religious and charitable contributions, or those concerning the corners of fields, or

those prohibiting the taking of interest or those connected with the Levitical cities. Then

let any one seriously ask himself, whether such institutions could have been for the first

time propounded or introduced by a legislator at the time of David, or Hezekiah, or of

Ezra? The more we think of the spirit and of the details of the Mosaic legislation, the

stronger grows our conviction, that such laws and institutions could have been only

introduced before the people actually settled in the land. So far as we are aware, this line

of argument has not before been proposed; and yet it seems necessary for our

opponents to meet this preliminary and, as we think, insuperable difficulty of their

theory, before we can be asked to discuss their critical objections.

But to return. Passing from Biblical, or, at least, from Old Testament to later times, we

find the old popular feeling in Palestine on the subject of commerce still existing. For

once Josephus here correctly expresses the views of his countrymen. "As for

ourselves," he writes (Ag. Apion, i, 60-68), "we neither inhabit a maritime country, nor

do we delight in merchandise, nor in such a mixture with other men as arises from it; but

the cities we dwell in are remote from the sea, and having a fruitful country for our

habitation, we take pains in cultivating that only." Nor were the opinions of the Rabbis

different. We know in what low esteem pedlars were held by the Jewish authorities. But

even commerce was not much more highly regarded. It has been rightly said that, "in the

sixty-three tractates of which the Talmud is composed, scarcely a word occurs in honour

of commerce, but much to point out the dangers attendant upon money-making."

"Wisdom," says Rabbi Jochanan, in explanation of Deuteronomy 30:12, "'is not in

heaven'--that is, it is not found with those who are proud; neither is it 'beyond the

sea'--that is, it will not be found among traders nor among merchants" (Er. 55 a). Still

more to the point are the provisions of the Jewish law as to those who lent money on

interest, or took usury. "The following," we read in Rosh Hash. 8. 8, "are unfit fo r

witness-bearing: he who plays with dice (a gambler); he who lends on usury; they who

train doves (either for betting purposes, or as decoys); they who trade in seventh year's

products, and slaves." Even more pungent is this, almost reminding one of the Rabbinic

gloss: "Of the calumniator God says, 'There is not room in the world for him and Me'" --

"The usurer bites off a piece from a man, for he takes from him that which he has not

given him" (Bab. Mez. 60 b). A few other kindred sayings may here find a pla ce. "Rabbi

Meir saith: Be sparing (doing little) in business, but busy in the Thorah" (Ab. iv. 2).

Among the forty-eight qualifications for acquiring the Thorah, "little business" is

mentioned (vi. 6). Lastly, we have this from Hillel, concluding with a very noble saying,

worthy to be preserved to all times and in all languages: "He who engages much in

business cannot become a sage; and in a place where there are no men, strive thou to be

a man."

It will perhaps have been observed, that, with the changing circumstances of the people,

the views as to commerce also underwent a slow process of modification, the main

object now being to restrict such occupations, and especially to regulate them in

accordance with religion. Inspectorships of weights and measures are of comparatively

late date in our own country. The Rabbis in this, as in so many other matters, were long

before us. They appointed regular inspectors, whose duty it was to go from market to

market, and, more than that, to fix the current market pric es (Baba B. 88). The prices for

produce were ultimately determined by each community. Few merchants would submit

to interference with what is called the law of supply and demand. But the Talmudical

laws against buying up grain and withdrawing it from sale, especially at a time of

scarcity, are exceedingly strict. Similarly, it was prohibited artificially to raise prices,

especially of produce. Indeed, it was regarded as cheating to charge a higher profit than

sixteen per cent. In general, some would have it that in Palestine no one should make

profit out of the necessaries of life. Cheating was declared to involve heavier

punishment than a breach of some of the other moral commandments. For the latter, it

was argued, might be set right by repentance. But he who cheated took in not merely

one or several persons, but every one; and how could that ever be set right? And all