Why the Jew of Today in Not a Prohibitionist

Julius T. Loeb, “Why the Jew of Today in Not a Prohibitionist,” Baltimore Sun (Baltimore, MD), April 28, 1907.

WHY THE JEW OF TODAY IS NOT A PROHIBITIONIST 

A Washington Rabbi’s Remarkable Argument Against Total Abstinence.

HOW THE ANCIENT JEWISH PROPHETS REGARDED WINE

Give strong drink to the unhappy and wine to the embittered soul.—Proverbs, xxxi, 6.

He causeth grass to grow for the cattle * * * and wine that maketh joyful the heart of man. —Psalms, civ, 14–15.

By Rabbi J. T. Loeb (Adath Israel Congregation, Washington, D. C.)

    It is a well-known fact that all over the world the Jews exercise great moderation in drinking. Habitual drunkenness is very rare among them, and they seldom appear as guests of police stations and jails.

    I, therefore, as spiritual advisor of a Jewish community, need hardly assert that I am strongly in favor of temperance and detest the excessive use of alcoholic beverages. But to me temperance means moderation. I do not favor abstinence and am absolutely opposed to any kind of prohibitive legislation. My reasons therefor are of a Biblical and religious character. 

    Time and again I have been approached on the subject by the numerous existing temperance associations, and asked to cooperate in the movement for prohibition. My reply was always brief, i. e., that an agitation for prohibition or teetotalism of any sort is against my religious faith and conviction. The unredeeming and irreconcilable plan to abolish the entire use of fermented beverages appears to me as detrimental to public morals as it is impractical from every point of view.

THE COST OF ABSTINENCE.

    It is bound to break up business intercourse and friendly relations amid open, honest and lawful circles of humanity. It will drive the better classes into low dives and many a bitter soul to despondency. It will rob the charm of good cheer and timely recreation from amid brethren dwelling in peace together. It will too frequently make man sullen and life cumbersome and unbearable. 

    The number of people suffering today from excessive drinking would be as naught compared with the thousands that would fall under the burden of life’s battling and present excruciating conditions, should the impossible occur, and universal prohibition become the order of the day.

    The Bible, which is the standard teaching of morality and civilizing principles, repeatedly speaks in praise of wine and fully grasps the meaning of the situation by saying:

    “Give strong drink to the unhappy and wine to the embittered soul.” (Proverbs, xxxi, 6.)

    In the blessings of the patriarchs wine coupled with corn (Genesis xxvii, 28, 37). The land of Israel is characterized as a land of corn, wine and oil (Deuteronomy vii, 8; xxxiii, 28; II Kings xviii, 32; Isaiah xxxvi, 17; II Chronicles xxxii, 28, etc.)

    Wine is used in every instance as a “drink-offering to the Lord” and a choice gift in solemnity of every kind. The Psalmist points to it as a necessary essential, an indispensable element within nature, and he places it on a par with bread and other vegetable food, as is clearly shown from the following lines in the 104th Chapter of the Book of Psalms:

    “He causeth grass to grow for the cattle, and herbs for the service of man, that he bring forth bread out of the earth; and wine that maketh joyful the heart of man.”

    Take away the use of fermented drink from solemn festivity, public rejoicing and occasional private entertainment, and what is left of life?

IN RELIGIOUS CEREMONIES

    Legislation should not, and must not, rule out the use of wine in religious and sacred ceremony, such as the sanctification of the Sabbath and solemn feasts among Jews; particularly on the Passover eve, when every member of the Hebrew race is commanded to drink the “four cups” (four glasses)  of the best wine obtainable; or, on the Purim festivity and the day of the “Rejoicing in the Law,” when drinking is not only commendable, but an imperative duty for all those who cannot be materially injured by its effect.

    Judaism positively and absolutely prohibits prohibition, as it strictly forbids asceticism and every other extreme measure. What true religion and ethical principles demand, according to Jewish conception, is to avoid excesses in any direction, to keep along the natural channels of life, to practice moderation in all things, and to live in the fullest conviction that “God hath made everything beautiful in its due season;” that “there is a season for everything, and a proper time for every pursuit under the heavens.”

    For more than 30 centuries the Jewish people drank wine and liquors and were not the worse for it in their temperance and moderation; as during all generations they had offered the best example for temperance versus abstinence. There is hardly a Jewish home where you do not find alcoholic beverages, and yet sobriety and industry are prevailing among Jews everywhere. 

    It is, therefore, but natural that the Jews as business people, and more especially from a religious and moral standpoint, are strongly opposed to prohibition, or any legislation of a prohibitive character. The Mosaic law, which was destined to secure the continuity of Israel, treats man as mere man, bases its moral principles on the very nature of things, and detests habitual self-abnegation as it does habitual drunkenness and excesses of all sorts.

ASCETICISM IS BANNED.

    The patriarchs, prophets and priests of Israel had no share in either asceticism or abstinence. The Talmud in Tractate Nedarim, page 10 a, pronounces the Nazarite “a sinner, because he had denied himself the enjoyment of the wine,” and this view is cited as a joint decree of renowned rabbis in the name of Rabbi Yehuda Hanassi, the compiler of the Mishna, and is based upon the Scriptural passage in Numbers, vi, 11, which reads thus:

    “And he [the priest] shall make an atonement for [the Nazarite], because he had sinned concerning the soul. Concerning what soul hath he sinned? He hath taken no human life—yet it is the abnegation of self that he is indeed guilty of.”—Taanith, 11; Nazir, 3, 19, 22; Baba-kama, 91; Shobuoth, 8, Sotah, 15; Kerithuth, 26.

    The version “sinned through the dead” for “sinned concerning the soul,” as the text reads, is justly disputed by the sages. “Even though the Nazarite hath fulfilled his vow through his abstinence his nevertheless an evildoer.”—Ibid.

    “One must respect one’s bowels, and regard one’s body as though it were a holy shrine encompassing the divine presence. Hence none should make a practice of self-abnegation, of starving oneself uselessly.” —Taanith, 11.

    Talmud Jerushalmi to the same effect: “Man will render an account, and punishment will be exacted on him in the future world for every earthly blessing placed at his disposal, and which he had neglected to enjoy.”

THE NAZARITE CODE 

    The Biblical code of laws relating to the Nazarite, as set forth in the sixth chapter of the Book of Numbers, is understood to be a series of regulation of voluntary duties on the part of any man or woman in Israel—the assumption of which being in no way obligatory. Its purpose, rather than anything else—was training in the fulfillment of personal vows, or a carrying out of promises. 

    Three duties are thus prescribed for the Nazarite in the said section, viz: The abstention from wine and strong drink, the growing of the hair in unshorn state and the keeping from a dead body. The Nazarite is termed “Holy unto the Lord,” inasmuch as one may devote his person, or any of his earthly possessions, and declare the same to be “holy unto the Lord.” (Leviticus xxvii.) In such manner also the first born of both man and beast were “holy unto the Lord.” (Exodus, xiii; Numbers. Iii)

    The hypothetical supposition that the Nazarite was placed in a category with the priests is not quite correct. There are such pronounced divergences as to make this parallel incongruous. In reference to the Nazarite it is said: “If either man or woman will pronounce a vow as a Nazarite.” (Numbers, vi, 2.) There may have been woman Nazarites, as there are some names of women prophets mentioned in Holy Scriptures; yet there was absolutely no likelihood for a woman priest, or priestess, in Israel.

    Another striking divergence is in that the Nazarite was to abstain from wine on the strength of his own vow, while from the plain statement of the Biblical text (Leviticus x, 9) it appears that the priests were permitted to drink wine on all occasions, save only on their “entering the sanctuary to minister in the holiness.”

IN THE OLD TESTAMENT.

    There is but one single instance in the whole of the Old Testament wherein Nazarites are mentioned as a special caste (Amos ii, 11, 12); yet it is perfectly evident that the prophet there refers to a special class from among the young people, who were possessed of a bolder character. They took upon themselves the vow to abstain from drinking wine, in order to counteract the excesses of drink and other evils that were prevalent in the Kingdom of Israel.

    And yet, with all this it appears that they fell short of their purpose, as they were induced to break this vow. (Ibid.) There is hardly a single instance recorded in the Bible with any man of worth or prominence in whom all three restrictions of a Nazarite should be literally fulfilled. 

    Drinking wine was prohibited under the Mosaic law only to the priests during worship; to the Nazarite during the period of his Nazariteness, which, is unspecified, implied 30 days (Nazir., 5), and for all Israelites on occasions of mourning or penitence (Daniel x, 3; Zachariah vii, 3), as in vogue among most of the Jewish communities even to the present day—and when according to “Shulchan-Aruch” no weddings, festivities or rejoicings of any kind are permitted to be held.

    Barring these instances, “Nazaritism,” or “total abstinence,” was never encouraged in the Jewish faith and Biblical teaching.

    In post-Biblical times, and during the exile, Nazaritism began to show its signs and spread among the masses by reason of the mixture of Hellenian philosophies, and it was then that the rabbis, perceiving the grave danger arising therefrom to the public weal and even the public morals, did their best to suppress all practices of self-abnegation and abnormality.

THE RACHABITE ORDER.

    The Order of Rechabites, and others professing “total abstinence,” usually base their teachings upon the thirty-fifth chapter of Jeremiah, which is merely descriptive of a particular instance intended to demonstrate the virtue of obedience to paternal will, and is in no way proof of abstinence as a religious duty.

    The prophet herein points to the Rechabite family, known as the Kenites, descendants of Jethro, the father-in-law of Moses (see Judges i, 16; iv, 11; I Samuel x, 6; I Chron. ii, 55) as an example of true obedience and steadfastness; since they for many generations followed the rule of Jonadab, son of Rechab, the head of the clan, who charged them and their posterity to “drink no wine, build no house, sow no seed and plant no vineyard”—all of which would imply to oppose civilization and maintain the nomadic ideal.

    Rabbi David Sachs, in the Biur Commentary, finds a reason for these prohibitions in the following words of the text: “But in tents ye shall dwell all your days, in order that ye may live many days on the face of the land where ye may sojourn;” i. e., without inciting the jealousies of unfriendly nations, or become a prey to their rapacious attacks, and so the exercise of their father’s command would redound to the lasting benefit of the tribe of the Rechabites.

    “It is thus the rule of duty among Nomadic tribes,” say the “Biur,” to drink no wine, so that they might never be induced to plant vineyards and build houses for its sake; and in such manner be exposed to all the ills of a settled nation. He quotes Isidor, the Grecian writer, who relates of the children of Neboyoth (Ishmael’s first born) abiding in the Arabian desert, that they built no houses for themselves, planted no vineyards and sowed no seed, nor drank any wine; and that the infringement upon any of these restrictive laws among the tribes was punishable by death.

    Upon the Rechabite story nearly all total abstainers of the present day base their theories; and yet, as stated, there is absolutely nothing in this or any other lesson in the Bible to prove the virtue or moral excellence of total abstinence.

THE WINE OF ANCIENT DAYS.

    The assertion is often made by the advocates of prohibition that in Bible times there was a distinction known between intoxicating wine and a sort of unfermented wine, which latter, as they aver, was in use among the worthy and respectable for sacred purposes; the one being known as “Yayin” and the other as “Thirosh.” This flimsy argument, however is entirely without foundation, as “Yayin” (ordinary old wine) and “Thirosh” (vintage, first year’s wine) are used in the Bible synonymously, and both were known to be inebriating. (See Gesenius.) There is nothing in either the Hebrew Bible, the rabbinic lore or Midrashic literature to indicate any such distinction. 

    It should be noted that the term “mishte,” generally translated “feast,” or “banquet,” which occurs in the Bible so often in a good sense, and a few time also in a disparaging sense, originally denotes “a drinking” (from “shothoh,” to drink), and, according to the sages, “the feast is so termed from the principal feature thereof, which is the drinking.”

    I believe that the practice of “rejoicing before the Lord” and the timely drinking in friendly society of brethren in faith, and in the presence of the family circle, has for centuries past saved the Jew from the evils of inebriety. The sips from the “Cups of Divine Blessing” on the sanctification of the Sabbath and set feasts, administered to all the juvenile members of the Jewish race, in the synagogue and at the home of the faithful—is doubtless the thing that kept these people from the excessive use of alcoholic drink, the sort of inoculation that made them comparatively immune against the common plague which is smiting its thousands. 

WINE A NECESSITY?

    According to Hebrew teaching, as also in conformity with best reasoning, man’s joy cannot be complete without the blessing of the wine.

    It is a good and pious old custom among Jews on partaking of strong drink in solemn assembly of brethren and friends to say to one another: “Lechayim!” which means “For life!” signifying thereby their trust in its cheering and life and health-preserving properties.

    The ancient books speak only of wine and strong drink as they were produced in their days, but which in their effect, good or bad, cannot but have been equal to the alcoholic beverages of our days.

    In striving to accomplish our duty as men and moral beings we must not try to go beyond human nature and the ordinary conditions of human existence. “We must not become overwise and righteous over-much, in just the same manner as we must not be wicked and foolish overmuch.” (Ecclesiastes, vii, 16–18.) The way to reform is not to prevent, but to teach the proper use of things and to prevent their abuse.