- 46- Peter J. Haas

philosophy and theology. Jewish tradition makes its presence felt, but in a clearly secondary way. We witness here, it seems, a ritual in which a general philosophical or theological argument is made"Jewish " by citing Judaic material at strategic points. Talmud is quoted not as a source of knowledge or truth but as a source of identity. I say this, at least in part, because citations from classical rabbinic texts are never central to the argument, and are at times even inappropriately cited. Let me give one or two examples.

In the final essay of the book, Leopold Stein argues that Bernays’ proclamation was simply out of line. As proof he invokes the rabbinic maxim" ein onshin ele mazhirin"(One ought not punish but warn).(14) The statement as stated occurs nowhere in Talmud . Very similar statements do appear, however, in B. Zevahim 106b, for example. There the text is arguing that God in the Torah never establishes the punishment of utter extinction(karet) without first giving a written warning in Torah . This rather general view of how Torah relates to divine punishment is hardly comparable to the situation for which Stein uses the quote, namely to say that Bernays had no right to issue a ban against the prayerbook because he had not first issued a specific warning against using the second edition. The citation gives an aura of Talmudic sanction for Stein ’s point while being somewhat beside the point. A more blatant misuse of rabbinic authorities is committed by Joseph Aub.(15) Aub concedes that Bernays is technically correct in saying that one who does not say the prayer Emet Veyatziv(left out in the revised prayerbook) in the morning has not fulfilled his religious obligation. This comes straight from B. Berakhot 12a. Aub goes on to argue, however, that the tradition in fact has a more moderate side as well, and that the bald