The Vaccination War in Late 19th Century Jewish London

Rabbi Prof. Daniel Sinclair and Prof. Yehuda Lerman

In early 18th century Europe it is estimated that small pox was responsible for the deaths of approximately 400,000 people annually and a third of all cases of blindness. The death rate decreased dramatically as a result of inoculation, and rabbinical opinion tended to permit it notwithstanding reports that it resulted in a very small number of deaths. Medical and epidemiological information was a feature of several rabbinic works in this period permitting the use of inoculation against smallpox on both halakhic and theological grounds.

In 1798 the English physician Edward Jenner created the much safer smallpox vaccine and by the middle of the 19th century, laws mandating the compulsory vaccination of young children were becoming the norm. The first such law to be passed in the UK was the Vaccination Act, 1853. Towards the end of the century, stories of serious side-effects and distrust of the government and the medical establishment fueled a backlash against these laws, and there were numerous demonstrations in London and elsewhere against compulsory smallpox vaccinations. Parents who refused to vaccinate their children were routinely arrested, fined and in some cases, sent to jail.

In 1896, one Henry Levy, a Jewish Londoner, refused to allow his child to be vaccinated and was duly charged, tried and imprisoned. At a public meeting in support of their jailed co-religionist a letter from Joseph Hiam Levy (no relative), a lecturer in economics at Birbeck College and an important figure in the Personal Rights Association was read out to the large crowd. The main points in the letter were that compulsory vaccination was an infringement of personal liberty; the statistical evidence in favor of vaccination had been “doctored” to make it look better than it was in reality, and that vaccination constituted an infringement of Jewish law and theology. Levy was wellinformed in Jewish matters and cited the Biblical prohibition on mixing different kinds (Leviticus 19:19; Deuteronomy 22: 9-11) together with the hygienic thrust of the Jewish dietary laws which in his view would undoubtedly be opposed to placing diseased animal matter into the body of a healthy child in favor of his

anti-vaccination message. The Jewish magistrate who had prosecuted Henry Levy was present at the meeting and sent the gist of the letter to Chief Rabbi Hermann Adler with a request for comment. The Chief Rabbi wrote back that “Mr. J.H. Levy was not justified in the statements contained in the letter; that the most competent medical authorities were agreed as to vaccination being a prophylactic against smallpox and that its use was in perfect consonance with the letter and spirit of Judaism”.

Shortly afterwards, J.H. Levy’s letter was published in the local press and was read by Henry Levy in his cell in Pentonville Prison. Levy sent it to the Chief Rabbi in the hope that it would influence him to intervene on his behalf but was to be deeply disappointed. In his reply to Levy, Rabbi Adler wrote that disobeying the law of the land was a “great folly” especially since “vaccination has been instituted solely for the welfare of the citizens and in obedience to sound science”. In any case said Rabbi Adler, J.H. Levy was not an authority on medical science and “his opinions on the subject have, therefore, no value”. This letter was also published in the press and J.H. Levy promptly penned a sharp refutation which the newspapers duly printed. He reiterated his opposition to vaccination on the basis of the right of the minority to resist domination by the majority, and reminded his readers that English Jews were a minority who had fought hard for their right to remain Jews and still participate fully in public life. He was clearly rankled by Rabbi Adler’s remark that he was not an authority in the medical field, and in addition to criticizing Jenner for amongst other things, cruelty to animals, he argued that established authority has generally stood in the way of progress and in the case of vaccination was continuing to do so. In any case, the issue was solely one of scientific

Continued from page 35

evidence and on that score, it was very clear to him that the statistical evidence cited by the medical establishment in favor of vaccination against smallpox was unsound. He concluded by repeating his claim that vaccination constitutes a breach of Jewish law.

The next round in what the East London Observer of October, 1896 described as “the vaccination war” began with a speech given by J. H. Levy to a packed audience at a Jewish event in the East End in which he repeated his criticisms of smallpox vaccination and urged those present to send petitions to political figures calling for the speedy abolition of the compulsory vaccination law on the grounds of justice and hygiene. He also invoked the prophet Nathan and Lord Rothschild as figures to emulate in their resistance to established authority. His speech received a standing ovation. In December, 1896, Rabbi Adler published an open letter in the Jewish Chronicle in which he wrote that “there is no foundation whatsoever for the allegation by a Jew who had been summoned for neglecting to have his child vaccinated that there were religious objections to the use of vaccination”. The combination of eminent medical support for vaccination and an Act of Parliament mandating it was more than sufficient to make any Jewish vaccine opponent “guilty of a grave infraction of the Divine Law and the law of the land”. Rabbi Adler relied upon both the credence given to medical opinion in various areas of Jewish law including Sabbath observance, Yom Kippur and family purity matters, and the halakhic principle of “dina demalkhuta dina”, namely, the obligation to obey the law of the land in matters that do not partake of a purely religious nature.

Rabbi Adler’s view was accepted by all the leading Anglo-Jewish institutions but Levy continued to air his anti-vaccination position whenever the opportunity arose.

In the light of the increasing public opposition to compulsory vaccination a new Vaccination Act was passed in 1898 allowing parents who did not believe vaccination was efficacious or safe to obtain a certificate of exemption.

Continued from page 40