The Burning Question — No. 2

Julius T. Loeb, “The Burning Question — No. 2,” Birmingham Age-Herald (Birmingham, AL), Nov. 28, 1909. https://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn85038485/1909-11-28/ed-1/seq-21/ 

The Burning Question—No. 2

By RABBI JULIUS T. LOEB.

    Why is the Jew not a prohibitionist, is generally asked. Nay, it is even argued by some crude minds that the Jew is not, cannot be, a loyal citizen unles [sic] he believe in prohibition. If this argument be sustained then in the sight of the law and the people of the land the member of the Hebrew race is to be branded a criminal under all circumstances. For never will he be anything but temperate in the real sense of the term. The moderate use of vinous liquors and beverages will always form part of his diet. The temperance of the Jew will go no further than the proper and timely use, not the abolition, of any or all of these things. They can no more pound prohibition into the head of the Jew than they can convince him of the “theory of incarnation,” of “immaculate conception,” or of the existence of a dual trinity god, or any other sort of deity beside the Lord One, who is the creator and ruler of all existing beings, the God of Israel and all the world.

    Let this be borne in mind, that with the Jew legislative prohibition is not only a question of threatened personal liberty but is also a direct attack upon his time-honored religion, his Bible and the rabbinical lore, wherein the proper and timely use of all earthly blessings, including the wine and strong drink, is commanded on all occasions; in religious worship on Sabbaths and holidays, in public festivities and solemnities of all kinds, in social gatherings and in family events.

    The several instances recorded in the Bible, where in the evil consequences of inordinate drinking are brought to view, are by far outnumbered with expressions of encomium and praise of the noble product of the grapevine. The Mosaic law which is the basis of all civilized religion, treats man as mere man and forms the equinimity [sic] of substance and soul. It demands the honorable enjoyment of earthly things in precisely the same manner as it demands a due abstention whenever that may be necessary. Judaism which has proven its efficiency as a religion of life, positively and absolutely prohibits prohibition, as it strictly forbids asceticism and every other extreme measure. It is the dictum of the sages, that man is here on earth to enjoy in moderation of the world's good things, and never to mortify himself by any sort of teetotalism and abnormality. “And ye shall observe my statutes and my ordinances which man shall do and live by them—not that he die by them,” is the deduction and established opinion of the wise teachers in Israel. Hence none has a right to starve himself uselessly (Talmud, Tractate Taanith, p. 11), and none has right to deny himself the enjoyment of any of the earthly blessings that the Lord has placed at his disposal; as for such neglect man is prepared to render an account and punishment will be exacted on him in the future world (Jerushalmi, Kedushin). The Nazarite is pronounced a sinner, as on the completion of the days of his Nazariteness, he was to bring a sin offering, because “he had sinned concerning his own soul by denying himself for the time being the enjoyment of the wine.” (Nazir, 3:19,22; Taanith, 11; Baba-Kama, 91; Shobuoth, 8; Soth. 15; Kerithuth, 26.)

    Regard the matter as one may, but Judaism has aimed at, and really succeeded in securing, the physical and moral standard of the Jewish race by way of making it a religious duty to observe the time for rejoicing as well as the time for abstention, and to know that “there is a time and due season for every pursuit under heaven.” Take, for instance, the ordinance of the “four cups” on the Passover night, which is a duty of vast importance imposed upon every Israelite, so that the Jewish congregation is called upon to provide the wine even for the poorest of the poor. The sages have ruled that one is compelled, if needs be, even to pawn one’s own personal effects in order to procure for himself and family enough wine for the “four cups" by which the Passover service may be celebrated. The reason for such stringency in the matter will be best understood when the fact is brought to light that it is largely due to the grand significance of such happy evens as the Passover and other Joyous festivitives [sic] in the Mosaic faith, that the Jewish race has outlived all persecution, has withstood the world’s changing scenes, and has been preserved in the face of all antagonizing conditions and creeds. The “cup of blessing” on Sabbaths and festivals, is an institution in vogue amidst the worshippers of the ancient faith for more than 30 centuries, and will remain an ordinance in Israel as long as Jews and Judiasm [sic] exist.

    We may say it for a certainty that if it were not for such natural and wholesome recreation during the many years of his exile and dispersion, the Jew would long since have succumbed to the pressure of circumstances, and be no more. With the Jew the question of “abstention and non-abstention” is therefore a question of religion and of life itself. Others may lightly esteem this peculiar mode of living and of religious worship, and yet the fact remains, that the Jew stands forth in the face of all the world, and throughout the ages, as the best example of temperance versus abstinence.

    Certainly not a Jewish family will remain without drinkables, prohibition or no prohibition. Nor will any one Jew shrink from treating his friend at his social cal lto [sic] a glass of beer or liquor of any sort. An interesting little story has been related to me by a friend, who is a drummer for a big furniture concern up north, and for which he vouches as being a matter of fact. Arrived at a southern little town he had already visited once before, this gentleman approached a customer named Mr. McCarthy, with whom he had done business on previous occasions. With a great deal of excitement the Irish gentleman told the agent what tremendous change his town has undergone since he met him last; namely, that everything there is now as dry as a rock, and that he could not get a drink if he were to pay $5 for a single glass. “I guess I can get a drink, and without pay, too,” said the other, as he looked thoughtfully through the window and beheld the big signs displayed, from which he read: “Samuelson & Co., Dry Goods;” “Goldstein Bros., Clothing, etc.” The Gentile friend was amazed on hearing the agent boast of such seeming impossibility. “You certainly are joking, friend,” he queried. “No, I am not.” “Well, I bet you any amount you don't get it this time,” the Irishman said to the Jew. “I take your bet, sir, and here is my pocketbook, too, so you may rest assured that I mean what I say, and that I am ready to procure the drink with not a cent in my pocket.” with this last remark Mr. S—k, the Jewish drummer, emerged from Mr. McCarthy’s place and made his way direct to one of the Jewish stores opposite the street. Upon giving his name to the first Jewish storekeeper he met, he introduced himself as a drummer for the said concern and mentioned the fact that he had business connections with Mr. McCarthy from across the way. He complained, however, that somehow or other he did not feel as well as he should, and “Inasmuch as this was a prohibition town,” he added, “and nothing could be gotten to relieve the distressed feeling, he would greatly appreciate it should a few drops of whisky be given him in a small sized glass, so he might go with it to his stopping place, and there take it with his meal.” In less time than one can consume by describing it aclerk [sic] was dispatched to the upstairs, and fetched down a glassful of whisky, carefully wrapped in a clean piece of paper. “Any charges, sir?” “Oh, no, nothing at all.” “Thank you, sir. Will see you later.” And in the next few minutes the Jewish drummer stood before the Irishman with the "stuff" in hand. He won the bet.

    That rule which makes the giving away of any small quantity of fermented beverage an offense against the laws of the state, could never be carried out among the Jewish people. For the Jew who will fail to place before his guest a glass of wine or liquor on a Sabbath or other festive occasion, will be held out among his own as an example of most disgraceful conduct. The failure to pronounce his “Kiddush” (Sanctification) and to let those present enjoy the “cup of blessing,” will make the Israelite who cares aught for his religion unhappy and miserable to the utmost degree. A wedding celebrated among Jews at which alcoholic beverages are not served by force of the prohibition law is styled “funereal,” and feeling runs high on such occasion where the Jewish people are thus robbed of the good cheer and the mirth by which it is their privilege and religious duty to rejoice and to gladden the hearts of the newly wedded couple. On such occasion it is worth while to study the dismal faces of the assembly, and to hear them sigh and murmur and frequently mention the word “captivity.”

    Little wonder that the Jews as lovers of liberty and believers in naturel religion, are so incensed against the prohibition law, and unanimously regard it a rule of tyranny.

    Though otherwise loyal and law-abiding citizens, intensely devoted to the cause of their adopted home, proud upon their American citizenship, and always ready to contribute their share to the prosperity and welfare of the land; yet in this particular instance they find themselves at variance with the existing law, and they are filled with disappointment and humiliation at such unredeeming and irreconcilable measure, which is as un-American as it is inhuman.

    While it must be admitted the prohibition law is not directly aimed at the Jews, it is nevertheless a source of unending trouble to them; and as the natural scapegoat of humanity the Jew of all history is hit the hardest by any cruel measure that is imposed upon the community for the abridgement of personal liberty and right.

    As individual citizens the Jews undoubtedly feel the cumbersome weight of the rule, which deprives them of their personal comfort; as business people they are hurt by the prohibition law, and hampered in their honest labors for the economic improvement of themselves and the community at large; and what is worst of all, as members of the Hebrew faith they meet with maltreatment and galling contempt by reason of the agitation. which furnishes a license for narrow minded bigots to creep out of their hiding places and attack the Jewish name and character.

    Because the Jews as a body are known to be non-participants in the prohibition movement they are so often held responsible for the liquor interests with the evils arising therefrom, and they tre [sic] greeted with such anathema as if they were really the guilty ones in the community. Thus a certain Rev. H. I. Martin some time ago, forgetting the dignity of his office, and ignoring also the responsibility devolving on him as editor, jumped out of his lair as a thoroughbred anti-Semite of the “Stoecker” type, or as “Yulophobe” a la Krushhevan of Kishineff fame, and among other sweet epithets and expressions he ejected the following: “Jews as a body, and as one man, stand for liquor and the debauchery of our citizenship, and an a body should be condemned for their acts.” And this in the face of all free Americans. Fortunately the fair-minded Senator Hamburger of Mobile has taken this reverend gentleman to task and has given him just a few brief hints of what the Jew has done for the world and of what he has done even for this grand republic. But there is stil [sic] one thing I should like for this preacher of the gospel to know, and that is, that the Jew is neither drunkard nor prohibitionist; neither can he side with the whisky men nor with the total abstainers, and in this question he can well afford to remain as neutral as he always was in matters of religion and moral concept.

    Evidently this Rev. Martin cannot forgive the Jews because as a race they are comparatively exempt from the drink habit. But instead of stopping to investigate, to study the “why and the wherefore” of things, to take cognizance of the fact that the religion of the Jew has taught him how to drink and never to get drunk, and that from his earliest childhood—nay, even from his infancy, when sealed with the sign of the Abrahamic covenant on the eighth day of his birth, a few drops of wine were administered to him; instead of searching for the cause of such immunity, and possibly to apply the same means and methods for a remedying of general conditions—this gentleman indulges in an outpouring of vulgar terms and incitement against the Jews, and in laying the blame of the drink evil upon them.

    This circumstance reminds one of the charges by the multitudes in the fourteenth century, as at other periods in the history of the middle ages, that the Jews were engaged in some vile plot against the people of Europe, by way of poisoning the fountains, the wells, and even the flowing rivers; since the horrible plagues that were then raging and smiting their thousands amidst all sections and spheres, and regarding no person, nor creed, seemed to give the Jews alone comparative exemption from their ravages; and that “from the cleanliness of their habits, from frequent ablutions and from their peculiarity of diet (Sic!)” So Milman describes the situation, and proceeds to tell us that “Pope John XXII publicly denounced the detestable sorceries and magic of the Jews and ordered their Talmud to be burned, and hundreds of their men, women and children to share the same fate." Now it appears as though for a similar “offense” (the comparative exemption from the drink evil) the Rev. Martin and his ilk would have all the Jews, “as a body,” with their women and children, and the sacred books that occupy their attention, all ascend in one pillar of smoke.

    It is surely a disagreeable task, if not a real precarious business, for the Jew to disagree and differ with a sweeping majority in so far as the conception of temperance is concerned; yet in his ethical and moral principles the Jew has for many centuries past stood alone in the face of all existing conditions and creeds, and he so intends to continue standing for a natural religion and all-embracing law of morality, in all time to come.

    If prohibition were purely a question of “saloon or no saloon,” then indeed might we all, Jew and Gentile, combine in one joint effort to remove the evil from our midst, to stamp out the saloon nuisance, as there is not a fair-minded person among our citizenship but who detests the saloons in that shape in which it was seen in this country. Of all the Jews that I know there is not a single one who likes the saloon, or who has any sympathy for saloon men, and the distillers and brewers, most of whom appear to be careless of the weal or woe of the people, and blind to the cry of suffering humanity. Much could be done to relieve the situation, and to check the drink evil, by way of adjusting matters, so the saloon would cease to be a nest of vice and corruption, and cease to have its sway over land and people, as it did for some years past. Where there is a will there is a way, and things could be adjusted so those in charge of a “dispenpensary,” [sic] or clean and genteel “public place,” should have to vouch for its good character as such. Liquor men should be made amenable for any willful disregard of public decency that they may be guilty of, as for the selling of intoxicants to minors, imbeciles or habitual drunkards. That is really the only solution to the problem. Local option might also aid in the matter of removing a source of trouble in the so-called “black belt,” or such, where lawlessness is known to prevail. inordinate drinking should be plainly regarded as a malady, and the unfortunate who is so smitten with the drink habit, or addicted to alcoholism, should be made a case for the doctor, and taken into a special hospital ward designated for the purpose, and there be treated with the best healing methods that are in command of the medical profession. Yes, there are, there should be, enough of means and ways by which the community could be rid of the plague of inebriety.

    But that extremely radical plan to rule out the entire use of fermented beverages from amid human society—that is really too much of an assumption. Who is going to abstain? Who will yield to compulsory or legislative prohibition? The wealthy will not so readily consent to go down in their cellars, which as a rule are filled with the choicest of “domestic and imported goods,” and there creatae [sic] a smash-up a la Carrie Nation, so as to ingratiate themselves with their minister, their temperance union friends, or any other friends. Such unreasonable demands will never be made from the upper spheres of society, and if made, will never be heeded even by the best and noblest among them.

    Having lived in Washington for six years, I had occasion to learn of an incident which may have some bearing upon the subject: The late Mrs. McKinley, wife of the martyr President, William McKinley, who was peculiarly noted for her exceptional modesty and rectitude, was once approached by a committee of the W. C. T. U., calling her attention to the “impropriety” of her serving wines before foreign dignitaries at her table board in the White House. Mrs. McKinley, with her customary meekness, thanked the ladies' committee for their kind solicitude, but gave them politely to understand that within the precincts of her own domicile she deems it her right and her duty to manage her affairs without regard to style, or formality required by the presidential office, upon the strength of which the ladies had made their presentations.

    The question thus remains: Who will abstain by force of the legislative prohibition? None of the rich of all classes and creeds; none of the middle class business men, or professionals; none of those who can afford to send their few dollars to a place out of state and procure the necessary drink articles. Who then may be affected by the prohibition law? The wage earner, who more than all others longs for his occasional stimulant, and probably more than all others needs the stimulant to help him steady himself in his hard struggle against poverty and excruciating circumstances, and to keep him from falling a prey to despondency. But this poor man will soon find his way to low dives and infernal hiding resorts, which in prohibition states are swarming and spreading like a contagion. Who, then will abstain by force of the prohibition act?

    The physical side of the question will be discussed in the next article.