finding this passage transcribed into the digest of Jewish law, called the Schulchan Aruch, part 2; in the Hilchoth P'riah ur'viah, by which transcription it is stamped, with all the authority of a law. Here, then, the reader is led to think, that an amhaaretz must mean something more and worse than an unlearned man—that it ought, perhaps, to be taken in its literal signification, "people of the land," and that it may refer to the idolatrous and wicked Canaanites. But the common usage of the Talmud forbids a supposition. There is a well-known sentence which shows that even a High Priest might be an amhaaretz:—
(
Hebrew characters)
"A learned man, though illegitimate, goes before a High Priest, who is an amhaaretz." Here the amhaaretz is plainly opposed to him that is learned. And so, on the page of the Talmud from which we have quoted above, we find the following words:—
(Hebrew characters)
"An amhaaretz is forbidden to eat the flesh of a beast, for it
is said, 'This is the law of the beast and the fowl.' (Levit. xi.
46.) Every one that laboureth in the law, it is lawful for him
to eat the flesh of the beast and the fowl. But for him who
does not labour in the law, it is forbidden to eat the flesh of the
beast and the fowl." According to this passage an amhaaretz
is one who does not labour in the study of the law; and it being
found on the very same page with the above most revolting
declarations, it plainly shows the proud and haughty spirit of
the authors of the Talmud, and their utter contempt for the
poor, whose circumstances preclude them from the advantages
of study. But, in reading such passages, the question naturally
suggests itself, to which of the two classes does the poor Jewish
population of London belong? There must be at the least
hundreds, if not thousands of poor Jews in this great city who
cannot possibly devote themselves to study. Amongst whom,
then, are they to be classed? Amongst the learned (Hebrew characters)?
or amongst the unlearned (Hebrew characters)? Are they,
their wives, and daughters, as the Talmud says, to be called an
abomination, vermin, and compared to the beasts? Or can a
religion inculcating such sentiments proceed from that Holy
One who is no respecter of persons? See here, ye children of
Abraham, whom the providence of God has placed amongst the
children of poverty, and cut off from the advantage of a
