The catechism goes on to say that these traditions form the "Mishna," and next that," in addition to this, we are guided by the explications of the later schools of pious and learned Rabbins, constituting what is now known by the name of the Talmud, or Gemara." This looks very like the ancient system of Judaism. But a document of more secret authority is described as having fallen into Dr. M'Caul's hands that is still more illustrative and curious. He calls it one of the Acts of the Jewish Beth din, or tribunal, in London. It relates to some quarrel with the Jews of Southampton on account of an alleged violation of ceremony on the part of the Slaughterer of that Jewish community, an officer, as we have already heard, of no ordinary importance. The Slaughterer is by name Joseph Abraham Goldman. We quote the letter referring to this subject of the Rabbi to the Jewish congregations in England, on which our author takes occasion to comment closely. 66 6 By the help of God "The Rav. the Gaon, the president of the tribunal of the congregations of the Church of Israel (may their Rock and Redeemer preserve them), which are in London, and also in the congregations which are in the country, and his righteous tribunal, hereby proclaim and make known, that Mr. Joseph Abraham Goldman, who was formerly slaughterer and meat-examiner in the holy congregation of Bristol, and afterwards in Southampton, has, some months since, been convicted, both by the Rav. the Gaon, the president of the tribunal, and also before his righteous tribunal (may their Rock and their Redeemer preserve them), of having broken his solemn engagement of striking of hands; and, therefore, the said Mr. Joseph Abraham Goldman is inadmissible to give testimony or to take an oath, and much less is he to be believed in matters of slaughtering or examining the slaughtered animals: therefore, every one who is surnamed with the name of Israel, will take heed not to eat of his slaughtering. Further, even the vessels of those householders who eat of his slaughtering are unlawful, as the vessels in which carrion and torn meat is boiled. And every one that hearkeneth to our words, upon him shall come the blessing of good, and he shall be written and sealed to a good life at the festial of the New Year, which is coming upon us for good, together with every one that is written to life in Jerusalem. "The little one, Solomon, son of the Gaon, our teacher and our master, Rav., Rabbi Hirsch (the memory of the righteous is blessed), dwelling here in the aforsaid holy congregation, and its precincts."" Now, Dr. M'Caul argues that this document becomes particularly interesting, by being illustrative of Judaism at the present moment in England, presupposing, as the letter does, that the Talmud is a book of divine authority; for in it we are told the ceremonies of slaughtering are detailed and appointed, being, in fact, a mysterious science which requires a licence from the Rabbi. Mr. J. A. Goldman's infraction of the law is not explained, but the difficulty of performing all its injunctions may be gathered from the next extract. Maimonides, in his treatise on the subject, defines the mode of performing the operation thus- On which part of the animal is the slaughtering to be effected? On the wind pipe, from the edge of the uvula downwards as far as the top of the extremity of the lungs, as these parts are situated when the beast stretches out its neck to feed: this is the place of the slaughtering in the windpipe; and all the part outside which answers to this place is called the neck. If the beast forces itself, and stretches out its neck much, or if the slaughterer force the signs, and draws them upwards, and he slaughter at the right part of the neck, but afterwards it be found that the windpipe or œsophagus is not cut at the right place, then it is a doubtful case of carrion.' In the same place he defines, that the knife or implement must have no gap in it: But if there be anything like a furrow in the edge of the instrument wherewith the slaughtering is effected, even though the furrow be the least possible, the slaughtering is unlawful.' But besides any flaw in the knife, there are other things which may render the slaughtering unlawful, and which are considered as the great essentials of the Rabbinic act: First; if the operator makes a pause of a certain length before the act is completed. Second; if the throat be cut at a single blow, as with a sword. Third; if the knife enters too deep and his hidden. Fourth; when the knife slips up or down from the right place. Fifth; when the windpipe or the oesophagus is torn, and comes out before the act is completed.' When all these conditions of lawfulness have been satisfied, the internal structure of the animal must be examined, and the result of this examination may be to pronounce that the meat is not fit for a Jew to eat. These few out of the multitudinous decisions and definitions of the oral law may shew the necessity of having the slaughterer first examined as to his competency, and will throw some light upon the chief Rabbi's letter. The power of the Rabbi to depose a slaughterer, and the course which the chief Rabbi has actually pursued in causing his sentence to be proclaimed in all the synagogues in England, are warranted by the following passage: If a slaughterer, who has not had his slaughtering-knife examined before a wise man [a Rabbi], slaughters by himself, his knife must be examined. If it be found in good order, he is to be excommunicated, because he may depend upon himself another time when it has a gap in it, and yet slaughter therewith. But if it be found to have a gap, he is to be deposed from his office and excommunicated, and proclamation is to be made that all the meat which he has slaughtered is carrion."" Our author well remarks that the intellectual condition of a people who can submit to such doctrines and practices must be in fetters; but this is not all, for where Jewish meat is subject to such ceremonies, and so liable to become unclean and carrion, the Jewish poor labour under excessive hardships. Their meat must be dear, and when we consider that they dare not partake of all the food provided in workhouses and hospitals, how hard must be the case of many a destitute, diseased, or aged member of the race! Every Jew has not the benefit and privileges of being near rich and benevolent brethren in London or other large cities. But our author does not stop here; for he maintains that, according to Talmudic law, oral declaration would not be the only severity to which the Slaughterer at Southampton would have to submit had the Rabbi and his tribunal the power to follow out their principles. · "The law is :- That if an Israelite does not know the five things which invalidate the art of slaughtering, as we have explained, and slaughters by himself it is unlawful both for himself and others to eat of that which he has slaughtered; for this case is much the same as that of doubtful carrion, and he that eats of it a quantity equal to an olive is to be flogged with the flogging of rebellion'-that is, without measure or mercy. But with respect to the Southampton Jews there can be no doubt at all. The chief Rabbi in London, and his righteous tribunal, have officially declared, that their food is no better than carrion; and consequently they are liable, whenever the commands of the oral law can be safely executed, to be visited with the aforesaid punishment. At present, Christian laws protect the Southampton Jews from the intolerance of their own religion; and as severity cannot be brought to bear upon the offenders, this letter contains another expedient for bringing them to submission; it promises blessings and life to those other Jews who will treat their Southampton brethren as excommunicate. Twice over the letter says, And every one that hearkeneth to our words, upon him shall come the blessing of good, and he shall be written and sealed to a good life at the festial of the New Year, which is coming upon us for good, together with every one that is written to life in Jerusalem.' The letter here takes the Rabbinical Jews by their weak side. Every such person looks forward with fear and trembling to the New Year, for the oral law teaches that,' As the merits and sins of a man are weighed at the hour of his death, so likewise every year, on the festival of New Year's day, the sins of every one that cometh into the world are weighed against his merits. Every one who is found righteous is sealed unto life. Every one who is found wicked is sealed unto death. But the judgment of the intermediate class is suspended until the Day of Atonement.' The principles according to which this judgment is supposed to be conducted are, that If a man's merits exceed his sins, he is righteous. If his sins exceed his merits, he is wicked. If they be half and half, he is a middling or intermediate person.' The consequence is, that as the New Year approaches, and especially in the month of Elul, in which the letter is dated, the Rabbinical Jews become more and more careful in observing their rites and ceremonies, that the balance of the account may not be against them. The Rabbi, however, promises them, if they will hearken to his words, that they shall receive a blessing, and be sealed to life. And this shews us at least, the estimate which the Rabbi and his righteous tribunal form of the state of the Jewish mind in England. They clearly take it for granted that the congregations to whom they wrote would be infl enced by these superstitious feelings connected with the New Year-that is, they believe that the Jews of England are still under the influence of the Talmud." It is quite clear that nothing but the Talmud or some other Jewish law, not recognised by the English code, can authorize the proceedings of the Rabbi and his tribunal in the case under consideration. What right have they to declare, for example, that Mr. Goldman is "inadmissible to give testimony or to take an oath ?" It may be said, and of course it is true, that this denunciation can only reach him as among themselves, and in the Congregation. But the very fact that such a sentence among themselves is tolerated is proof that Talmudism is powerful in England, and that it can erect a tribunal which the English constitution and its national laws never have recognised. Where then does the Judaism of this country differ from that of Poland, of Morocco, or of Palestine? It is admitted that there are many respectable and enlightened Jews in London. The Portuguese Jews have long been held in high esteem, and our author says they are now endeavouring to effect a public renunciation of some parts of Judaism. But while the Talmudic system itself remains in force through the nation, while the conduct of the Rabbi in the Southampton affair is not disputed or repudiated, what are we to think but that the other absurd superstitions and intolerant laws of oral and traditional origin would be observed as implicitly, even although greater interests and principles were at stake? Our author concludes with certain homethrusts, which ought to be disposed of by the next advocate in the House of Commons who may undertake to plead the political rights of the Jews, as entitling them to a seat in that legislative assembly. "If the laws respecting the slaughtering of animals, and the sentence of Rabbinic tribunals, be in force, and according to the chief Rabbi's letter they are so, then the intolerant laws respecting idolaters and Gentiles are also in force. Then all Gentiles who study in the law, or keep a Sabbathday, are guilty of death; then it is unlawful to help a drowning idolater; it is lawful to kill an apostate Jew, either by force or by fraud, as is most convenient; there is no such thing as marriage amongst Gentiles; and, whenever the Jews have the power, it will be their duty to convert all nations by force, and to put all who refuse to the sword. It is not meant to charge any particular individual of the Jewish nation with holding these principles, but if the Talmud be true and binding, and that it is so the last Jewish catechism published in this country asserts, and the chief Rabbi's letter implies, these are the tenets and doctrines of Judaism, and hitherto the members of the Jewish persuasion have not renounced them. They still profess a religion which professes that these doctrines are divine. If their profession be sincere, then they really hold, and no doubt are prepared to act upon, these principles. If their profession be insincere, the sooner they renounce it the better. They will have more peace in their own consciences, and will contribute in no small degree to restore their nation to that position to which their origin, their talents, and the benefits conferred upon the world by their forefathers, so well entitle them." 326 ART. II.-Woman's Wit; or, Love's Disguises. A Play, in Five Acts. Of this new play from the pen of our finest dramatic writer of the present age, we judge solely after a perusal in the closet, not having had the benefit of witnessing its representation on the stage; and, therefore, it is very probable that our opinion of it would be considerably altered or modified, were it made up from different or twofold advantages. As it is, we proceed to give an honest judgment according to the best of our opportunities. We could almost wish that Sheridan Knowles would re-write "Woman's Wit; or, Love's Disguises:" at any rate that he would be at the pains to prune it of some obvious blemishes that do not seem necessary even to the present caste of the piece. And yet it is so probable, were it to undergo any degree of remodelling, not to say regeneration, that it would suffer in the crucible, that we must be content and grateful for the production as it is; because, most certainly, the beauties and excellences outweigh the amount of the blemishes and defects, and indeed so much preponderate as must reconcile a fastidious critic to its present shape. The drawbacks, however, must not be overlooked by us. The play contains two stories-two heroines and two heroes; the heroines, be it borne in mind, attracting and concentrating the reader's interest far more than the corresponding specimens presented of the lords of the creation. And this, in fact, is ever the case with our dramatist, who is pre-eminently a " Woman's man.' But the two stories do not very naturally coalesce or serve to develope or set off one another. The one is tragical in its character, the other comical. Now, although we have high authority for this sort of union, it is not usual to constitute the former an underplot to the latter; and yet such is the case in "Woman's Wit." Again, both stories, and the two taken together, labour under strong improbabilities. We must say that" Love's Disguises" is a misnomer; for never surely were there such short-sighted lovers met with as the pair of heroes already referred to, who cannot see through the thin veil assumed by the pair of lady-loves. One thing is certain, that the reader of the play, long before it reaches half way, apprehends what must be its issue. To many it will be a fault not inferior to any yet noticed, that much space is wasted and many words spent without advancing the action of the piece, or enlarging the reader's conception of the characters. To find after all this, that the piece as a whole is not only tolerable but admirable, that the faults act but as specks to set off surrounding and superabundant beauties, to indicate something like wanton power, must surely be equivalent to the highest proof in favour |