded him, when these were laid aside for the moment, and naught could find entrance into the heart of David, but rejoicing, thankfulness, and holy zeal. David was satisfied with administering a just reproof; but the Lord was not: and from the punishment which befel Michal, we must infer that her sin was greater than at a first perusal it may seem. That it was not contempt of David only which she felt, but contempt of the holy service in which he was engaged; and therefore was it “that Michal the daughter of Saul had no child unto the day of her death;”55 not only debarred from having children of her own, but even deprived by a subsequent act of the Eternal’s justice of the five she had acquired by adoption.56 In 2 Sam. xxi., we find mention of a famine in Israel, which was to arouse David to the fact that all the awful actions of Saul and his bloody house were not yet atoned, and reparation to the Gibeonites still to be made. Seven of Saul’s nearest descendants they demanded should be delivered up to them, in lieu of either gold or silver, or even execution on the part of Israel’s king. David, guided by the Lord, delivered up in consequence two of Saul’s remaining sons, and his five grandsons, which Merab his eldest daughter had borne to her husband Adriel, and whom Holy Writ informs us, “Michal had brought up for Adriel the son of Barzillai the Meholathite.”57 Thus was she doubly childless, and by a bereavement most awful in its kind; yet the very choice of these might not only be for justice done to the Gibeonites, but to work out still more fully the 2 Sam. 6:23. Aguilar explains this forthwith; read on. 57 See 2 Sam. 21:1–8. 55 56

492

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

Eternal’s anger against Michal. The same spirit which had incited her to scorn His holy service, might have prompted the very adoption of these children in proud defiance to his almighty will. Children of her own she might be restrained from having, but who or what was to prevent her adopting the children of her sister, and making them in every respect her own? If such were in truth her incitement to their adoption (and we only suppose it from an impartial consideration of her character), how fearfully must she have been taught the sinful and miserable vanity of striving with the Lord! How much better it would have been to have humbled herself in penitence and prayer before Him, acknowledging the justice of His first sentence of childishness, and endeavoring so to reform her heart and life, as not only to become more worthy of her husband’s love, but to regain the loving mercy of the Lord; not by a change in His decree, for that was immutable as Himself, but by the spiritual calm and blessedness which He grants to all who love Him. Had she done so, she might have been happier, notwithstanding her having no child, than she had ever been before; but of such conduct we have no trace. She looked only to human means for the acquirement of happiness, and those proved indeed “the reed wheron if a man lean, it will go into his hand and pierce it.”58 The mention of her having brought up the sons of Adriel, is the last notice which we have of Michal. Her character is not one to linger on with either pleasure or admiration, and therefore we cannot regret that we have reached its close.59 The only pleasing trait about her is her love for David;60 and that he truly loved her, The quotation is from 2 Kgs. 18:21 = Isa. 36:6 where the Assyrian official Rabshaqeh taunts King Hezekiah of Judah for relying upon Pharaoh, king of Egypt for help against the Assyrian threat, and the Rabshaqeh compares Pharaoh to a bruised reed, which not only cannot help but also can hurt the person(s), who lean(s) upon it. 59 When Aguilar decides that a woman or man in the biblical narrative has offended one of her heroines or heroes, she has no sympathy for the offender. Cf. her treatment of Hagar, pp. 85-121; and her discussion of Rachel, pp. 193-226. 60 This is mentioned twice in the Bible, in 1 Sam. 18:20 and 1 Sam. 18:28. Aguilar mentions Michal’s love for David three times, possibly be58

FOURTH PERIOD. I. ESTABLISHMENT OF THE MONARCHY 493 endows her with an interest scarcely her own. Nor can we find any part of either her history or character to hold up as an example. A warning indeed it presents us, and one which, alas! but too many of us need. How often does silent and unavowed, yet still realized contempt, fill the human heart, when we witness an outpouring of zeal, to which our own cold unexcitable natures never can attain! How frequently do we condemn enthusiasm as romantic folly, only because to us it is incomprehensible; and, an evil still worse, how often do we secretly scorn the religion of those whose outward forms may appear to us childish, or unfounded, and not needed to bring up our prayers before the Lord! How many times do we contemn those who in the merest trifle differ from that standard of holiness which we may have set up for ourselves, and refuse to believe in their sincerity, because its semblance is unlike our own. And in scorn and disdain towards those who serve the Lord with those forms which their conscience approves and dictates,—oh! let us beware, lest contempt extend to the service as well as to the servers—to the religion as well as to the forms. This was the sin of Michal. For this the Lord Himself chastised her; and that, she was chastised, is an unerring proof to us how deeply displeasing in the sight of the Eternal is contempt for holy things. Let us then look with more charity on the mere outward forms of our brethren, however they may differ from our own preconceived opinions. Let us not condemn their zeal,61 or be too hasty in pronouncing enthucause these are the only two assertions concerning she loved him in biblical narrative. Perhaps, Aguilar dwells on these assertions about Michal because they represent the preservation of women’s testimony concerning women’s feelings in the midst of the biblical narrative, which, like most canonical history, tells us only rarely herstory. 61 Apparently, Aguilar refers here to the possibly less decorous service of the Ashkenazic Jews, recently arrived from Central and Eastern Europe, as against the more decorous services of the Spanish and Portuguese Jews at Bevis Marks. Indeed, it has been suggested that in the nineteenth century a number of American Jewish congregations such as Mikveh Israel in Philadelphia and Kahal Kadosh Beth Elohim in Charleston continued to worship according to the Portuguese rite long after the majority of the congregations were of Ashkenazic background simply be-

494

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

siasm the service of the lip and not of the heart. If we look well within ourselves to know what may be lurking there, what may need rooting out (even if to do so painfully severs the habits and prejudices of years), to discover if our own hearts and spirits be perfect with our God, we shall have little time for contempt towards the religious observances of others, and be thus effectually shielded from following in the mistaken steps of Michal, and like her incurring the wrath and chastisement of the Lord.62

cause all agreed that the Portuguese rite was more decorous and served the Jews better in their public relations with the Gentile world, which in any case, had a long history of regarding the Jews as outlandish, in both the literal and the metaphoric sense. 62 Here, as usual, Aguilar derives a lesson for her contemporaries from the account of how a biblical character was severely punished just for making light of another biblical character’s performing a seemingly indecorous religious ceremony.

CHAPTER II. ABIGAIL Before commencing our next biographical sketch, we would call our readers’ attention to one verse contained in the history we have just completed, as it so strikingly confirms our often-repeated assertion, that in the religion of God the women of Israel were privileged to join in all religious ceremonies, and to receive the blessings of king or priest equally with the men.1 We have already noticed the procession of the Ark into Hebron, the sacrifices and shoutings and soundings of the trumpets; and that when they had brought in the Ark of the Lord, and set it in its place in the midst of the Tabernacle that David had pitched for it—and David had sacrificed burnt offerings and peace offerings before the Lord—as soon as he had made an end of the offerings, he blessed the people in the name of the Lord of Hosts. And he dealt among all the people, even among the whole multitude of Israel, as well to the WOMEN as the men, “to every one a cake of bread, a good piece of flesh, and a flagon of wine; so all the people departed, every one to his house.”2 In most public rejoicings, it is generally thought sufficient to provide for families not for individuals. In Israel, we find every one sent away, with the means of not only feasting for the day, but for some days afterwards. And by the particular mention of women as well as men, we see that they were not only witnesses of the sacred procession and of the sacrifices, but were singled out by the king as receivers, alike of his blessing and his bounty. This is but a trifling circumstance in itself; yet every verse in the Word of God tending Cf. Gruber, “Women in the Cult According to the Priestly Code,” 52, n. 5 2 2 Sam. 6:18–19. 1

495

496

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

to make manifest the equality of the Hebrew females, their peculiar and glorious privileges as women of Israel, is of no small importance. According even to the ultra orthodox, the law and its traditionary explanation must have been in force, both in theory and practice, during the monarchy of Israel; and if we can find no evidence there of the slavery and ignorance of woman, it is clear that the laws which are said to command these things have no foundation in Judaism.3 We now come to a character which proves the dignity and elevation of the Israelitish woman most completely. There was a man in Maon, whose possessions were in Carmel; and the man was very great, and he had three thousand sheep, and a thousand goats. His name was Nabal, of the house of Caleb, churlish in his disposition, and evil in his doings.4 He had a wife named Abigail, of whom we are expressly told by the Sacred Historian,5 that “she was a woman Here Aguilar intimates that non-Jews who claim that Hebrew Scripture and Judaism aim to subordinate women and to keep them ignorant neither know nor understand either Scripture or Judaism. Moreover, she intimates that members of the Jewish power structure, who think that the only proper place for women in Jewish public life is in the kitchen preparing the collation, likewise, lack both knowledge and understanding. It is to impart this knowledge to Jewish women that they may exercise their rights and fulfill their responsibilities, to the Jewish community that it not interfere with the exercise of those rights and the fulfillment of those responsibilities on the part of Jewish women, and to the Christian missionaries, who want to save the Jews that they should know that Jewish women do not need Christianity to be saved from enslavement and ignorance. Aguilar intimates that what is needed is for Judaism to be fully known and fully practiced by women and men alike. 4 1 Sam. 25:2–3. 5 Aguilar employs this expression three times in vol. 1 with respect to Gen. 27:41; 29:17; and 31:32. As noted above, p. 35 n. 27, the anonymous author of Genesis is traditionally understood to be Moses. With respect to the Book of Samuel, Babylonian Talmud, Bava Batra 14b declares the anonymous author or narrator to be the Prophet Samuel. However, it is plausible to assign to the latter prophet the authorship of the Books of Samuel only up to 1 Sam. 1–24 for in 1 Sam. 25:1 it is reported, “And 3

FOURTH PERIOD. II. ABIGAIL

497

of good understanding and of a beautiful countenance.”6 How such a superior person could ever have become the wife of the churlish Nabal, we might be at a loss to discover, did we not feel with a quaint old chronicler, that love of wealth was as likely to be found in ancient Israel as in other nations, and that Nabal’s wealth had in consequence been a greater attraction in the eyes of Abigail’s father than the domestic happiness of his child, which happiness an evil temper must inevitably have destroyed; the beauty and the very gifts of Abigail were likely to have won Nabal’s love; for affection and even kindness may be found in churlish dispositions, though neither can be pleasantly demonstrated. Perfect freedom and equality Abigail evidently enjoyed in her husband’s house; but the want of companionship for her superior understanding, the constant annoyances which Cabal’s temper must have occasioned her, even if not shown to herself, displayed broadly in her household and to all who sought favors or even common courtesy at his hand, must have painfully embittered her domestic life. Still we do not find that either her energy or happy temper sank under it, as would have been the case with any but a very superior mind. Nothing is so infectious as an evil temper. The strongest control, the most enduring and everacting piety, the most determined resolution to bear and forbear, to love and to forgive, however often pained or annoyed; all these must be experienced and practised by a wife, if the evil temper of her husband really fails to sour hers. Some meek gentle dispositions and unwavering sweetness of temper, may indeed stand the torrent of churlishness uninjured; but in these, though the temper does not fail, health and energy both succumb, and the most lasting misery is the consequence. Abigail evidently did not belong to this latter class, or she could not have acted in an emergency of terror as we find she did.7 Samuel died; and all the Israelites were gathered together and lamented him ... .” And the narrative of Abigail commences in 1 Sam. 25:2! 6 1 Sam. 25:3. 7 Here Aguilar has anticipated the realization discussed by Maria Saur, Linda Semu, and Stella Hauya Ndau, Nkhanza: Listening to People’s Voices: A Study of Gender-Based Violence Nkhanza in Three Districts of Malawi (Zomba: Kachere Series, 2005) that gender-based violence, which debilitates the

498

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

The confusion and misery reigning in Judea, from the Lord’s rejection of Saul until his death, do not appear to have penetrated as far as Carmel, so as to interfere with the usual rural employments of the Israelites. Rumors of the contest between Saul and David, of the cruelties of the former and troubles of the latter, had no doubt spread far and near, and had enlisted the popular feelings in favor of the noble and persecuted David. It was sheep-shearing time, and all Nabal’s flocks were gathered together; while feasting and merry-making diversified the pleasant labor in the household, and displayed the plenteousness of Nabal’s stores. Feeling his safety still less secure since the recent death of Samuel, David, with his men, had retreated into the wilderness of Paran, in the vicinity of Carmel, where Nabal’s flocks were fed. Scorning to appropriate to himself the smallest portion of the wealth of another, however sorely pressed by hunger and privation, David waited till the sheepshearing, a time when most men’s hearts were open towards their poorer brethren, and sent messengers to Nabal, bidding them greet him in his (David’s) name, and with a winning courtesy which spoke well for the gentle and lowly character of the Lord’s anointed, ask the food and drink he so imperatively needed. “Peace be both to thee, and peace be to thine house, and peace unto all that thou hast. And now I have heard that thou hast shearers: now thy shepherds which were with us, we hurt them not, neither was there spouse physically, mentally and emotionally, need not be confined to physical abuse but extends to verbal insults and uncouth behavior in the company of the spouse even if not specifically directed against the spouse. Moreover, developmental psychologist Dorothea M. Ross, Childhood Bullying and Teasing: What School Personnel, Other Professionals, and Parents Can Do (Alexandria, VA: American Counseling Association, 1996) points out that too often parents encourage their child to pay no attention to teasing, repeating the old adage, “Sticks and stones may break my bones but names will never hurt me.” Such advice, argues Ross, is of no help since, in fact, verbal abuse can and does lead to depression, anxiety, insomnia, suicide, and violent outbursts. In addition, argues Ross, telling a victim of verbal abuse to “tough it out” merely communicates to the victim the sense that you simply are not listening. See Cheu Mita, “Teasing and the Child,” The Nation, Malawi, Sunday April 19, 2009, p. 17.

FOURTH PERIOD. II. ABIGAIL

499

aught missing unto them, all the while they were in Carmel. Ask thy young men, and they will show thee. Wherefore let the young men find favor in thine eyes: for we come in a good day: give, I pray thee, whatsoever cometh to thine hand unto thy servants, and to thy son David.”8 Could any address have been more gentle and respectful, or more calculated to have found an equally conciliating reply? Instead of which, we find Nabal, true to his churlish character, peremptorily refusing, and scornfully demanding, “Who is David? and who is the son of Jesse? there be many servants nowadays that break away every man from his master. Shall I then take my bread, and my water, and my flesh, that I have killed for my shearers, and give it unto men whom I know not whence they be?”9 He might easily have known, by an inquiry of his own young men, to whom David, as a warrant of his truth, had so unhesitatingly referred him; but to do so would have inferred a softening spirit; and their information, perhaps, might have compelled him to comply with David’s request: therefore he listened only to the dictates of his own ill-temper, caring not for the consequences, or indeed thinking of anything but the peculiar pleasure it was to be disobliging and ungrateful;10 for from the after-words of David, it 1 Sam. 25:4–8. 1 Sam. 25:10–11. 10 Aguilar makes the very important point that people who cultivate an obnoxious demeanor derive pleasure from this. Consequently, the attempt to educate people to understand that they can derive just as much pleasure from being nice, needs to be encouraged. Likewise, the disparagement of obnoxious behavior should not be dismissed on the grounds that she/he did not mean any harm. If indeed, a person did not absorb in kindergarten the lesson that churlish behavior ought to be offensive to normal people, that person can and should be educated in accord with Lev. 19:18, “you shall in any wise rebuke your [misbehaving] neighbor.” And if the person did it deliberately, she/he can and should be warned that “in this family/synagogue/church/ workplace we are cultivating a people-friendly environment. If you cannot conform, go somewhere else; we are not going to roll over and play dead.” In fact, verbal abuse is forbidden in halakhah. See Mishnah, Bava Mesia 4:10. Precisely because it does not pertain 8 9

500

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

would seem that he had not only restrained his needy followers from taking any part of Nabal’s property, but absolutely protected them from the bands of marauders which, from the fearful state of the kingdom, prowled about Judea.11 The indignation of the young warrior was roused by this surly refusal, perhaps to somewhat too great an extent; but David, though so truly holy and pious, and perfect in his heart towards God, as to be spiritually favored by Him above all his fellows, is never portrayed in Holy Writ as anything but a mortal, with all the infirmities and feelings of humanity. He was roused not only by this ill return for his courtesy, but by the requital of evil for good; and in a moment of anger, he commanded all his young men to gird on their swords, and with a troop of four hundred equally indignant as himself, marched from the wilderness in the direction of Nabal’s dwelling, resolved utterly to exterminate all that belonged

to what one eats or wears it is not one of those offenses about which there ought to be a difference of opinion between Orthodox and nonOrthodox Judaism. 11 Cf. Rashi on Gen. 24:10. The latter Scripture verse states, “The servant took ten camels of the camels of his master [Abraham].” Responding to the exegetical question as to how these camels differed from all other camels, Rashi explains: “They could be distinguished from other camels because they went out muzzled to avoid thievery, [i.e.], so that they would not graze in someone else’s field.” The common thread that runs through the description of the effort that David expended even in time of war not to trespass on the property of others and to prevent others from trespassing as well and Rashi’s (following Genesis Rabbah) description of Abraham’s camels is that virtuous people avoid at all costs taking anything that is not theirs. The parade example of the opposite of the virtuous behavior described in 1 Sam. 25:7, 15–16 and explicated by Aguilar in the preceding paragraph is the person who nibbles fruit and vegetables without paying for it at the supermarket. The prohibition of such misbehavior is the small step to virtuous behavior that can be taught to children when they accompany one to the supermarket, and they will remember the lesson and the person who taught it to them just as they learn a jingle, a benediction, or a ceremony, and it will serve them well, and they will bless you for it.

FOURTH PERIOD. II. ABIGAIL

501

to him;12 and no doubt he would have done so, had not his wrath been turned aside, and his better spirit recalled, by the energy and judgment of a beautiful and noble-minded woman.13 The high opinion which the superior understanding and unwavering temper of Abigail had won her in the minds and hearts of her household, is clearly evident from all which followed her husband’s speech. One of the young men to whom David had referred as witnesses of his truth, hastened to his mistress, and informed her of all that had occurred. “Behold, David sent messengers out of the wilderness to salute our master; and he railed on them [a forcible description, in a few words, of the request and the reply]. But the men were very good unto us, and we were not hurt, neither missed we anything, as long as we were conversant with them in the fields: they were a wall unto us both by night and by day, all the while we were with them keeping the sheep. Now therefore know and consider what thou wilt do; for evil is determined against our master, and against all his household: for he is such a man of Belial, that a man cannot speak to him.”14 From these words, we are led to suppose that the young man who spoke had seen enough of David, when in the wilderness together, to feel well assured that such ungraciousness would be severely punished. To attempt to speak to his master he knew was impossible, for his words would either have been wholly disregarded, or not even allowed to be spoken. We see, too, that he was ready and willing to bear witness to David’s truth, but his master was such a man of Belial, that he dared not speak to him; yet he was too faithful to allow such a danger to fall upon his churlish master unawares, and so sought his mistress, whose gentleness and wisdom were in all probability the real source of his fidelity, and of that of all his companions. Abigail lost no time in either lamentations on their hovering danger, or in aspersions on her churlish husband. Her active and energetic character is clearly displayed in the promptness and judgment of her proceedings. She asked no advice, demanded no 1 Sam. 25:13. 1 Sam. 25:14–20. 14 1 Sam. 25:14–17. 12 13

502

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

assistance, requiring only the willing help of her domestics, and acting on the impulse of the moment as judiciously and quietly, as if she had months to think and to prepare. No woman could have done this, unless her understanding was ever in exercise, her mind well trained, and her principles so regulated as ever to guide her impulses aright. It is only when the mind and principles are unregulated that impulses are dangerous, and peculiarly liable to mislead. The habit of thinking when life is smooth, prepares us for acting promptly on an emergency; and the impulse that we follow springs scarcely so much from the feelings of the moment, as from the habit of steady thought to which we have long subjected our minds before. Such must have been the character and habits of the wife of Nabal, for we read that she “made haste, and took two hundred loaves, two bottles of wine, five sheep ready dressed, five measures of parched corn, an hundred clusters of raisins, and two hundred cakes of figs, and laid them on asses. And she said to her servants, go on before me; and behold, I come after you. But she told not her husband Nabal.”15 She knew it was useless so to do, for she might not hope for his permission, and all depended on speed and decision. His safety, her own, and that of her whole household, was at stake. It was no time for deference to one who would oppose, for the very sake of opposition, even if his life were the sacrifice of his foolishness; and so mounting her ass, she speedily followed her servants. She could not have gone very far, when David and his armed men, in alarming fulfilment of her servant’s fears, “came down against her, and she met them.”16 Dismounting from her ass, she hastened to pay him the reverential homage due to him, alike as the anointed of the Lord and the destined king of Israel; and kneeling at his feet, addressed him in a strain so fraught with the spirit of wisdom and piety, so truly deferential, without one spark of cringing servility, rising, as she proceeded, almost into prophecy, that we can but wonder and admire.17

1 Sam. 25:18–19. 1 Sam. 25:20. 17 1 Sam. 25:21. 15 16

FOURTH PERIOD. II. ABIGAIL

503

“Upon me, my lord, upon me let this iniquity be,” she answered, wisely seeking to turn David’s anger on herself, that by her speedy submission it might be averted; “yet let thine handmaid, I pray thee, speak in thine ears, and hear the words of thine handmaid. Let not my lord, I pray thee, regard this man of Belial, even Nabal: for as his name is, so is he; Nabal is his name, and folly is with him: but I thine handmaid saw not the young men of my lord, whom thou didst send. Now therefore, my lord, as the LORD liveth, and as thy soul liveth, seeing the LORD hath withholden thee from coming to shed blood, and from avenging thyself with thine own hand, now let thine enemies, and those that seek evil to my lord, be as Nabal. And now this blessing (or gift) which thine handmaid hath brought unto my lord, let it be even given unto the young men that follow my lord. I pray thee forgive the trespass of thine handmaid; for the LORD will certainly make my lord a sure house; because my lord fighteth the battles of the LORD, and evil hath not been found in thee all thy days. Yet a man is risen to pursue thee, and to seek thy soul: but the soul of my lord shall be bound up in the bundle of life with the LORD thy God; and the souls of thine enemies, them shall He sling out as from the middle of a sling. And it shall come to pass, when the LORD shall have done to my lord according to all the good that He hath spoken concerning thee, and shall have appointed thee ruler over Israel; that this shall be no grief unto thee, nor offence of heart unto my lord, either that thou hast shed blood causeless, or that my lord hath avenged himself; but when the LORD shall have dealt well with my lord, then remember thine handmaid.”18 In not one word of this beautiful address do we find Abigail forgetting her own dignity, by that fulsome adulation with which a mind of a less elevated grade would have sought to disarm David’s wrath. She does not say one word which grates upon the mind as flattery. All of greatness, of victory, of life which was to befall David, she attributes to the one only source, the ordainment and the blessing of the Lord; and that victory only obtained, because it was not his own, but the LORD’S battles which he fought. She speaks of his becoming king of Israel, of the Eternal accomplishing 18

1 Sam. 25:24–31.

504

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

all that He had spoken concerning David as things assured, although at the very time she spoke, David was a persecuted exile, with not a place but the wild desert in which to lay his head; and all those who loved or showed him kindness, exposed to wrath and even massacre at the hand of Saul. What but faith, the unquestioning faith springing from the piety of the heart towards God, and the intimate knowledge of His ways, could have dictated these words? and could Abigail have attained these things, if in any part of the Mosaic law she was denied the privilege of praying to the Lord, and studying; His words? No. If woman were refused the spiritual privileges granted to her brother man in the law of God, there would be no such character as Abigail.19 Cf. Gruber, “The Status of Women in Ancient Judaism,” 158. Noting that Mishnah, Berakot 3:3 states that while women, slaves, and minors are exempt from reading the Shema [on this term see above, p. 29 n. 16] and tefillin [on this term see above, p. 311 n. 21], they are obligated with respect to “the prayer,” mezuzzah [on this term see above, p. 311 n. 20], and the grace after meals, Gruber remarks: “Unquestionably here [as elsewhere in Mishnah Berakot chapter 3] ‘the prayer’ refers to the prescribed liturgical prayer commonly called ‘Eighteen Benedictions’. Now it is explained in Babylonian Talmud, Berakot 20b that it was necessary for the Mishnah explicitly to mention that women are obligated with respect to ‘the prayer’ because it might otherwise be assumed that women are exempt insofar as prayer is a positive time-bound precept. The Babylonian Talmud, followed by Rashi and Tosafot [commentaries by Rashi’s disciples and their disciples found in the outer margins of the printed editions of the Babylonian Talmud] explain that ‘the prayer’ is one of many exceptions to the generalization in Mishnah, Kiddushin 1:7 that women are exempt from positive time-bound precepts. Rashi, followed by Tosafot, rejects as spurious the reading in the common text of the Babylonian Talmud, according to which ‘the prayer’ is a man-made obligation, which would mean that the entire subject is less weighty than both the reading of the Shema and tefillin, from which God, according to the Mishnah, exempted women! [However] the exegetical tradition culminating in Maimonides’ Mishneh Torah, Laws of Prayer 1:1ff. came up with the amazing idea that 1) when God invented prayer, God meant for women to pray; 2) when God allowed the rabbis (all of them men!) by means of Rabbinic eisegesis of Deut. 17:9–11) to create legislation to implement God’s con19

FOURTH PERIOD. II. ABIGAIL

505

stitution, the Written and the Oral Torah, God invested the rabbis with authority to exclude women from the obligation to recite the prescribed ‘Eighteen Benedictions’.” Even this assertion for which, as Rashi and Tosafot attested, there is no basis in either the Mishnah or the Babylonian Talmud, would still not exclude women from prayer per se, nor would it discourage women from attending the synagogue. The casuistry here summarized both accounts for the common misunderstanding that Jewish women are not required to pray and firmly anchors in halakhah Aguilar’s assertion to the contrary. One hundred and eighty five years after Aguilar correctly asserted that no part of the Mosaic law denied women the privilege of praying to the Lord, Jewish women of every denomination organize women’s prayer groups, women’s public reading from the Torah Scroll and participate in public worship both with a partition separating male from female worshippers and in synagogues (of the Conservative, Reform, Liberal, Reconstructionist and Jewish Renewal Movements) with no such separation. And there is an increasing number of synagogues in which equality of the sexes and Orthodoxy blend so that men and women are seated separately, but persons of both sexes are allowed to be called up to the public reading of Scripture and to lead at least some services. What of the notion against which Aguilar argues that women should not be allowed to study His words, or as moderns might say, “Torah”? There is a considerable misogynist halakhic literature in the Middle Ages that found support in a most unfortunate assertion attributed to the 1st century C.E. Rabbi Eliezer in the Mishnah, Sotah, 3:4. Tractate Sotah discusses the implementation of the rite of the bitter waters, which, as suggested already by Grace Aguilar (see above, p. 259) and more recently by Herbert C. Brichto (see above, p. 259, n. 3), was meant to reconcile a wife with a husband, who imagined that she had been engaged in an extramarital relationship for which there was no evidence whatsoever. The Mishnah suggests that even if a woman were guilty, the bitter waters might render a false negative verdict if the woman had some merit accrued from deeds of lovingkindness or what-have-you. Responding to the commonly held conviction that the woman’s merit in other areas of life might result in the bitter waters’ producing a false verdict of innocence, the Mishnah explains, “Ben Azzai opines, ‛A person is obligated to teach one’s daughter Torah so that if she should have to drink [the bitter potion] she should know that merit suspends [the condemnation] on her behalf.’” If you will, Ben Azzai seems to encourage both promiscuity

506

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

among married women and teaching them how not to get caught. One cannot help but wonder if this remark does not belong to the area of Talmudic humor. Unfortunately, the Mishnah follows Ben Azzai’s seemingly obscene remark with an equally obscene remark, which has had dire consequences for the status of women in Judaism, notwithstanding all the efforts of Grace Aguilar and followed thereafter by the leaders of virtually every Ultra-Orthodox, Centrist Orthodox and non-Orthodox movement in Judaism in modern times to undo the damage wrought by R. Eliezer (and by the Mishnah’s editor Rabbi Judah the Patriarch) who seem momentarily to have forgotten, “Abtalyon says, ‘Sages, be careful with your words lest you bring about the punishment of exile and you go into exile into a place of bad waters and the students who come after you drink and die and sacrilege results’ ” (Mishnah, Avot 1:11). Ironically, Abtaylon spoke precisely of being heedful; he spoke of bad water; and he spoke of sacrilege. And almost two millennia later Grace Aguilar followed by the writer of these annotations find ourselves defending Judaism and Hebrew Scripture from people who seek to give anti-Judaism (what Solomon Schechter would have called one of the higher forms of anti-Semitism, which, it is often forgotten in the world of the politically correct, is a form of racism, which has been documented as lethal to women and children and other living things!) a free ride on the back of women’s liberation. First of all, in a world in which men are a minority and still have too much power, women’s liberation cannot be giving free rides to anti-Judaism, anti-Islam, anti-Protestant Christian right, anti-Catholicism, anti-Hinduism or ANYONE. Ben Azzai’s aside does sound like obscene advice for married women, who may have engaged in an indiscretion. However, it echoes the very sympathy for women that probably lies behind the “bitter waters test” as understood by Grace Aguilar and Herbert C. Brichto. Rabbi Eliezer’s unfortunate remark, which in its context was a clever retort to Ben Azzai, wreaked havoc for Jewish women, because it seems both to give religious sanction to male chauvinism, and to provide a warrant for Bible bashing and Judaism bashing, which is the quintessential example of what Abtalyon called “sacrilege.” Unfortunately, there is another bad joke that has been employed in the arsenal of the male chauvinist party within Judaism. Before proceeding to analyze that other bad joke that has hindered women’s access to Torah study, I would add a word or two about what I call the male chauvinist party within Judaism. Male chauvinists are found everywhere as are other kinds of bigots. Male chau-

FOURTH PERIOD. II. ABIGAIL

507

vinists take free rides on traditional religions just as anti-Semites attempt to take free rides on the back of feminism and other liberation movements. However, male chauvinists can also be found on the boards of directors of liberal churches and synagogues. Their agenda is not to conserve traditional religion but to degrade women in the very last public space—religious institutions—where discrimination and segregation enjoy the protection of the law in both democratic and autocratic states. Now, for the other sick joke. It is stated in Deut. 11:19, “You shall teach them [the content of the Torah] to your sons/children.” A seemingly casual remark in Babylonian Talmud, Kiddushin 29b deduces from the appearance here of the noun benekem which can mean both ‘your children (of both sexes)’ or ‘your sons’, the conclusion that sons are to be instructed in God’s precepts but that daughters need not be instructed. This, of course, is patently absurd. Were daughters not to be taught the Torah, how would they know how to prepare kosher food for the families, how to provide a Sabbath environment for their families, with whom they may or may not have sexual relations and when they are supposed to abstain? Everyone except the three groups whom Aguilar addresses in her book should understand the utter absurdity of the idea of not instructing girls and women in the Torah. The three groups are 1) the male chauvinists, who do not want to share power in the synagogue and the Jewish community with women; 2) the Christian missionaries, who want to save Jewish women from a religion that allegedly does not let them know who they are and what they are; and 3) the Jewish women and men and girls and boys then (in 1845) and now, who, because they have not had anyone tell them otherwise, believe what the male chauvinists and the Bible-bashers have been telling us. The principle reason that the above quoted comment on Deut. 11:19 has to be a sick joke is that this comment appears as part of a running commentary on Mishnah, Kiddushin 1:7 which reads as follows: With respect to all precepts of the ben ‘child/son’ upon the ’ab ‘parent/father’, men are obligated and women are absolved and with respect to all precepts of the ’ab parent/father upon the ben child/son’, both men and women are obligated. The Babylonian Talmud’s exegesis of this seemingly enigmatic passage reveals the following facts from the point of view of halakhah: 1) both men and women are obligated both to honor their both parents in accord with the fifth commandment of the Decalogue, “Honor thy father and thy mother” (Ex. 20:12 = Deut. 5:16) and to revere their parents in accord with Lev. 19:3, which KJV renders, “Ye

508

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

shall fear every man his mother, and his father”; and 2) fathers but not mothers are responsible to have their male offspring circumcised, to have the mother’s firstborn redeemed from the priesthood (Num. 3); and see below for more details. Now it turns out, therefore, that when the Mishnah says ben upon ’ab, the meaning is obligations that fall upon ’ab ‘parent’ with respect to child. And if the Mishnah speaks seriously about things that fathers are obligated to do with respect to sons, the two that really fit are circumcision and redemption, which it is argued in the Babylonian Talmud, are obligations that fall only upon one (a male), who would have to do it for himself had his father not done it for him. The second clause of the Mishnah is the one that is most revealing when it speaks of percepts of the ben ‘son/child’ upon the ’ab ‘father/parent’, in respect of which both men and women are obligated, namely honoring parents and revering parents. Consequently in the context of Mishnah, Kiddushin and its exposition in the Babylonian Talmud the term ben means ‘son or daughter’ while ’ab means ‘parent’. Now when the Babylonian Talmud is read, as apparently it was meant to be, and as the halakhic authorities read it as a coherent document with a beginning a middle and an end, then the assertion noted above according to which Deut. 11:19 obligates one to teach the ben ‘son’ and not the bat ‘daughter’ is patently absurd since we know that in the context in question ben means child of any sex and ’ab means parent of any sex. I deliberately omitted above the three additional items mentioned in the Babylonian Talmud, quoting the Tosefta [either the oldest extant commentary on the Mishnah or a larger work from which the Mishnah was extracted; concerning this controversy see now Judith Hauptman, Rereading the Mishnah: A New Approach to Ancient Jewish Texts (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005); Shamma Yehuda Friedman, Tosefta Atiqta (Ramat-Gan: Bar-Ilan University Press, 2002); Alberdina Houtman, Mishnah and Tosefta: A Synoptic Comparison of the Tractates Berakhot and Shebiit (Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1996); Jacob Neusner, “Describing the Tosefta: A Systematic Account,” in Introducing Tosefta: A Systematic Account, ed. Harry Fox and Tirzah Meacham, (Hoboken: Ktav, 1999), 39–71]. These four additional items are 1) to teach him Torah; 2) to teach him a marketable skill (Heb ’omanut ); 3) to find him a wife; and 4) to teach him how to swim. I would assume that the rabbis are not male chauvinists who thought that while sons, especially those living near the Sea of Galilee or the Mediterranean Sea, need to be taught how to swim but daughters can be left to drown. I would likewise assume that the rabbis do not assume

FOURTH PERIOD. II. ABIGAIL

509

that sons have to get married but women can go out to work. Nor would I assume that the Mishnah really meant to ignore the simple wisdom of Prov. 1:8 and 6:20, both of which call upon beni ‘my child’ to pay attention to instruction from both her/his parents. The two verses read as follows in the KJV, which Grace Aguilar seems to have known from memory: Prov. 1:8: “My son [Heb. beni ], heed the instruction [Heb. musar] of your father, and forsake not the law of [Heb. torat ] thy mother;” Prov. 6:20: “My son [Heb. beni ], keep thy father’s commandment, and forsake not the law [Heb. torat] of thy mother.” In Aguilar’s reading of Gen. 2:24 both man and woman leave their parents and cleave unto their respective spouses although Gen. 2:24 mentions only the man and leaves it to our imagination to understand that for him to be able to cleave to her, she also must leave her parents. Thus, in my reading of both Prov. 1 and 6 and in my reading of Mishnah, Kiddushin, I understand that knowledge of both what the Mishnah calls ‘torah’, which we today would call religious instruction, and what the Mishnah calls ’omanut ‘a marketable skill’ (such as working in wool, which was characteristically wives’ work according to Mishnah, Ketubbot 5:5; or making pottery), which we would today call ‘secular learning’ are necessary skills for survival of both men and women, and I further understand that in all times and places such knowledge was imparted by parents and by their agents of all sexes, whom today we call teachers and professors. Since I do not assume that the royal sage, to whom tradition assigned the first nine chapters of Proverbs shared the reasoning of the Talmudic joke that said ‘your sons’ excludes ‘your daughters’ from the study of Torah, I conclude that when he said, beni, he did not mean to say, “Sons, listen to your fathers instruction and commandment and your mother’s teaching, but daughters, please do not obey anything you heard from either parent!” I hope that my casuistry has demonstrated that had Grace Aguilar been privileged to a complete Talmudic education beyond the extensive knowledge she demonstrates throughout Women of Israel, she would not have changed her mind with respect to her assertion that the Mosaic law grants to women and men alike the privilege of praying to the Lord and studying His words. Did she mean by “the Mosaic law” the dual Torah of Moses our Rabbi as expounded in the literature of Formative Judaism [Mishnah, Tosefta, the two Talmuds and the ancient midrash books] and as elucidated by my revered teacher, Jacob Neusner? The question is totally unfair. When Aguilar’s Women of Israel was in press an English translation of 18 of the 63 tractates of the Mish-

510

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

nah had just appeared. There was no English translation of the Babylonian Talmud. Only males had access to a yeshivah education. Today we have several excellent English translations of the Babylonian Talmud, each with its own contribution to our understanding of the subject, and each geared to a specific target audience. Aguilar makes it clear that she understands neither the argument going on in the Jewish community of her time (see above, pp. 356-359) as to whether the ‘Oral Torah’ is essential to Judaism nor how a legitimate Oral Torah might contradict and supersede the Written Torah. A careful reading of the citations in Shamir Yona and Mayer I. Gruber, “Once Again Masoret in Ezekiel and in Rabbinic Literature: A Rejoinder to Professor Basser,” Review of Rabbinic Judaism 11 (2008), 534–541 will show that some of the greatest authorities on Rabbinic Literature at the beginning of the 21st century C.E. are still having difficulty with this question. Some Rabbinic sages (see, inter alia, Yona and Gruber, cited above, and the literature cited there) believed with perfect faith that the Oral Torah was transmitted from Moses through Joshua through the biblical, Hellenistic and Roman periods until it came to be given a fixed literary form in the Mishnah, Tosefta, some of the midrashim, and the two Talmuds. In attempting to establish this belief on a scientific historical basis, scholars at the end of the 19th century and the early 20th century sought to find testimony to articles of Rabbinic law in biblical narrative, in the writing prophets, and in the Hagiographa as well as in post-biblical Second Temple Literature (see, e.g., Weiss, Dor Dor Vedorshayw, 1:1–48). Aguilar likewise assumes that in biblical narrative in the Books of Judges, Ruth, Samuel, and Kings we find testimony to the fact that the Mosaic Law found in the Pentateuch was indeed operative from the earliest times. Not surprisingly, modern scholars, who sought to undermine the authority of the Pentateuch, endeavored to show that the laws of the Pentateuch were not observed by characters in biblical narrative and to conclude that these laws were not observed because they had not yet been written. See, e.g., Julius Wellhausen, Prolegomena to the History of Ancient Israel, trans. J. Sutherland Black and Allan Menzies (Edinburgh: Adam and Charles Black, 1883), 131, 339 and passim; and see the discussion in Mayer I. Gruber, “The Ancient Israel Debate: A Jewish Postcolonial Perspective,” Ancient Near Eastern Studies, 38 (2001), 10–11. Since the matter is not widely known, it should be observed that much progress has been made in the years since Aguilar’s Women of Israel first appeared in 1845 with respect to empowering Jewish women to master the sacred

FOURTH PERIOD. II. ABIGAIL

511

texts of Judaism and to acquire rabbinic authority. For example, on October 18, 2000 in Jerusalem, Israel, Eveline Goodman-Tau was ordained the first Orthodox rabbi in modern history by Orthodox Rabbi Yehonotan Chipman. It has frequently been reported in the press that Rabbi Haviva Ner-David, Ph.D. was ordained by Orthodox Rabbi Aryeh Strikovsky of Tel Aviv in 2006, and it has also been reported that he asked her not to use the title “Rabbi” in Orthodox Jewish communities that are not ready for this. Rabbi Dr. Ner-David has published Life on the Fringes: A Feminist Journey Toward Traditional Rabbinic Ordination, with a foreword by Blu Greenberg (Needham, Mass.: JFL Books, 2000). She was awarded a doctorate for her thesis, “The Laws of Niddah: A Case Study in the Power of Ritual Reinterpretation” (Bar-Ilan University, Ramat Gan, 2005). Mimi Feigelson was, apparently, ordained rabbi by a panel of three Orthodox rabbis even before Rabbi Eveline Goodman-Tau received her ordination from Rabbi Chipman. However, it has been reported that she avoids using the title “Rabbi” so as not to upset persons in the Orthodox Jewish community who are not ready to deal with the idea of a woman as an Orthodox rabbi. For the account of the first woman to receive rabbinic ordination, Fraulein Rabbiner Regina Jonas (born in Berlin, August 3, 1902; murdered in Auschwitz, probably on October 15, 1944), who studied at Berlin’s Hochschule für die Wissenschaft des Judenthums and received semikhah, i.e., Rabbinic ordination, from Rabbi Max Dienemann on December 27, 1935, and who was congratulated on her ordination by both Orthodox and Reform rabbis, see Elisa Klapheck, Fräulein Rabbiner Jonas: Kann die Frau das rabbinische Amt bekleiden? (Teetz: Hentrich & Hentrich, 2000); id., Fräulein Rabbiner Jonas: The Story of the First Woman Rabbi, trans. Toby Axelrod (San Francisco: Joseey-Bass, 2004). It is accepted that thereafter the first woman to be granted rabbinical ordination was Rabbi Sally Priesand, who was ordained by the Reform movement’s Hebrew Union College in Cincinnati, Ohio on June 3, 1972. The Reconstructionist Rabbinical College in Philadelphia ordained a woman, Rabbi Sandy Eisenberg Sasso two years later in 1974. The Conservative Moment’s Jewish Theological Seminary of America, after a long and acrimonious debate, ordained a woman, Rabbi Amy Eilberg, eleven years later in May 1985. On women in the rabbinate see, inter alia, Gary P. Zola, ed., Women Rabbis: Exploration and Celebration: Honoring Twenty Years of Women in the Rabbinate 1972–1992 (Cincinnati: HUC-JIR Rabbinic Alumni Association Press, 1996); Sybil Sheridan, ed., Hear our Voice: Women in the British Rab-

512

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

Not only does she, with prudence and ready wit, deprecate the anger of David by taking the trespass against him on herself, and asking his forgiveness as if she it was who had offended, but she contrives to lessen the offence of Nabal by attributing it not to malice or determined enmity, but only to folly, which prevented his being answerable for his own actions, and therefore not worthy of David’s further regard.20 There is something singularly noble in Abigail thus taking en herself the trespass, and so voluntarily offering herself to bear its penalty. It was woman in her noblest and purest character. The temper and other evil habits of Nabal must not only have prevented all affection towards him, but repeatedly exposed her to those petty yet incurable sufferings springing from the surliness binate (Columbia, S.C.: University of South Carolina Press, 1998). Virtually every stream in Judaism at the dawn of the 21st century sponsors institutions of advanced Jewish learning for women as well as men. The many Orthodox institutions of higher Jewish learning for women include the Bais Chana Women’s Institute in West Saint Paul, Minnesota founded by Chabad Rabbi Manis Friedman. The latter institute is often cited as the first yeshivah for women in modern times. It is widely accepted that, the first post-secondary Torah institute for women was Midreshet Lindenbaum, which was founded in Jerusalem, Israel in 1976. For a decade (1977–1986) this school was called Beruria College after the name of the famous wife of the 2d century C.E. Rabbi Meir. Her interpretation of Psalm 104:35 is cited in Babylonian Talmud, Berakot 10a and discussed below by Aguilar in Period VII, s.v., Talmudic Tales. Around the same time as the establishment of Midreshet Lindenbaum there was founded a midrashah (i.e., institute for advanced study of the Talmud and cognate sacred Jewish literature) for women as part of the Advanced Torah Institute attached to Bar-Ilan University in Ramat Gan, Israel. Just as it will be necessary to continue (with Grace Aguilar as our model) to fight against the negative stereotypes of what women did and could do in the narratives and laws of Hebrew Scripture so it will be necessary to continue to fight against the negative stereotypes of what opportunities for advanced education in Judaism are available to Orthodox Jewish women in modern and post-modern times. 20 1 Sam. 25: 28.

FOURTH PERIOD. II. ABIGAIL

513

and moroseness of a churlish husband; yet of these things she thinks nothing, only remembering that, as her husband, Nabal demanded every exertion and even sacrifice on her part, and these without a moment’s hesitation she makes. Had not her appeal struck David, even as it strikes us, it would not have so turned aside his purpose. Unselfishness and piety, uprightness and honor, he himself so richly possessed, that to such in another his heart was literally compelled to respond, and wrath banished before them. “Blessed be the Lord God of Israel, which sent thee this day to meet me,” he exclaims, with that true unquestioning piety which never knows chance, but attributes every event of daily life to the loving guidance of the Most High God; “and blessed be thy advice, and blessed be thou, which hast kept me this day from coming to shed blood, and from avenging myself with mine own hand. For in very deed, as the Lord God of Israel liveth, which hath kept me back from hurting thee, except thou hadst hasted and come to meet me, surely by the morning light there had not been one left to Nabal.”21 How must the noble heart of Abigail have rejoiced within her, that her energy of purpose and promptness of act had, under the blessing of God, been permitted to save so many innocent lives. and also checked David in the commission of a great sin! The whole of this scene is so vividly described in Holy Writ, that it is rather remarkable that it should never have been taken as the subject of a picture, by some of the many illustrators of Scripture. A rocky defile of Carmel winding round the side of a hill, down which the four hundred armed followers of David in their glittering armor might be scattered in and out the rocks, except the few which, close beside their leader and the kneeling Abigail, marked the foreground. The servants and led asses of the wife of Nabal gracefully grouped on the opposite side of the armed men, forming a beautiful contrast, by their peaceful habiliments and alarmed looks, to the fierce and eager countenances of the warriors. The extreme beauty of Abigail, the pleading look and posture of the suppliant, blending with the modest dignity of the woman; the superb countenance and form of the still youthful David, varying from indignation to softening ad21

1 Sam. 25:32–35.

514

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

miration, all might form a combination not unworthy of first-rate talent in an artist, more especially when that artist may be found at this very day amid the ranks of Israel.22 Courteously and kindly David accepted the proffered gifts of Abigail, bidding her “go up in peace to her house, for he had hearkened to her voice and accepted her person.” Meaning that he had accepted her as the person who had committed the trespass, and so forgiven it. She need be under no further alarm on account of her husband.23 Her business thus blessedly accomplished, Abigail loitered not on her way, and without further parley returned to her house, evidently not having been missed by her husband; who, while death was hovering over his head, was holding a great feast in his house like the feast of a king. “And his heart was merry within him,” in all the imbecile and sinful mirth of drunkenness. What a contrast to the dignified and exalted character of Abigail!24 How inexpressibly trying to her mind must have been the degraded brutish habits of such a husband! How strong must have been her innate dignity, her self-possession and enduring temper, to have so acquired and preserved the respect and faithfulness of her household, whom the In fact, there are numerous pictorial illustrations of King David, by great Bible illustrators of recent times such as Gustave Doré (1832–1883), Ephraim Moses Lilien (1874–1925) and James Jacques Joseph Tissot (1836–1902). For medieval art including illuminated Bibles and Haggadot (the liturgy for the home service on the Eve of Passover) see Bezalel Narkiss and Gabrielle Sed-Rajna, eds., in collaboration with Jonathan Benjamin, et al. photographers, Index of Jewish Art (2 vols.; Jerusalem: Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities/ Paris: Institute de recherche et d’histoire des textes, 1976) and the electronic Index of Christian Art based upon the artchive founded by Charles Rufus Morey at Princeton University in 1917. This index contains over 26,000 items of primarily Christian but also Jewish and Islamic art that antedate 1400 C.E. This index can be accessed in person at the Department of Art and Archaeology at Princeton University in Princeton, New Jersey and electronically at the following address: http://www.doaks.org 23 1 Sam. 25:35. 24 1 Sam. 25:36. 22

FOURTH PERIOD. II. ABIGAIL

515

example of their master might have rendered rude and sottish as himself, and who, were woman lowered in Israel, could have had no restraint whatever. Wisely, though no doubt with a sorrowful heart, she left Nabal undisturbed in his inebriety till the morning’s light, although the news of the danger which he had so narrowly escaped would effectually have roused him from his idle mirth. When told, its effect seems extraordinary, “his heart died within him, and he became as stone;”25 only explained by the supposition of his utter want of manliness and trust, which prevented all belief in David’s assurances, and occasioned such vivid horror of his vengeance as literally to cause the death he dreaded; for “ten days after, the Lord smote Nabal that he died.”26 An awful chastisement for his churlish insult to the young warrior known throughout all Israel as the Anointed of the Eternal. He had grudged the smallest particle of his immense stores to one who, with such winning courtesy, had asked it at his hand; and the Eternal’s justice, by one stroke, deprived him of them all, and compelled him, naked and bare, to appear before His awful throne in judgment for his crimes. And those crimes came not under the denomination of great delinquencies; they were those petty sins of stingy selfishness and an aggravating disobliging temper, which (how often!) grow upon us unconsciously; and we scarcely know their influence till some awful stroke of judgment awakens us to what we might have been, and to what we are. His wife’s narrative was this awakening stroke to Nabal. He had sunk too low, too enervatingly, in the fathomless abyss of selfish indulgence to rouse himself to a better course of life, so that deadly fear of vengeance took possession of him, and combined with a torturing recollection of an abused and wasted existence, rendered him as feelingless and senseless as the stone to which he is compared. How completely the appeal of Abigail had awakened David to the sin which his immoderate anger prompted him to commit, we read by his pious and thankful exclamation, when he heard of Nabal’s death, “Blessed be the Lord that hath pleaded the cause of my 25 26

1 Sam. 25:37. 1 Sam. 25:38.

516

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

reproach from the hand of Nabal, and hath kept His servant from evil, for the Lord hath returned the wickedness of Nabal on his own head;”27 words not only illustrative of his rejoicing thankfulness of his own restraint from sin, but also of his firm belief that ail the changes of the heart are of God not man, and that would we keep ourselves from evil we must pray to Him to do so; not imagine we can keep pure, only by efforts of our own. It was now David’s turn to plead, and to her who had so lately knelt to him as a supplicant. When the usual term of mourning for a husband was over, “he sent and communed with Abigail to become his wife.”28 Her answer is strikingly illustrative of that beautiful humility of character which is so perfectly compatible with true dignity and modest self-esteem, “Behold, let thine handmaid be a servant, to wash the feet of the servants of my lord.”29 When she was in the character of a petitioner, we find no such expressions; for in entreaty they would have been servile and degrading; but as the petitioned, they did but express the deep sense she entertained of her own individual unworthiness, as little suiting her to be the wife of one whom the Lord God of Israel had so singled out above his fellows. In worldly state and earthly possessions, David could not compare with her former husband. Destined to the kingdom he was indeed; but as we have previously stated, there was no human semblance that such he would be, or any apparent end to the troubles, the privations, the wanderings to which he was still so mercilessly exposed. Yet he was the beloved, the chosen of the LORD; and in comparison with the holiness—the virtue which must have originally gained him these appellations in the hearts of his countrymen—Abigail might well have deemed herself unworthy. She became his wife, however, and though in doing so, she exchanged the wealth, the security, the luxuries of such an establishment as had been Nabal’s, for an anxious and wandering life, continually exposed to danger from the enmity of Saul and his followers, and to captivity from the neighboring nations; yet still the love and sympathy of such a mind as David’s, the rest from the wearying 1 Sam. 25:39. 1 Sam. 25:39–40. 29 1 Sam. 25:41. 27 28

FOURTH PERIOD. II. ABIGAIL

517

annoyances of a diseased temper, the indulgence of pious emotions and obedience to all the observances of religion without the sneering scorn of a churlish and uncongenial disposition, must indeed have marked the exchange as a blessed one, and rendered her after life as happy as it had previously been sad. We have one more mention of Abigail, and in the very situation of suffering and peril to which, as we have said, she was, as the wife of David, continually exposed. About two years after his marriage, David took refuge in the kingdom of Gath, and besought and obtained from Achish, their king, the town of Ziklag, which, though situated in the territory of Simeon, had till then belonged to the Philistines. In that city, David and his companions, with their wives and children, composed a faithful little Hebrew colony, and the town formed a quiet residence for the females and children while their husbands were engaged in war.30 On the many valiant acts of David we must not linger. Two years after he had received the gift of Ziklag, the Philistines gathered together all their armies in Aphek, and the Israelites pitched by a fountain in Jezreel.31 David and his men were with the rere-ward of the army of Achish; but, distrusted by the princes and lords of the Philistines, because of their being Israelites, they were disbanded from the army; and in consequence returned to Ziklag. Only three days had elapsed since they had left it; but what a change awaited their return! The city was a heap of smoking ruins, and their wives and their sons and their daughters, all had been carried off; the Amalekites had made an invasion in the south, and without tarrying to slay, had marked their path with fire, and carried off every woman and child. Few lengthy descriptions of grief have the force and beauty of the Scriptural relation, “Then David and the people that were with him lifted up their voices and wept, until they had no more power to weep.”32 And David himself had not only to mourn the loss of his two wives, but was “greatly distressed, for the people spake of stoning him, because the soul of all the people was grieved, every

See 1 Sam. 27. See 1 Sam. 28. 32 1 Sam. 30:1–4. 30 31

518

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

man for his sons and for his daughters.”33 Stoning him, the Lord’s anointed! How fearfully must grief have disordered the minds and hearts of his followers; and how painful the position of David. To feel distress was no weakness in Israel. Human nature is never described in the Bible as other than deeply susceptible of all human and gentle emotions. Religion in Israel was never intended to render the heart insensible to the sweet charities of life and all their subsequent afflictions. It was no sin to weep—no weakness to feel distressed—but as “David encouraged himself in the Lord his God,” so too must we, when the deep waters of affliction flow over us; and like him we shall receive the guidance and encouragement we need. But even in this emergency, when every human feeling must have been striving within him, urging instant action, we find him in meekness and humility inquiring of the Lord. And to him God vouchsafed reply, and bade him pursue, “for thou shalt surely overtake them and without fail recover all.”34 To enter into the detail of this chivalrous expedition we have not space, as it relates more to David than to his wife, whose history we are recording. Our readers will find the whole far more emphatically told than could be by an uninspired pen, in the xxxth chapter of the First Book of Samuel. Suffice it here to state, “that David recovered all that the Amalekites had carried away; and he rescued his two wives, and there was nothing lacking to him, neither small nor great, neither sons nor daughters, nor anything that they had taken to them; David recovered all.”35 The whole of this stirring tale reminds us of those narratives of the middle ages, on which the youthful lovers of chivalry delight to linger; why should they not then feel equal pleasure in the inspired story of their immediate ancestors? We have quite enough of Abigail’s character and sentiments revealed, to give us all sufficient for a just conception of what not only her feelings but her conduct must have been, when she saw the city of her husband burnt and sacked, and herself and all her female companions, with their helpless children, carried off by their lawless foes—exposed to every 1 Sam. 30:6. 1 Sam. 30:8. 35 1 Sam. 30:19. 33 34

FOURTH PERIOD. II. ABIGAIL

519

horror which the mind could frame or the heart could dread.36 The wild attack; the hurried flight; the agony of those days of capture which could have no hopeful future, for David and his men were with Achish, and the time of their return to Ziklag so uncertain, that traces of the Amalekite spoilers might be lost ere their capture was ever known; and then the wild rekindling of hope at the sudden descent of David and his men; the awful strife lasting from even unto even; the glorious conquest; and the reunion of husbands and wives, children and fathers; are so completely all the elements of romance, that we need little of imagination to give it life and breath, or turn to the records of fiction for events to stir the very heart’s blood with the recital of chivalric deeds. But not to record it merely in its romantic bearings, have we brought this portion of Scripture forward. It is to remark how truly and beautifully both the grief and the exertions of David and his men demonstrate the extent of love, conjugal and parental, which reigned in the Hebrew households. It is a beautiful illustration of the spirit of those Mosaic laws, which, penetrating the very homes of the first-born of the Lord,37 guided and sanctified the conduct of husbands and wives, children and parents. Love was the watchword of Israel, alike in their relations to their Father in heaven, and to each other. That the law was severe in its justice, is no contradiction to this assertion. Its perfection of justice was far purer, deeper, more influencing Love, than the modern codes which are pronounced so much more merciful.38 See 1 Sam. 30:1–5. This expression is applied to the people of Israel in Ex. 4:22 where God says to Moses, “And thou shalt say unto Pharaoh, Thus saith the LORD, Israel is my son, even my firstborn.” Cf. also Jer. 31:9 where God says, “For I am a father to Israel, and Ephraim is my firstborn son.” For explication of the latter verse see above, p. 125, n. 120. Aguilar employs this expression also on pp. 239, 519, 536, 571, 573, 596, 906, 941, and 950. 38 Cf. Tobias Theodores, “On the Administration of Justice in the Hebrew Commonwealth,” Hebrew Review and Magazine of Rabbinical Literature 3 (1836), 7–26, which she cites below in Period VII of Women of Israel and again in her The Jewish Faith: Its Spiritual Consolation, Moral Guidance, and 36 37

520

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

The social and domestic position of the wife of Nabal must have been as perfectly free, independent, and influencing, as that of any woman of the present day, be the laws which guide her what they may. We perceive the counsel and wisdom of their mistress, sought and followed by the servants of Nabal without the smallest regard to their master. Compare this liberty of will and action, this exercise of judgment displayed in the history of Abigail, with the position and the characters of the Eastern females of the present day, under the laws of Mahomet,39 and then let truth pronounce Immortal Hope: A Series of Letters Answering the Inquiries of Youth (London: R. Groombridge, 1846), 250 39 Aguilar refers to such institutions as the veiling of women, female sexual mutilation and, in extreme instances, the attempt to keep girls and women illiterate lest they correspond with members of the opposite sex (see Minault, Secluded Scholars, 26), which have been practiced in some Muslim societies and which are wrongly perceived by both male chauvinists among the Muslims and Muslim-bashers among westerners as an integral feature of Islam. Aguilar, writing in the 19th century when it was common in the west to refer to the founder of Islam as Mahomet rather than Muhammad, cannot be blamed for not having been familiar with George Foot Moore’s adage, “Every religion should be judged by its highest ideals and its noblest representatives.” However, for the annotator to pass over Aguilar’s Orientalism in silence would be to acquiesce in what we now ought to understand as bigotry. Concerning “Orientalism” in the sense of a condescending attitude of Europeans to the Middle East and especially the Islamic Middle East see Said, Orientalism. Referring to the founder of Islam as Mahomet goes back to Middle English. The English form Mahomet goes back, in turn, to the Old French Mahomet found already in the oldest work of French literature, the Song of Roland, believed to have been composed between 1140 and 1170 C.E. It is reflected also in the 12th century C.E. Spanish Epic of El Cid and in the disparaging treatment of Muhammad, the founder of Islam, in the drama Fanaticism, or Mahomet the Prophet, written by Voltaire (1694–1778), which was written in 1736 and first performed in 1741. Voltaire was preceded in this respect by Dante Alighieri (ca. 1265–1321), Inferno, canto 28 where Maometto (i.e., Mahomet) is found in the eighth of the nine regions of hell. In his commentary on Dante Alighieri, The Divine Comedy (2d ed.; London: John Lane: 1948), 355 John D. Sinclair explains, “Islam was regarded as the

FOURTH PERIOD. II. ABIGAIL

521

which are the degraded? Again, we are expressly told, that Abigail was not merely a beautiful woman, but of good understanding, which her whole story proves; and yet more, every word of her address to David evinces an almost remarkable knowledge of the ways and the words of the Lord. She is even called by the Ancient Fathers40 a prophetess. “There were seven women of Israel,” they say, who were prophetesses—Sarah, Miriam, Deborah, Hannah, Abigail, Huldah, and Esther.”41 We know not on what authority our venerable sages have honored by the term prophetess, those whom the Bible does not so distinguish; but it is a forcible proof of the deep learning and profound knowledge of the Word of God which must have been possessed by Abigail, and which she could not have acquired without study. The study of religion, then, was evidently not prohibited to the women of Israel; and therefore we know not by what authority such blessed study can be denied to us now.42 Nor is it only religious knowledge which Abigail’s character developes. It is a perfect acquaintance with human nature, else she had not so soon turned aside the wrath of David. Judgment, intellect, and talent all breathe in her eloquent appeal, and evince an elevation of intelligence impossible to be obtained were the social position of woman confined to household work. The more we study the story of Abigail, the more deeply we must feel how valuable it is to us as women of Israel; how impressively it marks out our privileges in every relation of life, and how unanswerably it

main force of antichrist in the world of the time, the very spirit of disorder and dispeace, and Mahomet, especially in the character of the greatest renegade from Christianity as historically the chief divider of humanity; and the comparison of his person to a burst winecask, and the butchery of him ... express not only Dante’s judgement of the enormity of Mahomet’s crime, but the common reflection of Christendom on the barbarism and beastliness of an alien faith, regarded as a kind of reversal of Christianity.” 40 Aguilar’s term for the Talmudic sages, which is employed seventeen times in Women of Israel; see above, p. 360, n. 3. 41 The source is Babylonian Talmud, Megillah 14b. 42 See above, p. 506 and our discussion in annotations there.

522

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

proves that Jewish women need no other creed to give them either spiritual or temporal advantages.43 As women, the character of Abigail equally concerns us. We have frequently insisted that the narratives, as well as the precepts, of the Bible are written for our guidance; and therefore are we so anxious to bring forward all that can aid our young sisters in making their Bibles their daily guide. Many would do so, but they know not how, from the sad scarcity of religious books amongst us, in modern tongues. The more we daily study the Bible, the more easy in truth shall we find it; but then we must not confine our readings to the five books of Moses. One chapter every morning, one every night, and three on the Sabbath, complete the whole Bible— Pentateuch, Hagiography,44 and Prophets—all, with the sole exception of the Psalms, in the three hundred and sixty-five days forming the Nazarene year;45 and this formed into a habit, not done one Here again Aguilar responds to the challenge of the Christian missionaries, who have suggested that Jewish women would find liberation from their degraded status in the Jewish community if they would only embrace Christianity; see above, pp. 160, 182, 187, 248, 251, 347, 504. 44 Earlier, on p. 449, Aguilar employs this term to designate biblical narrative, primarily the biblical narrative found in the books of Joshua, Judges, Samuel, and Kings, which are collectively designated in Jewish editions of the Scriptures, ‘the Former Prophets’ and which are commonly called in Christian circles, ‘the historical books’. Here, however, Aguilar employs the term Hagiography in the sense in which the term Hagiographa is generally employed to designate the Ketuvim or ‘Writings’ (and in Jewish liturgical texts we also find ‘Your [God’s] Holy Writings’ hence via the Greek, the English term Hagiographa meaning ‘holy writings’. The latter term designates the third and final division of Hebrew Scripture, which contains the eleven books that are neither Torah nor Prophets. 45 I.e., the Christian or solar year of 365 days as against the Jewish year, which can be shorter (in a normal year of 12 lunar months) or longer (in a leap year 7 times in 19 years when an additional month of 30 days is added to reconcile the mean lunar year of 354 days with the solar year of 365 ¼ days). Aguilar assumes that the Jewish Bible contains 929 chapters including the 150 chapters of the Book of Psalms. If the Book of Psalms 43

FOURTH PERIOD. II. ABIGAIL

523

year and laid aside, but persevered in for a life, would, in process of time, and without either labor or weariness, give the comfort and the knowledge that we seek. Nor need we fear that we shall grow weary of the task; each year it would become lighter and more blessed, each year we should discover something we knew not before, and in the valley of the shadow of death feel, to our heart’s core, that the word of our God is in truth “the rod and the staff, they comfort me,” of which the Monarch-Psalmist46 spake. We have already noticed the little power which Nabal’s churlish temper, and all the discomforts thence ensuing, had over the pious and energetic character of Abigail. From her wise forbearance towards him, both in acting without his knowledge in seeking David, and in not mentioning the effect of that interview till he was in a state to hear it, we can quite infer, that she not only bore with a churlish temper, but well knew how to manage it—a task not a little difficult, and which none but an unselfish and well controlled temper ever can attempt. Many women, instead of acting on such an emergency, would have lost all the proper time of action in vain lamentations, and in bitter reproaches of the churlish folly which had caused it; or, if they acted as Abigail did, many would have displayed triumph, would have vaunted of their own skill in turning wrath aside, and taunted Nabal with what might have befallen him. is excluded from the annual cycle of reading all of the Jewish Bible, we are left with 779 chapters. This figure will work both for Hebrew editions, which divide Joel into 4 chapters and Malachi into 3 and for KJV and other Protestant Bibles, which divide Joel into 3 chapters and Malachi into 4. Now if we assume that there are 52 Sabbaths in a solar year of 365 days, and we read 3 chapters of the Bible every Sabbath for a total of 156 chapters we are left with 623 chapters to be apportioned among the remaining days and nights of the solar year, i.e., 313 days and 313 nights, which leaves us with 626 slots into which we will fit the 623 remaining chapters of the Hebrew Bible. Standard editions of the KJV provide a list of the books of the Old Testament (Hebrew Bible) with the number of chapters found in each book. 46 I.e., King David to whom are attributed in the Book of Psalms itself 72 of the psalms, and she refers in the quotation and in the phrase “valley of the shadow of death” to Ps. 23:4.

524

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

But Abigail, with true womanly dignity, did neither. That she had been permitted to save her household from an imminent danger was enough for her—and if the kind providence of the Eternal had not ordained it otherwise, she would have returned to all her usual quiet duties and silent endurance, never dreaming that her conduct had evinced anything worthy of reward. Let us then, as woman, not only admire, but imitate the piety, the forbearance, and the energy of our gentle ancestress, assured that such virtues are acceptable to our God. Many and many a one have a Nabal in their households in one or other relation of life. Temper, thought of so little, encouraged because it is no palpable vice, so blinding the eyes of its possessor as to fling its black shadow on all his associates, till they are thought the churlish, not himself; temper, the severer of so many gentle ties, the rude breaker of so many loving hearts, the baleful spirit of so many otherwise richly favored homes,—oh, what but a character, a piety, an energy like Abigail’s can enable us to sustain its trials, in a manner acceptable to the Lord, and not overwhelming to ourselves! As women, as women of Israel more especially, let us endeavor to cultivate these noble qualities, and feel that even for the sufferings of a churlish temper, we have sympathy, comfort, and guidance in the Bible. We may not all have either the beauty or the good understanding of Abigail; but we may all have piety and energy and influence if we so will, the one springs from the other; for the want of energy, the absence of all influence, arises from a listless indifference which never can exist with true piety. The service of God demands constant watchfulness, constant activity, aye, and constant thought; nor can we serve Him, apart from serving our fellowcreatures. To bear and forbear is peculiarly woman’s duty47—in every station of life, and more especially towards a husband; and Precisely because this is still believed all over the world, the problem of gender-based violence directed against women is found among people of all races and creeds, professions, and socio-economic classes. Consequently, both perpetrators and victims need to be re-educated to understand that gender-based violence is not acceptable behavior. See, e.g., Kamanga Zula, Stop Gender-Based Violence (Zomba, Malawi: Kachere Series, 2008). 47

FOURTH PERIOD. II. ABIGAIL

525

every religious and justly feeling woman will rouse her every energy to conceal, or at least prevent, the evil consequences of temper and ill judgment spreading over her household, and lowering the character of a husband in the minds of his inferiors. Abigail’s constant superiority of judgment and action we learn by her servants going to her without hesitation. They must have frequently confided in her judgment before, else they could not have demonstrated such implicit trust in a moment of danger. Her influence we as clearly perceive in the success of her appeal to David; a quick judgment and few well chosen words saved herself and household from destruction, and David from the committal of a great sin. And if by the cultivation of mind and manner woman can achieve such things, who shall deny her the privilege of being an instrument of good, or seek to confine her to a false and degraded position, and so compel either vacuity and idleness, or frivolity and folly? We may not be called upon to exert our influence in a matter of life or death, but few are the women who pass through this life without some opportunity to use their natural influence for good, either in the encouragement of worth, or the wise and gentle guidance from the paths of sin. If there are some who will deny this, who will assert that in their isolated position they have influence on none, and have no power to do good, we would say, it is because they seek it not, not because they have it not; and beseech them to rouse their dormant energy to find and use it, and by the superiority of their mental resources, their spiritual piety, their noble energy, and pure meek womanly influence, alike in their domestic and social position, make manifest to the nations how deeply they feel and glory in the privileges accorded to, and in the duties demanded from them, as the female children of the Lord.

CHAPTER III. WISE WOMAN OF TEKOAH; WOMAN OF ABEL; RIZPAH; —JUDGMENT OF SOLOMON; WIDOW OF ONE OF THE SONS OF THE PROPHETS. The period of our history which we are now regarding, will not supply us with such regular biographies as the preceding ones. Between Abigail and the Shunammite, in the time of Elisha, there is no female character which we can look upon as a whole, and derive thence individual benefit; but in the years of the monarchy stretching between the two above-mentioned, there are some notices of women peculiarly valuable to us in a national sense, as portraying our position, both social and intellectual. The first of these is the wise woman of Tekoah, suborned by Joab to incline the king’s heart towards Absalom.1 In what sense the epithet “a wise woman” was regarded, we cannot exactly determine; but from Joab sending at once to Tekoah, we are led to suppose her a person noted for her wisdom, and selected for that rea2 Sam. 14. The classic modern study concerning this female sage in Hebrew Scripture is Claudia V. Camp, “The Wise Women of 2 Samuel: A Role Model for Women in Early Israel? Catholic Biblical Quarterly 43 (1981), 14–29; see also id., “The Female Sage in Ancient Israel and in the Biblical Wisdom Literature,” in The Sage in Israel and the Ancient Near East, ed. John G. Gammie and Leo G. Perdue (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1990), 185–203; see also Tikva Frymer-Kensky, Reading the Women of the Bible (New York: Schocken Books, 2002), 58–63 and passim; Gruber, “Women in the Ancient Levant,” 131. 1

527

528

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

son. Her story is, of course, a feigned one, and therefore does not command our commiseration; but it is valuable, as it so undeniably manifests how easy it was for the women of Israel to obtain the ear of the monarch, and receive justice and protection at his hand, even against the opinions of the people. She tells David that she is a widow who had two sons, one of whom, in striving with the other, had smitten and slain him. That the whole family had risen against the widow, commanding her to deliver up the survivor, that they might revenge his brother’s death by also slaying him; and so, in the beautiful language of Scripture, “quench my coal which is left, and not leave my husband neither name nor remainder upon the earth.” David, in answer, desires her to return to her home in peace; that he would give charge concerning her. Still she lingers, and he reiterates, “Whosoever saith aught unto thee, bring him unto me, and he shall not touch thee any more. Then said she, I pray thee, let the king remember the Lord thy God, that thou wouldst not suffer the revengers of blood to destroy any more, lest they destroy my son. And he said, As the Lord liveth, there shall not one hair of thy son fall to the ground.”2 By this we are led to believe, that the supposed crime of the one brother against the other came under the accidental murders, where the slayer was permitted to seek the cities of refuge. It is, as we know, a fictitious tale of grief; still it is important to mark how exactly it tallies with obedience to the laws. The woman asserts herself to be a widow, and consequently the peculiar care of her brethren.3 Her position is sanctified, and therefore is it that David 2 Sam. 14:1–11. For the rules enjoining special concern for widows (a biblical precedent for affirmative action to redress the accumulated wrongs committed in modern times against women and minorities) see Ex. 22:22, “You shall not afflict any widow, or fatherless child”; Deut. 24:17, “Thou shalt not pervert the judgment of the stranger, nor of the fatherless; nor take a widow’s raiment to pledge”; Deut. 27:19, “Cursed be he that perverteth the judgment of the stranger, fatherless, and widow”; Deut. 14:28–29, “At the end of three years thou shalt bring forth all the tithe of thine increase the same year, and shalt lay it up within thy gates: And the Levite, (because he hath no part nor inheritance with thee,) and the stranger, and the 2 3

FOURTH PERIOD. III. WISE WOMAN OF TEKOA

529

not only hears her. and promises that he will take her in charge, but pledges himself to yet greater leniency than the law allows. In his own case, one exactly similar, David had done such violence to his own parental feelings, that three years had elapsed since he had looked on his darling Absalom, towards whom we are expressly told his soul longed to go forth.”4 The laws of his country might not be transgressed for him, though a sovereign; and yet for a mourning widow his kind heart yielded. This does not evince disregard to woman’s feelings, or that they were less objects of care in the state than man, but rather the complete contrary; the king’s son was to remain in exile and ignominy, the widow’s son was to be protected and pardoned. Not content with the favor granted the supposed widow, she proceeds to entreat the king. “Let thine handmaid speak, I pray thee, one word unto my lord the king. And the king said, Say on.”5 And then boldly and unhesitatingly the suppliant turns reprover; and, making her own case the king’s, pronounces it a faulty judgment, else why does he not fetch home his banished? We need not transcribe the whole of her well judged appeal (see 2 Sam. xiv.). The king’s penetration at once discovered the real mover of this fatherless, and the widow, which are within thy gates, shall come, and shall eat and be satisfied ...”; see also Deut. 26: 12–13; likewise Deut. 16:11 calls for inviting the Levite, the stranger, the widow, and the fatherless to the celebration of the Feast of Weeks; and Deut. 16:14 enjoins that these economically-challenged persons be invited likewise to the celebration of the Feast of Tabernacles. See also Deut. 24:19–21: “When thou cuttest down thine harvest in thy field, and hast forgot a sheaf in the field, thou shalt not go again to fetch it: it shall be for the stranger, for the fatherless, and for the widow... When thou beatest thine olive tree, thou shalt not go over the boughs again: it shall be for the stranger, for the fatherless, and for the widow. When thou gatherest the grapes of thy vineyard, thou shalt not glean it afterward: it shall be for the stranger, for the fatherless, and for the widow.” 4 2 Sam. 13:39. It appears that it was the knowledge of this fact that led Joab to send the anonymous female sage on her mission to King David in the following chapter, 2 Sam. 14; see there, v. 1. 5 2 Sam. 14:12.

530

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

scene, and addressing the woman as his equal, instead of demanding the truth from her as some might imagine due to his royal prerogative, he asks, “Hide not from me, I pray thee, the thing that I shall ask thee. And the woman said, Let my lord the king now speak. And the king said, Is not the hand of Joab with thee in all this?”6 The whole was consequently revealed; but no anger at the deception followed. The king’s word had passed, and though it was to a supposed case, he would not withdraw it. The young man Absalom was recalled from his grandfather’s court, and brought by Joab to Jerusalem; but still true to his paternal severity, David would not listen to his feelings; and for two years, though dwelling in the same town, the father and son never saw each other’s face;7 whereas, had the widow’s story been true, he would have permitted her the rich blessing of her son’s continued presence and full pardon. The incident is not an important one in itself; but by Joab’s seeking a woman to bring the king to his wishes; by the little difficulty she had to obtain a hearing; by the kindness and feeling which dictated the monarch’s manner and words towards her, we cannot entertain a doubt of the real position of women in Judea;—that she was thought of, felt for, and protected, infinitely more in the state of Israel, than in any contemporary or even in any more modern nation; that even warriors and courtiers disdained not to ask and use her aid; and that the king himself listened, not only when she was a supplicant on her own affairs, but when the strain was changed, and she ventured to address him on his own.8 Nor is she the only “wise woman” whose instrumentality is mentioned in Holy Writ. Soon after the death of Absalom other confusions arose; and a quarrel took place between the men of Israel and the tribe of Judah, as to who should have the greater influence over the aged king, “and the words of the men of Judah were fiercer

2 Sam. 14:19 2 Sam. 14:19–24. 8 Contrast Esther Fuchs, Sexual Politics, 5 where she explains that the purpose of her book is “to expose the link between the politics of male domination and the representation of women in the Hebrew Bible.” It appears that of what Fuchs would expose Aguilar had already disposed. 6 7

FOURTH PERIOD. III. WISE WOMAN OF TEKOA

531

than the words of the men of Israel;”9 in consequence of which, a man of Belial (the scriptural term for a seditious and rebellious spirit) named Sheba, a Benjamite, blew a trumpet, and proclaimed, “We have no part in David, neither have we inheritance in the son of Jesse; every man to his tents, O Israel”—the usual war cry of the Jews.10 “So every man of Israel went up from David, and followed Sheba, the son of Bichri: but the men of Judah clave unto their king.”11 A war of course ensued, seeming likely to be yet more injurious to Judea than even Absalom’s rebellion. And Joab with a large army “went from Jerusalem to pursue Sheba.” His appearance and proclamation, “He that is for David let him go after Joab” recalled the wavering Israelites, and Sheba was compelled to take refuge in the city of Abel of Beth-maachah. There Joab besieged him, casting up a bank against the city, and rearing battering engines against the wall, so that destruction and slaughter were inevitable; for no possibility or inclination for resistance appeared from within. Not one man had the necessary courage and wisdom to come forward, either to pacify Joab or to meet him in battle. A hesitation no doubt occasioned by the fear of Sheba, the natural reluctance to the delivering up of one who had taken refuge in their city, and the yet greater reluctance to rise against David. Between these conflicting emotions the downfall of the city was inevitable; but there was one within its walls, not only a wise, but a patriotic woman, who, boldly taking on herself all risk of personal danger, alike from the battering rams of Joab without and the rage of Sheba’s adherents within, suddenly appeared upon the walls and called aloud, “Hear, hear; say, I pray thee, unto Joab, Come near hither, that I may speak with thee.”12 2 Sam. 19:41–43. More often “each one to his tent” refers to going home after the conclusion of a war or a decision not to engage in war; see Josh. 22:6–7; 1 Kgs. 12:16 = 2 Ch. 10:16; and so also in the narrative under consideration here, in 2 Sam. 20:22. 11 2 Sam. 20:2. 12 2 Sam. 20:16; on this second anonymous female sage see again Camp, “The Wise Women of 2 Samuel,” and id., “The Female Sage,” 185–203. 9

10

532

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

The noise of attack on the part of the besiegers involuntarily ceased, and soldiers and general must have gazed with some astonishment on the vision appearing thus boldly before them. And Joab approaching, she bade him “hear the words of thine handmaid. And he said, I do hear. Then she spake, saying, They were wont to speak in old time, saying, They shall surely ask counsel at Abel, and so they ended the matter;” rather obscure words, yet, as appears to us from the succeeding verse, meaning that, in former years, the councils held by the inhabitants of Abel ended all difficult matters; but that Joab coming upon them in determined hostility had prevented any amicable treaty, and had in consequence checked the interference of all such who, like herself, were “peaceable and faithful in Israel.”13 The address also appears to allude to, and in fact to illustrate, the law contained in Dent. xx. 10–12. “When thou comest nigh unto a city to fight against it, then proclaim peace unto it. And it shall be, if it make thee answer of peace, and open unto thee, then it shall be, that all the people that is found therein shall be tributaries unto thee, and they shall serve thee. And if it will make no peace with thee, but will make war against thee, then thou shalt besiege it.” Joab’s impetuous zeal seems to have neglected this merciful ordinance, and therefore no council as in ancient times could be held in Abel, and no decision made, either for peace or war. And this was the more blamable on the part of Joab, because the city belonged to David; the inhabitants were his own subjects. The speaker feels this in her concluding words, “Thou seekest to destroy a city and mother in Israel:14 why wilt thou swallow up the inheritance of the Lord.”15 2 Sam. 20:17–19. 2 Sam. 20:19 where, in fact, as noted in KJV margin, “Thou seekest to destroy a city and a mother in Israel,” means, “You seek to destroy a chief city in Israel.” Indeed, the cause of feminism is well served by the habit of the Hebrew language to use the term ’em, literally, ‘mother’ to designate ‘authority’ and ‘importance’. In Rabbinic Hebrew the authority of the consonantal text of Scripture and the customary public reading of that text contrary to the obvious meaning of the consonantal text are both designated as ’em ‘authority’; see, inter alia, Mayer I. Gruber and Shamir 13 14

FOURTH PERIOD. III. WISE WOMAN OF TEKOA

533

All she says is so essentially feminine, so moderate and gentle, that it at once satisfies us that her boldness and wisdom in no way mark her a masculine character. She was still a mother in Israel; her endowments were evidently common to her sex and country, proving that they knew well how to unite the wisdom of the patriot with all the graces of the woman. Her very first words to Joab, “Hear the words of thine handmaid,” mark her perfect consciousness of her own position, and pay that respect due alike to the rank and generalship of the person she addressed. An assumption of wisdom and consequently of authority, would have lost her the ear of Joab at once. A man may be influenced by woman, but not dictated to, however superior may be her wisdom. We cannot discover the wisdom of this mother in Israel in her actual words, so much as in her actions. The address was indeed well chosen, for it appealed directly to the best and holiest feelings of Joab, and could only have proceeded from a mind long accustomed to well regulated thought; but her sole plea was, that she was a mother in Israel,” a character and station to which the rudest and hardest natures never refused reverence. “Far be it, far be it from me,” was Joab’s earnest answer, “to swallow up or destroy—the matter is not so, but a man of mount Ephraim, Sheba the son of Bichri by name, hath lifted up his hand against the king, even against David. Deliver him only, and I will depart from the city.16 And the woman said, Behold, his head shall be thrown to thee over the wall. Then the woman went unto all the people in her wisdom; and they cut off the head of Sheba the son of Bichri, and cast it out to Joab; and he blew a trumpet, and they retired from the city every man to his tent. And Joab returned to Jerusalem and to the king.” (2 Sam. xx.)17 There will be no doubt some fair affectors of refinement, horror-stricken at the idea of a woman being influential in the execution of a criminal, and condemn the age in which such deeds were Yona, “The Meaning of masoret in Ezek. 20:37 and in Rabbinic Hebrew,” Review of Rabbinic Judaism 10 (2007), 210–220. 15 2 Sam. 20:19. 16 2 Sam. 20:20–21. 17 vv. 21–22.

534

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

done, as something too barbarous to be regarded without a shudder. Now, there are few of our countrywomen, we think, more painfully affected by scenes and thoughts of blood than ourself; but it is the necessity for such fearful punishments we feel and mourn, more than the punishment itself. The Eternal ordained capital punishments for capital crimes; and if His infinite wisdom and His immeasurable mercy saw that it was good so to do, surely we poor weak finite creatures of a day, can have neither right nor wisdom to deem such acts of justice cruel, or loathe them as remnants of barbarity. Joab’s demand was unanswerably just. The man whose seditious and rebellious spirit sought to light the flame of discord all over Judea, and dared to arm his countrymen against the Lord’s Anointed, was deserving of death; and his own execution saved the lives of hundreds. Was it not then an act of far greater mercy to demand the head of Sheba, than, by the weak shrinking from a duty so painfully repugnant to woman’s nature, expose men, women, and children, in countless numbers, to the destroying sword? Yet, from the latter few would shrink as they do from the former, only because there is something so dreadful in the idea of a woman seeking the life of a fellow-creature. She sought, in fact, to save life, not to take it; and her efforts were successful. Enviable must have been that “wise woman’s” feelings as the trumpet sounded, and the fierce warriors under the command of Joab struck their tents, withdrew their battering-rams, and in goodly array marched away from the predoomed city; leaving freedom and rejoicing gladness behind them, in a people saved alike from the destroying sword, and from the sin of strife and rebellion against the Lord’s Anointed!18 Now, it is not at all likely that these wise counsels were the impulse of the moment. The women of Israel must have had a voice even in the senate of their several cities.19 Their position must 2 Sam. 20:22. As noted above with reference to the discussion of Sarah’s not being present when the divinely sent messengers spoke with Abraham about her impending motherhood and also with reference to her assertion in her discussion of Eve, that it is “mistaken notion ... [that] unless she compels man to accede to her her rights, they will be trampled on”; see above, 18 19

FOURTH PERIOD. III. WISE WOMAN OF TEKOA

535

have been alike elevated and intellectual. In a state like Israel, composed as it was of so many unruly members and constantly seditious spirits, wisdom could no more have obtained ascendency without cultivation then, than it can now. Had there been any law confining woman to any particular sphere, prohibiting her interference in any religious or secular matters, wisdom and judgment would not only have been publicly useless in a woman, but privately uncultivated, and we should find no such instances as the two we have recorded. A little attentive thought on the condition of the beleaguered city, the multitude of diverse opinions with which at such a time it must have been agitated, moved as it was by the p. 62. Aguilar has in volume 1 (ending with the narrative of Hannah) slowly disarmed the reader—male or female, Jew or Gentile—who might not want to pick up Women of Israel if she or he suspected that it is a utopian treatise calling for the equality of women and men in the political sphere—by speaking of the physical and mental superiority of men and how women should not have to demand respect, now tells us that in ancient Israel, given the authority accorded to the unnamed female sages in 2 Sam. 14 and 2 Sam. 20, that it is a foregone conclusion that women and men shared political power in ancient Israel. Elizabeth Cady Stanton’s Woman’s Bible sought to gain political power for women by undermining the authority of Holy Scripture, which was invoked by Protestant clergy in the USA in the mid and late nineteenth century to deny suffrage and property rights to women. Aguilar, on the other hand, has, out of heartfelt religious conviction, invoked Holy Scripture to demonstrate that when the Jews had their own state in antiquity women and men shared political power and that the reverence for Holy Scripture shared by Jew and Christian alike should motivate them to emulate the egalitarian model, which ancient Israel represented. Aguilar’s approach, which sees Holy Scripture as a source for women’s liberation rather than a stumbling block, adumbrates the approach taken by Phyllis Trible in her monumental, “Depatriarchalizing in Biblical Interpretation,” Journal of the American Academy of Religion 41 (1973), 30–48; id., God and the Rhetoric of Sexuality (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1978). Apparently, as Aguilar continues, she seems to become a more militant fighter for egalitarianism in Judaism. See, for example, her imagining that the Shunammite, while dwelling for seven years in Philistia, led the Jewish worship services in her home (see below, p. 569 with reference to 2 Kgs. 5:2).

536

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

presence and pleadings of the arch-rebel himself, the fierce troops without, the noise of the siege, and all its concomitant terrors; and remember, that out of these multitudes it was a woman who came forward, a mother in Israel (how sacred is the term!) who in her wisdom obtained not only the hearing of Joab, but, a more difficult matter, of the warring people, and bent them like a reed, only from the superiority of MIND,—must we not feel to our heart’s core the real position of the women of Israel in the PAST? That she, even as man, enjoyed not alone the spiritual, but the intellectual and refining privileges of being one of the chosen of God;20 and must we not long for that FUTURE, when we shall again be blessed and influential in our own most holy land, doing the will of God, and being in very truth spiritually and temporally helps meet21 for His sons? Oh, shall not the thought of the past, and of the future, influence Israel’s PRESENT, and waken her daughters to their immortal heritage, in being of the first-born children of the Lord;22 who holdeth them so inexpressibly dear, that the individual or nation who injureth them injureth the apple of His eye?23 Is not the See above, p. 141, n. 47. The Elizabethan English expression ‘help meet’ is found in KJV at Gen. 2:20, “and for Adam there was not found an help meet for him,” which means “a helper/partner appropriate for him,” and it translates Heb. ‛ezer kenegdo, which means ‘a help appropriate for him’. Both the KJV expression and the Biblical Hebrew equivalent remain to this day appropriate epithets of praise for a female life partner or other woman, who is a heroine at home or in public life. 22 This expression is applied to the people of Israel in Ex. 4:22 where God says to Moses, “And thou shalt say unto Pharaoh, Thus saith the LORD, Israel is my son, even my firstborn.” Cf. also Jer. 31:9 where God says, “For I am a father to Israel, and Ephraim is my firstborn son.” For explication of the latter verse see above, p. 125, n. 120. Aguilar employs the expression “firstborn of the LORD” also on p. 571. 23 This expression is found in Deut. 32:10: “He [God] found him [Israel] in a desert land...he instructed him, he kept him as the apple of his eye;” see also Ps. 17:8: “Keep me as the apple of the eye, hide me under the shadow of thy wings;” and cf. also Prov. 7:2: “Keep my commandments and live; and my law as the apple of thine eye.” 20 21

FOURTH PERIOD. III. WISE WOMAN OF TEKOA

537

thought that we are of a nation so beloved, sufficient incentive for the cultivation of spirituality, virtue, intellect, wisdom, affection, devotedness to God and man, all that could make the days of this life even “as the days of heaven on the earth?”24 The devotion of Rizpah25 is another exquisitely beautiful trait of female character. Its mention does not contain a lesson, but a picture. It does not tell us what woman should be, but what she is, and is valuable as proving that the women of the Bible are but portraits of woman’s nature now. The stern mandate of the Lord against the bloody house of Saul had not all been fulfilled; and justice, that inscrutable justice which man dare not hope to explain, demanded the execution of the last remaining scions of the family of Saul. The narrative contained in the first nine verses of 2 Sam. xxi., is one on which it is better not to linger, lest it arouse doubts and questions verging on impiety. It is enough that it was the ordinance of the Eternal, and that He ever tempereth justice with mercy; and though to finite minds, in this instance, mercy may seem hidden in blood, it is enough for us to know, that “God’s ways are not our ways, nor His thoughts our thoughts,”26 and calmly resting on this blessed truth, dismiss the subject as one to be explained hereafter, when the immortal likeness of God in which made He man, purified from the corrupting clay, will be permitted to trace the secret of His ways; and all that in His word seemed dark and terrible, bear witness to the perfect justice and the perfect mercy of Him, with whom “is the fountain of life, and in whose light we shall see light.”27 Day and night, from the beginning of the barley harvest, till the rain came down from heaven, a period of many weeks, did Deut. 11:21, the closing words of the second paragraph of the Shema recited not only in the morning and evening worship but also in the private devotions upon arising in the morning and upon retiring at night; see above, pp. 29, 281, 286. 25 First mentioned in 2 Sam. 3:7 as the concubine of Saul, Rizpah daughter of Aiah appears as a heroine in the narrative of 2 Sam. 21. 26 Cf. Isa. 55:8: “For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways, my ways, saith the LORD.” 27 Ps. 36:9. 24

538

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

Rizpah, the daughter of Aiah, keep solitary watch beside the mouldering bodies of the last remnants of the house of Saul. “She took sackcloth and spread it for her upon the rock, and suffered neither the birds of the air to rest upon them by day, nor the beasts of the field by night.”28 What a volume of woman’s heart is told in that brief verse! That devotedness to the beloved dead which would guard the poor remnants of mortality from all insult of bird or beast—that lingering beside all which was spared her, alas, for that mournful “all!” Scorched by the sun of day, and chilled by the dews of night, yet moved she not from the stony rock, nor cared she for aught besides. Mourning, yet not repining; guarding the hallowed dead, yet breathing not her anguish, save through the tears that fell on the impenetrable rock, the sighs that mingled with the breeze. Who might feel for her, sole remnant of that bloody house? Who might lament those deaths which retribution called? None. And the mourner asked naught of man. Her world was by the dead, and there the mocking sun and the pitying moon gazed down upon her in her sad and solitary watch. And oh, is not this woman?—Is not this the love, the devotedness, which are the natural dwellers of woman’s heart, when naught but nature speaks? And not entirely unsympathized was her affliction. It reached the ear, and penetrated the heart. of the feeling and affectionate king, and the bones of Saul and Jonathan, and of them that were hanged, were gathered by David’s express command, and buried with duo honors in the sepulchre of Kish the father of Saul, which was in the country of his tribe;29 and thus that fearful ignominy, so revolting to an Israelite, the denying burial to the dead, was removed from the house of Saul by the devotion of a woman. Who, then, will assert that the purest and best feelings of our nature find no place in the Word of God? Who can seek to make religion trample on the most sacred feelings of humanity, by asserting that, if we truly love the Lord, we can never grieve nor be afflicted? How painfully mistaken are those who would thus instruct, and how sadly deceived those who would banish all feeling from woman’s nature! Who would guide her by rule and measure? Who would 28 29

2 Sam. 21:10. 2 Sam. 21:11–14.

FOURTH PERIOD. III. WISE WOMAN OF TEKOA

539

check every enthusiastic impulse, every kind sentiment, every sympathizing emotion, every imaginative glow; all because it is so unfitted for this unromantic world; and therefore destines its possessor to more pain than pleasure? Oh, if we believe the Word of the Lord divine, let us come there, and we shall find guides for feeling as well as for action. There we find the emotions which God in His mercy gave, encouraged, not subdued; feeling, devotedness, affection, enthusiasm, all that can lift us up from the mere petty concerns and thoughts of a day, are there brought forward; and why then should the sweet emotions of the Israelite in the past, be deemed folly and romance, and so unworthy of the Israelite in the present? Oh! as women, women of Israel, let us cultivate every emotion which can refine and elevate and prepare us for that Future which has been so long our promised heritage! We arc but strangers and sojourners in the land of our captivity; but our destiny is laid up with our God for that day when, in the face of the whole world, we shall be acknowledged as His own. The next striking evidence of woman’s social position in our present Period, is found in the far-famed, often-quoted judgment of Solomon.30 The wisdom of the monarch’s sentence is the point generally insisted upon, to the exclusion of all the other topics of interest which this remarkable incident presents. The term harlot, more than once applied to women in the Bible, had a very different meaning to that in which it is alone used now. It is generally supposed to signify, indiscriminately an innkeeper or hostess, as in the case of Rahab, or women in the servile classes, independent of servitude in households, but occupying some trades in Jerusalem peculiar to themselves.31 They had, in 1 Kgs. 3:16–28. Aguilar’s attempt to whitewash the two harlots is understandable against the background of her belong to the Victorian era when even pianos had to have their legs covered out of modesty. Mayer I. Gruber, “Prostitutes and Prostitution in the Bible,” Zemanim, no. 90 (2005), 22–29 (in Hebrew), clears Rashi of the charge of having similarly whitewashed Rahab the harlot when he declares in his commentary on Josh. 2:1 that “zonah is a woman who gives mazon ‘food’.” Naturally, schoolteachers in Israel commonly quote this line of Rashi to schoolchildren, and the 30 31

540

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

consequence, neither rank, wealth, nor any of the usual accessories to the royal favor. Yet we find that the very first persons who obtained access to Solomon, after the offerings with which he sanctified his entrance into Jerusalem, were two women of this class. It was not that there were no inferior courts of justice32 in the Mosaic Law, no order or division of ranks in the Jewish State. There were all these. Yet, if the women of Israel demanded the judgment of their monarch himself, the very lowest classes had access to him; and their cases were heard and judged. Certainly a very different mode of proceeding to the customs of other nations, either then or now. Surrounded by his officers and court, in the magnificent array which marked all the proceedings of King Solomon, the monarch listened with patient and sympathizing attention to the tale of affliction boldly spoken before him. It was a sad and a strange one, and seemingly so difficult for a just decision on the part of the youthful judge, that interest was in no slight degree excited. Two women dwelt in the same house, to each of whom a child was born; the one within three days of the other. They were alone within the house, and the child of the one woman died, and she arose at midnight and changed the dead for the living; and when her companion awoke in the morning, to nurse her child, behold it was dead; but when she had looked on it attentively, it was not her child which she did bear. And when the complainant narrated this tale, her opponent denied that it was so, saying, “Nay, but the living is my son, and the dead is thy son! And this said, No, but the dead is thy son, and the living is my son; and thus they spake beschool children laugh behind the teachers’ respective backs. In fact, as Gruber showed, Rashi embellishes his commentary with a pun for in Gen. 39:6 lehem ‘food’ is employed according to Rashi (and indeed corroborated by Gen. 39:9) as a euphemism for sexual relations. 32 Concerning the inferior and superior courts of justice in Pentateuchal laws see Ex. 18:21–26 where it is asserted that it was Jethro’s father-in-law, who advised Moses not to do everything himself but to appoint inferior courts; see also Deut. 17:8–13, which provides for a court of final jurisdiction within the precincts of the Holy Temple, in addition to the municipal courts.

FOURTH PERIOD. III. WISE WOMAN OF TEKOA

541

fore the king.”33 In a modern court of justice we think a similar case would be found somewhat difficult to solve. Solomon made no pause; repeating the charge and its denial, so as to make it clear to all who heard, he continued, “Bring me a sword,”34 and when obeyed, pronounced that memorable sentence which first revealed his godlike wisdom to his subjects:—“Divide the living child in two, give half to the one, and half to the other.35 Then spake the woman whose the living child was, unto the king, for her bowels yearned unto her son: Oh! my lord, give her the living child, and in no wise slay it; but the other said, Let it be neither mine nor thine, but divide it. And the king answered and said, Give her [the first speaker] the living child, and in no wise slay it, she is the mother thereof!” And if all Israel, when they heard of this judgment, feared the king, for they saw that the wisdom of God was in him, how deeply, how gratefully, must the real mother have rejoiced in the courage which brought her before the monarch, and, through his sentence, received back her son!36 Solomon’s wisdom, in this instance, proceeded simply from a profound knowledge of human nature. He tested the truth or falsehood of the relation by an appeal to the heart, and decided according to its unguarded witness, demanding nothing more for his own satisfaction or that of his hearers. The incident is a trifling one; but it is valuable in demonstrating the social position of the women of Israel at the period. We have already seen that to obtain the monarch’s ear was quite accessible to woman, in the narration of David and the widow of Tekoah;37 but the present instance is, if possible, still more convincing, from the fact of the women being of the lowest classes, and having no friendly influence to bring them forward; nothing in fact to plead in their favor, but their privileges as women of Israel, which of course gave them admission to their earthly sovereign, who was but the vice-regent of Him by whom all Israel, men, women, and children, were heard, judged, 1 Kgs. 3:16–22. 1 Kgs. 3:24. 35 1 Kgs. 3:25. 36 1 Kgs. 3:26–28. 37 2 Sam. 14:1–24 discussed above, pp. 527-530. 33 34

542

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

and answered: and when the law of the land permitted, nay, commanded, impartial judgment on all who claimed it, women as well as men, it surely cannot be accused of either degrading or enslaving; many an afflicted and oppressed one of the Gentile lands might be found to wish it were in action still. And how beautifully does this simple narrative display the power of nature! It was far easier to resign her babe than see him die, even at the risk of her previous recital being disbelieved. She could feel nothing but the fatal command of the king to slay the child; little could she think those agonized words of entreaty were expressly called for by the king, for the discovery of the truth; and that the burst of natural feeling would be the means of giving her back her child. How forcibly does this little anecdote confirm our reiterated assertion, that the Word of our God guides and portrays feeling as well as action, and that all our purest, best, and noblest affections will always find their reflection there. And this is one of the widest distinctions between the Bible and Profane History. The latter narrates events, actions, the palpable and striking parts of man, if we may so express it, but touches not that immaterial and subtle essence of thought and feeling, whence alone all that is palpable and striking comes. The Bible in a few brief words will give the key to actions, will simply portray a feeling, an impulse which flashes on the heart, awakening, as by electricity, the links of nature, which unite the present with the past in the history of humanity; and we know such record is divine, else the darkly hidden, rarely penetrated, mysteries of the human heart could not have been so forcibly revealed. Nor are they the only illustrations of feeling. How touchingly illustrative of that affection is Elisha’s first address to Elijah! When the latter threw his mantle upon him, as symbolical of his elevation to the prophetical calling, a rush of strange yet ecstatic feeling must have taken possession of him: perhaps the aspirings of many years, the heart’s hopes and longings for such spiritual election, unknown to any but his own heart, were gratified. It must have been some extraordinary and incomprehensible impulse, actuating the resignation of all early employments and associations, simply to follow Elijah—feelings probably overwhelming in their suddenness; yet

FOURTH PERIOD. III. WISE WOMAN OF TEKOA

543

we find him in the midst of them thinking of his parents. “Let me, I pray thee, kiss my father and my mother, and then I will follow thee.”38 It is in truth only a feeling, not any momentous incident or striking illustration, which these simple words betray: but it is often from little things like these, that we may form an estimate of the social condition and feelings of a people. The Jewish law, as we have seen, peculiarly and affectingly touches on the conduct and even emotions of children for their parents, and parents for their children. Elisha, we may feel sure, both from his being the anointed prophet of the Lord, and from the whole course of his after-life, had been brought up strictly as an Israelite. He had, as is often the case, received an education which, in the very midst of idolatry and misery, preserved him undefiled and fitted to supply Elijah’s place. His exclamation strongly proves how completely the affections were blended with spiritual gifts; while from his lingering yearning towards his parents, we feel what they must have been to him—his mother as well as his father. There is no such thing as filial reverence and love in nations where woman is degraded. In the Jewish nation, on the contrary, we find repeated instances of both reverence and love—such could not fail to have been the case when “honor thy father and thy mother” was one of the first commands of God Himself.39 We trace, too, much of a mother’s nurture and influence in the peculiarly sweet and loving character of Elisha during his prophetical career. His mission was almost all of love; and the feeling and sympathy which he manifested to all who sought him, especially towards women, as we shall see in more than one instance, display a manly character formed by a woman’s hand. One of the first miracles performed by Elisha was for a woman, evincing the tender kindness of his disposition, and proving that woman was not considered unworthy to receive relief, through him, from the hand of her gracious God. She was a poor widow, whose only claim to the compassion of the prophet ap1 Kgs. 19:20. Referring to the 5th commandment of the Decalogue found in Ex. 20:12 = Deut. 5:16. 38 39

544

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

peared to be, that he knew that her husband, “thy servant, did fear the Lord.”40 But he died poor, and in debt, and, in exact illustration of the law, the creditor came to demand the service of his two sons, in lieu of the sum that was owing,—a hard trial for the poor woman, left in her bereavement with but two sons, from whom the justice of the law compelled her to part, unless she could raise money sufficient to discharge her debt; and so without fear she approached the prophet, and stated her case.41 “What shall I do for thee?” was the commiserating reply; “tell me what hast thou in thy house.”42 And what a picture of uncomplaining poverty does her answer bring! “Thine handmaid hath nothing in the house but a pot of oil.”43 The prophet felt for and relieved her; but how much of childlike and trusting faith must she have needed, in the obedience to his strange command,—“Borrow thee vessels of all thy neighbors, even empty vessels, borrow not a few. And when thou art come in, thou shalt shut the door upon thee, and upon thy sons, and shalt pour out into all those vessels, and thou shalt set aside that which is full.” Borrow vessels to fill with oil, when she had but one pot of oil in the house! How could this be? Was not the prophet playing with her distress? How could such a strange command avail her? Such questions would only have been natural; but we do not find that they entered her mind, or prompted doubt and speculation. She might, perhaps, have heard of the widow of Zarephath,44 whose cruse of oil had miraculously lasted during the famine; but more probably her instant obedience originated in that simple guileless trust which should characterize every feeling of our heart towards God. “So she went from him, and shut the door upon her and upon her sons, who had brought the vessels to her, and poured out. And it came to pass when the vessels were full, that she said unto her son, Bring me yet another; and he said, There is not a vessel more; and the oil stayed. Then she came and told the man of God, and he said, Go, sell the oil, and pay thy debt, 2 Kgs. 4:1. 2 Kgs. 4:1. 42 2 Kgs. 4:2a. 43 2 Kgs. 4:2b. 44 1 Kgs. 17:8–16. 40 41

FOURTH PERIOD. III. WISE WOMAN OF TEKOA

545

and live. thou and thy children, on the rest.”45 It was not enough to give her present relief—the merciful kindness of the man of God provided also for the future, and gave her the blessed relief of retaining her children beside her. Now if woman were of no account in Israel, it would have been a greater kindness to take her sons from her, than leave them to her training. As a widow in Israel, she herself would have been provided for; there was no need for this great mercy to have been shown her: nor in her retired, simple mode of living, could the performance of the miracle for her have increased Elisha’s prophetical reputation. She was a poor afflicted individual—of no more consequence amongst her countrymen, either in life or death, joy or sorrow, than were we to remove one grain of sand from the seashore. Yet she was as much an object of pitying mercy in the sight of her God and of His prophet, as the highest and most important in the land. And what was her sole plea for hearing and acceptance? “Thou knowest my husband, thy servant, did fear the Lord;”46—meaning not only the departed, but herself and her whole household. There was no long list of highsounding deeds, of sublime projects, and seemingly important services. The sons of the prophets,47 as they were called, appeared to 2 Kgs 4:5–7. 2 Kgs. 4:1, 47 Now widely thought to be members of guilds of dervish-like ecstatics, these people are mentioned in the following texts: 2 Kgs. 2:3, 5, 7, 15; 4:1, 38; 5:22; 6:1, 9:1, which is to say that they appear only in narratives associated with Elisha in Second Kings. It is widely held that when Amos declares in Am. 7:14, “I am neither a prophet nor the son of a prophet” (translation by the annotator) he is declaring that he represents a new kind of prophet, who was summoned by God, and that he had not been a professional prophet (so NJV) nor the member of a prophetic guild. It is asserted in the name of the LORD in Zech. 13 that there will come a time when a lying professional prophet will attempt to cover up his lying by saying (like Amos), “I am not a prophet” (Zech. 13:5). To be truthful, Aguilar’s conjectural description of what it meant to be among the “sons of the prophets” is no less reasonable than the various theories, which have sought to make use of the two declarations “I am not a prophet” and the aforementioned references to “sons of the prophets” for attempt45 46

546

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

have passed their quiet lives in holy meditation on the law and the works of God, and in serving Him by such deeds of unostentatious kindness and social benevolence as very often to die poor. They asked nothing but a bare sufficiency of board and lodging blessed with family love. They were never heard of out of their own retired sphere; but they feared the Lord, and taught their wives and children to do so likewise. And this was the poor widow’s plea; and it was accepted. And shall we then say the women of Israel have no access to God? Do we need more than our own blessed faith and its vivid illustrations in the Eternal’s own word, to give us not only consolation but encouragement? Can we not all feel as that poor widow did—a guileless faith, which asked no question, but obeyed—which came at once to the man of God,48 and, though his words were strange, yet trusted and was relieved? ing to reconstruct the history of prophecy in ancient Israel; contrast Simon Cohen, “Amos Was A Navi,” Hebrew Union College Annual 32 (1961), 175–178 and the extensive literature cited there; see also Yehezkel Kaufmann, The Religion of Israel, translated and abridged by Moshe Greenberg (Chicago & London: University of Chicago Press, 1960), 343–344. 48 The term “man of God” is an epithet of Moses in Deut. 33:1; Josh. 14:6.; and Ps. 90:1. The term refers to the heavenly messenger (angel) who appeared to the mother of Samson in Judg. 13:8. The term refers to the named prophet Shemaiah in 1 Kgs. 12:22; designates an anonymous prophet in 1 Kgs. 13 (and this prophet is referred to again in 2 Kgs. 23:15–16); and it refers to Elijah in 1 Kgs. 17:18. In 2 Kgs. 4–8 the term refers to Elisha. Aguilar reflects the view widely held among Jews over the last two millennia that prophecy has ceased since the demise of Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi (so Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin 11a). In fact, the latter assertion seems to have been designed to convey the theological belief that Jesus could not be the last and greatest of the prophets because prophecy had ceased some five centuries before the advent of Jesus. Hence it is a statement of belief rather than a statement of fact. A less well-known Jewish view assumes that prophecy has not ceased. Indeed, Abraham Joshua Heschel, “Did Maimonides Believe that He was Worthy of Prophecy?” in Louis Ginzberg Festschrift (New York: Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1952), 159–188 (in Hebrew) showed that Moses Maimonides (1138–1204 C.E.) believed that he was worthy of prophetic

FOURTH PERIOD. III. WISE WOMAN OF TEKOA

547

True, we have no man of God to whom to seek; we may not look to miracles for our relief; but we may all come to God’s word, and, through it, to God Himself. There is no barrier between us and Him. Our holy faith gives us the blessed consolation of coming to Him direct, and of feeling that, if we do but seek to fear, and love, and serve Him, we shall be accepted and beloved. Lowliness of station, of intellect, of service, is of no account with Him. The poor widow is an evidence that the poorest and the humblest, the merest atom of His stupendous creation, is not unworthy of His regard, aye, even to the performance of a miracle in her behalf; and her sole plea was, she “feared the Lord.”49 Oh, let not the false idea of too great unworthiness to approach Him, of incapacity to address Him in words fit for His acceptance, obtain a moment’s resting in the female Jewish heart. We are His—His own—and every expression in His Holy Word proves that we are so, and that now, aye, even now, every woman who bears the glorious name of Israel, be she rich or poor—full of good deeds and pious thoughts, or bereft of all but a childlike faith and guileless love of God—still she has spiritual privileges; a closer, clearer, more blessed connexion with her Father in heaven, than is the lot of any woman. She cannot read her Bible without feeling this. Oh, let her prove it in the sight of the whole world!

inspiration. And Maimonides was only one of many Jewish spiritual heroes of the Middle Ages who believed that she/he had received the prophetic gift. Among the many Jewish thinkers in the Middle Ages who believed that they had been called to be prophets was the 13th century exegete, Eleazar ben Mattitya, who hailed from Northern France. See Shoshan, “The Philosophical Exegesis,” p. 27 and especially n. 132; according to Seder Olam Rabbah, chapter 30 prophecy ended in the time of Alexander of Macedon; for other views see E. E. Urbach, “When did Prophecy Cease?” in E. E. Urbach, From the World of the Sages (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1988), 9–20 (in Hebrew). 49 In fact, the unnamed woman thus describes her late husband, not herself, in 2 Kgs. 4:1. Aguilar seems to assume that since she cites this virtue of her late husband in order to convince Elisha to help her, then she also must have “feared the LORD.”

CHAPTER IV. THE SHUNAMMITE The poor widow so mercifully relieved and blessed, marks the social and spiritual condition of the humbler classes of Israelitish women. We are now about to consider a Jewish female in a much higher station. In the town of Shunem dwelt one, designated in the Bible as a “great woman,” meaning a woman of rank and consequence, to whose hospitable house the prophet Elisha ever turned when he passed through the town.1 It was not the custom of the prophets to enter the houses of the great and eat at their luxurious tables, preferring the humble meal and lowly roof as more accordant with their heavenly mission than the good things of earth. Not that they resembled the self-mortifying ascetics of some Gentile creeds, and imagined that their merit in the sight of God was weighed according to the extent of their self-inflicted penances; but simply, that the mind might be kept clearer, the spirit poorer and the body healthier, by moderation in all things. Their mission of love, too, was to all classes, and the poor could not have come to them with such confidence, as in case of the widow, if their luxurious style of living placed them with the nobles of the land. That to lodge and eat amid the wealthy was contrary to their usual habits, we learn from the forcible expression, “she constrained him to eat bread [bread in Hebrew comprising all sorts of food, of course signifies regular meals]. and so it was, that as oft as he passed by, he turned in thither to eat bread;” and in so doing, it is evident that he found the Shunammite, one of “the seven thousand who had not bowed the knee to Baal nor kissed him,”2 and ac1 2

2 Kgs. 4:8. 1 Kgs. 19:18.

549

550

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

cepted her hospitality in the same spirit of piety and kindly love with which it was proffered. Once he had been constrained, for the prophet might have feared that the wealth and luxury which marked the abode was impregnated with the same awful seeds of vice and impiety which desecrated the wealthy of the capital; but a second time he needed not constraint, for one interview sufficed to mark the spiritual elevation of his hosts, and that they were indeed those with whom a prophet of the Lord might enjoy the delights of social intercourse in innocence and peace. Not content with proffering the mere hospitality of rest and food, we find the Shunammite saying to her husband, “Behold now, I know this is a holy man of God which passeth by us continually. Let us make him a little chamber, I pray thee, in the wall; and let us set for him there a bed, and a table, and a stool, and a candlestick: and it shall be, when he cometh to us, that he shall turn in thither.”3 And we know that her husband’s acquiescence was instantly obtained, and her plan accomplished; for the very next verse we read, “And it fell on a day that he came thither, and he turned into the chamber and slept there.”4 Briefly as this is related, how beautifully it illustrates the character of woman—the eager desire to show kindness, and so to show it as best to harmonize with the feelings and habits of its object. The establishment was probably the highest and most influential in Shunem. The Shunammite was an independent mistress of her own household, possessed of power to ask whom, and to do what she willed; she is the prime mover in the whole narration; and she it is to whom the reward is given, as the one from whose pure mind and noble heart the hospitable kindness originally came. That she did not at first know Elisha as a prophet, does but enhance the mild benevolence of her character. There was nothing in his appearance to mark superior rank or superior endowments; nothing probably but a gentle courtesy of manners which marked him worthy of kindness and attention. That they would ever be returned, she could not for a moment suppose, for the stranger was 3 4

2 Kgs. 4:9–10. 2 Kgs. 4:11.

FOURTH PERIOD. IV. THE SHUNAMMITE

551

evidently a wanderer, with no settled home or calling. But true benevolence never thinks of further recompense than the act of showing kindness brings. It is wrong to suppose that benevolence is but synonymous with acts of charity to the poor and needy. It finds space for its encouragement in every social and domestic duty of life. Benevolence to equals appears almost a paradox; yet it is not: for were such more often proved, in the earnest search after one another’s social happiness, in acts of daily kindness, and ever active fellow feeling, how much happier might this life be! It was this rare and beautiful benevolence which the Shunammite so richly possessed, and which is still more forcibly displayed in building a chamber for the man of God, than in her first hospitality. A very few interviews probably convinced her that he was something beyond that which he appeared and the prophet’s own lips might have told the rest, or at least have imparted that his mission was of God. The bustle and varied scenes of a large establishment were no fit home for one who, when not employed in the service of his fellow-creatures, passed his time in meditation and prayer. Even a chamber to himself within the house would not have permitted him the privacy he desired, besides causing him to diverge from the plan of moderation and retirement, demanded from him as a prophet and a reprover, by act as well as word, of the far-spreading vices of the time. To remedy this, and silently tempt his sojourning a longer time with them than the mere acceptance of a meal, the Shunammite’s ready mind conceived the idea of erecting a chamber expressly for him, with an egress and ingress of its own, and furnished with that kindly regard to all, which might make him look upon it as his own. Her plan was, of course, imparted to her husband, and how clearly does her simple expression, “Let us make a little chamber, I pray thee,” evince the affectionate confidence only found when husband and wife are equals; even though, by a succeeding verse, we are led to suppose that her husband was very much older than herself.5 The chamber was built and furnished; and greatly must Elisha have been surprised and affected by this proof of regard. We find 5

See 2 Kgs. 4:14.

552

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

him, in truth, making no remark; but how deeply he felt it, we learn by his desiring his servant the following morning to “call the Shunammite.”6 Call her? Why, had she not been in the chamber to give him welcome, and bid him look on all around him as his own? No. Her truly refined and feminine nature shrank back from obtruding herself upon the prophet, and so compelling thanks and approbation. She wished him to feel the comfort of a retired and private home, but not that he owed her obligation: and so she kept aloof, demanding no more than her own heart gave, in the delightful thought that it was in her power to add to the comfort of a man of God. And in this eager desire to reverence and serve the prophet, can we not read the love she bore to God? To mere earthly natures Elisha would have been nothing more than any other man—except perhaps exciting the emotions of dislike and dread with which those persons are ever regarded, whose lives and even characters are the reprovers of our own; but to those who truly and earnestly seek to love God, His ministers are especial objects of reverence and care; and such was the feeling of the Shunammite. “Behold! thou hast been careful for us, with all this care,” was the address of Gehazi, by his master’s command; “what is to be done for thee? wouldst thou be spoken for to the king, or to the captain of the host? And she answered, I dwell among mine own people.’’7 And what a volume of feeling is contained in these brief words! Not only a perfect contentment with her lot, but a meek and sorrowful reproach, that they could think she had shown this care in the hope of reward. Nothing can be more painful to a delicately feeling mind, than the idea of receiving return for aught of kindness: the heart glowing with its own warmth, with the peculiar pleasure of serving another, shrinks chilled into itself, feeling how completely it is misunderstood; how little its pure motives can be appreciated. Some natures would have been indignant at the supposition that she could not do a kind deed without reward; but the character of the Shunammite permitted not the expression of the 6 7

2 Kgs. 4:11–12. 2 Kgs. 4:13.

FOURTH PERIOD. IV. THE SHUNAMMITE

553

feeling. Her lip was closed, but her heart was full. Expostulation with Gehazi at the injustice of the motive attributed to her, or acceptance of the offer, were alike contrary to the retiring dignity of her character; and simply saying, “I dwell among mine own people,” she retreated hastily, as desirous the conference should be closed; but Elisha was not satisfied. He himself, probably, did full justice to the pious motives which had actuated her; but he wished to make publicly manifest, that no action engaged in out of pure love of God and reverence to His ministers, should pass without reward; and on hearing from Gehazi that her husband was old and she had no child, he again summoned her, and this time into his immediate presence. It was, no doubt, with some little repugnance she obeyed; fearing that her sensitive feelings might again be wounded by a proffer of service which she had so fully resolved not to accept. And “when he had called her, she stood at the door”8—how impressively betraying her reluctance! She could not refuse to speak with her guest; but, with that mixture of humility and real dignity which the true-feeling woman knows so well how to blend, she waited his commands on the threshold of his apartment. This time, however, no offer of reward chilled and saddened her. The prophet asked not, sought not, the expression of her wishes; but at once promised, “Thou shalt embrace a son”—a child, a son!9 Should she indeed possess that for which, as a woman of Israel in the olden time, she must so often have longed, though the wish was never uttered! and, in the fulness of her sudden joy, the promise seemed too precious for belief, “Nay, my lord, thou man of God, do not lie unto thine handmaid!”10 Still, even in that moment, we trace the same gentle self-possession which had characterized her answer to Gehazi. No burst of rapture, no triumph, as would have been had she looked to her hospitality to bring reward. No; while her whole heart must have so trembled with the suddenly awakened hope and joy, that steady thought was impossible, yet she spoke calmly, seeking to strengthen her faith in the prom2 Kgs. 4:15. 2 Kgs. 4:16. 10 2 Kgs. 4:16b. 8 9

554

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

ise, by the recollection it was in truth a “man of God who spoke,”11 even while she besought him not to deceive her—the very entreaty proving how earnestly and how long she had yearned for such a blessing. Doubt of the power of the Eternal to bring the promise to pass, it is evident, never assailed her. Her words to the prophet sprang merely from a too sudden thought of joy, and the anticipation was fulfilled; for at the proper season, exactly in accordance with Elisha’s promise, she embraced a son. Can we not picture the increase of domestic love and happiness which this infant treasure must have created in the Shunammite’s happy household? All we read of her, marks her the very character to enjoy to the full the intense happiness of maternal love, in its highest and most spiritual sense—one whose years massed in deeds not words; who would enshrine deeply in her own heart those pure emotions and high feelings from which the simplest action sprang,—one whose best resources had ever been independent of all outward excitement, and who, “dwelling among her own people,”12 had not a thought nor ambition beyond. Her home was the shrine which knew her best, and from which the mild light of kindness and benevolence emanated many roods around. To such a one, life, even when childless, could never have been sad; yet how many a lonely moment, a yearning thought unspoken, uncomplained of, yet still her own, must have been filled with the irrepressible gush of tenderness called forth by her child! How inexpressibly sweet must have been the holy task of leading that infant heart to God, and in the very midst of national sin and misery training him for heaven! Can we not fancy her strong affections concentrating their force and intensity around her boy, and lifting up her whole soul in increased adoration to her God? Nine or ten years might have thus passed; and her love and care seemed blessed in the growth and improvements of her child. Here Aguilar refers to 2 Kgs. 4:16b, “And she said [to Elisha], Nay, my lord, thou man of God, do not lie unto thine handmaid.” 12 Alluding back to 2 Kgs. 4:13 where in response to Elisha’s query, “wouldest thou be spoken for to the king, or to the captain of the host?” the Shunammite responds, “I dwell among mine own people.” 11

FOURTH PERIOD. IV. THE SHUNAMMITE

555

He was now old enough to leave his mother’s side, and sometimes accompany his father in his agricultural employments, We can imagine him, in his innocent glee, running from field to field, and eagerly sharing every rural occupation. A sudden stroke, either from the burning heat of the sun or some other cause, arrested his boyish joys, and, clinging to his father, he could only utter, “My head! my head!”13 Imagining it only a slight pain, which would soon pass, his father desired one of his men to carry him to his mother; “and when they had taken him and brought him to his mother, he sat on her knees till noon and died.”14 What a sudden and awful change! A few brief hours previous, the fond mother had parted with her darling in full health and glee, and he was brought back to her pale, suffering, powerless—only sufficiently sensible to cling to her neck and lay his burning head upon her bosom. And she sat still, calm—apparently unmoved— lest the faintest display of her uncontrollable agony should increase his suffering, or disturb him as he lay. That every aid possible to be obtained to alleviate the disease was sought, we cannot doubt; but the mother moved not, nor would she have her child removed, whilst life remained. And when we read this, shall we say the narratives of the Bible enter not into the emotions of the present day; that the characters there represented are of a nature utterly distinct from ours? What mother, more especially of an only child, can read the brief record of “they brought him to his mother, and he sat on her knees and died,” without sympathy; and as she pictures the sad scene in her fancy, without feeling that human nature, alike in sorrow or joy, is in all ages the same; and that, therefore, the Bible records do indeed concern her, for they speak of characters in all their strength and weakness, faults and virtues, like her own? No sound of wailing, no murmur of complaint, escaped the mother’s lips, as the breath of life passed from that loved form; as those sweet eyes, still fixed on her, became dim and lustreless, and even the faint moan of infant suffering no longer met her ear. “She rose and went up, and laid him on the bed of the man of God, and shut the door upon him, and went out. And she called to her hus13 14

2 Kgs. 4:19. 2 Kgs. 4:19–20.

556

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

band, and said, Send me, I pray thee, one of the young men and one of the asses, that I may run to the man of God and come again. And he said, Wherefore wilt thou go to him to-day? it is neither new moon nor Sabbath. And she said, It shall be well.”15 Here, again, is woman brought before us in her highest and loveliest nature. A weak mind would have only felt, not acted; would have been so overwhelmed with agony, as to have been incapable of any thought but the affliction which had befallen her. Not so the Shunammite; sustained by that noble energy, that perfect self-control, which had characterized her whole life, this trial cannot disturb the beautiful harmony of her character. Even to her husband she is silent as to their heavy affliction, and she evades his question;—whilst there is hope,—aye, and to her faithful heart there is hope even now, though the child is dead—she will not afflict her husband. The full tide of grief is laid up in her own breast, aside from herself. Till she has acted, she has no time to sit down and weep, though her throat is dry and her breath impeded. We read the unutterable agony in her movements, not her words— “she saddled an ass, and said to her servant, Drive on, and go forward, slack not thy riding for me, except I bid thee.”16 What was to her the heat, the fatigue of this unusual journey? She had but one thought, the man of God. He alone who had promised her “a child from the Lord”17 could have the power, by prayer, to restore him even from the dead. One recollection only mingles with the thought, Elijah and the widow of Zarephath. Had not her child been restored from the dead?18 and had not Elisha equal power with the gracious Lord? Without this thought, this faith, the mother must have sunk; for minds like hers ever prostrate the frame. Tears and complaints give relief: it is the heart which never breathes its grief that bows the body to the dust. And not alone the power of 2 Kgs. 4:21–23. 2 Kgs. 4:24. 17 Cf. 2 Kgs. 4:28 where when the child appeared to have died she asks Elisha, “Did I desire a son of my lord?” The answer to this rhetorical question is No. It was Elisha who had promised her in 2 Kgs. 4:16 that she would have a child. 18 1 Kgs. 17:17–24. 15 16

FOURTH PERIOD. IV. THE SHUNAMMITE

557

Elisha was uppermost in her mind; she must have known, have perfectly realized the attributes of Elisha’s God, or the thought of the prophet would have been no comfort. She must have felt that God was love, had compassion and sympathy even for her individually, a woman, a mere speck in this creation, or how could she have believed that He would grant His prophet the power to relieve her? She knew, as all believing Israel did, that prophets were mere instruments in His Almighty hand, of themselves powerless, spiritless, as their less favored brethren. And, therefore, that the Shunammite had a man of God through whom to seek, does not in any way prevent the example from bearing upon us. We have not Elisha, but we have still Elisha’s God. The way was not very long; but oh! the interminable period it must have felt to that poor mother’s heart, till Mount Carmel was reached! And how could she know the holy man was there? for he was a wanderer through Judea. But the impulse leading in that direction was of the Lord; and even before her dim eyes discovered the Prophet, he had recognised her afar off; and, surprised, bade Gehazi run to meet her, and ask if it were well with her, and her husband and child?19 thus demonstrating how kindly and lovingly the human emotions were ever at work in the heart of the holy man. But to Gehazi she could give no reply, save as she had said before to her husband, “It is well;”20 hers was no grief to speak to indifferent ears. None but Elisha could assist her, and her heart was too closely wrapt in its own anguish to open to any but to him. Yet what stern command must she have had over her woman’s nature to retain her calmness during this journey! Control never failed her, till she beheld the man of God, and sank almost powerless at his feet. She had reached him, indeed; but the energy which had sustained her throughout, seemed deserting her. She had no power to utter the entreaty with which her heart was filled. She could only clasp his knees, and gaze on his thee, in agony, till roused by the kindly gentleness with which the prophet reproved Gehazi for seeking to thrust her aside. “Let her alone,” he said, “for her soul is vexed within her; and the Lord has hid it from me, 19 20

2 Kgs. 4:25–26. 2 Kgs. 4:26b.

558

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

and has not told me.”21 Then she said, “Did I desire a son of my lord? Did I not say, Do not deceive me?”22 The mother could not say her boy was dead. Faith was strong within her that he would be saved; and how powerfully does the very form of her address to the prophet betray the depth, the intensity of her feelings: refusing, even to him, to give vent to the torrent of grief and lamentation, and even of reproach, which would have burst forth unrestrainedly from a weaker and less superior mind. Elisha needed no further information; and promptly he desired Gehazi to take his staff, and neither loiter nor speak by the way, till he had laid “it on the face of the child.”23 But this was not sufficient for the poor mother. “As the Lord liveth, and as thy soul liveth,” she implored, “I will not leave thee.”24 None could be to her as Elisha, and he rebuked her not, nor denied her; his heart was too full of kindly emotions, and he arose and followed her.25 But not to Gehazi was such a miracle vouchsafed; his coming to meet his master with the information, “the child is not awake,”26 probably first convinced Elisha the event was of the Lord, and that the necessary power would be granted him. The restoring the dead was a greater miracle than he had yet performed; and as we find him saying, “The Lord hath hid it from me, and hath not told me,”27 he perhaps at first supposed that the child was merely in a stupor resembling death, and the virtue of the prophetic staff would revive him. But Gehazi’s words proved to him that the child 2 Kgs. 4:27. 2 Kgs. 4:28 where the Shunammite refers back to what she had said in 2 Kgs. 4:16, “Nay, my lord, thou man of God, do not lie unto thine handmaid” in response to Elisha’s promise that she would have a child. 23 2 Kgs. 4:29. 24 2 Kgs. 4:30a. 25 2 Kgs. 4:30b. 26 2 Kgs. 4:31 where KJV translates “not awaked” rather than “not awake” as Aguilar writes here. Gehazi’s point is that laying the prophet’s staff upon the face of the child has not achieved the desired result of restoring the dead child to life. Contrast Aguilar. 27 Here Aguilar quotes Elisha’s words to Gehazi in 2 Kgs. 4:27 when she ran to seek Elisha at Mount Carmel. 21 22

FOURTH PERIOD. IV. THE SHUNAMMITE

559

was really dead; and he quickened his steps, and hastened to his own chamber, where the child lay, “and shut the door upon the twain, and prayed unto the Lord.28 Words, how full of important meaning! In every other action of the prophet we find the prophetic spirit acting, as it were, instantaneously. The power intrusted to him for the good of the Eternal’s chosen, as for the punishment of the unrighteous and disobedient, had seemed ready at his word. In this it was no consequence of his superhuman endowments, but simply the effect of prayer unto the Lord. He might foretell events,29 might multiply oil,30 render poison harmless;31 so feed a hundred men with twenty loaves, and a few baskets of first fruits, that they were not only satisfied, but left thereof!32 might bid iron swim,33 and know what the king said in his bed-chamber, though hundreds

2 Kgs. 4:33. E.g., announcing to the Shunammite that she would have a child; 2 Kgs. 4: 16. 30 2 Kgs. 4:2–7. 31 In 2 Kgs. 4:38–41 it is related that “Elisha came again to Gilgal: and there was a dearth in the land ... and one went out into the field to gather herbs, and found a wild vine, and gathered there of wild gourds his lap full, and came and shred them into the pot of pottage: for they knew them not. So they poured out for the men to eat. And it came to pass, as they were eating of the pottage, that they cried out, and said, O thou man of God, there is death in the pot. And they could not eat thereof. But he [Elisha the prophet] said, Then bring meal. And he cast it into the pot; and he said. Pour out for the people, that they may eat. And there was no harm in the pot.” 32 This miracle also was performed by Elisha as related in 2 Kgs. 4:42– 44. 33 2 Kgs. 6:5–7: “But as one was felling a beam, the axe fell into the water: and he cried, and said, Alas master: for it was borrowed. And the man of God [Elisha] said, Where fell it? And he shewed him the place. And he [Elisha] cut down a stick, and cast it in thither; and the iron did swim. Therefore said he [Elisha], Take it up to thee. And he put out his hand and took it.” 28 29

560

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

of miles away;34 but life and death were laid up with the Lord, and prayer only gave him power over the human frame.* What a tumult of contending emotions must have oppressed the Shunammite during that awful interval! Let any anxious mother recall the time when the darling of her heart has been pronounced sick unto death—that there is no hope—death is fast approaching, when, in the wild agony of her despair, she has refused belief in the skill of him who has thus spoken, and sent or flown for the first physician of the age, and led him to the chamber of her child, and left him there, without the power of waiting for his decisive mandate, and then sunk prostrate in her own closet before her God, seeking to pray, but finding her words trembling, fearing, hoping, and only conscious that life and death are with the Lord, and, if He willed, the skill she had so wildly sought might save her darling still. Let any mother recall such periods of her life, and she may enter into the feelings of the Shunammite, as she sat alone in that interval of suspense, for her husband, still out in his agricultural employment, knew not of the suffering at home, and she had now none to look to in her agony, save her God. Time passed; how long she knew not, save that she felt as if an age were passing over heart and head. Hush! Is it the prophet’s voice? The mother started from her prostrate prayer, her head flung back, her very breath ceasing. “Call this Shunammite,”35 seemed to have rung in her ears; but it might be only fancy, only the mocking torture of her bewildered brain. No! Gehazi is at her door—he calls her to his master, though he says not wherefore, and she does not look upon his face to read his tidings there. She stood within the prophet’s chamber—she glanced upon the bed— her boy lived, breathed, smiled, stretched out his arms to her once more, and the voice of the prophet spake, “Take up thy son.”36 And she sought to obey; but the spirit which had sustained her in sorrow, in suspense, departed now, and she fell at his feet powerless, voiceless, conscious only that her child lived—that the prayer 2 Kgs. 6:12. * As is further displayed very strikingly in 2 Kings vi. 17, 18. 35 2 Kgs. 4:36a. 36 2 Kgs. 4:36b. 34

FOURTH PERIOD. IV. THE SHUNAMMITE

561

of Elisha, and the compassionate love of Elisha’s God, had given her back the dead. And even when she recovered sufficiently to bow herself to the very ground, in silent acknowledgment of the power of Elisha, the mercy of her God, and, with her living child clasped to her bosom, retired from the chamber,37 leaving the man of God to the adoration and meditation which this great mercy called, still no word broke from that heart, so swelling in thankfulness and love that only tears might relieve it; and beautifully does this stillness continue to illustrate the character of this sweet and gentle woman, so controlled, so energetic in affliction, so calm, so still in joy—so full of deep, of intense feeling, sensibility, affection, yet so restrained within, that though all around her felt its blessed effects, alike in deed, and word, and manner, none knew its extent save her God. Blessed as must have been the little domestic circle of the Shunammite before, it must have been thrice blessed from the restoration of her child. What must have been the feelings of the husband and the father on his return, when told that, in so short a space, his treasured child had been snatched from him by death, and been restored? How must his heart have glowed in increased love and veneration for the gentle woman, who, rather than expose him to the agony of such intelligence, had buried it all in her own breast; and sought the prophet alone and unsoothed, and, through that energetic promptness, had been a lowly instrument in the hands of the Lord for the restoration of her child! Had she lingered in unavailing and probably complaining sorrow—had she permitted herself to fail in faith and prayer—she had not sought the prophet, nor would her child have been restored, for she would have been no fit receiver for such manifestation of almighty love. The character of the Shunammite was not one to change or waver. We find her, at a later period, displaying the same retiring gentleness, yet dignified self-possession and energetic will. Some years must have passed, and from there being no mention of the Shunammite’s husband in affairs which, had he been living, would Cf. 2 Kgs. 4:37: “Then she went in, and fell at his [Elisha’s] feet, and bowed herself to the ground, and took up her son, and went out.” 37

562

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

have devolved upon him, not on her, we infer that she had become a widow, an inference confirmed by the previous statement that “her husband was old.”38 Elisha had never lost sight of her, but had probably continued to occupy the “little chamber,” whenever he passed through Shunem. He advised a removal, which must have been both irksome and painful to one whose house had always been on one spot, and whose richest possessions consisted of the land, and flocks, and herds around it, which she could not carry away with her, nor for the safety of which, provide. However, she had too much faith and trust to hesitate in obedience; and when the mandate of the prophet came, “Arise, and go thou and thine household, and sojourn wheresoever thou canst sojourn: for the Lord hath called for a famine; and it shall also come upon the land seven years,” she unhesitatingly “arose, and did after the saying of the man of God: and she went with her household, and sojourned in the land of the Philistines seven years.”39 A sojourn which would have been inexpressibly sad to such a true follower of Israel, had she not been cheered by the blessed thought of the Eternal’s continued care for her. What was she in His sight? and yet, even by His prophet, He had deigned to warn her of the evil about to ensue, and provide for her safety, by permission to sojourn whithersoever she would. In those seven years of exile, how much must have devolved on her to keep her son and her household faithful, and live as if they were still in their own land, and still guided by the counsels of the man of God! Can we not fancy the morning and evening prayer arising daily from that little circle of faithful hearts led by a woman’s voice,40 and the Sabbaths and the festivals marking that lowly home Gehazi’s words in 2 Kgs. 4:14. 2 Kgs. 8:1–2. 40 It cannot be fortuitous that Aguilar here in the midst of her expatiating upon the virtue of the unnamed Shunammite also casts her in the role of a prayer leader in Jewish communal worship. As we have noted, early in the book in her description of Sarah’s not being present when the divinely sent messengers came to discuss with Abraham and Sarah the latter’s imminent giving birth to Isaac (Gen. 18:9–10) [p. 106], and in her discussion of Eve (p. 62), Aguilar leads us to believe that she opposes the 38 39

FOURTH PERIOD. IV. THE SHUNAMMITE

563

a sanctuary before the Lord? Oh! if the heart be but true to its God, it matters little where its home is cast. The magnet points unfailingly to its answering star wheresoever the vessel glides. In tempest or calm, in cold or heat, it wavers not, or fails to guide aright; and so is it with the man whose heart, like the magnet to the pole, is fixed upon its God. At the end of the seven years, the Shunammite and her household returned to Judea; but her home and land had been seized during her absence, and apparent ruin and privation in consequence was her welcome home.41 Some would have been ready to accuse Elisha as the cause of the evil, as having advised her removal. Others, again, would have demanded, or at least depended on, the prophet’s influence with the king. The Shunammite felt and did neither. With calm self-possession she went herself to make her complaint before the king, and demand her house and land. This was no service in which Elisha’s spiritual ministry was needed. It was no favor for herself, no advancement for her boy. The heart which had once answered, “I dwell among mine own people,”42 to offers of reward, had not changed. As a woman and a widow in Israel, her sole plea was the justice of her cause. But though with true feminine delicacy she had shrunk from appealing to Elisha in this emergency, the Eternal had so ordered events, that the prophet was in fact the true cause of the king’s inidea that women will demand their rights. Either Aguilar’s militancy on behalf of egalitarianism slowly unfolds or, alternatively, she deliberately disarms her readers by leading them to believe that Woman of Israel is simply one more contribution, albeit a Jewish one, to a genre of books meant to cultivate piety and devotion among women, and not, as it turns out to be, a call to women and to men to understand that Moses and the Prophets taught feminism and egalitarianism. However, by the time she has made this point in her discussion of biblical narrative in vol. 2, Aguilar has totally charmed her readers into submission by her artful retelling of Bible stories and her demonstration of her competence as an authority on the language of Scripture and heritage of the Jews, including the teachings of the Ancient Fathers, whom we would call “the Rabbis.” 41 2 Kgs. 8:3. 42 2 Kgs. 4:13.

564

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

stant attention to her suit. It so chanced that the king was talking to Gehazi, and demanding a recital of the great things Elisha had done; and at the very time the young man was repeating the restoration of the dead child, the Shunammite herself appeared before the king, led into his presence by that very beloved child, now grown into manhood, of whom Gehazi spoke. “Behold, my lord, O king,” he exclaimed, “this is the woman, and this is her son, whom Elisha restored to life.43 And when the king asked the woman, she told him.”44 And so strong an impression did the narrative make, that without hesitation he appointed unto her a certain officer, saying, “Restore all that was hers, and all the fruits of the field, since the day that she left the land, even until now.”45 Gratefully might the Shunammite have recognised the hand of God in this instant judgment, from one whose character was noted for impotence and indecision—one whose very justice was ever likely to be sullied by caprice; for though we are expressly told in Holy Writ that Jehoram’s character was not of the actively evil, as his father and his mother, Ahab and Jezebel, his whole history marks him one of those fainéants, whose indolence and weakness wrought almost as much evil in Israel as wickedness itself. The energy which had urged the prosecution of her suit was indeed rewarded. Not only were all her possessions restored, but their full value, during her seven years of absence. Through her exertions, her boy received his inheritance; and from his noninterference, though he must have been quite of an age to assert his own right, what a powerful proof have we of the deep veneration in which the mothers of Israel were regarded by their sons! We hear no more of the Shunammite; but we have become sufficiently intimate with her sweet character to picture her declining years, full of piety, of that calm and beautiful dignity, which, if woman’s in her youth, will never forsake her in her age. Full of love to God and man, of good deeds and blessed thoughts, it was for her, and for seven thousand such as her, who had not bowed the knee to

2 Kgs. 8:5. 2 Kgs. 8:6a. 45 2 Kgs. 8:6b. 43 44

FOURTH PERIOD. IV. THE SHUNAMMITE

565

Baal,46 that the Eternal, in his loving mercy, still restrained His avenging wrath. The peculiar charm of the Shunammite’s character is its unity, its harmonious blending of parts. In every position, adversity or prosperity, or that period of often greater trial than cither—the uninterrupted routine of daily life—still we see her in the same calm and beautiful light, never turning aside from the beaten path of duty, never seeking more than the day may bring, and finding enough there, not only to occupy her, but to give her grace and favor in the sight of God. But though never apparently disturbed, her calmness was not indifference. All that we read of her betrays an under-current of intense feeling, which, while it caused her to suffer deeply, also endowed her with the purest susceptibility to joy. Feeling it was, that inspired that constantly working energy which never permitted her to sit down and weep when she could act, or remain satisfied with the mere expression of kindness, when she could manifest it in deed: and of that intensity of feeling, piety was the spring. No heart can rest indifferent when once awakened to a love of God, and, as must follow, a love of man. It was with no thought of reward she showed such warm hospitality to Elisha, yet from that one deed all her after-happiness sprang. He was the chosen servant of the Eternal; and a service done to him was an offering to his God. From first to last, the character of the Shunammite offers the beautiful lesson of example. Her good use of wealth and greatness—her moderation in all circumstances—her firmness in affliction—her absolute control of every emotion till her child was restored—her unselfish endurance of anxiety and anguish, rather than impart them to her husband—her calm, yet energetic prosecution of her son’s rights—all these are points which every young daughter of Israel may admire and imitate, even though her position in life be different. We must exercise energy 1 Kgs. 19:18; the larger context of 1 Kgs. 19:16–21 indicates that that situation in which loyalty to the God of Israel was at its lowest ebb was the immediate background for Elijah’s being asked to anoint Jehu as king over Israel and Elisha to be a prophet. Thus Aguilar uses the quotation of 1 Kgs. 19:18 as an envelope or inclusio both to introduce and to conclude her retelling of the story of the Shunammite (pp. 549 and 565). 46

566

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

and self-control in little things, even in daily employments, or we shall never find them when most needed. We must set out in life with a conviction that we are destined for something worthier and nobler than the mere routine of frivolous employments and unmeaning recreations—that we are endowed with a heart and mind, for the proper use of which an account will be demanded; and sad will it be if we then feel, that the impulses and usefulness of both have been neglected, and opportunities, alike of virtuous deeds and beneficial feeling, have long passed us by unused. And as women of Israel, even more powerfully should the history of the Shunammite affect us; her elevated character—her domestic and social influence—nay, the very mention of her as a “great woman”47—the mention of her, instead of her husband or son, as the principally concerned in the whole narration—all convince us that even in such an era of national anarchy and discord, the women of Israel were in the full enjoyment of all the liberty and privileges, spiritual and temporal, granted them in the law of God. Her very piety, which obtained her such favor in the sight of God and of His prophet, is unspeakable comfort to us now. She had, indeed, the friendship and counsel of a prophet, which we cannot have; but her piety had life and influence at a period of much darker misery and sin, and rebellion, and idolatry, than we have to encounter now, To retain purity and faithfulness, to walk firmly in the very midst of vast multitudes who so derided all true piety and adherence to the law of God as to endanger even personal safety, was a position of infinitely harder trial than is ours now. The Shunammite’s being blessed with Elisha, raises no barrier between us. What the prophets were to the faithful in the olden time, the word of the Lord48 is now to us. We cannot too often dwell upon the truth, that the same gracious God who manifested Himself through prophets and miracles to our ancestors is ours still, and has granted us a record of His words and works, to give us strength, and hope, and comfort, till that glorious clay when we shall be restored to our own land, and His almighty presence be again revealed.

47 48

2 Kgs. 4:8. I.e., the Bible.

FOURTH PERIOD. IV. THE SHUNAMMITE

567

The natural powers and endowments of the Shunammite were not superior to woman’s capabilities now; and, therefore, that she found such grace and favor in the sight of God, as for Him, in his infinite mercy, to restore her child from the dead, should encourage us to follow in the same holy and rejoicing path. Events so marked as those in the Shunammite’s history, may never be ours; but the piety of thought and deed is never passed unheeded by our God. The Shunammite was one of the seven thousand, who alone remained faithful amid countless millions. Let each of Israel’s daughters determine to prove herself one of the faithful, which in every age is found, unseen, unrecognised, perhaps, by man, when mourning over apparent universal indifference, and falling away from the rock of righteousness; but known, recognised, aye, and upheld by God. Let her not think that, as a woman, her prayers and deeds are unavailing, save perchance unto herself. No! as a woman of Israel, she is one of the supporters of a temple which will last for ever; nationally, as well as individually, she is bound to forward the holy cause; and she may rest assured that her piety and faithfulness, even as those of man, will hasten “the great and glorious day of the Lord.”49

I.e., the eschaton, the Messianic Age, which is referred to by these words in Mal. 4:4: “Remember ye the law of Moses my servant, which I commanded unto him in Horeb for all Israel, with the statutes and judgments. Behold I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and glorious [so Aguilar here; KJV translates ‘dreadful’] day of the LORD. And he shall turn the heart of the parents [KJV renders ‘fathers’] to the children and the heart of the children to their parents” [KJV renders ‘fathers’]; see also Joel 2:28–31 Note that the great and glorious day is described there as a time when “I [God] will pour out my spirit upon all flesh; and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, your old men shall dream dreams, your young men shall see visions: and also upon the servants and upon the handmaids in those days will I pour out my spirit.” 49

CHAPTER V. LITTLE ISRAELITISH MAID— HULDAH—INFLUENCE OF WOMEN DURING THE MONARCHY That the Eternal often chooses the weakest and the feeblest, through whose unconscious influence to spread a knowledge of His ways and works amid the Gentiles, is proved by the mention of the little Israelitish maid (see 2 Kings v. 2, 3, &c.). In one of the predatory excursions of the Syrians into the north of Judea, they had carried off, amongst other booty, a little maid, who became the property of Naaman’s wife. Naaman was the captain of the host of the king of Syria, a man of high rank and great valor, who had frequently been the means of deliverance to Syria; but he had become a leper, and was, of course, incapacitated from all public duties and domestic enjoyments. It must have been a sad change to the little maid of Israel; torn from the bosom of her affectionate family, and sold as a slave in the service of a heathen. But it is clear, from her recollection of Elisha, and her earnest wish that her master would go to him to be cured of his leprosy, that she was a child of one of the seven thousand faithful,1 and one who had been tenderly and spiritually brought up in the religion of her God; and, consequently, with firm faith in the power of His prophets. We can picture her child-like orisons,2 rising morning and evening in the lan-

I.e., the seven thousand-member minority among the Kingdom of Israel who were loyal to the LORD, the God of Israel and who did not bow down to Baal or kiss the images of Baal; see 1 Kgs. 19:18. 2 The noun ‘orison’ is an archaic English term for ‘prayer’, employed mostly in the plural. In fact, the term, derived from Latin oration, meaning 1

569

570

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

guage of her country to Israel’s God,3 undisturbed by the heathen worship with which she was surrounded; lingering with fond affection on the memory of her parents, cherishing their instructions in her heart of hearts, and praying to God, as they taught her, to keep her undefiled, that she might bear witness to His glory. The effect of true piety never fails to obtain the love and kindness of our fellow-creatures. The respectful deference of the young slave, her quiet discharge of her duties, her uncomplaining gentleness, though often visible sadness, had no doubt attracted the at‘speech’ is in the words of Oxford English Dictionary, 2d. ed. (1989), 10:937, “etymologically a doublet of [Eng.] oration.” 3 Imbued by her parents and by the prayerbook of the Spanish and Portuguese Jews with the heritage of the Rabbinic Sages, who hold that the three daily worship services—morning, afternoon, and evening— recited by Jews and Jewesses with or without a congregation were instituted by Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, respectively—Aguilar takes it for granted that the unnamed Israelite woman who was held as a bondmaid by the Syrian General Naaman said her morning and evening prayers in the holy tongue just as did Grace Aguilar; similarly, it is related in Dan. 6:10 that Daniel “his windows being open in his chamber toward Jerusalem, he kneeled upon his knees three times a day, and prayed and gave thanks before his God, as he did aforetime.” Concerning Daniel’s act of piety, Jon L. Berquist, Controlling Corporeality: The Body and the Household in Ancient Israel (New Brunswick, N.J. and London: Rutgers University Press, 2002), 159–160 remarks as follows: “Because he is Jewish, he prays in public in certain ways, even at the risk of his life. Earlier, he had maintained a strict diet in violation of the king’s demands, and eventually he disobeys the command not to worship his own God. His cultural differences and ethnic dissimilitude are embodied in ways that offend the sensibilities of those around him, and at times the reader may well sense that Daniel intends to be offensive to the non-Jews around him.” In fact, to regard Daniel’s praying three times a day in his own chamber as a public (rather than a private) demonstration of affection for God requires both King Nebuchadnezzar and Prof. Berquist to stick their noses into Daniel’s personal space. Aguilar tells us that (unlike Berquist who finds offense in Daniel’s manner of prayer), Naaman’s wife was inspired by the Israelite maidservant’s religious devotion to seek the help of that maidservant and her God.

FOURTH PERIOD. V. LITTLE ISRAELITISH MAID

571

tention of her mistress, and called forth, not only kindness towards the child, but led her to confide in her her own affliction from her husband’s disease. A peculiar sanctity ever surrounded the Hebrews, in the eyes even of many ignorant and heathen nations. They were not only the Firstborn of the Lord4 in spiritual privileges; but, in arts and sciences, and all that marked them, almost an age in advance, both in refinement and intellect. It is not improbable that the wife of Naaman was questioning her young slave as to the treatment of Lepers in Judea, of which the child could give her but little information; but all she had heard of Elisha, we may imagine, flashing on her mind, the power he had received from the Eternal, the miracles he had done,5 the tender kindness his character had so often evinced, caused the instant exclamation, “Would God my lord were with the prophet who is in Samaria; for he would recover him of his leprosy.”6 There is no hesitation, no doubt—the very faith of a child satisfied that it was in his power, and he would do it. And so completely did that simple faith enter into the hearts of those who heard, that we find not only Naaman’s domestics and Naaman himself, but the king of Syria acting upon it, the very instant that it was reported, “Thus, and thus, saith the maid, who is of the land of Israel.’’7 The story of Naaman’s visit to Judea, and miraculous cure, does not enter into the plan of this history, much as we should delight in dwelling upon it, as so strikingly illustrative of the Eternal’s loving-mercy, over all His creatures. Naaman was a heathen, and often an enemy to Judea; yet, when he sought the prophet of the This expression is applied to the people of Israel in Ex. 4:22 where God says to Moses, “And thou shalt say unto Pharaoh, Thus saith the LORD, Israel is my son, even my firstborn.” Cf. also Jer. 31:9 where God says, “For I am a father to Israel, and Ephraim is my firstborn son.” For explication of the latter verse see above, p. 125 n. 120. Aguilar employs the expression “firstborn” with respect to the People of Israel also on pp. 186, 239, 279. 5 See 2 Kgs. 2:19–25; 4; and see also the enumeration of miracles above, p. 559. 6 2 Kgs. 5:3. 7 2 Kgs. 5:4. 4

572

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

Lord, even he was accepted, and a miracle performed in his behalf. How powerfully should this rebuke us, when inclined to pronounce harsh judgment on the religion of a fellow-creature, or arrogate to ourselves alone, or to those who think exactly with us, the sole care and love of our Creator! How happy must the little Maid of Israel have felt, when she beheld her master perfectly cured; and the God of her fathers acknowledged and worshipped, as the sole and only one, by those who had so lately been heathens and idolators—“Thy servant will henceforth offer neither burnt-offering, nor sacrifice, unto other gods, but unto the LORD,”8 Naaman had declared unto Elisha: and when she saw this change, how must the Hebrew child have rejoiced! That all had originated in her confident reference to the prophet, she probably never knew; but we see that she was the direct instrument in the Lord’s hand, to bring about the revelation of His power; she had glorified Him by trusting in His prophet, and so made both her God and His servant venerated in a Gentile land. But this would not have been had she been ashamed to confess her religion and her country before men. A solitary exile in the household of Naaman, young, and undirected by man, holier associations must have been powerful within her, to have prevented the adoption of the forms and customs, and even worship, of those around her. The childish faith which caused the exclamation and its consequences, as we have recorded, did not spring from the mere impulse of the moment, but from the education and subsequent thought of early years. That which springs from mere impulse would have been startled and terrified at the instant acting on the words; but to the child of Israel, there was no fear or doubt. If then even a child, a female child, was permitted to be the means of bringing a heathen household to a knowledge of the only God, shall we not do all we can to make the education of our children subservient to the same great end?9 Amongst heathens and idolators, indeed, we do not dwell; but thrown, as we are so often, into terms of intimacy and kindness with those who worship God, though not as we do, it is more necessary than ever to infuse a na8 9

2 Kgs. 5:17. See above, p. 143 and our discussion there.

FOURTH PERIOD. V. LITTLE ISRAELITISH MAID

573

tional spirit amongst us; to inculcate into the very youngest of our families, who and what they are—that a solemn charge is intrusted to them, as witnesses of the Eternal—and that a denial or concealment of our true faith, and sacrifice of its ordinances, to assimilate with the world, is a denial of God Himself. Let us teach our children from earliest infancy to venerate and glory in their faith; and that faith will be respected in them by every Gentile with whom they associate. The law of God makes no distinction between the education of sons and daughters, and let us make none; both are equally children of Israel—and both equally heirs of all the spiritual and temporal privileges which that holy name includes. Let our daughters then feel and glory in their nationality; and by making the religion of their fathers the mainspring of their being, so serve the cause of God, and so elevate the character of Israel, that their very exile may hasten the day of our restoration, by bringing all the nations to a knowledge of the Lord. The youngest child may, like the little maid of Israel, bear witness to the truth of her religion, and the power of her God. An infant of six years once had the moral courage, in the midst of an assemblage of Gentile children, and her mother was not present, to refuse touching some forbidden food, and with childish and most touching artlessness to say aloud that they were not allowed to eat it. And that infant upheld the sanctity of her religious ordinances, and inspired a feeling of respect and admiration, not only towards herself, but towards the religion she professed; and this is the practical nationality we should inculcate. Teach a child from the first that she is the depositary of a solemn office—that she can, in her own proper person, either elevate or degrade the religion which her Father in Heaven Himself deigned to give—that she is not like the children of the soil, for whom it is enough to follow the multitude, and who have advantages of all kinds to teach them their religious duty, but one of a peculiar and holy faith scattered in every land, exiled and often oppressed, yet still the first-born of the Lord;10 and, therefore, that it depends This expression is applied to the people of Israel in Ex. 4:22 where God says to Moses, “And thou shalt say unto Pharaoh, Thus saith the LORD, Israel is my son, even my firstborn.” Cf. also Jer. 31:9 where God says, “For I am a father to Israel, and Ephraim is my firstborn son.” 10

574

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

upon her, even as if she stood alone, to do all she can to raise her faith, and its blessed ordinances, in the estimation of the whole Gentile world. We have now come to a very important character in our present period, with little to concern us as women generally, but much to encourage us as women of Israel; and sufficient in itself to give a direct denial to the accusation, that the Jewish religion utterly prohibits all spiritual and intellectual privileges; and that for a woman to attempt the study of, or instruction in, religion, is little less than folly. We have already seen a female judge and prophetess in the person of Deborah; but still, if she were the only female so mentioned, we might incline to the idea that women were thus sanctified only in the very first selection of Israel. Such, however, is not the fact; several hundred years had passed away—the kingdom of Israel was sinking deeper into the abyss of sin. Had there been any single portion of the law derogatory to woman, or confining her to a mere household sphere, with neither liberty nor inclination to employ her intellect and influence, now would have been the very time for such laws to obtain ascendency; the state of society must effectually have prevented her rising against it. If, however, we refer to 2 Kings xxii. 11–20, also to 2 Chron. xxxiv. 20–29, we shall find a very different picture of woman in Israel. The wicked kings Manasseh and Amon had been succeeded by the youthful Josiah, at the early age of eight years. His mother’s name, we are expressly told, was Jedidah,11 and her influence it probably was which so guided and instructed his youthful years as to make him very different from his predecessors. “He did that which was right in the sight of the Lord, and walked in all the way of David his father, and turned not aside to the right nor to the left.”12 In the eighteenth year of his reign, he gave orders for the repairing and beautifying of the house of the Lord; and it was when obeying this order that Hilkiah the high priest found the book of the law, which he gave to Shaphan the scribe, who, after reading it, The old editions have the typographical error Jebidah; for the source of the information as to the name of the mother of King Josiah see 2 Kgs. 22:1. 12 2 Kgs. 22:2 = 2 Ch. 34:2. 11

FOURTH PERIOD. V. LITTLE ISRAELITISH MAID

575

brought it unto the king.13 What an awful picture do these verses present of the national apostasy; that the very high priest should have been ignorant of the existence of the book of the law in the house of God, and its enactments and prohibitions, of course, never read, as was so imperatively commanded, before the people—men, women, and children!14 The mere formula of high priests, scribes, and other officers of the temple, appeared still filled; but what a fearful mockery must it have been before the Lord—the mere empty shell, whence all of obedience, and love, and spirituality had departed. That the ordinances of the law were utterly disregarded, is evident from the effect which the hearing of the law produced upon Josiah. He rent his clothes (always a sign of intense affliction), and sent instantly the priest, and other superior officers, to “inquire of the Lord for me, and for all Judah, concerning the words of the book that is found, for great is the wrath of the Lord that is kindled against us, because our fathers have not hearkened unto the words of this book, to do according unto all that which is written concerning us.”15 And to whom did these high officers go? to a mighty man of wisdom? to a holy man of God, whose sanctity and influence gave him courage to threaten and to warn, to risk personal danger from the anger of the populace, whom his denunciations might enrage? No; it was to a WOMAN that they came—a woman and a WIFE in Israel—and yet an inspired prophetess of the

2 Kgs. 22:3–10; cf. 2 Ch. 34:8–16. Here Aguilar refers to Deut. 31:10–12: “And Moses commanded them, saying, At the end of every seven years, in the solemnity of the year of release, in the feast of tabernacles, When all Israel is come to appear before the LORD thy God in the place which he shall choose, thou shalt read this law before all Israel in their hearing. Gather the people together, men, and women, and children, and thy stranger that is within thy gates, that they may hear, and that they may learn, and fear the LORD your God, and observe to do all the words of this law.” Concerning this law and its implications for the position of women in the Law of Moses see above, pp. 284, 314, 338. 15 2 Kgs. 22:11–13; cf. 2 Ch. 34:19–21. 13 14

576

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

Eternal, the chosen medium between him and his people, the bold denouncer of his wrath, and the truthful reporter of his love. “And Hilkiah the priest, and Ahikam and Achbor, and Shaphan, and Asaiah,16 went unto Huldah the prophetess, the wife of Shallum, the son of the keeper of the wardrobe (now she dwelt in Jerusalem in the college), and they communed with her.”17— Now, if the women of Israel were confined entirely to their household duties,18 it is strange that Huldah could have obtained admisSo now NJV; KJV, however, reads Asahiah. 2 Kgs. 22:14; cf. 2 Ch. 34:22. Note that the Hebrew term, which KJV renders as ‘college’ is mishneh ‘the second or newer neighborhood’ in Jerusalem; see the map provided as illustration #6 in this edition of Women of Israel. However, KJV follows Targum Jonathan, which, according to the Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Megillah 3a, is Judaism’s officially sanctioned Aramaic rendering of the eight books of the Former (Joshua, Judges, Samuel and Kings) and the Latter Prophets (Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and the Book of the Twelve [so-called minor] Prophets). Indeed, in Rabbinic tradition, Huldah was the head of an institution of higher Jewish learning, which will later be called a yeshivah. The term mishneh was therefore taken to mean ‘place of learning’ and was construed as a noun with the prefixed consonant m designating ‘place of’ while the remaining consonants point to a derivative of the verbal root sh-n-y meaning ‘learn, study, recite’, which is reflected also in the noun Mishnah, which designates the central document of Rabbinic Judaism. See also Elizabeth Cady Stanton, The Woman’s Bible vol. 2 (New York: European Publishing Co., 1898), 81–83. 18 Here Aguilar has worked up to a crescendo of polemic against the male chauvinists then and now, who would deny women an equal share in the study of the Torah and in Jewish life. She has moved slowly from telling us in connection with the sin and punishment of Eve, “her [woman’s] mistaken notion, that humility is degradation; and unless she compels man to accede to her her rights, they will be trampled on, and never acknowledged—her curiosity leading her too often to covet knowledge which she needs not for the continuance of her happiness” (see above, p. 63) and then telling us in connection with Sarah’s not being present when the divinely sent messengers inform Abraham that she is going to have a child (Isaac), “Sarah joined not her husband or his guests. The modest and dignified customs of the East prevented all intrusion, or even 16 17

FOURTH PERIOD. V. LITTLE ISRAELITISH MAID

577

sion within the college, which was probably an establishment devoted to the study of the law. Her being a prophetess does not make an exception in her favor, or render her dwelling in the college a necessary consequence. We have seen, in the cases of Elijah and Elisha, that the prophets had no appointed residence; but were, generally, wanderers and mere sojourners in the various cities of Judea. Deborah judged and prophesied under her own palm tree, between Ramah and Bethel.19 Huldah, on the contrary, dwelt in the college; and from the officers of Josiah seeking her without any hesitation, as the only one of whom they could inquire of the Lord, we are justified in inferring that her wisdom and piety had long been known and acknowledged in Jerusalem.20 the wish to intrude. Unless particularly asked for, the place of the Eastern and Jewish wife was in the retirement of home; not from any inferiority of rank, or servitude of station, but simply because their inclination so prompted. The strangers might have business with Abraham, which, if needed, he would impart to her; there was no occasion for her to come forward.” See above, pp. 105-106. However, in vol. 2 she suggests in connection with her discussion of the wise woman of Abel of Beth-Maachah that women participated in the municipal senate of every village in ancient Israel (p. 534), and then she went so far as to suggest that when the Shunammite woman was living abroad among the Philistines she undoubtedly led the singing of the Jewish worship services every morning and evening on weekdays, Sabbaths, and festivals. And so Huldah’s having been declared by Judaism’s official Aramaic translations of the prophetic books of Scripture to have resided in the Torah academy, prompts Aguilar, as it were, to pull out all the stops and make it clear that serving the collation after worship services was not the proper role of women in Jewish antiquity where women served as prophets and sages and it had better not be the proper gender-determined role of women in modern times either. 19 Judg. 4:4–5. 20 Aguilar seems to be totally correct on this and all other points she has made regardless of the fact that most moderns will not accept Targum Jonathan’s identification of the Mishneh with an institution of Torah learning. At the same time, it should be noted, the widespread notion that if Hebrew Scripture did not denigrate women, then Rabbinic law and lore certainly did so, cannot in any way be squared with the fact that the offi-

578

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

The prophetic power was never intrusted to the undeserving, man or woman; it was always some superior piety and virtue, which originally attracted towards them the loving mercy of the Lord, and rendered them worthy to become His messengers. No effort after righteousness and virtue, however lowly, passes unnoticed in His sight; and His love will ever increase the desire after good, and the power to accomplish it. But virtue and righteousness were not the only requisites for a prophet; they needed intellect, a profound knowledge of the law and of man, and a strong perception of the ways and works of the Eternal. Huldah’s dwelling in the college supposes a mind anxious and inquiring after the study of the law, and a heart yearning to obey every statute therein commanded, while her very selection as a prophetess, proves that her spiritual privileges and intellectual powers were on a perfect equality with those of man. Yet from the very circumstance of her only being mentioned once in the sacred record, we may be convinced that her solemn office interfered not at all with her domestic and conjugal duties, and that in no one instance she came unduly forward. Woman’s natural sphere is to influence, not to command; to entreat, not to threaten; to lead far more by example than by precept; and every woman, conscious of her own weakness, will rejoice that such is the kind of duties assigned her. In the awful condition of Judea, a mind like Huldah’s must have shrunk from coming forward. The state of restraint, and subsequent depression, which must attend the intercourse of pious and believing hearts, with those to whom all of piety and spirituality are utter strangers, was probably the original cause of Huldah’s religious retirement; seeking to conquer the suffering which the public and private condition of her country occasioned, by quietly following the daily routine of domestic duty, and spending every leisure hour in learning to know that merciful and gracious God, whom Judea seemed to have forgotten. Possessed, as she was, of unusual spiritual gifts, her mind must have been of no ordinary cast, to allow her remaining contented in a retired sphere, without the restless desire to become of cial Aramaic version of the Prophets places Huldah in the college of Torah learning.

FOURTH PERIOD. V. LITTLE ISRAELITISH MAID

579

public service; her very consciousness of responsibility would urge this, without any failing of woman’s native modesty. But Huldah waits for the Lord.21 He who had reposed in her a gift so precious would vouchsafe her some sign when to use it, and meanwhile her duty was to pray, and meditate, and beseech the Eternal to have mercy on His people. And this we can all do, though we are not prophetesses; and we have His whole word to prove how much intercessory prayer availeth. The sign for which the prophetess awaited, came. The highest officers of the state suddenly approached her, and with humility and deference reported the sovereign’s message, inquiring through her the mandate of the Lord. There is neither pause nor doubt, as there must have been had she been a mere pretender in the prophetic art: the rushing spirit of prophecy was poured within her by Him whose instrument she was, and with fearless dignity she answered, “Thus saith the Lord God of Israel: Tell the man that sent you to me, thus saith the Lord, Behold, I will bring evil on this place and on the inhabitants thereof; even all the words of the book which the king of Judah hath read; because they have forsaken me, and burnt incense to other gods, that they might provoke me to anger with all the works of their hands, therefore my wrath shall kindle against this place, and shall not be quenched.”22 Then, softening into the tenderest compassion, still inspired by Him who ever tempereth justice with mercy, she continued, “But to the king of Judah who sent you to inquire of the Lord, thus shall ye say to him, Thus saith the Lord God of Israel, As touching the news which thou hast heard; Because thy heart was tender, and thou hast humbled thyself before the Lord, when thou heardest what I spake against this place, and against the inhabitants thereof, that they should become a desolation and a curse, and hast rent thy clothes and wept before me, I also have heard thee, saith the Lord; Aguilar criticizes Sarai/Sarah and Rebekah (see above, pp. 79, 125. 150, 160, 184) for being impatient and not “waiting for the Lord” while here she praises Huldah for simply waiting patiently for the opportunity to reveal herself as a heroine. On the biblical sources of the expression see above in our notes concerning Sarai. 22 2 Kgs. 22:17; cf. 2 Ch. 34:25. 21

580

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

behold, therefore, I will gather thee to thy fathers, and thou shalt be gathered unto thy grave in peace, and thine eyes shall not see all the evil which I will bring upon this place; and they brought the king word again.”23 Although this prophecy does not properly belong to a history of the women of Israel, we have transcribed the whole, that our readers may better judge the full extent of prophetic power vouchsafed to Huldah: and the bold disregard of all, except of her mission, which it evinced. “Tell ye the man who sent ye,”24 she says; yet she has no disrespect for the Lord’s anointed, she was simply uttering the words of the Eternal. The persecution of Elijah and Elisha marked the prophetic office one of danger, but Huldah felt nothing but the spirit which inspired her; feared nothing but to fail in the calm and dignified boldness required of her as the prophetess of the Lord. The high regard in which her words were held, is proved by the messengers of Josiah “bringing the king word again,”25 and by his continuing his endeavors to render himself worthy of the promised forbearance of the Eternal, though the threatened evil to his country and his people he knew could not be averted.26 We have no further mention of Huldah, nor do we need more for the confirmation of our assertion, that the women of Israel enjoyed higher and nobler privileges, in the sight alike of God and man, than any other women in the world. Every former argument which we advanced in our notice of Deborah, is still more strongly applicable to Huldah. One great difference there was, which, however, only marks the national elevation of women still more forcibly. Deborah lived, and exercised her prophetic power, at a time when Israel was under the direct guidance of the Lord; Huldah flourished, not thirty years before the first captivity, and some centuries after the nation had, by their sins, thrown a dark cloud between them 2 Kgs. 22:18–20; cf. 2 Ch. 34:26–28. The objective (accusative) 2d person pl. pronoun is ‘you’ not ‘ye’, and, the correct form appears in KJV; the biblical reference is 2 Kgs. 22:15; cf. 2 Ch. 34:23. 25 2 Kgs. 22:20; cf. 2 Ch. 34:28. 26 See 2 Kgs. 23:1–28; cf. 2 Ch. 34:29–35:19. 23 24

FOURTH PERIOD. V. LITTLE ISRAELITISH MAID

581

and their God. The laws and customs, which, according to our opponents, have crept in and sullied, if not entirely altered, the pure Judaism inculcated by Moses, must have been ascendant during the period of which we are writing. And in consequence, if they degraded women, it follows that the domestic and social position of the women of Israel must, during the monarchy, have given positive evidence of such degradation; and we certainly should not find a woman dwelling in the college, which is synonymous with devoting herself to the study of the law, and also as the only one, in the whole nation of Judah, who was intrusted with the prophetic power. To such a height in spiritual privileges, the women of Israel cannot now hope to attain; but the example of Huldah is sufficient for them to rest content that the study of the law, and all religious observances, as well as the piety of the heart, are now equally incumbent on them as on men, and equally acceptable before God: and that Israel is the only nation in the whole world in which women sufficiently gifted to perform the offices of Prophetess and Judge have been found.27 These truths ought to be enough for us; and the very names of Deborah and Huldah serve as shields to guard us against all arguments tempting us from the Rock of Ages.28 We have said this often, but we cannot too often or too forcibly impress it on the female Hebrew heart. It depends on woman, not alone to feel, but to prove its truth; to shake off all of stagnating apathy, all of cold indifference: not to rest satisfied with a due performance of their duties as women—even as pious women,—but to feel and glory in When Aguilar published this book in 1845 the archives and libraries of the ancient Near East, which have taught us about prophetesses and priestesses and poetesses and queens before the Bible and during the Bible, had yet to be discovered. 28 Here again Aguilar makes the point that neither Hebrew Scripture nor Judaism degraded women. Hence there is no reason for Jewish women to abandon their ancestral faith and to adopt Christianity in order to be liberated. The expression “Rock of Ages” is found in KJV margin at Isa. 26:4 where it renders Heb. zur ‘olamim. In the body of the biblical text there KJV renders “everlasting strength.” 27

582

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

being women of Israel, and infuse the same national spirit within the hearts and minds of their children. Prophetesses, in our present captive state, we cannot have, nor do we need them, till the spirit of our God rests upon us in our own fair land once more;29 but we need the same bold uncompromising spirit, the same religious zeal and pious fervor which actuated Huldah. Did every woman in Israel determine to elevate her faith, and to glorify her God in her own proper person, apathy, and that fearful want of nationality too often discoverable amongst us, would vanish altogether. We should not be content with mere amalgamation with the Gentiles in society; but, without relinquishing the social position which an age of superior civilization and refinement has assigned us, we should still retain our nationality,— still, before man and before God, remain Israelites indeed; and thus compel respect towards our faith, and remove not only the prejudices excited by ignorance, but check the zealous efforts of conversionists by convincing them that our constancy, as our religion, must be indeed of God, and therefore no effort of man can turn us from it. Nor was it to an unmarried, and therefore more independent woman, the prophetic power was granted. We are expressly told that Huldah was the wife of Shallum, the keeper of the robes; and we must therefore feel convinced that the marriage state in Israel was far from being one of slavery or dependence. How she conHere Aguilar reflects a traditional Jewish belief that prophetic inspiration cannot be experienced outside of the Land of Israel. In his classic commentary on Jonah, David Kimchi (1160–1235) suggests that the Prophet Jonah shared this belief and that he thought to escape his commission when he boarded a ship instead of proceeding to Nineveh. Not all Jewish thinkers have shared the belief that prophetic inspiration can only be experienced in the Land of Israel. For example, Orly Shoshan, “The Philosophical Exegesis of R. Eleazar ben Mattitya on Ibn Ezra’s Commentary on the Torah” (Ph.D. Dissertation, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, 2009) shows that R. Eleazar, who emanated from Northern France in the 13th century C.E. believed that some of his radical interpretations of the Torah were derived from prophetic revelation. And he was just one of many! 29

FOURTH PERIOD. V. LITTLE ISRAELITISH MAID

583

trived to unite her domestic duties with her divine office, holy writ does not inform us; but there is no doubt that both were fully accomplished; for the chosen messengers of the Eternal were ever those actuated by the tenderest human emotions, and the earnest desire to serve all the human family. We read Huldah’s feminine nature in the fact of her being sought in her own dwelling. The condition of Judea must have filled her with the deepest suffering, but she left it in the hands of her God; content to perform his mission, when called upon so to do, but never forgetting, even in the furtherance of His service, the modest and retiring dignity of the woman. And this is the union we should so strenuously endeavor to obtain. More than the females of every other nation, are the women of Israel called upon to cultivate their intellect, that they may be enabled to comprehend the religion of their fathers; that reason and conviction, as well as love and long associations, should bind it on their hearts. Yet that intellect must never be obtruded; never tempt them to quit their own holy and beautiful sphere. Woman may have opportunities for the study—aye, and the practice—of religion, which man has not; such study will never be in vain; opportunities of usefulness, of influence, will come to her: she need never seek them by the sacrifice of feminine gentleness and retirement; and man will thankfully seek that comfort and even guidance from her, which, had they been obtruded on him, he would condemn and scorn. Oh! that the history of the past would influence the present; that the women of Israel would feel to their hearts’ core, that they are still the same, in the sight of their God, as their ancestors of old; that they have it in their power, individually, to hasten that day when “the earth shall be covered with the knowledge of the Lord as the waters cover the sea.”30 Piety must come from the mind as well as the heart; and the more the intellect is cultivated, the better will it enter into the mysteries alike of Creation and Revelation, of the works and the Word of God; and the clearer these become, the purer, higher, more deeply spiritual, will be the emotions of adoring love, uniting the soul with God. We must not rest content with 30

Isa. 11:9.

584

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

mere accomplishment; we must rise superior to the frivolity and excitements which form the existence of some women;31 or how can we become worthy, or make our souls worthy, to be once more the favored of the Lord? Women of Israel! the very name should impress our hearts with a solemn conviction of our individual responsibility, and urge us on to such spiritual and intellectual improvement as will mark us, in the eyes of the whole world, as worthy descendants of the first-born of the Lord.32 We have now completed our review of the female characters contained in the Fourth Period of Jewish History. Our readers will, we think, universally agree, that it does not contain a single passage, much less a single character or incident, which demonstrates the social, domestic, intellectual, and spiritual position and endowments of women as enslaved and degraded. There is not a hint or allusion to any second law opposed to the written one of Moses; for if there had. been, the monarchy lasted sufficiently long for it to have obtained such dominion as to make manifest its existence. That man’s evil and licentious passions had increased to an extent so fearful as to demand the captivity of the whole nation, is no proof of the imperfection of the law, but only of the imperfection of human nature. That the sins of the women increased the burden of Israel’s guilt we do not deny, because the prophets so inform us. We merely affirm, that the social condition of women had not degenerated—that there were no laws then degrading and enslaving her: and, therefore, that as there were none then, there can be none now, as we acknowledge no other law of sufficient power to annul or contradict those given by the Eternal to Moses, and by him transmitted to man. This important fact is strongly confirmed by the fearful wickedness of Jezebel33 and Athaliah.34 The former was the daughter of Cf. Wollstonecraft, “Vindication of the Rights of Woman,” 10–11, 84–86 and passim. 32 The source for this idea is Ex. 4:22 where God says to Moses, “And thou shalt say unto Pharaoh, Thus saith the LORD, Israel is my son, even my firstborn.” 33 See 1 Kgs. 16:31; 18; 19:1–2; 21; 2 Kgs. 9. 34 See 2 Kgs. 8:26; 11; 2 Ch. 22–23. 31

FOURTH PERIOD. V. LITTLE ISRAELITISH MAID

585

a notorious idolatrous king, and the mother of Athaliah; consequently we may indulge the comfort of the belief that neither was of Israel, and that such awful crimes stained not the women whom the Lord so blessed. There is no occasion to bring forward their histories, subjects from which no good can be obtained, except that, in the creeping horror of the evil and the sin to which woman can attain, the prayer for help and strength, and freedom from temptation, may arise more frequently from our hearts. The fact of their influence is all we need, as confirming the assertion, that woman had both power and freedom in the land. Ahab’s natural wickedness was fearfully increased, and made productive of still more horrible evil, by the counsels of his wife, as we must perceive by a very casual glance over his history; and of Athaliah we are expressly told, when speaking of her husband Jehoram, “that he walked in the ways of the kings of Israel, for he had the daughter of Ahab to wife, so he wrought that which was evil in the eyes of the Lord.’’35 And, again, of her son Ahaziah, “he also walked in the ways of the house of Ahab, for his mother was his counsellor to do wickedly.”36 What can more forcibly illustrate the power and influence which woman could obtain and exercise in Judea? Had there been any law confining them to one particular sphere and debasing employments, not even the idolatrous wives and mothers of the kings could have obtained such ascendency. Nor was it only through kings, female authority was exercised. Athaliah reigned six years sole mistress of Judea; and we may be certain, that however low the nation had fallen, however the laws of Moses had sunk into neglect and abuse, still, had there ever been any portion of this law degrading to woman, Athaliah never would have had either the means of making herself queen, or supporting so high a dignity, even for the short space of six years. The very fact, then, of there being such characters as Jezebel and Athaliah, is unanswerable confirmation of the freedom and equality of woman, because though they were not women of Israel, their union with the Hebrew kings subjected them to all the restrictions of the Mosaic law; and had that law made them slaves, they 35 36

2 Kgs. 8:18. 2 Ch. 22:3.

586

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

would not have exchanged their liberty in their own idolatrous countries for conjugal thraldom in Judea, the social and domestic position of the Hebrew females being sufficiently well known to them, from the immediate vicinity of the land, to prevent any misconception on a subject so important And whilst we shudder at this picture of awful wickedness, and feel inexpressibly thankful that our merciful God has vouchsafed us a law, which, if obeyed, must effectually prevent the dominion of such evil, let us not turn from it as an overcharged portrait, and believe that human nature is incapable of such heinous crimes. Alas! we have only to look into the annals of modern history, and even amidst those very nations who proclaim themselves so much more enlightened and spiritual than the blinded Jew—aye, and within the last four centuries we shall find women tempted to follow the same awful path, and instigating husbands and sons to the commission of crimes and massacres, from which the heart turns with loathing sickness, and the vain longing to realize disbelief in the story that it reads. And if so lately, comparatively speaking, such things have been even in enlightened nations, can we continue to think the Bible-picture of woman’s depravity overcharged? Oh! we know not, we cannot know, the awful effects of unlimited authority and unrestrained passions on the weak human heart. We can only pray God to guard us from positions in which feelings may be aroused of whose very existence we dream not now; to bind closer and closer still His blessed law upon our hearts, His spirit on our souls; to remove from us all those evil inclinations and embryo passions which His eye may trace, but of which we are unconscious; to enable us to cling closer and closer unto Him in prayer and praise; and we shall be guarded, as by an angel’s wing, from every evil thought and evil deed.

CHAPTER I. THE CAPTIVITY. REVIEW OF CHAPTERS ONE TO SEVEN OF THE BOOK OF EZRA. —SUGGESTIONS AS TO THE IDENTITY OF THE AHASUERUS OF SCRIPTURE, AND DATE OF HIS ROYAL FEASTS, &C. —CHOICE OF ESTHER A great and melancholy change had taken place in the condition of the Israelites. Their continued disobedience and idolatry had, at length, called down upon them the long-averted chastisement;1 and in the land of their foemen were now their mournful dwellings. The great armies of Nebuchadnezzar had overrun Judea, and carrying off kings, priests, and people to Babylon, left their beautiful land to desolation.2 But even in their captivity, a captivity which their sinfulness compelled, God had not forsaken them. All were not sinful, all were not disobedient, though all alike were exiled, and captives in a strange land. Even then the Lord raised up His witnesses. The firm constancy of the youthful Daniel and his companions, gave them examples of exalted righteousness in the very midst of darkness. The glorious visions of Ezekiel, yet more bold and sublime in imagery than the visions of any who had gone before him, inspired them with hope for the Future, and consolation for the Present; while, when the period of action came, such men as Ezra, NeheAguilar refers to Huldah’s prophecy in 2 Kgs. 22:20 where, speaking in the name of the LORD, she declares to Josiah, “and thine eyes shall not see all the evil which I will bring upon this place.” See also 2 Ch. 34:28. 2 See 2 Kgs. 25; 2 Ch. 36. 1

589

590

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

miah, Zerubbabel, Haggai, and others equally earnest, were not found wanting in the furtherance of their holy cause. The condition of the exiled Hebrews appears more that of colonists than slaves. Allowed to dwell together in large bodies, they became at length possessed of considerable property;* so that many of them refused to return to their own land, even when the mandate of Cyrus gave them permission so to do.3 It seemed a strange and painful contradiction, this refusal to quit the land of their captivity, when, during that captivity, so many had yearned and wept when they “remembered Zion.”4 Yet, that it was so, and that the return to Judea was by no means general, is a convincing proof to us that the universal restoration, of which every prophet speaks, is still to be fulfilled. The chronology, nay, the very personages of the events we are about to regard, as identified with those flourishing at the same period in Profane History, are so entangled and confused, that a clear elucidation is impossible. Not only do Jewish and Christian chronologists differ as to national dates, but also amongst themselves. Josephus, following the arrangement of the Bible, places the History of Esther after the books of Ezra and Nehemiah.5 In the Jewish calendar,**6 Esther’s being made queen and saving her peo* Milman’s History of the Jews, vol. ii. p. 4. ** By E. H. Lindo, Esq.6 3 See Ezra 1:4, for the provision within Cyrus’s edict permitting the Jews to return to the Land of Israel, which allows those who do not return to provide financial assistance to those who do return. Ezra 1:6 shows that there were Jews who took advantage of that provision. 4 Ps. 137:1. 5 See Josephus, Antiquities, 11.6. Josephus reverses Xerxes (I) and Artaxerxes (I) so that the narrative of the Scroll of Esther falls during the reign of Artaxerxes I while the mission of Nehemiah falls during the reign of Xerxes. In dating the Esther narrative to the reign of Artaxerxes, Josephus follows the Old Greek version of Esther. See below, n. 11. 6 The historian, Elias Haim Lindo (1783–1865) wrote A Jewish Calendar for Sixty-Four Years (London: L. Thompson, 1838), which contained “A Chronological Table, Forming a Summary of Jewish History from the Flood to the Present Day,” to which Aguilar here refers. This chronologi-

FIFTH PERIOD. I. THE CAPTIVITY

591

ple, takes place six years after Cyrus’s decree for the return of the Jews; sixteen or eighteen before the building of the second temple and the departure of Ezra; and thirty before the rebuilding of the walls by Nehemiah.7 The chronology at the end of Bagster’s Comprehensive Bible rather favors this opinion,—only differing in regard to the departure of Ezra, which he states to have taken place only one year after Esther’s accession, five years before Haman’s plot, and thirteen years before the petition of Nehemiah. Milman in his history of the Jews, and Gleig, in his history of the Bible,8 again

cal table begins on p. 105 and concludes on p. 134 with the year 1838 C.E. Dates up to and including 3757 are given only according to A.M., i.e., Anno Mundi, which is to say from Creation as in the Jewish calendar in vogue at the dawn of the 21st century C.E. From the year 0 C.E. to 37 C.E. dates are given both A.M. and C.E. while from 40 C.E. onward dates are given only C.E. Indeed, Aguilar refers here to the fact that in Lindo’s table, p. 110, the Edict of Cyrus is dated to 3390 A.M. while Esther’s being designated Queen is dated to 3396 A.M., her saving the Jewish people from annihilation is dated 3404 A.M., and the consecration of the Second Temple is dated to 3412 A.M. Ezra’s departing Babylon on his way to Jerusalem is dated 3413 A.M. Lindo’s other published works include The History of the Jews of Spain and Portugal from the Earliest Times to their Expulsion from Those Kingdoms (London: Longman, Brown, Green & Longmans, 1848) and explanatory notes and biographical notes of the quoted authorities to Manasseh Ben Israel, The Conciliator; concerning which, see above. For more data concerning Lindo see Cecil Roth, “Lindo,” EJ 11:259–60. 7 Here Aguilar accepts the Rabbinic chronology found in Seder Olam, Chapters 29–30. Concerning Seder Olam and its attribution to the Tanna, Rabbi Jose son of Halafta see Chaim Joseph Milikowsky, “Seder Olam” (Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, New Haven, Yale University, 1981), vol. 1, pp. 12–27. 8 Here Aguilar refers to George Gleig, The History of the Bible (2 vols.; London, 1830-1831). The author, George Gleig (1753-1840) was, inter alia, a bishop of the Scottish Episcopal Church and a contributor to and eventually editor of the third edition of the Encyclopaedia Britannica. In fact, Gleig’s chronology was a revision of Thomas Stackhouse, A New History of the Holy Bible from the Beginning of the World to the Establishment of Christianity

592

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

differ; the former agreeing with the authorities already quoted, in placing the migration of the Jews under Ezra, after the accession of Esther; and. the latter agreeing with Josephus in placing him before it. Now, in alluding to these differing authorities, let it be remembered, that we do not interfere at all with the grand question at issue between Jews and Christians, viz. the correct data of the creation of the world; the one placing it 3760, the other 4004 before the Christian era.*9 The Jew has demonstration of his correct(2 vols.: London, 1737). Stackhouse (1677-1752) also was an Anglican clergyman. * Even these are disputed: The Samaritan Pentateuch asserts the date of the creation to be 4700 B.C.; the Septuagint, 5372; Scaliger, 3950; Petavius, 3984; Dr. Hales, 5411; the Talmudists, 5344 (?) See note to Bagster’s Comprehensive Bible, p. 1339.8 9 Born in France, Joseph Justus Scaliger (1540–1609) was Professor at the University of Leiden from 1593 until his death. His fabulous collection of Hebrew manuscripts, now in the possession of the University of Leiden, include the only complete manuscript of the Jerusalem Talmud. His many published works include several that deal with biblical chronology. These include Opus de emendatione temporum (8 vols.; Leiden: 1598). Dionysius Petavius is the Latin form of the name of the French Jesuit scholar Denis Petau (1583–1652). A disciple of Scaliger, Petau published in Latin his treatise on ancient chronology entitled Opus de doctrine temporum. Abridged versions in French and in English bearing the Latin title Rationarium temporum were frequently published. These include a two volume edition published in Paris in 1652. Concerning Petavius see the unsigned entry, “Petau, Denys,” in Encyclopaedia Britannica, 11th ed., 21:285. Dr. Hales refers to William Hales, Professor of Oriental Languages [in those days that meant Hebrew, Aramaic, and Arabic] at Trinity College, Dublin. His twenty-two published works in the fields of chronology, mathematics and theology include A New Analysis of Chronology (3 vols.; London: Printed for the Author, 1809–1812), which is regarded as his most important work. A second, four-volume edition was published in 1830. For extensive information about Dr. Hales see George Thomas Bettany, “Hales, William,” in Dictionary of National Biography, 8:922–923 and the literature cited there. “Bagster’s Comprehensive Bible” refers to William Greenfield, ed., The Comprehensive Bible (London: Samuel Bagster,

FIFTH PERIOD. I. THE CAPTIVITY

593

ness quite sufficient to satisfy himself, and prevent all adoption of the Christian supposition. All we wish to do, is to make the book of Esther clearer as to time and characters, and more connected with the books of Ezra and Nehemiah than is generally supposed. As, on a very careful consideration of the subject, both in itself, and in connexion with Profane History, our own opinion differs from all the authorities above mentioned, we will state it openly, as also our reasons for holding it—not at all compelling others to adopt it, nor as supposing it positively correct, but merely a suggestion founded on a careful study of the time. To bring it clearly forward, we must throw a cursory glance on the first six chapters of the book of Ezra. The first chapter contains the celebrated proclamation of Cyrus; who, we are expressly told, was “stirred up by the spirit of the Lord,” that is, the Lord put it into his heart to have mercy on the Jews; informing us also, that the heads of the tribes of Judah and Benjamin, Priests and Levites, all whose spirit “God had raised,” gladly hastened their return, bearing with them all the vessels of gold and silver of which Nebuchadnezzar had spoiled the temple, but which Cyrus now restored. In the second, we learn the number that return, their names, substance, and offerings: in the 1826). Samuel Bagster the Elder lived from 1772 to 1851 and was a publisher and printer of books, many of them related to the study of the Scriptures. These include The English Hexapla (1841), which presents the New Testament in six English translations from Wiclif to the King James Version. Books issued by Bagster & Sons included also the edition of Genesis in Hebrew and English edited by David de Aaron de Sola et al., to which Aguilar refers frequently in her discussion of texts from the Book of Genesis; see above. Samuel Bagster the Younger, who was the eldest son of Samuel Bagster the Elder lived from 1800 to 1835. He edited Treasury of Scriptural Knowledge (London: Bagster & Sons, 1834), a biblical encyclopaedia containing more than 500,000 Scriptural references. Concerning these two Bagsters see Henry Richard Tedder, “Bagster, Samuel, the Younger,” Dictionary of National Biography 1:876–877; id., “Bagster, Samuel, the Elder,” there, 1:877–878. Note that the chronological table in the so-called “Bagster’s Comprehensive Bible” appears in an appendix and not on p. 1339

594

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

third, the exertions of Jeshua, Zerubbabel, and their brethren the high priests, in preparing for the work of the temple, setting up first an altar on which to offer the usual evening and morning burnt-offerings; the celebration of the feast of the tabernacle, new moons, and all the feasts of the Lord; in the second year of their return to Judea, and in the second month, the solemn foundation of the temple with shouting and with joy, mingled with the mourning of those who yet remembered the first house of the Lord, “so that the people could not discern the noise of the shout of joy from the noise of the weeping of the people.” In the fourth, we have the painful hindrance of the building by the adversaries of the Jews— their letter to Ahasuerus, king of Persia—and the royal prohibition to continue the building of the temple, believing it detrimental to the Persian power, by giving too much sway into the hands of the Jews. The Ahasuerus of the sixth verse of this fourth chapter is evidently Cambyses, son and successor of Cyrus—not the Ahasuerus of the time of Esther. In Profane History, we are told that he did not openly revoke the edict of his father Cyrus; but greatly frustrated its execution, by many annoyances levelled against the Jews. This underhand kind of working is implied in the verse before us, which merely mentions the writing to the king an accusation against the inhabitants of Judah and Jerusalem. The Artaxerxes of the next verse is not the same sovereign, but the Smerdis of Profane History, the brother and successor of Cambyses; who, not satisfied with secretly frustrating the building of the temple, openly revoked the decree of Cyrus, and sent such letters to the adversaries of the Jews, as to make them “go up in haste to Jerusalem, and the Jews, and made them to cease by force and power.” “Then ceased the work of the house of God, which is in Jerusalem; so it ceased until the second year of the reign of Darius, king of Persia.”10 This tallies exactly with the dates and names of Profane History. Smerdis, suspected to be an impostor, was dethroned and murdered, and Darius Hystaspes elected in his room. In the reign of Darius, we find, by the fifth chapter of Ezra, the prophets Haggai, Zechariah, and Iddo, prophesying to the Jews 10

Ezra 4:24.

FIFTH PERIOD. I. THE CAPTIVITY

595

that were in Judah and Jerusalem; and, encouraged by this manifestation that the spirit of the God of Israel was still at work, Zerubbabel and Jeshua urged and helped the people again to set forward the work, disregarding even the threatening questions of Tatnai and Shethar-boznai; and “the eye of their God was upon the elders of the Jews, that they should not cease till the matter came before Darius.” A letter was consequently written to the king by Tatnai and his companions, stating all that had passed between them and the Jews, and concluding by entreating the king to let search be made “whether indeed it be so, that a decree was made of Cyrus the king, to build this house of God at Jerusalem, and let the king send his pleasure to us concerning this matter.” It is clear from the words of this letter that some time had elapsed, and divers kings intervened since the decree of Cyrus; the tone is different to that in which Bishlam, Mithredath, and others addressed Smerdis—more conciliating and inquiring—not the determined opposition of the previous appeal. The letter, though written by their adversaries, served the Jews as fully as if they had appealed to the king themselves. In the sixth chapter, we find that Darius did make the requisite search for the decree, which was found, and so fully confirmed the statement of the Jews, that Darius instantly promulgated another decree, not only confirming that of Cyrus, but commanding the adversaries of the Hebrews to let the work of this house of God alone, so that the Jews and their governors might build it in the place appointed; and to give them help in forwarding the work, and in all that they needed for sacrifice, etc. That he who hindered it should be hanged on timber taken from his dwelling, and his house be made a dunghill; “And the God that hath caused His name to dwell there, destroy all kings and people that shall put their hands to alter and destroy this house of God, which is in Jerusalem. I, Darius, have made a decree—let it be done with speed.” A decree peremptory as this was of course productive of good. The building progressed rapidly: the elders being still more encouraged by the prophesying of Haggai and Zechariah:—“And they builded and finished it according to the commandment of the God of Israel, and according to the decree of Cyrus and Darius, and Artaxerxes, kings of Persia.” This Artaxerxes, though not reigning at the time of the event here recorded, is introduced by Ezra, the writer of the book, in compliment to the favor he ever

596

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

showed the Hebrews; and this Artaxerxes it is, who is, in all probability, the Ahasuerus of the book of Esther.11 The remainder of the sixth chapter is devoted to the rejoicing of the children of Israel, on occasion of the dedication of their temple, the building of which was completed in the sixth year of King Darius’s reign; their offerings; the establishment of their priests, “as it is written in the book of Moses;” the solemn celebration of the Passover “seven days with joy”—for they had been purified from the filthiness of the heathen, and the “Lord had made them joyful, and turned the heart of the king of Assyria unto them, to strengthen their hands in the work of the house of God, the God of Israel.” So concludes the sixth chapter of the book of Ezra; and between that and the seventh, a period of some years must have elapsed. Darius reigned thirty-six years; Xerxes, who succeeded him, twelve; and it was not till the seventh year of Artaxerxes, consequently forty-nine after the completion of the building of the temple, that Ezra obtained permission from the king to go up to Jerusalem, armed with the royal repetition of the decree in favor of the Hebrews, and the rebuilding of the city, already promulgated by his predecessors Cyrus and Darius.12 This idea goes back to the Greek version of the Book of Esther, which was produced by Lysimachus son of Ptolemy of Jerusalem in the fourth year of the reign of Ptolemy and Cleopatra, i.e., 114–113 B.C.E. For the date of Lysimachus see e.g., Floyd V. Filson in The Oxford Annotated Apocrypha, ed. Bruce M. Metzger (New York: Oxford University Press, 1965), p. 101. The substitution of Artaxerxes for the Ahasuerus (Xerxes) of the Hebrew version of the Book of Esther is reflected also in Flavius Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, Book 11, Chapter 6. 12 Here Aguilar seems to accept the chronology, which she attributes to what she calls “Profane History,” i.e., ancient history books such as Josephus’s Antiquities and modern history books such as Milman’s History of the Jews, as opposed to the chronology found in Hebrew Scripture, the authors of which she refers to as “the sacred historian.” According to this chronology Ezra’s mission, which began in the 7th year of King Artaxerxes (presumably Artaxerxes I who reigned during the years 465– 424 B.C.E.), had to have taken considerably later than the completion of 11

FIFTH PERIOD. I. THE CAPTIVITY

597

In this interval it appears, then, most probable that the events recorded in the book of Esther took place. Whether we believe the Ahasuerus so closely connected with her to be the tyrant Xerxes, according to Milman’s view of his character, or Artaxerxes Longimanus, according to Josephus and other commentators; still the period of these events remains, unalterably, between the sixth and seventh chapters of Ezra, as we have stated before. According to the events of Profane History, a period of sixtythree years must have elapsed between the decree of Cyrus for the return of the Jews, and the accession of Artaxerxes Longimanus. In the Jewish calendar we find only six. How this disparity can ever be reconciled, we know not, and must leave it to wiser heads than our own: suffice it, that the events narrated in the first six chapters of Ezra must have covered a longer interval than six years; but on such a subject our readers must search and judge for themselves; we offer no opinion to be adopted as the right one, and will willingly and thankfully receive any communication likely to elucidate this difficult point. That the events of Esther took place after the decree of Cyrus, is, however, a truth on which there can be no dispute; and whatever number of years may have elapsed since the permission to return to Jerusalem, it is equally clear that an immense number of the Hebrews yet remained scattered over the large dominions of Ahasuerus, which we are told “extended from India, even unto Ethiopia, over a hundred and seven and twenty provinces,”13 including, of course, Persia and Media. Amongst these was a Jew of noble descent, Mordecai by name, a Benjamite by tribe; consequently, not one of the Ten Tribes, but of the two who had faithfully adhered to the royal house of Judah. In direct compliance with the law of Moses, which had expressly commended the fatherless to the care of their counthe Temple in the 6th year of the reign of Darius I, i.e., in the year 515 B.C.E. Note, however, that below, in Period V, Chapter IV, in her discussion of Ezra’s accomplishments, she places the mission of Ezra before the building of the Temple as one would assume based on the sequence of kings found in Ezra 4 (see below, p. 650, n. 6). 13 Esth. 1:1.

598

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

trymen, Mordecai had brought up, as his own child, Esther, or Hadassah, the orphan daughter of his uncle, and resided with her in an establishment according to his rank, in “Shushan the palace;” meaning the city which was the usual residence of the king. In the third year of Ahasuerus, the city of Shushan was thrown into a ferment of excitement, by the royal feasts given alike to princes and nobles, and to all the people, and lasting several months. The princes of the provinces were present; to whom, we are told, in the scriptural record, all the riches of his glorious kingdom, and the honor of his excellent majesty, were lavishly displayed. And this excitement was followed by another;—the banishment of Queen Vashti from her royal estate, and proclamation made throughout the provinces, that all the fairest maidens were to be gathered together unto Shushan the palace, from whom the king might select a queen in the place of Vashti. The extreme beauty of Esther, whose very name, in Persian, signifies a star, of course attracted the attention of the king’s officers; and she also “was brought unto the king’s house, to the custody of Hegai, the keeper of the women.”14 That this distinction was more painful than pleasing, both to Mordecai and Esther, we cannot for a moment doubt: the former, whose unwavering faithfulness to his religion has marked him amongst the most deserving and distinguished of our ancestors, was not likely to have connived at a union for his adopted child, which must prevent her strict adherence to her father’s faith. That Esther herself was equally repugnant, we have the authority of the oldest Jewish writers; if her prayer in the Apocrypha be written by them. That the Apocrypha is not divine, we are quite aware; but as the writers of the Talmud do not disdain to quote from the “Wisdom of Solomon,”15 as a good moral essay, not as divine, we may Esth. 2:8. Aguilar obviously meant Sirach, which is called Ecclesiasticus in the Roman Catholic Old Testament and the Apocrypha of Protestant Bibles. Sirach is indeed quoted frequently in the Babylonian Talmud, and in one place (Bava Qama 92a) Sirach is treated as though it were part of the canonical Ketuvim or Writings, the third division of the Hebrew Bible. For the complete list of the quotations of Sirach in Rabbinic literature see 14 15

FIFTH PERIOD. I. THE CAPTIVITY

599

Leopold Zunz, Die Gottesdienstlichen Vorträge der Juden (Berlin: A. Asher, 1832), 100–105. The Book of Sirach or Ecclesiasticus was composed, according to the Hebrew versions of the book recovered from the Cairo Genizah, by Simeon son of Jeshua son of Eliezer son of Sira. The book was written in Hebrew in Jerusalem. In the Greek translation of Sirach prepared by the author’s grandson just after 132 B.C.E. and now found in the Greek version of the Bible, the author is called Jesus son of Sirach. Fragmentary Hebrew manuscripts of Sirach were recovered from the Cairo Genizah by Solomon Schechter and Charles Taylor, and some of them were published by these scholars in 1899. These texts provide the Hebrew version of two thirds of the original book. Additional Hebrew fragments of Sirach from the 1st century C.E. recovered from Qumran and from Masada demonstrate that the Hebrew text found by Taylor and Schechter derives from the Hebrew original rather than from a medieval translation into Hebrew from the Greek. Among the reasons that the rabbis of the Talmud give for the exclusion of Sirach from the canon of Hebrew Scripture is the book’s misogyny (Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin 100b). For a comprehensive modern commentary on the Book of Sirach/Ecclesiasticus see Patrick W. Skehan, The Wisdom of Ben-Sira: A New Translation with Notes, Introduction and Commentary by Alexander di Lella, Anchor Bible, vol. 39 (New York: Doubleday, 1987); see also The Book of Ben-Sira (Jerusalem: Hebrew Language Academy, 1973). In the Apocrypha of the English Bible, Sirach is the seventh book while The Wisdom of Solomon is the sixth book. While Sirach was written in Jerusalem c. 180 B.C.E. and translated into Greek at Alexandria, the Wisdom of Solomon was composed in Greek at Alexandria toward the end of the 1st century C.E. Frequently alluded to in the writings of the Apostle Paul (see R. H. Charles, ed., The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament in English [2 vols.; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1913], 1:526–527), the book seems not to have been quoted by ancient Jewish authors. Indeed, Jonas C. Greenfield, “Apocrypha, Pseudepigrapha, and Unusual Texts from Qumran,” in Light for Jacob, ed. Yair Hoffman and Frank Polak (Jerusalem: Bialik Institute, 1997), 2, writes as follows: “Ben-Sira is the only book of the Apocrypha, which is quoted in [ancient] Rabbinic Literature.” However, as noted already by Zunz, Gottesdienstlichen Vorträge, 105, The Wisdom of Solomon is indeed twice quoted in the author’s introduction to the Pentateuch Commentary by Moses Nahmanides (1194–1270). See Charles Chavel, ed., The Torah Commentaries of Rabbi Moses ben Nahman

600

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

perhaps be permitted to regard the remaining chapters of the book of Esther in the same light; as an enlargement or commentary on the Bible-record of the same events;—not that Mordecai and Esther really did use the words of prayer which are there put into their mouths; but as a reflection of the opinions of our old writers on the subject. To resist, or refuse compliance, would of course have been vain: and we find Esther winning such regard from Hegai, that he showed her more kindness and respect than to any other of her companions. Beauty alone could not have done this: for to loveliness, in all its varieties, he had no doubt been accustomed. But the cultivated intellect, the spiritual graces, of the Hebrew woman, which so marked her superiority over the females of every other nation, gave to the mere perishable beauty of face and form, an interest and a charm unlike every other; and this it was which so powerfully attracted the regard of Hegai, and, in due time, the devoted love of the king. Some time (probably two or three years) must have elapsed between Esther’s being taken from her adopted father’s care, and her public proclamation as queen. It was in the third year of Ahasuerus that Vashti was dethroned;16 and not till the seventh that Esther was raised to the royal dignity in her stead.17 During this interval, “Esther had not showed her people, nor her kindred; for

(2 vols.; Jerusalem: Mossad Harav Kook, 1959), 1:5, lines 6–8 and lines 11–14 wherein Nahmanides quotes Wisdom of Solomon 7:5–8 and 7:17– 21, respectively in a Syriac version. For a modern translation and extensive commentary on Wisdom of Solomon see David Winston, The Wisdom of Solomon: a New Translation, Anchor Bible, vol. 43 (Garden City, New York: Doubleday & Co., 1979). For confirmation of my initial impression that Nahmanides there quotes (albeit with some modifications possibly meant to make the quotations more accessible to readers familiar with Jewish Aramaic dialects) the Syriac version of the Scriptures known as the Peshitta, I am grateful to Dr. James Natan Ford and to his teacher, my esteemed colleague and former classmate, Prof. Chaim (Harold ) Cohen. 16 Esth. 1:3. 17 Esth. 2:16.

FIFTH PERIOD. I. THE CAPTIVITY

601

Mordecai had charged her that she should not show it”18—a charge which appears to us somewhat strange and irreconcilable with the constancy and dignity evinced by Mordecai, and at a time that, though captives in a strange land, concealment of their peculiar tenets was not necessary for their safety. But if this part of his conduct be incomprehensible, or, at least, unsatisfactory, not so is the paternal affection which is forcibly betrayed in the simple words, “And Mordecai walked every day before the court of the women’s house, to know how Esther did, and what would become of her.”19 His child was removed from under his own eye, but his watchful love was with her; and Esther must have felt comforted in the consciousness that he was near her—his thoughts and affections with her still. And could she need comfort, surrounded as she was with state and luxury? Alas! these are not the ingredients of happiness. Esther had been brought up with the greatest tenderness from her earliest years; from the situation of her people, perhaps, educated with even more than usual care in her father’s faith. Her affections, habits, associations, all were confined to the house of her childhood—the father of her love. Was it nothing, then, to be torn from all these by an imperious mandate, and, at a moment’s warning, debarred from the exercise of her faith, compelled to worship only in her own young heart, with no friend near to strengthen and to guide? Even the very idea of becoming queen, had she been one likely to be dazzled by so high a dignity, must have been fraught with terror, when she recollected the fate of her predecessor. Thoughts like these were quite sufficient to have clouded the heart and mind of Esther, and rendered the change in her earthly lot more sad than joyous. But, from the favor she received, it is evident that she did not allow herself to murmur; the buoyancy of youth, too, was her own; and the very respect and regard which she received from Hegai, must have strengthened her, to continue the same course of meek submission and trusting hope. Her unambitious spirit and modest gentleness, we infer from her asking nothing but what the chamberlain appointed. Yet “the 18 19

Esth. 2:20. Esth. 2:11.

602

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

king loved Esther above all the women, and she found grace and favor in his sight;” and “he set the royal crown upon her head, and made her queen instead of Vashti. Then the king made a great feast unto all his princes, and his servants, even Esther’s feast; and he made a release to the provinces, and gave gifts, according to the state of the king.”20 This was in the seventh year of Ahasuerus, and it was in the seventh of Artaxerxes that Ezra obtained permission to go up from Babylon to Jerusalem, with a new decree, authorizing the return of all the Jews who wished it, and granting greater privileges to them, and more lavish gifts, than any king had yet bestowed. Now, if this Artaxerxes of Ezra be the Ahasuerus of Esther, this event tallies exactly with the “release to the provinces, and the gifts made according to the state of the king,” of which we have just read. Esther’s parentage and faith were, indeed, not yet disclosed; therefore this favor to Ezra was not so much owing to her influence, as to the gracious mood and munificent rejoicings, with which the king greeted her accession as his queen. The very words of Ezra, “Blessed be the Lord God of our Fathers, which hath put such a thing as this into the king’s heart, to beautify the house of the Lord which is in Jerusalem; and hath extended mercy unto me, before the king and his counsellors, and before all the king’s mighty princes!”20 imply that his request was made, and permission accorded, during some great public rejoicing, and in presence of all the king’s counsellors and mighty princes. And thus, it is in exact agreement with the feasts and rejoicing which Ahasuerus gave unto all his princes and servants, when Esther was acknowledged queen.*21 Esth. 2:17–18. Ezra 7:27–28. * We read in Ezra, that it was in the first month Ezra commenced his journey, and the fifth when he arrived in Jerusalem, “which was in the seventh year of the king;” and in Esther, that it was the tenth month when Ahasuerus first made her queen, in the seventh year of his reign, hut this does not prove that Ezra’s return to Jerusalem took place before the events of Esther. We will endeavor to make our meaning more distinct:—Queen 20 21

FIFTH PERIOD. I. THE CAPTIVITY

603

It was during the rejoicings attending the choice of Esther as queen, that it appears most probable that Mordecai obtained that situation in the royal household, which is implied by life sitting at the king’s gate. What office it was, does not appear. But he evidently had not occupied it before; preferring to remain in dignified Victoria, we all know, ascended the throne of England in 1837, on the 20th of June, which is, counting by the solar months, the sixth month; on the 20th June, 1843, therefore, she entered the seventh year of her reign. In the tenth month, which is October, 1843, we read, an insurrection took place at Barcelona. In the first month, coeval with January, 1844, the Spanish Cortes was dissolved; and in the fifth month, which was May, 1844, another revolution at Barcelona. Now, all these events took place in the seventh year of Queen Victoria’s reign; but the events of the first and of the fifth months, occurred after that of the tenth: and in exactly the same manner, Esther’s accession as queen, and Ezra’s migration, might both have taken place in the seventh year of Artaxerxes, and yet the event of the tenth month occur before that of the first and fifth. Tebeth was the tenth month; in the festive rejoicings which followed, lasting several weeks, as was the custom of royal amusements, and in presence of the princes and counselors, Ezra made his request, encouraged by the release given to all the provinces. In Nisan, which is the first month, his preparations being completed, and the Jews wishing to depart collected together, he set off on his journey, and in the fifth month, which is Ab, he arrived in Judea; and still it might be all in the seventh year of Artaxerxes, granting which is most probable, that that monarch ascended the throne either in the sixth, seventh, or eighth month. This is of course differing with the Jewish calendar, which makes seventeen years elapse between Esther’s being made queen and the departure of Ezra; but then, who is the Ahasuerus of Esther? And who is the Artaxerxes of Ezra? They cannot be the same persons. Josephus, again, makes Xerxes the Artaxerxes under whom Ezra and Nehemiah go to Jerusalem, and asserts that this migration took place before Esther: this appears not only historically but scripturally incorrect. But to reconcile all the differing opinions is impossible; we must leave it, as we have said before, to our readers to judge for themselves, only stating that the opinion we have advanced is founded on a careful research of both scriptural and ancient history, an examination of ail the opposing points, and the adoption of that which appears most reconcilable with the narrations of both Profane History and the Word of God.

604

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

retirement, as enabling him more strictly to attend to the ordinances and requirements of his faith. Affection and anxiety for Esther, was without doubt the real incentive to this change in his life. We have already read of his walking every day before the court of the women’s house to know how she did, and what would become of her; and his seeking an office in the king’s household, evidently proceded from the same affectionate cause. There is a dignity about Mordecai, in the simple fact of his concealing his relationship with the petted and all-powerful queen of Ahasuerus—in his pursuing, undisturbedly, the calm and meditative tenor of a good man’s way, which we cannot fail both to reverence and admire. It was enough for him that he was one of the chosen children of God;22 what higher dignity could he have? “Esther had not yet showed her kindred, nor her people, as Mordecai had charged her: for Esther did the commandment of Mordecai, like as when she was brought up with him.”23 How eloquently illustrative of her sweet and gentle character! She was of that tender age, when the mind and temper are more liable to take the impression of things and characters around them, than to remember and act upon the education and impressions of earlier years. She had been two or three years completely separated from personal intercourse with her adopted father. She had received nothing but indulgence; was translated from a lowly and retired home to be the sole possessor of a monarch’s love, and the sharer of a mighty kingdom— surrounded by luxury and adulation: and yet, so unchanged was her gentle mind and loving heart, that, in her high estate, she did “the commandment of Mordecai, as she had done in her childhood and her youth.” The faith of her fathers was the safeguard; for strangers and heathens were around her: the pleasures proffered were all tinctured with earth and time In the spiritual, the deathless part of her nature, the youthful Esther was alone. How perseveringly and religiously must Mordecai have trained her infant years, that even in this utter loneliness, she could yet have steadfastly trodden the one strait path, and never wavered in her duty, either to her guardian or her God. 22 23

See above, p. 141, n. 47. Esth. 2:20.

FIFTH PERIOD. I. THE CAPTIVITY

605

So some few years passed on, the exact number we cannot ascertain from the widely differing chronologists. During that interval, a conspiracy had been formed against the king by two of his chamberlains, which becoming known to Mordecai, he imparted it to Esther, and by her it was “certified to the king in Mordecai’s name.”24 Inquisition was made into the matter, raid the facts being discovered, the plotters were hanged, and the account written in the chronicles of the Persian kings, The instrumentality of Mordecai appears, however, to have been entirely forgotten, though doubtless Esther’s influence increased. Had he come forward himself with his important discovery, he would, no doubt, have at once received the honors afterwards bestowed; but he heeded them not, and the whole affair sank into oblivion with regard to man, but not so in the Divine economy of God.25

24 25

Esth. 2:22. See below, pp. 624-625, and cf. Esth. 6:1–3.

CHAPTER II. ESTHER (CONTINUED) “After these things,” we are told in Scripture, which is a term always signifying some lapse of time, the exaltation of Haman took place.1 Raised, through the favor of the king, above all the princes that were with him, the royal household vied with each other in doing him reverence, such being the command of the king; but “Mordecai bowed not, nor did him reverence.”2 He who neither seeks nor cares for ambitious advancement and earthly honors himself, acknowledges them not in others. Haman, also, was an Agagite3 or Amalekite,4 one of the idolatrous nations whose iniquiEsth. 3:1. Esth. 3:2. 3 Of this we are informed in Esth. 3:1: “After these things did king Ahasuerus promote Haman the son of Hammedatha the Agagite. 4 It is commonly assumed that the epithet Agagite refers to Haman’s descent from King Agag, the Amalekite chieftain whose life was spared by King Saul as reported in 1 Sam. 15. There in v. 3 the Prophet Samuel, speaking in the name of God, orders King Saul, “Now go and smite Amalek and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.” V. 7 there indeed reports that “Saul smote the Amalekites from Havilah until thou comest to Shur, that is over against Egypt.” However, v. 8 reports, “And he [King Saul] took Agag the king of the Amalekites alive ...,” while v. 9 states, “But Saul and the people spared Agag, and the best of the sheep, and of the oxen, and of the fatlings, and the lambs, and all that was good, and would not utterly destroy them: but every thing that was vile and refuse, that they destroyed utterly.” According to the 1st century C.E. Pseudo-Philo, in the interim between Saul’s sparing Agag (in 1 Sam. 15: 8–9) and the Prophet Samuel’s hewing “Agag in pieces before the LORD in Gilgal” (1 Sam. 15:33), Agag managed to beget an heir, who was the 1 2

607

608

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

ties were such as to demand the signal punishment of the Eternal—an enemy from the first to His people: and, therefore, the very lace of Haman would have been sufficient for Mordecai to refrain from noticing him.5 But even had he been of different lineage, the law of the Hebrews strictly prohibited all unseemly veneration to mere mortal man, as unbefitting those whose adoration was to immediate ancestor of Haman. Consequently, Mordecai, the son of Jair, the son of Shimei, the son of Kish (so he is called in Esth. 2:5) had to cope with a descendant of Agag because his ancestor Saul, the son of Kish, failed to act in time to prevent Agag from leaving progeny. Josephus, Antiquities 11.6.5 holds that Haman’s enmity for Mordecai the Jew was motivated by Haman’s being descended from the Amalekites, whom the Jews had annihilated. According to Deut. 25:17–19 (which is the Pentateuchal reading for the Sabbath preceding the Festival of Purim, which festival celebrates the deliverance of the Jews from Ahauserus’s decree, instigated by Haman, to annihilate the Jews [Esth. 3:13]) the Amalekites attacked the Israelites from the rear when they were faint and weary after having just escaped from Egypt. And it is for this reason that Deut. 25:17, 19 makes two, seemingly irreconcilable demands with respect to the Amalekites. These are 1) Remember what Amalek did unto thee (v. 17); thou shalt not forget it (v. 19); and 2) Blot out the remembrance of Amalek from under heaven. In the same vein, Ex. 17:8–16 (the Pentateuchal reading at the morning service on Purim) concludes with the words, “the LORD will have war with Amalek from generation to generation.” 5 According to Josephus, as we have seen, the very fact of the Amalekites’ unhappy memory of what the Israelites had done to them in the time of Saul was sufficient reason for Haman, as a descendant of Agag, king of the Amalekites to predispose Haman to antipathy toward Mordecai. Aguilar, with equal justification, suggests that (in light of Hebrew memory recorded in Ex. 17 and Deut. 25) Haman’s Amalekite background was sufficient cause for Mordecai’s refusal to show deference to Haman. Obviously, a lot of bloodshed recorded in the Book of Esther, could have been avoided had Mordecai and Haman found a way to overcome their historical memory and to embody the teaching of Deut. 24:16, “The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin.”

FIFTH PERIOD. II. ESTHER

609

be paid to God alone.6 We do not, therefore, at all agree with Milman’s supposition, that it was merely because they were rivals in earthly ambition, that Mordecai refused to do reverence to Haman. We have already seen that Mordecai had had opportunities enough already to aggrandize himself, but had neglected them all; and, in fact, the word of God itself favors the inference, that his reason for refusing to do Haman homage, simply was, because “he (Mordecai) was a Jew.”7 The servants of the king spake daily to him, demandAguilar would thus justify Mordecai’s provocative behavior of refusing to bow, kneel, and prostrate himself before Haman. In fact, to kneel and prostrate oneself before a person of higher rank was commonplace behavior in the ancient Near East, and there is ample testimony to this practice both in Hebrew Scripture and in the literary and artistic legacy of the ancient Near East (see passim in Mayer I. Gruber, Aspects of Nonverbal Communication in the Ancient Near East [2 vols.; Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1980]). The classic medieval Hebrew biblical exegetes, Rashi and Abraham Ibn Ezra, are both acutely aware of this. Consequently, they attempt to justify Mordecai’s obstinate behavior, which almost led to the annihilation of the Jews throughout the world from India to Ethiopia and which, according to the account in Esth. 9 did lead to unnecessary suffering on the part of those Gentiles, who, inspired by the king’s irrevocable decree, attempted to annihilate the Jews, who had no choice but to defend themselves against their attackers. Rashi says that Haman made himself into a god (to whom, indeed, it would be forbidden to Mordecai as a Jew to bow down, according to Ex. 20:5; 23:24; 34:14; Deut. 5:9; Ps. 81:9) while Ibn Ezra supposes that Haman wore insignia of various gods on his clothing and his hat. 7 Esth. 3:4. Note that Aguilar refers to Holy Scripture as “the word of God.” In all fairness, it is nowhere stated in the Book of Esther that Mordecai refused to show deference to Haman “because ‘he (Mordecai) was a Jew.’” What the Book of Esther states is that other officials of Ahasuerus daily asked Mordecai the rhetorical question, “Why transgresseth thou the king’s commandment?” (Esth. 3:3). Now this rhetorical question really meant in its context, “You really ought to obey the king’s commandment,” just as the grandmother’s asking the child, “Why did you spill the milk / not finish your dinner / step in the puddle / hit your little sister?” is not an attempt to elicit an explanation but rather a strategy for communicating disapproval of improper behavior. Esth. 3:4 confirms our inter6

610

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

ing, “Why transgressest thou the king’s commandment?” and seeing that he “hearkened not to them, they told Haman, to see whether Mordecai’s matters would stand, for he had told them that he was a Jew.” This was a bold and fearless statement, exactly in accordance with the character of Mordecai as already displayed. He had made no show of his religion, when there was no necessity so to do; but his freely avowing it as his reason for refusing undue reverence to a man, and an Amalekite, ought to convince us that his desiring Esther to conceal her race and faith proceeded from no unworthy or cowardly motive—however we may fail to discover a satisfactory reason why he should have done so.8

pretation of the query in Esth. 3:3 in that it states, “Now it came to pass, when they spake daily unto him, and he hearkened not unto them ...,” which means not that he refused to offer an explanation but that he refused to obey what was being requested in the form of a rhetorical question. Esth. 3:3b also supplies the information that indeed Mordecai had told the persons who tried to correct his disobedience to the king’s command that he was a Jew while Esth. 3:6 indicates that once Haman decided to avenge himself against Mordecai, he decided that he might as well destroy not only one Jew but all the Jews throughout the Persian empire. 8 In fact, Mordecai’s telling everyone that he was a Jew and thereby giving those whom his obstinacy offended an excuse to do harm to all the Jews is totally incongruent with Mordecai’s having told his cousin Esther not to reveal her Jewish background (Esth. 2:20). In fact, without the queen’s being a secret Jewess, whom the king would have to surrender to Haman for extermination, unless out of deference to his love for Esther who throws the most lavish parties at which the wine makes the king very happy, he decides to scuttle both Haman and his plot to annihilate the Jews (Esth. 7), there is no plot and no story and no Scroll of Esther and no Purim. Aguilar, on the other hand, takes it for granted that the Book of Esther is a transcript of events that transpired because of the complicated and less than transparent motives of the characters portrayed therein. Consequently, she attempts to unravel these while utilizing the Scroll of Esther to teach Aguilar’s generation and future generations of the importance of a thorough Jewish education for Jewish girls. A proper education might, indeed, serve a Jewish woman well should she, like Esther, find herself in the palace of a king, just when her people need someone who is

FIFTH PERIOD. II. ESTHER

611

Haman, full of wrath that any one should dare hold him in contempt—a wrath no doubt increased, when he heard that the bold man who did so was a Jew—one of a despised and captive people, determined on a signal revenge. That some connexion existed between Mordecai and Esther, was, no doubt, secretly suspected by him: to attack Mordecai alone, would therefore avail him little, as he would be protected by the queen. The destruction of the whole Jewish people, if he could but procure the king’s consent, might involve Esther (of whose influence he was very probably jealous) as well as the hated Mordecai; and the mandate once gone forth, according to the laws of the Medes and Persians, was, he knew, unalterable.9 That nothing might fail him, he cast lots, according to the superstition of his age and country, to discern what month would be most favorable for his project. The lot, guided by a merciful Providence, who was permitting the temporary ascendency of evil only to bring forth permanent good, fell on Adar, the last month in the year. It was then Nisan, the first month, and therefore twelve months intervened;10 an interval doubtlessly hailed by Haman as allowing the entire destruction of the Jews, even of those situated in the remotest province of the empire; but which was in fact their salvation. With consummate caution Haman proceeded. Working upon the usual jealousy of the royal prerogative, he alluded to a certain people, who, dispersed amongst all the king’s provinces, followed a worship and laws of their own; that it was not to the king’s profit they should do so; insinuating, no doubt, that they were likely, from their disloyal practices, to turn others also from their allegiance and their gods: it would be wise, therefore, to have them destroyed—and, that the king’s coffers should not suffer, the wily both knowledgeable with respect to Jewish concerns and privy to the king’s ear so that she can save the Jews. 9 See Esth. 8:8. Anson F. Rainey, “The Satrapy Beyond the River,” Australian Journal of Biblical Archaeology 1, 2 (1969), 51–78 points out that regardless of whether or not this was true, this perception of Persian law and government was held widely in the Persian and Hellenistic world. 10 Esth. 3:7.

612

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

minister concluded his counsel, by a promise of paying ten thousand talents of silver into the royal treasuries.11 The instant accordance of Ahasuerus with this cruel counsel, by giving into Haman’s hand his royal signet to do with the people as seemed good to him, certainly more resembles the character of the capricious Xerxes12 than the mild and benevolent Artaxerxes Longimanus;13 but then, in the brief record of Scripture, we can hardly know all the subtle counsels of a minister already high, in his master’s favor. The noblest and best monarchs have at one period or another been liable to be led by evil ministers.*14 Whoever the monarch, thus much is certain, the horrible decree went forth over the vast domains of Ahasuerus, and consternation and mourning took possession of the hapless people, who, men, women, and little children, the old and the young, were condemned to be destroyed on the thirteenth day of the twelfth month, and all their possessions to become the spoil of their destroyers.15 Can we imagine a situation more appalling? To know the fate impending—each day, each month to draw it nearer—and yet to have no power either to resist or fly; to feel themselves hemmed Esth. 3:8–9. With whom Ahasuerus is commonly identified. 13 He is the king in the Greek version of the Book of Esther and consequently, in the additions to the Book of Esther in the Apocrypha of the Protestant Bible. The reason for this is that the additions derive from the Greek version of Esther prepared by Lysimachus the son of Ptolemy of Jerusalem. They are not included in the Hebrew version of the Book of Esther found in Jewish Bibles and translated in the Old Testament section of Protestant Bibles. Josephus, Antiquities also identifies the king in the Book of Esther with Artaxerxes I. * We need but instance Isabella of Spain, who, one of the most noble, most magnanimous, aye, and most humane, alike as a sovereign and a woman, was yet persuaded into the expulsion of six hundred thousand of her innocent subjects, as an act, not of policy, for that was against it, but of religion.14 14 Here Aguilar refers to the decree issued in August 1492 calling for the expulsion of the Jews from Spain. 15 Esth. 3:13. 11 12

FIFTH PERIOD. II. ESTHER

613

in by destined murderers—men whom, perchance, they were in the habit of meeting in terms of kindly fellowship, turned into ruthless destroyers, simply from a monarch’s word?16 Yet such was once the awful condition of the Hebrew people; and it was the Eternal’s will, that by a woman’s instrumentality they should be saved. “When Mordecai perceived all that was done, he rent his clothes, and put on sackcloth with ashes, and went out into the midst of the city, and cried with a loud and bitter cry; and came even before the king’s gate: for none might enter clothed in sackcloth. And in every province, whithersoever the king’s commandment and his decree came, there was great mourning among the Jews, fasting, and weeping, and wailing; and many lay in sackcloth and ashes.”17 Then was the time, had Mordecai been other than we assert he was, for him to have concealed his religion, not by his public mourning to proclaim that he, too, was one of the doomed. But such was not his conduct. When all was peace amongst his people, he was content to remain in seclusion, to practise and to love his faith, without obtruding it by outward appearance of sanctity and holiness. Many of his brethren might, perhaps, in secret, have condemned him as lukewarm to the interest of his nation, or he would long before have made use of Esther’s influence for their peculiar benefit. They might, and probably did, accuse him of scarcely belonging to them; but, in the hour of their affliction and danger, they learned differently. He was in very truth among, and of them; and the eyes of all turned to him alone for help and guidance. Esther, meanwhile, had continued in the retirement of the king’s palace, still his best beloved wife; yet retaining all the affection for her adopted father which had characterized her youth. Can we imagine? Writes Aguilar in 1845; yet a hundred years later her rhetorical question, which suggests that genocide perpetrated against one’s neighbors, schoolmates, co-workers is unimaginable, the unimaginable had taken place across the length and breath of Europe and included Libya in North Africa. And tragically other acts of genocide have been perpetrated in the Balkans and in Africa and elsewhere before the 20th century drew to a close. 17 Esth. 4:1–3. 16

614

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

That Mordecai was very closely connected with her must have been generally suspected, else we should not find her maids and her chamberlains coming hastily to inform her of his strange proceeding; but so ignorant were they of its cause, as to excite in us the supposition that his religion, and that of Esther, were still not publicly known. They merely mentioned that Mordecai was clothed in sackcloth and ashes, as in deep affliction, but made no allusion to the decree. “Esther was exceedingly grieved; and she sent raiment to clothe Mordecai, and to take away his sackcloth from him: but he received it not.”18 Yet still he spoke not the cause of his grief; and Esther, unable to follow the dictates of her own heart, to go to him herself, sent Hatach again to him, with her royal command, to know what it was, and why it was;19 thus blending the dignity of the queen with the affection of the child, and compelling his reply. Her silence at first might have proceeded from the momentary hesitation, as to whether or not he should involve Esther in the danger of her people. Her race and faith were still unknown; why should he betray them at a time when their betrayal threatened death? The affection of a father might have struggled with the feelings of the patriot: but ere Hatach returned his decision was made; and imparting the designs of Haman, and the decree which had thence proceeded, he sent a copy of the writing to Esther, charging her to go in unto the king, and supplicate him for her people.20 For her people—the fatal words were said, and her race revealed; he could not withdraw them, and the decree from that moment equally extended unto her, as to the humblest of her brethren. How fearful must this intelligence have been to the young queen; and yet more fearful, if possible, the alternative proposed. We see at once, that her feeling towards her husband was fear, not love; by her shrinking from his presence, unless expressly called. The favor with which, she had been regarded from the first, would, had she been a woman of a bold, intriguing spirit, have given her such influence, as to obtain access to her husband whenever she willed it, regardless Esth. 4:4. Esth. 4:5. 20 Esth. 4:8. 18 19

FIFTH PERIOD. II. ESTHER

615

of all laws to the contrary: but even the impending and widespreading danger could not conquer Esther’s natural terror. It seemed easier to let the decree proceed, and share the fate of her people, than call down the monarch’s wrath by intrusion into his presence: and the very fear endears her to us, proving that it was no unnaturally endowed heroine, but a very woman of whom we read.21 “Again Esther spake unto Hatach, and gave him commandment unto Mordecai: All the king’s servants, and the people of the king’s provinces, do know, that whosoever, whether man or woman, shall come unto the king into the inner court, who is not called, there is one law of his to put him to death, except such to whom the king shall hold out his golden sceptre, that he may live: but I have not been called into the king’s presence these thirty days:”22 probably an unusual lapse of time, which, supposing a decrease of the royal favor, naturally increased Esther’s shrinking repugnance from the task proposed. But Mordecai’s plan was already fixed, and this answer was instantly returned: “Think not to thyself that thou shalt escape in the king’s house, more than all the Jews. For if thou altogether hold thy peace at this time, then shall enlargement and deliverance arise to the Jews from another place; but thou and thy father’s house shall be destroyed: for who knoweth whether thou art come to the kingdom for such a time as this?”23 These last words give us the solution of Mordecai’s confidence, alike in the influence of Esther, and the eventual deliverance Indeed, if Queen Esther “was no unnaturally endowed heroine,” but, like Vashti, another female victim of gender-based violence, and Ahasuerus, whom she feared more than loved, was, it turns out just another perpetrator of gender-based violence, what then? And the answer seems to be that if anyone thinks that the fate of the Jews can be separated from the cause of women’s liberation or that the cause of women’s liberation can afford to be hijacked to provide a free ride for Biblebashing, or any other kind of bigotry, the Book of Esther shows that human liberation is one and indivisible. 22 Esth. 4:10–11. 23 Esth. 4:13–14. 21

616

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

of the Jews. His heart, ever faithful to his fathers’ God—ever watchful to trace the superintending Providence which guarded his people as the shepherd his flock, had solved, as by a flash of light, the mystery before surrounding him. He knew now why, in preference to every other maiden, his precious child had been called to that high estate which he had mourned, as uniting her with heathens, and dividing her seemingly for ever from her people and her faith. The Eternal, in His wisdom and His mercy, had placed her there, that she might be the chosen instrument, in His hand, for the preservation of His people. Convinced of this, despondency and doubt passed from the heart of Mordecai. He felt almost with a prophet’s certainty, that deliverance would come for his people; and, therefore, in words that sounded almost stern, in their total disregard of woman’s feelings, he called upon her to perform the part for which she had been raised to the kingdom—to listen, not to the voice of fear, but to arise and speak, else would she herself be destroyed, aye, and her lather’s house (which included Mordecai himself), and deliverance arise for her people from another place.24 It is evident that his confidence extended not to her, though with meek submissiveness she made no further resistance to her guardian’s will. There is a deep and mournful meaning, breathing through her gentle answer—a hopelessness, yet self-devotion, which must twine her round our hearts, as one peculiarly unfitted for the terrible ordeal. “Go, gather together all the Jews that are present in Shushan, and fast ye for me, and neither eat nor drink three days, night or day: I also and my maidens will fast likewise; and so will I go in

In this paragraph Aguilar has penetrated the essential message of the Book of Esther and of the festival of Purim, which is that just as Joseph’s being sold into slavery in Egypt served a divine purpose in saving many throughout the Middle East from starvation (so Joseph to his brothers in Gen. 45:5) so did Esther’s becoming the wife of Ahasuerus and hiding from him her being a Jewess make possible the miraculous deliverance of the Jews of the Persian Empire from Haman’s genocidal plot. 24

FIFTH PERIOD. II. ESTHER

617

unto the king, which is not according to the law: and if I perish, I perish.”25 No undertaking, of whatever nature it might be, was ever commenced by the Hebrew nation without earnest prayer and fasting—not by the act of fasting to obtain favor in the sight of the Merciful Being who has no pleasure in the affliction of His creatures; but by abstinence from all corporeal enjoyments to give the spirit ascendency over the clay, and better enable us to attain that perfect commune with our God, which, in periods of supplication, we so much need. Though in the Book of Esther only fasting is named, yet evidently prayer is understood, for to the Hebrews the first was wholly useless without the second;26 and in the beautiful Esth. 4:16. Indeed, every Jewish fast involves total abstinence from food and drink combined with the addition of penitential prayers (Heb. selihot) or (on the one occasion when selihot penitential prayers’ are not recited) on the Ninth of Av (in July or August), which commemorates the destruction of the First and the Second Temple, qinot ‘lamentations’. The association of the Jewish public fast with penitential prayers is found already in the Bible in Joel 1:14: “Sanctify ye a fast, call a solemn assembly, gather the elders and all the inhabitants of the land into the house of the LORD your God, and cry unto the LORD.” The association of fasting with supplication is taken for granted also in Jer. 14:12, “When they fast I will not hear their cry,” which would be a total non sequitur were it not that in Hebrew thought fast and crying out to God are inseparable. It is only since Martin Luther’s disparagement of the Book of Esther that it has become commonplace to cast aspersions upon the Book of Esther and to suggest that it embodies the Jewish preoccupation with forms (fasting) rather than substance (heartfelt prayer). Both the Old Greek version of Esther prepared by Lysimachus son of Ptolemy and the Aramaic versions of Esther found in the so-called Rabbinic Bibles (containing the Hebrew text of the Bible with one or more Aramaic translations and several medieval Hebrew commentaries, some of them in the Spanish cursive Hebrew script of the late Middle Ages commonly called Rashi script) make explicit rather than implicit the prayers spoken by Esther and Mordecai during the three day fast proclaimed by Queen Esther in Esth. 4:16. On the other hand, Book of Esther-bashers, who constitute a special sub-class of Bible bashers and Judaism-bashers, tend to argue that the Greek and the Aramaic versions 25 26

618

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

prayer written by the author of the remaining chapters of Esther in the Apocrypha, we read in what light her character was regarded. We will transcribe it entire, entreating our readers at the same time to remember, that we do not regard it as inspired, and therefore as the actual prayer27 used by Esther on the occasion, but simply as a proof of the feeling with which she was considered by the ancient writers; and that they too supposed with us, that her queenly state was a matter far more of loathing and repugnance, than of pride and joy.

had to add the prayers because the real Esther and Mordecai did not pray. This is rather silly seeing that Book of Esther-bashers, by-and-large, belong to the larger class of persons who do not believe that anything told in the Book of Esther really happened. See next note. 27 Grace Aguilar accepts the traditional Jewish position that the Book of Esther describes events precisely as they took place and that the book was composed under divine inspiration and belongs to the category of Torah, which is to say canonical sacred literature. Aguilar likewise takes it for granted (as do Jews and Protestants) that the additions to the Greek version of Esther, which are found in the Apocrypha section of Protestant Bibles (and therefore usually sold separately and hence not usually bought or owned) do not belong to Holy Writ. Hence it goes without saying that the prayer, which she transcribes from the Apocrypha of the King James Bible, specifically from “The Additions to the Book of Esther,” chapter 14, vv. 3–19, cannot possibly be the actual prayer. After all, they are found in a book, which neither the Jews nor the Protestants regard as Holy Writ. It is possible, however, that were one to fulfill the provision of the Mishnah that biblical scrolls may be written in Greek (Mishnah, Megillah 1:8) and that the Scroll of Esther may be sung on the festival of Purim in Greek (Mishnah, Megillah 2:1), the Mishnah may well have had in mind the officially sanctioned Greek text prepared by Lysimachus, which includes among its additions Mordecai’s prayer (in the apocryphal additions to Esther it is found in Esth. 13:9–17) and Esther’s prayer (as transcribed below in Women of Israel). Concerning the canonical status of the Greek Esther in early Judaism see Elias Bickerman, “The Colophon of the Greek Book of Esther,” in Elias Bickerman, Studies in Jewish and Christian History (3 vols.; Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1976–1986), 1:225– 245.

FIFTH PERIOD. II. ESTHER

619

“And she prayed unto the Lord God of Israel, saying, O my Lord, thou only art our King. Help me, desolate woman, which have no helper but Thee. For my danger is in mine hand. From my youth up, I have heard in the tribe of my family, that Thou, O Lord, tookest Israel from among all people, and our fathers from all their predecessors, for a perpetual inheritance; and Thou hast performed whatsoever Thou dost promise them. And now we have sinned against Thee; therefore hast Thou given us into the hands of our enemies, because we worshipped their gods. O Lord, Thou art righteous. Nevertheless it satisfieth them not that we are in bitter captivity; but they have stricken hands with their idols, that they will abolish the thing that Thou with Thy mouth hast ordained, and destroy Thine inheritance, and stop the mouth of them that praise Thee, and quench the glory of Thine house, and of Thine altar; and open the mouths of the heathen to set forth the praises of the idols, and to magnify a fleshly king for ever. O Lord, give not Thy sceptre unto them that be nothing; and let them not laugh at our fate, but turn their device upon themselves; and make him an example that hath begun this against us. Remember, O Lord, make Thyself known in time of our affliction; and give me boldness, O King of the nations, and Lord of all power. Give me eloquent speech in my mouth before the lion: turn his heart to hate him that fighteth against us, that there may be an end of him, and all that are like-minded with him. But deliver us with thine hand, and help me that am desolate, which have no other help but Thee. Thou knowest all things, O Lord; Thou knowest that I hate the glory of the unrighteous, and abhor the bed of the uncircumcised and the heathen. Thou knowest my necessity; for I abhor the sign of my high estate which is upon my head, in the days wherein I show myself that I abhor it, and that I wear it not when I am private by myself. And that thine handmaid hath not eaten at Haman’s table; and that I have not greatly esteemed the king’s feast, nor drunk the wine of drink-offerings. Neither had thine handmaid any joy since the day I was brought hither to the present, but in Thee, O Lord God of Abraham. O thou Mighty God above all, hear the voice of the forlorn, and deliver us out of the hands of the mischievous, and deliver me out of my fear.” Well, indeed, must the writer of the above prayer have been acquainted with the female heart, and consequently with all the secret suffering which Esther’s exaltation occasioned her individually. No thought of her own influence—no recollection that the king loved her above all others, could give her confidence suf-

620

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

ficient in herself. Taught from her youth up to recognise the God of Israel as the guardian of her fathers—as the only Being who could come forward in their help—to Him she looked alone—and she could look to Him with confidence; for in the years she had been compelled to hide her parentage, she had sought Him as her only pleasure and only consolation. She had worn her crown because it was His will; but it was but a weight and sadness; for in her private hours it was ever laid aside—she felt now, in her hour of intense supplication, the full comfort of previous and intimate commune with her God, and her trembling heart was strengthened. Some natures could not have borne the delay of three days, in the full anticipation of a trial; they must have gone at once to the king, or failed in power to go at all. Yet such natures, in a mere casual view, would seem far stronger and bolder than Esther’s; and therefore demand and obtain greater admiration. But it is the exquisitely feminine character of Esther that is to me her peculiar and touching charm;—it is the still undercurrent of deep feeling, which betrays itself throughout her history, and which is so peculiarly woman’s—the power of uncomplaining endurance—the firm reliance on a higher and all-merciful power for individual happiness— the absence of all trust in her own gifts of beauty and eloquence, unless so blessed by Him as to soften the heart of the king towards her—the courage, not natural, but acquired through prayer—the conquest of her own weak tremblings, and venture of her own life, for the welfare of her people—and this not the mere impulse of the moment, but pondered on through three days incessant prayer: these are traits which surely must rivet our interest and our love.

CHAPTER III. ESTHER (CONCLUDED) Clothed in unwonted gorgeousness, and radiant in her extraordinary beauty, but her heart, at that awful moment, scarcely able to realize the holy strength and trust which prayer had wrought, on the third day Esther stood in the dreaded presence of the king: and though, uncalled, and therefore disobedient to the law of the Persian kings, God gave her grace in the monarch’s sight; and, instead of displaying anger, he held forth his sceptre towards her, and she drew near and touched it in sign that she implored a boon.1 In the Apocrypha we are told that faintness overpowered her, a natural portraiture of feminine weakness, and depriving her at once of all those attributes of a heroine, which would divide her from our sympathy as a being differently endowed to ourselves. Prayer had given her strength, else had she not thus stood uncalled before Ahasuerus; but the mind, strong as it may be, cannot always bear up its mortal shrine; and by the description of the deadly terror, depriving Esther of sense and speech, given by our ancient fathers,2 we see at once the awful struggle she was enduring. Esth. 5:1–2. Elsewhere in Women of Israel (sixteen other occurrences) this expression refers to the Rabbinic Sages of the Mishnah, the Talmuds, and the ancient midrashic works, which expound the Scriptures. Here, obviously, she refers to the author(s) of the embellishments to the Greek version of the Book of Esther. These embellishments are found in the Apocrypha of the KJV and the other Protestant versions. In this case, of course, we know the identity of the author, Lysimachus of Jerusalem, who prepared his Greek version of the Book of Esther in the years 114–113 B.C.E., as noted above. Here is a small portion (from the RSV at Apocryphal Esther 15:5–10) of the passage to which Aguilar has just alluded: “She was radi1 2

621

622

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

Her beauty, her very terror, all strongly excited the king’s affection; and, hastening towards her, he soothingly exclaimed, “What wilt thou, Queen Esther, and what is thy request? It shall be even given thee, to the half of the kingdom.”3 How blessedly must these words have fallen on Esther’s still quivering heart! Yet, not at that moment dared she utter her request, fearful lest its boldness and extent should change the royal mood. She, therefore, merely besought him, “if it seem good unto the king, let the king and Haman come this day unto the banquet that I have prepared for him.”4 The invitation was accordingly transmitted to Haman, and he and the king went in unto the banquet which Esther had prepared.5 ant with perfect beauty, and she looked happy, as if beloved, but her heart was frozen with fear. When she had gone through all the doors, she stood before the king. He was seated on his royal throne, clothed in the full array of his majesty, all covered with gold and precious stones. And he was most terrifying. Lifting his face, flushed with splendor, he looked at her in fierce anger. And the queen faltered, and turned pale and faint, and collapsed upon the head of the maid who went before her. Then God changed the spirit of the king to gentleness, and in alarm he sprang from his throne and took her in his arms until she came to herself. And he comforted her with soothing words ... .” In fact, in the Greek version, after the king has raised his golden scepter and touched it to Queen Esther’s neck and she has begun to speak to the king, she faints a second time (Esth. 15:15). Elias Bickerman, Five Strange Books of the Bible (New York: Schocken, 1967), 218–234 argues that the dramatic additions to the Greek version are meant to appeal to the expectations of a Greekspeaking target audience, which had literary tastes different from the Hebrew-speaking target audience of the Hebrew Esther, which left more to the imagination of the persons to whom the Hebrew version was read aloud. Note that prayers similar to those assigned to Mordecai and Esther in the Old Greek version, which are translated in the Apocrypha of the English Bible, are found also in the two Aramaic versions of Esther commonly printed in the Rabbinic Bible or Mikra’ot Gedolot found in every traditional Jewish home. 3 Esth. 5:3. 4 Esth. 5:4. 5 Esth. 5:5.

FIFTH PERIOD. III. ESTHER (CONCLUDED)

623

It was a strange proceeding: this commencement—inviting the deadly enemy of her people to her private banquet— aggrandizing him as it were still more—rendering her own task more fraught with danger—and filling the minds of her countrymen with doubts as to the purity of her intentions towards them. It has ever seemed to me that Esther’s conduct, with regard to the two invitations, before her boon was spoken, proceeded not from previous design, but rather from impulse, which she followed as supposing it the inward direction of the Eternal; but which, when accepted, startled even herself. But to retract was impossible; and the daughter of Israel,6 radiant in her loveliness, entertained the king and his prime minister at her private table. Again did the king reiterate his inquiry and his promise, “What is thy petition? and it shall be granted thee: and what is thy request? even to the half of my kingdom it shall be performed.”7 And again did Esther fail in the necessary courage to give it words; and, instead of her weighty boon, we find her simply saying, “If I have found favor in the sight of the king, and if it please the king to grant my petition, and perform my request, let the king and Haman come to the banquet that I shall prepare for them, and I will do tomorrow as the king hath said.”8 Her concluding words betrayed that she had yet another boon; and her trembling spirit was probably reassured by the graciousness with which the invitation was accepted. Haman, too, left her presence rejoicing and triumphant. Little could the wily plotter dream that the God of her people was with Esther, inspiring the words of her mouth; and that this very exaltation was the forerunAguilar’s point is that each of the heroines—Deborah, Hannah, Abigail, the Shunammite, Huldah, Esther—who exemplified piety and humility and knowledge and wisdom, and whose words and deeds have been revered in the literature which Jewish men and women read as an act of piety, is a paradigm of what every Jewish girl and every Jewish woman can and ought to be if only we would grant them the educational opportunities and the respect that they as daughters of God’s First-born, the people of Israel, deserve. 7 Esth. 5:6. 8 Esth. 5:7–8. 6

624

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

ner of his fall. But yet, in the very midst of his triumph, as he left the palace, Mordecai, who still sate at the king’s gate in his sackcloth, stood not up, nor moved for him; and Haman’s indignant wrath caused the exclamation, that riches, prosperity, gratified ambition, regal favors, all availed him nothing, so long as he saw Mordecai the Jew sitting at the king’s gate.9 To disperse these gloomy thoughts, he entered eagerly into the counsel of his wife and friends; and a gallows was erected fifty cubits high, while his blackened mind revolved some tale, the which to bring the king on the morrow, that his consent might be obtained for the instant execution of the man he abhorred.10 But that same night others also were wakeful. Surely we may picture the young queen wrapt in earnest and fervid prayer, still for strength and grace for the pursuance of her entreaty: was she not a weak and trembling woman, whose only strength was PRAYER? Thousands were destined to the destroyer; if she held back, who would arise and save? and, in that nightly vigil, when fear and doubt are so often magnified and darkened, what could she rest on but her God? Nor was she the only wakeful one in the royal palace. Even as she prayed, the Eternal answered; and His guiding mercy was at that very moment so ordering events as to prepare the way for her successful petition. Unable to sleep, Ahasuerus, towards morning, commanded the chronicles of the kingdom to be read before him; and it so happened that the roll opened on the conspiracy against himself, which Mordecai had discovered. Imparted to the king as it had been by Esther, the names and minute particulars had passed unnoticed, more especially as Mordecai had always so shrunk from public notice. But, read now from the records of the kingdom, the king’s attention was irresistibly fixed; and he demanded “What honor and dignity hath been done to Mordecai for this?”—“Then said the king’s servants that ministered unto him, There is nothing done for him.’’11 The king, self-reproached at the neglect, and determined not to expose himself to forgetfulness again, inquired, Esth. 5:9. Esth. 5:10–14. 11 Esth. 6:1–3. 9

10

FIFTH PERIOD. III. ESTHER (CONCLUDED)

625

“Who is in the court?”12 And on being told that Haman stood without, commanded his instant admittance. “What shall be done?” he asked, when the minister appeared, “unto the man whom the king delighteth to honor?”13 And puffed up by his inordinate pride and vanity, Haman thought in his heart, “Who can the king delight to honor more than myself?” and advised a triumph, which would make him second only to the king.14 But when, elated with his own description, and convinced he was advising his own triumph, these words came—“Do even so to Mordecai the Jew, who sitteth at the king’s gate: let nothing fail of all that thou hast spoken;”15—how can we attempt to describe the fierce rage of vindictive passions which must have taken possession of Haman’s heart? How attempt to portray the black emotions with which the baffled plotter must have walked beside the splendidly caparisoned charger, on which, robed in the king’s apparel, sat his detested rival? And no comfort waited him, when, mourning and enraged, he sought his home. “If Mordecai be of the seed of the Jews,” they told him, “before whom thou hast begun to fall, thou shalt not prevail against him, but shalt surely fall before him,”16 words which prove how forcibly the estimation in which the Jews, as the chosen and beloved people of God,17 were held by the nations around them, even by those who called them captives. But little time had Haman to ponder on further schemes of vengeance. “While they were yet talking with him, came the king’s chamberlains, and hasted to bring Haman to the banquet which Esther had prepared.”18 Again had the queen assembled around her all of gorgeousness and festivity to gratify the luxurious taste of the Persian king. Her beauty, heightened by successful adornment, concealing under the graceful courtesy of the hostess the tremblings of the petitioner—fear probably becoming more and more Esth. 6:4. Esth. 6:6a. 14 Esth. 6:6b–9. 15 Esth. 6:10. 16 Esth. 6:13. 17 See above, p. 141, n. 47. 18 Esth. 6:14. 12 13

626

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

intense with every passing moment—longing, yet fearing for the king to speak those words which must impel reply. And at length they came, coupled as before with the royal promise of fulfilment for whatever she might ask; and she, who had fainted from very terror when first in presence of the king19—who had felt so powerless to speak from the very magnitude of her boon, now boldly and firmly answered:— “If I have found favor in thy sight, O king, and if it please the king, let my life be given me at my petition, and my people at my request: for we are sold, I and my people, to be destroyed, to be slain, and to perish. But if we had been sold for bondmen and bondwomen, I had held my tongue, although the enemy could not countervail the king’s damage.”20 Few manifestations of selfdevotion are more touching and complete than these simple words of Esther. We have seen and known the extent of her human fears—she might have worded her petition as in no point to include herself, but she scorned it—she might have been divided from her people in periods of prosperity and peace, because such was the will of Mordecai; but not when danger and death threatened. Their fate should be her own; and fearlessly she included herself with them. Whether or not Ahasuerus at once associated this people for whom Esther implored, with those destined for death by the machinations of his minister, we cannot determine; but by his instant question—“Who is he, and where is he, that durst presume in his heart to do so?”21we are induced to suppose that he did not, but imagined it simply some plot against the life and immediate kindred of his queen—a supposition likely enough to excite the fierce wrath, which, when his long-favored minister, Haman, was accused as the adversary and enemy, caused him to leave the banquet in much disorder, and pace the palace garden, endeavoring so to pacify his anger, as calmly to decide. Haman, meanwhile, had fallen in deadly terror and agonized supplication on the couch, where, in accordance with Persian fashion, Esther had reclined dur19

Referring to the apocryphal Esther 15:7, 15 cited above, p. 621, n.

20

Esth. 7:3–4. Esth. 7:5.

2. 21

FIFTH PERIOD. III. ESTHER (CONCLUDED)

627

ing the banquet—a posture of apparent familiarity, rousing the monarch to yet greater fury; and guided by his gestures even more than his words, the guards present seized Haman, and covered his face, an Eastern custom existing still,22 and signifying that the criminal is condemned to instant death. Harbonah, the chamberlain, at the same moment came forward with the information of the gallows prepared in Haman’s house for Mordecai, who had acted so faithfully towards the king; and Ahasuerus, still more incensed, commanded him to hang Haman thereon. The royal command was instantly obeyed, and then only “was the king’s wrath pacified.”23 This summary mode of proceeding may seem strange to modern notions and civilized customs; but it is in exact accordance with the despotic government of the East, not only in a time so long past, but even now, when the bowstring is the instant executor of punishment. Trial, and witnesses for and against; the minute examination into facts, and the deliberate sentence of judgment, are all utterly unknown to this day in the East; and, therefore, the instant chastisement of Haman in no way marks the sovereign as the capricious tyrant, which, identifying him with Xerxes, some historians represent him. Egregiously deceived as he had been so long in his prime minister; who had dared, as he supposed, to compass the life of his dearly beloved queen and her kindred, and who had secretly and vindictively prepared a gallows for the death of one who had saved the king’s life—all these circumstances were quite sufficient to rouse an Eastern temper24 into such fury, as could only be Esth. 7:8. Indeed, it is practiced in many countries throughout the world that the police cover the face of an alleged perpetrator for the following reasons: to protect her/his identity prior to judicial determination of guilt; to avoid compromising the proper identification of the perpetrator in a police line-up; to avoid embarrassing the relatives of the alleged perpetrator. 23 Esth. 7:9–10. 24 Cf. G. M. Mackie, “Gestures,” in A Dictionary of the Bible, ed. James Hastings (5 vols.; New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons / Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1899–1904), 2:162b: “Gesture is much resorted to by Orientals in the communication of their thoughts and expression of their feelings ... . Where we control our feelings, they are controlled by them, 22

628

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

calmed by the death of the offender. Nor did the monarch stop here. He gave unto Esther the whole house (probably the rich possessions)25 of Haman; and then it was that the queen revealed her near relationship to Mordecai, and her faith; and Mordecai came before the king, and received from his hand the ring, or signet, which Ahasuerus had taken from Haman, as a symbol that he was now prime minister in his enemy’s place. “And Esther set Mordecai over the house of Haman.”26 But personal safety and aggrandizement were not the intention of the noble Mordecai and his courageous child. Falling prostrate at the feet of her husband, Esther besought him with many tears to put away the mischief of Haman the Agagite. and his evil schemes against the Jews—imploring, “If it please the king, and if I have found favor in his sight, and the thing seem right before the king, and I be pleasing in his eyes, let it be written to reverse the letters devised by Haman the Agagite, which he wrote to destroy the Jews which are in all the king’s provinces: for how can I endure to see the evil that shall come unto my people? and how can I endure to see the destruction of my kindred?”27 not because the feelings are always stronger, but because the controlling power is less.” Similarly, Herbert Jennings Rose, “Gestures,” in The Oxford Classical Dictionary, ed. N. G. L. Hammond and H. H. Scullard (2d ed.; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1970, 465; Sheldon Blank, “Kiss,” The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible (4 vols.; Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1962), 39; Heinrich Vorwahl, Die Gebärdensprache im Alten Testament (Diss., University of Berlin, 1932; Berlin: Emil Ebering, 1932), 5; and cf. the critical discussion of the Orientalism reflected in these writings in Mayer I. Gruber, Aspects of Nonverbal Communication in the Ancient Near East (2 vols.; Studia Pohl, no. 12; Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1980), 1: 12–14; and contrast the utter objectivity reflected in Gregory Glazov, “Gestures,” in The New Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible, 2 (Nashville: Abingdon, 2007), 560–561. 25 This is an important philological note, which indicates Aguilar’s awareness that in ancient Semitic texts ‘house’ can designate not only one’s dwelling but one’s possessions or estate as well. Cf. dictionaries of ancient Semitic languages, s.v., ‘house’. 26 Esth. 8:1–2. 27 Esth. 8:5–6.

FIFTH PERIOD. III. ESTHER (CONCLUDED)

629

She could not have framed her petition in words more likely to reach the heart of the sovereign, than by making the cause of the Jews so completely her own. A mere entreaty for them as a people unjustly sentenced to destruction, would not have been thus successful; but she identified them with HERSELF. In their low estate— in their impending danger, she appealed for them as her people, her immediate kindred, that life would be joyless were they destroyed; and her eloquent appeal was granted, for her beauty, her gentleness, her very deference and respect, had rendered her all-powerful with the king. Full permission was given to her and Mordecai to write as it pleased them; “for the writing which is written in the king’s name, and sealed with the king’s seal, might no man reverse.”28 Scribes were accordingly summoned in all haste—scribes who could write in every language of the hundred and twentyseven provinces, to the lieutenants, and the deputies, and the rulers; “Wherein the king granted the Jews which were in every city to gather themselves together, and to stand for their life, to destroy, to slay, and to cause to perish, all the power of the people and province that would assault them, little ones and women, and to take the spoil of them for prey;” and copies of these writings were forwarded by riders on mules, camels, and young dromedaries, being hastened and pressed on by the king’s commandment.29 Vindictive as, in a mere superficial view, this decree may appear, it was imperative, for the Jews could be saved by no other means; the writing that was once written in the king’s name, and sealed with the king’s ring, could never be reversed—the laws of the Medes and Persians, once passed, were unalterable, however unjust or tyrannical they might be. Ahasuerus had commanded the entire destruction of the Jews; he could not annul that edict, and, consequently, was impelled to grant Esther’s entreaty, by issuing another, desiring the Jews to defend themselves, even by the death of those who, in compliance with the previous decree, should assault them. A mode of proceeding very repugnant to present notions, but which can only be judged by the customs and laws of the past. 28 29

Esth. 8:8. Esth. 8:9–10.

630

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

We find in Josephus another reason for this destruction of Ahasuerus’s subjects. Alluding to some words in his letter to the governor, Josephus says in a note, “These words give an intimation, as if Artaxerxes suspected a deeper design in Haman than had openly appeared—that, knowing that the Jews would be faithful to him, and that he could never transfer the crown to his own family, who were of the posterity of Agag, the old king of the Amalekites, while they were alive, and spread over all the Persian dominions, he endeavored to destroy them. Nor is it to me improbable, that those of the Jews’ enemies who were soon destroyed by the Jews, by permission of the king, were Amalekites, their old and hereditary enemies (Exod. xvii. 14, 15); and that thereby was fulfilled Balaam’s prophecy, ‘Amalek was the first of the nations, but his latter end shall be, that he perish for ever’ (Numb. xxiv. 20).”* 30 If this be well founded, it is a most agreeable solution to what appears, on a superficial reading, such indiscriminate slaughter on the part of the Jews.31 It was the fulfilment of Divine prophecy on * Josephus, Book xi. chap. vi. note to p. 229 of second volume.30 30 Josephus, Antiquities, 11.11.12 writes as follows: “nay, he [Haman] made a conspiracy against me and my life who gave him his authority, by endeavoring to take away Mordecai, my benefactor and my saviour, and by basely and treacherously requiring to have Esther the partner of my life, and of my dominion brought to destruction, for he contrived by these means to deprive me of my faithful friends, and transfer the government to others.” Precisely at this point the translator, William Whiston, The Works of Josephus, Written by Himself, Translated from the Original Greek, According to Havercam’s Accurate Edition together with Explanatory Notes and Observations (2 vols.; Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott & Co., 1856) adds the note, which Aguilar quotes here and attributes to Josephus. Elsewhere, in Women of Israel, however, Aguilar distinguishes correctly between the translated text of Josephus and Whiston’s notes. 31 Thus Aguilar, no less than more recent Jewish readers, is embarrassed by the slaughter, albeit it in self defense, of seventy-five thousand enemies in the various provinces of the Persian Empire (Esth. 9:16) and another eight hundred persons in addition to the ten sons of Haman in Shushan the capital (Esth. 9:12, 15). Consequently, she is pleased to find in Whiston’s note to Josephus, Antiquities, 11.11.12 a justification for their

FIFTH PERIOD. III. ESTHER (CONCLUDED)

631

a race whose exceeding wickedness had for so many centuries marked them out as objects of the Eternal’s wrath; and His people were but instruments in His hands, instead of the fire or plague, with which, had it pleased Him, their destruction would equally have been brought about. But to return to Esther. With what joy must she have beheld the termination of all her fears and inward struggles in the salvation and glory of her people! Her beloved guardian, Mordecai, was now acknowledged and honored by prince and people, as his many years of unpresuming worth deserved. “He went out from the presence of the king in royal apparel of blue and white, with a great crown of gold, and with a garment of fine linen and purple: and the city of Shushan rejoiced and was glad. The Jews had light, and gladness, and joy, and honor. And in every province, and in every city, wheresoever the king’s commandment and his decree came, the Jews had joy and gladness, a feast and a good day. And many of the people of the land became Jews; for the fear of the Jews fell upon them.”32 And this, under the God of her people, was a WOMAN’S work—wrought not by beauty, or power, or any of those arts which but too often guide the female favorites of monarchs, but solely by the STRENGTH of PRAYER. We have seen the tremblings execution for reasons not connected with specifically Jewish interests. A similar attempt to blame the victim for her/his suffering is found in the Rabbinic midrash quoted by Rashi at Esth. 1:12 according to which Vashti deserved to be humiliated by the king because she had humiliated Jewish girls and made them violate the Sabbath. Similarly, attempting to justify Job’s undeserved suffering, a Rabbinic midrash, attributed to Rava (d. 352 C.E.) states that while indeed “In all this did not Job sin with his lips” (Job 2:10), he did sin in his heart (see Babylonian Talmud, Bava Batra 16a). Much more elegant than this idea of blaming the victim and justifying her/his suffering is the Buddhist and Hindu notion that seemingly innocent victims indeed have it coming to them not for some sin dreamed up by a midrash or a well-meaning (usually more mean than either well or meaning!) neighbor but obviously for a sin committed in a previous life. What person who might be willing to argue with a midrash or a neighbor could possibly argue against that idea? 32 Esth. 8:15–17.

632

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

of her gentle woman heart—that she had entered on the plan, with the conviction that she was risking her own life—that her own death for intruding upon the sovereign’s presence was far more likely than the preservation of her people, else wherefore the words, “And if I perish, I perish.”33 All this we have seen; and can we hesitate a moment in the belief, that strength, eloquence, all she needed, were infused by the Hearer and the Answerer of prayer— that they were not of herself? How had she commenced this terrible undertaking? By three days and nights passed in fasting and prayer,34 the long period proving in itself the extent of her shrinking fears, the magnitude of the task in which, simply in obedience to Mordecai, she had engaged; and when we remember how her work commenced, can we not rest satisfied as to the how it concluded? The sacred historian35 passes on to more eventful matters, to more public and national concerns; but we, lineal descendants of this fair and noble Jewess, shall not we accompany her to the same retirement, where she had lasted and prayed, and behold her again prostrate, not now in agonized supplication, but in glorified, rejoicing adoration!—tracing the hand of her God in all—hearing the answer to her fervent prayer in the shouts of joy and triumph which rose from the city without—in the honorable exaltation of Mordecai—in the pure delicious feeling that she was no longer lonely in Esth. 4:16. Esth. 4:16; and see Aguilar’s comments above, pp. 617-618. 35 Aguilar employs this expression five times in Women of Israel. In Gen. 28:41; 29:17; 31:2, this epithet for the anonymous narrator must refer to Moses, to whom Jewish tradition attributes the authorship of the Pentateuch, albeit in Moses’s function as God’s amanuensis or secretary. In 1 Sam. 25:3 it should refer to the person, to whom Jewish tradition attributes the authorship of the Book of Samuel; however, Samuel’s death is reported in 1 Sam. 25:1. In Rabbinic tradition the authorship of the Book of Esther is attributed to the Men of the Great Assembly (Babylonian Talmud, Bava Batra 15a). Ibn Ezra attributes the authorship to Mordecai. Why not to Esther, whose writing skills are mentioned in Esth. 9:10 and whose communication skills are amply illustrated in her slowly bringing Ahasuerus around to the point where he wants what she wants, namely the elimination of Haman and his ilk? 33 34

FIFTH PERIOD. III. ESTHER (CONCLUDED)

633

her high estate; the Guardian of her infancy, second only to the king himself, would ever be beside her. Her faith known, and still herself beloved! Oh! that in itself must have removed a mountain of lead from her bounding heart. Hundreds, aye, thousands of her people were saved in one brief day from death; and she had done this, her words—hers—weak, trembling woman as she was! How might she bear the weight of joy—the magnitude of the success! heavy to humanity as was the magnitude of the terror and the boon; no heart, moulded as was hers, could have contained it, save in prostration before Him whose sole work it was. The burden of joy, as the burden of grief, must find vent before our God —must pour back its gushing tide into the living fountain whence it sprang, or it will crush the heart which holds it; and can we doubt that these were Esther’s feelings, because we find them not in written words? Oh! let every right-feeling woman look within her own heart, and place herself in Esther’s position, from the very beginning of her dreaded task to the completion, and then say how could such joy be borne, save as we have pictured it, in adoration of the Lord? We have only one more public mention of Esther in the book bearing her name (except her writing to confirm the second letter of Purim),36 and that mention, according to the opinions of some, destroys the beauty of her character, and makes her appear in a vindictive and unfeminine light. We, ourselves, once shrank from the verse, and wished it had not had existence; but a more matured consideration removes the objection, and completely exonerates Esther from the bloodthirsty vengeance with which she has by some historians been charged. Even Milman, usually so just and moderate, speaks of the barbarous execution of the ten sons of Haman as proceeding from her request,37 when in fact they were already slain. Verses 12, 13, of the ninth chapter of Esther, are those to which we allude.

36

The writing of that letter is mentioned in Esth. 9:29; see previous

note. 37

Milman, History of the Jews, 2:21.

634

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

In the Jewish law, the gallows was not used as it is now. The criminal was always executed first, either by stoning or strangling,38 and only the dead body suspended upon it as a further mark of guilt and ignominy; and also to deter others from following the sinful example. Esther’s request that Haman’s ten sons might be hanged on the gallows, had nothing whatever to do with a vindictive desire of vengeance upon them for their father’s sin. They had been already slain amongst the enemies of the Jews in Sushan;39 slain most probably in their own assault, for the Jews were not to attack, but merely to defend. “They gathered together, we are told, to lay hand on those that sought their hurt.”40 And the governors and rulers, lieutenants and deputies of the king, all helped the Jews.41 Consequently those who assaulted them were their determined and hereditary foes, resolved, from the great hatred they bore them, to act on the king’s first edict, even if the second should cost them their lives. Amongst these, of course, were Haman’s sons, who, Amalekites and Agagites like their father, were the Jews’ most deadly foes; and the foremost in assault, falling in strife, and stricken by the God whom their iniquities had profaned, through the swords of His people. The 7th, 8th, 9th, and 10th verses of this same chapter (the ninth), specify them by name, amongst the slain, which is confirmed by the words of Ahasuerus himself in the 12th verse, ‘‘The Jews have destroyed five hundred men in Shushan the palace, and the ten sons of Haman” etc. And that Esther should have made her request, that her people should do on the morrow as they had done the preceding day—and that Haman’s ten sons should be hanged upon the gallows, proceeded from no unfeminine or vindictive feeling; but simply from the wish that the future safety of the Hebrews should be fully secured. As an individual, and judging by her previous truly feminine character, Esther would, without doubt, Here, deliberately or otherwise, Aguilar vaguely alludes to Mishnah, Sanhedrin 7:1, which, in fact, mentions four forms of capital punishment: stoning, burning (by making the culprit swallow a burning wick), decapitation by means of a sword, and strangling. 39 Sic; KJV reads Shushan. 40 Esth. 9:2a. 41 Esth. 9:3. 38

FIFTH PERIOD. III. ESTHER (CONCLUDED)

635

have shrunk from the awful retribution which the plot against the Jews had wrought. But she was denied the privilege of thus judging and thus acting: on her depended the present honor and future security of a people, liable to be trodden under foot at every capricious change in the mood of their captors; not alone in her own time, but years after. Guided most probably by the counsels of Mordecai, Esther was compelled to resort to those measures, which were likely to deter their enemies from future attacks. The ignominious exposure of the dead bodies on the gallows—sons of the onetime mighty and all-powerful, all-ambitious Haman—would bring more forcibly than aught else to the minds of men, the palpable evidence, that the Most High God still watched over His people, and turned every evil thought against them to the evil and the ruin of their contrivers. And the request of the second day’s defence is but a proof that the deadly haters of the Jews were not yet subdued, but were likely to spring up again more inveterate than before. Esther’s words are, “Let it be granted to the Jews to do to-morrow according unto this day’s decree; and that decree was to defend, not to revenge—to protect themselves against the assaults which by the previous edict would be made; not to slay and cause to perish, and take the spoil, as had been determined against them.”42 Esther, therefore, issued no order of blood and vengeance, of which she is sometimes accused, nor were the Jews guided by any feeling but that of self-defence; else we should not read, more than once repeated, that even in the homes of their deadliest foes, and with the royal decree to appropriate all to themselves—“On the spoil laid they not their hand.”43 Not in Shushan alone, but in every province and every city where they gathered together and stood for their lives—where the richest and most tempting spoils must have offered themselves to their very grasp—still “on the prey laid they not their hand.”44 Was this a war of revenge, of national aggrandizement? What could have prevented, had they so desired, the entire subjection of the whole Persian kingdom? What people, save the people of God, in those dark times, would have been satisfied merely to stand on Esth. 9:13. Esth. 9:10, 15. 44 Esth. 9:16. 42 43

636

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

their own defence, goaded, as they must have been, by the entire destruction and inveterate enmity working against themselves? But the wars of the Jews were never, from the first of their selection as the Eternal’s chosen,45 actuated by either ambition or revenge. A reference to our first volume (Chap. III. of the Third Period) will give the causes and intention of their first wars, the reduction of the Holy Land, not for personal aggrandizement, but in direct obedience to the direct command of the Eternal. In looking further on, through all the different phases of Jewish history we find no mention of wars undertaken for aggrandizement or private revenge. Their wars were always defensive; and, though richly gifted with all the noble and heroic qualities necessary to warriors and heroes, they were nationally a peaceful and pastoral people, satisfied with the lands assigned them, and with becoming wealthy through the direct blessing of their God. We never read, as is so often the case in the histories of contemporary nations, of acts of private revenge, or public dispute settled by the sword. No personal appropriations of acquired spoil—no inroads from one tribe to another, as, even in modern times, is so often the case with nations who are divided into clans or bodies. Whatever wars are read of, as undertaken by the Hebrews, are either by the direct command of their heavenly King, or in their own defence. Glancing, then, back on the Bible history regarded in this light, from the selection of Abraham to the time of Esther, we cannot find one incident or trait to justify the idea, that the slaughter of Ahasuerus’s subjects proceeded from any revengeful or vindictive motive, but was simply in self-defence.46 We cannot draw any inference contrary to the supposition, that it was the Eternal Himself who ordained and permitted this destruction, not alone because of their designs against His people, but because they were the descendants of a most sinful race, and inheritors and promulgators of iniquities and abominations which the God of Truth and Love abhorred, and for which he had, from the very first, sentenced them to chastisement and wrath. See above, p. 141, n. 47. Cf. Y. Kaufmann, History of the Israelite Religion (8 vols.; Jerusalem: Bialik Institute / Tel Aviv: Dvir, 1956), 8:443–445 (in Hebrew). 45 46

FIFTH PERIOD. III. ESTHER (CONCLUDED)

637

Looking upon it in this light, all over-refined notions must pass away. It is idle, in such an incident as this, to condemn our noble Ancestress as vindictive and revengeful, because her request shocks our individually sensitive notions. We must take a wide grasp of the whole character and bearing, not of Esther alone, nor of the Jews in Persia alone; but of the general character of the nation in the past, and how their present danger was likely to affect them in the future. We must recollect that they were still captives,— still liable to persecution and intolerance—to be attacked and slaughtered, at the very first caprice of the despotic monarchs under whom they lived. Even as Ahasuerus had been persuaded by the specious reasoning of a favorite minister, so might be other monarchs. It was therefore the special care of Mordecai and Esther to adopt every means for the future security of their people, not alone for their present safety; and in that barbarous age, and still more barbarous people, no measures were so likely to be efficient, as the public degradation of Haman’s family, and the noble stand made by the Hebrews against their idolatrous oppressors. The Jews had probably been considered a poor-spirited, unnerved people, likely to bend beneath oppression, and to be easily subdued. Their spirited defence, however, taught their adversaries a very different lesson; not only that the God of Israel was with them still, but that they possessed within themselves all the attributes of an heroic nation, who would never fail in the assertion and protection of their rights; and who, were the necessary liberty of action allowed them, would never tamely submit to the insults and oppression which they had endured. In reading and reflecting over this history, let us never forget the important truth so often repeated, that “on the spoil the Jews laid not their hand,”47 because this one brief sentence is sufficient to convince us, that no revengeful or rapacious feelings actuated our ancestors. In the edict issued against themselves, not only their lives were to be destroyed without any regard to age, infancy, or sex, but their possessions were to have been confiscated to the

47

Esth. 9:10, 15, 16.

638

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

king’s treasury—they were to be spoiled as well as slain;48 and they might have retaliated. All which had been decreed against them, they were at perfect liberty to have turned upon their foes; but they scorned it. The same spirit which caused Abraham to refuse the gifts of Melchizedek, lest he should say, “I have made Abraham rich,”49 actuated them to touch not one item of the vast stores, which, from the awful amount of slaughter, might have been their own. Accused as we have so often been of love of gold above all other love—of seeking, by honorable or dishonorable means, to increase our worldly stores—of grasping and rapacious dispositions—let us point to this simple line, “On the spoil laid they not their hand;”50 and the charge is at once proved false! Let us look back on this—on a hundred other similar traits in our history—and our national character will stand forward as free from such ignominious stain as any other nation in the world. What, if our modern history seem to contradict this, and the sneerer and the scoffer point to the usurers of the middle ages, and, dilating on their wealth, their rapacity (so called), their grasping minds and hardened hearts in such opprobrious colors portray the Jew? What, if they do this? They prove nothing—nothing to tarnish the national character of the Hebrew, as proved in the momentous records of the past, and confirmed by their giving up all of wealth and greatness, rather than their religion, in their expulsion from Spain,—but much, much against themselves, in the fearful effects of persecution and intolerance, which they have hurled upon the people of the Lord The Book of Esther concludes with the establishment of the festival of Purim,51 which, observed as it is by every class and every denomination of the Jews throughout the world to the present day, Esth. 3:13: “And the letters were sent by posts into all the king’s provinces, to destroy, to kill, and to cause to perish, all Jews, both young and old, little children, and women, in one day even upon the thirteenth day of the twelfth month, which is the month of Adar, and to take the spoil of them for a prey.” 49 Gen. 14:23. 50 Esth. 9:10, 15, 16. 51 Esth. 9:17–32. 48

FIFTH PERIOD. III. ESTHER (CONCLUDED)

639

is in itself a convincing evidence of the perfect truth of the whole history. The 14th and 15th days of Adar were ordained to be “remembered and kept throughout every generation, every family, every province, and every city; that these days of Purim should not fail from among the Jews, nor the memorial of them perish from their seed.52 Then Esther the queen, the daughter of Abihail, and Mordecai the Jew, wrote with all authority, to confirm this second letter of Purim.”53 And from that time it has been observed by every man, woman, or child, bearing the honored name of Jew. Its ordinance and confirmation is the last mention which we have of Esther by name; and, therefore, her after influence with respect to the favor shown her people can only be conjecture. Yet if the Ahasuerus of Esther be indeed Artaxerxes Longimanus, the Artaxerxes of Ezra and Nehemiah, surely we may be justified in the theory (which we acknowledge to be a favorite one), that the ready granting of Nehemiah’s petition, and the subsequent favorable edicts issued for Jerusalem and the Jews, originated in the love borne by Artaxerxes for his lovely Jewish queen. We are told that Mordecai the Jew was next unto King Ahasuerus, and great amongst the Jews, and accepted by the multitude of his brethren, seeking the wealth of his people, and speaking peace to all his seed.”54 He no longer refused a situation of dignity and trust, because it was bestowed upon him as a Jew. He had no need either to deny or conceal the religion of his forefathers. He had been chosen to succeed Haman in dignity and favor with the king, because he was of Esther’s kindred and Esther’s faith; and, his duty marked out for him, as his pious mind must have felt, by God Himself, it would have been but mock modesty to have shrunk from the high estate and honors with which its performance was associated. The lofty beauty and retiring dignity of his previous character are not yet, in the smallest degree, infringed by his acceptance of the office proffered. The welfare of his people was ever the uppermost in his thoughts; and if he could serve them better in public than in private life, he would not shrink from the notoriety attenEsth. 9:28. Esth. 9:29. 54 Esth. 10:3, the concluding verse of the Book of Esther. 52 53

640

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

dant on his doing so. We read, “that he was accepted by the multitude of his brethren,”55 meaning that they regarded him with the same deep love and reverence which they had felt towards him in his low estate. No envy, none of those bitter feelings so often excited towards greatness, could actuate them towards him; for he sought “but the prosperity of his people, the peace of all his seed.”56 If Mordecai retained so much influence, years after the events which had occasioned his accession to greatness had faded into the past, it is not likely that Esther retained less. Her public and private positions must both have been very much happier than before. Her influence over the heart of her lordly husband had been acknowledged, by a concession, which, in a Persian Emperor, was as unprecedented as it was extraordinary. That it either created or heightened love towards him, we cannot doubt, for it is not in woman’s nature to receive such manifestations of kindness and forbearance, without giving some warmth in return. Besides, he knew her faith, her race, and yet he continued, nay increased, his favor towards her: thus proving forgiveness of her previous silence on that important point. The beloved guardian of her youth was As usually is the case, Aguilar quotes KJV, which understands correctly the meaning of rob ’ehayw in Biblical Hebrew, ‘his many brethren’. In the syntax of Biblical and Rabbinic Hebrew when you have two nouns joined together in what grammarians call a construct genitive chain as in this case, normally the possessive pronominal suffix is attached, as it is here to the second noun. The same syntactical structure is found also in the Jewish liturgy in the expressions Shabbat qodsheka ‘Your holy Sabbath’ (not the Sabbath of Your holiness); and bekitebe qodsheka ‘in Your holy writings’ or ‘in your Hagiographa’ (not ‘in the writings of Your holiness’). Nevertheless, Rashi (1040–1105 CE), in his commentary at Est. 10:3 quotes a midrash¸ which anticipates the meaning rob ’ehayw would have in Modern Hebrew: “rob ’ehayw ‘most of his brethren’ and not all of his brethren, which teaches us that some of the members of the Sanhedrin disassociated themselves from him because he became so involved with the monarchy that he neglected his study of the Torah.” 56 The final clause of the final verse of the Book of Esther, Esth. 10:3b. 55

FIFTH PERIOD. III. ESTHER (CONCLUDED)

641

ever near her, second in rank to the king himself; her people honored and protected; and many who had before been heathens, embracing the covenant of the Lord, and swelling the Hebrew ranks; and all this, under the blessing of the Eternal, had been achieved by her conquest over herself, and her influence with the king. Was it likely, with such memories, that Esther would sink into a mere nonentity in the Persian Court? That she would not, even as Mordecai, use all her influence for that holy people to whom her whole heart still clung? And when we think attentively over all this, her character, her eventful history, her power over her husband, may we not, in some degree, be justified in the supposition, that the Artaxerxes who permitted the departure of his favorite Jewish cup-bearer, Nehemiah, and gave him letters to the keepers of the king’s forests, and to the governors, &c., in furtherance of the rebuilding of Jerusalem, and to insure the safety of the Jews in Judea, was the same monarch, who, under the name of Ahasuerus, had already so favored them in Persia? The very fact of Nehemiah, a Jew, being the chosen cupbearer to the king, and evidently in such high favor that the sadness of his countenance attracted even his royal master’s notice;57 the remarkable coincidence that the king’s court was still in Shushan the Palace, the very scene of Esther’s request, and the favorite residence of Ahasuerus, when every other notice of the kings of Persia placed them in Babylon; the particulars mentioned, by Nehemiah, of the queen being by the king’s side,58 when the petition was made; all confirms the above supposition, and gives rather a solid foundation to the conjecture of Esther’s influence forwarding the suit of Nehemiah, which we have with all humility advanced.

Neh. 2:2. Neh. 2:6; KJV reads, “(the queen also sitting by him)” while a marginal note in KJV adds, “wife. Probably Esther” showing that the translators of KJV who distinguished between Ahasuerus of the Book of Esther and Artaxerxes of the Book of Nehemiah, nevertheless concurred with the judgment of the Old Greek version of Esther prepared by Lysimachus of Jerusalem in 114–113 B.C.E. and with Flavius Josephus in the 1st century C.E. that Ahasuerus was Artaxerxes rather than Xerxes. 57 58

642

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

The character of Esther, as an individual and a female, possesses many traits to call for admiration and love. She was not, indeed, a heroine; nor do we perceive in her that peculiar energy and promptness under danger and trial which we have noticed in the characters of Abigail59 and the Shunammite;60 but the very want of this quality is consoling, proving, as it does, that the most timid, the most essentially feminine, may be permitted to accomplish great ends, and become instruments in the Eternal’s hand for the welfare of His people. Energy of purpose and of action, though essentially woman’s attribute, is yet a portion only for the few. There are more to resemble Esther than Abigail; and to those that are timid and fearful, and shrinking from an imperative duty, or some imposed task,—who would rather remain in sad quiescence than make one effort to conquer an imagined destiny—to them—we would point the consoling moral of Esther’s history, and beseech them, like her, to arm themselves with the arrows of fervent prayer, in the very face of inward tremblings and a failing frame, and to go forth and do, and leave in kinder hands the rest. Esther’s quiescence and obedience to her destiny was necessity. Chosen as the bride of a heathen monarch, desired by Mordecai not to show her people or her kindred, debarred from all her friends, and pleasures of her earlier and happier years, it was her duty to submit patiently and calmly; and her gentle and enduring character enabled her to do so less sufferingly than more energetic minds. But we see that to endure was less painful to her than to act, by her repugnance to go forward when the call of duty came. Her spirit, instead of being roused by the extreme emergency of the case, shrank back appalled: and to brave the king’s anger, by venturing uncalled into his presence, seemed far more terrible than the danger threatening thousands. To share their fate appeared easier far than to court it; and even when, in obedience to Mordecai, she promised to seek the king, it is very evident that her anticipation was failure—and death. Had Abigail or Deborah been in her place, their different characters would scarcely have required even the di-

59 60

See above, Fourth Period, Chapter 2. See above, Fourth Period, Chapter 4.

FIFTH PERIOD. III. ESTHER (CONCLUDED)

643

rection of Mordecai; their own energy would have urged them forward, and supported them by the inward promise of success. But that Esther did not naturally possess this strength and firmness, renders her conduct yet more worthy of our grateful admiration. We see her displayed before us, in her woman’s weakness, as, indeed, one of ourselves. We behold her in not one point, except in her surpassing loveliness, our superior; nay, to bring her closer to us still, she is a captive in a strange land, even as we are now; and yet was she, this weak trembling girl, the savior, the benefactor of thousands; and her name has come down through thousand ages, wreathed with the admiring love of that very people whose ancestors she saved. To do as she did, to be exposed to the same awful ordeal—of a monarch’s wrath, or a people’s preservation—is, indeed, not ours; and we should be grateful that it is not; but how often will the annals of private life demand as mighty a conquest of self in woman! How often are we called upon to subdue, or, at least, entirely to disregard natural weakness and disinclination, and go forward, when we feel so wholly incapacitated from the task proposed, that we would more gladly sit down, and let the waves of care and sorrow roll over us, than make one effort to stem the rushing torrent, and make evident the supremacy of MIND over CIRCUMSTANCE, of the WILL over EVENTS! There are trials and exertions in private life demanding such courage and firmness to meet, that we often feel as if the frame must sink under them; but still, like Esther, let us go forward, feeling it may be with her, “if I perish, I perish,”61 rather than draw back from the path of duty. Life and death are not with us, but with the Lord; and, in His hands, how often does anticipated death become rejoicing life; and the thunder-clouds, which we feared to meet, dissolve, when boldly fronted, into sunshine and bliss. Suffer, indeed, we may and must. Even the approval of conscience—the conviction that what we do is undoubtedly right, and a blessing will spring from it—will not shield us either from inward trembling or mental pain. Physical weakness itself will cloud and blacken our mental vision. The blood disturbed by unusual exertion will flow unequally; sometimes so sluggishly, that further efforts 61

Esth. 4:16.

644

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

appear impossible, and mind and heart both feel stagnant; sometimes so wildly and hotly, that the whole frame feels one mass of nerve and irritation and ill-temper, even towards those we most love, impossible to be avoided. The very comfort, even the power of Prayer, is gone from us. But, in such times (for they must come), let us only remember that we are suffering physically, and nerve our minds to bear them; even as we would some bodily pain, or sickness, the source of which is so much more easy to be traced. Let us not shrink back, because we feel as if we were doing nothing; as if our former fears told us right, and we are too weak, in constitution and in mind, to be anything but a burden, and had, therefore, better sit down, and endure, instead of rising up to act, Had Esther, when, overcome with natural terror, she fainted62 in the presence of Ahasuerus, given up her purpose, because she felt so utterly incapacitated, both mentally and physically, from pursuing it—her people would have perished, and she herself have been either swallowed up in the universal destruction, or sunk into a mere soulless, spiritless nonentity; her whole life embittered by the consciousness of what she might have done, and what she did not do. But we have seen that she did not draw back, though the stoppage of every pulse, from pure terror, evinces the struggle with natural feeling,—which it was. We do not find her deploring her constitutional timidity and wishing she possessed the energy of others. No; the fount of living waters, whence Esther derived the strength and determination which she so much needed, to go forward, is open to us all. It was incessant and most fervent PRAYER. The God of compassion and love, who hearkened unto her, is still our God—and will grant us the same strength and firmness for our individual duties which He vouchsafed to her. Let us not suppose, for a single instant, that only in great emergencies He hears us. Esther prayed to Him, and conjured others to pray for her to Him, in this danger, only because she had known the efficacy of prayer in little things. “Neither had As noted above, the fainting is not recorded in the Hebrew version of the Scroll of Esther, but it is found in the Old Greek Version of the Book of Esther and hence in the Apocrypha in the Additions to Esther, 15:7 and 15:15. 62

FIFTH PERIOD. III. ESTHER (CONCLUDED)

645

thine handmaid any joy since the day that I was brought hither, to this present, save in thee, O Lord God of Israel!”63 She had been accustomed from her youth upwards to look on Him, and pray to Him, as the Saviour and Father of her people and of herself; and, therefore, she knew and felt that now, in this great danger, and most repugnantly-accepted task, prayer only could be her strength. And, without this infused strength, oh, what is woman!—a reed, liable to be turned by every passing wind, or crushed before the slightest storm; to bend to the soiling earth, and, clogged with the particles of dust and taint, which, in its prostration, will cling to and deaden it, find it a weary, if not a hopeless task, to lift up its drooping head towards the pure heavens again. But let us not imagine, because mentally and physically we are weaker than others of our sex; because we have no energy, no firmness, no self-support (if we may be allowed the term), that we are to pass uselessly and wearily and despondingly through life— that the Bible gives no sympathy or encouragement to such as we—and, therefore, that nothing is expected from us! Nothing can be, when we are so different, so much weaker than our fellows. Alas! alas! for those who hug themselves in such comfortable belief; and when the day of reckoning comes, behold what they might have done—behold it, and in the agony of remorse, yearn to do it, and yearn in vain! How know we, but our punishment after death may be to look on all which in life we have neglected; to awaken, as by a flash from Heaven, to its awful consequences; and to know no rest, no sleep, in the wild yearning to perform it, and to feel we have no more the necessary power—and this through weary, weary time, which in Heaven has no measure, in eternity no end! It is an awful thought; one it would be well to ponder on ere it be too late. That the Bible does give both sympathy and encouragement, even to the most constitutionally weak, is proved by the sweet, gentle, feminine character of Esther. Strength of herself, indeed, she had none; but it was asked, and granted; and so it will be unto all. From the prayer of Esther in the Apocrypha in the Additions to Esther 14:18. Aguilar, like many of the famous medieval exegetes, quotes from memory and in so doing substitutes “Israel” where the text she refers to reads “Abraham.” 63

646

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

To the women of every faith, race, and land, then, her history is alike instructive and inexpressibly consoling; but it is in the hearts of her descendants, the women of Israel, she should be most closely shrined. By us, the festival of Purim should be hailed as something more than a mere rejoicing season, or even as the anniversary of a great redemption. Every woman should take it to her own heart, and remember, with holy joy and thankfulness, that the preservation of her people, which that day recalls, was, under the Eternal, the work of a woman64 not stronger, not more gifted than herself. God might equally have worked by other means; but that He did choose so weak and frail an instrument, is right, indeed, to be a source alike of consolation and rejoicing unto us; and strengthen each and all of us in the hope that we, too, may become instruments in His hands for good. It was not that Esther was a free agent, or had powers more extended than our own. Though the wife of a mighty monarch, she was captive; and so too are we. We, too, may individually be thrown into positions begirt with sadness, where the rites and ceremonies of our faith must be adhered to in the secresy of our own hearths and hearts. Yet may we still be ready at the first call to identify ourselves with those who suffer for our faith—still be enabled to serve the good and holy cause. And those unshackled by peculiar positions, following so publicly and unquestioned the religion of Moses, that they are likely to forget they are the Lord’s captives, because man makes them his equal—to whom life is such a quiet routine of uninterrupted employment, that the idea of individuals serving our nation is regarded as a tissue of folly and romance: yet even these can serve the cause Cf. Babylonian Talmud, Megillah 4a: Rabbi Joshua b. Levi (fl. 240 C.E.) says, “Women are obligated with respect to the [liturgical] reading of the Megillah [i.e., Scroll of Esther on the Festival of Purim] because they too were part of that miracle.” See the discussion in Gruber, “The Status of Women in Ancient Judaism,” 157–158; note with Gruber, there, that R. Joshua b. Levi’s view has been incorporated into the halakhah by Rashi and Maimonides, both of whom hold that women are obligated to hear the singing of the Scroll of Esther and that they may sing it on behalf of men and mixed congregations. 64

FIFTH PERIOD. III. ESTHER (CONCLUDED)

647

of the Jews. We can, each and all, determine to honor our religion ourselves, and so make it honored. We can infuse such seeds into the hearts of our sons, that Judaism may never want defenders, or such representatives as will raise it, even in its captive state, in the respect and consideration of the nations. Yes! though through the infinite mercy of the Eternal, such intercession as Esther’s is no longer needed, still let us emulate Esther in the elevation and the acknowledgment of our holy faith—in our individual adherence to its spirit and form through every difficulty and through every woe. Let every returning festival of Purim find us as women, and in our own retired spheres, still loving, still knowing, still working for our holy religion, and determined, through social and domestic conduct, to make its glory, and its comfort, and its beauty, evident to all. We shall not see the fruit of this still and silent working; but we shall feel its efficacy in the calm and tranquil gladness of our hearts and homes.

CHAPTER IV. REVIEW OF THE EVENTS NARRATED BY EZRA AND NEHEMIAH Before we conclude this Fifth Period of our subject, we must take a brief review of the condition of our ancestors contemporary with the captives of Babylon; but who, under Ezra and Nehemiah, had returned to Jerusalem. The first captivity caused a complete revolution in the history of the Jews. Their very characteristics as a people, and as individuals, appeared to have undergone a change. Adversity and captivity retained the Hebrews in that faith, and those forms, which in their prosperity they had neglected and despised. Men arose from their ranks, gifted with such power as to lead the multitude as with a silken thread—to sever even the strongest and most endearing ties, because such was the word of the Lord, such the law He had ordained. Marriages with the heathen were not alone again forbidden, but actually dissolved.1 The Sabbath-day, cleansed from the profane employments of buying and selling which had before desecrated it, commanded to be kept holy;2 an ordinance established amongst the priests, “to charge themselves yearly with a half shekel for the service of the house of God, for the shew-bread, and the continual meat-offering, and the burnt-offering of the sabbaths and the new moons, for the set feasts, and for the holy things, and for the sin-offerings, to make atonement for Israel, and for all the work of the house of our God;”3 a covenant, entered into under “a curse and an oath, to walk in God’s law, which was given by Moses, the servant of God; and to

Ezra 10. Neh. 13:15–22. 3 Neh. 10:32–33. 1 2

649

650

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

observe and to do all the commandments of the Lord our God, and His judgments and His statutes.”4 Nor was this solemn covenant entered into by the males of Israel alone. Their wives and their daughters are distinctly and emphatically named (see Nehemiah x. 28), as amongst those who had voluntarily separated themselves from the people of the land unto the law of their God, “every one having knowledge and understanding.” And in chap. viii., which so impressively and affectingly describes the reading of the law by Ezra, in the presence of the whole congregation of Israel, the women are also expressly mentioned. “And Ezra the priest brought the law before the congregation both of men and women, and all that could hear with understanding,” etc. “And he read therein before the street that was before the water gate from the morning until midday, before the men and women, and those that could understand; and the ears of all the people were attentive unto the words of the law.”5 The scene must indeed have been of mournful interest. The temple was still unbuilt;6 the city, by far the greater part, in ruins.

Neh. 10:29. Neh. 8:2–3; note that here as already in Deut. 31:10–12 women are included among those who must hear the public reading of the Torah. Contrast the commonly repeated view that the status of women declined in the post-Exilic period! 6 If one were to accept at face value what is recorded in Ezra 4:6–23 that what hindered the building of the Temple “all the days of Cyrus king of Persia, even until the reign of Darius king of Persia” (Ezra 4:5) were events relating to the reigns of Ahasuerus and Artaxerxes, one would have to assume that in the time of Ezra and Nehemiah, both of whose missions are associated with the reign of Artaxerxes (concerning Ezra see Ezra 7:1; and concerning Nehemiah see Neh. 1), the Temple had not yet been built. In fact, as we show below (pp. 652-653), the purpose of Ezra 4 is to offer an explanation for the delay in rebuilding the Temple until it was completed in the sixth year of King Darius the First, which was the year 515 B.C.E. in the 6th century B.C.E. However, Artaxerxes, Ezra, and Nehemiah all belong to the 5th century B.C.E.! Nevertheless, Ms. Aguilar is in very good company because also in the Apocrypha, the Book of First 4 5

FIFTH PERIOD. IV. REVIEW OF THE EVENTS

651

Esdras, chapters 2–3 we find the false chronology Cyrus-ArtaxerxesDarius derived from the biblical Ezra 4. As for the fact that the rebuilding of the Temple was not completed when the first group of Jewish returnees from Babylonia arrived in Jerusalem in 539 B.C.E. (see Ezra 1–3) but only in the 6th year of King Darius I, Scripture hints at three distinct explanations. Cf. Sara Japhet, “‘History’ and ‘Literature’ in the Persian Period: The Restoration of the Temple,” in Ah, Assyria...” Studies in Assyrian History and Ancient Near Eastern Historiography Presented to Hayim Tadmor, ed. Mordechai Cogan and Israel Ephal, Scripta Hierosolymitana, vol. 23 (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1991), 174– 188. The first explanation as to why the Temple was not completed until the reign of Darius I is hinted at in the Book of Haggai, which informs us that in the second year of Darius I (521 B.C.E.) Haggai scolded the people of Judah for not having built the Temple because they did not consider that they had arrived at the proper time to pursue this task. The book further relates that in response to Haggai’s chiding, the building of the Temple went forward. Thus, according to the Book of Haggai, the work was delayed because people were waiting for a prophet to tell them that the time was ripe to complete the task of building the Temple. The postExilic prophet who speaks in Isa. 66 (Second Isaiah according to many scholars; Trito-Isaiah according to many other scholars) speaks as follows: “Thus said the LORD. The heaven is My throne and the earth is My footstool. What kind of a Temple can you build for me What kind of Place could me my abode?” (Isa. 66:1; Gruber’s translation). This rhetorical questions has been construed as an argument that Israelite theology has now progressed beyond erecting temples for God. In fact, the same prophet also seems to disparage sacrifices when he says a few verses later, “Whoever slaughters a bull is as though he killed a human; whoever offers up a meal offering is as though he offered up pig’s blood.” A third view as to why the building of the Temple was not completed until the reign of Darius is that outsiders interfered with the Jews’ attempt to build the Temple during the reigns of Cyrus (539–530 B.C.E.) and Cambyses (530– 522 B.C.E.), who preceded Darius I (522–488 B.C.E.). This would seem to be the view of the compiler of Ezra, Chapter 4. However, this author seems not to have found any facts or names or dates to prove this thesis. Consequently, he seems to adumbrate a view that was floated in American secondary education in the 1950’s and 1960’s that one can teach and study history without emphasizing facts, names, and dates and getting them

652

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

straight; one can speak about trends. Indeed, Ezra 4 which attempts to account for the Temple’s not having been completed during the reigns of Cyrus and Cambyses by invoking facts relating to a period after Darius when various groups made trouble for the Jews with respect to the restoration of the walls of Jerusalem not the Temple that had already been built, constitutes a perfect caricature of history without the relevant names, dates, and facts. What should be transparent from reading Ezra 4 is that there was ample reason for Artaxerxes to send Nehemiah to Yehud to serve as governor and to undertake the completion of the wall around Jerusalem but that there is not a shred of evidence that just as certain nonJews opposed the building of the wall so did certain non-Jews oppose the building of the Temple and kept it from being rebuilt until the reign of Darius. As we have noted above (annotations to Period Five, Chapter I), Ezra Chapter 4’s placing documents from the reigns of Ahasuerus (Xerxes I 486–465 B.C.E.)) and Artaxerxes I (465–424 B.C.E.) to account for events that did or did not take place between the reign of Cyrus (539– 530 B.C.E.) and the reign of Darius I (522–486 B.C.E.) fostered the false impression among those who had no access to the annals of the Achaemenid kings of Persia that the order of succession of the kings of Persia was Cyrus-Ahasuerus-Artaxerxes-Darius rather than, as we now know, Cyrus, Cambyses, Darius, Xerxes (Ahasuerus), Artaxerxes. In fact, Old Persian cuneiform writing was first completely deciphered by the Irish Protestant clergyman Edward Hincks (1792–1866) only in 1846, a year after the original publication of Aguilar’s Women of Israel. Even Josephus, who knows about Cambyses and transfers to the latter’s reign (in Antiquities, 11.2. 1–2) the account of opposition to the Jerusalem building projects attributed to the reign of Artaxerxes in Ezra 4 and in 1 Esdras 2–3, gets Xerxes and Artaxerxes mixed up, dating Ezra’s and Nehemiah’s missions to the reign of Xerxes I rather than to the reign of Artaxerxes as found in the biblical Ezra-Nehemiah. It should be noted that while here in Period V, Chapter IV, Aguilar takes at face value the sequence of kings listed in Ezra 4, above in her survey of the contents of the Book of Ezra in Period V, Chapter I, she explicitly states that the beginning of the mission of Ezra, which began in the 7th year of Artaxerxes, took place, almost half a century after the completion of the building of the Second Temple (see above, p. 594). At the same time, Aguilar is to be thanked for drawing the logical (albeit factually wrong) conclusion from the sequential list of kings in Ezra 4 that Ezra’s mission that began in the 7th year of King Artaxerxes

FIFTH PERIOD. IV. REVIEW OF THE EVENTS

653

On a pulpit of wood, with the sad memorials of Judah’s departed glory all around him, stood Ezra, probably now an aged man; for it was some years since he had left Babylon. On his right and left hand were thronged his brother Levites, who, voluntarily consecrated to the service of their God, lent a dignity and solemnity to the proceedings, reminding the populace of those days when they officiated in the Temple, and the glory of the Lord was visibly revealed. Below them, far as the eye could reach, the people had gathered themselves as one man, ardent and earnest to hear once more the words of the Most High God. Men and women indiscriminately blended, for the law appealed to both, and not then had the blighting words been whispered, that woman has no power to seek and know the Lord—that the study and comprehension of the law are for man, not her.7 We see her hastening, even as man, to listen to the words of her God—to accept with the whole fervor of her ardent heart, His covenant; and she is welcomed, not rebuked. “And Ezra opened the book in the sight of all the people (for he was above them); and when he opened it, all the people stood up; and Ezra blessed the Lord, the great God. And all the people answered, Amen, Amen, with lifting up their hands; and they bowed had to have taken place before the building of the Temple. Thus she unwittingly demonstrates the absurdity of relying on the attempt of Ezra 4 to account for the delay in the rebuilding of the Temple as an historical source. Yet, this is what most biblical scholars, theologians, and historians of the biblical period have done notwithstanding two simple facts. These are 1) the documents from the reigns of Ahasuerus and Artaxerxes quoted in Ezra 4 do not refer to the building of the Temple; and 2) the Temple had already been built during the reign of Darius I 522–486 B.C.E.), which preceded the reigns of both Ahasuerus (i.e., Xerxes I; 486–465) and Artaxerxes I (465–424 B.C.E.). 7 Aguilar refers to leaders of the Jewish community in London in her time, who did not accept her idea that Jewish women should have equal access with men to knowledge of the Jewish heritage. And she successfully demonstrates here that not only was equal access to the Torah for women and men demanded by Deut. 31:10–13 but also that Ezra, the quintessential leader of post-Exilic Judaism, also provided equal access to the Torah for women and men.

654

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

their heads, and worshipped the Lord with their faces to the ground.”8 And then “the Levites caused the people to understand the law; and they read in the book of the law of God distinctly, and gave the sense, and caused the people to understand the reading.”9 And when the people would have wept—for their own and their ancestors’ sinful departure from the commands of the Lord stood before them more vividly, more appalling, as they thus listened to the law—Nehemiah and Ezra forbade it, for they said, “The day was holy unto the Lord their God; mourn not, nor weep; but go your way, eat the fat, and drink the sweet, and send portions unto them for whom nothing is prepared: for this day is holy unto our Lord: neither be ye sorry; for the joy of the Lord is your strength.”10 Solemn11 rejoicing in consequence, followed this public reading of the law. The Feast of Tabernacles was proclaimed throughout all the cities of Judea, and observed with such solemnity and gladness as had not been since the days of Joshua the son of Nun, and in exact accordance with the written law of Moses, keeping the feast seven days, and on the eighth day a solemn assembly.12 A general fast, confession of sins, repentance, and prayer, with reading the law, and worshipping the Lord their God, soon after followed,13 the Levites rehearsing the many tokens of the Eternal’s goodness, from the selection of Abraham unto the present time, and the awful wickedness of the people. Then followed the acceptance and sealing of the covenant by the men of Israel, their wives, Neh. 8:5–6. Neh. 8:7–8. 10 Neh. 8:9–10. 11 The printed text states ‘Solomon,’ which I take to be an obvious typographical error for solemn as there is no comparable account of Reading from the Torah in the biblical account of King Solomon’s Dedication of the Temple in 1 Kgs. 8 and 2 Ch. 7. 12 Neh. 8:17–18. 13 Neh. 9:1; the precise date given is “the twenty and fourth day of this month,” which is to say, two days after the solemn assembly on the eighth day, which followed the seven day feast of booths according to Neh. 8:18. The eighth day of solemn assembly, it should be noted, has its origins in Lev. 23:39 and Num. 29:35–38; it is not mentioned in Deut. 16:15. 8 9

FIFTH PERIOD. IV. REVIEW OF THE EVENTS

655

sons, and daughters—the selection of the people—the rulers to dwell in Jerusalem—and of the rest of the people, one in ten to be chosen by lot to dwell in Jerusalem, and the other nine to dwell in other cities, and thus re-people the still beautiful, but mournfully desolate land. In the twelfth chapter, we find the selection of priests and officers for the service of the Temple, and the solemn dedication of the wall, “with gladness, and with thanksgiving, and with singing, with cymbals, psalteries, and harps. Also on that day they offered great sacrifices, and rejoiced: for God had made them rejoice with great joy: the wives and children rejoiced, so that the joy of Jerusalem was heard even afar off.” Officers for the treasuries, offerings, firstfruits, tithes, singers, and porters, all were appointed, exactly in accordance with the law of Moses, and “the commandment of David, and of Solomon his son.”14 The mixed multitude was also separated from the children of Israel. Even Tobiah, the Ammonite, closely allied to Eliashib the priest, who had weakly allowed him, although an Ammonite, a chamber in the Temple, was cast forth with all his household stuff.15 No distinction of persons was made. All who had married strange wives, were they united even to the priest and highest officers, were, if they refused to separate from their unlawful connexions, scouted from the congregation of the Lord.16 And thus, after a weary interval, faithfulness to the religion of Moses, and, in consequence, external and internal peace, seemed once more about to be the portion of Judea. But let it not be imagined that this was either easily or satisfactorily accomplished; or that the noble exertions of Ezra and Nehemiah were productive of enjoyment, and, consequently, of earthly reward. So far from it, that if we read over the books of Ezra and Nehemiah attentively, we must be struck by the repeated mention of humiliation, fast, and prayer, with which their efforts were attended—the constant struggle, constant disappointment—the hope roused by a seeming response to their own ardent aspirations, and Here Aguilar has summarized in less than one paragraph all of Neh. 9:4–12:45. 15 Neh. 13:1–8. 16 Neh. 13:23–30; Ezra 10. 14

656

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

crushed again by revolt and disobedience. We find both Ezra and Nehemiah repeatedly taking on themselves the burden of their brethren’s guilt, and beseeching pardon, as if themselves were the offenders. The prayer of Ezra, in the ninth chapter of the book bearing his name, and that of Nehemiah in his first chapter, are the most exquisite illustrations of pure patriotism that can be found in any history, and should bid our hearts glow with love and veneration towards men who so toiled and suffered for their country and their God. Profane History can give us no nobler and purer patriots than Ezra and Nehemiah. They may tell of warlike deeds and glorious heroism; but it is a nobler heroism, a more exalted valor, which can struggle on to free their countrymen from self-inflicted slavery—from those shackles of the spirit, which are far more difficult to remove than the shackles of a tyrant. Ezra and Nehemiah had to work not only against the enslaver, but also against the enslaved, for men’s evil passions and rebellious wills were the tyrants who held them chained, and these were to be subdued ere freedom could be achieved, and Judea liberated from the thraldom of her children’s sins. Modern patriots in general reap the full reward of their exciting enterprise in national prosperity and individual glory. The deaths of Ezra and Nehemiah are not specified; but their books reveal enough to convince us that they toiled unto the end— that personal aggrandizement, earthly distinctions, entered not their thoughts. They had indeed done much; but their lives probably closed ere half their patriotic wishes were accomplished, or their ceaseless exertions crowned with visible success. And so it must be with all those who embark heart and soul in the glorious service of a people’s good. There must be darkness and despondency but too often, even in the noble mind, which has cast behind it all thought of selfish enjoyment, who pines, seeks, aspires after but one glorious goal, the improvement, religious and intellectual, of his species. There must be sadness, there must be disappointment, for such minds look far beyond, into space and time, and hope to compass the advancement of an age in the brief period of one human life. They feel, they know what should be; they thirst, they struggle after its attainment with a giant’s strength, forgetful that in the individual minds of the vast mass of their fellows, there may be but one little grain of the immortal, the intellectual, which is so restlessly working in themselves; and, therefore,

FIFTH PERIOD. IV. REVIEW OF THE EVENTS

657

that time only can behold the reception and acknowledgment of those important Ends and Truths, which they so vividly behold. Those, then, who would serve their fellows, must be armed with patience, with perseverance, which will bid them work on, in the very face of disappointment, and an utter want of sympathy; with hope that will carry them on her angel wings, above the ruggedness and toil of mere earthly labor; with faith that will look into the future, to behold there the fruition of those seeds which they have perhaps even unconsciously sown. Would we, then, in truth, labor in the cause of God, by endeavoring to benefit our fellows, we must utterly annihilate the vain presumptuous dream that we shall behold our own work, and thus reap a reward which has never yet been found on earth. Why do we see so many turn their shoulders from the wheel at the very moment when they should persevere? Why do we see the best and noblest exertions often checked in their first vigor, and never resumed? Why do we hear so many, whose words had once been so eloquent with hope of good, in a few brief years speak but of the prevalence of evil, the impossibility of achieving aught of lasting worth? Why? because they look to present reward—they expect to see the matured fruit before even the seed could have taken root; they provided not against disappointment; they studied not the rugged nature of man; they look not back into the past, and, comparing it with the present, mark what was and what is—and note the long years which intervened before improvements which we now feel so common, that they are no longer improvements, could be accepted and acknowledged. They forget that almost every national benefit conferred on man was in its first projection deemed a very madness, and more than one of its hapless originators persecuted unto death. Yet the seeds such supposed maniacs planted never withered; they lay in often uncongenial soil, proving their existence, and passing from one mind into another, perchance only by a breath, which bore them unconscious of its burden, till in the proper time they burst into full blossom, were cherished, fostered, for men had advanced while that little seed lay in abeyance, and then ripened into fadeless fruit. Irrelevant as these remarks may appear to our subject, yet a little consideration will prove their application. In Judaism, as in everything else, the present is an age of advancement—of improvement. The law, indeed, which God gave,

658

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

remains pure, perfect, eternal as Himself, needing naught from man; but it is in the observance of that law, its spiritual observance, in which we remark progression, and hail it with glowing thankfulness, as seed, which, when ripened into fruit, will lead us once more to our own Holy Land, and to the restored favor of our God. But we are no enthusiasts to believe this will be either in our own time, or in that of some generations down. We do not suppose, because there is a stir in our ranks,—an aspiration after holiness,—a struggle with deep-rooted prejudices,—a desire to become purer, more spiritual, more enlightened,—that we shall look upon the fruit of such holy seed,—that twenty, fifty, aye, even a hundred years will complete the full perfection of the glorious End for which we aspire now. No! And we would conjure and beseech our brethren, in whose hearts loath the ardent desire to accomplish national and individual good, to think with us—to despond not, if they behold nothing which would reveal that the holy seed has taken root, but much to make them tremble that it has faded into air. Let them but cease to hope to reap what they sow—let them but look far into Space and Time, and rest content that their labors will then bring forth fruit—only let them nerve themselves to work, without the faintest dream of earthly recompense or visible success, and labor on. They “will have cast their bread upon the waters, and they will find it after many days.”17 It is not, however, only in a generally national view that we have taken this rapid sketch of the books of Ezra and Nehemiah. They are particularly important to us as women of Israel, burdened as we are with the charge, that Judaism degrades and enslaves us. By the especial mention of wives and women in every ceremony and covenant with which Ezra and Nehemiah again organized the people, it is very evident that no written or even traditional law then existed to our disparagement. Neither had captivity, and a residence with a heathen people, altered the national equality of the sexes, which in every religious ordinance the Jewish law commanded. This is a very important truth; as the period of Ezra is many years removed from the direct interference of the Almighty with His people: and in such a time of confusion and departure from the 17

Eccles. 11:1.

FIFTH PERIOD. IV. REVIEW OF THE EVENTS

659

pure law, had there been any traditional statute which could have allowed the degradation of the weaker sex, we should find it acting against them in full force.18 Had the women of Israel been unaccustomed to join in religious exercises, or to feel themselves of no importance in the congregation of the Lord, it is not likely, that, after so long an interval of captivity, when the national ceremonies were compelled to be suspended, we should find them so eagerly flocking to listen to the reading of the law, bringing their children with them to join in the confession and humiliation for national sin, and to enter, heart and soul, into a covenant to walk in the law of Moses. They had no doubt seen enough, in their captivity, of the women of other countries, to feel more gratefully than ever, their own superiority in station, intellect, and responsibility. Eagerly and joyfully then they resumed obedience to that law, which guided and protected them with such mild and gentle guardianship, lifting up their hearts to a Father in heaven, who so watched over and tended them, and compelled man to assign them that station of equality and respectful tenderness, which, without such law, would, if we judge of the manners and customs of other and contemporary nations, have inevitably been refused them.19 This is a very important point in view of the widely held assumption that if indeed Pre-Exilic Judaism did not repress Jewish women, PostExilic Judaism exemplified by Ezra and Nehemiah certainly did; see the discussion in Gruber, “Women in the Cult,” pp. 50–52 and the extensive literature cited there. 19 This is a very important point in light of the notion repeated in many treatises on Hebrew Scripture that even if Israelite women were participants in the religious life in Israel before the Exile, the decadence of post-Exilic Judaism, had robbed Jewish women of any place in public life. The supposed decadence of post-Exilic Judaism is utilized in some quarters to account for the need, as it were, to replace Judaism with Christianity. Contrast, Gruber, “Women in the Cult,” 49–68; id., “The Status of Women in Ancient Judaism,” 151–176 and the literature cited there; and see also Neusner, How the Rabbis Liberated Women. And still more than a century and a half after its first appearance Aguilar’s Women of Israel remains unrivaled for the eloquence with which it makes the point that Ezra and Nehemiah included women in all their public celebrations notwith18

660

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

With this important fact, then, we close our present Period, and with it the records of our female ancestors, which are found in the Bible. Our succeeding parts will contain notices of those exalted Hebrew females mentioned in Josephus—a brief review of Israel as she was after the erection of the second temple—and the effects of war, dispersion, and persecution, upon her now. We shall find, even there, enough to confirm us in the position we have advanced; but even had we not—even if the records of more modern Judaism20 presented nothing but a dark and awful picture of social and individual degradation—even if laws were promulgated by erring man, depriving us of our long-granted privileges, and debasing us in the scale of creation much below our brother man—still it would prove nothing but the fearful effects of superstition and intolerance on the human mind. It could not do away with the law which God Himself had given. It dare not term itself divine, if it contradict one item of that which the Bible holds up before us, alike in the precepts given by the voice of God, and in the history of His female children; and, therefore, as in not one precept, in not one mention of woman in the Word of God, can be discovered one evidence of her social or individual abasement, so must not only the Israelite, but his opponents be convinced, that the woman of Israel needs no other law, no other faith but her own, to convince her of her immortal destiny

standing the fact that their having done so undermines a thesis, which travels from book to book like some vicious computer virus. 20 Here and to the end of Women in Israel Aguilar employs the term Modern Judaism not to designate new forms of Judaism that emerged in the 18th century and later but to designate Orthodox Judaism in modern times. Her aim is to counter the charge leveled in her time by Christian missionaries and in more recent times by the Bible-bashers and the Judaism-bashers that if, perhaps, it may be granted that some pre-Exilic Jewish texts reflect a view of women as equal to men and even if it be granted that that the same can be said of post-Exilic texts of Hebrew Scripture, and even if it can be said that post-biblical Jewish sacred texts do not dehumanize women, alas Orthodox Judaism in modern times is a prison from which Jewish women must be released. See Galchinksy, Origin of the Modern Jewish Woman Writer, 50–51.

FIFTH PERIOD. IV. REVIEW OF THE EVENTS

661

and her earthly duties—to guard the hallowed circle of her home— or raise her, as an individual, to perfect equality with man.

CHAPTER I. REVIEW OF THE JEWISH NATION, FROM THE RETURN FROM BABYLON, TO THE APPEAL OF HYRCANUS AND ARISTOBULUS TO POMPEY We are now to commence a period in the History of the Women of Israel, completely and even painfully distinct from any which has gone before it. Indeed, so complicated, so amalgamated with the histories of other nations, so little purely national is Israel, and so few and far between are the notices of women, in the history of the nation, from the death of Nehemiah to the dispersion,—that there is very, very little which we can claim our own, or from which we can glean the consolation and lessons for individual social guidance, which are presented in the word of God. So little is there, in fact, of woman, that we may be censured for dwelling so long on a period which has so little to do with a work entitled “The Women of Israel,” as almost to contradict its name. Yet where there are so very few works relative to our history in the vernacular idiom, and still fewer in which the Hebrew himself comes forward, with an attempt to fill up the void in national literature, and give the youth of his nation some assistance, distinct from the peculiar tenets which must pervade the writings of the most liberal of other creeds; we trust, that to linger a little while on our general history and thus explain away some of the errors and prejudices which have unconsciously gathered round us from unanswered accusations, may not be considered unnecessary, or even irrelevant to the subject on which we professed to treat. Where there is no allusion to the Women of Israel of the past, let it be remembered that we are writing for the Women of Israel of the present; and, therefore, that we do not depart from the profession of our title. To the men of Israel—the works of our own ancient writers, are, or ought to be, open; and they, therefore, 665

666

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

cannot need the feeble effort of a female pen: but woman does. She has neither the time nor privilege, nor, in fact, the capability of seeking and penetrating into the vast tomes of stupendous learning, the complicated and allegorical questions and replies, narratives and histories, contained in the works of our venerable teachers; but is she on that account to remain entirely ignorant of the history of her people, in which, whether in prosperity or adversity, in patriotism or persecution, she has ever borne a distinguished part? How is she ever to realize that spirit of nationality and holiness which should be so peculiarly her own, if she knows little of her national history, save from Gentile writers? How know what is demanded of her now, if she does not sometimes ponder on the past, remembering, while she shudders at the awful sufferings of her people, that what has been, may again be. And is she endowed with the same noble spirit which guided her hapless ancestors? Has she the same deep love of her God, and His religion, which will keep her faithful in the midst of the horrors of persecution, or amidst the yet more dangerous ordeal of prosperity and peace? How is she to know this, if she looks upon herself only as the child of the soil which has given her a home, and all its attendant blessings? How is she to feel this, if she looks on the history of her people as far too antiquated to concern her now, and lends but too ready an ear to the false tale, that ancient and modern Judaism are totally distinct. How is she to reject prejudice, and to separate the true from the false, if all her information concerning the history of her people be derived from Gentile writers? It is expecting far too much from human nature to believe that we can feel as Jews, only because we are born such. More particularly women, who seeing so little different in the daily routine of their domestic lives from those around them, may be liable entirely to overlook their nationality, and imagine that a formal adherence to peculiar forms and ceremonies is sufficient for them; and, in consequence, know much less of their own history, teeming, as it does, with so much to interest and appal, than that of the country in which they dwell. The scarcity of Jewish works by Jewish writers, is the real cause of this much regretted evil. We have histories without number, and suited to every age, and every taste, of other countries; but where shall we find one of the Jews which we can safely put into

SIXTH PERIOD. I. REVIEW OF THE JEWISH NATION

667

the hands of our children and youth?* The love of England, of France, of America, is imbibed with their growth, because they know and delight in every event of these their adopted countries; and they world feel the same towards their own land, could they learn as much concerning it. To provide for this want cannot be accomplished in a work like the present. The writer has only mentioned these things to explain, why, instead of concluding where the biographies of the “Women of Israel” may appear to conclude, noticing only the few female characters which may be casually mentioned, from the erection of the Second Temple to the Dispersion, she prefers taking a rapid, but connected, survey of the history of her people during that period. “Where notices of individuals are scarce, we must endeavor to defend our position from generalities. Analogies may be drawn from the histories of states as well as from the biographies of individuals; and, as we proceed, we shall find that much which may appear from a mere superficial glance irrelevant to the Women of Israel individually, will yet so bear upon them socially, that our assertion of their non-degradation, their equality and elevation in the Jewish law, and in Jewish history, will be strongly and unanswerably confirmed. The return of the Jews from Babylon did not restore that nationality and exclusiveness which Ezra and Nehemiah hoped, and for which they labored. With the Babylonish captivity, had in truth ended the history of Judea as a distinct nation.1 The very division of the tribes appears to have been lost; and instead of the patriarchal territories of Reuben, Simeon, Ephraim, &c., we only read of Samaria, Galilee, Perea, Idumea, and of Judea, as signifying a very trifling portion of what had once been comprised under that name. But two tribes returned from captivity, and for them the province termed Judea might have been sufficient; but how changed must * Milman’s is an exception. What we want, are those histories which we can put into young persons’ hands; so written that they are read for pleasure, not as tasks. 1 Ironically, Aguilar shares this idea with Julius Wellhausen, Prolegomena to the History of Ancient Israel, 491. However, Zionism has demonstrated that both Wellhausen and Aguilar have exaggerated on this point.

668

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

they have felt was the aspect of their once beautiful land—how vainly have yearned to behold their brethren occupying the territories which had been assigned them by God himself; and thronging to His one Temple in the feasts He had appointed? Not only were strangers and aliens within their land, but ten tribes were lost, and they themselves, though nominally free, in reality still under the yoke of the Persian kings. Nor was Palestine any longer the only residence of the children of God. Communities were forming in many parts of the world, particularly in the many territories of Persia and in Egypt; and thus, though outwardly bound by the same religion, inwardly, interests could not fail to be divided, according to the position which they occupied in connexion with foreign courts. Of the constant rebellions against their Heavenly King, by the recurrence of idolatry, and those awful practices mentioned in the previous periods of their history, we no longer hear; but in their place we find assimilation and intimate connexion with the manners and customs of other nations. In fact, so intimately blended with the histories of Persia, Macedon, Syria, Egypt, Parthia, and, finally, Rome, is the history of Judea from the Babylonish captivity to the War, that it is scarcely possible to divide them, or find any national incidents of sufficient note as to enable us to dwell upon them as we have hitherto done. The Eternal had veiled His face from them. Even in their return, we find no evidence that He had restored them the light of His presence, and acknowledged them once more as a distinct and holy nation—governed by Himself. The very religion, therefore, appears to have taken a different aspect—the High Priest was still nominally the head of the nation— the ceremonials of the law rigidly and perseveringly observed—but its beautiful spirit of love, which had entered into every household, blessing and guiding every domestic relation, appears to have been entirely lost, from the national assimilation with other countries. That there were still families in whom this blessed spirit existed, true and faithful to every spiritual as well as outward ordinance, cannot be doubted; but in the darkness enveloping this part of our history, we can only trace the general departure of nationality, and prevalence of public evil, which so repeatedly exposed us to misery and wrath. Before the Babylonish captivity, even the periods of most awful iniquity were illumined by rays from God Himself, in the holy men who, inspired by Him, stood up to threaten and con-

SIXTH PERIOD. I. REVIEW OF THE JEWISH NATION

669

sole. We were not left entirely to our own hearts—to sin, unrebuked; but on our return from Babylon, this might no longer be— we had indeed power to subdue sin and become holy, fitted once again to occupy the promised land, and in the face of the whole earth stand forth the chosen people of the Lord;2 but this conquest was to be achieved by individual and national efforts. The Eternal had instructed us in those things, the observance of which would regain His favor. He left us to pursue our own paths. During the wars of Alexander of Macedon, and the contests of his successors, Judea repeatedly changed masters—and we therefore perceive how little she can be considered as an independent state. So few claims had she to nationality, that we repeatedly read of the Hebrews joining voluntarily the ranks of their several masters—serving as faithful soldiers to the Greek or Egyptian, and, in consequence, imbibing interests and feelings totally distinct from the Hebrew warriors of the olden time. These soldiers seldom or never returned to their own land, but swelled the Jewish colonies of other states; and, therefore, long before the general dispersion, we perceive the prophesy of Moses already in partial fulfilment—proving at once the utter fallacy of the argument entertained by some Gentiles, that the return from the Babylonish captivity is the fulfilment of those glorious and consoling promises contained in all the Prophets—and comforting us by the conviction, that these things are yet to be. At length, however, the national spirit was aroused; and for a brief interval independence was secured. The awful cruelties of Antiochus Epiphanes, the universal suffering of the whole Jewish people, not only from bodily torment, but from the prohibition of their sacred law (which, of course, on the instant became more dear), the desecration of their holy Temple—evils so terrible could no longer be endured; and under the heroic Maccabeean3 brothers, the Jews threw off the yoke of slavery. It was a noble epoch in our history, as full of chivalric daring, of the purest patriotism, of the most heroic perseverance, as can be found in the pages of any history, ancient or modern. They fought for no personal aggrandize2 3

See above, p. 141, n. 47. Sic.

670

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

ment—for no increase of territory—no dominion over their fellows—but simply to purify their land from the abominations which had desecrated its holy soil—to re-establish the religion of their God, and obtain the freedom of their persecuted brethren.4 And all this they did. The plan of our present work forbids our lingering on this glorious epoch, and we are compelled to pass it by as briefly and unsatisfactorily as all our other historic notices; but what Hebrew of either sex can read this period of Jewish history, even in the narration of Gentile writers, without such emotions stirring within him as instinctively betray his near connexion with the heroic spirits of whom he reads! Have we not patriots and heroes, on whom to dwell with that glowing admiration, so thrilling and so beneficial to our aspiring youth?—and shall we only associate our ideas of the Jewish nation with what she is, never casting a thought on what she was? The independence wrought by the Asmonaeans, or Maccabees, permitted Judea, for a brief interval, to take her position in the world as a sovereignty governed by her own kings. The gratitude of the people naturally led to the bestowal of the royal dignity on the family of their deliverers. Simon was the only one of the brothers remaining; and, in a general assembly held at Jerusalem, the people made both the High Priesthood and the office of Regent, or Prince of the Jews, hereditary in his family.5

See in the Apocrypha, the Books of First Maccabees and Second Maccabees. The Apocrypha, it should be noted, is the collection of fourteen or fifteen books (depending on whether the Book of Baruch and the Letter of Jeremiah constitute one or two books), the products of Second Temple Judaism, which had been part of the Christian Old Testament (but not the Jewish or Hebrew Bible) until the Protestant Reformation when Protestants removed from the Old Testament and relegated them to a special collection called “The Apocrypha.” At the present time Roman Catholicism considers also three of the fifteen aforementioned books, namely the Prayer of Manasseh and 1–2 Esdras, non-canonical or apocryphal. 5 1 Macc. 14:38–49; Josephus, Antiquities, 13.6.7. 4

SIXTH PERIOD. I. REVIEW OF THE JEWISH NATION

671

Aristobulus the First, the grandson of Simon, was the first who assumed the title of King,6 his father, John Hyrcanus, and his grandfather, Simon, having been satisfied with their dignity of High Priest, and being acknowledged by foreign potentates and their own people, as Princes of the Jews. The real dignity lasted but a very brief interval; and those who possessed it, instead of strengthening and nationalizing their home dominions, endeavoring to restore that ancient and exclusive kingdom which had once characterized Judea, were continually making alliances with the Romans, and other states; becoming, as it were, so blended with them, that it is difficult to regard Judea, even in her well-earned independence, as the holy and peculiar nation which she had been, and was, in fact, commanded still to be. We find it difficult to recognise her as the same nation which had before occupied the land. Her frequent missions to other countries, her alliances and foreign friendships, could not fail to decrease her nationality, by the constant efflux of Jews to distant lands, where it was scarcely possible for them to adhere to their religion, and the repeated and invited admission of strangers within Judea. We can no longer recognise the High Priest of Moses’ ordination, who was to bear on his breast and brow the solemn symbol of his inauguration; who was to minister in the holy of holies, till he seemed in the eyes of the people, to stand on the very threshold of heaven, and receive direct communications from the Most High. We cannot recognise this peaceful and sacred minister in the high priesthood of any who, after the Babylonish captivity, bore that solemn name. The service of the Temple could have been but secondary in the multitudinous affairs, foreign and domestic, which crowded round the Prince or sovereign of Judea. In the law of Moses, the offices were not to be united; because, in the first place, the tribe of Levi were devoted as the elected priests or servants of the Temple; and from them, therefore, no king could have been chosen. In the second, engaged, as a sovereign must be, in unavoidable wars, and other temporal concerns, Moses knew that it was impossible for him to devote himself to spiritual things, as the office of High Priest demanded; and in the third, no king, who, as the leader of armies, must have been a shedder of human blood, could ever have been sufficiently pure to have 6

Josephus, Antiquities, 13.13.1–3.

672

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

attended at the altar of the Most Holy. David was not even permitted to build a “House for the Lord;” how much less, then, could he have officiated as High Priest!7 In the later kings, one prevention to their obtaining that solemn office, was evaded. They were descended from the priestly line of Joiarib;8 but that very circumstance proves how completely at an end was the division of land and service, which had formerly characterized Judea and her sons. We are told repeatedly, “unto the tribe of Levi Moses gave not any inheritance; the Lord God was their inheritance, as he said unto them.”9 How then, if the division of the tribes had continued in force, could the office of high priest and king have been united? How could a king’s inheritance be the house of the Lord God alone, as it could and ought to be the priest’s? We are particular on this point, because it is often asserted, and by some believed, that the temporary independence of Judea as a sovereignty fulfilled the prophecies; whereas the very fact of the royal family descending from Levi, not from Judah, and the complete amalgamation of the tribes, so that their division was impossible, is a sufficient evidence in itself, that the prophecies contained most forcibly in Ezekiel xxxvii. from verse 15 to the end, and in the whole of the forty-eighth chapter, were not in any one single point fulfilled by our return from Babylon; and, therefore, must allude to a period centuries more distant from the term of the Prophet’s life.10 Simon, John Hyrcanus, Aristobulus the First, and Alexander Jannaeus, resigned11 successively, uniting, as had been established by the people, the priesthood, with the royal purple. Alexander Jannaeus left the crown to his wife Alexandra, and, in consequence, the high priesthood was severed from the crown, and given to

1 Ch. 22:7–10. 1 Macc. 2:1–6. 9 Deut. 18:1–2; see also; Deut. 14:27; Num. 18:23–24; 26:62. 10 Hence the description of Jerusalem in Ezek. 45; 48 is commonly called “The Vision of the Third Temple,” indicating that these prophecies were not fulfilled in the time of the Second Temple (515 B.C.E. – 70 C.E.); see the various medieval and modern commentaries on Ezekiel. 11 The author seems to have intended to write “reigned.” 7 8

SIXTH PERIOD. I. REVIEW OF THE JEWISH NATION

673

Hyrcanus her eldest son.12 Had he succeeded his mother, as was anticipated, the offices would have probably been quietly re-united. But the daring and aspiring spirit of his younger brother, Aristobulus, by causing internal dissension, gave the first fatal blow to the tottering independence (so called) of Judea. On the death of Alexander, Hyrcanus was, indeed, nominated king, and the children of Aristobulus retained as hostages for their father’s conduct; but a single battle between the brothers decided the point. Hyrcanus consented to retire to private life; and Aristobulus was acknowledged king. The high priesthood is not mentioned; and from the continued enmity manifested towards Aristobulus by the Pharisees, who were mostly priests and teachers, it almost appears as if he could not have occupied that station. Even had he been publicly acknowledged high priest, the office must have been merely nominal; for his constant foreign and civil wars would have allowed him but little time or inclination for attention to an office demanding such individual purity and domestic peace. The independence of Judea (if indeed it can be so called), reckoning from the election of Simon, in 14 B.C. to the appeal of the brothers to Pompey, the great Roman general, in 63 B.C., had lasted eighty years—a period fraught with foreign war and civil dissension, cruelties and miseries; resembling indeed the histories of the nations around them, but utterly incompatible with the pure law which had guided Judah before the captivity. We read of Aristobulus the First shutting up his mother in prison, and starving her to death, because his father having left the crown to her, she naturally refused to relinquish her authority, and this man was termed a high priest of a people whose beautiful law had commanded that even disrespect to a mother should be punished with death! We read of brothers arming against brothers, the most influential imprisoning and even murdering the others—of Jews rising against Jews, or compelled to fight against each other, by joining opposing armies, and adopting the interests of different states.13 We search in vain for that beautiful spirit which, had the law been obeyed, would have quieted and hallowed the people. We 12 13

Josephus, Antiquities, 13.16.1–2. See Josephus, Antiquities, 13.16–14.4.

674

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

glance over these sickening horrors, and ask, are these records of a people to whom God himself spake in thunder from Mount Sinai, and deigned to give a law which all had the power to obey, and which if obeyed, would have brought down the days of heaven upon earth? Can we marvel as we read the appalling history of the Jews, from their return from Babylon to the last war, at the awful punishments and miseries which have been their portion in every quarter of the globe? And yet, while other nations have passed away for ever, leaving not a trace, we still remain as witnesses of the awful effects of human sin; and more thrilling still, of that changeless truth which had said we should be a people before Him FOR EVER, and therefore we exist;—of that unfathomable mercy, which holds out promises of pardon, restoration, love, and therefore we may hope and pray, and cling to Him as our Rock of Refuge still. Of our domestic history as a people during these eighty years, we can glean little, except that at the very time the law was so appallingly disobeyed and disregarded—there had arisen men, stern and exclusive adherents of both written and traditional laws. At the very time that in some points all nationality appeared entirely lost, and Judea only sought for temporal dominions, which might be secured and widened by hostile wars or peaceful alliances with other potentates, a spirit of exclusiveness, of rigid observance of some portions of the law had, as in direct contradiction, chained one body of Jews. We are told that “the law, which of old was perpetually violated, or almost forgotten, was now enforced by general consent, to its extreme point or even beyond it. Prone before on every occasion to adopt the idolatrous practices of their neighbors, they now secluded themselves from the rest of the world, in proud assurance of their own religious superiority—their city, their native soil, their religion, became the objects of the most passionate attachment; the observance of the Sabbath, and even of the sabbatical year, was enforced with rigor. In short, from this period (the return from captivity) commences that unsocial spirit—that hatred towards mankind— that want of humanity to all but their own kindred, with which they have been branded by all the Roman writers.”* 14 * Milman.14

SIXTH PERIOD. I. REVIEW OF THE JEWISH NATION

675

This, though an eloquent passage, scarcely appears to have sufficient foundation, as actuating the whole nation. How could the whole law be rigidly enforced when we see Aristobulus the First acting as we have noticed? How could the laws, alluding to the extreme purity and sanctity of the high priest, have been obeyed, when that office was so often filled by a warrior? How could they be said to keep themselves secluded as a nation, when we see so many thousands fighting under the banner of foreign kings, and accepting offices and dignities at their hands? How could they demonstrate hatred to all mankind when foreign alliances were so often made? And we shall find Herod sending his own sons to Rome for their education, and forming intimate friendships with Antony and other noble Romans. How could the manners and customs of their land and religion be said to claim their most passionate attachment, when we see kings and people so often sedulously cultivating the manners, arts, games, and vices, first of Greece and then of Rome? As a people and a nation, whatever they might have professed, they acted contrary to the law of God, in plunging deeper and deeper into the dark abyss from which no arm either heavenly or earthly could be stretched forth to save them. To a certain body of the nation, the passage we have quoted may be applicable; and it is to them we allude, as in the midst of national anarchy and disobedience, even in the midst of their own too often mistaken zeal, the preservers of the religion and the law. To obtain a just and impartial estimate of the real character, intentions, and bearings of this body, known as the Pharisees, is to the Hebrew of the present day almost impossible. The Jew, whose mind and heart have been guided by his Talmudical studies, cannot fail to regard them with the deepest veneration and love;—the Jew, who has known them only through the medium of Gentile writers, must unconsciously imbibe a portion of their feeling, and perhaps regard them only as superstitious zealots, following the letter of the law, but not its spirit. The allusions to the Pharisees, in the book which Gentiles believe divine, and the subsequent explanations in their various commentaries, cannot fail to engender this spirit. But the Hebrew should guard against imbibing it, because the view is 14

Milman, History of the Jews, 2:13.

676

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

false in many of its bearings. It is very difficult, when we only possess histories written by Gentiles in a liberal and friendly spirit, and containing so much with which we can fully sympathize, to realize that on some points as Hebrews, our opinions must form themselves, and not be guided by those of the historian. The Pharisees is one of these—on which we must reflect and exercise our own judgment. The Rabbinical historian would unhesitatingly pronounce them saints, as little less holy or inspired than the prophets themselves;—the Gentiles, as cruel, prejudiced bigots, hiding the most fearful vices under the mask of extremest sanctity. Both are probably wrong. The Pharisees were but men, liable to all the failings of humanity; but their religion, even if carried beyond the law, was honest and sincere. The laxity and indifference of the multitude compelled a greater degree of strictness; they were forced to raise around them a wall of exclusiveness, lest they too should fall. They beheld the awful evils creeping steadily amidst all ranks, and was it strange that they should have encouraged an unsocial spirit, and held themselves aloof? They beheld foreign manners and customs destroying the nationality of their people and land; that the law of their God, which they justly held supreme, was disregarded; and was it unnatural., that they should seclude themselves, proud of their spiritual superiority—or that their attachment to their land and Temple should increase in passionate intensity, as they beheld it so often trampled upon and desecrated by foreigners? That a want of charity, of humility, of forbearance, marked their religion, might be; nay, in that terrible period it could scarcely be otherwise. Party spirit even then had dried up the channels of social affection, and the spirit of love and meekness which the religion of Moses taught, could not be realized in the popular tumults and crimes for ever raging round them. Individuals there were, no doubt, combining the pure spirit and loving mind with the outward ceremonial; but in this brief sketch we can only generalize. Still, spite of their faults—spite of the too rigid, too exclusive notions, which, if indeed they had existence, originated simply from the fear of being too lax, and sharing the indifference and infidelity of too many of

SIXTH PERIOD. I. REVIEW OF THE JEWISH NATION

677

their fellows, the Pharisees must be regarded with veneration as the preservers of the law.15 Now16 should the Zaddikim, or righteous,17 be passed unnoticed. Of these men we shall find no notice in the Talmudical writ-

15 The latter assertion concerning the Pharisees is based upon Josephus, Wars, 2.8.14: “The Pharisees are those who are esteemed most skilful in their exact explication of their laws.” The negative view of the Pharisees in the New Testament is exemplified by Matt. 15:7–14: “Ye hypocrites, well did Esaias [I.e., Isa. 29:13] prophesy of you saying, This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me. But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men. And he called the multitude and said unto them, Hear and understand: Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man; but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man. Then came his disciples and said unto him, Knowest thou that the Pharisees were offended, after they heard this saying? But he answered and said, Every plant, which my heavenly Father hath not planted, shall be rooted up. Let them alone: they be blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch.” For negative views of the Pharisees in Rabbinic literature see Mishnah, Sotah 3:4 and Babylonian Talmud, Sotah 22b. For the rehabilitation of the Pharisees as the spiritual forbears of Judaism in all its modern forms (including the Karaites whose Passover Eve Seder includes the saying of Rabban Gamaliel from Mishnah, Pesahim 10:5 but with the name of the famous leader of the Pharisees and of Rabbinic Judaism omitted!) as a major issue in modern Judaism see Louis Finkelstein, The Pharisees (2 vols.; 3d. ed.; Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society of America, 1962); see also George Foot Moore, Judaism (3 vols.; Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1927), 1:56–71; 2:193–194 and passim; and see Jacob Neusner and Bruce D. Chilton, eds., In Search of the Historical Pharisees (Waco, Texas: Baylor University Press, 2007); for a lucid and comprehensive survey of the modern study of the Pharisees by Jews and Christians see Roland Deines, Die Pharisäer (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1997). 16 The author seems to have intended to write, “Nor.” 17 She means the people commonly called Sadducees, on which see Josephus, Antiquities, 13.5.9; 13.11.6; 18.1.4; id., The Jewish War, 2.8.14.

678

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

ers,18 because they were opposed to much which that party considered of equal sanctity and obligation with the written law of God. But in an historical sketch, which, to be correct and useful, must be perfectly impartial, untinged by any individual feeling, we cannot refrain from noticing them, and in a very different spirit to the abhorrence with which they are generally regarded. However mistaken might have been some of their notions, however impossible to follow the law of the Eternal, without some regard to the useful practical explanations of the Elders;19 still that they were as sincere and zealous as their opponents, cannot be doubted. These differing views aided materially in the preservation of the law, although the dissensions appeared to, and in fact did, increase the internal miseries and quarrels of Judea. Given up as they were to their own imaginations, their divine nature—apparently utterly lost in the dominion of evil passions— we seem to read but of anarchy and sin, more fearful than any which had come before, and increasing to a climax which compelled On this, of course, she is mistaken; see, e.g., Mishnah Yadayim 4:6 for a series of arguments between the Pharisees and the Sadducees; concerning the Sadducees in Rabbinic literature see now Eyal Regev, “The Sadducees, the Pharisees, and the Sacred: Meaning and Ideology in the Halakhic Controversies between the Sadducees and Pharisees,” Review of Rabbinic Judaism, 9 (2006), 126–140; Cecilia Wassén, “Sadducees and Halakah,” in Law in Religious Communities in the Roman Period, ed. Peter Richardson et al. (Waterloo, Ontario: Wilfred Laurier University Press, 1991), 127–146; Ya‛akov Sussmann, “The History of the Halakha and the Dead Sea Scrolls,” in Elisha Qimron and John Strugnell, Qumran Cave 4 V: Miqsat Ma‛ase Ha-Torah, Discoveries in the Judaean Desert, vol. 10 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1994), 179–200. 19 Josephus, Antiquities, 13.12.6: “The Pharisees have delivered to the people a great many observances by succession from their fathers, which are not written in the law of Moses; and it is for that reason that the Sadducees reject them ...”; cf. Matt. 15:7–14 quote above. As to whether these traditions of the Pharisees are or are not related to the ‘Oral Torah’ of later Tannaitic literature see most recently the literature cited in Shamir Yona and Mayer Gruber, “Once Again Masoret,” Review of Rabbinic Judaism 11 (2009), 334, n. 1. 18

SIXTH PERIOD. I. REVIEW OF THE JEWISH NATION

679

the chastisement so long deferred. But if with a faithful heart and unshrinking eye, we look within this rolling tumult—if we look beneath the stormy waves of dissension and hate and wrath—we trace in the very elements that increased our miseries, those of our final preservation. We behold but the workers of evil, for wickedness ever comes uppermost; but the faithful hearts, the enduring martyrs, the good, the true, are invisible in history, as in daily life, even as the still calm depths of the ocean, whose waves are in tumult and in storm. Never was the divinity of virtue entirely extinct, either in man or nations; and we may rest content and satisfied, that even in the midst of the blackened annals on which our eyes must rest, there was virtue and spirituality, and truth, sincerity, and zeal; and that there will be these to the end of time—invisible in history, invisible in life, but working on silently and unceasingly, even to themselves, towards the purity, and elevation, and preservation of the religion of the Lord. Nor are such workers confined to one party or one creed. Outwardly, each will condemn each; but inwardly, they work together.

CHAPTER II. FROM THE APPEAL TO POMPEY TO THE DEATH OF HEROD Hyrcanus’s quiet surrender of his authority was not of long continuance. Urged on by Antipater, the father of Herod, he again took the field; and after various alternations of success and defeat, both brothers appealed to Pompey, the Roman general;—first by commissioners, and then, by command, in person. Each produced defenders; but many of the nation came to protest against both, as having illegally changed the form of government from the supremacy of the High Priest to that of king; a charge sufficient to confirm our idea that, from the death of Alexander, the former office had completely merged in the latter. The representatives of neither party, however, had much weight. Pompey decided as was best for his own and the Roman interest, only so far favoring Hyrcanus, as to tempt Aristobulus to resume hostilities; convinced that so doing would only prove his weakness, make him prisoner to Pompey, and eventually cause the whole nation to submit; and his prognostics were correct, with the sole exception of a remnant of Aristobulus’s faction, who threw themselves into the Temple, valiantly resolved to defend it to the last. After three months’ struggle, during which the cessation of warfare on the Sabbath had given the Romans their only advantage, the Temple was taken, and twelve hundred of the Jews slain. Amongst them were several priests, who, engaged in sacrifices and other services of the Temple at the moment of the assault, never moved from the altar, nor faltered in the performance of a single

681

682

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

rite, but fell murdered where they stood firm and undaunted, and truly warriors of the Lord.1 The faction of Hyrcanus were amongst the most furious in the massacre of their countrymen, painfully proving the fearful effects of party spirit, and how completely nationality must at this period have been lost. Hyrcanus was nominated High Priest and Prince of the country, on condition of his submitting to the Roman government, paying tribute, making no effort to increase his territories, and never to resume the crown. The dignity was thus merely nominal, the independence of the country at an end, and Judea little more than a province of Rome.2 Aristobulus and his children, his sons, and two daughters, were carried captives to Rome. Alexander, one of these sons (and afterwards the father of Mariamne and Aristobulus), escaped on the journey to Rome, and returned to Judea. The desecration of the Temple by Pompey, in profaning its most sacred precincts, excited towards him the utmost hatred of the Jews—a hatred which caused them to behold his gradual decline with satisfaction, and wherever they were scattered, they simultaneously swelled the ranks of his rival Julius Caesar.3 From this period, in all the internal troubles of Judea, we read of her appealing to the Romans for assistance; the never-failing method of kingdoms being entirely subjected by the party to whom they appeal. Hyrcanus did not enjoy his authority in peace— Alexander, the elder son of Aristobulus, above alluded to, raised a considerable force, and made every preparation for re-obtaining the possessions of his father. Gabinius, pro-consul of Syria, called in by Hyrcanus, made head against him, and compelled him to surrender his fortresses. Aristobulus himself, and his younger son, soon after escaped from Rome, and headed another revolt against Hyrcanus, but with worse fortune; the former, severely wounded, was sent back in chains to Rome—Antigonus, through the intercession of his mother, obtained his release.

Josephus, Antiquities, 14.5.1–3. Josephus, Antiquities, 14.4.5. 3 Josephus, Antiquities, 14.8. 1 2

SIXTH PERIOD. II. FROM THE APPEAL TO POMPEY

683

The form of government was then altered by Gabinius, proving the very small portion of dignity or independence which the nominal prince retained. Hyrcanus had had nothing to do with the revolts; but we find him deprived entirely of the royal authority— and five senates, or sanhedrins, established at Jerusalem, Jericho, Gadara, Amatheus, and Sepphoris. This government continued till ten years afterwards, when Caesar restored Hyrcanus to his former power. Though his arms were defeated, the spirit of Alexander, in whom all the courage, enterprise, and chivalry of the Asmonaeans appeared to have centred, was still unsubdued. The moment Gabinius had drawn off his forces, intent on the conquest of Egypt, Alexander reappeared, drove the few remaining Romans into a strong position on Mount Gerizim, and there besieged them—courageously met Gabinius, who had returned on hearing of the revolt, valiantly gave him battle at the head of 80,000 men, and, though again defeated by the irresistible Roman arms, and compelled to take flight, bore with him his unconquered spirit still. Both he and his father, however, fell victims to the Roman civil war. Caesar had given Aristobulus his freedom, and commanded him to create a diversion in Palestine in his favor. The adherents of Pompey poisoned the unfortunate prince on his journey. Alexander, who was levying soldiers in Judea for the assistance of Caesar, was seized at Antioch by Scipio, the friend of Pompey, and beheaded. Antigonus was, therefore, the only scion of the family of Aristobulus remaining. Hyrcanus retained the sovereignty in name, Antipater in power. Winning the favor of Caesar in his Egyptian wars, Antipater, while he demanded and received the reestablishment of the High Priesthood for Hyrcanus, obtained for himself all the rights of a Roman citizen, and the procuratorship of the whole of Judea. Soon after, presuming still more on the incapacity of the feeble prince whom he pretended to befriend, and on the friendship of the Romans, he made his eldest son, Phasael, governor of Jerusalem, and his younger, Herod, governor of Judea. This is the first mention of a character so intimately blended with the fortunes of the Jewish people. The brevity of our present sketch will not permit us even to attempt a delineation of the shrewd and sagacious policy, and unfailing enterprise, with which this extraordinary man made his way through the most adverse factions, both Jewish and Roman, to the supremacy of Judea, and to the intimate

684

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

friendship of all the contending heads of Rome. Julius Caesar, Mark Antony, Lepidus, and, finally, Augustus Caesar—men whose views were never the same, were yet brought over by Herod’s indomitable will, to befriend and exalt him. Much of his public, and almost all his private history, will be found in the memoir of Mariamne; and, therefore, needs no mention here, We will merely touch on those points important in a national view. Antigonus, the sole surviving son of Aristobulus, still struggled for the crown. He obtained the succor of the Parthians, who overran Syria and Asia Minor, while he himself, with a large native force, entered Jerusalem and took possession of the Temple; the Hyrcanians, under Herod and Phasael, holding the palace. The Jews had, at that season, assembled from all quarters to celebrate the feast of Pentecost, and so thronged the ranks of the contending factions. How little did this national assemblage fulfil the spirit of the beautiful law which had thus called them together! How appallingly they contradicted the spirit of the divine law and social unity; for the encouragement of both which this holy festival had been instituted! They celebrated the delivery of that holy Law which, in the very hour of its commemoration. they defiled!4 The partial success of Antigonus in Jerusalem, through his Parthian allies, was more than balanced by the successful intrigues carried on by his rival Herod in Rome, to which city, after a multitude of adventures, he had safely escaped. His entreaty that the sovereignty of Judea might be conferred on the young son of Alexander gave the much coveted honor to himself; and, conducted to the Capitol by Antony and Octavius, he was there, in a heathen city, and with idolatrous sacrifices, anointed king over the holy people of a Most Holy God!*5 Will this fulfil the beautiful promises of the

Josephus, Antiquities, 14.11.5. * Josephus; and Jahn’s “History of the Hebrew Commonwealth.”5 5 Josephus, Antiquities, 14.14.4; Jahn, History of the Hebrew Commonwealth, 147-149. In addition to the latter history book, John [also known as Johann] Jahn (1750–1816) published textbooks for the study of Biblical Hebrew, Aramaic, and Arabic as well as an Introduction to the Old Testament, which got him into trouble with Roman Catholic church authori4

SIXTH PERIOD. II. FROM THE APPEAL TO POMPEY

685

prophets? this prove the nationality of the Jewish people at that period? Alas! This was but the commencement of denationalization! But though nominally king, and aided by the all-powerful Roman influence, Herod was not universally received as sovereign by the Jewish people until some years afterwards, when Antigonus, entirely defeated, surrendered at discretion; and, in spite of his cowardly entreaties for life, was, at Herod’s solicitation, condemned by Antony, and by the axe of a common lictor received his death.6 Herod was now, indeed, sovereign of Judea. Never, before the Babylonish captivity, had the crown of Judah thus passed into the family of an alien, who dared not assort himself of royal blood, and whose very birth as a Jew is doubtful. Josephus tells us that Antipater was indeed said, by Nicholas of Damascus, to be of the stock of the principal Jews, who came out of Babylon; but “that assertion of his was to gratify Herod, who was his son, and who came afterwards, by certain revolutions of fortune, to be King of the Jews.” It is evident, from this passage, that Josephus himself doubts Herod’s Jewish descent, and so must every one who reflects on his character and life. He thought of and pursued his own aggrandizement alone.7 The kingdom of Judea was no more to him than any other territory; it was no longer a holy land—no longer the land of promise under the direct guardianship of the Most High. Where have we found, since the return from Babylon, that divine interference which, in the worst and darkest periods of the kingdom before the captivity, had been so distinctly visible? Where do we ever read of the throne of Judea being obtained by aid of foreign powers? the holy kingdom allied with, or subordinate to, the heathen and idolator? The word of the Lord had passed, that the line of David (and consonantly the tribe of Judah) was the line of kings appointed, and the only line recognisable by Him; and, therefore, every prophecy alluding to the restoration of the kingdom is STILL ties because he did not accept the historicity of the books of Job, Jonah, Judith, and Tobith. 6 Josephus, Antiquities, 14.16.4. 7 Josephus, Antiquities, 14.1.3

686

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

TO BE FULFILLED.8

The very fate of the Asmonaeans appears to evince the displeasure of the Eternal in their acceptance of the kingdom; for they were not of His appointed race. As deliverers from the heathen, as restorers of the Temple and the religion, they were accepted individually in His sight; but, from the very hour of their assumption of the royal dignity in the person of Aristobulus the First, only one who bore the Asmonaean name, Alexander Jannaeus, died naturally in his bed. And not the guilty alone; the young and innocent—even those connected only by the mother’s side with the Asmonaeans, shared the same awful doom, which hemmed round, as by an impenetrable wall, the whole of that fated race. Success the most brilliant crowned every foreign policy of Herod. His marvellous ability extricated him from every difficulty, and pushed forward his successes, till he became the terror of all the surrounding nations. The country was at peace, breathing, as it were, once again, from the dissensions and miseries which, till the accession of Herod, had deluged Judea with her own blood. But, though thus prosperous and at peace, it was the peace and prosperity of any of the heathen nations, not of the land of the Lord. Herod, a very doubtful Jew himself, felt that the strong and exclusive principles of nationality were adverse alike to foreign ambition or domestic greatness. The law of Moses undoubtedly circumscribed the regal power. Nor were foreign conquests admissible with the exclusiveness of the Hebrew people. To remove this barrier, and gradually prepare the minds of his subjects for foreign usages, Herod introduced all the Grecian and Roman games. A theatre was built within, and an amphitheatre without, the walls of Jerusalem. Chariot-racing, boxing, the drama, even the gladiators and wild beasts were there introduced. The people submitted, but with silent abhorrence, for such sanguinary exhibitions, as the two last

This is to say, in accordance with the view universally accepted in all branches of Judaism since antiquity and still in modern times, the Messianic prophecies such as Isa. 11 have not been fulfilled by means of the Gospel accounts concerning Jesus of Nazareth. 8

SIXTH PERIOD. II. FROM THE APPEAL TO POMPEY

687

mentioned, were completely contrary to the mild and loving spirit of Mosaic law.9 Nor was this all. Building after building, all more or less associated with the Roman and Grecian, rose up at the bidding of Herod. His first magnificent enterprise was a superb palace on Mount Sion; his next was to rebuild and change into a strong fortress, the palace of Baris; to erect citadels at Gaba in Galilee, and at Heshbon in Persea; and to rebuild Samaria on a scale of extraordinary magnificence, peopling it with his own soldiers, and the descendants of its former inhabitants. At a later period in his reign, he erected a sumptuous palace-fortress, in his usual style of architecture, on the spot where he had defeated Antigonus, seven miles from Jerusalem, round which a superb city speedily arose. He spent twelve years in the erection and decoration of a maritime city, which he called Caesarea, and almost entirely colonized with Greeks. It resembled in its sumptuous style of architecture, a city of gorgeous palaces. A great temple, dedicated to Augustus, occupied the centre, with two colossal statues, one of Rome and the other of Caesar; and, of course, possessing the necessary appendages to a Grecian city, the theatre and amphitheatre, in which the usual heathen games were quinquennially performed. Was it, then, as they beheld this increase of heathen temples with every newly erected city, that the Jews should forget the magnificence of their monarch, in the terrible thought that, slowly but surely, he was carrying out his design of heathenizing their country and themselves? In some parts nationality was still awake, burning to throw off the yoke of one who had sunk them from their proud superiority as the Kingdom of God, to a level with the vassal-kings of Rome; but though their murmurs were loud and deep, though conspiracies were continually forming, Herod retained his power, continuing to support his double character of Jew and Roman to the last. Hoping to ingratiate his people, and employ the disaffected, he determined to rebuild the Temple, which, from the lapse of 500 years, and its repeated sieges, had become, in some parts, dilapidated and ruinous. At first, the Jews feared that these professions 9

Josephus, Antiquities, 15.8.

688

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

did but conceal the intention of entirely destroying their solemn sanctuary; but the immense preparations before the work of demolition began, removed the apprehension; and with a delight and pride which, for the time, almost gave Herod favor in their sight, the nation beheld a beautiful fabric crowning Mount Moriah, with “masses of white marble, and pinnacles of gold.”10 But at the very time he was thus occupied as a Jewish king, he retained his character of a Roman vassal, by presiding at the Olympic games, making such magnificent donations for their support that he was elected their perpetual president; and this man has been denominated the last independent sovereign of Judea—and the hapless people burdened with his idolatry and sins—as if he were one of them! Who that reflects upon his reign alone, can associate for one moment the blessed promises of the prophets with the kingdom of Judea between the return from captivity and their final dispersion? The very sending his two sons to Rome for education,11 was a measure directly contrary to the law of Moses. Nor did it proceed only from his anxious desire to conciliate the Romans. Herod was seldom actuated by but one motive. Looking upon the sons of Mariamne as his successors, he probably hoped that their Roman education would effectually remove all national prejudices, and render them able assistants in his ardent desire to Romanize his subjects, and gradually do away with all those remnants of that ancient superstition which excluded them from the conquests and ambition of other nations. The Jews, as a nation, were never in greater danger of becoming amalgamated with other countries, than in the reign of Herod; but still the God of their fathers watched over them, preserving them for the sake of His changeless word, as his chosen people still;12 interfering, not visibly, indeed, because of their awful crimes, but making even their threatening chastisement the means of their preservation. The law issued by Herod, decreeing that thieves should be sold into slavery out of the country, is another manifestation of his anxiety to adopt every measure for the denationalizing of Judea; and Josephus, Antiquities, 15.11. Josephus, Antiquities, 15.10.1. 12 See above, p. 141, n. 47. 10 11

SIXTH PERIOD. II. FROM THE APPEAL TO POMPEY

689

from its direct disobedience to the law of Moses, was so obnoxious to the Jews, as to annul their rising gratitude for the rebuilding of the Temple.13 Nor was his last public act, the placing a large golden eagle over the great gate of the Temple, less offensive. It was torn down by two valiant youths, who were unhappily apprehended, and fell victims to his revenge.14 The horrible disease under which he labored increased his sanguinary propensities. Execution after execution followed, till scarcely a family was spared the agony of bereavement. His last barbarous order, that all the principal families of the nation should be seized, shut up in the Hippodrome,15 and murdered the instant of his own death, that he might insure a general mourning, was happily disregarded, and the victims spared.16 And with such a command, died Herod, misnamed the Great, in the second year of the Christian era, and after a reign of thirtyfour years as undisputed monarch.17 He has been termed the last independent sovereign of Judea; but even in this brief survey, we have seen enough to convince us that the Jewish people were never further from national independence than in his reign; that though a strong party of the people still remained zealous and earnest in the national cause, yet the extreme laxity of the Mosaic code, the fearful innovations adopted from heathen and foreign customs, the close intimacy with the Greeks and Romans, must have presented fearful temptations to the people generally, and hastened that day of destruction and dispersion, which the eye of Omniscience. saw, could alone preserve His holy law from annihilation, by its complete amalgamation with the surrounding nations.

Josephus, Antiquities, 16.1.1. Josephus, Antiquities, 17.6.1–4. 15 I assume that ‘Hippodrone’ in the 19th century editions of Women of Israel is a typographical error and not another of Aguilar’s idiosyncratic spellings. 16 Josephus, Antiquities, 17.6.5. 17 Josephus, Antiquities, 17.8.13. 13 14

CHAPTER III. GENERAL SKETCH CONTINUED FROM THE DEATH OF HEROD TO THE WAR For nine years the throne of Judea was occupied by Archelaus, the son of Herod and his sixth wife, Malthae, a Samaritan. Little of national interest occurred during that period except a constant reference to Rome (for the claims of Archelaus were disputed by his brother, Herod Antipas)—repeated insurrections of the Jewish people, and, in consequence, numberless executions—and the increasing power of the Romans within Judea, who overspread the country, and ruled with such despotic hand, as to cause innumerable adventurers to spring up, collecting daring bands around them, who, either as robbers or fanatics, increased the wretchedness of the people. Archelaus appears to have neither possessed nor exercised any kingly power. In fact, we can scarcely regard him either as a Hebrew or a Hebrew king. His marriage with Glaphyra, the widow of his brother Alexander, and the mother of children by him, was in direct disobedience to the law of Moses, and consequently very obnoxious to the people: and so completely were himself and his kingdom in the power of the Romans, that the emperor would not even allow him the title of king, recognising him simply as the Ethnarch of Judea. In the tenth year of his reign, he was suddenly summoned to Rome, and thence banished to Vienne in Gaul, and all his estates confiscated.1 From that hour, though one or other noble Hebrew was continually rising, with claims to the sovereignty, Judea sank into a Roman province, dependent on the prefecture of Syria, with a subordinate administration of its own in a Roman 1

Josephus, Antiquities, 17.13.

691

692

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

governor, generally of the equestrian rank—and recognised in history as Procurator of Judea. Coponius, Marcus Ambivius, Valerius Gratus, and Pontius Pilate, successively enjoyed this office.2 During the reign of Caligula, we again read of the Jews being persecuted for their religion. That emperor, anxious to be universally acknowledged as a god, was furious that a nation of captives (for such the Jews actually were) should dare to worship other than himself, and treated them with even more severity than any other of his subjects. In Rome, Syria, and Egypt, the nation felt the effects of the imperial tyranny; but its only effect was to draw them yet closer together, and increase the value of that sacred religion, which both foreign and native princes seemed so determined to undermine.3 In Alexandria, their sufferings equalled the previous cruelties of Antiochus Epiphanes. The Roman Prefect of the period was Flaccus Aquilius, whose tyrannical oppressions even surpassed those of the Emperor himself. He was the first to deny the Jews their rights of citizenship; and this without the smallest provocation on their part. Two quarters of the city were occupied by Jews, though many were also scattered about the other parts. Without any given reason, they were ordered to remove into a district so small, that they were compelled to spread along the sea-shore, and take refuge even in the cemeteries.*4 Their homes were pillaged, the contents of their magazines and shops publicly divided; pestilential disorders, from the heat and famine of their cooped-up abodes, Josephus, Antiquities, 18.2.1–2. Josephus, Antiquities, 18.8.1–6. * Will not this remind us of a modern persecution? Alas! the History of the Jews can scarcely ever be considered Past.4 4 In 1845 Czar Nicholas I of Russia decreed that Jews in his realm should no longer wear the long black coats, which are to this day still worn by many ultra-Orthodox Jewish men and that the Jewish men in his realm should no longer be permitted to grow long sidelocks. And physical force was used by government officials to enforce these decrees. Czar Nicholas I has long been gone from this world, and Jews in many places still wear long coats and grow long side locks. See Cyrus Adler and S. Mannheimer, “Pe’ot” [= sidelocks], JE 9:595. 2 3

SIXTH PERIOD. III. GENERAL SKETCH

693

broke out most fearfully, and when rendered desperate by their condition, they left their assigned quarter—a general massacre ensued. The sword and club, fire, scourging, suffocation, all were employed against them. Neither man, woman, nor child escaped; and this continued, until, at length, the arrest of Flaccus, by order of the Emperor, put an end in a measure to these atrocities. In Babylon also there were persecutions, whose origin our readers will find in the authorities so often quoted, Josephus5 and Milman.6 In Judea images were raised all over the country, and an edict issued to place the statue of Caligula in the Temple of Jerusalem. Once more the national spirit was aroused. Thousands of the Hebrews of either sex, and every rank and age, unarmed, and clad in sackcloth and ashes, traversed the land, solemnly protesting their intention to sacrifice their lives rather than consent to this awful profanation of their Temple. Petronius, an upright and humane man, sought to dissuade them from their resolution, urging the power of the Emperor, the submission of other nations, and the horrors of war.7 “We have no thoughts of war,” was their unanimous reply:4 “but we will submit to be massacred rather than thus infringe our Law;” and they fell with their faces to the ground, boldly offering their throats to the sword. The humanity of Petronius delayed the execution of the imperial mandate, on pretence of allowing time for the statue to be finished; but it was to a native prince, yet more than to Petronius, that the Israelites owed their security. On the early and romantic history of Herod Agrippa, the son of Aristobulus and grandson of Mariamne, we cannot here be permitted to linger. He had been taken to Rome by his mother Berenice directly after his father’s murder; and there, enjoying the favor and friendship of many noble Romans, had passed his youth. His varied fortunes might fill a volume. We can here only make such mention of him as is connected with this general sketch. Caligula had made him king of Gaulanitis, Batanea, and Trachonitis, and Josephus, Antiquities, 18:9. Milman, History of the Jews, 2: 186–191. 7 Josephus, Antiquities, 18.8. 5 6

694

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

Tetrarch of Galilee and Persea. The greater part of what had formerly been the Holy Land in consequence belonged to him; but Judea was still possessed by Rome. Though educated in the Roman capital, and continually residing there, even after he was termed King of the Jews, Agrippa appears to have retained that strong feeling of nationality, and earnest love for his country and religion, so peculiar to the valiant founders of the Asmonaean race. On hearing of the disastrous alternative proposed to his countrymen in Judea—the desecration of their Temple or their entire destruction, he invited Caligula to a banquet, and treated him with such extraordinary splendor as to excite the astonishment of even that luxurious Sovereign, who, in the moment of enjoyment, desired him to ask a boon, which he swore to grant. The true Asmonaean blood flowed in the veins of the grandson of Mariamne. It was easy to have asked increase of dominion—of revenue—and thus have aggrandized himself; but not such was his request! He entreated the repeal of the fatal edict; and, after a struggle between wounded pride and his attachment to the petitioner, Caligula consented, and the decree was suspended.8 The murder of Caligula followed. Agrippa alone paid him the last honors. He could forget the vices of the man in the attachment of the friend. The peaceful acknowledgment of Claudius as emperor was mainly attributable to this Jewish prince, and Claudius did not forget the obligation. The investiture of all the domains of the great Herod was conferred on Agrippa; Judea and Samaria were once again united with Galilee, Peraea, and the provinces beyond Jordan—forming one independent kingdom, which a public edict proclaimed as a donation from the Emperor to Agrippa; between whom a treaty was formally concluded. Once more, then, for the brief interval of three years, did the Hebrews breathe in religious and moral freedom. Once more the reins of government were held by a native prince, whose Asmonaean descent rendered him universally popular, save to some stern zealots, whose factious spirits were ever on the watch for turbulence and blood. Once more we seem to associate with a people following the Law of God, ruled by a prince whose most ardent 8

Josephus, Antiquities, 18.8.7–8.

SIXTH PERIOD. III. GENERAL SKETCH

695

desire appeared to follow the statutes of Moses with the utmost exactness! Daily sacrifices were offered, legal impurities strictly prohibited, taxes remitted, the religion and comfort of his people made his first object; while the munificence and splendor of his court, the sumptuous buildings he erected, surrounded him with all the pomp and power of an independent Sovereign. His brief reign, marked as it is with such meek and gentle authority in the Sovereign, such calm and peaceful nationality in the People, shines forth like a bright star amidst the troublous wars and stormy clouds of awful darkness which it followed and preceded. Its beams had power to disperse, for a brief interval, the dim shadows of the PAST; but the black wings of the FUTURE gathered round and shrouded up its mild light in such awful darkness that we almost forget it ever shone.9 The death of Agrippa, while it occasioned the deepest grief amongst the Hebrews, excited the most brutal exultation amongst the Greek inhabitants of Caesarea and Sebaste. The cause of this enmity appears an impenetrable mystery, Agrippa having treated them with unvarying kindness. Their insolent conduct occasioned Claudius to command the cohorts in their city to remove into Pontus, and their places to be filled with draughts from the legions in Syria. We are particular in mentioning this, because Josephus believes it to be the primary cause of the Jewish War. The mandate of the Emperor was not executed; but the disgrace was equally the same; and, rankling in the hearts of the troops, exasperated them yet more against the Hebrews, and incited those horrible acts of oppression and cruelty which at length goaded Judea into a general revolt. The son of Agrippa (who bore the same name) being considered too young to succeed him as sovereign, Judea relapsed into a Roman province. Agrippa remained at the court of Claudius, imbibing Roman feelings and Roman principles, so completely to the exclusion of nationality, as caused him, in the war which followed, basely to adhere to the Roman party, and to make no effort to ameliorate the condition of his countrymen. He appears to have lived occasionally at Jerusalem, at Alexandria, and at Rome, enjoy9

Josephus, Antiquities, 19.5–9.

696

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

ing at the former city the title of King, and the power of appointing High-Priests; but otherwise his was a very empty dignity—the real government of the country resting in the hands of the Procurators. Rome, however, was his usual residence; its luxurious enjoyment being more according to his vitiated taste than the bold stand for independence which his unhappy countrymen were making. The term of his death is uncertain; but he died, as he had lived, forgetting the calamities and ruin of his country in the morally degraded, but physically secure condition of a Roman vassal. He was the last. either of the Asmonaean or Idumean race, who bore the title of King.10 Meanwhile, Zadus, Tiberius (an apostate Egyptian Jew, and consequently yet more odious to the people than the Romans themselves), Cumanus, Felix, Festus, Albinus, and Floras, had been successive Procurators of Judea; occupying a period of rather more than twenty years—a term brief in itself, but fraught with increasing misery to the inhabitants of Palestine. Each Procurator appeared more oppressive, more exacting than the last. Insults from the Roman soldiery, constantly accompanying those religious forms and ceremonies, which, in consequence, had become yet dearer, were answered by fiery spirits ripe for vengeance; and this, of course, was followed by indiscriminate slaughter of the Jews. Massacres of hundreds, even of thousands, took place under every Procurator, not only in Judea but in Syria; and we are told that, after the defeat of the Romans under Cestus by the excited Hebrews, the citizens of Damascus massacred ten thousand of their Hebrew brethren, notwithstanding their own wives were all attached to Judaism. Pillage and insult, of course, accompanied these fearful massacres. All legal authority was at an end. Though the high priesthood was retained, the temple worship continued, the outward ordinances of the feasts and fasts observed, yet the beautiful laws, guiding not only communities but households, were swallowed up in the vortex of oppression, insult, and misery, which, under the administration of Floras, reached its crisis. The evil passions of man were alone visible. Robbers and assassins, the last blaspheming the 10

Josephus, Antiquities, 19.9.

SIXTH PERIOD. III. GENERAL SKETCH

697

mild law of Moses, by pretending its authority for their deeds of blood—were amongst the Jews themselves—and devastated both province and city. Divided within themselves—so goaded by oppression, that the dictates of humanity were unheard—party spirit utterly preventing that national union which alone could hope for success—without a leader—without a plan—for the most part regardless of the laws of either God or man; such was the condition of the country on the eve of its general revolt. Darkness, morally and mentally, had gathered round; and it was no marvel. The return from Babylon had been granted as a trial of their return to their God and the pure worship of their ancestors. He inspired a heathen sovereign to grant them liberty and independence.11 It was in their power then to have come back, heart and soul, to the pure and faithful observance of His law, to the making the Land of Promise once more a Holy Land—resting on the blessing, the guidance, the sovereignty of their God. He gave them free will to choose; and we have seen that choice:—a union from the first with surrounding nations, a lingering amidst the heathen lands, or invitations to the heathen within their own—adoption of heathen customs—faithful in the hour of persecution, only to relapse into indifference when the iron rod was withdrawn—the Priesthood, the Sovereignty stained with crimes, even to read which causes the blood to curdle—alliance with the Heathen Mistress of the world,12 instead of that pure reliance on the Eternal to increase prosperity She refers to the edict of Cyrus and specifically to the way that edict is interpreted in 2 Ch. 36:22–23 (and cf. the longer text in Ezra 1:1–4), “Now in the first year of Cyrus king of Persia, that the word of the LORD spoken by the mouth of Jeremiah [cf. Jer. 29:10] might be accomplished, the LORD stirred up the spirit of Cyrus king of Persia that he made a proclamation throughout all his kingdom, and put it also in writing, saying, Thus saith Cyrus king of Persia, All the kingdoms of the earth hath the LORD God of heaven given me; and he hath charged me to build him an house in Jerusalem, which is in Judah. Who is there among you of all his people? The LORD his God be with him, and let him go up.” 12 I.e. Rome; see 1 Macc. 8:17: “So Judas [Maccabeus] chose Eupolemus the son of John, son of Accos, and Jason the son of Eleazar, and sent them to Rome to establish friendship and alliance.” 11

698

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

and dominion, which His law ordained—the holy religion he deigned to teach, so fitted for every class and condition of men, split into opposing factions, arming each against the other—statues and images desecrating the Temple and the land, erected indeed by the Romans, but originating primarily in the Jewish assimilation and alliance with that nation. Was it marvel that the Eternal, in His justice, should make the sin of their assimilation with other nations the very means of their punishment?—and that the power they had courted, flattered, made voluntary submission to (because the Roman name was omnipotent in earthly glory, earthly greatness, forgetting that if they trusted in and served their God, His word had gone forth to make them greatest amongst the nations) was it marvel that that power should be the instrument in the Eternal’s hand to execute His wrath? We shudder at the horrible oppressions of which we read. Its human agency must excite our abhorrence, as it would the anger of the Lord; but on themselves the Jews had hurled it; they reaped the wretchedness their own hands had sown. But let it not be supposed, in the fearful state to which the nation was reduced, that there were none to uphold the glory of the Lord, and be his witnesses on earth. In the tumultuous annals of the period—in the vast and whelming ocean of despair and misery and crime, how may the historian discern and bring forward those who were yet faithful and accepted servants of the most high God? Yet even as the Eternal promised that Israel should never cease from being a nation before Him, so has he equally promised that He would never be without his witnesses on earth; and, therefore, are we bound to believe that even in this awful epoch of Jewish history, aye, throughout its dark annals of previous years, there were yet, as there had been in the days of Elijah, “seven thousand who had not bowed the knee to Baal.”13 In every faction, every party, there were noble and faithful spirits of either sex acting or enduring a martyr’s part—leavening many a mass of otherwise foul iniquity, and as acceptable to the Almighty as the saints of old. We see them not, we know them not, for not on earth may we “discern between

13

1 Kgs. 19:18.

SIXTH PERIOD. III. GENERAL SKETCH

699

the righteous and the wicked”14—not on earth may their fate be distinct—not in the threatened vengeance of the Eternal might a miracle interpose to protect His faithful from the destruction waiting the rebellious and the sinful, but in His heaven, the distinction between him that serveth Him and him that served him not, was made. And therefore did he permit universal misery and destruction to whelm all on earth, as a warning to the nations, as a witness of His word, a fulfilment of his threatened wrath for disobedience; preparing for the thousands that had not bowed the knee to Baal, such transcendent glory and unspeakable happiness with Him that the evils they had endured below seemed but as “a watch in the night”—or as the transient pang of “yesterday when it is passed.”15 In this rapid and very imperfect sketch of the history of Judea, from the return from Babylon to the commencement of the war under the administration of the odious Florus, A.C. 66,16 we have seen how little of rest or independence she enjoyed—that in fact massacre and persecution even for religion may be dated many years, even centuries, before the general dispersion—that the national divisions of tribes, both of land and people, were entirely lost—the throne not once occupied by that royal branch of David Cf. Ps. 1:6: For the LORD knoweth the way of the righteous; but the way of the ungodly shall perish.” 15 Ps. 90:4. 16 A.C. (= Anno Christi) corresponds to the commonly used A.D. (= Anno Domini), for which Jews not recognizing Jesus of Nazareth as either Messiah or ‘Lord’ prefer to use C.E. just as Anglicans not recognizing the head of the Roman Catholic Church as having jurisdiction over Anglicans, who also regard themselves as part of the “one Catholic and Apostolic Church,” refer to the person commonly called ‘the pope’ as ‘the bishop of Rome’. In any case, Aguilar follows Josephus in ending her survey of the Second Temple period with the appointment of the Procurator Florus. Cf. Josephus, Antiquities, 20.11 where the latter notes that it was the Procurator Florus “who necessitated us to take up arms against the Romans.” Josephus then informs us that he will tell about the Jewish War against Rome in a separate book. Likewise, Aguilar discusses that war in a much later section of Women of Israel, in Seventh Period, Chapter 1 (see below, pp. 843–862). 14

700

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

which the Eternal has so expressly promised—that the Jews had settled by their own will in various parts of the word besides Jerusalem. And, having seen all this, do we need more than a knowledge of our own history to refute the assertion of our adversaries, that our return from Babylon fulfilled the prophecies? Shall we not rather, in deepest gratitude and consolation, take them to our hearts and believe in their fulfilment YET TO COME! rejoicing even as did the venerable Akiba, who laughed when his companions wept, at beholding a fox run out from the place where the Holy of Holies once stood; and, being asked the wherefore of such unseemly mirth, replied by inquiry wherefore they wept: “Should we not weep,” they answered, “when we see the curse so clearly verified: “for the mountain of Sion, foxes shall walk upon it!’ ”17 “And therefore do I laugh,” replied the venerable man. “Whilst the evil remained unaccomplished, there might have been doubts entertained for the fulfilment of the good promised by our prophets; but now, when we see the evil coming to pass, can we possibly doubt the eventual fulfilment of the consolation of Zion, and does not God rather reward than punish?”18 And shall we not also rejoice; for Akiba’s hope is ours!

17 18

Lam. 5:18. Babylonian Talmud, Makkot 24b.

CHAPTER IV. THE MARTYR MOTHER1 In a time so fraught with national confusion, foreign alliances, treacherous peace, or destructive war, as the period which our sketch comprises, history reveals but little to aid us in our attempt to delineate the character and condition of our female ancestors. Yet that little is most important, tending ananswerably to prove the exaltation of our social position, the elevation of our individual character, and also to convince us that there was not a single law then in force that could, either morally, physically, or socially debase us. We shall find the influence of woman actuating man, in more than one instance, for the evil unhappily, also with the good; but the very power of the evil is, as we have before said, an argument in favor of our equality and freedom. During the persecution under Antiochus Epiphanes, the sufferings of the women of Israel must have been as fearful, as their constancy and fidelity were powerful proofs, of the perfect adaptation of the Law of the Eternal, to their temporal and spiritual wants. Never could a religion which made them soulless slaves, have become so dear, so part of their very hearts, that it was easier to endure torture, and slavery, and death rather than depart from it themselves, or refuse its privileges to their infant sons. Eighty thousand persons, men, women, and children, slain in the forcible Having traced the miserable (from her point of view) history of the Jews from the time of Queen Esther to the brink of the Jewish War (66– 70 CE), which culminated in the destruction of the Temple, Aguilar now goes back to discuss in the next seven chapters the outstanding Jewish heroines, who appeared between Queen Esther and the destruction of the Second Temple. 1

701

702

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

entrance of Antiochus within Jerusalem, and forty thousand of both sexes sold into slavery, was the horrible preface to the misery which followed. Every observance of the Law, from the keeping of the Sabbath and the Covenant of Abraham, to the minutest form, was made a capital offence.2 Yet, in spite of the scenes of horror so continually recurring, the very relation of which must now make every female heart shrink and quiver—yet were there female martyrs baring their breast to the murderous knife, rather than bow down to the idol, or touch forbidden food. Women, young, meek, tender, performed with their own hands the Covenant of Abraham upon their sons, because none else would so dare the tyrant’s wrath; and with their infants (for whose immortal souls they had thus incurred the rage of man) suspended round their necks, received death by being flung from the battlements of the Temple into the deep vale below; others were hung, and cruelties too awful to relate practised upon others.3 Yet no woman’s spirit failed; and what must have been their attachment to their holy religion, what their sense of its responsibility, and its immortal reward, what their horror of abandoning it themselves and cutting off their sons from its sainted privileges, to incur martyrdoms like these? It is useless to argue that persecution always creates martyrs, as opposition kindles constancy. The religion degrading or brutalizing woman never yet had martyrs. The Catholic, the Protestant have had their martyrs in young and feeble women equally with ourselves; because their religion, founded upon ours, shares its heavenly privileges and spiritual love, and twines itself so round a woman’s clinging breast, that it is far easier to die for it than live without it, by apostasy and falsehood.4

1 Macc. 1:41–50; 2 Macc. 6:1–6. 2 Macc. 6:10–11. 4 Concerning martyrdom among both Jews and Christians see Daniel Boyarin, Dying for God: Martyrdom and the Making of Christianity and Judaism (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1999); Abraham Gross, Struggling with Tradition: Reservations about Active Martyrdom in the Middle Ages (Leiden: Brill, 2004); id., Spirituality and Law: Courting Martyrdom in Christianity and Judaism (Lanham, Md. and London, Eng.: University Press of America, 2005). 2 3

SIXTH PERIOD. IV. THE MARTYR MOTHER

703

But where do we find a Mahomedan5 female enduring martyrdom rather than forsake the religion of the Prophet (so called)?6 History does not present us with one example; and why? The reply is easy. We will not say one word against the religion itself; because, equally with the Nazarene, it is doing the work of the Eternal, and teaching many nations to worship the one sole God.7 But its doctrine degrades woman in very truth to be the slave of man—gives her neither temporal nor spiritual privileges—treats her, looks on her as a being without soul, or, if possessing one, created even in Heaven only to minister to man’s pleasures.*8 Is it marvel then, the Eastern women are now indeed degraded, or that amongst them we should never read of martyrs?9 But not such were the women of the East when it was peopled by the nation of the Lord! We must assume that Aguilar did not realize that the terms Mahometan, Mahomedan, and Mohammedanism are offensive to Muslims. See Said, Orientalism, 66, 280–284. 6 So indeed he is called, and it is indeed unfortunate that Aguilar spoiled an important book with much abiding worth with the unfortunate innuendo. Cf. Said, Orientalism, 62, 66 for references in modern European literature to Muhammad as “false prophet” and “imposter”. 7 Reflecting the view of Moses Maimonides (1138–1204 C.E.) at the end of his Code of Jewish Law or Mishneh Torah that Christianity and Islam have brought knowledge of God and the Torah to the peoples of the world. * Such at least are its reported doctrines. We cannot vouch for their truth or falsehood, not knowing sufficient of the religion itself, or its followers.8 8 By adding this note Aguilar seems already to have thought better of what she wrote about Islam. One gets the impression from this note that she already understand how unfortunate it is that in a book devoted to defending Judaism from anti-Judaism based largely upon hearsay, Aguilar fails to realize that the respect she demands for Judaism from the adherents of other faiths ought also to be extended by Jews to other faiths. Hopefully, in the more enlightened 21st century we shall see an end to all kinds of religious bigotry. 9 It is unfortunate that Aguilar in setting the record straight concerning the realities and potentialities for empowerment of women in ancient Israel and in Rabbinic lore, falls victim to Orientalist prejudices when 5

704

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

Where, in the vast tomes of history, sacred or profane, shall we find a deed more heroic, a fortitude more sublime, than is recorded of Hannah, the Hebrew mother, during the persecution of Antiochus? We read in the second Maccabees, chap, vii., confirmed also by all our Hebrew writers, that a mother and her seven sons were taken, and brought before the tyrant; who, in the wantonness of cruelty, commanded them to eat the forbidden meat, commencing first with the more moderate torment of whips and scourges, but heightening them gradually to tortures, which we leave our readers to peruse in the chapter we have quoted: for the soul sickens to dwell upon them, as deliberately to write them down: we will content ourselves with repeating the words they spake in the midst of those appalling sufferings; for surely they are in themselves witness of what the religion of the Eternal taught. “What wouldst thou ask or learn of us?” the first said: “We are ready to die rather than transgress the laws of our fathers.” And as his brethren beheld his lingering torments, instead of failing, they exhorted one another, and their mother, to die manfully, saying thus, “The Lord God looketh upon us, and in truth hath comfort in us, as Moses, which in his song, witnessed to their faces, declared: and he shall be comforted in his servants.” To the second the question was put, “Wilt thou eat?” under threat of similar tortures, which he had witnessed, but in vain. “Thou, like a fury, takest us out of this life,” he said, in the very agonies of death; but the King of the World shall raise us up, who have died for his laws, unto everlasting life.” The third himself stretched forth his limbs for the torture, saying, “These I had from Heaven, and for His Law I despise them, for from him I expect to receive them again?” Inasmuch as the king and those that were with him, marvelled at the young man’s courage, for that he nothing regarded his pains. The fourth then treating of Islam, of which she clearly knew almost nothing. Concerning martyrdom in Islam see David Cook, Martyrdom in Islam (Cambridge & New York: Cambridge University Press, 2007). Concerning the ideology of homicidal/suicidal bombers in the service of Palestinian fighters against Israel in the late 20th and early 21st centuries see, inter alia, Raphael Israeli, Palestinian Women and Children in the Throes of Islamikaze Terrorism (Shaarei Tivka: ACPR, 2002).

SIXTH PERIOD. IV. THE MARTYR MOTHER

705

suffered, and he said, “It is good being put to death by man, to look for hope from God to be raised up again for Him; as for thee, thou shalt have no resurrection to life.” And the fifth, in his dying agony, calmly looked upon the king, and said, “Thou hast power over men, but art corruptible; thou doest what thou wilt; but think not our nation is forsaken of God; but abide awhile, and behold His great power, how He will torment thee and thy seed.” And the sixth being ready to die, emulating his brothers’ constancy, addressed the tyrant, “Be not deceived without cause: we suffer these things for ourselves having sinned against God, therefore marvellous things are done unto us; but think not thou, who takest in hand to strive against God, that thou shalt escape unpunished.” Nor was it one alone who thus endured. The Hebrew mother witnessed these agonizing tortures, done not unto one, but unto six of her cherished offspring. Yet how do our elders10 speak of her: “The mother was marvellous above all, and worthy of honorable memory; for when she saw her seven sons slain within the space of one day, she bare it with a good courage, because of the hope that she had in the Lord. Yes, she exhorted every one of them in her own language, filled with courageous spirit, and stirring up her womanish thoughts with a manly stomach, she said unto them, ‘I cannot tell how ye came into my womb, for I neither gave you breath nor life; neither was it I who formed the members of every one of you; but, doubtless, the Creator of the world, who formed the generation of man, and found out the beginning of all things, will also of His own mercy, give you breath and life again, as ye now regard not your ownselves for His law’s sake’.” I.e., the authoritative author(s) of the 1st century B.C.E. Book of Second Maccabees, which we now know to be for the most part a summary of the now lost five volume history of the Maccabees by Jason of Cyrene (after 110 B.C.E.); see the introduction to Second Maccabees by Sherman E. Johnson in Metzger, Oxford Annotated Apocrypha, p. 263. Note that just as Aguilar here refers to the author(s) of Second Maccabees as “our elders” so does she speak of the anonymous narrator(s) in Hebrew Scripture as “the sacred historian” and the named and unnamed authorities in Rabbinic Literature as “our ancient fathers.” See passim in Women of Israel. 10

706

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

Quaint and terse as this language is, and devoid of all ornament, yet how emphatically it breathes of the extent of this mother’s trial, the struggle with her “womanish feelings,” and her triumph over nature, over humanity, through that superhuman faith! Nor is the trial over. One still remained—her youngest born; probably still the tender and best-beloved of his mother—one round whom the bleeding tendrils of her lacerated heart must have clung in such unutterable love; her last, her loveliest; and, evidently, from the tyrant’s own words, one in the first and freshest prime of youth, when life has so many rich enjoyments, it seems doubly hard to turn from them to the cold, dark grave; and heaven’s perfected happiness, to such ardent spirits, feels dim and distant, compared to the present joy of earth. We know he was of such an age, and such aspirings, else the temptations of the tyrant would not have been couched in promises to make him a rich and happy man, and take him for his friend, and trust him with affairs, only on condition of his deserting the law of his fathers: and when the young man would not hearken to him, the king called upon the mother, and exhorted her with many words to counsel him to save his life. He believed nature, in such a case, must triumph; for he knew not the hope beyond the grave, which could still the throbbings of maternal love; and bid, even on earth, the Angel triumph over the Human—the Immortal shine above the Mortal! Calmly she listened to the tyrant’s “many words,” and then bowing to him as about to obey, addressed her son in her own language, “Oh, my son, have pity on me who love thee, and gave thee suck three years, and nourished thee, and brought thee up unto this age, and endured the troubles of education, I beseech thee, my Son, look upon the Heaven and upon the earth, and all that is therein, and consider that God made them of things that were not, and so was mankind also. Fear not this tormentor, but, being worthy of thy brethren, take thy death, that I may receive thee again in mercy with thy brethren” And even while she was yet speaking, the young man said, “Whom wait ye for? I will not obey the king’s commandment; but I will obey the commandment of the Law that was given unto our Fathers by Moses. And thou that hast been the author of all the mischief against the Hebrews, shalt not escape the hands of God; for we suffer because of our sins; and though the living God be angry with us a little while for our chastening and correction, yet He shall return, and be again with His servants. But thou, O most god-

SIXTH PERIOD. IV. THE MARTYR MOTHER

707

less man, and of all others most wicked, be not lifted up without cause, nor puffed up with uncertain hopes, lifting up thy hand against the servants of God; for thou hast not yet escaped the judgment of Almighty God, who seeth all things. For our brethren who now have suffered a short pain, are dead under God’s covenant of everlasting life; but thou, through the judgment of God, shalt receive just punishment for thy pride. But I, like my brethren, offer up my body and life for the Laws of our Fathers, beseeching God that He would speedily be merciful unto our nation, and that thou, by torments and plagues, mayest11 confess that he alone is God, and that in me, and in my brethren, the wrath of the Almighty, which is justly brought upon all our nation, may cease.” Then the king being in a rage handled him worse than all the rest, and took it grievously that He was mocked; so this man died undefiled, and put his whole trust in the Lord. Last of all, after the sons, the mother died. “Let this be enough,” the writer concludes, “now to have spoken concerning the idolatrous feasts, and the extreme tortures.” Enough? It is enough indeed for every Israelite to dwell upon, not with shuddering horror, not with that squeamish kind of affected feeling which pretends incapacity to look fearful truths in the face, but with emotions of intense thankfulness, that such a record has been left us, bearing such faithful witness as it does to the true Israelite’s belief. It is not merely a record of superhuman heroism, alike in male and female. It is not merely a proof of the little moment in which torture and death were held by the Hebrews, compared with which the far famed firmness of Spartan and Roman mothers sinks into nothing. It is the doctrines betrayed throughout, which, revealed at such a moment, must have impregnated the very existence of the Israelite; and these doctrines may be treasured up as invaluable evidences of all which was taught by our Holy Law, however some may disbelieve the actual Tale of Martyrdom in which they are disclosed. The books of the Maccabees in the Apocrypha are on all points the exact counterpart of the same history in Josephus,12 and also of Antiochus Epiphanes in Rollin.13 The 19th century editions have ‘mayst’, which I take to be a typographical error, not another of Aguilar’s idiosyncratic spellings. 12 Josephus, Antiquities, 12.5.4. 11

708

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

There can be no doubt that the books were written by a Hebrew for his countrymen; and therefore the words put into the mouths of the sufferers must have been the exact transcript of the Hebrew’s true belief. If the doctrine of immortality—that hope beyond death and the grave—was, as it is reported, unknown and unrevealed to the Israelites, what could have inspired, not only the hope itself, but the expression of that hope, in the very midst of torture and anguish which human nature of itself could never have sustained? We have quoted the words of the sufferers at full length, only to illustrate this doctrine—to prove, that, all of immortality— of resurrection—of being with God in Heaven—of re-union there with our beloved ones—of the transientness of the severest agonies below compared to the permanency of bliss awaiting us above—that all was revealed to us, all was known to every Hebrew—male and female, childhood and age—believed in, acted upon, ages before the advent of that religion which was the first, her followers believe, to inculcate such doctrines. In a work like the present, we may not dilate on this glorious subject as much as inclination prompts—but oh! let us not, by present indifference, by stagnant ignorance, or fearful shrinking from the idea of death, give our opponents only too much reason to believe, that to them alone has been revealed the consolation, the glory, the blessedness of the belief and hope in Immortality. Great emergencies will often create great characters; but in the narrative which we have been considering, we read something more in the character of the Hebrew mother, than even the heroism which she displayed. By her close connexion with her sons, in being brought before the tyrant, and condemned to share their fate, it is clear that though a woman in Israel, her influence must have been supposed of some consequence. That her sons owed their all to her, even to their education, and that her influence on them was very great, we read alike in her own words, and in the appeal of the king to her, to save by her exhortations her youngest born. There is no mention of a father; she had probably been from the infancy of her children, that especially beloved of the Eternal, a widow in Israel. And in the calm courage, the noble words of each of her sons, 13

Rollin, Ancient History of the Egyptians etc., 5:513–560.

SIXTH PERIOD. IV. THE MARTYR MOTHER

709

we learn the education she had given. They had probably been amongst the valiant, though unsuccessful defenders of their land; amongst the faithful few, who, in the very face of the persecutor, dared to obey the law of Moses, and refused every effort to turn them from their God. Would this patriotism, this devotedness, have come at the moment needed, had it not been taught, infused from earliest boyhood—by example as well as precept? A mother in Israel could be herself no warrior, but she could raise up warriors—she could be no priest, but she could create priests—she could not face the battle’s front, or drive the idolatrous invader from God’s Holy Land—she could not stem the torrent of persecution and of torture; but she could raise up those who would seek the one, and, by unshrinking death, bear witness to the fruitless efforts of the other; and it was these things this heroic mother did. She had trained up her boys in that faithfulness, that constancy, which could only spring from virtue. She must have taught them, aye, infused it with her very milk, that the pains and troubles of this world are, in their sharpest agony, but of a moment’s duration, compared with the everlasting blessedness awaiting them in Heaven. She must have taught them, that death itself was but a darkened portal, opening into an infinity of glory; that man might, indeed, have power over this present life; but over the future, what mortal could have dominion?—that all they possessed, even to the members of the body, life itself, they had had from God, to whom they were ready to resign them, knowing that from him they would be received again—that even in that extremity of bodily torture, their lot was happier than that of their tormentor, for their heritage was everlasting, but his was corruptible, and vanishing with a breath. She must have taught them in the true spirit of the Law, that, however persecuted, however sinful in themselves, their nation would never be forsaken by God; yet, that it was for their sins they suffered, not to gratify the exulting tyranny of their persecutor, but for themselves, for the sins of their hapless countrymen. Their sufferings in the flesh were to make manifest to the whole world, God’s judgment upon His children for their national sin; but that still to the virtuous, even such a death had no sting, for their earthly sufferings bore witness to the justice; and their Heavenly reward, to the mercy of their God. She must have infused within them, that pure beautiful spirit of self-devotion, which is woman’s own, and can only be imparted by woman to the more selfish, more calculating

710

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

man, else we should not find the last and youngest martyr, beseeching God, even at that terrible moment, to turn His just wrath from His people; and that the sacrifice of himself and his brethren for the laws of their fathers, might be so accepted as to cause the national misery to cease. All this (and in such doctrines, how much more is comprised than we can trace in a brief survey!) she must have taught her boys. We hear her herself refer to the labors of education, as an additional incentive to her son’s obedience; and we must be convinced, that all their heroism, firmness, selfdevotedness sprang from her, and had become part of their very being, years before such exalted principles were thus called upon to be displayed. Will not this narrative then strongly confirm all that we have stated in the second chapter of our second period, as elevating the position and marking the duties of Jewish mothers? Will it not prove that the mothers of Ancient Israel were perfectly aware of all the responsibility attendant on them, in the education of their sons—and that they really were included in the charge of Moses, contained in Deut. vi. 20–25.14 The education given by this martyr mother to her sons, is an exact illustration of the manner in which these ordinances were obeyed, including also the instruction in the history, theocracy, and claims of Israel down to the times in which they lived. And how could this be, if the Jewish female were lowered by social treatment to the position of a slave or a heathen, on whom no responsibility, no religious duty devolved. Be the narrative itself truth or tradition, it matters not; the ancient fathers would never “And when thy son asketh thee in time to come, saying, What mean the testimonies, and the statutes, and the judgments, which the LORD, our God hath commanded you?” In the Passover Haggadah, which the family reads or sings together at the ceremonial meal called the Seder on the eve of Passover, this verse is said to constitute the question of the wise child; other Scripture verses provide the questions respectively of the wicked child, the simple child, and the one who is too little to ask (see Nahum N. Glatzer, ed., The Passover Haggadah [rev. ed.; New York: Schocken Books, 1969], 26–29). Then [Deut. 6 continues in v. 21] “thou shalt say unto thy son, We were Pharaoh’s bondmen in Egypt; and the LORD brought us out of Egypt with a mighty hand ... .” 14

SIXTH PERIOD. IV. THE MARTYR MOTHER

711

have given woman that influence and elevation in tradition, which had not its foundation in truth—would never have made her occupy that position in tradition which the ordinance of the law forbade. This consideration is most important to us: for we are now rapidly advancing to the period, whence it is said Modern Judaism, in contradistinction to Ancient Judaism, takes its rise. There will be many perhaps to agree with the theories formed on Scripture, already brought forward; but to declare it is Modern, or what is termed Rabbinical Judaism, which they condemn. We hope to satisfy such inquirers, that even in rabbinical Judaism there is no foundation whatever for the degradation of woman.15 And what were the “wages” received by the martyr mother, for thus “nursing her boys for God?” Could it be their earthly torHere and in what follows, Modern Judaism and Rabbinical Judaism are synonymous. She is not talking about modern forms of Judaism (such as Reform Judaism), which are perceived by their adherents as more enlightened and by their opponents as less faithful to the God-given Torah and the divinely sanctioned rulings of the Rabbinic Sages (whom she refers to frequently as “our ancient Fathers”). On the contrary, Aguilar is arguing here against the allegation that while Hebrew Scripture may have treated women and men as equal, at the end of the so-called Old Testament period, Judaism became decadent and had to be replaced by Christianity. Cf. Gruber, “Women in the Cult,” 49–50; and see, for example, Susan T. Foh, Women and the Word of God (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1980),. 114: “There is no doubt that Jesus’ [positive] treatment of women was a radical break with the status quo.” Aguilar, writing 145 years before Foh, thinks otherwise. See also Gruber, “Six Wise Women,” and note especially the quotation from Jules Isaac, The Teaching of Contempt: Christian Roots of Anti-Semitism, trans. Helen Weaver (New York: McGraw Hill, 1965), 37 to the effect that one of the “three main themes of the teaching of contempt [for Judaism and by extension, the Jewish people] is “the degenerate state of Judaism at the time of Jesus.” Aguilar argues here that Judaism had not degenerated either in the time of the Maccabees or at the dawn of the Christian era, or at the completion of the Talmud, or in her own time when Hebrew Scripture was being blamed for the low status of women in the western world, and post-biblical Judaism including Judaism in the time of Aguilar was being accused of holding Jewish women back. 15

712

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

tures, their agonizing deaths? Alas! what female heart, in its first natural weakness, will not shrink and quiver, and feel, if such must be her wages, how can she nurse her child for God? How may she instil such feelings, if torture and death must be their reward! Why are obedience, constancy, allegiance, virtue, said to be acceptable to the Most High, when such is their earthly end, and the sinful, the faithless, the apostate are spared and enjoy? Let us ponder on what was the support, the hope, aye even at that moment, the triumph, of Hannah.*16Did she feel as if that trial’s intolerable agony were indeed her “wages”?17 We know not how a frail weak woman could

* She is so called in Rollin, though I know not from what authority he takes the name.16 16 Aguilar refers here to the historian Charles Rollin (1661–1747) and specifically to his Ancient History of the Egyptians, Carthaginians, Assyrians, Babylonians, Medes and Persians, Macedonians, and Grecians, translated from the French (6 vols.; London: Longman & Co., 1839), 5:537–539, which copies out the account from Second Maccabees and from Josephus, Antiquities. The annotator fails to see where Rollin actually refers to the mother’s having borne the name of Hannah or any other name. Perhaps, Aguilar, like many a medieval Hebrew exegete, relies on her memory, which here seems to have failed her. Gerson David Cohen, “Hannah and Her Seven Sons,” EJ 7: 1270–1271 points out that while in Second Maccabees and in Babylonian Talmud, Gittin 57b (where the story is transferred from the context of Antiochus IV’s anti-Judaism decrees to the similar decrees of the Roman Empire Hadrian) the mother is unnamed, she is given the name Miriam daughter of Tanhum in other rabbinic sources and alternatively the names Shamone and Maryam in Syriac Christian sources. Cohen points out that it was in 1510 that a Spanish reviser of Josippon, which was originally written in Hebrew c. 953 CE, gave the martyred mother of the martyred seven sons the name Hannah. The Spanish reviser of Josippon was inspired, Cohen suggests, by 1 Sam. 2:5 where the biblical Hannah (see above, Period III, Chapter VI) declares, “While the barren woman bore seven, the mother of many sons is unfortunate”(translation of the biblical verse by the annotator). 17 Given the fact that the martyr mother stresses in 2 Macc. 7:27 that she had nursed each of her sons for three years, here Aguilar alludes to Ex. 2:9 where Pharaoh’s daughter says to Moses’s mother Jochebed,

SIXTH PERIOD. IV. THE MARTYR MOTHER

713

thus have looked on, and instead of unnerving them by cries and sobs, encouraged them to suffer still. God gave her power (it was not in humanity), and so increased the strength, the might, the vividness, of those hopes beyond the grave, which she had felt and realized so long, that the blessedness awaiting her children with their God, seemed palpably revealed. The veil of flesh, of corruption, was rent from her mortal eyes, and all which the Lord had prepared for those that love Him, unseen by human eye and unheard by human ear, was through her pure FAITH disclosed; nothing else could have so sustained her, or given the immortal spirit such dominion. We are expressly told she “stirred up her womanly thoughts with a manly resolve.”18 Consequently we know and feel, that she had all a woman’s nature. “Take thy death,” she bade her youngest born, “that I may receive thee again in mercy with thy brethren.”19 Had an angel from Heaven spoken in her ear these words, she could not have believed more strongly. “The Lord will of His own mercy give you life and breath again,”20 she had before said; and if she had fear when she exhorted her youngest born, it was, not that he should pass away from her earthly love, but by his acceptance of the tyrant’s proffers, be lost to her in Heaven; Faith, Trust, Hope, these then were her sustainers: she had brought up her children not for Earth, but for Heaven; not for Time but for Eternity; and she knew that she should receive her wages, not from Earth but in His presence, for whom her boys were martyred; and can we doubt for a single moment that those “wages” were received—can we believe in the God of love, whom Pentateuch, Psalms, and Prophets,21 all “Take this child away and nurse it for me, and I will give thee thy wages.” See above for Aguilar’s discussion of this text. 18 2 Macc. 7:21. 19 2 Macc. 7:29. 20 2 Macc. 7:23. 21 The expression “written in the Law of Moses, in the Prophets, and in the Psalms,” found in the New Testament in Luke 24:44 is commonly understood to be a reference to the tri-partite canon of Holy Scripture recognized in Jewish editions of the Hebrew Bible: Torah ‘Law’; Nevi’im ‘Prophets’ and Ketuvim ‘Writings’, which also accounts for the designation of ‘the [Jewish] Bible’ by the acronym TaNaKh. Alternatively, it has

714

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

reveal, and yet allow the faintest shadow of an unbelieving thought to come across our minds? Can we with a sceptic’s fearful scorn, refuse faith in another purer, lovelier world, where such noble and faithful spirits receive their promised recompense, because to the finite sight, hearing, and wisdom, of frail poor humanity, it has not been visibly or palpably revealed? No! no! Stagnant and indifferent as Israel may sometimes appear, he never has thus fallen, never can reject that unutterably consoling revelation of immortality, which became his own glorious heritage, long long ages before it was vouchsafed to the Gentile world. By the words “Last of all, after the sons, the mother died,” and no mention of tortures, we may hope that, if the tyrant commanded her death, it was comparatively easy, or, which is our own belief, that the Eternal, in His infinite mercy, Himself called her to rejoin her sons, never, never more to be separated from them. The spirit might be supernaturally strengthened, to make manifest such firmness and faithfulness as would exalt the glory of the Lord; but the physical powers must have sunk beneath it. And if the tyrant did indeed put the seal to the work of butchery by slaying her, he did but forestall the death which would inevitably have come—and his cruelty in this instance was mercy. It may be said, that striking as this narrative is, it cannot bear upon us now, either as guidance or example, and that, even if it could, it would be impossible for us to imitate the heroism of which we read. Earnestly we trust that such manifestations of faithfulness are indeed no longer needed. Yet that mother’s lessons may still be to us as guidance—may teach us how we should instruct our children, so as to provide them against the arrows of misfortune, which ere life close may assail them, either through bodily affliction or mental woe. Religion, real spiritual religion, will not find resting in the human heart been argued, with equal conviction, that when the New Testament employs the expression, “The Law, the Prophets, and the Psalms,” the last entry in that expression stands not for the Book of Psalms as the first of the eleven books of the Writings or Hagiographa but rather for the fact that at the time of the New Testament utterance only the Book of Psalms among those eleven was universally acknowledged as canonical Scripture.

SIXTH PERIOD. IV. THE MARTYR MOTHER

715

unless infused—unless made the first great object in childhood: not to affect with gloom, but inexpressibly to deepen the enjoyment and hilarity of youth. Affliction may do the work for us in riper years, and bring the soul to its God—because earth has become a void—its former pleasures dashed with poison; but oh! it is a fearful thing, when we wait for affliction to teach us our God—when sorrow must be sent to bring us to Him. If the mother would but look forward——would but sometimes think that the sweet and smiling babe upon her lap, the laughing girl and merry boy, now playing in such shadowless glee around her knee, may one day be bowed down in sorrow, exposed to bodily pain—to bereavement—to one or more of the numberless sorrows ever incidental to humanity; nay, to privation of health, of sight, of use of limb— will they not, must they not seek to provide them with some unfailing refuge, some fadeless hope and inward consolation? “Why are they so anxious to provide for their temporal welfare, to secure provision for earthly wants, resources of education, enjoyment, ambition, wealth?—why fill the infant mind with every branch of learning, and train it to think, and calculate, and act? Why be so careful of all these things, did not the thought of the Future guide the workings of the Present—did not love itself become ambition, and future hope inexpressibly heighten present enjoyment? And these thoughts, these hopes, are natural, and right: but why provide only for a future of Success and of Joy? These things may be. It may please our Father in Heaven to fulfil the mother’s every wish, and make her child’s future as smiling as its present; but it may equally please Him to try that cherished darling in the ordeal of adversity; and then, if he have only been provided for a future of prosperity, oh, what shall sustain him? How may he bear up against the trials which may be his, as well as of thousands of his fellows? No! mothers of Israel: let us ever train our children for a future, and strengthen them for sorrow as well as for joy. Should we think our duty done did we provide them only with summer clothing, and expose them unprotected to the wintry blast and howling storm? Might they not with justice reproach us in the first tempest, if we bade them thus set forth on the journey of life? However smiling as far as the eye can pierce, is not the horizon enveloped in such mists, that we know not whether it conceal sunshine or storm— and shall we send forth our beloved one provided only for the one?

716

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

Let it not be thought that, to inculcate piety—that clinging love of and confidence in God, the only support of mental or bodily affliction—demands a relinquishment of the buoyant lightheartedness of childhood. Far from it. The peculiar susceptibility of childhood to emotions of gladness and love, renders the task easy and most blessed (if the right moment be seized) to lift up the young spirit to the kind and loving Father who has given so many things to love and to enjoy. And when the young mind has expanded to a consciousness of the temporal enjoyments it has received from God, let it rise still higher, in the tale of that world where there is no sin, no pain, no change, but where joy and love live for ever—where their souls will be with God and His angels, if they seek to live there, and in all they do, and think, and feel, pray and seek to love and serve the heavenly Father who is so good to them in this world, and has provided such a home for them with Him. Teach them that sorrow and pain are not proofs of their Father’s wrath, but of His love22—that all he does is love, however we may not understand it—that much, very much, must puzzle us while we are on earth, but that we shall understand it all in Heaven, and till then, if we will but believe He loves us, and all he does is love, we may be sorrowful and sad for a time; but we know He will once more give us joy. Lessons like these, united with a firm observance of the ordinances and commands of Judaism, will indeed be blessed to our children, even though we see not their fruit till long, long years after the first seeds were planted. Let us not suppose, because we can discern nothing in the heedlessness, the levity, the occasional faults, even the apparent indifference to spiritual things, in our offspring, that we have worked in vain. Let sorrow, let sickness come, and our children will bless the parental love which, under God, has provided them with such hopes, such thoughts, that pain itself is comparatively easy to be borne, and sorrow is assuaged. Better, far better provide for adversity a hundred times, and the provision be not needed, than one case in which the sufferer shall need religious comfort, and in vain—and in bitterness of anguish exclaim, “Why Concerning the Jewish doctrine of “chastisements of love” see above, p. 120, n. 110. 22

SIXTH PERIOD. IV. THE MARTYR MOTHER

717

was I not taught to know and love God?—why not guided in my childhood to that holy consolation of which I hear others speak, but which I cannot feel?” How in the midst of suffering can we teach that God is Love? How can the bruised and broken spirit lift up its thoughts to heaven, when it has, until that moment, been chained to earth? If the soul, in health and joy, has not been taught that it has wings, wherewith, even in its earthly shell, to fly to heaven, how may we hope to use them when they lie crushed and broken beneath the heavy hand of woe? It is vain to hope it! Then, oh!— would we do our duty to our children—would we indeed provide for their future—would we have them recall us, with the tenderest love and deepest gratitude, long, long after we may have passed away from earth?—let us imitate the Martyr-Mother, and, clothing them for affliction as well as joy, nurse them from their infancy for God; and we shall indeed receive them once again in mercy from His hand—and in His presence for everlasting.

CHAPTER V. MOTHER OF JOHN HYRCANUS. WIFE OF JOHN HYRCANUS. ALEXANDRA The victim of Antiochus was not the only instance of singular heroism and self-devotedness amongst the Mothers in Israel. Her sacrifice of all natural feelings, which we have been regarding, originated in a faithfulness and constancy to a persecuted faith—a resolution to dare all the torture of Earth rather than, by disobedience and apostasy, lose the glories of Heaven. This was love of faith and race; we are now to behold patriotism as strong and fervid a feeling in the woman of Israel, as in the women of the Gentile nations, whose deeds are trumpeted by fame. Simon, the last of the heroic Maccabaean brothers, and the General and High Priest of Judea, was inveigled by his son-in-law Ptolemy, to the fortress of Jericho, and there, at a banquet, assassinated.1 His eldest son shared his fate; and efforts were made in the same treacherous spirit to capture John Hyrcanus, Simon’s third son, at Gazara. The young man, however, escaped the danger, and, appearing in Jerusalem, was universally acknowledged as the successor to his father, Prince and High Priest of Judea.2 Burning with desire to avenge the death of Simon, he marched with his forces instantly to Jericho. Ptolemy had, however, obtained possession of the mother and the brethren of Hyrcanus, and with his captives shut himself up in a strong fortress in that town. Hyrcanus instantly laid his plans for a close siege; but drew back appalled as he beheld his mother and brothers exposed on the walls, scourged and tor1 2

1 Macc. 16:11–16; see also Josephus, Antiquities, 13.7.4. 1 Macc. 16:8–24; Josephus, Antiquities, 13.8.

719

720

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

tured before his eyes, with the threat if he did not instantly withdraw his forces, they should be put to death. Josephus expressly tells us, that the force of Hyrcanus was stronger than Ptolemy’s, “but he was rendered weaker by the commiseration he had for his mother and brethren,” a touching proof of his filial affection. He knew that Ptolemy, in conjunction with Antiochus Sidetis, king of Syria, was seeking to overthrow Judea, and therefore, danger to his country as well as a father’s murder, called upon him to capture Ptolemy. But still he hesitated; would have withdrawn, had not his heroic mother stretched out her hands imploringly towards him, beseeching him to heed her not, but to revenge the cruel treachery done unto his father. Torture and death for herself and her children awaited her; but still, with noble and unshrinking courage, she called on Hyrcanus to renew the siege. “While the spirit of son and warrior absolutely quailed before, only witnessing the sufferings of his mother, the mother and the woman failed not under their infliction. What was her life (she probably felt), and even the life of her two young sons, compared with those treacherously slain, and with the valiant and energetic warrior who still remained? Why should her sufferings so unnerve his stalwart arm as to tempt him to raise the siege, and so perhaps expose him to the displeasure of the people, who, though they had so lately made him Prince and Priest, might turn from him with a breath? The wife and mother of Asmonaeus, she had imbibed their spirit, and displayed it when most needed. Their captor flung indelible disgrace upon his manhood, by seeking terms with his foe, through the torture of a woman; but fearlessly she scorned alike the torturer and his tortures; she could not fear death, for she was a woman of Israel, whose sure and steadfast hope was fixed above. Inspired by her heroic words, Hyrcanus recommenced the siege with vigor, but at every fresh cruelty offered to his mother he appears to have relaxed; and thus, according to Josephus, the siege was protracted to the sabbatic year, when all offensive warfare was forbidden; and in consequence, he withdrew his forces; but his withdrawal did not save his mother; Ptolemy slew both her and her sons, and fled to Philadelphia; and history mentions him no more.3 3

Josephus, Antiquities, 13.8.1.

SIXTH PERIOD. V. MOTHER OF JOHN HYRCANUS

721

There is nothing in this anecdote to interest us as women, in a domestic point of view. The mother of Hyrcanus is brought before us, only as a noble-minded heroine, who cared not for personal suffering, so the murderer of her husband and son was brought to justice, and her country rid of his treacherous intrigues. We do not hold her up as an example to our young countrywomen, because we trust that they will never be exposed to such a trial, and we have not enough of her to know if her previous life were in accordance with the heroism displayed in peril. We must not allow admiration of greatness to usurp the place in our hearts due to the admiration of goodness, more especially as we are always called upon to cultivate and display the latter, and not once in a century, not one individual in a thousand, required to make manifest the former. Admiration of greatness, if too much encouraged, occasions a neglect of goodness; seeking for opportunities to make manifest the one, we overlook the innumerable opportunities in our daily life to prove the other. The one lives but in excitement, the other at home; and modern women must be content to exchange the one for the other, or their lives must be unhappy; for in these matter-of-fact prosaic days, where shall we find adventures to make us feel and act as heroines? Not to call forth romantic admiration, have we brought this incident forward, but simply to prove that, in time of need. Israel as well as every other nation had her great and noble-minded heroines. Qualities such as the mother of Hyrcanus displayed, are the offspring of freedom only. The affection, the reverence borne her by her son, deprived him of his wonted energy unnerved his heart, and bade his sword lie powerless. This marks the distinction between a heroine of Israel and a heroine of savages: even amongst the latter we may find the heroism of endurance, but not the filial affection, which would pause in the midst of a triumphant career, appalled and powerless, because a mother suffered. The affection of Hyrcanus is even a more convincing proof of the elevation to which the woman of Israel could attain, than her own fortitude; while her address, and its inspiring effect, must convince us that the men of Israel disdained not to derive increase of courage and of firmness from a woman’s lips: and would this, could this be, if it were the mandate of their law to degrade and to enslave her? A still more powerful proof of the perfect equality of the women in Israel, in the eyes of their husbands, and of all the peo-

722

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

ple, is the curious and important fact, that more than one sovereign of Israel left his kingdom to his WIFE. NOW this is a custom, or even an instance, found in the annals of no other nation, except in the Semiramis of Babylon and the Catharine of Russia;4 and these became queens, less from the will of their husbands than their own successful ambition. Whereas, in Israel, it never appeared to excite surprise, even though the turbulence of the people or the rebellion of sons prevented the actual government of a queen, except in one instance. That the wife of John Hyrcanus should have had such a monster for her son as Aristobulus the First was her misfortune; but his violently depriving her of the authority which his father had left her, does not at all interfere with the bequeathment itself, or lessen the importance of the facts derived from that bequeathment. Josephus tells us, speaking of Aristobulus, and of his ambitious design of changing the government into a kingdom, “He also cast his mother into prison, because she disputed the government with him; for Hyrcanus had left her to be mistress of all. He also proceeded to that degree of barbarity, as to kill her in prison with hunger.” The extreme cruelty of his conduct marks his fear of her influence, and the people’s support of her authority.5 That Hyrcanus left her to be “mistress of all” very forcibly proves the high esteem in which he must have held her, even if that bequeathment devolved on her an office which it was impossible for her sex to hold, that of High Priest. We are rather to suppose that he left to her judgment, which he had no doubt previously well proved, the choice of a successor for that office from amongst his sons, and the rest of the administration to be retained by her. Had she been unfitted by insufficient mental ability, for the retention of this high and responsiGrace Aguilar could not be aware of testimony to queens in the ancient Near East because the literatures of the ancient Near East had yet to be unearthed when Aguilar wrote Women of Israel. Strangely, however, she has overlooked the women rulers of Bhopal in India (see above, p. 390, n. 19) as well as Queen Elizabeth I of England (1533–1603) and Queen Victoria of England (1819–1901), to name just a few of the queens, whom Aguilar seems to have forgotten when writing these lines. 5 Josephus, Antiquities, 13.11. 4

SIXTH PERIOD. V. MOTHER OF JOHN HYRCANUS

723

ble office, Aristobulus need not have proceeded to extremities. Whereas we read her capability, influence, and authority, in the awful measures which this monster of barbarity adopted. Far happier would it have been for her to have occupied a domestic station in Israel; but her story is a strong confirmation of all we have advanced. Already had the opposing factions of traditionists and antitraditionists appeared in Judea. The former, under the name of the Pharisees, insisted that the observances which they had handed down to the people, though not written in the Law of Moses, were equally obligatory. The latter, under the cognomen of Sadducees, rejected them as obligatory, and adhered only to the written Law. We only mention this important fact, to add weight to our argument, that neither traditional nor written Judaism could authorize the abasement of women either socially or domestic, as we shall find the Pharisees giving all their powerful support to a female’s authority, which could hardly have been, if tradition forbade her to assume it.6 The death of Aristobulus, who had succeeded in changing the government into a kingdom, left the nation without an acknowledged head. Antigonus, the next brother to Aristobulus, had been murdered by his orders, and his three other brothers retained in prison. One might suppose that the nobility of the nation would at once have proceeded to action in the choice of a sovereign; but we find a woman acting for them. Salome, the wife of Aristobulus, instead of retaining the regal dignity herself, which it is very evident she might have done, chose the wiser course of acting. We do not read of her taking counsel with any one; but, entirely by her own will and pleasure, and on her own authority, she released her husband’s brethren from prison, and made Alexander Jannaeus king. Her individual power and authority must undoubtedly have been great, or she could not have thus acted. Nor could she have been an ambitious woman: but we do not hold her forth as a good or amiable character so little being reported of her; and that little, if See Josephus, Antiquities, 13.12 concerning the Pharisees and the other sects in Judaism that emerged during the era of the Hasmoneans, see above, p. 677, n. 14 and the references to Josephus given there. 6

724

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

we are to believe the words of Josephus, not in her favor. Her independent authority and undisputed influence are all we need as evidences of the freedom and equality of her social state. The reign of Alexander Jannaeus lasted twenty-seven years, varied by foreign wars and domestic seditions. A fearful vengeance on his disaffected subjects in Jerusalem, however, produced peace; and, for the remainder of his reign, his iron rule retained them in subjection. His foreign policy had been equally successful; and many conquered provinces were added to his hereditary possessions. When, however, he was seized by a mortal malady, three years after his subjection of the insurgents, he trembled for the fate of his kingdom. A turbulent and angry people, and provinces so newly conquered, were little likely to submit to the rule of women and children. Yet still we do not perceive any change in his resolution, founded on the customs of his country, to leave his kingdom to his wife. Instead of taking counsel, we find him summoning his wife Alexandra to his bedside, and giving such advice as forcibly manifests her power to follow it. Even granting that he did not say the exact words which Josephus puts into his mouth, yet the Hebrew woman must have been quite capable of undertaking the solemn responsibility, and of accomplishing all he desired, or Josephus himself, well acquainted with the customs and habits of the strict Jews, would not have had the veracity of his narrative doubted, by giving her instructions which a fettered position must have entirely prevented her fulfilling. Fully aware of the desolate and painful position in which she and her children would be left by the death of her husband—“She came to him,” as Josephus says, “weeping and lamenting;” but Alexander roused himself from the stupor of his mortal illness to give such advice as would secure the kingdom to her and tranquility7 to the people. He bade her conceal his death from his soldiers till the fortress (Ragabah, near Jordan) which he was besieging, had been subdued; and then to march to Jerusalem in triumph, place his body in the hands of the Pharisees, whom he had so mortally offended during his life, to do with as they pleased, and promise to 7

The 19th century editions read here ‘tranquility’.

SIXTH PERIOD. V. MOTHER OF JOHN HYRCANUS

725

conduct the affairs of government under their advice and approbation. “If thou dost but say this to them,” Josephus makes him continue, “I shall have the honor of a more glorious funeral from them than thou couldst have made for me; and when it is in their power to abuse my dead body they will do it no injury at all, and thou wilt rule in safety.”8 And his wise policy was followed. That he should have given such to his wife must suppose a perfect conviction on his part that her sex would be no hindrance to its performance; and that he had perfect confidence in her abilities for the task. Surely, then, wives in Israel must have held a very distinguished position! We know that no statute in the written Law existed to their disadvantage; and we must be equally sure that there was none in the traditions, else surely Alexander would not have desired his wife to throw herself upon the mercy of a set of men who, if tradition contained a single statute confining her to an inferior and powerless position, rendering her a mere nonentity before God and man, would have been actually compelled, from their own guiding laws, to deprive her of all authority, refuse obedience to her husband’s bequest, and drive her ignominiously from her inherited throne. The Pharisees were strict, orthodox, unyielding traditionists, enthusiasts, and zealots—often led on to mistaken violence by their excess of zeal—exposing themselves a hundred times during the war to increase of misery and torture from their unshrinking adherence to the minutest point of traditional laws. Yet these very men not only permit a woman to ascend the throne of Judea,9 hold the reins of government, levy troops, have complete dominion over her sons, who were both of sufficient age to claim the crown themselves, but actually defend her upon it, and, even on her death-bed, demand her counsel, refusing to decide themselves while she was Josephus, Antiquities, 13.15. Contrast Sifre Deuteronomy at Deut. 17:15, which concludes from the words of Scripture, “when you set over yourself a king,” that it is legitimate for the people of Israel to have a king of the male sex but not legitimate for them to have a female sovereign (Heb. malkah). Moses Maimonides, Mishneh Torah, Laws of Kings 1:5 extends this prohibition against female sovereigns to cover all public offices. 8 9

726

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

alive, however ill she might be. The anti-traditionist may persist in his belief that the woman of Israel is degraded, and bring forward detached sentences from our venerable teachers wherewith to prove it; but, with the history of the past so vividly before us, we heed them not at all. Alexandra appears fully to have possessed the necessary qualities for the cautious mode of proceeding which her husband advised. Her very first action proves her capable of immense control and strong fortitude, else she could hardly have preserved the secret of her husband’s death, and so pushed forward the siege as to succeed in conquering the fortress. She must have been well acquainted with the secrets of military command, of retaining a tumultuous soldiery in obedience: for all orders supposed to be sent them from their dying king, must have had their origin in herself alone. Had she had advisers, the secret of Alexander’s death could not have been preserved, and its very first rumor would most probably have occasioned revolt. The brief notice of the historians: “So Alexandra, when she had taken the fortress, &c.” “Alexandra followed the counsels of her husband, &c.” “His widow Alexandra immediately adopted the policy, &c.;”10 gives but a weak idea of the painful and difficult position in which she was placed. A widow mourning for her husband with no common grief, for the emotions of Eastern women can scarcely be measured by those of the North, yet not daring either to evince her own natural sorrow, or give the dead its due respect; an army without a head, dependent entirely on herself for their present measures to end in victory or confusion;—a kingdom still quivering and brawling in civil discord, ripe for insurrection, enraged with their monarch, yet standing in such awe of his terrible severity that, as long as they believed him still living, all thought of active rebellion was paralysed;—this was no enviable position for a feeble woman, even though her fortitude and talents were adequate to the emergency. Did the secret of his death transpire before she could obtain the ear of the Pharisees, she knew that the flame of civil dissension would light up from one end of Judea to the other; and who might prophesy the end? 10

Josephus, Antiquities, 13.16.1–2.

SIXTH PERIOD. V. MOTHER OF JOHN HYRCANUS

727

Nobly she must have averted this evil. The soldiers of Israel were not unaccustomed to female heroism. The chronicles of their ancestors told them of a Deborah,11 of the female savior of the citizens of Tekoah,12 of Abigail,13 of Esther,14 and in later times, of the martyr mother15 and the noble wife of Simon;16 and therefore, that a woman should mingle in their ranks, and urge them on to victory, was no matter of astonishment. The fortress was gained, and a triumphant march brought them to Jerusalem, accompanied as they still believed by their dying king. What then must have been their surprise, when, summoning the heads of the Pharisees, Alexandra committed into their keeping the dead body of the king, and the soldiers learned that it was no commands17 of a warrior, but a woman’s self who had thus led them on to victory. This action alone would have dazzled the eyes of the multitude, ever eager for excitement; and united as it was with the popular measure of bringing the Pharisees into power and favor, and re-establishing the traditional forms and practices which had been abolished by John Hyrcanus and his sons, but which were greatly endeared to the people, secured her their love yet more. Her giving the body of her husband to his bitterest enemies, was hailed as a proof that she had never approved of his conduct, and a very brief interval fixed her securely on her throne.18 But though great authority was thus lodged in the hands of the Pharisees, the Queen was evidently a free agent in individual administration. She made her elder son Hyrcanus high priest, as a matter of course. Fortunately for the peace of the kingdom, his indolent character prevented his meddling with the politics of the Judges 4–5; and see in Women of Israel, Period III, Chapter III. 2 Sam. 14; and see in Women of Israel, Period IV, Chapter III. 13 1 Sam. 25; and see in Women of Israel, Period IV, Chapter II. 14 See the biblical Scroll of Esther; and see in Women of Israel, Period V, Chapters I–III. 15 See in the Apocrypha, 2 Macc. 7; and see also in the Pseudepigrapha, 4 Macc.; and see in Women of Israel, Period VI, Chapter IV. 16 See above, in Period VI, Chapter V. 17 Perhaps a typographical error for ‘command’ in the singular. 18 Josephus, Antiquities, 13.16. 11 12

728

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

day; high priesthood and kingdom owned the same acquiescence with the measures of the Pharisees: but, while Hyrcanus permitted himself to be a passive agent in their hands, his more energetic and enterprising mother pursued her own active and independent course. Instead of sinking into a mere shadow of a sovereign, because her domestic government was so circumscribed, she newly organized and increased the power of her armies by levying large bodies of mercenary troops, and striking terror into the hearts of all the surrounding nations. Hostages were demanded and sent; so that the depredations and petty warfare which had so often harassed the borders of Judea in the reign of Alexander, were effectually prevented, and the whole land was at peace. In all these foreign affairs, Alexandra acted alone. The Pharisees were much too busily employed in their home administration, and in their desire to obtain summary vengeance for all the insults which their body had received in the previous reign. More especially they demanded justice on those who had assisted in the massacre of the eight hundred men who had fallen victims to the severe vengeance of Alexander four years previous. Aristobulus, the queen’s second son, who had long felt with secret indignation his exclusion from all power, seized the opportunity to put himself at the head of the oppressed party; and, seeking the presence of the Queen, appealed, not to her mercy alone, but to her justice, reproaching her with “ingratitude in thus abandoning the faithful adherents of her husband to the vengeance of their enemies.”19 It was a difficult position for the queen, thus appealed to by both parties; but her extraordinary sagacity triumphed even over this. She saved them from the wrath of their enemies by permitting them to leave Jerusalem, enrolling them in the garrisons of the frontier cities, and gave Aristobulus, whose restless intrigues were likely to endanger the peace she had so labored to attain, the command of a large army, nominally to check the depredations of the petty prince of Chalcis, but secretly to obtain possession of Damascus. The prince was successful in accomplishing both his

19

Josephus, Antiquities, 13.16.5.

SIXTH PERIOD. V. MOTHER OF JOHN HYRCANUS

729

mother’s object and his own. Damascus was taken,* and the army, a very considerable one, was won over and strongly united to his personal interests. Alexandra reigned nine years, a breathing time of peace for her distracted country, which only waited for her death to plunge again into all the miseries of civil discord, the issue of which was complete subjection to the power of Rome. The advice of Alexander regarding the Pharisees certainly aided the domestic peace which lasted during the government of his wife; but a less enlightened, less energetic sovereign, could not have so triumphed over the difficulties of the age. There is no little wisdom in knowing when and how to submit when submission is required, and yet in so retaining individual dignity and self-respect, that the station we occupy may continue its proper elevation in the minds of common men, who so often pay to state the homage they refuse to worth. Alexandra was more truly beloved and venerated by the multitude, than any of the sovereigns who preceded or succeeded her; and this would not have been had she succumbed to the power of any party. She allowed the political administration to be carried on by the favorites of the people; but she was no idle cypher in their hands. She kept peace between the adverse bands by a measure which no weak or fearful disposition could have counselled. She guarded her kingdom from all foreign aggressions; and her people, both in her capital and in the provinces, were prosperous and happy. Even the turbulent and ambitious spirit of her younger son did not dare display itself during the government of his mother; though, the very hour that the dangerous nature of her illness was rumored, he stole away from Jerusalem, unknown to all save his wife, to visit alternately the fortresses of his friends, and so secure their subjection and allegiance to himself. Ill, and suffering from a mortal disease, the flight of Aristobulus at first occasioned the queen little uneasiness; but, when many 2021

* According to Milman: Josephus says he did nothing considerable at Damascus;20 but, from the issue, we incline towards the opinion of Milman.21 20 See Josephus, Antiquities, 13.16–14.1–3. 21 Milman, History of the Jews, 2:80.

730

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

messengers came with the tidings that fortress after fortress had submitted to the prince, and he was, in fact, lord of almost all the strongholds of the country, his design became apparent both to the Queen and to the Nation. The latter, or more properly speaking, the immediate followers of the Pharisaic administration, were struck with consternation, fearing the vengeance of Aristobulus for the insults offered both to his followers and house. From a careful consideration of the Queen’s conduct, and reply to the nobles and Hyrcanus, when they sought her on her death-bed, and demanded her final counsel, it appears to me that her own affections and wishes sided with her younger son. She must have intimately known the character of both. Her own experience had taught her that energy, firmness, activity, were all imperatively needed to secure the peace and prosperity of the kingdom, and to preserve the popular party at its proper distance from the throne. In these qualities she must have long known Hyrcanus was greatly deficient. His extreme inertness had been of little importance when merely High Priest; but would subject both himself and his people to the dominion of a party the moment he ascended the throne. Yet he was the elder, and was rightful heir. Aristobulus, it is true, had all the qualities necessary for a monarch of Judea at that period; but he was not the heir according to seniority, and he was the known enemy to that party whose influence with the factious multitude had so long aided in preserving peace. To nominate Aristobulus was to wrong her first-born, and plunge the kingdom into civil discord with her dying breath. To nominate Hyrcanus, was to behold the same evils, only at a greater distance; and in such a painful position, alike as a mother and a sovereign, her answer to the nobles was a wise one. They had demanded her counsel as to the present posture of affairs; for that, in effect, Aristobulus was lord of almost all the kingdom, and that it was useless and absurd for them to take counsel by themselves, while she was yet alive, how ill soever she might be;—words somewhat convincing how completely Alexandra had contrived to retain her own authority. Here are the elders of the Nation, men grey in years and wisdom, acknowledging and obeying both scriptural and traditional laws, coming to a weak and dying woman, and demanding her counsel as their sole guidance in a dangerous emergency. What would this prove regarding the social position and mental education of the Hebrew women?

SIXTH PERIOD. V. MOTHER OF JOHN HYRCANUS

731

But with death and eternity so near, what had the Queen of Judea further to do with life and time? How could the mother’s heart, lingering with both her sons, wrong one at the expense of the other? How could the amiable and peace-loving sovereign send forth from her death-bed, such decrees as would wring tears of blood? Yet, how appear before her Maker, if her last words breathed such advice as her heart denied? It could not be, and therefore, “she bade them do what they thought proper to be done—for they had many circumstances still in their favor; a nation in good heart, an army, and money in their several treasuries. For herself, she had small concern about public affairs, now, when the strength of mind and body had already failed.”22 Surely, these were not the dying words of either an ambitious or an intriguing woman, but simply of one glad to lay down the toils and cares of government, and seek that immortal peace and blessedness, which, as a woman of Israel, she knew awaited her above. She died soon afterwards, at the age of seventy-three. She must, therefore, have been sixty-four when she first ascended the throne, an age which ought to increase our admiration of the courage and energy which she then displayed. We can imagine a young woman, or one even in the prime of life, nerving herself for such a difficult task as the concealing a husband’s death, and carrying on a military enterprise with such skill that conquest followed; but to a woman of sixty-four, from whom all the glow, the romance of life, we imagine, has faded, the task must have been more difficult still. It proves that her youth had been one of energy, intellect, and active usefulness, or age could not have thus displayed them. That she had been accustomed to receive the confidence as well as the affection of her husband; that he had associated her in his civil and military government, by confiding in her bosom all his designs, else it would have been impossible for her at the age of sixty-four to claim, and to retain monarchical power. The people must have known and loved her as a wife in Israel, or in her unprotected widowhood they would never have accepted her as their queen. Her sons must have been taught her superiority in rank to themselves; been accustomed from boyhood to regard her, if she survived, as 22

Josephus, Antiquities, 13.16.5.

732

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

the successor to their father before themselves, or they would have disputed her authority; the law and traditions must both have permitted the sovereign power to rest in the hands of a female, or all Israel would have risen up against it. We are not now considering the subject in its political bearings as to whether such a system of monarchical succession be a wise one or not; but simply in a national view, as it marks the condition of woman in Israel, even at a period when national sin and civil bloodshed were desecrating the Holy Land of the Eternal, and the pure beautiful spirit of his Holy Law was concealed beneath the tempest clouds of bigotry and superstition on the one side, and of laxity and indifference on the other. Yet still, through the infinite mercy of God, shining forth upon some faithful hearts in the ranks of both. The summing up of Alexandra’s character and administration by Josephus, is one of the most extraordinary specimens of historical contradiction man ever compiled; we subjoin it in a note*23for * “A woman she was, who showed no signs of the weakness of her sex, for she was sagacious to the greatest degree in her ambition of governing.” So far, leaving out ambition, he is correct, but here follows a most incomprehensible sentence: “She demonstrated by her doings at once, that her mind was fit for action; and that sometimes men themselves show the little understanding they have, by the frequent mistakes they make in forms of government; for she always preferred the present to futurity, and preferred the power of an imperious dominion of all things; and in comparison of that, had no regard to what was good, or what was right. However, she brought the affairs of her house to such an unfortunate condition, that she was the occasion of the taking away that authority from it; and that in no long time afterward, which she had obtained by a vast number of hazards and misfortunes. [What were they? Her husband’s will!] And this out of a desire which does not belong to woman, and all by her compliance with those who bare ill-will to her family and by leaving the administration destitute of a proper support of great men; and indeed, her management during her administration, while yet alive, was such as filled the palace after her death with calamities and disturbances. However, though this had been her manner of governing, she preserved the nation in peace.” Most extraordinary how she could, if so many errors of

SIXTH PERIOD. V. MOTHER OF JOHN HYRCANUS

733

the perusal of our readers, assuring them that if they can come to a satisfactory conclusion as to its real meaning, we shall feel really obliged to them, if they will impart it for our especial benefit. Meanwhile, we will take leave, very humbly, to differ from the reverend historian, and regard her reign and character in a light which strikes us as doing the most justice to its subject. In the first place, Josephus talks of her “ambition of governing,” her obtaining the crown through hazards and misfortunes, and all out of a desire which does not belong to a woman; and we can discover nothing of the kind. She came to her husband weeping and lamenting the desolation which would be hers on his death. Surely if she had ambition (a desire which we quite agree with Josephus does not belong to a woman), then was the time to display it, and urge her husband to take measures for her succession. She was not the first wife to whom the crown had been left, though the only one permitted to reign; but that there was a precedent in the annals of her country, permitted her surely to regard her right to the throne merely as a matter of course. Then, again, the “hazards and misfortunes,” which he tells us she risked to gratify her desire of imperious dominion, what were they? Simple and exact obedience to a husband’s dying counsel, his will confirmed, and her accession not even disputed, or occasioning a dissenting murmur. We can discover no trace whatever of her neglecting the “right” and “good” to increase a despotic power; and we rather think Josephus himself would find it difficult to prove it from his own account of her. Her preferring present peace and prosperity, and seeking to confirm such blessings to her people, surely cannot be deemed a fault; and how the miseries that followed her death can be imputed to her, as the historian so sapiently seeks to prove, passes our poor comprehension. Let us suppose a moment that she had not succeeded her husband, and the crown had descended, as in the right line of succession it must, to Hyrcanus, Alexander’s elder son. What would have followed? exactly the same evils as took place after Alexandra’s death; the quarrels of the brothers, each supported by a powerful party, and character and government could be laid to her charge!—See Josephus, vol. ii, p. 397.23 23 I.e., Josephus, Antiquities, 13.16.6.

734

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

final appeal and subjection to Rome. The national sins and departure from the Eternal, by amalgamation with foreign powers, were rapidly advancing, Israel was hurrying forward his own fearful destiny in exact accordance with the prophecies of God. He was not only sinning against God sins by which no one was injured but himself; but darkly, fearfully, terribly against his brother man. The sins of Aristobulus the first, against his mother and brother, were, unhappily, neither without precedent nor repetition. They were but the preface to others quite as horrible and more extended. The nation was rapidly approaching that fearful state pictured by the prophet when the Lord bade him, “Make the heart of this people fat, and make their ears heavy, and shut their eyes, lest they see with their eyes, hear with their ears, and understand with their hearts, and convert and be healed;”24 meaning, that the sins of the people were such, that they had turned away the mercy of God from them; and, refusing to bestow on them the softening spirit of repentance and amendment, because they neither prayed for nor sought it, he left them to their own impenitent and sinful inclinations; and, in consequence, they hurried on their own awful destiny—the destruction of their Temple and city, the desolation of their land, and their dispersion over the whole world. And this fearful state of things had already commenced. The reign of Alexandra, instead of her mal-administration, causing the “calamities and disturbances” of which Josephus so unjustly accuses her, actually averted the tempest for nine years. The Bible gives us more than one instance of the judgment of the Lord being turned aside for a certain period, even though it may not eventually be averted. The reign of Alexandra appears to us one of these breathing times; obtained History tells us not how; but (reasoning, as the earnest study of God’s holy Word would bid us reason) it was permitted through His infinite mercy from the intercession of those few noble and trusting hearts, still faithful to Himself. How know we that Alexandra herself might not have been one of these? The scanty and contradictory records of the time will not permit our upholding such an idea as proven truth; but it is more accordant with the history of her administration and its issue than the charge of Josephus, “that 24

Isa. 6:10.

SIXTH PERIOD. V. MOTHER OF JOHN HYRCANUS

735

the miseries which followed were attributable to her.”25 Where were the great men whose assistance, we are to suppose from Josephus, she neglected? In placing part of the home administration in the hands of those who had borne ill-will to her family, we can simply trace the loving obedience of a faithful wife to her husband’s dying counsel; and her own anxious desire to secure the welfare of her people, even by the sacrifice of her prejudices. Surely such a course of acting is the wisdom of a sovereign. The conquest of our own prejudices, the acting exactly contrary to one’s own will, is not less difficult for a monarch than for ourselves; nor less meritorious when achieved. Why then refuse her the admiration which, in this instance, is certainly her due? Yet, with all this unjust censure, and charges which have no solid foundation, Josephus allows, “that she showed no weakness of her sex, was sagacious in the greatest degree in the power of governing, and preserved the nation in peace.” Now how could she possibly be sagacious in the power of governing, if her mal-administration were the cause of all her country’s after misery? How could she have neglected all that was right and good if, in such fearful times, she had yet preserved the nation in peace? a measure which no male sovereign had yet been able to accomplish. Surely we must all feel that such contradictory assertions are of very little worth? and our best means of coming to a just conclusion is to ponder, not on what followed or came before, but simply on what she did, and on the age in which she lived. To our own feelings, tinctured perhaps as they are with national warmth, Alexandra appears far more worthy to occupy a place in the annals of female sovereigns, than many who have found eager hearts and talented pens, to bring them forward. She achieved no great victories, it is true—she enlarged not the boundaries of her kingdom. We read of no dazzling connexions with foreign potentates, which, though throwing a lustre over the pages of history, were incompatible with that obedience to the Law which was to make Judea a land “holy unto the Lord.” Like a true woman, on whom the calm, sober wisdom of maturity has descended, she preferred peace to conquest; and she obtained it. 25

Josephus, Antiquities, 13.16.6.

736

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

It is an idle sophistry to attempt lessening the dignity and firmness of her character, by the assertion, that the peace of the kingdom was owing to the supreme power having been placed in the hands of the Pharisees. Her wisdom manifested itself in the very bestowal of this power, and in yet so retaining her own independence as to be in power, as well as in name, the head of the state—in so acting, so counselling, that the Pharisees must have felt that all they did, though in strict accordance with their own sentiments, was in reality mere obedience to their sovereign. This consciousness it must have been, which compelled them appeal to her on her death-bed. “It was absurd for them to take counsel by themselves while she was yet alive.”26 Are these the words of men in whose hands was the whole power of the kingdom, so that the regal dignity was a mere cypher? No—though it was a woman who swayed the Jewish sceptre, a woman who sat upon the Jewish throne, and placed there by the suffrages of a whole nation, obeying and acknowledging tradition as well as scripture—the sovereign dignity was never more nobly held. Man could scarcely have so triumphed over the age. His desire for absolute power, his ambition, restlessness, and his ungovernable pride, all would have made him regard concession as humiliation. The delicate manoeuvres of leading, when the most trifling error would bring disaster—of commanding and enforcing obedience when we must otherwise obey—of retaining in subjection wills which the weight of a feather may turn to the overbalancing our own—these are politics too delicate for man, and not attainable to ordinary women. But Alexandra was no ordinary woman. She united the masculine energy, the grasping intellect of man, to the delicate tact of her own sex; and, by the combination, exalted her sovereign power, and so triumphed over the difficulties of the age, that well is she deserving of the love and veneration of her descendants,—well worthy of her own glorious descent. It is greatly to be regretted, that in the records of historical personages, so little is given us of their domestic life. Too often history, though accurate, is the mere surface of things, and Truth we are told lies at the bottom of a well, not on its frothy surface. 26

Josephus, Antiquities, 13.16.5.

SIXTH PERIOD. V. MOTHER OF JOHN HYRCANUS

737

We ought, therefore, to accustom ourselves to search deeply for it, not to be content with receiving it merely second hand. Now, Truth is often elicited, by using not only our intellectual but our imaginative capacities. The first permits us to examine and compare; to reflect and condense; and to exclude the peculiar prejudices of the author whom we read, and looking steadily on the bare fact, trace its causes and its end. And yet we shall not find this exercise of the intellect or reflective power, perfectly satisfactory, unless we can combine and unite all those distinct and separate thoughts into one perfect whole by the power of imagination, or creation. We are aware that imagination has been called a dangerous gift, as leading to folly and romance. Unite it with RELIGION and INTELLECT, REASON and TRUTH, and bless God for its bestowal, either on your children or yourselves! It will penetrate the imperfect records of the PAST. It will look calmly on the contending storms and dark pictures of the PRESENT, for through them it will trace the same calmly guiding hand, working the progression of mankind, to be visible only when the PRESENT becomes the PAST; and piercing the impenetrable folds of the FUTURE, become almost a prophet in its pure faith of things which will be, human and divine. But deprive imagination of these glorious guardians— Religion, Intellect, Reason, and Truth—and then, indeed, exorcise it as you would a fiend! Now, though history tells us nothing of Alexandra’s domestic character, the exercise of Reason and Imagination may fill up the vacuum, and give us the information that we need. Let it be remembered, she was sixty-four when called upon to occupy a public station. Would her sons have submitted to her authority, even if the customs of the country authorized her succession, unless accustomed to that reverence and obedience, which, if rendered to and deserved by a mother in Israel, as the law of God commanded, might easily be transferred from a mother to a sovereign? Josephus puts words in the mouth of Aristobulus which, as they are in direct contradiction to the will of his father, we do not believe he ever said; or if he did, it is proved they were the mere impulse of momentary passion, by their having no effect in turning even his own party from their allegiance.* Had it been mere ambition which placed his mother on the throne, as he dared to charge her, his was not the spirit to have submitted quietly. No; in the very postponement of his restless intrigues till her death, we read what power she

738

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

must have exercised over him, both as his mother and his sovereign. As there is no mention of Alexandra during the lifetime of her husband, the qualities she afterwards displayed must all have been cherished, cultivated, exercised in her domestic sphere; and in the respective duties of wife and mother. To the WOMEN in Israel was always intrusted the solemn responsibility of the education of MEN. We have already expressed our own conviction that mothers were associated with the fathers in the religious instruction of their sons (see 2d Period, chap. ii. p. 155);27 and innumerable precepts, in the valuable writings of our venerable fathers,**28confirm this so * Josephus’ Histor. Antiq., book xiii. chap. 14. 27 I.e., pp. 270-271 in the present edition. ** For this and other allusions henceforward to the Talmudic writings, the author is indebted to the valuable and kindly imparted information of a gentleman well known by the initials T. T.28 28 This is none other than Tobias Theodores of Manchester. He was wont to sign his articles in Hebrew Review and Magazine of Rabbinical Literature, edited by Morris Raphall simply with these initials, “T.T.” Concerning him see in great detail, P. Selvin Goldberg, The Manchester Congregation of British Jews 1857–1957 (Manchester: Manchester Congregation of British Jews, 1957), 28–31. There Goldberg explains, “Professor Tobias Theodores was perhaps the most actively effective of the congregants [of Machester Congregation of British Jews, now known as Manchester Reform Synagogue].” Goldberg continues, “Born in Margulin in Posen in the year 1808, Professor Theodores was to make his name known and respected amongst Anglo-Jewry. He was also to become one of the leading academic figures in Britain. At the age of sixteen he arrived in England, and with his uncle settled for a time in London. Later he moved to Manchester where he found a job in the counting house of a Hamburg firm, Messrs. G. Gumpel & Co.” Goldberg notes that Theodores was not only fluent in most European languages but also that “his real talent, however, lay in oriental and modern languages—speaking, writing and reading, fluently, Hebrew, Arabic, Sanskrit and Greek.” Not surprisingly, therefore, Tobias Theodores was appointed to a teaching post at Owens College in Manchester at its inception in 1851. Eventually he was appointed Professor of Oriental and Modern Languages at Owens College, which was the nucleus of what is now the University of Manchester. In addition to his

SIXTH PERIOD. V. MOTHER OF JOHN HYRCANUS

739

strongly that no doubts can be entertained of their individual and social capabilities for the task; or of the consideration and reverence in which, as the accomplishers of such a mission, they must have been regarded by their countrymen. Again, we repeat, we are no longer writing of Bible times; but of Judaism nearing the advent of Christianity—that very epoch when it is stated that Judaism had so fallen from the institution of the Eternal, that it was to pass away from Earth and give place to a new and reforming creed. With regard to woman’s position we see this charge is wholly false. The writers of the Talmud wrote of woman, her solemn mission, duties, and responsibilities, as the law of God commanded, and as they witnessed. And how could the education of the men of Israel have been intrusted to her, had she not been universally, and from the very first, recognised as mentally and spiritually on a perfect equality with man? Having received their education, not only as boys, but in early manhood, from their mother, it was far more natural that Hyrcanus and Aristobulus should quietly yield allegiance to her as their sovereign, than by demanding the regal authority during her lifetime, sink her to a lower grade, and compel her submission to themselves. The exquisite beauty of the laws of Israel, guiding the conduct of children to their parents, would have been insulted by such proceedings. We can scarcely fail to be struck by their practical illustration of the law in the very customs of the country, that the wife of a deceased sovereign should reign before his sons. If she could educate them for the duties of a sovereign, she was certainly capable of governing in her own person; and this, then, reveals the secret of her wise administration. Whether or not a wife should learned articles on the ideas and the halakhah of Rabbinic Judaism published in Hebrew Review, edited by Morris Raphall, Theodores defended Jews and Judaism from the false charges of anti-Semites, as, for example, in his letter to The Times of London, 5 November 1840, in the aftermath of the Damascus Blood Libel. Likewise, he explained and justified Reform Judaism in his address at the dedication of the Manchester Reform Congregation, which was discussed in Jewish Chronicle Supplement of 9 April 1858. See also passim in Williams, Making of Manchester Jewry; for a photograph of Tobias Theodores see illustration #2.

740

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

outlive her husband could only be known to God. The minds of the daughters and wives of royalty could never be cultivated only in the expectation of succeeding to the throne. No such ambition could have tarnished the lustre of the studies they pursued, or the acquirements they attained. They studied, thought, practised, that example as well as precept might aid them in their glorious task. Not for their own spiritual and temporal aggrandizement, but for their sons. In Israel it was not enough for mothers simply to give birth to men: it was theirs to train and to create them! How different, how gloriously superior to the system of a contemporary nation,*29where the boy was taken from his mother’s arms at the tender age of seven, and deemed effeminate and weak if he ever sought her company again! Minds accustomed to such exercise (for the education of men could be no light and merely feminine task), were of course capable of individual energy and exertion when called upon to make such qualities manifest. Alexandra had exerted energy too long and nobly in her domestic and maternal duties, during her youth, for it to desert her in her age. There was no need for preparation to perform the monarchical duties; for, in preparing her sons for such destiny, she had prepared herself. That her sons did not reflect back her noble qualities, and failed alike in the unambitious patriotism and anxiety for her people’s happiness which she so earnestly displayed, cannot and may not be traced to a defect in education. Very seldom is it that a mother’s anxious work is so rewarded that her sons are exactly what she has prayed and striven that they should be. It is not the fault of the trainer but of the trained; the assumption of individual character, the budding forth of individual sin, which not the tenderest, the most careful education can ever entirely disperse. It will do much, very much; and, though it may not expect always to be rewarded upon earth, it is never wholly useless. How know we what the evil might have been, had we not sought at least in part to subdue it? The characters of Hyrcanus and Aristobulus might have been very different had they lived in other times; * Sparta.29 29 Cf. Paul Cartledge, Spartan Reflections (London: Duckworth, 2001), 85.

SIXTH PERIOD. V. MOTHER OF JOHN HYRCANUS

741

but, in a period of such terrible social iniquity, the forbearance practised by Aristobulus alike towards his mother and brother in her lifetime, is sufficient confirmation that, however she may have failed in making them all she wished for their country, she had at least impressed them with the strongest reverence and submission towards herself. In happier times the character of both brothers might have shone forth with untarnished lustre; as it was, they mingled with and were lost in the fearful vortex of the age. The nation was hastening on its own annihilation, and their unfortunate dispute, and its consequent reference to Pompey, hurried on the end. We have lingered on the character of Alexandra, because it is a most important one, as concerns us nationally; although, perhaps, as women in general, we may derive less instruction from it than from others. The characters of history, however, cannot be to us like the characters of the Bible. We are no longer perusing inspired records, where example as well as precept can breathe the voice of God. Our aim now can be only a national one. To throw together every notice of the Hebrew women our history will present, which will prove their social and domestic positions, their mental capabilities, their responsibilities: all which will convince us that ancient and modern Judaism is the same. There is not the division which the caviller or the ignorant have raised up between them. Let us not then be charged with a change in our style and subject if the present notices read more like historical memoirs than the homespeaking essays of the characters of Scripture. We leave to our Seventh and last period the conclusions to which the history of our Sixth will lead us—the moral and religious lesson which, even from History and its imperfectly sketched personages, may still be learned. Even did it give us no other mention of woman than the wife of Jannaeus, we should possess enough to satisfy us, that we need no other than our own religion for our earthly elevation and our spiritual hope.

CHAPTER VI. MARIAMNE The Idumaean dynasty was on the ascendant, the Asmonaean on the decline; yet the people still turned to the remaining scions of their native princes, with such constancy and affection, that Herod, though politically triumphant, felt that his claim to Judea would not be recognised by the multitudes, unless he associated with him one whose pure Asmonaean blood, enhanced by her engaging youth and extraordinary beauty, would win for him yet more strongly than his own power, the suffrages of the whole people of Judea. In the person of the hapless Mariamne was represented, not the Asmonaean line alone, but the claims of both brothers, Hyrcanus and Aristobulus. Alexander, the son of the latter, married Alexandra, the daughter of the former: and their children, in consequence, inherited the claims and right of both. But this was no longer the age for legal succession, or the recognition of native sovereigns. The people indeed still clung to the laws and prejudices of their fathers; and still loved the descendants of those valiant men who had once saved them from oppression—but Judea was no longer a kingdom—the Jews no longer a people. The divisions between brother and brother had opened a path to the allconquering Romans. The line of David, in whom alone the promised monarchy could be restored, had long since passed away: and in this period of Jewish history, between the return from Babylon and the final captivity, we can but trace the gradual yet certain advancement in national iniquity, prophesied by Moses and every other ulterior prophet; when, notwithstanding the faithful obedience, spirituality, and love of individuals (ten, perhaps, in every thousand), God could not withdraw His avenging arm—leaving to that other and brighter world, in His presence, to distinguish “be-

743

744

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

tween the righteous and the wicked, between him that serveth God, and him that serveth Him not.”1 The most powerful impetus to this progression in iniquity, originated in too close a connexion, and too blind an attachment in Hyrcanus, for Antipater, an Idumaean by birth, and a Jew by adoption and semblance. Idumaea had only lately been united to Judea, and its inhabitants, by the representation of John Hyrcanus the first, won over as proselytes to Judaism. The family of Antipater, therefore, were not Hebrews. Herod, entitled the last king of the Jews, had no national right to the title: for he was a stranger and, by his actions, a very doubtful proselyte. There was, indeed, evil enough in Israel before the ascendency of the Idumaean family; but not that utter disregard to nationality, that complete blending with Rome, that intimate association and adoption of its peculiar characteristics, as in the reign of Herod; whose insidious policy to lessen Jewish nationality—that no allegiance to the King of Heaven might interfere with the acknowledgment of his kingdom upon earth— opened the wide gate of utter destruction for his hapless people. The web of misery flung by Vespasian and Titus over the miserable Jews, Herod’s own hand originally wove. The gallant son of Aristobulus, Alexander, had been murdered; and his widow and orphan children found protection with the powerful friend of Hyrcanus, the Idumaean Herod; whose father, Antipater, had fallen a victim to the hatred of the Jewish faction. Herod appears to have regarded Alexandra and her children only as the near relations of Hyrcanus, whose party he always pretended to befriend. As the widow and children of Alexander, the son of Aristobulus, whose claims and struggles for independent sovereignty the Idumaeans had always so powerfully and perseveringly resisted, we might suppose they would be objects rather of enmity than of protection. Affection for the person, and gratitude for the favors of Hyrcanus, there could have been none in the hearts of either Antipater or Herod; they supported him simply because his indolent and confiding disposition placed all the actual power in their hands. With Aristobulus they knew this could not be; for he was, according to Josephus, “an active man, and one of a great and generous 1

Eccles. 9:2.

SIXTH PERIOD. VI. MARIAMNE

745

soul;” and the only means to increase their own power, they felt, was to decrease his. When, however, Aristobulus and Alexander were both murdered,2 and the sole representative of that younger Asmonaean branch (except the children of Alexander) was Antigonus, who, notwithstanding his casual bravery and occasional success, appears to have possessed but little of the Asmonaean spirit, it became an act of policy to unite himself with the youthful representatives of both the brothers;—and Herod acted accordingly. Mariamne could not have been, at this time, much above fourteen or fifteen years old, that is, granting she was the senior of her brother Aristobulus, who, four years afterwards, is said to have only just completed his seventeenth year. The fierce and jealous passion which afterwards characterized Herod towards his young wife, does not appear to have been excited at the time of their betrothal. He might have been attracted by her exceeding beauty; but the character of the man allows the supposition, that at that period, when all his ambition was to aggrandize and secure his own power for the future, as well as for the present, he would equally have made this connexion had the grand-daughter of Aristobulus and Hyrcanus been as ugly as sin, instead of lovely as virtue and innocence could make her. Happy indeed would it have been for her, had she not been thus lovely, and the connexion remained one of policy alone! At the time of their betrothal, Mariamne knew little of Herod, save as one of the most gallant, most enterprising men of the day. She had been educated in perfect seclusion with her brother; kept apart, as much as possible, from the fearful confusions and crimes of the state; and though she had not as yet been called upon to put away the thoughts and habits of youth, and come forward in all the early maturity of Eastern womanhood,—still it is not unlikely that she was willing and contented to receive Herod as her destined husband. He could be as winning, as attractive, and as gentle, as he could also be terrible in severity and rage. We read enough of his taste for the arts, his expansive intellect, the magnificent scale of his architectural, and other civil improvements, to believe that he was not solely the monster of passion and cruelty which his later 2

Josephus, Antiquities,16.11.7.

746

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

deeds pronounce him. His very intercourse with the luxurious Romans may have added a manly polish and graceful manner to the stern reserve of a Jewish warrior; and these were not qualities to pass unnoticed in that day. Mariamne supposed him the friend and protector of her grandfather and mother; and if he did seek at that time to win her affections, it was most likely she could bestow them willingly, and without repugnance consider herself as his bride. They were not, however, then together long enough, for that scarcely conscious preference to become real affection. Awakened to a closely threatening danger, Herod fled with his family, including Mariamne as his bride, her mother, and brother to Masada, a strong fortress on the western shores of the Dead Sea, and near his paternal heritage, Idumaea. The journey was fatiguing, and so dangerous that Herod, in despair, had nearly attempted his own life; but his temporal good fortune did not desert him: he reached the fortress in safety, and was speedily reinforced by 800 native troops from Idumaea, under the command of his brother Joseph. This is the first mention history gives of Mariamne. Antigonus, whose connexion with the Parthians occasioned this sudden flight, never appeared to remember even the existence of his brother’s children; and however the intriguing and ambitious Alexandra might have secretly hated the power of her son-in-law Herod, there was no eluding it, save by making it her own. Four years elapsed ere Mariamne became the wife of Herod, and during that period her domestic life must have been far from happy. In fact, from her first connexion with Herod, we may say her sorrows began; for their rapid flight to Masada, pursued so closely by the Parthian allies of Antigonus as repeatedly to meet in deadly fight, and encounter such dangers that Herod’s own spirit quailed almost to despair, could have been but an interval of fearful terror, fatigue, and suffering to the young girl only just commencing life. If her affections had indeed been excited by Herod, the length of his absence, the dangers to which he was exposed, all must have weighed depressingly on a mind too young by many years fur such heavy cares Alexandra and her children were not the only companions of Herod’s hasty flight. He took with him his own mother Cypros, and his sister Salome; and it was at Masada, in consequence, that that fearful enmity between the female members of his family

SIXTH PERIOD. VI. MARIAMNE

747

commenced, which was to dash his whole domestic life with woe. The extreme youth and purity of Mariamne permits us the supposition, that, at the time, she herself had little to do with the bickerings and petty provocations continually passing before her. But her position was a painful and a dangerous one; she had not one female friend who could be the guardian and guide which her youth and beauty so much needed. The character of her mother, as we see it afterwards revealed, was far more likely to infuse its own baleful influences within the young mind and heart, in such perfect innocence looking up to her, than to strengthen and ennoble Mariamne’s natural high qualities. Yet, how was her child to discover this? How mistrust, and so turn from her only parent, nay, with the sole exception of her young brother, her only relative upon earth? Alexandra had intellect, policy, and wisdom, crooked as it was; and the reverence and love uniting the sons and daughters of Israel with their parents, must effectually have prevented Mariamne, at her tender age, from discovering aught which could frighten her from her mother’s guardianship. How could she doubt the purity of her mother’s love? How divide the true from the false? the judicious from the wary? A judicious parent would have taught and practised moderation and forbearance; would, if she had seen the necessity of uniting the pure high Asmonaean race with the degraded Idumaean, have bent at least to the necessity, and conciliated the family of her daughter’s husband herself, and led her child to do so too. But this, to a character such as Alexandra, was impossible; her very subtlety in this instance succumbed to her overbearing pride. The pure and beautiful spirit, which, guiding the law of Moses, inspired the prophet to promise, in the name of the Lord, a place dearer than sons and daughters to the strangers who, turning from idolatry to Him, kept his covenants and sabbaths, had been lost in the dense cloud of sin and misery enveloping Judea. Pride had folded up the Jewish heart, instead of the lucid robe of charity, which the law commanded and infused; and from the insufferable haughtiness of Alexandra, we may trace all the misery which ended not even with the murder of her child. To any disposition, the pride and haughty insolence of another occasion a bitterness of feeling, a desire of retaliation, only to be conquered by a consciousness of one’s position before God and our own souls, and of the absolute nothing which such provocations are, in our strivings after eternity. But to feel thus needs an enlight-

748

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

ened, a lowly, yet a noble mind; and not such was the disposition of either Salome or her mother. Of the latter, however, we read so little, except in conjunction with Salome, that we rather suppose her weak than wicked; too indolent herself to conspire against another; but willing enough to follow where a more energetic spirit would lead; and, in consequence, an equal accessary to evil deeds. To Salome, however, no negative terms need be applied; and the only relief we can discover in the perusal of her history, is that she was no woman of Israel. Even in that awful period of sin, the daughters of Israel had not thus fallen. Alexandra, indeed, was evil enough; but for her a train of fearful circumstances, a succession of misfortunes from treachery and cruelty, may be some palliation. In her, some womanly feelings once had existence; in Salome there were none. The petty vices and faults of woman were indeed the foundation of all her after-crimes; but in the overspreading poisoning torrent of her thoughts and deeds, we can scarcely believe that its source lay in those small and often invisible springs of petty faults dwelling in every woman’s breast. The extreme beauty of her brother’s bride would by such a disposition have been looked on as an unpardonable crime. Even ordinary attractions must have sunk to nothing, before the sweet innocence and freshness of such loveliness as Mariamne’s. Her pure Asmonaean blood, her lineage from a thousand priests, the ordained of God, and reverenced of His people, all was felt as a reproach to the haughty Idumaean, who, exalt herself as she might, could never boast such proud descent; and when to these sources of irritation were added the scorn and contempt of Mariamne’s mother, and the daily provocations thence ensuing, heightened perhaps by the lofty bearing of the object of her hate herself, all recurring through successive weeks, months, and years, whilst they were thrown together in one home, which they dared not quit, because of the dangers awaiting them without, and with no possibility at that period of evincing the hate consuming her, it became concentrated, defined, laid out in varied schemes, waiting but the opportunity to work, which, when it came, transformed her from the woman to the fiend. That she imparted her machinations to her mother at that time is not likely. She was probably contented with infusing such hatred of Alexandra and her daughter, as would secure her a willing agent in Cypros whenever she needed one. Provocations which the

SIXTH PERIOD. VI. MARIAMNE

749

weak character of Cypros might have been too indolent even to remember, were recalled and magnified, till the sting of their recollection so rankled, that even time could not remove it, and from them hatred sprang. Weak characters are quite as susceptible of the passions as strong ones; perhaps even more, for the latter can be guided by reason, the former cannot. Amongst characters like these was the hapless Mariamne thrown without the power of escape, for those three or four years of her young existence, when the influences and impressions should be but virtue’s own. At fourteen or fifteen what could she have known of life, except as imparted by her mother, her sole instructress? And in those three years’ residence in Masada, what opportunity had she to weaken the maternal influence, by presenting to her notice such noble and high specimens of her sex, as would cause her awakening mind to doubt and question, and without lessening the affection and duty of a child, yet bid her shrink from qualities and propensities which she could not love? Who was there to lead her to the pure unsullied fount of woman’s virtue, and bid her to conquer the trifling faults of her misguided education, so that not even hatred could fling its dart upon her, but enmity itself fall powerless, not from the utter absence of cause, for, alas! when did that ever quench hatred, but of opportunity for its display? Such a guide she had not; and we can only marvel that under such influences, such impressions, it is only “haughtiness,” and a “want of moderation,” of which the historian can accuse her. That she should have treated both Cypros and Salome with some haughtiness was only natural. Her mother’s conduct must have guided hers; and the visible dislike with which she was regarded by the Idumaeans, could but have fallen coldly and painfully on the eager heart of youth. In those three years, her brother was the being to whom, in all probability, Mariamne clung with all the warm passionate emotions of her Eastern nature. Nearly the same age, equally lovely, equally gifted, the affections of the young Asmonaeans became concentrated in each other. It was not to Alexandra, much as no doubt they loved her, that her children could reveal all the gushing tide of feeling, hope, joy, and awakening intellect which so characterizes and blesses youth. The character which a careful study of the history marks as Alexandra’s, could not have bent down to the freshness and artlessness of her children’s. Wrapt in her own cares, for undoubtedly she had many, and sad ones—

750

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

her own vindictive feelings towards the family of her son-in-law— the present and the future glooming darkly and terribly over her and hers—her aged father in the hands of his enemy, Antigonus, who, though his own nephew, scrupled not to deprive him for ever of the capacity for the high priesthood, by the mutilation of his ears—Masada itself continually liable to attack and seizure—and the safety of herself and children continually in jeopardy, for Antigonus was not likely to forget, if they were once in his power, that the youthful Aristobulus, as the son of his elder brother Alexander, had more claim to the sovereignty than himself. These were thoughts, all sufficient to render even a gentle and amiable character too sadly anxious to enter into the hopeful buoyancy of youth. Alexandra’s haughty and intriguing spirit would bury it all deep in her own breast, and coldness, indifference, and pride mark her outward demeanor. Under such circumstances, the love between Mariamne and Aristobulus could not fail to grow stronger, more sustaining, and more consoling, with every passing year. No affection is purer, stronger, more enduring, and lovely in its truth, than that subsisting between a brother and sister, when it does exist; perhaps it is even stronger when the sister is by one or two years the elder. It makes them more twin in age, capabilities, mutual appreciation, and comprehension of each other, than had the boy the advance in years. It is a distinct, wholly distinct feeling, to that which actuates sister towards sister. There, pure and beautiful as such affection is, it is wholly feminine. In the other case, the highest and noblest qualities of the brother insensibly infuse themselves into the sister, banishing in consequence all those petty failings and weaknesses which are natural to woman; and all the sister’s purest, most spiritual, and unselfish influences, infuse themselves by the same process into the heart of the brother, and purifying it from its grosser and more worldly nature, make each more worthy, and more capable of entering into the other’s feelings, and so twine them together, with a link strong as adamant, and pure as the crystal fount of love, whence all such affection comes. But this is no common emotion, or always existing when a sister and brother are of so near an age. Character and circumstance may both unite to prevent as well as to create it. Between Mariamne and Aristobulus, an earnest study of their characters and destiny seems to prove convincingly that it had existence. They had none other with whom to divide it; not even separated by education, or by Aristobulus being

SIXTH PERIOD. VI. MARIAMNE

751

called to war, or to the Priesthood, as might have been the case had their country been at peace, and the young scions of royalty occupying their natural position in their father’s court. They shared one common danger, one common lot—were mutually the darlings of their people—mutually the objects of dread and hate to the opposing factions—mutually of consequence to Herod, whose ambition he knew would have no firm foundation, unless secured through them; all this combined to unite the natural links of affection (which assimilating characters had already so closely bound) with such strength and firmness, that their violent severing was in all probability the first and final cause of Mariamne’s estrangement from her husband. Could it be otherwise? We have lingered some time on this residence at Masada, which historians in general pass over in five or six lines, being too intent upon the manoeuvres and actions of Herod, to examine deeper into the origin of those dark and terrible deeds which afterwards so devastated his own household. But the object of our consideration is Mariamne, and not Herod; and therefore, we are anxious, by reflection on the early years of her life, on the circumstances which influenced her maturer character, and in fact her destiny itself, to throw light on those darker portions of her history which in general are touched upon alone. In a perusal of the historians open to us, we find ourselves scarcely knowing whether to blame or pity, and certainly quite unable to form a correct estimate of Mariamne’s character. Her fearful trials, her early provocations, the dark influences which prevented the complete correction of her few natural faults, all these, in the bare recital of events, are impossible to be discovered, without that attentive study of causes as well as of events, of the origin as well as of the end, which in a more rapid perusal of History is not possible to be attained. We have excused our prolixity before, by assuring our readers that our notices of individuals are far more suggestive than narrative, more essays than histories, and can only entreat them to bear with us still; the characters of History demanding the same treatment as those of the Bible, still inculcating a moral, though not the same inspired lesson. The three years passed at Masada were not without frequent attacks from without, in addition to the annoyances within. The Parthian allies of Antigonus overran the country, and probably frequently threatened the fortress, though we do not hear of any direct siege till that under Antigonus himself, which appears to have

752

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

lasted several months, and to have exposed the garrison and inmates to dreadful suffering, from the want of water. Meanwhile, Herod had arrived at Rome, and besought Augustus and Antony to confer the sovereignty of Judea on the young Aristobulus, who united in his own person the claims of both the contending sons of Alexander Jannaeus, and grant him (Herod) the office of governor under him. The very nature of the request reveals the subtle policy of the man; no one can imagine there was any further sincerity in his prosecution of Aristobulus’ rightful claims, than the fear of grasping too much by the actual demand of the crown for himself, and so losing all. Besides, had he done so, he lost at once all the confidence of Alexandra; whereas, by making her son’s claims apparently his first object, he riveted it on himself, as the only one likely to give her aid. That the Romans chose to confer the sovereignty on him instead of on Aristobulus, could not be attributed to any undue ambition on his part. That Alexandra was satisfied that he had at that time done all he could for her son, appears likely, from her making no effort for him herself until Herod’s resolution to deny him any share in the government became more evident. Seven days after his royal appointment, Herod left Rome, and three months afterwards was in Judea. Masada was of course his first object; the forces of Antigonus, aided by the want of water, had nearly reduced it, when a timely fall of heavy rain relieved the one, and Herod’s impetuous attack removed the other. Mariamne had not, however, very long to renew her acquaintance with her betrothed husband. He appears only to have relieved Masada, and instantly departed with the intention of reducing Jerusalem; but was foiled by the treacherous desertion of his principal ally. Unable with his native forces to subdue Judea, he fixed his head quarters at Samaria, and by his vigilant and energetic measures, freed the province of Galilee from the bands of robbers with which it had been infested. The following year he recommenced measures against Antigonus; but it was not till the spring of the next year that the siege of Jerusalem was regularly begun. During the siege Herod returned to Samaria, to complete his marriage with Mariamne, two years after he had been made king by the Romans, and consequently nearly five since their first betrothal. Where Mariamne, her mother and brother, had been since the siege was raised from Masada, history does not reveal. We rather suppose that when Herod fixed his winter quarters at Samaria, all the females of his family

SIXTH PERIOD. VI. MARIAMNE

753

joined him there. It appears strange that he did not solemnize his marriage then, instead of waiting to do so in the very midst of a most momentous siege. That ambition, not love, was the original incentive of his union with Mariamne, is proved at once by this proceeding. He feared that even the power of his arms would not have secured him the affections of the people of Judea, or reconciled them to his conquest of Antigonus, only that he might ascend the Asmonaean throne himself; and that his obstacle should be lessened, if it could not be entirely removed, occasioned his sudden resolution to leave the walls of Jerusalem, and at once unite himself with the Asmonaean princess. Once really his wife, he probably felt no chances could divide them, and so give her influence to another. The people would second him for her sake; and out of regard to his queen, forget he was that Idumaean alien, whom so many detested, while they feared. The event proved the wisdom of his policy. At Samaria, the young and lovely Mariamne became indissolubly his wife, and many faithful partisans of her father instantly joined him with such reinforcements as enabled Herod to march with renewed spirit against Jerusalem. If Mariamne indeed loved Herod at that time, her life must have been a chaos of anxiety and fear. He never returned to remain with her, but left her again after a very brief interval, to encounter renewed dangers. Continually thrown amongst his relatives, whose envy and dislike were not likely to decrease now she was really his wife, she must, indeed, have rejoiced, when, after a protracted siege, Jerusalem submitted, and Herod was acknowledged sovereign of Judea. His endeavors to preserve the city from the vengeance of the Romans, his protection of holy places, and care of the religious prejudices of the people, were all actions likely to elevate his character in the mind of his young bride. Antigonus had received his death-doom from the Romans, not from Herod. Compared with the awful iniquities of the time, his career had been unusually free from atrocity; and even the unsparing executions of the Antigonian faction, which followed his accession, his policy, no doubt, knew how to excuse, so as to appear actual necessity to his wife, and not the relentless cruelty which they seem to us. For a few, a very few months, Mariamne may have enjoyed some degree of happiness and peace. The mass of the people, devotedly attached to the Asmonaean family, were stilled into some degree of submission, because she shared Herod’s throne: but too

754

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

soon even this transient calm was to pass away. Herod was sovereign of Judea, endured because of his connexion with the Asmonaean line; but even this connexion would not permit his assumption of the priesthood. He, an Idumaean, an alien—but a “half Jew,” as the people called him,—occupy that office of solemnity, the delegate of God himself! It was a thing unheard of, even in the most fearful annals of Jewish history, and impossible to be permitted. Herod always appeared aware of this; for at the commencement of his reign he made no attempt to assume it nominally, even though the measures he adopted, proved that he had resolved that all the actual power should be his own. Hyrcanus, the father of Alexandra, had been invited to Jerusalem, and treated with great apparent respect and regard by Herod, as the grandfather of his wife. The mutilation of his ears,3 however, disqualified him from again assuming the priesthood;* and neglecting not only the rightful heir to that solemn office, but many others of noble lineage and high qualities, in Jerusalem, Herod sent for Ananel, an obscure individual, but of priestly descent from the Babylonian Jews, and appointed him High Priest.4 This was an insult impossible to be borne with patience, either by Alexandra or the Asmonaean faction. The office of High Priest had been hereditary, from Aaron downwards. The law had made no condition for the exclusion of rightful heirs, save that of being “without blemish.” Youth was no preventive; and while the young Aristobulus lived, and united in his own person not only the claims of his priestly race, but of two contending parties, to appoint another to the priesthood was an insult to the whole nation, impossible to be overlooked. The people were in a turmoil of indignation, but too much awed by the severity and power of Herod to attempt any popular disturbance; but all the mother’s feelings were roused to more than passive indignation. She wrote to Cleopatra, beseeching her influence with Antony, to compel Herod’s appointment of Josephus, Antiquities, 14.13.10. * This proves how faithfully, even at this period, some of the laws of Moses were still obeyed. “The priests were to be without blemish.” Levit. xxi. 17–24. 4 Josephus, Antiquities, 15.2.4. 3

SIXTH PERIOD. VI. MARIAMNE

755

her son. Aided by a musician, her letters were conveyed to the farfamed queen of Egypt, who complied with the request; but Antony, unwilling to interfere with the civil government of the king he had himself created, hesitated and procrastinated, without coming to any decision. Meanwhile Dellius, a man infamous for his licentious conduct, and the friend and confidant of Antony, visited Jerusalem. The extraordinary beauty of the brother and sister elicited his wondering admiration; and in his secret conferences with Alexandra, he persuaded her to have their pictures taken, and sent to Antony, who would then be unable to refuse anything they asked. The horrible nature of this proposal would, we ought to imagine, have been rejected by a Jewish mother with indignation and abhorrence; but, worked on by her ambitious and intriguing spirit, even these revolting means were adopted, and the picture sent: and to this woman had the tender years of Mariamne been intrusted! From a mind capable of such black, such unnatural horror, had the pure chaste mind of youth received its first impressions: and, knowing this, shall we not almost marvel at the stainless, shadowless purity, encircling the daughter of such a mother, almost like a halo, rendering her impalpable, and so transmitting every baleful arrow aimed against her, as would the atmosphere itself! The honor of Mariamne was, however, in this instance, safer with Antony than with Alexandra. The fiendish counsels of Dellius only prevailed upon him to send for Aristobulus; but Herod refused to obey, encouraged by the clause in Antony’s letter, not to send the young man, “if he thought it hard upon him so to do.” And no resentment followed. Aristobulus himself interfered not with the machinations working for and against him. His youth, his tastes, probably rendered him contented with the life of calm retirement which his exclusion from office permitted; but the love his sister bore him, her perfect consciousness of the rights and claims of her noble line, could not permit her to behold this indignity in silence. There is a calm dignity pervading the character of Mariamne, even in her youth, which almost unconsciously impresses us with a conviction of her own high sense of her priestly lineage, and its lofty claims, which no personal danger, no timid consideration, could ever remove. The daughters and wives of priestly lineage were looked upon by their countrymen, from the very first delivery of the law, as sharing the sanctity of their fathers and husbands, and reverenced accordingly, as higher in station ac-

756

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

cording to popular decision, as purer and holier in conduct than the wives and daughters of sovereigns.5 We read but too often of royal unions with the daughters of the heathen; but never but once of such abomination occurring in the households of the priests. Pride of birth, of descent, was almost the first impression on the hearts of the young daughters of the priests; that they might preserve both unsullied. And Mariamne was not likely to forget this precious heritage. It was not in accordance with a descendant of the Asmonaeans to regard herself as queen merely as the wife of Herod. By right of heritage the kingdom was her brother’s and her own: and though the arms of the Romans had conferred the crown on Herod, how might she behold the exclusion of her brother from his own hereditary honors, which it was in the power of her husband to grant or to refuse? Mariamne ceased not her entreaties and expostulations till her boon was granted; still not so much for his love of her, to which passion Josephus imputes most of Herod’s actions concerning his wife’s family, but because he felt that, once established as High Priest, Aristobulus would have no temptation to leave the country, but would always remain in his power, to be removed whenever his unscrupulous cruelty deemed fitting. Assembling his friends, he told them that “Alexandra had conspired against his authority, seeking, by the aid of Cleopatra, to elevate her son to his throne—a proceeding doubly unjust, as it would deprive her daughter of the dignity she now had, and would bring disturbances into the kingdom. He had, therefore, in his anxiety to retain it, resolved to give the youth the high priesthood; and that he had, in fact, only set up Ananel, because Aristobulus was so young a child.”6 We have marked one line of this politic speech in italics, because it appears to us so convincing, that Herod himself was aware that his principal hold, as sovereign of the Jews, on the people, was his union with Mariamne. The depriving her of the dignity she now Aguilar here refers to the fact that according to Num. 18:11–19 the priests may share the heave offering [Heb. terumah] and the wave offering; and the best of the wine and of the wheat with all members of their households including the women. 6 Josephus, Antiquities, 15.2.7. 5

SIXTH PERIOD. VI. MARIAMNE

757

enjoyed, would have been of very little moment to him individually, if he had not strongly felt that her dignity supported his, and if one were shaken, so would be the other. The appointment of Aristobulus reconciled the people in a measure to their king, and, for a brief interval, quieted the intriguing Alexandra. She professed, with many tears, “that she had never sought the kingdom for her son, nor would she accept it were it offered; having that confidence in Herod’s capability of governing as would secure the safety of the remainder of her family; that she was satisfied, nay, overcome, by Herod’s benefits, and thankfully accepted the honor showed by him to her son, praying him to excuse her if the nobility of her family, and the freedom of acting which that nobility, she thought, allowed her, had made her act too precipitately and imprudently on this matter.”7 Josephus, who, in his own person, was a great stickler for woman’s inferiority, would certainly not have put such words in Alexandra’s mouth, if they had no foundation in the customs and characteristics of the Jewish people. He must have known that freedom of acting was perfectly compatible with the Hebrew woman’s social position, or she could not have alluded to, and sought to excuse it. Nor would Herod, as we shall see in the sequel, have deprived her of liberty, had he not feared that she would again use it, to the detriment of his interest. For a while peace seemed established between these two equally dark and equally opposing spirits. Mariamne saw her beloved brother in his rightful position; and rejoiced that one subject of contention was thus removed. Her mind was too pure, too upright, to harbor suspicion of those around her. How could she penetrate the secret thoughts and wishes of her husband, or believe that, in the very fulfilment of her anxious wish, her brother’s death-warrant was, in the tyrant’s inmost heart, already sealed? Glad to escape from the pressure of care and sorrow which had darkened her early years, Mariamne probably gave herself up to the delight of her domestic affections, unconscious of the brooding passions in her mother’s heart, or their provocation by her husband.

7

Ibid.

758

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

Fearful that Alexandra would renew her plots and innovations, Herod desired that she should dwell in the palace, his subtle policy most likely concealing the real reason of this command, under the same show of reverence and honor with which he had welcomed Hyrcanus to the same dangerous precincts. But Alexandra’s equally subtle penetration speedily discovered that her guard, appointed ostensibly in honor of her high rank, were creatures of Herod, restraining her liberty, and spies upon her most private hours, and most unguarded words. Burning with indignation she wrote to Cleopatra, beseeching her assistance and advice, declaring that she would undergo anything, rather than continue to live in this state of slavery.8 The very indignation which it causes her, proves how little accustomed were the women of Israel to the faintest semblance of restraint. Cleopatra, who appears always to have befriended Alexandra (another proof in what light the Jewish female aristocracy were regarded by foreign nations), advised her to escape with her son into Egypt, where she promised them protection. Alexandra eagerly assented. She ordered two coffins to be made, as for two dead bodies. In these she intended to conceal herself and her son, desiring her servants, whom she could trust, to convey them away in the night time, and bear them to the sea-shore, where a ship would be waiting to take them to Egypt. The scheme promised fair, but was defeated, by its being spoken of to Sabion, one of her friends, under the impression that he was already in her confidence. This Sabion, believing its discovery would insure him favor, betrayed it to the king. Herod permitted the plan to go on, that he might be assured of its existence, and discovered the whole at the very moment Alexandra believed its success complete. Still no outward evidence of his anger appeared. He stood in too much dread of Cleopatra’s influence with Antony, if exerted against himself, to adopt harsh measures against Alexandra. With every manifestation of generosity and kindness, more than likely to inspire the gratitude and affection of his young wife, he overlooked the offence; but his unhappy victim was marked for removal. It seems strange that Herod did not seek the destruction of Alexandra in the young 8

Josephus, Antiquities, 15.3.2.

SIXTH PERIOD. VI. MARIAMNE

759

man’s stead, for there was nothing in his dawning character to arouse a tyrant’s dread, except, indeed, those lofty virtues and outward attractions, which might mark him as a dangerous rival to the wily Idumaean. Still, though resolved in his diabolical purpose, he waited, lest a too summary removal might work against himself.9

9

Ibid.

CHAPTER VII. MARIAMNE (CONTINUED) The Feast of Tabernacles neared, and the whole population of Judaea flocked, in exact accordance with the Law, to Jerusalem. Festivity reigned throughout the city—the land was at rest from foreign oppressors—the spirit of faction itself seemed stilled—from palace to hut all was solemn rejoicing and light-hearted merriment. On the holy days of convocation, the immense areas and courts of the temple were thronged with the dense multitudes, eager to receive the high priests triennial blessing. And there he stood, the youthful descendant of a thousand priests, and warriors, and kings, in the first bloom of graceful youth, clothed in the magnificent vestments of the solemn office, majestic in his bearing, so unusually tall and finely proportioned, in his still boyish figure—his beautiful countenance, so radiant with the holy thoughts and feelings which his task called forth, that, as the multitudes gazed upon him standing at the high altar, gracefully and collectedly performing his priestly duties, themselves never witnessed (from their peculiar sanctity and holy associations) without emotion, enthusiasm, even at that holy moment, could not be restrained. Tears burst forth from young and old—the warrior, even as the woman, wept, thrilled to the very heart at the beauty, innocence, and sanctity he beheld, though himself unconscious why he wept. Tears, blessings, prayers, swelling at length into shouts of joyous greeting, betrayed the zeal and love which burst irrepressibly from every heart. What was the sovereign himself, though present, compared with the High Priest—their own, not only in himself, but in his glorious race and family, the traits of whom he bore upon his features? And if such were the emotions of the multitude, what feelings must have swelled the hearts of the mother and sister? However ill-regulated ambition, and its awful train of evil passions, had marred the heart and mind of Alexandra, in all things relating to Aristobulus she felt as an anxious and affectionate mother; and some of the purest 761

762

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

emotions which she had ever experienced, must have been excited in thus beholding him. And to his fond sister, what delicious emotions of love and admiration, aye, and reverence, for she knew him worthy of the solemn office, must have heightened and hallowed the deep affection she had ever borne him, as the hand-in-hand companion of her childhood and youth! Each quivering blessing, each ringing shout, found echo in her heart. Darkly and terribly in contrast with such emotions did the storm of jealous hate rage in the bosom of Herod. He beheld, or fancied, in the popular enthusiasm, rebellion against himself; in the grace and beauty of a boy, greater danger to his power and himself, than he had ever encountered, or feared from a thousand warriors, or from the wisdom and policy of a hundred veterans. But though the internal tempest could only be stilled by the victim’s blood, Herod dissembled, and joined with apparent sincerity in the public rejoicing. The festival passed; the multitudes dispersed in quiet from the capital to their respective homes. A hush of peace, foreign and domestic, seemed to have sunk on the troubled land; and Alexandra and her young son returned to the former’s palace at Jericho. There, after a brief interval, they were joined by Herod and some of his court, no doubt including Mariamne; and a period of feasting and royal amusements followed. All enmity against Aristobulus had apparently subsided. Herod treated the young man with a semblance of caressing fondness, only too likely to remove suspicion both from Mariamne and her brother. Alexandra herself seems at that time to have suspected nothing evil. The skies over their head, and the distant horizon, all were smiling in cloudless blue and glowing sunshine, when the bolt fell with a shock of horror as if indeed nature had thundered from her very smiling calm, and hurled a death-bolt from her sun-lit sky. The young prince had quitted the palace in company with the sovereign and their respective attendants; and wandered carelessly along the gardens and pastures, till they neared some spacious fishponds. The day was sultry, and many plunged into the refreshing waters, to indulge in the luxury (truly so, in the scorching East) of bathing. At first, the young prince had stood aloof, amused at the various manoeuvres in the art of swimming, displayed by his attendants, but instigated by Herod to try his skill also, willingly joined them. Twilight was advancing, but still the sports continued, till from the closing dark-

SIXTH PERIOD. VII. MARIAMNE (CONTINUED)

763

ness a wild cry resounded, and then a suffocating moan, and then a shout from many voices for “help, the prince was drowning;”1 but it came too late. The measures of the tyrant and his fiendish helpers had been too well taken, and the hapless youth was conveyed home to his distracted relatives a lifeless corpse, not three hours after he had quitted them, radiant in loveliness and life. A violent death is always fearful to the bereaved survivors, and how doubly aggravated when traced to relentless murder! The actual cause of the young man’s death must certainly have transpired, else Josephus, who generally tries to exonerate Herod, would not so decidedly have attributed this murder to him. As deep and universal as had been the love and sympathy which he had inspired at the altar, so deep and universal was the affliction at his loss; every family, to use the (in this instance) expressive words of the historian, “looking on this calamity, not as it belonged to another, but that one of themselves was slain.”2 How inexpressible, how harrowing, must then have been the agony of his mother and sister; and in the latter how awfully heightened, by the scarcely restrained voice of public indignation, pointing to her husband as his ruthless murderer! How many circumstances must, in those moments of agony, have returned to the heart of Mariamne, startlingly, appallingly convincing of the foundations for those rumors. Herod had in truth wept, in fearful agitation, as the body of the youth was exposed before him; but there are moments when the vision of the soul is clearer than heretofore—when human agony is such that semblances which successfully deceived before, cast down their robes of falsehood, and appear naked in their own hideousness—and so it probably was with Mariamne. Tears and agitation, which a moment of suffering might have so deceived, as to lead her to her husband’s bosom for consolation, now spoke the language, not of grief for bereavement, but remorse and horror for the deed; revealed him not mourner but murderer. Where was she to turn in that deep agony? Her mother had concealed her utter desolation, her passionate cravings for revenge, under an exterior of such chilling despair, that how might she give comfort? He, whom she had loved longest and best 1 2

Ibid., 15.3.3. Ibid., 15.3.4.

764

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

on earth, aye, even better than her husband; for Herod’s was not a character so to concentrate all affection in himself, that the silver links of natural affection had been dulled before it; her brother in blood, in love, in the proud glories of their ancient race and heritage, he lay in his cold grave; and dark suspicions filled her heart, that the only other being in the wide world whom her young spirit could have loved, was that brother’s murderer! What to her were the magnificent honors which were lavished on his senseless remains, but as a mockery to the dead, and triumph to the living, that the last obstacle to his ambition was removed? If thus, it was considered even by the fickle multitude, whose opinion magnificence and show generally guide where a sovereign wills, can we doubt that it was thus considered by the bereaved and agonized sister, to whom the private character of Herod must have been more unguardedly displayed? She had been too young, too innocent, too confiding to become aware of it before; but when awakened by a flash of agony like this, how might the confidence, the guileless trust of youth return? She had lived little more than twenty years; but she; was now ALONE, and in that word dwells AGE. Mariamne’s deep affliction was visible only in her change of bearing towards her husband, and the mournful ageing of individual character. But Alexandra’s anguish could have no rest, no peace, till lost in the wild wish and matured measures for revenge. Till reason regained ascendency, her agony was such, that suicide seemed the only relief; but then came the desire to live, even to prolong life, till vengeance was accomplished: and so to prolong life demanded all possible care, by neither word nor act, to offend Herod, whose unscrupulous cruelty would not spare her, more than her son. To deceive him, therefore, was that semblance of belief in his professed grief assumed, which must so have chilled the heart of her daughter—an apparent satisfaction from the honors awarded to her boy in death—an impenetrable concealment of every suspicion that murder, not accident, had deprived her of her child, marked her outward conduct, while in secret she wrote to Cleopatra, detailing the whole affair, and conjuring her influence to bring Herod to justice.3 3

Josephus, Antiquities, 15.3.5.

SIXTH PERIOD. VII. MARIAMNE (CONTINUED)

765

With all her weaknesses, all her faults, the Egyptian queen appears fully capable of woman’s kindest feelings. Indignant at the treacherous action, and sympathizing deeply in the mother’s agony, Cleopatra never rested till she had prevailed on Antony to summon Herod before him, and defend himself from an accusation so fraught with treachery and horror. As this command was not, however, sent until Antony was in Laodicea, the year following the murder, some months must have elapsed, which probably removed all suspicion of Alexandra having been concerned in the charge. We only read of Herod being in great fear of the accusation, and of Cleopatra’s known ill-will towards him. Had he suspected Alexandra as the originator we cannot doubt but that her death, either by secret murder or public execution, would instantly have followed. Finding it impossible to evade the summons, Herod left the charge of his kingdom to his uncle Joseph, as procurator of the government. With this public office he connected a private one; the extraordinary command, that if Antony should condemn him to death, Joseph would instantly slay Mariamne, giving as his ostensible reason that he had so tender an affection for his wife, that he could not bear the idea of her becoming, after his death, the wife of any other man. Joseph promised compliance, and Herod departed. The historians of this period appear to believe in Herod’s revealed reason for wishing the death of his wife, and lay great stress on the deep love he bore her. Love! Can it be possible that sober, reasoning men, looking back on these events, tracing the whole character of this man as a map before them—beholding not one softening feeling, not one human emotion, not one pitying pause in his ruthless career—perceiving that his every aim, intent, desire, apart from individual aggrandizement, was the denationalization of Judea—to incorporate it with the heathen kingdoms, and, increasing his own power, exterminate its peculiar people from the face of the earth—can it be possible, we repeat, that thoughtful and reasoning men, who at this distance of time can look back with much clearer ken on the records of the past, than those historians but lately removed from the scenes and personages of whom they write, can yet adopt the views of Josephus, simply because he wrote them, and believe that love could ever have actuated Herod in commanding the death of his wife, or have guided his inter-

766

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

course with her while she lived? Jealousy and selfishness might, indeed, have appeared to his own heart like love, but the reality would have dictated differently. He might, indeed, in his selfish tyranny, have resolved that she should never give to, nor receive happiness from any other man; but if we judge of him according to his character and acts, there was yet another and deeper reason. He could not bear the thought, that the Asmonaean faction, whom he so hated, so oppressed, so sought to exterminate in life, should obtain ascendency on his downfall, and rule that land which he had destined for himself. Mariamne was now almost its sole representative, with the exception of the aged Hyrcanus, who, though unfitted for the office of high priest, might yet rule as sovereign—and his kinsmen, the sons of Babas. Of the existence of these last, Herod was ignorant, having years before commanded their death. Herod could not have doubted that, on the event of his death, Mariamne would instantly be acknowledged sovereign. The customs of the country had already provided examples of a wife succeeding her husband; nor was it likely this rule would be waived, when, as in the case of Mariamne, it was the wife and not the husband who possessed legal, hereditary, and national right to the government. When we reflect on the extreme jealousy which Herod bore towards all the Asmonaeans—that he never permitted an opportunity to pass without cutting them off—we have surely some foundation for the belief, that the jealousy of ambition, quite as deeply as the jealousy of love, actuated Herod in his determination, that if he died, Mariamne should die with him. He could not conquer the hated thought of beholding her ruling over a loving and obedient people in his stead, courted, followed, perchance united to one of her own race, willing and eager to join her in every effort to elevate Judea to her own exclusive holiness and pristine glory. This analysis of the motives of Herod’s barbarous command is merely offered to our readers as a suggestion. Histories of the time are open to them, and far more improving and satisfactory is it for them to read, and to form their own conclusions, than adopt, without examination, those of another. From the words used by Josephus, we are led to imagine that Mariamne had a share in the government, and was consulted by the regent Joseph on all occasions. “But as Joseph was ministering the public affairs of the kingdom, and was for that reason very frequently with Mariamne, both because his business required it, and because of the re-

SIXTH PERIOD. VII. MARIAMNE (CONTINUED)

767

spect he sought to pay to the queen,” &c.4 Now, if the position of the Hebrew females had been what we are generally inclined to suppose it, the same as that of the present Eastern females, we should not find this very important passage. The lines marked in italics demonstrate very forcibly, that Joseph was in the habit of consulting with the queen on all matters of business; and he did so, not only because it was the custom of the country, but also from his great respect towards her, a respect which could not have been excited in the respective ages and relation of uncle and niece, if intellect and wisdom, and dignity had not been added to, and enhanced the exceeding beauty and grace which she so eminently possessed. Had any modern European historian penned the sentence we have quoted, its importance would not have been so great; but coming from Josephus, intimately acquainted as he was with the manners and customs of the Jews of that day, it is a powerful proof of the perfect equality of the Jewish female, both in her domestic and social position. Had it not been quite customary for such reference to the wife of the sovereign during his absence, the visits of Joseph must have excited, not only private, but public suspicion, and called for animadversions from the historian: instead of which he describes it quite naturally, as a usual and common occurrence: and furthermore, declares Salome’s accusations to be a groundless calumny, whose only foundation was individual hate. These facts, trifling as they seem, should be remembered, when we are told that the condition of the Jewish females was so degraded and enslaved. Josephus, individually, may have a mean opinion of the sex; but his whole history, by an almost remarkable triumph of facts over prejudices, contradicts himself, and supplies us with unanswerable evidences of the truth of our theory. Apparently anxious to increase Mariamne’s love for her husband, or rather, perhaps, to remove the cold restraint which had marked her conduct towards him since her brother’s death, Joseph never allowed an opportunity to pass without alluding to the strong affection Herod bore her. Mariamne herself appears to have listened to these professions in silence. That love was strange and doubtful which only manifested itself in individual passion, wholly 4

Ibid., 15.3.6.

768

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

regardless of her feelings, as sister, daughter, and Asmonaean: but complaint of Herod never passed her lips. Hers was that true spiritual dignity, never stooping to reveal to others her own sufferings, when the originator of those sufferings was her husband. Alexandra, however, listened to these speeches in a very different spirit, and replied with such satirical scepticism, that Joseph, in his anxious desire to prove the depth and extent of his nephew’s love, incautiously revealed his last command, as an unanswerable evidence how dear she was to him, that he could not bear to separate himself from her, even in death The effect of this communication on Alexandra may be imagined. To lose her only remaining child for the gratification of a tyrant, would have been, in itself, agonizing enough; but Alexandra was never actuated by such feminine emotions alone; she hated Herod: as murderer of her boy, it was not much wonder. She was enraged and indignant that he should possess the heritage of her children: her mind was never quiet, constantly scheming and intriguing for his downfall; and in so doing, almost always compassing the ruin of her own family in his stead; and this last command she probably conceived, as we have done, as instigated much more by his hatred of Mariamne’s race, than his love for her as an individual. But her endeavors to incite Mariamne to revenge upon her husband were useless. There is not a single portion in the life or character of the princess which can permit the supposition of any such emotion entering her mind, even for a moment. What she felt at this command, even as from every other action of her husband, she did not reveal: but how fearfully and coldly must its dark selfishness have sunk into her heart. Life, except for one sweet tie (she was a mother), was, indeed, a dream of anxiety and sorrow; but to be deprived of it by the mandate of cruelty and violence, was no thought of relief. Did no personal considerations mingle with it (which they must have done), her children called upon her to live for them: and by the sweet emotions they inspired, illumined the heavy darkness round her. How could she feel towards a husband, capable of issuing such a command? What must have been the terror and anxiety, her daily portion till she could receive tidings of Herod’s fate! And yet we read of neither word nor act, even in that horrible position, derogatory to the beautiful enduring consistency, which, to the very last, her character displayed.

SIXTH PERIOD. VII. MARIAMNE (CONTINUED)

769

And even when the report came that Herod had been executed, the idea of seeking the protection of the Romans originated with Alexandra, not with the one most injured. That Mariamne should adopt the plan, was natural for her children’s sake as well as her own; for how might she bear the thought of leaving them to the care of Cypros and Salome, who would not scruple to gratify on them the hatred they bore herself? How else, in fact, was she to preserve her life? She needed not the motive attributed to her, in conjunction with her mother, to lead her to the Roman camp. Her own people would have been sufficient protection, could she have appealed to them: but how could that be, when she was surrounded, almost imprisoned, by the relatives and creatures of Herod, whose bidding to them was absolute, even in his death? That Mariamne looked to her personal influence with the licentious Antony, to protection and benefit, is disproved by the whole tenor of her life. A single impure thought would have prevented that perfect defence from all calumnious charges, which so satisfied the jealous Herod, that even he demanded nothing further than her simple word. Not even the most prejudiced can fling a doubt upon her name. That Alexandra urged her to seek the Roman camp, because she looked to her child’s influence with Antony, we believe, though we shudder as we do so; for such a thought was in exact accordance with her previous unnatural proceeding, of forwarding to him the pictures of her children. But even from such an influence—a mother’s influence—Mariamne’s own purity and innocence were her invulnerable shield. Alexandra dared not, could not have breathed such a thought to her; and was, therefore, content to work in secret. But her plans were frustrated by news from Herod himself, contradicting the report of his death, and containing a flourishing account of his favor with Antony; who not only established his absolute authority, as sovereign of Judea, but reproved Cleopatra for her interference.5 No allusion to the murder of Aristobulus appears to have been made on either side; and terrible must have been the pang of such omission to Alexandra.

5

Ibid., 15.3.8.

770

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

While these events were passing, Salome had not been inwardly idle, though compelled, outwardly, to be on terms of intimacy with her brother’s wife. It was impossible for the lofty character of the Asmomaean princess to condescend to treat as an equal and friend, one whose real character her penetration had probably fully discovered, and whose dislike Salome had never taken any pains to conceal. Josephus tells us, Salome “had a long time borne her ill-will; for when they had discoursed with one another, Mariamne took great freedom; and reproached the rest for the meanness of their birth.”6 The great freedom of such reproaches we must confess ourselves incapable of discovering. It had probably been during their mutual residence at Masada, as we before stated; when Mariamne was a mere girl, and worked upon by the example of her mother, and the prejudices of her own education, to look down somewhat scornfully on Idumaean proselytes. That Salome had a “long time borne her illwill,” evidently refers to that distant period, the stings of which still rankled, increased by the haughty reserve which had probably marked the queen’s conduct towards her since. It was not to the sister of her husband, Mariamne could breathe the agonized suspicion of her brother’s murderer; not to Salome she could reveal sorrows and emotions concealed from every other. We have no doubt her manner was cold, nay, even haughty to a fault; when it would have been more to her interest to have conciliated. But we are writing not of angelic, but of human nature; and that she did not conciliate either Salome or Herod, as Josephus evidently thinks she ought, is, to us, a convincing proof of the consistent uprightness of her conduct. We do not read of Alexandra inspiring such enmity in Cypros and Salome as Mariamne; because the former could feign, when she saw it was her interest, both forbearance and regard—the latter could not, That she thought somewhat too proudly of the “accident of birth” in herself, and too scornfully of it in others, was the fault of her education, not of herself. An opportunity had now arrived for Salome’s secret plans to ripen. Accompanied by her mother, who, in these schemes, always appears just that secondary tool which an active and vindictive spirit would make of a passive weak one, Salome met Herod on his return 6

Ibid., 15.3.9.

SIXTH PERIOD. VII. MARIAMNE (CONTINUED)

771

to Judea; and, informing him first of Alexandra’s intentions to seek the protection of the Romans, artfully insinuated that Joseph would no doubt have aided the intention, followed by a direct charge of dishonorable conduct between him and Mariamne. The feelings of any man would have been roused by this calumny. With Herod, jealousy generally maddened him into a fiend. But in this instance he acted more nobly than he ever did before or after; and would almost persuade us that, could such a feeling be possible, he had moments of real love for Mariamne individually. He appealed to herself for the truth or falsehood of the calumny. How must even his fierce intriguing character have unconsciously acknowledged and loved the simple truth and purity of his wife, that even in such a moment he could have turned to her, and permitted the solemn assurance of innocence from her lips, to weigh against the accusations and proofs with which Salome and his mother sought to madden him against her! The true dignity and natural amiability of Mariamne’s character are proved by her conduct in this interview. A really haughty, contentious, and scornful woman would have used reproaches, scarcely condescending to reply to such a charge, and instead of soothing, irritate still anew. Love her husband Mariamne could not, but she knew her duty as a wife. She could feel that, however he had injured her family and herself, in this instance he did her at least the justice to demand the truth or falsehood of the charge from her own lips, and with all a woman’s quickness of feeling, have felt for his agony under such a suspicion, and at that moment felt she might love him yet again. Conquering all personal emotions, she so calmly, so fully exculpated herself, that Herod was not only convinced, but conjured her to pardon the momentary suspicion. Her truth, her purity, seemed for the moment to infuse themselves into him, and to arouse his better nature. Professing, and by caresses endeavoring to manifest unbounded affection and firm confidence in her fidelity, Josephus tells us, that he sought to “draw from her a like confidence in himself,”7 words very convincing, that Mariamne, even while she vindicated herself, never lost that lofty bearing, and quiet, gentle dignity, which, from the hour of her 7

Ibid.

772

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

brother’s murder, had marked her conduct. Even to her husband she never stooped, as many women so situated would have done, to feign a love and confidence which she could not feel. She must have known that her life with him was in constant danger—a word might be her death-doom; but she feared him not. Strong in her own innocence and noble virtues, she walked on her way, acting as honesty dictated, without turning this side or that, or fearing any peril that straightforwardness might bring. Exactly in accordance with the uncomplaining, but deeply feeling spirit, which would never breathe to any human ear the anguish and terror which Herod’s command must have excited, was the noble remonstrance which bade her reply to his entreaties for her confidence and love, “if the command he had given, that if any harm had befallen him from Antony, she who had been no occasion of it should perish with him, were indeed a proof of his love for her!” Even had she known the evils which were to spring from this very simple question, Mariamne could not have permitted its recollection to rankle in her heart, and secretly poison every outward demonstration of Herod’s love. Touched, in all probability, at his unwonted candor towards herself, her upright mind shrank from concealing her knowledge of his secret command, and she appealed to him, in the same confiding spirit as he had appealed to her; but the effect was as different as their respective characters. Herod sprang from her side in a burst of uncontrolled fury. Her truth, her purity, all passed away before a blaze of passion, appalling to witness, and terrible to feel. Madly believing that nothing but improper intimacy with Joseph could have called for such a betrayal of a command, imparted to his uncle in strictest confidence, he rushed upon Mariamne with his drawn sword, and would have slain her on the spot, had not the calm and dignified composure, enhancing her extraordinary beauty, even at such a moment, disarmed him towards herself. His whole rage fell on Joseph and Alexandra; ordering the immediate execution of the former without permitting trial, or even defence, and imprisoning the latter with every mark of ignominy and insult.8 8

Ibid.

SIXTH PERIOD. VII. MARIAMNE (CONTINUED)

773

Why his rage, on this occasion, should so have fallen on Alexandra, appears rather a problem. He seems entirely to have overlooked the charge against her, of seeking the protection of the Romans, and to have imprisoned her on this implied supposition of being accessory to the dishonor of his wife. We rather imagine that he was rejoiced at any opportunity to get her out of his way, without caring to give any reason for so doing. Nor does it appear quite clear to me, that after the first transports of his rage, and its gratification in the removal of two obnoxious individuals, he ever seriously retained any idea of Mariamne’s guilt. He evidently lived with her, and loved her (if he could love) as before, seeking to conciliate her at every opportunity; as thus tacitly allowing, that he had accused and condemned her wrongfully; and if he really had believed her guilty, this, even to Herod, would have been impossible. But whatever were his secret feelings, they could have brought neither rest nor comfort to the deeply wounded spirit of his injured wife. She must have felt more and more convinced that her life was not worth a day’s purchase,—her honor constantly liable to be attacked, her innocence impossible to be proved, for neither law nor defence would be allowed her, compelled to associate in daily intimacy with the man who had actually drawn his sword upon her, insulted, vilified, and then added to the horror with which she must have regarded him, by daring to profess love, and lavish caresses, from which she must have shrunk in utmost loathing,—her mother imprisoned, degraded. and though Mariamne was conscious of Alexandra’s many faults, she was yet her mother: her worst qualities were hidden from her child;—the power of her race, the glory of her people, passing away before the successful ambition of an Idumaean usurper: the laws and customs of her country wholly disregarded, that by a gradual, yet sure process, the manners and customs of heathen nations should take their place;—it was impossible that to an Asmonaean, the last pure unmixed scion of that noble race, such feelings should be unknown; and what then must have been the harrowing trials of her inward and outward life? Yet we read of no manifestation of her intense suffering, no secret intrigues, no public appeals, no turning to equivocal sources of enjoyment, to banish the misery of home. No! Compared with the dark machinations, the subtle intrigues of Salome, Alexandra, and Cypros, she stands forth in untouched and untarnished lustre, as some pure spirit of truth and light, sent upon the earth to whisper that even in the

774

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

blackest and most appalling periods of human depravity, the divine essence breathed within us by God himself still has existence; often, it may be, invisible, but still there. Historians do Mariamne no justice. It is only by reflection and analogy, that we can penetrate the truth concerning her and other characters of the period; and doing so with one or two, bringing out the strong lights of individual character against the dark shadows of the tyrant circumstance,— comparing what is with what might be, it is thus we relieve truth in its crystal purity from the web of prejudice and superficialism, and so learn the important lesson, that never yet was human nature wholly dark, or this earth left without some witnesses of the divinity within us. A mere glance over Josephus, and other historians compiled from him, confounds Mariamne with the intriguing and subtle spirits, male and female, by whom she was surrounded; and thus it is that we can so seldom discern the good from the bad, the divine from the earthly, and we condemn all as equally evil, equally retrograding. A careful study of history, not merely satisfied with the views of the writer, but using, freely and fearlessly, our own powers of reflection and analogy, would teach us much to fill our hearts with charity and hope, and inculcate the refreshing faith, that every IDEAL of the immortal mind may find in the ACTUAL its origin and end.

CHAPTER VIII. MARAIAMNE (CONTINUED) For about four years Mariamne lived so far in peace, that no attack from the calumny of female hate, or from the violence of jealous passion, reached her individually. Her trials were from the sources to which we have already alluded. How fondly in this interim must her desolate heart have clung to her children, four of whom now called her mother! The very names given to her sons reveal the love borne by her to her own race and family. All Herod’s other children had names relative to his Idumaean descent, or in compliment to his Roman allies. It was not likely that he would have chosen the name of Aristobulus for one of his sons, laden as it was with the recollection of his murdered victim; but we may well imagine the feelings with which Mariamne bestowed it on her first-born—how, clinging to the memory of a brother so beloved, she should seek to continue the name in her own family, and in the caresses of an infant Aristobulus, struggle for forgetfulness of the agony which still lingered round the memory of her brother. Her second son she named Alexander, in respectful recollection of her father. Her daughters, born afterwards, Salampsio and Cypros, do not appear to possess the same dear associations,—she had had no female relation to call for them; but we trace how her memory lingered with the dead, and how lonely she felt amid the living in the simple fact of the names given to her sons.1 The awakening intelligence, the infant caresses of her children, were Mariamne’s only sources of joy. She probably looked to her boys once more to raise the Asmonaean name, and renew the na1

See Josephus, Antiquities,18.5.4; War, 1.27.6.

775

776

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

tional glory of Judea; and had she lived to rear them from infancy to youth, to instil within them the nobility of race and faith which she felt and manifested herself, Judea would have wept their deaths still more. As it is, though Aristobulus could have been little more than six when his mother died, we can trace in the after-history of both the young men the lofty bearing and proud virtues hereditary to their mother’s race—even though their Roman education must have deadened every infant impression of their peculiar religion and their holy land. Four years after Herod’s injurious conduct towards herself, Mariamne was called upon to mourn the death of her last male relative, the harmless and aged Hyrcanus. Whether or not Alexandra’s intrigues had really urged the old man to such measures as gave Herod a pretence for ordering his execution, or whether the plot were Herod’s own, only to get rid of one whose claims to the crown he still seemed to fear, cannot now be correctly ascertained. The indolent character of Hyrcanus gives some color to the latter supposition; the intrigues and restless spirit of Alexandra authorize the former. From whatever cause, the loss to Mariamne was the same, and it widened the breach between her heart and her husband. The freedom enjoyed by Hyrcanus, and the respect, at his first accession, proffered to him by Herod, who gave him lodging at the palace, and board at the king’s table, had probably given Mariamne many opportunities of enjoying the old man’s society, and bound her to him still more closely than their consanguinity. She could not have believed the charges brought against him, nay, most probably knew that they were false, and traced their contrivance to her ambitious and ever scheming husband, beholding in them yet another proof of Herod’s resolve to crush every remnant of her race. She had not, however, long to indulge in grief. Herod was, at this period, anxious to conciliate the youthful conqueror of Antony, Octavius Caesar, who was then at Rhodes; and trembling, as usual, lest the popular love for the Asmonaeans should snatch the home government from his hands, and give it to Mariamne and her children, he resorted to the cruel expedient of separating his wife from her only treasures, placed them under the care of his own mother and sister, at Masada, and confined Mariamne and Alexandra in the fortress of Alexandria, under charge of his treasurer Joseph, and Sohemus of Itruria, giving to the latter exactly the same selfish and brutal command as he had given to his uncle Joseph five years previously, that if his death were the consequence of his dangerous ex-

SIXTH PERIOD. VIII. MARIAMNE (CONTINUED)

777

pedition, not only Mariamne, but her mother, should die with him, and the kingdom proceed to his brother Pheoras, regent for his (Herod’s) sons. This command at once proves that not love, but ambition, and hatred of the Asmonaean race, were his real motives, not only at the second time, but at the first. There was now no Antony in such power as to unite himself with the wife of his victim. Octavius Caesar was no character for the terror of such an alternative. Besides, if it were only his love (so called) which could not bear its object to survive him, why command the death of Alexandra also? It is clear throughout this dark domestic history, that love for Mariamne individually, and hatred of her as an Asmonaean, whose claims to the throne of her people were continually endangering his own, were ever at such fierce internal war, that he could never define from which of these contending passions the motives of his actions sprang; and the historians are therefore equally obtuse, giving often to love of the woman, what was in fact nothing but hatred of the race. There is no proof more convincing of her right to the throne which Herod occupied, than his determination that she should never survive him to enjoy it; love held his hand while he could revel in her exceeding loveliness, but when she could no longer be his, she was to share the fate of all her race. Josephus is amusingly astonished that Mariamne could feel no affection for her husband; and quite blames her for not dissembling her dislike. We should feel very grateful to any one who would bring forward a single instance in Mariamne’s hapless life where love for Herod on her part was even possible, or what single proof he ever gave of his exceeding love for her. We will not again refer to sufferings on which we have already dilated; but ask if separation from the only beings she had loved on earth, and such imprisonment in a well-garrisoned fortress, as utterly prevented all exercise of power, and privileges of rank which she had enjoyed, were any striking proof of conjugal regard? In Herod’s previous absence he had had at least the grace to associate his wife with his uncle in the government. In this, Josephus expressly tells us “that they had no power over anything, either of others, or of their own affairs;” and this he need not have written, unless conscious that they both had the right and the will to execute authority. To some characters, the injury of placing her children under any care but her own, would have swallowed up all other emotions.

778

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

But Mariamne was no ordinary woman. To her heart it was not only maternal suffering: the cruel deprivation of her privileges was in direct disregard of the customs and habits of her people, who, in every stage of their eventful history, gave to mothers, and mothers only, the education of both sons and daughters. It was an insult as well as a source of personal suffering, aggravating not lessening the degradation of imprisonment. Had her children been still with her, she would not have regarded her residence at Alexandrina as anything more than a measure of security. But when she felt herself deprived of a privilege granted to the meanest of her subjects, so watched and guarded, that she had scarcely the liberty of careless speech; was it marvel, was it out of nature, that her proud Asmonaean blood deepened the injured feelings of the wife and mother, and that from that hour she made no further efforts to love her husband? Yet still, true to the beautiful dignity of her womanly character, Mariamne descended to neither intrigue nor revenge. Her winning beauty and graceful manner, so fascinated all who approached her, even her keepers, creatures strong in Herod’s confidence and favor, that had she ever attempted to obtain her rights by an appeal to the people, there does not seem a doubt that she would ultimately have obtained them; all Herod’s magnificence in building, in connexion with foreign potentates, had not made him popular. He was endured far more for his Asmonaean wife than for himself, and hundreds, aye thousands, amidst the Jewish people would have flocked round Mariamne, had she but uplifted her standard in opposition to the authority of Herod. But she was far too essentially and exquisitely feminine, to plunge the nation into renewed war and misery for her sake; far too truly noble, to make her private anguish a theme of publicity and blood, or reveal to others, save Herod’s self, the loss of affection which his acts had caused. We never hear a syllable of complaint or reproach, save boldly and openly to himself. Her character changed not an atom of its gentle dignity, its forbearing endurance. Naught of irritation, sourness, or that consciousness of injury, which some women love to reveal, as proving them martyrs, marks her conduct. Sorrow could not make her selfish; painful as it is, when the heart is aching in its own unceasing anguish, to think of pleasing others even by daily words and common manner, yet even in this lowly duty she did not fail.

SIXTH PERIOD. VIII. MARIAMNE (CONTINUED)

779

Sohemus, like her previous guardian Joseph, was unable to retain the cruel command of Herod, when in presence of its intended victim. Though at first stern, and resolved to remain faithful to his master, his determination faded away before the fascination of Mariamne, who, without any effort on her own part, won every heart that still retained the emotions of humanity. Even Josephus’s prejudiced and contradictory account absolves Mariamne from any undue influence over Sohemus. He was evidently at first led to shrink from obeying Herod’s injunction, simply from the unfailing gentleness of her manner in their daily intercourse. Then, imagining that Herod would not obtain the confirmation of his authority from Caesar, he became anxious to conciliate the queen; convinced that if she did survive her husband, “she would give him abundant recompense” for his fidelity to herself—for she could not be overlooked in the settling of the government, as she must either reign herself, or be very near those that reigned. He hoped also, that his informing her of the charge intrusted to him and of his determination at all hazards to disobey—would obtain him favor even if Herod did return, by Mariamne’s influence obtaining for him some honorable post. This conviction that Mariamne must reign herself in case of Herod’s death, or be very near those that did, meaning her sons, in preference to their elder half-brother Antipater, proves in what light she was in reality regarded by the people in general, and confirms our supposition, that had she been constituted like her intriguing mother and so raised the banner of revenge and revolt, she would have found very many to support her cause. It tells us, too, that her being a female in no way interfered with her right of heritage in the estimation of her people; and this is an important evidence of woman’s social position at that period. The information of Sohemus could scarcely have been unexpected, though it could not fail to alienate Mariamne from Herod yet more. Her mother, too, was to share her fate: the tyrant was not content with one victim. How was it possible she could regard his professions of affection as meaning aught but hypocrisy and guile? How trust to them, when it was so clearly evident that he would never rest till every scion of her race had been cut off? How must her fond heart have clung to the recollection of her children, thus doomed to be snatched from them! And leaving them to such a father! If we reflect but deeply on her position, we surely cannot

780

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

agree with Milman as to the difficulty of deciding “what ought to have been her feelings and her conduct.”2 Herod returned—crowned with success. Octavius Caesar had confirmed him in possession of Judea—accepted his friendship, and dismissed him with distinguished honors. The home affairs of Judea had prospered, and, seeking Mariamne, he revealed his unexpected success with an exultation and rejoicing which could find little response in the heart he addressed. She listened to him calmly, coldly—it might be haughtily. The time had passed, when, as in their former interview, she could appeal to him, and inquire if the order of her death in case of his, were indeed proof of love. Those simple words had caused the death of one individual whose only crime was fidelity to herself, and the imprisonment of her mother, who, though generally intriguing, had in this instance offended in nothing save in being the wife and mother of Asmonaeans. How might she speak them again? Yet how could her noble spirit stoop to the semblance of interest and affection, when Herod’s own deeds had alienated both? It was impossible—and with calm and proud indifference, she received him; and so treated him thenceforward. That there was imminent danger in this line of conduct, no doubt she knew; but her mind was not one to stoop to deceit for preservation. Had she concealed her sentiments of dislike, she would have failed in the beautiful truth which encircles her as a halo. No conjugal duty could have demanded this concealment. There may be some to think that under all insult, all oppression, all injustice, she should have remembered that she was a wife, and in duty bound to submit to her husband. We answer, that, as a wife, she never failed in duty; she could have appealed to the Jewish law, and have demanded a divorce; she could have returned his underhand measures against her life and happiness, by equally undermining his, both publicly and privately; she might have sought solace for her domestic misery and personal gratification in pleasures of doubtful tendency, which, in that dark stormy period, and laxity of morals, would have passed unnoticed; but Mariamne was a Jewish wife, a Jewish mother; and so, unsullied by even the passing breath of such dark thoughts, she failed not either in fidelity or allegiance. She endured without one murmur, one struggle to 2

Milman, History of the Jews, 2:107.

SIXTH PERIOD. VIII. MARIAMNE (CONTINUED)

781

ameliorate her misery; but her truth would have been sacrificed, had she treated the human author of her trials as if she could give him love, or believe in his. Her coldness roused Herod’s contending passions of love and hate almost to madness. The one repeatedly urged him to violent measures against her; the other restrained him, fearing by her death to inflict deeper misery upon himself than upon her. No profession, no effort on his part, could change her dignified and quiet manner to the demonstration of love, for which his strange spirit seemed to long. Her presence bowed him, monster as in reality he was, under the influence of overwhelming love for her individually; her absence changed this feeling into as overwhelming a hate for her as an Asmonaean, who dared insult him by an assumption both of dignity and coldness—the first of which his secret conscience admonished him was natural to her rank and race, and the latter deserved by his own deeds in the ruthless murder of her grandfather, father,* and brother. Now, then, was the opportunity for which Salome had so long waited. Though foiled four years previous, her envy and hatred had not diminished, but, hoarded in her own evil heart, imparted only to her mother, who was her ready adjunct, were ready to pour forth as a poisonous torrent, the first moment that she could gain her brother’s ear. Already half maddened by his contending passions, Herod listened eagerly, and heard such specious tales of calumny and shame as excited his jealousy of herself, in addition to his hatred of her race. Still he could not proceed against her, though every lying tale in his distorted fancy was confirmed by her proud coldness towards himself. Each week increased the evil. His illregulated fitful mind and temper—the fierce strife of opposing, but equally violent passions—the one inflamed to madness, from the malignant whisperings of his serpent sister—the other heightened, fired by the sight of that soul-subduing beauty which shone forth in its cold resplendence, unwarmed by a single ray towards him— all raged within, and at length so furiously, that he was on the point of proceeding to extremities, to the gratification of Salome, when the evil was postponed. ________________________________ * Though the father of Mariamne did not fall by Herod’s own hand or command, he was supposed to have had a principal share in his death.

782

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

No domestic passions ever seemed to interfere with his public ambition. Hearing that Antony and Cleopatra were both dead, and Caesar conqueror of Egypt, he hastened to meet him there, leaving his family affairs in their present turbulent condition, and without, as usual, leaving any charge concerning his wife. It was when setting out on this journey that Mariamne recommended Sohemus (no doubt at his own entreaty) to Herod, asking for him a place in the government, which was granted. She could appeal for one who had acted faithfully towards herself and children, though she would ask no favor, no privilege for herself. Nothing but prosperity awaited Herod in all his foreign concerns. Octavius Caesar not only received him as his personal friend, but richly increased his monarchical dominions. The dominions of Gadara, Hyppos, and Samaria—the cities of Gaza, Anthedon, Joppa, and Strabo’s Tower, all commanding extensive maritime commerce, were made over to him by the emperor; and after attending Caesar as far as Antioch, Herod returned to his own capital, flushed with success, and more imperious than ever. Still, though every throb of ambition seemed fulfilled, Herod could not be satisfied. While earnestly pursuing his career of individual power, all the inward torments of jealous hate and jealous love subsided, but were recalled with redoubled violence on his return. The emperor of the world called him friend, and treated him as such. Other foreign potentates courted, flattered, paid him homage. A monarchy larger and more independent than had belonged to any of the former kings of Judea, acknowledged him as king; and its millions of inhabitants were obedient and peaceful through terror, if not through love. And still one woman heart refused him the homage of love and reverence which he demanded—refused to disgrace and humble her own noble Asmonaean name by acknowledging him rightful sovereign of Judea. So at least, on mature reflection, it appears that Herod’s own conscience regarded her conduct. Had she given him the love he demanded, he would have accepted it as a tacit acknowledgment of his supremacy; but the unwavering coldness of her manner, the noble bearing, throwing an air of princely dignity over her simplest action—the calm indifference with which she regarded his exaltation, all betrayed, that over her soul he could have no power, either by love or hate: and, therefore, the mortification of feeling himself, in spite of his power, his magnificence, his severity, actually de-

SIXTH PERIOD. VIII. MARIAMNE (CONTINUED)

783

spised by a weak and delicate female whom he would have crushed a hundred times, had not his consuming passion for her exceeding loveliness held his hand, heightened his jealous passion to a pitch of madness which embittered every moment of his life. So some months passed, nearly a year, from his last command which Sohemus had betrayed. Salome and Cypros continued their poisonous intrigues, their enmity receiving hot increase from its apparent utter impossibility to chafe the collected spirit of their victim. That her penetrative mind beheld their designs is most probable, and also that holding them in most supreme contempt, her manner increased in haughtiness towards them. Mariamne had never been taught to conquer, or even to know the natural failings of her race. If she had, she would not have aggravated enmity, though she might not have averted it. She would not have stooped to feign a friendship she could not feel; but she would have avoided all occasions to give offence. But to one educated as herself this was not easy. Her very hatred of the insidious conduct unfailingly practised towards her by Cypros and Salome, naturally increased the contempt which their Idumaean birth had originally excited. She no doubt knew the danger which this enmity threatened: but fear was as much unknown to the females as to the males of the Asmonaean line. That she treated them with undue haughtiness, and may even have spoken of them with the contempt she felt, is not unlikely. We have no wish to exalt our hapless ancestress into the paragon of perfection which some writers create their heroines; but this we will assert, her failings were those of her education, her virtues intrinsically her own, and so far superior in number and in brightness to her faults, that combined as they are with her severe and unmerited sufferings, we can only think of them, and love her for their sakes. The fierce flames of hate which had been smothered so long, at length burst. Every preparation, in case of such an opportunity, had long been made by Salome. The train, as it were, lay only waiting for the kindling match. In one of his paroxysms of love, Herod one day sent for Mariamne, and endeavored by lavish caresses and passionate professions to draw from her a similar return; but he sought in vain. Roused at length from her wonted calm endurance, unable to restrain the agony of recollection, deepened as it was by such false professions of a love which his every act denied, she demanded how she could love one whose ambition and reckless cruelty had

784

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

caused alike her brother and her grandfather to be slain, and heaped misery and degradation upon her family and herself? Enraged beyond all forbearance, Herod would have committed personal violence on his wife, but appears to have been again restrained by her still subduing beauty. But his chafed spirit so raged and stormed, that Salome paused no longer. Mariamne had scarcely left the apartment, before his cup-bearer entered, and with every appearance of agitation informed him that the queen had bribed him with many presents to administer a love-potion, the composition of which he knew not, and fearing what its effects might be, had resolved, as the safest course, on communicating the whole to the king. Already more than usually enraged, and glad of any charge wherewith to proceed against Mariamne, the king instantly commanded her most faithful eunuch to be seized and tortured, knowing that the queen could have done nothing without his aid. The man, in his extremity of agony, never alluded to the charge for which he was tortured; but allowed, that so for as he knew, the dislike borne by his mistress to the king had been occasioned by something which, during Herod’s absence, Sohemus had said to her. Again the same fearful belief of treachery and dishonor, which had actuated his conduct towards his uncle five years before, took possession of his heart and mind, and this time with still more fearful effects. Mariamne’s petition for Sohemus probably heightened the conviction of her guilt, and prevented all delay. Sohemus was seized and slain without even being informed of his offence, or being enabled to exculpate the queen by his denial of the charge. Mariamne herself, summoned before judges of Herod’s own selection, was tried on the accusation of her husband—some historians say of adultery; but the words of Josephus are these:—“He allowed his wife to take her trial, and got together those that were most faithful to him, and laid an elaborate accusation against her for this love-potion and composition, which had been charged upon her by way of calumny only.”3 Now this is convincing to me that he did not accuse her of adultery, knowing that if he did so, she might demand, and he dared not have refused, the trial of the waters of jealousy, expressly provided 3

Josephus, Antiquities, 15.7.1–6.

SIXTH PERIOD. VIII. MARIAMNE (CONTINUED)

785

by the mercy of the Eternal for such emergencies.4 It was an unchanged statute of her people, as much her right then as it had been that of her ancestress in centuries past. Again, the judges themselves, however terrified at the wrath of the king, dared not have pronounced her guilty of adultery, without positive proofs of her crime, at the mouth of more than one witness. The intemperate rage of Herod had so far acted against himself, that the death of Sohemus prevented his appearance in treachery and falsehood, if he had been so inclined to inculpate the victim. For substantiating the charge of attempted assassination through the love-potion, however, Herod could easily obtain tools. The same heart and hand which had already kindled the brand, was still there to nurse it into a wide-spreading flame. The creatures of her schemes were ready to do the bidding of their sovereign. Once in Salome’s power, it was easy to complete the deed. Herod’s phrensy prevented all correct judgment: and if for the words, “got together those that were most faithful to him,” we read, “got together all those that were ready to swear away their own souls, if by so doing they could oblige their mistress Salome, and compass the death of Mariamne,” we may chance to obtain the only correct rendering of the sentence. Before such judges, and against such witnesses, what would innocence avail? Josephus does not give us the particulars of the trial; but from the queen’s conduct on her way to execution, we may suppose her demeanor when in presence of her judges. A dignified composure, a calm denial of the charge, were the only words which probably paused those lips which falsehood had never tarnished. She was innocent—innocent alike of the charge accused, and the charge implied; for no doubt, though adultery was not made the reason of the trial, for the reasons stated above, they sought to cover her with the implication of dishonor; and innocence, in such awful hours, in truth is strength. It will not always support us through lingering years of misery, of being shunned by our fellows, because accused of deeds we have no power to prove are false; but God Himself has mercy then, and when the frame

4 Aguilar here refers to the rite prescribed in Num. 5:11-31. Concerning this rite see above, pp. 259, 298, 505.

786

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

dwindles from a breaking heart, takes us to His Heaven, to enjoy an eternity of blessedness for a period of woe. On the threshold of that eternity, Mariamne stood; and no thought of the opinion of man could disturb the tranquillity with which innocence strengthened her to look on death. She must long have expected this. From the hour of her brother’s murder, disclosing as it did the true character of Herod, and his fixed resolve to exterminate the Asmonaean line, she must have anticipated for herself a similar fate. She had faced it, as impending for five years; and the noble spirit which had enabled her, during that interval, so calmly to regard it, as never to waver in the line of strict integrity, or even by word or sign to lower the dignity of her character and race, would not forsake her at its termination. The mockery of justice enacted by that iniquitous trial, Josephus himself proves. Creatures of Herod, his will was theirs, and their sentence his. “Accordingly when the court was at length satisfied that he was so resolved, they passed the sentence of death upon her.”5 There is not a syllable as to their own conviction, or their own judgment, nor the wherefore of their sentence, except the resolution of the king—not a word as to the guilt of the prisoner. Still Herod shrank in his selfish passion from losing her entirely. He remanded the sentence of death for one of perpetual imprisonment. But dreading that, if permitted to live even now, every schema for her destruction would fall to the ground, Salome and her party never rested, till by dint of alarming the ambition of the king, they obtained the order for her execution. Here, again, we penetrate the passion which divided Herod’s heart with the opposing element of love. It was not by bringing forward the chances of her again dishonoring him, or her becoming the property of another, with which Salome now endeavored to work upon her brother, but by artfully suggesting, that were she permitted to live, there was always danger of the multitude’s revolting, releasing her from prison, and making her sovereign in his stead; for such is evidently the meaning of Josephus’s words; and not, as a mere hasty reading might suppose, that the people were so enraged against her, that they would be tumultuous if she were suffered to live. This is 5

Josephus, Antiquities, 15.7.4.

SIXTH PERIOD. VIII. MARIAMNE (CONTINUED)

787

contrary to both history and reason. We know that Herod was not so much beloved, that the multitudes should be enraged against an attempted assassin, by the simple fact that conspiracies were continually forming against him—men forming in bodies by some means to compass his death. His very race, as well as his public measures and private character, were odious; whereas Mariamne was almost idolized, alike for herself, and as being the last representative of a race so long beloved. A very little reflection on these facts will, I think, be convincing, that the above analysis of Salome’s arguments is founded on reason The order for the execution of the queen was at length issued, and Mariamne prepared for it with the same calm intrepidity as she had faced it years before.6 Yet who can refuse sympathy in this undeserved fate for one so innocent, so lovely, and still so young, that she could barely have exceeded five and twenty years? Nor was she entirely without ties, binding her with silvery links to earth, fraught with anguish and trial as it was. All whom she had loved with a girl’s and woman’s fondness, had either fallen in death, or by their dark deeds annihilated every capability of affection; but others had arisen, to concentrate on them a heart clinging in its desolation to them, even yet more closely, more devotedly, than ordinary love. How might she leave her infant children? Who on earth was to care for them? Would not the same persevering hatred poison their young existence as it had her own? To whom did she leave them— Herod, Salome, Cypros? Would they supply her place? And her own mother? Alas! she must have already learned that she, too, was not one on whom her heart could rest, or to whom she could intrust treasures far more precious than herself; and in the brief interval stretching between her and death, she was to feel this yet more agonizingly—the last drop of bitterness flung into her cup was thrown by a mother’s hand! It was not then the mere separation by her own violent death from her beloved ones. Thoughts of far deeper anguish must have occupied some of her parting moments. Nor is this, as we shall, no doubt, be accused, taking too great license, and allowing imagination to usurp the unvarnished tale of history. We never refuse the meed of sympathy to Anne 6

Josephus, Antiquities, 15.7.5.

788

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

Boleyn, Lady Jane Grey, Mary Queen of Scots, and other sufferers of more modern times; yet, compared with the unsullied purity of Mariamne the first of these was unredeemably guilty, and the last burdened by many historians with a charge (which, though we ourselves believe it a false and most unproved one, still attaches itself to her name) of a husband’s murder. In point of innocence, the second only can be named with her; and sad as was her fate, it was little removed from joy, compared to the trials and death of Mariamne. If we give these three our sympathy—if we teach the young heart to feel for them—if the tale of Anne’s parting from her own Elizabeth, and remorse for her neglect of Mary, excite our sympathy—why shall we hurry over the memoirs of our own, and refuse them the meed of admiration, love, and pity, which, if we reflect, even their brief unsatisfactory records in Jewish history must excite? Let any wife and mother place herself in idea in the position of the Asmonaean princess; or if this be too fanciful for her imagination, let her suppose her nearest and dearest relatives injured alike openly and secretly by the man she has married, and whom she could have loved—herself insulted, doubted—treated at one time with furious love, at others imprisoned, and in danger of her life from the same being—and then accused, condemned, without hope of justice or relief—let her ponder on this; and if she be a mother say where her last thoughts would rest, and then accuse us, if she can, of so infusing history with imagination, as to render it impossible to divide the one from the other. Is human nature, human feeling, different now to what it was in former ages? Shall we deprive the characters of history of all power of emotion, only because they existed under a different modification of social customs? If so, and we are not to exercise either reflection, analysation, or intellect, history must remain the bare recital of events and dates, of which so many justly complain, and from which no lesson, no moral, can be deduced.

CHAPTER IX. MARIAMNE (CONCLUDED) —ALEXANDRA—SALOME Josephus is silent both as to the period elapsing between Mariamne’s trial and her death, and as to the manner of that execution. Stoning had originally been the Jewish penalty for all crimes; but the Roman punishment of decapitation had very probably taken its place, and by the axe, no doubt, the last of the Asmonaeeans fell.1 Whatever the death, no doubt attends the last moments of the victim. Calmly, unflinchingly, we are told, she walked to the place of execution. No terror, no unseemly indignation at the injustice dealt her, marred the modest and tranquil dignity which had marked her life, and left her not in death. There she was, in her touching youth and exquisite beauty, accused of crimes, which not one of those vast multitudes who looked on believed, though none dared tempt the tyrant’s wrath by rising in her cause. Not a sound broke the awful stillness—the very emissaries of Salome, scattered in large numbers amongst the crowds to silence the faintest semblance of murmuring or pity, appear to have been awed by the dignified composure of the prisoner, and horror-struck, even as the rest of the spectators, by the sudden appearance of Alexandra, not, as might be supposed, to lament and mourn over her child, but to heap upon her reproaches and abuse, declaring “that her punishment came justly upon her for her ingratitude to her husband, and her insolent behavior in not making proper returns to him who had been their common benefactor.” The motives of this fearful hypocrisy, terror for herself, and the consequent desire to avert all 1

See Josephus, Antiquities, 15.7.5–6.

789

790

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

personal danger from Herod, by publicly condemning her child, whom she above all persons knew to be innocent, appear to have been penetrated, even at that moment, by the multitudes, and excited their loudest condemnation; but no word of reproach or suffering escaped the lips of her whom a mother thus assailed. Yet how bitter must have been the pang of such unexpected conduct. How fearfully must the cold selfishness which could, at such a moment, seek personal security by asserting belief in the guilt of her own child, whom she knew to be unstained, have sunk on the heart of the prisoner! But all human emotions had been stilled—she was standing on the threshold of that glorious eternity, which to her, as a woman of Israel, a descendant of priests, was revealed in all its fulness, all its bliss. A brief, brief pang, and she knew she should be with the idolized brother of her youth, whose angel spirit might even at that moment be hovering near her, to waft her released soul to the footstool of her God. For Israel death had no terror— immortality was to them revealed. They knew that with God was the fulness of joy, and at His right hand were everlasting pleasures. And in the calm fortitude, the meek endurance yet lofty bearing of the Asmonaean princess, we read, not the stoicism of the Roman martyr, but the rejoicing faith and unshrinking courage of the Hebrew believer, firm in the blessed consciousness of Immortality and Heaven! One look of pitying forgiveness fell from the eyes of the injured, on her unnatural mother, and a few words addressed to those near her expressed the deep concern for Alexandra’s degradation. Not for its injury towards herself, but as it concerned her mother individually, exposing her, as it did, to the contempt of the populace, and little likely to conciliate the king. These appear to have been her last words; “for herself,” Josephus continues, “she went to death with an unshaken firmness of mind, and without even changing the color of her face, and thereby discovered the nobility of her descent to the spectators, even in the last moments of her life.”2 We do not think that “nobility of descent” is or was the real lesson derived from such a death. It was the calm intrepidity of innocence—the composed and gentle firmness of a soul at peace 2

See Josephus, Antiquities, 15.7.5–6.

SIXTH PERIOD. IX. MARIAMNE (CONCLUDED)

791

with itself, and resting on its God. She had lived long enough to learn, and feel too sadly, that not in this world may we “distinguish between the righteous and the wicked, between him that serveth God and him that serveth Him not;”3 and, the pangs of parting from her children once subdued, she gladly turned to that everlasting home where her innocence was known, where her wearied spirit would find its yearned-for rest, and her desolate heart, which earth had crushed, be filled with love infinite as perfect, bliss unending as complete. We have endeavored to make manifest throughout this eventful history, how mistaken and contradictory are the impressions with which Josephus would burden the character of Mariamne. Whereas Salome, whose actions it is utterly impossible to misunderstand, and whose dark thoughts and sinful machinations are distinctly visible, from the moment she appears on the theatre of life to the end of her existence, he dismisses without a shadow of blame, either written or implied. Thus leaving the idea, that trifling errors of education, the only faults which can be applied to Mariamne, are, because visited with suffering and death, infinitely more culpable and heinous than the palpable and uncalled-for crimes of calumny, false witness, murder, and a long list of atrocities, either actually performed by Salome herself, or planned and committed by her sole orders and persuasions, but whose blackness becomes white in the eyes of the historian, through the marvellous transformation of temporal elevation and success. Surely, we ought to be careful how we place such opinions in the hands of our children, and not rest contented with merely giving them history to peruse. As an author, Josephus is most valuable; we have no doubt of his accuracy with regard to events, but we cannot depend upon either his discrimination or impartiality in the delineation of character, or in the justice and entireness of his conclusions. We repeatedly find that his drawing up, as it were, of a character, is contradicted by the whole tenor of previous events, which, being related by himself as facts, must guide us much more correctly than his own conclusions. We have seen this already in the life and character of Alexandra; and we shall

3

Cf. Eccles. 9:2.

792

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

perceive it as clearly in his winding up of the character of Mariamne, which we subjoin: “And thus died Mariamne; a woman of excellent character both for chastity and greatness of soul;4 but she wanted moderation, and had too much contention in her nature. Yet had she all that can be said, in the beauty of her body, and her majestic appearance in conversation; and thence arose the greatest part of the occasions, why she did not prove so agreeable to the king, nor live so pleasantly with him as she might otherwise have done, for while she was most indulgently used by the king, out of his fondness for her, and did not expect that he could do any hard thing to her, she took too unbounded a liberty. Moreover, that which afflicted her was, what he had done to her relations, and she ventured to speak of all they had suffered by him; and at last greatly provoked both the king’s mother and sister, till they became enemies to her, and even he himself also did the same, on whom alone she depended for her expectations of escaping the last of punishments.”5 Now we would ask any casual reader, what would be the impression of this extraordinary passage? Would they not suppose that Mariamne had not only drawn down her fate upon herself, but had actually deserved it? That she was the only one to blame, and Herod, Cypros, and Salome, all alike were guiltless? And yet, even in leaving this most unfounded and most unjust impression, of what does he accuse her? Compelled (it would seem almost in spite of himself) to acknowledge her chastity and greatness of soul, all he can bring against her is, that her “majestic appearance in conversation” (meaning, we imagine, the calm dignity of her manner) rendered her less agreeable to the tyrant than she would have been could she have resembled her mother, and condescended to deceive. We are told that “she was most indulgently used by the king, who out of his great fondness for her could do no hard thing to her, and that, therefore, she took too great a liberty, wanted moderation, and evinced too contentious a spirit.” Where throughout her history, and we have given it at length, can we find the foundation for either of these clauses? How did Herod demonstrate his 4 5

Josephus, Antiquities, 15.7.6. Ibid.

SIXTH PERIOD. IX. MARIAMNE (CONCLUDED)

793

deep love and great indulgence? By the murder of her brother and grandfather, the constant indignity offered to her mother, the death of all those who befriended or were faithful to her; or by the continued insults offered to herself, in doubting her truth commanding her imprisonment and separation from her children, twice sentenced to death in case of Herod’s death, and final execution on a false and unproved charge? Where can we find proofs of her want of moderation, &c.? In her calm endurance of her constant sufferings? In her breathing not one syllable of complaint or injury, forming no plots, joining no intrigues, passing through her brief life in such unstained, unsullied purity and chastity, that not even the most prejudiced can dare fling a stigma on her noble name; exposed times out of number to temptation from the machinations of an evil mother, and the insults of a phrensied husband, yet eschewing all, and standing forth in her own brightness; before which neither slander, hatred, nor calumny, could stand? We read how impossible Salome felt it to compass her death on the plea of her dishonor by the artifice of the love-potion, which in the end she was compelled to adopt. In what can we discover too contentious a spirit? In the high-minded uprightness which revealed to the injurers, and to the injurers alone, her consciousness of their evil intentions towards her? In the absence of all deceptive conciliation, and yet the avoidance of all attempted vengeance. In what took she too unbounded a liberty? We read of her asking no boon save one, and that was Sohemus’s own seeking. If, indeed, Herod so “indulgently used her,” and she was of so rapacious a disposition, is it not almost marvellous that history reveals not a single instance in which, this unbounded liberty was used; that Mariamne should never have accused Salome and Cypros to the king, and urged his interference to prevent their injurious treatment of herself: that we do not read of her interfering also in the government, in foreign and civil affairs, in which other women, who really did take “too unbounded a liberty,” were so often mischievously engaged? There was neither law nor custom in her nation to prevent this interference, had she been so inclined. Again, was it so very remarkable that “what afflicted her most, was Herod’s conduct to her relations?” Yet Josephus, and even Milman, seem to imagine that because she was the murderer’s wife, she was not to feel these things. Was it in human nature to retain affection or even esteem for a man “who had more or less concern

794

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

in the murder of her grandfather, father, brother, and uncle,”*6even could she forget and forgive that twice he had commanded her death in case of his own? Was it a fault that “she ventured to speak of all they had differed by him?” Or was it not rather a proof of a noble spirit and courageous soul, which urged her to risk her own life, rather than by silence and deceit tacitly acquiesce in the necessity for their destruction? We are told, too, that Mariamne “greatly provoked both the king’s mother and sister;” but of their hatred to her, and malignantly working enmity, Josephus takes no note, permitting us to suppose that it was deserved, and Mariamne, not Salome, was to blame. Haughtiness and reserve, then, according to this historian, are greater crimes than slander, false witness, and actual murder. Mariamne might have treated Salome and Cypros with undue haughtiness, but the fault originated in her education, not herself. Had she, as she might have done, sought to injure Salome with the king, or given evidence of her dislike by public insult or private annoyances, we might acknowledge that she was in error; but of such things we can discern no trace whatever. Mariamne’s sole offence was having in her girlhood reproached Salome and Cypros with the meanness of their birth, urged on to do so most probably by her designing mother; and for this offence Salome pursued her with unrelenting hate, caring for neither falsehood nor murder, so she at length succeeded in removing her by death. We know that Mariamne’s original offence must have been committed quite in her girlhood, for, from the time of the death of Aristobulus, Salome commenced her machinations; and, aware of her hate and designs against her as she must have been, was it strange that Mariamne, shrinking from sight of falsehood even in manner, should treat Salome on all occasions with a reserve and dignity, which her seditious and violent spirit considered as haughtiness and insult impossible to be borne, and so aggravating her passionate desire for revenge? Such is our dispassionate analysis of Josephus’s complex winding up of the character of Mariamne. We can only entreat our readers, old and young, to refer to the history itself, and if our nar* Milman.6 6 Milman, History of the Jews, 2:107.

SIXTH PERIOD. IX. MARIAMNE (CONCLUDED)

795

rative of the same events be deemed erroneous, or prove to have no foundation on reflection and reason, to draw thence their own conclusions, and pronounce judgment on the character of our hapless ancestress accordingly. We wish merely to suggest, to assist, in the perusal of history, not to push forward our individual opinions in opposition to existing authorities, or in contradiction of established theories; acknowledging at the same time boldly and freely, that having long thought neither Jewish nor Gentile historians have done justice to the personal character and the painful position of the last proud scion of the Asmonaean line, we were glad of this opportunity so to bring her forward, that our readers, perceiving little things and trifling events more clearly before them than they can be found in a history of the time, may form their own conclusions. Long as we have already lingered, our task were scarcely accomplished, did we not endeavor to “point a moral” in this eventful tale. Let not our young sisters turn from its perusal, in that sadness and sinking of the heart which must accompany the first conviction, that virtue, and goodness, and truth, are not rewarded upon earth; that in Salome they perceive guilt and crime triumphant, prosperous, rejoicing; in Mariamne, the virtuous falling a victim to the sinful, truth crushed by falsehood, innocence by guilt; Herod living out his days, surrounded by temporal prosperity, power, magnificence, conquering alike foes abroad and seditions at home—courted by foreign potentates—allied to the empress of the world;—Aristobulus the young, the innocent, the gifted, cut off by the dark deeds of this very man, in his first and loveliest youth. To the unenlightened and the sceptic, these are truths fraught with darkness and suffering, likely to lead to the fearful labyrinth of denial and atheism—necessity and nature. To the believer, be his actual creed what it may, so it be founded on the revelation of the Old Testament (which Christian as well as Hebrew is), narratives like these are some of the very strongest, most unanswerable evidences of our immortality which history presents. In the history of Jeroboam,7 we find the foundation and commentary on this assertion. His young son Abijah fell sick, and Jeroboam desired his wife to take a present in her hand, and seek Ahijah the prophet, to im7

1 Kgs. 14:1–13.

796

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

plore his intercession for the restoration of the child. The aged prophet was blind, and though the wife of Jeroboam concealed her rank and name, and sought to pass herself for another woman, the Lord revealed her name and mission, and Ahijah, after prophesying the awful calamities which would befall the house of Jeroboam for their iniquities, proceeded to pronounce these impressive and remarkable words, “Arise thou, therefore, get thee to thine own home, and when thy feet enter into the city the child shall die. And all Israel shall mourn for him, and bury him, for he only of Jeroboam shall come to the grave, BECAUSE IN HIM THERE WAS FOUND SOME GOOD THING TOWARD THE LORD GOD OF ISRAEL, IN THE HOUSE OF JEROBOAM.” If we would but remember this striking fact, revealed as it is in the inspired word of the Eternal, to be our consolation and instruction in those darker ages, when such direct communings with our Father in Heaven were to be at an end;8 even Profane History would strengthen us in our belief, and reveal many times the truth of our immortality. We should cease to regard death with the horror which its very name often inspires, if we would but realize it, not as the cessation of existence, but as the revealed entrance into another and purer sphere, where every intellectual capacity, every capability of love and affection, every aspiring after the great and good, the beautiful and true, which has blessed us here, will find exercise and fulfilment, completion and perfection. If we believe in a God, and that He is, as He revealed Himself, a God of TRUTH,9 we must believe in our existence elsewhere, or this world is chaos—our God but a name, His word false. We could write more, much more on this argument, but this is not the place. Writing for professed Israelites, we must suppose that their belief in immortality, in death, not as a cessation, but as a change of existence, is as fixed as their Here Aguilar takes for granted the idea that with the demise of Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi prophesy has ceased in Israel; for this idea see Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin 11a, and see the discussion on p. 546 n. 48. 9 Cf. Jer. 10:10: “The LORD is a God of Truth”; KJV renders there: “But the LORD is the true God”; on the role of the latter assertion in Jewish liturgy see above, p. 186, n. 159. 8

SIXTH PERIOD. IX. MARIAMNE (CONCLUDED)

797

belief in their Fathers’ God; and if it be, we shall find little difficulty in removing all impression of doubt and sadness from the history of Mariamne. The iniquities of Judea and her children at the period of Herod, and some years before, far exceeded, in magnitude and variety, those of Israel in the time of Jeroboam. If we glance forward from the reign of Herod, we shall perceive misery increasing on every side—horrors multiplying—man rising against man, more appallingly, more terribly, than had ever before devastated this beautiful world. In addition to the tale of Jeroboam’s son, we are told in the same Divine Book, “The righteous is taken from the evil to come.”10 And in the death of Aristobulus and Mariamne, both these Divine Truths are fulfilled. “There was good” found in Aristobulus; and God, in His mercy, over-ruled the wickedness of man, to the eternal blessedness of the youth he loved. He took him, ere temptation and evil could sully the purity and virtue which his youth revealed. Every kind of death is suffering. It is the penalty we all pay for the sinful inclinations inherited from our first parents; but what was the agony of a violent death, granted it lasted an hour, compared with the eternity of bliss Awaiting the released spirit with its pitying God? The sin of Herod was the same. That the Eternal overruled his hate and persecution of the innocent, to the endless joy and peace of his victim, in no way exonerated him from the blackness of the deed. Crime is crime. The worker of sin looks but to the triumph of his wickedness, and, as such, is responsible to his God; but his evil deeds, however they may seem to carry all before them while below, do but add a glory to the Divine economy above, and for those they seek to injure upon earth, provide yet deeper bliss in heaven. As it was with Aristobulus, so it was with Mariamne. Her life was, indeed, one of far severer trials, far deeper agony than his; but God saw she needed them to fit her for heaven, or they would not have been sent. There might have been inclinations and whisperings of evil naturally in her heart, which, without the trial of suffering, might have made her another Alexandra or Salome; but God Isa. 57:1; the Divine Book here meaning, the Hebrew Bible, not necessarily the book of Kings. 10

798

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

loved her, and so He purified her in the ordeal of suffering, and then in His deep mercy took her to Himself ere the evil days came, and she saw her beloved children tortured and condemned. If we look forward in the history of her family, we must feel that she was indeed removed from the “evil to come.” The Eternal might, indeed, had He so willed, have “made bare His holy arm,”11 and wrought salvation and delivery for her even on earth; but to make such a distinction between the righteous and the wicked in this world, would interfere with the free will, to choose the good and eschew the evil, or choose the evil and forsake the good, which God himself bestowed on man. No; in this life, evil will often appear to be predominant; but we shall cease to murmur and despond that so it is, if we will but look up firmly and faithfully to that world, where all that is incomprehensible here will be made clear, and the injured and the innocent live for ever with their God, shining as the chosen “jewels” of His crown. Do not then let us envy the prosperous, and believe ourselves forsaken, if our sojourn on earth be one of adversity and pain. We have still a Father who loveth those whom He chastises, for by chastisement and probation He prepares them for that eternal blessedness which is denied to those who continue in their hardened course.12 In direct opposition to the comforting words we have quoted, we read in the same inspired book, “When the wicked spring up like grass, and when all the workers of iniquity do flourish, it is that they shall be destroyed for ever.”13 And again, “Fret not thyself because of evil doers, neither be thou envious against the Isa. 52:10. Aguilar here summarizes the Jewish doctrine of “chastisements of love”; cf. Moses Nahmanides The Gate of Reward, translated and annotated. by Charles B. Chavel (New York: Shilo, 1983). 13 Ps. 92:7. To Jewish women and men this is one of the most familiar psalms as it is the Psalm for the Sabbath recited three times each Sabbath, once in the evening service before the Call to Worship (see ArtScroll Siddur, 320–321) again in the “verses of song” recited in the Sabbath Morning Service before the Call to Worship (see ArtScroll Siddur, 388–389) and again at the conclusion of either the Morning Service or the Additional Service (see ArtScroll Siddur, 488). 11 12

SIXTH PERIOD. IX. MARIAMNE (CONCLUDED)

799

workers of iniquity, for they shall soon he cut down like the grass and wither like the green herb.”14 If we recollect these words, and those quoted before—if we believe, humbly and faithfully, that this world is actually to the righteous but the threshold of existence, and permit this belief to attend us, not only in every event, but in every thought of life, running through our studies from the severest to the lightest, history would not be the sad and unsatisfactory task which it but too often is. We should never feel saddened and depressed at the often apparent triumph of oppression and evil over the helpless and the good, for we should know this was but the surface, whose depths were in infinity; the beginning, whose end was immortality.15 Which of our young readers would, if she could choose, exchange the trials and death of Mariamne for the prosperous and unchecked career of Salome? The inward answer contained in the first thought would reveal the real state of the heart and soul to their youthful owner. We ask not the reply, for none could truly give it. Those who know not, and have never studied humanity, would loudly condemn the very suspicion, that preference could be accorded to the career (remember we do not say the character) of Salome; but the earnest and heartfelt student of humanity knows that the human heart of itself is but too often “deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked.”16 And though religion and education, vitalized by the grace of God, can and will subdue these natural inclinations, still it is only inward questions such as these which will reveal whether indeed every seed of evil has been trampled down and rooted out. And, therefore, is it good so to cultivate selfknowledge, that even the characters of ages past may aid us on through the dark and dangerous paths of our present life! The sinfulness of Salome would warn us from such choice: but there may be many youthful hearts to think and feel, that to be Ps. 37:1–2. Aguilar senses that many people in her time are not aware of the Jewish faith in immortality. So she reminds the readers of this belief again and again (see above, pp. 8, 14, 32, 36, 55-61, 341, 708, 714, 790, 795, 796, 799; and see p. 47, n. 48). 16 Jer. 17:9. 14 15

800

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

prosperous is not always to be wicked—to pass through life without trial, does not always prove our non-acceptance with the Lord. And they are right: but our question condenses itself into simply this—would we choose a life of prosperity and joy without religion— without that internal communing with our Father in heaven which bids us think of, and fits us for heaven; or a life of trial with it, with that religion which not only sustains but blesses—which gives us joy in the very midst of grief, strength in the midst of weakness, hope beyond the grave, in the dark shadow of death17—assurances of unending love in loneliness, of sympathy in misconception and suspicion, of one who will never leave us nor forsake, however every friend departs by change or death, of that realization of immortality, which bids us walk this world as a bird that passeth, and in his very resting sees afar, and yearneth for his native clime. According to the inward answer, so are our hearts right or wrong, in their secret thoughts of God. Such were the trials, and such the infused strength of Mariamne. As a woman of Israel—to whom these things were known and felt by the faithful, far more vividly then than now—we may rest assured that her pure chastity, her high sense of rectitude, her unvarying truth and collected dignity, in the very midst of trials and temptations, which in those dark times must have morally and spiritually lowered any ordinary woman, had their foundation and constancy in religion alone. Nothing else could have sustained her, or withheld her so completely from the committal of a single fault, or even venial error, which could throw a shadow on her name. To realize to the full the beauty of her character, we must think of the age in which she lived—the wickedness with which she was surrounded—the false notions of right and wrong with which her own mother sought to mislead her unguarded youth—the laxity of morals, even in Judea, from her amalgamation with the heathen nations—and the intensity of suffering to which as a wife and sister, queen and mother, she was so constantly and cruelly exposed— these considerations, added to her extreme youth, must excite our love and admiration yet more than our pity, for we know that her death was not only the cessation of sorrow, but the commence17

Ps. 23:4.

SIXTH PERIOD. IX. MARIAMNE (CONCLUDED)

801

ment of an eternity of bliss. “To believe in the heroic makes heroes,”18 we have lately read; and there is a world of solid truth in those brief words: and even so, to admire virtue with the pure fresh feelings of the unsophisticated heart, will excite to virtuous deeds. The trials of the wife of Herod are no longer ours to encounter; but without trial who may pass through life? And oh, however deceived, insulted, wearied, let us never stoop to use the weapons of revenge, but calmly and steadily pursue our suffering course, as pure, as true, as nobly, as Mariamne! Before entirely leaving this subject, we will take a hasty glance over the fate of the characters so intimately connected with the history of Mariamne. Herod’s after career will be found in the historians of the times—suffice it to state here, that if ever retribution were permitted to be visible in this world, we can trace it in the tortures, physical and mental, which afflicted him, from the moment of his wife’s murder, to his own death, not only as concerned him individually, but in the continued plots and misery which, through the fiendish machinations of Salome, devastated his household. A pestilential disease breaking out just after Mariamne’s murder, and carrying off immense numbers, appears to have been so universally felt as Divine vengeance and wrath for the iniquitous deed, that her innocence, if it had ever been doubted, must from that moment have been publicly acknowledged, and Herod regarded with increased loathing as her unjustifiable murderer.19 Overpowered by mental agony, he went from place to place, from solitude to solitude, in the vain search for peace. The body succumbed to the torture of the mind, and a fierce incurable disease seizing him while at Samaria, confined him there for several months, and without any intermission of pain. The mother who could insult her innocent and only child on her way to death—who could at such a moment think only of endeavoring to preserve her own life, and seek to do so by false accusations of her own offspring—was not likely to be much affected by her loss. No misfortune, no bereavement, no personal imprison18 19

This line is commonly attributed to Benjamin Disraeli (1804–1881). See Josephus, Antiquities, 15.7.7.

802

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

ment, appears to have had any effect in decreasing that fearful thirst for ambition which was the secret origin of all Alexandra’s own crimes, and much of her children’s misery. Hearing of Herod’s incurable distemper at Samaria, she commenced her machinations by endeavoring to obtain possession of the fortifications of Jerusalem, in which place she resided. One of these commanded the Temple; and she knew if this were obtained, the whole nation would be in her power; for without the temple there could be no sacrifices, and without these daily holocausts, universal rebellion would inevitably ensue. These strongholds she demanded in the name of Mariamne’s sons, on the plea of guarding them for the young princes, in case of their father’s death. The link, however, which had in former times united the populace to Alexandra, had been snapt asunder by the death of Mariamne. There could be no belief in her fidelity to the interests of her grandsons, when her unnatural conduct to her own child was remembered, and she was now yet more an object of popular hate and indignation than Herod himself. Her schemes were all frustrated—first by the positive refusal of the governor of the fortifications to take any step till the actual death of the king; and secondly, and still more effectually, by the betrayal of her machinations: and Herod, though scarcely able to move or breathe from physical torture. gave instant orders for her execution.20 The fate of Alexandra was, then, the same as Mariamne’s; but how differently do we regard it! Her restless intrigues, caring for neither sin nor shame in their accomplishment; her fearful ambition always ending in destruction to the innocent, as well as to herself; her entire want of all human feelings, from first to last, save in her grief for Aristobulus, and those, too, her after conduct bids us trace more to the agony of mortified ambition than of maternal bereavement, all compel us actually to recoil from the contemplation of her character, and deprive us of all sympathy in her fate. Had she been other than she was—had she taught her proud spirit submission, and sought to conciliate, not offend, the female members of Herod’s family, much of misery, both for Mariamne and herself, might have been averted. We can derive no individual 20

Josephus, Antiquities, 15.9.8.

SIXTH PERIOD. IX. MARIAMNE (CONCLUDED)

803

lesson from her history, save of warning, lest the temptations of this world, luxury and worldliness, the petty ambition of rivalry in riches and appearance, prejudice and envy, should distort the fair sweet coloring of humanity, and clothe up our hearts in the icy mail of selfishness and pride. Alexandra was not by nature and constitution different from other women; but the seeds of sin, of which circumstances and education prevent our very consciousness, in her obtained ascendency, and crushed all of human feeling and womanly tenderness, beneath their poisonous and overspreading weeds. Her intrigues and ambition, however, are strong confirmatory proofs of the social position of the Women of Israel in her time, We see she had full liberty to scheme and act, and endeavor, in more than one instance, to put herself forward in actual opposition to the mighty and magnificent Herod, powerful as he was in himself, and courted by all foreign states. That she never succeeded, showed, indeed, the weakness of her cause, but not the debasement of her social condition. There could have been no law existing, either written or oral, to the disparagement of women at the time, or her natural position would have rendered her too powerless and insignificant even for the formation of intrigues, much less to permit their importance in the eyes of Herod, and consequent persecution of herself. The mother of Herod is mentioned no more in history, and not being a woman of Israel, we are not even bound to follow Salome’s sinful course any further; but for the completion of the history, we will sketch briefly as may be, the continuance of her career. Her first public act after the death of her victim, for such undoubtedly Mariamne was, was in defiance of all Jewish law and womanly delicacy, to send a bill of divorce to her husband Costabarus,21 with whom she had quarrelled, excusing the deed to Josephus, Antiquities, 15.7.10; to Aguilar’s ready acquiescence in Josephus’s assertion that for a woman to send a bill of divorce to her husband was contrary to Jewish law contrast the discussion in Gruber, “The Status of Women in Ancient Judaism,” 161–164; and see also the note by Whiston in his translation of Josephus, ad loc. Aguilar and Josephus are indeed supported in their view that only a husband (not a wife) can initiate a divorce by Mishnah, Yevamot 14:1. For evidence that in Second Temple 21

804

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

Herod by telling him that it was for his sake she had thus acted; having discovered that Costabarus had joined in a conspiracy against him, and had also preserved alive, in direct contradiction to Herod’s orders (issued twelve years before), the sons of Babas, men of the Asmonaean line, and in great favor with the multitude. Being found in the place designated by Salome, they were all slain; and Costabarus, with four other of Herod’s intimate friends, executed on Salome’s charge. The sons of Babas were the very last even distantly connected with the Maccabaean line; and Herod now reigned unencumbered with a single remaining family of sufficient rank and dignity to interfere with or prevent his denationalization of Judaea.22 Sixteen or eighteen years passed, and we read nothing of Salome; but from the moment of Alexander’s and Aristobulus’ return to Judaea her hatred against Mariamne seemed rekindled towards her sons, and her machinations recommenced. The young princes had been educated at Rome, and were received by the Jewish population with such enthusiastic delight as appears to have reawakened the old hatred of the Asmonean line. The princes bore in their majestic mien and noble features, all the characteristics of their mother’s race. The intervening years seem to have had as little power to deaden the people’s love for their native princes as to diminish Salome’s hate. They could scarcely have arrived at Jerusalem ere the calumnies and suspicions against them commenced, not indeed as yet conveyed to Herod by his sister, but reports raised abroad, that they had been heard to speak reproachfully against their father as their mother’s murderer, and boldly to assert their own belief in her innocence and virtue. These rumors of course reached Herod’s ear, and reviving all the thoughts and tortures of previous years, shook the affection he was beginning to feel towards his sons, and his naturally jealous and suspicious temper regained ascendency.

times and in the era of the Second Jewish Revolt (132–135 C.E.) other views of the matter may have been acted upon see the sources cited in Gruber, “The Status of Women in Ancient Judaism,” 162, n. 44. 22 Josephus, Antiquities, 15.7.10.

SIXTH PERIOD. IX. MARIAMNE (CONCLUDED)

805

Still, though shaken, he pursued his more kindly intention towards his sons, marrying both with great splendor, to wives of their own rank; Alexander, to Glaphyra, daughter of Archelaus, king of Cappadocia, a union which, if approved of by the people, clearly demonstrates how completely the Laws of Moses were put aside or observed, according to the caprice of the king, and how little that power can be supposed to realize the promises of the prophets: Aristobulus to Berenice, the daughter of Salome. That she should consent to give her daughter to a man she hated, and whose destruction she had resolved to compass, may excite some surprise, but is fully explained by the issue. Whether the princess Berenice’s affections were excited towards her husband, or not, we know not; but even had they been, Salome herself was too completely void of any human or womanly feeling, to permit such affection to interfere with her designs, or care for the suffering which in that case she inflicted on her child. She permitted, nay, probably proposed the union, to obtain a spy on Aristobulus’ most private moments and most unguarded words; and that Berenice could be persuaded, as Josephus tells us, into “ill-nature” against her husband, and to “gratify her mother,” forge the most improbable tales concerning her husband’s private speeches, argues but too painfully that the character of Salome found its reflection in her daughter; and Berenice married Aristobulus not from affection, but only to aid her mother’s plans.23 We have no space, nor is this the work, to dilate on all the fearful machinations pursued by Salome and her party, against these ill-fated young men. The unsuspicious candor, the open independence, and courageous assertion of their mother’s honor, against all who purposely assailed it, were no match for the fiendish subtlety which marked every word and movement of Salome. They actually regarded her as their best friend, at the very period that her every energy was used in maddening the king against them, till he himself urged on their destruction with the violence and hatred of a demon. The law of Moses, totally disregarded in the condemnation of Mariamne, and the marriage of Alexander with a heathen, was now used by the infatuated father as a reason for his demanding 23

Josephus, Antiquities, 16.1.2.

806

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

the execution of his sons.* For five or seven years these machinations worked ere their end was accomplished by the actual destruction of the victims; and during that interval, the most awful state of suspicion from one man to another, obtained possession not of the court alone, but of the whole population. Executions were constantly occurring. Men accused, however innocent, and tortured into confessions of guilt, which included many others—dark doubts of friend against friend—brother against brother—till all of nature itself and human affections appeared to succumb beneath the baleful influence of suspicion and distrust; and all this was a woman’s work, and originated in a woman’s hate, called forth by the petty feelings of jealousy and envy. In Josephus24 we find an elaborate, in Milman25 a clear and succinct account of this fearful period of Herod’s reign. To these we refer our readers: suffice it here to state, that Salome’s hate was gratified. The gifted and accomplished sons of Mariamne shared their mother’s fate: and though the dark deed recoiled with horror and murder on many of its perpetrators, Salome herself remained uninjured by the shock, spared to work out her own destiny, and in another world receive its recompense. But let it not be imagined that hate and its concomitant desire of injury were the only characteristics of Salome; her life was one continued course of intrigue, alike political and personal. We do not linger on them; for there can be neither profit nor pleasure in so doing. Her treatment of Costabarus we already know; and before she was married to Alexas, some years afterwards, her conduct had been such as to excite the shame and abhorrence of even those licentious times. Her third husband was Alexas, one of Herod’s favorites, and with him she appears to have lived more peacefully and honorably than with his predecessors. That, with all her fearful deeds and thoughts, she was a woman of masculine intellect and immense capability, is proved by the consummate skill and talent with which she always contrived and carried out her nefarious plans. Often in danger, but never outwitted, she repeatedly saw her * Josephus, Antiquities, book xvi. chap. xi. 24 See previous numbered note. 25 Milman, History of the Jews, 2:93–126.

SIXTH PERIOD. IX. MARIAMNE (CONCLUDED)

807

companions in iniquity fall victims to their own arts against others, while she herself remained untouched and unsuspected. None but a clever woman could so have intrigued, and kept up such a continued course of fraud, deceit, and falsehood, without ever injuring herself. But how fearfully do those very talents and capabilities increase her responsibility and her guilt!26 The only act recorded of her of a somewhat superior nature to those we have touched upon, was her releasing from the Hippodrome all those Jewish nobles and elders whom Herod had collected there, commanding them to be slain the moment of his own death, that there might be a general mourning in Judea. Before the king’s death was publicly known, Salome and Alexas gave them freedom, desiring them, in Herod’s name, to return to their own lands. Remembering the character of Salome we must believe this action, like all the rest, had its origin in policy not in goodness. Had obedience to Herod’s command been equally politic, we should undoubtedly have read of their execution instead of their release.27 So skilfully had she contrived to retain her brother’s affections, that, though it was to her machinations alone he actually owed all his domestic, and consequent mental misery, Herod remembered her largely in his will, leaving her the cities of Jamnia, Ashdod, and Phasaelis, with five hundred thousand drachmas in silver. To her too was intrusted his letter to the soldiery, thanking them for their fidelity to himself, and exhorting them to grant the same to his son, Archelaus, whom he had appointed king. Salome read it herself to the soldiery, whom her commands had mustered in the amphitheatre, and the appointment was received with acclamations. But our intrigues were not yet over. A sedition in Jerusalem, soon after the accession of Archelaus, though subdued and punished, urged the young monarch to journey to Rome, there to defend his conduct, and obtain the confirmation of his father’s will. Thither Salome and her whole family accompanied him, ostensibly to use her influence with Augustus in his favor, secretly to work against him, by encouraging Antipas, another of Herod’s sons, to come to Rome, and promising him her aid with the emperor to 26 27

See Josephus, Antiquities, 17.1.1. See Josephus, Antiquities, 17.7.5; 17.8.2.

808

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

displace his brother. False charges were accordingly brought against Archelaus by a son of Salome, as subtle and intriguing as his mother; and after a variety of delays and pleadings, Archelaus was appointed by the emperor ethnarch over half the territory left him by Herod (a poor substitute for the title and power of king), and the remainder divided between two of his brothers, Philip and Antipas. Here again we trace the workings of Salome’s intrigues, paving the way for the complete reduction to a Roman province of that beautiful land which her brother had so strenuously sought to denationalize. With herself, all prospered. Besides confirming to her the legacy of her brother, Augustus conferred the royal residence of Askelon; and alternately here and at Rome she seems to have passed the remaining years of her existence. As we do not read any further record of her interference in the government, we are to suppose that she confined her subtilty to more private life. She lived long enough to behold the transient kingdom of Herod swallowed up in the dominion of the Romans: her nationality, her glory, her laws, all trampled underfoot by the heathen power that overran the land. But to Salome this must have been rather a source of rejoicing than of grief. Judging by her acts, she never loved Judaea, nay, had shared her brother’s resolution to hurl it from its proud supremacy as the chosen kingdom of the Lord; and this was done. The banishment of Archelaus gave the government into the hands of Roman procurators; and two years afterwards Salome closed her iniquitous career, leaving all her cities to the empress Julia, thus confirming our assertion, that neither by birth nor adoption, character nor feeling, was she a daughter of Jerusalem.28 Glad to quit such a subject of dissatisfaction and pain, we leave to our readers’ own minds all reflections on the character of Salome, bidding them only remember that, awful as is the picture of female depravity, it is truth, not fiction, and therefore demands our serious consideration as to the origin of these over-spreading crimes. The seeds of wickedness are so small as to be invisible, religion only can destroy them ere they are discovered; and Salome knew not GOD. 28

See Josephus, Antiquities, 17.9.

CHAPTER X. HELENA, QUEEN OF ADIABENE. BERENICE. Thirty years passed: the miseries of Judaea and her hapless people increased. The Law of Moses was still, indeed, the religion of the country; in some hearts pure and spiritual as it had been given, in others burdened with superstition, violence, and minutiae wholly foreign to its beautiful consistency: in others fast giving place to the customs and habits of the Romans. Darkness—moral, intellectual, and spiritual—had gathered over the nation as a whole. God had left them in His wrath to pursue their own hardened course; but even at this period, when the true religion seemed fast fading from the earth, a ray of reviving lustre beamed exactly in confirmation of the consoling theory, that God never leaves Himself without witnesses upon earth Helena, queen of Adiabene, a district beyond the Tigris, had embraced Judaism. An independent sovereign, whose dominion over her own subjects was absolute, and whose actions owned no supremacy but her own will, this act must have been both voluntary and from conviction. It could have no ulterior motive in ambition, for Judaea was not only under iron subjection to the Romans, but devastated by famine and disease. Izates, the son of Helena, had been sent by his father, Monobazus, to be educated at the court of Abenerig, king of Characene, a district on the Persian Gulf. While there, he became acquainted with Ananias, a Hebrew merchant, who, in his commercial character, had frequent access to the women’s apartments, and never lost an opportunity of inculcating the tenets of his faith. Izates, who had married the daughter of Abenerig, appears to have been present at these conferences, and also became a convert, by a curious coincidence, at the very time that his mother, Helena, embraced the religion also. So earnest was 809

810

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

Izates in the cause, that, on his return to his country, and accession, after his father’s death, he insisted on being received into the covenant of Abraham, against the advice of his mother, and even Ananias, who appears to have accompanied the young monarch as his chosen counsellor and friend. Izates had not the right of primogeniture to his father’s crown; and knowing that he had very many enemies in the partisans of his brothers, Helena, though an earnest convert herself, feared that such a public departure from the religion of his country would create sedition and rebellion in his people. Izates at first yielded to her counsel; but his inclinations receiving fresh incentive from the representations of Eleazar, a learned Galilaean Jew, and his own impressions of a frequent and earnest study of the Law of Moses, he was received into the covenant of Abraham, and no evils followed; for, to use here the words of Josephus, “it was God who hindered what they feared from taking effect, and preserved both Izates himself and his sons from many dangers, and procured their deliverance when it seemed impossible, demonstrating thereby that the fruit of piety does not perish, for those who have regard for Him, and for their faith upon Him only.”* But Helena’s conversion is of more importance to our present subject than that of Izates. Her zeal was so earnest, her faith so heartfelt, that, when her natural anxiety was calmed by the peace and prosperity which followed her son’s profession of Judaism, she requested his permission to make a journey to Jerusalem, and worship at the holy temple there. This was, at that time, no trifling undertaking. Travelling was dangerous and fatiguing; Judaea in constant petty warfare, and almost exhausted by a severe and longcontinued famine. But Helena, who appears a woman of great energy, did not hesitate to incur all these evils, so that she could but offer her sacrifice of thanksgiving in the chosen house of God. Izates readily acceded, making lavish preparations for her journey according to her rank, bestowing on her large sums of money; and, in the true spirit of the religion they had both professed, which so inculcated filial respect and love, he himself accompanied her great part of her journey. ________________________________ * Josephus, Ant. b. xx. c. 2.

SIXTH PERIOD. X. HELENA, QUEEN OF ADIABENE

811

The famine raging in Jerusalem would have terrified away any less zealous convert; but Helena quietly took up her abode in the distressed city, making it her business to relieve the sufferers by munificent gifts both of food and money. She despatched some of her household to Alexandria to purchase large quantities of corn,1 and others to Cyprus, for a cargo of dried figs; and, both missions accomplished with unusual promptness, and relief most judiciously bestowed, the memory of Queen Helena long lingered with the oppressed people; and her acts are recorded by Josephus with a feeling and impressiveness which are not often found in his details. Izates too, on being informed of the famine, sent large sums to the principal men in Jerusalem. Both himself and his mother appeared eager to demonstrate the truth and sincerity of their conversion, by their earnest endeavors for the good of the Jewish people; a striking contrast to the conduct of those Idumaean proselytes, whose only desire had been to Romanize the people, and amalgamate with the heathen both their religion and their land. How long Helena dwelt in Jerusalem does not appear; but, from the good she accomplished, and the magnificent tombs, or pyramids, which she erected about three furlongs from Jerusalem, we are led to suppose that she had adopted the country as well as the religion for her own, and dwelt there the greater portion of the remainder of her life. Her strong affection for Izates demanded a powerful incentive to her living apart from him, and that incentive appears to have been, the delight of worshipping the Eternal in his temple; the privileges of obeying every tittle2 of his law more faithfully and precisely than she could have done in her own land; and the constant kindness and good works to the Hebrew people, with which she proved her piety and zeal. The death of Izates, after a I.e., ‘grain’, usually wheat and barley; this is the meaning of the term ‘corn’ also in KJV and other English versions of the Bible. In American English ‘corn’ designates maize, which was added to the diet of people all over the world after Europeans discovered America in the 15th century C.E. 2 Concerning this term for ‘detail’ derived from the New Testament see the note at Period I, Chapter III, p. 185, n. 156. 1

812

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

prosperous reign of twenty-four years, caused the deepest affliction to his mother, for not only were they bound together by the adoption of the same creed, which drew the human affections still closer than merely natural ties; but Josephus alludes to him as a most dutiful and affectionate son. One consolation, however, she had; the privileges and principles of Judaism were not all lost to her country, by the death of Izates. The crown of Adiabene went to Monobazus, her eldest son, who had also embraced Judaism; and Helena, though aged and infirm, and bowed down by her sad bereavement, hastened to Adiabene, to congratulate and bless him on his accession. Izates had left the crown to his brother, instead of to either of his own sons, in gratitude for the fidelity and affection which, although put aside for the accession of a younger brother, Monobazus had always proved. Helena, however; did not long survive Izates; she died at Adiabene. And Monobazus, in dutiful obedience to the last wishes of his mother and brother, had their remains transported to Jerusalem, where they were interred in the splendid mausoleum erected by Helena, no doubt with that intent. The history of Helena is a refreshing picture of feminine gentleness and family love, after the fearful deeds and characters we have of late perused. There is a gentle womanly disposition, apparent even in her appeal to the people after her husband’s death, a horror of violence and severity, peculiarly consisting with her true feminine qualities: “I believe you are not unacquainted, that my husband was desirous that Izates should succeed him in the government, and thought him not unworthy so to do,” was her calm address, whose only eloquence was sincerity and truth. “However, I wait your determination, for happy is he who receives a kingdom not from a single person only, but from the willing suffrages of a great many.”3 When the amour propre of a nation is thus conciliated, their decision is generally sure to be the decision desired. Unanimously they pressed forward to pay homage to their queen, and confirm their late king’s resolution, advising at the same time the death of all the brethren and kinsmen of Izates, to secure him on the throne. But 3

Josephus, Antiquities, 20.2.2.

SIXTH PERIOD. X. HELENA, QUEEN OF ADIABENE

813

Helena’s gentle spirit shrank from so fearful a deed, though of Izates’ brethren only one was her own son. She calmed the popular excitement, by thanking them for their zeal, but desiring them to postpone such violent measures till Izates returned, and should himself think them expedient. The multitude consented, only exhorting her to restrain them in bonds for their own security, till the arrival of Izates, and to set up some one in whom she could place perfect trust, as regent of the kingdom in the meantime. Had Helena been an ambitious, or a politic and suspicious woman, it would have been very easy for her to have retained the regency herself; and had she not had perfect trust in the honor and affection of her eldest son, both for herself and Izates, she could not have confided the kingly power to his keeping, even placing the diadem upon his head, and the signet on his hand, endowing him with full powers as sovereign till Izates’ return. Few characters could have sustained this ordeal, and resigned a power, the sweets of which had been fully tasted, to a younger brother; yet Monobazus did so: and in this very deed, and in the confidence and affection existing uninterruptedly between the brothers throughout their lives, as in the beauty and unselfish honesty of their mutual characters, we read a still clearer commentary on the true character of their mother, than in her own acts, gentle and full of beauty as they were. None but a mother’s judicious training and impartial love could so have united her sons, that the elder could submit to the superiority of the younger without jealousy and resistance. Milman, indeed, attributes to the sedition of Monobazus, the attacks of the Arabian and Parthian kings;4 but as Josephus, who might have been living at the very time of these events, does not give us any warrant for the surmise, we reject it altogether. According to him, it was the desire of Monobazus, and other of the king’s kindred, to become Jews, which roused the Adiabenians to revolt, and to invite foreign potentates against their king. In fact, every war in which Izates was engaged, originated in the annoyance of his subjects at his embracing Judaism; but he remained firm and unshaken in the religion,

4

Milman, History of the Jews, 2:201.

814

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

embraced not from ambition but conviction, and he triumphed over both foreign and domestic foes.5 The character of Helena would have ornamented any religion; but we can discern throughout it the pure spirituality at that period only discoverable in the religion of the Lord. Her disposition naturally clinging and gentle, her heart capable of the strongest emotions, her mind constantly urging to the good, could not rest satisfied with Heathen worship. She was instructed in the Jewish tenets; their spirituality, their temporal consolation, their eternal hope, and infinite love; their vast capabilities for exercising the intellect and heart, filled up the void which Heathenism could not; and Helena believed: and she bore witness, throughout the whole tenor of her after life,6 to the sincerity and purity of that belief.7 Now would this, could this conversion have taken place, if the Jewish religion degraded women to the rank of slaves and heathens? This single story would be sufficient to prove the groundless falsity of the charge. Helena was a powerful and respected queen and mother in her own nation, accustomed to receive homage, to be consulted, to make use of her intellect and political sagacity; to take, in fact, a higher and more esteemed grade than was the general condition of Heathen women; and is it likely she would sacrifice all these privileges of sex and station, by the adoption of a religion which deprived her of both? What would have been the use of her conversion, if there were any ground for the false assertion that women have no souls, and neither the form nor the spirit of religion is incumbent upon them?8 Had her conversion taken place when Israel was at the height of her temporal and spiritual glory— when a world acknowledged her holy supremacy, and sought her friendship as a land divinely favored—there might have been a Josephus, Antiquities, 20.2.3–4. In 21st century English the single word ‘afterlife’ generally refers to a life lived after the death of the body; in the present context ‘after life’ (two words!) refers to the continuation of her temporal existence after the previously mentioned events. 7 See Josephus, Antiquities, 20.2.1–5. 8 Concerning these assertions by some Jewish male chauvinist contemporaries of Aguilar, see above, p. 153, n. 65. 5 6

SIXTH PERIOD. X. HELENA, QUEEN OF ADIABENE

815

doubt allowable as to whether Helena sought the safety and increase of her temporal dominions in the public profession of Judaism; but no such doubt can attach itself to the purity of her motives when we reflect on the then position of Judea. There could be neither glory nor satisfaction in uniting herself with a nation sunk to the very lowest ebb of degradation, hovering, as it were, on the very brink of annihilation. But one motive could have actuated her; and that was the natural craving for a revealed religion, peculiar to dispositions such as hers. But Judaism would not have satisfied those cravings, if it really were the stern, harsh, exclusive superstition which it is by some proclaimed; if its ordinances were for man, and woman were a mere cypher in its laws. But such Judaism was unknown, till the slanders of modern times so reported it. Helena read in the Law of Moses the tender, pitying care of woman, in all her varied relations and positions of life, as we have endeavored to display it in our Second Period. She read that a Father had promised a place in His house, dearer even than sons and daughters, to all who kept His sabbaths and embraced His covenants,9 and therefore it was she believed; and in her earnest zeal parted from her beloved children, left a home of peace and luxury, where she was known, respected, loved—to journey many toilsome and weary leagues, only for the happiness of sacrificing offerings of thanksgiving to the Lord of Hosts, who had in His mercy given her the knowledge of Himself. Famine and misery were around her in Jerusalem; she must have seen many painful evidences that the holy religion she had embraced was desecrated by its own offspring; that social iniquities and individual apostasies were throwing a dark barrier between the Jew and his God; yet she never wavered, devoting her fortune and her energies to deeds of kindness, charity, and love; thus proving how completely she had become one with the people whose religion she professed. If woman were prohibited the privilege of sacrifice, etc., is it likely we should find Josephus recording the visit of a female proselyte to Jerusalem for that sole purpose?10 or Helena herself so anxIsa. 56:3–8. See Josephus, Antiquities, 20.2.5; cf. Gruber, “The Status of Women in Ancient Judaism,” 155–156. 9

10

816

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

ious to obey the ordinances of the Law? It is needless to continue the argument, the fact contains in itself the strongest refutation of the charge levelled by the ignorant against us. The prejudices of education may endear even superstition or heathenism to its votaries themselves; but we may rest assured that no woman, respected and elevated by the customs and habits of her original creed and native subjects, would voluntarily adopt another tending to enslave and to debase her. Helena’s virtue and intellect had raised her above her nation and her age, occasioning a void and loneliness which urged her to seek and find repose in unusual studies. To define the void might have been even to herself impossible, until the word of God, explained by an earnest and pious Israelite, at once revealed and filled it; and in its inexhaustible fullness satisfied her woman heart on earth, and pointed with an angel-finger to another world, where all the pantings of intellect and affection would find sufficiency and rest; and hope, yet dearer, where she and her beloved ones would meet again, and be with Israel’s God for ever! To some women (Salome and Alexandra for instance), these considerations would be of little value; but to characters such as Helena of Adiabene, they would mark their immortal truth, in the glow of joy and blissful calm inseparable from real religious faith, pervading for the first time an awakened human heart.11 The first year of the Jewish war, 66 of the Christian era, presents us with a striking illustration of the Hebrew female’s capability and freedom to make and to fulfil singular vows. The fact is briefly recorded, and trifling in itself, but important, as the only instance of the kind mentioned in our history. That there were many others, is more than likely. No law was instituted by our great lawgiver which had not its practical illustration in the history of his people. Nor would the law of vows of either kind, “singular12 or See Josephus, Antiquities, 20.2–4; see also Mishnah Nazir 3:6 and the discussion in Gruber, “Women in the Cult,” p. 58. 12 By this term Aguilar designates the various kinds of vows to take upon oneself obligations either to present an offering or to abstain from an activity, which would otherwise be permitted. Such vows are discussed in the law of the Pentateuch in Num. 30 where, as Aguilar indicates, women’s vows are explicitly mentioned. Aguilar also uses the term singu11

SIXTH PERIOD. X. HELENA, QUEEN OF ADIABENE

817

Nazarite,”13 have formed part of the given code, if their necessity had not been visible in the wants and customs of the multitude. That we have only one recorded instance of its obedience by a woman of Israel, does not prove its previous disuse, but that those who had occasion to make and fulfil singular vows, were in too domestic and retired a position to obtain the notice of the historian. The manner in which Josephus alludes to it, marks it of frequent, not of singular occurrence, a custom in fact of the nation, in case of “distempers or other distresses.”* The subject of this “singular vow” is one that we may perhaps be blamed for introducing into our pages, her character, according to some of the Latin historians, being of doubtful reputation. As, however, this calumny cannot be proved—as, being a woman of Israel by birth and creed, she was an object of prejudice and aversion to the Romans; and as the satirists then, as now, hesitated not to calumniate innocence and blacken reputation, only to provide themselves with a jest—we are not bound to credit the assertions of either class of writers. A glance over the appendix to the fifth book lar vow to refer to an individual’s dedicating to the sanctuary a monetary sum equivalent to the value of her or his working capacity as outlined in Lev. 27:1–8. Apparently, because according to Num. 30 a father may annul certain kinds of vows made by daughters (between the ages of 12 years and 12 and one half years; see Rashi at Num. 30:4) and a husband may annul certain kinds of vows made by a wife, the annulment of vows by father or husband respectively served for the Rabbinic Sages as the paradigm for the annulment of vows of adult persons, both male and female, by a Sage or a court of three persons. Consequently, Tractate Nedarim of the Mishnah, which deals with the rules pertaining to vows and their fulfillment and their annulment is found in the third of the Mishnah’s six major divisions, which is called “Women”. By association, Tractate Nazir, which deals with the special vow of a woman or man to take upon oneself, for a longer or shorter period, stringencies, which are similar to those of an officiating priest, is also found in Mishnah’s division “Women,” immediately after Nedarim. 13 The Pentateuchal rules pertaining to the Nazirite vow (see previous note) are found in Num. 6:1–21. * Josephus’s Wars, book ii. ch. 15.

818

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

of Tacitus’s History will show the unfavorable light in which his nation was accustomed to regard the belief, customs, and ordinances of Judaism; and, therefore, it is more than likely that the very fact of Berenice being a Jewish woman unusually beautiful and gifted, admired by Vespasian, and actually beloved and nearly wedded by Titus, should have excited the extreme jealousy of the Romans, from which calumny and suspicion, however base and unfounded, are sure to proceed. Josephus, whose history favors the Romans, and adopts their views as much as possible, of course insinuates the same scandal, which, however, he never attempts to prove; and the only instance in which he does bring Berenice forward, is not only in a womanly and amiable, but in a religious and patriotic light. Had this not been the case, we should have left her to the general historian; but as that void in our records is rapidly advancing, where there is scarcely any mention of individuals, male or female, and the history of the women of Israel is lost in the fearful vortex of national misery and subsequent dispersion, we are glad to seize the faintest and most unfinished notice, which can in any point confirm our theory and illustrate our laws. One fact also, our readers must bear in mind; the period in which the object of our present notice existed was one of the grossest immorality. Custom authorized in many nations. actually legalized marriages, which, in the earlier stages of the world, and when the law of God was established and followed, had been regarded, as they would be now, most unlawful and impure. The religion of the Hebrews existed but in name. From the reign of Herod, the denationalization commenced. After his death, Roman procurators governed and Roman soldiers overran the land; and such an awful spirit of party divided the Jews who yet remained, that the neutrals believed the dominion of the Romans far less evil than the divisions and seditions of their own. At such an epoch, all statutes, human and divine, were set aside; a man did as his neighbor did, and custom alone was law. The pure beautiful ordinances, prohibiting too near consanguinity in the marriage ties, were completely laid aside by the once holy nation for whom they were framed and the family of Herod appeared resolved on assist-

SIXTH PERIOD. X. HELENA, QUEEN OF ADIABENE

819

ing their father’s plans for Romanizing the Jewish people, by emulating all the heathen nations in their utter indifference to the laws of marriage,*14 and framing unions regardless of the ties of relationship formerly restraining them. The union of brother and sister, horrible as it reads to us, was then in constant practice amongst the Egyptians, Syrians, Parthians, and occasionally amongst the more refined and polished Romans themselves. Nationally, this was an awful state of society, calling down always the visible wrath and chastisement of the Eternal, in the annihilation of their sinning nations. Individually, the crime was of far less magnitude; for many sinned unconsciously, and the horror and loathing with which we look upon these things could not have been felt by those to whom custom was authority,—example, law. We do not write this to excuse Israel’s sinful departure from the law of Moses: we know the awful magnitude of their iniquities by the appalling nature of their chastisement. We simply mention the fact, to remove what would now appear the extreme sinfulness of Berenice, if the reports against her had foundation; which foundation, search history as we may, we cannot find. Nay, in the extreme laxity of morals and multitude of impure connexions, we read the probable rise and only source of the rumors. Neither satirists nor prejudiced historians were likely to draw a line between unproved rumor and proved reality; and it was enough for them that Berenice was a beautiful Jewess, to burden her with charges, frivolous and light to them, but throwing a stain upon her reputa* Josephus’s Antiq. book xviii. ch. 5 and note.14 The note, to which Aguilar refers, is the note by the translator of Josephus’s Works into English, William Whiston, who states, “Whether this sudden extinction of almost the entire lineage of Herod the Great, which was very numerous, as we are both here and in the next section informed, was not in part as a punishment for the gross incests they were frequently guilty of in marrying their own nephews and nieces, well deserves to be considered ... .” As for the charge that Berenice herself was living with her brother, see Josephus, Antiquities, 20.7.9 where Josephus himself seems to dismiss this charge as a nasty rumour, to which Berenice put an end by marrying King Polemo of Cilicia; on this see also below in Women of Israel. 14

820

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

tion, the blackness of which could scarcely be known till discovered by the reading of modern times. The records of the great-grand-daughter of Mariamne are so brief and so little satisfactory, that all we can give is a simple statement of what is not very generally known concerning her; her parentage and connexions; making the link uniting her with Jewish and. Roman history more distinct than can be the case with mere general researches: and then revert to the circumstance which is the occasion of this notice. We have already alluded to the two sons of Mariamne, Aristobulus and Alexander,15 and to their marriages; the former with his cousin, Berenice, Salome’s daughter—the latter with Glaphyra of Cappadocia.16 Aristobulus left live children, two of whom were, Agrippa, afterwards king of Judea, and Herod, king of Chalcis. Agrippa, himself a grandson of Mariamne, married Cypros, a granddaughter of the same princess by her daughter Salampsio. By this Cypros, King Agrippa had five children, two sons—one of whom, Drusus, died young, the other known as the young Agrippa, was the last of the Idumaeans who even nominally was king of the Jews,—and three daughters, Berenice, the object of our sketch, Mariamne, and Drusilla. Berenice was then great-grand-daughter to Mariamne by both her parents, and seems to have inherited all the grace and beauty of the Asmonaean family. In Jewish households there never was any distinction made between the education of sons and daughters; both equally shared the care and instructions of their mother, who, were she a “Woman of Israel,” was always, or ought to have been, perfectly competent to the task. We find in the Talmud repeated ordinances to this effect—even so far as to say, “that if a man marries a woman without education, and only for her money, he will not have children according to his wishes,”17 thus giving an illustration of the laws which we insisted upon in our Second Period, as including mothers equally with fathers in the education of their children.

See above, p. 806. See above, p. 805. 17 See Babylonian Talmud, Kiddushin 70a. 15 16

SIXTH PERIOD. X. HELENA, QUEEN OF ADIABENE

821

The close connexion of brother and sister we have already seen in our notice of Aristobulus and Mariamne, and also, though in a very opposite light, of Herod and Salome, and some other instances. Sisters were never nonentities in the Jewish state; they always shared, not the affection alone, but the rank and influence of their brothers, and were looked on by the multitude in a much superior light to the female scions of royalty in more modern times. From the extreme care of woman in the Jewish laws, the celebrated characters which, as women, had swelled their history, the custom for females to inherit when there were no males,18 the successor of a wife to the crown in preference to the sons,19 all elevated the position of royal females to a perfect equality, socially considered, with their husbands and brothers, and brought them more forward in the history of their people than is generally believed. We are anxious to mark this important fact, because it will throw light on the true position of Berenice, which, from being misunderstood by the mere chronicler of the age, is of course misrepresented, and so mystifies his readers equally with himself. There scarcely appears a year’s difference in the ages of Herod Agrippa’s elder children, the young Agrippa and Berenice,* and they were, therefore, thrown together as intimately and fondly as Aristobulus and Mariamne, probably accompanying their father and mother in all their wanderings, sharing their vicissitudes, and educated together in Rome. There were six years between Berenice and her next sister, Mariamne, and four between Mariamne and Drusilla; consequently Berenice could have had no companion in her own family except her brother, with whom Agrippa the elder appears always to have associated her. We suppose this from a sentence in Josephus,** which we transcribe. Alluding to a slave, from whom Agrippa had received a trifling kindness, he says, “When afterwards Agrippa was come to the kingdom, he took particular See Num. 27:1–11; 36. Illustrated by the following: Alexandra, who succeeded her husband Alexander Jannaeus (see above, p. 672); see also concerning the prospect that Mariamne might succeeded Herod as monarch, p. 779. * Josephus, Antiq, book xix. ch. 9. ** Ibid, book xviii. ch. 6. 18 19

822

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

care of Thaumastus, and got him his liberty from Caius, and made him his steward over his own estates; and when he died he left him to Agrippa, his son, and to Berenice, his daughter, to minister to them in the same capacity.” Now, unless Berenice had been, by her father’s will, associated with her brother in the possession and government of these estates, there would have been no need to mention her name in conjunction with Agrippa’s in so simple a thing as the retaining a faithful servant in his post. In reading the unsatisfactory annals of the general historians, we must reason by analogy, or be for ever groping in the dark, searching for minute but important facts, and never successful in the search. It must have been a habit and a common judgment with the father, to associate his elder children, as mutually and equally concerned in his public and private affairs, or this charge would not have been so naturally left. We have the confirmation of this suggestion in later notices of Berenice; but the historians of that period forget the sentence we have quoted, though that in itself is sufficient to account for her influence with Agrippa in the government, and needs no supposition whatever of a nearer connexion between them. The first person to whom Berenice appears to have been betrothed was Marcus, according to Josephus, a son of Alexander Lysimachus, an alabarch who had been imprisoned by Caligula, and set at liberty and restored to all his former honors by Claudius, whose intimate friend he was. As Berenice was, however, only fifteen, if so much, when her father gave her in marriage to her uncle, Herod of Chalcis, this could not have been more than a betrothal entered into while they were children, as was frequently the custom, but which Marcus did not live to complete. The intended union, however, is sufficient proof how little nationality existed in the heart of Agrippa at that period. His varied life had naturally occasioned this, though he appears to have governed his kingdom during his brief reign with all the feelings of a Hebrew, and to have inculcated the same in the hearts of his children. Berenice was the second wife of Herod, whom Agrippa’s influence with Claudius had, before he gave him his daughter, made king of Chalcis. His first had been Mariamne, granddaughter of Herod the Great and his Samaritan wife, Malthaea. Berenice appears to have enjoyed six years of a happy, though uneventful, wedded life with Herod, becoming the mother of two sons, Berenicianus

SIXTH PERIOD. X. HELENA, QUEEN OF ADIABENE

823

and Hyrcanus. Her residence seems, however, to have been more in the dominions of her father in Judea, than at Chalcis. Josephus repeatedly alludes to Herod of Chalcis, as if he were a constant attendant of Agrippa’s court, which accounts for Berenice’s interest in the people of Judea, and being, in fact, more intimately known to them than her brother Agrippa, who, for the last three years, had been finishing his education under Claudius Caesar. Herod Agrippa died in 45; Berenice was then sixteen; and Herod of Chalcis, dying in 50, left her a young and beautiful widow of twenty-one. For fifteen or seventeen years she remained a widow, residing alternately at Rome and in Jerusalem. Her father’s long residence in the former place, and intimate connexion and friendship with the highest Romans, of course made Rome her second country, and caused her to be as well known there as in Jerusalem. In 66 we find her in Jerusalem, in pursuance of her singular vow, and exposed to great danger from the infuriated Roman soldiery (to both of which circumstances we will refer at the conclusion of our sketch). Between 66 and 69 she must have become queen of Pontus, by her marriage with Polemo, king of that country, an engagement entered into to silence the tongue of falsehood, which had dared charge her with an improper connexion with her brother. Before, however, she consented to the union, Polemo embraced Judaism, and was received into the covenant, a proof that even in that dark period of national apostasy some regard to religious decency was observed. In 69 we find her, as queen of Pontus, embracing the cause of Vespasian against his rival, Vitellius,* whom the Roman legions were endeavoring to elect emperor in Vespasian’s stead, joining the confederacy in the latter’s favor, and levying troops for his assistance. Her marriage with Polemo, however, was not of long continuance. Entered into without love on either side, by her to prove the utter falsity of a scandalous rumor, by him to obtain possession of her riches, it was soon dissolved by mutual consent. Polemo repudiated his Judaism, only embraced for Berenice’s gold; and Berenice returned to her life of freedom. Then it was she must ________________________________ * Tacitus, Hist., book v., sect. 81.

824

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

have attracted the love of Titus; for it was in 73**20that he would have married her, had he not feared the violent opposition of the Roman people, then more than usually incensed against the Jews, from the vast numbers of Romans who had perished in the Jewish war, and the daring and noble opposition to the imperial arms, which the miserable people had so very lately made. Instead of marrying her (a dazzling destiny, which, to one educated in the Roman school, as had been Berenice, would have been difficult, if not impossible, to refuse, simply from national motives), Titus separated from her, and Berenice’s life closed in retirement. Her name is not again mentioned in history, not even her subsequent residence, nor what was her final lot: this last female representative of the Idumaean and Asmonaean lines is lost to ** 73 according [to] Tacitus—79 according to Goldsmith.20 20 [Publius?] Cornelius Tacitus was born in Gaul c. 55 C.E., and he died at Rome c. 120 C.E. His Histories, originally composed of 12 or 14 books, of which the first four and part of the fifth are extant. Book #5 deals with the events leading to Titus’s destruction of Jerusalem in 70 C.E. Tacitus prefaces his account of those events with a brief description of the Jews and their history. See Tacitus in Five Volumes with an English translation by Maurice Hutton et al., vol. 3 (London: William Heinemann/ Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1931), 175–219. Concerning Tacitus see Thomas Bocum Franke, “Tacitus,” in Brill’s New Pauly, ed. Christine F. Salazar (Leiden & Boston: Brill, 2009), Antiquity 14: 106–111. As for Goldsmith, the historian to whom Aguilar refers here is none other than famous English poet, playwright, and novelist, Oliver Goldsmith (1728–1774), who in the midst of writing his famous poem, Deserted Village (1770) and his even more famous play, She Stoops to Conquer (1774) supplemented his income by turning out History of Rome (2 vols.; London: S. Baker & D. Leigh, 1775); History of England (2 vols.; London, 1764) and History of Greece (2 vols.; J. & F. Rivington, 1774). In fact, Goldsmith’s many history books were frequently published, revised, abridged, translated into other languages, and widely used as school history textbooks. It is the History of Rome by Olver Goldsmith to which Aguilar here refers. A concise biography of Goldsmith written by Lord Macauly and revised by Mr. Austin Dobson appears in Encyclopaedia Britannica, 11th ed., 12:214– 218. The appended bibliography lists a number of the famous biographies of Goldsmith published in the nineteenth century.

SIXTH PERIOD. X. HELENA, QUEEN OF ADIABENE

825

her posterity. We know that Agrippa lived and died the contented vassal of Rome; but of his sister, so nearly raised to become even empress of the world, this scanty detail is refused us; and we look in vain for her slightest mention. This is disappointing; for, in the desolate condition of the Jews, their miseries, martyrdoms, massacres, and dispersions, we cannot form even an idea of her future destiny. Milman says, that “She returned some years afterwards to Rome, but never regained her former favor.”21 In that case her residence was probably again with the beloved brother of her youth; and on this idea we can rest more satisfied than did we think of her homeless and wandering like the remainder of her wretched nation. The sketch we have given is ail that history, either Jewish or Roman, records in any connected point of view. Of her character we can learn little; but she appears to have been endowed with those superior qualities which gave her position and influence both with Jews and Romans. The occasion of her making the vow which she went to Jerusalem to perform, history does not mention. But that she did perform it, offering sacrifices for thirty days,22 is sufficient for us; by its strong confirmation of our assertion, that the Jewish religion elevated woman in all her religious duties and responsibilities to a perfect equality with man. Berenice, too, lived at the very time in which our opponents declare the religion of God had been so changed and abused by mistaken zealots, as imperatively to need reform and extermination, which Jesus was sent to accomplish. Whatever these zealots might have done, they certainly could not have deprived woman of her spiritual privileges, and denied her the power of either performing her vow or offering sacrifices, or Berenice would not have come to Jerusalem, then in a most awful state of misery and constant murders, expressly for the observance of the forms necessary to its fulfilment: nay, she could not have made the vow at all, if she had not had perfect liberty, spiritual and temporal, so to do. This fact, then, is very important in our history, as women of Israel, and has nothing whatever to do with the private character of Milman, History of the Jews, 3:87. Josephus, Wars, 2.15.1; see the literature cited in Gruber, “Women in the Cult,” 58, n. 19. 21 22

826

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

Berenice (which, however, we will endeavor to clear from the misrepresentations of historians). The fact, that the vow was taken by a widow in Israel, and observed in Jerusalem with all the attendant ceremonies enjoined by the priests, is enough in itself to prove that such vows were customary, and woman, as well as man, had the power to make and to fulfil them.23 Nor in the thirty days’ sacrifice, and going barefoot, which appears to have been the case with Berenice, can we discover what Whiston, in his note to this chapter of Josephus, supposes—the extreme rigor of Pharisaic ordinances.24 The permission to make vows, and the care lest females should be carried away by illregulated enthusiasm, is all that was ordained in the law of Moses25—the manner of performing that vow, and the service or penance which its performance included, was left to the will of the subject, or, at his or her discretion, to the guidance of the priest. It was for this very reason, that the making and manner of fulfilling vows were to be entirely voluntary, that woman was compelled to have the sanction of father or husband. Such a vow, for instance, as Berenice’s, would have been incompatible with the duty of a wife or daughter, and therefore probably not have received the necessary sanction of man, though the enthusiasm of the woman might have urged her to make it. Had the manner of performing vows been laid down by our great lawgiver, there would have been no need for him to have burdened woman’s observance of them with a proviso, for the service or penance would have been ordained according to her power of obedience: but this would have interfered too closely with domestic and social freedom; and she was, therefore, permitted to make vows of service or penance, according to her own inclination, subservient only to the superior wisdom and calmer reasoning of her husband or father. Berenice, at the time of her vow, was six-and-thirty years of age, a widow, and perfectly independent, both of will and action. See also above p. 817; the source is Josephus, Wars, 2.15; concerning Berenice’s vow see also Gruber, “Women in the Cult,” 58, n. 19 and the literature cited there. 24 The footnote he adds to his translation of Josephus, Wars, 2.15.1. 25 Num. 30; see above, p. 290. 23

SIXTH PERIOD. X. HELENA, QUEEN OF ADIABENE

827

She had neither father nor husband to interfere with her intentions—was of sufficient age to know well what she was about—of sufficient mental qualifications, and having been educated in Rome, without any of the exclusiveness of her own people, of sufficient freedom of thought in religious matters, not blindly to follow the instructions of priests, if they interfered with her own ideas; and, therefore, it is more than probable that the sacrifices and going barefoot were no orders of the priest, but Berenice’s own voluntary adoption, the manner in which she chose to perform her “singular vow,” and with which the priests interfered not, save in their sacred functions, to aid her in its performance. The riches of Berenice are more than once alluded to; and, therefore, the thirty days’ sacrifice, although expensive, was quite within her power; and the going barefoot, though revolting to our ideas of the religion of Moses, which ordained loving obedience, not personal penance, was then probably considered a mark of humility, and as revealing to the nation, that rank and station were not to interfere with the personal devotion to the Eternal, comprised in the making and observance of singular vows. So much for Berenice’s vow, as regards us nationally. As it regards her individually, it proves that, even while giving them what, in those times, was considered the advantages of a Roman education, Herod Agrippa must have taught them the religion of the Hebrews—made it a point with them—else we should never hear of Berenice deeming this singular vow was needed, or that it was absolutely necessary for Polemo, king of Pontus, to become a Jew before she married him.26 Nor, had she been educated in Roman principles only, would she have felt and acted as she did for her helpless people, during her residence in Jerusalem. Florus was then procurator of Judea, and governing with a mercilessness and ferocity, that at length caused the already full cup of Jewish forbearance and Jewish misery to run over. Imprisonments, scourgings, crucifixions, and massacres by wholesale, ceased not during the whole period of his authority. In one day 3,600 men, women, and children, fell unresisting victims: and neither rank, nor worth, nor even Roman citizenship—for some of the distinguished Jews had ob26

Josephus, Antiquities, 20.7.3.

828

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

tained equestrian rank—were spared; the highest suffering with the meanest, the worthy with the base.27 Repeatedly had Berenice sent messengers—the most distinguished of her household—to intercede with Florus for her miserable countrymen; but, high as was her rank, influential as she was with his Roman masters, the monster heeded her not. Not even when, in her penitential attire, she herself stood before his tribunal, and sought by her own pleadings to check the torrent of his cruelty. Her hapless countrymen were hewn down before her very eyes; old age and helpless infancy,—the delicate female,—all perished; and she herself was in such imminent danger from the infuriate soldiery, as to be compelled to fly to the palace and collect her guards around, to shield herself from insult, as well as death. Yet she made no effort to quit Jerusalem, which she could have done with the greatest ease. Rather than fail in the performance of her vow, she shared the dangers of her countrymen: living in daily dread of her own death, and in daily sight of misery and murder. Nor was she merely a passive witness; she wrote the most touching accounts of the cruelty and rapacity of Florus, to his superior officer, Cestius Gallus, entreating his interference in behalf of her oppressed people; and when Agrippa returned, joined with him in every effort to reconcile the Jews and Romans, and so obtain for the former security and peace. She sat beside her brother during his memorable address, by her tears and silent eloquence betraying that her heart also was in his words; and even when, indignant at their ungrateful conduct to himself, Agrippa left the miserable city to itself, and returned to his own kingdom of Chalcis,*28Berenice still seems to have lingered. Nor did she leave the country until her vow was fully performed, and Jerusalem in too fearful a state to admit of any hope of achieving or administering good. Surely these are characteristics of an energetic, yet gentle, feeling woman. We can trace nothing, in this lowly adherence to a penitential vow and devotion to the interests of a miserable people, Josephus, Wars, 2.14.8. * After the death of his brother-in-law, and also uncle, Herod of Chalcis, the kingdom of Chalcis was given to Agrippa.28 28 Josephus, Wars, 2.12.1. 27

SIXTH PERIOD. X. HELENA, QUEEN OF ADIABENE

829

resembling the gay life and pleasure-loving propensities of a professed and alluring beauty. Josephus, indeed, accuses her of the unamiable qualities of annoying and ill-treating her youngest sister, Drusilla, on account of her extraordinary beauty: but that this charge must have been made without either foundation or reflection on the part of the historian, is very clear from his own recital. The beauty and influence of Berenice had been long known and widely acknowledged. She had neither occasion, nor probably inclination, to envy her sister the gifts she herself possessed. But the very manner in which Josephus writes the charge, shows its fallacy. Drusilla was already married to Aziz, king of Amesa, who had consented to embrace the Jewish religion to obtain her. When Felix was procurator of Judea, he saw Drusilla, and fell madly in love with her. Through the means of a Cypriot Jew, he persuaded her to forsake her husband Aziz, and marry him. “Accordingly, she acted ill; and because she was desirous to avoid her sister Berenice’s envy—for she was very ill-treated by her on account of her beauty—was prevailed upon to transgress the laws of her country, and marry Felix.”29 Now it appears to me that Berenice’s envy (even granted she had to encounter it) had nothing whatever to do with this decision The representations of the Cypriot, the seductive persuasions of Felix, and her own inclinations, were the sole incentives; for she certainly was not a whit more protected from her sister’s envy as the wife of Felix, than she had been as the wife of Aziz: nay, scarcely as much; for, when united to Felix, she was continually liable to be thrown in Berenice’s way, both in Jerusalem and Rome; and this could not have been the case when residing in her first husband’s kingdom of Emesa. This charge, then, against Berenice has no foundation in reason; but most probably originated in Josephus’s great wish to conciliate the Romans, even while he appeared to be writing an impartial history of his own country. Had he been straightforward, we should have found some condemnation of Drusilla for marrying a heathen, and forsaking, without any just cause, her former husband. But as the heathen was a Roman, he passes over the transgression very lightly; and, instead of blaming Drusilla for conduct which was undoubtedly evil, absolves 29

Josephus, Antiquities, 20.8.2.

830

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

her at the expense of her sister, who had probably no more to do with it than he had himself. And this is the justice of historians! Surely we should examine well, ere we permit the youthful mind to embrace their views as infallible; and rather encourage them to reflect, and have an opinion of their own, instead of blindly swallowing the food which historians provide That Berenice should sometimes be regarded as the sister, and sometimes as the wife of Agrippa, does not at all surprise us, for some historians actually call her his wife.*30What foundation they have for this assertion, however, we should be glad to know. Certainly, Josephus must be to them an unknown authority; for he shows her parentage and connexions somewhat too clearly for this idea to originate with him.31 The mistake of the moderns, and the false scandalous reports of the ancients, may however arise from the same causes. We have already shown the close tie uniting Jewish brothers and sisters of nearly the same age; that Agrippa and Berenice were always associated in the thoughts, and even the will of their father. As Herod’s wife, and queen of Chalcis, Berenice was more continually in Jerusalem, and learning lessons of government rather from her father than her brother, who was then at Rome. Herod, though king of Chalcis, almost constantly resided in Jerusalem; and during the minority of the young Agrippa, obtained the sovereignty over the Temple, and the privilege of nominating the high priest.32 Berenice was, therefore, actually queen over the Jews, at that time, as well as of Chalcis; and the former people were accustomed to regard and feel towards her, as with her husband, the representative of royalty. When Herod died, his kingdom of Chalcis, over which Berenice was still queen, was given to Agrippa,33 and the brother and sister were, in consequence, again thrown so closely together, that as Agrippa had no wife, they were always alluded to, and spoken of as king and queen. As the daughter, sister, and widow of kings, accus* Jahn’s Hebrew Commonwealth.30 30 Jahn, History of the Hebrew Commonwealth, 179. 31 See Josephus, Wars, 2.15.1. 32 Josephus, Antiquities, 20. 5.2; 20.21.3. 33 Josephus, Antiquities, 20.5.2.

SIXTH PERIOD. X. HELENA, QUEEN OF ADIABENE

831

tomed, too, to share in the government, and influence the people, she was always spoken of as Queen Berenice, and queen of Chalcis, over which country Agrippa was also king. And mere casual readers are therefore likely to consider her as the wife of the king, not knowing how, as his sister, she could have had any right to the title. Acting in concert with Agrippa, as their early education had accustomed them to do, we see her, as in the affair of Florus and Agrippa’s address to the people, occupying that position which, not generally devolving on the sisters of royalty, confirms the supposition of a nearer connexion. But the supposition falls to the ground before the simple facts we have brought forward. Berenice was, in fact, a more independent sovereign of Judea, or rather of a remnant of the Jewish people, than her brother; for him the Romans feared, lest by placing regal power in his hands, their own power over Judea would be diminished. Berenice as a woman, and the wife of a king of Chalcis, was to them a mere cypher with regard to the state, however admired as a beautiful woman in Rome; but the interest she really did take in the affairs of the people, we perceive by her conduct during the administration of Florus.34 We have read and reflected on the subject deeply; but though we see much which might be perverted into the rumor to which we have alluded, a consideration of facts proves its utter want of solid foundation. Our authorities are, however, open to all readers, and they are at liberty to adopt their own opinions. We would only entreat them to reflect on the facts here brought forward under their view, as likely to assist them in their decision—to accustom themselves to reason from analogy, as well as to exercise understanding, which is too often thought sufficient in itself for the comprehension of history. We are too far removed from the time in which Berenice lived, to pronounce judgment decidedly for or against her; but when not a single instance is brought forward to make manifest impropriety of conduct, and all that is clearly related of her proves a religious, national, and feeling character—when her defamers are Roman satirists, and Roman historians, for whose dislike it was enough that she was a Jewess—when the pages of her own historian are but too often tarnished with crooked views, partial repre34

Josephus, Wars, 2.15.

832

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

sentation, and Roman feelings, why should we not be permitted to judge charitably as well as harshly? to doubt as well as believe? Her character is, indeed, not written with sufficient clearness for us to draw thence a lesson; but our history of the women of Israel would scarcely have been complete had we omitted her, more especially as her history practically illustrates a law of our state, and demonstrates convincingly that even in that period of spiritual and moral darkness, not a statute existed which could contradict the written law of Moses, by a refusal to women of those spiritual privileges, and that solemn responsibility, therein so forcibly inculcated.

CHAPTER XI. GENERAL HISTORY, AND CONCLUSIONS THENCE ELICITED In the fearful epochs of misery and war which followed, we find no further mention of woman individually; but, as an important evidence of the care which the Jewish religion took of females, we find Josephus, in his character of general (which he fulfilled infinitely better than that of historian), laboring with zeal and earnestness to protect the females from insult or outrage. In lawless nations, in times of such terrible evil, this would not have been thought of; whereas with the Hebrew patriot, surrounded as he was with many heavy cares and imminent dangers, it was the first consideration, and was never lost sight of throughout the whole of his career. In glancing back over the period, which has detained us much longer than we anticipated, from the return from Babylon to the war, we cannot find a single evidence of the veracity or foundation of the charge of Jewish female degradation, nor in fact the workings of a single statute contradictory to the beautiful spirit of the law of Moses. All we have read, every female character brought forward, marks the superior social elevation and individual intellect of the Hebrew females, to the women of any of the surrounding nations. Nay, we see them occupying positions as wives and sisters—of kings, higher and far more influential than they ever did, or do, in any Gentile land.1 Instead of being sunk into mere nonentities, as, were The queens of the ancient Near East had yet to be rediscovered by the archaeological expeditions to the Middle East that took place after the death of Grace Aguilar. Perhaps, she cannot be faulted for not knowing of such modern women sovereigns rulers as the women who ruled the principality of Bhopal in India from 1819 to 1926. See above, p. 391, n. 1

833

834

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

they refused all spiritual privileges and temporal freedom, they must have been, we behold their influence, either for good or bad, as great and far-spreading as female influence ever was in any other either ancient or modern land. We cannot discern a trace of that social or domestic abasement which, had any either divine or human statute existed, must have been visible at a time when human nature was sunk to the lowest ebb. It is no longer Bible-times or inspired characters which we are considering. The nation was a holy nation no longer, having departed through her iniquities from the Lord. He had left her children to their own hearts; but, in the midst of evil, still the law and its beautiful ordinances lived and breathed in many noble hearts, and its atmosphere was still inhaled by the people though its reviving sunlight had departed. Not in such a period could woman have taken her natural position, if any law had once existed to her abasement; but she simply retained that which she had always possessed, and this at the advent of Christianity. Nor can we discern the faintest evidence of polygamy at this period. If we glance back to the return from Babylon, we must remark that every king and priest and prince is recorded as possessing but one wife. Simon, John Hyrcanus, Aristobulus I, Alexander Jannaeus—both his sons, Aristobulus and Hyrcanus—Alexander, the father of Mariamne, her own two sons, and the other descendants of Herod, the wives of all of whom are mentioned, confirm both the legality and the custom of but one wife, at the very era when our opponents declare the religion of Jesus was absolutely needed to reform the abuses in the marriage state. “Herod had ten wives,” there will be many to exclaim, and bring history forward as their authority. With all due deference to them, we assert, aye, and will prove, that Herod had but three legal wives, and that just in the same way as adversaries of Christianity might, if they chose, declare that Charles II. had ten or twenty wives, and so believe Christianity permitted polygamy; so with an equal share of justice may the opponents of Judaism bring forward Herod as an evidence of the 19. However, the annotator is obliged to set the record straight and to say that the influence of women in Second Temple Judaism is neither a figment of Aguilar’s imagination nor unique to the people of Israel, whom she sought to defend from the charge of misogyny.

SIXTH PERIOD. XI. GENERAL HISTORY

835

degradation of the Jewish religion and its sanction, of polygamy. The personal character of Herod, as well as his magnificence, indeed much more strongly resembled the character of Henry VIII.: the similarity, in fact, between them on many points being so curious, that it might make an interesting historical parallel, though, in the violence of passion and power of remorse, Herod had the advantage; but we mention Charles II., simply to state, that he might just as well be looked upon as the representative of Christianity as Herod of Judaism But now to prove that only three of his wives can be considered as legally wedded. Before he married Mariamne, or even made overtures for her hand, Herod divorced his first wife Doris, though she had already given him a son, and he had nothing to allege against her, but his own desire to forward his ambition, by a union with the Asmonaean line. Now if polygamy were the law and the custom of the land, why need he have taken the trouble of divorcing Doris? Mariamne would equally have been his legal wife, her children equally his heirs; and though Doris might be the less beloved, the law provided for her, even under such an emergency. But, notwithstanding all this, he divorced her before he married Mariamne; and surely this alone would prove, that man had already, in some degree, made the advance contemplated, when the law interfered not with his private habits, and custom had already rendered the remission needless, although the laws for the offspring of divorced wives still rendered their births legal, and gave them their share of the inheritance. It is, in fact, from this that Herod in his own person appears to have practised polygamy; but that only one wife had become the custom of the country is further proved by the historian, who mentions but one other public union. Two years after the execution of the Asmonaean princess, during which time he was too much tormented by mental remorse and physical disease, to think of taking another wife, Herod married another Mariamne, the daughter of Simon, an obscure individual, but of princely descent, and she enjoyed that dignity, such as it was, for twenty years, till, supposing her to be an accomplice in the conspiracy of Antipater against himself, he divorced her in the last year of his life and reign. Now of this second Mariamne, Josephus makes particular mention in his Antiquities (book xv. ch. 9, sect. 3), that to enable him to make her his wife, he elevated the rank of her father, thinking if he

836

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

did not legally wed her, he would be stigmatized with cruelty and tyranny, qualities the semblance of which he wished to avoid. There is no mention of his thus wedding any of his other (so called) wives; and, therefore, that he had them, and that their children were all considered legitimate, is not any proof of polygamy being then a national custom: for even granting Herod had publicly married the whole nine, it would not have weighed a single grain against the fact, that every other king, priest, or prince, mentioned since the return from Babylon, had but one. He was one who, in every single act, set law, especially the Jewish law, at defiance. According to Gibbon, the wise and good emperor Charlemagne had also nine wives,2 but we do not therefore accuse Christians of favoring that doctrine; then why should we lay Herod’s licentiousness, granting he proved it, which history denies rather than confirms, to the score of the holy religion which, though he professed, he certainly never practised? In a careful and critical survey of the manners and customs of the Jews, between the return from Babylon and their final dispersion, we find nothing whatever differing from the precepts of the early Christians. The apostles were themselves Jews, who wrote for the Gentiles, and condensed and simplified for them, the sublime morality of the Mosaic code. They do not preach a single precept, they do not proclaim a single truth, they do not give a single rule for social and domestic guidance, which we Hebrews had not known and practised ages before they wrote—and wrote, in fact, from their own experience of Jewish manners and customs. The reverend collector of the “Old Paths” could have known very little of Jewish history, or wilfully misinterpreted that which he did know, to make the extraordinary assertion that the introduction of mo-

The historian Edward Gibbon (1737–1794) is best known for his History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire (6 vols.; 1776–1788). Aguilar here refers to Chapter 49 of the latter work. See Edward Gibbon, The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, Great Books of the Western World, vols. 41–42 (2 vols.; Chicago: Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc., 1952), 2:209. Charlemagne’s nine wives were Hamiltrude, Desiderata, Hildegarde, Fastrade, Luitgarde, Maltegarde, Gersuinde, Regina, and Adalinda. 2

SIXTH PERIOD. XI. GENERAL HISTORY

837

nogamy belongs to Christianity alone.3 With very few exceptions, the actors of the New Testament are all Jews; and the domestic life there recorded of course reflects the Jewish life of those days: and had polygamy then existed, would it not have been one of the most important points for the Apostles of the new creed to exalt the new moral law above the old? But we do not find this;—exactly in accordance (in this instance) with the Old Testament, the New Testament nowhere ordains monogamy and prohibits polygamy. Impartial men allow this, and Dr. Channing, who, though no Protestant, must surely he considered a Christian, writes concerning Milton’s opinion of polygamy, “Finding no prohibition of polygamy in the New Testament, he believed that not only holy men would be traduced, but Scripture dishonored by pronouncing it morally evil:” and again, “We believe it to be an undisputed fact, that although Christianity was first preached in Asia, which had been from the earliest ages the seat of polygamy, the Apostles never denounced it as a crime, and never required their consorts to put away all wives but one.”*4Surely this is an important confirmation of our assertion, 3 Alexander McCaul, The Old Paths: Or, A Comparison of the Principles and Doctrines of Modern Judaism with the Religion of Moses and the Prophets (London: London Society’s Office, 1837), 185-188 [essay # 47]. Originally issued as a series of sixty pamphlets on successive Fridays beginning January 15, 1836 and ending March 3, 1837, the essays were published as a book in 1837. A second edition was published in 1846, and the book was published also in French, German, Hebrew, and Italian. The Christian missionary society, Keren Ahvah Meshihit, republished the book at Jerusalem in 2002. Born at Dublin May 16, 1799, McCaul died at London November 13, 1863. Ultimately Professor of Hebrew and Rabbinical Literature at King’s College, London, McCaul spent ten years in Warsaw (1821-1831) as a Christian missionary to the Jews. The purpose of Old Paths was to show that the religion practiced by Orthodox Jews in modern times does not reflect a proper understanding of Hebrew Scripture. Aguilar often counters this charge in Women of Israel. * Channing’s Works (People’s Edition), vol. i. page 26.4 4 The work to which Aguilar here refers is William Ellery Channing, People’s Edition of the Entire Works of W. E. Channing, Published under the care of R. E. B. Maclellan (2 vols.; Belfast: Simms and M’Intyre, 1843). The essay, which Aguilar quotes here, a critique of John Milton’s Treatise on Christian Doctrine, was originally published in The Christian Examiner

838

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

that we did not require the preaching of the Apostles to teach us that refinement and elevation of the social system which, with the advancement of humanity, time would procure us, and which was in fact obtained at the very era in which we are told it was first offered us, by the adoption of a superior moral code. The text to which Christians appeal as the prohibition of polygamy, is one from which a very different conclusion might be drawn—“Whoso shall put away his wife (except for adultery) and shall marry another, committeth adultery, and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.”5 Surely this can only mean, that a man is forbidden unlawfully to put away6 one wife, and (1826). William Ellery Channing (1780–1842) was born in Newport, Rhode Island, and he died from typhoid fever in Bennington, Vermont. A prominent Congregationalist minister, he ultimately accepted the label “Unitarian Christian” in 1819–1820. For details concerning this influential American Unitarian theologian and essayist see Theodore Hornberger, “Channing, William Ellery,” Encyclopaedia Britannica (1967), 5:273–274 and the extensive literature cited there. 5 New Testament, Matt. 5:32; but see also Romans 7:3: “So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead she is freed from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man”; see also 1 Cor. 7:11: “But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife.” Indeed, Paul in Romans 7:1 introduces the subject with the words, “I speak to them that know the law,” intimating that monogamy is not an innovation of Christianity. However, Aguilar has gone too far in suggesting that Christianity by unequivocally condemning polygamy has followed the particular Judaism, which Aguilar inherited, which was Rabbinic Judaism, that still holds that polygamy is allowed by divine law although eschewed by Ashkenazic Jewry and not practiced by Sephardic Jews, like the Aguilars, who settled in Western lands. 6 KJV uses the expression ‘put away’ to render the Hebrew verbs, which literally mean ‘send away’ and which came to denote ‘divorce’; readers of KJV in the 20th century and later may wrongly assume from the use of the expression ‘put away’ in motion pictures that the expression means ‘kill’, preferably by the agency of a hired gun.

SIXTH PERIOD. XI. GENERAL HISTORY

839

marry another in her stead, not to keep the first, and add another to his household; and the spirit of this precept we have already had in the Mosaic law; but, even granting that it does prohibit polygamy, we, too, have a prohibition of equal, if not superior force, and written much about the same time by the venerable Rabbi Ami: “I say, that any man who marries a second wife, must fully have repudiated his first;”**7a precept on which Herod appears to have originally acted, by his divorcing Doris before he married Mariamne. That he took Doris back again after the first Mariamne’s death, proves nothing. The Jewish law forbade such an act; but we have seen that he cared nothing for the laws; but that Mariamne was his sole wife while she lived is sufficient for our purpose. There may, perhaps, be some who think these remarks irrelevant to our subject; but if they aid, as they must do, our assertion, that the Jewish religion is enough for her female votaries, that we need no other to elevate and secure our natural position, we earnestly trust that they will not be dismissed unread. We mean no disrespect to other creeds:8 we shrink from following the example of some, who endeavor to exalt their own faith by debasing and throwing contempt upon another. We would only prove, that the imperfection (if the non-prohibiting polygamy be such) of our moral code exists equally in the other; and that it is the gradual but sure advancement of the human species, which is the refiner and elevator of domestic and social life—not solely the ordinances of ** Yebamoth, fol. 65, col. a. For this and many of the preceding remarks on polygamy and the Christian and Jewish discussions on the point, I am indebted to the kind suggestions and valuable information of Mr. Theodores, of Manchester.7 7 Yebamoth is a traditional transliteration of the name of the Talmudic tractate, which is commonly designated in our annotations to Women of Israel as Babylonian Talmud, Yevamot (as it is commonly pronounced today). Concerning Tobias Theodores see above, p. 738, n. 28. 8 The annotator accepts the late Miss Aguilar at her word with respect to her intentions; and the annotator would like to believe that when she wrote these lines she also meant to apologize for any less than flattering words she had written above about people from the ancient and modern Middle East in general and about the adherents of Islam in particular.

840

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

any particular laws. The first idea of polygamy being allowed, supposes a degraded position for women; but we have seen, that even at the period of its practice in Judaism, women were not degraded, for the law provided against its abuse: and even then, with very few exceptions, the chosen servants of the Eternal9 proved, in their own persons, the advance beyond their age in the practice of monogamy. The captivity in Babylon had been an era in Jewish history. The partial return to Jerusalem, and dispersion over other lands, had occasioned very many changes. Man, even in the midst of apparently increasing evil and darkening morality, had yet, in actual fact, made a stride in advance, and much which had polluted the nation before, in the worshipping and sacrificing to idols, the fearful abuse of the gracious non-interference with Eastern customs and long endeared habits, and other crimes coeval with man’s least refined state of existence—all had given way and been trampled on in the terrible revolution which, through the Babylonish power, had overwhelmed the land. Sins of equal magnitude, and demanding yet more fearful retribution, from the neglect and heedlessness of former chastisement, indeed, desecrated Judea; but, in the very different nature of the evil, the very sins themselves, we see, as it were, the advancement in human powers. The good in human nature will not make advance alone. Good and evil passions mutually sway the heart of man; and, according as the one or other gains the ascendency, so will be the increased good or increased evil in appearance of the world. But having an equally increased power of good, the evil is only visibly evil; the under-current is still working, though invisibly, far more powerfully and beneficially, than in those periods when the capabilities of good and of evil were less than they are now. The conflicting powers could not produce the same end; but as the Divinity in the good advances, the evil will, in the end, be both visibly and invisibly subdued; and man, through the grace of God, attain that perfection for which he was originally framed. We see the prophecy of this in the sublime fact, that there is never evil without its being the parent of good. No national revolu9

See above, p. 200, n. 32.

SIXTH PERIOD. XI. GENERAL HISTORY

841

tion ever yet took place without being followed by a rapid stride in human nature, and as strikingly visible as far-spreading good: yet during the continuance of those revolutions, what can we trace or feel, but the supremacy of evil, in the war, famine, misery in a thousand shapes, which devastate mankind? Still good is working, and we know and see it when the darkened torrent has rolled back, and the clear crystal waters, reflecting the blue azure of the eternal heavens, are seen beneath. Thus good sprang for Israel from the captivity of Babylon, working even in the midst of the crime and sin in which its visible form was but too soon swallowed up. The minds of men had advanced; but left to their own hardened hearts to obey or disobey the laws of their God, and so prove themselves worthy of the mercies proffered if they obeyed, they chose the evil, and so by their increased capabilities for its accomplishment, hurled down the most awful chastisement on their own heads, and on their holy land, sweeping in one fearful vortex the innocent and the guilty, the pious and the blasphemer, the obedient and the disobedient: for in this world no distinction might be made. The King of heaven waited till they appeared before His throne to pronounce sentence according to their hearts yet more than according to their deeds. But humanity itself had not gone back, though all on earth seemed dark and terrible. Good worked even there. The Divine part of our mingled nature was visible in those instances of patriotism, martyrdom, earnestness, and spirituality. which our history records of men and women, old age and youth, even in the blackest tempest of the war, and surrounded as they were with men, who, given up to their own passions and inclinations, so succumbed to the evil as to appear incarnate fiends. And good sprang from this; aye, not only from the evil of the war, but from the untold-of, incalculable, indescribable wretchedness of dispersion and persecution. It brought, nay, it is still bringing Israel once more, in loving faith and unquestioning obedience, to his God, and hastening on that day, when the evil shall be entirely subdued, and the good reign triumphant. With these reflections we will conclude the Sixth Period of our history, leaving to the Seventh a glance over our dispersion, and its effect on the present condition of our nation, male and female. Brought down, as the history of the women of Israel now is, to nearly seventy years after the advance of Christianity, the proofs of

842

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

our non-abasement and degradation become yet more important; for there are many to assert, that in the Bible-times the Hebrew females shared the holy privileges of the males, but that it was the falling-off from this spiritual Judaism, the mingling human with Divine authority, which so degraded and blinded the Hebrews after the Babylonish captivity, as absolutely to demand for our salvation the belief in the atonement of Jesus, and adoption of the new creed which his apostles preached We trust that we have convincingly proved to our own nation, and from our own history, that this was not the case—that no human additions to the pure law had, between the first and second captivity, lowered the position, or interfered with the spiritual privileges of the Women of Israel. The conversion and earnest zeal of Helena of Adiabene would be in itself sufficient to controvert this charge; and we have, in addition, alike the story of the martyrmother—the independent sovereignty of Alexandra, wife of Alexander Jannaeus—the influence of Mariamne, as sole representative of the Asmonaeans—and of Salome, in the pursuit of her fiend-like machinations—of Berenice, in the performance of her singular vow, and her rank and power as the sister and widow of kings, to convince us still more unanswerably, that the woman of Israel enjoyed a temporal power, and privileges peculiarly her own; and was debarred in not a single instance, of the spiritual privileges and solemn responsibilities which had been bestowed on her by the law of God, and which the manners and customs of her country at the advent of Christianity undeniably confirmed. This, then, is enough for us. There is no trace before the dispersion of that mingling of human with Divine ordinances with which we are charged; and therefore we cannot allow, that for us the moral preaching of the Christian apostles was needed. If such, indeed, took place after the dispersion, it was from the care of holy men to keep pure and holy the jewel of their faith, which was threatened to be buried, alas! beneath the bloody ashes of constant persecution; and how might we accept as saving, purifying, and reforming, the creed of those very men, whose cruel oppression occasioned the very evil from which they bid us turn. No! even in the midst of anarchy, misery, and blood, the religion of God shone forth DIVINE. It was sufficient for us then; and oh! doubly dearer, holier, more precious is it to us now!

CHAPTER I. THE WAR.— ITS HORRORS. — ORIGIN AND END. FULFILMENT OF PROPHECY. REAL CAUSE OF JEWISH CHASTISEMENT —DISPERSION. THOUGHTS ON THE TALMUD. It is with emotions of actual relief and gladness that we leave to other works the details of that awful war, during the continuance of which 1,356,460 of our hapless countrymen perished, and 101,700 graced as prisoners the triumph of the Roman emperor and his son; and this calculation relates only to the period of the destruction of Jerusalem: the thousands and thousands of men, women, and children, who fell victims to after massacres, are not included. As a History of the Women of Israel, we need not linger on details which our own historian, Josephus, and yet more powerfully, in all the eloquence of modern writing, Milman has brought so vividly before us, save to give one shuddering glance on what must have been the anguish, the tortures, of the female children of the Lord at that awful period.1 Every social tie—mother, daughter, sister, wife—must every hour have been subject to the agony of such bereavement as we can but faintly image now. We see, by both Isaiah2 and Ezekiel,3 that the sins of the women had added to the weight of national iniquity; but still all were not sinful, all were not rebellious. Countless thousands of those that fell were true to their God and His law. The service of the Temple, the daily offerSee Milman, History of the Jews, 3:35–36. Isa. 3:16–26 condemns the haughtiness of the well-to-do women of Judah. 3 Ezek. 13:17–23 condemns the false prophetesses of Judah. 1 2

845

846

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

ings, were continued in the very midst of the most horrible internal dissensions and outward siege; and not only men. armed for battle, but the aged and the feeble, the loveliest and the most unprotected female, the stripling youth and the tender child, sought the templecourts to worship, and often by the very altar found their deaths. What, in this dark epoch, would have supported the Hebrew female, and given her strength to witness misery, suffer torture, and then die? what but an assurance of that immortality, wherein the distinction between the righteous and the wicked should be discerned, and all of this world’s agony be swallowed up in an eternity of bliss? In shrinking from the pages of horror which relate the Jewish war, we sometimes forget to bring forward in its deserved light the noble and exalted patriotism from which the awful struggle sprang. In our last period, we have endeavored to give some idea of the enslaving and savage nature of the Roman government over the provinces of Judea. A reference to the historians of the period will make it clearer still. From Herod, falsely called the Great, originated, as we have seen, the Roman subjection of Judea, and the denationalizing of the Jewish people. But all of nationality, all of patriotism, had not merged into the slavish subjection which the persecuting cruelty of the Roman governors seemed determined to enforce. In the very face of crushing tyranny and inward depression, the Hebrew people rose as one man to throw off the yoke of Rome—Rome, the mistress of the world, Empress of a thousand cities, of a hundred provinces, each one larger and more mighty than the unprotected land whose daring sons held forth the banner of rebellion, and dared to strike for freedom! It was not Rome who commenced the struggle. She would have laughed to scorn the very idea that Judea could lead armies to subject her, when her officers and troops already held the land. No—it was the Jews themselves. And who after this shall accuse us of tacit submission, of wanting in courage, patriotism, spirit, all that makes the warrior? Had we succeeded, we too should have been held up as examples of man in his noblest nature, even as the Swiss under Tell, the Scotch under Wallace and Bruce, and the Americans of a later day; for, when compared with the Hebrews’ struggles for liberty and soil, how faint and feeble were the efforts of these modern lands! But the exalted origin of the Jewish war is lost in its awful close. We could not succeed; for it was the Lord who fought against us through the

SEVENTH PERIOD. I. THE WAR.— ITS HORRORS

847

Roman swords, in just chastisement for national iniquity, and in fulfilment of His prophecy by Moses. Still let not our sons forget that their ancestors alone dared brave the mighty force of imperial Rome—their ancestors alone so fought for freedom that mightier armies than were needed for the reduction of any other province were summoned against them. Aye, and that, had not the wrath of the Eternal worked against them, in the division of themselves, and in the awful fulfilment of the threatenings which they had disregarded, Judea would have been, unconquered still. One important fact it is necessary to notice here. Our young sisters, no doubt, have often read and heard (for it is impossible to peruse Gentile historians of the time without such impressions), that the awful occurrences of the war, the destruction of our glorious Temple, and banishment from our Holy Land, all were occasioned, not by our departure from the law of God, and manifold national transgressions, but from our obstinate rejection of Jesus, when he came for our salvation. Now, without an intimate knowledge of our history during the continuance of the Second Temple, this might be a startling argument. We see that we are dispersed; we read of all the miseries and massacres which have befallen us; of the omens and prodigies that preceded the destruction of the Temple. We are told by eager Gentile acquaintance, or read in their books, that so Jesus prophesied, and that he wept when he looked on Jerusalem, foreseeing all the calamities about to ensue because the people rejected him;4 and unless we know another cause for all these things, how are we to answer? And yet how easy is the true reply! A very cursory glance over our history, from the return from the Babylonish Captivity, even if we go no further than the death of Herod, will bring glaringly before us the awful sins for which we are thus punished. Even in the brief sketch which we have given at the commencement of our Sixth Period, we surely must trace the national departure from the pure law of Moses, the assimilation with other nations, the entire forgetfulness that we were to be a “nation of priests, holy unto the Lord”5—the awful deeds of parricide and massacre devastating the 4 5

See New Testament, Matt. 24; Mk. 13; Lk. 21:5–38. Ex. 19:6.

848

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

houses of those very princes as the Lord’s anointed priests: and even had we but the reign of Herod, we read a sufficiency of sin to hurl down on us the threatened chastisement of the Eternal. The period between the first and second Captivity was granted us as a period of trial, whether or not we would return with our whole hearts unto the Lord. The twenty-eighth chapter of Deuteronomy, with its sublime and startling prophecy, was ours then even as it is now. We had already felt the wrath of the Lord: and the power to return to Him and to His law, or to reject them, His mercy had planted in our hearts. If man had no power of himself to keep the law of God, as the Gentiles teach,6 then, indeed, would the law have been instituted in mockery, not in love, to destroy not to save; and there could have been no need for the sublime prophecy of Moses. This is not the work to dilate on the twenty-eighth chapter of Deuteronomy, as inclination might prompt. We can only beseech our readers to turn to it themselves—to observe the blessings promised for obedience—the curses threatened on the disobedient—to compare the history of Israel during the continuance of the Temple, with the first fourteen verses of the chapter, and reflect if such blessings could be ours; and then from the fifteenth to the end of the chapter: and do we need more to instruct us in the nature of our sins—and the wherefore they were punished? “But it shall come to pass, if thou wilt not hearken unto the voice of the Lord thy God, to observe to do all His commandments and His statutes, which I command thee this day, that all these curses shall come upon thee and overtake thee.”7 This single verse is all-sufficient to overturn every Gentile argument. The prophecy which it precedes is so exact a description of all that took place in Jerusalem, before its siege by the Romans, during the siege, and afterwards, in the various lands where we were scattered, that it would seem as if it must have been written by an eye-witness, or See New Testament, Acts 15:10–11 where the Apostle Peter argues, “Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we are able to bear? But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they.” 7 Deut. 28:15. 6

SEVENTH PERIOD. I. THE WAR.— ITS HORRORS

849

after those events took place—not by an historian, living hundreds and thousands of years before. This single chapter is sufficient to prove the truth of the Bible, Judaism, and God. The description of the siege may in a slight degree be applicable either to the first or second destruction of the Temple; but, as a whole, it refers only and solely to the destruction of Jerusalem by Titus, and the final dispersion of the Jews. Let not, then, the impressions derived from Gentile historians, so confine the youthful Hebrew mind, as to conceal for a single instant the real reason for our past miseries and present dispersion. We were, we are, chastised, not for rejecting Jesus, but for long, long years of disobedience to our law. We are chastised for those national and individual crimes and sins, recorded in our history during the continuance of our Second Temple—not for refusing belief in Jesus. If omens and prodigies did precede the destruction of the Temple, might not Nature have been equally moved with horror for the fate threatening the Jewish people for their manifold sins, as for a single one? Jesus wept when he thought on the calamities of Jerusalem; but this only proves, that, like every other Jew, he was well acquainted with the prophecy of Moses, and, in the supremacy of national sin, beheld its near fulfilment—wholly and entirely distinct from their treatment of himself. Surely, then, the Gentile arguments, as to the cause of our dispersion, must fall harmless to the ground, a knowledge of our own history being all that is required to supply us with defence.*8 * Our opponents will, no doubt, urge, that it was to redeem us from those very sins, dilated on above, that Jesus came; and had we accepted him, our punishment, in the destruction of our beautiful city, and banishment from our Holy Land, would have been averted. This sounds well: but as no such condition whatever was annexed, as a saving clause, to the prophetic threatenings of Moses, in chapter twenty-eight of Deuteronomy; we can neither accept nor allow it. Had the Eternal ordained and required this acceptance of Jesus, He would have inspired Moses to insert, at the end of verse fifteen, chapter twenty-eight, “But it shall come to pass, if thou wilt not hearken, &c.—nor accept the salvation that I offer through the atonement of the Saviour whom I will send.” But as there are no such conditions, the cause of all that has befallen us originates in the awful

850

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

The war itself lasted but five years; but the miseries and massacres of the Jews commenced almost from the death of Herod, and continued, with little cessation, long after Jerusalem was destroyed. In every Roman province where they took refuge, they were almost universally massacred, either from some fancied insult, or revolt among themselves, or from the determination of the Romans to sweep them from the earth. The Greeks joined in this universal persecution—their only point of cordial union with the Romans seeming, in fact, to be their detestation of and cruelty towards the exiles of the Lord. The reign of Adrian9 threatened them with almost as complete an extermination as their expulsion from their land. Yet still they lived on, endowed, it seemed, with an undying vitality, which neither cruelty, nor suffering, nor death in its most awful shape, could extinguish. Nor was it the race only, which was preserved, but the religion. Wherever they were, in whatever circumstances, either of prosperity or adversity, oppression or partial freedom, still they were Jews—more earnest, more hearty, more resolute followers of their law, than they had been when outward circumstances might have permitted its strictest observances.

disobedience to the “voice of the Lord our God,”8 and disobedience to the law which He gave through Moses. 8 Deut. 28:15. 9 I.e., the Emperor Hadrian, who ruled Rome from 117 to 138 C.E. He is called Adrianus in Hebrew and Aramaic sources. See, inter alia, Anthony Richard Birley, Hadrian: the Restless Emperor (London: Routledge, 1997); Mary Taliafero Boatwright, Hadrian and the Cities of the Roman Empire (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2000).

SEVENTH PERIOD. I. THE WAR.— ITS HORRORS

851

It was not until the reign of Antoninus Pius,10 that the miseries of the Hebrews subsided into a partial calm, and privileges were granted them throughout Italy and the various provinces of Rome, which enabled the patriarch of Tiberias to obtain such freedom and power in the observance of his religion, as to be recognised by the whole Jewish nation, wherever scattered, as their supreme head and spiritual sovereign.11 It was under his mild jurisdiction, that the Rabbins or learned men crept from their hiding-places, and resumed the study of the law. From them, at various times, emanated many of the minor ordinances and learned explanations of the written word, which were afterwards collected and compiled under the different names of Gemara, Mishna, and, later, the Talmud.12 The synagogues may Michael Avi-Yonah, The Jews Under Roman and Byzantine Rule (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1984), 39–41, attempting to correlate the Rabbinic sources [as noted there, 52, n. 12 these have been collected in Samuel Krauss, Antoninus and Rabbi (Vienna: Jewish Theological Seminary, 1910)] concerning a certain Emperor Antoninus, who had a very cordial relationship with the Patriarch Judah I, the author of the Mishnah, with what is known from Roman sources about the four different emperors who bore the name Antoninus. Avi-Yonah concludes that the emperor in question must have been Severus Antoninus, who was also called Caracalla. 11 It is frequently noted that the office of patriarch of the Jews was recognized by Roman law, specifically the Law Code promulgated by the Eastern Roman Emperor, Theodosius II (408–450) in 438 C.E. See Theodosian Code, XVI, 8. Traditionally, it was held that this office was held by Rabban Johanan ben Zakkai (70–80 C.E.). More recently it was held that this office was first established in the time of Rabban Gamaliel II c. 80 C.E. Many scholars now hold that the first to hold this office was Rabbi Judah I (c. 135–220 C.E.), the author of the Mishnah. The last person to hold this office was Rabban Gamaliel VI, who was removed from office by the aforementioned Theodosius in 415. Gamaliel VI was executed in 425 C.E., and Theodosius abolished the office in 429 C.E. 12 Indeed, the Rabbinic Code of Law promulgated by the Patriarch Judah I (see previous note) is called the Mishnah, which means “Teaching.” Two major commentaries composed in late antiquity are the Jerusalem or Palestinian Talmud and the Babylonian Talmud. The first of these commentaries seems to have reached its present form before the end of 10

852

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

also be said to have arisen from this period. Wherever there were ten Jews, there was a synagogue, with its books of the written law, and teachers; and its galleries for the accommodation of the Hebrew females,13 that they too might partake the spiritual instruction and privileges offered to their brethren. Over all the provinces of the great Empire, the Hebrew race extended; and from them penetrated all over Europe, and into the far-off countries of China, Malabar, other parts of the East Indies, the coast of Africa, and places equally remote, where their very origin is plunged in mystery. In China, their synagogue we are told much more resembles the ancient Temple, than any of those in the 4th century C.E. while the completion of the second of these commentaries was traditionally dated to 499 C.E. The Aramaic equivalent of Hebrew Talmud is Gemara, both of which mean ‘Teaching’. In common usage the term Talmud is said to comprise the Mishnah together with the commentary, which is called ‘gemara’. Indeed, in the common editions of the two Talmuds a passage from the Mishnah, which is presented for comment is prefaced with the Aramaic abbreviation for Mishnah and the comments on the passage are prefaced with the Aramaic abbreviation for Gemara. 13 Aguilar takes it for granted that in the period when the Mishnah was composed (late 2d century C.E.-early 3d century C.E.), as in her own time, women were seated in a gallery above the men’s section of the synagogue as, for example, in London’s Bevis Marks Synagogue, which she attended. Indeed, Ross Kramer, “Jewish Women in the Diaspora in Late Antiquity,” in Jewish Women in Historical Perspective, ed. Judith R. Baskin (2d ed.; Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1998), 50–51 argues, “There is currently no evidence from antiquity that women were routinely separated from men in synagogue worship nor that women sat in upstairs galleries or in adjacent rooms.” Interestingly enough, the only mention of a mehitzah or partition in a synagogue found in the Mishnah, specifically in Mishnah, Negaim 13:12 refers not to a permanent barrier separating women from men but to an ad hoc barrier that must be set up when a leper enters a synagogue. For other views see Hannah Safrai, “Women in the Ancient Synagogue,” in Daughters of the King: Women and the Synagogue, ed. Susan Grossman and Rivka Haut (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1992), 39–49; and especially Baruch Litvin, ed., The Sanctity of the Synagogue (3d ed.; Hoboken, N.J.: Ktav, 1987).

SEVENTH PERIOD. I. THE WAR.— ITS HORRORS

853

Europe.14 In Malabar, there are both black and white Jews,15 the former most probably either the descendants of black slaves or converts. In Bokhara and Persia, particularly in the cities of Ispahan16 and Shiraz, Rashan17 and Yezd—in Mesopotamia, Assyria, Damascus, Arabia, Egypt, Cairo, the borders of Abyssinia, Morocco;—in all these places the Hebrews found resting; precarious and uncertain indeed, but there they still continue to exist. In all the different kingdoms of Europe (except Norway, in which country we never remember seeing them mentioned),18 they have lived,

Concerning Jews and Judaism in 19th century China and the history of Jews and Judaism in China see William Charles White, Chinese Jews, 2d ed., with an introduction by Cecil Roth (New York: Paragon Book Reprint Co., 1966); Xu Xin, “China, Practice of Judaism in,” Encyclopaedia of Judaism, 2d ed., ed. Jacob Neusner, Alan J. Avery-Peck, and William Scott Green (3 vols.; Leiden: Brill, 2005), 348–355 and the bibliography on p. 370. 15 Concerning the Jews of the Kerala Region of India see J. B. Segal, A History of the Jews of Cochin (London: Valentine Mitchell, 1993); Eliya Ben-Eliyaoo, Cochin: Jewish Records from State Archives (Haifa: published by the author, 1970); Samuel Rafalovich, History of the Jews in Malabar (Emakulam, Kerala, India: 1966) [in Hebrew]; and concerning the Cochin Jews and their descendants in Israel see, inter alia, Marcia Shoshana Walerstein, Public Rituals Among the Cochin Jews in Israel (Los Angeles: UCLA Press, 1987). 16 I.e., Isfahan in Iran. 17 Rashan appears to be a typographical error for Kashan in Iran; concerning Jews and Judaism in modern times in Iran see Janet Afary, “From Outcastes to Citizens: Jews in Qajar Iran,” in Esther’s Children, ed. Houman Sarshar (Los Angeles, CA: Center for Iran Jewish Oral History/ Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 2002), 137–174; David Menashri, “The Pahlavi Monarchy and the Islamic Revolution,” in Sarshar, Esther’s Children, 381–402; and see also the extensive bibliography cited there. 18 Indeed, at the time of Aguilar’s death in 1847 no Jews were permanent residents of Norway. In fact, the Norwegian Legal Code of 1687 prohibited Jews from admission to Norway without a letter of safe conduct. The law allowing Jews to enter Norway and acquire full civil rights there was passed only in 1851. As late as 1875 only 25 Jews were perma14

854

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

flourished, been persecuted and expelled, recalled and protected. In Spain alone, the edict of expulsion never appears to have been recalled;19 but, as if in direct manifestation of the protecting arm of that gracious Providence, who had ordained the eternal existence of His people, the very year of their banishment from Spain, Christopher Columbus discovered that new continent, which was to be to them a home of more perfect freedom and peace than they had enjoyed since their dispersion. In America, persecution never assailed—expulsion never banished. In Spain, they had acquired a greater degree of learning, influence, and power, than in any other European nation; and such they might equally obtain in that land, which appeared to be called from the deep, at the voice of the Creator, to provide them a home where neither oppression nor even civil disabilities can check the same advance of mind and species, to which in Spain, and in Spain alone, they had attained. Surely, this consideration ought to weigh deeply in the minds of our brethren across the Atlantic, and, inciting them to rise superior to the worldly dreams and time-seeking pursuits of the age, urge them to make manifest to the world what freedom and equality will make the Jew. It would be an interesting and curious study, to endeavor to trace the first colonies of the Hebrews in all these varied lands; though, from the utter absence of all authentic documents, we fear the task, however interesting, would be impossible. We seem only to know, that in every quarter of the globe God has placed witnesses in simple fulfilment of His unalterable word.20 In the North and in the South, in the East and in the West, there we are, and there we shall be, until that glorious day, when the same mighty word which sent us forth will recall us to the land of our fathers— nent residents of Norway. See Oskar Mendelsohn, “Norway,” EJ 12:1222–1224. 19 Indeed, as noted by Jeonathan Prato, “Spain, Modern Period,” EJ 15:244, the edict was formally repealed only in December 1968. However, a decree of December 1924 granted Sephardic Jews living outside of Spain the right to claim Spanish nationality and settle in Spain. 20 Here Aguilar refers to Isa. 43:10, “Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD ...”; and Isa. 44:8, “... ye are even my witnesses ... .”

SEVENTH PERIOD. I. THE WAR.— ITS HORRORS

855

when, for our path, the mountains shall be laid low and the valleys exalted,21 and the tongue of the Red Sea shall be dried up,22 and the crooked shall be made straight, and the rough places plain,23 and in Jerusalem the glorious Temple be upraised from the dust, as the visioned eye of Ezekiel saw and prophesied, in the sublime description contained in the last eight chapters of his book. We cannot doubt that these things WILL BE, when we behold, by our residence in every land, what HAS BEEN and WHAT IS, and remember, that the same word which prophesied the PAST, whose fulfilment we have seen, hath prophesied the FUTURE,24 whose fulfilment we must equally behold, and believe even while it be deferred. The history of the Jews, as a body, however, enters not into the plan of the present work; nor shall we even dwell upon it as long as we did in our previous Period. From the siege of Jerusalem, our history is very much more generally known, than during the period between the return from Babylon and the final dispersion. We still trace the effects of the one in our present condition, and in the frequent mention of us in modern history, the other is but too often entirely forgotten, or only thought upon as blended with the records of Syria, Greece, Rome, and the final siege. Our task rests with the Women of Israel; and of them we have unhappily so little mention, either as individuals or as a body, in modern times, that we can add but little to our previous pages. Yet that little, trifling as it may seem, on a superficial consideration, is of real importance to the confirmation of our asserted point, the perfect freedom and equality of the Hebrew female. We shall not find her wanting in any single point which constitutes the fit recipient and promulgator of a persecuted creed, or Isa. 40:4. Cf. Isa. 50:2: “... behold, at my rebuke I dry up the sea ...”; cf. Ps. 106:9, “He rebuked the Red sea also, and it was dried up: so he led them through the depths, as through the wilderness”; cf. Isa. 42:15. 23 Isa. 40:4 24 Cf. Isa. 42:9: “Behold, the former things are come to pass, and new things do I declare: before they spring forth I tell you of them”; cf. Isa. 48:6. 21 22

856

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

shrinking, as her physical weakness might portend, from any suffering, even that most agonizing—the bereavement of her children, by her own or their father’s hand, could they thus only be saved from the denial of her God. Could any woman have done this, have looked on the pitiless murderers of all she loved, and then by cruel tortures calmly shared their fate: had she been deprived, as our opponents in their ignorance declare, of the belief in, and hope of, the bliss and rest of immortality? Before, however, we bring forward instances of female martyrdom, there is one subject which, though we approach it with reluctance, from the opposition and wilful misconception which it is likely to produce, we desire to bring most strongly before our readers. It is the supposition of many amongst the Gentiles, and we fear amongst some few of ourselves, that it is the Talmud which, promoting the spirit of the Mosaic law, authorizes, nay commands, the degradation and enslaving of the Jewish female. In confirmation of this theory, there are many zealous conversionists who bring forward, as translations from the Talmud, detached verses and portions, which appear so strongly to support their assertion, as to prevent all reply. Now it should be well remembered, both by ourselves and our opponents, that much which is called the Talmud, and supposed to be coeval with its original venerable compilers, are the speculations, inquiries, and even ordinances of much later writers, whose opinions were no doubt often biassed25 (though unconsciously) by the habits and customs of their own darkened age. Let us first consider the origin and real intent of these most venerable and often falsely abused forms. Divine they are not. There are, we think, comparatively but few now, who will place them, in point of divinity and dignity, with the written oracles of God; for if they are, why do we not see the same honor and reverence paid to them, as to the sacred rolls, whose dwelling is the House of God, and whose appearance and elevation in the sight of the assembled multitude, cause the congregation simultaneously to rise, in silent homage to their inspired author?26 The 19th century editions read “biased.” Aguilar here refers to the handwritten parchment scrolls of the Pentateuch (Torah Scrolls), which are placed in the Holy Ark, which is the 25 26

SEVENTH PERIOD. I. THE WAR.— ITS HORRORS

857

When expelled from their own land—banished into every quarter of the globe—the temple service and worship, exactly as Moses had ordained, was impossible.* The sacrifices were compelled to cease; for the fire from heaven consumed them no longer as in the First Temple; nor, as in the Second, were there courts and altars for the sacrifices; nor flocks and herds in possession of the Israelites to offer up. The multitudes, more eager than ever, from their state of adversity and trial, to return to the Lord their God, and once more obey that holy law, which, when it was in their power to obey, they had totally disregarded, beheld the opportunity so to do gone from them. Morning and evening, sabbaths and holidays, they had been accustomed to offer sacrifice and prayer. In case of singular vows, of thanksgiving, or penance, in every circumstance of life, they had a high priest to whom to resort, a Temple where to come, offerings ordained by Moses, and laws and statutes entering into every man’s household, and guiding not only his spiritual and social but his domestic life. But these laws and ordinances were for Israel when an independent state, subjects of God alone, and in possession of lands and their produce—flocks, herds—all of which were absolutely necessary for exact obedience to the law. In their banishment, how could they be guided in exact accordance with the pure law of Moses? At first perusal, they must have been focal point of the synagogue. Moreover, she refers to the fact that when the Holy Ark is opened for the taking out of one or more Scrolls for the assigned reading, which is the central part of the worship service on Monday and Thursday and Sabbath and Festival mornings, the congregation rises and remains standing until the Scroll has been placed on the Reading Desk. Likewise, when the Scroll is raised for all to view it (in the Sephardic and Oriental Jewish traditions the raising takes place before the liturgical reading from the Scroll; in the Ashkenazic traditions the raising of the Scroll takes place at the conclusion of the reading), the congregation rises as also when the Scroll is carried around the synagogue on its way back to the Holy Ark, and the congregation remains standing until the Scroll or Scrolls have been placed in the Holy Ark and its doors, gates, and/or curtains have been closed. * For these remarks on the Talmud, and supposition of its use and intent, the author alone is answerable.

858

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

almost appalled at the many ordinances which they could not observe; yet, on a second study of the holy books of Moses, and comparing them with the prophets, they must have seen, that obedience, as far as lay in their power, in their several lands of exile, was imperatively demanded from them; that their only hope of restoration and salvation was in a faithful adherence to the God and law of their fathers, and a firm faith in His promised mercy, to strengthen and purify man’s feeble efforts, and render them acceptable to him. But how were they to obey? Eager and earnest in their repentance and desire to return to their God, now that the longthreatened chastisement had fallen, they welcomed with rejoicing the efforts of holy and good men to lay down a path of obedience which, even in their exile and in the midst of persecution, they might tread. Hence arose those ordinances which are accused of clogging with dead and soulless weight the pure and spiritual Law of God; but which, in those fearful eras of exile and persecution, bound Jew to Jew, and with God’s protecting blessing, saved His religion from amalgamation with other nations, and all adoption of the Gentile creeds. But the holy men who originally raised the protecting casket around the beautiful jewel of their faith,27 never either preached or intended that their ordinances were to be considered divine or perpetual. It was to preserve the purity, the spiritual purity, of their Law unsullied, when circumstances must otherwise have crushed it (we are writing humanly, not alluding to the Divine Guardian, who would always have preserved us from annihilation), not to take its place and be considered in the same unalterable and changeless light with which we look on the law of God. Circumstances might demand the modification, even the alteration, of some of these Rabbinical statutes; and could their wise and pious originators have been consulted on the subject, they would have unhesitatingly adopted those measures most likely to advance and aid spiritual improvement, even if to do so demanded a modification of some of their previously instituted statutes. We have but to

Cf. Mishnah, Avot 1:1: “They [the men of the Great Assembly] said ... make a fence around the Torah.” 27

SEVENTH PERIOD. I. THE WAR.— ITS HORRORS

859

glance over the life and writings of the great Maimonides28 to prove this assertion. To the speculative theorists, students, and additional compilers of the middle ages, be it remembered, we do not allude. The great mischief which has befallen our people, in the supposed superiority of form over spirit—the ordinances of the Talmud over those given by Moses, and explained by the prophets—originates not in the first venerable compilers of the Talmud at the time of our dispersion, but in the writers of the middle ages, whose minds were darkened by the bloody ashes of persecution, who beheld all of spirituality apparently about to succumb before the awful darkness and abasement in which misery had plunged the mass; and who, in consequence, multiplied forms to guard them still more strictly from assimilation with their persecutors. And all those laws in which the fierce exclusiveness, so contrary to the spirit of love pervading the law of God, is founded, owe their origin to the same source. Opponents would do well to remember this, and, when they point to vows and laws which appear to contradict the law of God, apply them to their only source, not the disobedience of the Jew, but the persecution of the Gentile, and the dark misery thence ensuing.29 I.e. Moses Maimonides (1138–1204). In his Book of the Commandments, where he not only enumerates and elucidates the 613 commandments but also first and foremost makes a distinction between divine commandments and the commandments instituted by humans such as the observance of the festivals of Hanukkah and Purim. In his Mishneh Torah or Code of Jewish Law he organizes the entire system of 613 commandments according to subjects and explains which elements of their observance is believed to be of divine origin whether in the Written Torah or Pentateuch or in Oral Tradition handed down from Mount Sinai and which elements are believed to belong to the previously alluded “fence around the Torah,” or rabbinical ordinances. Finally, in the last part of his philosophical work, Guide of the Perplexed, Maimonides attempts to provide the rationale for many of the commandments, which seem to have no rational basis. 29 If there was a tendency in the 19th and 20th centuries on the part of Jewish thinkers belonging to radical Reform Judaism to blame the Talmud 28

860

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

But in our first dispersion, eagerly and rejoicingly the people listened to and observed the mild protecting ordinances of their spiritual teachers. In their banishment and misery, they beheld the awful fulfilment of the Eternal’s word; and remembering the beneficent mercy and forbearance which they had scorned, turned in deep repentance once more to their God. Their conscience, their earnest longings, to prove repentance by obedience, found rest and peace in the steady observance of ordinances which in their captive state they could obey, and which brought down the spiritual religion of their own bright land to the homes and synagogues of their captivity. These ordinances, and the spiritual supremacy of the Rabbins, became even the more necessary, as the Christian and for all that they did not like and wanted to reform in the Judaism of their day, Jewish thinkers of a more traditional bent, like Aguilar, tended to exalt the Talmud and blame the Jewish legal authorities of the Middle Ages for whatever they did not like. In the course of time Jewish thinkers and historians belonging to all trends in modern Judaism began to rehabilitate also the medieval commentators, legal authorities, philosophers, and mystics. The rehabilitation of medieval Jewish mysticism was accomplished first and foremost by Gershom Scholem and his disciples. The rehabilitation of medieval Jewish biblical exegesis was accomplished, inter alia, by a Polish Reform Rabbi named Poznanski and by a German Orthodox Rabbi named Abraham Berliner, both of whom began the publication of critical editions of the medieval exegetes and studies on their abiding contributions to the understanding of the Bible. In the 20th century Martin Buber rehabilitated 18th and 19th century Hasidism and argued that Hasidism was the most creative and vital movement in Judaism since Hebrew Scripture. The next phase in overcoming the modern Jew’s and the modern Jewess’s difficult relationship with his and her past (arising from a series of traumas that began with the expulsion of the Jews from Spain and Portugal at the dawn of modern times and continued with the avowed attempt of Israel’s enemies to drive the Jews of Israel into the Mediterranean Sea in June 1967) will be the rehabilitation of 19th century and 20th century forms of both traditional and liberal Judaism including the contributions of Jewish liturgical poets such as Penina Moïse (1797– 1880) and the brilliant biblical scholar and moralist, better known as a novelist and poetess, Grace Aguilar, one of whose many important books is now before us.

SEVENTH PERIOD. I. THE WAR.— ITS HORRORS

861

then the Mahomedan religions spread. It was comparatively easy to separate themselves from the idolatrous abominations of the Heathen; but when they were thrown sometimes amongst the followers of the Nazarene, acknowledging the same God and the same moral law—at others, with the followers of Mahomed, proclaiming the unity of God, observing the same covenant of Abraham, having some belief in Moses, and refusing the same interdicted food—the necessity of increased exclusiveness and care of the great mass of the people, who were in much too degraded and enslaved a position to realize the superior spirituality and truth of their own religion, became more and more evident, and gave our wise men still greater power and authority than they had originally sought. The multitudes scattered in every land, and liable to every insult and persecution, had neither the opportunity nor the mind to study for themselves, and were glad to follow unquestioningly in the path laid down. If we impartially consider our position in the long centuries of persecution, we surely cannot wonder even if inward spirituality did in some degree give place to outward form. To realize the former as our God demands, requires a position of comparative freedom—a breathing space, as it were—to cultivate all those refining and elevating emotions which enlarge and spiritualize the soul. In many countries the Hebrew was sunk to a lower and more degraded position, than even (we will not say the slaves) the very beasts of the soil. If, in those eras, they had not had some ordinances which they could obey, without even caring to know the wherefore, how could their religion have been preserved? We allude merely to those brief calms in their lives, when the sword of slaughter, though hovering over them, was still sheathed, At those times the mass might have appeared only to possess and value the casket, not the jewel; but where the hovering sword fell, and multitudes were doomed to the dread alternative of death, or denial of their God, then did the immortal glory of the jewel flash through the encircling casket, and endow them with the pure spirit of hope and faith which gave them strength to die! Mere blind adherence to instituted forms could never have done this. The spirit of their holy religion was breathed into every breast, invisible and unfelt in the sluggish depths of daily misery and constant fear, but bursting into life at the first call, and endowing with that firm belief in immortality which alone creates the martyr.

862

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

Those periods, then, in our history, in which the spirit of the Mosaic law seems lost in multiplied and weighty forms, cannot be charged to the ordinances of our ancient fathers, but to the still sluggish indifference which ever follows extreme excitement. Accustomed through so many centuries to anticipate and endure only persecution and slavery, it required a very long interval for the Israelites even to realize the belief that there were actually some countries in which they might live in perfect freedom and equality with their Gentile neighbors, and, consequently, that something more was demanded from them than mere adherence to instituted forms because so did their fathers. No longer called upon to suffer, the spirit within them so slept, that they became at length almost unconscious of its existence; and if asked the wherefore they observed such forms, and what was the origin of their belief, they might have found it difficult to reply. From this unnatural stagnation many Christians formed the opinion that the religion of the Jew was a mere spiritless formula, unenlightened by a single ray of immortal hope or spiritual faith, forgetting that the very evil they condemn, originated in the persecution of their own ancestors, not in the religion of the Jews. The period of this stagnation is now, however, Almost extinct it had but its appointed time; and though in some lands it still too oppressively exists, yet wherever the Hebrew is FREE a new spirit is awakening, giving precious promise of that time when spirit and form shall be re-united, as the God of Love ordained, the one aiding the other, till that perfection is attained, which, with the purifying blessing of the Lord, will lead us to our own dear land, and permit us once more to be His own.

CHAPTER II. ORDINANCES AND TALES OF THE TALMUD, RELATING TO THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL Having thus briefly glanced over the real origin, intent, and meaning of the Talmudic Ordinances, we will return to the point whence we started, and ascertain whether or not our venerable sages so completely contradicted the spirit of the law of Moses, as to hint, countenance, or ordain the degradation of the Hebrew female. For this purpose, we will transcribe a few of the rabbinical maxims, with which we have been favored by the kindness of the friend already referred to,1 whose sound knowledge of the Hebrew, both Biblical and Talmudical, and deep research, render his information on the subject indeed invaluable. The Hebrew Review, and one or two other casual notices in divine history, have also enabled us to form an opinion: but the Talmud itself should be its foundation; and from that we, as a female, are unhappily debarred. We must refer once more, though unwillingly, to the Nazarene assertion, that their religion was the first, and is the only one, which provides for women. “For woman never would, and never could have risen to her present station in the social system, had it not been for the dignity with which Christianity invested those qualities peculiarly her own” etc.*2 We I.e., Tobias Theodores of Manchester, England. See above, p. 738 n. 28; see also Aguilar in Period VI, Chapter V and Chapter XI; see also below, in the present chapter. * Woman’s Mission, page 140. We should not lay so much stress upon this point, were such observations as those quoted above confined to conversation. But when we see such sentiments as are contained in pages 140, 141, and 142, of a work, which, from its deserved popularity, is dis1

863

864

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

can quite understand and sympathize in the Christian woman’s love for her own faith, and heartfelt eloquence in the privileges it assures her. We can quite understand—when she compares her lot with that of the Heathen and Mahomedan, and remembers, that had it not been for the wider spread of Christianity, her fate would still have been the same—the glow of mind and heart, which must infuse her whole being, and naturally be reflected in her writings; but then, in her eloquent appeal to young countrywomen to remember what they owe to Christianity, let her not be so unjust as to count the Jewish religion amongst those in which woman, in her clinging and truly feminine character, is uncared for and unvalued. The moral laws to which she owes her privileges, came from us, and us alone. Who were the apostles and preachers? Who went about, giving the Heathen a knowledge of Israel’s God, though they disregarded the ceremonial law? Who but HEBREWS whose whole minds and hearts were imbued, not with new doctrines, but with the Hebrew moral law, which they disseminated in their wanderings, in such simple language as was best fitted for the longdarkened understandings of the Heathen whom they addressed? Jesus himself was a Jew, and every word which he preached or said in regard to morality, even his parables themselves, have their foundation in the commentaries of the Jewish elders on the written seminated, not only over our England, but, no doubt, over many other countries, how can we pass such charges by? Did the authoress not allude to the Jews, we should not feel the necessity of noticing it so imperative, but when even the religion of the people of God is included in such false and sweeping assertions (see page 142), we should be failing in either respect or love for our own holy faith, did we not endeavor to remove the impression. Many of our young sisters are acquainted with the really excellent little work in question, and unless well guarded, by finding all that the authoress urges in support of Christianity in their own holy faith, are likely to be startled and annoyed by what appears so plausible; the more so from the justice and moderation and truth of the previous chapters. In writing for our own sex, we are not authorized in refusing to notice such mistaken charges.2 2 See also Aguilar’s introduction, and see our annotations thereto with respect to the identification of the book entitled Woman’s Mission.

SEVENTH PERIOD. II. ORDINANCES AND TALES

865

law. We cannot trace a single moral statute throughout the New Testament, which is new, or even simplified to us. What may seem obscure, from the pure spirituality of the words of Moses, our venerable sages explain in language so simple and expressive, that the most obtuse could not fail to understand. While, then, we willingly acknowledge that every Gentile nation, under the mild, equitable influence of Christianity, has every reason to love and venerate the religion it upholds, and that every Christian woman would be wanting alike in honesty and enthusiasm, did she not consider her lot as blessed above that of every other Gentile land, let her not throw a slur upon the females of that holy faith, from whose privileges her own have sprung, and for whose safety, protection, guidance, and elevation for the obtaining and encouraging all the loveliest and most feminine attributes of her sex, the Most High himself deigned to lay down laws, disregard to which was disobedience to himself. This argument we have already treated at length in our Second Period, where we brought forward every statute relative to the Hebrew female, which our great lawgiver3 wrote down. In the succeeding Periods, even after we left the records of the Bible for the later history of Josephus, we have shown, and we believe somewhat satisfactorily, how those laws were followed by the influence and treatment of the females of Judea, even when the pure law was almost lost in the national anarchy reigning, with little intermission, during the continuation of the Second Temple. Surely this ought to be sufficient, even for those who declare that modern Judaism is distinct from, and even opposed to, the Judaism of the Bible, and that the Talmud is the cause. We do not think that the New Testament itself can bring forward a more touching and beautiful ordinance than the following:—“Make allowance for the weakness of thy wife; and if thou canst not raise I.e., Moses, to whom both Jews and Christians attributed the Pentateuch until modern times when the question of the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch was opened up by Benedict Spinoza (1632–1677) in his Theological Political Treatise, published in Latin in 1670. See, inter alia, Benedict Spinoza, Theological Political Treatise, ed. Jonathan Israel, trans. Michael Silverthorne and Jonathan Israel (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007). 3

866

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

her to thee, do thou stoop, and speak encouragingly to her”4—or. “If thy wife be of small stature, stoop, and speak gently to her.”5 Again, “Ever be zealous for the honor of thy wife; for there is no blessing found in a man’s house, which comes not through his wife.”6 To love their wives was natural; therefore love is not so much insisted upon as honor and respect. “Hold your wives in high respect, and you will be rich indeed;”7 but how could a man respect his wife, if her domestic and social position were degraded and enslaved? Again, “A man should honor his wife more than himself, and love her as he does his own person.”8 Here love is valued less than honor, because we may love an inferior being. We can only respect and honor superior virtue and elevated qualities; and this statute could never have proceeded from men accustomed to look on their wives in the light of inferiors, or in any single point but on an equality with themselves. “Whoever marries a woman for money alone, will not have children according to his wishes,”9 because the ancient fathers10 looked

Note that this proverb is an expanded version of the one quoted immediately hereafter. 5 Popular proverb quoted by R. Papa in Babylonian Talmud, Bava Mesia 59a; concerning this proverb and its ancient Near Eastern parallels see Shamir Yona, “Shared Stylistic Patterns in the Aramaic Proverbs of Ahiqar and Hebrew Wisdom,” Ancient Near Eastern Studies 44 (2007), 43. 6 R. Helbo in Babylonian Talmud, Bava Mesia, citing Gen. 12:16: “And he [Pharaoh] treated Abram well for her [Sarai’s] sake.” 7 Rava (d. 352 C.E.) to the men of Mahoza according to Babylonian Talmud, Bava Mesia 59a. 8 Babylonian Talmud, Yevamot 62a. 9 Babylonian Talmud, Kiddushin 70a. 10 In all but one case, where she uses this term to refer to the author of the additions to the Greek version of the Book of Esther, which are not found in the Hebrew version (see above, Period V), Aguilar uses this term to refer to the Rabbinic Sages of the Mishnah, the Talmuds, and the ancient and medieval midrashic literature. 4

SEVENTH PERIOD. II. ORDINANCES AND TALES

867

on “Woman’s mission”11 to be principally the education of her family, an idea borne out by the whole history of the Jews, in the particular mention of the mothers of kings, and other exalted persons. “A man should beware of marrying the daughter of an uneducated man; for should he die, or be banished, his children must remain uneducated, their mother being unacquainted with the glory of education.”12 An equal care is taken for the comfort and respect due to an educated wife. “A man should give his daughter to an educated man, for no disgrace or strife enters the house of a man of education.”13 Now were the Hebrew wife a mere cypher in the household, what could it signify on whom she was bestowed? Exactly in accordance with the spirit of the Mosaic Law, the duties prescribed by the Talmud towards mothers are of equal weight and force as towards the fathers;14 even more, for if a son see his mother and father either imprisoned or in danger, he is bound to save his mother even before his father15—a natural and an affecting ordinance; for the latter is supposed, from greater physical strength and mental energy, to be more easily enabled to save himself, while the weakness and delicacy of the mother rendered her entirely dependent on her son. The law of God commanded the same honor to be paid the mother as the father (see Second Period—laws for mothers), and the venerable compilers of the Talmud departed not one item from its spirit; thus upholding the moral and social dignity Here again Aguilar alludes to Sarah Lewis’s Women’s Mission, which, as we noted (see discussion in the notes to Aguilar’s introduction), was primarily a translation into English of selected chapters from Louis Aimé Martin, Sur l’Education des Mères. Both books suggested that women should be educated so that they would be better mothers. Here Aguilar suggests that centuries before both Sarah Lewis and Louis Aimé Martin, the Jewish Bible and the Rabbinic Sages had already taught that woman’s mission is to educate her family. Aguilar intimates that Jewish women need to know the Jewish heritage for there is little if any that they might learn from Lewis’s book that is not contained in the Jewish bookshelf. 12 Babylonian Talmud, Pesahim 49a. 13 Ibid. 14 See Babylonian Talmud, Kiddushin 30b–32b. 15 Mishnah, Horayot 3:7. 11

868

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

of women, even had there been no other law. That the mother, as well as the children, were to honor the father of a family, surely cannot be twisted into a degrading ordinance. Unhappy, indeed, is the woman of any creed, rank, or country, who cannot, with her whole heart, mind, and soul, honor the father of her children—the husband of her choice! The laws for the widows and the fatherless also, on which we laid so much, stress, as marking the care for woman by the Mosaic law, in our Second Period, we find commented upon by our ancient fathers, so exactly in the pure spirit of the Divine ordinance, that we cannot resist transcribing the whole passage. “Be very careful in the treatment of widows and orphans, not merely if they be poor; but because their spirits be broken, though they be ever so rich. Even the widow of a king, and his orphans, demand that carefulness. For it is said, ‘All widows and orphans shall ye not oppress.’16 Let the manner of addressing them be kind; do not burden them with labor, or oppress them with harsh, words. Let their property be more precious to thee than thine own; for he that offends or oppresses them, and injures their property, is an evil-doer, and his punishment is expressed in the law: ‘And my anger shall break out against you,’ &c. (Exodus xxii. 24.) The Holy One, blessed be He, has vouchsafed to grant them a particular covenant, that when they invoke Him against their oppressors, they shall be heard, as it is said, ‘ When they call up to me I will hear them, for I am merciful’.” (Ex. xx. 23.) The prohibition to offend them is, however, only in cases where it may cause them injury: but when it is for their good; as for instance, where a teacher is to instruct them in the law, or in his trade, it is a duty to reprove them; nevertheless, a distinction ought to be made in their favor, and they should be treated with greater forbearance than other pupils, so as to instruct them mildly, with great patience and attention; for it is said, the Lord will defend their cause,” &c. (Psalm cxl. 12.) Whether the child have lost father or mother, it is alike called an orphan, until it attains an age to protect

16

Ex. 22:22.

SEVENTH PERIOD. II. ORDINANCES AND TALES

869

itself.*17And this at once proves that the Hebrew mother was even on a more acknowledged equality with the father than in any other nation; for we believe that orphans in general mean those who have lost both parents, or a father only.18 We think, if we look the world over, and examine every religious or moral code, we shall fail to find any laws to surpass these; not only in humanity, but in most exquisite tenderness to that * Extracted from the Hebrew Review, pp. 60 and 61. Thence taken from Morality of the Talmud. Hilchoth Deoth (Ethic Precepts), Div. vi sect. 10.17 17 Here Aguilar refers to Tobias Theodores, “Morality of the Talmud,” Hebrew Review and Magazine of Rabbinical Literature, ed. Morris Raphall, 1 (Tishri–Adar 5595 / October, 1834 – March, 1835), 13–14 (Treatise, Brochoth, Folio 28, page 2); 28–30 (Hilchoth Deoth—Ethic Precepts [from Moses Maimonides, Mishneh Torah, Hilkhot Deot, Chapter 3, sections 3 [mislabeled as section 2] and 4 followed by Chapter 3, sections 1 and 2); 40–41 (Maimonides, Mishneh Torah, Hilkhot Deot, Chapter 5, sections 1– 13); 59–62 (Moses Maimonides, Mishneh Torah, Hilkhot Deot, Chapters 6 and 7). Note that what Tobias Theodores calls a “Division” is commonly called a “Chapter” and that what he calls a “Section” is commonly called a halakhah. 18 Indeed, the English term ‘orphan’ commonly designates a person, both of whose parents are deceased; see dictionaries. The Hebrew term yatom, commonly translated ‘orphan’ can refer to a person, one of whose parents is deceased. See, e.g., Ex. 22:22–24: “Ye shall not afflict any widow or yatom [child missing a parent; KJV renders “fatherless child”] ... If thou afflict them in any way ... your wives shall be widows and your children yetomim [‘bereft of a parent’; again KJV translates “fatherless”]. It is stated in Mishnah, Ketubbot 11:1: “A widow receives her substance from the property of the orphans, and [in exchange] whatever income she receives from her work belongs to them, and they are not obligated with respect to her funeral arrangements; but her heirs, who inherit her real estate [Heb. ketubbatah ...] are obligated with respect to her funeral arrangements.” On the basis of this text one might conclude that the text assumes that both parties to a marriage had legal heirs, who are not the heirs of the other spouse and that the children of a deceased man are called yetomim while the children of a deceased woman might be designated yorsheah ‘her heirs’.

870

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

bruised and broken reed, a widow of any rank or class, from the relict of a sovereign to the relict of a slave (so called), guiding not alone conduct towards her, but actually words and the manner of address. Again, we find peculiar regard paid by the Talmudists to the laws instituted by Moses for females of every denomination, as is proved by such laws as the following: “The woman takes precedence of the male in being fed, clad, and freed from captivity.”19 Repeatedly recommending us to afford protection and relief to the female first, and then to the male, in strong figures, which are so common to Eastern idiom, it commands, “Let thy table be considerably within thy means; thy dress and appearance according to thy means; but the comforts of thy wife and children beyond thy means.”20 We have already noticed the humane statutes in our law, for the protection and comfort of the maid servants, or female slaves in Israel (see Second Period); and that it was illegal for a man to transfer his Hebrew maid servant to another master,21 In exact accordance with the spirit of this beautiful ordinance, Tradition (or the Talmud) tells us: “The male servant became free on his master’s death, provided there was no male heir; but for the female servant’s release, there was no such condition.”22 Her master’s dying hour was the moment of her manumission, expressed in the Talmudic simple brevity by the words: “The Hebrew maid servant serves neither son nor daughter.”23 Here, then, even in these few and trifling extracts, we find, that instead of contradicting, every statute given by Moses relative Mishnah, Horayot, 3:7: “... and the woman takes precedence over the man with respect to clothing and getting her out of jail.” See also Babylonian Talmud, Horayot 13a: “Our Rabbis taught: If a man and his father and his teacher were in captivity he takes precedence over his teacher and his teacher takes precedence over his father, while his mother takes precedence over all of them.” 20 Babylonian Talmud, Hullin, 84b; cf. Genesis Rabbah 20:12. 21 Ex. 21:8. 22 See Mishnah, Kiddushin 1:2; and see Babylonian Talmud and Jerusalem Talmud and commentaries ad loc. 23 Babylonian Talmud, Kiddushin 17b. 19

SEVENTH PERIOD. II. ORDINANCES AND TALES

871

to mothers, wives, daughters, widows, and maid servants in Israel, is confirmed by the Talmudic precepts, and so simplified, that it is impossible even for wilful misconception to mistake their meaning. There may be many turns and points in the writings of our ancient sages seeming to contradict them, more especially in the light in which our opponents, to serve their own purposes, bring them forward: but with such laws as we have quoted, all else is of little moment. We know that they mint have been written by men well versed, not only in the ordinances but in the spirit of the law written by Moses, simply because of their exact accordance; that at the time such precepts were collected and written, the social or domestic position of woman could not have been the degraded and frivolous one assigned in general to the females of the East.24 That the Talmud must have regarded them as companions and friends to their husbands—educators of their children—mistresses of their household; and possessing, from their physical weakness and delicacy, such claims on the protection, tenderness, and kindness, not of their relatives alone, but of their nation in general, which are not to be found in the moral code of any other people. What later Jewish writers, therefore, may urge upon the subject, if it contradict this spirit, by assigning either position, duties, or employments, derogatory to her as a female, a recipient and promulgator of the law of God, or debarring her from those religious and social principles which were granted her from the delivery of the law, and proved her own by the history of every Jewish female mentioned in the Bible—those laws, statutes, ordinances, precepts, or even allusions, can be now nothing worth whatever, for not only (if there be such) do they contradict the law, but the traditions; not only disregard Moses, but the venerable fathers; and, therefore, need neither notice nor denial. However wise and learned may be their writers; however gravely they may be weighed and given, if in one single instance they contradict the law of God and the traditions of the fathers quoted above, we reject them altogether as neither guiding nor binding laws. Speculative theories they may be, probably originating from an intimate association with Concerning the stereotypic disparagement by westerners of the mistreatment of women in the Middle East see Said, Orientalism, 311. 24

872

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

the Moors of Spain and other nations of Eastern origin and Moslem faith, or even the Nazarenes themselves; for, in the middle ages, under the darkened sway of Catholicism, we certainly can trace very little of the humanizing and elevating effect of Christianity on her female votaries,25 to which the authoress of “Woman’s Mission” so eloquently reverts. But speculative theories have nothing to do with a guiding law. The middle ages teemed with suggestive and inquiring spirits among the Jews. The Bible became almost a sealed book, from the extreme danger attendant on public perusal and public explanation. Debarred alike from social intercourse or means of gratifying individual ambition, the study of the Talmud was their only resource; the hyperbolic and orient figures, which were mingled with beautiful parables and simple precepts, became Like her contemporaries and like many contemporaries of the annotator more than a century and a half after Aguilar, who need to be told and to be convinced that biblical women took part in the world outside of the home not only as spectators looking through a window, Aguilar was totally unaware of the rich intellectual life of Roman Catholic nuns in the Middle Ages and of their abiding contributions to the intellectual life of humankind. Unquestionably, renewed interest in this aspect of the history of women and of the history of religion has been fostered, in part, by the charges and counter-charges of radical feminists and male chauvinists. See, inter alia, Sabina Flanagan, Hildegard of Bingen, 1098–1179 (2d ed.; London & New York: Routledge, 1998); Heinrich Schipperges, Hildegard of Bingen: Healing and the Nature of the Cosmos, trans. John A. Broadwin (Princeton: Markus Wiener, 1997). In recent years not only have the theological writings of Hildegard of Bingen been studied but also her hymns have been performed on music channels throughout the world. Concerning the intellectual life of nuns in the Middle Ages see also Gertrud Jaron Lewis, By Women, for Women, about Women: The Sister Books of FourteenthCentury Germany (Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies, 1996); The Letters of [Saint] Catherine of Siena [1347–1380], translated with introduction and notes by Suzanne Noffke, O. P. (2 vols.; Tempe Arizona: Arizona Center for Medieval and Renaissance Studies, 2001); Walter Simons, Cities of Ladies: Beguine Communities in the Medieval Low Countries 1200–1565 (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2001); Ronald E. Surtz, Writing Women in Late Medieval and Early Modern Spain (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1995). 25

SEVENTH PERIOD. II. ORDINANCES AND TALES

873

to the uninitiated significant of meanings never contemplated by the writers themselves. On these they raised their own theories and speculations—some reasonable, some fanciful, but none gifted with authority to contradict, or take the place of previous laws. They swelled the multitude of volumes already known as the Talmud;26 and, therefore, when one word or precept is discovered which can be twisted into Jewish contempt of woman, not only the whole work, but the religion itself is contemned; such contemners entirely forgetting that the mighty work they quote, is the reflection not of one but of very many differing minds, and that the opinions are either merely individual or national, according as they contradict or uphold, not only the ordinances, but the spirit of the law of Moses.27 The Babylonian Talmud with only the Commentary by Rashi (1040–1105) and the topical glosses by his disciples and their disciples called Tosafot and marginal notes indicating the Talmud’s quoting biblical and Tannaitic literature, parallels, text-critical issues, and the unfolding of the law in the Codes is commonly printed in twelve compact volumes. However, it is no less common to print the Babylonian Talmud in twenty folio volumes (Vilna: Romm, 1880–1886) [and commonly reprinted] that include introductions, the complete text of the Tosefta edited by Moses Samuel Zuckermandel (1836=1917), Maimonides’ Commentary on the Mishnah, Isaac Alfasi’s summary of the Talmud and commentaries thereon, and supercommentaries on the Talmud, and the legal compendia of Rabbenu Asher ben Jehiel (c. 1250–1327) and Mordechai ben Hillel Ashkenazi (c. 1240–1298), which are commonly called in the yeshivah world, “the boys in the back.” 27 Here Aguilar seems to have anticipated by more than a century and a half the suggestion that when Jewish men could no longer express their masculinity as warriors, some Jewish societies in ancient, medieval and modern times (whose disempowered men were perceived by the outside world to be effeminate) defined the study of the Torah, and more specifically the study of Talmud as, in Boyarin’s words “a tertiary sexual characteristic.” See Daniel Boyarin, “Feminization and its Discontents,” in Daniel Boyarin, Unheroic Conduct: The Rise of Heterosexuality and the Invention of the Jewish Man (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1997), 151–185; cf. Gruber, “The Status of Women in Ancient Judaism”; see also Jacob Neusner, Androgynous Judaism: Masculine and Feminine in the Dual Torah 26

874

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

Thus, then, even granting the existence of some portions in our Talmud apparently derogatory to women, they are of no importance, and never guided our social system: but often those very portions, on which our opponents argue most eloquently, have nothing to do with the contempt towards females with which they are charged. We will bring forward one instance to explain our meaning. Amongst the Hebrews, no capital punishment could be inflicted on the testimony of a woman; now this is, of course, twisted by mistaken men into an idea that it proceeded from a contemptuous notion of woman’s judgment, an utter mistrust of her veracity, and a supposition that she was not even considered of sufficient consequence to take an oath, or otherwise share in solemn public proceedings. A brief glance back on the respect paid to Miriam,28 Deborah,29 and Huldah,30 must at once overthrow this idea. It would certainly be an inconsistency not at all according to the stern simplicity of the Jewish character, to allow the mothers and wives in Israel “the high prerogative of speaking in the name of the Eternal, obey their behests, and yet to refuse them the common justice of being believed.”31 But eager zeal to promote the all-important object of our conversion, does not venture quite so deeply. Happily we can reply by facts as strongly as by suggestions: “It was the awful duty of the witness to bear out the truth of his deposition by the execution of the verdict; and it was this part of the functions of a witness which the law nobly declared the female citizen to be un(Macon, Ga.: Mercer University Press, 1993), especially Chapter Three, “Zekhut and the Feminization of Judaism,” 83–123, and see also 160–188. 28 See above, Period III, Chapter I. 29 See above, Period III, Chapter III. 30 See above, Period IV, Chapter V, pp. 576-582. 31 This long sentence is taken almost verbatim from Tobias Theodores, “On the Administration of Justice Among the Hebrews,” Hebrew Review and Magazine of Rabbinical Literature, ed. Morris J. Raphall, vol. 3 (Tebath–Ab 5596/January–July, 1836), 7–11; 21–26 where the author characteristically signs himself T. T. The specific quotation is taken from pp. 21–22.

SEVENTH PERIOD. II. ORDINANCES AND TALES

875

able to perform. Instead of being a stigma upon the character of the nation generally, and of their female population especially, it must, on the contrary, inspire us with admiration of the delicacy of feeling displayed in that enactment.”*32And when we compare this * Hebrew Review, vol. iii, p. 22, from an article entitled, “On the Administration of Justice among the Hebrews.”32 32 The author of this article is Tobias Theodores, who signs his name T. T.; the complete article is found in Hebrew Review and Magazine of Rabbinical Literature, ed. Morris J. Raphall, vol. 3 (Tebath–Ab 5596/January– July 1836), 7–11, 21–26, and the specific quotation is found on p. 22 there. Concerning this important figure in 19th century Anglo-Jewry, especially in the field of Rabbinic literature see above, p. 738, n. 28. The law to which Aguilar quoting Theodores refers is found in Mishnah, Sanhedrin 6:4: “The place of stoning was twice the height of a human being. One of the [two] witnesses [on the basis of whose testimony the perpetrator was convicted] pushes him over from the hips so that he turns upward. He [the witness] turns him [the convict] over on his hips again [to ascertain whether he died]. If he [the convict] died thereby, that is sufficient. If not, the second [witness] takes a stone and puts it on his heart. If he [the convict] died thereby, that is sufficient. And if not, stoning him is incumbent upon all Israelites in accord with what is stated in Scripture (Deut. 17:7), ‘The hand of the witnesses shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterward the hands of all the people’.” Herbert Danby, The Mishnah (London: Oxford University Press, 1933) treats all of the present tense forms in the latter text as though they represent the historical present, and he translates them in the past tense, assuming that the Mishnah describes what was done by the Jews when they had a fully sovereign state in the Second Temple Period. However, with respect to the latter passage in the Mishnah, the standard printed editions, the famous and authoritative medieval manuscripts of the Mishnah and Jacob Neusner, The Mishnah: A New Translation (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1988) all concur that the text in question prescribes by way of description what ought to take place in the time to come when a competent Sanhedrin guided by a Rabbinocracy will be established in Jerusalem. The complete text of the article to which Aguilar refers here is Tobias Theodores [who there designates himself as simply T. T.], “On the Administration of Justice Among the Hebrews,” The Hebrew Review and Magazine, ed. Morris J. Raphall, vol. 3 (Tebet–Av 5596—January–July 1836), 7–11, 21–26. The

876

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

delicacy with the manners and customs of contemporary nations, the superior elevation and advancement of the people of God must strike us very forcibly. The Hebrew female was debarred by a most just and humane ordinance, from even witnessing the shedding of human blood. Surely this is a forcible proof of the care taken in the Talmud to preserve her feminine nature in all its original gentleness and purity; even if the restriction should be thought a harsh one by those females who, in civilized countries, may still be found accompanying the criminal to the place of execution, not to bear witness against him, but simply to satisfy their own will and pleasure by the sight of death. In those horrible combats between the hapless gladiators and the wild beasts, in polished, though heathen Rome, women thronged the amphitheatre. In later days, when Catholicism usurped the place of Heathenism, bull-fights arose, in which not only was an innocent animal tortured, but many human beings exposed to death, and yet the beauties of Spain would have felt it a hard restriction had they been prohibited from witnessing the sports. The tournaments themselves, if we examine them, we must confess to be scarcely fit scenes for women; though we ourselves feel that, in their age, they must have been fraught with an excitement and a chivalry, from which, in the position the higher females then occupied, it might have seemed hard for them to be debarred. But in Judea, in the Hebrew commonwealth at least, we never find mention of such things. War, with its concomitants, was to them a necessity, not a pastime. The introduction of the Greek and Roman games was a source of the deepest national affliction, as a departure from the holy purity and refined simplicity inseparable from a strict adherence to the laws of Moses.33 It is impossible to compare the social system of the Jews even with the refined notions of other nations of our own day, and yet publication of this and other articles by Tobias Theodores in 1836 calls into question the assertion by Bill Williams, The Making of Manchester Jewry 1740–1875 (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1976), 100, that “the first hint of his [Theodores’s] communal allegiance [i.e., interest in Jewish matters] had been in November 1840, when he wrote a long and famous letter to The London Times defending the Jews of Damascus.” 33 See 1 Macc. 1:11–15; 2 Macc. 4:7–17; Josephus, Antiquities, 12.5.1.

SEVENTH PERIOD. II. ORDINANCES AND TALES

877

not to perceive its superiority at once. Even plays were unknown. Actors, ballet-dancers, buffoons,34 were meaningless terms. The holy people would surely have thought themselves degraded by the very admission of such characters. Yet the arts and sciences were cultivated by them to a pitch of learning, glory, and perfection, unsurpassed, if even equalled, by either Greece or Rome. Music and poetry were to them the atmosphere they breathed;35 architecture, With all due respect to Grace Aguilar, performances by the buffoon [Heb. badhan], part of the Eastern European Jewish heritage, are a standard feature at wedding receptions among the Ashkenazic UltraOrthodox Jews in the post-modern era. See Meir Ydit, “Badhan,” EJ 4:73–75; see also Tamar Alexander, “Badhan,” The Oxford Dictionary of the Jewish Religion, ed. R. J. Zwi Werblowsky and Geoffrey Wigoder (New York & Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997), 95 and the literature cited there. 35 Concerning women’s musical performance in biblical times see the studies by Carol Meyers cited above in the notes to Period IV, Chapter I. The study of the testimony to music and poetry in ancient Rabbinic Literature is still in its infancy. Important studies include Franz Delitzsch, Zur Geschichte der Jüdischen Poësie vom Abschlus der heiligen Schriften alten Bundes bis auf die neueste Zeit (Leipzig: Karl Tauchnitz, 1836), 29–35; 131–136; 177–203; S. Sekles, The Poetry of the Talmud (New York: published by the author, 1880), 1–56; Aaron Mirsky, “Hebrew Poetry in the Period of the Talmud,” in Jerusalem: Annual for Literature and Thought 2 (1966), 161–179 (in Hebrew); id., The Basic Elements of the Forms of Jewish Liturgical Poetry (2d ed.; Jerusalem: Magnes, 1985), 3–4; David Golinkin, “Poetry in Rabbinic Literature,” Proceedings of the Rabbinical Assembly 48 (1986), 328–332 (in Hebrew). Concerning women’s poetry in Rabbinic literature and in the Middle Ages see Shirley Kaufman, Galit Hasan-Rokem and Tamar S. Hess, eds., The Defiant Muse: Hebrew Feminist Poems from Antiquity to the Present: A Bilingual Anthology, Foreword by Alicia Sushkin Ostriker (New York: Feminist Press of the City University of New York, 1999). The women’s lamentations recorded in Babylonian Talmud, Moed Qatan 28b have yet to be fully analyzed and explicated; important studies include Emanuel Feldman, “The Rabbinic Lament,” Jewish Quarterly Review, new series, 63 (1972–1973), 51–75; Meir Bar-Ilan, “The Voices of Women from Near and Afar,” in Or Le-Mayer: Festschrift in Honor of Mayer Gruber, ed. Shamir Yona (Beersheva: Ben-Gurion University Press, 2010), 33–86. 34

878

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

engraving, embroidery,36 cunning work in every metal and in every precious stone,37 rose to a height in their One Temple, and in their palaces, and even houses, which modern times vainly strive to outvie. Painting and sculpture, as the arts we now esteem them, were not so much known, from the care taken to prevent the smallest assimilation to the idolatrous worship of the neighboring nations, by either in paint, wood, or stone, making the likeness of any thing that is in the heaven above, or the earth beneath, or the waters under the earth,38 although the cherubim which adorned the Ark,39

See with reference to the contributions for the Tabernacle erected by Moses in the wilderness, Ex. 35:25–26: “And all the women that were wise hearted did spin with their hands, and brought that which they had spun, both of blue, and of purple, and of scarlet, and of fine linen. And all the women whose heart stirred them up in wisdom spun goats’ hair.” Concerning women in the cottage textile industry in the Rabbinic era see Mishnah, Ketubbot 5:5: “... [a wife who brought with her as part of her dowry] three [slavewomen], is not required to make his [her husband’s] bed nor is she required to work in wool. [if she brought with her] four [slavewomen] she may sit in an easy chair. Rabbi Eliezer opines that even if she brought him one hundred slavewomen, he [her husband] should require her to work in wool for idleness brings about lewdness.” This is the same R. Eliezer who holds (according to Mishnah, Sotah, 3:4) that whoever teaches his daughter Torah teaches her lewdness. Apparently, R. Eliezer was obsessed with lewdness and not especially partial to women. Concerning women’s engaging in the cottage textile industry according to Rabbinic sources see Miriam Peskowitz, Spinning Fantasies: Rabbis, Gender, and History (Berkeley, CA.: University of California Press, 1997). 37 See Ex. 31:2–5: “See, I have called by name Bezalel the son of Uri... and I have filled him with the spirit of God, in wisdom, and in understanding, and in knowledge, and in all manner of workmanship, to devise cunning works, to work in gold, and in silver, and in brass, and in cutting of stones ... .” See also the almost verbatim account in Ex. 35:30–33. 38 Here Aguilar refers to the second commandment of the Decalogue found in Ex. 20:3–6 = Deut. 5:7–10. 39 The making of the cherubim is prescribed in Ex. 25:18–20 while the carrying out of the prescription is narrated in Ex. 37:7–9. 36

SEVENTH PERIOD. II. ORDINANCES AND TALES

879

and the brazen bulls of the Temple,40 proved that even sculpture must have been an art well known.41 Dancing, usually common to barbarous nations, we have seen, was not such to us but usually made the constant accompaniment of national and holy rejoicings, and therefore not regarded in Israel merely as a frivolous pastime;42 but, as the natural recreation of the young and happy, considered an acceptable and pleasing offering of loving hearts to their holy and gracious King. In a nation, then, so peculiarly and especially spiritualized and refined, if there should be some social laws respecting their female population which appear to give them less freedom than the females of other nations, it was simply to render them more and more worthy of sustaining that two-fold most holy character— mothers of Israel and daughters of the Lord.43 We can find nothing either

The making of the twelve bulls, which supported the molten sea in the Temple of Solomon is recorded in 1 Kgs. 7:25 and 2 Ch. 4:4. 41 Just as Grace Aguilar in the 19th century and, inter alia, Phyllis Trible, Carol Meyers, and Tikva Frymer-Kensky (see bibliography) have successfully fought against false stereotypes about the roles of women in ancient Israel so have the rediscovery of medieval Hebrew illuminated manuscripts and the decorated mosaic floors of Byzantine Era synagogues (not to mention the wall paintings of the synagogue at Dura Europus) slowly put to rest the notion that Jews eschewed pictorial art. See especially Gabrielle Sed-Rajna, Ancient Jewish Art: East and West, introduction by Bezalel Narkiss (Paris: Flammeron, 1975); Thérèse Metzger and Mendel Metzger, Jewish Life in the Middle Ages: Illuminated Hebrew Manuscripts of the Thirteenth to the Sixteenth Centuries (Secaucus, N.J.: Chartwell Books, 1982); Bezalel Narkiss, Hebrew Illuminated Manuscripts (Jerusalem: Keter, 1978). Contrast Gerald Blidstein, “The Tannaim and Plastic Art,” in Perspectives in Jewish Learning, Volume V, ed. Byron L. Sherwin (Chicago: Spertus College of Judaica Press, 1973), 13–24. 42 Concerning dance in ancient Israel see Mayer I. Gruber, “Ten Dance-Derived Expressions in the Hebrew Bible,” in Gruber, Motherhood, 149–172. 43 Deut. 14:1 states, “Ye [the people of Israel] are the children of the LORD your God,” which suggests that the males among them are sons of 40

880

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

in the Law or its commentaries, by our really ancient fathers, to permit the supposition that either in the religious, moral, social, or domestic system, we were to be regarded as of less importance, less responsibility, and of less value in the sight of our God, and of the state, than our brother Man. We were—we are—equals in every spiritual privilege, and every social and domestic law. Man could neither degrade us individually, nor deprive us generally, of any privilege or promise given unto Israel. That he never attempted to do so during the continuance of Israel as a nation, we have seen; and therefore, whatever statutes from the Talmud may be brought forward to startle us by their seeming to enslave us—we may rest quietly assured, first, that they might be explained away, were the whole examined, with the same ease as those prohibiting female witnesses, which we have noticed; secondly, that they were probably absolutely necessary at the time they were given, to preserve the feminine purity, gentleness, and modesty of the women of Israel unsullied; and lastly, if they will not abide either of these tests, and are absolutely and unanswerably enslaving, heathenizing, and degrading, that they have foundation in neither law nor tradition, and consequently possess no authority, and demand no obedience— their own incongruity with both the history as well as the law of Israel, being quite sufficient for their entire rejection and utter condemnation, alike by the Hebrew state as by individuals. Precepts to insure the elevated position of the women of Israel were not in themselves sufficient to satisfy our ancient fathers. Besides the historical evidence that widows of kings could reign in their own right in Israel,44 we find many most beautiful allusions to woman in narrations, which, even granting they be but tradition, could only have sprung from the generally received idea of woman’s dignity, gentleness, and influence, and also her vast capabilities of acquiring, and opportunities of using, the most erudite the LORD God while the females among them are the daughters of the LORD God. 44 Concerning the reign of Athaliah see Period IV, Chapter V; concerning the mother of Hyrcanus, see Period VI, Chapter V; concerning Salome, the widow of Aristobulus, see Period VI, Chapter V; concerning Alexandra, the widow of Alexander Jannaeus see Period VI, Chapter V.

SEVENTH PERIOD. II. ORDINANCES AND TALES

881

readings of the Law. We are told that the wisdom and learning of Beruria, the wife of R. Meir, were received with even more deference than those of Meir himself. She not only understood the written word, but left three hundred traditions, and is placed amongst the Tanaites, or expositors of the Mishna.45 Now, how could such an assurance be found in the Talmud, if religious knowledge and opportunities of deep and severe study were, either by a law of the state or public opinion, denied to woman? It is folly to suppose it, even for a moment. If some modem Jewish opinions, concerning the impossibility of woman comprehending the Law, or the presumption and folly of her attempting to make religion her study, had had existence then, why poor Beruria might have shared the fate of some of the hapless learned of the middle ages, who were persecuted and burned, simply because their minds outstripped their age.46 But the memorable chroniclers of Beruria knew too For the traditions concerning Beruria, the wife of R. Meir see David Goodblatt, “The Beruria Traditions,” Journal of Jewish Studies 26 (1975), 68– 85; Daniel Boyarin, Carnal Israel (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1993), 181–196; Tal Ilan, Integrating Women into Second Temple History (Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1999), 189–194; and see also Mayer I. Gruber, Rashi’s Commentary on Psalms, Brill Reference Library of Judaism (Leiden: Brill, 2004), 109–110; concerning halakhic traditions transmitted in the names of women see Ann Goldfield, “Women as Sources of Torah in the Rabbinic Tradition,” in The Jewish Woman: New Perspectives, ed. Elizabeth Koltun (New York: Schocken Books, 1976), 257–271; see also Gruber, “The Status of Women in Ancient Judaism,” 154 and the literature cited there. 46 Concerning the accusation of witchcraft as a feminist issue see, inter alia, Carol F. Karlson, The Devil in the Shape of a Woman: Witchcraft in Colonial New England (New York: Vintage Books, 1989); Sigrid Brauner, Fearless Wives and Frightened Shrews: The Construction of the Witch in Early Modern Germany (Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press, 1995); Robin Briggs, Witches & Neighbours: The Social and Cultural Context of European Witchcraft (London: HarperCollins, 1996), especially, chapter 7: “Men Against Women: The Gendering of Witchcraft”; for additional bibliography see there, 439; concerning some Jewish attitudes toward witchcraft see Simcha Fishbane, Deviancy in Early Rabbinic Literature (Brill Reference 45

882

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

well both the position and the capabilities of their countrywomen to refuse their appreciation and reverence when called upon to give Library of Judaism, no. 27; Leiden: Brill, 2007), Chapter Five. On the other hand, concerning positive aspects of and attitudes toward Jewish women in public life in the Middle Ages, which Aguilar deliberately contrasts with the accusations of witchcraft in other societies see Avraham Grossman, Pious and Rebellious: Jewish Women in Europe in the Middle Ages (Jerusalem: Zalman Shazar Center for Jewish History, 2001) [in Hebrew]; Louise Mannheimer, “Jewish Women of Biblical and Medieval Times,” in Papers of the Jewish Women’s Congress Held at Chicago, September 4, 5, 6 and 7, 1893 [in conjunction with the World Parliament of Religions, which took place within the framework of the Chicago World’s Fair] (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society of America, 1894), 15–25; Ray Frank, “Women in the Synagogue,” in Papers of the Jewish Women’s Congress, 53–65; Nahida Remy, The Jewish Woman, trans. Louise Mannheimer (4th ed.; with an introduction by Prof. Dr. [Moritz] Lazarus; New York: Bloch Publishing Co., 1923), especially, chapter 6, “In the Dark Middle Ages”; Solomon Schechter, “Woman in Temple and Synagogue,” in Solomon Schechter, Studies in Judaism: First Series (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society of America, 1917), 313–326; Judith R. Baskin, “Jewish Women in the Middle Ages,” in Judith R. Baskin, ed., Jewish Women in Historical Perspective (2d ed.; Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1998), 101–128; Renée Levine Melammed, “Sephardi Women in the Medieval and Early Modern Period,” in Baskin, Jewish Women in Historical Perspective, 128–149. For more information concerning Louise Herschmann Mannheimer (1845–1920), see Nadell, Women Who Would Be Rabbis, 3–49, 51, 53. Louise Mannheimer was a poetess and also the inventor of the Pureairin patent ventilator. See also Faith Rogow, “Mannheimer, Louise Herschmann,” in European Immigrant Women in the United States: A Biographical Dictionary, ed. Judy Barrett Litoff and Judith McDonnell (New York & London: Garland Publishing, 1994), 185–186. Ray Frank (1861–1948), like many Jewish men in America in her generation, served as a freelance rabbi. In fact, it is pointed out by Nadell, Women Who Would be Rabbis, 39, she was known as “the girl rabbi of the golden west.” She attended classes at Hebrew Union College, and in the words of Nadell, 39–40, from the time that she conducted High Holiday services in Spokane, Washington in 1890 until shortly before her marriage to the economics Professor Simon Litman in 1900, “she carved out a career as ‘the Jewess in the Pulpit’.”

SEVENTH PERIOD. II. ORDINANCES AND TALES

883

them. Their affection for her memory is proved by the touching apologues in which she is brought forward, in a character so essentially feminine, that it is clear how completely they believed in the perfect compatibility of learning with every womanly feeling and attribute. To our countrywomen the brief notices are so well known, that it would be needless to repeat them, did we not hope that they would bring the Talmudic notices of woman in a somewhat novel light to our Christian friends.47 Rabbi Meir appears to have been as impetuous and rash as his wife was gentle and judicious. Irritated at persecuting insults, which he had received from some sinful men in his neighborhood, he uttered an imprecation against them in the words of David: “Let the sinners be consumed out of the earth, and let the wicked be no more.”48 “You are wrong, my husband—such was not king David’s meaning,” was the soothing reply. “He prayed that sin might be consumed from off the earth, for then the wicked would be no more. He sought the destruction of sin, not of the sinners;” and, perfectly aware that the Hebrew quite authorized such rendering of the verse, the Rabbi acknowledged the justice of his wife’s rebuke.49 Recent discoveries about the many and varied roles of women in European Christian societies would indicate that just as, so Aguilar hoped, Christians had much to learn about the many and varied roles of Jewish women in antiquity and in the Middle Ages, so would her impression about the limited activity of women in medieval Christian societies have been changed by the new knowledge uncovered by feminist historians. See, above, p. 872, n. 25. 48 Ps. 104:35. According to one, but not all Rabbinic traditions, King David composed or at least edited the Book of Psalms; see Babylonian Talmud, Bava Batra 14b; but see also Midrash Tehillim at Ps. 1:1; and cf. Rashi’s Commentary on Psalms and the notes in Gruber, Rashi’s Commentary on Psalms, 167–169. 49 The source is Babylonian Talmud, Berakot 10a. Interestingly enough, Rabbi Meir’s interpretation of the Psalter verse, which Beruria rejected, is incorporated in KJV and is reflected also in the vowel points in the standard text of the Hebrew Bible, which were devised in the Middle Ages; however, the consonantal text, which both Rabbi Meir and his 47

884

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

The other apologue of the same gentle feeling woman, is more generally known through the medium of Coleridge’s “Friend.”50 It was the custom of Rabbi Meir to attend the school and synagogue for several hours consecutively, often during the whole day—and, during one of these long absences from home, his sons, boys of great promise and beauty, both died. Conquering the anguish of a mother in the strong affection of a wife, who knew the passionate love borne by the father for his offspring, and dreading the effect of sudden grief, she met her husband at supper with her usual calm and tranquil mien. He naturally inquired for his sons, but she skilfully evaded the question, and, at the conclusion of the meal, stated that she had an important question to ask him, the answer to which had much troubled her. The rabbi encouraged her to speak; and she related, “that a neighbor had lent her some jewels of inestimable value, and now required them to be returned. Ought she to give them back?” Surprised, the rabbi replied, “that surely his wife needed not even to ask the question, the answer was so selfevident.” Without rejoinder, she led him into the room where the bodies lay, and, removing the white cloth which concealed them, revealed their loss. She permitted the first burst of agonized grief; and then, soothingly recalling his own verdict, touchingly repeated, “The Lord gave, and the Lord hath taken away; blessed be the name of the Lord?”51 wife Beruria had available to them, can be interpreted either way. Concerning Beruria, see Dalia Hoshen, Beruria the Tannaite: A Female Mishnah Scholar (Lanham, Md.: University Press of America, 2007). 50 Samuel Taylor Coleridge (1772–1834) was one of the most outstanding English poets of all time. He was also a philosopher. During the years 1809–1810 he co-edited a journal called The Friend, of which 28 issues appeared. His co-editor was Sarah Hutchinson, the sister of his wife Mary. Here Aguilar seems to suggest that the Talmudic account of how Rabbi Meir acquired the correct interpretation of Ps. 104:35 adumbrates Coleridge’s deference to women of intellect in The Friend. 51 The legend itself is found in Yalkut Shimoni, vol. 2, chapter 964 at Prov. 31:10. The story ends with the quotation of Job’s words in Job. 1:21 upon hearing of the tragic death in a natural disaster of his three daughters and seven sons. Unless the question mark is a printing error for an

SEVENTH PERIOD. II. ORDINANCES AND TALES

885

Can anything be more beautifully true to woman’s nature than these brief tales? Even granted they cannot be proved as true, but are merely traditionary; what a high and beautiful sense of the female Israelite’s capability and characteristics, must the ancient fathers have entertained! How contradictory to the modern assertion—that they degrade and enslave us, and so regard us with contempt! Accustomed to associate with such characters as Hannah,52 Abigail, Huldah, the Shunammite,53 and Esther,54 the sages knew exclamation mark, it appears that Aguilar construes Beruria’s quoting Job. 1:21 as a question and allows R. Meir to draw his own conclusion. The saying is frequently recited at Jewish funerals. 52 The rabbis “associated,” to use Aguilar’s expression with all of these female characters of the Hebrew Bible when they composed and recited midrashim about them and when they read Hebrew Scripture itself as part of their study of Torah. In addition, the entire narrative of Hannah and her hymn of thanksgiving constitute the haftarah or prophetic lection for the First Day of the New Year as prescribed in Babylonian Talmud, Megillah 31a. 53 The tale of the Shunammite found in 2 Kgs. 4:1–37 belongs to the prophetic lection or haftarah read at the conclusion of the Pentateuchal portion Vayera, i.e., Gen. 18:1–22:24. The common features of the two stories—one in Genesis and one in Kings include a) the fulfillment of the divine promise that a child would be born “in one year’s time”; b) the threatened death of the promised child: the Shunammite’s son by disease from which he recovered as the result of a miracle; Abraham’s and Sarah’s son Isaac was to have been a human sacrifice, which was called off at the last minute. 54 Every Jew and every Jewess is required to hear the singing of the text of the Book of Esther from a hand-written parchment scroll on both the eve of the Festival of Purim and the following day. In order to make it feasible for Orthodox Jewish women to hear every word of the Scroll of Esther without being distracted by children, special reading of the Scroll of Esther sessions are arranged for women while their husbands deliver child care away from where the women are fulfilling their holy obligation. Thus the “association” of our Rabbinic Sages with some of the heroines, whose stories have been discussed by Aguilar in Women of Israel goes beyond fulfilling the precept of Study of Torah and extends, in some cases, to participation in the liturgical life of the Jewish community.

886

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

that, to be highly gifted, learned, and wise, in a far nobler sense than the modern acceptation of the terms, and withal to be truly and exquisitely feminine, essentially the woman, was not the apocryphal combination which it is at present considered. The Talmudic writers must have thought highly and nobly of women, or such traits as we have brought forward, and those found in Hurwitz’s Hebrew Tales,55 would never have been admitted within their volumes. Hyman Hurwitz was born 1770 and died 1844. His many contributions to Judaica and Hebraica include the following: Elements of the Hebrew Language in Two Parts (London: for the author, 1807); Hebrew Tales, selected and translated from the writings of the ancient Hebrew sages, to which is appended an essay on the uninspired literature of the Hebrews (London: Morrison & Watt, 1826); Vindiciae Hebraicae: or, a defence of the Hebrew Scriptures, as a vehicle of revealed religion, occasioned by the recent strictures and innovations of Mr. Bellamy (London: F. C. and J. Rivington, 1820); A Dirge Recited in the Great Synagogue, London on the day of the funeral of Princess Charlotte, with a translation in English Verse by S. T. Coleridge (London: H. Barnett, 1817); and The Tears of a Grateful People: a Hebrew Dirge and Hymn Chaunted in the Great Synagogue on the Day of the Funeral of His Late Most Sacred Majesty, King George III: translated into English Verse (London: Morrison & Watt, 1820. The textbook of Biblical Hebrew was also translated into Dutch while Hebrew Tales was frequently reprinted in English as late as 1917 and also translated into German. See especially Hurwitz, Hebrew Tales, Chapter LVII, “Alexander and the Female Chief: A Moral Tale in Honour of Women,” pp. 162–165; Chapter LXV, Part 4, “The Widow,” pp. 186–187. Hurwitz’s tales and aphorisms are drawn from Mishnah, Avot, the Babylonian Talmud, and various ancient and medieval midrashim. He indicates the sources by titles of the books, but he does not supply chapter numbers for midrashim or page references for the Talmud. The title of his introductory essay “On the still existing Remains of the Hebrew Sages of a Later Period than the Maccabees and on the Character and Merit of the Uninspired Ancient Hebrew Literature Generally,” alludes to the fact that the last book of the Old Testament in the Roman Catholic canon is Second Maccabees and that he discusses and presents in English translation ancient Jewish literature, which is later than Second Maccabees. Christianity claims that the New Testament no less than the Hebrew Bible, commonly called by Christians, ‘the Old Testament’ is indeed ‘Scripture’. However, in Hurwitz’s time and in Aguilar’s time Christian missionaries to the Jews would 55

SEVENTH PERIOD. II. ORDINANCES AND TALES

887

Their minds were much too solemn, and too fond of weighty research, to allow such flights as romantic descriptions of woman’s excellence;56 which, if only accustomed to regard their mothers, wives, and sisters, in a degraded light, these notices and even laws would be. Surely then, even this brief and imperfect reference to the venerable volumes which—as reflections of some of the highest and the purest, the noblest and the holiest minds who ever labored for the good of man, and lived but to know and prove the glory of the Lord—we value from our very heart; even this may be permitted to remove some prejudice, and convince our opponents and ourselves, that not a thought so contrary to the spirit of the law as the degrading of woman either socially or individually, or even the non-caring for her weakness and her gentle nature, the refusing of all regard to her peculiarly feminine characteristics, ever entered the hearts or minds of our sages: their aim was to obey the law of God, and to provide for and protect her as woman. The very laws that, on a mere hasty reading, might seem in their strictness to interfere with her perfect freedom of act and will, are only evidences of their desire to preserve the feminine beauty and modesty of her character unsullied, and more probably instituted at those times when the not accept the right of the Jews to a sacred literature beyond Hebrew Scripture parallel to and rivaling in authority the New Testament. On the contrary, they accused the Jews of reverencing man-made literature embodied in the Mishnah, the Babylonian Talmud, and the midrashim at the expense of Hebrew Scripture, which both Jews and Christians regarded as divinely inspired canonical literature. Consequently, Hurwitz argues that the rabbis did not attempt to replace Holy Scripture with their own writings but rather that the writings of the Rabbinic Sages were primarily interpretations of the divinely inspired Hebrew Bible (pp. 1–84). Moreover, he explains that the Mishnah contains the laws that had until the end of the 2d century C.E. been handed down only orally but which had to be committed to writing lest they be forgotten (p. 46). 56 Here, as in her introduction, Aguilar challenges the assertion of Mrs. John Sandford, Woman, in her Social and Domestic Character, 54 in the title of the fifth chapter of the latter book that “Christianity is the source of female excellence.”

888

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

extreme laxity and rudeness of the nations around rendered them absolutely necessary, to keep the “Women of Israel” apart, that their holiness might never be profaned, even by casual association. Oh! that we had but eloquence and influence sufficient to urge our brethren to engage in the glorious task of removing the dust and rubbish which persecution, prejudice, and ignorance, have gathered round the pure and simple lessons, the exquisite allegories and glowing diction of our ancient fathers, and to publish in the vernacular idiom of every land, the wisdom which those mighty tomes conceal! Give us our own!57 Compel us not, out of pure When Aguilar wrote these lines a translation of 18 of the 52 tractates of the Mishnah had just been published. See above, p. 357, n. 1. A complete and reliable translation of the Babylonian Talmud would be produced only in the 20th century. Yet unsurpassed for its footnotes dealing with historical and philological issues, I. Epstein, ed., The Babylonian Talmud in English (London: Soncino Press, 1938–1948) is now complemented by three other English translations of the most important work of Rabbinic literature. Jacob Neusner, The Talmud of Babylonia: Translation and Commentary (22 vols.; Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson Publishers, 2005) employs Modern American academic English rather than the Elizabethan Biblical English employed by the Soncino Talmud. In addition, Neusner uses parenthetical and marginal notes and different type faces to identify and highlight quotations of Rabbinic sources that antedate the Babylonian Talmud: Mishnah, Tosefta, Sifra on Leviticus and Sifre on Numbers and Sifre on Deuteronomy. In addition, different fonts are used to convey to the English reader the sense that the Babylonian Talmud conveys by making use of three distinct languages—Biblical Hebrew, Mishnaic Hebrew, and Babylonian Jewish Aramaic—to convey different kinds of information. Adin Steinsaltz, The Talmud: Steinsaltz Edition (New York: Random House, 1989) calls attention to variant readings in manuscripts and provides pictures in sidebars to illustrate plants and other objects of the material word, which the Talmud takes for granted that the reader recognizes. If, until now, people who wanted to be walked through the Babylonian Talmud had to hire a teacher or enroll in a yeshivah or Rabbinical Seminary, The ArtScroll Talmud, ed. Nosson Scherman and Meir Zlotowitz (73 vols.; Brooklyn, New York: Mesorah Publications, 1990–2005), which is available in both Hebrew and English versions represents the yeshivah’s coming into your home (or the synagogue or public library) to walk you 57

SEVENTH PERIOD. II. ORDINANCES AND TALES

889

thirst, to seek the works of Gentile writers for commentators on the word of our God—for sympathy in our aspiring thoughts, for rest to our wearied souls, unable yet to understand the full beauty of the Bible, without some simple explanation which would flash light over the inspired pages, and so enable us to take them to our heart, and find consolation, Compel us not to turn to the Gentile works for these.58 Unseal the fountains of pure waters59 which our aged seers provided; give us their renderings of the moral law; their spirit and aphorisms; their orient imagery, which, in its power and imagination, will outvie every other. Give us their detail of Jewish through the Talmud. Aguilar’s prayers have been answered. Virtually all of Jewish sacred literature is now available in Modern English: See, inter alia, Jacob Neusner et al., The Mishnah: A New Translation (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1988); Jacob Neusner, The Tosefta: Translated from the Hebrew with a New Introduction (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 2002). To all of these monumental projects there has now been added A Feminist Commentary on the Babylonian Talmud, ed. Tal Ilan, Tamara Or, Dorothea M. Salzer, Christiane Steuer, and Irina Wandrey (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2007- ), of which, as this annotated edition of Aguilar’s Women of Israel goes to press, there have so far appeared an introductory volume containing 15 essays and a complete commentary on Tractate Ta‛anit by Tal Ilan. 58 More than half a century after Aguilar, Chief Rabbi Joseph Herman Hertz had to point out in the introduction to his monumental The Pentateuch with Haftorahs (5 vols.; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1929), vol 1, p. 5 that the only Bible commentary in English suitable for the synagogue and the Jewish home and school was David De Sola’s commentary on Genesis, which, as Aguilar noted (see passim in Period I), was the only such publication that was available when Aguilar wrote Women of Israel. In the interim she persuaded Isaac Leeser of Philadelphia to produce the first Jewish translation into English of the entire Bible, which appeared only in 1853. Concerning Aguilar’s influence upon Leeser in undertaking that project see Galchinsky, Origin of the Modern Jewish Woman Writer, 73, 186. 59 This expression is an allusion to Jer. 2:13 and 17:13, where God is called the fountain of pure waters; cf. Ps. 37:9: “With thee [God] is the fountain of life”; in Prov. 14:27 it is asserted that the fear of the LORD is the fountain of life while in Prov. 13:14; 16:22 wisdom is said to be the fountain of life; see also Prov. 10:11.

890

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

history; do not compel us to abide by the details of those whose faith is opposed to our own, who believe us blinded and degraded, and whose peculiar views must inspire their pages. The Hebrew who would do this, however gradually—who would provide our youth with works from our own writers, simplified, if needed, to their comprehension, and selected as would best meet the spirit of the age,60 would, indeed, rank among the first and noblest benefactors of this kind, and would prove the love which, as an Israelite, should be borne in his heart towards Israel’s sons and Israel’s God.

This is precisely the need that Aguilar sought to fulfill with her several books on Judaism. This is also precisely what Isaac Leeser attempted to do. And this is precisely what Aguilar’s contemporary, Rebecca Gratz sought to do by her creation of Sabbath School lessons that were used all over the United States of America. And this is what another Aguilar contemporary, the poetess, Penina Moïse, sought to do by means of the 190 Jewish hymns in English which she prepared for the congregation, Kahal Kadosh Beth Elohim in Charleston, South Carolina. These hymns were included in Hymns Written for the Use of Hebrew Congregations (Charleston: Kahal Kadosh Beth Elohim, 1856), which was the first American Jewish hymnal. This book appeared in four editions between 1856 and 1867. Ms. Moïse also headed the Sunday School of Charleston’s Beth Elohim, where she utilized the lessons prepared by Rebecca Gratz. 60

CHAPTER III. EFFECTS OF DISPERSION AND PERSECUTION—GENERAL REMARKS It would be irrelevant to our present task, besides extending our work to much too great a length, to attempt any detailed account of the Hebrew nation, from their dispersion to the present time; the third volume of Milman’s History,1 and an admirable American work, History of the Jews, by Hannah Adams,2 commencing from the destruction of Jerusalem, and accompanying us through our varied destinies till some fifty years ago;3 besides many other works Milman, History of the Jews, vol. 3, which traces the history of the Jews from the Roman siege of Jerusalem in 69 C.E. through the Napoleonic Era. 2 Joseph L. Blau, “Adams, Hannah,” EJ 2:249 points out that Hannah Adams (1755–1831) is “considered the first American woman professional writer. Her first book was An Alphabetical Compendium of the Various Sects: which appeared in the world from the Christian Era to the present day (Boston: B. Edes, 1784). Blau notes that this work was “significant for the sympathetic tone of the article on the Jews. Adams’s other publications include Letters on the Gospels (Cambridge, Mass.: Hillard & Metcalf, 1824); The Truth and Excellence of the Christian Religion (2 vols.; Boston: John West, 1804); and A Memoir of Miss Hannah Adams Written by Herself with Additional Notes by Hannah F. Lee (Boston: Gray & Bowen, 1832). 3 The book to which Aguilar refers here is Hannah Adams, History of the Jews from the Destruction of Jerusalem to the Nineteenth Century (Boston: John Eliot, Jr., 1812). The book was reprinted in London with minor revisions by the London Society for Promoting Christianity among the Jews. In their “Advertisement” (p. iii) they explain: “the hope is warmly cherished, that when British Christians shall have been made more fully acquainted through the medium of this publication, with the calamities which have 1

891

892

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

in the modern languages, which no doubt exist, though to us they may not be known, will give all the needful information of us, as a people. One trifling incident we will, however, mention, ere we leave the history of the past, and conclude our work by a brief survey of the present. In the reign of the emperor Julian, an edict was issued for the re-erection of the Temple of Jerusalem on Mount Moriah, and the “restoration of the Jewish worship in all its splendor.”4 The commotion which this edict occasioned to the Jews in every quarter of the empire may be imagined. They crowded in vast numbers to Palestine, and their wealth poured forth in such lavish profusion, that even the tools they used were to be sanctified to the befallen the Jews since their last dispersion, such sympathy will be excited, as to stimulate them to co-operate zealously with the above Society, in its benevolent endeavors to impart the knowledge of the crucified Jesus, the true Messiah, to that long oppressed nation, whose past sufferings, present degradation, and future glory are equally foretold by the prophets of the Old Testament, and the apostles of the New. Blau notes that Adams “relied on contemporary historical and demographic information prepared by Jewish correspondents.” Aguilar’s discussion of Jews and Judaism around the world in her own time in the final chapter of Women of Israel seems to have been inspired by two models that were available to her. These were Hannah Adams, History of the Jews and the final section, “Book XXVIII: Modern Judaism,” of Milman’s History of the Jews. Note that Adams’s History of the Jews also appeared in German as Die Geschichte der Jüden von der Zerstorung Jerusalems an bis auf die gegenwärtige Zeiten (2 vols.; Leipzig: Baumgärten, 1819–1820). In addition, Blau notes that “the chapter on Jews in the New World is of particular interest, and has been reprinted and translated into German and Hebrew.” For details see Joseph L. Blau and Salo W. Baron, eds., The Jews of the United States: 1790–1840: A Documentary History (3 vols.; New York & London: Columbia University Press / Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society of America, 1963) 1:256, n. 181. 4 Milman, History of the Jews, 3: 184, 197; Flavius Claudius Julianus, commonly called by Christians “Julian the Apostate” because of his abandonment and denunciation of Christianity, briefly reigned as Roman Emperor from 361 to 363 C.E. See D. Rokah, “Julian the Apostate,” EJ 10:467–469 and the extensive literature cited there.

SEVENTH PERIOD. III. EFFECTS OF DISPERSION

893

service by being made of the most costly materials—the women seconded their brethren, giving up every personal ornament and hoarded jewel to forward the glorious work. The prophets allude to the pride and folly of the women of Judea, loving their ornaments more than the law, as one of the iniquities from which Judea was to be purged;5 and it would seem by this mention, as if the propensity had been indeed crushed from the hearts of the women of Israel, and that even, as in the time of Moses, when to adorn the tabernacle they brought all their ornaments and the work of their hands till more than enough was given,6—so, now, they are equally earnest and enthusiastic in the holy cause. The work was indeed frustrated; for the word of the Lord had passed, and the land was to enjoy her sabbaths7 and the temple remain unbuilt till, the term of exile past, Aguilar refers to Isa. 3:16 (8th century B.C.E.): “... Because the daughters of Zion are haughty, and walk with stretched forth necks and wanton eyes, walking and mincing as they go, and making a tinkling with their feet ... .” 6 See Ex. 35:22: “And they came, both men and women, as many as were willing hearted, and brought bracelets, and earrings, and rings, and tablets, all jewels of gold: and every man that offered offered an offering of gold unto the LORD.” See also Ex. 36:5–7: “And they spake unto Moses, saying, The people bring much more than enough for the service of the work, which the LORD commanded to make. And Moses gave commandment, and they caused it to be proclaimed throughout the camp, saying, Let neither man nor woman make any more work for the offering of the sanctuary. So the people were restrained from bringing. For the stuff they had was sufficient for all the work to make it, and too much.” 7 See Lev. 26:32–35: “And I will bring the land into desolation: and your enemies which dwell therein shall be astonished at it. And I will scatter you among the heathen, and will draw out a sword after you: and your land shall be desolate, and your cities waste. Then shall the land enjoy her Sabbaths, as long as it lieth desolate, and ye be in your enemies’ land; even then shall the land rest, and enjoy her Sabbaths. As long as it lieth desolate it shall rest; because it did not rest in your sabbaths, when ye dwelt upon it.” Aguilar, following, Lev. 26, refers to the punishment for not observing the “year of rest unto the land” every seventh year prescribed in Lev. 25, q.v. 5

894

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

repentant Israel might be recalled; but the mention of the eager zeal of the women of Israel marks how dear and precious to them, as well as to their brother man, was the religion of Jerusalem; that they must have known and felt that their temple service, and the law it included, gave them, as women, higher and nobler privileges than any other, or they could not have been so eager for its restoration. Throughout our history, in all those horrible epochs of persecution, we can find not a single trace of the love of the Lord, and of his Holy Faith, burning with stronger and more enduring light, in man’s heart than in woman’s. The female Hebrew never shrank from any alternative however awful, which could save her or her children from the denial of their faith. Death of the most horrible kind was welcome, not only for themselves but (a trial far more awful) for their children, rather than the forcible baptism to which they were repeatedly exposed. No faith can bring forward a longer or more noble list of willing female martyrs;8 and what emotion could have inspired this devotion? What could have so triumphed over the emotions of humanity—the tremblings of the mortal frame—but the deepest love of their holy religion, the firmest conviction of its immutable truth, and an unwavering belief in the immortality which it was the first to teach, and which could alone have endowed weak clinging woman with the noble strength and constancy which taught her how to die? Let those who, in their utter ignorance of the spirit and tenets of the Jewish religion, dare to assert that we have no belief9 in the immortality of the soul, that Hopefully, after the more than one hundred and sixty-five years that have passed since the appearance of the first edition of Women of Israel, readers in post-modern times would be willing to let the Jews and any other group preserve and perpetuate its heritage without the members thereof having to prove that they are better than anyone else at anything. 9 The printed text in the old editions reads here ‘unbelief’, which is obviously a typographical error for ‘belief’. Aguilar here answers the false charge that Jews and Judaism do not believe in immortality, and she asserts that indeed Judaism upholds the belief in immortality. In fact, the belief in immortality is affirmed three times every weekday, four times every Sabbath, New Moon and major holiday, and five times on the Day 8

SEVENTH PERIOD. III. EFFECTS OF DISPERSION

895

it was neither taught by Moses and the prophets, nor preached and simplified by our ancient sages10—let those, if they cannot read our venerable fathers, just glance back on the history of our people, and answer, what was it caused so many millions, women as well as men, to die rather than desert their faith? What availed such sacrifice, if they believed this earth were all? What mattered their creed in this life, if death were annihilation? No: our martyrs are our witnesses; and we need little other proof of the universality of the Jewish belief in immortality, than the countless numbers who have sealed its mighty truth in their own blood. As our martyrs are witnesses of such belief, so are our existence and preservation, of the Truth of the Revelation, of the perof Atonement in the second benediction of the Amidah: “You are mighty forever, O Lord. You revive the dead ... He keeps His promise to those who sleep in the dust [based on Dan. 12:2] ... King who puts an end to life and also revives ... and you are faithful to revive the dead. Praised are You, O LORD, who revives the dead.” See ArtScroll Siddur, 100–101 and passim. And the belief in immortality of the soul after the death of the body is affirmed also in the memorial prayer, hashkabah in the Sephardic tradition and El Male Rahamim ‘God Full of Mercy’ in the Ashkenazic tradition, which is recited at funerals, dedication of a tombstone, and the yearly anniversary [nahalah in the Portuguese Jewish tradition; yahrzeit in the Ashkenazic tradition] of the death of a loved one. See ArtScroll Siddur, 144–145. See also next note. 10 For references to immortality and resurrection in the prophets and for the references, which the Rabbinic Sages found in the Pentateuch, see the notes to Period I, Chapter I, p. 58, n. 67. The Mishnah, the primary document of Rabbinic Judaism has this to say about immortality in, Tractate Sanhedrin 10:1: “All Israel have a portion in the world to come ... . And these are those who have no portion in the world to come: One who says that the promise of the resurrection of the dead is not part of divine Revelation [Heb. min hattorah]. The Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin, 90a explains that it is simple justice that one who denies the resurrection shall not be allowed to participate in it. Moreover R. Obadiah of Bertinoro (c. 1450–1516 C.E.) explains in his commentary on the Mishnah, ad loc, that “the world to come” that is referred to there in the Mishnah is not the realm in which the souls of the dead rest at the present time but the world of the future resurrection when soul and body will be reunited.

896

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

petuity of that holy faith which God Himself proclaimed should last for ever. Where now are the mighty nations of Babylon and Rome, before whose conquering arms Judea lay prostrate, and her children fell mingling dust with dust, or were scattered to every quarter of the globe like chaff before the wind?11 Where are the mighty conquerors? Lost amid the dim shadows of the past: and what are they but names which once were great? But where are the conquered? Ask of every land and every age; and they will point to them as a people still, for ever PRESENT, never PAST: and what are they? God’s people still—His witnesses,12 whom naught of earth and earthly change can touch. Nations and dynasties, conquerors and conquered, are swept from the face of the earth, leaving not a trace; but the persecuted, the oppressed, the tortured, the only nation which has seen millions and millions fall by the destroying sword, and in later times beheld but too many lost by smoother, but even more dangerous means;—that nation still lives, breathes unchanged, its ranks undiminished, its undying vitality seeming to receive increase of strength and firmness from every blow that seeks its downfall. Cemented by the blood of noble martyrs, supported by the pillars of divine truth, and wisdom, and love, it rears its head in every land, as a temple that will never fall, and all, man, woman, and child, who seek to love and obey the Lord according to His law vouchsafed to Moses, add to its solidity and beauty, and bear witness to its truth. Our existence is in itself a miracle: naught but the providence of God could have thus preserved us; a nation so completely apart, that, though for more than eighteen centuries scattered over the whole world, and found in every land, our identity has never been lost, our race has never mingled, our religion has never changed. Our most vehement opposers grant us this; but they tell us, that we worship not now as Moses taught; that we are guided by the Tal-

Cf. Ps. 1:4: “The ungodly are not so: but are like the chaff which the wind driveth away.” 12 See Isa. 43:10, “Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen ...”; Isa. 44:8, “... ye are even my witnesses ... .” 11

SEVENTH PERIOD. III. EFFECTS OF DISPERSION

897

mud, not by God.13 We could reply, that if the one dared to contradict the other, no Jew would acknowledge its legality, or obey its dictates; but we wish to prove, that if our manners and customs do in some instances appear to differ from the spirit inculcated by our inspired lawgiver, it is the necessary consequence of our captivity, foreseen by God Himself, and provided for by the principal statutes contained in Levit. xxvi. ver. 39 to the end,14 and Deut. xxx.,15 which in clear and emphatic terms laid down all that was necessary for our acceptance. Our law was given to a holy people, framed for a government and a nation which, in its domestic and political bearings, was to stand alone.16 When the sins and manifold rebellions of the children of Israel compelled their expulsion from the Holy Land, lost them the direct interference of their God, both by the Shechinah17 Typical of this Christian view of Judaism is Alfred Myers, The Jew (London: Society for the Promotion of Christianity Among the Jews, 1840); Langton, “A Question of Backbone,” p. 10 points out that Myers, a Protestant clergyman, was a convert from Judaism. 14 See, for example, Lev. 26:44–45: “And yet for all that, when they be in the land of their enemies, I will not cast them away, neither will I abhor them, to destroy them utterly, and to break my covenant with them: for I am the LORD their God. But I will for their sakes remember the covenant of their ancestors, whom I brought forth out of the land of Egypt in the sight of the heathen, that I might be their God: I am the LORD.” 15 See especially vv. 1–3: “And it shall come to pass, when all these things are come upon thee, the blessing and the curse, which I have set before thee, and thou shalt call them to mind among all the nations, whither the LORD thy God hath driven thee. And shalt return unto the LORD thy God, and shalt obey his voice according to all that I command thee this day, thou and thy children, with all thine heart and with all thy soul; That then the LORD thy God will turn thy captivity, and have compassion upon thee, and will return and gather thee from all the nations, whither the LORD thy God hath scattered thee.” 16 Cf. Num. 23:9: “... lo, the people shall dwell alone.” Cf. Numbers Rabbah 20:19–21. 17 In ancient Rabbinic literature shechinah means the Divine Presence and refers to a sense of the nearness of God. There is ample evidence that 13

898

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

and by his prophets, and scattered them over the whole world, it was a part of their awful chastisement, that while the word of the Eternal preserved their faith and its holy ordinances unchanged, their social, domestic, and individual position should be guided no longer by the pure spirit of the Law, but by the spirit of the nations amongst whom they were thrown. Thus we always perceive that the Jews are in a measure civilized or barbarized, according as civilization or barbarism pervade the people amongst whom they dwell. How was it possible for them to retain the social and mental elevation, the pure spiritual religion, the loveliness of home which had marked in ancient Rabbinic literature the term shechinah could be construed both as a feminine Hebrew noun, in which the final syllable ah is a characteristic mark of the feminine grammatical gender, and as a definite masculine noun in Aramaic in which the final ah [spelled with final ’aleph in Eastern Aramaic but with final heh in Western Aramaic] is simple the definite article meaning ‘the’. Nevertheless, in Kabbalistic thought, which emerges in the High Middle Ages, and which influenced virtually every Jewish community from that time until this, Shechinah, understood as a feminine noun, came to designate the feminine aspect of God while Holy One Blessed be He came to designate the masculine aspect of God. Indeed, many Jewish rites are interpreted, under Kabbalistic influence, as facilitating the union of the male and female aspects of God. Concerning Shechinah from antiquity to the present see the following: Max Kadushin, The Rabbinic Mind, 3d ed. (New York: Bloch Publishing Co., 1972), 223–225 and passim; id., Worship and Ethics (Evanston: Northwestern University Press, 1964), 167, 285, n. 26; Abraham Joshua Heschel, Heavenly Torah, As Refracted Through the Generations, ed. and trans. from the Hebrew with commentary by Gordon Tucker with Leonard Levin (New York & London: Continuum, 2006), 93–126; Arnold M. Goldberg, Untersuchungen über die Vorstellung von der Schekhinah in der frühen rabbinischen Literatur: Talmud und Midrasch (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1969); Peter Schäfer, Mirror of His Beauty: Feminine Images of God from the Bible to the Early Kabbalah (Princeton & Oxford: Princeton University Press, 2002); Arthur Green, “Shekhinah, the Virgin Mary, and the Song of Songs: Reflections on a Kabbalistic Symbol in its Historical Context,” AJS Review 26 (2002), 1–52; Yehudah Komlosh, The Bible in the Light of the Targum (2 vols.; Tel Aviv: Bar-Ilan University and Dvir Publishing Co., 1973), 106–107, 177, 275, 286, 368– 369 (in Hebrew).

SEVENTH PERIOD. III. EFFECTS OF DISPERSION

899

them in their own land, when subjected to the oppression, the slavery, the cruelty, with which the history of the middle ages teems; when moral and mental darkness was all around them, seeking also to crush them under the fierce persecutions, which from such mental and moral darkness sprang; how could the mass retain the spirituality, the elevation of their ancestors? Individuals there were no doubt, who were Israelites indeed, spiritually and mentally, as well as rigid adherents to every form; but the mass must of necessity have shared the darkness of the oppressors under whom they groaned. Spiritually and mentally, social and domestic elevation demands and imperatively needs an atmosphere of equality and freedom, or they must either droop and die, or be shrouded in such secresy, and so closely next the heart, as to be entirely invisible in history. This is proved by our history, in what is aptly termed by Milman, the “Golden Age of Judaism.” It was, indeed, of very short duration; but during its continuance, we find “the Jews not only pursuing unmolested their lucrative and enterprising traffic, not merely merchants of splendor and opulence, but suddenly emerging to offices of dignity and trust, administering the finances of Christian and Mahomedan kingdoms, and travelling ambassadors between mighty sovereigns.”*18In France, during the reign of Charlemagne, “from the ports of Marseilles and Narbonne, their vessels kept up a constant communication with the East.”19 In Narbonne,

* Milman, vol. iii. p. 269.18 18 I have here corrected the page number, which in the 19th century editions of Women of Israel has the typographical error, “369.” She refers here to Milman, History of the Jews, 3:269–329, which Milman designates as “Book XXIII. Golden Age of Judaism,” or more precisely there, p. 269, “the Golden Age of the Modern Jews,” which begins according to his reckoning in 634 A.C. [i.e., Anno Christi; or as 21st century Christians would say A.D. or C.E.] and ends 980 A.C. [i.e., A.D. or C.E.], which year commences what he calls “the Iron Age of Judaism.” He refers in this section of History of the Jews to the period beginning with the establishment of the Caliphate at Baghdad (762 C.E.) until the time when Moses Maimonides had to flee Muslim Spain and take refuge in Fez (1160). 19 Milman, History of the Jews, 3:269.

900

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

of the two prefects (or mayors of the city) one was always a Jew;20 and the most regular and stately part of the city of Lyons was always the Jewish quarter.21 The superior intelligence and education of the Jews, during a period when nobles and kings and even the clergy could not always write their names, pointed them out for offices of trust. They were the physicians, and the ministers of finance, to nobles and to monarchs. And in the reign of Charlemagne, “Europe and Asia beheld the extraordinary spectacle of a Jew named Isaac, setting forth with two Christian counts, one of whom died on the road, as ambassador from Charlemagne to Haroun Al Raschid, and conducting the political correspondence between the court of Aix-la-Chapelle and Bagdad.”* In Spain, both under the influence of Moorish and Christian sovereigns, the golden age of Judaism endured the longest, to set in the deepest darkness.22 The long line of literary men, who swelled the Jewish ranks during that epoch, sufficiently mark the influence of freedom and prosperity upon the mind—while the writings of Maimonides are pretty certain evidence of their effect upon the spirit. In the calm and dignified repose of the social position which that golden age allowed him, Maimonides advanced so much beyond his times and country that, like all benefactors of their kind, he was neither understood nor appreciated by his contemporaries. But the more enlightened our nation has become, the more have his profound wisdom and spiritual revelations of the wisdom and goodness of the Deity, as displayed in the Law of Moses, been valued and appreciated, and the more they will be as the Jewish mind advances.23 Ibid., p. 280. Milman, History of the Jews, 3:280. * Milman, vol. iii. p. 269. 22 See, inter alia, Eliyahu Ashtor, The Jews of Moslem Spain (3 vols.; Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1972–1984); Yitshak Baer, History of the Jews in Christian Spain (2 vols.; Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society of America, 1961–1966). 23 Aguilar refers to the controversy that arose among the Jews concerning the writings of Maimonides. For a concise summary see Israel Zinberg, A History of Jewish Literature, edited and translated by Bernard 20 21

SEVENTH PERIOD. III. EFFECTS OF DISPERSION

901

The iron age, preceding the golden one, had originally cramped the intellectual and spiritual powers of the mass. They had been content and glad to tread the path laid down for them by their teachers, without inquiring wherefore they thus worshipped. Even their teachers, except a select and holy few, had accustomed themselves to regard the magnificent fabric of the Mosaic Law with silent adoration and admiring wonder; but Maimonides, in his daring and all-conquering wisdom, looked on it with the searching light of reason, as well as the living orb of faith; and how he was spiritually rewarded, let his beautiful writings testify. His contemporaries were dazzled by the lustre he flung upon the meaning and intentions of the holy Law, and feared to approve it; but his labor was not lost. The flash, too bright to illuminate his own age,*24penetrated the folds of the far future, and spreading gradually, found souls prepared to meet and welcome it, and shrine in their heart of hearts the glorious mind whose wisdom had kindled it to life. But for many, many terrible years, even the memory of the golden age was buried under the dense pall of misery and oppression which gathered round the hapless Israelites in every land, and so crushed all mental and social elevation, so confined the sphere of action and employment, so banished all religious instruction, except such as could be imparted in the deepest secresy, that the Martin (vol. 3, pt. 4 (Cleveland: Case Western Reserve University Press, 1973); for a considerably less dispassionate and totally pro-Maimonidean approach to the same issues and events see José Faur, “AntiMaimonidean Demons,” Review of Rabbinic Judaism 6 (2003), 3–52; id., “A Crisis of Categories: Kabbalah and the Rise of Apostasy in Spain,” in The Jews of Spain and the Expulsion of 1492, ed. Moshe Lazar and Stephen Haliczer (Lancaster, C.A.: Labyrinthos, 1997), 41–63. * Wisdom like his becomes to the unenlightened “dark from excess of light.”24 24 Quoting Plato, The Sophist. There the Eleatic stranger states, “And the philosopher, always holding converse through reason with the idea of being, is also dark from excess of light; for the souls of the many have no eye which can endure the vision of the divine.” For the passage in context see B. Jowett, trans., The Dialogues of Plato (2 vols.; New York: Random House, 1937), 2:262 (paragraph 264).

902

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

word Jew became and has continued synonymous with all that is debased—with a bowed and bowing servility, with exacting usury, with hard exclusiveness, and with a merciless hatred of all mankind, and a detestation of every religion but his own. Aye, even now, to those who have never associated with us, whose only knowledge is drawn from books—whose authors, with but two noble exceptions,*25seem26to delight in fabling us as the Shylock of Shake* Sir Walter Scott, in his exquisite delineation of Rebecca and her father;25 and Mrs. S. C. Hall, in her breathing portrait of Manasseh Ben Israel, in the “Buccaneer,” where she has so beautifully and skilfully blended all the characteristics of the Talmudic Israelite, with the emotions and virtues of a father and a man—a union which most authors appear to imagine incompatible.26 The character of Sidonia in “Coningsby,” is not a being of flesh and blood, but a type of a class; and therefore we do not include him, though the author has done us justice as a nation.27 25 Sir Walter Scott was born in Edinburgh August 15, 1771, and he died at Abbottsford September 21, 1832. David Daiches, “Scott, Sir Walter,” Encyclopaedia Britannica (1967), 20:80–83, notes that Scott, “the novelist, poet and man of letters,” was “the founder of the historical novel, and the first British novelist to become a public figure.” In his novel Ivanhoe (1819), Isaac, like Shakespeare’s Shylock, is a money-lender while his daughter is Rebecca, the counterpart of Jessica in Merchant of Venice. It is commonly accepted that Scott’s Rebecca was inspired by Rebecca Gratz of Philadelphia, of whom Scott had heard from the American writer, Washington Irving. See, inter alia, Harold Harel Fisch, “Scott, Sir Walter,” EJ 14: 1037–1037. Rebecca Gratz (1781–1869) founded the Hebrew Sabbath School Society in 1819 and prepared Jewish Sabbath School lessons, which were used all over North America. See, inter alia, Rollin Gustav Osterweis, Rebecca Gratz: A Study in Charm (New York: Putnam, 1935); Dianne C. Ashton, Rebecca Gratz: Women and Judaism in Antebellum America (Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1997). 26 Mrs. S. C. Hall, i.e., Anna Maria Fielding Hall (1800–1881), who married the author, journalist, and editor Samuel Carter Hall (1800–1889), on September 20, 1824. Concerning the latter see George Clement Boase, “Hall, Samuel Carter,” Dictionary of National Biography, 8:971–973; concerning Anna Maria Fielding Hall see id., “Hall, Anna Maria,” Dictionary of National Biography, 8:938–939. See also Maureen O’Connor, “Hall, Anna Maria,” in Lorna Sage, ed., Cambridge Guide to Women’s Writing in English

SEVENTH PERIOD. III. EFFECTS OF DISPERSION

903

speare,2728 the old clothesman of nursery tales (noticed thus even by Miss Edgeworth),29 or as the money-lenders,30 interest-exactors, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999), 300. Born in Dublin, Anna Maria Fielding Hall went with her mother to London in 1815 and remained in England for the rest of her life. Her extensive literary output included novels, plays, short stories and readers for young children. The Buccaneer, which was first published in 1832, is an historical novel based upon the period of the Protectorate ((1653–1659). 27 Here Aguilar refers to the novel Coningsby (1844), by Benjamin Disraeli, (1804–1881), who would become prime minister of Great Britain in 1868 and then for another six years beginning in 1874. For making Queen Victoria Empress of India he was granted the title of Earl of Beaconsfield. The hero of the novel Coningsby, Sidonia, the banker is said to embody a combination of both an idealized Lionel Nathan Rothschild (1808–1879) [in addition to heading the banking house at New Court in London, he was the first Jewish member of the British House of Commons, who took his seat July 26, 1858] and an idealized Disraeli. See Zvi Adiv, “Disraeli, Benjamin,” EJ 6:103–108; and see also Vivian David Lipman, “Rothschild: The English Branch,” EJ 14: See Benjamin Disraeli, Coningsby, ed. Bernard N. Langdon-Davies (London: R.B. Johnson, 1904), 341 28 The 19th century editions read “Shakspeare.” 29 Maria Edgeworth, the single most prominent British novelist of the first decade of the nineteenth century, was born January 1, 1768 at Black Bourton, Oxfordshire, England. She died, apparently of a sudden and massive heart attack, on May 22, 1849. In 1795 she published Letters for Literary Ladies, in which she called for the education of women to the life of the mind, much as had Mary Wollstonecraft in her Vindication of the Rights of Woman, the second edition of which had appeared just three years before. With her father, Richard Lovell Edgeworth (1744–1814), Maria Edgeworth co-authored Essays on Practical Education, which appeared in 1798. Unlike many of the other women writers of her time who were educated at home, Maria Edgeworth attended women’s boarding schools, first Mrs. Latafière’s School in Derby and later Mrs. Davis’s School in London. Mary Edgeworth’s published novels include Castle Rackrent (1800), Belinda (1802), Ennui (1809), The Absentee (1812), Patronage (1814), Ormond (1817), and Helen (1834). In addition she published numerous stories for children. Her collected juvenile stories are contained in The Parent’s Assistant; or, Stories for Children (2d ed.; London: J. Johnson, 1796);

904

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

and dishonorable adepts in all the grades of usury which abound in fashionable novels.31 And little, perhaps, do their writers know that their fictions demonstrate far more clearly the consequences of persecution, which their ancestors have hurled upon us, than the real character of the Jew, or the true spirit of his creed. Writers who know us not, depict us, not what we are, but what lingering prejudice creates us, entirely forgetting the real cause of our fallen state—the impossibility of our attaining to that elevated social state which freedom and peace have granted to other lands, while bent to the very earth, and for ever liable, even at this very present, to insult, ignominy, and such oppressions as even slavery does not know. The mischief which is done by such false pictures of the Jewish character in social and domestic life is incalculable. It not only fosters prejudice and confirms ignorance in our opponents, but actually causes many Jews themselves to tremble at the term, and to endeavor to conceal a faith and descent which should be their glory. Even those domestic narrations which portray some Moral Tales for Young People (5 vols.; London: J. Johnson, 1801); The Birthday Present, and Susan: Simple Stories for Children (1846); see, inter alia, Marilyn Speers Butler, Maria Edgeworth: A Literary Biography (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1972). Galchinksy, Origin of the Modern Jewish Woman Writer¸ 42 points out that Edgeworth wrote her novel Harrington (1817), the hero of which is a Jewish philanthropist, in response to the complaint voiced by Jewish women that previously Edgeworth had perpetrated negative stereotypes of Jews in her children’s stories. Interestingly, Aguilar was compared to Maria Edgeworth; see Galchinksy, Origin of the Modern Jewish Woman Writer, 153. 30 Cf. Galchinsky, Origin of the Modern Jewish Woman Writer, 42–49. 31 Typical is the rogue named Fagin in Charles Dickens’s famous novel, Oliver Twist 1837–1838). Having been told by Jews that he was perpetuating negative stereotypes that were offensive to the Jews, Dickens cancelled a public reading of Oliver Twist on January 1, 1869. Moreover, Dickens sought to make amends by creating a positive Jewish character, the philanthropist Mr. Riah in his last novel, Our Mutual Friend (1864–65). See, inter alia, Harry Stone, “Dickens and the Jews,” Victorian Studies 11 (March 1969), 223–253; Galchinsky, Origin of the Modern Jewish Woman Writer, 42–43.

SEVENTH PERIOD. III. EFFECTS OF DISPERSION

905

members of a Jewish family in a favorable light, that they may conclude by making them Christians, and the other members as so stern, harsh, and oppressive, that they bear no resemblance whatever to any Israelite, except the Israelite of a Gentile’s imagination—do but swell the catalogue of dangerous because false works; and never fail to impress the minds of Christian readers with the unalterable conviction, that whenever spirituality, amiability and gentleness, kindliness and love, are inmates of a Hebrew heart, it is an unanswerable proof that that heart is verging on Christianity, and will very speedily embrace that faith.32 Nay, mental endowments themselves are welcomed as an earnest that their possessors must quickly desert the Jewish creed; such supposers entirely forgetting that mental acquirements, the most profound and searching wisdom, the most vivid and beautiful imagination, the most elegant accomplishments, have been the heir-loom of the Jewish nation, from their very first election as the chosen of the Lord;33 and that, instead of losing these endowments in their dispersion, all of mind and talent in the whole European and Asiatic world was possessed by them; and that Gentiles of every denomination and every creed came with humility and deference to them, glad to learn from the oppressed those glorious gifts of mind which to the oppressors were denied.34 Indeed, Caroline A. Bowles in her obituary of Grace Aguilar dated January 17, 1848 (in the Aguilar Papers at University College London) remarks as follows: “She [Grace Aguilar] began her day with prayer and Scripture reading, and ending it with meditation (often written) and prayer and praise. I knew that the Gospel had been carefully read by her, and unlike many, who wish to force their belief, I left, in prayer, the result with Him, who doeth all things but ‘whose ways are not our ways’.” In a similar vein, Camilla Toulmine in La Belle Assemblée, November 1, 1847 (also in Aguilar Papers at University College London) writes, “She [Grace Aguilar] whose loss we are deploring was sensible of her approaching dissolution and met it with that trustful, hopeful, humble spirit, which we are accustomed to designate Christian fortitude.” 33 See above, p. 162, n. 84. 34 Here Aguilar alludes to the role of Jewish translators in both Arabicspeaking Spain and French and German-speaking Jews in Christian lands 32

906

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

It is not from the present state of the Hebrews, that the true spirit of their creed and their characteristics as a nation can be discovered. They have, indeed, retained all that marks them as a distinct people, and prevents amalgamation with the children of the soil, in which they are but sojourners; but their social and domestic habits are now so completely one with the manners and customs of the lands in which they are scattered, that there is nothing to distinguish them from their Gentile brethren; and this it is which often causes the false portraits of Jewish character, when introduced in tales of the present day. They think a Jew must be different to his fellows, and so call him from the Past, when oppression forced upon him a particular character, and place him in the Present, where he looks about as much out of place as a mail-clad baron and his rude-mannered suite would seem, in the luxurious and refined assemblage of England’s present peers. As a people—as the chosen witnesses35—the first-born sons of the Most High God,36 they will ever remain a distinct nation over the whole world. They will ever be preserved from annihilation—ever be kept from all assimilation with the Gentiles; even as the river, which is said to retain its peculiar taste and coloring in the very lakes through which it passes. But the Jews in captivity are not what they have been, or what they will be. Even while they remain a distinct race, they have unconsciously imbibed many of the characteristics of the people amongst whom they dwell. The indomitable pride, the haughty air of superiority, which (not fifty years since) characterized the Spanish and Portuguese Jew, were of Spain and Portugal, not of Judea; and if we examine the condition of the poorest classes of that congregation, and compare them with the same ranks in Spain and Portugal, we shall find them so exactly similar, that the pride, poverty from dislike to labor, indolence and dirt,* are the remnants of their assimilation in transmitting the writings of Greek and Arab philosophers and scientists to the Christian world. 35 Cf. Isa. 43:10: “Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen.” 36 Here Aguilar alludes again to Ex. 4:22: “And thus thou [Moses] shall say unto Pharaoh, Thus saith the LORD, Israel is my son, even my firstborn.”

SEVENTH PERIOD. III. EFFECTS OF DISPERSION

907

with the manners and customs of the above-named countries; not the characteristics of Judaism, which especially commands honest labor and most scrupulous cleanliness. The active business habits, and rather a want than a superfluity of pride, in the German Jews, mark their assimilation in domestic and social habits with the Gentile inhabitants of Germany and Holland; the distinction between them and their (so called) Spanish and Portuguese brethren, which was very much more marked fifty years ago than it is now, originates not at all in Judaism, whose beautiful unity ought to banish all such conventional terms, but simply in the distinction which exists between the characteristics of the different countries in which they dwelt. Observe the Spaniard and Portuguese, and then look on the German and the Dutchman; their characteristics are so totally distinct, that it is impossible to mistake them; and the Jewish inmates of those diverse lands naturally shared the distinction, even while their holy law was the undying link which bound them together, and separated them from the religion of every other land. Fifty years ago, the Sephardim congregation** was considered so superior to the Ashkenazim,*** as to be universally acknowledged as the aristocracy of the nation; but this supposition had nothing to do with Israelitish notions. It was, in fact, contrary to the spirit of the Jewish law, which, except in the beautiful organization of ranks in the state, looked on all Jews as equal, and on the whole nation as the aristocracy of the Lord. The modern distinction simply arose ________________________________ * Of course there are exceptions. We allude but to some of the very lowest of our nation, still unhappily plunged in the ignorance and superstition, the still remaining results of the persecution and slavery of Spain and Portugal. ** Spanish and Portuguese. *** German.

908

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

from the fact, that in Spain and Portugal the Jews had held the highest stations in the court and camp and council; that even after the expulsion, they existed apparently as Christians, but in reality most faithful Jews, amongst the very nobles and princes in both countries; or as merchants and doctors, not only in medicine, but in various branches of learning: and so wealthy as always to take their places amongst the aristocracy of the land. Germany has indeed ennobled a Jew; and latterly our most learned men have sprung from German schools.37 But contemporary with the Jewish aristocracy of Spain and Portugal, the Jews in Germany were so oppressed, and enslaved as never to rise above those confining and debasing employments which must ever be the consequence of persecution; and therefore when the two parties met on equal ground, the free and blessed soil of England, the haughty pride of the Spaniard (not of the Jew, for that would have counselled differently) caused that exclusiveness even from his German brother, which formerly had existence, but which happily is now fading rapidly into the past. England offers a rest and home of perfect freedom to the exile and oppressed: and if she welcomes all, will Israel continue that mistaken distinction which only circumstances wrought? That there is still a difference in the characteristics of German and Portuguese, we allow; and very probably, so constitutional is prejudice in favor of one’s own, that neither would change with the other; but the difference and the prejudice are alike foreign to Judaism. These are the effects of our dispersion; of sixteen or seventeen centuries of assimilation with the manners and customs of Germany and Spain, which unconsciously makes us feel so completely as children of the soil, that we forget the national unity She must be referring to Moses Mendelsohn (1729–1796). In 1763 he won the essay competition of the Berlin Royal Academy for his Treatise on Metaphysical Evidence while Immanuel Kant was awarded second prize in the competition. For Mendelsohn’s many contributions to philosophy, theology, biblical studies, and Jewish thought see Lawrence J. Kaplan, “Mendelsohn, Moses,” in Oxford Dictionary of the Jewish Religion, 454–455 and the extensive literature cited there. Aguilar here must refer also to Samson Raphael Hirsch, whom she cites below in a list of German-Jewish preachers (see below, p. 918). 37

SEVENTH PERIOD. III. EFFECTS OF DISPERSION

909

which our holy religion so imperatively demands, and which will be gradually attained; but it requires time. Enthusiasm may believe it is only to be wished, to be accomplished; but reason tells us, that two centuries in England is not quite sufficient to banish the prejudices of fifteen centuries spent in other lands. We have neither of us yet become English in feeling; nay, very many take pleasure in fostering as a heritage the remnant of Spanish feelings, forgetting that such characteristics have nothing to do with Judaism; and till we are really English Jews, the distinction which has existed so many centuries will never be entirely lost. The Germans will much more easily become English than the Spanish, simply because the national characteristics between England and Germany are less distinct and palpable than those between England and Spain. In exactly the same manner, the Jews, wherever they are scattered, have imbibed prejudices, customs, and even the sentiments which belong—not to their religion, but to the lands of their captivity and compelled adoption. The very prejudice, to remove which this book has been written—the Jewish degradation of woman, her abasement in the social system, as a non-partaker of religious responsibility and immortality—if traced to its source, will be found to have originated in the blinded notions of the Jews of Barbary, and other Eastern countries; infused unconsciously by the contempt for the sex peculiar to the Mahomedan inhabitants of those lands. Other prejudices and superstitions, supposed by the unobservant38 to be part of Judaism, proceed from exactly the same reason, and have nothing whatever to do with the religion of God. Aguilar here uses unobservant in the common sense of the word, which means ‘not noticing’. She refers to people who pass judgment on phenomena on the basis of less than a surface knowledge of the subject at hand. In in-house Jewish written and spoken dialects of English in postmodern times, however, the terms ‘observant’ and ‘non-observant’ have altogether different meanings. In those dialects ‘observant’ refers to a person who abstains from some or all non-kosher food and who hallows the Sabbath and the Jewish Festivals by abstention from work and by singing the appropriate benedictions and prayers in home and in the synagogue. Such a usage of Eng. ‘observe’ is reflected in NJV’s rendition of the 4th commandment of the Decalogue in Deut. 5:12: “Observe the Sab38

910

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

The travellers in the Crimea speak of the filth and rapacity, and occasional dishonesty of the Jews dwelling in that quarter, as the necessary consequence of their blinded religion, quite forgetting that they are but the characteristics of the Russian and Cossack inhabitants of the same land, and imbibed by the Jews as the necessary consequence of such long and close association, but utterly repugnant to the spirit of their creed. The Polish Jews, again, are different from the German and Dutch, much more resembling the Spanish and Portuguese, because their social position was more like the latter than the former. Whilst Poland was an independent kingdom, the Jews formed the only middle order. Their privileges had been secured by Casimir the Great, from the affection felt by him towards a beautiful Jewess.39 They were the corn-merchants, shop-keepers, inn-keepers, in fact almost every branch of traffic was confined to them; they formed the principal population of towns, and some villages were exclusively peopled by them. This social freedom accounts for the dignified bearing and generally lofty character of the Polish Jew, at once distinguishing him from his cowed and oppressed brethren of Germany. Even now Poland is the principal seat of rabbinical au-

bath day and keep it holy,” the first half of which might be accomplished in its normal, literal meaning by watching a video of a Jewish family at their Friday Night dinner. Infinitely more comprehensible to speakers of standard English is KJV’s “Keep the sabbath day to sanctify it,” which also correctly translates the grammar and the syntax of the Hebrew Bible. 39 Byron L. Sherwin, Sparks Amidst the Ashes: The Spiritual Legacy of Polish Jewry (New York & Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997), 125–129 summarizes and analyzes the famous legend of the romantic liaison between the Polish king, Casimir the Great (Kazimierz III Wielki) and his Jewish consort Esterka. Moreover, Sherwin points out, this simple and beautiful love story was treated by both Jewish and Catholic chroniclers of the history of Poland as historical fact until relatively recent times. Interestingly, Sherwin points out, it is related that the couple had four children. The two boys were raised in the Catholic faith while the girls, with Casimir’s approval, were brought up in the Jewish faith.

SEVENTH PERIOD. III. EFFECTS OF DISPERSION

911

thority.40 The religion, from the supremacy of forms and minute ordinances, occasions a greater degree of rigidity and exclusiveness than is the case elsewhere, where the spirit of the Mosaic Law is more freely awaking. Since the partition of Poland, however, the condition of the Jewish population is as oppressed and lowered, as their brethren under the Russian, Prussian, and Austrian Governments. But still the Polish Jew, like the Spanish and Portuguese, retains the peculiar characteristic of his former more elevated position. The French and Italian Jews have equally the peculiar characteristics of their adopted lands, but they are less marked than those of Germany and Spain, the above-named lands not having been their residence for such a long continuance. But wherever we are scattered, still the truth is evident, that though our law and its beautiful forms remain unchangeable, immutable as their divine ordinance, our social and domestic customs are modified and characterized, according to the manners and customs of the lands of our exile. We are still captives of our God, though His mercy grants us a social freedom and relief from persecution; and in captivity how might we hope that the spirit of our holy law could be permitted to pervade our households? The consequence of transgression was to expel us from our own lovely land, to raise a barrier between us and the direct interference of the Lord, to scatter us as by a whirlwind over the known world, and there so to degrade us from our high estate, from being subject to the Most High God alone, that the guiding spirit of our homesteads was lost in the darkened barbarism of the Gentile world. And so it is with the Jews of the present day. English writers, when they introduce the nation, overlook the Jewish inmates of their own land, and delineate either the Spanish, or the German, or the Polish, or the Russian Jews; and as the picture they draw is necessarily quite distinct from their own manners and customs, they believe themselves, and make others believe, that it is a perfect porSee, inter alia, Moses Shulvass, Between the Rhine and the Bosporus (Chicago: College of Jewish Studies Press, 1964); id., Jewish Culture in Eastern Europe (New York: Ktav, 1975); Sherwin, Sparks Amidst the Ashes, 23–67 and the extensive literature cited there. 40

912

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

trait of the Jew, whereas it is in fact nothing more nor less than a delineation of the Spaniard, or Pole, or German, who might just as correctly be of the Gentile as of the Jewish creed.*41To draw the Jew correctly then, not his present condition, but the annals of the past must provide materials. For the spirit and ordinances of his beautiful faith, let the word of the Lord be consulted, and the most simple mind must understand what and why the Jew believes, and the forms that he obeys. Where modern Judaism, so called, differs from that standard, it is not the religion which has changed, but circumstances which have occasioned the Jews unconsciously to adopt the feelings, superstitions, and sentiments, the offspring of * This extraordinary misconception of their own subject was never more clearly marked, than in the works entitled “Sophia and Emma de Lissau, a fiction of the Jews, of the nineteenth century;”41 where, placing the scene in England, and in the present era, the author gives an imaginary picture of the Polish Jews, at least one or two centuries back, and containing not the very smallest resemblance to English Jewish life at any time; in fact, there is nothing to write concerning Anglo-Jewish life in the present age. With the sole exception of the ordinances of their creed, their households and families are conducted exactly on the same principles as English households of the same standing. 41 Amelia Bristow (b. 1783) was an English novelist. Her published works including Elizabeth Allen; or The Faithful Servant (London: Francis Westley, 1824); Sophia de Lissau, A Portraiture of the Jews of the Nineteenth Century, Being an Outline of the Religious and Domestic Habits of this Nation (London: Gardiner & Son, 1826); Emma de Lissau, A Narrative of Striking Vicissitudes and Peculiar Trials, with Explanatory Notes, Illustrative of the Manners and Customs of the Jews (2 vols.; London: T. Gardiner & Son, 1828); and Orphans of Lissau, and Other Interesting Narratives Connected with Jewish Customs, with explanatory notes (London: T. Gardiner & Son, 1830). Apparently, there was in the first half of the 19th century in England an audience of readers, who were delighted to read about Jewish characters and their customs and have Miss Bristow explain the meaning of these exotic customs. Moreover both Elizabeth Allen and Emma de Lissau purported to be autobiographical, and they are so listed in library catalogues to this day with Amelia Bristow designated as an “added name.” Concerning Bristow see Galchinsky, Origin of the Modern Jewish Woman Writer, 218–219.

SEVENTH PERIOD. III. EFFECTS OF DISPERSION

913

that darkness which is the atmosphere of persecution, or of that prosperity which has infused the sentiments and superstitions of the Gentiles, with whom they live in reality in close association, while in appearance their differing creeds keep them widely apart. Let it be remembered, we allude not to the religion—that never has, and never will amalgamate—that will ever be a thing sacred and apart, will never change, nor modify, nor alter—God hath said it shall last for ever, that its children will never cease from being a nation before Him for EVER—and so IT WILL BE. The assimilation in social, domestic, and individual life of the Jew and Gentile, touches not their respective creeds. Wherever he is, in whatever land, whatever company, whatever position, a Hebrew is known as a Hebrew—and he should glory in that distinction ordained by God Himself, to keep His people apart42—should use his utmost endeavor to preserve that distinction—and neither be ashamed of it himself, nor occasion others to look down upon him with contempt. He can retain all the characteristics of his race and creed, and yet in social, domestic, and individual position, be one with the children of that land which has received the exiles to her fostering breast, and extended the right hand of fellowship to all. Let us be English men and English women, even while we still glory in being Hebrews. The union is perfectly compatible, and it would tend to our social happiness and the consolidation of our national unity. Would it not render us a firmer, nobler, because a more consolidated mass, if we could forget the distinctions of German and Spanish, and Polish and Dutch, and only vie with each other to be a noble body of English Jews, and mark our pre-eminence in the land where we are FREE? Why should there be German and Spanish charities!43 Is not benevolence open-handed, universal, wideAnother allusion to Num. 23:9, concerning the meaning of which see above, p. 897, n. 16. 43 Aguilar properly follows this statement beginning with the word ‘why’ with an exclamation point rather than a question mark because, like Elkanah’s famous barrage of ‘why this and why that’ statements hurled at the suffering wife Hannah in 1 Sam. 1:8 the sentence in question is not meant to elicit an explanation but to express a negative opinion, namely that the German-Jewish and Spanish-Jewish charity organizations ought 42

914

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

to merge. Nowadays, since the melting pot model of human life has been replaced with the cultural diversity model and especially since in most places both German-origin Jewish communities and Spanish-origin Jewish communities are endangered species within the larger communities of Jews, all kinds of people would like to preserve the separate organizations. In fact, the reason that people maintain separate communities is that people in most times and places define themselves in part by whom they exclude from their group and by making others jealous that they are not included. Today there is a small Orthodox synagogue in Salford, near Manchester in the UK, which is called the New and the Great Synagogue. It is a merger of two larger synagogues, which came into being because the Eastern European Jews who pretended that they no longer understood Yiddish sought to exclude from the Great Synagogue the Yiddishspeaking Jews, who had arrived more recently. As time went on, both synagogues located next to today’s Jewish Museum of Manchester, closed their doors as the Jews left the old Jewish neighborhood and moved to Salford, and today the descendants of the members of the two East European Jewish congregations pray together in the New and Great Synagogue, which is no longer either new or great. Meanwhile, it should be noted that the Jewish Museum located just a few doors away from the sites of the former New Synagogue and the former Great Synagogue is said to be the Spanish and Portuguese Synagogue of Manchester, which also has relocated to Salford, just a few blocks away from the New and Great Synagogue. In fact, this particular Sephardic synagogue was founded and maintained by Jewish merchants who came from Iraq. But the latter Jews fully understood that to be known as Levantine Jews would grant them a considerably lower status within the larger Jewish community than they could acquire if they would adopt the epithet Spanish and Portuguese and take on the aura of the Jews of Iberian ancestry (including the family of Grace Aguilar), who in 1655 established the first legally recognized Jewish community in the UK since the Jews were expelled from England in 1290. For details see Aguilar, “History of the Jews of England,” Chamber’s Miscellany, vol. 18, Tractate No. 155, p. 12. Aguilar would be much more credible in her critique of Jewish intra-faith relations or rather the lack of them had she not suggested early on in this book that the daughters of Eastern European Jewish immigrants could serve the Jewish upper classes as indentured servants and thereby acquire proper

SEVENTH PERIOD. III. EFFECTS OF DISPERSION

915

spreading, scorning earthly distinctions, and only seeking whom it can befriend? Is not a Hebrew a Hebrew, in the sight of God and Man—and why then should we not be brothers? Why will not the German imitate the Spaniard in some things, and the Spaniard the German in others, and so forget the idle distinctions of our captivity, and only strive to become Hebrews as our Bibles teach, and Englishmen as a love for our adopted country would dictate?44 How glorious would be that consolidation, that unity, which, the moment a Jew of any land sets foot in England there to make his home, would hail him brother, and open to him at once our synagogues and our charities, without one question as to what congregation he belonged to! Hebrews and Englishmen—we may look round the world, but what prouder titles can be our own! This may seem digression; but, as we proceed, we shall find it not so wholly unconnected with our main subject as it may appear. Not only are our social and domestic habits infused with the manners and customs of the lands of our captivity, but our mental and spiritual attainments are in some degree advanced or retrograded, according to the measure of mental and spiritual attainments in our Gentile brethren. This is easily explained, by comparing our positions in Italy, in Russia, in parts of Germany, and in the East; with our position in England, in America, in France, and in Belgium. Italy is still plunged in moral and mental darkness. The word of God, revealed only to priests, to whom the consciences of the multitude are intrusted, is unknown, and, in consequence, edicts are still at work against us, as oppressive and degrading as in the middle ages. Russia, under a despot-sovereign, and unenlightened by the religion of the Protestant, which, from considering the Old Testament divine, and permitting its perusal by the mass, cannot fail greatly to benefit the Jew, entirely prevents, by a precarious and degraded position, all power of elevation in its Hebrew subjects; and on the least, even imaginary offences, issues edicts against us as

manners. See above, Period II, Chapter V, “Maid Servants in Israel, and Sundry Other Laws,” pp. 327-351. 44 Similar is Samson Raphael Hirsch’s argument that German Jews can be both.

916

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

horrible as any of less enlightened times.*45Austria, under Catholic dominion, by a most extraordinary contradiction, grants a barony to a Jewish family, and yet, if we are to believe contemporary travellers, so degrades the Jews as a class that their condition is little removed from most abject slavery. In the East, under the superstitious and oppressive sway of Mahomedanism, they are still constantly liable to persecution*46and

* The late Ukase.45 45 The term ukase is a loanword in English, derived from Russian ukaz, which designates a decree or edict issued by the Czar, other civil authority, or an official of the Russian Orthodox Church. The issuing and cancellation of such decrees is discussed at length in the periodical Voice of Jacob, vol. 3, no. 69 (London: B. Steill, March 22, 1844); see also vol. 4, no. 93, p. 73 ( January 3, 1845) of that same periodical. * The Damascus Cruelties of 1840.46 46 See, inter alia, Isaac Baer Levinsohn, Efes Damim: A Series of Conversations at Jerusalem Between a Patriarch of the Greek Church and a Chief Rabbi of the Jews, Concerning the Malicious Charge Against the Jews of Using Christian Blood, translated from the Hebrew by L. Loewe as a Tribute to the Memory of the Martyrs of Damascus (London: Longman, Brown, Greene and Longmans, 1841). It was on February 5, 1840 that the Capucian friar Thomas, an Italian, who had been living for some years in Damascus disappeared together with his Muslim servant Ibrahim Amara. The Capucians claimed that Thomas and his servant had been murdered by Jews who needed their blood to prepare wine and unleavened bread for Passover. Two of the Jews who were accused in the matter died during torture by the police, and 63 Jewish children were held at ransom pending the discovery of the whereabouts of the blood the Jews had allegedly taken from their alleged victims. Intervention of prominent Jews the world over led to the release of the surviving Jewish prisoners on August 28, 1840. Ultimately, Moses Montefiore secured a declaration from the Sultan of Turkey declaring the innocence of the Jews, and for this Montefiore was honored by Queen Victoria. For details see, inter alia, Heinrich Graetz, History of the Jews, vol. 5 (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society of America, 1895), 632– 672. See also the poem by Penina Moïse (1797–1880) of Charleston, South Carolina, “Lines on the Persecution of the Jews of Damascus,” in Penina Moïse, Secular and Religious Works, Compiled and Published by

SEVENTH PERIOD. III. EFFECTS OF DISPERSION

917

cruelty too horrible to relate. And what then is the condition of our hapless brethren in these oppressive lands? Still faithful Hebrews indeed, willing to die, or worse, to suffer such horrible mental and physical tortures that death were bliss, rather than give up one item of their treasured faith; but the mind is cramped, the spirit fettered, the soul cannot spring upwards, in that mental and spiritual communing, only to be found amongst the free; and God, more merciful than man, demands not what His omniscience knows cannot be given. Enough, they are true to Him, they worship, they love Him. The power to spiritualize and enlighten that worship by rays of mind, will be granted when His will removes the yoke, now bowing them to the earth. In Germany, the state of the religion seems strangely contradictory. Our most learned men come from that land. The spirit of their faith, in some few quarters, appears awaking, or we could not have such preachers as Gotthold,47 Solomon,48 Philipson,49 Charleston Section, Council of Jewish Women (Charleston: Nicholas G. Duffy, 1911), 270–272. 47 According to Isidore Singer and David Leimdörfer, “Gotthold, Salomon,” JE 6:652–653, Salomon Gotthold (1784–1862) was “one of the most eloquent Jewish preachers of the nineteenth century.” Indeed, they refer to him as the author and preacher of “the first German sermon” by a Jewish preacher, which he delivered at the Beer private synagogue in Berlin in 1815. From 1818 until 1858 he was Associate Rabbi of the Hamburg Reform Temple. He engaged in polemics with Christians who opposed Judaism and the extension of civil rights to the Jews and also in polemics against Orthodox Jewish leaders, who attached Reform Judaism. Many of his hymns were included in the Hamburg Temple Hymnal. He also published, inter alia, an annotated German translation of the biblical Book of the Twelve Prophets and a book of personal prayers for Jewish women. For his published sermons see Meyer Kayserling, Bibliothek Jüdischer Kanzelredner (2 vols.; Berlin: Springer, 1870). 48 Joseph Jacobs and Israel Cohen, “Solomon, Myer,” JE 11:456 notes that Myer Solomon (died December 31, 1840) was for a time the head of the Denmark Court Synagogue in 1824 and was a founder of St. Alban’s Place, St. James Synagogue in London, which was also called both the Western Synagogue and the Westminster Synagogue. In addition to deliv-

918

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

Hirsch,50 and others,51 and yet how appalling is the indifferentism, ering sermons at that synagogue, Solomon also functioned as shohet (ritual slaughter of animals for kosher food) and mohel (circumciser). His is famous also for his sermon on the death of King George IV in 1830 and his having composed hymns in Hebrew. Concerning the synagogue of which he was founder see Arthur Barnett, The Western Synagogue Through Two Centuries, 1761–1961 (London: Valentine & Mitchell, 1961). 49 Isidore Singer, “Philippson, Ludwig,” JE 9:684 informs us that Ludwig Philippson (1811–1889) was the son of Moses Philippson (1775– 1814), a classmate of the aforementioned Salomon Gotthold. Ludwig Philippson was preacher at the Jewish Congregation of Magdedburg, Germany, from 1833 to 1861. In addition he founded the Allgemeine Zeitung des Judenthums in 1837, and he edited this journal until his death. His famous publications include Die Entwickelung der Religiösen Idee im Judenthume, Christenthume und Islam (Leipzig; Baumgärtner, 1847); Die Religion der Gesellschaft (Leipzig: Baumgartner, 1848); Die Israelitische Religionslehre (Leipzig: Baumgärtner, 1862). For Philippson’s collected sermons see M. Kayserling, ed., Siloah: eine Auswhal von Predigten von Ludwig Philippson (Leipzig: M. W. Kaufmann, 1904). Philippson’s many publications include a popular commentary on the Pentateuch (1840); an annotated German translation of the Bible with illustrations by the artist Gustave Doré (1874); a German commentary on the biblical Book of Isaiah (Leipzig: Baumgärtner, 1862); two novels—Sepphoris and Rome (1866) and The Marranos (1898); and a treatise on the rhetoric of Jewish preaching, Die Rhetorik und jüdische Homiletik, ed. M. Kayserling (Leipzig: T. Grieben, 1890). Concerning Ludwig Philippson see also Johannes Valentin Schwarz, “Philippson, Ludwig,” EJ, 2d ed., 16:50. 50 Here Aguilar refers to Samson Raphael Hirsch (1808–1888), the putative founder of Modern Orthodox Judaism. For his spiritual biography see Robert Liberles, Religious Conflict in Social Context: The Resurgence of Orthodox Judaism in Frankfurt am Main 1838–1877 (Westport, Ct.: Greenwood Press, 1985). See also Simha Katz and Yehoyada Amir, “Hirsch, Samson Raphael,” EJ, 2d ed., 9:129–132, and the extensive literature cited there. While Hirsch was rabbi of Adass Jeschurun at Frankfurt-am-Main he introduced there a sermon in German twice a month. It is to be remembered that in the 19th century a sermon given during divine service on the Sabbath in the synagogue was perceived as an imitation of the sermon giving during divine service on Sunday in Christian churches and was

SEVENTH PERIOD. III. EFFECTS OF DISPERSION

919

widely opposed as acculturation. Hirsch’s first major publication was Nineteen Letters on Judaism (1836), in which the Hirsch, using the pseudonym Ben Uzziel responds to the questions of a young man, who raises questions about the validity of traditional Judaism. Similarly, Grace Aguilar in her The Jewish Faith: Its Spiritual Consolation, Moral Guidance, and Immortal Hope: A Series of Letters Answering the Inquiries of Youth (London: R. Groombridge, 1846) presents thirty-one letters from the pen of Inez Villena (a pseudonym for Grace Aguilar), in which the latter provides answers to the doubts of Annie, a Jewess, who is contemplating conversion to Christianity. Both Hirsch’s Nineteen Letters and Aguilar’s The Jewish Faith are Jewish expressions of a well-known genre of inspirational literature that was highly developed in nineteenth century Christianity in England and in Europe. Typical of the Christian literature of this type is Elizabeth Hamilton, Letters Addressed to the Daughter of a Nobleman on the Formation of Religious Principles, referred to above in the notes to Aguilar’s Introduction to Women of Israel, where Aguilar refers to English Christian women, who previously wrote books about the Bible, some of which, including Hamilton’s Letters are less than totally sympathetic to Judaism. Hirsch’s other important works include Horeb: Essays on Israel’s Duties in the Diaspora (1837), a 5-volume edition of the Pentateuch with German translation and commentary on the Pentateuch (Frankfurt am Main: J. Kauffmann, 1867–1878); an edition of the Book of Psalms with a German translation and commentary (Frankfurt am Main: J. Kauffmann, 1882), and a new edition of the Orthodox Jewish Prayerbook. In addition, Hirsch edited a periodical, Jeschurun (1854–1870). Shlomo Chertok, The Portrait of the Jewish Woman in the Writings of Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch (Jerusalem: Leo Baeck Institute, 2006), 41–43 suggested that Hirsch in writing his series of articles, “The Jewish Wife,” which appeared in Jeschurun during the years 1863–1864 might have been influenced by Grace Aguilar’s Women of Israel. However, it is more likely that both Aguilar and Hirsch arrived independently at the idea that Jewish women needed to be educated because 1) it was a waste of human talent for them not to be educated; 2) Judaism, at its best and truest, required the education of Jewish women; 3) the failure of the Jews to educate Jewish women left Judaism open to unwarranted attack for being primitive, oriental, and uncivilized. 51 For extensive additional data concerning Jewish sermons and preachers in modern times see Marc Saperstein, “Sermons in Modern

920

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

the rationalism, which seems to compass, as a thick mist, the greater portion! But this is not Judaism; it has its origin, exactly as we have stated, in the spirit of the land where the Hebrews are sojourners. What is the real religion of Germany? Ask the enlightened Protestant, and he will tell you; but too often rank infidelism, indifference, or that religion which seeks to do away with revelation, and rest on nature (alas for such delusion!); and fearful is this association for the Jew, just beginning to breathe from the oppressive horrors of persecution. Better, far, even occasional oppression, so it will but burst the bonds of that deadening stagnation; better the complete and visible distinction of creeds, than that fearful indifference to all, which appears to characterize religion in Germany. But let not the Gentile seek to burden Judaism with the indifference of the Jews in Germany, or the Hebrew may, with equal justice, burden Christianity with the indifference and infidelism of Christians in the same land.52 In France, the Jews are free, enlightened, earnest Israelites, and faithful citizens; and yet, if the writer of the review of the “Spirit of Judaism”53 in the “Archives” of March, 1843, spoke the Judaism,” Encyclopaedia of Judaism, 2d ed., ed. Jacob Neusner, Alan J. Avery-Peck, and William Scott Green (Leiden: Brill, 2005), 2455–2473 and the extensive literature cited there. 52 Here she almost adumbrates George Foot Moore’s assertion that every religion must be judged by its highest ideals and its noblest representatives. At the least she more than hints that neither Islam, nor Hinduism, nor Christianity, nor Judaism should be judged by fanatics, who in the name of one religion or another, attempt not only to hijack airplanes but also God Almighty in the name of violence, intolerance, and fanaticism, and lack of consideration for other people’s humanity. 53 It was Isaac Leeser, the spiritual leader of Congregation Mikveh Israel in Philadelphia and the champion of Orthodox Judaism in America, who in 1840 commissioned Grace Aguilar to write The Spirit of Judaism as the inaugural publication of the Jewish Publication Society of America. Unfortunately, the manuscript was lost at sea somewhere between London and Philadelphia. Aguilar painstakingly re-wrote the book, and it was published by the Jewish Publication Society of America in 1843. See Galchinsky, Grace Aguilar: Selected Writings¸ 49. However, without prior notifi-

SEVENTH PERIOD. III. EFFECTS OF DISPERSION

921

sentiments of all his countrymen, we should fear that equality was, in some degree, deadening that national spirit of religious exclusiveness which should ever mark the Jew.*54We should, indeed, feel and act the part of faithful citizens where such privileges are allowed us; but we are not to consider ourselves so completely children of the soil as to forget we are children of the Lord. That cation to the author, Leeser, in his capacity as editor of the Jewish Publication Society of America, inserted footnotes in which “Leeser made extensive editorial arguments against Grace Aguilar’s Spirit of Judaism.” Not surprisingly Christian missionaries cited this treatment of Aguilar’s text by Leeser “as an example of Jewish men’s oppression of Jewish women.” So Galchinksy, Origin of the Modern Jewish Woman Writer, 51. * The following is the passage in question:—“Mais Miss Aguilar dépasse peut-être le but, et dans son zèle ardent pour le maintien de l’esprit de Judaïsme, elle néglige parfois trop l’esprit du siècle. Les Juifs, à ses yeux, forment non seulement une secte à part; ils forment aussi une nation à part, une nation captive, et dans l’attente de son Messiah ou libérateur ... La Nationalité Juive n’existe plus. Partout et même dans les contrées où on leur conteste encore les droits de l’homme et du citoyen, les Juifs s’efforcent à prouver qu’ils sont de la même nation que ceux, dont ils partagent le sol, et ne sont Juifs que devant Dieu.”54 54 Aguilar assumes that educated English-born readers are also fluent in Classical Latin and literary German and French as well as Biblical Hebrew. For the benefit of those readers of English in the post-modern era, who do not easily read French, the annotator translated the passage from the review of Aguilar’s Spirit of Judaism, and the annotator’s translation has been edited and corrected as follows by Prof. Kirsten A. Fudeman of the University of Pittsburgh: “But Miss Aguilar perhaps overdoes it, and in her burning zeal to maintain the spirit of Judaism she sometimes neglects too much the spirit of the age. In her eyes the Jews constitute not only a separate religious denomination; but they constitute also a separate nation, a captive nation, that awaits its Messiah or liberator ... . The Jewish nationality no longer exists. Everywhere and even in the countries in which their human and civil rights are still challenged, the Jews endeavor to prove that they belong to the same nation as everyone else with whom they share the land. They are Jews only before God.” Prof. Fudeman has also corrected errors in the French text, which crept in during the process of scanning the 19th century edition from which this current edition was prepared.

922

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

privilege can never belong to the history of the past, as the writer seems, in some degree, to suppose. We can never be other than a distinct nation—His chosen people;55 and so, be favored above every nation and every religion of the world. Surely we can unite this belief with the feelings of a French or English citizen. We do not require the sacrifice of the one to fit us for the other; for the more we felt that, as Hebrews, we were cherished, equalized, honored, the more ardent would become our love for the land granting us these things, the more earnest our desire to serve her and her children, with heart and hand. But this absence of perfect nationality, if, indeed, it do exist, is attributable, not to imperfection in Judaism, but to intimate association with a people whose characteristic is light-hearted gaiety, and whose very religion is devoid of the solemnity of form and sacredness of restriction peculiar to Protestant lands. The French, as a nation, are spirituelle, but not spiritual. The freedom and equality enjoyed by the French Jews, have, to judge by their literature, decidedly advanced the latter quality. Mind and spirit are both unshackled; but it is neither unlikely nor unnatural, that they should in some degree imbibe the light spirit of their Gentile brethren, and so appear to divest their faith of a portion of its more solemn and exclusive attributes, though in reality they arc earnest and faithful Israelites still. But it is in the country of the true, not of the nominal Protestant, that the Hebrew is at rest, and where his religion will attain to greater vitality and strength and spirituality than in any other land. The reason for this is obvious; not only because in real Protestant countries persecution of the Jew is a thing unheard of, and never has existed from the time it gained ascendency, but because the Protestant religion, in its morality, its reverence for the Old Testament, its acknowledgment of the Jews as the chosen people of the Lord,56 its spirituality, its abhorrence of all image-worship, comes nearer the spirit of the Jewish religion than any other creed; even whilst in its actual doctrines, that of a trinity, a dying Saviour, an infinite atonement, and original sin, it is the most widely opposed; but 55 56

See above, p. 20, n. 17. See previous note.

SEVENTH PERIOD. III. EFFECTS OF DISPERSION

923

actual creed, absolute doctrines of belief, are of far less moment in a multitude, than the spirit of a faith. If we present the Athanasian creed57 to fifty individuals, taken from mixed ranks, it is a question whether ten out of the fifty will tell you that they believe it as it stands, or whether they have not modified it, according to the temperaments of individual minds and the reasoning of individual studies; and yet, they would shrink in horror from being considered anything but earnest Protestants and faithful Christians. Actual belief is individual, but the spirit of a faith is universal, and, therefore, in relation to the position of the Jews, the latter is of infinitely more consequence than the former. When we know and perceive that the whole moral and spiritual system of the Protestant faith is literally grafted on the moral and spiritual (not the ceremonial) revelation vouchsafed to Moses,58 and, as in the latter days, simplified to the meanest understanding by our elders; we must feel satisfied that our position must be infinitely securer and happier than where the Bishop Athanasius (c. 297–373 C.E.) of Alexandria, Egypt fought against the Arian heresy in Christianity founded by Arius (c. 250 – c. 336 C.E.), a priest at Alexandria According to the latter doctrine, Jesus of Nazareth is not divine. Athanasius is said to have proposed (although he did not originate it) the formulation that declares that Jesus is “of one substance with the Father,” which was incorporated in the Creed of Faith adopted at the First Council of Nicaea in Asia Minor, which was called by the Emperor Constantine in 325. The Creed of Faith adopted at that Council is therefore called to this day the Nicene Creed. It is recited at worship services in many Christian churches to this day. For additional data see I. Ortiz de Urbina, “Nicaea I, Council of,” New Catholic Encyclopaedia 10:432–434. It should be noted, however, that the text which has been designated “Athanasian Creed” since the 6th century C.E. did not stem directly from the Council of Nicaea, but it was promulgated in the vicinity of Arles in Southern France. See G. Owens, “Athanasian Creed,” New Catholic Encyclopaedia 1:995. 58 Cf. New Testament, Epistle to the Romans 11:24: “For if thou [Gentile Christianity] wert cut out of the olive tree which is wild by nature, and wert grafted contrary to nature into a good olive tree: how much more shall these, which be the natural branches, be grafted into their own olive tree?” 57

924

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

spirit of a religion is concealed from the mass, and confined to their (so called) spiritual teachers, or in those lands where the moral laws are totally distinct from our own. Let me repeat and enforce the repetition, that by the spiritual system common to the Protestants and Jews, I do not in the very least allude to doctrinal points, for in our articles of creed we are utterly, entirely, and necessarily opposed; but simply, to the mutual belief of immortality, and that heaven is infinitely preferable to earth; to our mutually binding laws, “Thou shalt love the Lord thy God, with all thy soul, and all thy might; and thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself;”59 to both being commanded to practise charity, modesty, humility, brotherly love, forgiveness of injuries, unquestioning faith, and child-like obedience. It would detain us too long to dilate on all the points on which we agree; points, it would be well for both parties to ponder on more frequently, but which too often become invisible, from For Jews the first of these commandments is especially well known because it is the second sentence of the first paragraph of the Shema (from Deut. 6:5), which is recited daily upon arising and before retiring at night and at the Morning and Evening services in home and synagogue; and, as we have noted previously, it is contained also in the mezuzzah placed on the doorpost of every Jewish home and in the tefillin worn on the arm and head at morning prayers on week days. The second of the two commandments is known to Jews both as coming from Lev. 19:18 and as having been pronounced by R. Akiva, one of the most important sages of the Mishnah and the Talmuds, as “a great encompassing principle within the Torah” (in Sifra, which is the Ancient Rabbinic Commentary on Leviticus, at Lev. 19:18). To Christians these two commandments are often better known, because they are quoted by Jesus in Matt. 22:37-40 and Mk. 12:28-31, as constituting respectively the first and second of the two most important commandments of the Torah. In front of the St. Thomas Church in Chennai (Madras) India these two commandments are designated as “the new commandments,” apparently because they are found in the New Testament. To Jews, however, they are not new for they are found in their Bible (the Christian Old Testament) and repeated in the literature of their ancient Rabbinic Sages. In any case, Aguilar is totally correct in indicating that these two commandments form part of the common ground shared by Jews and Christians. 59

SEVENTH PERIOD. III. EFFECTS OF DISPERSION

925

the too often haughty arrogance of the Christian, refusing to us the very privileges, spiritual and moral, which he has derived from us alone; and from the more charitable, but equally mistaken, seeking our conversion, as the only means of our salvation, and of our attaining a true knowledge of God, when, from us, and us alone, their knowledge of the Eternal and their hopes of heaven are derived. But while, from the spirit pervading Protestant laws (a spirit springing from the simple, but important fact that the BIBLE, the WHOLE BIBLE, is open to rich and poor, prince and peasant, man, woman, and child), our social position is secure, and we assimilate more closely to our Gentile brother; let it not be forgotten that our spiritual position is begirt with more danger than when the differences between our holy religion and that of other nations were more strongly marked. Would we be Israelites indeed we must study the doctrines and adhere to the forms, as well as be infused with the spirit of our faith. We must learn in what we differ so widely from our Gentile brother that, while we acknowledge the same moral law, and experience the same spiritual aspirations, there should be such an impassable barrier between us that we must ever keep apart, guarded as by invulnerable mail, from the constant attempts to lure us from our creed. The more closely we examine and study our own faith, and in riper years the more we look into the religion of other creeds, the more clearly shall we understand the vital points of difference, and the very many of agreement, and we shall rise from such study with love tenfold increased towards our own faith, and charity60 redoubled towards our Gentile brethren. If, then, as all will agree, the cause of the superior enlightenment, freedom, morality, and charity of Protestant lands, originates in the fact of their possessing, and believing, and preaching the spirit of the WHOLE BIBLE—ours as well as theirs, it is clearly evident why the Hebrew in such lands can become more spiritual, more earnest, and more exalted, mentally and individually. In the From Latin caritas, which means ‘love’ and is the semantic equivalent of zedakah, which means both ‘charity’ and ‘righteousness’ in Rabbinic Hebrew. 60

926

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

first place he is FREE! and the mind and spirit, released from the shackles of darkness and persecution, can once more resume the native dignity, and mental superiority, and spiritual aspirations peculiar to his race and creed, and which, through long ages of oppression, were invisible indeed, but never lost. In the next he mingles with a people, free, enlightened, spiritual, moral, benevolent, become so from the spirit of the same moral law as guides himself; and the atmosphere, congenial to his native tastes and native feelings, inspires him with a spirit of nationality and elevation which circumstances have long denied him, but to which he returns with zest and earnestness, glad to burst from the stagnating indifference which is the unavoidable successor of brutalizing persecution. If, then, as we have endeavored to show, the social and domestic habits, nay, the very character of the Hebrews must, during their captivity, in some degree be modified, altered, infused, according to the manners, customs, and characteristics of the nations in which we are captives, even while our faith and its holy ordinances still mark us a people apart, a distinct and never assimilating nation; it is forcibly evident that the Israelites in England have greater advantages, and more, therefore, is demanded from them than in any other land (America, perhaps, alone excepted).61 Of America, as a nation, we know not enough to attempt discussion on her domestic character and habits, and how such may improve the character of her adopted children. The Hebrew advantages in that land, more numerous even than in England, consist in perfect freedom; so that neither civil, military, nor naval disabilities, interIndeed, in 1833 the bill granting Jews the right to be seated in the House of Commons was passed in the House of Commons, but it was defeated in the House of Lords. It was only on July 26, 1858 that Baron Lionel de Rothschild, who had been elected to Parliament from the City of London as early as 1847 was finally allowed to take an oath ending with the words “so help me, Jehovah” and to take his seat in the House of Commons. The Jewish author, Penina Moïse (1797–1880) of Charleston, South Carolina responded to the defeat of the so-called Jew Bill in the House of Lords in 1833 with her poem, “The Rejection of the Jew Bill by the House of Lords.” For the text of the poem see Penina Moïse, Secular and Religious Works of Penina Moïse, 212–213. 61

SEVENTH PERIOD. III. EFFECTS OF DISPERSION

927

fere with his elevation in any art, science, or profession to which his talents point;62 thus neither persecution nor interference can prevent his guiding, not only his public adherence to his religion, but the sanctity of his house, according to the domestic, as well as social and ceremonial laws of Moses; and he is free to become mentally and spiritually elevated, and to raise the name of Israelite by deed as well as faith—these are his advantages in America: and fearful is his responsibility if he passes them by unused.63

In response to a letter of congratulations on his assuming the office of First President of the United States of America sent on behalf of the Jewish Congregation of Newport Rhode Island, George Washington wrote (August 21, 1790), inter alia, the following: “The Citizens of the United States of America have a right to applaud themselves for having given to mankind examples of an enlarged and liberal policy: a policy worthy of imitation. All possess alike liberty of conscience and immunities of citizenship. It is now no more that toleration is spoken of, as if it was by the indulgence of one class of people, that another enjoyed the exercise of their inherent natural rights. For happily the Government of the United States, which gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance, requires only that they who live under its protection should demean themselves as good citizens, in giving it on all occasions their effectual support.” 63 One cannot help but be reminded of a poster I saw in the Habad Lubavitch Center at Plano Texas. The poster depicted the founding fathers of the United States gathered at the Constitutional Convention, and the caption reads: “They gave you freedom of worship; use it.” Charleston-born playwright and journalist, Isaac Harby (1788–1828) could argue in a letter of protest to Secretary of State of the United States, James Monroe on May 13, 1816 that Mordecai Manuel Noah should not have been removed from his post as United States Consul to Tunis on the basis of the latter’s being a Jew because the Jews “are by no means to be considered a Religious sect, tolerated by the government; they constituted a portion of the people.” Taken out of their context of protest, these words of Harby are frequently cited by historians of Charleston, South Carolina Jewry as a demonstration of the full political and social integration of South Carolina Jewry in particular and United States Jewry in general in the life of the United States in the 19th century. 62

928

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

But on the character of the English there is no darkness in our mind—integrity—honor—solidity—reserve, which only renders his friendship, when given, more worthy—a lofty spirit of independence and consciousness of his own position, as distinct from the radical contemner of differing ranks as respect from servility— benevolence—domestic virtue which, in either man or woman, must make home happy—intellect and genius, which can only breathe in freedom—such are the characteristics of the English; and if they fail in the sparkling vivacity and apparent warmth of the French, the artistic genius and strong passions of the Italians, the music and metaphysics of the Germans, surely they have qualities sufficient of their own, to make us truly love the land, and thank God that He has granted his captives so secure and blessed a rest. Nobly, then, in England may Judaism make manifest her spiritual, her elevating influence on the characters of her children; for the manners and customs of her Gentile brethren in this blessed land, instead of infusing characteristics foreign to the Jew, will but forward his advance in the scale of being, recall every minor moral law, which oppression had banished, and encourage every elevating, humanizing, and intellectual power, which, in the eras of persecution and darkness, seemed to have departed. The son of Israel may now cultivate the intellect and genius natural to his distinguished race. He can now prove, that if ever he were debased, it was not his religion, but the slavery of oppression which was at fault; if ever spirituality seemed to have departed, torture had banished it from his heart—but that once free—it was the life, the breath, the glory of his faith; that without it Judaism was not Judaism, but a lifeless worship, only rendered acceptable by obedience in the midst of woe. And what may not the Women of Israel become in this thrice blessed land? Much, much to recall what they have been, and to shadow forth what they will be! At length we have reached the point at which, throughout this concluding period, we have aimed, and towards which all our remarks have tended. In every other country but England and America, still lingering restrictions, or characteristics peculiar to the children of the soil, may prevent or retard the spiritual and domestic graces which are the woman of Israel’s own—and of which, however deadened by circumstances, nothing can deprive her; but in England and America these can be cultivated, fostered, and so displayed, as to mark to the whole Gentile world, our national privi-

SEVENTH PERIOD. III. EFFECTS OF DISPERSION

929

leges, our sacred duties, and our immortal hope. We have seen from the very commencing of our creation, the natural position of the granted gifts, and inherited failings of our sex. We have looked with an unshrinking gaze on every mention of woman in the word of our God, from the mother of the whole human race,64 and the ancestresses of Israel,65 to the females under the law,66 and the beautiful captive,67 by whom a nation was preserved from death; we have gone still further, from the records of Josephus, to draw forth every mention of our noble ancestors, that we might learn their domestic and social position at a time when inspired historians were silent;68 we have scanned every statute, every law, alike in the words of Moses,69 and in their simplifying commentary by our elders;70 and the result of such examination has been, we trust, to convince every woman of Israel of her immortal destiny, her solemn responsibility, and her elevated position, alike by the command of God, and the willing acquiescence of her brother man. That IF any laws derogatory and contradictory to the station assigned her before God and man, by the merciful providence of our Father in Heaven, have sullied our homesteads, they come from the darkened ages of barbarism and persecution, the spirit of which naturally infused the minds of the captives, as well as of the captors—and have neither authority nor weight. They have, indeed, ever been but words; for if we scan the Jewish households in every age, we shall find the mothers, and wives, and daughters of Israel, treated with such unEve; see Period I, Chapter I. Sarah, Rebekah, Rachel, and Leah; see Period I, Chapters II–IV. 66 See Period II, Chapters III–V and Period IV, Chapters I–V. 67 I.e., Queen Esther, who was a scion of the Jews carried away captive to Babylonia by King Nebuchadnezzar; see Period V, Chapters I–III. 68 I.e., after the Bible, whose authors she here refers to as “sacred historians” just as my late and revered teacher, Elias Bickerman would refer to the author(s) of biblical texts as “the sacred author.” 69 See above, Period III, Chapters III–V. 70 Our elders here designates the Rabbinic Sages responsible for the Rabbinic texts, to which Tobias Theodores and other modern Jewish writers granted Aguilar and other people of her generation access in English. 64 65

930

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

failing respect, tenderness, and consideration, as would shame the homes of many a Gentile land. We can find not the very faintest evidence of debasing or restricting laws: and once convinced, as surely we must be, that in the sight of God the women of Israel are cherished, loved, provided for, as He provided for none other; and in the sight of man, are elevated, respected, and fostered in every relation of life; must we not think earnestly and deeply how best to make manifest our own conviction of our spiritual, social, and domestic responsibilities; and by our superiority in holiness, and in every virtue that makes home happy, and our sex beloved, prove, far more forcibly than the most eloquent words, the utter falsity of the charge against us, and that Judaism indeed gives us all we need. According to our ancient fathers,71 whose opinion is evidently founded on our holy law, the mission of the women of Israel is education:72 and this, even as in olden times, we can still accomplish. We have written so much on this all-important point in our notice of Jochebed,73 and again in the “Martyr Mother,”74 that little is needed in addition now: but earnestly we would entreat our sisters in Israel to compare their lot with that of those hapless wives and mothers, who, in the middle ages, continually beheld their sons and daughters snatched from them and forcibly baptized, or murdered before their very eyes; and, somewhat later, were compelled to send them to convents and monastic schools for education, implanting, as they could, the religion of their fathers. At the time of With the exception of her use of this term to refer to the author of the additions to Esther found in the Old Greek version and cited in her discussion of Queen Esther in Period V, Aguilar employs this term to refer to the Rabbinic Sages commonly called “the Rabbis.” 72 Concerning Jewish women in various communities in the Middle Ages who acquired extensive knowledge of Jewish law and lore and who transmitted such knowledge not only to other women but also to male students see Grossman, Pious and Rebellious, 266–303 and the literature cited there. 73 The mother of Moses, who is discussed in Period I, Chapter I. 74 The mother of the seven sons, who submitted to execution rather than eat pork at the command of King Antiochus IV as related in 2 Macc. 7. She is discussed in Women of Israel, Period VI, Chapter IV. 71

SEVENTH PERIOD. III. EFFECTS OF DISPERSION

931

their expulsion from Spain, and when reaching the town of Fez, they hoped their sufferings were coming to a close, a pirate lured 150 youths on board his ship, and in the very sight of the distracted parents set sail, and sold them as slaves in some distant port.75 In Portugal the youth were baptized by force, and drafted off to the unwholesome island of St. Thomas;76 and in the reign of Emanuel, son-in law of Ferdinand and Isabella, the Jews were not only ordered to quit the kingdom generally by a certain day; but a secret edict issued that all the children under fourteen years of age should be torn from the arms of their parents, and dispersed through the kingdom to be baptized and brought up as Christians.77 The awful secret transpired, and lest it should be frustrated was instantly put into execution. What woman of Israel, be she mother, sister, or childless wife, can imagine the terror of this awful edict—can portray in her fancy, not only the hapless children torn from their mothers by brutal savages, but their mothers themselves, rendered desperate by the agonizing alternative, throwing their offspring into wells and rivers, destroying them with their own hands,78 and yet not feel her whole being quiver with the burst of thanksgiving, that in some lands these awful days are past. Ever and anon, indeed, comes even now the low groan of Jewish suffering from distant shores. Damascus,79 Russia,80 Mogadore,81 within the last seven Cf. Haim Beinart, The Expulsion of the Jews from Spain, trans. Jeffrey M. Green (Oxford & Portland, Oregon; Littman Library of Jewish Civilization, 2002), 274–279. 76 Cf. Aaron Lichtenstein, “Portugal,” EJ 13:921. 77 Ibid.; the regnal dates of Emanuel I the Fortunate of Portugal are 1495–1521. 78 See Grossman, Pious and Rebellious, 346–372. 79 See above, p. 916, n. 46. 80 For the history of the Jews in Russia during the reign of Czar Nicholas I (1825–1855) see Simon Dubnow, History of the Jews in Russia and Poland, trans. Israel Friedlander (2 vols.; Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1918), 2:13–87, 110–139. 81 Mogadore (or Mogador; also called Souirah) is an Atlantic seaport of Morocco. By the end of the 19th century almost half of the 20,000 inhabitants were Jewish. From 1808 most of the Jews were confined to the 75

932

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

years, have vied with the oppressive cruelties of long-past days; cruelties at which every mother’s heart must quake, and which bid every woman of Israel cling closer and closer yet to those nobler lands that give her a peaceful home, and so grant the sweet charities of life, and the affections, vitality and joy. Even where the tempest-clouds of persecution have passed away, the spiritual atmosphere for the Jewish captives is deadened and stagnated by restricting clauses, which, directly contradictory to the spirit of Judaism, must have originated in former oppressive decrees, although, as the decrees themselves have been removed (though not their consequences), the religion is falsely supposed itself to be the cause. In some parts of Germany, for instance, young unmarried females are forbidden to worship in the synagogues—it being considered indecorous to make their appearance there, unless engaged or wedded.82 There may be other customs equally enslaving; but we are cautious in repeating any but those we know to be true. We see they are the remnants of oppression, not the ordinances of the religion, by the simple fact, that where we are free, the women of Israel take, unquestioned, the place, both in the synagogue and in the household, assigned them by our law. When, therefore, we reflect on these things, and then on the spirit awakening in England, America, the Colonies, France, and no doubt in many parts of other lands (though working secretly and almost unconsciously, as all improvements do at first, we see it not so broadly flashing as in the above-named lands); shall we not as a mellah (Jewish ghetto). Aguilar here refers to the fact that when the French bombarded the city in 1844, persons from neighboring areas attempted to ransack the city. The inhabitants attempted to defend themselves, but many fled. When the conflict had subsided many more Jews came to reside in this city. See M. Knafo, “Mogador,” JE 640–641; David Corcos, “Mogador,” EJ 12:212–214. And see the Anglo-Jewish periodical Voice of Jacob, vol. 4, no. 89 (London, November 15, 1844), p. 33 for a call for help. 82 Concerning the role of women in Judaism in Germany in modern times see Marion A. Kaplan, The Making of the Jewish Middle Class: Women, Family, and Identity in Imperial Germany (New York & Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1991), 64–84.

SEVENTH PERIOD. III. EFFECTS OF DISPERSION

933

body do all we can to forward and confirm the advantages proffered? Fifty years ago, from the still lingering dread of exposing our peculiar tenets to members of other creeds, Judaism, though faithfully followed, and all its ordinances obeyed, never found voice in our households, much less in more public places of worship; we dared not speak or write of it, lest unwittingly we should offend, and so be exposed again to the horrors of persecution. Was it marvel, then, that we were Jews only because our fathers were, and that the vital spirit of piety seemed dead within us?83 Judging from us at that time, we do not wonder that some more enlightened of the Gentiles should pronounce the Jewish religion to be void of all spirituality, and so a lifeless worship. They could know nothing of us but what they saw; and they were not likely to look so deep as to behold the origin of this stagnation, in the stupefying84 terror and ever present dread of oppressive persecution. But now, if we do not labor heart and soul to make manifest that our religion is the most spiritual, the most life-breathing, comfort-giving religion of any over the known world, the fault is with us, and us alone. We need no longer be Jews because our fathers were. In the synagogue our religion is taught; in our households the Bible is our companion; our daughters as well as our sons are instructed as our Great Lawgiver himself commanded.85 In France, in some parts of Germany, in some of the Colonies, and in one synagogue of England, girls, as well as boys, are examined in their faith, and admitted to the beautiful rite of conFor the ways in which the Reform Movement on the one hand and the Orthodox Chief Rabbi Solomon Hirschell and his successor Rabbi Nathan Adler sought to revitalize Judaism and eliminate the practices, which lent credence to the charge that the vital spirit of piety seemed dead within English Jewry of the mid–19th century see Langton, “A Question of Backbone,” 10–12 and the literature cited there. 84 19th century editions read “stupifying.” 85 Thus she accounts for her knowledge of Biblical Hebrew grammar and lexicography, for her acquaintance with the Genesis Commentary by De Sola; for her knowledge of Rashi and the traditions of “our ancient fathers,” as she is wont to refer to the Rabbinic Sages of the Talmud and its cognate literature. 83

934

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

firmation;86 and this we foresee will gradually extend over all our congregations. The Hebrew language is now taught, studied, known, as any other modern tongue. The time may, nay it WILL come, though it seems a wild dream now, when it shall again be the language of the Israelites, not alone wherein to pray, but to converse, and write, as the vernacular idiom of the lands in which we are sojourners.87 Our girls, equally with our boys, are attaining real

The rite of confirmation was first introduced by Israel Jacobsohn as a substitute for Bar Mitzvah in Cassel in Westphalia in 1810. The following year this rite of passage was extended to girls. In Orthodox congregations in France and in French-occupied lands in North Africa and in many Conservative congregations in the United States of America the rite of confirmation was reserved for girls. In 1822 a class of boys and girls was confirmed for the first time at the Hamburg Reform Temple. The confirmation of boys and girls continues to be practiced on the Festival of Shavuot or Hebrew Pentecost in most Reform and some Conservative congregations in the United States. Since the late 1950’s the extension of the age of confirmation from 13 to 16 has solved two problems. These are 1) the redundancy of celebrating Confirmation, which was to have replaced Bar Mitzvah, after the youth has already celebrated his/her Bar/Bat Mitzvah; 2) the need to motivate teenagers and their parents to continue some formal education in Judaism past the age of Bar Mitzvah (13) and Bat Mitzvah (12). The first synagogue in England to introduce the rite of confirmation was the West London Synagogue of British Jews, which announced the attention to do so at the dedication of their new edifice in 1842. For additional information on the rite of Confirmation see Max Landsberg and Kaufmann Kohler, “Confirmation, the Rite of,” JE 4:219–220; W. Gunther Plaut, The Rise of Reform Judaism (New York: World Union for Progressive Judaism, 1963), 47–48; 171–177. For the outline of a complete Confirmation Service see Rabbi’s Manual, 13–27. 87 In fact, Modern Hebrew, which evolved into the official and spoken language of the State of Israel, was consciously created by writers of fiction in Central and Eastern Europe in the 18th and 19th centuries. See, inter alia, Robert Alter, Hebrew and Modernity (Bloomington & Indianapolis: Indiana University Press, 1994); especially, 40–85; Nahum Slouschz, The Renascence of Hebrew Literature (1743–1885) [Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society of America, 1909]; Moshe Pelli, The Age of Haskalah: Studies in 86

SEVENTH PERIOD. III. EFFECTS OF DISPERSION

935

grammatical knowledge of this most glorious language, and in their youth are thus imbibing treasures, which, when in their turn they become mothers, will be imparted to their children, and so mark them from their earliest infancy, Hebrews,88 as well as English, French, or German. To our daughters, as to our sons, the Bible is unsealed; and its explanation is fearlessly given by many a Jewish preacher. Books of Jewish sacred literature are rising in the vernacular of the many lands of our captivity;89 and the time is gone by when man might fear to call himself a Jew. In the countries so often quoted, the more a Hebrew respects his creed, the more he is respected; the more spiritually enlightened he is in the doctrines, the ordinances, the commands of his own religion, the more will he find himself appreciated and valued by the spiritual-minded of even opposing creeds; and the more universal will be his brotherly love, for the less dangerous will be social inter course. Will not then the women of Israel do all they can to prove how deeply and earnestly they feel these things? They are free now not only to believe and obey, but to study and speak of their glorious faith. To look themselves within their Bibles, and read there the foundation for all which we have sought humbly, yet most heartfully, to bring before them. To find in that ceaseless fountain of living waters,90 not alone their privileges as women of Israel, but all of strength, comfort, peace, immortal hope, and earthly guidance, which as weak, frail women, they so imperatively need. Will they not then come there, and beholding not only their responsibilities and their duties, but, in the prophets, their sins in the Past and their destiny in the Future, do all they can to break from the one and forward the other? To cultivate with heart, soul, and

Hebrew Literature of the Enlightenment in Germany (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1979); Shalom Spiegel, Hebrew Reborn (New York: Macmillan, 1930). 88 Obviously, a typographical error for Hebrew, designating the language. 89 On this development and Aguilar’s role in it see Galchinksy, Origin of the Modern Jewish Woman Writer, 73–83 and passim. 90 This expression refers both to the Torah and to God; biblical sources of this expression include Jer. 2:13; 17:13.

936

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

might,91 all those spiritual, mental, and accomplished graces which should be every woman’s, and yet more strikingly every woman’s who calls herself of Israel? In very many lands of their captivity, it is fully in their power so to do, even if it were possible, yet more so than men; for the ordinances and commands of our holy faith interfere much less with woman’s retired path of domestic pursuits and pleasures, than with the more public and more ambitious career of man. Her duty is to make home happy; her mission, to influence man, alike in the relative duties of mother to her son, wife to her husband, sister to her brother, and, in her own person, to upraise the holy cause of a religion, which, from its pure spirituality and long concealment, is by the multitude misunderstood, vilified, and charged with such false accusations that only acts can remove. Something more is needed for the elevation of our faith, than even making it known through books (though that may accomplish much). We must prove the superiority of our guiding law, by the superiority of our own conduct, as women of Israel, in our own houses. To obtain this superiority is to become more SPIRIIUAL; for in that single word every feminine grace and Jewish requisite is comprised. Let a woman truly and sincerely love her God—feel that his image is in her heart—that she can bring Him so close to her that her every thought, her every aspiration, her every joy, as well as every prayer and sorrow, can be traced up to Him, and we need not fear that she will ever fail in her duties, either to Him or to man, in his service or in her home. Once this spiritual love obtained, and a halo is thrown over her whole life, be it one of sorrow or of joy. His Law becomes part of her very being; she could not disobey it, without disobeying the gracious Father and Lord whom she loves better than herself. She will love all mankind, think evil of none (without mighty cause), for they are His children, created in His image.92 She will love the ties of home, her parents, husband, children, brother, and sisters, with intensest and most endearing This phrase comes from the first paragraph of the Shema, which is also the first of the two passages in the mezuzzah and the first of the four passages in the tefillin; the source is Deut. 6:5. 92 Gen. 1:26–27. 91

SEVENTH PERIOD. III. EFFECTS OF DISPERSION

937

love—for He has granted them, and filled her glowing heart with the sweet emotions which to love in Him creates. She will regard death for herself as yet more happy than life, for then she will be with her God and her beloved ones for evermore, undisturbed by sin or doubt, or fear or woe; and for those she loves, with human suffering indeed—for such we are permitted and encouraged to feel—but still with the firm conviction that for them all must be joy, for they are with God, and in spirit with her still. She will think less of the Grave on Earth than of the Soul in Heaven. She will feel indeed the blank within her home, but she will realize in her heart of hearts the blessed conviction that if Earth has one less, Heaven has one more, and becomes with each that departs, a dearer, more longed-for home. She will look on the meanest flower, the humblest bird, even as on the loftiest things of nature, with that peculiar feeling which the poet describes in those exquisite line: “Thanks to the human heart by which we live, Thanks to its tenderness, its joys and fears, To me, the meanest flower which blows, can bring Thoughts that do often lie too deep for tears,”*93 because she feels them the work of her Father in heaven, created as much for her individual joy and thanksgiving, as for the multitudes,94 who in the Past and the Present and Future have gazed, and will still gaze upon the same. This is to be spiritual; this is to be an Israelite; this is to be WOMAN. We are quite aware that many of our English readers will exclaim, “Why this is to be Christian!” and refuse to believe that such emotions can have existence in a Jewish heart. While our Jewish readers will, in consequence, refuse to seek its attainment, be* Wordsworth.93 93 This quotation is the final four lines of William Wordsworth (1770– 1850), “Ode: Intimations of Immortality from Recollections of Early Childhood.” For the complete poem see, inter alia, [William] Wordsworth, Poetical Works, with introduction and notes, ed. Thomas Hutchinson; rev. Ernest de Selincourt (London: Oxford University Press, 1936), 460–462. 94 Cf. Mishnah, Sanhedrin 4:4: “Everyone is required to say, ‘The world was created for me.’”

938

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

cause if it resemble Christianity it cannot be Jewish; both parties choosing to forget that the SPIRIT of their widely different creeds has exactly the same origin, the word of God: whence all of Christianity, save its doctrine of belief, originally came. Let those who deny spirituality to Israel, and declare that it is only from association with the Christian, and reading Christian books, that we think of spirituality at all—read the morality of the Talmud, even if they can only procure those extracts in the Hebrew Review; and unless resolved to retain their opinion in the very face of conviction, they must acknowledge that from us all their spirituality came, and that if we are re-awaking to its sublime call, it is not from association with them, but from peace and freedom permitting us once more to honor the Lord as our God, and giving us those extracts from our venerable teachers which show us in what light they regard the ordinances of the Lord. We will quote one passage, even at the risk of being thought tedious, merely to prove our assertion, that spirituality was the very breath of our religion; and how, in fact, could it be otherwise, when it came direct from the revelation of the Lord? “Man is to impress his mind, that whatever he does, is to be with the intention to glorify his Creator. His rising, his walking, his speech, and all his occupations are to have that aim. When eating, drinking, indulging in affection, his purpose is not to be the mere gratification of his desires. His food is merely to be wholesome and nourishing, far removed from luxury. In love he is to recollect its end and aim. Even when he lies down to sleep, it is to be with the intention to arise cheerful and refreshed for the service of his Creator,95 and thus, even the act of sleep will be an act of worship to his

Cf. the benediction Hashkivenu ‘Cause us to lie down in peace’ found in both the Evening Service (recited publicly in the synagogue or elsewhere or privately by the individual Jew and Jewess) [Cause us to lie down, O LORD, our God, in peace and enable us to get up, O our King, for good life and for peace] as well as the benediction, which concludes the prayers recited in the bed before retiring (and technically called “Reciting the Shema in the bed”): “And may it be Your will, O LORD, my God and God of my ancestors, that you cause me to lie down in peace and 95

SEVENTH PERIOD. III. EFFECTS OF DISPERSION

939

Creator, for our rabbies96 say, Let the aim of all thou undertakest be the glory of the Deity. And thus Solomon says, In all thy ways acknowledge Him, and He shall direct thy paths.”*97Again, we are commanded to associate with the pious and wise, in order to learn their ways; as it is said in the Law, ye shall attach yourselves to Him,98 you shall attach yourself to everything that leads to Him, sanctity and perfection.99 And again, after most minute directions, as to the forgiveness of injuries, and banishment of inward resentment, even to its being sinful for man, when he does a kind action to an injured, to say, ‘Take it, I will not do to thee as thou didst to me,’ for it is transgressing the command, ‘Thou shalt not resent,’100 it continues, a man is entirely to enable me to get up to good life and in peace.” See ArtScroll Siddur, 288– 289, 292–293; and see De Sola, Forms of Prayer, 63; id., Blessings, 44. 96 Sic.; this is obviously Aguilar’s plural for the singular rabbi, referring to the ancient Rabbinic Sages, whom she generally calls “our ancient Fathers.” * Selected from Morality of the Talmud. Hebrew Review, page 29.97 97 Tobias Theodores, “Morality of the Talmud,” Hebrew Review and Magazine of Rabbinical Literature, ed. Morris J. Raphall, vol. 1 (Tishri-Adar, 5595/October, 1834-March, 1835), 29–30; the text quoted is Theodores’s translation of Moses Maimonides, Mishneh Torah, Hilkhot Deot, Chapter 3, Halakhah 2. 98 Deut. 13:5; the same command is addressed in the singular in Deut. 10:20. 99 Theodores, “Morality of the Talmud, ” translating Maimonides, Mishneh Torah, Hilkhot Deot, Chapter 6, Halakhah 2. 100 Heb. welo’ tittor (Lev. 19:18b), which KJV (followed by NJV) renders “nor bear a grudge”. The source of the halakhic exegesis quoted here is the Tannaitic commentary on Leviticus, Sifra, and the exegesis is also quoted in Babylonian Talmud, Yoma 23a and in Rashi’s Pentateuch Commentary at Lev. 19:18. This exegesis is probably inspired by the fact that the verb natar, which is now understood to mean ‘be enraged, be angry’ (cf. NJV at Jer. 3:5, 12; Ps. 103:9; and see the extensive literature cited in Mayer I. Gruber, “Jeremiah 3:1–4:2 between Deuteronomy 24 and Matthew 5: Jeremiah’s Exercise in Ethical Criticism,” in Birkat Shalom: Studies in the Bible, Ancient Near Eastern Literature, and Postbiblical Judaism Presented to Shalom Paul, ed. Chaim Cohen et al [Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2008], 246, n. 40 where ‫ נתר‬is a typographical error for ‫ )נטר‬was assumed

940

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

dismiss every feeling of ill-will from his heart and mind, as the law not only extends to the actual deed, but likewise to the inward sentiments, and, therefore, the mind must be pure, so that the actions must flow from a worthy source.”*101 With such writings our own, and ours from centuries long past, do we need the works of Christian divines to make Israel spiritual? Oh, shame! shame on those sons of Israel, who, from pure ignorance, deny spirituality to their beautiful creed, and report that we are not a spiritual people! If we have not been, oppressive slavery is the cause. If we are not now, in those nations where we are FREE, the heart shudders at the sin we are incurring: and, oh! fearful is it if the Women of Israel neglect the opportunities now their own, and refuse to become the pure spiritual beings, which not only their religion but their sex so imperatively demands. We fear that with all our efforts to explain our meaning, we shall still by several not be understood; for spirituality is so exquisite and refined, so subtle an essence, that to describe, or explain, or teach it, is impossible. It can only be infused by the earnest desire to possess it, and by the grace of God. It is so peculiarly woman’s attribute, that without it her loveliest charms, her highest intellect, feels imperfect. By man it is unattainable to the same extent—unattainable, in fact, at all, unless infused by the influence of woman—and therefore do we so earnestly beseech our sisters in Israel to invite, cultivate, cherish it, till it so becomes a part of themselves that it pervades their every word, thought, and private deed, the domestic worship to be identical with the other verb natar ‘keep’ found in Hebrew Scripture only in Song of Songs 1:6; 8:11,12. The exegetical question, “What does keeping have to do in a context which condemns vengeance (Lev. 19:18) inspired the exegesis, which sees in Lev. 19:18b also a prohibition against giving vent to a grudge by saying, “I am nicer than you because instead of taking revenge, I am going to show that I am nicer than you by giving you something you do not deserve.” The Rabbinic Sages conceived of the latter as a kind of ‘holding back’ anger rather than fully expressing anger. * Morality of the Talmud. Hebrew Review, pp. 59 and 62.101 101 Tobias Theodores, “Morality of the Talmud,” Hebrew Review and Magazine of Rabbinical Literature, ed. Morris J. Raphall, 3: 62 where the author translates Maimonides, Mishneh Torah, Hilkhot Deot, Chapter 7, halakhot 7–8.

SEVENTH PERIOD. III. EFFECTS OF DISPERSION

941

of act and love, and the public service of prayer and praise, and thus it be infused into their sons with the very nourishment they give, the caresses of their infancy, the education of their boyhood. Then, indeed, might man become spiritual, and in all things fitted for the first-born of the Lord.102 To explain our meaning as to this spiritual essence, which should be indivisible from the woman of Israel, we will refer our young readers to some probably favorite authors. Every single line written by Mrs. S. C. Hall,103 whether it be a story for a little child104 or a three volume novel,105 a tale for Chambers’s Journal106 or a

The people of Israel is so designated in Ex. 4:22 where God says to Moses, “And thou shalt say unto Pharaoh, Thus saith the LORD, Israel is my son, even my firstborn.” Cf. also Jer. 31:9 where God says, “For I am a father to Israel, and Ephraim is my firstborn son.” The latter verse belongs to a message of consolation to the land of Samaria, most of whose Israelite inhabitants were exiled by the Assyrians in 722 B.C.E. Here echoing the 8th century B.C.E. prophet, whose writings are found in Hos. 4–14, Jeremiah treats Israel and Ephraim as synonyms. 103 Mrs. S. C. Hall, i.e., Anna Maria Fielding Hall (1800–1881), who married the author, journalist, and editor Samuel Carter Hall (1800–1889), on September 20, 1824. Concerning the latter see George Clement Boase, “Hall, Samuel Carter,” Dictionary of National Biography, 8:971–973; concerning Anna Maria Fielding Hall see id., “Hall, Anna Maria,” Dictionary of National Biography, 8:938–939. See also Maureen O’Connor, “Hall, Anna Maria,” in Lorna Sage, ed., Cambridge Guide to Women’s Writing in English (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999), 300. Born in Dublin, Anna Maria Fielding Hall went with her mother to London in 1815 and remained in England for the rest of her life. Her extensive literary output included novels, plays, short stories and readers for young children. The Buccaneer, which was first published in 1832 is an historical novel based upon the period of the Protectorate (1653–1659). 104 In 1830 she published Chronicles of a School Room, a series of stories for children. 105 Lights and Shadows of Irish Life, 1838. 106 In 1840 she published “Stories of Irish Peasantry” in Chambers’s Edinburgh Journal, which was edited by her husband. 102

942

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

sketch of Irish character,107 is so essentially SPIRITUAL, that without a single syllable unduly introduced of religion, we know it must be the religion of God’s word, which is the mainspring of her being. Mrs. Hemans,108 Mrs. Howitt,109 Mrs. Southey (Caroline Bowles),110 Joanna Bailie,111 are all of the same beautiful class.

Her first published literary work was the story “Master Ben,” which was published in 1829. Later that year she published a collection of sketches of Irish character entitled Sketches of Irish Character, and she published a second collection of the same in 1831. 108 Concerning Felicia Dorothea Browne Hemans see above (p. 444). 109 Mary Botham Howitt was born March 12, 1799 at Coleford, Gloucestershire, the daughter of Samuel Botham and Anne Wood. She was educated at home, and began writing poetry while a child. April 16, 1821 she married the writer William Howitt (1792–1879) with whom she published seven joint titles. She herself published more than 50 works of prose and poetry, and she was named as author, translator, or editor in more than 110 works. Moreover, she translated the novels of Fredrika Bremer from Danish (18 vols.; 1842–1863) into English and also many of the stories by Hans Christian Andersen. In addition, she authored A Popular History of the United States (2 vols.; 1859). She died of bronchitis January 30, 1888. See George Clement Boase, “Howitt, Mary,” Dictionary of National Biography (London: Oxford University Press, 1917), 10: 122–123 and the extensive literature cited there. 110 The poetess, Caroline Anne Bowles Southey was born October 7, 1786 at Lymington, Hampshire, and she died July 20, 1854. In 1839 she became the second wife of the historian, poet, and writer of fiction, Robert Southey (1774–1843). Her literary legacy includes The Widow’s Tale and Other Poems (1822); the 8 volume mixture of prose and poetry entitled Solitary Hours (1826), and her most famous work, a collection of short stories entitled Chapters on Churchyards (2 vols.; Edinburgh: Blackwood/ London: T. Cadell, 1829), which had previously appeared in Blackwood’s Magazine. In her 1823 poem “Tales of the Factories” she protests against the ill-treatment of factory workers. See Richard Garnett, “Southey, Mrs. Caroline Anne,” Dictionary of National Biography 18:690–691. 111 The correct spelling is Joanna Baillie. She was born at Bothwell, Lanarkshire in Scotland, September 11, 1762, and she died February 25, 1851 at the age of 88. She was a prolific and highly praised author of plays 107

SEVENTH PERIOD. III. EFFECTS OF DISPERSION

943

On the other hand, Miss Edgeworth112 and Miss Austin,113 two first-rate female writers, are moral, not spiritual, in their works. Among male writers—Howitt,114 Wilson (whether in prose or and poems. See George Barnett Smith, “Baillie, Joanna,” Dictionary of National Biography, 1:886–889. 112 Maria Edgeworth was born January 1, 1767 at Black Bourton, Oxfordshire, and she died May 22, 1849. In 1775 she published The Letters to Literary Ladies, in which she defended the education of females. Between 1776 and 1800 she published a 6-volume work on the rearing of children called Parent’s Assistant. In addition to her popular books written for children, and her two volume book on educational theory, Practical Education, co-authored with her father, Richard Lovell Edgeworth, Maria Edgeworth published collections of stories and sixteen novels. See Leslie Stephen, “Edgeworth, Maria,” Dictionary of National Biography, 6:380–382. 113 The novelist Jane Austen (note that this is the correct spelling of her family name) was born in Steventon, England December 16, 1775, and she died in Winchester July 18, 1817. During her childhood she began to write stories. She published her first novel, Sense and Sensibility in 1811, her second and most famous novel, Pride and Prejudice in 1813, Mansfield Park in 1814, and Emma in 1816, the year before her death. Austen’s novel Persuasion was published posthumously in 1818. In her lifetime Austen was greatly praised, inter alia, by Robert Southey, Samuel Taylor Coleridge, and Sir Walter Scott. Interest in her work was revived in the 20th century by Virginia Woolf. See, inter alia, John Burrows, Computation into Criticism: A Study of Jane Austen’s Novels (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1987); John Halperin, The Life of Jane Austen (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University, Press, 1986). 114 I.e., William (1792–1879), the husband of Mary Howitt, whom Aguilar cites a few lines above in her list of “favorite authors” as against this list of “among male writers.” Together with his wife, Mary Botham Howitt, William Howitt wrote or edited more than ten volumes. He published his first essay at the age of 13. His publications include Book of the Seasons, or Calendar of Nature (1831), Popular History of Priestcraft in All Ages and Nations (1833), Pantika, or Traditions of the Most Ancient Times (1835), and Colonisation and Christianity: A History of the Treatment of Natives by Europeans (1838). Having spent the years 1852–1854 in Australia, William Howitt returned to England where he wrote nine volumes on Australia. Both William and Mary Howitt and their friends S. C. Hall and Anna Maria

944

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

verse),115 James Montgomery,116 Wordsworth,117 are spiritual Fielding Hall became believers in spiritualism, and they arranged and attended séances. See George Clement Boase, “Howitt, William,” Dictionary of National Biography, 10:124–125. 115 Here Aguilar refers to the Scottish poet, essayist and novelist, John Wilson. He was born May 18, 1785 at Paisley, and he died at Edinburgh April 3, 1854. His publications include a collection of his poems, The Isle of Palms (1812) and a second collection of poems, The City of the Plague (1816). His novels include The Trials of Margaret Lyndsay (1823) and The Foresters (1825). He published essays concerning Edmund Spenser, Homer, Tennyson, and other subjects. Some of his essays appeared under the pseudonym Christopher North. He also occupied the chair in Moral Philosophy at Edinburgh from 1820. For additional information see Richard Garnett, “Wilson, John,” Dictionary of National Biography, 21:578–583 and the extensive bibliography provided there. 116 James Montgomery was born November 4, 1771 at Irvine, Ayshire, Scotland, and he died April 30, 1854 at Sheffield, England. He composed 400 hymns, which were published in the following three collections: Songs of Zion: Being Imitations of Psalms, 1822; The Christian Psalmist, 1825 (103 of his hymns) and Original Hymns for Public, Private and Social Devotion, 1853. Many of his hymns are still sung in Protestant churches, and the most famous of his hymns is “Angels from the Realms of Glory.” He published also a collection of his secular poems under the title Prison Amusements (1797). In the title of the latter work he alludes to the fact that he was twice incarcerated at York, once for reporting on a riot at Sheffield and once for publishing someone else’s poem commemorating Bastille Day. For extensive details and see Richard Garnett, “Montogomery, James,” Dictionary of National Biography, 13:764–767. 117 Here Aguilar refers to the famous English poet, William Wordsworth. He was born at Cockermouth, Cumberland, England, April 7, 1770, and he died at Rydal Mount in Westmorland, England April 23, 1850. Educated by his mother and father at home, he later attended a boarding school at Hawkshead from 1779 to 1787 where he began to write poetry. He earned his B.A. at Cambridge in 1791. He was named poet laureate of Great Britain in 1843. For his complete poetic works see William Wordsworth, The Poetical Works, ed. Ernest de Selincourt and Helen Darbisher (5 vols.; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 190–1949); concerning Wordsworth and his abiding contribution to English literature see

SEVENTH PERIOD. III. EFFECTS OF DISPERSION

945

writers; Scott,118 Campbell,119 Rogers,120 and many others, are not, and yet their writings are as moral and pure as their more spiritualized brethren’s. We are not alluding to either class of writers as elevating one above the other, but simply to endeavor by such reference to make our own feeling of spirituality more clearly understood. If, then, spirituality is so essentially the vital breath of the Jewish religion and of woman’s loveliest nature, will not every woman of Israel seek and strive and pray to make it her own, now that freedom and peace are hers; and her home, though it be but of the exile, is not exposed to the awful trials of the Past, and of the Present in very many lands? If she looks into the records of her ancesPaul Hamilton, Wordsworth: A Critical Introduction (New York: Humanities Press, 1986). 118 Concerning Sir Walter Scott see the discussion in the annotations, above, Period VII, Chapter III (p. 902, n. 25). 119 The Scottish poet George Campbell (1761–1817). While a student at the University of Glasgow, he published Poems on Several Occasions (Kilmarnock: Press of Kilmarnock, 1787). He was ordained the minister of the Secession Church of Stockbridge, Berwickshire where he remained until his death. A year before his death he published Sermons on Interesting Subjects. See Thomas Finlayson Henderson, “Campbell, George,” Dictionary of National Biography, 3:810. 120 The English poet, Samuel Rogers was born July 30, 1763 at Stoke, Newington, and he died December 18, 1855. His published words include Columbus (1810), Jacqueline (1814), Human Life (1819), and Italy (2 vols.; 1822–1828). Richard Garnett, “Rogers, Samuel,” Dictionary of National Biography, 17:139–142, explains, “Rogers’s title to a place among the representatives of the most brilliant age ... of English poetry cannot now be challenged, but his rank is lower than that of any of his contemporaries, and his position is due in great measure to two fortunate accidents: the establishment of his reputation before the advent, or at least the recognition of more potent spirits, and the intimate association of his name with that of greater men ... . [He was] prompted by ardent ambition and guided by refined taste.” Moreover, Garnett writes, “Rogers pervades the atmosphere of the first half of the nineteenth century; its memoirs, journals, and correspondence team with allusions to him.” For literature concerning Samuel Rogers, see there, p. 142.

946

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

tors—if she remembers Leah, Deborah, Naomi, Hannah, Abigail, the Shunammite, Huldah, and Esther—must she not feel that spirituality was the natural attribute of the Women of Israel in the PAST? and if she carefully studies the prophets, she will find that such will be their attribute in FUTURE; and there she will read, that until it is attained by man as well as woman, Israel must remain exiled and captive, far from Jerusalem, and from Jerusalem’s God. We have heard that censures have been passed upon our work, professing to illustrate the future destiny, as well as past history and present duties of the Hebrew females, as a presumptuous allusion to what we can know nothing about. Now, with all due deference to such critiques, we would say, that unless we disbelieve the prophets, our Future Destiny is quite as clearly traced out as her own past history. To quote all the eloquent passages, prophesying not only our restoration to Jerusalem,121 but the circumcision of the heart,122 and awakening of that spiritual religion which will unite us, even on earth, with God, would be useless here. We can only refer our readers to the prophets themselves, and as briefly as may be, condense and indite what appears to us to be their meaning. When restored to Jerusalem sin will be purified from the human heart; all of stagnation, of hardness, of unbelief, will have vanished; we shall not have to struggle with those imperfections and failings which come between the heart and its God, and deaden all spiritual worship. We shall all know Him then, from the smallest to the greatest of us; there will be no occasion to say to one another, “know ye the Lord.”123 Our burnt-offerings and sacrifices will be again acceptable;124 the temple of the Lord will be re-established on E.g., Isa. 40–48; Jer. 29–33; Ezek. 36–48. Deut. 10:16; Lev. 26:41; Jer. 9:25–26; Ezek. 44:7, 9. 123 Jer. 31:34. 124 Cf. Mal. 3:4, “Then shall the offering of Judah and Jerusalem be pleasant unto the LORD, as in the days of old, and as in former years,” which is recited silently at the conclusion of the so-called “Eighteen Benedictions” three times every day, four times on every Sabbath, New Moon, and festival, and five times on the Day of Atonement; cf. also Isa. 56:7, “... their sacrifices shall be accepted upon mine altar;” cf. also the 121 122

SEVENTH PERIOD. III. EFFECTS OF DISPERSION

947

his holy mountain;125 and not only will it be sought by the remnant of Israel, gathered from the North and from the South, and from the East and from the West, but strangers will join themselves to Israel,126 and all nations will flow unto it,127 and never more walk in the imagination of their own hearts.128 The Ten Tribes will be discovered,129 and Israel and Judah once again made one.130 Disease and suffering will pass away;131 even death itself be swallowed up for ever.132 Our nobles shall be of ourselves, our governors spring from the midst of us,133 and the Lord himself God over all the petition found in the third from the final benediction of the so-called “Eighteen Benedictions”: “Accept with love and with favor the offerings of Israel and their prayers.” This petition looks for to the restoration of the Temple and the return of the Divine Presence in mercy to Zion.” See ArtScroll Siddur, 110–111. The latter benediction is inspired by Zech. 1:16: “Therefore thus saith the LORD; I am returned to Jerusalem with mercies: my house shall be built in it, saith the LORD of hosts ... .” 125 See previous note. 126 See Isa. 56:6–7: “Also the sons [i.e., children] of the stranger, that join themselves to the LORD, to serve him, and to love the name of the LORD ... even them will I bring to my holy mountain, and make them joyful in my house of prayer ... .” 127 Isa. 2:2; Mic. 4:1. 128 Jer. 3:17. 129 Isa. 27:13: “And it shall come to pass in that day that the great trumpet shall be blown, and they shall come which were ready to perish [Heb. ha’obedim, lit., ‘the lost’; to be discovered or found one must first be lost!] in the land of Assyria ...”; see also R. Eliezer in Mishnah, Sanhedrin 10:3. 130 Ezek. 37:15–28. 131 Deut. 7:15: “And the LORD will take away from thee all sickness ... .” 132 Isa. 25:8: “He will swallow up death in victory; and the Lord GOD will wipe away tears from off all faces.” 133 Cf. Isa. 1:26: “And I will restore thy judges as at the first, and thy counselors as at the beginning.” Note that three times a day every weekday in the eleventh benediction of the so-called “Eighteen Benedictions” Jews, inspired by these words of Isaiah, petition God in these words: “Restore our judges as at the first and our counselors as at the beginning ... .”

948

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

families of Israel.134 Pastors and shepherds will be granted us135 according to the spirit of the Lord, and they will fill us with knowledge and understanding.136 Not only will the law and its everlasting ordinances be restored; but it will so be written in our hearts,137 that we shall never more disobey or fail in its spiritual observance. There will be no more vain yearnings in the soul, seeking to spring from its earthly prison to obtain more earnest communion with its God; for every soul will be satisfied with His goodness; the heavy and the sorrowful will be so filled with His love, that weariness and sorrow will alike flee away,138 and be but names belonging to the Past. And this spiritual restoration will not be distinct from a return to Jewish ordinances and Jewish ceremonies, as our opponents believe. I know not how any reasoning and believing mind, be his creed what it may, can peruse the prophet Ezekiel, from the fortieth chapter to the end, without being almost startled at its close resemblance to the Hebrew religion ordained by God through His servant Moses. More extended, indeed, alike in the size of the Temple and the Holy Land, as must be, for the reception of the multitude, not only of Israel, but of the nations who will universally

Jer. 31:1: “At that time, saith the LORD, will I be God of all the families of Israel, and they shall be my people.” 135 Jer. 23:3–4: “And I will gather the remnant of my flock out of all the countries whither I have driven them, and will bring them again to their folds; and they shall be fruitful and increase. And I will set up shepherds over them which shall feed them ... .” 136 Jer. 3:15: “And I will give you pastors according to mine heart, which shall feed you with knowledge and understanding.” 137 Jer. 31:33–34: “But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people. And they shall teach no more every man his neighbor and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.” 138 Isa. 35:10; 51:11. 134

SEVENTH PERIOD. III. EFFECTS OF DISPERSION

949

flow thither,139 till the earth overflows with righteousness. But however extended, we must perceive that the prophet divides the land once more into the inheritance of the twelve tribes; that the gates of the Holy City all bear the names of Jacob’s sons.140 The heritage of the sons of Levi is again to have the service of the Lord. The altars, and courts, and fountains, are all prepared for the restoration of the holy sacrifices and offerings, which, in our captivity, God ordained to cease nay, the very number and species of animals for the offerings are named, the feasts and fasts referred to; and how, then, can our opponents attempt to persuade us that the sacrifices, and offerings, and festivals, are all but types of another dispensation, and done away with now for ever?141 What, then, is the meaning of this sublime prophecy, if the religion of the Lord revealed by Moses, ceremonial as well as spiritual and moral, is never to be restored? The merit of sacrifices and offerings consisted, not in themselves, but in OBEDIENCE,142 and that obedience, in our restoration, will again be tried, and never more found to fail, for God himself has promised to remove the stony heart from our breasts, and replace it with the heart of flesh,143 on which love for Him and His ordinances will be impressed for everlasting. Faint and feeble is this attempt to portray the destiny awaiting Israel in his own bright land, and earnestly, entreatingly, we beseech our readers to turn to the prophecies themselves, and tracing it there, remember that every consoling promise, every spiritual joy, every forgiveness of sin is promised to all Israel, woman as well as See Isa. 2:2: Micah 4:1. Ezek. 48:31–34. 141 Here Aguilar clearly places herself in the camp of Orthodox Judaism, albeit an egalitarian (with respect to the participation of women and men in synagogue worship) Orthodoxy such as finds expression at the dawn of the 3d millennium C.E. in such congregations as Jerusalem’s Shirah Hadashah. Conservative and Reform Judaism differ with Orthodoxy in their belief that the restoration of sacrificial worship is definitely not a desideratum. 142 Cf. 1 Sam. 15:22: “Behold to obey is better than sacrifice, and to hearken than the fat of rams.” 143 Ezek. 11:19. 139 140

950

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

man. Who that believes in the prophecies can continue to say that the future destiny of the Hebrew females is a subject unknown, and that therefore it is presumptuous to allude to it? To be restored to our own land, and to the religion of God as Moses taught it, undimmed, untarnished by a single breath of man—to love the Lord indeed, with heart, and soul, and might,144 and our neighbor as ourselves145—to feel no shade, no doubt creep over our minds, and deaden all of spiritual joy—no human imperfections steal between loving hearts, and bid discord reign where God ordained all peace—to feel no weariness, no sadness, but every yearning filled—to be exposed no more to war, be it of sword or word—to become sisters, wives, mothers, of men who, as the first-born of the Lord,146 in whatever social rank they occupy, be it prince or peasant, noble or servant, priest or herdsman, will yet, in the sight of all the nation, uphold and show forth the glory, and the majesty, and the mercy of the Lord. This is our future destiny—this the goal to which, as women of Israel, we must press forward, heart and soul: for no little towards its eventual attainment depends on us, weak, frail, insignificant in seeming as we are. It is, we believe, the supposition of some that, as God has ordained these things, nothing depends on man; we have only to wait His time. A long and careful study of his word will, however, convince that merely to wait is not enough: our own exertions, our own ceaseless prayers, must hasten the day of our restoration, or still it will be postponed. We must return to the Lord in our captivity, or how will He hear us? “If they shall confess their iniquity, and the iniquity of their fathers, with their trespass which they have trespassed against me, and that also they have walked contrary to me; and that I also have walked contrary unto them, and have brought them into the land of their enemies: if then their uncircumcised Referring again to the second verse of the Shema in Deut. 6:5; see next note. 145 Referring again to Lev. 19:18; here Aguilar has again paired the two commandments, which, as Aguilar noted above (p. 924), are shared by Jews and Christians as very special commandments. 146 Referring again to Ex. 4:22: “And thou shalt say unto Pharaoh, Thus saith the LORD, Israel is my son, even my firstborn.” 144

SEVENTH PERIOD. III. EFFECTS OF DISPERSION

951

heart be humbled, and they then accept of the punishment of their iniquity, then will I remember my covenant with Jacob, and also my covenant with Isaac; and also my covenant with Abraham will I remember; and I will also remember their land.”* And that covenant was, that as the stars of heaven and the sand of the sea-shore so should be his seed, and in that seed all the nations of the earth should be blessed,147 whilst before the Lord it was a nation for everlasting, and he would be their god.148 And again, still more forcibly—“And it shall come to pass when all these things are come upon thee, the blessing and the curse which I have set before thee, and thou shalt call them to mind amongst all the nations whither the Lord thy God hath driven thee, and shalt return unto the Lord thy God, and shalt obey his voice according to all that I command thee this day, thou and thy children, with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, THAT THEN the Lord thy God will turn thy captivity, and have compassion on thee, and will return and gather thee from all the nations whither the Lord thy God hath scattered thee; and the Lord thy God will circumcise thy heart and the heart of thy seed, to love the Lord thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, THAT THOU MAYST LIVE.”** With these eloquent words of Moses before us, confirmed as they are throughout every prophet, can we doubt a single moment that the Eternal waits to return unto us till we return unto him, to release us from captivity, till we acknowledge its justice by deploring, confessing, and conquering our sins? We must know and feed it relates to now, and not to our first captivity; for then Babylon alone was the scene of our exile, and now it is over all the nations that we arc scattered. And what is the first gracious promise proffered to win us to return? “That our stony hearts shall be circumcised,149 that

* Levit. xxvi. 40–42. 147 Gen. 22:17–18, the blessing with which the LORD blesses Abraham after he has bound Isaac on the altar and Abraham has been told that Isaac is not to be sacrificed. 148 Lev. 26:12, 44–45. ** Deut. xxx. 1–6. 149 Cf. Lev. 26:41.

952

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

we may love the Lord our God with all our heart and soul,150 so that we may live, not only on earth, but in heaven;”151 for such is the true meaning of Moses’s words; and will not this prove to us that to love GOD stands first of every duty, and hallows every form which, without such love, is mere mockery to Him, and lifelessness to us? And to love God thus is to attain that spirituality which we so earnestly conjure every woman of Israel to seek; for unless she attains it there is little hope for man, and without it, oh! when will Israel be restored—when will our captivity be at an end! We appeal not to our sisters in Israel merely as women, though that is in itself sufficient need for the comfort, the blessedness, of a spiritual worship, but as under God, the influencers of man. Compare the boy whose tender years have been passed with a spiritual, a gentle mother, to him Cf. Deut. 11:13, which is the first verse of the second section of the Shema, which traditional Jews and Jewesses recite every morning upon arising and every evening before retiring, and which is also the second passage in the mezuzzah, which is nailed upon the doorpost of every Jewish home, and which is also the second passage in the tefillin, which are bound upon the arm and the head during weekday morning prayers; see illustrations #4 and #5. 151 Ezek. 18:9 (and numerous other texts in Ezekiel and elsewhere) informs us that a person who is virtuous “shall surely live.” “Shall surely live” is expressed in Biblical Hebrew by the words hayoh yihyeh, in which the first of the two words is an infinitive absolute and the second is the so-called imperfect or future form of the verb ‘to live’. KJV reflects the usual understanding of the infinitive as strengthening the sense of the verb and corresponding to the English adverb ‘surely’. Rabbinic exegesis reflected, inter alia, in the commentary of Rashi on Ezek. 18:9 and passim understands that the infinitive can also be substituted for a finite verb and that therefore Ezek. 18:9 conveys the sense “he will live, and he will live,” in which the first ‘he will live’ refers to temporal or mortal life and the second ‘he will live’ to eternal life. In most English translations of Rabbinic literature the latter is often called ‘the world to come’; Aguilar, like most Jews and Christians in everyday discourse uses the term ‘heaven’ to refer to the realm in which the persons or souls of the deceased continue to live as in the common expressions “Mommy went to heaven”; “Grace Aguilar went to heaven in September 1847.” 150

SEVENTH PERIOD. III. EFFECTS OF DISPERSION

953

who from his earliest infancy has been thrown on the rude influences of man’s guidance in a public school: follow these boys to manhood, and there will be little doubt who will most maintain the spiritual, as well as the ceremonial worship of his fathers, or tend most to uphold the glory of his God. Oh! as we would hasten our glorious destiny, let us ponder well our own responsibilities, and becoming more spiritual ourselves, infuse the same immortal essence into man! If we do this, shall we say we have done nothing? shall we not uphold the dignity, the beauty, the holiness of our privileges as women of Israel if we so infuse, so guide, as mothers, that man, uplifted from his grosser self, so unites the spiritual with the worldly, the love of God with the dreams of earth, that without neglecting or despising a single earthly duty or human feeling, he forwards the glorious cause of God, and in the sight of the whole Gentile world stands forth an Israelite indeed? And not as mothers only may we do this; let but the woman of Israel cast aside the frivolous occupations, the petty failings, the love of mere pleasure which are sometimes the characteristics of her sex, and remembering she is a woman of Israel, a daughter of the Lord, cultivate and love the higher and nobler attributes of heart and spirit; let her prove by the whole aspect of her life, be she young or old, married or single, the cherished member of a family or lonely upon earth, yet let her prove that she is spiritual, alike in the cloudless happiness, the elastic enjoyments of the young girl, and in the quieter pleasures of the matron, the peaceful calm of the more aged; that there is a deeper source than meets the eye; that all man sees and feels so lovable is formed from that close communion with her God called spirituality; and without one serious word, without one reference to the subject blended with her being, yet will woman influence man, and, raising her in his estimation, bid him reverence whilst he loves, and so gradually become infused with the same loftiness of thought and holiness of deed inseparable from spiritualized woman. His superior reason, his mightier power, his cooler and more penetrating judgment will dictate the just medium how to make these noble qualities, imbibed from woman, most useful to his fellows, most serviceable in the cause of God; but not the less will he love and value that weaker sex from whom they are derived.

954

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

To the women of Israel, then, is intrusted the noble privilege of hastening “the great and glorious day of the Lord,”152 by the instruction they bestow upon their sons, and the spiritual elevation to which they may attain in social intercourse, and yet more in domestic life. Oh! that we might hope that we have not entirely worked in vain! but that becoming, through these lowly pages, more sensible of their privileges as Women of Israel—feeling that for them, and them alone, the Most High God deigned Himself to provide a law and take them in their weakness, their liability to suffering and oppression, under his own especial care—that instead of degrading and enslaving, the Mosaic religion, as Moses taught, and as the elders153 commented upon, and the people practised, cared for woman as none other did, or others, too, would have produced their prophetesses; that to them is intrusted the regeneration of Israel; from their instructions, their influence, there must arise men spiritualized and gifted for the service of Israel and his God— women, fit helpmates for such men—that on them, in their homes and in their world, depends the manifestation of that spiritual, mental, and lofty superiority which their whole history marks their own—that they must prove the falsity of those charges hinted by the ignorant against their religion and themselves; that, feeling to their heart’s core these things, they would break from the long years of slavery and woe, unshackle the spirit from the heavy chains of indifference which a cessation from oppression originally wove—burst from the prejudices of darkened years, and stand forth in the face of their nation and the whole world, the ministerMal. 4:5, the penultimate verse of the prophetic canon and therefore the penultimate verse of the Protestant Old Testament; when the text of Mal. 3:4–4:6 is read as the prophetic lection or haftarah on the Sabbath before Passover in anticipation of a great eschatological Passover for all humankind this verse is repeated after reading Mal. 4:6 so that the reading ends on a positive note (and thereby also underscores that Sabbath’s being the Great Sabbath). In Jewish editions of the Scriptures the repeated verse is also printed below v. 6 (note also that in Jewish editions there is no chapter 4; the verses assigned to chapter 4 in KJV are treated as Mal. 3:13–24. 153 The Rabbinic Sages, whom Aguilar also calls ‘our ancient Fathers’. 152

SEVENTH PERIOD. III. EFFECTS OF DISPERSION

955

ing spirits of love, and thoughtfulness, and worth, companions of man’s intellect and need; yet seeking not, dreaming not to vie with him;154 beautifiers of home, spiritualizers of earth, even as at their Read in tandem with Aguilar’s remarks in her discussion of Eve, in Period I, Chapter I (p. 62), where Aguilar states, “woman’s unfortunate desire to grasp something more than is her allotted portion;—her discontent with the lowlier station which her weaker frame and less powerful mind mark imperatively as her own—her mistaken notion, that humility is degradation; and unless she compels man to accede to her her rights, they will be trampled on, and never acknowledged,” forms a kind of inclusio, which might create the impression that Women of Israel is just one more harmless mid–19th century handbook for inculcating humility and virtue in young women. Thus she may have encouraged many a father to buy this book for his daughters and many a husband to buy it for his wife and many an unliberated woman to buy it for herself. If we might have thought that in writing in her discussion of Eve the quoted words about women knowing their place, Aguilar has, as it were, not yet herself been liberated by what she discovers about Deborah and Abigail and the Shunammite and Huldah and the societies that made it possible for those women to rise to the top, we may not entertain such a notion with respect to what she writes here. I must, therefore, conclude that she has tried deliberately to disarm those who would be reluctant to take seriously a book which calls for breaking down the barriers, which men have erected in violation of God-given Torah and the words of the Rabbinic Sages (Aguilar would say either “the elders” or “our ancient Fathers”) to women’s full and equal participation in Torah-learning and public and home worship. She has let this cat out of the bag more than once, particularly poignantly when she suggests that in the time of Abigail women were part of the municipal senate and when she suggests that the Shunammite led the worship services (most English-speaking Jews in post-modern times would employ the Yiddishism the davening) in her home and when she admires the confirmation services for girls introduced by the Reform Movement and coopted by the 19th century French Orthodox Jewish establishment and when she writes earlier in this final chapter, “We have heard that censures have been passed upon our work, professing to illustrate the future destiny, as well as past history and present duties of the Hebrew females, as a presumptuous allusion to what we can know nothing about.” Interestingly enough, when some five years ago I assembled a list of twenty-two Jewish 154

956

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

poetesses of the 19th and 20th centuries, whose hymns had been sung in the American Reform Synagogue of the first half of the 20th century I was told by a self-appointed authority on the history of Judaism, “None of these women could have known anything about Judaism.” Since this list included not only Grace Aguilar but also Rachel Morpurgo (1790–1871) of Italy, who wrote in Hebrew and Elsie Davis and Nina Davis Salaman, who assisted their father Arthur Davis in translating the entire Holy Day and Festival Prayerbook for English Jewry (known as the Adler Prayerbook because Chief Rabbi Herman Adler edited the Hebrew text thereof!), it is just silly and no longer even slightly amusing or ironic to hear “what could these women know anyway?” It is simply pathetic. An anonymous reader at Hebrew Studies many years ago said the same thing about an essay I wrote called “The Jewish Goddess in an Orthodox Haggadah” (published in Conservative Judaism 38, no. 3 [1986], 62–65), “What could this woman know about Judaism anyway?” The uninformed assumption is that only women write about the Shekhinah. That is rather silly. In fact the longest book ever written about the Shechinah is Goldberg, Untersuchungen uber die Vorstellung von der Schekhinah in der fruhen rabbinischen Literatur: Talmud und Midrasch. One can fully understand that some male chauvinists (and some Bible-bashers trying to catch a free ride on the back of feminism) refuse to admit that the facts are against them, Therefore, they will attempt to marginalize and deligitimatize the purveyors of the (to them) bad news that the jig is up; it is a new ball game; women are going to regain what they had many times before and which was time and again taken away from them. And Aguilar tried to keep that message between the two book-ends, as it were, of her statements about women cultivating humility in the book’s chapter 1 and the book’s final chapter. But, as she certainly intended, the message gets through, and it is totally convincing despite the fact that being human and being denied a yeshivah-education because she was a woman, she made a few mistakes, which I have duly noted. The late Lizbarski Prize laureate for outstanding scholar of ancient Semitic languages, Franz Rosenthal used to tell his students at Yale, “We all make mistakes even [H. L.] Ginsberg [the annotator’s late and revered mentor in biblical studies]. So what?” The tragedy is that so much of what we have been recreating in feminist biblical studies/studies about women in ancient Israel was already articulated in Aguilar’s Women of Israel. And we, although not giants, could have seen so much more and achieved so much more, had we stood on the shoulders of Grace Aguilar and this, her

SEVENTH PERIOD. III. EFFECTS OF DISPERSION

957

creation, and in the revelation of His law, the God of Israel ordained! And if we can attain to this, shall we fail? Oh! let us press forward in this glorious path! let us on, heeding not disappointment, difficulty, or depression. Man cannot deny us our privileges, cannot banish us from the heritage of the children of the Lord— for from everlasting will Israel endure. “Thus saith the Lord, which giveth the sun for a light by day, and the ordinances of the moon and the stars for a light by night, which divideth the sea when the waves thereof roar—the Lord of Hosts is His name. If these ordinances depart from before me, saith the Lord, then the seed of Israel shall cease from being a nation before me for ever. Thus saith the Lord, If heaven above can be measured, and the foundations of the earth searched out beneath, I will cast off the seed of Israel for all that they have done, saith the Lord.”155 And if we are daughters and sisters, wives and mothers, of a people so beloved, oh! what does not devolve on us to forward and proclaim the glory, and the mercy, and the wisdom, and the love of Israel’s Almighty God! THE END

monumental book. Fortunately, it is not too late, for as our ancient Fathers tell us, “The gates of repentance are never closed” (Deuteronomy Rabbah 2:12). 155 Jer. 31:35–37.

ILLUSTRATIONS

959

1. Grace Aguilar from the frontispiece of Grace Aguilar, The Women of Israel (New York: D. Appleton & Co., 1853) in the Abraham Schechter Collection, Central Libraries, University of Texas at Austin (Courtesy of the University of Texas Central Libraries).

961

962

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

2. Tobias Theodores, photograph reproduced with permission of Manchester Central Library, Manchester, England.

ILLUSTRATIONS

3. The handwritten Hebrew text on parchment from Deuteronomy 6:4–9 and Deuteronomy 11:13–21 contained in the mezuzzah on the right-hand doorpost of a Jewish home as prescribed in Deut. 6:9 and 11:20.

963

964

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

4. The mezuzzah containing a parchment scroll on which are written passages from Deuteronomy 6:4–9 and Deuteronomy 11:13–21 on the right hand doorpost of the entrance to a Jewish home.

ILLUSTRATIONS

965

5. Rabbi Ilana Rosansky, Ph.D. of Ranaana, Israel (May 2009) wearing the fringed prayer shawl or tallit with white and blue fringes prescribed in Num. 15:37–41 (and Deut. 22:12) as well as the tefillin or phylacteries on left arm and forehead as prescribed in Ex. 13:9,16 and Deut. 6:8; 11:18.

966

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

6. Map of Jerusalem in the time of King Josiah (640–609 B.C.E.) highlighting the Mishneh (the second or relatively newer residential quarter of biblical Jerusalem), the location of Huldah the prophetess. Aguilar, following ancient Jewish tradition and the Authorised Version of the Bible in English from 1611, understood Mishneh to mean a College or yeshivah, over which Huldah presided.

BIBLIOGRAPHY Ancient and Medieval Sources cited without reference to specific editions or translations

Biblical and Cognate Literature The Hebrew (i.e., the Jewish) Bible, commonly called the Old Testament The New Testament Books of the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha Additions to the [Greek] Book of Esther [not found in the Hebrew Version] Ben Sira First Maccabees Second Maccabees Third Maccabees Fourth Maccabees Wisdom of Solomon Second Temple Literature Not Counted in the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha Dead Sea Scrolls Damascus Covenant Document

Muslim Scriptures The Quran

Ancient Greek and Latin Writings Homer, The Odyssey Theodisian Code

967

968

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

Rabbinical Literature Babylonian Talmud Jerusalem Talmud Mishnah Seder Olam Tosefta

Aramaic Versions of Hebrew Scripture Targum Jonathan Targum Onkelos

Ancient and Medieval Midrash Books Canticles Rabbah Deuteronomy Rabbah Exodus Rabbah Genesis Rabbah Mekilta deRabbi Ishmael Midrash Aggadah Midrash Tanhuma Numbers Rabbah Pesikta deRav Kahana Pirke deRabbi Eliezer Sifre Numbers Sifre Deuteronomy

Codes of Jewish Law and Theological Treatises Cited Without Reference to Specific Editions or Translations Moses Maimonides, Book of the Commandments Moses Maimonides, The Guide of the Perplexed Moses Maimonides, Mishneh Torah Joseph Qaro, Shulhan Arukh

Medieval Hebrew Commentaries Abarbanel (1437–1508) Da‛at Zekenim (12th century ) David Kimchi (1160–1235) Jacob ben Asher (c. 1270–1340) Abraham Ibn Ezra (1089–1164) Moses Nahmanides (1194 – c. 1270)

BIBLIOGRAPHY

969

Obadiah of Bertinoro (c. 1450–1516) Rashi (1040–1105)

Medieval Works of European Literature El Cid or The Poem of the Cid (c. 1140 C.E.) Song of Roland (c. 1100) Jewish Prayer Books De Sola, D. A. The Blessings, or Expressions of Thanksgiving. London: J. Wertheimer, 1829. Glatzer, Nahum, ed. The Passover Haggadah. rev. ed. New York: Schocken Books, 1969. Ha‛Avodoah She-ba-Lev. Jerusalem: Movement for Progressive Judaism in Israel, 2003. Mishkan T’filah: A Reform Siddur. New York: Central Conference of American Rabbis, 2007. Rabbi’s Manual. Cincinnati: Central Conference of American Rabbis, 1928. Rinnat Israel Prayerbook: Nusah Sefarad. Edited by Shlomo Tal. Jerusalem: Moreshet, 1999. (in Hebrew) Scherman, Nosson, and Meir Zlotowitz, eds. The Complete ArtScroll Siddur: Nusach Ashkenaz, 3d ed.; Brooklyn, New York: Mesorah Publications, 2007. (Hebrew and English) Seder Ha-Tefillot: Forms of Prayer. London: Movement for Reform Judaism, 2008. Service of the Synagogue. Hebrew text edited by Chief Rabbi Hermann Adler and English translation by Arthur Davis et al. 6 vols. London: George Routledge & Sons, 1907–1909. Union Hymnal. 3d ed. [Cincinnati]: Central Conference of American Rabbis, 1932. All Other Works Cited in Grace Aguilar’s Women of Israel and/or the annotations and/or the annotator’s introduction Abrahams, Israel. By-Paths in Hebraic Bookland. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society of America, 1900.

970

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

Ackerman, Susan. Warrior, Dancer, Seductress, Queen: Women in Judges and Biblical Israel. New York: Doubleday, 1998. Adahan, Miriam. Living with Kids: Parents at their Best. The Miriam Adahan Handbook. Southfield, Michigan: Targum Press, 1994. Adams, Hannah. An Alphabetical Compendium of the Various Sects, Which Appeared in the World from the Christian Era to the Present Day. Boston: B. Edes, 1784. ———. Letters on the Gospels. Cambridge, Mass.: Hillard & Metcalf, 1824. ——. The Truth and Excellence of the Christian Religion. 2 vols. Boston: John West, 1804. ——. History of the Jews from the Destruction of Jerusalem to the Nineteenth Century. Boston: John Eliot, Jr., 1812. ——. Die Geschichte der Juden von der Zerstörung Jerusalems an bis auf die gegenwärtige Zeiten. 2 vols. Leipzig: Baumgärten, 1819–1820. ——. A Memoir of Miss Hannah Adams Written by Herself with Additional Notes by Hannah F. Lee. Boston: Gray & Bowen, 1832. Adiv, Zvi. “Disraeli, Benjamin.” Encyclopaedia Judaica 6:103–108. Adler, Cyrus, and S. Mannheimer, “Pe’ot” [= sidelocks]. Jewish Encyclopedia 9:595. Adler, Nathan. Solomon's Judgement: A Picture of Israel. London: Wertheimer, 1854. Afary, Janet. “From Outcastes to Citizens: Jews in Qajar Iran.” In Esther’s Children, 137–174. Edited by Houman Sarshar. Los Angeles, CA: Center for Iranian Jewish Oral History/ Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 2002. Aguilar, Emmanuel. The Ancient Melodies of the Liturgy of the Spanish and Portuguese Jews. Harmonized by Emanuel Aguilar, Preceded by an Historical Essay on the Poets, Poetry and Melodies of the Sephardic Liturgy by A. D. De Sola. London: Wessel & Co., 1857. Aguilar, Grace. The Spirit of Judaism. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society of America, 1843. ——. “The Wanderers.” Occident 3 (October 1845), 330–332. ——. The Jewish Faith: Its Spiritual Consolation, Moral Guidance, and Immortal Hope: A Series of Letters Answering the Inquiries of Youth. London: R. Groombridge, 1846. ——. “History of the Jews of England.” In Chambers’ Miscellany of Instructive and Entertaining Tracts, vol. 18, Tract No. 155. Edited

BIBLIOGRAPHY

971

by Robert and William Chambers. Edinburgh: W. & R. Chambers, 1847. Aguilar, Sarah, ed. Essays and Miscellanies: Choice Cullings from the Manuscripts of Grace Aguilar. Philadelphia: A. Hart, Late Carey and Hart, 1853. Alexander, Tamar. “Badhan.” In The Oxford Dictionary of the Jewish Religion, 95. Edited by R. J. Zwi Werblowsky and Geoffrey Wigoder. New York & Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997. Alter, Robert. Genesis. New York & London: W. W. Norton, 1996. Aimé Martin, Louis. De l’education des mères de familie. Brussels, 1834. Alexander, Elizabeth S. “How Tefillin Became a Non-Timebound, Positive Commandment: The Yerushalmi and Bavli on mEruvin 10:1.” In A Feminist Commentary on the Babylonian Talmud: Introduction and Studies, 61–89. Edited by Tal Ilan, Tamara Or, Dorothea M. Salzer, Christiane Steuer, and Irina Wandrey. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2007. Alter, Robert. Hebrew and Modernity. Bloomington & Indianapolis: Indiana University Press, 1994. Appian of Alexander (95–165 C.E.). History of Rome, in Greek with English translation by Horace White. 4 vols. London: William Heinemann/Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1912– 1913. Aran, Bruria. “The Image of Women in the Pentateuch as Reflected in Medieval Jewish Exegesis.” Unpublished Ph. D. Thesis, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat Gan, Israel, 2009. Arzt, Max. Justice and Mercy: Commentary on the Liturgy of the New Year and the Day of Atonement. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1963. Aschkenasy, Nehama. Woman at the Window: Biblical Tales of Oppression and Escape. Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1998. Ashton, Dianne C. Rebecca Gratz: Women and Judaism in Antebellum America. Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1997. Ashtor, Eliyahu. The Jews of Moslem Spain. 3 vols. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1972–1984. Astruc, Jean. Conjectures sur les mémoires originaux dont il paroit que Moyse s’est servi pour composer le livre de la Genèse: avec des remarques qui appuient ou qui éclaircissent ces conjectures. Brussels: A. Frick, 1753. Austen, Jane. Sense and Sensibility. London: T. Egerton, 1811.

972

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

——. Pride and Prejudice. London: T. Egerton, 1813. ——. Mansfield Park. 3 vols. London: T. Egerton, 1814. ——. Emma. London: John Murray, 1816. ——. Persuasion. London: John Murray, 1817. Avi-Yonah, Michael. The Jews Under Roman and Byzantine Rule. Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1984. Avioz, Michael. “Josephus’ Rewriting of 1 Samuel 25.” Journal of Jewish Studies 59 (2008), 73–85. Baer, Yitshak. History of the Jews in Christian Spain. 2 vols. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society of America, 1961–1966. Bagster, Samuel the Elder. The English Hexapla. London: Bagster & Sons, 1841. Bagster, Samuel the Younger. Treasury of Scriptural Knowledge. London: Bagster & Sons, 1834. Bar-Ilan, Meir. “The Voices of Women from Near and Afar.” In Or Le-Mayer: Festschrift in Honor of Mayer Gruber, 33–86. Edited by Shamir Yona. Beersheva: Ben-Gurion University Press, 2010. (in Hebrew) Barnett, Arthur. The Western Synagogue Through Two Centuries, 1761– 1961. London: Valentine, Mitchell, 1961. Barnett, Richard David, and Walter Manfred Schwab, eds. The Western Sephardim: The History of the Communities Formed in Europe, the Mediterranean and the New World After the Expulsion of 1492. Grendon, Northants: Gibraltar Books, 1989. Bartlett, John. Familiar Quotations. 14th ed. Revised and enlarged by Emily Morison Beck. Boston & Toronto: Little, Brown and Company, 1968. Baskin, Judith R. “Jewish Women in the Middle Ages.” In Jewish Women in Historical Perspective. 2d ed. 101–128. Edited by Judith R. Baskin. Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1998. Bass, Shabbetai (1641–1718). Siphete Hakamim ‘Lips of the Wise’. Supercommentary on Rashi’s Commentary on the Pentateuch and the Five Scrolls. Amsterdam, 1680 (in Hebrew). Commonly printed wholly or in part as footnotes to Rashi’s Commentaries on the Pentateuch and the Five Scrolls. Bayne, Thomas Wilson. “Hamilton, Elizabeth.” Dictionary of National Biography, 8:1031–1032. Beauvoir, Simone de. Le Deuxième Sexe. Paris: Gallinard, 1949. Beinart, Haim. Expulsion of the Jews from Spain. Translated by Jeffrey Green. London: Litmann Library of Jewish Civilization, 2005.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

973

Ben-Barak, Zafrira. “Inheritance by Daughters in the Ancient Near East.” Journal of Semitic Studies 25 (1980), 22–33. Ben-Eliyaoo, Eliya. Cochin: Jewish Records from State Archives. Haifa: Published by the author, 1970. Benisch, Abraham. A Translation of the Old Testament, Published with the Hebrew Text. 4 vols. London: J. Darling, 1851–1861. Bernstein, Moshe J. “‘Rewritten Bible’: A Generic Category Which has Outlived its Usefulness?” Textus 22 (2005), 169–196. Berquist, Jon L. Controlling Corporeality: The Body and the Household in Ancient Israel. New Brunswick, N. J. and London: Rutgers University Press, 2002. Bettany, George Thomas. “Hales, William.” Dictionary of National Biography, 8:922–923. Bickerman, Elias. “The Colophon of the Greek Book of Esther.” In Elias Bickerman, Studies in Jewish and Christian History, 1:225–245. 3 vols. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1976–1986. Birley, Anthony Richard. Hadrian: the Restless Emperor. London: Routledge, 1997. Blackburn, Robin. The Making of the New World: Slavery from the Baroque to the Modern, 1492–1800. London & New York: Verson, 1997. Blank, Sheldon. “Kiss.” The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible, 3:39. 4 vols. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1962. Blau, Joseph L. “Adams, Hannah.” Encyclopaedia Judaica, 2:249. Blau, Joseph L., and Salo W. Baron, eds. The Jews of the United States: 1790–1840: A Documentary History. 3 vols. New York & London: Columbia University Press/ Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society of America, 1963. Bleier, Ruth. Science and Gender: A Critique of Biology. New York: Pergamon Press, 1984. Blidstein, Gerald. “The Tannaim and Plastic Art.” In Perspectives in Jewish Learning, Volume V, 13–24. Edited by Byron L. Sherwin. Chicago: Spertus College of Judaica Press, 1973. Boase, Frederic. Modern English Biography. 3 vols. London: by the author, 1892; reprint, London: Frank Cass & Co., 1965. Boase, George Clement. “Hall, Anna Maria.” Dictionary of National Biography, 8:938–939 ——. “Hall, Samuel Carter.” Dictionary of National Biography, 8:971– 973. ——. “Howitt, Mary.” Dictionary of National Biography, 10:122–123.

974

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

——. “Howitt, William.” Dictionary of National Biography, 10:124– 125. Boatwright, Taliafero. Hadrian and the Cities of the Roman Empire. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2000. The Book of Ben-Sira. Jerusalem: Hebrew Language Academy, 1973. (in Hebrew) Bowles, Caroline A. “Reminiscences of Grace Aguilar.” Manuscript dated January 17, 1848 in the Aguilar Papers at University College Library, London. Boyarin, Daniel. Carnal Israel. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1993. ——. Unheroic Conduct: Heterosexuality and the Invention of the Jewish Man. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1997. ——. Dying for God: Martyrdom and the Making of Christianity and Judaism. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1999. Brauner, Sigrid. Fearless Wives and Frightened Shrews: The Construction of the Witch in Early Modern Germany. Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press, 1995. Brenner, Athalya. I am…Biblical Women Tell Their Own Stories. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2005. Brichto, Herbert Chanan. “The Case of the Sotah and a Reconsideration of Biblical Law.” Hebrew Union College Annual 64 (1973), 55–70. Briggs, Robin. Witches & Neighbours: The Social and Cultural Context of European Witchcraft. London: HarperCollins, 1996. Bright, John. A History of Israel. 2d ed. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1972. Bristow, Amelia. Elizabeth Allen; or The Faithful Servant. London: Francis Westley, 1824. ——. Sophia de Lissau, A Portraiture of the Jews of the Nineteenth Century, Being an Outline of the Religious and Domestic Habits of this Nation. London: Gardiner & Son, 1826. ——. Emma de Lissau, A Narrative of Striking Vicissitudes and Peculiar Trials, with Explanatory Notes, Illustrative of the Manners and Customs of the Jews. 2 vols. London: T. Gardiner & Son, 1828. ——. Orphans of Lissau, and Other Interesting Narratives Connected with Jewish Customs, with explanatory notes. London: T. Gardiner & Son, 1830. Burrows, John. Computation into Criticism: A Study of Jane Austen’s Novels. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1987.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

975

Buruma, Ian, and Avishai Margalit, Occidentalism: The West in the Eyes of Its Enemies. New York; Penguin Press, 2004. Butler, Marilyn Speers. Maria Edgeworth: A Literary Biography. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1972. Bwemba, Gerald G. F. “The Dignity of Women in Chewa Culture: A Challenge to Dedza Diocese—Malawi.” Licentiate Degree in Theology Thesis, Department of Moral Theology, Catholic University of Eastern Africa, Nairobi, Kenya, 2002. Camp, Claudia V. “The Wise Women of 2 Samuel: A Role Model for Women in Early Israel?” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 43 (1981), 14–29. ——. “The Female Sage in Ancient Israel and in the Biblical Wisdom Literature.” In The Sage in Israel and the Ancient Near East, 185–203. Edited by John G. Gammie and Leo G. Perdue. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1990. Campbell, George. Poems on Several Occasions. Kilmarnock: Press of Kilmarnock, 1787. Cassuto, Umberto. Commentary on Genesis, Part 1: From Adam to Noah. Translated by Israel Abrahams. Jerusalem: Magnes, 1961. Channing, William Ellery. People’s Edition of the Entire Works of W. E. Channing. Published under the care of R. E. B. Maclellan. 2 vols. Belfast: Simms and M’Intyre, 1843. Charles, R. H., ed. The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament in English. 2 vols. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1913. Chavel, Charles, ed. The Torah Commentaries of Rabbi Moses ben Nahman. 2 vols. Jerusalem: Mossad Harav Kook, 1959. (in Hebrew) Chertok, Shlomo. The Portrait of the Jewish Woman in the Writings of Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch. Jerusalem: Leo Baeck Institute, 2006. ——. “From the Vale of Cedars to the Rhine Valley: Grace Aguilar and S.R. Hirsch — Do two walk together if they have not agreed to meet?” Massekhet 9 (Fall 2009), 33–56. (in Hebrew) Christensen, Duane L. Deuteronomy 21:10–34:2. Word Bible Commentary, vol. 6. Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2002. Christopher, Kalaneethy. “Christianity and Women.” In Women and Society: A Reader in Women’s Studies, 302-323. Edited by Nirmala Jeyaraj. Delhi: ISPCK/Madurai: Lady Doak College, 2005.

976

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

Cohen, Gerson David. “Hannah and Her Seven Sons.” Encyclopaedia Judaica 7: 1270–1271. Cohen, Simon. “Amos Was A Navi.” Hebrew Union College Annual 32 (1961), 175–178. Cook, David. Martyrdom in Islam. Cambridge & New York: Cambridge University Press, 2007. Corcos, David. “Mogador.” Encyclopaedia Judaica 12:212–214. Cross, Frank Moore, and David Noel Freedman. “The Song of Miriam.” Journal of Near Eastern Studies 14 (1955), 237–250. Daiches, David. “Sir Walter Scott and the Jews.” Encyclopaedia Britannica (1967), 20:80–83. Dandamayev, M. A. Slavery in Babylonia. Translated by Victoria A. Powell. Edited by Marvin A. Powell and David B. Weisberg. DeKalb: University of Northern Illinois Press, 1984. Darwin, Charles. The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex. London: John Murray, 1871. De Sola, Abraham. Biography of D. A. De Sola. Philadelphia: William H. Jones & Son, 5624 [=1864]. De Sola, D. A. Forms of Prayer According to the Custom of the Spanish and Portuguese Jews: Vol. 1: Daily Prayers. London: J. Wertheimer, 5596 [A.M. = 1836 C.E]. De Sola, D. A., and M. J. Raphall, translators. Eighteen Treatises from the Mishna. 2d ed. Sherwood, Gilbert, and Piper. 1845. De Sola, D. A., I. L. Lindenthal, and Morris J. Raphall. The Sacred Scriptures in Hebrew and English, Vol. 1: Genesis. London: Samuel Bagster & Sons, 1844. Deines, Roland. Die Pharisäer. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1997. Delgado, Isaac. A New English Translation of the Pentateuch,, being a thorough correction of the present translations, together with a comment on such passages as cannot be sufficiently understood by mere translations. London: W. Richardson, 1789. ——. The Pentateuch with the Haftarot and the Five Megillot according to the German and the Portuguese Rite, accompanied by a revised and correct translation. 5 vols. London: Ann Abrahams and Son, 1876. Delitzsch, Franz. Zur Geschichte der Jüdischen Poësie vom Abschlus der heiligen Schriften alten Bundes bis auf die neueste Zeit. Leipzig: Karl Tauchnitz, 1836. Dever, William. Did God Have a Wife? Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005. Diamant, Anita. The Red Tent. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1997.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

977

Dickens, Charles. Oliver Twist. London, 1837–1838. ——. Our Mutual Friend. London, 1864–1865 Diogenes Laertius (412–323 B.C.E.). Lives of Eminent Philosophers, with an English Translation by R. D. Hicks. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press/London: William Heinemann Ltd., 1959. Disraeli, Benjamin. Coningsby. London: Nelson, 1844. ——. Coningsby. Edited by Bernard N. Langdon-Davies. London: R.B. Johnson, 1904. Dockès, Pierre. Medieval Slavery and Liberation. Translated by Arthur Goldhammer. London: Methuen & Co./ Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1932. Driver, G. R., and John C. Miles. The Babylonian Laws. 2 vols. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1956. Dubnow, Simon. History of the Jews in Russia and Poland. Translated by Israel Friedlander. 2 vols. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1918. Edgeworth, Maria. Letters for Literary Ladies. London: J. Johnson, 1795. ——. The Parent’s Assistant; or, Stories for Children. 2d ed. London: J. Johnson, 1796. ——. Castle Rackrent. London: J. Johnson, 1800. ——. Moral Tales for Young People. 5 vols. London: J. Johnson, 1801. ——. Belinda. Dublin: H. Colbert and J. Stockdale, 1802. ——. Ennui. London, 1809. ——. The Absentee. Washington: W. Cooper, 1812. ——. Patronage. London: J. Johnson, 1814. ——. Ormond. London, 1817. ——. Helen. 3 vols. London: R. Bentley, 1834. ——. The Birthday Present, and Susan: Simple Stories for Children. Paris, 1846. Edgeworth, Maria, and Richard Lovell Edgeworth. Essays on Practical Education. London, 1798. Eisenstein, Judah. Otzar Dinim u-Minhagim: A Digest of Jewish Laws and Customs in Alphabetic Order. New York: Hebrew Publishing Co., 1917. (in Hebrew) Elbogen, Ismar. Jewish Liturgy: A Comprehensive History. Translated by Raymond P. Scheindlin. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1993.

978

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

Ellis, Sarah Stickney. Pictures of Private Life. 3d series. London: Smith, Elder, 1833–1837. ——. The Poetry of Life. London: Saunders & Otley, 1835. ——. Home; Or the Iron Rule. 3 vols. London, 1836. ——. The Minister’s Family. New York: Carter, 1839. ——. The Women of England: Their Social Duties and Domestic Habits. London: Fisher, 1837. ——. The Daughters of England: Their Position in Society, Character and Responsibilities. London: Fisher, 1842. ——. The Wives of England: Their Relative Duties, Domestic Influences, and Social Obligations. London: Fisher, 1843. ——. The Mothers of England: Their Influence and Responsibility. London: Fisher, 1843. ——. Family Secrets; Or Hints to Those Who Would Make Home Happy. London: Fisher, 1841. Eötvös, Peter. Angels in America. An opera. 2004. Epstein, Isidore I., ed. The Babylonian Talmud in English. 35 vols. London: Soncino Press, 1935–1952. Exum, J. Cheryl. Fragmented Women: Feminist (Sub)versions of Biblical Narratives. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series, 163. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993. Feldman, David. Englishmen and Jews: Social Relations and Political Culture 1840–1914. New Haven & London: Yale University Press, 1994. Feldman, Emanuel. “The Rabbinic Lament.” Jewish Quarterly Review, new series, 63 (1972–1973), 51–75. Feldman, Louis H. Studies in Josephus’s Rewritten Bible. Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism, vol. 58. Leiden: Brill, 1998. Filson, Floyd V. “The Additions to the Book of Esther.” In The Oxford Annotated Apocrypha, 96–101. Edited by Bruce M. Metzger. New York: Oxford University Press, 1965. Finkelstein, Louis. The Pharisees. 2 vols. 3d. ed. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society of America, 1962. Finley, Moses. Ancient Slavery and Modern Ideology. New York: Viking Press, 1980. Finley, Moses, ed. Slavery in Classical Antiquity. Cambridge, Eng.: W. Heffer, 1960. Fisch, Harold Harel. “Scott, Sir Walter.” Encyclopaedia Judaica 14:1037–1038.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

979

Fischel, Henry. “Story and History: Observations on Greco-Roman Rhetoric and Pharisaism.” In American Oriental Society, Middle West Branch Semi-Centennial Volume, 59–88. Edited by Denis Sinor. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1969. Fishbane, Simcha. Deviancy in Early Rabbinic Literature. Brill Reference Library of Judaism, vol. 27. Leiden: Brill, 2007. Flanagan, Sabina. Hildegard of Bingen, 1098–1179. 2d ed. London & New York: Routledge, 1998. Flesher, Paul Virgil McCracken. Oxen, Women, or Citizens? Slavery in the System of the Mishnah. Brown Judaic Studies, no. 143. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1988. Foh, Susan T. Women and the Word of God. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1980. Foundation Course on Women’s Studies: A Value Based Course. Madurai, Tamil Nadu, India: Lady Doak College, 2006. Forti, Tova. “Bee’s Honey: From Realia to Metaphor in Biblical Wisdom Literature.” Vetus Testamentum 56 (2006), 327-341. Franco, Moise. Essai sur l’histoire des Israelites de l’Empire ottoman depuis les origines jusqu’a nos jours. Paris: Dularcher, 1897. Franke, Thomas Bocum. “Tacitus.” In Brill’s New Pauly, Antiquity 14: 106–111. Edited by Christine F. Salazar. Leiden & Boston: Brill, 2009. Frank, Ray. “Women in the Synagogue.” In Papers of the Jewish Women’s Congress Held at Chicago, September 4, 5, 6 and 7, 1893 [in conjunction with the World Parliament of Religions, which took place within the framework of the Chicago World's Fair], 53–65. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society of America, 1894. Frankenstein, Carl. Impaired Intelligence. New York: Gordon & Breach, 1970. ——. Varieties of Juvenile Delinquency. New York: Gordon & Breach, 1970. ——. They Think Again. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold Co., 1979. Frankenstein, Carl, ed. Teaching as a Social Challenge. Jerusalem: Hebrew University School of Education, 1976. Friedman, Shamma Yehuda. Tosefta Atiqta. Ramat-Gan: Bar-Ilan University Press, 2002. (in Hebrew)

980

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

Frymer-Kensky, Tikva. “Ordeal.” Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible Supplementary Volume, 638–640. Edited by Keith Crim. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1976. ——. Reading the Women of the Bible. New York: Schocken Books, 2002. Fuchs, Esther. Sexual Politics in the Biblical Narrative. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2003. Fudeman, Kirsten and Mayer Gruber, “Who Made Me a Woman.” (forthcoming) Galchinsky, Michael. The Origin of the Modern Jewish Woman Writer. Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1996. ——. “‘A Victorian Midrash’: Grace Aguilar and Jewish Women's Literature.” Massekhet 2 (2004), 47–60. (in Hebrew) Galchinsky, Michael, ed. Grace Aguilar: Selected Writings. Broadview Literary Texts. Peterborough, Ontario, Canada: Broadview Press Ltd., 2003. Garnett, Richard. “Rogers, Samuel.” Dictionary of National Biography 17:139–142. ——. “Southey, Mrs. Caroline Anne.” Dictionary of National Biography 18:690-691. ——. “Wilson, John.” Dictionary of National Biography, 21:578–583. Gibbon, Edward. The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, Great Books of the Western World, vols. 41–42. 2 vols. Chicago: Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc., 1952. Gilman, Catherine Perkins. Herland. (1915). With an Introduction by Ann J. Lane. New York: Pantheon Books, 1979. Ginsberg, Harold Louis. “Messiah.” Encyclopaedia Judaica 11:1407– 1408. Ginzberg, Louis. Legends of the Jews. 7 vols. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society of America, 1909–1938. Glazov, Gregory. “Gestures.” In The New Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible, 2: 560–561. Nashville: Abingdon, 2007. Goldberg, Arnold M. Untersuchungen über die Vorstellung von der Schekhinah in der frühen rabbinischen Literatur: Talmud und Midrasch. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1969. Goldberg, P. Selvin. The Manchester Congregation of British Jews 1857– 1957. Manchester: Manchester Congregation of British Jews, 1957.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

981

Goldfield, Ann. “Women as Sources of Torah in the Rabbinic Tradition.” In The Jewish Woman: New Perspectives, 257–271. Edited by Elizabeth Koltun. New York: Schocken Books, 1976. Goldsmith, Oliver. Deserted Village. Edinburgh: W. Griffin, 1770. ——. She Stoops to Conquer. London: F. Newbery, 1773. ——. History of Rome. 2 vols. London: S. Baker & D. Leigh, 1775. ——. History of England. 2 vols. London: Newbery and Carnan, 1764. ——. History of Greece. 2 vols. London: J. & F. Rivington, 1774. Golinkin, David. “Poetry in Rabbinic Literature.” Proceedings of the Rabbinical Assembly 48 (1986), 328–332. (in Hebrew) ——. “May Women Wear Tefillin?” Conservative Judaism 50, no. 1 (fall 1997), 2–18. Goodblatt, David. “The Beruriah Traditions.” Journal of Jewish Studies 26 (1975), 68-85. Gordis, Robert, and Morris Silverman, eds. Sabbath and Festival Prayerbook. New York: Rabbinical Assembly of America & United Synagogue of America, 1946. Graetz, Heinrich. History of the Jews. 5 vols. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society of America, 1895. Gray, John. Men are From Mars, Women are From Venus: A Practical Guide for Improving Communication and Getting What You Want in Your Relationships. New York: Harper Collins, 1992. ——. Mars and Venus: Together Forever: Relationship Skills for Lasting Love. New York: Harper Collins, 1994. Green, Arthur. “Shekhinah, the Virgin Mary, and the Song of Songs: Reflections on a Kabbalistic symbol in its Historical Context.” AJS Review 26 (2002), 1–52. Greenfield, Jonas C. “Apocrypha, Pseudepigrapha, and Unusual Texts from Qumran.” In A Light for Jacob: Studies in the Bible and the Dead Sea Scrolls in Memory of Jacob Licht, 1–9. Edited by Yair Hoffman and Frank Polak. Jerusalem: Bialik Institute, 1997. Greenfield, William, ed. The Comprehensive Bible. London: Samuel Bagster, 1826. Gross, Abraham. Struggling with Tradition: Reservations about Active Martyrdom in the Middle Ages. Brill Reference Library of Judaism, vol. 20. Leiden: Brill, 2004.

982

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

——. Spirituality and Law: Courting Martyrdom in Christianity and Judaism. Studies in Judaism. Lanham, Md. and London, Eng.: University Press of America, 2005. Grossman, Avraham. Pious and Rebellious: Jewish Women in Europe in the Middle Ages. Jerusalem: Zalman Shazar Center for Jewish History, 2001. (in Hebrew) Gruber, Mayer I. Aspects of Nonverbal Communication in the Ancient Near East. 2 vols. Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1980. ——. “The Jewish Goddess in an Orthodox Haggadah.” Conservative Judaism 38, no. 3 (1986), 62–65. ——. “Breast-Feeding Practices in Biblical Israel and in Old Babylonian Mesopotamia.” In Mayer I. Gruber, The Motherhood of God and Other Studies, 69–107. University of South Florida Studies in Jewish History, no. 57. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1992. ——. “Ten Dance-Derived Expressions in the Hebrew Bible.” In Gruber, Motherhood, 149–172. ——. “The Meaning of orayeta in the Babylonian Talmud.” In Gruber, Motherhood, 231–247. ——. “The Midrash in Biblical Research.” In Gruber, Motherhood, 223–230. ——. “The Tragedy of Cain and Abel.” In Gruber, Motherhood, 121–131. ——. “Women in the Cult According to the Priestly Code.” In Gruber, Motherhood, 49–68. ——. “Genesis 21:12: A New Reading of an Ambiguous Text.” In Genesis, 172–179. Edited by Athalya Brenner. Feminist Companion to the Bible (second series). Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998. ——. “A Reexamination of the Charges Against Shechem son of Hamor.” Beth Mikra 44 (1999), 119–127. (in Hebrew) ——. “The Status of Women in Ancient Judaism.” In Judaism in Late Antiquity. III. Where We Stand: Issues and Debates in Ancient Judaism, Part Two, 151–176. Edited by Jacob Neusner and Alan J. Avery-Peck. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1999. ——. “Women in the Religious System of Qumran.” In Judaism in Late Antiquity V: The Judaism of Qumran, 173–196. Edited by Alan J. Avery-Peck, Jacob Neusner, and Bruce D. Chilton,. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 2001.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

983

——. “The Ancient Israel Debate: A Jewish Postcolonial Perspective.” Ancient Near Eastern Studies, 38 (2001), 3–27. ——. Rashi’s Commentary on Psalms. Brill Reference Library of Judaism, vol. 18. Leiden: Brill, 2004. ——. “Biblical Interpretation in Rabbinic Literature.” In The Encyclopaedia of Judaism, Second Edition, 217–234. Edited by Jacob Neusner, Alan J. Avery-Peck, and William Scott Green. Leiden: Brill, 2005. ——. “Prostitutes and Prostitution in the Bible.” Zemanim, no. 90 (2005), 22–29. (in Hebrew) ——. “God, Image of.” In Encylopaedia of Judaism, Second Edition, 870-875. Edited by Jacob Neusner, Alan J. Avery-Peck and William Scott Green. Leiden: Brill, 2005. ——. “Six Wise Women and One Wise Man Help us Reread Biblical Stories about Women: A Review Essay Concerning Seven Twenty-First Century Contributions to Biblical Scholarship.” Mentalities/Mentalités 21, no. 1 (2007), 54–62. ——. “Jeremiah 3:1–4:2 Between Deuteronomy 24 and Matthew 5: Jeremiah’s Exercise in Ethical Criticism.” In Birkat Shalom: Studies in the Bible, Ancient Near Eastern Literature, and Postbiblical Judaism Presented to Shalom Paul, 233–249. Edited by Chaim Cohen et al. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2008. Gruber, Mayer I., and Shamir Yona. “The Meaning of masoret in Ezek. 20:37 and in Rabbinic Hebrew. ” Review of Rabbinic Judaism 10 (2007), 210–220. Guggenheimer, Heinrich W. Seder Olam: The Rabbinic View of Biblical Chronology, with translation, commentary and a vocalized Hebrew Text. Northvale, New Jersey: Jason Aronson, 1998. Halbertal, Moshe. “‘Ones Possessed of Religion’: Religious Tolerance in the Teachings of the Meiri.” Edah 1, no. 1 (2000), 1– 25. Hales, William. A New Analysis of Chronology. 3 vols. London: Printed for the Author, 1809–1812. Hall, Mrs. C. S. [i.e., Hall, Anna Maria Fielding Hall]. The Buccaneer. ——. Master Ben. 1829. ——. Sketches of Irish Character. 2 vols. London, 1829. ——. Chronicles of a School Room. London: Frederick Westley and A. H. Davis, 1830. ——. Lights and Shadows of Irish Life. 3 vols. London, 1838.

984

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

——. “Stories of the Irish Peasantry.” Chambers Edinburgh Journal (1840). Halperin, John. The Life of Jane Austen. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1986. Hamilton, Elizabeth. Memoirs of Modern Philosophers. London: G. & J. Robinson, 1800. ——. Letters on the Elementary Principles of Education. 2d ed. 2 vols. Bath, 1801–1802. ——. Memoirs of the Life of Agrippina, the wife of Germanicus. 3 vols. Bath: C. & J. Robinson, 1804. ——. Letters Addressed to the Daughter of a Nobleman on the Formation of Religious and Moral Principles. 2 vols. London: T. Cadell and W. Davies, 1806. ——. The Cottagers of Glenbournie. Edinburgh: Manners & Miller, 1808. ——. Exercises in Religious Knowledge for the Instruction of Young Persons. 2d ed. Edinburgh & London: T. Cedall and W. Davies, 1810. Hamilton, Paul., Wordsworth: A Critical Introduction. New York: Humanities Press, 1986. Harris, Daniel A., “Hagar in Christian Britain: Grace Aguilar’s ‘The Wanderers’.” Victorian Literature and Culture 27 (1999), 143– 169. Hauptman, Judith. Rereading the Mishnah: A New Approach to Ancient Jewish Texts. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005. ——. “From the Kitchen to the Dining Room: Women and Ritual Activities in Tractate Pesahim.” In A Feminist Commentary on the Babylonian Talmud, Introduction and Studies, 109–126. Edited by Tal Ilan, Tamara Or, Dorothea M. Salzer, Christiane Steuer, and Irina Wandrey. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2007. Hemans, Felicia Dorothea Browne. Poems of Felicia Hemans: A New Edition. London: William Blackwood and Sons, 1854. Henderson, Thomas Finlayson. “Campbell, George.” Dictionary of National Biography, 3:810. Herr, Moshe David. “Monogamy.” Encyclopaedia Judaica, 12:258– 260. Hertz, Joseph Herman, ed. The Pentateuch and Haftorahs: Hebrew Text, English Translation and Commentary. 5 vols. New York: Oxford University Press, 1929. Heschel, Abraham Joshua. “Did Maimonides Believe that He was Worthy of Prophecy?” In Louis Ginzberg Festschrift, 159–188.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

985

New York: Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1952. (in Hebrew) ——. Man’s Quest for God. New York: Charles Scribner’s, 1954. ——. Heavenly Torah, As Refracted Through the Generations. Edited and translated from the Hebrew with commentary by Gordon Tucker with Leonard Levin. New York & London: Continuum, 2006. Heschel, Susannah. “Jewish Feminism and Women’s Identity.” Women and Therapy: A Feminist Quarterly, 10, no. 4 (1991), 31– 39. Heszer, Catherine. “Passover and Social Equality: Women, Slaves and Minors in Bavli Pesahim.” In A Feminist Commentary on the Babylonian Talmud: Introduction and Studies, 91–107. Edited by Tal Ilan, Tamara Or, Dorothea M. Salzer, Christiane Steuer, and Irina Wandrey. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2007. Hirsch, Samson Raphael. Nineteen Letters on Judaism (1836). ——. “The Jewish Woman.” Jeschurun, 1863–1864. ——. Horeb. Versuch über Jissroels Pflichten in der Zerstreung zunächts für Jissroels denkende Jünglinge und Jungfrauen. Altona: J. F. Hammerich, 1837. ——. Pentateuch with German Translation and Commentary. 5 vols. Frankfurt am Main: J. Kauffmann, 1867–1878. ——. The Book of Psalms with a German Translation and Commentary. Frankfurt am Main J. Kauffmann, 1882. Hirsch, Samson Raphael, ed. Jeschurun. 1854–1870. Holt, John Caldwell. How Children Fail. New York: Pitman, 1964. Hornberger, Theodore. “Channing, William Ellery.” Encyclopaedia Britannica (1967), 5:273–274. Hoshen, Dalia. Beruria the Tannaite: A Female Mishnah Scholar. Lanham, Md.: University Press of America, 2007. Hossein, Rokheya Shekhawat. Sultana's Dream. Chennai: Tara/ London: Turnaround, 2005. Originally published in Indian Lady’s Magazine in 1905. Houtman, Alberdina. Mishnah and Tosefta: A Synoptic Comparison of the Tractates Berakhot and Shebiit. Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1996. Howitt, Mary Botham. A Popular History of the United States. 2 vols. London: Longman, Brown, Green, Longmans, & Roberts, 1859. Howitt, William. Book of the Seasons, or Calendar of Nature. London: H. Colburn & R. Bentley, 1831.

986

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

——. Popular History of Priestcraft in All Ages and Nations. London: Effingham Wilson, 1833. ——. Pantika, or Traditions of the Most Ancient Times. 2 vols. London: Whittaker & Co., 1835. ——. Colonization and Christianity: A History of the Treatment of Natives by Europeans. London: Longman, Orne, Brown, Green, & Longmans, 1838. Hurwitz, Hyman. Elements of the Hebrew Language in Two Parts. London: for the author, 1807. ——. A Dirge Recited in the Great Synagogue, London on the day of the funeral of Princess Charlotte, with a translation in English Verse by S. T. Coleridge. London: H. Barnett, 1817. ——. The Tears of a Grateful People: a Hebrew Dirge and Hymn Chaunted in the Great Synagogue on the Day of the Funeral of His Late Most Sacred Majesty, King George III: translated into English Verse. London: Morrison & Watt, 1820. ——. Hebrew Tales, selected and translated from the writings of the ancient Hebrew sages, to which is appended an essay on the uninspired literature of the Hebrews. London: Morrison & Watt, 1826. ——. Vindiciae Hebraicae: or, a defence of the Hebrew Scriptures, as a vehicle of revealed religion, occasioned by the recent strictures and innovations of Mr. Bellamy. London: F. C. and J. Rivington, 1820. Ilan, Tal. Integrating Women into Second Temple History. Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr, 1999. Ilan, Tal, Tamara Or, Dorothea M. Salzer, Christiane Steuer, and Irina Wandrey, eds. A Feminist Commentary on the Babylonian Talmud. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2007–. Index of Christian Art. This index can be accessed in person at the Department of Art and Archaeology at Princeton University in Princeton, New Jersey and electronically at the following address: http://www.doaks.org Isaac, Jules. The Teaching of Contempt: Christian Roots of Anti-Semitism. Translated by Helen Weaver. New York: McGraw Hill, 1965. Israeli, Raphael. Palestinian Women and Children in the Throes of Islamikaze Terrorism. Shaarei Tivka: ACPR, 2002. Jacobs, Joseph, and Israel Cohen. “Raphall, Morris Jacob.” Jewish Encyclopedia 10:319. ——. “Solomon, Myer.” Jewish Encyclopedia 11:456.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

987

Jahn, John. History of the Hebrew Commonwealth. Translated from the German by Calvin E. Stowe. With an Appendix containing the Continuation of the History of the Jews to the Reign of Adrian Translated from Basnage. London: Thomas Ward, 1828. Japhet, Sara. “‘History’ and ‘Literature’ in the Persian Period: The Restoration of the Temple.” In Ah, Assyria. . . Studies in Assyrian History and Ancient Near Eastern Historiography Presented to Hayim Tadmor, 174–188. Edited by Mordechai Cogan and Israel Ephal. Scripta Hierosolymitana, vol. 23. Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1991. Johnson, Sherman E. “The First Book of the Maccabees.” In Oxford Annotated Apocrypha, 221–262. Edited by Bruce M. Metzger. New York: Oxford University Press, 1965. ——. “The Second Book of the Maccabees.” In Oxford Annotated Apocrypha, 263–293. Edited by Bruce M. Metzger. New York: Oxford University Press, 1965. Josephus, Flavius. See Whiston, William. Kadushin, Max. The Rabbinic Mind. 3d ed. New York: Bloch Publishing Co., 1972. ——. Worship and Ethics. Evanston: Northwestern University Press, 1964. Kaplan, Lawrence J. “Mendelsohn, Moses.” In Oxford Dictionary of the Jewish Religion, 454–455. Edited by R. J. Zwi Werblowsky and Geoffrey Wigoder. New York & Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997. Kaplan, Marion A. The Making of the Jewish Middle Class: Women, Family and Identity in Imperial Germany. New York & Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1991. Kaplan, Y. “Ha-tesisah ha-ruchanit ba-kehillah ha-Sefaradit—haPortugalit be-Amsterdam ba-me’ah ha-yod-zayin.” In Moreshet Sepharad: The Sephardi Legacy, 600–621. Edited by H. Beinart. Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1992. (in Hebrew) Karlsen, Carol F. The Devil in the Shape of a Woman: Witches in Colonial New England. New York: Vintage Books, 1989. Katz, Simha, and Yehoyada Amir. “Hirsch, Samson Raphael.” Encyclopaedia Judaica, 2d ed., 9:129–132. Kaufman, Shirley, Galit Hasan-Rokem and Tamar S. Hess, eds. The Defiant Muse: Hebrew Feminist Poems from Antiquity to the Present: A Bilingual Anthology. Foreword by Alicia Sushkin Ostriker.

988

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

New York: Feminist Press of the City University of New York, 1999. Kaufmann, Y. History of the Israelite Religion. 8 vols. Jerusalem: Bialik Institute/Tel Aviv: Dvir, 1956. (in Hebrew) ——. The Religion of Israel. Translated and abridged by Moshe Greenberg. Chicago & London: University of Chicago Press, 1960. ——. Judges. Jerusalem: Kiryath Sepher & Israel Society for Biblical Research, 1962. (in Hebrew) Kayserling, Meyer. Bibliothek Jüdischer Kanzelredner. 2 vols. Berlin: Springer, 1870. Kayserling, Meyer, ed. Siloah: eine Auswhal von Predigten von Ludwig Philippson. Leipzig: M. W. Kaufmann, 1904.. Khan, Shaharyar M. Begums of Bhopal: A Dynasty of Women Rulers in Raj India. London: I. B. Tauris, 2000. Klapheck, Elisa. Fräulein Rabbiner Jonas: Kann die Frau das rabbinische Amt bekleiden? Teetz: Hentrich & Hentrich, 2000. ——. Fräulein Rabbiner Jonas: The Story of the First Woman Rabbi. Translated by Toby Axelrod. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2004. Klein, B. D., trans. Tractate Sotah in The Babylonian Talmud Translated into English under the Editorship of I. Epstein. London: Soncino Press, 1936. Klein, Lilian R. From Deborah to Esther: Sexual Politics in the Hebrew Bible. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2003. Knafo, M. “Mogador.” Jewish Encyclopedia 8:640–641 Komlosh, Yehudah. The Bible in the Light of the Targum. 2 vols. Tel Aviv: Bar-Ilan University and Dvir Publishing Co., 1973. (in Hebrew) Kramer, Ross S. “Jewish Women in the Diaspora in Late Antiquity.” In Jewish Women in Historical Perspective, 46–72. Edited by Judith R. Baskin. 2d ed. Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1998. Krauss, Samuel. Antoninus and Rabbi. Vienna: Jewish Theological Seminary, 1910. Kushner, Tony. Angels in America: A Gay Fantasia on National Themes. A Play. 1992. Landsberg, Max, and Kaufmann Kohler. “Confirmation, the Rite of.” Jewish Encyclopedia 4:219–220.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

989

Langton, Daniel R. “A Question of Backbone: Contrasting Christian Influences upon the Origins of Reform and Liberal Judaism in England.” Melilah, no. 3 (2004), 1-47. Lauterbach. J. Z., ed. and trans. Mekilta de-Rabbi Ishmael. 3 vols. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society of America, 1933. Leeser, Isaac. “Eulogy on the Death of Grace Aguilar.” Occident 5 (November 1847), 419–420. ——. The Twenty-Four Books of the Holy Scriptures Carefully Translated According to the Massoretic Text on the Basis of the English Version, after the best Jewish Authorities, and Supplied with Short Explanatory Notes. Philadelphia: L. Johnson, 5614 [A.M. = 1853 C.E.]. Lehrman, M. S., trans. Exodus Rabbah in Midrash Rabbah. Edited by H. Freedman and Maurice Simon. London: Soncino Press, 1939. Leibowitz, Nehama. New Studies in the Book of Exodus. Jerusalem: World Zionist Federation Department of Torah Education and Culture in the Diaspora, 1969. (in Hebrew) Levi, David. Letters to Dr. Priestly in Answer to those he addressed to the Jews. London: Printed for the Author, 1787. ——. Letters to Dr. Priestly, Part II. London: Printed for the Author, 1789. ——. A Defence of the Old Testament in a Series of Letters, Addressed to Thomas Paine. London: Printed for the Author, 1797. Levine, Yael. “Women Who Composed Prayers for the Public: An Historical Study.” Kenishta: Studies of Synagogue Life 2 (2003), 8997.(in Hebrew) Levinsohn, Isaac Baer. Efes Damim: A Series of Conversations at Jerusalem Between a Patriarch of the Greek Church and a Chief Rabbi of the Jews, Concerning the Malicious Charge Against the Jews of Using Christian Blood. Translated from the Hebrew by L. Loewe as a Tribute to the Memory of the Martyrs of Damascus. London: Longman, Brown, Greene and Longmans, 1841. Levy, Isidore. Légende de Pythagore de Gréce en Palestine. Paris: E. Champion, 1927. Lewis, Gertrud Jaron. By Women, for Women, about Women: The Sister Books of Fourteenth-Century Germany. Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies, 1996. Lewis, Sarah. Woman’s Mission. London: John W. Parker, 1842.

990

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

Liberles, Robert. Religious Conflict in Social Context: The Resurgence of Orthodox Judaism in Frankfurt am Main 1838–1877. Westport, Ct.: Greenwood Press, 1985. Lichtenstein, Aaron. “Portugal.” Encyclopaedia Judaica 13:921. Lieberman, Saul. Tosefta Ki-Fshuta, Order Zeraim, Part I. New York: Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1955. Lindo, Elias Haim. A Jewish Calendar for Sixty-Four Years. London: L. Thompson, 1838. ——. The History of the Jews of Spain and Portugal from the Earliest Times to their Expulsion from Those Kingdoms. London: Longman, Brown, Green & Longmans, 1848. Lipman, Vivian David. “Rothschild: The English Branch.” Encyclopaedia Judaica 14: 340-342. Litvin, Baruch, ed. The Sanctity of the Synagogue. 3d ed. Hoboken, N.J.: Ktav, 1987. Lorberbaum, Yair. Image of God: Halakhah and Aggadah. Jerusalem & Tel Aviv: Schocken Publishing House, 2004. (in Hebrew) Lutz, Alma. Created Equal: A Biography of Elizabeth Cady Stanton (1815–1902). New York: John Day Company, 1940. Mackie, G. M. “Gestures.” In A Dictionary of the Bible, 2:162. Edited by James Hastings. 5 vols. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1899–1904. Macauly, Thomas Babington. “Goldsmith, Oliver.” Revised by Mr. Austin Dobson. Encyclopaedia Britannica, 11th ed., 12:214–218. Macpherson, Heidi Slettedahl. “Ellis, Sarah Stickney.” In Cambridge Guide to Women’s Writing in English, 220–221. Edited by Lorna Sage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999. Manasseh Ben Israel. The Conciliator: A Reconcilement of the Apparent Contradictions in Holy Scripture, to which are added Explanatory Notes, and Biographical Notices of the Quoted Authorities by E. H. Lindo. 2 volumes in 1. London: Duncan & Malcolm, 1842. Mannheimer, Louise. “Jewish Women of Biblical and Medieval Times.” In Papers of the Jewish Women’s Congress Held at Chicago, September 4, 5, 6 and 7, 1893 [in conjunction with the World Parliament of Religions, which took place within the framework of the Chicago World’s Fair], 15–25. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society of America, 1894.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

991

McCaul, Alexander. The Old Paths: Or, A Comparison of the Principles and Doctrines of Modern Judaism with the Religion of Moses and the Prophets. London: London Society’s Office, 1837. Melammed, Renée Levine. “Sephardi Women in the Medieval and Early Modern Period.” In Jewish Women in Historical Perspective, 2d ed., 128–149. Edited by Judith R. Baskin. Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1998. Menashri, David. “The Pahlavi Monarchy and the Islamic Revolution.” In Esther’s Children, 381–402. Edited by Houman Sarshar. Los Angeles, CA: Center for Iran Jewish Oral History/ Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 2002. Mendelsohn, Moses. Treatise on Metaphysical Evidence. Prize Essay, Berlin Royal Academy, 1763. Mendelsohn, Oskar. “Norway.” Encyclopaedia Judaica 12: 1222–1224. Metzger, Thérèse, and Mendel Metzger. Jewish Life in the Middle Ages: Illuminated Hebrew Manuscripts of the Thirteenth to the Sixteenth Centuries. Secaucus, N.J.: Chartwell Books, 1982. Meyers, Carol L. “A Terracotta at the Harvard Semitic Museum and Disc-holding Figurines Reconsidered.” Israel Exploration Journal 37 (1987), 116–122. ——. “Of Drums and Damsels: Women’s Performance in Ancient Israel.” Biblical Archaeologist 54 (1991), 16–27. ——. “Mother to Muse: An Archaeomusicological Study of Women’s Performance in Ancient Israel.” In Recycling Biblical Figures: Papers Read at a Noster Colloquium in Amsterdam, 12–13 May 1997, 50-77. Edited by Athalya Brenner and Jan Willem van Henten. Leiden: Deo Publishers, 1999. Milman, Henry Hart. History of the Jews. 2d ed. 3 vols. London: John Murray, 1830. Milikowsky, Chaim Joseph. “Seder Olam.” Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, New Haven, Yale University, 1981. Minault, Gail. Secluded Scholars: Women’s Education and Muslim Social Reform in Colonial India. New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 1999. Mirsky, Aaron. “Hebrew Poetry in the Period of the Talmud.” Jerusalem: Annual for Literature and Thought 2 (1966), 161–179. (in Hebrew) ——. The Basic Elements of the Forms of Jewish Liturgical Poetry. 2d ed. Jerusalem: Magnes, 1985. (in Hebrew)

992

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

Mita, Cheu. “Teasing and the Child.” The Nation, Malawi, Sunday April 19, 2009, p. 17. Moïse, Penina., ed. Hymns Written for the Use of Hebrew Congregations. Charleston: Kahal Kadosh Beth Elohim, 1856. ——. “The Rejection of the Jew Bill by the House of Lords.” In Penina Moïse, Secular and Religious Works, 212–213. Compiled and Published by Charleston Section, Council of Jewish Women. Charleston: Nicholas G. Duffy, 1911. ——. “Lines on the Persecution of the Jews of Damascus.” In Penina Moïse, Secular and Religious Works, 270–272. Compiled and Published by Charleston Section, Council of Jewish Women. Charleston: Nicholas G. Duffy, 1911. Mondshein, Aaron. “A Third Commentary of Rabbi Abraham Ibn Ezra on the Torah.” In A Light for Jacob: Studies in the Bible and the Dead Sea Scrolls in Memory of Jacob Licht, 167–180. Edited by Y. Hoffman and F. H. Polak. Jerusalem: Bialik Institute / Tel Aviv: Chaim Rosenberg School of Jewish Studies, Tel Aviv University, 1997. Montgomery, Robert. Woman, the Angel of Life, a Poem. London: John Turrill, 1833. ——. The Omnipresence of the Deity. London, 1828. ——. The Puffiad. London: S. Maunder, 1830. ——. Satan. London: S. Mauder, 1830. ——. The Christian Life: A Manual of Sacred Verse. London, 1848. Moore, George Foot. Judges. International Critical Commentary. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1895. ——. Judaism. 3 vols. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1927. Moses Maimonides (1138–1204). Guide of the Perplexed. Moses Nahmanides. The Gate of Reward. Translated and annotated by Charles B. Chavel. New York: Shilo, 1983. Myers, Alfred. The Jew. London: Society for the Promotion of Christianity Among the Jews, 1840. Nadel, Pamela Susan. Women Who Would be Rabbis: A History of Women’s Ordination 1889–1985. Boston: Beacon Press, 1998. Narkiss, Bezalel. Hebrew Illuminated Manuscripts. Jerusalem: Keter, 1978. Narkiss, Bezalel, and Gabrielle Sed-Rajna, eds., in collaboration with Jonathan Benjamin, et al. photographers. Index of Jewish Art. 2 vols. Jerusalem: Israel Academy of Sciences and Hu-

BIBLIOGRAPHY

993

manities/ Paris: Institute de recherche et d’histoire des textes, 1976. Ner-David, Haviva. Life on the Fringes: A Feminist Journey Toward Traditional Rabbinic Ordination. With a foreword by Blu Greenberg. Needham, Mass.: JFL Books, 2000. ——. “The Laws of Niddah: A Case Study in the Power of Ritual Reinterpretation.” Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat Gan, 2005. Neusner, Jacob. The Way of Torah. Belmont, CA.: Dickenson, 1970. ——. A History of the Mishnaic Law of Women. 5 vols. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1980. ——. The Mishnah: A New Translation. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1988. ——. Androgynous Judaism: Masculine and Feminine in the Dual Torah. Macon, Ga.: Mercer University Press, 1993. ——. How the Rabbis Liberated Women, University of South Florida Studies in the History of Judaism, no. 191. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1998. ——. “Describing the Tosefta: A Systematic Account.” In Introducing Tosefta: A Systematic Account, 39–71. Edited by Harry Fox and Tirzah Meacham. Hoboken: Ktav, 1999. ——. The Theology of the Oral Torah: Revealing the Justice of God. Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 1999. ——. The Tosefta: Translated from the Hebrew with a New Introduction. Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 2002. ——. The Talmud of Babylonia: Translation and Commentary. 22 vols. Peabody, Mass.: Henrickson Publishers, 2005. Neusner, Jacob, and Bruce D. Chilton, eds. In Search of the Historical Pharisees. Waco, Texas: Baylor University Press, 2007. Noffke, Suzanne, editor and translator. The Letters of [Saint] Catherine of Siena [1347–1380]. 2 vols. Tempe Arizona: Arizona Center for Medieval and Renaissance Studies, 2001. Norgate, Gerald Le Grys. “Sandford, John.” In Dictionary of National Biography, 17:764–765. Edited by Leslie Stephen and Sidney Lee. 21 vols. London: Elder Smith, 1885–1890. Noth, Martin. Leviticus. Translated by J. E. Anderson. Old Testament Library. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1965. O’Connor, Maureen. “Hall, Anna Maria.” In Cambridge Guide to Women’s Writing in English, 300. Edited by Lorna Sage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999.

994

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

Orlinsky, Harry M. Notes On the New Translation of the Torah. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1969. Ortiz de Urbina, I. “Nicaea I, Council of.” New Catholic Encyclopaedia 10:432–434. Osterweis. Rollin. Rebecca Gratz: A Study in Charm. New York: Putnam, 1935. Owens, G. “Athanasian Creed.” New Catholic Encyclopaedia 1:995. Oxford Englih Dictionary. 2d. ed. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1989. Pardes, Ilana. Countertraditions in the Bible: A Feminist Approach. Cambrdige: Harvard University Press, 1992. Pelli, Moshe. The Age of Haskalah: Studies in Hebrew Literature of the Enlightenment in Germany. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1979. Peskowitz, Miriam. Spinning Fantasies: Rabbis, Gender, and History. Berkeley, CA.: University of California Press, 1997. Petau, Denis [also spelled Denys]. Opus de doctrine temporum. 2 vols. Paris, 1627. ——. Rationarium temporum. 2 vols. Paris, 1652. “Petau, Denys.” Encyclopaedia Britannica, 11th ed., 21:285. Philo Judaeus, On the Creation, 69–71. In Philo [in Greek] with an English Translation by F. H. Colson and G. H. Whitaker, 1:54-57. 10 vols. Cambridge: Harvard University Press/ London: William Heinemann, 1929. Philippson, Ludwig. Die Entwickelung der Religiösen Idee im Judenthume, Christenthume und Islam. Leipzig: Baumgärtner, 1847. ——. Die Religion der Gesellschaft. Leipzig: Baumgärtner, 1848. ——. Commentary on the Book of Isaiah. Leipzig: Baumgärtner, 1862. ——. Die Israelitische Religionslehre. Leipzig: Baumgärtner, 1862. ——. Sepphoris and Rome. 1866. ——. Die Rhetorik und jüdische Homiletik. Edited by M. Kayserling. Leipzig: T. Grieben, 1890. ——. The Marranos. 1898. Plaut, W. Gunther. The Rise of Reform Judaism. New York: World Union for Progressive Judaism, 1963. Prato, Jeonathan. “Spain, Modern Period.” Encyclopaedia Judaica 15:244. Rafalovich, Samuel. History of the Jews in Malabar. Emakulam, Kerala, India: 1966. (in Hebrew) Rainey, Anson F. “The Satrapy Beyond the River.” Australian Journal of Biblical Archaeology 1, 2 (1969), 51–78.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

995

Regev, Eyal. “The Sadducees, the Pharisees, and the Sacred: Meaning and Ideology in the Halakhic Controversies between the Sadducees and Pharisees.” Review of Rabbinic Judaism, 9 (2006), 126–140. Remy, Nahida. The Jewish Woman. Translated by Louise Mannheimer. 4th ed. With an introduction by Prof. Dr. [Moritz] Lazarus. New York: Bloch Publishing Co., 1923. Reznikoff, Charles, with the collaboration of Uriah Z. Engelman. The Jews of Charleston. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society of America, 1950. Rogers, Samuel. The Voyage of Columbus. London: T. Caddell & W. Davies, 1810. ——. Jacqueline. London: T. Caddell & W. Davies, 1814. ——. Human Life. London: J. Murray, 1819. ——. Italy. 2 vols. London: Longman & Co., 1822–1828. Rogow, Faith. “Mannheimer, Louise Herschmann.” In European Immigrant Women in the United States: A Biographical Dictionary, 185–186. Edited by Judy Barrett Litoff and Judith McDonnell. New York & London: Garland Publishing, 1994. Rokah, D. “Julian the Apostate.” Encyclopaedia Judaica 10:467–469. Rollin, Charles. Ancient History of the Egyptians, Carthaginians, Assyrians, Babylonians, Medes and Persians, Macedonians, and Grecians. Translated from the French. 6 vols. London: Longman & Co., 1839. Rose, Hebert Jennings. “Gestures.” In The Oxford Classical Dictionary, 465. Edited by N. G. L. Hammond and H. H. Scullard. 2d ed. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1970. Ross, Dorothea M. Childhood Bullying and Teasing: What School Personnel, Other Professionals, and Parents Can Do. Alexandria, VA: American Counseling Association, 1996. Rosser, Sue V. Biology and Feminism: A Dynamic Interaction. The Impact of Feminism on the Arts and Sciences, ed. Claire Sprague. New York: Twayne Publishers, 1992. Roth, Cecil. “Lindo.” Encyclopaedia Judaica 11:259–260. Ruether, Rosemary Radford. New Woman, New Earth: Sexist Ideologies and Human Liberation. New York: Seabury Press, 1975. Safrai, Hannah. “Women in the Ancient Synagogue.” In Daughters of the King: Women and the Synagogue, 39–49. Edited by Susan Grossman and Rivka Haut. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1992.

996

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

Said, Edward W. Orientalism. London: Penguin Books, 1995. Salaman, Nina Davis. Rahel Morpurgo and Contemporary Hebrew Poets in Italy. With a foreword by the chief Rabbi and an afterword by Herbert Loewe. London: G. Allen & Unwin, 1924. Sandford, Elizabeth. Woman in her Social and Domestic Character. London: Longman, Orne, Brown, Green & Longman’s, 1831. ——. Lives of English Female Worthies. London, 1833. ——. On Female Improvement. 2 vols. London: Longman’s, 1836. Saperstein, Marc. “Sermons in Modern Judaism.” In Encyclopaedia of Judaism, 2d ed., 2455–2473. Edited by Jacob Neusner, Alan J. Avery-Peck, and William Scott Green. Leiden: Brill, 2005. Satir, Virginia. The New Peoplemaking. Mountain View, CA.: Science and Behavior Books, 1988. Saur, Maria, Linda Semu, and Stella Hauya Ndau. Nkhanza: Listening to People’s Voices: A Study of Gender-Based Violence. Nkhanza in Three Districts of Malawi. Zomba: Kachere Series, 2005. Scaliger, Joseph Justus. Opus de emendatione temporum 8 vols. Leiden: 1598. Schäfer, Peter. Mirror of His Beauty: Feminine Images of God from the Bible to the Early Kabbalah. Princeton & Oxford: Princeton University Press, 2002. Schechter, Solomon. “The Dogmas of Judaism.” In Solomon Schechter, Studies in Judaism: First Series, 147–181. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society of America, 1917. ——. “Woman in Temple and Synagogue.” In Solomon Schechter, Studies in Judaism: First Series, 313-326. Scherman, Nosson, and Meir Zlotowitz, eds. The Art Scroll Talmud. 73 vols. Brooklyn, New York: Mesorah Publications, 1990– 2005 Schipperges, Heinrich. Hildegard of Bingen: Healing and the Nature of the Cosmos. Translated by John A. Broadwin. Princeton: Markus Wiener, 1997. Schopenhauer, Arthur. The World as Will and Idea, vol. 2. Translated by R. B. Haldane & J. Kemp. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1883. Schorsch, Jonathan. Jews and Blacks in the Early Modern World. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004. Schüssler Fiorenza, Elisabeth. Rhetoric and Ethic: The Politics of Biblical Studies. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1999.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

997

——. Wisdom Ways: Introducing Feminist Biblical Interpretation. Maryknoll, New York: Orbis Books, 2001. Schwarz, Johannes Valentin. “Philippson, Ludwig.” Encyclopaedia Judaica, 2d ed., 16:50. Scott, Joan W. “The Woman Worker.” In A History of Women in the West, IV: Emerging Feminism From Revolution to World War, 399– 426. Edited by Geneviève and Michelle Perrot. Cambridge, Mass. & London: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1993. Scult, Mel. Judaism Faces the Twentieth Century: A Biography of Mordecai M. Kaplan. Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1994. Segal, J. B. A History of the Jews of Cochin. London: Valentine Mitchell, 1993. Sekles, S. The Poetry of the Talmud. New York: Published by the author, 1880. Shakespeare, William. A Midsummer Night’s Dream. ——. Romeo and Juliet. Shalvi, Alice, Ellen Frankel, Judith Hauptman, and Rochelle Udell, “Women Empowering Women: A Panel Discussion.” Women’s League Outlook 69, no. 3 (Spring 1999), 8–13, 29. Sheridan, Sybil, ed. Hear our Voice: Women in the British Rabbinate. Columbia, S.C.: University of South Carolina Press, 1998. Sheets, Robin. “Felicia Dorothea Browne Hemans.” In Women Writers of Great Britain and Europe: An Encyclopedia, 198–199. Edited by Katharina M. Wilson, Paul Schlueter, and June Schlueter. New York & London: Garland Publishing, 1997. Sherwin, Byron L. Sparks Amidst the Ashes: The Spiritual Legacy of Polish Jewry. New York & Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997. Shires, Henry H., and Pierson Parker. “The Book of Deuteronomy—Exposition.” In The Interpreter’s Bible, 3:311–537. 12 vols. New York & Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1953. Shoshan, Orly. “The Philosophical Exegesis of R. Eleazar b. Mattitya on Ibn Ezra’s Commentary on the Torah.” Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Beersheva, 2009. Shulvass, Moses. Between the Rhine and the Bosporus. Chicago: College of Jewish Studies Press, 1964. ——. Jewish Culture in Eastern Europe. New York: Ktav, 1975.

998

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

Simons, Walter. Cities of Ladies: Beguine Communities in the Medieval Low Countries 1200–1565. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2001. Sinclair, John D. Commentary on Dante Alighieri, The Divine Comedy. 2d ed. London: John Lane: 1948. Singer, Isidore. “Philippson, Ludwig.” Jewish Encyclopedia 9:684. Singer, Isidore, and David Leimdörfer. “Gotthold, Salomon.” Jewish Encyclopedia 6:652-653. Skehan, Patrick W. The Wisdom of Ben-Sira: A New Translation with Notes. Introduction and commentary by Alexander A. di Lella, Anchor Bible, vol. 39. New York: Doubleday, 1987. Skinner, John. Genesis. International Critical Commentary. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1930. Slouschz, Nahum. The Renascence of Hebrew Literature (1743–1885). Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society of America, 1909. Smith, George Barnett. “Baillie, Joanna.” Dictionary of National Biography, 1:886–889. Southey, Caroline Anne Bowles. The Widow’s Tale and Other Poems. London: Longman, Hurst & Co., 1822. ——. Solitary Hours. London, 1826. ——. Chapters on Churchyards. 2 vols. Edinburgh: Blackwood/London: T. Cadell, 1829. ——. Tales of the Factories and Other Poems. Edinburgh, 1833. Speiser, Ephraim A. Genesis. Anchor Bible, vol. 1. Garden City, New York: Doubleday, 1964. Spiegel, Shalom. Hebrew Reborn. New York: Macmillan, 1930. ——. The Last Trial. Translated and with an Introduction by Judah Goldin. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society of America, 1967. Spinoza, Benedict. Theological Political Treatise. Edited by Jonathan Israel. Translated by Michael Silverthorne and Jonathan Israel. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007. Stackhouse, Thomas. A New History of the Holy Bible from the Beginning of the World to the Establishment of Chirstianity. 2 vols. London, 1737. Stanton, Elizabeth Cady. The Woman’s Bible. 2 vols. New York: European Publishing Co., 1895–1898. Stein, David E. S. “The Grammar of Social Gender in Biblical Hebrew.” Hebrew Studies 49 (2009), 7–26.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

999

——. “The Noun ish: A Term of Affiliation.” Journal of Hebrew Scripture 8 (2009). ——. “Response to Book Review in Volume 18 (Athalya Brenner on David E. S. Stein [ed.], The Contemporary Torah).” Mo‛ed 19 (2009), 33-38. Stein, David E. S., ed. The Contemporary Torah: A Gender-Sensitive Adaptation of the JPS Translation. Consulting Editors: Adele Berlin, Ellen Frankel, and Carol L. Meyers. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 2006. Steinsaltz, Adin. The Talmud: Steinsaltz Edition. New York: Random House, 1989. Stone, Harry. “Dickens and the Jews.” Victorian Studies 11 (March 1969), 223–253. Surtz, Ronald E. Writing Women in Late Medieval and Early Modern Spain. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1995. Sussman, Ya‘akov. “The History of the Halakha and the Dead Sea Scrolls.” In Elisha Qimron and John Strugnell. Qumran Cave 4 V: Miqsat Ma‘ase Ha-Torah, 179–200. Discoveries in the Judaean Desert, vol. 10. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1994. Sutton, Charles William. “Hemans, Felicia Dorothea.” Dictionary of National Biography, 9:382–383. Edited by Sir Leslie Stephen and Sir Sidney Lee. London: Oxford University Press, 1921. Tabory, Joseph. “The Benedictions of Self-Identity and the Changing Status of Women and of Orthodoxy.” Kenishta 1 (2001), 107–138. Tacitus, Publius Cornelius. Histories. In Tacitus in Five Volumes with an English translation by Maurice Hutton et al. London: William Heinemann/ Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1931. Tavris, Carol. The Mismeasure of Women. New York: Simon & Schuster, 1992. Tanakh: The Holy Scriptures: The New JPS Translation According to the Traditional Hebrew Text. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1985. Tannen, Deborah. That’s Not What I Meant. New York: Ballantine Books, 1986. ——. You Just Don’t Understand: Women and Men in Conversation. New York: Ballantine Books, 1991. Tedder, Henry Richard. “Bagster, Samuel, the Younger.” Dictionary of National Biography 1:876–877.

1000

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

——. “Bagster, Samuel, the Elder.” Dictionary of National Biography 1:877–878. Thatcher, G. W. Judges and Ruth. Century Bible. London: Caxton Publishing Co., 1904. Theodores, Tobias. “Morality of the Talmud.” Hebrew Review and Magazine of Rabbinical Literature 1 (Tishri–Adar 5595/October, 1834 – March, 1835), 13–14; 28–30; 40–41; 59–62. ——. “On the Administration of Justice in the Hebrew Commonwealth.” Hebrew Review and Magazine of Rabbinical Literature 3 (1836), 7–26. Tigay, Jeffrey H. Deuteronomy. JPS Torah Commentary. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1996. Toulmine, Camilla. “Memorial Tribute to Grace Aguilar.” La Belle Assemblée, November 1, 1847. Trible, Phyllis. “Depatriarchalizing in Biblical Interpretation.” Journal of the American Academy of Religion 41 (1973), 30-48. ——. God and the Rhetoric of Sexuality. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1978. ——. “Bringing Miriam out of the Shadows.” Bible Review 5 (1989), 14-34. Twycross-Martin, H. S. “Lewis, Sarah.” Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, 33:649-650. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004. Ulmer, Rivka. “The Boundaries of the Rabbinic Genre Midrash.” Colloquium: The Australian and New Zealand Theological Review 38, 1 (2006) 59-73. Urbach, E. E. “When did Prophecy Cease?” In Urbach, E. E. From the World of the Sages, 9–20. Jerusalem: Magnes, 1988. Van der Toorn, Karel. “The Nature of the Biblical Teraphim in Light of the Cuneiform Evidence.” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 52 (1990), 203–222. Vermes, Geza. Scripture and Tradition in Judaism: Haggadic Studies. 2d ed. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1973. Voice of Jacob. Periodical. Edited by Jacob A. Franklin. London: B. Steill, 1841–1847. Voltaire. Fanaticism, or Mahomet the Prophet. A Play. 1736. Vorwhal, Heinrich. Die Gebärdensprache im Alten Testament. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Berlin, 1932; Berlin: Emil Ebering, 1932. Walerstein, Marcia Shoshana. Public Rituals Among the Cochin Jews in Israel. Los Angeles: UCLA Press, 1987.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

1001

Wassén, Cecilia. “Sadducees and Halakah.” In Law in Religious Communities in the Roman Period, 127–146. Edited by Peter Richardson et al. Waterloo, Ontario: Wilfred Laurier University Press, 1991. Weiss, Isaac Hirsch. Dor Dor Vedorshayw. 5 vols. New York & Berlin: Platt & Minkus, 1924. (in Hebrew) Wellhausen, Julius. Prolegomena to the History of Ancient Israel. Translated by J. Sutherland Black and Allan Menzies. Edinburgh: Adam and Charles Black, 1883. Whiston, William, trans. The Works of Josephus. Written by Himself, Translated from the Original Greek, According to Havercam’s Accurate Edition together with Explanatory Notes and Observations. 2 vols. Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott & Co., 1856. ——. The Works of Josephus. Complete and Unabridged. New Updated Edition. Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson Publishers, 1987. White, William Charles. Chinese Jews. 2d ed., with an introduction by Cecil Roth. New York: Paragon Book Reprint Co., 1966. Wiesner, Mary E. Working Women in Renaissance Germany. New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers University Press, 1986. Wiggins, Steve A. A Reassessment of “Asherah”: A Study According to the Textual Sources of the First Two Millennia B.C.E. AOAT 235. Kevelaer: Butzon & Bercker/Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1993. ——. “Asherah Again: Binger’s Asherah and the State of Asherah Studies.” Journal of Northwest Semitic Languages 24 (1998), 231– 240. Williams, Bill. The Making of Manchester Jewry 1740–1875. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1976. Wilson, John. The Isle of Palms and Other Poems. London: Longman, Hurst, Rees, Orne and Brown, 1812. ——. City of the Plague. A Dramatic Piece in Three Acts, and in Verse, with Other Poems. Edinburgh, 1816. ——. The Trials of Margaret Lyndsay. London, 1823. ——. The Foresters. Edinburgh: W. Blackwood/ London, T. Cadell, 1825. Winston, David. The Wisdom of Solomon: a New Translation, Anchor Bible, vol. 43. Garden City, New York: Doubleday & Co., 1979. Wolf, Naomi. “The Beauty Myth.” In Women: Images and Realities, 122-123. Edited by Amy Kesselman, Lily D. McNair, and

1002

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

Nancy Schniedewind. 4th ed. Boston: McGraw Hill Higher Education, 2008. Wollstonecraft, Mary. A Vindication of the Rights of Woman with Strictures on Political and Moral Subjects. 2d ed. London: J. Johnson, 1792; reprint, London: Gregg International Publishers, 1970. Wordsworth, William. Poetical Works. With Introduction and Notes. Edited by Thomas Hutchinson. Revised by Ernest de Selincourt. London: Oxford University Press, 1936. Xu Xin. “China, Practice of Judaism in.” In Encyclopaedia of Judaism, 2d ed., 348–355. Edited by Jacob Neusner, Alan J. AveryPeck, and William Scott Green. 3 vols. Leiden: Brill, 2005. Ydit. Meir. “Badhan.” Encyclopaedia Judaica 4:73-75. Yona, Shamir. “Shared Stylistic Patterns in the Aramaic Proverbs of Ahiqar and Hebrew Wisdom.” Ancient Near Eastern Studies 44 (2007), 29-49. Yona, Shamir, and Mayer I. Gruber. “Once Again Masoret in Ezekiel and in Rabbinic Literature: A Rejoinder to Professor Basser.” Review of Rabbinic Judaism 11 (2008), 534–541. Zakovitch., Yair. “Assimilation in Biblical Narrative.” In Empirical Models for Biblical Criticism, 175–196. Edited by Jeffrey H. Tigay. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, Press, 1985. Zivan, Gilah. “The Blessings of ‘Who did not make me a woman’ and ‘Who made me according to His will.’” In Jewish Legal Writings by Women, 5–28. Edited by Micah D. Halpern and Chana Safrai. Jerusalem: Urim Publications, 1998. (in Hebrew) Zola, Gary P., ed. Women Rabbis: Exploration and Celebration: Honoring Twenty Years of Women in the Rabbinate 1972–1992. Cincinnati: HUC-JIR Rabbinic Alumni Association Press, 1996. Zula, Kamanga. Stop Gender-Based Violence. Zomba, Malawi: Kachere Series, 2008. Zunz, Leopold. Die Gottesdienstlichen Vorträge der Juden historisch entwickelt. Berlin: A. Asher, 1832.

GENERAL INDEX 192, 203, 259, 262, 268, 269, 270, 272, 288, 293, 300, 312, 321, 323, 331, 341, 356, 358, 360, 362, 424, 433, 451, 496, 504, 505, 507, 508, 510, 512, 521, 546, 576, 598, 631, 632, 646, 677, 700, 712, 796, 820, 839, 851, 866, 867, 870, 873, 877, 883, 885, 886, 887, 888, 889, 895, 939 Baer, Y., 900 Bar-Ilan, M., 877 Barnett, R., 479 Baskin, J., 852, 882 Bass, S., 33, 140, 156, 403, 421 Beinart, H., 479, 931 Ben-Barak, Z., 167 Benisch, A., 57 Bernstein, M. J., xliii Berquist, J., 570 Beruria, xxxii, 203, 512, 881, 883, 884, 885 Bhopal, 391, 722, 833 Bickerman, E., 618, 622 Birley, A., 850 Blackburn, R., 338 Blank, S., 628 Blau, J., 891, 892 Bleier, R., 261 Blidstein, G., 879 Boatwright, M., 850

Abital, 480 Abi, 271 Abraham Ibn Ezra, 421 Abrahams, I., xxxii, 357 Ackerman, S., 442 Adams, H., xlv, xlviii, 891, 892 Adler, C., 692 Adler, N., 356 Afary, J., 853 Aguilar, E., 83 Aguilar, S., xxiii, xliii Ahinoam the Jezreelitess, 480 Aimé Martin, L., 7 Alexander, E. S., 312 Alexander. T., 877 Alter, R., 205, 934 Appian, 375 Aran, B., 91, 156, 172, 193, 206 ArtScroll Talmud, 888 Ashtor, E., 900 Astruc, J., 44 Athaliah, 180, 271, 584, 585 Athanasius, 923 Austen, J., 943 Avioz, M., xliv Avi-Yonah, M., 851 Azubah, 271 Babylonian Talmud, xxvii, xxxii, 10, 35, 38, 53, 56, 58, 67, 87, 96, 99, 121, 136, 138, 141, 145, 149, 156, 166, 170, 185,

1003

1004

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

Bowles, C., 251, 478, 905, 942 Boyarin, D., 34, 76, 702, 873, 881 Brauner, S., 881 Brenner, A., 116, 225 Brichto, H. C., 259, 260, 298, 505, 506 Briggs, R., 881 Bright, J., 468 Bristow, A., 912 Buruma, I., 80 Bwemba, G., 202 Cairo Damascus Covenant Document, 282, 480 Campbell, G., 945 Cartledge, P., 740 Cassuto, U., 26, 137 Channing, W., 837 Chertok, S., xxv, xxxviii, 49, 919 Chilton, B., 677 Chipman, Y., 511 Christensen, D., 288 Christopher, K., 202 Cohen, G. D., 712 Cohen, I., 917 Cohen, S., 546 Coleridge, S., 884 common plural, 270 confirmation, 934 Cook, D., 704 Corcos, D., 932 Cross, F. M., 361 Da‛at Zekenimn, 343 Damascus Blood Libel, 916 Danby, H., 875 Dandamayev, M., 338 Darwin, C., 261 daughters of Zelophehad, 315 de Beauvoir, S., 152

De Sola, D.A., xxxi, xxxiii, 8, 68, 73, 81, 82, 83, 84, 89, 90, 95, 96, 99, 100, 108, 112, 113, 135, 166, 183, 186, 191, 220, 279, 357, 448, 473, 474, 475, 478, 593, 889, 933, 939 de Urbina, I.O., 923 Decalogue, 266, 267, 268, 282, 329, 341. 404, 405. 507, 543, 878 Deines, R., 677 Delgado, I., xxxi, 82 Delitzsch, F., 877 Deuteronomy, 265 Deuteronomy Rabbah, 66, 957 Dever, W., 383 Dickens, C., 904 Disraeli, B., 104, 801, 903 Dockès, P., 338 Driver, G. R., 330 Edgeworth, M., 903, 943 Eglah, 480 Eilberg, A., 511 Eisenstein, J., 250 Elbogen, I., 12 Ellis, S., 4, 5 Emanuel I of Portugal, 931 Epstein, I., 156, 888 Exodus Rabbah, 245 Exum, J. C., xlix Faur, J., 901 Feldman, D., 355 Feldman, E., 877 Feldman, L., xliii, xliv Filson, F., 596 Finkelstein, L., 677 Finley, M., 338 Fischel, H., 11 Fishbane, S., 881 Flanagan, S., 872

GENERAL INDEX Flesher, P., 338 Forti, T., 475 Fourth Maccabees, 727 Franco, M., 479 Frank, R., 882 Frankenstein, C., 80 Freedman, D. N., 361 Friedman, S., 508 Frymer-Kensky,T., xix, 100, 225, 226, 260, 527, 879 Fuchs, E., 100, 236, 383, 387, 442, 530 Galchinsky, M., xxiii, xxiv, xxx, xxxii, xxxiv, xxxviii, xxxix, xliii, 4, 42, 57, 62, 160, 182, 236, 306, 457, 660, 889, 904, 912, 920, 921, 935 Genesis Rabbah, 27, 51, 68, 69, 70, 72, 82, 128, 156, 167, 360, 406, 500, 870 Gibbon, E., xlv, 836 Gilman, C., 74 Ginsberg, H. L., 395, 956 Ginzberg, L., xli, 68, 69, 166 Glazov, G., 628 Gleig, G., 591 Goldberg, A. M, 898, 956 Goldberg, P. S., 738 Goldfield, A., 881 Goldsmith, O., 824 Golinkin, D., 312, 877 Goodblatt, D., 881 Goodman-Tau, E., 511 Gotthold, S., 917 Graetz, H., 916 Gratz, R., 42, 890, 902 Gray, J., 164 Green, A., 898 Greenfield, J., 599 Greenfield, W., 592

1005

Gross, A., 702 Grossman, A., 882, 930 Gruber, M., xxvi, xxxix, xl, 5, 13, 25, 53, 82, 92, 114, 116, 154, 157, 161, 199, 226, 281, 283, 284, 314, 318, 340, 346, 440, 441, 470, 495, 504, 510, 527, 532, 539, 540, 609, 628, 646, 651, 659, 678, 711, 803, 804, 815, 816, 825, 826, 873, 879, 881, 883, 939 Hadrian, 850 Haggith, 480 Halbertal, M., 248 Hall, A., 902, 941 Hamilton, E., 4, 5, 6, 7, 919 Hammurapi, 330 Hamutal, 271 Hannah, 283, 433-461 Harby, I., 927 Harris, D., 87 Hauptman, J., 201, 272, 508 help meet, 26, 124, 536 Hemans, F., 444 Hephzibah, 271 Herr, M., 200 Hertz, J. H., xxxi, 82, 889 Heschel, A. J., xxvi, 157, 546, 898 Heschel, S., 9 Heszer, C., 272 Hildegard of Bingen, 872 Hirsch, S. R., xxv, xxx, xxxviii, 49, 908, 915, 918, 919 Homer, Odyssey, 246 Hossein, R., 28, 74, 391 Houtman, A., 508 Howitt, M., 942 Howitt, W., 943 Hurwitz, H., xxix, 886, 887

1006

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

Ilan, T., 889 Israeli, R., 704 Israelite maidservant, 570 Jacobs, J., 83, 917 Jahn, J., xlv, 684, 830 Japhet, S., 651 Jecholiah, 271 Jehoaddan, 271 Jerusalem Talmud, 10, 153, 163, 200, 270, 272, 358, 592, 870 Jerusha, 271 Johnson. S., 705 Jonas, R., 511 Josephus, xiii, xliii, xliv, xlv, xlviii, 245, 263, 363, 433, 590, 592, 596, 597, 603, 608, 612, 630, 641, 652, 660, 670, 671, 673, 677, 678, 682, 684, 685, 687, 688, 689, 691, 692, 693, 694, 695, 696, 699, 707, 712, 719, 720, 722, 723, 724, 725, 726, 727, 728, 729, 731, 732, 733, 734, 735, 736, 737, 738, 744, 745, 754, 756, 757, 758, 763, 764, 765, 766, 767, 770, 771, 774, 775, 777, 779, 784, 785, 786, 787, 789, 790, 791, 792, 793, 794, 801, 802, 803, 804, 805, 806, 807, 808, 810, 811, 812, 813, 814, 815, 816, 817, 818, 819, 821, 822, 823, 825, 826, 827, 828, 829, 830, 831, 833, 835, 845, 865, 876, 929 Julian the Apostate, 892 Kadushin, M., 898 Kaplan, L. J., 908 Kaplan, M., 250, 932 Kaplan, Y., 356 Karlson, C., 881

Kaufman, S., 877 Kaufmann, Y., 400, 546, 636 Khan, S., 391 Klapheck, E., 511 Klein, B. D., 288 Klein, L. R., 384, 437, 471, 472 Knafo, M., 932 Kohler, K., 934 Komlosh, Y., 898 Kramer, R., 852 Krauss, S., 851 Landsberg, M., 934 Langton, D., 356, 897, 933 Leeser, I., xxiv, xxxii, 26, 42, 57, 62, 149, 405, 449, 889, 890, 920, 921 Leibowitz, N., 262, 263 Leimdörfer, D., 917 Levi, D., xxx, xxxi, 82 Levin, Y., xxvii Levinsohn, I., 916 Lewis, G., 872 Lewis, S., 7, 8, 867 Lindo, E. H., 46, 590, 591 Litvin, B., 852 Lutz, A., xlix Lysimachus, 596, 617, 618, 621, 641 Maacah, 480 Maachah, 271 Mackie, G. M., 296, 627 Maimonides, xlvi, 8, 9, 67, 78, 83, 185, 211, 331, 425, 455, 461, 504, 546, 547, 646, 703, 725, 859, 869, 873, 899, 900, 901, 939, 940 Manasseh Ben Israel, 4, 591, 9026 Mannheimer, L., 882 Mannheimer, S., 692

GENERAL INDEX McCaul, A., 837 Mekilta deRabbi Ishmael, 267, 272, 358 Melammed, R., 882 Menashri, D., 853 Mendelsohn, M., 908 Mendelsohn, O., 854 Merab, 481, 482, 491 Meshullemeth, 271 Metzger, T., 879 Meyers, C. xlii, 362, 470, 877, 879 Mezuzzot, 310 Midrash Aggadah, 91 Midrash Tanhuma, 72, 217 Midrash Tehillim, 883 Miles, J. C., 330 Milman, H. H., xlv, xlviii, 84, 590, 591, 633, 667, 674, 675, 693, 729, 780, 793, 794, 806, 813, 825, 845, 891, 892, 899, 900 Minault, G., 7, 28, 50, 391, 520 Miriam, 355-371, 470, 471, 521, 874 Mishnah, xxvii, xxxiii, xl, 32, 38, 83, 102, 145, 156, 162, 167, 178, 194, 200, 229, 231, 253, 283, 288, 300, 338, 357, 358, 369, 392, 396, 410, 426, 434, 461, 475, 499, 504, 505, 506, 507, 508, 509, 510, 576, 618, 621, 634, 677, 678, 803, 816, 817, 851, 852, 858, 866, 867, 869, 870, 873, 875, 878, 884, 886, 887, 888, 889, 895, 924, 937, 947 Mogadore, 931 Moïse, P., 860, 890, 916, 926 Mondshein, A., 205

1007

Monroe, J., 927 Montefiore, M., 916 Montgomery, J., 944 Montgomery, R., 302 Moore, G. F., 115, 400, 520, 677, 920 Morpurgo, R., xxxiii, 393, 956 Myers, A., 897 Naamah, 271 Naaman’s wife, 570 Nadell, S., 11, 882 Nahmanides, 92, 156, 193, 206, 599, 600, 798 Nehushta, 271 Ner-David, H., 511 Neusner, J., xl, 34, 260, 358, 449, 508, 659, 677, 873, 875, 888, 889 Nicholas I of Russia, 692, 931 Noah, M. M., 927 Noffke, S., 872 Noth, M., 349 Numbers Rabbah, 363, 897 Obadiah of Bertinora, 895 Osterweis, G., 902 our ancient fathers, 68, 69, 70, 99, 113, 237, 360, 621, 705, 711, 862, 868, 880, 888, 930, 933. 939, 954, 957 Owens, G., 923 Pardes, I., xlix Parker, P., 288 Passover Haggadah, 207, 272, 710 patriarch, 851 Pelli, M., 934 Pesikta deRav Kahana, 39, 40 Peskowitz, M., 878 Philippson, L., 183, 918 Philo Judaeus, 25, 30

1008

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

Pirke deRabbi Eliezer, 138, 139 Plato, 11, 12, 901 Plaut, W. G., 934 Priesand, S., 511 Quran, 60 Rafalovich, S., 853 Rainey, A., 611 Raphall, M. J., xxxiii, 8, 82, 83, 183, 357, 738, 739, 869, 874, 875, 939, 940 Rashi, xxix, xxxix, xl, xlvi, 27, 33, 39, 49, 51, 53, 58, 67, 71, 72, 81, 82, 91, 99, 101, 110, 114, 131, 132, 135, 136, 139, 140, 156, 160, 163, 167, 193, 200, 205, 288, 321, 322, 335, 341, 343, 362, 366, 376, 401, 403, 405, 406, 421, 448, 480, 500, 504, 505, 539, 540, 609, 617, 631, 640, 646, 817, 873, 881, 883, 933, 939, 952 Regev, E., 678 Remy, N., 882 Reznikoff, C., 356 Rizpah, 480, 537 Rogers, S., 945 Rokah, D., 892 Rollin, C., 707, 708, 712, 902 Rose, H., 628 Ross, D. M., 498 Rosser, S., 27, 235, 471 Rothschild, L., 159, 249, 903, 926 Ruether, R., xlvii Safrai, H., 852 Said, E., 80, 129, 332, 333, 520, 703, 871 Salaman, N., 393 Samely, A., xl Sandford, E., 4, 8, 277, 887

Saperstein, M., 919 Sasso, S., 511 Satir, V., 437 Saur, M., 497 Scaliger, J., 592 Schechter, S., 32, 506, 599, 882 Schipperges, H., 872 Schopenhauer, A., 11 Schorsch, J., 338 Schüssler Fiorenza, E., xl, 203 Schwab, W., 479 Schwarz, J. V., 918 Scott, J., xlvii Scott, W., 902, 945 Scult, M., 250 Seder Olam, 138, 547, 591 Segal, J. B., 853 Sekles, S., 877 Shakespeare, W., 246, 482, 903 Shemaiah, 546 Sheridan, S., 511 Sherwin, B., 910 Shires, H., 288 Shoshan, O., 205, 547, 582 Shulhan Aruk, 186, 221, 272, 425 Shulvass, M., 911 Shunammite, 527, 535, 549-567, 642, 946 Sifra, 283, 385, 888, 924, 939 Sifre, 358, 888 Sifre Deuteronomy, 725, 888 Sifre Numbers, 366, 368, 401, 888 Simons, W., 872 Singer, I., 917, 918 Sirach, 598 Skinner, J., 101 Slouschz, N., 934 Solomon, M., 917

GENERAL INDEX Speiser, S., 205 Spiegel, S., 120, 935 Spinoza, B., 865 Stanton. E. C., xxxiv, xlix, 75, 271, 332, 366, 535, 576 Stein, D., xxi, xl, xli, xlii, 314, 346 Summers, L. H., 268 Surtz, R., 872 Sussmann, Y., 678 Tabory, J., 12 Tacitus, 824 Tannen, D., 164 Targum Jonathan, 576, 577 Targum Onkelos, 56, 114 Tavris, C., 261 Tephilim, 310 Thales, 12 Thatcher, G. W., 447 Theodores, T., xii, xiv, xxxii, xxxiii, 9, 83, 356, 519, 738, 739, 839, 863, 869, 874, 875, 876, 929, 939, 940 Theodosius, 851 Tosefta, 10, 12, 153, 270, 358, 392, 508, 873, 888, 889 Toulmine, C., 477, 905 Trible, P., xlix, 76, 216, 362, 535, 879 ukase, 916 Ulmer, R., xl Urbach, E. E., 547

1009

van der Toorn, K., 205 Vermes, G., xliii Vorwahl, H., 628 Walerstein, M., 853 Washington, G., 927 Wassén, C., 678 Weiss, I. H., 12, 510 Wellhausen, J., 447, 510, 667 Whiston, W., xiii, xliii, 263, 630, 803, 819, 826 White, W., 853 Wiesner, M., 63 Wiggins, S., 382 Williams, B., 739, 876 Wilson, J., 944 Wisdom of Solomon, 598, 600 Wolf, N., xlvii Wollstonecraft, M., xlix, 27, 62, 235, 385, 472, 584, 903 Wordsworth, W., 937, 944 Xu Xin, 853 Yalkut Shimoni, 884 Ydit, M., 877 Yona, S., 510, 533, 678, 866 Zakovitch, Y., 226 Zebudah, 271 Zeruah, 271 Zibiah, 271 Zinberg, I., 900 Zivan, G., 9 Zola, G., 511 Zunz, L., 166, 599

INDEX OF BIBLICAL REFERENCES

(ORDER OF THE BOOKS AND THE CHAPTER AND VERSE DIVISIONS REFLECT THE KING JAMES VERSION UTILIZED BY GRACE AGUILAR)

Gen. 12:11-20, 109 Gen. 12:16, 866 Gen. 12:19, 73 Gen. 13:3, 73 Gen. 13:4, 73 Gen. 13:5-12, 73 Gen. 13:14-17, 74 Gen. 13:14, 109 Gen. 13:18, 74 Gen. 14:1-3, 73 Gen. 14:12-16, 73 Gen. 14:14, 74 Gen. 14:18-20, 73 Gen. 14:22-23, 214 Gen. 14:23, 638 Gen. 15:1, 77, 81 Gen. 15:2-3, 77 Gen. 15:3, 77 Gen. 15:5, 78 Gen. 15:6, 78 Gen. 15:16, 381 Gen. 16, 80, 332 Gen. 16:3, 80 Gen. 16:4, 85 Gen. 16:6, 88 Gen. 16:7, 95 Gen. 16:8, 89, 90 Gen. 16:11, 91

HEBREW SCRIPTURE Gen. 1:26-27, 25, 29, 99, 282, 936 Gen. 1:28, 52 Gen. 1-2, 282 Gen. 2:20, 536 Gen. 2:21, 135 Gen. 2:21-24, 282 Gen. 2:24, 135, 195, 509 Gen. 3:16, 277 Gen. 4:4, 403 Gen. 4:13, 55 Gen. 4:25, 59 Gen. 5:4, 52, 60 Gen. 5:21-24, 59 Gen. 6, 6, 45 Gen. 8, 45 Gen. 6:5-9:29, 59 Gen. 9:25, 333 Gen. 11:26-25:10, 60 Gen. 11:29, 67 Gen. 11:31, 68, 69 Gen. 11:32, 69 Gen. 12:1, 128 Gen. 12:3, 183 Gen. 12:5, 70, 71, 102 Gen. 12:7, 71 Gen. 12:10-13, 71

1011

1012 Gen. 16:15, 101 Gen. 16:21, 485 Gen. 17:1, 98 Gen. 17:1-14, 98 Gen. 17:5, 98 Gen. 17:6, 190 Gen. 17:12-13, 336 Gen. 17:12-27, 78 Gen. 17:15, 98 Gen. 17:16, 99 Gen. 17:17, 77 Gen. 17:18, 100 Gen. 17:20, 100 Gen. 17:24-26, 98 Gen. 18:1-16, 103 Gen. 18:1-22:24, 885 Gen. 18:9, 106, 107 Gen. 18:9-10, 562 Gen. 18:11, 77, 108 Gen. 18:13-14, 108 Gen. 18:15, 108 Gen. 20:2, 109 Gen. 20:3-7, 111 Gen. 20:7, 156 Gen. 20:12, 67 Gen. 20:16, 112 Gen. 21, 332 Gen. 21:1-2, 112 Gen. 21:7, 113 Gen. 21:8, 343 Gen. 21:9-19, 115 Gen. 21:10, 115 Gen. 21:12, 116, 183 Gen. 21:16-18, 119 Gen. 21:18, 161 Gen. 21:22-34, 112 Gen. 21:30, 112 Gen. 22:17-18, 951 Gen. 23, 123 Gen. 23:6, 124

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL Gen. 23:20-22, 127 Gen. 23-24, 104 Gen. 24, 131 Gen. 24:10-20, 130 Gen. 24:12-14, 189 Gen. 24:14-19, 244 Gen. 24:16-20, 130 Gen. 24:21, 131 Gen. 24:28, 131 Gen. 24:31, 132 Gen. 24:31-34, 133 Gen. 24:48-51, 134 Gen. 24:49, 142 Gen. 24:50, 128, 132, 179 Gen. 24:54, 134 Gen. 24:55-58, 135 Gen. 24:57-58, 135, 179 Gen. 24:60, 136 Gen. 24:61, 151 Gen. 24:62-64, 137 Gen. 24:65, 67, 138 Gen. 24:67, 123 Gen. 25:6, 150 Gen. 25:12-18, 119 Gen. 25:21, 151 Gen. 25:22, 152, 156, 168, 201 Gen. 25:23, 158, 161, 162, 182 Gen. 25:27, 162, 163, 165 Gen. 25:28, 163 Gen. 25:29-34, 166 Gen. 25:31-33, 167 Gen. 25:32, 167 Gen. 26:1-16, 166 Gen. 26:3-24, 161 Gen. 26:12, 166 Gen. 26:34-35, 165 Gen. 27, 169, 173 Gen. 27:1-5, 166 Gen. 27:44, 176, 177 Gen. 28:2, 175

INDEX OF BIBLICAL REFERENCES Gen. 28:5, 175 Gen. 28:11, 190 Gen. 28:11-17, 190 Gen. 28:12, 192 Gen. 28:20-21, 190 Gen. 29, 128 Gen. 29:1-12, 189 Gen. 29:11, 13-14, 191 Gen. 29:14-15, 18, 193 Gen. 29:15, 193, 214 Gen. 29:16-17, 192 Gen. 29:17, 193, 206 Gen. 29:18-20, 194 Gen. 29:20, 194 Gen. 29:27-28, 200 Gen. 29:31, 201, 204 Gen. 29:31-32, 201 Gen. 29:34-35, 207 Gen. 30, 485 Gen. 30:1, 208 Gen. 30:1-2, 208 Gen. 30:4-11, 223 Gen. 30:6-20, 210 Gen. 30:25-43, 213 Gen. 30:27, 128 Gen. 31:1, 71 Gen. 31:1-43, 215 Gen. 31:19, 128, 205 Gen. 31:22-29, 219 Gen. 31:28, 224 Gen. 31:29, 219 Gen. 31:30, 128, 201, 205 Gen. 31:31-32, 128, 222 Gen. 31:40, 194 Gen. 31:43, 224 Gen. 32:3-23, 224-225 Gen. 33:1-15, 225 Gen. 33:18-20, 225 Gen. 34, 225 Gen. 34:30, 226

1013

Gen. 35, 226 Gen. 35:1, 225 Gen. 35:2, 223, 226 Gen. 35:8, 246 Gen. 35:11, 190 Gen. 37:27, 211 Gen. 42:38, 230 Gen. 45:5, 211 212, 616 Gen. 45:5-8, 212 Gen. 48:7, 198 Gen. 49:29-31, 177 Gen. 49:3, 168 Gen. 49:31, 127, 230 Gen. 50:5, xxxix Ex. 1: 7, 238 Ex. 1:11-12, 97 Ex. 1:15, 67 Ex. 1:18-21, 240 Ex. 2:1-8, 361 Ex. 2:2-3, 241 Ex. 2:3, 242 Ex. 2:4, 243 Ex. 2:5, 152 Ex. 2:5-6, 244 Ex. 2:6, 252 Ex. 2:9, 453 Ex. 2:10, 246 Ex. 2:10-14, 246 Ex. 2:15-3:1, 247 Ex. 2:24, 240 Ex. 3:5, 259 Ex. 3:6, 247 Ex. 3:19-20, 240 Ex. 3:22, 262, 263, 452 Ex. 3:23-25, 238 Ex. 4:22, 125, 186, 239, 457, 519, 536, 571, 573, 584, 906, 941, 950 Ex. 7:7, 241 Ex. 9:3, 412

1014

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

Ex. 11:2, 145, 262, 263, 452 Ex. 11:2-3, 263 Ex. 12:35, 145, 262, 452 Ex. 12:35-36, 263 Ex. 12:38, 375, 401 Ex. 12:48, 147 Ex. 14:21-28, 264 Ex. 15:20, 76, 156 Ex. 15:20-21, 265, 361, 471 Ex. 15:21, 361 Ex. 17:3, 375 Ex. 17:8-16, 608 Ex. 18:21-25, 256 Ex. 19:6, 847 Ex. 19:21-26, 540 Ex. 19-23, 29, 265 Ex. 20:3-6, 266, 878 Ex. 20:5, 229, 609 Ex. 20:8-11, 266, 329 Ex. 20:10, 282, 329, 330 Ex. 20:12, 266, 317, 322, 341, 507, 543 Ex. 20:17, 284, 329 Ex. 21, 327, 331 Ex. 21:4-6, 81 Ex. 21:7, 331, 333 Ex. 21:7-11, 335 Ex. 21:7-9, 334 Ex. 21:8, 870 Ex. 21:10, 281, 334, 435 Ex. 21:20, 330 Ex. 21:20-21, 333, 334 Ex. 21:26-27, 330, 333, 337 Ex. 21:32, 330 Ex. 22:2, 333 Ex. 22:14, 262 Ex. 22:21, 425 Ex. 22:22, 528, 868 Ex. 22:22-24, 305, 869 Ex. 23:7, 163

Ex. 23:9, 148, 425 Ex. 23:12, 329 Ex. 23:12-19, 282 Ex. 23:17, 345 Ex. 23:24, 609 Ex. 25:18-20, 878 Ex. 28:38, 110 Ex. 32, 254 Ex. 32:6, 114 Ex. 32:14, 56 Ex. 33:20, 401, 405 Ex. 34:6, 126 Ex. 34:6-7, 17, 56, 213 Ex. 34:7, 56, 185 Ex. 34:14, 229, 609 Ex. 34:21-26, 282 Ex. 34:23, 345 Ex. 35, 373 Ex. 35:22, 373, 893 Ex. 35:25-26, 878 Ex. 35:30-33, 878 Ex. 35:33, 257 Ex. 36, 374 Ex. 36:5-7, 893 Ex. 37:7-9, 878 Lev. 7:15-21, 283 Lev. 8-9, 257 Lev. 11:2, 270 Lev. 12:3, 343 Lev. 12:6-8, 346 Lev. 13:4, 369 Lev. 13:29, 38, 340, 346 Lev. 14:1-32, 346 Lev. 15:2, 270 Lev. 15:29-30, 346 Lev. 16:29, 31, 290 Lev. 18, 277 Lev. 18:18, 282, 480 Lev. 19:3, 267, 268, 321, 322 341, 507

INDEX OF BIBLICAL REFERENCES Lev. 19:17, 181 Lev. 19:18, 144, 145, 499, 924, 950 Lev. 19:18b, 939, 940 Lev. 19:31, 345 Lev. 19:32-34, 143 Lev. 19:33, 148 Lev. 19:34, 148 Lev. 20:6, 27, 345 Lev. 20:10, 295 Lev. 21:7, 299 Lev. 21:9, 325 Lev. 21:14, 298, 299 Lev. 22:11, 78 Lev. 22:12-13, 324 Lev. 22:32, 148 Lev. 23, 282 Lev. 23:27, 32, 290 Lev. 23:37, 44 Lev. 23:39, 654 Lev. 23:40, 42, 178 Lev. 24, 306 Lev. 25, 330 Lev. 25:3-6, 473 Lev. 25:5-6, 330 Lev. 25:8, 200 Lev. 25:39-43, 333 Lev. 25:44-46, 333, 336, 337 Lev. 26:6, 252 Lev. 26:12, 44-45, 951 Lev. 26:32-35, 893 Lev. 26:33, 279 Lev. 26:40-46, 279 Lev. 26:41, 946, 951 Lev. 26:44-45, 897 Lev. 27, 342 Lev. 27:1-8, 447, 817 Lev. 27:6, 343 Num. 1:45-46, 52 Num. 3:11-12, 167

1015

Num. 3:41, 231 Num. 5:11-31, 259, 260, 269 Num. 6, 396 Num. 6:1-21, 318, 396, 817 Num. 7:2, 256 Num. 11:2, 100 Num. 11:20, 375 Num. 12, 363 Num. 12:1, 364 Num. 12:2, 367 Num. 12:2b, 4-5, 367 Num. 12:6-10, 367 Num. 12:15, 369 Num. 13, 363 Num. 13:27-33, 379 Num. 14:24, 362, 378 Num. 18:6, 231 Num. 18:11, 13, 283 Num. 18:11-19, 756 Num. 18:23-24, 672 Num. 20:4, 375 Num. 21:5, 375 Num. 23:9, 897, 913 Num. 24:18, 71 Num. 26:59, 241 Num. 26:62, 672 Num. 27, 315 Num. 27:1-11, 821 Num. 27:1-18, 315 Num. 28-29, 282, 329 Num. 29:7, 290 Num. 29:35-38, 654 Num. 30, 290, 438, 816, 817, 826 Num. 30: 3, 6, 7, 8, 13, 14, 15, 293 Num. 30:3-16, 260 Num. 30:6-8, 455 Num. 30:13, 290, 318 Num. 30:14, 290

1016

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

Num. 31:18, 424 Num. 33:55, 382 Num. 35:30, 345 Num. 36, 821 Num. 36:1-7, 316 Deut. 1:36, 362, 378 Deut. 33:1, 546 Deut. 4:6, 141 Deut. 4:7, 122, 305, 458 Deut. 4:8, 305 Deut. 4:24, 229 Deut. 5:1, 270 Deut. 5:7-10, 878 Deut. 5:7-21, 23 Deut. 5:9, 229, 609 Deut. 5:12, 909 Deut. 5:12-15, 329 Deut. 5:14, 282, 329 Deut. 5:16, 266, 317, 322, 507, 543 Deut. 5:21, 329 Deut. 5:29, 142 Deut. 5:32, 142 Deut. 6, 710 Deut. 6:4, 270 Deut. 6:4-5, 195 Deut. 6:4-9, 29, 281, 311 Deut. 6:5, 29, 143, 195, 286, 924, 936, 950 Deut. 6:5-7, 273 Deut. 6:15, 229 Deut. 6:25, 273 Deut. 7: 2, 4, 313 Deut. 7:3-4, 279 Deut. 7:6, 20, 142, 162, 313 Deut. 7:8, 425 Deut. 7:15, 947 Deut. 10:16, 946 Deut. 10: 17,18, 315 Deut. 10:17, 19, 384, 425

Deut. 10:19, 148, 424, 426 Deut. 10:20, 939 Deut. 11:13, 286, 952 Deut. 11:13-21, 29, 281 Deut. 11:21, 58, 280, 295, 537 Deut. 12:11, 330, 331 Deut. 12:18, 331 Deut. 13:5, 939 Deut. 13:6-11, 313 Deut. 13:6-8, 285 Deut. 13:10, 345 Deut. 14:1, 252, 879 Deut. 14:2, 313 Deut. 14:23, 304 Deut. 14:27, 672 Deut. 14:28-29, 304, 528 Deut. 14:29, 414 Deut. 15, 331 Deut. 15:11-18, 336 Deut. 15:12, 333 Deut. 15:12-15, 263 Deut. 15:12-18, 335 Deut. 16, 329 Deut. 16:1-15, 282 Deut. 16:11, 14, 282, 304, 330, 331, 346, 414 Deut. 16:14, 414, 529 Deut. 16:15, 654 Deut. 16:16, 283, 345, 440 Deut. 16:21, 382 Deut. 17:6, 345 Deut. 17:8-13, 540 Deut. 17:11, 142 Deut. 17:17, 480 Deut. 17:18-19, 141 Deut. 18:1-2, 672 Deut. 18:11, 345 Deut. 19:15, 345 Deut. 21:10-14, 261 Deut. 21:15-16, 168, 435

INDEX OF BIBLICAL REFERENCES Deut. 22:15-17, 280 Deut. 22:22, 295 Deut. 23:3, 410, 426, 427 Deut. 23:5, 185 Deut. 23:16, 338 Deut. 24: 1, 304 Deut. 24:1-3, 485 Deut. 24:2, 486 Deut. 24:5, 285 Deut. 24::16, 44, 608 Deut. 24:17, 304, 426, 528 Deut. 24:19-21, 303, 529 Deut. 24:19-22, 303 Deut. 25:5-10, 412 Deut. 25:17-19, 608 Deut. 26:12-13, 414, 529 Deut. 27:19, 528 Deut. 28:14, 142 Deut. 28:15, 848 Deut. 28:15-68, 249, 274 Deut. 29:9, 256 Deut. 29:10, 338 Deut. 29:30, 279 Deut. 30:1-4, 279 Deut. 30:11, 449 Deut. 30:14, 449 Deut. 31:10-12, 575, 650 Deut. 31:10-13, 346, 392 Deut. 31:11-12, 284, 338 Deut. 31:12, 314 Deut. 32: 4, 229 Deut. 32: 5, 309 Deut. 32:10, 536 Josh. 8:11, 44 Josh. 14:6, 546 Josh. 14:8, 362 Josh. 14:14, 362, 378 Josh. 15:16-19, 379 Josh. 15:7, 379 Josh. 17:1, 257

Josh. 18:1, 411 Josh. 23:6, 44 Josh. 23:13, 382 Josh. 24:19, 229 Judg. 1:1, 257 Judg. 1:1-3, 409 Judg. 1:12, 379 Judg. 1:13-15, 379 Judg. 1:21-34, 410 Judg. 2:1, 400 Judg. 2:3, 382 Judg. 2:11, 381 Judg. 2:18-20, 414 Judg. 3:5-7, 382 Judg. 3:7, 381 Judg. 3:8-4:3, 383 Judg. 3:12, 381 Judg. 4:1, 381 Judg. 4:4-5, 384, 577 Judg. 4-5, 727 Judg. 4:6-14, 362 Judg. 4:10-24, 386 Judg. 5, 361 Judg. 5:2, 387 Judg. 5-12, 395 Judg. 6, 388 Judg. 6:1, 381 Judg. 8-9, 398 Judg. 10:6, 381 Judg. 10:12, 458 Judg. 11:34, 76, 470 Judg. 12:8, 433 Judg. 13:1-2, 381, 395 Judg. 13:3, 401 Judg. 13:3-5, 396 Judg. 13:8, 546 Judg. 13:6-7, 397 Judg. 13:16, 403 Judg. 13:20, 404 Judg. 13:21-23, 406

1017

1018

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

Judg. 13:21, 406 Judg. 20:17, 257 Ruth 1:1, 257 Ruth 1:1-4., 410 Ruth 1-2, 417 Ruth 1-3, 421 Ruth 1:11-12, 412 Ruth 1:13, 412 Ruth 1:14-15, 413 Ruth 1:16-17, 413 Ruth 1:18-19, 415 Ruth 2, 420 Ruth 2-3, 428 Ruth 2:18, 430 Ruth 4, 424 Ruth 4:11, 396 Ruth 4:13-22, 433 Ruth 4:17-22, 424 1 Sam. 1, 283, 485 1 Sam. 1:1-2, 433 1 Sam. 1:1-7, 436 1 Sam.1:6-8, 436 1 Sam. 1:8, 913 1 Sam. 1: 9, 437 1 Sam. 1:10, 437 1 Sam. 1:11, 438 1 Sam. 1:12-13, 451 1 Sam. 1:17, 262 1 Sam. 1:17-18, 459 1 Sam. 1-2, 63, 433 1 Sam. 1-25, 496 1 Sam. 2:1-10, 441, 442, 451 1 Sam. 2:5, 712 1 Sam. 2:19, 451 1 Sam. 2:20-21, 452 1 Sam. 3:13-14, 453 1 Sam. 8, 468 1 Sam. 8:4-5, 434 1 Sam. 8:6, 467 1 Sam 8:6-7, 453

1 Sam. 8:7, 116, 467 1 Sam. 8:10-18, 467 1 Sam. 8:11-17, 434 1 Sam. 8:19, 468 1 Sam. 9:9, 155 1 Sam. 14:49, 481 1 Sam. 14:50, 480 1 Sam. 15, 607 1 Sam. 15:22, 949 1 Sam. 15:29, 310 1 Sam. 15:35-16:1, 453 1 Sam. 16:1-13, 433 1 Sam. 16:18, 257 1 Sam. 18:6, 470 1 Sam. 18:6-7, 76 1 Sam. 18:7-9, 470 1 Sam. 18:19-28, 481 1 Sam. 18:20, 28, 483, 486, 492 1 Sam. 18:20-28, 481 1 Sam. 18-19, 483 1 Sam. 18-25, 487 1 Sam. 19:8-10, 12, 483 1 Sam. 20-24, 485 1 Sam. 20:23, 486 1 Sam. 21:11, 470 1 Sam. 25, 480, 485, 499, 501, 503, 513, 516 1 Sam. 25:1, 496, 632 1 Sam. 25:2-3, 13-16, 496, 497 1 Sam. 25:3, 632 1 Sam. 25:4-8, 499 1 Sam. 25:7, 500 1 Sam. 25:10-11, 499 1 Sam. 25:13-20, 501 1 Sam. 25:15-16, 500 1 Sam. 25:18-21, 502 1 Sam. 25:21, 497 1 Sam. 25:24-31, 503 1 Sam. 25:28, 512 1 Sam. 25:32-35, 513

INDEX OF BIBLICAL REFERENCES 1 Sam. 25:35-36, 514 1 Sam. 25:37-38, 515 1 Sam. 25:39-41, 516 1 Sam. 25:39-43, 485 1 Sam. 25:42, 152 1 Sam. 27, 517 1 Sam. 28, 517 1 Sam. 29:5, 470 1 Sam. 30, 517, 519 2 Sam. 3:2-5, 480 2 Sam. 3:7, 537 2 Sam. 3:12-16, 487 2 Sam. 5:11, 402 2 Sam. 5:13, 480 2 Sam. 5:14-15, 481 2 Sam. 6, 489 2 Sam. 6:1-2, 488 2 Sam. 6:14-22, 489 2 Sam. 6:18-19, 495 2 Sam. 6:23, 481 2 Sam. 11:27, 480 2 Sam. 14, 527, 727 2 Sam. 14:1, 529 2 Sam. 14:1-11, 528 2 Sam. 14:12, 529 2 Sam. 14:1-24, 541 2 Sam. 14: 19-24, 530 2 Sam. 19:41-43, 531 2 Sam. 20, 63, 107, 532, 534, 535 2 Sam. 21, 537, 538 2 Sam. 21:1-8, 491 2 Sam. 21:10, 480 1 Kgs. 3, 541 1 Kgs. 3:16-28, 45, 539 1 Kgs. 5:9-14, 45 1 Kgs. 7:25, 879 1 Kgs. 8, 654 1 Kgs. 8:38, 47 1 Kgs. 11:1, 180

1019

1 Kgs. 11:3, 435, 480 1 Kgs. 11:3-4, 348 1 Kgs. 11:35, 231 1 Kgs. 12:16, 531 1 Kgs. 12:22, 546 1 Kgs. 13, 546 1 Kgs. 14:1-13, 795 1 Kgs. 14:21, 31, 271 1 Kgs. 16:31, 584 1 Kgs. 17:8-16, 544 1 Kgs. 17:17-24, 556 1 Kgs. 17:18, 546 1 Kgs. 18:24, 403 1 Kgs. 18:36-38, 404 1 Kgs. 18-19, 584 1 Kgs. 19:18, 383, 549, 565, 569, 698 1 Kgs. 19:20, 543 1 Kgs. 21, 584 1 Kgs. 22:8, 155 1 Kgs. 22:42, 271 2 Kgs. 2, 545 2 Kgs. 2:19-25; 4, 2 Kgs. 4, 544, 545, 553 2 Kgs. 4:1, 333, 544, 547 2 Kgs. 4:1-37, 556, 885 2 Kgs. 4:2-7, 559 2 Kgs. 4:9-11, 550 2 Kgs. 4:13, 552, 559, 563 2 Kgs. 4:14, 562 2 Kgs. 4:16, 553, 556, 558, 559 2 Kgs. 4:33-35, 100 2 Kgs. 4:38-41, 559 2 Kgs. 4:42-44, 559 2 Kgs. 4-8, 546 2 Kgs. 4:8, 549, 566 2 Kgs. 5, 545, 571 2 Kgs. 6, 545 2 Kgs. 6:5-7, 559 2 Kgs. 6:12, 560

1020

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

2 Kgs. 8:1-2, 562 2 Kgs. 8:2, 63, 107 2 Kgs. 8:3, 563 2 Kgs. 8:5-6, 564 2 Kgs. 8:18, 585 2 Kgs. 8:26, 584 2 Kgs. 9, 584 2 Kgs. 9:1, 545 2 Kgs. 11, 180, 584 2 Kgs. 13:23, 309 2 Kgs. 17:19, 231 2 Kgs. 18:21, 492 2 Kgs. 19:15-20, 100 2 Kgs. 22:8, 480 2 Kgs. 22:11-14, 575, 576 2 Kings 22:11-20, 574 2 Kgs. 22:13-20, 155, 362 2 Kgs. 22:15, 580 2 Kgs. 22:17-20, 579, 580 2 Kgs. 22:20, 580, 589 2 Kgs. 23:1-28, 580 2 Kgs. 23:15-16, 546 2 Kgs. 25, 589 1 Ch. 22:7-10, 672 1 Ch. 25:5-7, 471 2 Ch. 4:4, 879 2 Ch. 7, 654 2 Ch. 22:3, 585 2 Ch. 22:10, 180 2 Ch. 22-23, 584 2 Ch. 34:2, 574 2 Ch. 34:19-22, 576 2 Ch. 34: 20-29, 574 2 Ch. 34:23, 580 2 Ch. 34:26-28, 580 2 Ch. 34:28, 580, 589 2 Ch. 34:29-35:19, 580 2 Ch. 36, 589 2 Ch. 36:22-23, 697 Ezra 1:1-4, 697

Ezra 1:4, 590 Ezra 4:24, 594 Ezra 7:12, 21, 159 Ezra 7:27-28, 602 Ezra 8:22, 412 Ezra 10, 649 Neh. 2:2, 641 Neh. 2:6, 641 Neh. 2:18, 412 Neh. 8, 654 Neh. 8:18, 654 Neh. 8:2-3, 650 Neh. 9:1, 654 Neh. 9:4-12:45, 655 Neh. 10, 649, 650 Neh. 13:15-22, 649 Neh. 13:23-27, 279 Esth. 1:1, 597 Esth. 1-3, 600 Esth. 2:7, 246 Esth. 2:8, 598 Esth. 2:9, 152 Esth. 2:11, 601 Esth. 2:17, 222 Esth. 2:20, 601, 604, 610 Esth. 3:1, 607 Esth. 3:3, 610 Esth. 3:4, 609 Esth. 3:7, 611 Esth. 3:8-9, 612 Esth. 3:13, 608, 612, 638 Esth. 4, 614, 617 Esth. 4:1-3, 613 Esth. 4:16, 617, 632, 643 Esth. 5, 621, 622, 624 Esth. 5:1-2, 621 Esth. 6, 625 Esth. 6:1-3, 605, 624 Esth. 7, 627 Esth. 7:2, 262

INDEX OF BIBLICAL REFERENCES Esth. 7:3-4, 626 Esth. 8, 629 Esth. 8:1-2, 628 Esth. 8:5-6, 628 Esth. 8:8, 611 Esth. 8:15-17, 631 Esth. 9, 609, 630, 634, 635, 637, 638 Esth. 9:10, 632 Esth. 9:22, 207 Esth. 10:3, 639, 640 Job 1:1, 8, 162 Job 1:21, 884 Job 1-2, 55 Job 2:3, 162 Job 2:10, 631 Job 5:17-27, 120, 416 Job 8:20, 163 Job 9:20-2-22, 163 Job 14:1, 108 Job 15:14, 108 Job 25:4, 108 Job 38:11, 175 Ps. 1:4, 896 Ps. 1:6, 699 Ps. 17:8, 536 Ps. 19:14, 178, 192 Ps. 23:4, 96, 523, 800 Ps. 27:14, 150 Ps. 34:4, 156 Ps. 36:9, 537 Ps. 37:1-2, 799 Ps. 37:37, 163 Ps. 45:7, 181 Ps. 64:4, 163 Ps. 65:2, 221 Ps. 68:26, 470 Ps. 81:9, 609 Ps. 90:1, 546 Ps. 90:4, 279, 699

Ps. 92:7, 798 Ps. 94:14, 123 Ps. 97:10, 181 Ps. 97:11, 58 Ps. 103:11, 17 Ps. 103:13, 229 Ps. 104, xxxii Ps. 104:4, 402 Ps. 104:35, 512, 883, 884 Ps. 106:9, 855 Ps. 107:1-3, 474 Ps. 119:89, 461 Ps. 121:3-4, 229 Ps. 123:2, 151 Ps. 130:2, 116 Ps. 130:5, 150 Ps. 137:1, 590 Ps. 145:17, 172 Prov. 1:8, 509 Prov. 3:12, 120 Prov. 6:20, 509 Prov. 7:2, 536 Prov. 9:3, 152 Prov. 25:1, 360 Prov. 29:10, 163 Prov. 31:16, 74 Prov. 31:30, 232 Eccles. 7:20, 45 Eccles. 9:2, 744, 791 Eccles. 9:10, 141, 150 Eccles. 11:1, 658 Eccles. 11:8, 320 Eccles. 12:1, 307 Song of Songs 8:6, 195 Isa. 1:26, 257, 947 Isa. 2:2, 947, 949 Isa. 2:3, 279 Isa. 3:16, 893 Isa. 3:16-26, 845 Isa. 3:17, 103

1021

1022

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL

Isa. 6:3, 156 Isa. 6:10, 734 Isa. 8:3, 361 Isa. 11:9, 583 Isa. 11:10, 395 Isa. 25:8, 947 Isa. 25:9, 150 Isa. 27:13, 947 Isa. 29:13, 677 Isa. 35:10, 948 Isa. 36:6, 492 Isa. 37: 15-22, 100 Isa. 40:4, 854 Isa. 40-48, 946 Isa. 41:8, 47, 60, 123 Isa. 41:8-9, 20, 142 Isa. 41:9, 351 Isa. 42:9, 855 Isa. 42:15, 855 Isa. 42:16, 207 Isa. 43:10, 20, 142, 187, 854, 896, 906 Isa. 44:1-2, 20, 142 Isa. 44:8, 187, 854, 896 Isa. 45:25, 287 Isa. 48, 309 Isa. 48:6, 855 Isa. 48:10, 20, 142 Isa. 48:11, 309 Isa. 49:15, 16 Isa. 50:2, 370, 855 Isa. 51:11, 948 Isa. 52:10, 798 Isa. 53:3, 126, 249 Isa. 54:6, 16 Isa. 54:7, 105, 256, 351 Isa. 55:8, 77, 184, 287, 537 Isa. 56:3-8, 815 Isa. 56:6, 287 Isa. 56:6-7, 947

Isa. 57:1, 58, 797 Isa. 57:15, 213 Isa. 58:3, 5, 290 Isa. 59:1, 203 Isa. 64:4, 460 Jer. 2:13, 318, 889, 935 Jer. 3:5, 939 Jer. 3:15, 948 Jer. 3:17, 947 Jer. 7:15, 279 Jer. 9:25-26, 946 Jer. 10:10, 186, 405, 796 Jer. 12:1, 55, 229 Jer. 14:12, 617 Jer. 17:9, 799 Jer. 17:10, 327 Jer. 17:13, 318, 935 Jer. 23:3-4, 948 Jer. 29:7, 478, 479 Jer. 29-33, 946 Jer. 31:1, 948 Jer. 31:3, 470 Jer. 31:9, 519, 536, 571, 573, 941 Jer. 31:33-34, 948 Jer. 31:34, 946 Jer. 31:35-36, 376 Jer. 31:35-37, 957 Jer. 32:6-14, 422 Jer. 32:37-44, 279 Jer. 49:11, 303, 306 Jer. 52:3, 349 Lam. 5:18, 700 Ezek. 3:7, 110 Ezek. 4:13, 279 Ezek. 11:19, 287, 949 Ezek. 13:17-23, 845 Ezek. 18:9, 952 Ezek. 20:1, 155 Ezek. 33:11, 66, 181 Ezek. 36:22, 309

INDEX OF BIBLICAL REFERENCES Ezek.36:26, 287 Ezek. 36-48, 946 Ezek. 37:15-28, 947 Ezek. 39:25-29, 279 Ezek. 44:22, 299 Ezek. 44:7, 9, 946 Ezek. 45, 672 Ezek. 48, 672 Ezek. 48:31-34, 949 Dan. 6:10, 570 Dan. 9:11-13, 44 Dan. 12:2, 895 Dan. 12:2-3, 47 Dan. 12:3, 48 Hos. 3:4, 239 Hos. 6:1, 416 Hos. 14:1, 350 Joel 1:14, 617 Joel 2, 297 Joel 2:28-31, 567 Amos 3:8b, 168 Amos 5:8, 185 Amos 7:14, 545 Amos 9, 297 Amos 9:11-12, 395 Mic. 4:1, 947, 949 Nah. 1:2, 229 Hab. 2:4, 323, 324 Hab. 3:2, 179 Zech. 1:16, 947 Zech. 8:23, 349 Zech. 10:2, 217 Zech. 13:5, 545 Zech. 14:21, 350 Mal. 3:4, 946 Mal. 3:4-4:6, 954 Mal. 3:6, 309, 320, 401 Mal. 3:16-18, 46 Mal. 3:17, 255 Mal. 4:4, 44, 567

1023

Mal. 4:5, 954 APOCRYPHA Apocryphal Esther, 618, 621, 626, 644 1 Macc. 1:11-15, 876 1 Macc. 1:41-50, 702 1 Macc. 2:1-6, 672 1 Macc. 8:17, 697 1 Macc. 14:38-49, 670 1 Macc. 16:8-24, 719 1 Macc. 16:11-16, 719 2 Macc. 4:7-17, 876 2 Macc. 6:1-6, 702 2 Macc. 6:10-11, 702 2 Macc. 7, 713, 727, 930

NEW TESTAMENT Matt. 5:18, 185 Matt. 5:32, 838 Matt. 5:43, 144 Matt. 15:7-14, 677 Matt. 37-38, 29 Matt. 22:37-40, 924 Matt. 22:38, 195 Matt. 22:39-40, 144 Matt. 24, 847 Mk. 12:18, 58 Mk. 12:29-30, 195 Mk. 12:28-31, 924 Mk. 12:31, 144 Mk. 13, 847 Lk. 11:1-4, 160 Lk. 21:5-38, 847 Acts 15:10-11, 848 Rom. 7:3, 44, 838 Rom. 11:24, 923 1 Cor. 7:7-9, 197 1 Cor. 7:11, 838

1024 1 Cor. 11:7, 29 1 Cor. 11:8-9, 30 1 Cor. 14:34-35, 203 2 Cor. 9:7, 323

THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL Gal. 1:13, 115 Gal. 3:11, 324 Gal. 4:28-31, 115