|
Mr.
Falkenau’s Letter.
Mr. Editor:
In the December number of the Occident, I have read
two communications under the head of “Lard Oil,” both in reply to my
remonstrance printed in the November number, I am, therefore, obliged to
refer again to my statement, and to explain how I understood it.
In answer now to the first communication, that of
the Rev. Mr. Rice, I only consider the first lines of his letter as
intended merely to instruct the popular mind, and I would have likewise
made no remark in reply to his statement “that Maimonides and the
Mishna speak only of the pure extracted oil,” had this been said in
the negative style: “Maimonides does not speak of mixed oils.” But
what can he mean by such a positive assertion as he uses? He surely does
not intend to say that Maimonides speaks only of such oil of which we
have positive knowledge that it is pure olive oil by means of Jewish
inspectors, or seal, or even chemical tests. Nay, Maimonides speaks of
oil made, boiled and sold by gentiles as pure olive oil, and which,
having no knowledge of the contrary, we buy as it is for kasher. Mr. Rice next gives an explanation of the text which I cited
from Yoreh Deah, 103, § 4 (§ 13 in Siphthe Cohen), and he says: “The
authority referred to, treats only of a case where the oil has been
boiled in a pot, &c., which is said to spoil the oil, though fat
itself does not injure its taste.” But I cannot agree to such an
explanation; here is the literal translation of the text:*
“The oil and honey of gentiles, although boiled,
are permitted, because the meat spoils the oil and makes it rancid; the
same is the case with honey.” I cannot but see that this citation
treats of no particular case, but speaks on a general way of the oils
and honey of gentiles, although prepared by boiling. In the opinion of
one of the authorities speaking here, Maimonides, the pot is, according
to our laws, supposed as having been used the same day, and both he and
the Beth Joseph agree in the conclusion that “the meat (fat) itself
spoils the taste of the oil; and hence the Tore Zahab, commenting on the
text: “the same is the honey” (meaning; meat spoils the honey),
says: “We nevertheless have often eaten meat with honey, and found it
palatable.” (Tur Yoreh Deah 103, Kesef Mishne and Lechem Mishne on
Hilch. Ma. As. 17 § 18, 22.)
When we give a reference on any one subject, and
show the place where the law speaks of it, the text of the authorities,
especially such as Maimonides and Beth Joseph, deserves and demands to
be properly noticed and explained; and in drawing a conclusion from the
premises, the spirit of the law has to be regarded. Now on the present
subject, the point of spoiling the taste, the deduction of the
commentator from the law as laid down in the text is contrary to the
above rule; not by reason of a different explanation being given to the
passage as cited, but because of the existence of many other authorities
in direct opposition to it; and this is all the note (Siphthe Cohen, §
14) attached to the above cited passage, commencing: יש
אומרים “But
others say,” &c., can indicate.
I now arrive at
Mr. Rice’s deduction: “This mixed oil, therefore, is prohibited to
any Israelite;” and I must ask him, Do you call this speaking on the
subject? Who spoke about “the mixed oil?” The terms in the Occident
are “The olive oil of commerce,” “the olive oil of gentiles,”
which is in the legal term “the oil of gentiles.” In plain terms,
the question has never been, May an Israelite ask for a bottle of
“mixed oil,” but may he ask, in a gentile’s store, for a bottle of
“best olive oil,” and when told that it is such, may he buy it for
kasher as he has done before? From your not explaining yourself more
fully, your deduction must appear as an evasion of the question, and
people may be induced to think that you mean to say the same thing which
Mr. Abrahams declares as his opinion.
Nay, more, your
letter leaves one in doubt concerning your opinion with regard to the
editor’s suggestions itself. Do you fully sanction it with all its
consequences? or do you not? Your
letter does not contain any thing which would allow me to infer your
real opinion on this point, and, consequently, I do not know whether you
favour it or not.
I have proved
that you have not argues properly nor drawn correct conclusions
concerning my citations, deduction and remonstrance on the subject of
the oil of gentiles; consequently I cannot divine your motives,
intentions, reasons or right for expressing surprise at my remonstrance,
and then censuring me so harshly as you have done, in saying his
“deductions are quite incorrect.”
I have too much
respect for a man of learning and piety to retort with any severe
expression; but in my own defence I have to state distinctly, that it
was my intention solely to remonstrate as far as necessary, and to do so
in a most unpretending manner. Had it not been for this, I could have
said much more, aided by high ecclesiastical authority—the
late Rabbi of Wilna, an author of talmudical works, famed alike for
piety and learning, high in reputation among Israel—whose
writings have been published and republished at Wilna. I will merely
extract the following:
שמן זית וכו׳
ולא חיישינן
למה שאומרים
שמערבין בו
בשר חזיר דזה
ודאי נטל״פ
בו ועוד כמה
היתיר׳
“The olive oil, &c., and we need not feel any anxiety about the
rumours of admixture with pork, for this would sorely spoil the taste,
and there are besides other reasons for declaring this oil permitted.”
(Chochmath Adam, Rule 54., Sec. 15.) This authoritative argument
reguires no explanation, it speaks for itself, and proves that instead
of being “quite incorrect,” I am not only “quite correct,” but
also quite lawful; it shows that high ecclesiastical authorities have
been aware of such rumours for more than a score of years, before even
the Occident was in existence.*
The editor’s
suggestions is nothing like a commercial experiment, that one could say,
that “it could do no harm in a religious point of view, to have the
bottles sealed.” For his motives are stated, the object is pointed
out, it is religion, it is a purely religious suggestion, it has
religious consequences, and is in all respects an ecclesiastical matter.
And this suggestion has been stated in a manner, as if never a single
word about olive oil were mentioned in the laws, as if only the manner
of inspection belonged to the authorities of the Synagogue, but about
the suggestion itself not the least inquiry needed to be made, nor any
thing like sanction were required for it; and lastly as if no
ecclesiastical mind had ever heard or known any thing like an
apprehension of admixture with pork. And since all this almost is proved
to be the reverse, it was the duty of every Israelite to put the matter
in a truer light than it had been presented by the editor. This I did at
the time, as far as I deemed it necessary, and gave the Occident an
opportunity of defending itself against the charge of willful disregard of
the received authorities, since it was but an innocent, slight
inadvertence in a suggestion proposed with the best intentions and the
purest and most religious motives.
I now address myself to Mr. Abrahams, the writer of
the other communication, and I openly confess, that I cannot reproach
him with any thing like an evasion of the question; he is perfectly
clear in calling the thing by the right name, and stating another it
ought to have according to his opinion; and he accordingly draws his
conclusions from the premises he has laid down. But that I can by no
means agree with him either in his argument or conclusion, I have
already shown above, and I desire of him merely to read the oft cited
passage from Yoreh Deah, 103, with its commentaries, and to learn
therefrom on what principles נותן
טעם לפגם “imparting a
vitiating taste” is founded, and what is said concerning it. But I
desire him particularly to revert to his own citation: “But when
intentionally done even with a thousand times the quantity, the whole is
unfit for Jewish use.” (Yoreh Deah, 99, § 5.) The contrary is the
case. The passage cited by Mr. Abrahams plainly says: “That
(notwithstanding the mixing is done intentionally) the whole is fit for
all Jews except the person who does it, or in whose behalf it was done
with his knowledge;” I copy from the text
מותר
אדם כל ולשאר
(ואסורים
וכו׳) בשבילו
שנתבטל
למיוכל
שלוהוא אם
עצמולמבטל
אסורבמזיד
ואם
“And if intentionally (mixed or augmented) it is
prohibited to the person who has done so, if it is his, and to every one
for whose sake it was done (designedly) with his knowledge; and they are
forbidden to sell, &c.; but to every one else it is permitted.” (Yoreh
Deah, 99, § 5.) The noted attached to the text expound different cases
of even unintentional augmentation
It must be evident from this that Mr. A. has
mistaken the true sense of the very passage cited by him: consequently,
my position is rather strengthened than otherwise by this reference;
though it is in fact quite out of place in the question under
discussion.
In the above, Mr. Editor, I have made use of the
permission you have extended to me to reply to the communications of
Messrs. Rice and Abrahams, and requesting its insertion, I remain,
Very truly yours,
Jacob J. M. Falkenau.
New York, Dec. 23d, 5605.
Note.—The above letter came
too late for the January number; we insert it as a matter of justice;
but we must beg to be excused from inserting any thing farther in
relation to the subject of lard oil, believing that our readers have
enough of a discussion in which learned men so entirely and widely
differ. The question appears to us to be limited down to a single point.
There was formerly some discussion among Rabbins whether or not we could
purchase oil from gentiles, although there might be some suspicion of a
mixture. But no one could readily be deceived by the admixture of simple
lard or fat with olive or rape seed oils; in consequence of which the
opinion became general that there was no harm in purchasing any sort of
such oils, since the mixture of fatty substances would spoil the taste,
which would bring them under the general rule that where an admixture
spoils the taste it does not prohibit the permitted substance with which
it is mixed, in consequence of which the whole can be lawfully used. In
this point of view Mr. Falkenau is undoubtedly correct. But we spoke in
our note to Judge Noah’s communication of a new state of things, of
which the Rabbi of Wilna, Maimonides and Beth Joseph knew probably
nothing, we mean the preparation of lard oil as practised in this
country; and as it was alleged that this new product was extensively
mixed with olive oil, we thought and think so yet, that the new
circumstance altered the case entirely, and that had we competent
ecclesiastical authorities, they would at least institute inquiries, and
probably prohibit, after due reflection, the ordinary oils which are
bought at random from gentiles. But as we have no such authority in this
country, we merely offered, on our own responsibility, a suggestion in
good faith, and to yet think that if acted upon it would be perfectly
legitimate, though it were already a res adjudicata by many and
greatly learned Rabbins. We repeat, the inspection and sealing of olive
oil would be a good thing, even if the mixture which we now probably
often obtain might be lawfully used. We did not wish by this suggestion
to contradict the great lights of our people, especially as we are so
little acquainted with the many nice questions which the laws of
prohibition present, and we are thus, as we think, always safe to refuse
using that which we do not know as perfectly lawful.
We must note here an error which crept into Judge
Noah’s letter,
vol.
ii. p. 348, fourth line from bottom; for “would be 12 drops of
this liquor, to 14 spoonfuls of oil,” read “to four teaspoonfuls;”
this correction of an important error was communicated to us by Mr.
Dreyfous (at present in Cincinnati) who was present at the experiments
of Professor Reed. |
