The Maccabaean

In our democratic age the tabooed word aristocracy seems to evoke so much scorm that I well know how I risk being misunderstood by making use of this term as a ‚convenient expression of certain needs of our times. But in spite of our democratic hatred for the already decap- itated aristocracy, we cannot deny that although it has at present outlived its necessity, aristocracy had its raison d’etre in the military period of history. Since the centre of gravity has been transferred from the physical to the spiritual or intellectual power, it is most natural that we should no longer recognize the accumulated privileges of a class, which were originally acquired by physical strength. But we must confess, however, that had aristocracy continued to be a useful factor in our present organization, we might have upheld its principle with the same enthusiasm and reverence as we do now uphold the principle of democracy. There seems always to be a pragmatic basis to our moral and political principles. Our principles have been considered as true and sacred in so far as they have con- duced to the success of humanity. But what may be true for one age, may not prove to be so for the other, and what may be true for one nation may not be so for another. And it will be the contention of my paper, that since the eyolution of the Jewish people has followed a line of its own, we cannot apply to our national life and take as fixed and absolute truths the concepts derived from the history of other nations. The disappearance of aristocracy among the nations is no doubt a sign of their intellectual and moral development, but our Jewish people cannot yet afford to do away with its aristocracy, which is the central column on which the Jewish edifice is built.

The Jewish aristocracy is of a different origin and basis than the aristocracy of the nations. While with them, aristo-

cracy is a remnant, a survival of barbarism and of the domination of physical strength, with us aristocracy is a survival of the moral and intellectual greatness of the past. Jewish aristocracy from its very origin has never centred around the warrior or king, but around. the priest, the prophet, the elders, the Anshe Kenesset Hagadola, the Sanhedrin, the Nassi, the Av Bet Din, the Chacham, the Rash Galuta, and the like! The picture which the Jewish people has kept of King David is not that of a great warrior or a diplomat, but as the author of the Psalms, and the picture of King Solomon as the author of Ecclesiastes, Proverbs and of Solomon’s Song. It is the Temple, and not the court of the King, which was the centre of attraction in olden times. It is not necessary to dwell here: upon the prestige which ‚the high priest has always enjoyed, a prestige which sometimes surpassed that of the King. I is said in the Talmud that “When a sage dies there is none to succeed him, but when a king dies all Israel can succeed him to the throne” It is also said in the Talmud that in case of danger a sage should be saved before the king and a prophet before a general.

Just like the function of the military class among the nations, that of the Jewish aristocracy has been to guard and protect the integrity of Israel. The need of such a permanent establishment was felt at different periods of our history, even when Judaism was not yet pierced with the arrows of modern culture. The desire for such a permanent intellectual aristocracy has been expressed by Bachya, who was in favor of the formation of a class of monks, like the one existing among the Catholics. It is certainly true that the Catholics owe a great deal of their strength to their monastic system. But I hope that no one will understand by this that I consider the monastic system en-