(
Hebrew characters)
"If you ask, How is the finder to know that the thing found belongs to an Amhaaretz? R. Isaac says, it is in such a case as when a crowd of Amharatzin is passing, and we see that it fell from them." (Ibid.) So that, according to this interpretation, the disciples of the wise men are positively allowed to retain what they know does not belong to them, if they only see that it does belong to an unlearned man; and yet these are the men who are so afraid of the dishonesty of the unlearned, as to forbid their appointment to the office of guardian to orphans, or treasurer to a charitable fund. Let any man of common sense decide, whether this law is honest or dishonest, and then let him decide, whether it can come from God, and whether such a religion is fit for an honest man?
The most important point, however, remains, and that is,
the permission to kill an unlearned man, or to rend him like
a fish. We have been told that this is merely figurative
language, but the context is not such as to lead to this conclusion;
on the contrary, the passage itself, and all that precedes
and follows, leads us to believe that it was meant literally.
In the first place, it is said, that it is lawful to kill an Amhaaretz
without observing the rules of (Hebrew characters) slaughtering, and
when the disciples ask the reason, R. Eleazar replies, Because
these rules would require a benediction to be pronounced,
whereas he would not have an Amhaaretz treated with such
respect. Let any man explain the figurative meaning of all
this. Secondly, R. Samuel, to take away all ambiguity, says,
in the name of R. Johannan, that it is lawful to rend him as a
fish. Now it is known that, with regard to fish, the rules
of (Hebrew characters) or slaughtering, are not observed. All ambiguity,
therefore, as to R. Eleazar's meaning, is here removed. Thirdly,
it is evident that the rabbies looked upon the unlearned as
nothing better than beasts. They say, that the daughters of
the unlearned are an abomination, and their wives vermin:
yea, that their daughters are beasts. Now, when men are so
wicked as to use such language concerning their fellow-creatures,
are we to be astonished that they would draw the
conclusion that necessarily follows from such premises, and
that they should allow these beasts and vermin to be killed?
When we see that these rabbies allow an unlearned man to be
robbed with impunity of that which he has lost, what principle
of conscience or justice is there left to prevent them from
killing him whom they have robbed? If all the other principles
of these rabbies were just, honest, upright, and merciful,
we might be tempted to suppose, that in these words they
