Shemini. Morais, Sabato. Philadelphia, PA. 1895 · Sabato Morais Digital Repository · Legacy Projects from Judaica DH at Penn Libraries

Title

Shemini. Morais, Sabato. Philadelphia, PA. 1895

Author

Morais, Sabato

Date Created

1895

Location(s)

United States -- Pennsylvania -- Philadelphia

United States -- Pennsylvania

Format

10 pages on 4 sheets

Rights

http://rightsstatements.org/page/NoC-US/1.0/?

Language(s)

English

Source

Katz Center for Advanced Judaic Studies

Sabato Morais Collection, Box 9, Folder 21

Has Format

https://colenda.library.upenn.edu/items/ark:/81431/p30p0x99f/manifest.json

Link to Colenda

https://colenda.library.upenn.edu/catalog/81431-p30p0x99f

Provenance

Transfer of Custody from the Hebrew Education Society, 10 March 1913.

Is Format Of

https://raw.githubusercontent.com/judaicadh/morais/main/TEI/SMBx9FF21_4.xml

content

S. MORAIS.
546 N. FIFTH STREET.
PHILADELPHIA,__________1895

38

On forbidden food
Sabbath Shemini

In conversation with an eminent physician, I learned to my surprise that a certain article of food almost universally prized as a delicacy, has been discovered to possess qualities injuring the health of those who eat it. I had often read that persons who indulged in it, suffered bo--dily pains and, at times, paid even with their lives as a penalty for having partaken of it immoderately. But I attributed such evil results to the abuse, not to the use of that dainty. Now, I have the testimony of medical science to prove the contrary of what most people believe. The portion of the Penta--teuch assigned for our instruction this Sabbath, brought back to my memory the conversation I had with a friend, who ranks high in the medical faculty. Our Parasha devotes a whole lengthy chapter to the subject of the Jewish diet. I will not deny that the prohibitory laws which we have read concerning various species of living things on whose flesh people ordinarily feed, aim

largely to set draw a distinction between Israel and gentilism and to serve likewise as reminders to those whom the God of Sinai separated set apart for a spirit-ual purpose, that they must to avoid gross all sorts of food likely to affecting the mind as well as the body. This seems clear from the repeated expression. [Hebrew] "It is unclean to you", it is forbidden to you, it is an abomination to you. And again: Ye shall be holy, for I the Lord am holy. Ye shall not therefore pollute your souls with impure animals; with things that creep on the ground. The entire eleventh chapter of Leviticus advances the same idea throughout. And its closing sentence tells demands of all Hebrews to make a difference between the what is unclean to them and the what is clean, between the living thing that they may be eaten and the living thing that may they dare not be eaten.
But the question a doubt has arisen in the minds of some, who would not, I think, deliberately transgress for the sake of gratifying the appetites. They questioned whether certain creatures furnished with shells, instead of fins and scales were contemplated

by the inspired legislator, when he penned the chapter to which I have just referred. I have listened with interest to discussions on that point, not, of course, when the question was treated with levity and flippancy, not when ribaldry vulgarly said that Moses would not have pro--hibited a toothsome bit, if he had known of it or had ever tasted it. From that talk I turn away with utter disgust. But serious persons have contend--ed that no provision is made in the five holy books about things that can exist out of the water, and are though science still includes them in the category of fishes. The oyster, for instance, that at--taches itself to situations places which are left dry by the retiring tide, some would consider as be--longing rather to the vegetable kingdom. But insuf--ficient, indeed, as my reading on that topic is, I differ, because I learn that except in water, or the vicinity of water, or where water had been flowing, the oyster cannot live,

and I hold that to it and similar living creatures, the following text in our Parasha meant to point. [Hebrew] [Hebrew] "All that have not fins and scales, in the seas and in the streams, all that moves in water and every living creature that is in the water, are an abomination to you." Curiously enough, while reflecting upon what a medical friend of mine had stated, my attention was drawn to an article written in Hebrew. It related that London phy--sicians had strongly advised all persons to abstain from that palatable food luxury, as apt to occasion engender a species of typhus. Ac--cording to the same journal, the sale of that article of food which had always been immense, has decreased so perceptibly that whereas formerly three hundred fishermen were engaged at the seasonable time of the year in dredging to supply the market, now comparatively few are employed in it, so that the sale what heretofore realized over two thousand pounds sterling weekly, it does not yield now at present more than a few some hundreds.

Possibly, the writer author of that Hebrew article does not possess very accurate and reliable information. Possibly also his feelings led him to overdraw the picture, for I notice that in citing the case of a Purim festivity in New York, where the attendants banquetted on shell fish, he declares that they sinned more grievously than Jews who publicly desecrate the day of atonement. I would not go that length, but I agree upon recognizing the act as un-Mosaic-scriptural, supporting myself upon the prohibition of eating [Hebrew], which I so interpret Any living thing which needs lives moves in water, but has neither fins nor though it may continue to exist on the ground as amphibia. scales. Contrary to my opinion is that of the "American Israelite" in its issue of the first week in April. It writes: "There has been said so much lately as to whether the Law of Moses permits or pro--hibits oysters, that it may be proper to state that according to the Talmud, Moses did not forbid them. There can be no doubt that the shell of the oyster, is the same to all intents

and purposes, as the scales are to clean fishes." Against this specious manner of arguing, we may point to the fact that Moses repeatedly mentions fins and scales as in-dispensable to Israelites to make a creature in the water per- -missible allowable to an Israelite, the world all over, and not once does he point refer to an object which, according to the editor of the American Israelite, is equivalent to fins and scales. But the weekly periodical ventures further and as--serts that both the Talmud and Maimonides per--mit shell fish, since nature has provided it with what stands in lieu of fins and scales. I have diligently searched through those author--ities, but failed to find what would justify the edit--or's declaration. Perhaps, the wish was father to the thought, for all will remember that at the graduation of the first five rabbis issued from the Western Union College, the guests were regaled with a variety of shell fish, and when the president of the institution whose motto is [Hebrew] "for the Law and the Testimony,"

was asked for an explanation of that ano-maly, he bluntly answered that he was is not the keeper of orthodox stomachs--a reply scarcely admissible in an English phrase- Lexicon -ology, as an elegant phrase. Surely, if one were inclined to overlook deviations from scriptural Biblical and tradi--tional ordinances in persons not possessed of Rabbinical titles, he cannot wink at actions clearly at variance with the written and oral Law, when committed by men whom Malachi would that they proceed straight forwardly and turn many away many from wrong doing transgression. The last of our prophets would thus reproach back--sliders in the American rabbinate [Hebrew] [Hebrew] "ye have caused many to stumble in the Torah." Oh teachers of in Israel! Beware of the sin of presumption. Nadab and Abihu, the two elder sons of Aaron arrogated to them--selves undue authority. The consequence of their immodesty is recorded in the section of the Penta--teuch designated for this Sabbath. I have read that Epictetus, a celebrated teacher of ethics moralist among

the Greeks, lay down a maxim, to follow which is to approach human perfectibility: "bear and forbear." We cannot benefit God by overcoming our selfish inclinations and controlling our appetites, but by doing acting so, we can bring do upon ourselves an incalculable amount of good. Hence the wholesome rule restrictions of our reli--gion, some of which we have perused of this morn--ing, useful as applicable to every Israelite. Pulpit instructors, however, ought to keep ever present the injunc--tion of the prophet, who preceded Epictetus by many centuries. Micah recommended that man should walk humbly with God. How much more so the ought ministers of God to setting an example of abstemiousness and moderation, which will react upon the people at large, who observe and cite the conduct of such, as wear the sacerdotal garment of preceptors in in the shrine of dedicated to the Torah.

Identifier

p30p0x99f

identifier

SMBx9FF21_4