The above remarks refer to

Talith Gadol,

but there is another Talith Katon, i. e.

or Great Talith, (see plate 3); Talith which is called Little Talith. According to the institution of the Rabbies the Jews are obliged to wear fringes the whole day; but in order to avoid the odium and ridicule likely to be incurred by the singularity of appearance in such a dress as the Talith Gadol, they use it only at prayers, either in the synagogue, or at home, if prevented from going to the synagogue. In order, therefore, that they may fulfil the injunction of wearing fringes the whole day, (which were designed to remind them of God's precepts, not only during prayers, but all the day long), they have another kind of vestment for that purpose, called by some Talith Katon, or small vestment, (for it is very much smaller than the other), and by others

yn Arba Canphoth, or four corners. It consists of two quadrangular pieces generally of wool, the same as the Talith Gadol, joined together by two broad straps, and a space left sufficient for the head to pass between, exactly like a Popish scapular, (compare plates 4 and 5). From each of the corners hangs a fringe of the above mentioned description, so that the wearer may act according to the

מחזיר שתי ציצית לפניו,tradition of the Rabbies ; namely Two fringes are * ושתים לאחריו כדי שיהיה מסובב במצות

to be turned in front, and two at the back, in order that the wearer may be surrounded by precepts."

This Talith Katon is worn constantly; some Jews make it into the shape of a waistcoat, or jacket, and use it as an inner garment. The Talith Katon, as worn by the Jews in Poland, Russia, and Jerusalem, is very long, and so made as to present the fringes to their view (although it is used as an inner garment) and thus remind them of God's commandments; but the Jews in England are very careless in their observance of the precept of the Oral Law, which imperatively enjoins that the fringes should be

visible. They wear them in such a way as not to be visible at all. (See plate 4.)

We may well ask, what do our brethren in England say who agree with the writer of the article in the "Voice of Jacob," (Nos. 19—23,) “Is the Oral Law of Divine origin, and, therefore, binding upon the Jews?" Do they as boldly assert as the writer, when speaking of the Oral Law, "To us, they [i.e. traditions] are the fence, they are the safeguard which prevents the distraction of our religion," whilst they themselves neglect the majority of the laws which are Oral? As my intention is not to refute the trifling arguments of the writer of the above mentioned article, I refer my reader to the numbers of that periodical, which will be found too vague to stand long. It is rather singular that the writer does not attempt to refute in it Wagenseil's Tela Ignea Satanæ,' Eizenmenger's 'Endeckung der Judenthum,' or Dr. M'Caul's 'Old Paths. The writer in the "Voice of Jacob" cannot pretend that these eminent authors are unworthy of his notice on account of their ignorance of Hebrew, although he refused to answer a pamphlet of 65 pages, on the ground that the author of it, "one of themselves," was not sufficiently acquainted with Rabbinical literature.