diff options
| -rw-r--r-- | .gitattributes | 4 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | LICENSE.txt | 11 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | README.md | 2 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | old/68214-0.txt | 20563 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | old/68214-0.zip | bin | 474747 -> 0 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | old/68214-h.zip | bin | 725379 -> 0 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | old/68214-h/68214-h.htm | 23634 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | old/68214-h/images/cover.jpg | bin | 239393 -> 0 bytes |
8 files changed, 17 insertions, 44197 deletions
diff --git a/.gitattributes b/.gitattributes new file mode 100644 index 0000000..d7b82bc --- /dev/null +++ b/.gitattributes @@ -0,0 +1,4 @@ +*.txt text eol=lf +*.htm text eol=lf +*.html text eol=lf +*.md text eol=lf diff --git a/LICENSE.txt b/LICENSE.txt new file mode 100644 index 0000000..6312041 --- /dev/null +++ b/LICENSE.txt @@ -0,0 +1,11 @@ +This eBook, including all associated images, markup, improvements, +metadata, and any other content or labor, has been confirmed to be +in the PUBLIC DOMAIN IN THE UNITED STATES. + +Procedures for determining public domain status are described in +the "Copyright How-To" at https://www.gutenberg.org. + +No investigation has been made concerning possible copyrights in +jurisdictions other than the United States. Anyone seeking to utilize +this eBook outside of the United States should confirm copyright +status under the laws that apply to them. diff --git a/README.md b/README.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..d708f4d --- /dev/null +++ b/README.md @@ -0,0 +1,2 @@ +Project Gutenberg (https://www.gutenberg.org) public repository for +eBook #68214 (https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/68214) diff --git a/old/68214-0.txt b/old/68214-0.txt deleted file mode 100644 index 1cb1455..0000000 --- a/old/68214-0.txt +++ /dev/null @@ -1,20563 +0,0 @@ -The Project Gutenberg eBook of The old paths, or the Talmud tested by -Scripture, by Alexander McCaul - -This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and -most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions -whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms -of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at -www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States, you -will have to check the laws of the country where you are located before -using this eBook. - -Title: The old paths, or the Talmud tested by Scripture - Being a comparison of the principles and doctrines of modern - Judaism with the religion of Moses and the prophets - -Author: Alexander McCaul - -Release Date: June 6, 2022 [eBook #68214] - -Language: English - -Produced by: MFR, David King, and the Online Distributed Proofreading - Team at http://www.pgdp.net. (This file was produced from - images generously made available by The Internet Archive.) - -*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE OLD PATHS, OR THE TALMUD -TESTED BY SCRIPTURE *** - - - - - - THE OLD PATHS - - - - - THE OLD PATHS, - - OR - - THE TALMUD TESTED BY SCRIPTURE; - - BEING - - A COMPARISON OF THE PRINCIPLES AND DOCTRINES - - OF - - MODERN JUDAISM, - - WITH THE - - RELIGION OF MOSES AND THE PROPHETS. - - BY THE - - REV. ALEXANDER McCAUL, D.D., - - LATE PROFESSOR OF DIVINITY, KING’S COLLEGE, LONDON; - AND LATE PREBENDARY OF ST. PAUL’S. - - LONDON: - LONDON SOCIETY’S HOUSE, - 16, Lincoln’s Inn Fields. - - 1880. - - - - - TO - - THE RIGHT HONOURABLE AND RIGHT REVEREND - - CHARLES JAMES, LORD BISHOP OF LONDON, - - ETC., ETC., - - WHOSE APPROBATION OF HIS LABOURS - - HAS BEEN AN ENCOURAGEMENT AND A REWARD, - - THE FOLLOWING PAGES - - ARE RESPECTFULLY - - AND GRATEFULLY INSCRIBED, BY - - THE AUTHOR. - - - - - ADVERTISEMENT TO THE SECOND EDITION. - - -Nine years have now elapsed since “The Old Paths” appeared as a volume. -They have been translated, in the meantime, into Hebrew, German, and -French; and their merits discussed by the learned and unlearned of the -Jewish people, in all the countries of their dispersion. The reception -has in general been favourable, and the effect upon the Jewish mind -perceptible. Since their first appearance, the West London Synagogue and -the Liturgies of the British Jews, both renouncing that which “The Old -Paths” pronounced objectionable, have started into existence. The -assembled rabbies at Brunswick and Frankfort have discussed topics -similar to some treated in “The Old Paths,” and in some cases come to -similar conclusions respecting the value of Rabbinic Traditions. The -Reform Societies of Germany have commenced a formidable attack upon the -Oral Law, and a free discussion is now carried on in the numerous Jewish -periodicals of that country, of which the results are easily foretold. -The promised German translation of the Talmud, if ever completed, must, -without any discussion, overthrow Talmudism. Its exhibition in any -European language is the most fatal attack that can be made on its -authority. It needs only to be seen as it is, in order to be rejected. -The reader is again warned against mistaking this discussion of the -merits of Rabbinism for an attack upon the Jewish people, or the rabbies -of the present day. The reproach attaches not to the victims, but to the -authors of tradition. The Jews are a great and a noble people, and the -majority ignorant of the details of the system, by which they have been -bowed down and misrepresented for centuries; so ignorant, indeed, that -some zealously undertake a defence of the whole, maintain that Rabbinism -is a perfect model of charity and wisdom, and regard “The Old Paths” as -a mere emanation of common Anti-Jewish prejudice. Such persons are -requested to compare these papers with the articles in the Jewish -periodical, entitled, “Der Israelit des Neunzehnten Jahrhunderts,” -written by Rabbi Dr. Holdheim, and other distinguished Jewish scholars. -They will there find that, had the author not been influenced by a -desire to avoid all occasion of unnecessary offence, truth might have -been stated with more severity. - -A mistake in one number, not, however, affecting the argument, has been -corrected. - - - - - ADVERTISEMENT TO THE FIRST EDITION. - - -The reader will perceive, by the date at the head of each number, that -the following papers were published weekly, and, from the contents, he -will readily infer that they were intended for distribution amongst -those Jews who still adhere to the rabbinic system. But in presenting -them to the public as a volume, it may be well to state that the great -object was to exhibit Judaism as it appears in its practical workings, -and that, therefore, most references are made to the Jewish Prayer-book, -and to the codes of law commonly in use amongst rabbinic Jews, and which -are considered as authoritative. It was the Author’s wish, not to -ridicule any man’s superstition, but to instruct those, whom Moses and -the Prophets would have declared to be in error. He has therefore, -carefully avoided the tone in which Eisenmenger and others have treated -this subject, and, in treating the Jewish legends, has confined himself -to those which are mentioned in the prayers of the Synagogue. The -materials are the result of many years’ study and practical observation. -Buxtorf, Majus, Edzard, Eisenmenger, Wagenseil, &c., have been carefully -consulted, but the Jewish Liturgies, the Arbah Turim, the Shulchan -Aruch, the Yad Hachasakah, are the principal sources, whence this view -of Judaism has been drawn. The Author has only to add a hope, that these -papers may not be misunderstood, either by Jew or Christian, but that -all who read them will carefully distinguish between Judaism and the -Jewish people—and a wish, that they may contribute to the welfare of -Israel, and the promotion of truth. - - - - - CONTENTS. - -I. Rabbinism not a Safe Way of Salvation 1 - -II. Implicit Faith not due to the Rabbies 8 - -III. Rabbinic Injustice to Women, Slaves, and Gentiles 16 - -IV. Rabbinic Intolerance towards other Nations 24 - -V. Talmudic Intolerance contrasted with the Charity of the Bible 32 - -VI. Compulsory Conversion of the Gentiles 39 - -VII. The Feast of Purim 47 - -VIII. Rabbinic Contempt for the Sons of Noah 55 - -IX. Christians cannot be reckoned amongst the “Pious of the Nations of -the World” 63 - -X. Rabbinic Washing of Hands 70 - -XI. Rabbinic Artifices respecting Leaven at the Passover 79 - -XII. The Passover a Type of Future Deliverance 87 - -XIII. Severity of the Rabbinic Ordinances 95 - -XIV. Severity and Artifice 103 - -XV. Sabbath Mixture 111 - -XVI. Intolerance of Rabbinic Prayers 119 - -XVII. Rabbinic Legends in the Synagogue Services 127 - -XVIII. Rabbinic Legends, continued 136 - -XIX. Legends in the Prayers for Pentecost 144 - -XX. Legends in the Prayers for Pentecost 152 - -XXI. Legends in the Prayers for Pentecost 160 - -XXII. Rabbinic Magic 167 - -XXIII. Astrology 175 - -XXIV. Amulets 183 - -XXV. Charms 191 - -XXVI. Charms, continued 199 - -XXVII. Sabbatic Laws 207 - -XXVIII. Fast for the Destruction of the Temple 215 - -XXIX. Sabbatic Laws, continued 223 - -XXX. Sabbatic Laws, continued 231 - -XXXI. Rabbinic Excommunication 239 - -XXXII. New Year’s Day 247 - -XXXIII. New Year, continued 255 - -XXXIV. New Year, continued 262 - -XXXV. Justification 270 - -XXXVI. Day of Atonement 279 - -XXXVII. Feast of Tabernacles 287 - -XXXVIII. Prayers for the Dead 295 - -XXXIX. Almsgiving 302 - -XL. Priests and Levites 310 - -XLI. Rabbinic Ideas of the Deity 319 - -XLII. Title of Rabbi 326 - -XLIII. Sanhedrin 334 - -XLIV. Sanhedrin, continued 342 - -XLV. Sanhedrin, continued 349 - -XLVI. Contempt for the Female Character 357 - -XLVII. Polygamy 365 - -XLVIII. Divorce 372 - -XLIX. Rabbinic Laws concerning Meat 380 - -L. The Birth of Messiah 387 - -LI. Slaughtering of Meat, continued 396 - -LII. Laws concerning Meat with Milk 403 - -LIII. Rabbinism oppressive to the Poor 411 - -LIV. Gentile Wine 419 - -LV. Mourning for the Dead 427 - -LVI. Dispensation from an Oath 434 - -LVII. Doctrine of Oaths, continued 442 - -LVIII. Meritoriousness of Circumcision 449 - -LIX. Cruelty to the Unlearned 457 - -LX. Recapitulation 464 - - - - - No. I.[1] - RABBINISM NOT A SAFE WAY OF SALVATION. - - -SALVATION IS OF THE JEWS. Amongst all the religions systems existing in -the world, there are but two deserving of attentive consideration, and -they are both of Jewish origin, and were once exclusively confined to -the Jewish nation. They are now known by the names of Judaism and -Christianity; but it must never be forgotten that the latter is as -entirely Jewish as the former. The Author of Christianity was a Jew. The -first preachers of Christianity were Jews. The first Christians were all -Jews; so that, in discussing the truth of these respective systems, we -are not opposing a Gentile religion to a Jewish religion, but comparing -one Jewish creed with another Jewish creed. Neither in defending -Christianity, do we wish to diminish aught from the privileges of the -Jewish people; on the contrary, we candidly acknowledge that we are -disciples of the Jews, converts to Jewish doctrines, partakers of the -Jewish hope, and advocates of that truth which the Jews have taught us. -We are fully persuaded that the Jews whom we follow were in the -right—that they have pointed out to us “the old paths,” “the good way,” -and “we have found rest to our souls.” And we, therefore, -conscientiously believe, that those Jews who follow the opposite system -are as wrong as their forefathers, who, when God commanded them to walk -in the good old way, replied, “We will not walk therein.” Some modern -Jews think that it is impossible for a Jew to be in error, and that a -Jew, because he is a Jew, must of necessity be in the right. Such -persons seem to have forgotten how the majority of the people erred in -making the golden calf—how the generation that came out of Egypt died in -the wilderness because of their unbelief—how the nation at large -actually opposed and persecuted the truth of God in the days of -Elijah—how their love of error sent them into the Babylonish -captivity—and how there has been some grievous error of some kind or -other, which delivered them into the hands of the Romans, and has kept -them in a state of dispersion for so many hundred years. But the passage -from which our motto is taken sets forth most strikingly the possibility -of fatal mistake on the part of the Jewish nation, and also the -possibility, in such a case, of God’s turning to the Gentiles. “Thus -saith the Lord, Stand ye in the ways, and see, and ask for the old -paths, where is the good way, and walk therein, and ye shall find rest -for your souls. But they said, We will not walk therein. Also, I set -watchmen over you, saying, Hearken to the sound of the trumpet. But they -said, We will not hearken. _Therefore hear, ye nations,_ שמעו הגוים, and -know, O congregation, what is among them. Hear, O earth; behold, I will -bring evil upon this people, even the fruit of their thoughts, because -_they have not hearkened unto my words, nor to my law, but rejected -it_.”—Jer. vi. 16-19. Who will dare to deny, after such a passage, the -possibility of a Jew’s being in error? - -But some may ask, What is Judaism? what is Christianity? ANSWER.—Judaism -is that religious system contained and acknowledged in the prayers of -the Jewish synagogue, whether German or Portuguese, and professed by all -who use them as the ritual of their worship. Christianity is the -religious system taught in the New Testament; or, in other words, -Judaism is the Old Testament explained according to the traditional law, -תורה שבעל פה. Christianity is the Old Testament explained according to -the New. According to this explanation, the Jewish Prayer-book teaches -the divine authority of the oral law. Of this there can be no doubt, -for, in the first place, the whole ritual of the synagogue service, and -the existence and arrangement of the synagogue itself, is according to -the prescription of the oral law, as may be seen by comparing the Jewish -prayers with the Hilchoth T’phillah. If it be asked why the Jew uses -these prayers, and no other—why he wears phylacteries (תפילין) and the -veil (טלית)—why he conforms to certain ceremonies at the New Year, and -the Day of Atonement, and the other feasts—why he repeats a certain -benediction at the reading of the law—why he reads out of a parchment -roll, rather than out of a printed book—why a roll of the law written in -one way is lawful, and in another way unlawful, the only answer is, the -oral law commands us thus to do. The whole synagogue worship, therefore, -from the beginning to the end of the year, is a practical confession of -the authority of the oral law, and every Jew who joins in the synagogue -worship does, in so far, conform to the prescriptions of Rabbinism. But, -secondly, the Jewish Prayer-book explicitly acknowledges the authority -of the oral law. In the daily prayers, fol. 11, is found a long passage -from the oral law, beginning, - -איזהו מקומן של זבחים, - -“which are the places where the offerings were slaughtered,” &c. On fol. -12, we find the thirteen Rabbinical rules for expounding the law, -beginning, - -רבי ישמעאל אומר, - -“Rabbi Ishmael says,” &c. At the end of the daily prayers we find a -whole treatise of the oral law, called, פרקי אבות, “the ethics of the -fathers,” the beginning of which treatise asserts the transmission of -the oral law. In the morning service for Pentecost, there is a most -comprehensive declaration of the authority and constituent parts of the -oral law. “He, the Omnipotent, whose reverence is purity, with his -mighty word he instructed his chosen, and clearly explained the law, -with the word, speech, commandment, and admonition, in the Talmud, the -Agadah, the Mishna, and the Testament, with the statutes, the -commandment, and the complete covenant,” &c., p. 89. In this prayer, as -used, translated, and published by the Jews themselves, the divine -authority of the oral law is explicitly asserted, and the Talmud, -Agadah, and Mishna, are pointed out as the sources where it is to be -found. For these two reasons, then, we conclude that the Judaism of the -Jewish Prayer-book is identical with the Judaism of the oral law, and -that every Jew who publicly joins in those prayers does, with his lips -at least, confess its divine authority. - -Having explained what we mean by Judaism, we now go on to another -preliminary topic. Some one may ask, what is the use of discussing these -two systems? May they not both be safe ways of salvation for those that -profess them? To this we must, according to the plain declarations of -these systems themselves, reply in the negative. The New Testament -denounces the oral law as subversive of the law of God. “Then the -Pharisees and scribes asked him, Why walk not thy disciples according to -the tradition of the elders, but eat bread with unwashen hands? He -answered and said unto them, Well hath Esaias prophesied of you -hypocrites, as it is written, This people honoureth me with their lips, -but their heart is far from me. Howbeit in vain do they worship me, -teaching for commandments the doctrines of men.” (Mark vii. 5-7.) The -oral law is still more exclusive. It excludes from everlasting life all -who deny its authority, and explicitly informs us that Christians are -comprehended in anathema,— - -ואלו הן שאין להם הלק לעולם הבא אלא נכרתין ואובדין ונדונין על גודל רשעם -וחטאתם לעולם ולעולמי עולמים המינין והאפיקורסין והכופרים בתורה וכו ׃ - -“_These are they who have no part in the world to come, but who are cut -off, and perish, and are condemned on account of the greatness of their -wickedness and sin for ever, even for ever and ever, the heretics and -the Epicureans, and the deniers of the law_,” &c. Here is the general -statement. But to prevent all mistake, a particular definition of each -of these classes is added, from which we extract the following passage:— - -שלשה הן הכופרים בתורה האומר שאין התורה מעם ה׳ אפילו פסוק אחד אפילו תיבה -אחת אם אמר משה אמרו מפי עצמו הרי זה כופר בתורה וכן הכופר בפירושיה והיא -תורה שבעל פה והמכחיש במגידיה כנון צדוק וביתום והאומר שהבורא החליף מצוה -זו במצוה אחרת וכבר בטלה תורה זו אף על פי שהיא היתה מעם ה׳ כנון הנוצרים -וההנרים כל אחד משלשה אלה הוא כופר בתורה ׃ - -“_There are three classes of the deniers of the law. He who says that -the law is not from God, yea, even one verse or one word: or if he says -that Moses gave it of his own authority. Such an one is a denier of the -law. Thus, also, he who denies its interpretations: that is, the oral -law, and rejects its Agadoth as Sadok and Baithos: and he who says that -the Creator has changed one commandment for another, and that the law -has long since lost its authority, although it was given by God, as the -Christians and Mahometans, each of these three is a denier of the -law._”—Hilchoth T’shuvah, c. iii. 8. - -In the first extract we see that those persons called “deniers of the -law,” are, according to the doctrine of modern Judaism, shut out from a -hope of salvation. In the second extract we see that Christians are by -name included in that class: from the two together it inevitably follows -that modern Judaism teaches that Christians cannot be saved. We do not -find any fault with modern Judaism for pronouncing this sentence; we do -not tax the Jews either with uncharitableness or intolerance because of -this opinion. On the contrary, we honour those who, conscientiously -holding this opinion, have the honesty and the courage to declare it. If -they consider us as deniers of the law, they must, of course, believe -that our state is far from safe; and if this be their conviction, the -best proof which they can give of true charity, is to warn us of our -danger. But, at the same time, when a religious system condemns us by -name, and pronounces sentence concerning our eternal state in so decided -a tone, and that simply because we dissent from some of its tenets, we -not only think that we have a right to defend ourselves and our -religion, but consider it our bounden duty to examine the grounds on -which a system of such pretension rests, and honestly, though quietly, -to avow our reasons for rejecting it. We know, indeed, that there are -some Rabbinical Jews, who think this sentence harsh, and consider -themselves justified in denying it, because there is another sentence in -this same oral law, which says, “that the pious amongst the nations of -the world have a part in the world to come.” But can they prove, by any -citation from the oral law, that Christians are included “amongst the -pious of the nations of the world?” If they can, then they will prove -that in one place the oral law denies, and in another place affirms the -salvability of Christians; that is, they will prove that the oral law -contains palpable contradictions, and therefore cannot be from God. If -they cannot produce any such citation, then the general declaration that -“the pious of the nations of the world” may be saved, is nothing to the -purpose; for the same law which makes this general declaration, does -also explicitly lay down the particular exception in the case of -Christians, and that after it has made the general declaration. In fact, -the exception follows close on the heels of the general rule. The -general rule is,— - -כל ישראל יש להם חלק לעולם הבא .... וכן חסידי אומות העולם יש להם חלק -לעולם הבא ׃ - -“_All Israel has a share in the world to come ... and also the pious of -the nations of the world have a share in the world to come._” The words -which immediately follow this declaration contain the exception,— - -ואלו הן שאין להם חלק לעולם הבא וכו - -“_But these are they which have no part in the world to come_,” &c. This -exception is, therefore, plainly made in order to guard against any -false inference from the general statement, and, therefore, according to -the oral law, Christians cannot be saved. We proceed, therefore, to -inquire into the merits of this system, which makes so decided a -statement respecting our eternal state. We have a standard of comparison -to which no Jew will object, even that Holy Book, which contains the -writings of Moses and the prophets. We reject the oral law, not because -it seems in itself bad or good to our judgment, but because it is -repugnant to the plain words of the Old Testament. There is not space to -enter at large into the proof at present, but we subjoin one passage, -which is in itself amply sufficient to disprove the divine authority of -any religious system where it occurs. In the Talmud, in the Treatise -Pesachim, fol. 49, col. 2, we read as follows:— - -אמר רבי אלעזר עם הארץ מותר לנחרו ביום הכפורים שחל להיות בשבת אמרו לו -תלמידיו רבי אמור לשחטו אמר להן זה טעון ברכה וזה אינו טעון ברכה ׃ - -Rabbi Eleazar says, “It is lawful to split open the nostrils of an -amhaaretz (an unlearned man) on the Day of Atonement which falls on the -Sabbath. His disciples said to him, Rabbi, say rather that it is lawful -to slaughter him. He replied, That would require a benediction, but here -no benediction is needful.” It is hardly needful to remind the reader -that the law of Moses says, לא תרצח, “Thou shalt not kill.” But there is -in this passage a sneering contempt for the unlearned, which is utterly -at variance with the character of Him “whose mercies are over all his -works,” the unlearned and the poor, as well as the mighty and the -learned. - -Indeed the passage is so monstrous, that one is almost inclined to think -that it must have crept into the Talmud by mistake; or, at the least, to -expect that it would be followed by reprehension the most explicit and -severe. But no, a little lower down another of these “wise men” says,— - -עם הארץ מותר לקרעו כדג, - -“It is lawful to rend an amhaaretz like a fish;” and, a little above, an -Israelite is forbidden to marry the daughter of such a person, for that -she is no better than a beast. But the whole of the preceding passage is -so characteristic of the spirit of Rabbinism, that it is worth -inserting— - -תנו רבנן וכו׳ , - -“Our Rabbies have taught. Let a man sell all that he has, and marry the -daughter of a learned man. If he cannot find the daughter of a learned -man, let him take the daughter of the great men of the time. If he -cannot find the daughter of a great man of the time, let him marry the -daughter of the head of a congregation. If he cannot find the daughter -of the head of a congregation, let him marry the daughter of an almoner. -If he cannot find the daughter of an almoner, let him marry the daughter -of a schoolmaster. But let him not marry the daughter of the unlearned, -for they are an abomination, and their wives are vermin; and of their -daughters it is said, ‘Cursed is he that lieth with any beast.’” Here, -again, one is inclined to suppose that there is a mistake, or that these -words were spoken in jest, though such a jest would be intolerably -profane; but all ground for such supposition is removed on finding this -passage transcribed into the digest of Jewish law, called the Schulchan -Aruch, part 2; in the Hilchoth P’riah ur’viah, by which transcription it -is stamped, with all the authority of a law. Here, then, the reader is -led to think, that an amhaaretz must mean something more and worse than -an unlearned man—that it ought, perhaps, to be taken in its literal -signification, “people of the land,” and that it may refer to the -idolatrous and wicked Canaanites. But the common usage of the Talmud -forbids a supposition. There is a well-known sentence which shows that -even a High Priest might be an amhaaretz:— - -ממזר ת׳׳ח קודם לכהן גדול עם הארץ , - -“A learned man, though illegitimate, goes before a High Priest, who is -an amhaaretz.” Here the amhaaretz is plainly opposed to him that is -learned. And so, on the page of the Talmud from which we have quoted -above, we find the following words:— - -עם הארץ אסור לאכול בשר בהמה שנאמר זאת תורת הבהמה והעוף כל העוסק בתורה -מותר לאכול בשר בהמה ועוף וכל שאינו עוסק בתורה אסור לאכול בשר בהמה ועוף ׃ - -“An amhaaretz is forbidden to eat the flesh of a beast, for it is said, -‘This is the _law_ of the beast and the fowl.’ (Levit. xi. 46.) Every -one that laboureth in the law, it is lawful for him to eat the flesh of -the beast and the fowl. But for him who does not labour in the law, it -is forbidden to eat the flesh of the beast and the fowl.” According to -this passage an amhaaretz is one who does not labour in the study of the -law; and it being found on the very same page with the above most -revolting declarations, it plainly shows the proud and haughty spirit of -the authors of the Talmud, and their utter contempt for the poor, whose -circumstances preclude them from the advantages of study. But, in -reading such passages, the question naturally suggests itself, to which -of the two classes does the poor Jewish population of London belong? -There must be at the least hundreds, if not thousands of poor Jews in -this great city who cannot possibly devote themselves to study. Amongst -whom, then, are they to be classed? Amongst the learned תלמידי חכמימ? or -amongst the unlearned עמי הארץ? Are they, their wives, and daughters, as -the Talmud says, to be called an abomination, vermin, and compared to -the beasts? Or can a religion inculcating such sentiments proceed from -that Holy One who is no respecter of persons? See here, ye children of -Abraham, whom the providence of God has placed amongst the children of -poverty, and cut off from the advantage of a learned education. You are -not disciples of the wise, nor the great men of the time, nor heads of -synagogues, nor almoners, nor even schoolmasters. You are quite shut out -from these classes whom your Talmudical doctors favour so highly. See, -then, in the above passages, what the Talmud says of yourselves, your -wives, and daughters? Can you believe that this is the law of the God of -Israel? Can you think for one moment, that these doctors knew “the old -paths,” “the good way?” If you do we must assure you that we cannot. We -rather find it in that book, which says, “Blessed is the man that -considereth the poor and needy.” (Psalm xli. 1.) And in that other book, -which speaks in the same spirit, and says that “God hath chosen the -foolish things of this world to confound the wise; and the weak things -of this world to confound the things which are mighty, and base things -of the world, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that -are; that no flesh should glory in his presence.” (1 Cor. i. 27, 28.) - -Footnote 1: - - Published originally January 15, 1836. - - - - - No. II. - IMPLICIT FAITH NOT DUE TO THE RABBIES. - - -It appears from the undisguised acknowledgments of the New Testament, -that the doctors and rabbies of the Jews, the Pharisees, and scribes, -were the implacable enemies of Jesus of Nazareth, and that they were the -main instruments in effecting his death. The modern Jews consider this -fact as a sufficient apology for their rejection of his claims to the -Messiahship. They take it for granted that the great and learned men of -that day were also good men, and that they had valid reasons for their -conduct. They think if Jesus of Nazareth had been the true Messiah, that -the Sanhedrin, the great Jewish council of the time, would have -acknowledged him, and conclude that, as they rejected him, he cannot be -the true Messiah. The New Testament, on the contrary, accounts for their -unbelief by plainly telling us, that they were bad men; and that they -were enemies to the Lord Jesus, because he told them the truth, and -exposed their hypocrisy. Now, which of these two representations accords -with the truth? Were the scribes and Pharisees, those great advocates of -the _oral law_, תורה שבעל פה, good men or bad men? The readers of our -first number will be in some degree qualified to answer this question. -Could those be good men who profanely talked of the lawfulness of -killing an unlearned man, and who contemptuously compared the wives and -daughters of the unlearned to “vermin and beasts?” If they could talk -with levity of “rending like a fish” an unlearned man, one of their own -brethren who had never done them any harm, what were they likely to do -with one who exposed their wickedness, and boldly told them that they by -their traditions made void the law of God? The very fact, that Jesus of -Nazareth was put to death by such men, is presumptive evidence, that he -was a good man, and that his claims were just. But, however that be, it -is worth while to inquire into the charges, which the New Testament -brings against these learned men, and to see whether they are -substantiated by the memorials of their character and spirit, which they -themselves have left us in their laws. One of the charges preferred -against them is, that they were ambitious men, covetous of worldly -honour, and loving the pre-eminence. “But all their works they do to be -seen of men; they make broad their phylacteries, and enlarge the borders -of their garments. And love the uppermost rooms at feasts, and the chief -seats in the synagogues, and greetings in the markets, and to be called -of men, Rabbi, Rabbi.” (Matt. xxiii. 5-7.) Now, is this charge true? -Does the oral law justify this assertion, or does it prove, on the -contrary, that the enemies of Jesus were humble, pious men, whose piety -serves as a warrant for the uprightness of their conduct in their -treatment of the Lord Jesus? Let the reader judge from the following -laws which these men framed with respect to themselves. In the first -place they claim for themselves more honour and reverence than is due to -a man’s own parents:— - -כשם שאדם מצווה בכבוד אביו וביראתו כד הוא חייב בכבוד רבו וביראתו יותר -מאביו וכו׳ ׃ - -“As a man is commanded to honour and fear his father, so he is bound to -honour and fear his Rabbi more than his father; for his father has been -the means of bringing him into the life of this world, but his Rabbi, -who teaches him wisdom, brings him to the life of the world to come.” -(Hilchoth Talmud Torah, c. 5.) This general rule is bad enough, but the -particulars are still worse. “If a man should see something that his -father has lost, and something that his Rabbi has lost, he is first to -return what his Rabbi has lost, and then to return that which belongs to -his father. If his father and his Rabbi be oppressed with a load, he is -first to help down that of his Rabbi, and then that of his father. If -his father and his Rabbi be in captivity, he is first to ransom his -Rabbi and afterwards his father unless his father be the disciple of a -wise man (_i.e._, learned), in which case he may ransom his father -first.” How fearful is this doctrine! A man is to see his father, the -author of his existence, the guardian of his infancy, who has laboured -for his support, and watched over him in the hour of sickness, he is to -see this friend, to whom, under God, he owes everything, pining away in -the bitterness of captivity, and yet, when he has got the means of -restoring him to liberty and his family, he is to leave him still in all -his misery, and ransom the Rabbi; where is this written in the Old -Testament? “Honour thy father and thy mother,” is there the first -commandment that follows after our duty to God, and the first movement -of natural affection. But this Rabbinical doctrine silences the voice of -nature, and makes void the law of God. What is the doctrine of the New -Testament here? “If any provide not for his own, and specially for those -of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an -infidel.” (1 Tim. v. 8.) The disciples of the Lord Jesus Christ never -claimed for themselves any honour like this. In the passage just cited, -they plainly declare that the first, in the circle of duties to men, is -the duty to our own flesh and blood. And the only case in which the New -Testament permits a deviation from this rule, is that where the same -exception is made in the law of Moses, when love to parents would -interfere with love to God. “If any man come to me and hate not his -father and mother, and wife and children, and brethren and sisters, yea, -and _his own life also_, he cannot be my disciple.” (Luke xiv. 26.) Here -father and mother, and kindred, are put in one category with a man’s own -life, in order to show that there is but one case in which the natural -ties of blood may be overlooked, and this is when the service of God -requires it. As it is also written in the law of Moses, “If thy brother, -the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy -bosom, or thy friend who is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, -saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou -nor thy fathers.... Thou shalt not consent unto him, nor hearken unto -him, neither shall thine eye pity him,” &c. (Deut. xiii. 6-9.) And thus -the tribe of Levi is praised, because “He said unto his father and his -mother, I have not known him; neither did he acknowledge his brethren, -nor know his own children.” (Deut. xxxiii. 9.) But this Talmudical law -is widely different. It has no saving clause to show that the case -specified is an exception to the general rule. It does not pretend to -suppose that the father is a bad man, or an idolater, or an apostate. It -specifies but one exception, and that is, where the father is “the -disciple of a wise man;” otherwise, though he be a good man, and a pious -man, a loving and tender parent, still he is to be disregarded by his -own son, and the Rabbi preferred before him. Is it possible to doubt -that the men who conceived, sanctioned, and promulgated a law like this, -had an eye to their own personal honour and interest? Is it reasonable -to suppose that men who would sacrifice their own father to the honour -of their Rabbi, would be very tender about the life of one who appeared, -like Jesus of Nazareth, as an opposer of their pretensions? Or can the -Jews, with the law and the prophets in their hands, suppose that these -men pointed to “the old paths,” “the good way?” This is certainly not -the doctrine of Moses. He says:— - -ארור מקלה אביו ואמו ואמר כל העם אמן ׃ - -“Cursed be he that setteth light by his father or his mother, and all -the people shall say, Amen.” (Deut. xxvii. 16.) - -But these men did not stop here. They were not content with being -exalted above father and mother. They did not scruple to assert, that -their honour was as sacred as that of God himself:— - -ואין לך כבוד גדול מכבוד הרב ולא מורא ממורא הרב אמרו חכמים מורא רבך כמורא -שמים ׃ - -“Thou must consider no honour greater than the honour of the Rabbi, and -no fear greater than the fear of the Rabbi. The wise men have said, The -fear of thy Rabbi is as the fear of God.” - -They endeavour to prove the validity of these extravagant claims by such -passages as Exod. xvi. 8, “Your murmurings are not against us, but -against the Lord.” But they have taken for granted what they can never -prove, and that is, that every Rabbi is invested with the same office -and authority as Moses. But where, in all the law of Moses, is there any -warrant for such an assumption? Moses could with all propriety say, -“Your murmurings are not against us, but against the Lord,” for he held -a special commission from God, and had proved to the people the reality -of his commission by a series of miracles. But this the Rabbies never -pretended to do. In this dearth of evidence the advocates of tradition -flee for refuge to Deut. xvii. 8, &c. “If there arise a matter too hard -for thee in judgment, between blood and blood, between plea and plea, -and between stroke and stroke, being matters of controversy within thy -gates; then shalt thou arise, and get thee up into the place which the -Lord thy God shall choose; and thou shalt come unto the priests, the -Levites, and unto the judge that shall be in those days, and inquire, -and they shall show thee the sentence of judgment. And thou shalt do -according to the sentence, which they of that place which the Lord shall -choose shall shew thee; and thou shalt observe to do according to all -that they inform thee; according to the sentence of the law which they -shall teach thee, and according to the judgment which they shall tell -thee, thou shalt do; thou shalt not decline from the sentence which they -shall show thee to the right hand nor to the left.” Here, say the -traditionists, is a plain and unequivocal command. No doubt, God here -plainly declares what is to be done in a difficult case. He commands the -Israelites to go to the place which the Lord God chose, that is, to the -place where was found the ark of the covenant; and to inquire, not of -the Rabbies, but of the priests, the Levites, and the judge השופט. But -this passage, instead of proving that “the fear of the Rabbi is as the -fear of God,” proves the contrary. It supposes first, that the Rabbies -and learned men may differ in judgment, that there may be a controversy, -and consequently, that one party may be in the wrong. It, therefore, -effectually overthrows Rabbinical infallibility. It shows that these -learned men are, after all, only poor fallible creatures like ourselves, -and that, therefore, we are not to fear them as we would fear God, nor -reverence their dictates, as the Word of God. It shows secondly, that in -a case of difficulty, the Israelites were not to appeal to the Rabbies, -but to the priests כהנים, and to the judge שופט, and even to them only -in the place which the Lord should choose. There is not one word said -about the Rabbies or the wise men, and, therefore, this passage -completely annihilates all their lofty pretensions. For centuries the -place which the Lord chose has been desolate, and there has been no -priest standing to minister before the Lord. The Jews have thus lost all -possibility of appeal. They have neither ministering priest nor judge, -and the Mosaic law nowhere recognises the pretensions of the Rabbies. -But some Jew may say, that though this passage does not prove the -authority of the Rabbies, it does at least warrant the Jews in -persisting to reject the claims of the Lord Jesus, for that he was -condemned by the priests, and in Jerusalem, the place which the Lord -chose. We confess that this objection is plausible; but can easily prove -that it is nothing more. In order to this, we ask the Jews, whether the -above command to abide by the sentence of the priests is in every case, -and without any exception, binding? To this question there are two -answers possible—Yes and No. If they say No, then they admit that the -priests might sometimes be in the wrong, and we would, of course, take -advantage of this admission to show that they erred in their judgment on -Jesus of Nazareth. They will then, most probably, say, Yes; the sentence -of the priests, the Levites, and the judges, is in every case binding, -and Israel is commanded not to deviate from it, either to the right hand -or to the left, upon pain of capital punishment. We beg of them then to -turn to the 26th chapter of the Prophet Jeremiah, and to consider the -case there set before them. We there find that Jeremiah had delivered a -message from God, very similar to our Lord’s prediction of the -destruction of Jerusalem. “I will make this house like Shiloh, and will -make this city a curse to all the nations of the earth.” We find, -further, that for this message the priests condemned Jeremiah to death, -just as their successors condemned Jesus of Nazareth. “Now it came to -pass, when Jeremiah had made an end of speaking all that the Lord had -commanded him to speak unto all the people, that _the priests_, and the -prophets, and all the people took him, saying, Thou shalt surely die.” -We find, further, that this sentence was pronounced “in the place which -the Lord had chosen,” in the Temple itself. “And all the people were -gathered against Jeremiah in the house of the Lord.” We find, further, -that the sentence against Jeremiah was no rash sudden act, but the -deliberate judgment of the priests. For when the princes of Judah came -afterwards to inquire into the matter, “Then spake _the priests_ and the -prophets unto the princes and to all the people, saying, _This man is -worthy to die_, for he hath prophesied against this city, as ye have -heard with your ears.” Now, then, we ask again, whether the people of -Israel was in duty bound to abide by this sentence, and not to decline -from it, either to the right hand or to the left? We fearlessly reply, -that they were not bound by this sentence, and that, if they had -executed it, they would have been guilty of murder, as Jeremiah himself -declares: “But know ye for certain, that if ye put me to death, ye shall -surely bring innocent blood upon yourselves, and upon this city, and -upon the inhabitants thereof: for of a truth the Lord hath sent me unto -you to speak all these words in your ears.” We infer, therefore, that it -was possible for the priests, assembled in solemn deliberation in the -house of the Lord, to err in judgment, and to pronounce on unrighteous -sentence. We infer, further, that it was possible for the priests so far -to err, as to condemn to death a true prophet of the Lord. We infer, -further, that in such a case the people was not bound by this mistaken -judgment; but that it was their duty to decline from it, both to the -right hand and to the left. We infer, lastly, that as the priests might -mistake, and unjustly condemn to death a true prophet, their sentence -against Jesus of Nazareth forms no more argument against the Messiahship -of Jesus, than the similar sentence just considered did against the true -prophetic character of Jeremiah; and that it affords just as little -warrant for Jewish unbelief as the former sentence did for putting -Jeremiah to death. - -But it may be asked, if the judgment of the priests was not infallible, -and if men were sometimes justifiable in refusing it, what use was there -in the above commandment to apply to them in cases of difficulty, and to -abide by their sentence? The answer to this is very simple. The priest -that stood to minister before the Lord had it in his power, before the -destruction of the first Temple, to inquire of the Lord and to receive a -miraculous answer from God himself, which answer was, of course, -infallible, and universally obligatory, without the possibility of -exception. We find in the Old Testament many instances in which the -Israelites availed themselves of this power, as in Judges xx. 27, “And -the children of Israel inquired of the Lord (for the ark of the covenant -of God was there in those days: and Phinehas, the son of Eleazar, the -son of Aaron, stood before it in those days), saving, Shall I yet again -go out to battle against the children of Benjamin my brother, or shall I -cease? And the Lord said, Go up; for to morrow I will deliver them into -thine hand.” And in the history of David’s life, there are several -instances of his employment of this miraculous power, as 1 Sam. xxiii. -4, “Then David inquired of the Lord yet again. And the Lord answered him -and said, Arise, go down to Keilah; for I will deliver the Philistines -into thine hand.” In all such cases where the priest first inquired of -the Lord, his sentence was, of course, infallible, and the Israelites -were bound to abide by it. But where they did not inquire of the Lord, -their sentence was only that of fallible men, and, therefore, not -binding upon the consciences of the people. Of this sort was their -sentence upon Jeremiah. Being wicked men, they did not choose to ask -counsel of the Lord, but pronounced sentence according to the devices of -their own hearts. In the case of the Lord Jesus Christ the priests could -not ask counsel of the Lord, for in the second Temple the Urim and -Thummim, and the ark of the covenant, were wanting; the miraculous -power, therefore, did not exist, and for this very reason the sentence -of the priests, during the whole period of the second Temple, was only -fallible, like that of other men, and, therefore, not binding, and -consequently of no force as an argument against the Messiahship of the -Lord Jesus Christ. The above passage, therefore, from the 17th of -Deuteronomy, is of no use to the Rabbinical Jews, it does not prove the -infallibility of the priests in the second Temple, and is still less -applicable for sanctioning the traditions of the oral law, and the -extravagant claims of the Rabbies. Having given this passage the -consideration it deserves, we now return to the laws which the Rabbies -have made in favour of themselves, and for their own honour. We consider -that the two passages of the oral law already quoted, prove that the New -Testament gives a fair delineation of their character. When men, without -any warrant from God’s Word, claim for themselves the same degree of -reverence which is due to God, it must be admitted that they are -vainglorious and wicked in no ordinary degree. But it is possible to -descend to particulars:—For instance, our Lord says, that these men -“loved greetings in the market-places, and to be called of men, Rabbi, -Rabbi.” Now one of the laws, still extant, forbids a man, when speaking -of his Rabbi, to call him by name:— - -אסור לו לתלמיד לקרות לרבו בשמו ואפילו שלא בפניו , - -“It is forbidden to a disciple to call his Rabbi by name, even when he -is not in his presence.” Another law, still extant, prescribes the -formula of greeting or salutation:— - -ולא יתן שלום לרבו או יחזיר לו שלום כדרך שנותנים לריעים ומחזירים זה לזה -אלא שוחה לפניו ואומר לו ביראה וכבוד שלום עליך רבי ׃ - -“Neither is he to salute his Rabbi, nor to return his salutation in the -same manner that salutations are given or returned amongst friends. On -the contrary, _he is to bow down before the Rabbi, and to say to him, -with reverence and honour, Peace be unto thee, Rabbi_.” The Rabbinical -Jews, who see this, must not mistake us. We do not consider it in -anywise sinful, but decorous, to treat a Rabbi with all due respect. We -should feel no objection ourselves to make a bow to a Rabbi, and to -salute him in the prescribed formula. But we cite these laws to show -that the New Testament gives a fair representation of the Pharisees: for -men, who could gravely sit down and enter into all these details of the -mode in which they were to be honoured, and then give out these laws as -divine, and, besides all this, call in the civil power to enforce them, -must have had no mean idea of themselves and their own dignity. It must -never be forgotten that these laws are not the mere regulations of a -religious community. When the Rabbies had the power in their own hands, -they enforced them by civil sanctions. They were not satisfied with -excluding despisers of Rabbinical authority from eternal life, _they -prosecuted such before the tribunals, and sentenced them to a pecuniary -fine and excommunication_, as may be seen from the following law:— - -וכל המבזה את החכמימ אין לו חלק לעולם הבא והרי הוא בכלל כי דבר יהוה בזה ׃ -אף על פי שהמבזה את החכמים אן לו חלק לעולם הבא אם באו עדים שבזהו אפילו -בדברים חייב נדוי , ומנדין אותו בית דין ברבים וקונסין אותו ליטרא זהב בכל -מקום ונותנין אותו לחכם והמבזה את החכם בדברים אפילו לאחר מיתה מנדין אותו -בית דין וכו׳ , - -“Whosoever despises the wise men has no share in the world to come. But -notwithstanding this, if there come witnesses to prove that he has been -guilty of contempt, even in words, his sentence is excommunication, and -the tribunal (house of judgment) excommunicates him publicly, and -everywhere mulct him in a pound of gold, and give it to the wise man. He -that despiseth a wise man in words, even after his death, is to be -excommunicated by the tribunal,” &c. We now ask the Jews of modern times -what they think of those who made their own personal honour the subject -of legislation, who required the same reverence for their words as the -Word of God, and who dragged up him that refused it before a tribunal, -had him sentenced to pecuniary fine, and excommunication; and, besides -all this, excluded him from the hope of everlasting life? Had such men -any idea of liberty of conscience? - - - - - No. III. - RABBINIC INJUSTICE TO WOMEN, SLAVES, AND GENTILES. - - -If any of our readers should think that the design of these papers is to -represent the oral law as a system of unmixed evil, we beg to assure -them that they are mistaken. We are fully aware that a system based on -the law and the prophets, must and does contain much that is good and -worthy of admiration. Of this nature is the general command to all -Israelites to study the law, which is as follows:—“Every man of Israel -is bound to study the law. Whether he be poor or rich, healthy or -unhealthy, young or old, yea, though he live upon alms, and beg from -door to door, and though he have a wife and children, he is bound to set -apart a fixed time for the study of the law, by day and by night, as it -is written, ‘Thou shalt meditate therein by day and by night,’” And -again, the maxim, “Every one that is bound to learn is also bound to -teach;” and that, “therefore, a man is bound to teach his son and his -son’s son,” &c., is in accordance with the plain command of God, and is -therefore good. But the explanation and development of these good -principles shows that the system itself is radically bad, and therefore -cannot be from God. No one will deny that the Rabbies are right in -asserting the obligation resting on every Israelite to study the law: -but they are wrong in their explanation of what the law is. Immediately -after the above good command, the oral law goes on to say, “Every one is -bound to divide the time of his study into three parts: one-third to be -devoted to the written law; one-third to Mishna; and one-third to -Gemara:” so that the written law of God is to have only half as much -attention as the traditions of men. This is bad enough. But the Rabbies -do not stop here. They go on to say, that this third of attention is -only required when a man begins to study, but that when he has made -progress, he is to read the law of God only at times, and to devote -himself to Gemara. - -בד׳׳א בתחלת תלמודו של אדם אבל כשיגדיל בחכמה ולא יהא צריך לו ללמוד תורה -שבכתב ולא לעסוק תמיד בתורה שבעל פה יקרא בעתים מזומנים תורה שבכתב ודברי -השמועה כדי שלא ישכח דבר מדברי דיני תורה ויפנה כל ימיו לגמרא ׃ - -“What has been said refers only to the beginning of a man’s learning, -but as soon as a man becomes great in wisdom, and has no need of -learning the written law, or of labouring constantly in the oral law, -let him at fixed times read them, that he may not forget any of the -judgments of the law, _but let him devote all his days to Gemara_.” It -is to be observed that “oral law” is here taken in a limited sense, as -referring to the expositions of the written law, or, as Rabbi Joseph -Karo[2] explains it, the Mishna; and Gemara signifies the legal -decisions which are inferred by a process of reasoning, and to this -third topic of Jewish theology the Israelites are commanded to give the -chief of their time and attention, rather than to the written Word of -God. - -The apparent excellence of the above command to study the law is thus -utterly destroyed by the Rabbinical exposition of what is to be studied. -And if we go on to inquire upon whom this command is binding, the -Rabbinical answer will afford just as little satisfaction. When the -Rabbies say, that “every man of Israel is bound to study the law,” they -mean to limit the study to the men of Israel, and to exclude the women -and slaves. The very first sentence of the Hilchoth Talmud Torah is - -נשים ועבדים וקטנים פטורים מתלמוד תורה , - -“Women and slaves and children are exempt from the study of the law.” -According to this declaration, women are not obliged to learn. The -following extract will confirm this opinion, and at the same time show -that there is no obligation on fathers to have their daughters taught. - -אשה שלמדה תורה יש לה שכר אבל אינו כשכר האיש מפני שלא נצטוית , וכל העושה -דבר שאינו מצווה עליו לעשותו אין שכרו כשכר המצווה ועושה אלא פחות ממנו -ואע׳׳פ שיש לה שכר צוו חכמים שלא ילמד אדם את בתו תורה מפני שרוב הנשים אין -דעתן מכוונת להתלמד אלא הן מוציאות דברי תורה לדברִי הבאי מפי עניות דעתן , -אמרו חכמים כל המלמד את בתו תורה כאלו למדה תיפלות , בד׳׳א בתורה שבעל פה -אבל תורה שבכתב לא ילמד אותה לכתחלה ואם למדה אינו כמלמדה תיפלות ׃ - -“A woman who learns the law has a reward, but it is not equal to the -reward which the man has, _because she is not commanded to do so_: for -no one who does anything which he is not commanded to do, receives the -same reward as he who is commanded to do it, but a less one. But though -the woman has a reward, the wise men have commanded that no man should -teach his daughter the law, for this reason, that the majority of women -have not got a mind fitted for study, but pervert the words of the law -on account of the poverty of their mind. The wise men have said, Every -one that teacheth his daughter the law is considered as if he taught her -transgression.[3] _But this applies only to the oral law._ As to the -written law, he is not to teach her systematically; but if he has taught -her, he is not to be considered as having taught her transgression.” - -According to this decision, it is absolutely forbidden to teach a woman -the oral law; and the teaching of it is looked upon as the teaching of -transgression תיפלות. We cannot forbear asking the advocates of the oral -law, whether it does not here testify against itself that it is bad. It -declares of itself that it is unfit for the perusal and study of the -pure female mind, and that it is as corrupting as the teaching of -transgression. We ask, then, can such a law be divine? Can it proceed -from the God of Israel, who hath said, “Be ye holy, for I am holy?” What -a noble testimony to the superiority of the written Word, and to the -justice of the Lord Jesus Christ’s opposition to the oral law! The oral -law itself says, “He that teacheth his daughter the oral law, is to be -considered as if he taught her transgression. He that teacheth her the -written law, is not to be so considered.” With such a confession, we -fearlessly ask the sons and daughters of Israel, who then was in the -right? Jesus of Nazareth, who opposed it, or the scribes and Pharisees -who defended it? - -But “the wise men” also forbid Israelites to teach women the written -law, and declare that women are not bound to learn. For the prohibition -they assign two reasons. First, they say that God has commanded them to -teach only their sons, in proof of which they refer to Deut. xi. 19, -“And ye shall teach them your children.” In the Hebrew it is בניכם “your -sons;” and the rabbies infer ולא את בנותיכם, “and not your -daughters.”[4] Secondly, they say, as we have seen above, “that the -majority of women have not got minds fitted for study,” and in the -Talmud[5] this is attempted to be proved from Scripture. “A wise woman -once asked R. Eliezer, How it was that after the sin of the golden calf, -those who were alike in transgressions did not all die the same death? -He replied, A woman’s wisdom is only for the distaff, as it is written, -‘All the women that were wise-hearted did spin with their hands.’” -(Exod. xxxv. 25.) We hesitate not to say, that both these reasons are -contrary to Scripture. We do not deny that בניכם signifies sons, but we -utterly deny the conclusion of the Rabbies, that because the masculine -word is used, therefore the women are not included in the command. There -is an abundance of instances in which the masculine word בנים is used -for children generally, without any allusion to sex. Take for example -Exod. xxii. 23 (in the English 24), “And my wrath shall wax hot, and I -will kill you with the sword; and your wives shall be widows, and your -children בניכם (literally your sons) orphans.” Here again the masculine -word is used, so that if the Rabbinical argument be valid in the above -case, it will be valid here, and consequently the daughters are excluded -from this denunciation, so that the sons were to be orphans, but not the -daughters, which is plainly impossible. In the same way we can prove -that the daughters of Israel did not wander in the wilderness forty -years, for in Numbers xiv. 33, it is said, “And your children ובניכם -(literally your sons, and, therefore, according to Talmudic logic, not -your daughters) shall wander in the wilderness forty years.” The same -logic will also prove that during the three days of miraculous darkness -in Egypt, the women of Israel were left in darkness as well as the -Egyptians, for it is said all the children of Israel (ולכל בני ישראל, -literally the sons of Israel) had light in their dwellings. And thus -also it might be proved that not one of the ten commandments is binding -upon the women, for the masculine gender is employed throughout. This -logic, therefore, is evidently false; and we conclude, on the contrary, -that as the women are included in all these passages—as they wandered -through the wilderness, and had light in their dwellings—and are bound -to keep the ten commandments as well as the men, so also they are -included in the command, “Ye shall teach them your children,” and that, -therefore, the command of the oral law not to teach women, is contrary -to the Word of God. But we are not confined to argument, God has plainly -commanded that the women should learn as well as the men. “And Moses -commanded them, saying, At the end of every seven years, in the -solemnity of the year of release in the Feast of Tabernacles, when all -Israel is come to appear before the Lord thy God in the place which he -shall choose, thou shalt read this law before all Israel in their -hearing. Gather the people together, men _and women_, and children, and -thy stranger that is within thy gates, that they may hear, and _that -they may learn_ ולמען ילמדו, and fear the Lord your God, and observe to -do all the words of this law.” (Deut. xxxi. 10-12.) Here a most -beautiful order is observed, and required of women as well as men; -hearing—learning—fearing—keeping the words of the law—God wills that -that women should fear him and keep his commandments as well as the men; -and therefore he wills that they should make use of the same means, that -they should hear, and learn all the words of the law. The traditionists -have, therefore, in this case plainly made void the law of God. God -commands women as well as men to learn the law; the Rabbies say they are -exempt from this duty. God commands that the woman should be taught. It -is plain, therefore, that the oral law, which contradicts the written -law, cannot be from God. The command of God is so plain that it is -unnecessary to enter deeply into the second Rabbinical reason for the -prohibition to teach women the law. It is evident that God did not think -that the poverty of their understanding was any obstacle to their -learning his will. Indeed it has pleased Him to show that He is no -respecter of persons with regard to male or female, more than with -regard to rich or poor. He has not only given them his law, but -conferred on women as well as men the gift of prophecy, so that the -names of Deborah, Hannah, and Huldah, must ever be remembered amongst -the inspired messengers of God. The Rabbies seem to have forgotten that -“the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom,” and that this fear -may be implanted by God just as easily in the heart of a woman as of a -Rabbi. But without inquiring further into their reasons or their -motives, suffice it to say, that the oral law in thus robbing women of -their right and inheritance in the law of God, and in degrading them to -the same category with children and slaves, is opposed to the plain -commands of the written law. But not so the New Testament. It exactly -agrees with the Old in considering woman as a rational and responsible -being, and a candidate for everlasting life. It, therefore, gives one -general rule for the education of children, male and female. “Ye -fathers, provoke not your children to wrath, but bring them up in the -nurture and admonition of the Lord.” (Ephes. vi. 4.) It does indeed -prescribe modesty and subjection to the women in the mode or learning, -but in so doing it plainly points out their duty to become acquainted -with the will of God. “Let the woman learn in silence with all -subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach nor to usurp authority -over the man, but to be in silence.” (1 Tim. ii. 11, 12.) - -In these and other passages the woman is placed in the position assigned -her in the Old Testament, and not in the very subordinate rank imposed -upon her by the oral law. “Women, and slaves (עבדים), and children, are -exempt from the study of the law.” But we think that this rule is as -false with regard to slaves as to women. Here the oral law says that -slaves are not bound to learn. In Hilchoth Avadim, c. viii. 18, we find -that they are not to be taught. - -אסור לאדם ללמד את עבדו תורה ׃ - -“It is forbidden to a man to teach his slave the law.” But, alas, the -passage of the Word of God which forbids it, is not referred to. It is -only an inference from the passage, “Ye shall teach your _sons_;” but is -evidently contrary to the whole tenour of the law of Moses. In the first -place, the Israelite who had been sold by the tribunal, or who, on -account of poverty, had sold himself, was still an Israelite, and did -not forfeit, finally, his right to his inheritance in the land; how, -then, could he forfeit his right to the law, which Moses gave as “the -inheritance of the congregation of Jacob?” The law of Moses expressly -provides a day of rest “for the man servant and the maid servant,” that -they may not only have rest for their bodies, but may have time to learn -the will of God, and provide for that eternity to which they are -hastening as well as their masters. Indeed, if meditation on the Word of -God was more necessary for one Israelite than another, it was for the -Hebrew servant. If he had been guilty of theft, and had been sold by the -tribunal, he had special need of instruction in the law of God to lead -him to repentance, and to teach him his duty for the future. If he had -been guilty of no crime, but had been compelled by poverty to sacrifice -his liberty, surely he needed the consolation which the Word of God can -supply, to enable him to bear his hard lot with patience, and to prevent -him from murmuring. But here the oral law steps in, and actually -prohibits his master from teaching him; and instead of encouraging him -in his leisure time to turn to the Word of God as his refuge and his -comfort, it tells him that he is not bound to study it. Here, again, the -New Testament is much more like the law of Moses, which breathes, all -through, a spirit of the most tender compassion for those in servitude. -Moses commands the Israelites to remember that they had themselves been -bondmen in Egypt. The New Testament reminds Christian masters that they -have a master in heaven. “Ye masters, do the same things unto them, -forbearing threatening: knowing that your master also is in heaven; -neither is there respect of persons with him.” (Ephes. vi. 9.) It also -plainly teaches that the relation which exists between believing masters -and servants is, before God, that of brethren. “And they that have -believing masters, let them not despise them, because they are brethren; -but rather do them service because they are faithful and beloved, -partakers of the benefit.” (1 Tim. vi. 2.) Yea, the New Testament lays -down a general principle, the very opposite of that, that “women, and -slaves, and children are exempt from the study of the law.” It says, -“There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there -is neither male nor female, for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.” (Gal. -iii. 28.) It does not dispense men from their relative duties, nor -deprive any of their legitimate privileges, but teaches that for all, -Jew or Greek, bond or free, male or female, there is but one way of -salvation. Very different is the doctrine of the oral law. We have seen -that it makes a grand distinction between male and female, bond and -free, we need not, therefore, be surprised if it make the line of -demarcation broader still between Jew and Greek. - -גוי שעסק בתורה חייב מיתה , לא יעסוק אלא בשבע מצוות שלהן בלבד , וכן גוי -ששבת אפילו ביום מימות החול , אם עשהו לעצמו כמו שבת חיב מיתה , ואין צריך -לומר אם עשה מועד לעצמו , כללו של דבר אין מניחין אותן לחדש דת ולעשות -מצוות לעצמן מדעתן , אלא או יהוה גר צדק ויקבל כל המצוות , אל יעמוד בתורתו -ולא יוסיף ולא יגרע , ואם עסק בתורה או שבת , או חדש דבר , מכין אותו -ועונשין אותו ומודיעין אותו שהוא חייב מיתה על זה אבל אינו נהרג ׃ - -“A Gentile who employs himself in the law is guilty of death. He is not -to employ himself except in the seven commandments that belong to the -Gentiles. And thus a Gentile who keeps a Sabbath, though it be on one of -the week days—if he make it to himself as a Sabbath, he is guilty of -death. It is not necessary to add, if he appoint for himself a festival. -The general rule is that they are not permitted to innovate in religion, -or to make commandments for themselves out of their own heads. Either -let a Gentile become a proselyte of righteousness, and take upon him the -whole law: or let him remain in his own law, and neither add nor -diminish. But if he employs himself in the law, or keeps a Sabbath, or -makes any innovation, he is to be beaten and punished, and informed that -he is for this guilty of death—but he is not to be killed.” (Hilchoth -Melachim, c. x. 9.) This law is taken from the Talmudical treatise -Sanhedrin,[6] where it is followed by an apparently contradictory -statement, “that a Gentile who employs himself in the law is as good as -a high priest;” but the contradiction is immediately removed by the -explanation which there follows, and says, that “law” is to be -understood of the seven commandments of the Gentiles. Now we admit -liberty of conscience was not understood at the time; and that it would -be unjust to expect that the compilers of the oral law (who were -ignorant of, or opposed to, the New Testament, where liberty of -conscience was first plainly revealed) should be at all elevated above -the level of their own times. But making this admission and apology for -the men, we cannot help saying that the law itself is bad, and cannot be -from God. Religion is a matter between God and man. The heart, the -conscience, and the understanding are all alike concerned. Instruction -out of God’s Word is, therefore, the only means of producing conviction. -Entertaining these sentiments, we endeavour to compare the oral law with -the Word of God, and to convince its advocates that they are in error. -We do not wish to have the modern Jews confounded with the authors of -the system. Very many Jews of the present day are ignorant of its -details. Not having time to make the inquiry, they take it for granted, -that their forefathers were right in preferring their own system to -Christianity, and that they are bound to do the same. But even those who -are learned in the oral law, and know its details, are not to be viewed -in the same light as the original compilers. They have received the -system from their forefathers, and view it through the medium of filial -affection and national prejudice. They remember that to the Jews the law -was given, and that the Jewish nation has been the original instrument -in God’s hand to diffuse light over the world; they have therefore -hitherto taken it for granted that they must be right. The narrow -prejudices of Christians for ages confirmed them in their views. But now -circumstances are different. Christians begin to understand the position -in which God has placed the Jewish nation, and to look forward to their -restoration to the favour of God as the time of blessing for the whole -world. Christians can now honour and estimate the learning, the talent, -and the constancy of those very Rabbies whose system they consider as -erroneous. Now, then, is the time for the Jews themselves to inquire -into those religious opinions, which have been handed down to them, and -to compare them with the law and the prophets. We trust that many will -admit, that the laws which we have been considering are bad, and -therefore cannot be from God. Let them then remember, that the -originators of these laws are the men who rejected the claims of the -Lord Jesus Christ. If then these men were in error in making these laws, -they were in condemning Jesus of Nazareth because he opposed them; and -if the laws be bad, the Lord Jesus was right in opposing them. Yea, and -where they taught error He and his disciples taught the truth. The -Rabbies have taught constraint. Jesus of Nazareth and his disciples have -taught that fire is not to be called down from heaven on those who -differ from us; that “the servant of God must not strive; but be gentle -to all men, apt to teach, patient, in meekness instructing those that -oppose themselves; if God will peradventure give them repentance to the -acknowledging of the truth.” (2 Tim. ii. 25.) - -Footnote 2: - - Joreh Deah, sec. 246. - -Footnote 3: - - Literally, תיפלות. In the translation of this word we follow the - interpretation of the Joreh Deah, which renders it דבר עבירה. This is - obviously not the place to discuss the other opinions of the Rabbies. - -Footnote 4: - - See Kiddushin, fol. 29, col. 2. - -Footnote 5: - - Joma., fol. 66, col. 2. - -Footnote 6: - - Fol. 59, col. 1. - - - - - No. IV. - RABBINIC INTOLERANCE TOWARDS OTHER NATIONS. - - -The Jewish deputies, when asked by Napoleon whether they considered -Frenchmen as their brethren, replied in the affirmative, and after -quoting the Mosaic laws respecting the stranger said, “To these -sentiments of benevolence towards the _stranger_, Moses has added the -precept of general love for mankind: ‘_Love thy fellow-creature as -thyself_.’”[7] And in the authorized Jewish Catechism used in Bavaria, -after the explanation of the moral duties, we find the following -question:—“Are these laws and duties, affirmative and negative -commandments, binding with respect to a non-Israelite?” ANSWER—“By all -means, for the fundamental law of all these duties, ‘_Love thy neighbour -as thyself_,’ is expressly laid down by the Holy Scriptures in reference -to the non-Israelite, yea, to the heathen, as it is written, ‘And if a -stranger sojourn with thee in your land, ye shall not vex him. But the -stranger that dwelleth with you shall be unto you as one born amongst -you, _and thou shalt love him as thyself_: for ye were strangers in the -land of Egypt: I am the Lord your God.’” (Levit. xix. 33-35.)[8] These -declarations are very explicit, and, as forming part of public -documents, highly satisfactory. The representatives of the Jewish people -in France, and the teachers of the Jewish youth in Bavaria, declare, -that in the scriptural command, “Thou shalt love thy neighbour as -thyself,” neighbour means _fellow-man_, without distinction of nation or -religion. Where then did they learn this interpretation? From the Talmud -or from the New-Testament? The Jewish deputies say, from the former. On -the page cited above they add, “This doctrine is also professed by the -Talmud. We are bound, says a Talmudist, to love as brethren all those -who observe the _Noachides_,[9] whatever their religious opinions may -otherwise be. We are bound to visit their sick, to bury their dead, to -assist their poor, like those of Israel. In short, there is no act of -humanity which a true Israelite is not bound to perform towards those -who observe the _Noachides_.” The Bavarian Catechism is more cautious. -It makes no such bold assertion respecting the Talmud. It only intimates -that the oral law teaches this doctrine, by subjoining to the passage -from Leviticus the same extract from Maimonides, alluded to by the -Jewish deputies. The Catechism gives the extract a little more at -length, and as follows:—“We are bound in everything to treat the -non-Israelite, who sojourns with us, with justice and with love, as we -would treat an Israelite. Yea, we are even bound to maintain him, as the -Scripture teaches in the words, ‘Thou shalt give it to the stranger that -is in thy gates, that he may eat it.’ (Deut. xiv. 21.) Our wise men have -commanded us for the good of society, even to visit the sick of the -heathen, to bury their dead, and to deal out alms to them: for of our -Creator it is said, ‘The Lord is good to all; and his tender mercies are -over all his works.’ (Psalm cxlv. 9.) (Maimonid. Hilchoth Melachim, 10, -12.)” - -No doubt the passage as here given, both by the French deputies and the -Bavarian Catechism, is very plausible; and if it could be found -verbatim, either in the Talmud or any of its compendiums, would go far -to justify the bold assertion of the former, and the cautious -insinuation of the latter. But unfortunately the original passage is -very different. In the above citations, it is mutilated in order to suit -the purpose of the citers. In the Jad Hachasakah it stands as follows:— - -וכן יראה לי שנוהגין עם גרי תושב בדרך ארץ וגמילות חסדים כישראל , שהרי אנו -מצווין להחיותן שנאמר לגר אשר בשעריך תתננה ואכלה , וזה שאמרו חכמים אין -כופלין להם שלום , בגוים לא בגר תושב , אפילו הגוים צוו חכמים לבקר חוליהם -, ולקבור מתיהם עם מתי ישראל , ולפרנס את ענייהם בכלל עניי ישראל , מפני -דרכי שלום , הרי נאמר טוב ה׳ לכל ורחמיו על כל מעשיו ונאמר דרכיה דרכי נועם -וכל נתיבותיה שלום ׃ - -“And thus it appears to me, that _the proselytes allowed to sojourn_ are -to be treated with the same courtesy and benevolence as the Israelites; -for behold, we are commanded to maintain them, as it is written, ‘Thou -shalt give it to the stranger (proselyte) that is in thy gates, that he -may eat it.’ _As to that saying of our wise men not to return their -salute, it refers to the Gentiles, not to the proselyte allowed to -sojourn._ But even with regard to the heathen, the wise men have -commanded us to visit their sick, and to bury their dead with the dead -of Israel, and to feed their poor along with the poor of Israel, FOR THE -SAKE OF THE WAYS OF PEACE: for it is written, ‘The Lord is good to all, -and his mercies are over all his works;’ and again, ‘Her ways are ways -of pleasantness, and all her paths are peace.’” (Prov. iii. 17.) The -reader will observe that there are several striking differences between -this translation and that of the Bavarian Catechism; and these -differences prove that, by the word “neighbour,” the oral law does not -understand a fellow-man without any regard to his religious opinions. -First, the Bavarian Catechism says, “We are bound in everything to treat -the non-Israelite who sojourns with us with justice and with love, and -as we would treat an Israelite.” The original says, “And thus _it -appears to me_, that _the proselytes allowed to sojourn_ are to be -treated with the same courtesy and benevolence as the Israelites.” The -Bavarian Catechism translates this passage as it if were the undisputed -law of Israel thus to act; whereas Maimonides only offers his own -opinion. He says, “It appears to me.” Here the French deputies represent -the matter more accurately, by saying, “We are bound, says _a -Talmudist_.” Not the Talmud, but a Talmudist. Then, again, the Bavarian -Catechism speaks generally of “non-Israelites.” Maimonides speaks of -only one particular class, the proselytes who had permission to sojourn -in the land of Israel. That we do not misrepresent Maimonides’ meaning, -is plain from the words of the Jewish deputies, who also restrict the -sense to that one particular class. “We are bound, says a Talmudist, to -love as brethren all those who observe the _Noachides_, whatever their -religious opinions may otherwise be.” Here, then, on the showing of the -Jewish deputies themselves, the Talmud does not teach that all men are -to be loved as brethren, but only those who keep the seven commandments -of Noah. How, then, are we to regard the idolater and the heathen, who -have not embraced these seven commandments, and how are we to treat -them? This leads us to notice, - -2dly, The important _omission_ made by the Bavarian Catechism. In citing -the words of Maimonides, the compilers have omitted the whole sentence, -“As to the saying of our wise men not to return their salute, it refers -to the Gentiles, not to the proselytes allowed to sojourn.” To this -sentence, the French Jewish deputies have also made no allusion; and yet -this sentence is found in the very middle of the passage quoted. What -goes before and what follows is quoted by both, but both have with one -common consent omitted this passage. Now this mere fact of omission is, -in itself, sufficient to excite the suspicions of Israelites not -acquainted with the oral law. The Jewish deputies in Paris, and the -compilers of the Jewish Catechism in Bavaria, had one common object—they -wished to prove, or to intimate, that the Talmud teaches us to love as -ourselves all our fellow-men, without any respect to religious -differences. In order to prove this, they both refer to one and the same -passage—and from the middle of that passage they both omit one important -sentence. What conclusion will be drawn by any man of common -understanding? Just this, that as they both quote one and the same -passage, there must be a great scarcity of proof from the Talmud: and -that; as they both make the same omission, the sentence omitted must be -unfavourable to that proof; and that, therefore, this one passage does -not prove that the Talmud teaches any such doctrine. Such is the -conclusion to which we are led by considering the facts of the case. An -examination of the omitted passage will show that this conclusion is -most just—“As to the saying of our wise men, not to return their salute, -it refers to the Gentiles, not to the proselytes allowed to sojourn.” -Had this passage been inserted in its place, the Bavarian Catechism -could not have been translated גרי תושב (sojourning proselytes) -“non-Israelites,” for from this passage it appears that these -_sojourners_ are different from the “Gentiles,” whose salute is not to -be returned. In plain English, this passage restricts “the courtesy and -benevolence” to those proselytes who, by taking upon them the seven -commandments of Noah, obtained the privilege of sojourning in the land -of Israel; and consequently excludes “the Gentiles”—and consequently -disproves the assertion that the Talmud teaches us to love as ourselves -all our fellow-men without any respect to religious differences. On the -contrary, this passage tells us that the salutation of the Gentiles is -not to be returned. It prescribes two different lines of conduct to be -pursued towards different religionists, and makes the difference of -religious persuasion the basis of the rule. But some readers may say, -that the difference is very small—that the command “not to return the -salute of the Gentiles,” is a mere matter of etiquette—whereas the -command to visit the sick of the Gentiles, to bury their dead, and to -feed their poor; is a substantial kindness. This we should admit, if the -reason assigned for such conduct, “for the sake of the ways of peace,” -did not utterly remove all the apparent kindness. And this brings us to: - -The third misrepresentation of the Bavarian Catechism. It translates the -words מפני דרכי שלום (for the sake of the ways of peace) “for the good -of society.” Here, then, there is an evident difference between us. But -who is right? We do not ask the Israelite to believe us. Maimonides here -refers to another passage of the oral law, where this expression is -fully explained, and where the command “not to return the salutation of -the Gentiles” is also found. We will give this passage, and then the -unlearned can judge for themselves:— - -מפרנסין עניי עכו׳׳ם עם עניי ישראל מפני דרכי שלום . ואין ממחין בידי עניי -עכו׳׳ם בלקט שכחה ופאה מפני דרכי שלום . ושואלין בשלומם אפי׳ ביום חגם מפני -דרכי שלום ואין כופלין להם שלום לעולם , ולא יכנס לביתו של נכרי עכו׳׳ם -ביום חגו לתת לו שלום , מצאו בשוק נותן לו שלום בשפה רפה ובכובד ראש , אין -כל הדברים האלו אמורים אלא בזמן שגלו ישראל לבין האומות או שיד עכו׳׳ם -תקיפה על ישראל אבל בזמן שיד יDראל תקיפה עליהם אסור לנו להניח עכו׳׳ם -בינינו , אפילו יושב ישיבת ארעי או עובר ממקום למקום בסחורה לא יעבור -בארצנו אלא עד שיקבל עליו שבע מצוות שנצטוו בני נח , שנאמר לא ישבו בארצך -אפילו לפי שעה ואם קבל עליו ז׳ מצוות הרי זה גר תושב וכו׳ ׃ - -“The poor of the idolaters are to be fed with the poor of Israel _for -the sake of the ways of peace_. They are also permitted to have part of -the gleaning, me forgotten sheaf, and the corner of the field, _for the -sake of the ways of peace_. It is also lawful to ask after their health, -even on their feast-day, _for the sake of the ways of peace_; but never -to return (literally, reiterate) the salutation, nor to enter the house -of an idolater on the day of his festival to salute him. If he be met in -the street, he is to be saluted in a low tone of voice, and with a heavy -head. _But all these things are said only of the time that Israel is in -captivity among the nations, or that the hand of the idolaters is strong -upon Israel. But when the hand of Israel is strong upon them, we are -forbidden to suffer an idolater amongst us, even so much as to sojourn -incidentally, or to pass from place to place with merchandize._ He is -not to pass through our land until he take upon him the seven -commandments given to the children of Noah, for it is said ‘They shall -not dwell in thy land,’ (Exod. xxiii. 33,) not even for an hour. But if -he take upon himself the seven commandments, then he is a proselyte -permitted to sojourn (גר תושב).” Hilchoth Accum, c. x. 5 &c. This is the -passage alluded to, and the reader may now judge whether the words, “For -the sake of the ways of peace,” can be interpreted as the Bavarian -Catechism renders them, “for the good of society.” If so, then “the good -of society” is to be consulted only whilst the Jews are in captivity, -and the Gentiles have got the power: but as soon as the Jews get the the -power, “the good of society” may safely be disregarded. The meaning -plainly is, that in the present position of affairs it is advisable to -keep the peace between Jews and Gentiles, inasmuch as the Gentiles are -at present the strongest. Now, then, it is expedient to visit the sick, -and feed the poor, and bury the dead of the Gentiles, for this will -promote that object; but when the tables are turned, and the Gentiles -are the weakest, there will be no necessity “for the ways of peace,” or, -as the Bavarian Catechism has it, “for the good of society.” It is -plain, therefore, that the passage cited by the French deputies and the -Bavarian Catechism, does not answer the purpose for which it is cited. -It does not prove that the Talmud teaches us to love our fellow-men as -ourselves, whatever be their religious opinions. On the contrary, it -teaches that a wide distinction is to be made between one class of -religionists and another: and that if men be idolaters, we are to show -them no kindness, except for fear of the consequences that might result -from betraying our real sentiments. When, therefore, the Jewish deputies -and the compilers of the Bavarian Catechism asserted the true -explanation of the Mosaic command, “Thou shalt love thy neighbour as -thyself,” it is plain that they had not learned it from the Talmud, but -somewhere else. We hesitate not to say, that they learned it from the -New Testament, for there it is taught plainly, repeatedly, and without -any reservation. A certain lawyer once asked Jesus of Nazareth, “Who is -my neighbour? And Jesus answering, said, A certain man went down from -Jerusalem to Jericho, and fell among thieves, which stripped him of his -raiment, and wounded him, and departed, leaving him half dead. And by -chance there came down a certain priest that way; and when he saw him he -passed by on the other side. And likewise a Levite, when he was at the -place, came and looked on him, and passed by on the other side. But a -certain Samaritan, as he journeyed, came where he was; and when he saw -him, he had compassion on him, and went to him, and bound up his wounds, -pouring in oil and wine, and set him on his own beast, and brought him -to an inn, and took care of him. And on the morrow when he departed, he -took out two-pence, and gave them to the host, and said unto him, Take -care of him; and whatsoever thou spendest more, when I come again, I -will repay thee. Which now of these three, thinkest thou, was neighbour -to him that fell among the thieves? And he said, He that showed mercy on -him. Then said Jesus unto him, Go thou and do likewise.” (Luke x. 29, -&c.) Here then the Lord Jesus Christ teaches us that we are to show -kindness even to an idolater, for that even he is included in the class -specified by the word “neighbour.” Jesus of Nazareth makes no limitation -“for the sake of the ways of peace,” but gives a general command. And he -appears to have selected this case of a man lying half dead, in order to -contrast it with a similar case supposed in the oral law. - -“If a Gentile, and idolater, be seen perishing, or drowning in a river, -he is not to be helped out. If he be seen near to death, he is not to be -delivered. But to destroy him by active means, or to push him into a -pit, or such-like things, is forbidden, as he is not at war with -us.”[10] The Lord Jesus does not say that the man who went down from -Jerusalem to Jericho was an idolater. He only says, “a certain man.” But -he evidently intimates that he was such, for if he had been a Jew, the -priest and the Levite would not have passed him without rendering -assistance. As he was only an idolater, according to the oral law, the -priest and the Levite were not simply not to blame in leaving him to his -fate, but were obeying a command. They saw him perishing—near to death. -They did not use any violence to accelerate it. They only looked at him, -and left him to perish. So far, then, the lawyer who asked the question -thought that the priest and Levite were in the right. But then the Lord -Jesus introduces a Samaritan, whom the oral law also looks upon as an -idolater, and showing how he acted, he appeals to the plain common sense -of the questioner, “Which of these three was neighbour to him that fell -among thieves?” And the lawyer is compelled to acknowledge, “He that -showed mercy.” We make a similar appeal to the advocates of the oral -law. We ask, which is, the oral law or the New Testament, the most like -the law of God? The oral law forbids you to help a poor dying -fellow-creature in his hour of need, because he is an idolater. It -commands you to stifle the natural instinct of the human heart, which is -indeed the voice of the God of nature—to behold the agonizing struggles, -and hear the heartrending cries of a drowning fellow-sinner, and yet -when you have it in your power to snatch him from the jaws of death, and -from that everlasting destruction which awaits him, to leave him to his -fate, without help and without pity. The New Testament, on the contrary, -tells you, that though, by his idolatry, he has incurred the wrath of -God, yet he is your neighbour—that it is your duty to help him, and by -that very help to endeavour to lead him to the truth. Which then agrees -with the law of God? We are quite sure that the language of your heart -is, the New Testament is right. The oral law is wrong. Your brethren in -France and Bavaria have already proclaimed that opinion to the world. In -the answer of the Jewish deputies to Napoleon and in the Bavarian -Catechism, they have said, “that we are to love our fellow-creature as -ourselves,” whatever be his religion. They have thus made an involuntary -acknowledgment of the superiority of the New Testament, and of the -benefit which it has been to the world. Just suppose, for a moment, that -the scribes and Pharisees had succeeded in extirpating the doctrine of -Jesus of Nazareth, what would have been the consequence to you and to -the world? Had the doctrines of Jesus perished, the oral law would have -had an undisturbed and universal domination, for the Karaites have -always been few in number, and have never exerted any influence on -mankind at large. The Jews in France, Bavaria, as well as in England and -elsewhere, would all have known the law only according to the oral -interpretation, and consequently would not have understood the command, -“Thou shalt love they neighbour as thyself.” They would still have held -the fearful doctrine, that a perishing idolater was not to be helped. -They would, moreover, have had none but idolaters around them, for all -the knowledge of God that prevails amongst us Gentiles comes from Jesus -of Nazareth. Jew and Gentile, then, would have lived “hateful and hating -each other.” You may think, perhaps, that some mighty spirit would have -burst the chains of tradition, and reasserted, the simple truth of God. -But such an event is altogether beyond the limits of probability. One of -the mightiest intellects that ever dwelt in a tenement of clay was that -of Moses, the son of Maimon; a man whose learning and industry were -equal to his genius. If ever there was a Jew, who was likely to overcome -the prejudices of tradition, it was he. And yet with all his genius and -all his opportunities, he never was able to arrive at the true sense of -the command which we have just considered. The atrocious passages, which -we have above discussed, are all taken from his compendium of the oral -law. You are indebted, then, to Jesus of Nazareth for your deliverance -from this foul error. With respect to your duty to your neighbour, your -own brethren in France and Bavaria confess, that you are right if you -follow Jesus of Nazareth, and that you are wrong if you follow those who -rejected him. Remember, then, that your duty to your neighbour is half -of the whole law of God, and examine whether the Christians, who are -confessedly right in the second table of the law do not, also, possess -the truth respecting the first. - -Footnote 7: - - Transactions of Parisian Sanhedrin, p. 178. - -Footnote 8: - - Lehrbuch der Mosaischen Religion. München, 1826, page 150. - -Footnote 9: - - We quote the passage as we find it. Noachides is here taken for the - seven commandments of the children of Noah, contrary to the usual - acceptation of the word. - -Footnote 10: - - Hilchoth Accum, c. x. 1. - - - - - No. V. - TALMUDIC INTOLERANCE CONTRASTED WITH THE CHARITY OF THE BIBLE. - - -Any one who considers the circumstances of the Jewish people after the -desolation of the first temple, will be inclined to make great -allowances for the spirit of the Rabbinical laws against idolaters. -Idolatry was not to them a mere system of religious error. It was the -source of all their misfortunes; and idolaters were the destroyers of -their country—the desolaters of their temple—and their own most cruel -and tyrannical oppressors. Scarcely had they emerged from the horrors of -the Babylonish captivity, when they were exposed to the insults and -outrages as well as the persecutions of Antiochus; and hardly had they -recovered from the havoc of his fury, before they were overrun by the -fierce and haughty Romans, who were at last the executioners of the -wrath of the Almighty. They not only saw the abominations of idolatry, -but they felt the hard hand of the idolater; no wonder, then, if they -hated the man as well as the system. In the Hilchoth Rotzeach there is a -law which amply illustrates the misery of their situation, and the -habitual treatment which they received from idolaters. According to this -law, “It is forbidden to a Jew to be alone with Gentiles, for they are -suspected of shedding blood; neither is a Jew to join company with them -in the way; if he meet a Gentile, he is to cause him to pass on his -right hand (that the Jew, as the commentary says, may be able to defend -himself, in case the Gentile should make an attempt on his life); if -they be ascending a height, or going down a descent, the Jew is not to -be below and the Gentile above him; but the Jew above and the Gentile -below, lest he should fall upon him to kill him; neither is he to stoop -down before him, lest he should break his skull.” What an affecting -picture does this present of the Jews under heathen domination; and who -can wonder if such treatment called forth the natural feelings of the -human heart, and dictated laws in the same fierce and merciless spirit? -We, for our part, are quite ready to admit and to deplore the mighty -provocations, which roused the spirit of retaliation in the Rabbies, and -consequently, to make all due allowance for the men. But that is not the -question before us. We are inquiring whether their religious system, the -oral law, is or is not from God, and whether this religious system -teaches Jews to love all their fellow-men as themselves? We have shown -that the evidence adduced on this point by the French and Bavarian Jews, -proves the contrary; and is therefore, nothing to the purpose. But we do -not wish to rest the decision upon such limited proof, even though it be -strong; we are willing to look at the whole system, and to compare it -with the law and the prophets, which we all admit as divine authority. -We say, then, that the Talmud not only does not teach us to love all our -fellow-men, but that it puts idolaters altogether without the pale of -humanity. We have seen already that it forbids its followers to save the -life of a perishing idolater. But it goes farther still, and extends -this precept even to an idolater’s infant, which knows not its right -hand from its left:— - -בת ישראל לא תיניק את בנה של נכרית מפני שמגדלת בן לעבודה אל כוכבים ומזלות -ולא תילד את הנכרית עכו׳׳ם אבל מילדת היא בשכר משום איבה ׃ - -“A daughter of Israel shall not suckle the son of a heathen woman, -because that would be to bring up a son for idolatry; neither shall she -act as midwife to a heathen idolatress. But if she should, it must be -for pay, on account of the enmity (that might otherwise be excited)”. -(Hilchoth Accum, c. ix. 16.) What is meant by “pay, on account of the -enmity,” is fully explained in the following passage, which forbids a -Rabbinical physician to cure a sick idolater:— - -מכאן אתה למד שאסור לרפאות עובדי כוכבים ומזלות אפילו בשכר ואם היה מתירא -מהן או שהיה חושש משום איבה מרפא בשכר אבל בחנם אסור ׃ - -“Hence thou learnest, that it is forbidden to cure idolaters even for -pay. But if (an Israelite) is afraid of them, or is anxious on account -of enmity, he may cure them for pay; but to do it gratuitously is -forbidden.” Hence the commonest offices of humanity are forbidden. But -the Talmud goes further still, and prohibits even the giving of good -advice to these outcasts. - -ואסור להשיא עצה טובה לגוי או לעבד רשע ... ולא נתנסה דניאל אלא על שהשיא -עצה טובה לנבוכדנצר ליתן צדקה , שנאמר להן מלכא מלכי ישפר עלך ׃ - -“It is forbidden to give good advice to a heathen or to a wicked -slave.... Daniel was exposed to danger for no other reason than this, -that he advised Nebuchadnezzar to give alms, as it is written, -‘Wherefore, O king, let my counsel be acceptable unto thee.’ (Dan. iv. -23, in English 27.)”[11] A more striking instance of the spirit of the -Talmud can hardly be found. Nebuchadnezzar was the benefactor of Daniel, -and had elevated him from the situation of a captive to the first -dignity of the empire; and Daniel had not refused, but voluntarily taken -upon himself the duties and responsibilities of the king’s chief -adviser. Under such circumstances, an ordinary reader of the Bible would -imagine that Daniel was bound by every tie of gratitude to his -benefactor, of duty and fidelity to his sovereign, to give him the best -advice in his power. No, says the Talmud. If the man be an idolater, -gratitude, duty, and fidelity are out of the question; and because -Daniel exercised those godlike graces, he was punished. It appears, at -all events, on the Talmud’s own showing, that Daniel was not a -Talmudist. These extracts seem sufficient to prove, that the Talmud -altogether excludes idolaters from all benefit of the command, “Thou -shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.” The system which makes it unlawful -to save his life, to cure his sickness, to suckle his child, to help his -wife in the hour of nature’s trial, or even to give him good advice, can -scarcely be said to teach us to love all our fellow-men, without any -regard to religious differences. It may, however, be said, that the -passages adduced lead to this conclusion only by inference, and that -none of them expressly declares that an idolater is not our neighbour. -We shall, therefore, add a few passages where this is plainly taught. - -הגונב את הגוי או שגנב נכסי הקדש אינו משלם אלא הקרן בלבד שנאמר ישלם שנים -לרעהו , לרעהו ולא להקדש , לרעהו ולא לגוי ׃ - -“He that steals from a Gentile, or he that steals property _devoted_ to -sacred purposes, is only to pay the principal: for it is said, ‘He shall -pay double unto _his neighbour_.’ (Exod. xxii. 8, English 9.) To his -neighbour, not to devoted property. To his neighbour, and _not to a -Gentile_.” (Hilchoth Genevah, c. ii. 1.) The same decision is given with -respect to the law found, Levit. v. 20, in English vi. 1, “If a soul -sin, and commit a trespass against the Lord, and _lie unto his -neighbour_, ... all that about which he has sworn falsely; he shall even -restore it in the principal, and shall add the fifth part more thereto.” -The oral law says— - -הנשבע לגוי משלם את הקרו ואינו חייב בחומש שנאמר וכחש בעמיתו ׃ - -“He that sweareth to a Gentile must pay the principal, but is not bound -to add the fifth part—(why not?) because it is said, ‘and lie unto his -neighbour.’” (Hilchoth Gezelah, c. i. 7.) So that the reason here -assigned why the Gentile is not to get the fifth part in addition, is, -because he is not a neighbour. In like manner, in the 11th chapter of -this same treatise, which treats of the restoration of things found, it -is expressly commanded to restore whatever belongs to a Jew, because he -is a brother; but to keep whatever belongs to an idolater, because he is -not a brother. - -השבת אבדה לישראל מצות עשה שנאמר השב תשיבם ׃ - -“To restore to an Israelite anything that he has lost, is an affirmative -commandment, for it is said, ‘Thou shalt in any case bring them again -unto thy brother.’” (Deut. xxii. 1.) - -אבדת גוי עובד ע׳׳ז מותרת שנאמר אבדת אחיך , והמחזירה הרי זה עובר עבירה -מפני שהוא מחזיק ידי רשעי עולם , ואם החזירה כדי לקדש את השם שיפארו את -ישראל וידעו שהם בעלי אמונה הרי זה משובח ׃ - -“Anything that a Gentile has lost is lawful, for it is said, ‘With all -lost things of _thy brother’s_.’ (Deut. xxii. 3.) And he that restores -it transgresses a transgression, for he strengthens the hands of the -wicked of the world. But if he restore it in order to sanctify the Name, -that they may think well of Israel, and know that they are honest -people, this is praiseworthy.” In these passages (and many more might be -added if it were necessary) it is plainly taught that an idolatrous -Gentile is not to be regarded as “our neighbour,” or our brother. We -think, then, that we have fully proved that the Jewish deputies in -France, and the compilers of the Jewish Catechism in Bavaria, did not -learn their exposition of the command, “Thou shalt love thy neighbour as -thyself,” from the Talmud; neither in the particular passage which they -quote, nor from the general principles of the Talmudic system. We have -already stated our belief that they learned that exposition from the New -Testament, for there it is taught plainly and repeatedly. We quoted, in -proof, a parable spoken by the Lord Jesus Christ. We shall now add a few -more passages in confirmation. - -As to _showing kindness_ to all our fellow-men, the New Testament -teaches us to make no exception with regard to idolaters, or others who -have not the same creed, but gives the following general rules:—“As we -have, therefore, opportunity, let us do good UNTO ALL MEN, especially -unto them that are of the household of faith.” (Gal. vi. 10.) “See that -no man render evil for evil UNTO ANY MAN; but ever follow that which is -good both among yourselves, and TO ALL MEN.” (1 Thess. v. 15.) “The Lord -make you to increase and abound IN LOVE one toward another, and TOWARD -ALL MEN.” (1 Thess. iii. 12.) You observe that in these general rules -the New Testament makes no reservation with respect to idolaters, or -epicureans, or heretics, or any other of those unfortunate beings whom -the Talmud outlaws from all the common charities of humanity. It -commands us to do good to _all_—and that not to avoid enmity, nor for -the sake of the ways of peace, nor because we are afraid, nor because we -wish them to speak well of us, and to be thought honest people, but -because it is our duty. The New Testament requires of its followers, not -only to abstain “from active violence” in injuring them, but to do -active good in assisting them, and the examples, which it proposes for -our imitation, are of the same character as the precepts which it -imposes upon our obedience. It sets before us Jesus of Nazareth, whom -the traditionists crucified, praying for his murderers, and saying, -“Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do”—and Stephen, his -first martyr, interceding for them that stoned him, “Lord, lay not this -sin to their charge.” And Paul, whose feelings to those who differed -from him in religion are thus expressed, “Brethren, my heart’s desire -and my prayer to God for Israel is, that they may be saved.” It sets -before us the disciples of the Lord Jesus healing the diseases of all -who applied, without reference to their religious opinions. (Acts xix. -11.) We repeat our question, then, which system is according to the -truth and the will of God, the Talmud, or the New Testament? Your -brethren in France and Bavaria have declared, by adopting the New -Testament exposition, that it is right; and by rejecting the intolerant -principle which pervades the oral law, that the oral law is wrong. We -trust that your hearts respond to their declarations. But we do not rest -the decision on the natural feelings of the heart, we appeal to Moses -and the prophets. - -The question is, do the laws, which God gave respecting the idolatrous -nations of Canaan, apply to all other idolaters, and under all -circumstances? The oral law answers this question in the affirmative, -and hence the source of all those revolting laws which we have just -considered. But the oral law is wrong: 1st, Because it draws a general -conclusion from a particular case, which is contrary to all sound -reasoning. That the command to destroy these nations was peculiar -appears from the command itself—God does not speak generally of all the -heathen, but only of certain nations which he specifies—“When the Lord -thy God shall bring thee into the land, whither thou goest to possess -it, and hath cast out many nations before thee, the Hittites, and the -Girgashites, and the Amorites, and the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, -and the Hivites, and the Jebusites, seven nations greater and mightier -than thou; and when the Lord thy God shall deliver them before thee; -thou shalt smite them, and utterly destroy them; thou shalt make no -covenant with, nor shew mercy unto them.” (Deut. vii. 1, 2.) Here the -command is precise, and is as much violated by extending it to those to -whom God has not extended it, as by refusing to execute it on those whom -He has here designated as the just victims of his wrath. - -2dly, The oral law is wrong in this general application, for it -contradicts the written law—God expressly distinguishes between these -and the other nations—“When thou comest nigh unto a city to fight -against it, then proclaim peace unto it. And it shall be, if it make -thee answer of peace, and open unto thee, then it shall be, that all the -people that is found therein shall be tributaries unto thee, and they -shall serve thee.... Thus shalt thou do unto all the cities which are -very far from thee, which are not of the cities of these nations. But of -the cities of these people, which the Lord thy God doth give thee for an -inheritance, thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth, but thou -shalt utterly destroy them; the Hittites, and the Amorites, the -Canaanites, and the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites; as the -Lord thy God hath commanded thee.” (Deut. xx. 10, 18.) In the first case -God commands mercy—in the second, extermination. And if, as in the first -case, he commands merciful dealing even to a nation at war with Israel, -much more does he command it towards those, with whom Israel is not at -war. - -3dly, The written law not only gives a general rule, but lays down -exceptions founded on certain principles. “Thou shalt not abhor an -Edomite, for he is thy brother; thou shalt not abhor an Egyptian, -because thou wast a stranger in his land.” (Deut. xxiii. 7.) Now the -Egyptians were idolaters, yet God commands the Israelites not to abhor -them, and gives a reason which will now apply to most nations of the -earth—“Because thou wast a stranger in his land.” Suppose, then, that a -Rabbinist were to see an Egyptian drowning, is he to show him mercy? To -say, No, will contradict the written law; and to say, Yes, will -overthrow the monstrous fabric of Rabbinic legislation respecting -idolaters. - -4thly, The general practice of the Israelites, as described in the -subsequent books of the Old Testament, directly contradicts the oral -law. We have seen already that the Prophet Daniel did not hold the -doctrine, that no mercy was to be shown to an idolater. When he knew of -the judgment that was about to descend on Nebuchadnezzar, he was deeply -distressed. “He was astonied for one hour, and his thoughts troubled -him;” and instead of leaving the idolater to perish, he endeavoured to -find means to ward off the calamity. The prophet Elisha was of the same -mind: when the idolatrous leper came to him for help, he administered -it, and, contrary to the Talmudic command, he administered it -_gratuitously_; and Gehazi, for acting in conformity to Talmudic -ordinance, and making the idolater pay, was smitten with the leprosy. (2 -Kings v. 20.) In like manner, when the Syrian host was miraculously led -into Samaria, and the King of Israel proposed to act as a Talmudist and -smite them, the man of God answered, “Thou shalt not smite them; -wouldest thou smite those whom thou hast taken with thy sword and bow? -Set bread and water before them, that they may eat and drink and go to -their master.” (2 Kings vi. 21, 22.) This answer is important, as it not -only furnishes an example, but exhibits the principle, according to -which idolatrous captives, not Canaanites, were to be treated. The -prophet appeals to the general rule, “Wouldest thou smite those whom -thou hast taken captive with thy sword and bow? Even then, as they are -not Canaanites, they ought not to be smitten: therefore, in this case -much more, they ought to be treated with mercy.” We have still another -instance of a prophet acting contrary to the oral law, and in conformity -with the New Testament interpretation. The prophet Jonah once saw -idolaters “nigh unto death,” and ready to sink in the great deep, but he -had mercy on them, and pointed out the means of deliverance. When he -fled from the presence of the Lord, the mariners in whose ship he sailed -were idolaters; for when the storm raged, it is said, “They cried every -man unto his god.” In their anguish they said unto him, “What shall we -do unto thee, that the sea may be calm unto us?” In other words, “What -shall we do to save our lives?” Now if Jonah had been a Talmudist, it -would have been plainly not his duty to have told them, but to have -allowed the sea to rage on until the ship went to pieces, and he had the -satisfaction of seeing the idolaters go to the bottom. This would have -been an act of obedience to a precise command, and could have made no -difference to Jonah. For, as to himself, there are two suppositions -possible, either he knew that the Lord had prepared a fish to swallow -him, or he knew it not. If he knew it, then he was secure of his own -safety, and would have known that the fish could find him out just as -readily if the ship went to pieces, as if the idolaters threw him into -the sea. It would, therefore, have been doubly his duty to conceal from -the idolaters the means of deliverance. On this supposition, Jonah’s -counsel to them can only be accounted for on the principle that he was -not a Talmudist, but considered it his duty to save the lives of -perishing idolaters, even when nothing was to be feared or to be gained. -If, on the other hand, he did not know of the fish, he must have -expected a watery grave, whether the idolaters threw him into the sea, -or whether he waited until the ship went to pieces. In this case, also, -if a Talmudist, it would have been his duly to have staged where he was, -and if he perished, die in the fulfilment or the command, to show no -mercy to idolaters. But he did not—he had compassion on them, and, to -save their lives, relinquished his only chance of safety, by telling -them to throw him into the sea. It is plain, therefore, Jonah was not a -Talmudist. We have here, then, three inspired prophets, Daniel, Elisha, -and Jonah, all bearing a practical testimony against the Talmudic -principle, which extends God’s law against the Canaanites to all -idolaters, and under all circumstances. - -Lastly, We have the testimony of the God of Israel himself. He who gave -the command to destroy the Canaanites on account of their exceeding -wickedness, shows by his own dealings with the world, that this case is -an exception to the general rule, for “The Lord is good to all, and his -mercies are over all his works.” He provides food and clothing for the -idolater, as well as for those who worship him in truth; or, as the New -Testament says, “He maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, -and sendeth rain on the just and the unjust.” (Matt. vi. 45.) He, then, -whose conduct most resembles that of his Creator, is, beyond all doubt, -the nearest to the truth. The Talmud, therefore, is wrong, and the New -Testament explanation of the command, “Thou shalt love thy neighbour as -thyself,” is right. We ask the Jews, then, to account for this fact, -that Jesus of Nazareth was right, and those who condemned him wrong, -respecting one-half of the whole law. And we ask, moreover, those Jews -who abhor the above Talmudic principles, how they can conscientiously -join in the synagogue prayers, which ascribe to the Talmud Divine -authority? We ask them why, at the very least, they have never publicly -protested against these enormities; but allow their brethren through the -world to remain victims to a system, which not only contradicts the -written law of God, but outrages all the better feelings of even fallen -humanity? - -Footnote 11: - - Hilchoth Rotzeach, c. xii. 15. See also Bava Bathra, fol. iv. col. 1., - about the middle of the page, where the punishment of Daniel is more - fully discussed. - - - - - No. VI. - COMPULSORY CONVERSION OF THE GENTILES. - - -When, at the close of the fifteenth century, the Jews were driven out of -Spain, some of the magnanimous exiles, who had preferred loss of all -things to a compulsory change of religion, arrived at the frontiers of -Portugal, and there sought an asylum. A permanent abode was refused, and -a temporary sojourn was granted them on two conditions—1st, That each -should pay a certain quantity of gold for his admission; and 2dly, That -if they were found in Portugal after a certain day, they should either -consent to be baptized, or be sold for slaves.[12] Now Jews of every -degree and shade of religious belief will agree with us, that these -conditions were most disgraceful to those who imposed them. To refuse -gratuitous assistance to the poor and needy, merely because they had -been brought up in a different religious faith, was utterly unworthy of -those professing faith in Divine revelation. To compel the unfortunate -to choose between loss of liberty or of conscience was the act of a -fiend. But now suppose that the Portuguese had endeavoured to persuade -these poor exiles that their conduct, however base it might appear, was -commanded by God himself. Suppose, further, that when called upon to -prove that this command was from God, they had confessed that no such -command was to be found in the written books of their religion, that it -was only a tradition of their oral law, do you think that the Jewish -exiles would have been satisfied with such proof, and submitted? Would -they not, in the first place, have questioned the authority of a command -resting merely upon uncertain tradition? And would they not have argued, -from the detestable nature of the command itself, that it could not -possibly emanate from the God of truth and love? We ask you then to -apply these principles to תורה שבעל פה the oral law. The Portuguese -refused to perform an act of humanity to the unfortunate Jewish exiles, -unless they were paid for it. Your oral law, as we showed in our last -number, forbids you to give medical advice to a sick idolater -gratuitously. The Portuguese voluntarily undertook to convert the Jews -by force. Your oral law teaches compulsory conversion as a Divine -command. If the oral law could be enforced, liberty of conscience would -be at an end. Neither Jew nor Gentile would be permitted to exercise the -judgment, which God has given him. His only alternative would be -submission to Rabbinic authority, or death. The dreadful command to -kill, by any means, those Israelites who have become epicureans, or -idolaters, or apostates, is well known,[13] and sufficiently proves that -the oral law recognises no such thing as liberty of conscience in -Israel. It pronounces a man an apostate if he denies its Divine -authority, and demands his life as the penalty. The execution of this -one command would fill the world with blood and horror; and recall all -the worst features of inquisitorial tyranny. Not now to mention those -Israelites who have embraced Christianity, there are in England, and -every part of Europe, many high-minded and honourable Jews, who have -practically renounced the authority of the oral law. The Rabbinical -millennium would commence by handing over all such to the executioner. -Their talents, their virtue, their learning, their moral excellence, -would avail nothing. Found guilty of epicureanism or apostasy, because -they dared to think for themselves, and to act according to their -convictions, they would have to undergo the epicurean’s or the -apostate’s fate. - -Such is the toleration of the oral law towards native Israelites, but it -is equally severe to converts. It allows no second thoughts. It -legislates for relapsed converts, as the Spanish Inquisition did for -those Jews who, after embracing Christianity, returned to their former -faith and sentences all such to death. - -בן נח שנתגייר ומל וטבל , ואחר כך וצה לחזור מאחרי ה׳ ולהיות גר תושב בלבד -כשהיה מקודם , אין שומעין לו , אלא יהיה כישראל לכל דבר או יהרג ׃ - -“A Noahite who has become a proselyte, and been circumcised and -baptized, and afterwards wishes to return from after the Lord, and to be -only a sojourning proselyte, as he was before, is not to be listened -to—on the contrary, either let him be an Israelite in everything, or let -him be put to death.” (Hilchoth Melachim, c. x. 3.) In this law there is -an extraordinary severity. The oral law admits that a Noahite, that is, -a heathen who has taken upon himself the seven commandments of the -children of Noah, may be saved. It cannot, therefore, be said that the -severity was dictated by a wish to deter men from error, and to restrain -them from rushing upon everlasting ruin, as the Inquisition pleads. The -oral law goes a little further, and not only will not permit a man to -change his creed, but will not even suffer him to change his ceremonial -observances. Though the man should commit no crime, and though he should -continue to worship the one true God, in spirit and in truth, yet if he -only alter the outward forms of his religion, modern Judaism requires -that he should be put to death. - -But the tender care of the oral law is not limited to the narrow -confines of Judaism, it extends also to the heathen, amongst whom it -directs the true faith to be propagated by the sword. First, it gives a -particular rule. In case of war with the Gentiles, it commands the Jews -to offer peace on two conditions—the one that they should become -tributaries, the other that they should renounce idolatry and take upon -them the seven precepts of the Noahites, and then adds— - -ואם לא השלימו או שהשלימו ולא קבלו שבע מצוות עושין עמהם מלחמה והורגין כל -הזכים הגדולים , ובוזזין כל ממונם וטפם ואין הורגין אשה ולא קטן שנאמר -והנשים והטף וכו׳ ׃ - -“But if they will not make peace, or if they will make peace but will -not take upon them the seven commandments, the war is to be carried on -against them, and all the adult males are to be put to death; and their -property and their little ones are to be taken as plunder. But no woman -or male infant is to be put to death, for it is said, ‘The women and the -little ones’ (Deut. xx. 14.), and here little ones mean male infants.” -(Hilchoth Melachim, c. vi. 4.) Now what difference, we would ask, is -there between the conduct here prescribed, and that actually practised -by the Portuguese, at the period above referred to, and thus described -by a Jew:[14]—“At the expiration of the appointed time, most of the Jews -had emigrated, but many still remained in the country. The King -therefore gave orders to take away from them all their children under -fourteen years of age, to distribute them amongst Christians, to send -them to the newly-discovered islands, and thus to pluck up Judaism by -the roots. Dreadful was the cry of lamentation uttered by the parents, -but the unfortunates found no mercy.” Do you condemn this conduct in the -Portuguese? Be then consistent, and condemn it in the Talmud too. As for -ourselves, we abhor it as much, yea more, in those calling themselves -Christians, We look upon the actors in that transaction as a disgrace to -the Christian name, and the deed itself as a foul blot upon the history -of Christendom. But we cannot help thinking that, dreadful and -detestable as this mode of conversion is, it pleased God in his -providence to suffer wicked men thus to persecute Israel, that the Jews -might have a practical experience of the wickedness of the oral law, and -thus be led to reject such persecuting principles. The Jewish nation -rejected the Lord Jesus Christ, and preferred the oral law. This law, -not dictated by a spirit of retaliation upon the Portuguese, but -invented by the Pharisees centuries before Portugal was a kingdom, -commanded the Jews to convert the heathen by force, to murder all who -would not consent to be thus converted, and to take away the children. -And God suffered them to fall into the hands of men of similar -principles, who took away their children, attempted to convert -themselves by force, and sold for slaves the Jews who refused to be thus -converted; so that the very misfortunes of the nation testify aloud -against those traditions which they preferred to the Word of God. But -perhaps some Jew will say that this is only a particular command, -referring to the nations in the vicinity of the land of Israel. We -reply, that the command to convert the heathen by force, is not -particular, but general, referring to the whole world. If the Jews had -the power, this is the conduct which they are to pursue towards all the -nations of the earth. - -וכן צוה משה רבינו מפי הגבורה לכוף את כל באי העולם לקבל מצוות שנצטוו בני -נח , וכל מי שלא קבל יהרג ׃ - -“And thus Moses our master, has commanded us, by Divine tradition, to -compel all that come into the world to take upon themselves the -commandments imposed upon the sons of Noah, and whosoever will not -receive them is to be put to death.” (Hilchoth Melachim, c. viii. 4.) - -Such is the Talmudic system of toleration, and such the means which it -prescribes for the conversion of the world. We acknowledge that persons -calling themselves Christians have had an oral law very similar in its -principles and precepts, but we fearlessly challenge the whole world to -point out anything similar in the doctrines of Jesus Christ, or in the -writings of his apostles. The New Testament does, indeed, teach us to -seek the conversion of the world, not by force of arms, but by teaching -the truth. “Go ye, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, -baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the -Holy Ghost; teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have -commanded you.” (Matt. xxviii. 19.) In the parable of the tares and -wheat, Jesus of Nazareth hath expressly taught us that physical force is -not to be employed in order to remove moral error. The servants are -represented as asking the master of the house, whether they should go -and root out the tares that grew amongst the wheat, but the answer is, -“Nay, lest while ye gather up the tares, ye root up also the wheat with -them. Let both grow together until the harvest; and in the time of -harvest I will say to the reapers, Gather ye together first the tares, -and bind them in bundles to burn them: but gather the wheat into my -barn.” (Matt. xiii. 24-43.) He tells us expressly to have nothing to do -with the sword, “For all they that take the sword, shall perish with the -sword.” (Matt. xxvi. 52.) And therefore the apostle says, “The weapons -of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling -down of strong holds.” (2 Cor. x. 4.) Here again, then, there is a great -difference between the oral law and the New Testament. The former -commands that the truth be maintained and propagated by the sword. The -latter tells us that “faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the Word -of God.” Which, then, is most agreeable to the doctrine of Moses and the -prophets? We answer fearlessly, the means prescribed by the New -Testament, for— - -1st, No instance can be adduced from the Old Testament, in which God -commanded the propagation of the truth by the power of the sword. The -extirpation of the seven nations of Canaan is not in point, for the -Israelites were not commanded to make them any offer of mercy on -condition of conversion. The measure of their iniquity was full, and -therefore the command to destroy every soul absolute. Neither in the -command referred to by Maimonides is there the least reference to -conversion. It simply says, “When thou comest nigh unto a city to fight -against it, then proclaim peace unto it. And it shall be if it make thee -answer of peace, and open unto thee, then it shall be that all the -people that is found therein shall be tributaries unto thee, and they -shall serve thee. And if it will make no peace with thee, but will make -war against thee, then thou shalt besiege it: and when the Lord thy God -hath delivered it into thine hands, thou shalt smite every male thereof -with the edge of the sword. But the women and the little ones, and the -cattle, and all that is in the city, even all the spoil thereof, shalt -thou take unto thyself.” (Deut. xx. 10-14.) Here is not one word said -about conversion, or about the seven commandments of the sons of Noah. -The command itself is hypothetical, “When thou comest nigh unto a city;” -and therefore gives no colour nor pretext for setting out on a war of -conversion, “to compel all that come into the world.” As it stands, it -is a humane and merciful direction to restrain the horrors of the then -prevailing system of warfare; and beautifully exemplifies the value -which God sets upon the life of man, whatever his nation or his -religion. He will not suffer it to be destroyed unnecessarily; and even -in case of extremity, he commands the lives of the women and the -children, who never bore arms against Israel, to be spared. There is not -a syllable about forcing their consciences: that is all pure gratuitous -addition of the oral law, which turns a merciful command into an -occasion of bigotry and religious tyranny. - -2dly, As God has given no command to propagate religion by the sword, so -neither has He given any countenance to such doctrine, by the -instrumentality which He has employed for the preservation of religion -in the world. He did not choose a mighty nation of soldiers as the -depositories of his truth, nor any of the overturners of kingdoms for -his prophets. If it had been his intention to convert the world by force -of arms, Nimrod would have been a more suitable instrument than Abraham, -and the mighty kingdom of Egypt more fitted for the task than the family -of Hebrew captives. But by the very choice He showed, that truth was to -be propagated by Divine power working conviction in the minds of men, -and not by physical strength. It would have been just as easy for him to -have turned every Hebrew captive in Egypt into a Samson, as to turn the -waters into blood; and to have sent them into the world to overturn -idolatry by brute force; but He preferred to enlighten the minds of men -by exhibiting a series of miracles, calculated to convince them of his -eternal power and Godhead. When the ten tribes revolted, and fell away -into idolatry, He did not employ the sword of Judah, but the voice of -his prophets, to recall them to the truth. He did not compel them, as -the oral law would have done, to an outward profession, but dealt with -them as with rational beings, and left them to the choice of their -hearts. Nineveh was not converted by Jewish soldiers, but by the -preaching of Jonah. So far is God from commanding the propagation of -religion by the sword, that He would not even suffer a man of war to -build a temple for his worship. When David thought of erecting a temple, -the Lord said unto him, “Thou hast shed blood abundantly, and hast made -great wars; thou shalt not build an house unto my name, because thou -hast shed much blood upon the earth.” (1 Chron. xxii. 8.) Thus hath God -shown his abhorrence of compulsory conversion, and in all his dealings -confirmed his Word, “Not by might nor by power, but by my Spirit, saith -the Lord of hosts.” (Zech. iv. 6.) - -3dly, God has in his Word promised the conversion of the world, but not -by the means prescribed in the oral law. His promise to Abraham was, “In -thy seed shall all the families of the earth be blessed.” (Gen. xxii. -18.) Now this can hardly mean that his descendants are to treat all -nations, as the Portuguese treated the Jews. The 72nd Psalm gives rather -a different view of the fulfilment of this promise. It promises not a -victorious soldier like Mahomet, but one “in whose days the righteous -shall flourish, and abundance of peace so long as the moon endureth.... -All nations shall call Him blessed.” The prophet Isaiah tells us “that -out of Zion shall go forth (not conquering armies to compel, but) the -law, and the Word of the Lord from Jerusalem. And he shall judge among -the nations, and rebuke many people; and they shall beat their swords -into ploughshares, and their spears into pruning-hooks; nation shall not -lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more.” -Zechariah says, “He shall speak peace to the heathen;” and declares that -the conversion of the world will not be the reward of conquest, but the -result of conviction. “In those days it shall come to pass, that ten men -shall take hold, out of all the languages of the nations, even shall -take hold of the skirt of him that is a Jew, saying, We will go with -you, _for we have heard_ that God is with you.” (Zech. viii. 23.) Here -again, then, you see that whilst the oral law differs from Moses and the -prophets, the New Testament agrees with them. Account, then, for this -extraordinary fact, that whilst the whole Jewish nation lost the great -and glorious doctrine of liberty of conscience, it has been preserved -for you and for all mankind by Jesus of Nazareth. Just suppose that the -principles of the Talmud had triumphed, either amongst the Jews or the -Portuguese, what would have been the consequence to the world? If the -Talmudists had attained to supreme power, we should have had to choose -between compulsory conversion and the sword. If the Portuguese had -attained to universal dominion, both you and we should have had the -alternative of compulsory conversion or the fires of the Inquisition. In -either case, the noblest and most precious gift that the God of heaven -ever sent down to earth, liberty of conscience, would have been extinct. -But, thank God, the doctrine of Jesus of Nazareth has triumphed over the -oral laws of both Jews and Portuguese, and the result is, that both you -and we have the liberty of worshipping God according to the convictions -of our understanding and the dictates of our conscience. Behold, then, -how you are indebted to Jesus of Nazareth. Without him you would not -have known religious liberty, either theoretically or practically. He is -right on this all-important point, whilst those who condemned him to -death and rejected his claims are wrong. If he was not the true Messiah, -but only a pretender, how is it that God has made him and his doctrine -the exclusive channel for preserving the truth of his Word, and -conveying such blessings to you as well as to us Gentiles? If the -Pharisees were right in rejecting him, how is it that God has rewarded -their piety by giving them over to such gross delusions, and making them -the transmitters of doctrines, which would fill the world with blood and -hatred and discord, and make even the truth odious in the eyes of all -mankind? For ourselves we cannot help coming to the conclusion, that He -who has taught us mercy and love to all men, and delivered both you and -us from such horrors—and who, in doing this, rose above all the -doctrines of his nation and his times, was taught of God, and is, -therefore, the true Messiah, the Saviour of the world. - -Certain it is, that this doctrine has already been a blessing to the -world; and that until your nation embrace its principles, at least on -this one point of love and toleration, it is impossible that the -promised glory and pre-eminence of the Jewish nation should come. With -such principles as are inculcated in the oral law, a restoration to the -land of your forefathers would be no blessing. It would only realize all -the legislative and religious speculations of the Talmudists, and arm -them with the power to tyrannize over their more enlightened brethren. -It would be the triumph of tradition over the Word of God, and that the -God of truth will not permit. It would be to instal the spirit of -intolerance and persecution on the throne of love and charity, and that -God will not suffer. The Talmud is, thus, a main obstacle in the way of -God’s fulfilling his promises to the nation, because it incapacitates -Israel for the reception or the right employment of the promised -blessings. Is it not, then, the duty of all Jews who desire and long for -the glory and the happiness which God has promised, to lift up their -voice with power, and to protest against that system which prevents the -fulfilment of God’s promises; and by all lawful means to endeavour to -deliver their brethren from the bondage of such intolerance? - -Footnote 12: - - Jost. volume vii. p. 91. - -Footnote 13: - - Hilchoth Rotzeach, c. iv. 10. - -Footnote 14: - - Dr. Jost’s Geschichte der Israeliten, vol. vii. p. 93. - - - - - No. VII. - THE FEAST OF PURIM. - - -The feast of Purim now at hand, recalls to the Jewish recollection one -of those miraculous deliverances, with which the history of Israel -abounds. The narrative of the institution, as contained in the Bible, is -a signal proof and illustration of the superintending providence of God, -instructive to all the world, but calling peculiarly for the gratitude -and praise of the Jewish nation, whose forefathers were then delivered. -And it is much to the honour of their posterity that they have not -suffered the lapse of more than twenty centuries to wear out the memory -of this great event, but that to this day they observe its anniversary -with alacrity and zeal. If the oral law simply contented itself with -commanding the observance and prescribing the mode of worship for such -an important season, we should have no fault to find; but the oral law -claims for itself Divine origin and authority, anathematizes any denial -of these claims as heresy, and sentences the heretic to death. We are, -therefore, compelled to examine its pretensions, and to scrutinize its -features, in order to see whether they really bear the stamp of -divinity. We have already pointed out some, that savoured more of earth -than heaven: the constitutions for the feast of Purim may be traced to -the same source. The following law respecting the meal to be provided on -this occasion did certainly not come to man from heaven:— - -חובת סעודה זו שיאכל בשר ויתקן סעודה נאה כפי אשר תמצא ידו , ושותה יין עד -שישתכר וירדם בשכרותו ׃ - -“A man’s duty with regard to the feast is, that he should eat meat and -prepare a suitable feast according to his means; and drink wine, until -he be drunk, and fell asleep in his drunkenness.” (Hilchoth Megillah, c. -ii. 15.) The Talmud, however, is not satisfied with so indefinite a -direction, but lays down, with its usual precision, the exact measure of -intoxication required. - -חייב איניש לבסומי בפוריא עד דלא ידע בין ארור המן לברוך מרדכי ׃ - -“A man is bound to get so drunk with wine at Purim, as not to know the -difference between Cursed is Haman, and Blessed is Mordecai.” (Megillah, -fol. 7, col. 2.) But perhaps some learned champion of the Talmud will -fly to that sort of refuge for destitute commentators, the parabolic -language of the orient, and tell us that this precept is not to be -understood literally but figuratively; and that so far from recommending -intoxication, it means to inculcate excess of sobriety or devotion, such -abstraction of the senses, from all outward objects, as not to -distinguish between cursed is Haman and blessed is Mordecai. This sort -of defence is neither imaginary nor novel. In this way Rabbi Eliezer’s -permission to split open an unlearned man like a fish has been made to -signify the spiritual opening of the understanding, and of course the -overweening anxiety of the Rabbies to communicate instruction to the -ignorant. But however we dull Gentiles may be enlightened by such an -exposition, we much doubt whether the greatest amhaaretz in Israel will -believe the interpretation. The great and learned Rabbies Solomon Jarchi -and Moses Maimonides have understood literal drunkenness, and have named -wine as the legitimate liquor. R. Joseph Karo has simply given the -command verbatim as it stands in the Talmud, but a note in the Orach -Chaiim shows, that some of the modern Rabbies were not able to swallow -such a command, and, therefore, say that an Israelite does his duty, if -he only drink a little more than usual. The Talmud itself admits of no -such softening down, nor explaining away, for immediately after the -precept it goes on to propose an example and to furnish an illustration -of its meaning in the following history of the very Rabbi, on whose -authority this traditional command rests;— - -רבה ורבי זירא עבדו סעודת פורים בהדי הדדי , איבסום קם רבה שחטיה לרבי זירא -למחר בעא רחמי ואחייה , לשנה אמר ליה ניתי מר ונעביד סעודת פורים בהדי הדדי -אמר ליה לאו בכל שעתא ושעתא מתרחיש ניסא ׃ - -“Rabba and Rabbi Zira made their Purim entertainment together. When -Rabba got drunk, he arose and killed Rabbi Zira. On the following day he -prayed for mercy, and restored him to life. The following year Rabba -proposed to him again to make their Purim entertainment together, but he -answered, ‘Miracles don’t happen every day.’” (Talmud, Tr. Megillah, -fol. 7, col. 2.) This history of one of the men who are authorities for -the above Talmudic command to get drunk, plainly illustrates its -meaning, and shows that the Talmud meant and commanded its followers to -drink wine to excess on this occasion. It sets before them the example -of one of the greatest Rabbies committing murder in his drunkenness, and -so far from reprobating this sin, it gravely tells us that God -interposed by a miracle to prevent the ill-consequences; and that the -Rabbi, far from being cured of his propensity, or making any declaration -of his intention to amend, continued in that state of mind, that his -colleague found it imprudent to trust himself at his table. Now every -body that is acquainted with the Jews, knows that they are a temperate -and sober people; and because they are so, we ask them whether the above -command can be from God? and whether they believe that the Talmud speaks -truth in giving the above narrative? It says not merely that men may get -drunk with impunity, but that to get drunk is an act of piety, and -obedience to a command! Here, again, the Talmud is directly at issue -with the New Testament, which says, “Be not drunk with wine, wherein is -excess.” (Ephes. v. 18.) “Take heed to yourselves, lest _at any time_ -your hearts be overcharged with surfeiting, and _drunkenness_, and the -cares of this life, and so that day come upon you unawares.” (Luke xxi. -34.) The New Testament holds out to us no hope, that if in our -drunkenness, we should commit murder, a miracle will be wrought in order -to deliver us from the consequences; but tells us, that “neither -murderers nor drunkards shall inherit the kingdom of God.” (1 Cor. vi. -9, 10.) Now which of these two doctrines is the most agreeable to the -revealed will of God? How would you desire to meet death, if death -should come upon the feast of Purim? Would you wish the angel of death -to find you, in obedience to the oral law, insensible from overmuch -wine? or in that state of sobriety and thoughtfulness prescribed by -Jesus of Nazareth? Does not the inward tribunal of the heart decide that -Jesus of Nazareth is right, and that the Talmud is wrong? And does not -the Old Testament confirm the sentence? Isaiah says, “Woe unto them that -rise up early in the morning, that they may follow strong drink; that -continue until night, till wine inflame them! and the harp and the viol, -the tabret and pipe, and wine are in their feasts; but they regard not -the work of the Lord, neither consider the operation of his hands. -Therefore my people are gone into captivity, because they have no -knowledge; and their honourable men are famished, and their multitude -dried up with thirst.” (Isaiah v. 11-13.) And so Moses commands the -parents that should they have a son “a glutton and a drunkard,” to bring -him to justice, and to have him stoned. (Deut. xxi. 20.) The Talmud, -then, manifestly contradicts the Old Testament; it therefore cannot -speak truth when it narrates that God wrought a miracle in order to save -a drunkard and a murderer from that punishment, which He had himself -commanded to be visited upon either of these crimes. The story of the -miracle is therefore a palpable falsehood, contradictory to the law of -Moses, and derogatory to the honour of God. How, then, can the Talmud be -of God? If you attempt to distinguish, as some do, between the Talmud -and the oral law, and say that though the Talmud contains the oral law, -yet it is not all inspired, then we ask, how can you rely upon the -testimony of a witness convicted of wilful, gross, and flagrant -falsehood? If you do not believe in the above miracle of the drunken -Rabba, you denounce it as a liar. If it lie, then, upon this solemn -occasion in relating a miracle, in handing down the law of God, how can -you depend upon it at all? If it does not scruple to forge miracles, -what warrant have you for believing that it does not forge laws also? - -But suppose, which is far more probable, that Rabbi Zira, when killed by -Rabba, had not come to life again, would Rabba, in the eye of the modern -Jewish law, be considered as a murderer, and guilty of death, or as an -innocent person, who might safely be permitted to go at large, and -pursue his usual avocations? This is a question well deserving an answer -from some of your learned men, and naturally suggested by some -principles asserted and implied in the following decisions of the oral -law:— - -קריאת המגלה בזנה מצות עשה מדברי סופרים , והדברים ידועים שהיא תקנת -הנביאים , והכל חייבים בקריאתה , אנשים ונשים וגרים ועבדים משוחררים , -ומחנכין את הקטנים לקריאתה , ואפילו כהנים בעבודמן מבטלין עבודתן ובאין -לשמוע מקרא מגלה , וכן מבטלין תלמוד תורה לשמוע מקרא מגלה , קל וחומר לשאר -מצוות של תורה שכולן נדחין מפני מקרא מגלה , ואין לך דבר שנדחה מקרא מגלה -מפניו חוץ ממה מצוה שאין לו קוברים שהפוגע בו קוברו תחלה ואחר כך קורא ׃ - -“The reading of the Megillah (the book of Esther) in its time is an -affirmative precept according to the words of the scribes, and it is -known that this is an ordinance of the Prophets. The obligation to read -it rests upon all, men, women, and proselytes, and manumitted slaves. -Children also are to be accustomed to the reading of it. Even priests in -their service are to neglect their service, and to come to hear the -reading of the Megillah. In like manner the study of the law is to be -omitted, in order to hear the reading of the Megillah, and _a fortiori_ -all the remaining commandments of the law, all of which give way to the -reading of the Megillah: but there is nothing to which the reading of -the Megillah gives way, except that particular class of dead person -called the dead of the commandment, who has none to bury him. He that -happens upon him is first to bury him, and afterwards to read.” -(Hilchoth Megillah, c. i. 1.) On this extract we have several remarks to -make, but at present we request the attention of our readers to the -reason given why the reading of the Megillah is more important than any -of the commandments. It is this. According to the oral law, “the study -of the law is equivalent to all the commandments, and the other -commandments are to give way to this study.” But according to the -passage before us, the study of the law is to give way to the reading of -the Megillah. The reading of the Megillah, therefore, being greater than -the greatest of the commandments, is of course greater than all the -inferior ones. Now apply this reasoning to the above command to get -drunk, and you will prove that getting drunk at Purim feast is the -greatest of all the commandments. In order to get drunk, it is plain -that the study of the law must give way. The man who cannot distinguish -between “Cursed be Haman and blessed be Mordecai,” certainly cannot -study, neither can he bury the dead. The commandment, therefore, to -which the study of the law and the burying of the dead give way, must be -the greatest of all the commandments; _i.e._, the getting drunk on Purim -is the greatest of all the commandments. This conclusion, which -inevitably follows upon Talmudic principles, necessarily shows that -those principles are false. But that is not the object for which I have -exhibited this conclusion; it is with reference to the case of Rabba -above-mentioned. Having got drunk according as the oral law commanded, -and having thereby obeyed the greatest of the commandments, and one to -which all others are necessarily in abeyance, was he guilty or innocent -in having murdered R. Zira? It certainly seems a very hard case to -condemn him to death for an act, which resulted from his obedience to -the greatest of all the commandments. He might urge that he had a great -dislike to drunkenness—that he had overcome his natural aversion simply -to satisfy the Rabbinical requirements—that by the time that he had -arrived at the prescribed incompetency to distinguish between Haman and -Mordecai, he had lost all power of distinguishing between right and -wrong—that, therefore, he had not done it with malice propense; what -sentence, therefore, does the Talmud pronounce against a murderer of -this sort? If Rabba was allowed to go at large, as would appear from his -invitation to Rabbi Zira the following year, a repetition of the same -offence was possible, a repetition of the miracle in R. Zira’s opinion -highly improbable. Thus Rabba might go on from year to year killing one -or more with impunity, and would be a far more dangerous neighbour than -“the ox that was wont to push with his horn.” If, on the other hand, he -is to be punished capitally, then the oral law is plainly not from God; -for obedience to the greatest of its commandments makes it possible for -a man to commit the greatest of crimes, and to subject himself to the -extremity of punishment. But we object, secondly, to _the exaltation of -a mere human ordinance above the Word of God_. The reading of the book -of Esther at the feast of Purim, is no doubt a very appropriate, and may -be a very profitable exercise. But it is confessedly of human -appointment. It is of the words of the scribes; the time and the mode -are altogether Rabbinical ordinances. Why, then, “are all the remaining -commandments of the law to give way to the reading of the Megillah?” The -priest was to neglect the service to which God had appointed him, in -order to obey a mere human institution. And the Israelites to neglect -the duties of love and charity, to fulfil a mere ceremonial commandment. -Here is a plain token that the oral law is not from God, but is the -offspring of human invention and superstition. The human mind exalts -ceremonies above moral duties. God declares that all outward observances -are secondary. “I desired mercy and not sacrifice, and the knowledge of -God more than burnt offerings.” (Hos. vi. 6.) “He hath showed thee, O -man, what is good; and what doth the Lord require of thee, but to do -justly, and to love mercy, and to walk numbly with thy God?” (Mic. vi. -8.) And so the New Testament says in the very same spirit, “The first of -all the commandments is, Hear O Israel: the Lord our God is one Lord, -and thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, &c. This is the -first commandment. And the second is like, namely this, Thou shalt love -thy neighbour as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than -these.” (Mark. xii. 29-31.) The oral law, on the contrary, tells us that -“all the commandments, except the burying of the dead, are to give way -to the reading of the Megillah,” to a mere ceremony; and that not even -of God’s appointment. God prefers mercy before the sacrifices which He -himself has instituted. The Talmud prefers a human institution to all -God’s commandments. A more striking instance of genuine superstition, -and a stronger proof of the human origin of the oral law cannot be -found. - -The book of Esther appears to have been a peculiar favourite of the -Rabbies. The reading of it takes precedence of all other duties but one, -and is considered as obligatory, even upon the women, who are declared -exempt from the study of the law. It is true that it contains a very -notable warning for disobedient wives, and a striking instance of the -deliverance of Israel by the instrumentality of a woman; but when we -consider that the name of God does not occur once in the whole book, and -that the law contains the account of man’s creation and fall, the ten -commandments, the deliverance from Egypt, and all those events of -primary interest to women as well as men, it becomes of some importance -to consider why the women, who are not bound to study the law of God, -are bound to read the book of Esther. The authors of the oral law appear -to have attached uncommon importance to this book, as appears from this -circumstance, and still more so from the following startling declaration -of Maimonides:— - -כל ספרי הנביאים וכל הכתובים עתידן ליבטל לימות המשיח חוץ ממגלת אסתר , -והרי היא קיימת כחמשה חומשי תורה וכהלכות של תורה שבעל פה שאינן לעולם ׃ - -“All the books of the prophets, and all the Hagiographa, except the roll -of Esther, will cease in the days of Messiah. But it is perpetual as the -five books of the written law, and the constitutions of the oral law, -which shall never cease.” (Hilchoth Megillah.) Some of the Rabbies say -that this is to be taken conditionally, “although they were all to -cease, yet this would not cease.” But this still attributes a decided -superiority to the book of Esther above all the other books. What then -is there in it, that gives this book such a peculiar favour, and makes -the history of Esther more important than that of the conquest of -Canaan, or of the glory of Solomon, or of the restoration of the house -of the Lord? Is there more devotion and piety to be found in it than in -the Psalms of David? Does it contain more wisdom than the Proverbs of -Solomon? Is there a sublimer flight of Divine poetry, a more heavenly -afflatus than in the visions of Isaiah? A more open revelation of the -mysteries of the Deity than is to be found in Job, or Daniel, or -Ezekiel? Why do the Rabbies pronounce it worthy of preservation, whilst -they contemplate without emotion the loss of all the other books? We -cannot possibly discover, unless it be that it furnishes more -gratification to the spirit of revenge so natural to all the children of -Adam, whether they be Jew or Gentile. To forgive is to be like God—and -God alone can teach forgiveness either speculatively or practically. But -the book of Esther contains an account of the revenge which the Jews -took upon their enemies, not like the destruction of the Canaanites, -fulfilling the commands of God upon His enemies, but taking personal and -individual revenge on their own. And this very fact may be one reason -why God did not permit his most holy name to occur in the whole -book—just as he did not permit David to build him a temple, so he would -not have his name associated with deeds of personal revenge. But, -however that be, we can discover no other reason for the decided -preference which the oral law gives to the book of Esther. And we think -that after the specimens which we have already given of their spirit -towards idolaters we do them no injustice; especially as, in this -particular case, the oral law breathes this spirit aloud. - -צריך שיאמר ארור המן ברוך מרדכי , ארורה זרש ברוכה אסתר , ארורים כל עכו׳׳ם -ברוכים כל ישראל ׃ - -“It is necessary to say, Cursed be Haman, Blessed be Mordecai, Cursed be -Zeresh, Blessed be Esther, Cursed be all idolaters, Blessed be all -Israel.” (Orach Chaiim, sec. 690.) Why this is necessary, is not told -us. It appears not to bring glory to God, nor any blessing to man. Haman -and Zeresh have long since passed into eternity, and received from the -just Judge the reward of their deeds. Mordecai and Esther have in like -manner appeared before the God of Israel, and received according to -their faith. To these, then, the voice of human praise or reproach is as -nothing. But to curse a dead enemy, to pursue with unrelenting hatred -those who have already fallen into the hands of the living God, is -certainly not a Divine ordinance, and cannot be an acceptable act of -worship in poor sinners, who themselves stand so much in need of -forgiveness. To curse the dead is bad, but to curse the living is, in -one sense, still worse. “Cursed be all idolaters.” According to our -calculation, there are 600 millions of idolaters—according to the Jewish -account, there must be more. Why, then, should they be cursed? That will -not convert them from the error of their ways. It will not make them -more happy, either in this world or in the next. We are not aware, even -if God were to hear this execration and curse the idolatrous world, that -it would be productive of any blessing to Israel. Why make a day of -thanksgiving for mercies received an opportunity of invoking curses upon -the majority of mankind? The Word of God teaches a very different -petition for the heathen. “God, be merciful to us, and bless us, and -cause his face to shine upon us. That thy way may be known upon earth, -thy saving health among all nations. Let the people praise thee, O God; -yea, let all the people praise thee.” (Ps. lxvii.) - - - - - No. VIII. - RABBINIC CONTEMPT FOR THE SONS OF NOAH. - - -The noblest inquiry, to which the mental powers can be directed, is, -Which religion comes from God? The most satisfactory mode of conducting -such an inquiry, independently of the external evidence, is to compare -the principles of one system with those of the other, and both with an -acknowledged standard, if such there be, and this is what we are -endeavouring to do in these papers. We by no means wish to make the -modern Jews responsible for the inventions of their forefathers, but to -show them that their traditional argument for rejecting Christianity, -and that is the example of the high priest and the Sanhedrin, is of no -force; inasmuch as these same persons, who originally rejected Jesus of -Nazareth, were in great and grievous error in the fundamental principles -of religion, whilst He who was rejected taught the truth. To do this we -must appeal to the oral law, and discuss its merits. We have shown -already that those persons did not understand at least one half of the -law; that their doctrines were in the highest degree uncharitable. It -has, however, been replied, that the Talmud is more tolerant than the -New Testament, for it allows “that the pious of the nations of the world -may be saved;” whereas the latter asserts that “whosoever believeth not -shall be damned.” We must, therefore, inquire into the extent of -toleration and charity contained in that Talmudic sentence. The first -step in this inquiry, is to ascertain who are the persons intended in -the expression “The pious of the nations of the world.” The oral law -tells us, as quoted in No. 6, that the Israelites are commanded to -compel all that come into the world to receive the seven commandments of -the sons of Noah, and adds, - -והמקבל אותם הוא הנקרא גר תושב בכל מקום ׃ - -“He that receives them is called universally a sojourning proselyte.” -And a little lower down it says plainly - -כל המקכל שבע מצוות ונזהר לעשותן הרי זה מחסידי אומות העולם , ויש לו חלק -לעולם הבא ׃ - -“Whosoever receives the seven commandments, and is careful to observe -them, he is one of the pious of the nations of the world, and has a -share in the world to come.” (Hilchoth Melachim, c. viii. 10.) From -these two declarations, then, we learn that “the pious of the nations of -the world” are the same, as “the sojourning proselytes,” who were -allowed to reside in the land of Israel, and that their piety consisted -in receiving and practising the seven commandments. What these -commandments were, we are informed in the next chapter of the same -treatise. - -על ששה דברים נצטוה אדם הראשון , על ע׳׳ז , ועל ברכת השם , ועל שפיכת דמים -, ועל גלוי עריות , ועל הגזל , ועל הדינים , אף על פי שכולן הן קבלה בידנו -ממשה רבינו , והדעת נוטה להן , מכלל דברי תורה יראה שעל אלה נצטוה , הוסיף -לנח אבר מן החי שנאמר אך בשר בנפשו דמו לא תאכלו , נמצאו שבע מצוות , וכן -היה הדבר בכל העולם עד אברהם ׃ - -“The first Adam was commanded concerning six things—idolatry, blasphemy, -shedding of blood, incest, robbery, and administration of justice. -Although we have all these things as a tradition from Moses, our master, -and reason naturally inclines to them, yet, from the general tenour of -the words of the law, it appears that he was commanded concerning these -things. Noah received an additional command concerning the limb of a -living animal, as it is said, ‘But flesh in the life thereof, which is -the blood thereof, ye shall not eat.’ (Gen. ix. 4.) Here are the seven -commandments, and thus the matter was in all the world until Abraham.” -(Ibid. ix. 1.) - -Now, without stopping to dispute about the command given to Noah, we -cannot help saying that the above tradition is very defective, and -certainly not derived from Moses, for it is opposed to the history which -he himself has given us. In the first place, that command, on which, the -oral law lays such stress, “Be fruitful and multiply,” was originally -given to Adam (Gen. i. 28,), and was renewed to Noah, after the deluge. -If the Rabbies reckon this as a separate command in the case of the -Jews, as may be seen in the Hilchoth Priah Ureviah, it is only fair to -reckon it as a separate command in the case of the Gentiles, and thus we -get an eighth command. In the second place, God ordained marriage as a -holy state. “The Lord God said, It is not good that man should be alone; -I will make him an help meet for him.” “And the rib which the Lord God -had taken from man made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.” Here -is God’s holy institution, and in the following verses we have the -obligations of marriage distinctly acknowledged. “And Adam said, This is -now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman, -because she was taken out of man. Therefore shall a man leave his father -and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife, and they shall be one -flesh.” Here, then, is a ninth commandment. We know, indeed, that the -oral law gives a different account, but its doctrine is false and -pernicious. In the face of the above plain narrative, it teaches as -follows:— - -קודם מתן תורה היה אדם פוגע אשה בשוק אם רצה הוא והיא לישא אותה מכניסה -למוך ביתו ובועלה בינו לבין עצמו ומהיה לו לאשה ׃ - -“Before the giving of the law, a man might happen to meet a woman in the -street; if they both agreed on marriage, he took her to his house, and -cohabited with her, and she became his wife.” (Hilchoth Ishuth, c. i. -1.) Now, not to speak of profane history, there is not in the law of -Moses a single passage to give colour to this statement, unless it be -the following:—“And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the -face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them, that the sons of -God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them -wives of all which they chose.” But, whatever is meant by “Sons of God,” -it is plain that this conduct is mentioned, not as having the sanction -or approval of God, but as a proof of antediluvian wickedness, for it is -immediately added, “And the Lord said, My Spirit shall not always strive -with man, for that he also is flesh.” But it is not simply an error of -judgment, it is most pernicious as it regards both Gentiles and Jews, -for it completely annuls the sanctity and obligation of the marriage -tie. It teaches that as the marriage of Noahites is contracted without -solemn espousals, so it may be dissolved without the formality of a -divorce. - -ומאימתי תהיה אשת חברו כגרושה שלנו ? משיוציאנה מביתו וישלחנה לעצמה , או -שתצא היא מתחת רשותו ותלך לה , שאין להן גירושין בכתב , ואין הדבר תלוי בו -לבד , אלא כל זמן שירצה הוא או היא לפרוש זה מזה פורשין ׃ - -“When is his (the Noahite’s) neighbour’s wife to be considered in the -same light, as a divorced woman with us? - -From the time that he sends her forth from his house, and leaves her to -herself. Or from the time that she goes forth from under his power, and -goes her way; for they have no divorces in writing, neither does the -matter depend upon that alone;[15] but whenever he or she please to -separate one from the other, they separate.” (Hilchoth Melachim, c. ix. -8.) We Gentiles have great reason to be thankful that Jesus of Nazareth -has taught us a different doctrine, according with the original -institution of marriage. What would have been the state of the world, if -the oral law had attained supreme power, and the Gentiles had been -instructed in the above law as Divine? What would result from the -doctrine that every man may turn out his wife, and every woman leave her -husband, whenever they like? The peace and well-being of Gentile society -would be at an end. The frightful state of disorder and misery that -would ensue, as well as the words of the original institution, plainly -show that this doctrine is not from God. But the effect upon the -believers in the oral law is still worse. With reference to them, the -marriage of Gentiles is no marriage at all. The oral law says -distinctly— - -אין אישות לגוים . - -“There is no matrimony to the Gentiles.” (Hilchoth Melachim, viii. 3.) -And again, - -אין אישות אלא לישראל או לגוים על הגוים אבל לא לעבדים על עבדים ולא לעבדים -על ישראל ׃ - -“There is no matrimony except to Israel, or to Gentiles with respect to -Gentiles; but not to slaves with respect to slaves, nor to slaves with -respect to Israel.” (Hilchoth Issure Biah, c. xiv. 19.) Here, then, the -oral law directly makes void the law of God, and pronounces that a -command given to Adam in Paradise, and therefore equally binding on all -his descendants, is in particular cases of no force at all. The oral -law, therefore, is certainly not from God. - -We have already made out nine commandments; in sacrifice we find a -tenth. Cain and Abel brought sacrifices, and the only reason that can be -assigned is, that they had received a command to that effect. Sacrifice -was either a Divine command or the dictate of their own reason. But it -was not the dictate of reason, for reason says, that the Creator of all -things has no need of gifts, and, least of all, such gifts as imply the -slaughter of an innocent animal. It must, therefore, have been of Divine -command. The reason why the Rabbies excluded this command is plain. They -did not choose that there should be acceptable sacrifices offered -anywhere but amongst themselves. But that this doctrine is altogether of -a recent date is plain. It was not known to Job. He says not a word -about the seven commandments, and he was in the habit of offering -sacrifices. “And it was so when the day of their feasting was gone -about, that Job sent and sanctified them, and rose up early in the -morning, and offered burnt-offerings according to the number of them -all.” (Job i. 5.) And the Lord himself expressly commanded Job’s friends -to do so likewise. “And it was so, that after the Lord had spoken these -words unto Job, the Lord said to Eliphaz the Temanite, My wrath is -kindled against thee, and against thy two friends.... Therefore, take -unto you now seven bullocks and seven rams, and go to my servant Job, -and offer up for yourselves a burnt-offering, and my servant Job shall -pray for you, for him will I accept.” (Job xlii. 7, 8.) It was not known -to Elisha. When Naaman said, “Shall there not then, I pray thee, be -given to thy servant two mules’ burden of earth? For thy servant will -henceforth offer neither burnt-offering nor sacrifice unto other gods, -but unto the Lord.” (2 Kings v. 17.) Elisha made no objection. He did -not tell him that he had only seven commandments to attend to. Neither -had Isaiah any idea that, when Judaism triumphed, the whole world was to -be compelled to adhere to the seven commandments, for he plainly -predicts the contrary. “And the Lord shall be known to Egypt, and the -Egyptians shall know the Lord in that day, and shall do sacrifice and -oblation: yea, they shall vow a vow unto the Lord and perform it.” -(Isaiah xix. 21.) Here again, then, the oral law contradicts the Word of -God. - -But the law of God points out to us an eleventh commandment, in the -distinction between clean and unclean animals. The Lord commanded Noah -to take of the former by sevens and of the latter by pairs. (Gen. vii. -2.) And when Noah came forth from the ark “he builded an altar unto the -Lord; and took of every clean beast, and of every clean fowl, and -offered burnt-offerings on the altar.” (Gen. viii. 2.) It is plain, from -the command, that a greater number of clean than unclean animals was -required. Noah’s conduct shows that the rite of sacrifice was the cause -of the requirement. We have a twelfth commandment in the appointment of -a priesthood. “Melchizedek was the priest of the Most High God,” (Gen. -xiv. 10,) which he most certainly could not have been, if he had not -been Divinely appointed. From the law itself, then, we have made out -twelve distinct commandments. Eight would have been sufficient to -overthrow the oral tradition. But we appeal to the common sense of every -Talmudist. We ask him to look over the meagre list of the seven -commandments, in which neither love to God nor man is included, and to -tell us whether it be at all probable that “the God of the spirits of -all flesh” would leave all mankind, excepting the small company of -Rabbinists, without any better rule for time, and any better guide to -eternity? Is it possible that the God of love and mercy should leave the -minority of his reasonable creatures in doubt as to his love, and tell -them that he requires no love from them? Yet this is what the oral law -says. The Gentiles are, according to it, left without any direction as -to the worship of God, and are pronounced guilty of death if they study -the law. Nay, they are expressly told that God does not require them to -glorify him by their obedience. - -בן נח שאנסו אנס לעבור על אחת ממצוותיו , מותר לו לעבור , אפילו נאנס לעבוד -ע׳׳ז עובד , לפי שאינן מצווין על קדוש השם ׃ - -“A Noahite who is forced to transgress one of his commandments, it is -lawful for him to do so. Even if he be compelled to commit idolatry he -may commit it, for they are not commanded to sanctify God.” (Hilchoth -Melachim, c. x. 2.) So that, according to the Rabbies, the Noahite who -is compelled to commit murder, adultery, or even to deny his God, may do -it with impunity; he still belongs “to the pious of the nations of the -world,” and may have a share in the world to come. We confess that we -cannot see in this doctrine either charity or toleration. We can -discover only that narrowness of heart which characterizes the oral law. -In order to magnify themselves, and depreciate the other nations, the -Rabbies first swell out their own commandments to 613, and reduce the -commandments of the nations to seven. But not content with that, they -also strive to confine the glories of martyrdom to themselves, and tell -the Gentiles that God does not require them to sanctify His name. Can -such doctrine come from God? Is God the God of the Rabbinists only? We -grant that the Jews are his “peculiar people.” We acknowledge that “they -have much advantage every way”—that “they are beloved for the fathers’ -sakes”—that the time is coming when “all that see them shall acknowledge -them that they are the seed whom the Lord has blessed.” But we still -think that God’s heart is large enough to comprehend us Gentiles too in -his love. We know that we are the work of His hand, and we trust that, -as He is our Father, he requires, and is pleased to see even in -Gentiles, the feelings of children, love and filial fear. And we found -this our faith on your Scriptures as well as ours. The Word of God tells -us that, long before there were any Rabbies in the world, He had a -gracious and tender care for all mankind. He promised to our first -parents a Saviour who should “bruise the serpent’s head.” He saved Noah -and his family, not one of whom was a Rabbi, from the deluge; and when -they came forth from the ark, He made a gracious covenant not with one -nation only, but “with all flesh,” and hung up on high a lovely and -glittering arch, from one end of the heavens to the other, that all the -habitants of earth might have a token of their Father’s love and learn -to look up to Him with humble confidence. When he chose Abraham and his -seed, it was not an act of partiality, but that in his seed all the -families of the earth might be blessed. He did not leave himself without -witness to the nations. He manifested himself to Job, and taught him -“that his Redeemer liveth,” and moved even the prophets of Israel to -predict again and again the happy times when, “from the rising of the -sun to the going down of the same, His name should be great among the -Gentiles, and in every place incense should be offered to his name, and -a pure offering; for my name shall be great among the heathen, saith the -Lord of hosts.” (Mal. i. 11.) Having this word, we reject the oral law -which contradicts it, and would make God the God of the Rabbinists only: -and we believe in the New Testament, which exactly agrees with your -written law, and asks, “Is he the God of the Jews only? Is he not also -of the Gentiles?”—and answers, “Yes, of the Gentiles also” (Rom. iii. -29)—and which also declares that, in the sight of God, “There is no -difference between the Jew and the Greek; for the same Lord over all is -rich unto all that call upon him, for whosoever shall call upon the name -of the Lord shall be saved.” (Rom. x. 12, 13.) - -In the fixing of the commandments, then, for the sons of Noah, we have -detected an intolerant and uncharitable spirit very different from that -of the Old and New Testament. But we have further to inquire, what was -the extent of toleration conceded to them? We do not stop to prove that -they were not allowed to possess land, nor to be judges, nor members of -the Sanhedrin, nor to hold any office, nor to intermarry with the Jews. -From all that, they were excluded by the law of God himself. They were -allowed to sojourn in the land, and hence their name “sojourning -proselytes.” Further, “They were to be treated with the same courtesy -and benevolence as the Israelites.” (See No. 4, p. 26.) But further than -this the toleration did not extend. The oral law, though it commands -“courtesy and benevolence,” does not administer even-handed justice to -the “pious of the nations of the world,” as may be seen from the -following specimens:— - -ישראל שהרג בשגגה את העבד או את גר תושב גולה . - -וכן גר תושב שהרג את גר תושב או את העבד בשגגה גולה . - -גר תושב שהרג את ישראל בשגגה אף על פי שהיה שוגג הרי זה נהרג . - -“An Israelite who unintentionally kills a slave, or a sojourning -proselyte, is imprisoned (in one of the cities of refuge).” - -“And so a sojourning proselyte who unintentionally kills a sojourning -proselyte, or a slave, is imprisoned.” - -“A sojourning proselyte who unintentionally kills an Israelite, although -he did it unintentionally, is to be put to death.” (Hilchoth Rotzeach, -c. v. 3.) The written law, on the contrary, says, “These six cities -shall be a refuge, both for the children of Israel and for the stranger, -and for the sojourner among them: that any one that killeth any person -unawares may flee thither.” (Numbers xxxv. 15.) Again, the oral law -says— - -ישראל שהרג גר תושב אינו נהרג עליו בבית דין , שנאמר וכי יזיד איש על רעהו -׃ - -“An Israelite who kills a sojourning proselyte, is not put to death on -his account by the tribunal, for it is said, ‘But if a man come -presumptuously upon his neighbour.’ (Exodus xxi. 14.)” The law of God -says, “Whoso sheddeth man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for -in the image of God made he man.” (Gen. ix. 6.) And to this law the New -Testament commands us Christians to adhere, rejecting the oral -traditions; and in consequence the laws of Christian countries make no -difference between the murderer of a Jew, a Christian, Turk, Infidel, or -Heretic. Short as all Christian nations confessedly come of the pure -morality of the New Testament, their laws direct the administration of -impartial justice, and are a terror to all evil doers of every creed and -sect. The liberality of the Talmud then, in allowing a share of -salvation to the pious of the world is not so very great, nor its -toleration of a very comprehensive character. It not only withholds -justice from the pious of the world, but gives as the reason, because -they are not considered as neighbours. Want of room prevents us from -pursuing this subject further at present. We therefore ask, Is this law -from God? Can God, in an oral law, directly contradict his written law? -Can you point out anything similar in the New Testament? Is this law -just or unjust? You will grant that it is unjust and erroneous. Then -your fathers have been mistaken about one of the first principles of the -administration of justice, for many centuries. And your brethren who -adhere to this system as Divine, as on the Barbary coast, for instance, -are still mistaken. Why do you not protest aloud against such error? Why -not endeavour to convince your brethren that they are wrong? In England -there is nothing to prevent you. There is full liberty, free toleration. -You may lift up your voice like a trumpet against the errors of the -Talmud. You may expunge all acknowledgment of its authority from your -prayers—you may return to Moses and the prophets, and no man will say -nay. - -Footnote 15: - - Instead of לנד _alone_, there is another reading, לנד׳׳, the tribunal. - - - - - No. IX. - CHRISTIANS CANNOT BE RECKONED AMONGST THE “PIOUS OF THE NATIONS OF THE - WORLD.” - - -We said, in our last number, that “the pious of the nations of the -world” are, according to the oral law, those who have received the seven -commandments of the sons of Noah. We said that of the laws laid down for -their own conduct, some, as for instance that respecting divorces, are -such as would introduce confusion and misery into Gentile society—and -that others, referring to the administration of justice by Rabbinical -tribunals, are extremely unjust. But the advocates of the oral law -think, nevertheless, that it is very tolerant, more tolerant than the -New Testament, because it says that “the pious of the nations of the -world have a share in the world to come.” Now we cannot help feeling a -curiosity to know how great or how small that share will be. And this -our curiosity is excited by the following information, which the oral -law commands to be communicated to a Gentile who wishes to turn Jew:— - -וכשם שמודיעין אותו עונשן של מצוות כך מודיעין אותו שכרן של מצוות , -ומודיעין אותו שבעשית מצוות אלו יזכה לחיי העולם הבא , ושאין שום צדיק גמור -אלא בעל החכמה שעושה ויודען ׃ ואומרים לו הוי יודע שהעולם הבא אינו צפון -אלא לצדיקים והם ישראל , וזה שתראה ישראל בצער בעולם הזה טובה היא צפונה -להם שאין יכולין לקבל רוב טובה בעולם הזה כאומות , שמא ירום לבם ויתעו -ויפסידו שכר העולם הבא כענין שנאמר וישמן ישורון ויבעט ׃ ואין הקדוש ברוך -הוא מביא עליהן רוב פורענות כדי שלא יאבדו אלא כל האומות כלין והן עומדין -וכו׳ ׃ - -“As they are to make known to him the punishments attached to the -commandments, so they are also to inform him of the rewards for keeping -them. They should inform him, that, by the doing of these commandments, -he will be worthy of everlasting life; and that there is no perfectly -righteous man, except that possessor of wisdom who does and knows them. -And they are to say to him, Be assured that _the world to come is laid -up for none but the righteous, and they are Israel_; and as to this that -thou seest Israel in trouble in this world, their good things are laid -up for them, _for they cannot receive an abundance of good things in -this world, like the nations_. Their heart might, perchance, be lifted -up, and they might go astray, and lose the reward of the world to come, -as it is said, ‘Jeshurun waxed fat and kicked.’ The Holy One, blessed be -he, brings upon them the abundance of afflictions for no other reason -than this, that they may not be lost. _All the nations shall be utterly -destroyed_, but they shall abide.” (Hilchoth Issure Biah., c. xiv. 3-5.) -To us this sounds very much like a flat contradiction to the above -declaration, that “the pious of the nations of the world have a share in -the world to come.” Here, on the contrary, it is stated that the -blessings of that state are reserved “for none but the righteous, and -they are Israel;” and again, “All the nations snail be utterly -destroyed.” And it is even implied that the nations get their good -things in this world, and do not suffer affliction, as they are not to -have that blessedness, which is reserved for the righteous. How, then, -are we to reconcile these two sayings? There are only two ways which -occur to us, either by saying that this is not strictly true, but only a -fair speech in order to catch proselytes; or, if it be strictly true, -that then “the pious of the world” are to have a much smaller share in -the blessedness to come. In any case the spirit is far from charitable -or tolerant. It represents God as an accepter of persons, saving -Israelites simply because they are Israelites, and destroying the other -nations because they are not Israelites. The New Testament -representation is very different, and far more worthy of “the Judge of -all the earth.” It does indeed say, “He that believeth shall be saved, -and he that believeth not shall be damned.” But in this very -declaration, we have an impartial rule applied to all mankind. “He that -believeth,” of whatsoever nation, kindred, or tongue—Jew or Gentile, -white or black—“shall be saved.” “He that believeth not,” whether he be -called a Jew or a Christian, whether he be a son of Japhet, of Shem, or -of Ham, “shall be damned.” The New Testament asserts no monopoly of -salvation for one favoured family. It excludes none because he had not -the happiness to be descended from a privileged stock. It lays down a -general and impartial rule to be applied to all the children of men. The -oral law says, - -כל ישראל יש להם חלק לעולם הבא ׃ - -“All Israel has a share in the world to come.” The New Testament says, -“Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter the kingdom -of heaven, but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.” -(Matt. vii. 21.) The oral law says, “The world to come is laid up for -none but the righteous, and they are Israel.” The New Testament says, -“God is no respecter of persons; but in every nation he that feareth -him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him.” (Acts x. 34, 35.) -Now then we appeal to the good sense of every Jew, even of the -Talmudists to tell us which of these two statements is most just, -impartial, and worthy of the Just Judge? - -But the reasoning employed in the above extract from the oral law, is as -false as the principles which it is intended to support, when it says, -“As to this that thou seest Israel in trouble in this world, their good -things are laid up for them, for they cannot receive an abundance of -good things in this world like the nations,” it directly contradicts the -law of Moses, which everywhere promises an abundance of temporal -blessings to Israel, if obedient. “It shall come to pass, if thou shalt -hearken diligently unto the voice of the Lord thy God, to observe and to -do all the commandments which I command thee this day, that the Lord thy -God will set _thee on high above all nations_ of the earth, and all -these blessings shall come upon thee, and overtake thee, if thou shalt -hearken unto the voice of the Lord thy God. Blessed shalt thou be in the -city, and blessed shalt thou be in the field. Blessed shall be the fruit -of thy body, and the fruit of thy ground, and the fruit of thy cattle, -the increase of thy kine, and the flocks of thy sheep.... The Lord shall -cause thine enemies that rise up against thee to be smitten before thy -face; they shall come out against thee one way, and flee before thee -seven ways. The Lord shall command the blessing upon thee in thy -store-houses, and in all that thou settest thine hand unto; and he shall -bless thee in the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee.” (Deut. -xxviii. 1-8, &c.) Here, then, is temporal blessing in abundance, -promised to obedience; and the afflictions which have come upon Israel -are not because of their piety, but because of their disobedience. In -this case, then, the oral law speaks utter falsehood. God has not two -ways of dealing with nations, but one way. He gives every nation a fair -trial, and if they refuse to hearken to his voice, he pours out upon -them his wrath. The rise, and growth, and trial, of a nation is slower, -and requires more time than the growth and trial of individual men. The -life of a nation is, so to speak, longer than the life of a man. -Centuries are required as the time of a nation’s trial, but all history, -sacred and profane, testifies the truth of the general rule given in the -Old Testament, “Righteousness exalteth a nation, but sin is a reproach -to any people.” The only difference which God makes between Israel and -the other nations, is with regard to their national existence in this -world. He has crumbled the mighty empires of Assyria, Babylon, Greece, -and Rome into dust, but he still preserves the independent existence of -the family of Abraham, according to his covenant; and when, as a nation, -they repent and return to him, He will remove the rod of his anger, and -give them the temporal prosperity which He has promised by the mouth of -Moses his servant. But this promise of temporal blessing will not -justify any impenitent Jew at the tribunal of God’s judgment. The hopes -held out by the oral law are utterly fallacious, and dishonouring to -God, inasmuch as he is represented as unduly favouring one nation, and -unjustly condemning all others. - -An advocate of the oral law may, however, find out some other way of -evading the evident intolerance of the above statement, and still insist -upon it, that as the Talmud says, “The pious of the nations of the world -have a share in the world to come,” it is a very tolerant book. We -therefore proceed to inquire what pains the Rabbies have taken to add to -the number of those who are to be saved. They believe, as we are told, -that every one, who receives and observes the seven commandments of the -sons of Noah, will be saved; they believe that all others must be lost; -have they then taken any pains to make known this important information -to the world? Or, if that was not to be expected during the captivity, -did they during the days of their power and dominion? Or, at least, did -they offer every facility to those Gentiles who might come to renounce -idolatry, to receive the necessary instruction? Did they command all -their disciples to be ready day and night to open their doors at the -knock of the penitent idolater, and by receiving rescue him from -everlasting destruction? Not one of all these things. They commanded -that, when there was no jubilee, such converts should be refused, and -that if they did not choose to be circumcised and observe the whole -Mosaic law, they should be left to perish. - -אי זה הוא גר תושב זה גוי שקבל עליו שלא יעבוד עכו׳׳ם עם שאר המצוות שנצטוו -בני נח ולא מל ולא טבל הרי זה מקבליו אותי והוא מחסידי אומות העולם , וממה -נקרא שמו תושב לפי שמותר לנו להושיבו בינינו בארץ ישראל כמו שבארנו בחלכות -עכו׳׳ם , ואין מקבלין גר תושב אלא בזמן שהיובל נוהג ׃ - -“What is meant by a sojourning proselyte? Such an one is a Gentile, who -has taken upon himself not to commit idolatry, together with the -remaining commandments given to the sons of Noah, but is not circumcised -nor baptized. Such an one is received, and is of the pious of the -nations of the world. And why is he called a _sojourner_? Because it is -lawful for us to let him dwell amongst us in the land of Israel, as we -have explained in the laws concerning idolatry. _But a sojourning -Proselyte is not received_ WHEN THE JUBILEE CANNOT BE OBSERVED.” -(Hilchoth Issure Biah., c. xiv. 7, 8.) At all other times the -unfortunate heathen might perish, if they did not choose to become Jews -altogether. Now what will be thought of the charity of this law if we -add, that there has been no jubilee, and consequently no pious amongst -the nations for two thousand seven hundred years and more? Yet this is -what the oral law tells us. - -משגלו שבט ראובן ושבט גד וחצי שבט מנשה בטלו היובלות שנאמר וקראתם דרור -בארץ לכל יושביה , בזמן שכל יושביה עליה , והוא שלא יהיו מעורבבין שבט בשבט -אלא כולן יושבים כתקונן ׃ - -“Since the time that the tribe of Reuben, and the tribe of Gad and the -half-tribe of Manasseh were led away captive, the jubilees have ceased, -for it is said, ‘And ye shall proclaim liberty throughout the land unto -all the inhabitants thereof’ (Lev. xxv. 10); that means, when all its -inhabitants are upon it, and, moreover, when the tribes are not mixed -one with another, but all dwelling according as they were appointed.” -(Hilchoth Shemitah, c. x. 8.) We have the account of this captivity in -the following words, “In those days the Lord began to cut Israel short: -and Hazael smote them in all the coasts of Israel: from Jordan eastward, -all the land of Gilead, the Gadites, and the Reubenites, and the -Manassites.” (2 Kings x. 32, 33.) That was, according to the common -chronology about 884 years before the Christian era. If to this we add -1836, we have 2720 years since the time that there could be a jubilee, -and consequently 2720 years since any Gentiles were converted from the -errors of idolatry to the religion of the sons of Noah. What is it then -but solemn mockery, in any one acquainted with the oral law, to tell us -that the Talmud is tolerant, and admits “that the pious of the nations -of the world may be saved;” when according to that same book -seven-and-twenty centuries have elapsed, since any such converts were -received? We believe that those who make this defence are unacquainted -with the principles of the system which they undertake to defend. The -truth is, that the authors of the oral law, finding that they could not -altogether deny salvation to the pious of other nations, were determined -not to add to their number, and therefore limited the possibility of -this mode of conversion to times that had elapsed long before they were -born. But in their own times they would not receive any one who was not -willing to be circumcised and to receive the whole law. And hence we see -how exactly the New Testament represents the state of the case, when -Christianity was first propagated amongst the Gentiles, and free -salvation was proclaimed to all who believed, without becoming Jewish -proselytes. The Rabbinists opposed with all their might. “And certain -men which came down from Judea taught the brethren and said, Except ye -be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved.” And -again, “There rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which -believed, saying that it was needful to circumcise them, and to command -them to keep the law of Moses.” (Acts xv. 1-5.) There was no year of -jubilee, and therefore renunciation of idolatry was not sufficient in -the eyes of these traditionists, who believed that at such a time there -was no salvation except for those who observed the whole law. But how is -it now? If a Gentile should desire now to become one of the pious of the -nations, could the Jews receive him? According to the above general -principles, certainly not. The tribes are still scattered and mixed up -together. The land has not got “all its inhabitants.” There can be no -jubilee, and therefore those that wish to be saved, must, according to -the oral law, turn Jews, or take their chance of living to a year of -jubilee. But we are not necessitated to argue from the principles. The -thing is expressly laid down in the oral law. After explaining, as we -have quoted above, who are the pious of the world, and that when the -jubilee is possible, is the only time for receiving them, it adds— - -אבל בזמן הזה אפילו קבל עליו כל התורה כולה חוץ מדקדוק אחד אין מקבלין אותו -׃ - -“But in the present time, though a man should be willing to take upon -him the whole law, with the exception of only one of its least -requirements, he is not to be received.” Now then what becomes of the -boasted toleration of the Talmud? It says, that “the pious of the -nations of the world may be saved.” But it says, first, that such -converts can only be received when the jubilee can be celebrated. It -says, secondly, that this only opportunity has not occurred for the last -2,700 years; and, lastly, it positively forbids the Jews in the present -time to give the Gentiles a chance of salvation, unless they are willing -to receive the whole law. What use is it then to talk of the pious of -the world, or to say that people of other religions may be saved? -According to the Talmud, there are no pious of the nations, unless -perchance there may be some descendants of those who were received 2,700 -years ago. But all history that we have ever seen is silent on the -subject. We do not know of a single congregation of Noahites in the -whole world. The forefathers of the Christians were not received during -the usage of jubilee. They were idolaters received against the wishes of -the Rabbinists. The Britons and the Saxons were converted to -Christianity long after the final dispersion of the Jews, that is, at a -time when, according to the Talmud, it was unlawful to add to the pious -amongst the nations. Neither were they received according to the -Talmudic condition, in the presence of three learned Jews. - -וצריך לקבל עליו בפני שלשה חברים ׃ - -“And it is necessary for such an one to take the seven commandments on -him in the presence of three learned men, who are qualified to be -Rabbies.” (Hilchoth Melachim, c. viii. 10.) According to the oral law, -then, there are no such persons now existing as “the pious of the -nations of the world.” It is, therefore, idle to talk of the liberality -with which they would be treated, were they forthcoming. Thus the only -appearance of an argument in favour of the Talmud vanishes into thin -air, and mocks our grasp, as soon as we endeavour to lay hold of it. -Those who caught at this phantom of charity, no doubt meant it -sincerely. They thought that the oral law was misrepresented. They were -told that it was charitable, and they therefore nobly came forward in -its defence. If they had known its true principles, they would have -renounced them. Their advocacy went on a false supposition. But now that -we have set forth the true bearings of the case, and given them chapter -and verse to which they may refer, and convince themselves, we call upon -them to do so: and then, as they hate intolerance, to join with us in -protesting against it, even though it should be found in that system, -which hitherto they have believed, on the testimony of others, to be -Divine. At the same time we would seriously ask of them to compare this -system, which has been for more than 1,700 years the religion of the -majority of the Jewish nation, with the system laid down in the New -Testament, and to decide which is most agreeable to the character of -God, as revealed in the law and the prophets, and most beneficial to the -world. The oral law says, that God has commanded the heathen to be left -for 2,700 years without the means of instruction, and that when the days -of Israel’s prosperity come, the nations are to be converted by force; -but that even then, they will not be raised to the rank of brethren, but -only be sojourning proselytes. The oral law looks forward to no reunion -of all the sons of Adam into one happy family. The New Testament has, on -the contrary, commanded its disciples to afford the means of instruction -“to every creature.” It speaks to us Gentiles, who were once regarded as -poor outcasts, in the language of love, and says, “Now, therefore, ye -are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellow-citizens with the -saints, and of the household of God.” (Ephes. ii. 19.) It takes nothing -from you. It asserts your privileges as the peculiar people of God; but -it reveals that great, and to us, most comfortable truth, “That the -Gentiles should be follow-heirs, and of the same body;” and it promises -a happy time, when there shall be one fold and one Shepherd. It does, -indeed, tell us not to forget what we once were, “aliens from the -commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenant of promise, -having no hope, and without God in the world.” (Eph. ii. 12.) It reminds -us that the olive-tree is Jewish, and that you are the natural branches, -and warns us against all boasting. (Rom. xi. 16-24.) And we desire to -remember these admonitions, and to acknowledge with thankfulness, that -all that we have received, is derived from the Jewish nation. We ask you -not to compare the oral law with any Gentile speculations, or systems, -or inventions, but with doctrines essentially and entirely Jewish. -Christianity has effected great and glorious changes in the world, but -we take not the glory to ourselves. We give it to God, who is the author -of all good, and under Him, to the people of Israel. We ask you, then, -to compare these two Jewish systems, Rabbinism, which has done no good -to the Gentiles, and perpetuated much error amongst the Jews; and -Christianity, which has diffused over the world the knowledge of the one -true God—disseminated the writings of Moses and the prophets, and -increased the happiness of a large portion of mankind. The comparison -may require time, and ought to be conducted with calmness and -seriousness. But we think that, even without instituting that -comparison, you must acknowledge that the principles of the oral law, -discussed in this paper, are contrary to the law of Moses; and that, -therefore, a decided and solemn protest against these Rabbinical -additions, is an immediate and imperative duty. - - - - - No. X. - RABBINIC WASHING OF HANDS. - - -There are various marks by which a religion of man’s making may be -detected. It is usually intolerant, superstitious, and voluminous. It -limits the love of God to a particular class. It exalts ceremonial -observances above the worship of the heart; and so multiplies its laws -and definitions, as to put the knowledge of it beyond the reach of any -but the learned. Any one of these marks would go far towards shaking the -claims of a religious system. Far instance, if it lay down as religious -duties so many and such subtle laws, as it is impossible for the -unlearned to attain a knowledge of, it is plainly the invention of the -learned, who have thought only of themselves, and have not that tender -regard and consideration for the ignorant, which the Creator has. His -religion must be for all, the poor as well as the rich, and the ignorant -as well as the wise of this world. We fear that the oral law of the -Rabbies will not stand any one of these tests: it is, at all events, a -religion for the learned, and the learned only. There is scarcely one of -its commandments that is not so encumbered with distinctions and -definitions, as to make the right interpretation of it the sole property -of the educated. Take, for example, one of the first and most frequent -of the commandments, in the Rabbinist’s daily practice, נטילת ידים (the -washing of hands.) The command appears very simple. It says— - -ירחץ ידיו ויברך על נטילת ידים ׃ - -“Let him wash his hands, and pronounce the benediction for the washing -of hands.” (Orach Chaiim., § 4.) But out of this short command arise -endless distinctions, according to which the act performed is regarded -as a valid or invalid fulfilment of the command. - -כל הנוטל ידיו צריך להזהר בארבעה דברים , במים עצמן שלא יהיו פסולין לנטילת -ידים ובשיעור שיהיה בהן רביעית לכל שתי ידים , ובכלי שיהיו המים שנוטלין -בהן בכלי , ובכוטל שיהיו המים באין מכח נותן ׃ - -“Every one who washes his hands must attend to four things. 1st, To the -water, that it be not unlawful for the washing of hands. 2d, To the -measure, that there be a quartern for the two hands. 3d, To the vessel, -that the water, wherewith the washing is performed, be in a vessel. 4th, -To the washer, that the water come with force from him that pours.” -(Hilchoth Berachoth, vi. 6.) Each of these four limitations requires new -explanations and definitions of its own, as for example, there are four -things that make water unlawful for the washing of hands; one of these -is, if any work be done with it. This necessarily requires fresh -definitions of what is and is not work. Then come the directions as to -how for the washing is to reach, the position of the hands, whether they -are to be held up or down, the drying of the hands. A perfect and -accurate knowledge of all these conditions can be attained only by the -learned. And after all the care which these things require, the -Israelite may after all fall short of Talmudic requirement, for there is -still another condition, that involves another host of Rabbinic -definitions, the non-observance of which will invalidate the merit of -his washing. - -כל החוצץ בטבילה חוצץ בידים וכו׳ ׃ - -“Every thing that is an impediment in baptism is an impediment in -washing of hands.” (Hilchoth Mikvaoth, xi. 2.) This, of course, leads to -a new inquiry, what constitutes an impediment. - -אלו חוצצין באדם , לפלוף שחוץ לעין , וגלד שחוץ למכה , והדם היבש שעל גבי -המכה , והרטיה שעליה , וגלדי צואה שעל בשרו , ובצק או טיט שתחת הצפורן , -והמלמולין שעל הגוף היון , וטיט היוצרים וכו׳ ׃ - -“These are the impediments in human beings. The film that is outside the -eye. The incrustation outside a wound. Dry blood that is on a wound. The -plaster that is on it. Filth upon the flesh. The impurity or dirt under -the nails. Dirt upon the body, mud, potter’s clay, &c.” (Ibid., c. ii. -1.) Every one of these can give rise to endless questions in casuistry, -which are evidently beyond the powers of the unlearned, and must draw -him, if he be a conscientious man, to the Rabbi to solicit his advice. -Thus, one of the very first commandments with which the Jew begins the -day, requires for its accurate fulfilment a degree of knowledge which is -far beyond the attainment of the multitude. This one commandment -involves scores of others. Nay, we doubt not that an accurate Talmudist -might make 613 constitutions out of this one alone; and we appeal to the -conscience of the great majority of Jews in London to decide whether -they possess the knowledge here required, and consequently whether it is -possible for them to keep this one commandment. If they transgress any -one of these Rabbinic distinctions, their hands are not washed, and -consequently they are unfit for prayer. But this is not a command for -the morning only. It must be repeated through the day. - -כל האוכל הפת שמברכין עליו המוציא צריך נטילת ידים תחלה וסוף , ואף על פי -שהוא פת חולין ואף על פי שאין ידיו מלוכלכות ואינו יודע להן טומאה לא יאכל -עד שיטול שתי ידיו , וכן כל דבר שטיבולו במשקה צריך נטילת ידים תחלה ׃ - -“Every one who eats that sort of bread, for which the benediction is, -‘Blessed art thou, O Lord our God, King of the universe! who bringeth -forth bread from the earth,’[16] is bound to wash his hands at the -beginning and end. And although the bread be common, and although his -hands have not been defiled, and he is not aware of any uncleanness upon -them, he is not to eat until he wash both his hands. And thus, also, -with regard to anything that is dipped in fluid, the washing of hands is -necessary at the beginning.” (Hilchoth Berachoth, vi. 1.) Here, again, -it is necessary to know the different sorts of bread, and the compounds -that may be made with the different sorts of flour, and the various -forms of benediction, and out of these again may arise as many doubts -and questions as out of the former, for the solution of which learning, -acuteness, and practice are required; and the want of these may lead to -transgression, and, according to the Rabbies, to most fatal -consequences. For instance, neglect of this command after the meal may -cause blindness. - -כל פת שהמלח בו צריך נטילת ידים באחרונה שמא יש בו מלח סדומית או מלח שטבעו -כמלח סדומית ויעביר ידיו על עיניו ויסמא . מפני זה חייבין ליטול ידים בסיף -כל סעודה מפני המלח . ונמחנה פטורִם מנטילה ידים בתחלה . מפני שהם טרודים -במלחמה וחייבין באחרונה מפני הסכנה ׃ - -“All bread that has salt in it requires washing of hands after it; lest -perhaps it might be the salt of Sodom, or salt of the same nature, and a -man might pass his hand over his eyes and become blind. On this account -all are bound to wash their hands at the end of every meal, because of -the salt. But in a camp they are exempt from washing at the beginning, -because they are oppressed with the fatigues of war, and are bound to -wash after meal on account of the danger.” (Ibid., 3.) Suppose, then, -that a poor ignorant man, with the best intention in the world, set -about this washing, and made a mistake with regard to the water, or the -vessel, or the pouring, or the position of his hands; or suppose that a -soldier, in the hurry of a camp, were to make this mistake, or omit the -washing altogether, and then have the ill luck to put his hands to his -eyes, according to the oral law, blindness would be the consequence. Any -neglect or defect in the morning ablution would be more fatal still. - -יידקדק לערות עליהן ג׳ פעמים מפני שרוח רעה שורה על הידים קודם נטילה ואינה -סרה אד שיערה עליהן שלש פעמים . ועל כן צריך למנוע מהגיע בידו קודם הנטילה -לפה , ולחוטם , ולאזנִם , ולעינים . מפני שרוח רעה שורה עליהם ׃ - -“A man must be very careful in pouring water on his hands three times -for an evil spirit rests upon the hands before washing, and does not -depart until water be poured on them three times. Therefore it is -necessary, before washing, to abstain from touching the hand to the -mouth, and the nose, and the ears, and the eyes, because an evil spirit -rests upon them.” (Orach Chaiim., § 4.) - -Now, is this the religion of the God of love, and mercy, and justice? Is -it at all like Him to give laws so subtle and multifarious in their -distinctions, that it is next to impossible for the unlearned man to -obey them aright, and then to attach to this non-observance such -calamitous consequences? If it be replied that the punishment is visited -only on those who transgress wilfully, then there are thousands of Jews, -perhaps in this very city, who live in the habitual and wilful omission -of this precept, and who have the use of their eyes, just as well as the -strictest Rabbinist. This fact, which no one will dispute, proves beyond -doubt, that the oral law has spoken falsehood, and therefore throws -utter discredit upon its testimony respecting the tradition of the -commandment itself. It is confessedly not a commandment from God, but -from the scribes. - -כבר ביארנו שנטילת ידים וטבילתן מדברי סופרים ׃ - -“We have explained long ago, that the washing and bathing of the hands -are derived from the words of the scribes.” (Hilchoth Mikvaoth, xi. 1.) -That they had no Divine authority for the command is evident from the -subtilty and superstition of its ordinances; for we presume that few -will question the superstition of the threat of blindness to the -disobedient, or of the fable of the evil spirit resting upon the hands. -One such command, then, will go far to discredit the whole story of an -oral law, and to invalidate the character of its witnesses. They were -evidently superstitious men, no way elevated above the vulgar prejudices -or the times, not at all scrupulous in adding to the law of God, and -evidently aiming at a complete domination over the consciences of their -followers. It is hardly possible to believe that they were not aware of -the necessary result of the system, the complete subjugation of the -consciences of the multitude. The mass of mankind has no leisure for the -study of juristic distinctions, they must, therefore, if they believe -such to be Divine, cast themselves upon the mercy of the learned, and -there can be no doubt that those who have the keys of salvation, will -also possess no small degree of influence and power in this world. But, -whatever was the motive, there can be no doubt about the severity with -which the Rabbies enforced this command. They exacted even from the poor -unfortunate, whom circumstances left only enough water to slake his -thirst, that he should sacrifice a port of it to this Rabbinical -purification. - -אפילו אין לו מים אלא כדי שתייה נוטל ידיו במקצתן ואח׳׳כ אוכל ושותה מקצתו -׳ - -“Though he should only have enough water to drink, he is to wash his -hands with a part of it, and then to eat, and to drink the remainder.” -(Hilchoth Berachoth, vi. 19.) And not content with this harsh -requirement, they sentence the despiser of their commands to -excommunication. - -וצריך ליזהר בנטילת ידים שכל המזלזל בנטילתם חייב נדוי ׳ - -“It is necessary to be very careful in washing of hands, for every one -who despises the washing of hands is guilty of excommunication.” (Orach -Chaiim., § 158.) And this same book confirms this decision by a case -which actually occurred of a man thus excommunicated, and who dying in -his excommunication had the usual indignities offered to his corpse. - -את מי נדו את אלעזר בן חצר שפקפק בנטילת ידים וכשמת שלחו בית דין והניחו -אבן גדולה על ארונו ללמדך שכל המתנדה ומת בנדויו בית דיו סוקלין את ארונו ׃ - -“Whom did they excommunicate? Eleazar ben Chatzar, who despised the -washing of hands; and when he was dead, the tribunal sent, and had a -great stone laid on his coffin, to teach thee that of every one who is -excommunicated and dies in his excommunication, the coffin is stoned by -the tribunal.” (Talmud, Berachoth, fol. 19, col. 1.) When they had the -power they employed it to the full, and now that they have it not, the -oral law still threatens poverty and extirpation to every transgressor. - -כל המזלזל בנטילת ידים בא לידי עניות ׃ ואמר ר׳ זריקא אמר ר׳ אלעזר כל -המזלזל בנטילת ידים נעקר מן העולם ׃ - -“Every one who despises washing of hands sinks into poverty. R. Zerika -says, in the name of R. Eliezer, Every one that despises the washing of -hands is rooted out of the world.” (Orach Chaiim., ibid.) Such is the -toleration of the oral law towards Jews, accused of no breach of God’s -commandment, convicted of no denial of God’s Word, guilty of no crime. -And yet these same men, who are strict even to persecution about one of -their own institutions, allow that which they consider the Word of God -to be transgressed with impunity, if it be expedient. They assert their -belief, that the law of Moses forbids the Jews to have clothing, like -that of the Gentiles, to shave or to wear their hair like the other -nations, and yet they say the transgression of this Divine command is -lawful under the following circumstances:— - -ישראל שהיה קרוב למלכות וצריך לישב לפני מלכיהם והיה לו גנאי לפי שלא ידמה -להם הרי זה מותר ללבוש במלבושיהן ולגלח בנגר פניו כדרך שהן עושין ׃ - -“An Israelite who is near to Royalty, and is obliged to sit before -Gentile kings, and for whom it would be disgraceful not to be like them, -is allowed to dress and to shave as they do.” (Hilchoth Accum., xi. 3.) -But it is not to be wondered at, that those should lightly esteem the -Word of God, who are capable of confounding the guilt of transgressing a -mere human ceremony with the guilt of transgressing a Divine command. -The Talmud makes the sin of neglecting this command as great as that of -gross immorality. - -כל האוכל לחם בלא נטילת ידים כאלו בא על אשה זונה וכו׳ ׃ - -“Every one who eats bread without washing of hands, is as guilty as if -he had committed fornication.” (Sotah, fol. iv., col. 2.) - -The sum of all that has been said is, that the scribes and Pharisees -added a commandment not given by Moses, that they so refined upon the -conditions of its fulfilment as to make it almost impossible for the -unlearned not to transgress it, and yet denounced such heavy penalties -upon the transgressor as to make it an intolerable burden to the -conscientious; that when they had the power, they persecuted all that -refused obedience, and did not scruple to pronounce the guilt of -transgression as great as that of breaking one of the moral -commandments. They have presented as the religion of Moses a system -which is voluminous, superstitious, and intolerant; difficult to the -comprehension of the unlearned, terrific to their consciences, and cruel -to their persons. But when the poor were ground down and oppressed under -this weight of superstition and tyranny, God sent them a deliverer in -Jesus of Nazareth, who asserted the revealed truth of God, and protested -against this mental bondage. “Then come together unto him the Pharisees, -and certain of the scribes which came from Jerusalem. And when they saw -some of his disciples eat bread with defiled (that is to say, with -unwashen) hands they found fault.... He answered and said unto them, -Well hath Esaias prophesied of you hypocrites, as it is written, This -people honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me. -Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the -commandments of men.... And when he had called all the people unto him, -he said unto them, Hearken unto me every one of you and understand: -there is nothing from without a man that, entering into him, can defile -him: but the things which come out of him, those are they that defile -him.... For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, -adulteries, fornications, murders, thefts, covetousness, wickedness, -deceit, lasciviousness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness: all -these things come from within, and defile the man.” (Mark vii. 1-23.) -Here the Lord Jesus asserts what is alike the truth of God, and -agreeable to the dictates of sound sense. So Samuel said in the Old -Testament. - -האדם יראה לעינים ויהוה יראה ללבב ׃ - -“Man looketh on the outward appearance, but God looketh on the heart.” -(1 Sam. xvi. 7.) But the scribes and Pharisees treated the Lord Jesus in -the spirit of the laws which we have adduced above. They persecuted him -unto death, and to the death He willingly went a martyr for the truth, -and a sacrifice for the sin of the world. The authors of the oral law -had but a short triumph. He rose from the dead, and his doctrine spread -through the world, and everywhere announced freedom from the bondage of -superstition as well as a hope of everlasting life. And the Jewish -nation is at this hour enjoying the fruits of His death and doctrine in -their liberty from Rabbinic domination. Many of you now hold some of -those principles, the assertion of which was the cause of His death. You -believe that moral duties are far beyond ceremonial observances. You -believe, many of you, that to eat with unwashen hands is no sin, and -have given up the practice. You transgress this commandment of the -scribes, and yet you are not excommunicated nor persecuted. For all this -you are indebted to Jesus of Nazareth. If the oral law had triumphed, -and the doctrine of Jesus been silenced, you would still be living the -victims of superstition or persecution. You would have been afraid of -being struck with blindness, or haunted with an evil spirit, or even of -being rooted out of the world. If a ray of Divine light had visited your -understanding, and you had protested against these traditions, you would -have had to feel the weight of Rabbinical persecution, like Jesus of -Nazareth. You would have been excommunicated like Eleazar, and if God -had given you strength to remain faithful, would have died -excommunicated, and have had a stone upon your coffin. How is it that -now you are free, that you can think and act without any such fear? Is -it because the Talmud has altered? No, it is just what it was. The -conscientious believers in the Talmud are just the same as their -fathers, and as conscientious men, if they had the power, they would -think it their bounden duty to treat you, as their predecessors treated -Eleazar. But the doctrine of Jesus of Nazareth delivers you; and the -followers of Jesus of Nazareth are your protectors against the rigour of -the oral law, and the intolerance of your brethren. Should not this -fact, then, lead you to examine into the claims of that same Nazarene? -How is it that if the principles of Jesus of Nazareth should ever become -universal, the world will be universally happy; whereas if the -principles of those who rejected him become universal, the whole world -will groan under superstition and cruelty? What stronger testimony can -there be to the justice of his claims, and the injustice of his -condemnation? Examine, then, into the other evidence, and in the -meanwhile protest against the principles of the Talmud, and endeavour to -deliver your brethren. There are multitudes of Jews who still groan -under the superstitious laws respecting the washing of hands. In the -book of daily prayer published here in London, the ordinance of washing -of hands is acknowledged as Divine. On the 151st leaf, col. 2, you will -find the following blessing:— - -ברוך אתה ה׳ אלהינו מלך העולם אשר קדשנו במצותיו וצונו על נטילת ידים ׃ - -“Blessed art thou, O Lord our God! King of the universe! who hath -sanctified us with his commandments, and commanded us to cleanse our -hands.” Now this is a positive untruth; God has not given the -commandment respecting the washing of hands. And yet here your -prayer-book solemnly tells him that he has. And this prayer-book has -also put a rubric to this benediction, “When the children wash their -hands in the morning, they are taught to say the following blessing.” -From which it appears that the Jewish children in England are still -taught to acknowledge the Divine authority of the Talmud, for the only -way in which that benediction can be defended, is by saying that the -oral law is Divine, and that its commandments were given by God. It is -therefore a holy and imperative duty on all those Israelites who reject -Talmudic superstition and intolerance to have this benediction erased -from their prayer-book, and to preserve the children from the infection -of that law which persecutes the living and insults the dead. - -Footnote 16: - - Jewish Prayer-book, p. 152. - - - - - No. XI. - RABBINIC ARTIFICES RESPECTING LEAVEN AT THE PASSOVER. - - -One of the many bright features in the national character of Israel is -the devoted constancy, with which they have, in the most troublous times -and under the most disastrous circumstances, celebrated the anniversary -of their first great national deliverance. More than three thousand -years have now rolled away since Israel’s God heard the cries of the -first-born in Egypt, and by slaying the first-born of their enemies, -effected their salvation with a mighty hand and on outstretched arm. And -yet the memory of that great event is still fresh in the hearts of the -nation, and the children of Israel, wherever scattered, in the wilds of -Poland, the coasts of Africa, or the torrid regions of India, as well as -amongst ourselves, are now making consentaneous preparation for the -approaching festival. Such constancy and such devotion bespeak minds of -no ordinary mould, and naturally lead us to ask, how is it that the Lord -does not now hear Israel’s cries and prayers, which ascend from every -region under heaven, and restore them to that place in His dispensations -and that rank amongst the sons of men, which his Word assigns to them? A -Christian would give the answer suggested by the New Testament, but we -waive that at present. The oral law gives a reply the same in substance. -It tells us that the mass of the nation has obscured the light of Divine -revelation by the admixture of human inventions, that, therefore, a -restoration would only be the establishment of error, and is -consequently impossible. We have already given some proofs of this -assertion, the Rabbinical laws relating to the Passover furnish us with -many more, and to these the season of the year now naturally refers us. - -Amongst the first directions relating to the Passover, the Word of God -gives this plain command, “Even the first day shall ye put away leaven -out of your houses.” (Exod. xii. 15.) This is intelligible to the most -illiterate, and easy to be obeyed, but the Rabbles have superadded a -mass of explanations and observances, which tend only to perplex and to -burden the conscience. In the first place they are not satisfied with -the honest endeavour of an Israelite to obey the command of God, unless -he does it according to the form and manner which they prescribe. - -ומה היא השבתה זו האמורה בתורה היא שיבטלו בלבו ויחשוב אותו כעפר וישים -בלבו שאין ברשותו חמץ , ושכל חמץ שברשותו הרי הוא כעפר וכדבר שאין בו צורך -כלל ׃ - -“What is meant by the putting away (of leaven) mentioned in the law? It -is this, that a man annul it in his heart, and count it as dust, and -intend in his heart to have no leaven whatever in his possession, and -that all the leaven in his possession shall be as dust, and of no -necessity whatever.” (Hilchoth Chometz Umatzah, c. ii. 2.) Here, then, -they require a formal intention, but they have also prepared a form of -words in which to clothe it. - -כל חמירא וחמיעא דאיכא ברשותי דחמיתיה ודלא חמיתיה דבערתיה ודלא בערתיה -לבטל ולהוי כעפרא דארעא ׃ - -“All manner of leaven that is in my possession, which I have seen, and -which I have not seen; which I have removed, and which I have not -removed, shall be null, and accounted as the dust of the earth.” (Levi’s -Prayers for the Passover, fol. 2, col. 1.) And to this form a rubric is -added, “If the master is not at home, he annuls the leaven wherever he -is.” Now this may at first sight appear as a very innocent ceremony, but -God warns us against all additions to His Word and commandments. It is -in itself presumptuous, and as connected with the Rabbinical doctrine of -merit, must have an injurious tendency upon the minds of the multitude. -They will argue that by observing this form, they have fulfilled a -commandment, and that consequently there is an additional sum of merit -to be put to the credit side of their account, as a set off against -their transgressions. And on the other hand, if they forget to go -through this form at the right hour, and afterwards any leaven be found -in their houses, the Rabbies bring them in guilty of transgressing two -negative commandments, which they say is a more heinous offence than -disobeying the affirmative precepts. - -לפיכך אם לא בטל קודם שש ומשש שעות ולמעלה מצא חמץ שהיה דעתו עליו והיה -בלבו ושכחו בשעת הביעור ולא בערו הרי זה עבר על לא יראה ולא ימצא שהרי לא -בער ולא בטל ׃ - -“Therefore, if a man does not annul (the leaven) before the sixth hour, -and afterwards from the sixth hour and onwards should find leaven, which -was on his mind and in his heart, but he forgot it at the hour of -removal, and did not remove it; Behold, such an one has transgressed the -command, ‘It shall not be seen with thee’ (Exod. xiii. 7), and also the -command, ‘It shall not be found in your houses’ (Exod. xii. 19), for he -neither removed it nor annulled it.” (Hilchoth Chometz, c. iii. 8.) Now, -can you believe that this decision is from God who searcheth the heart? -Can you believe that a man who had it in his mind and heart to remove a -piece of leaven according to God’s commandment, but whilst removing the -rest forgot this one piece, is to be brought in guilty, simply because -he did not observe a mere form, which God has nowhere commanded? Or that -he would not have been guilty, if he had repeated some half dozen words -prescribed by men, sinners like himself? Very different is the -declaration of God himself, יען אשר היה, עם לבבך “Because it was in -thine heart” (1 Kings viii. 18): he accepted the intention, and gave it -the blessing of obedience. The Rabbinic decision is, therefore, not of -God, and goes far towards overthrowing the claims of the whole oral law. -But the Rabbies were not satisfied with this invention of בטול חמץ -annulling the leaven, they have imposed upon the consciences of their -followers another observance, utterly unknown to Moses, and that is -בדיקת חמץ, the searching for leaven. - -אור לארבעה עשר בנסן קודם צאת הכוכבים בודקין את החמץ לאור הנר של שעוה -היחידי , ומשהגיע זמנו אסור לעשות שום מלאכה ולא לאכול ולא ללמוד ׃ - -“On the evening before the 14th of Nisan, before the coming out of the -stars, they are to search for the leaven by the light of a single wax -taper: and when the time draws near, it is unlawful to do any work, or -to eat, or to study.” (Passover Prayers, fol. 1, col. 2.) For this -command there is evidently no foundation in the law of Moses. It is -confessedly מדברי סופרים of the words of the Scribes, and yet the most -minute directions are given, and the greatest attention required, as if -it had been from God himself, and various cases supposed where a second -search is necessary, as for instance:— - -אם ראה עכבר שנכנס לבית וחמץ בפיו אחר בדיקה צריך לבדוק פעם שניה אף על פי -שמצא פירורִן באמצע הבית אין אומרין כבר אכל אותה הפת במקום זה והרי -הפירורין אלא חוששין שמא הניחה בחור או בחלון ואלו הפירורין שם היו ולפיכך -חוזר ובודק , אם לא מצא כלום הרי זה בודק כל הבית ואם מצא אותה הפת שנטל -העכבר ונכנס אין צריך בדיקה ׃ - -“If, after the search, he see a mouse come into the house with leaven in -his mouth, it is necessary to search a second time. And although he -should find the crumbs about the house, he is not to say, the mouse has -eaten the bread long since, and these are the crumbs, but, on the -contrary, he must fear lest it should have left the leaven in a hole or -a window, and these crumbs were there before; he must therefore search -again. If he find nothing, then he must search the whole house; but if -he find the bread with which the mouse went off, then no further search -is necessary.” Another case of equal importance, and more ingenuity, is -the following:— - -נכנס עכבר לבית וככר בפיו ויצא עכבר משם וככר בפיו אומרים הוא הראשון שנכנס -הוא האחרון שיצא ואינו צריך לבדוק . היה הראשון שגכנס שחור וזה שיצא לבן -צריך לבדוק . נכנס עכבר וככר בפיו ויצאה משם חולדה וככר בפיה צריך לבדוק . -יצאה משם חולדה ועכבר וככר בפיה אינו צריך לבדוק שזה הככר הוא שהיה בפי -העכבר ׃ - -“If a mouse enter a house with bread in his mouth, and a mouse also go -out of the same house with bread in his mouth, one may conclude that -this is one and the self-same mouse, and it is not necessary to search. -But if the former that entered was black, and the latter that went out -white, a search is necessary. If a mouse went in with bread in his -mouth, and a weasel come out with bread in her mouth, it is necessary to -search. If a mouse and a weasel both go out, and bread in the weasel’s -mouth, there is no search required, for this is the identical bread that -had been before in the mouse’s mouth.” (Hilchoth Chometz, c. ii.) We do -not mean to say that this sort of wisdom was never found in Christians. -We are well aware that the scholastic divines display much of the same -perverse ingenuity, and the achievements of mice have figured in Gentile -theology too, but we have renounced that whole system as contrary to the -Word of God. You still adhere to the theology of the Scribes, and are -now about to keep a solemn festival according to their ordinances. And -yet you see how poor their view of true piety, and how perverse the -application of their time and their ingenuity. The most unlearned -Israelite who has read the law of Moses in its simple dignity, will know -very well that when God commanded the Israelites to remove leaven from -their houses, he did not mean that they should go and rummage out the -mouse-holes, or spend their time looking after mice and weasels. If, -instead of the oral law, you had read this in the New Testament, would -you not have taken it as complete evidence against the claims of that -book? and if St. Paul or St. Peter had given such commands to the -Gentile converts, would you not have said, these men were either fools -or knaves? But in the New Testament nothing like it is to be found. The -precepts there given, and the instruction there conveyed, is all of a -noble and dignified character, whilst the trifling and the folly still -exist in the oral law handed down by those who rejected Jesus of -Nazareth. If the testimony of men at all depends upon the wisdom of him -who gives it, the testimony of the Scribes is not worth much. But the -trifling is exceeded by the presumption. These men have said, as we have -quoted above from your prayer-book, “that when the time for the search -draws near, it is unlawful to do any work, or to eat, or to study;” so -that the poor man is to give up his lawful business, the hungry man to -abstain from his lawful food, and all to neglect even the reading of -God’s holy Word, in order to go and search into holes and corners, for -that which they know is not to be found, or to find that which was laid -in their way intentionally and for that very purpose. We ask you can -this be from God, or, are the men who make the reading of God’s Word -give way to this ceremony, to be depended upon as teachers of the true -religion? - -But the oral law not only adds human inventions, but lays down -principles which involve considerable difficulties, the solution of -which requires no small share of ingenuity. For instance— - -חמץ שעבר עליו הפסח אסיר בהנאה לעולם ׃ - -“It is for ever unlawful to have any profit from leaven, that has -existed during the season of the Passover.” This is understood of leaven -belonging to Israelites, and according to this all Israelites are -obliged to sell, or give away, or lose all the leaven which they may -have at the commencement of Passover, and of course, if they have much, -the loss would be very serious. But the Rabbies who have made the -difficulty, have also found various ways of evading it. One is by -pledging the leaven with a certain form of words— - -ישראל שהרהין חמצו אצל הגוי אם אםר לו אם לא הבאתי לך מעות מכאן ועד יום -פלוני קנה חמץ זה מעכשיו הרי זה ברשות הגוי ואותו החמץ מותר לאחר הפסח ׃ - -“An Israelite who has pawned his leaven to a Gentile, if he says to him, -in case I do not bring thee the money from this time to a certain day, -you have purchased this leaven from the present time; then this leaven -is considered as in the possession of the Gentile, and it is lawful -after the Passover.” (Hilchoth Chometz, c. iv.) If, therefore, an -Israelite, who has a large quantity of leaven, wishes to keep the -commandment of removing all leaven from his possession, and at the time -to be able to resume the possession after the Passover; and to have the -worldly gain too, as well the spiritual profit, he has nothing to do but -to pawn it with this form of words. Now we ask every Jew of common -sense, whether this be not a mere trick, an attempt to cheat one’s own -conscience, an unworthy artifice to serve God, and yet to avoid the loss -which would result from a simple observance of the command? It is plain -that a man who acts thus has no real intention of renouncing the -possession of the leaven. And this is not a single case; the oral law is -rich in such cases, as it allows a mock pawning, so it allows a mock -sale or gift. - -אעפ׳׳י שהישראל מכירו לעכו׳׳ם ויודע בו שלא יגע בו כלל , אלא ישמרנו לו עד -לאחר הפסח ויחזור ויתננו לו מותר ׃ - -“Although the Israelite knows that the Gentile will not touch the leaven -at all, but keep it for him until after the Passover, and will then -return it to him, it is lawful.” Of course a learned Israelite, -acquainted with this provision of the oral law, will select a Gentile of -this description to whom to sell or give his leaven, fully aware that -after Passover it will be his again, and he may enjoy the profit. But -suppose a Jew had lent money to a Gentile, and received the interest -every week in bread, what is he to do? It is evident that at Passover he -cannot make use of the bread on account of the leaven, neither after the -Passover can he receive that bread nor money for it, as according to the -oral law he must have no profit from leaven which has witnessed the -Paschal week. This is a difficult case, but it is not of our making. The -oral law which has proposed the difficulty, has also provided a -solution. - -ישראל שמקבל מגוי ככרות ברבית בכל שבוע כתב אבי העזרי שיאמר לו קודם הפסח -שיתן לו בשבוע של פסח קמח או מעות ואז אפילו אם באו אחר כך לחשבון מותר -לקבל ממנו מה שלא קבל בתוך הפסח ׃ - -“An Israelite who receives bread from a Gentile every week as interest, -is, according to Avi Haezri, to tell him before the Passover, that in -the Passover week he must give him flour or money, and then when they -come to make up their accounts, he may receive from him that which he -did not receive during the Passover.” (Arbah. Turim. Orach Chaiim, sec. -450.) According to this simple device, merely by saying a few words, he -can make that lawful, which before would have been a great sin. It is -not needful even to intend to have money or flour, he may intend to have -the leaven after the Passover; the words have the transforming efficacy. -The same book gives Rashi’s solution of another similar difficulty. - -שאלה לרש׳׳י , ישראל וגוי שיש להם תנור בשותפות מהו לומר לגוי טול אתה של -פסח ואני אטול אחר כך והשיב שיתנה קודם הפסח ויטול דמים מאות שבוע ׃ - -“A question proposed to Rashi—Suppose that an Israelite and a Gentile -had an oven in partnership, shall he say to the Gentile, Take thou the -profit during the Passover, and I will take afterwards? He replied, Let -him make a bargain before the Passover, and take the price of that -week.” (Ibid.) A man of common sense will see that here, as in the other -cases, the Jew does really receive the profit from leaven in existence -during the Passover, and that whether he receive the money or the profit -before or afterwards, there is no real difference in the circumstances -of the transaction; one principle pervades all these decisions, and that -is, evasion of what is considered a Divine command. The man who gives -away the leaven with the full intention of resuming possession after the -Passover, and the man who sells only for the week, in full persuasion -that his right and interest remain, does in reality neither give nor -sell. There may be an outward appearance of the thing, but God does not -judge according to the appearance; he looks on the intention of the -heart. He is not satisfied with the form of giving or selling, but -looking at the inmost thoughts of the soul, He sees that the man does -not wish nor intend to do either one or the other, and marks him as a -deliberate, and wilful transgressor. But we appeal to every -unsophisticated mind in Israel, would such a system of evasion be -considered as honourable, even according to the maxims of this world? Or -can that conduct, which men would call dishonourable, be considered as -an acceptable service before God? But, above all, can it be the law -given to Moses by the God of truth? This it is which gives this -discussion all its importance. If the Talmud and all its decisions were -retained merely as a curious remnant of antiquity, as the effusions of a -perverse ingenuity, or the waking dreams of scholastics, we might both -pass it by with a smile. But it is proposed as the law of God. It is the -religion of the great majority of the Jewish people, and no doubt at -this very time, many an Israelite in Poland and elsewhere, if not in -England, is preparing a mock sale, or drawing up a contract for the -imaginary disposal of the leaven in his possession, in obedience to the -above directions. They do it in simplicity, with a mistaken devotion. -They are misled; but does not a fearful load of responsibility rest upon -those Israelites who know better, and yet leave their brethren in this -grievous error, yea, and confirm them in it by joining in all the -ceremonies which that system prescribes? Because of this system, the -nation is still exiled from the land of Israel. Because of this system, -the anger of the Lord is not turned away, but His arm is stretched out -still. If then you love your people—if you desire their national -exaltation, and their eternal welfare, lift up your voice and protest -against the oral law. Condemn the Scribes and Pharisees as the inventors -of the system, and the first authors of that moral captivity in which -the people has been held for so many centuries. Now when you remember -the mercies of the Lord in delivering you from the house of bondage, -make an effort to deliver your brethren from the more degrading chains -of error and superstition. At the same time we would ask you to consider -the case of so many of your nation, who, when these chains were -rivetting, gloriously maintained their freedom, and have left us a -collection of writings, entirely free from every trace of this mistaken -ingenuity. We mean the disciples of Jesus of Nazareth. They, too, were -Jews, children of Abraham, and of the stock of Israel. How is it then, -that they who were condemned by the Talmudists as heretics, and -propagators of a false religion, have left us the principles of a -healthy, manly, and rational piety, whilst their judges and accusers -have fallen headlong into error and even absurdity? If Jesus and his -disciples were deceivers or fanatics, how is it that they were preserved -from inculcating such false doctrines: and if the Scribes and Pharisees -were right in condemning and persecuting them—were actually serving God -in resisting false pretensions, how is it that they were given over to -such delusions, and to such a system of trifling? That they were not -infallible, the above extracts from the oral law prove beyond all -controversy. They have altogether erred in the first element of -acceptable worship, simplicity of intention and uprightness of heart. -They have confounded the form with the reality of obedience to God’s -commands. And in all these things where they have erred, Jesus and his -disciples have asserted and maintained the truth. Account for this fact. -The Talmud tells you to light a taper and search for leaven in a -mousehole, and to get rid of all in your possession by a fictitious -contract. The New Testament says, “Purge out the old leaven, that ye may -be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our Passover is -sacrificed for us: therefore let us keep the feast not with old leaven, -neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness; but with the -unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.” (1 Cor. v. 7, 8.) - - - - - No. XII. - THE PASSOVER A TYPE OF FUTURE DELIVERANCE. - - -This year, the Jewish and the Christian times for celebrating the Feast -of the Passover nearly coincide; and the coincidence ought to remind us -both of that happy period, when all the children of man, so long -divided, shall again be united into one great, holy, and happy family; -all rejoicing in the mercy and favour of their Heavenly Father, and all -loving each other in sincerity and truth. To that period we look -forward, and even now we use our humble endeavours to accelerate its -approach. Yea, one of the reasons, why we endeavour to lead Israel to a -rejection of the oral law, is because we firmly believe that it is one -of the main hindrances in the way of their happiness and that of the -nations of the world. We have no wish to rob you of any one blessing -promised in the Word of God. We would not deprive you of one hope -founded upon God’s promises. On the contrary, we rejoice to think that -notwithstanding all the vain traditions of the Scribes and Pharisees, it -has pleased God to keep alive in your hearts the memory of his past -mercy, and the hope of his future goodness. To the consideration of -these two points, the law of Moses and your appointed prayers lead you -at this season, and through the mercy of God, and the love of some of -your brethren, we of the Gentiles have been brought to rejoice in -similar considerations. Let us then endeavour to anticipate the future, -and rejoice together even now, omitting on this solemn occasion a -special discussion of the oral law. If God’s mercy were all past, and -only a matter of history, we might and ought to feel grateful for the -benefits bestowed upon our fathers: our joy would, however, suffer a -considerable diminution. But this is not the case. In the midst of your -grateful acknowledgment for the wonders in Egypt, you can mingle a -prayer for the future, and say, - -לשנה הבאה בירושלים ׃ - -“Next year in Jerusalem.” - -רחם נא י׳׳י אלהינו על ישראל עמך ועל ירישלים עירך ועל מזבחך ועל היכלך , -ובנה ירושלים עיר הקודש במהרה בימינו והעלנו לתוכה ושמחנו בה ׃ - -“O Lord our God, have mercy, we beseech thee, upon Israel thy people, -and upon Jerusalem thy city, and upon thine altar, and upon thy temple; -and build Jerusalem, the holy city, speedily, in our days, and bring us -up into the midst of it, and make us glad therein.” (Haggadah Shel -Pesach.) And to this prayer we can say, “Amen” with all our hearts. The -future restoration and blessedness of Israel is one of our fondest -expectations; and whilst we contemplate the circumstances and the glory -of the first Exodus, the Word of the living God leads us to look forward -to that which is to come. - -כימי צאתך מארץ מצרים אראנו נפלאות ׃ - -“According to the days of thy coming out of the land of Egypt will I -show unto him marvellous things,” is the promise by the mouth of Micah -the prophet (c. vii. 10). - -והחרים יהוה את לשון ים מצרים והניף ידו על הנהר בעים רוחו והכהו לשבעה -נחלים והדריך בנעלים , והיתה מסלה לשאר עמו אשר ישאר מאשור כאשר היתה -לישראל ביום עלותו מארץ מצרים ׃ - -“And the Lord shall utterly destroy the tongue of the Egyptian sea, and -with his mighty wind shall he shake his hand over the river, and shall -smite it in the seven streams, and shall make men go over dry shod. And -there shall be a highway for the remnant of his people, which shall be -left from Assyria; like as it was to Israel in the day that he came up -out of the land of Egypt,” is the declaration of the Prophet Isaiah (xi. -15, 16). Seeing that neither of these declarations was fulfilled at the -return from Babylon, nor at any period since, we firmly believe that -they shall be fulfilled in the time to come, and that therefore the -compilers of the Haggadah were fully warranted in intermingling, with -their Passover thanksgivings, a prayer for the fulfilment of the -promised mercies; and we do not scruple to say that in this respect, the -Jewish Rabbies have been right, whilst many Christian interpreters have -been wrong; though they might have known and given a true explanation of -all similar passages, if they had only followed the plain words of their -master, Jesus of Nazareth, “Think not that I am come to destroy the law -or the prophets.” (Matt. v. 17.) We make this remark to show that we do -not condemn the Rabbies inconsiderately; but that we are willing to do -them all justice, where their opinions agree with the Word of God. Their -expectation of the future restoration of Israel is well founded, and -their faith in the promises relating to it worthy of all imitation. Oh, -that the whole nation had more of it—that their hearts were more -directed to the land of their forefathers—that their thoughts were more -full of the Divine promises. Then they would cry more earnestly to God, -and He would “hear their groaning, and remember his covenant with -Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob,” as he did at the deliverance from Egypt. The -careless and the ungodly deceive themselves with the idea, that when -God’s time comes, the deliverance will take place without any endeavour -of theirs. Let them read the law of Moses, and they will find that -though God had promised to bring their fathers out of Egypt, the -deliverance itself was preceded by a time of prayer and crying unto God. -To Abraham he had said, - -ידוע תדע כי גר יהיה זרעך בארץ לא להם ועבדום וענו אותם ארבע מאות שנה ... -ודור רביעי ישובו הנה וגו׳ ׃ - -“Know of a surety that thy seed shall be a stranger in a land that is -not theirs, and shall serve them; and they shall afflict them four -hundred years.... But in the fourth generation they shall come hither -again,” &c. (Gen. xv. 13, 16.) But this promise was no warrant for their -remaining careless, and at ease; it was on the contrary a basis for -earnest prayer and supplication, and a plea for mercy. And, therefore, -when the time drew near, we read, - -יואנחו בני ישראל מן העבודה ויזעקו ותעל שועתם אל האלהים מן העבודה ׃ - -“And the children of Israel sighed by reason of the bondage, and they -cried, and their cry came up unto God, by reason of the bondage.” And -God himself gives this as one reason why he came to deliver them. - -ועתה הנה צעקת בני ישראל באה אלי ׃ - -“Now, therefore, behold the cry of the children of Israel is come unto -me.” (Exod. iii. 9.) Here, then, all Israelites, who desire the -fulfilment of God’s promises should learn that state of mind, which is a -pre-requisite to the interposition of their great deliverer. Israel can -no more be delivered now than of old, unless they earnestly desire -deliverance. To what purpose should He deliver and restore those, who -care nothing about the land of their forefathers, nor about the glory of -the nation—who say, We are very comfortable and happy here, and all we -desire is to be like the other nations (נהיה כגוים)—what good would it -do to us to return to the land of Israel? God’s promises are not to such -grovelling and unbelieving spirits. Along with his promise of mercy, he -gives a command for continual supplication, - -המזכירים את יהוה אל דמי לכם , ואל תהנו דמי לו עד יכונן ועד ישים את -ירושלים תהלה בארץ ׃ - -“Ye that make mention of the Lord, keep not silence, and give him no -rest, till he establish, and till he make Jerusalem a praise in the -earth.” (Isaiah lxii. 6, 7.) And in Ezekiel, after the declaration, -“This land that was desolate is become like the garden of Eden; and the -waste, and desolate and ruined cities, are become fenced, and are -inhabited,” &c., he adds— - -כה אמר אדני יהוה עוד זאת אדרש לבית ישראל לעשות להם ׃ - -“Thus saith the Lord God, I will yet for this be inquired of by the -house of Israel, to do it for them.” (Ezek. xxxvi. 37.) Upon which Rashi -remarks— - -אתפתה להם בתפלתם בדושם אותי על זאת ׃ - -“I will be made favourable to them through their prayer, when they seek -me with regard to this.” Hence prayer is commanded; in Hosea we are -told, that without prayer deliverance is impossible. - -אלך אשובה אל מקומי עד אשר יאשמו ובקשו פני ׃ - -“I will go and return to my place, till they acknowledge their offence, -and seek my face.” (Hosea v. 15.) Let the children of Israel return -then, and seek the Lord their God, and David their King, then they shall -fear the Lord and His goodness in the latter days. (Hosea iii. 5.) - -In the consideration of the deliverance from Egypt there is, however, -one circumstance which should teach the Israelites to rejoice with -trembling, and that is, that the majority of those, who went forth from -Egypt, never entered the land of Israel, but died in the wilderness on -account of their sin and unbelief. That which has happened, may happen -again. Israel might be delivered again from the lands of their -dispersion, and be led forth with a mighty hand, and outstretched arm, -and with great signs and wonders, and yet after all die in their sins. -Indeed, it is not merely a legitimate deduction from the past, but an -express prophecy of the future. “As I live, saith the Lord God, surely, -with a mighty hand, and with a stretched out arm, and with fury poured -out, will I rule over you; and I will bring you out from the people, and -will gather you out of the countries wherein ye are scattered, and with -a mighty hand, and with a stretched out arm, and with fury poured out. -And I will bring you into the wilderness of the people, and there will I -plead with you face to face. Like as I pleaded with your fathers in the -wilderness of the land of Egypt, so will I plead with you, saith the -Lord God. And I will cause you to pass under the rod, and I will bring -you into the bond of the covenant.” - -וברותי מכם המורדים והפושעים בי מארץ מגוריהם אוציא אותם ואל אדמת ישראל לא -יבוא ׃ - -“And I will purge out from among you the rebels, and them that -transgress against me; I will bring them forth from the country where -they sojourn, and they shall not enter into the land of Israel.” (Ezek. -xx. 33-38.) Here then we see, whether we consider the past or the -future, that a mere temporal deliverance is not sufficient—that God’s -greatest temporal blessings, and even his mighty signs and wonders, may -lead us in the more dreadful and fatal captivity of sin. Surely if a -miraculous deliverance could deliver the soul, those that saw the -miracles in Egypt, and experienced the Lord’s mercy in their -preservation from the destroying angel, and in the passage through the -Red Sea, ought to have been perfect in holiness. Yet we find, after all -that they saw and heard, that they were a disobedient and faithless -generation, and that they perished in the wilderness. The history, then, -of this great deliverance reminds us in the most forcible manner of the -bondage of sin, and the necessity of a more noble and gracious -emancipation. Israel was in bondage in Egypt, and the Lord had -compassion and delivered them. All mankind, Jews and Gentiles, are born -slaves to sin, and dreadful is the misery which they have suffered, and -hopeless the prospect for the future, unless God have provided a way of -escape. Now is it likely that that God who had compassion on the -Israelites in their temporal affliction, should look, unmoved and -unpitying, upon the temporal and spiritual wretchedness of the whole -human race? Is it conceivable that those gracious ears, which heard the -cries of Israel in Egypt, should be deaf to the groans and lamentations -of all the sons of men? Is it consistent with the Bible-character of God -to provide a remedy for temporal sorrow, and yet furnish no means of -deliverance from everlasting woe? Is it like our Heavenly Father to -stretch out his hand to save a few of his children from Egypt, and yet -leave the great majority to perish in ignorance and sin? Blessed be God, -who, in his great mercy, sent Jews to our forefathers to tell us of the -blood of another and greater passover, which can preserve Gentiles as -well as Jews from the wrath to come. - -משיח פסחנו נזבח בעדנו ׃ - -“Messiah, our passover, is sacrificed for us;” and therefore we too keep -the feast, and join in the hymn of thanksgiving, “Blessed be the Lord -God of Israel, for He hath visited and redeemed his people.” You -remember the paschal lamb of Egypt. We can say— - -הנה שה אלהים הנושא את חטאות כל העולם ׃ - -“Behold the Lamb of God, that taketh away the sin of the world.” You -remember the sprinkling of blood that delivered your fathers from -temporal death. We rejoice because, - -דם ישּוע המשיח יטהרנו מכל חטא ׃ - -“The blood of Jesus, the Messiah, cleanseth us from all sin.” You -remember how, four days before the Passover, it was necessary to select -a lamb without spot and without blemish. We think of the true Paschal -Lamb, the Messiah, how, four days before the great sacrifice, he came up -to Jerusalem, and was examined before the tribunals, and declared to be -without sin. Pilate’s testimony was, “Ye have brought this man unto me, -as one that perverteth the people; and, behold, I, having examined him -before you, have found no fault in this man touching those things -whereof ye accuse him: no, nor yet Herod: for I sent you to him; and lo, -nothing worthy of death is done unto him.” (Luke xxiii. 14, 15.) You -remember how the destroying angel passed over the houses where the blood -was sprinkled: we look forward to that more dreadful time, when he shall -come as the Psalmist describes:— - -יבא אלהינו ואל יהרש אש לפניו תאכל וסביביו נשערה מאוד , יקרא אל השמים מעל -ואל הארץ לדין עמו . אספו לי חסידי כורתי בריתי עלי זבח ׃ - -“Our God shall come, and shall not keep silence: a fire shall devour -before him, and it shall be very tempestuous round about him. He shall -call to the heavens from above, and to the earth, that he may judge his -people. Gather my saints together unto me: those _that have made a -covenant with me by sacrifice_.” (Ps. l. 3-5.) And we hope to be found -amongst that number, and that the blood of the true Sacrifice will then -deliver us. It is evident that the Psalmist here is not speaking of the -sacrifices of the temple, for immediately after we read— - -שמעה עמי ואדברה ישראל ואעידה בך אלהים אלהיך אנכי . לו אל זבחיך אוכיחך -ועולותיך לנגדי תמיד . לו אקח מביתך פר ממכלאותיך עתודים ׃ - -“Hear, O my people, and I will speak; O Israel, and I will testify -against thee: I am God, even thy God. I will not reprove thee for thy -sacrifices or thy burnt offerings, to have been continually before me. I -will take no bullock out of thy house, nor he goats out of thy folds.” -Here God plainly excepts the offerings of bulls and goats, and thereby -overthrows the exposition of Rashi and others, who say that the covenant -and sacrifices here alluded to are the same as those described at the -giving of the law, when Moses said, “Behold the blood of the covenant,” -&c. (Exod. xxiv. 8.) The sacrifices then offered were “burnt-offerings -and peace-offerings of oxen,” which God here declares that he will not -accept. Besides, God is not speaking of many sacrifices, but of one -sacrifice אלי זבח . He is moreover speaking of one great sacrifice, by -virtue of which sinful men may stand before him as saints at the great -day of judgment, and obtain mercy. This certainty cannot mean the -sacrifices of the Mosaic covenant at Sinai, for by reason of that -sacrifice, they will appear as guilty sinners who have broken God’s -covenant, as he himself says— - -אשר המה הפרו את ברית ׃ - -“Which my covenant they brake.” (Jer. xxxi. 32.) At that solemn hour the -Mosaic covenant will only condemn, and therefore cannot be meant here. -Indeed the rabbies appear to have felt the untenableness of this -exposition, and therefore invented another figurative one— - -ויש דרש כי על ברית מילה שהחזיקו בה ישראל בגלות ׃ - -“There is also an allegorical interpretation referring it to the -covenant of circumcision, which Israel has faithfully adhered to in the -captivity.” (Kimchi, in loc.) But this exposition is as unfounded as the -former. Circumcision is never called a sacrifice in Scripture. Neither -will it serve a man in the day of judgment. What then is the sacrifice -which is here intended? We answer, the true Passover, the blood of the -Messiah, whereby the new covenant is ratified. Some object that the -shedding of blood is altogether unnecessary—that if God will forgive at -all, he can forgive without atonement or sacrifice. But this objection -will equally affect the sacrifice of the first Passover. On the very -same grounds, we may say, What necessity was there for killing a lamb, -and sprinkling its blood upon the door-posts? The directions given by -Moses are very striking—“Kill the passover. And ye shall take a bunch of -hyssop, and dip it in the blood that is in the bason, and strike the -lintel and the two side posts with the blood that is in the bason; and -none of you shall go out at the door of his house until the morning. For -the Lord will pass through to smite the Egyptians; and when he seeth the -blood upon the lintel, and on the two side posts, the Lord will pass -over the door, and will not suffer the destroyer to come in unto your -houses to smite you.” (Exod. xii. 21-23.) Surely the blood was not -necessary to make known to him which house belonged to an Israelite. He -could have saved them as well without the blood as with it. Why then -destroy the life of a lamb, and give them all this trouble? Suppose that -an Israelite had thus argued at that time, had refused to kill the -passover, or having killed it, had neglected to sprinkle the blood, or -having done both, was not content to abide in his house, but had gone -forth before the morning, what would have been the consequence? Certain -punishment. God was indeed determined to save Israel, but only in a -certain way: and he that did not choose to submit to God’s method, would -naturally lose the benefit of his appointment. Our business is not to -argue with God, but having ascertained His will, to submit to it. -Inquire, then, what God means by “his saints who have made a covenant -with Him by sacrifice;” and endeavour to enter into that covenant, that -when He appears to judgment, ye may be gathered unto Him. If the -Christian view be not the true one, then since the destruction of the -temple there has been no sacrifice, and no way of entering into that -covenant with Him. You observe the season—you abstain from leaven—but -there is no sacrifice. The main, yea the essential, element of the -Passover is wanting. The lamb cannot be slain. And even if it could be, -if you had again a temple and a high-priest, and all the service of a -sanctuary, still the sacrifice of the Passover would only be a memorial -of mercies long since gone by. It would be no real atonement for your -sins, and when you had slain it, and eaten of it, the question would -still remain, How am I, a sinner, to appear in the presence of the -righteous Judge? - -The first part of this paper will have shown you, that we are firm -believers in the future glory and blessedness of Israel; that we do not, -therefore, in offering you our hope for eternity, wish to deprive you of -your own hopes for time. No, we wish you every blessing which God has -promised by the mouth of Moses and the prophets, and can affectionately -join in the words— - -לשנה הבאה בירושלִם ׃ - -If it should please God to spare us all to see the re-union of all the -families of the earth, we should rejoice to unite with others in -acknowledging “that ye are the seed whom the Lord has blessed.” But we -should rejoice a thousandfold more to meet you in the heavenly -Jerusalem, and to mingle our voices with yours in singing, - -“Worthy is the Lamb that was slain to receive power, and riches, and -wisdom, and strength, and honour, and glory, and blessing.” Amen. - - - - - No. XIII. - SEVERITY OF THE RABBINIC ORDINANCES. - - -The feast of the Passover, ordained as a memorial of past mercies, has -at the same time served to remind us of another deliverance necessary -both for Jew and Gentile, and also of a happy time when “there shall be -one fold and one shepherd”—“One LORD and His name One.” But the blessed -anticipations of the future cannot, and ought not, withdraw our thoughts -from the reality of the present. That happy time is not yet come. Jews -and Christians are not yet agreed as to the articles of faith; and this -feast of the Passover especially directs our attention to the cause and -origin of the difference. At this solemn season of the year, Jesus of -Nazareth was condemned by the Scribes and Pharisees, and by them -delivered to the Roman power to be executed as a malefactor. One portion -of the Jewish nation, and that the majority, concurred in the judgment -of the rulers. Another portion, at first small, but ultimately -considerable in number and station, arraigned the justice of the -sentence, and professed their faith in His Messiahship. The question -between Jews and Christians at present is, which of these two portions -of the Jewish nation was in the right. In these papers we have taken up -this simple position, that the religious system of those who rejected -Jesus of Nazareth is contrary to the law and the prophets, and is -therefore false; whilst the doctrines of Him, that was rejected, are in -conformity with those writings, and must therefore be true. When we say -that the rabbinical system is false, we do not mean that the Pharisees -held no truth. On the contrary, we showed in our last number that some -of their expectations were agreeable to the Word of God, and therefore -true. All we intend is, that the peculiarities of Rabbinism of which the -system is composed are erroneous. The laws relating to the present -festival furnish us with abundant proof of our assertion. The Divine -commands relating to it exhibit the care, consideration, and -condescension of God in providing an opportunity of instruction, a time -of relaxation, and a season of joy for the poor as well as the rich. The -rabbinical laws, on the other hand, are burdensome, oppressive, and -hurtful, especially to the poor and unlearned. - -We take our first proof from one of the laws relating to the ארבע כוסות -“the four cups”—God has given a simple command to Israel to make known -to their children the reasons for the feast. והגדת לבנך וגו׳ “And thou -shalt declare unto thy son in that day, saying, This is done because of -that which the Lord did unto me, when I came forth out of Egypt.” (Exod. -xiii. 8.) In order to fulfil this command, a sort of liturgy has been -composed, much of which is solemn and beautiful: and a ceremonial -appointed, of which one ordinance is, that there should be four cups or -glasses of wine. - -וכל אחד ואחד בין אנשים בין נשים חייב לשתות בלילה הזה ארבע כוסות אל יין -ואין פוחתין לו מהן ׃ - -“All persons, whether men or women, are obligated on this night to drink -four cups (or glasses) of wine, and this number is not to be -diminished.” (Hilchoth Chometz, c. vii.) As to the ceremony of the four -cups, the circumstances connected with them evidently show that they are -not for the purpose of revelry, but part of a solemn religious -observance. - -כל כוס וכוס מארבע כוסות הללו מברך עליו ברכה בפני עצמה . כוס ראשון אומר -עליו קידוש היום . כוס שני קורא עליו את ההגדה . כוס שלישי מברך עליו ברכת -המזון . כוס רביעי גומר עליו את ההלל ומברך עליו ברכת השיר ׃ - -“Over each of these four cups a benediction is to be pronounced. Over -the first cup is said the consecration of the day. Over the second cup -the Haggadah is read. Over the third cup the benediction for food is -pronounced. And over the fourth the Hallel is completed, and the -benediction for the song pronounced.” (Ibid.) With a solemn religious -ordinance it is not for us to find fault. On the contrary, in these and -their other prayers, we earnestly wish the Jews the blessing of God, and -the spirit of grace and supplication. But when we find this human -institution imposed as a burden upon the conscience, and the observance -of it exacted from those who have not the means of gaining their daily -bread, we must protest against it as harsh and oppressive. Now in the -oral law this requirement is made. - -מי שאין לו יין עבר אדרבנן דאמרי ולא יפחתו לו מארבע כוסות , וצריך למכור -מה איא לו לקיים מצות חכמים ולא יסמוך על הפת שאם קיים כוס אחד לא קיים -השלשה לכן ימכור מה שיש לו ולהוציא הוצאות עד שימצא יין או צמוקים ׃ - -“Whosoever has not got wine transgresses a command of the Rabbies, for -they have said, that there is to be no diminution from the four cups. -And it is necessary to sell what he has in order to keep the command of -the wise men. He is not to depend upon the bread, for if he fulfil the -command concerning one cup, he has not fulfilled that respecting the -three. Therefore let him sell what he has, and furnish the expense, -until he procure wine or raisins.” (Arbah Tur. Orach Chaiim, 483.) It -may be replied, that the congregation furnishes those who have not the -means. But what is to become of those who have displeased the dispensers -of the congregation’s bounty, or what is a Jew to do, who is living -alone in the midst of Gentiles, as is frequently the case, particularly -in this country? If he be a conscientious Rabbinist he must either -grieve his conscience by transgression, or sell what he may not be well -able to spare. The same may also be said of the unleavened cakes. The -Rabbies have given so many directions about the lawful mode of preparing -them, as to make it almost impossible for a Jew, living at a distance -from a congregation, to keep the command, and to keep the poor in a -state of perpetual bondage to the synagogue, if they wish to be supplied -by the bounty of the congregation. - -But if this utter want of consideration for the poor is more strikingly -displayed in the institution and exaction of a second holy day, where -God has required the observance of only one, as the Rabbies themselves -acknowledge in the following passage:— - -ששת ימים האלה שאסרן הכתוב בעשיית מלאכה שהן ראשון ושביעי של פסח וראשון -וח׳ של חג הסוכות וביום חג השבועות ובאחד לחודש השביעי הן הנקראים ימים -טובים . ושביתת כולן שוה שהן אסורין בכל מלאכת עבודה חוץ ממלאכה שהיא לצורך -אכילה שנאמר אך אשר יאכל לכל נפש וכו׳ ׃ - -“These are the six days on which the Scripture has forbidden the doing -of work. The first and seventh day of Passover: the first and eighth day -of the Feast of Tabernacles: the day of the Feast of Weeks, and the -first day of the seventh month; and these days are called holy days. The -sabbatism of all is alike; it is unlawful on them to do any manner of -work, excepting that which is necessary for the preparation of food, as -it is said, ‘Save that which every man must eat.’ (Exod. xii. 16.)” -(Hilchoth Jom. Tov., c. i. 1.) Here is an express recognition of what -God has commanded. And yet the Scribes were not content with this -ordinance of God, but have appointed the observance of a second day on -all these occasions, and have annexed the sentence of excommunication to -any transgression of their command. - -ואנו שעושים שני ימים טובים כל מה שאסור בראשון אסור גם בשני , ומנדין עליו -למי שמזלזל בו , ואם הוא צורבא מרבנן אין מחמיריו לנדותו אלא מלקין אותו ׃ - -“To us, who observe two days, every thing that is forbidden on the first -day, is also forbidden on the second day; and whosoever makes light of -it, is to be excommunicated. But if he be an acute Talmudist the -excommunication is not to be severe, only he is to be beaten.” (Orach -Chaiim, 496.) In the Yad Hachasakah we find the same severity, and the -same exception. - -יום טוב שני אף על פי שהוא מדברי סופרים כל דבר שאסור בראשון אסור בשני . -וכל המחלל יום טוב שני ואפילו של ראש השנה בין בדבר שהוא משום שבות ובין -במלאכה בין שיצא חוץ לתחום מכין אותו מכת מרדות או מנדין אותו אם לא יהיה -מן התלמידים ׃ - -“Although the second holy day is only of the words of the Scribes, every -thing that is forbidden on the first day, is forbidden on it also. And -every one who professes the second holy day, even that of the new year, -whether it be in a matter relating to the sabbatism, or by work, or by -going beyond the Sabbath limit, is to receive the beating denounced -against rebellion, or to be excommunicated, unless he be a learned man.” -(Hilchoth Jom. Tov., c. i. 24.) The hardship, oppression, and severity -of this ordinance are apparent at first sight, and are severely felt by -many a poor Jew in this city, who hardly knows how to get bread for -himself and his children. In every case it robs him in one week of two -days, on which God has allowed him to work, and to endeavour to gain a -livelihood. But if the first day of a festival happen on a Thursday, -then that day, Friday, and Saturday, he dare not do anything to earn the -means of subsistence for his family. Sunday is the Christian Sabbath, so -that in one week four successive days are lost, and in the following -week four more. What, then, is the poor man to do? If he does not work, -his children may starve; if he makes use of the time allowed him by his -merciful God, and pursues his daily occupations, he transgresses a -command of unmerciful men, and renders himself obnoxious to his more -bigoted brethren. True that they cannot now beat him with the stripes -awarded to the rebellious, and that they would hardly dare, in the -present state of things, to excommunicate him; yet there are other ways -and means of persecution more secret, but equally sure. But whatever be -the present circumstances, the cruel and oppressive spirit of the oral -law remains the same. If the Rabbinists had the power, they would soon -proceed to excommunicate and flog all the profaners of the second holy -day. We appeal, then, to the common sense of every Jew, and ask him, -What right have men to rob the poor of that time which God hath given -them? or to sentence a man who only goes to get bread for his children, -and in so doing transgresses none of God’s commandments, to -excommunication or flogging, especially to that severe species of -flogging here specified? - -The flogging here spoken of is called מכת מרדות, “the flogging of -rebellion,” and is altogether different from that merciful punishment -prescribed in the law. God says, “And it shall be, if the wicked man be -worthy to be beaten, that the judge shall cause him to lie down, and to -be beaten before his face, according to his fault by a certain number. -Forty stripes he may give him, and not exceed; lest, if he should -exceed, and beat him above these with many stripes, then thy brother -should seem vile to thee.” (Deut. xxv. 2, 3.) Here, as everywhere else, -in the midst of judgment, God remembers mercy. The Rabbies, never -satisfied unless they can add to, or diminish from, God’s commandments, -have reduced the number to thirty-nine, lest they should make any -mistake. But to compensate for this diminution, they have invented “the -flogging of rebellion,” which is without number and without mercy, as -may be seen from the following explanation of the Baal Aruch:— - -מי שעובר על מצות עשה שאמר לו עשה סוכה עשּה לולב ואינו עושה מכין אותו עד -שתצא נשמתו בלא אומד ובלא מכה משולשה וכן מי שעובר על דברי חכמים מכין אותו -בלא מספר ובלא מנין ובלא אומד ולמה קורון אותו מכת מרדות שמרד בדברי תורה -ובדברי סופרים ׃ - -“Whosoever transgresses an affirmative commandment, for instance, he was -commanded to make a tabernacle, or a lulav, and did not, he is to be -beaten until his soul go out, without any consideration of his strength, -and without dividing the flogging into three. And, in like manner, -whosoever transgresses the words of the wise men, he is to be beaten -without number, and without consideration. Why is this called the -flogging of rebellion? Because he has rebelled against the words of the -law and against the words of the Scribes.” (Baal Aruch, in voc.) This, -then, is the punishment denounced against those who try to get bread for -their children on the second holy day; a punishment invented by the -Rabbies themselves, not against the immoral or the irreligious, but -against the transgressors of their own commandments. What could have -been the spirit, the temper, the religious feeling of such men? Had they -any perception of the merciful character of the law, or any resemblance -to the compassionate nature of the God of Israel? Can you put any -confidence in the religious instruction of those who would excommunicate -or flog a fellow-creature to death because he obeyed the instincts of -nature, because he could not stay at home and listen to the cries of his -famishing children, but went forth, to procure them food in the manner, -and on the day which God had permitted him to do so? These are the men -who condemned Jesus of Nazareth to death, and this is the religion of -the oral law, which you prefer to the mild and merciful doctrines of -Christianity. If Rabbinism had continued in its power, you would have -been exposed to all the severity of this intolerance. The triumph of -Christianity has, in this respect, also been a blessing to the Jewish -nation, and the power of the followers of Jesus of Nazareth protects you -from excommunication and corporal chastisement. - -The cruelty and hardship of the imposition of a second holy day, with -such a punishment annexed appears not only from the circumstance of its -being altogether a human institution, but further, that the original -object of its institution has long since ceased. The Scribes appointed -the observance of two days at a time, when the feast-days were fixed by -the appearance of the moon, lest those at a distance from Jerusalem -should keep a wrong day, but now that they are fixed by calculation, -this is altogether unnecessary. - -בזמן הזה שאין שם סנהדרים ובית דין של ארץ ישראל קובעין על חשבון זה היה מן -הדין שיהיו בכל המקומות עושין יום טוב אחד בלבד אפילו המקומות הרחוקות -שבחוץ לארץ כמו בני ארץ ישראל שהכל על חשבון אחד סומכין וקובעין אבל תקנת -חכמים הוא שיזהרו במנהג אבותיהם שבידם ׃ - -“In the present time, when there is no Sanhedrin, nor house of judgment -in the land of Israel, the feasts are fixed by calculation, and -therefore all places, even those that are remote from the land of -Israel, ought properly to observe only one day as a holy day, as well as -the inhabitants of that country, for all depend on and fix the feast by -one and the same calculation; but it is an ordinance of the wise men to -adhere diligently to the custom of their forefathers.” (Hilchoth Kiddush -Hachodesh, c. v. 5.) There is, therefore, no excuse for this burden -imposed upon the poor, and much less for the cruel punishments, -denounced against those who cease to observe what is confessedly an -useless custom. How different is the doctrine of Christianity with -respect to such days. No excommunication, no flogging, no imposing of -burdens upon the consciences of our brethren. The New Testament condemns -even all rash judgment in such matters. It says, “Who art thou, that -judgeth another man’s servant? To his own master he standeth or falleth. -Yea he shall be holden up, for God is able to make him stand. One man -esteemeth one day above another; another esteemeth every day alike. Let -every man be fully persuaded in his own mind. He that regardeth the day, -regardeth it to the Lord; and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord -he doth not regard it. He that eateth, eateth to the Lord, for he giveth -God thanks; and he that eateth not, to the Lord he eateth not, and -giveth God thanks. For none of us liveth to himself, and no man dieth to -himself. For whether we live, we live onto the Lord, and whether we die, -we die unto the Lord; whether we live, therefore, or die, we are the -Lord’s.” (Rom. xiv. 2-8.) Here is the spirit of love and mercy, and -therefore the spirit of God. How is it, then, that Jesus and his -disciples were able to overcome the prejudices of their times, and to -stem the torrent of authority and learning, which was altogether in -favour of the opposite opinions? How is it, if they were impostors and -deceivers that they have left a tolerant and merciful system, whilst the -Scribes and Pharisees, who, according to that supposition, were the true -servants of God, have left a religion of oppression and cruelty? “Ye -shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs -of thistles? Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit, and -every evil tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring -forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.” -(Matt. vii. 16-18.) This is certainly true in nature. Now the Pharisees -have brought forth evil fruit, Jesus of Nazareth and his disciples have -brought forth good fruit. What is the conclusion from such premises? - -But we have hitherto spoken only generally of the Institution of a -second holy day, we have yet to consider the details of the commandment, -which will show still more clearly that “The Scribes and Pharisees bind -heavy burdens, and grievous to be borne, and lay them on other men’s -shoulders.” (Matt. xxiii. 4.) They are, as usual, most exact in defining -what is and is not work. They say, - -כל שאסור בשבת בין משום שהוא דומה למלאכה או מניא לידי מלאכה בין שהוא משום -שבות הרי הוא אסור ביום טוב אלא אם כן היה צורך אכילה וכיוצא בה . או דברים -שהם מותרים ביום טוב כמו שיתבאר בהלכות אלו . וכל שאסור לטלטלו בשבת אסור -לטלטלו ביום טוב אלא לצורך אכילה וכיוצא בה וכל שמותר בשבת מותר ביום טוב ׃ - -“Every thing that is unlawful on the Sabbath, either because it has the -appearance of work, or because it leads to work, or on account of -sabbatising, is unlawful on a holy day, unless it be necessary for the -preparation of food, and the like, or such things as are allowed on the -holy day, as will be explained in these constitutions. And every thing -that it is unlawful to move on the Sabbath, is also unlawful to be moved -on the holy day, unless it be necessary for food: and every thing that -is lawful on the Sabbath is lawful on a holy day.” (Hilchoth Jom. Tov., -c. i. 17.) This law effectually ties up the hands of the poor Rabbinist. -He not only dare not pursue his trade, but he dare not make any domestic -arrangement, that might promote order in his house, or conduce to his -comfort. He must not write a letter to his friends, nor even extinguish -a fire, though it be to save his property. - -אף על פי שהותרה הבערה ביום טוב שלא לצורך אסור לכבות את האש אפילו הובערה -לצורך אכילה , אהכבוי מלאכה ואין בו צורך אכילה כלל , וכשם שאין מכבין את -האש כך אין מכבין את המר ואם כבה לוקה במי שארג או בנה ... אין מכבין את -הדליקה כדי להציל ממון ביום טוב כדרך שאין מכבין בשבת אלא מניחה ויוצא ׃ - -“Although it has been pronounced lawful to kindle fire on the holy day, -even where not absolutely necessary, yet it is unlawful to extinguish -fire, even though it had been kindled for the preparation of food; for -the extinguishing of fire is work, and is not at all necessary for the -dressing of food. And as fire is not to be extinguished, so neither is a -candle to be extinguished and whosoever extinguishes is to be flogged, -just as he that weaves or builds.... Fire is not to be extinguished, in -order to save property on a holy day, no more than on the Sabbath. On -the contrary, one lets it burn and goes away.” (Ibid., c. iv. 2, 4.) In -the Arbah Turim this law is laid down with still more precision. - -אסור לכבות את הדליקה ביום טוב אפילו רואה את ביתו שנשרף . אסור לכבות -הבקעת בין אם מכבה מפני שחס עליה שלא תשרף בין אם מכבה שלא תתעשן הקדרה . -ודוקא כשאפשר לו להצילה מעישון בלא כבוי כגון שיסירנה מאש זה ויתננה על אש -אחר אבל אם אין לו אש אחר ואם לא יכבנה תתעשן הקדרה מותר לכבותה כדי שלא -תתעשן הקדרה ׃ - -“It is unlawful to extinguish fire on a holy day, even though a man -should see his house burning. It is unlawful to extinguish split wood, -either for the sake of saving it from being burned, or to keep a pot -from being smoked, that is to say, if he can keep it from being smoked -without extinguishing the fire, as by removing it from one fire to -another. But if he has not got another fire, and if the pot must be -smoked unless he extinguish it, then the extinguishing is lawful, that -the pot may not be smoked.” (Orach Chaiim, 514.) Now we put it to the -common sense of every Jew, whether in these laws there be justice, -mercy, and religion; or hardship, inconsideration, and absurdity? - - - - - No. XIV. - SEVERITY AND ARTIFICE. - - -The oral law says, as we saw in our last, that, on a holy day, it is -unlawful to extinguish a fire in order to save a man’s house and -property, but that it is lawful, on the same day, to do the very same -thing to keep a pot of cookery from being smoked. This sentence may -perhaps appear wise and pious to those who have got more houses than -one, or the means of procuring them; but with respect to the poor man, -who in such a case loses his all, and must see his family left without a -roof over their heads or a bed to lie on, this decision is as cruel as -it is senseless. There is, however, a tyranny more dreadful than that -which affects only the temporal condition of men. The spiritual -despotism, which burdens and fetters the conscience and enslaves the -soul, is more intolerable still. Under temporal losses a man’s mind may -be supported by a sense of religion; but when his religion, by the -multiplicity and rigour, and intricacy of its requirements, becomes his -tormentor, man is bereft of his last consolation. The religion of the -oral law appears to us to be of this character, and its enactments with -regard to the holy days will serve to justify this our opinion. We have -seen already, that it requires two days’ cessation from business, where -God requires only one, and that the general rule is, Whatsoever is -unlawful on the Sabbath, is unlawful on the holy day, with one -exception. The Scribes, however, were not content with this, they have -contrived to invent something, which, though lawful on the Sabbath, is -on these days unlawful. They say, that there is a certain class of -things, which, if not deliberately destined the day before for the use -of the holy day, are unlawful. To this class they give the name of מוקצה -_Muktzeh_, which literally signifies “separated or cut off,” but which, -for shortness’ sake and for want of a better word in English, we shall -call “_undestined_.” - -ויש ביום טוב מה שאין בשבת איסור מוקצה שהמוקצה אסור ביום טוב ומותר בשבת -מפני שיום טוב קל משבת אסרו בו המוקצה שמא יבואו לזלזל בו ׃ - -“There is on the holy day one thing which is not found on the Sabbath, -and that is, the forbidding of the _undestined_, for the _undestined is_ -unlawful on the holy day, and is lawful on the Sabbath. Because the holy -day is less sacred than the Sabbath, they forbade the _undestined_ on -that day, lest persons should be led to make light of it.” (Hilchoth -Jom. Tov. c. i. 17.) - -כיצד תרנגולת העומדת לגדל ביצים ושור הצומד לחרישה ויוני שובך ופירות -העומדין לסחורה כל אלו וכיוצא בהן מוקצה הן ואסור לאכול מהן ביום טוב עד -שיכין אותה מבערב ויחשוב עליהם לאכילה ׃ - -“For instance, a hen that is kept for the purpose of hatching eggs, and -an ox that is kept for ploughing, pigeons in a pigeon house, and fruits -that are kept for sale, all these and the like are _undestined_, and it -is unlawful to eat of them on a holy day, unless a man destine them on -the eve preceding, and form an intention to eat them.” (Ibid.) By this -law a numerous class of things is forbidden, which God has no where -forbidden, and fresh chains are forged for the conscience. An unlearned -man can hardly tell what does or does not belong to the class, and if he -be in doubt must first go to the rabbi, before he can eat or make use of -any thing doubtful; for this definition extends not only to eatables, -but to other things, as for instance, fuel. Suppose, for example, that a -man or a family had eaten nuts or almonds on the eve of the holy day, is -it lawful or unlawful to burn the shells on the holy day itself? The -Word of God leaves the Jew at perfect liberty to do as he pleases, but -the oral law tells him that he may by doing either commit a great sin. -If he cannot resolve his scruples in this matter, he must be content to -go to the rabbi or some learned man, and submit to his decision, and -thus every unlearned and devout Jew is brought into complete captivity -to the decisions of the learned. Another very similar law, and tending -to the same bondage, is that which makes any thing that is born or comes -into existence on the holy day, unlawful. - -וכשם שהמוקצה אסור ביום טוב כך הנולד אסור . חול מכין לשבת וחול מכין ליום -טוב אבל אין יום טוב מכין לשבת ולא שבת מכינה ליום טוב . לפיכך ביצה שנולדה -ביום טוב אחר השבת אסורה ׃ - -“And as the undestined is unlawful on the holy day, so also what is born -is unlawful. On a common day a man may destine things for the Sabbath, -and also for the holy day. But on a holy day things may not be destined -for the Sabbath, nor on the Sabbath for the holy day, therefore an egg -that is laid on the holy day after the Sabbath is unlawful.” (Ibid.) Now -not to speak of the minute trifling of this law, there are cases where -it may become very oppressive. Suppose that by some means an unlawful -egg should get amongst a number of lawful eggs, they would all become -unlawful. - -ואפילו נתערבה באלף כולן אסורות ׃ - -“Yea, though it should be mixed up amongst a thousand, they are all -unlawful.” It is true that the rabbies endeavour to guard against such -on accident, by forbidding the removal of such an egg on the holy day; -but a Gentile or a child might, through inadvertently putting such an -egg amongst others, produce great inconvenience or even loss, and to -this the poor man must submit, or burden his conscience with a wilful -transgression. But this law forbidding to eat or move whatsoever comes -into existence on the holy day extends beyond the class of eatables. -Wood accidentally broken on this day belongs to this class, and it is -therefore unlawful to use it as fuel, or to move it. In like manner, -ashes of wood that has been burnt on the holy day, is considered as -having come into existence, and it is a sin to move it, when once it has -cooled. And again, if a fire should go out on the holy day, it is a -grave question whether the fuel that remains may be kindled again. - -Thus the conscience is burdened with definitions of unlawful, but the -directions about things lawful are quite as numerous and perplexing. For -instance, it is lawful to make a fire on a holy day, and to put on the -pot for cooking, but an unlearned man or woman may commit a sin in the -mode of doing it, and, therefore, the Baal Turim says, - -כשעושה האש ונותן עליה קדירה צריך ליזהר בסדור העצים ובנתינת הקדירה עליהם -שלא יהיה דומה לבנין דאמר רב יהודה מדורתא מלמעלה למטה שרי , ממטה למעלה -אסור ׃ - -“When one makes a fire and puts on a pot, it is necessary to be very -careful in the arranging of the wood, and the mode of setting the pot -upon it, so that there should be no resemblance to budding, for Rav -Judah has said, every pile of wood begun from the top to the bottom is -lawful, from the bottom to the top is unlawful.” (Orach Chaiim, 502.) -For this reason very minute directions are given for the performance of -each of these operations. The fire is to be made in the following -manner:— - -העושה מדורה ביום טוב כשהוא עורך את העצים אינו מניח זה על זה עד שיסדר -המערכה מפני שנראה כבונה . ואף על פי שהוא בנין עראי אסור אלא או שופך -העצים בערבוב או עורך בשנוי . כיצד מניח עץ למעלה ומניח אחר תחתיו ואחר -תחתיו עד שהוא מגיע לארץ ׃ - -“He that makes a pile of fire on a holy day, when he is arranging the -wood, is not to lay one piece upon another, so as to make an orderly -arrangement, for that looks as if he were building; and although it be -an accidental building it is unlawful. But either he is to scatter the -wood in confusion, or to arrange them with some variation. How so? He is -to lay one piece at the top, and another piece under it, and another -under that, until it reaches the ground.” (Hilchoth Jom. Tov. c. iv. -14.) In like manner the pot is not to be placed upon stones, or whatever -else is to support it, but is to be held up, and the support placed -under it; and so with other things. The great principle is, that some -difference is to be made between the work done on the holy day and on a -common day, and therefore in the carrying of wine, or wood, or other -things, they are not to be carried in a basket, nor as usual, but on the -shoulder or in some extraordinary way. Now, as the speculations of men -who had not much to do, or who chose to devote the powers that God had -given them to such minutiæ, these things hardly appear as harmless; but -when imposed as a burden upon the consciences of others, they are -utterly unjustifiable, and if they were found in the New Testament, they -would furnish abundant matter for Jewish wit and ridicule. They would -naturally say, what, is this the religion that the Messiah came to -teach? Had he nothing better to do than to look after the making of -fires, and the putting on of pots? But this is not the religion of Jesus -of Nazareth, nor of his apostles. There is nothing similar in the New -Testament. This is the religion, and these the laws of those who reject -him. - -But this system of minute legislation has another and a worse -consequence; it leads to difficulty, and the difficulty leads to -artifice, and thus the mind, instead of being improved and benefited, is -actually corrupted by the practice of this rabbinical religion. Thus the -oral law says, that it is unlawful on a holy day to cook food for the -following day, especially to a common day, but that if any of the food -remain it is lawful. What is the consequence? Naturally that more food -is prepared than is necessary for the holy day because they know that -this may be eaten the day after. And this is no imaginary deduction of -ours, it is a case propounded most fully, and allowed by the rabbies. - -ממלאה אשה קדירה בשר אף על פי שאינה צריכה אלא לחתיכה אחת . ממלא נחתום -הבית של מים אף על פי שאינו צריך אלא לקיתון אחד . ממלאה אשה תנור פת אף על -פי שאינה צריכה אלא לככר אחד שבזמן שהפת מרובה בתנור היא נאפת יפה . ומולח -אדם כמה חתיכות בשר בבת אחת אף על פי שאינו צריך אלא לחתיכה אחת וכן כל -כיוצא בזה ׃ - -“A woman may fill a pot with meat, though she wants only one piece. A -cook may fill a boiler with water, though he wants only the least -quantity. A woman may fill an oven with bread, though she want only one -loaf, for when the oven is full, the bread bakes better. A man may salt -a great many pieces of meat at once, although he require only one piece; -and so with similar things.” (Hilchoth Jom. Tov. c. i. 10.) Now this is -plainly an evasion of what is considered a Divine command. In like -manner the oral law forbids the preparing of food for Gentiles. - -אין אופין ומבשלין ביום טוב כדי להאכיל גוים או כלבים שנאמר הוא לבדו יעדו -יעשה לכם לכם ול לגוים לכם ולא לכלבים ׃ - -“It is unlawful to bake or to cook on a holy day, in order to feed -Gentiles or dogs; for it is said, ‘That only may be done for you.’ (Exod -xii. 16.) ‘For you,’ and not for Gentiles. ‘For you,’ and not for dogs.” -(Ibid.) The principle of this decision may lead to several difficulties: -first, a Jew may have Gentiles in his employ and service whom he boards, -what is he to do then? This difficulty he may get over in the manner -just mentioned, by having more cooked than he wants, then it is lawful -for the Gentile to eat of the surplus. But suppose a Gentile and a Jew -had a beast in partnership, and either wished to have it slaughtered on -the holy day, is it lawful for a Jew to slaughter it? According to the -above decision, it would appear not, for it is preparing food to feed a -Gentile; but the rabbies have found out a reason for evading the -command. - -בהמה שחציה של גוי וחציה של ישראל מותר לשחטו ביום טוב שאי אפשר לאכול ממנה -כזית בשר בלא שחיטה ׃ - -“A beast which partly belongs to a Gentile and partly to an Israelite, -may lawfully be slaughtered on a holy day, for it is impossible to eat -the size of an olive of the meat, if it be not slaughtered by a Jew.” -(Ibid.) This, also, is nothing more nor less than an evasion. But now -suppose that a Jew finds on a holy day, and after he has eaten his -meals, that a beast belonging to him is likely to die, and that -therefore he is likely to lose it altogether, what is he to do? The oral -law lays it down that it is unlawful to slaughter for the following day, -and yet if it die without slaughtering, it must be totally unlawful to -eat. In this case there is a saving clause which removes the difficulty. - -מי שהיתה לו בהמה מסוכנת לא ישחוט אותה ביום טוב אלא אם כן יודע שיוכל -לאכול ממנה כזית צלי מבעוד יום , כדי אלא ישחוט ביום טוב מה שיאכל בחול ׃ - -“He that has a beast near unto death must not slaughter it on a holy -day, unless he knows that he can eat of its flesh the size of an olive, -roasted, whilst it is still day, that he may not slaughter on a holy day -what is to be eaten on a common day.” (Ibid.) Here the evasion is -palpable. The man has already eaten his meals, he knows that it is not -for the holy day, that it is simply to save himself from loss, and yet -the oral law obliges him to be guilty of deceit, and to eat a minute -particle of it, that the appearance may be kept up. If it were intended -mercifully to save the poor from loss, why not make it lawful at once, -without any such condition? Here the mercy of the enactment is quite -destroyed by the encouragement of deceit. In the same way the oral law -forbids open, straightforward buying and selling on a holy day, and yet -prescribes a method of evasion. - -לא יאמר אדם לטבח תן לי בדינר בשר אלא תן לי חלק או חצי חלק ולמחר עושין -השבון אל שוויו ׃ - -“A man must not say to a butcher, Give me meat for so much money, only, -Give a portion, or half a portion, and on the morrow they settle the -account as to its value.” (Ibid. c. iv. 20.) - -הולך אדם אצל חנוני או רועה הרגיל אצלו או אצל הפטם הרגיל אצלו ולוקח ממנו -בהמות ועופות וכל מה שירצה והוא שלא יזכור לו שום דמים ולא סכום מנין ׃ - -“A man may go to his accustomed shopkeeper, or shepherd, or grazier, and -take from him cattle, fowls, and whatsoever he pleases; only he must not -mention to him any money, nor any number.” (Ibid.) To take any thing -from a shopkeeper by weight or measure is also forbidden, if it be done -openly and honestly, but allowed if it be done cunningly and -deceitfully. - -וכן לא יקח מבעל החנות במדה או במשקל אלא כיצד הוא עושה אומר לחנוני מלא לי -כלי זה ולמחר נותן לו שוויו ואפילו היה כלי המיוחד למדה ימלאנו והוא שלא -יזכור לו שם מדה ׃ - -“And thus a man must not take any thing from a shopkeeper by weight or -measure, only let him say to the shopkeeper, Fill this vessel for me; -and on the morrow he gives him the value. And even though the vessel -should be one set apart for the purpose of measuring, he may fill it, -provided that the name of a measure be not mentioned.” (Ibid.) In all -these cases it is plain that a real transaction of buying and selling -takes place, and on the showing of the rabbies themselves, contrary to -the Word of God. Those men who would flog a fellow-creature for not -keeping their own commandment of a second holy day, make no scruple of -devising and prescribing a system of fraudulent evasion of God’s -commands. Perhaps some may think that we use too strong language when we -apply the words cunning and deceit to those devices of the oral law, but -this language was suggested by the oral law itself, which does not -scruple to use similar words, and to pronounce that, in similar cases, -cunning or deceit is lawful. - -אותו ואת בנו שנפלו לבור מעלה את הראשון על מנת לשחטו ואינו שוחטו . ומערים -ומעלה את השני על מנת לשחטו ושוחט אי זה מהן שירצה משום צער בעלי חיים -התירו להערים ׃ - -“If a first-born beast and its offspring fall into a pit, the first is -to be helped out on condition of slaughtering it, but it is not -slaughtered. Then guile is to be used, and the second also helped out on -condition of slaughtering it, and then they slaughter which of the two -they please. On account of the affliction of the animals, it has been -pronounced lawful to use guile.” (Ibid. c. ii.) Here the oral law speaks -plainly, it fairly says that guile may be used. It is no defence to say, -that this guile was suggested by compassion for the animals. If it be -lawful to help the animals out of the pit at all, it is lawful to do it -without any guile, openly and honestly. And if it be unlawful to help -them out, it is doubly unlawful to do so through guile and deceit, as if -God was ignorant of the thoughts and designs of their hearts, and could -be satisfied with false and fictitious conditions. But there is another -case, where this same word is also used, and where the excuse of -compassion is altogether out of the question. - -המפשיט עור בהמה ביום טוב לא ימלחנו שזה עיוד הוא ונמצא עושה מלאכה שלא -לצורך אכילה ... ומותר למלוח בשר לצלי על גבי העור ומערימים בדבר זה . כיצד -מולח מעט בשר מכאן ומעט מכאן עד שימלח העור כולו ׃ - -“He that takes off the hide of a beast on a holy day, must not salt it, -for this is work, and he would be guilty of doing work that is not -necessary for the preparation of food.... But it is lawful to salt meat -for roasting on the top of the hide, and in this matter guile is -employed. How so? Thus. A little meat is salted on one part, and then a -little on another part, until the whole hide be salted.” (Ibid. c. iii. -4.) Here no defence whatever can be offered. The oral law confesses that -to salt a hide is unlawful, its compilers therefore set to work to find -out a method of doing what was forbidden, and yet have the appearance of -keeping the law, and they sagaciously discovered the above solution of -the difficulty. Thus the law of God is made null by the traditions of -men. The commandments of the Scribes are enforced by flogging and -excommunication, but full permission given to violate God’s commands, if -only an appearance of obedience can be preserved. No wonder that Jesus -of Nazareth, whose characteristic is mildness and gentleness, used such -harsh language to the authors of this system. His general address to -them was, “Woe unto you, Scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites.” They -professed the utmost anxiety to have the law of God observed. This was -the professed object of their commandments. They were invented as a -hedge to keep off every Israelite from even an approach to -transgression; and they enforced the observance of this defence by the -severest punishments. But where the law of God interfered with their -worldly interest, their profit or their gain, they fearlessly made void -the law, and inculcated a system of guile and evasion. And this is -perhaps the most deadly element in the Talmudic potion. The human heart -is ever ready to imbibe what is bad, and the human mind most quick in -generalizing the principles of evil. The only efficient remedy for this -disease of head and heart is the inculcation of those pure and holy -principles, which God has graciously revealed. But when these principles -are themselves adulterated, and a system of guileful evasion taught as -the religion of Moses and the prophets, what are the results to be -expected? The cruel oppression of the poor is bad enough. The enslaving -the consciences of the weak is worse; but the corrupting the minds of -the simple by such pernicious doctrines, is the worst of all. Yet this -is the work of the Jewish religion, as taught in the oral law, and as -recognized in the prayers of the synagogue. We do not mean to say that -there is anything peculiar in the system. We know that the Provincial -Letters develop a Gentile system as corrupt and corrupting. But that -system has nothing to do with the Christianity of the New Testament. Our -forefathers renounced it long ago. The Jews still adhere to the oral -law, and in their prayers and observances still acknowledge its Divine -authority; and wherever Judaism exists in vigour, these are the -doctrines instilled into the minds of the young, and to which the flower -of the Jewish nation devote the vigour of their manhood and the judgment -of their old age. That there are Jews who abhor this system, and have -adopted the purer principles of the New Testament, even though they do -not profess Christianity, we well know. But how is it that there are -none who have courage to protest against it? How is it that there is not -one who comes forward to emancipate his brethren from moral slavery and -the galling chain of superstition and error? “There is none to guide her -among all the sons whom she hath brought forth: neither is there any -that taketh her by the hand of all the sons that she hath brought up.” -(Isaiah li. 18.) - - - - - No. XV. - SABBATH MIXTURE. - - -In discussing the substance and tendency of the oral law, the very -nature of our design compels us to dwell upon its peculiarities, and to -notice those traits which appear as its essential characteristics. Our -object is not, primarily, to show its defects and fruits, but to prove -that it is not of Divine authority. In proving this, it is absolutely -necessary to show, by a comparison with the law and the prophets, as the -unerring standard of right and wrong, that the system is bad. We know, -and have more than once admitted, that as it is not a mere human -invention, but a corruption of a divinely revealed religion, it must -contain much that is good. But this admission no more justifies the -system, than a small quantity of gold in a mixed metal would prove that -the whole mass is gold. And this comparison may be well illustrated by -the holy day constitutions, which have lately occupied our attention. -The concluding paragraph of these constitutions contains several -beautiful and pious precepts; as, for example, after the command to -rejoice on such days, and to provide nuts and such-like things for the -children, new clothes and ornaments for the women, and good eating and -drinking for the men, we read as follows:— - -וכשהוא אוכל ושותה חייב להאכיל לגר ליתום ולאלמנה עם שאר העניים אבל מי -שנועל דלתי ביתו ואוכל ושותה עם בניו ואשתו ואינו מאכיל ומשקה לעניים ולמרי -נפש אין זו מצוה אלא שמחת כרסו ועל אלו נאמר זבחיהם כלחם אונים להם כל -אוכליו יטמאו כי לחמם לנפשם וגו׳ ׃ - -“And when he eats and drinks, he is bound to feed the stranger, the -orphan, and the widow, with the other poor. But he that bolts the doors -of his house, and eats and drinks with his children and his wife, but -does not furnish meat and drink to the poor and afflicted, is not to be -regarded as having fulfilled the commandment; on the contrary, his joy -is that of a glutton, and of such persons it is said, ‘Their sacrifices -shall be unto them as the bread of mourners; all that eat thereof shall -be polluted: for their bread for their soul shall not come into the -house of the Lord.’ (Hos. ix. 4.)” (Arbah Turim, 529.) This makes a -merciful provision for the poor, and as teaching all who partake of the -good things of this world to remember their poorer brethren, is worthy -of praise and imitation. We know also that this charity is practised by -all devout Jews in every part of the world, and that they are on this -account entitled to the respect of all who can appreciate benevolence. -But the reason why every believer in revelation will approve this -commandment is, because it accords with the Word of God. Moses has made -this precept a part of his law: “The stranger, and the fatherless, and -the widow, which are within thy gates, shall come, and shall eat and be -satisfied; that the Lord thy God may bless thee in all the work of thine -hand which thou doest.” (Deut. xiv. 29.) And in the New Testament there -is found a similar command: “When thou makest a dinner or a supper, call -not thy friends, nor thy brethren, neither thy kinsmen nor thy rich -neighbours; lest they also bid thee again, and a recompense be made -thee. But when thou makest a feast, call the poor, the maimed, the lame, -the blind; and thou shalt be blessed; for they cannot recompense thee; -for thou shalt be recompensed at the resurrection of the just.” (Luke -xiv. 12-14). But excellent as this rabbinical commandment is in itself, -it loses considerably when interpreted according to the system. A person -acquainted only with the law of Moses, or the doctrine of Jesus of -Nazareth, would say, that one of the most lovely features in the command -is the universal love inculcated towards the stranger as well as the -Israelites. But an acquaintance with the oral law would compel him to -retract this commendation, for there universally the stranger is -interpreted to mean, “a proselyte to Judaism,” as for instance— - -אהבת הגר שבא ונכנס תחת כנפי השכינה שתי מצוות עשה , אחת מפני שהוא בכלל -רעים , ואחת מפני שהוא גר והתורה אמרה ואהבתם את הגר ׃ - -“To love the stranger who comes, and is gathered under the wings of the -Shechinah, is to fulfil two affirmative precepts; one, because he is -included in the number of those considered ‘neighbours,’ and a second, -because the law says, ‘Ye shall love the stranger.’” (Hilchoth Deoth, c. -vi. 4.) Here, then, that comprehensive word “stranger” is narrowed down -to the signification “religious proselyte,” and abundance of similar -passages have already been given in Nos. 4 and 5. But even with this -great drawback we admit that there is much to be commended in the above -commandment. We are quite willing to recognize all the good which we -can, and therefore add another passage or two which deserve notice. - -מדת החסידים אשר השם לנגדם תמיד ובכל דרכיהם ידעוהו בעת שמחתם אז יותר -ויותר מברכים ומשבחים להקב׳׳ה אשר שמחם . ויאמר האדם בלבו בעת שמחתו והנאתו -אם כך היא שמחת העולם הזה אשר הוא הבל כי יש אחרים תוגה וצער אם כן מה תהיה -שמחת העה׳׳ב התמידה שאין אחריה תוגה ׃ - -“It is a characteristic of the pious, who set the Lord always before -them, and in all their ways acknowledge him, that in the time of their -joy they multiply still more the blessings and praises of the Holy One, -blessed be He, who makes them to rejoice. At such a season, too, a man -ought to think, if such be the joy of this world, which is vanity, for -it is followed by sorrow and trouble, what will be the joy of the world -to come, which is everlasting, and to which no sorrow can succeed.” -(Arbah Turim, ibid.) This passage also, as resting upon the -unsophisticated Word of God, must receive unqualified assent. The -character of the pious is here beautifully described by the union of two -passages of Scripture. They are those “who set the Lord always before -them,” (Ps. xvi. 8,) and who “in all their ways acknowledge him.” (Prov. -iii. 6.) God grant that all, both Jews and Christians, may earnestly -endeavour to realize this character. The piety of this passage is -equalled by the prudence of one of their police regulations for the -three great feasts. - -חייבין ב׳׳ד להעמיד שוטרים ברגלים שיהיו שוטטים ומחפשים בגנות ופרדסים ועל -הנהרות שלא יתקבצו שם לאכול ולשתות אנשים ונשים ויבואו לידי עבירה ׃ - -“The tribunal is bound, at the three feasts, to appoint officers for the -purpose of going about and inspecting gardens, and parks, and rivers, -that men and women may not congregate in such places to eat and drink, -and be led to commit sin.” If the authors of the oral law had confined -themselves to such commandments as these, there would be but little to -blame. But unfortunately the good and useful precepts bear but a small -proportion to the whole, and are often directly counteracted by the -peculiar principles of the system. The above general description of -piety is unexceptionable, but the detail of the requirements, even for -the holy day alone, is such as must effectually pervert and distort the -features there delineated. How can a man have a just idea of setting the -Lord always before him, who thinks that a cunning evasion of God’s -commandments is permitted, as was shown in the last number? Or how can a -man be said to acknowledge God, when his mind is filled and occupied -with the manifold and perplexing ceremonies of man’s institution? Of -these inventions many have already been given, but more remain, and the -Jewish Prayer-book for the passover especially reminds us of one. - -דיני עירוב תבשילין ׃ - -“The laws of the mixture for the cooking of victuals.” This oral law has -made it unlawful on the holy day to prepare food for the Sabbath. - -יום טוב שחל להיות ערב שבת אין אופין ומבשלין ביום טוב מה שהוא אוכל למחר -בשבת ׃ - -“When a holy day falls on the eve of the Sabbath, it is unlawful to bake -or to cook on that day what is to be eaten on the morrow, _i.e._ on the -Sabbath.” (Hilchoth Jom. Tov. c. vi. 1.) This law may of course create a -great inconvenience, for if nothing remains after the meals of the holy -day, there will be no food for the Sabbath, and on that day the law of -Moses forbids all cooking. And, strange to say, the evasion which is -allowed at other times is here forbidden. A man is not permitted to cook -a surplus of victuals under the pretence that it is for the holy day. -Another and more solemn mode of evasion has been invented, and is thus -prescribed in the Jewish Prayer-book— - -אם חל ערב פסח ביום ד׳ אז צריכין לעשות ערוב תבשילין קרדם י׳׳ט . וכך מעשהו -. לוקחין מצה שלימה וכזית תבשיל או בשר או ביצה צלויה ומניחין אותה על המצה -. ובעל הבית וכו׳ ׃ - -Of which D. Levi gives the following translation, which though not very -literal, is preferable to a new one, as occurring in an authorized -edition of the Jewish prayers:— - -“If the first day of the festival happens on the Thursday, the following -ceremony is observed. On the day preceding the festival, the master of -every family takes a whole cake and a piece of meat, fish, or a roasted -egg; and having delivered them to one standing by, to denote that all -the other Jews in the city that may have forgotten to make the mixture -shall, nevertheless, have the benefit of the said mixture, so as to be -able to prepare on the festival what is necessary for the Sabbath, he -then says the following:— - -ברוך אתה יי אלהינו מלך העולם אשר קדשנו במצותיו וצונו על מצות ערוב ׃ - -בהדין ערובא יהא שרי לנא למיפא ולבשלא ולאטמנא ולאדלקא שרגא ולמעבד כל -צרכנא מיומא טבא לשבתא . לנו ולכל ישראל הדרים בעיר הזאת ׃ - -“Blessed art thou, O Lord, our God! King of the universe, who has -sanctified us with thy commandments, and commanded us concerning the -mixture.” - -“By this mixture it shall be allowable for us to bake, boil, and to keep -the victuals warm: to light up lights, and to do, and prepare all things -necessary, on the festival for the Sabbath; we, and all Israel that -dwell in this city.” (Levi’s Prayers, vol. v. pp. 4, 5.) Now, against -this ceremony several and serious objections may be made. First, if it -be absolutely unlawful on the holy day to cook for the Sabbath-day, how -is the unlawfulness removed, by going through a trifling ceremony, and -repeating a few words? The cooking is, in the sight of God, either -lawful or unlawful. If lawful, then this ceremony is utterly useless, -and the solemn calling upon God is only a solemn profanation. If -unlawful, then nothing but a dispensation from Israel’s great lawgiver, -God himself, can make it lawful. Any thing short of this must, by every -honest man, be regarded either as an evasion, or a bold and wilful -transgression. Secondly, the unlawfulness on which this ceremony is -founded, is altogether of man’s making—God has nowhere forbidden the -Jews to prepare for Sabbath on the holy day. The Scribes have here as -elsewhere dared to add to the law of God. - -ואיסר זה מדברי סופרים כדי שלא יבוא לבשל מיום טוב לחול . שקל וחומר הוא -לשבת אינו מבשל כל שכן לחול ׃ - -“This prohibition is of the words of the Scribes, that a man may not be -led to prepare on a holy day for a common day. For if he feel it -unlawful to cook for Sabbath, still more will he feel this for a common -day.” (Hilchoth Jom. Tov. vi. 1.) Here it is plainly confessed that the -prohibition is not from God but from man. A reason is assigned for this -addition, which is unsatisfactory, and shows that the Scribes thought -the law imperfect, and themselves wiser than God. They were afraid, if -men got into a habit of cooking on the holy day for the following day, -when that day was the Sabbath, they might get into the habit of cooking -generally for the following day, and thus cook for common days. But did -not God foresee this possibility, and know the frailty of human nature -just as well as the rabbies? why then did he not take this precaution -himself? If this precaution be absolutely necessary, as it was not given -by God, it will necessarily follow that God did not give that which was -necessary, and therefore that the law of God was imperfect until it was -mended by the rabbies. If the law, as given by God, be perfect, and who -can deny it without blasphemy, then this precaution of the rabbies is -useless, and they are proved guilty of making additions to the law of -God, and of imposing needless burdens on the consciences of their -brethren. If this ceremony were left to the free will of every -individual, it would be very different, but it is imposed as an -indispensable duty, and a man pronounced a sinner if he does not comply. - -מי שאיפשר לו לערב ואינו מערב אלא שרוצה לסמוך על עירובו של גדול העיר נקרא -פושע ואינו יוצא בו ׃ - -“He who can make the mixture, and does not, but chooses to depend on the -mixture made by the great men of the city, is called a sinner, and has -not fulfilled his duty.” (Arbah Turim, 527.) Here then his conscience is -burdened, but further, he may be exposed to considerable inconvenience, -to escape from which he is driven again to a prescribed exercise of -artifice and guile. - -מי שלא הניח עירוב תבשילין ולא הניחו לו אחרים כשם שאסור לו לבשל ולאפות כך -קמחו ומאכלו אסור . ואסור לאחר שהניח לעצמו לבשל ולאפות לזה שלא הניח עד -שיקנה לו . שנמצא זה מבשל ואופה שלו שהרי קנהו ואם רצה יתן אחר כך לזה שלא -הניח במתנה ׃ - -“He that has not performed the ceremony of the mixture for himself, and -for whom others have not done it, as it is unlawful for him to boil or -to bake, so his flour and food are unlawful; and it is unlawful for -another, who has performed the ceremony for himself, to boil and bake -for such an one until he buy for himself. Then he may boil and bake of -his own, for he has bought it, and if he please may make a present of it -to the other.” Here of course the purchase is fictitious. In like manner -it is unlawful for him to light the Sabbath candle. This would be a -great misfortune, and a learned rabbi has accordingly found out a remedy -of the same kind. - -כתב הר׳ מאיר מרוטנבורק שיכול לחפש בחדר שום חפץ בנר אפילו מבעוד יום -ולהניחנו דולק עד הלילה ׃ - -“Rabbi Meyer, of Rothenburg, has said in his writings, that a man may -seek for something in the room by the light of a candle, yea though it -be still day, and then leave it lighting until night.” (Arbah Turim, -527.) We ask the Jews seriously to consider this specimen of rabbinical -wisdom and conscientiousness. A man who has not performed the ceremony -of the mixture dare not do what God has allowed him to do, he dare not -light the candle for Sabbath, that is, if he does it honestly and -openly, he would, according to the oral law, commit a sin. But then he -may do this same thing by using guile and deceit, which God has -forbidden, and then according to these same teachers, the act is lawful. -He may light a candle under pretence of searching for something, even -though he has the daylight, and therefore evidently does not want it for -that purpose, and then he can leave it lighting. Thus the oral law -teaches that the neglect of a mere human invention is a greater sin than -guile and deceit. Is not this to strain at a gnat and to swallow a -camel? But some Rabbinist may say, if the oral law encourages guile and -deceit, why does it forbid the employment or guile in the preparation of -food for the Sabbath, as has been stated above? This is a curious point, -and deserves attention. The oral law says, if food be left after the -meals of the holy day, it is lawful to eat it on the Sabbath, provided -that no guile be used; but if guile be used, it is unlawful. Whereas, if -a man wilfully neglect the ceremony of the mixture, and cook -notwithstanding for the Sabbath he may lawfully eat what he has -prepared. This has at first sight, the appearance of wishing to -discourage guile, but the reasons, given for this decision, show that -this is far from being the case. - -ולמה החמירו ואסרו על המערים ולא אסרו על המזיד שאם התירו למערים נמצאו הכל -מערימיו וישתקע שם ערובי תבשילין . אבל המזיד אינו מצוי ואם עבר היום לא -יעבור פעם אחרת ׃ - -“What is the reason that they were more severe upon him that used guile -than upon the wilful transgressor, and made it unlawful for the former, -but not for the latter? The reason is this, if they had pronounced it -lawful for him that uses guile, all would use guile, and the very name -of mixture for food would perish. On the other hand, a wilful -transgressor is rare, and if he transgresses to-day, he will not -transgress again.” The employment of guile, then, is not forbidden -because it is odious in the sight of God and man, but simply from the -fear that it might operate prejudicially upon the observance of a -rabbinic command. Such is and must be the effect of multiplying -religious ceremonies, and imposing them upon the conscience as necessary -to salvation. The conscience becomes burdened, and beset with -difficulties, and is glad of any refuge or relief, even though it should -be derived from artifice and deceit. Artifice is at last made lawful, or -even prescribed, as we have seen in many instances, and then religion, -which God intended as a remedy for our moral disease, becomes itself a -new source of infection. But if any burdened conscience should awake and -become sensible of the cheat that has been put upon it by the oral law, -the probability is that it will cast off religion altogether, and -mistake Moses too for a companion or the Scribes and Pharisees; and thus -many a rabbinical Jew has been led to utter infidelity. - -But there is still a third objection to be urged against this ceremony -of the mixture, and that is, that it prescribes a form of thanksgiving -to God for appointing that which he never appointed: “Blessed art thou, -O Lord our God! King of the universe! who has sanctified us with thy -commandments, and commanded us concerning the mixture.” Where has God -commanded the mixture? Where, from one end of the law to the other, or -in the prophets, is there one word about this ceremony? It is from first -to last a pure invention of the Scribes. God never appointed it. This -prayer, then, contains a positive untruth, and thus the ignorant and -unlearned are deceived, and taught even in the solemn act of public -worship to believe that God has commanded what he never commanded. The -minds of children, too, are thus imbued with the commandments of men, -and taught in the language of prayer to stamp the divine authority upon -the invention of the Scribes and Pharisees. And this is done not only in -the forests of Poland, or on the uncivilized coasts of Barbary, but here -in England. This ceremony and this prayer are prescribed in the two -editions of the Jewish prayer-book, published by Levi and Alexander. In -this country, where full liberty of conscience prevails, the language of -the synagogue is just the same as in the darkest and most oppressed -regions of the habitable globe. The Jewish children are still taught to -bless God for giving what he never gave, and the sacred voice of prayer -still consecrates the intolerance, the errors, and the absurdities of -the oral law. In other countries, where the circumstances were not so -favourable, the Jews have made more than one attempt to renounce and -repudiate the errors of the Talmud. But in England, whether from -listlessness or from a love to these Talmudic doctrines, we do not -presume to say, nothing has been done either by the German or the -Portuguese Jews. In England the Talmud still maintains its empire of -error and uncharitableness, and spiritual tyranny, and not one -individual has dared publicly to protest against it. We ask the Jews -seriously to consider this matter, and to compare the extracts which we -give with Moses and the prophets; if the oral law agrees with that which -is confessedly the Word of God, then we beg of them to explain the -lawfulness of using guile, of inventing new commandments, and enforcing -them with the severest punishments. But if they decide that these things -are altogether forbidden by God, then we call upon them to protest aloud -against these adulterations of revealed truth. - - - - - No. XVI.[17] - INTOLERANCE OF RABBINIC PRAYERS. - - -In our last number we ventured to say, that in the English synagogues -“The sacred voice of prayer still consecrates the intolerance, the -errors, and the absurdities of the oral law;” and we gave an instance in -proof of our assertion. But to some Israelites, who have overlooked the -contents of their Prayer-book, this assertion may require more proof; we -therefore, proceed to give it, and first of all with regard to -intolerance. In the ceremonial for the first two evenings of the -Passover, in the midst of the rejoicings and thanksgivings, which the -memory of their great deliverance naturally calls forth, we suddenly -find the following prayer:— - -שפוך חמתך אל הגוים אשר לא ידעוך ואל ממלכות אשר בשמך לא קראו . כי אכל את -יעקב ואת נוהו השמו . שפוך עליהם זעמך וחרון אפך ישיגם . תרדף באף ותשמידם -מתחת שמי ה׳ ׃ - -“Pour out thy wrath upon the heathen that have not known thee, and upon -the kingdoms that have not called upon thy name. For they have devoured -Jacob, and laid waste his dwelling place. (Psalm lxxix. 6, 7.) Pour out -thine indignation upon them, and let thy wrathful anger take hold of -them. (Psalm lxix. 24.) Persecute them in anger, and destroy them from -under the heavens of the Lord.” (Lament. iii. 66.) Here are three -passages of Scripture, taken from their context, and joined together to -make one prayer. In their context, and with reference to the times for -which those portions of Scripture were given by God, they are -intelligible. After the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans, whilst -the Jewish mind was still in a state of violent excitement against the -authors of that calamity, such on imprecation may appear natural. During -the persecutions of the Crusaders or the Inquisition it might be -excusable, but in the present time and circumstances it is indefensible. -Who are the heathen and the kingdoms, whom the offerers of these -petitions wish to be pursued with God’s wrath, and to be destroyed from -under the heavens? Are they the Christians, or the heathen idolaters of -Africa and India? The Mahometans profess a faith in the Unity very -similar to that of the later rabbies: they, therefore, cannot be -intended. If it be said that the idolatrous heathen are here intended, -we must still protest against the intolerance of this imprecation; why -should the Jews wish for their destruction? What evil did these poor -ignorant people ever do to the Jews in England, that they should pray -for their destruction rather than their conversion? If it be said, that -nobody at all is intended in the present day, why, we would ask, is it -still made a part of the Passover ceremonial? We have before us several -copies of the Haggadah, some printed very lately, and it occurs in them -all. - -If this were the only passage of the kind to be found in the liturgies -of the synagogue, it might perhaps admit of palliation or excuse, but it -is only one of a similar class, all breathing the same spirit. In the -morning service for the second day of the Passover, as translated by D. -Levi, we find another more fearful still. - -ברח דודי אל לבך ועיניך שם , ואם זנחנו טוב מדשם , אנא שמע שאנת קול צורריך -, רוה מדם גושם , ועפרם מחלב ידשם , ופגיהם יעלה באשם ׃ - -“Hasten, O my beloved, to where thy heart and eyes are; and though we -have cast off that that is good and pleasant, yet hear the roaring -raging voice of those that oppress thy people; satiate the clods with -their blood; manure the earth with their fat; and let the stench of -their carcasses ascend.” (Levi’s Prayers, vol. 5, fol. 142.) The -translation is D. Levi’s, so that it cannot be said, that the sense has -been misrepresented or distorted for polemical purposes. It is the -translation of a Jew, and of a Jew in England, and the title-page tells -us that it is the second edition “carefully revised and corrected, and -illustrated by Isaac Levi.” The title-page also says, “As read in their -synagogues and used in their families.” Is not this prayer intolerant? -Is there any thing like it in the New Testament, or in our Christian -Prayer-books? And yet we are told that modern Judaism is more tolerant -than Christianity, and that it teaches charity to all men. Let not the -Jews think that we impute this spirit to the whole nation. No such -thing. This passage is quoted as a specimen of the spirit of the oral -law and its authors, who not only were possessed of this spirit of -resentment, but so overwhelmed with it, as to transfuse it into their -addresses to the God of mercy, and to prescribe it as a port of the -public worship of the congregation. Whenever introduced, there it still -remains, as a testimony to the spirit of the first opposers of Jesus of -Nazareth, and as a portion of the liturgic service of the synagogue. In -these passages, however, it does not appear what nations are intended; -no name or particular characteristic is given, though the allusion, in -the last quoted prayer, to Isaiah xxxiv., naturally leads the reader to -think of Edom; but in other places a more definite form is prescribed, -from which we find that Edom is the great object of hatred. - -ליל שמורים אל חצה , בחצות לילה בתוך מצרים כיצא , גבור על אדום יחצנה כחצה -׃ - -“God divideth the night of preservation, when in the midst of the night -he went forth through the _land_ of Egypt: may the mighty God also -divide it concerning Edom.” (Levi, ibid. fol. 7.) This is a petition -that God would do to Edom as he did unto Egypt. Again, a little further -on we read, - -פסח חרב חרה על אדום , ביד צח ואדום , כימי חג פסח ׃ - -“On the Passover, a sharp sword shall fall on Edom, by the hand of him -who is white and ruddy, as in the days of the feast of Passover.” (Ibid. -fol. 10.) And so throughout the prayers there are frequent allusions to -this subject, as for instance— - -שם יקרא ככתיבתו , מחציו תתמלא תיבתו , עוד תתנשא מלכותו , וכסאו תכון -במלאתו , נכדי שעיר בהכותו , באויביו יתן נקמתו ׃ - -“Then will his name be pronounced as it is written: when the other half -will complete the word; his dominion also will be greatly exalted, and -his throne be completely established; when he shall smite the -descendants of Esau, and take vengeance on his enemies.” (Ibid. fol. -214.) But these are sufficient to show that Edom is the great object of -antipathy, and of course the great question is, whom do the Jews -understand by Edom? Let the most famous of their rabbies instruct us in -this matter, and first let us hear Maimonides:— - -אדומים עובדי עכו׳׳ם הם ויום ראשון הוא יום אידם לפיכך אסור לשאת ולתת עמהם -בא׳׳י יום חמישי ויום ששי שבכל שבת ושבת ואצ׳׳ל יום ראשון עצמו שהוא אסור -בכל מקום ׃ - -“The Edomites are idolaters, and the first day of the week is the day of -their festival; therefore it is forbidden to have commerce with them in -the land of Israel, on the fifth and sixth day of every week. It is not -necessary to say that the first day itself is every where unlawful.” -(Hilchoth Accum. c. ix. 4.) There is but one class of religionists who -observe the first day of the week as sacred. Now let us hear Kimchi. In -his commentary on Joel iii. 19, “Egypt shall be a desolation, and Edom -shall be a desolate wilderness, for the violence against the children of -Judah, because they have shed innocent blood in their land:” he says, - -זכד מצרים בעבור ישמעאלים ואבור מלכות רומי , ואלה שתי האומות הנה הגוברות -זה ימים רבים ותהיינה עד עת הגאולה והיא חיותא רביעאה במראות דניאל ... -ואמר זה בעבור כי מלכות רומי רובם אדומים ואעפ׳׳י שנתערבו בהם עמים רבים -כמו שנתערבו גם כן במלכות ישמעאלים נקראים על העיקר ׃ - -“The prophet mentions Egypt and Edom: Egypt, on account of the Turks, -and Edom, on account of the Roman empire; and these two have now had -dominion for a long time, and will continue until the redemption. This -is the fourth beast in the visions of Daniel.... And this is said, -because the majority of the Roman empire is composed of Edomites. For -although many other nations are mixed among them, as is also the case -with the Turkish empire, they are called after the root.” Kimchi then -fixes Edom upon the Roman empire, in which he evidently includes the -Greek empire, for he wrote in the 12th century, long before the -Constantinopolitan dynasty was overturned. Aben Esra gives a similar -interpretation on the blessing of Esau. - -ורומי שהגלתנו היא מזרע כתים וכן אומר המתרגם וצים מיד כתים והיא מלכות יון -בעצמו כאשר פירשתי בספר דניאל והיו אנשים מתי מספר שהאמיו באיש ששמוהו אלוה -וכאשר האמינה רומי בימי קונסטאנטין שחדש כל הדת ושם על דגלו צורת האיש , -ולא היו בעולם שישמרו התורה החדשה חוץ מאדומים מעטים על כן נקראה רומי -מלכות אדום ׃ - -“Rome, which led us away captive, is of the seed of Kittim, and so the -Targumist has said, in Numbers xxiv. 24, ‘And ships shall come from the -coast of Kittim.’ And this is the same as the Greek monarchy, as I have -explained in the book of Daniel; and there were very few who believed on -the man of whom they made a god. But when Rome believed in the days of -Constantine, who changed the whole religion, and put an image of that -man upon his standard, there were none in the world who observed the new -law except a few Edomites, therefore Rome is called the kingdom of -Edom.” (Comment. on Gen. xxix.) We do not now stop to refute the false -statements which Aben Ezra here makes. Every one that knows anything of -history, knows that in less than a century after the time of Jesus of -Nazareth, the Christian religion had made great progress in the whole -Roman empire, and that the propagation of the new law, as Aben Ezra -calls it, before the time of Constantine, was more rapid and more -extensive than after his conversion. Our business at present is with his -interpretation of the word Edom; he says plainly that Edom and Edomites -mean the Christians. Now let us hear Abarbanel:— - -ומזה תדע שלא לבד על ארץ אדום הסמובה לא׳׳י נבא הנביא כ׳׳א גם על האומה -שנסתעפה משם ונתפשטה בכל העולם והיא אומת הנוצרים היום הזה שהם מבני אדום ׃ - -“From this you may learn that the prophet (Obadiah) did not prophesy -only against the land of Edom, which is in the neighbourhood of the land -of Israel, but also against that people which branches off from thence, -and is spread through the whole world, and that is the people of the -Christians in this our day, for they are of the children of Edom.” -(Comment. on Obadiah.) Here, then, we have Maimonides, Kimchi, Aben -Ezra, and Abarbanel, all giving the same interpretation, and all -asserting that Edom means the Christians. According to this -interpretation, then, the above dreadful imprecations are for the -destruction of the Christians. Is this tolerant or charitable? Is this -in accordance with Moses’ account of the Divine character—“Merciful and -gracious, long-suffering, and abundant in goodness and truth?” Are these -the petitions that poor sinful creatures ought to offer when they -assemble for the worship of the Creator of all flesh? Above all, are -they suitable in an English synagogue, and in the present day? You may -say that Kimchi and those other commentators, lived in the times of -Popery, and that Edom only means the Roman Catholic Christians. But what -will those Jews say who live in Rome itself, and France, and Bavaria, -and other Roman Catholic countries? You may think them in error, so do -we, but we cannot for that pray that God “would satiate the clods with -their blood, manure the earth with their fat, and cause the stench of -their carcases to ascend.” We could not utter such an imprecation -against the cannibals of New Zealand, nor the man-stealers of Africa. -But if you say that you do not offer up these petitions against the -Christians, whether Protestant or Romanist, may we ask against whom then -are they directed? And what are your thoughts when you hear these -petitions read, and join in them in the synagogue? The literal Edom was -destroyed long since; the children of Edom have long since been utterly -lost. Where are their posterity now to be found? The above-named rabbies -say the Romans were descended from Edom, but where is their proof, -either from the Bible or from profane history? But suppose it was so, -how will that prove that the Greeks, the French, the Germans, or the -inhabitants of the British isles are thus descended? The truth is, there -is no historical evidence whatever to give even a colour to this -assertion respecting Rome. The rabbies found dreadful denunciations of -wrath against Edom in the prophets, particularly in Obadiah and the -thirty-fourth of Isaiah, and they thought that Rome and the Christians -deserved such punishment more than any one else; they therefore applied -them to these objects of their antipathy. As far as authentic history -will carry us, the descendants of the Edomites are to be sought for -rather amongst the Jews themselves, than amongst any other people; for -the last that we read of the Edomites is, that they were subdued by John -Hyrcanus, and converted to Judaism at the point of the sword.[18] -Amongst the Jews, then, their descendants have ever since continued, and -strange enough some of them may now be offering in the synagogue these -imprecations against themselves. But, however that be, the prophecies -against Edom do certainly not apply to the Christian religion, which was -not Edomitical, but altogether Jewish in its origin. Jesus of Nazareth -was a Jew, and his apostles and first disciples from a province of Judea -as remote as possible from Edom. And even if the rabbies could prove -that Rome is Edom, still this will have nothing to do with the other -nations who are no wise descended from, or connected with that city or -people. - -We are not ignorant of the many prophecies against Edom, but, however -many or severe, they form no justification of these prayers, even if the -rabbies know who is intended. God is a merciful God, as well as a just -Judge, and when he arises to judgment, or when he utters a denunciation -of wrath, we may be sure that he does all in truth and righteousness. -But that furnishes no excuse for the sons of men who presumptuously take -upon themselves to call down God’s wrath by prayer, or to offer -themselves as the executioners of his anger. The Word of God contains -many denunciations of wrath against the Jews, but this does not justify -the nations who have persecuted and oppressed them. What would the Jews -think of us if we collected all the fearful passages in the twenty-sixth -chapter of Leviticus, and the twenty-eight of Deuteronomy, and wove them -into a prayer to call down God’s wrath upon the people of Israel? What -would they say if we appointed this form for the most solemn days, and -for the time of our festivity? Yet this is what the rabbies have done, -and what the oral law prescribes, and therefore we say, that such -teaching is not from God. And we say this, not simply because reason -leads to this conclusion, but because such prayers are directly contrary -to the express command of God. When he sent the Jews into captivity to -Babylon, he did not tell them to pray that “he might pour out his wrath” -upon that city, and much less to “satiate the clods with the blood” of -its inhabitants. On the contrary, he said— - -“And seek the peace of the city whither I have caused you to be carried -away captives, and pray unto the Lord for it: for in the peace thereof -shall ye have peace.” (Jerem. xxix. 7.) Now how does this command agree -with the above prayers? Suppose even that the rabbies were right, and -that Edom does mean Rome, how can the Jews there pray for its peace and -for its utter destruction at the same time? Those prayers are utterly -irreconcilable with this command of God, and therefore furnish another -proof of the error as well as the intolerance of the oral law. This was -the object which we had peculiarly in view. We do not wish to burden -every Israelite in London with this intolerance. Many are perhaps -ignorant that such prayers are offered in the synagogue—many overlook -them through inattention, and many others disapprove of them. But in -those who do know and disapprove, it is exceedingly inconsistent to join -in them, or to remain silent. The spirit of these prayers is thus -countenanced, and the intolerance handed down from generation to -generation. Children go to the synagogue, and hear these prayers -offered; they think as it is the language of prayer, of public prayer, -of the prayers of the people of Israel, it must be right. What other -conclusion can they form? Thus they imbibe the same spirit, and thus the -people of Israel are kept in bondage to the intolerance of by-gone -generations. But some will say, We acknowledge that these prayers are -contrary to the Bible. Remember, then, that in making this -acknowledgment, you admit the synagogue—yea, the whole nation of Jews, -has been in error for many centuries. And if the Jewish nation has been -universally mistaken upon so simple, yet essential, a point of religion -as true charity, it is highly probable that they are mistaken on other -points too, especially those that are more difficult and less obvious to -human reason. But above all, remember that whilst the whole system of -the oral law, in its precepts and prayers, has taught you to curse your -enemies, Jesus of Nazareth has taught us to bless. “Ye have heard that -it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy: -but I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do -good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use -you, and persecute you.” (Matt. v. 43, 44.) “Bless them which persecute -you: bless, and curse not.” (Rom. xii. 14.) But some Israelites may -still think that it is unfair to judge the oral law by this one service -to the Passover. Such an one we would remind of the blessing of the -Epicureans, as it is called, which he is bound to say— - -בכל תפלה שבכל יום ׃ - -“in every prayer, every day.” (Hilchoth T’phillah, c. ii. 2.) - -ולמלשינים אל תהי תקוה וכל עושי רשעה כרגע יאבדו והזדים מהרה יכרתו ומכניעם -במהרה בימינו . ברוך אתה ה׳ שובר אויבים ומכניע זדים ׃ - -“O let the slanderers have no hope: all the wicked be annihilated -speedily, and all the tyrants be cut off quickly; humble thou them -quickly in our days. Blessed art thou, O Lord, who destroyed our -enemies.” (Daily Prayers, fol. 36.) Here is the same utter want of -mercy. No desire for their amendment, no prayer for their conversion, -but an invocation of sudden wrath and destruction. And this the -synagogue prescribes, not on its feasts only, but every day; yea, and -every time of prayer is to be marked by the voice of malediction. There -is also another command relating to this daily malediction, which -illustrates still farther the spirit of the oral law. - -שליח צבור שטעה ונבהל ולא ידע מהיכן יתחיל ושהה שעה יעמוד אחר תחתיו . ואם -טעה בברכת האפיקורסין אין ממתינין לו אלא מיד יעמוד אחר תחתיו שמא -אפיקורסות נזרקה בו ׃ - -“If the reader in the synagogue should make a mistake, or be confused -and not know where to begin, and delay for an hour, then let another -rise up in his stead. But if he made the mistake with regard to the -blessing of the Epicureans, he is not to be waited for, but let another -instantly rise up in his stead, for perhaps he is infected with -Epicureanism.” (Ibid. c. x. 3.) According to this law, if the reader go -wrong in invoking a blessing, or offering up an intercessory prayer for -mercy, such a petition may be delayed for a whole hour. But if this -malediction should be the place of his mistake, there is to be no delay -and no postponement. If the reader cannot offer it in time, another is -to rise up immediately, and cry to heaven for a curse. - -Footnote 17: - - The British Jews of Burton-street Synagogue have expunged from their - prayers the intolerance here complained of. - -Footnote 18: - - See Jost’s Geschichte, vol. i. 70 and 153. - - - - - No. XVII. - RABBINIC LEGENDS IN THE SYNAGOGUE SERVICES. - - -We have just considered the extraordinary command of the oral law, which -provides, that, if the reader in the synagogue should make a mistake in -reading the prayers, the congregation shall wait for him for an hour: -except the mistake occur in cursing the Epicureans, for then, “He is not -be waited for, but let another instantly rise up in his stead, for he -is, perhaps, infected with Epicureanism.” The special notice of this -case is as honourable to the Jews as it is condemnatory of the oral law. -It would appear from this that such mistakes had occurred. Readers in -the synagogues have sometimes stumbled and stammered when thy came to -this fearful malediction. And truly we are not surprised, if a man of -piety, acquainted with God’s Word, should be overwhelmed in publicly -cursing his fellow-men, and be unable to bring the words of imprecation -over his lips. The care which the Scribes took to legislate for such an -occurrence, implies an honourable testimony to the good feeling of the -nation, though it strongly marks their own intolerance, and forms a -striking contrast to the spirit inculcated in the teaching of Jesus of -Nazareth. When his disciples asked him to teach them to pray, he taught -them a short form; but short as it was, it contained the petition, -“Forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive them that trespass against -us,” and was followed by this admonition, “For if ye forgive men their -trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. But if ye -forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your -trespasses.” (Matt. vi. 14, 15.) - -The intolerance which we have noticed, proves sufficiently that the -religious ideas of the oral law have not been drawn from Moses and the -prophets; and this will appear still further from the absurd legends -which are alluded to in the prayers of the synagogue, as if they were -acknowledged verities. In the Liturgy for the feast of Pentecost, which -is now approaching, we find more than one such allusion, to which we -would most earnestly call your attention. And first of all, those -prayers recognise the legend of Leviathan and Behemoth. In the morning -service for that day the Jews repeat the following words:— - -מנת דילן דמלקדמין פרש בארמותא . טלולא דלויתן ותור טור רמותא , וחד בחד כי -סביך ועביד קרבותא . בקרנוהי מנגח בהמות ברברבותא . יקרטע נון לקבליה -בציצוי ובגבורתא . מקרב ליה בריה בחרביה ברברבותא . ארסטון לצדיקי יתקן -ושרותא , מסחרין עלי תכי דכדכוד וגומרתא , נגיין קמיהון אפרסמון נהרתא , -ומתפנקין ורוי בכסי רויתא , חמר מרת דמבראשית נטיר ביה נעותא ׃ - -Which D. Levi thus translates:—“He will certainly _bestow on_ us the -portion which he hath promised us of old. The sporting of Leviathan with -the ox of the high mountains,[19] when they shall approach each other -and engage in battle. With his horn he thrusts at the mightiest beasts, -but the Leviathan will leap towards him with his fins and great -strength. His Creator will then approach him with his great sword, and -will prepare him for an entertainment (or a banquet) for the righteous; -who will be seated at a table formed of jasper and carbuncle, with a -river of balm flowing before them. When they will delight themselves and -be satiated with the bowls of wine prepared at the creation, and -reserved in the wine-press.” In this portion of the Liturgy of the -synagogue, there is a very plain reference to the battle between -Behemoth and Leviathan. The felicity of the righteous in the world to -come is also described, and a part of it is said to consist of the -banquet which God will prepare for them from the flesh of Leviathan, -when he shall have killed him. It is true that D. Levi has the following -note on this banquet: “All this is to be understood in a figurative -sense, and by no means literally, as several Christian commentators have -done, and thus cast undeserved reproach on the Rabbinical writers.” But -he has neither given us his authority, nor his reasons for this -assertion; nor has he explained the meaning of the figure. We should be -glad to know what ninety-nine out of every hundred Jews understand when -they hear this read in the synagogue. What do they understand by the -name Behemoth? What by Leviathan? What by God’s killing him? What by -preparing him as a banquet for the righteous? But however Jews in the -present day may explain it away, there can be little doubt how the -authors of this hymn and the Jews of old understood it. In the Talmud we -have the following account of these two great beasts:— - -אמר רב יהודה אמר רב כל שברא הקב׳׳ה בעולמו זכר ונקבה בראם . אף לויתן נחש -בריח ולויתן נחש עקלתון זכל ונקבה בראם ואלמלא נזקקין זה לזה מהריבן כל -העולם כולו . מה עשה הקב׳׳ה סירס את הזכר והרג את הנקבה ומלחה לצדיקים -לעתיד לבוא שנאמר והרג את התנין אשר בים . ואף בהמות בהררי אלף זכר ונקבה -בראם ואלמלא נזקקין זה לזה מחריבין כל העולם כולו מה עשה הקב׳׳ה סירס הזכר -וצינן הנקבה ושמרה לצדיקים לעתיד לבוא ׃ - -“R. Judah said, Rav said, Everything that God created in this world he -created male and female. And thus he did with Leviathan the piercing -serpent, and Leviathan the crooked serpent, he created them male and -female. But if they had been united, they would have desolated the -entire world. What, then, did the Holy One do? He took away the strength -of the male Leviathan, and slew the female and salted her for the -righteous for the time to come, for it is said, ‘And he shall slay the -whale (or dragon) that is in the sea.’ (Isaiah xxvii. 1.) In like manner -with regard to Behemoth upon a thousand mountains, he created them male -and female, but if they had been united they would have desolated the -entire world. What then did the Holy One do? He took away the strength -of the male Behemoth, and made the female barren, and preserved her for -the righteous for the time to come.”—(Bava Bathra, fol. 74, col. 2.) In -this narrative there are no marks of allegory. The creation of the world -is not an allegory, but a fact. The creating of living creatures male -and female is another fact. The weakening of the male and the salting of -the female to prevent the desolation of the world, does not look like a -figure. The Jewish commentators certainly take the matter very -seriously, and speak of the creation of Leviathan, not as of an -allegory, but as of a real occurrence. Thus R. Moses, the son of -Nachman, in his commentary on the words, “And God made great whales,” -after describing the great size, adds,— - -ורבותינו אמרו כי התנינים הגדולים הוא לויתן ובת זוגו שבראם זכר ונקבה והרג -הנקבה ומלחד לצדיקים לעתיד לבוא . אפשר כי מפני זה לא היה ראוי שיאמר בהם -ויהי כן כי לא עמדו עוד ׃ - -“And our rabbies have said that ‘the great whales’ mean Leviathan and -his mate, for God created them male and female, but slew the female, and -salted her for the righteous for the time to come: and perhaps this is -the reason why the words, ‘And it was so,’ are not added, for they (the -race of Leviathan) did not continue.” (Com. in Gen. i. 21.) From this it -is evident that the famous rabbi knew nothing of an allegory, for he -makes this legend the reason why certain words used after the other -works of creation are not here applied. In like manner Abarbanel speaks -of this same pair of living creatures as real, and as possibly belonging -to the class of great whales. - -ואם כלל הכתוב השרץ והדגה כאחד יאמר הכתוב שברא השם בהם מינים מתחלפים כי -יש מהם תנינים גדולים וכמו שאמרו בפרק הספינה אמר רבה בר בר חנא זמנא חדא -הוה קא אזלינא בספינתא וחזינא לההיא כוורא דיתבא ליה חלתא על גביה וקרח -אגמא עלויה . סברינא די יבשתא היא וסלקינן ויתבינן ובשלינן הם גביה דכוורא -ואיתהפיך ואי לא דהוה ספינתא מקרבא לון הוה מטבע . וכיוצא בזה יספרו גם -היום יורדי הים באניות . ואולי לויתן ובת זוגו שזכרו רבותינו מאלה היו עם -היות שהפילוסופים מבני עמנו ייחסו לאותה הגדה ענינים עמוקים מהחכמה ואין -צורך להם במקום הזה ׃ - -“But if the Scripture class creeping things and fish together, then this -verse tells us that God created various species, for some of them are -great whales, as is said in the 5th chapter of Bava Bathra, ‘Rabbah Bar -Bar Channa says, Once upon a time we were sailing in a ship, and we saw -that fish upon whose back the sand remains and rushes grow; we thought -it was terra firma, and landed, and remained there and cooked. But when -the fish’s back grew warm, he turned round, and if the ship had not been -at hand we must have been drowned.’ They that go down to the sea in -ships in the present time tell similar stories: and perhaps the -Leviathan and his mate, mentioned by our rabbies, belonged to this -species. However, the philosophers of the children of our people -attribute to this chapter matter deeper than philosophy, but which we do -not want in this place.” (Com. in Gen. i. 21.) It is true that Abarbanel -here distinctly admits the existence of mysteries in that chapter of the -Talmud. But it is equally plain, that he considered the Leviathan, -mentioned by the rabbies, not as an allegory, but a real creation; and -therefore assigned it to the same class as the wonderful fish seen by -Bar Bar Channa, unless we take his words as a sly insinuation, that the -story of Leviathan is about as true as that narrated by the veracious -rabbi. - -These two great rabbies, then, did not take the legend of Leviathan -figuratively; and we might add some other similar testimonies, but that -Behemoth also claims a share of our attention, and an inquiry into his -nature will contribute evidence to the same effect, that this legend was -not taken figuratively but literally. In the first place, D. Levi -himself refers us to Job xl. 15, and there we read, “Behold now -Behemoth, which I made with thee; he eateth grass like an ox.” Here -there certainly is no allegory. The words speak of a living creature, -and so they are interpreted by all the Jewish commentators, whom we have -an opportunity of consulting. Ralbag says— - -בהמות הוא בעל חיים שמו כן ׃ - -“Behemoth is an animal, that is his name.” (Com. in loc.) Aben Esra, on -the words, “Behold now Behemoth, which I made with thee,” says— - -בהמות שם בהמה גדולה אין בישוב גדולה ממנה וטעם עמך לפי שהיתה ביבשה כי -באחרית יזכור הלויתן שהוא בים ויש אומרים כי טעם עמך שהבהמות נולדו ביום -אחד עם אדם הראשון וזה דרך דרש ׃ - -“_Behemoth_ is the name of a great beast. In the habitable world there -is not a greater than it. The reason why the words ‘_with thee_’ are -added, is, that it is a land animal, and at the end he mentions -Leviathan, which is an animal of the sea. But some say the meaning of -‘with thee’ is, that the beasts were created on the same day with the -first Adam; but this interpretation is after the manner of a drash.” -(Aben Esra in loc.) This passage not only gives Aben Esra’s opinion as -to the real existence of Behemoth, but shows that other commentators, to -whom he alludes, were of the same mind. Rashi not only asserts the -existence, but says plainly, בהמות מוכן לעתיד, “Behemoth, that is -prepared for the time to come.” And again, in his commentary on Psalm l. -10, he takes the words בהמות בהררי אלף, which we translate, “The cattle -upon a thousand hills,” as referring to “Behemoth upon a thousand -hills,” and says— - -הוא המתוקן לסעודת העתיד שהוא רועה אלף הרים ליום וכל יום ויום צומחים ׃ - -“This is he that is prepared for the banquet of the time to come, for he -eats up the produce of a thousand hills in one day, and every day they -grow again.” The context of these words evidently show that Rashi, the -most popular, and the most read of all the Jewish commentators, looked -for a real, not an allegorical, feast upon the flesh of the Leviathan -and Behemoth. The preceding and following words speak not of -allegorical, but of real cattle and fowls. According to Rashi, the whole -passage would read thus:—“I will take no bullock out of thy house, nor -he-goats out of thy folds. For every beast of the forest is mine, and -Behemoth upon a thousand hills. I know all the fowls of the mountain,” -&c. Here, then, Behemoth is introduced amongst real animals all fit for -food, so that it is impossible to take it figuratively. This animal is -also suitable in size for so great an entertainment; he consumes the -produce of a thousand mountains every day. This was also the opinion of -Jonathan, for in his Targum on the fiftieth Psalm he has paraphrased the -tenth verse as follows:— - -ארום דילי כל חיות חורשא ועתדת לצדיקיא בגן עדן בעיריא דכין ותור בר דרעי -בכל יומא בטורין אלפא ׃ - -“For every beast of the wood is mine, and I have prepared for the -righteous in Paradise pure cattle, and the wild ox, that feeds every day -upon a thousand mountains.” All these testimonies (and many more might -be added) plainly prove, that the Jews, in times past, looked for a real -and substantial feast upon Leviathan and Behemoth; and when we remember -that the commentary of Rashi is the first that is put into the hands of -the Jewish youth all over the world, and that it is generally regarded -as almost, if not altogether, inspired, it is easy to conclude what is -the opinion of the great majority of Jews, even in the present day, as -to this entertainment. Maimonides, indeed, denies that there will be any -eating and drinking in the world to come. He says— - -העולם הבא אין בו גוף וגויה אלא נפשות הצדיקים בלבד בלא גוף כמלאכי השרת . -הואיל ואין בו גויות אין בו לא אכילה ולא שתיה ׃ - -“In the world to come there is neither body nor corporeality, but only -the souls of the righteous without a body, like the ministering angels. -So neither is there eating and drinking.” (Hilchoth T’shuvah, c. viii. -2.) But this is a solitary opinion, as is evident from the note on the -passage by Abraham ben Dior, who says— - -דברי האיש הזה בעיני קרובים למי שאומר אין תחיית המתים לגופות אלא נשמות -בלבד וחיי ראשי לא היה דעת חז׳׳ל על זה ׃ - -“The words of this man are, in my eyes, very near to those of him who -says, that there is no resurrection to the body, but only to the soul; -and I sware by my life that this was not the opinion of our wise men of -blessed memory.” Indeed Maimonides himself acknowledges, in his -Commentary upon the Mishna, that the majority of the Jews thought very -differently of the world to come. He there enumerates five classes of -opinions, amongst which one is, that at that time the earth will bring -forth clothes ready made, and bread ready baked; but in every one of the -five, good eating and drinking is a main article. Of the fifth class he -says— - -וכת חמישית והם הרבה מחברים הענינים האלה כולם ואומרים כי התוחלת הוא שיבא -המשיח ויחיה המתים ויכנסו לגן עדן ויאכלו שם וישתו ויחיו בריאים כל ימות -עולם ׃ - -“And the fifth class (and they are numerous) include all these things, -and say that the great hope is, that Messiah shall come and raise the -dead, and they shall be gathered into Paradise, and there shall eat and -drink and be in good health to all eternity.” (Sanhedrin, fol. 119, col. -1.) This, then, Maimonides gives as the general expectation of the -majority, and this expectation exactly agrees with the above description -of the feast to be prepared from Leviathan and Behemoth. We have, -therefore, not only the testimony of the most celebrated rabbies to -prove that this feast is not allegorical but literal, but we have the -still stronger evidence of the general expectations of the nation as -enumerated by Maimonides. D. Levi ought, therefore, to have said that -_he_ understood it allegorically, but we have seen that this is not the -opinion of the nation, nor of the most celebrated rabbies. We are -therefore warranted in saying that the prayers of the synagogue not only -consecrate the intolerance of the Talmud, but also stamp its absurd -legends with authority. It is surely not exceeding the bounds of -soberness and modesty to call this story of the battle between Leviathan -and Behemoth, and the feast to be prepared of their flesh, and the salt -meat of the female Leviathan, an absurd legend. David Levi evidently -thought it was such, and was therefore glad to betake himself to -allegory. In the Bible there is not one word about the killing or -salting of the female Leviathan, nor about the capacious stomach of -Behemoth, which requires a thousand mountains daily to satisfy it. This -is all the pure invention of the rabbles, and we ask the Jews whether -such legends form fit subjects for the prayers or praises of the -synagogue, or whether they can be acceptable in the eyes of the God of -Israel? We do not mean to conceal the fact, that Christian prayer-books -may be found with legends as fabulous, and as foolish. But they are the -prayer-books of former generations, or of those who still adhere to -traditions of men. With them we have nothing to do. Three hundred years -have now elapsed since our forefathers cleared out all such follies. But -the Jewish prayer-books still remain unchanged, and unless the Jews make -some vigorous effort, the legend of Leviathan and Behemoth will be read -with all solemnity in the synagogues of England at the coming Feast of -Pentecost. It is grievous to think that that nation which once held up -the torch of Divine truth to enlighten the world, should still abide in -the darkness and superstitions of the Talmud. And yet this is, beyond -all doubt, the condition of Israel, so long as the Divine authority of -the Talmud is recognised in their public prayers. Individuals may say, -that they do not believe in its follies, nor cherish its intolerance, -but this cannot be said of the majority. The synagogue, in its public -worship, still pronounces the maledictions, and recites the legends of -the oral law, and thus declares, in the most solemn manner that can be -devised, that the religion of the Talmud is the religion of the -congregation. A mere confession of faith is nothing to such a -declaration as this. A man may trifle with his fellow-men, but -sentiments addressed to God in prayer or praise must justly be -considered as the language of the heart. - -How different is the doctrine of the New Testament. There all these -monstrous fables are utterly rejected; there is not even an allusion to -them. Mahomet, confessedly the author of a false religion, has -incorporated not a few of the Talmudic legends into the Koran. But the -disciples of Jesus of Nazareth, though they lived at a time when the -patronisers of these fables had power, were altogether preserved from -such absurdity. They have transmitted no such distorted view of God’s -dealings in creation, nor of the joys which he has prepared for his -people in eternity. Their doctrine is, that, “Known unto God are all his -works from the beginning of the world.” (Acts xv. 18.) He is “The Father -of lights, with whom is no variableness nor shadow of turning.” (James -i. 17.) They also give us an account of the felicity of the blessed, but -a feast upon Leviathan or Behemoth is not one of its features. “Behold, -the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they -shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their -God. And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall -be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying; neither shall there be any -more pain: for the former things are passed away.” (Rev. xxi. 3, 4.) -“Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we -shall be; but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him, -for we shall see him as he is.” (1 John iii. 2.) These are the hopes and -expectations which that body of Jews, who rejected the oral law, have -taught us to entertain and to cherish. Yes, brethren of the house of -Israel, our hope is altogether Jewish. We do not mean to charge upon -“the peculiar people of God” the folly of the Talmud. Some of the nation -forsook the pure Word of God, and adopted the doctrine of an oral law. -The natural consequence was, that they advanced gradually farther and -farther in the mazes of error; and there all their followers continue. -But we never forget that it was another portion of the Jewish nation -which taught us to worship the true and living God. Our only wish is, -that you would forsake Jewish error, and embrace Jewish truth. - -Footnote 19: - - This alludes to בהמות. See Job xl. 15, &c. D. Levi. - - - - - No. XVIII. - RABBINIC LEGENDS CONTINUED. - - -That the traditions of the Talmudists abound with the most absurd and -incredible stories, is a matter of notoriety. But when a Talmudist is -pressed with any one of these, as a proof that the oral law is not from -God, he has a ready answer. It is an allegory, and contains the most -profound and mysterious wisdom. It would be very easy to show from the -books printed in Jewish-German, for the edification of the women and the -unlearned, and where the legends are related as undoubted matter of -fact, that this is a mere evasion. But we have other evidence that is -indisputable. The Liturgy of the synagogue alludes to many as to -authentic history, and we would not believe any one who should dare to -assert, that the Rabbinists, in prayer, utter with their lips, what they -do not believe in their heart. In the Pentecost prayers, from which we -have already quoted, we find allusion to an anecdote recorded of Adam, - -תכלית כל פועל רום ותחתונים , שביעי לימים הנמנים , ראשון למקראי זמנים , -קדוש לאדוני האדונים , צבי קודש שבת שאננים , פדה מדין יציר מלפנים , ענתה -שירה וכפרה פנים ׃ - -Which D. Levi thus translates, “It (the Sabbath-day) is the end of all -work above and beneath; it is accounted the seventh among the days; the -first convocation of seasons; holy to the Lord of hosts; a glorious holy -Sabbath to those who rest thereon; it redeemed the first created man -from judgment; he chanted a song, and appeased the wrath of God.” (fol. -81.) Here two important circumstances, not mentioned by Moses, are -alluded to. First, that the Sabbath redeemed Adam from judgment, and -secondly, that his song appeased the wrath of God. They are found in the -traditions of the rabbies at full length, and are related as follows:— - -בשבע שעות ביום בערב שבת נכנס אדם הראשון בגן עדן והיו מלאכי השרת מקלסין -אותו ומכניסין אותו לגן עדן ובין השמשות בערב שבת גורש ויצא והיו מלאכי -השרת קוראין עליו ואומרין אדם ביקר בל ילין נמשל כבהמות נדמו . כבהמה נדמה -אין כתיב אלא כבהמות נדמו שניהם . בא יום השבת ונעשה סניגור לאדם הראשון -אמר לפניו רבון העולמים בששת ימי המעשה לא נהרג הרג בעולם ובי אתה מתחיל זו -היא קרושתי וזו היא ברכתי שנאמר ויברך אלהים את יום השביעי ויקדש אותו . -ובזכות יום השבת ניצל אדם מדינה של גיהנם וראה אדם כחה של שבת אמר לא לחנם -ברך הקב׳׳ה את השבת וקרש אותו התחיל משורר ומזמר ליום השבת . שנאמר מזמור -שיר ליום השבת . ר׳ ישמעאל אומר המזמור הזה אדם הראשון אמרו ונשכח בכל -הדורות עד שבא משה וחדשו וגו׳ ׃ - -“At the seventh hour of the day, on the eve of the Sabbath, the first -Adam was introduced into Paradise; and the ministering angels were -engaged in lauding and introducing him. But between the suns, on the eve -of the Sabbath, he was driven out, and went forth; and the ministering -angels were calling to him, and saying, ‘Adam being in honour abideth -not: he is like the beasts that perish.’ It is not written, ‘like a -beast that perishes,’ but ‘like the beasts that perish;’ _i.e._, they -both. The Sabbath-day came, and became an advocate for the first Adam. -It said before God, Lord of the world, in the six days of the creation, -nothing in the world was killed, and wilt thou begin with me? Is this my -sanctification, and is this my blessing, as it is said, ‘And God blessed -the seventh day, and sanctified it.’ Therefore by the merit of the -Sabbath-day Adam was delivered from the judgment of hell; and when Adam -saw the power of the Sabbath, he said, It was not for nothing, that the -Holy One, blessed be He, blessed and sanctified it, so he began singing -and chanting to the Sabbath-day, as it is said, ‘A psalm or song to or -for the Sabbath-day.’ (Psalm xcii. 1.) Rabbi Ishmael says, This psalm -was said by the first Adam, but was forgotten in all the generations, -until Moses came and restored it.” (Pirke Eleazar, fol. 13, col. 3.) The -Yalkut Shimoni gives the story substantially the same, excepting that -when Adam said, “A psalm or song to the Sabbath-day,” the Sabbath -reproved him, and said, “Dost thou sing hymns to me? Come and let us -both sing hymns to the Holy One, blessed be He, ‘It is a good thing to -give thanks unto the Lord.’” (Ps. xcii. 1.) This, then is the story -which the prayer-book of the synagogue authenticates, by interweaving, -in its addresses to the God of Israel, the above-quoted words concerning -the Sabbath, “It redeemed the first created man from judgment; he -chanted a song, and appeased the wrath of God.” From first to last it -bears the plain marks of mendacity. It misrepresents the merciful -character of God, as if he would have destroyed Adam, had it not been -the Sabbath-day. It ascribes a certain degree of merit to Adam, who had -been guilty of the most inexcusable ingratitude to his Divine -Benefactor. And it directly contradicts the narrative of Moses, who -ascribes the mercy vouchsafed to the spontaneous over-flowings of the -grace of God. Besides all this, it is perfectly ludicrous to imagine -that Adam, just driven out of Paradise for his disobedience, with the -curse of the Almighty resting upon him, goaded by the pangs of a guilty -conscience, and his whole frame undergoing the mighty transition from -immortality to corruption—it is perfectly ludicrous to imagine that he -could be in a fit mood to sit down and compose a poem. Indeed the -rabbies themselves have not left this story a fair appearance of -credibility, for on the very same page of the Yalkut, where this origin -of the ninety-second Psalm is described, another equally veracious -incident in the life of Adam, is assigned as the occasion of its -composition. - -אמר ר׳ המזמור הזה אדם הראשון אמרו פגע אדם הראשון בקין אמר ליה מה נעשה -בדינך אמר ליה עשיתי תשובה ונתפשרתי התחיל אדם הראשון מטפח על פניו אמר כך -הוא גדול כחה של תשובה ולא הייתי יודע מיד עמד אדם הראשון ואמר מזמור ׃ - -“Rabbi Levi says, this hymn was said by the first Adam. Adam happened to -meet Cain, and said to him, What has been done in the matter of thy -judgment? He replied, I have repented, and been reconciled. Adam began -to strike his forehead with his hand, and said, So great is the power of -repentance, and I did not know it! Immediately the first Adam stood, and -said this Psalm.” Thus, on the showing of the traditions themselves, -this legend, formally adapted in the prayers of the synagogue, is a -falsehood. Can this be acceptable worship? Is it reasonable worship? Is -the legend itself, in any of its features, worthy of that great people, -that received the law of God at Sinai? This is the religion of the -High-priests and Pharisees who rejected Jesus of Nazareth, this the -wisdom of those who condemned Him, and that fully accounts for their -conduct. Men, who had let loose their imaginations into the regions of -romance and fiction, were not likely to love the sober truth inculcated -by Jesus and his disciples. Their appetites were vitiated, and they were -not satisfied with the unadorned narrative of Moses. They had lost all -relish for the simple majesty of the “oracles of God.” We appeal to the -native acuteness, and unsophisticated feeling of every right-minded Jew, -and ask whether it is not a melancholy spectacle to behold the wise men -of Israel thus trifling with the sin of Adam, that sad event, the source -of all our woes? Very different is the tone in which the New Testament -speaks both of it, and of the mind of God in reference to it. -“Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; -and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned: for until -the law sin was in the world; but sin is not imputed when there is no -law. Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that -had not sinned after the similitude of Adam’s transgression, who is the -figure of Him that was to come. But not as the offence, so also is the -free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the -grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, -hath abounded unto many.” (Romans v. 12-15.) But whatever the Jews may -think of the New Testament representation, we have have shown that their -Liturgy contains an absurd legend, borrowed from tradition ages ago, and -which remains there to this day. But, alas! the very next sentence of -the prayer, from whim we have quoted, contains two more. - -סוימה לאות ולעד בין אב לבנים , נצור יציאותיה כהורו נבונים . משא בלי -להוציא מבפנים . למחלליה מיתות דנים . כרת ורגימת אבנים . ידועה היא לך במן -מימים קדמונים . טעמו לא רד בה ממעונים . חוברי אוב בה לא נענים . זכור כי -בה ישבות נהר צפונים ׃ - -“It (the Sabbath) is noted as a sign and a witness between the heavenly -Father and his children: observe its removals, as taught by the wise -men, not to bring out a load from within; death is pronounced against -those that profane it, either by excision or stoned with stones; by the -manna it was well known unto thee in ancient days, for on the Sabbath -that food did not descend; _the necromancers were not answered on it; -remember that on it the incomprehensible river resteth_.” Amongst the -other honours of the Sabbath-day, and the other testimonies to its -sacredness, this prayer recounts two miracles. The one, that -necromancers could not bring up the dead on that day; the other, the -weekly Sabbatarian rest of the river Sambation. The first of these -miracles has been left by D. Levi without notice or explanation. He -thought, perhaps, that it would not do in English. But to the second, -the resting “of the incomprehensible river” he has attached the -following note:— - -“This denotes the river סמביון, said to rest on the Sabbath from -throwing up stones, &c., which it does all the week. See Sanhedrin, fol. -lxv. 2; Yalkut on Isaiah, fol. lii. 1; Pesikta, Tanchuma, sect. כי תשא. -See also Shalsheleth Hakkabala, and Juchsin.” - -D. Levi himself thus acknowledges, that no allegory is here intended, -but that the Rabbinists do really believe that there is a river that -throws up stones all the week, and rests on the Sabbath-day. Many and -various are the accounts which the rabbies give of it, but we shall -confine ourselves to one or other of D. Levi’s references, which also -throw light upon the subject of the necromancers. - -ואף שאלה זה שאל טורנוס רופוס הרשע את ר׳׳ע אמר לו ומה יום מיומים אמר לו -ומה גבר מגוברין א׳׳ל דמרי צבי שבת נמי דמרי צבי . אמר ליה הכי קאמינא לך -מי יימר דהאידנא שבתא . אמר לו נהר סמבטיון יוכיח בעל אוב יוכיח קברו של -אביו יוכיח שאין מעלה עשן בשבת ׃ - -“Turnus Rufus, the wicked, also proposed this question to R. Akiva, -saying, Why is the Sabbath-day better than other days? He replied, Why -art thou greater than other men? He answered, So is the will of my -Master. The rabbi said, So is it with the Sabbath, such is the will of -God. Turnus Rufus said, But I mean to say, who will prove to me that -this day is the Sabbath-day? The rabbi answered, The river Sambation -will prove this;—a necromancer will prove this;—the grave of thy father -will prove this, for the smoke is not made to ascend from it on the -Sabbath.” (Sanhed. fol. 65, col. 2.) In his commentary upon this -passage, Rashi says of the Sambation, - -נהר אחד של אבנים ובכל ימות השבת שוטף והולך וביום השבת שוקט ונח ׃ - -“The Sambation is a certain river of stones, which rolls along all the -days of the week, but on the Sabbath-day it is perfectly still.” He also -explains to us what is meant by the smoke not ascending from the grave -on the Sabbath-day, in the following note: - -קברו של אביו דטורנוס רופוס כל ימות השבת היה מעלה עשן שהיה נדון ונשרף -ובשבת פושעי גיהנם שובתין ׃ - -“On all the other days of the year a smoke was made to ascend from the -grave of the father of Turnus Rufus, for he was suffering the judgment -of burning, but on the Sabbath-day, the sinners in hell have rest.” -Whether Turnus Rufus saw the smoke or not, the Talmud does not inform -us, but the Bereshith Rabba, another work of equal credibility in such -matters of fact, tells the story a little more at length, and informs us -that he was not satisfied with the argument drawn from the river -Sambation. R. Akiva therefore advised him to cite his father from the -dead on the Sabbath and the other days, and that this experiment would -convince him. To this Turnus Rufus consented, and the results are -described in the following words:— - -וסלק כל יומי דשבתא ובשבתא לא סלק בחד בשבא אסקיה אמר ליה מן דמיתת -איתעבדית יהודי אתמהא מפני מה עלית כל ימות השבת ושבת לא עלית אמר ליה כל -מי שאינו משמר את השבת אצלכם ברצונו כאן הוא משמר אותו בעל כרחו . אמר לו -וכי עמל יש לכם שאתם עמלים כל ימות השבת ובשבת אתם נוחין אמר לו כל ימות -השבת אנו נידונין ובשבת אנו נוחין ׃ - -“His father came up every day of the week, but on the Sabbath-day he did -not come up. On the first day of the week he brought him up again, and -said to him, Father, hast thou been made a Jew since thy death; why is -it that thou comest up on all the other days of the week, but not on -Sabbath? He replied, Whosoever will not keep the Sabbath voluntarily in -your world, must keep it here in spite of himself. He then said, Father, -have you then got work on the other days of the week, and rest on the -Sabbath? The father replied, On the other days of the week we are -judged, but on the Sabbath we are at rest.” (Bereshith Rabba, fol. 9, -col. 4.) Such are the legends which the Jewish Prayer-book, on the -solemn feast of Pentecost, stamps with all the authority of authentic -history. Is it necessary to prove to the Jews of England that both these -stories are utterly untrue? Is it necessary to say, that there is not, -and never was, such a river as the Sambation? Within a century the world -has been explored in every direction. From Cooke to Kotzebue the globe -has been many times circumnavigated, but none has brought us any tidings -of the Sambation. Since the times of Benjamin of Tudela, and Abraham -Peritsol, there has been a host of adventurous travellers, but none had -the luck to behold the miraculous torrent of the Sambation. In this very -city Jews are occasionally found from every part of the world, but from -the banks of the Sambation no messenger has yet arrived. The whole -account is a fiction, and is unworthy of a place in the prayers of the -Jews of England. The same may be said of the necromancers, who obtain no -answer on the Sabbath-day. It is nothing more than a clever fiction. By -the law of Moses necromancy is forbidden to the Jews, and therefore the -inventor well knew that no pious Jew would ever make the experiment, -either on the Sabbath or the other days. The story of Turnus Rufus, and -his father, as told in the Bereshith Rabba, is plainly contrary, even to -the assertions of the oral law itself. The father is made to say, -“Whosoever will not keep the Sabbath voluntarily in your world, must -keep it here, in spite of himself;” which implies that all, who do not -keep the Jewish Sabbath, must be punished in the flames of hell; whereas -the oral law says that the observance of the Sabbath is not required of -the sons of Noah. When this prayer was introduced into the Liturgy of -the synagogue we know not, but there it now stands, and in one short -paragraph contains three downright falsehoods. David Levi himself points -us to R. Akiva as the author of the last two; and accordingly the Talmud -records the original reference to the business of the necromancers and -the river Sambation, as proceeding from the mouth of that great Rabbi. -This brings us back to the time immediately succeeding the rejection of -Jesus of Nazareth, and shows us the superstition and the falsehood of -those who rejected him. Either R. Akiva invented these things himself, -and then he is guilty of deliberate falsehood, or he received these -accounts from others who went before him, and then he was a -superstitious man, and the guilt of inventing falsehood is thrown back -on the earlier rabbies. What is to be thought then of the wisdom of -those men who were weak enough to believe, or wicked enough to invent, -such absurd fables? Yet these are the men who opposed Christianity, and -this is the system which a large portion of the Jewish nation has -preferred for 1700 years. That the Rabbinical Jews have firmly believed -these legends is plain. They occur in the Talmud, whose authority is -regarded as divine. They are repeated by Rashi, Ramban, Bechai, and a -whole host of the most esteemed Jewish writers. They have formed a part -of the synagogue service for centuries, and are still found in the -Prayer-books of the English Jews, to testify that they are not yet -emancipated from the chains of superstition. If they had been, if any -considerable number of Jews had been convinced of the falsehood of these -stories, they would never have suffered them to remain in the worship of -God. It is utterly impossible to suppose that men would sanction the -solemn propagation of falsehood, and yet whenever the Pentecost prayers -are read or printed, there the fables of Behemoth and Leviathan, Adam -and the Sabbath, Turnus Rufus and the Sambation, are solemnly accredited -to the world as worthy of all belief and honour. The fact that they -constitute a part of a solemn address to Almighty God, and that not from -an individual, but from the congregation of Israel, gives them a -sanction that nothing else could confer. The foreign Jew who comes to -England from some country where there is not so much light, might, if he -found such fables struck out of the English synagogue service, obtain a -little light, and go back to his countrymen with the news, that the -enlightened English Jews have rejected all these absurdities; and thus -the moral emancipation of the nation might be prepared throughout the -world. But no; the superstitious Talmudist from Turkey, or from Barbary, -or the North, arrives in England, goes to the synagogue, and finds the -same fables and the same superstitions that he had learned in his less -favoured native land, and returns as he came. Perhaps he takes with him -a copy of the synagogue prayers, printed in London, and exhibits to his -countrymen Behemoth and Leviathan, the necromancers and the Sambation, -adorned with all the beauty of English printing, paper, and binding. -There is surely a great and solemn responsibility resting on those -Israelites who do not believe these fables, to protest against their -admission into the prayers of the synagogue. The honour of the nation, -the welfare of their brethren, and the glory of God, all call for such a -public protestation. The Jewish nation is a great and intellectual -people, highly gifted by God with those powers that adorn and dignify -humanity. But this is not the estimate formed by the world at large. Why -not? Because the world at large knows only the fables and absurdities of -the Talmud, but is ignorant of the real monuments of Jewish genius. What -can be said, then, by an advocate for the Jews, to one who holds the -Jewish mind cheap? All arguments will prove powerless as long as these -instances of superstition and folly are contained in the Jewish prayers. -The objector will still point to them, and say, If you want to know what -men really believe, do not look at their controversial works, or their -apologetic writings, but examine their Prayer-book. Consider not what -they say to man, but listen to what they say to God. There they are -sincere. What can we answer to this argument? Can we say that all the -follies and intolerance of former generations are expunged? No; whether -from love or from listlessness, there they abide to this day. - -But the honour of the nation is but of small weight compared with its -spiritual and temporal prosperity. The English Jews might, by erasing -all such passages, and thoroughly reforming their Prayer-book, prove a -blessing to their brethren scattered through the world. Do the -intelligent and enlightened part of the nation really wish to raise -their brethren in the moral scale? It must be done by purifying their -religious notions. There is an inseparable bond of union between -religion and moral virtue. Superstition degrades and enfeebles the mind; -but zeal for the glory of God calls still more loudly upon every devout -Israelite to vindicate the honour of that revelation which God consigned -to their care, and which is obscured by these fabulous additions. - - - - - No. XIX. - LEGENDS IN THE PRAYERS FOR PENTECOST. - - -One of the most glorious circumstances in the national history of -Israel, as well as one of the most extraordinary facts in the records of -mankind, is the descent of the Lord God upon Mount Sinai to proclaim the -law. Glorious it is for Israel, for never did nation hear the voice of -the Lord, speaking out of the midst of the fire, as Israel heard. The -display of God’s grace and favour is the glory of his people, and here -they were both displayed pre-eminently. The grandeur and awfulness of -the scene we cannot now enter upon, except to remark, that the grandeur -of the reality is equalled by the dignity of the narrative, which Moses -has left us in the 19th and 20th chapters of Exodus. None but an -inspired historian could have treated an event so honourable to his -nation, with such majestic simplicity. The style and tone furnish an -irresistible evidence to the truth of the relation. And perhaps this -evidence is much strengthened by the contrast presented in the writings -of the rabbies. There is no part of the Scripture history which they -have more amplified by additions of their own; as plainly stamped with -falsehood, as the other with truth. We have here a wide field before us, -but shall confine ourselves to those legends which are authenticated in -the synagogue prayers for the anniversary of that great event. In the -morning service for the second day is found an account of the giving of -the law, in which the following wonderful passage occurs:— - -צבאות קודש אחזום בעתה , צלע כגיגית עליהם כפפת , צרופה קבלו במנוד ואימתה -׃ - -“Dread seized the holy hosts, when thou didst turn the mountain over -them as a tub: they received the pure law with fear and tremor.” (D. -Levi’s Pentecost Prayers, fol. 150.) Here is a circumstance in the -giving of the law, which few readers of the Pentateuch will remember. -All will grant that to see Mount Sinai hanging over them, like a tub or -an extinguisher, was a very dreadful sight, if it really happened. But -surely every reasonable Israelite will inquire upon what evidence it -rests? In all the previous history God appears as a merciful Father, -visiting his children in their affliction, redeeming them from bondage, -and exhibiting miracle after miracle as their safety or their necessity -required; how is it, then, that He appears so suddenly in the character -of a tyrant or a destroyer, ready to drop the mighty mountain upon the -heads of his people, and cover them up for ever under the rocky mass? -Moses throws no light upon the subject. The oral law, the Talmud, must -explain the mystery. - -ויתיצבו בתחתית ההר אמר ר׳ אבדימי בר חמא בר חסא מלמד שכפה עליהם הקב׳׳ה את -ההר כגיגית ואמר להם אם תקבלו את התורה מוטב ואם לאו שם תהא קבורתכם , אמר -ר׳ אחא בר יעקב מכאן מודעא רבה לאורייתא וכו׳ ׃ - -“And they stood at the nether part of the mountain (or beneath the -mountain). (Exod. xix. 17.) R. Avdimi, the son of Chama, the son of -Chasa, says, These words teach us that the Holy One, blessed be He, -turned the mountain over them like a tub, and said to them, If ye will -receive the law, well; but if not, there shall be your grave. R. Acha, -the son of R. Jacob, says, This is a great confession for the law.” -(Shabbath, fol. 88, 1.) From this extract it appears that the whole -foundation of the fable is a sort of pun upon the words בתחתית ההר, -“beneath the mountain,” or as the English translators rightly have it, -“at the nether port of the mountain.” R. Avdimi thought that these words -meant, as Rashi says, תחת ההר ממש, “under the mountain in the strictest -sense of the words.” But then the puzzle was, how the Israelites got -into that situation. R. Abdimi’s imagination supplied the rest. But in -the first place, the word תחתית occurs often enough in both the singular -and plural, but never has this signification. In the second place, this -fable directly contradicts the Mosaic account. God had already sent -notice to inform the people of the giving of the law, and they had -replied, “All that the Lord hath spoken we will do.” (Ver. 8.) In the -third place, if the mountain was turned over them like a tub, how did -Moses get up to the top, and what necessity was there for the command, -“Go down, charge the people, lest they break through?” &c. (Ver. 21.) -And lastly, if the law was forced upon the Israelites contrary to their -wish, cannot they make this an apology for disobedience? Is not this -what R. Acha, the son of Jacob, actually does, when he says, “This is a -great confession for the law?” So at least Rashi explains his words. - -מודעא רבה שאם יזמינם לדין למה לא קיימתא מה שקבלתם עליכם יש להם תשובה -שקבלוה באוס ׃ - -“A great confession, for if he call them to judgment, saying, Why have -ye not kept that which ye took upon yourselves, they have an answer, -that they were forced to receive it.” (Rashi Comment. in loc.) And this -fable, contrary to the narrative of Moses, derogatory to the mercy of -God, and subversive to the principle of human responsibility, the -rabbies have introduced into the prayers of the synagogue, and there it -still stands as an evidence of the absence of God’s Spirit from those -who rejected Jesus of Nazareth, and imposed the oral law upon Israel. -But this want of wisdom appears not only in the nature of the additions -which they have made to the Word of God, but also in the conflicting -statements which these additions contain. In the legend just given -Israel is represented as having been unwilling to receive the law, and -yet in the morning service for the first day of Pentecost, we have an -allusion to another legend, which describes the great reward bestowed -upon them, because they received it with such a ready mind. - -הם קבלו עול תורה עלימו , ונעשה לנשמע הקדימו , מרם נשמע נעשה נמו , וצדקה -בה נחשבה למו , ולשני כתרים סוימו , למלוכה וכהונה וללויה אוימו ׃ - -“They willingly took the yoke of his law upon them, and caused the -expression, ‘We will do,’ to precede, ‘We will hearken;’ before they -heard it they said, ‘We will do,’ and which was accounted for -righteousness to them; and they were dignified with two crowns; and -rendered awful with the sovereignty of the priesthood, and the Levitical -institution.” (Pentecost Prayers, fol. 86.) At first sight it would -appear as if this were a mere figurative expression to denote either the -priesthood and the Levitical institution, or the monarchy and the -priesthood. But then a difficulty occurs, why are only two crowns -mentioned? Every one knows that in a figurative sense the oral law says -that Israel is crowned with three crowns, as it is said, - -בשלש כתרים נכתרו ישראל כתר תורה וכתר כהונה וכתר מלכות ׃ - -“Israel is crowned with three crowns, the crown of the law, and the -crown of the priesthood, and the crown of the kingdom.” (Hilchoth Talmud -Torah, chap. iii. 1.) Why then does this prayer only mention two? It is -because it refers to a totally different circumstance. The number of the -crowns, and the reason assigned for their bestowal, “because they caused -the expression ‘We will do,’ to precede ‘We will hearken,’” both -identify the allusion as being made to the following Talmudic legend:— - -בשעה שהקדימו ישראל נעשה לנשמע באו ששים ריבוא של מלאכי השרת לכל אחד ואחד -מישראל קשרו לו שני כתרים אחד כנגד נעשה ואחד כנגד נשמע וכיון שחטאו ישראל -ירדו מאה ועשרים רבוא מלאכי חבלה ופרקום שנאמר ויתנצלו בני ישראל את עדים -מהר חורב ׃ - -“In the hour when Israel caused, ‘We will do,’ to precede ‘We will -hearken,’ there came six hundred thousand ministering angels, one to -each Israelite, and invested him with two crowns, one answering to ‘We -will do;’ and the second answering to ‘We will hearken.’ But when Israel -sinned, there descended twelve hundred thousand evil angels, and took -them away: as it is said, ‘The children of Israel stripped themselves -(or were stripped) of their ornaments by the mount Horeb.’” (Ex. xxxiii. -6.) (Shabbath, fol. 88, 1.) Here, then, is no allegory, no allusion to -the allegorical crowns of Israel, but a narrative of a supposed fact, -which occurred in the history of each of the six hundred thousand -Israelites who went forth from Egypt. The commentary in the Talmud -evidently treats this as a grave and authentic history, for it tells us -the material of which the crowns were composed. - -שני כתרים של הוד היו לפיכך כשנטלם משה קרן עור פניו ׃ - -“The two crowns were crowns of glory, therefore, when Moses wore them -the skin of his face shone.” From this it is evident that the Rabbinists -considered this legend to be as authentic as the fact recorded in the -Bible (Exod. xxxiv. 30), that the skin of Moses’ face shone. They were -not satisfied with the honour conferred upon Moses, but were led, by a -vainglorious feeling, to extend it to every individual Israelite, and to -add what is not said of Moses, but what increases the marvellousness of -the narrative, that six hundred thousand angels descended for the -purpose of crowning Israel, and that twice that number was necessary for -the removal of the crowns once conferred. But how does this story agree -with the former? If the Israelites were compelled to receive the law -against their will, by the terrors of the mountain hanging over their -heads, what great merit was there to deserve these two crowns? If the -Israelites were so willing, and received such a glorious reward, what -necessity was there for turning the mountain over them like a tub? These -stories are inconsistent in themselves, without foundation in the Word -of God, and are therefore unworthy of a place in the prayers of Israel. -But this prayer has other particulars equally wonderful, to which we -proceed. A sentence or two farther on, this prayer describes the effect -which the delivery of the ten commandments produced upon Israel. - -ואחת בדברו החריד עולמו , ועשרים וארבעה מיל מהלך נעו עמו , שתים זו -כהשמיעו נואמו ׃ - -“When he spoke the first word, his world was terrified, and when they -heard two commandments, they moved backward the space of twenty-four מיל -miles.” (Pentecost Prayers, fol. 87.) To understand this, we must again -refer to the Talmud, which gives us the particulars. - -אמר ר׳ יהושע בר לוי כל דבור ודבור שיצא מפי הקב׳׳ה חזרו ישראל לאחוריהן -י׳׳ב מיל והיו מלאכי השרת מדדין אותן שנאמר מלאכי צבאות ידודון ידודון אל -תקרא ידודון אלא ידדון ׃ - -“Rabbi Joshua, the son of Levi, says, as each commandment proceeded from -the mouth of the Holy One, blessed be He, Israel retreated twelve miles, -and the ministering angels led them back, as it is said, ‘the angels of -the host did flee apace.’ (Ps. lxviii. 13.) Do not read יְדַֹדּוּן ‘they -fled;’ but יְדַדּוּן, ‘they led.’” (Shabbath, fol. 88, 2.) In this short -passage we have two deliberate alterations of the Word of God, in order -to square it with this absurd tradition. In the first place, מלכי צבאות -“Kings of hosts” is changed into מלאכי צבאות “angels of hosts,” and in -the second place, “They fled,” is changed into “they led.” These -alterations do of themselves throw discredit upon the story which -requires them, and not only upon this story, but upon the whole oral -law, which allows such trifling with the Word of God. But our business -is at present with the legend, and as it is told a little more -circumstantially in the Jalkut, it will be well to give that version of -it also. - -ויעמדו מרחוק חוץ לשנים עשר מיל מגיד שהיו ישראל נרתעין לאחוריהן שנים עשר -מיל וחוזרין לפניהם שנים עשר מיל הרי עשרים וארבעה מיל על כל דבור ודבור -נמצאו מהלכין באותו היום מאתים וארבעים מיל באותה שעה אמר הקב׳׳ה למלאכי -השרת רדו וסייעו את אהיכם שנאמר מלכי צבאות ידודון ידודון ידודון בהליכה -ידודון בחזרה ׃ - -“‘They removed and stood afar off’ (Exod. xx. 18)—a distance of twelve -miles. This shows us that Israel retreated backwards twelve miles, and -then advanced forwards twelve miles, altogether twenty-four miles, as -each commandment was delivered. Thus they travelled in that day two -hundred and forty miles. At that time the Holy One, blessed be He, said -to the ministering angels, Descend and help your brethren, for it is -said, ‘The Kings of hosts did lead, did lead.’ (Ps. lxviii. 13.) That -is, they led when they went, and they led them when they returned.” -(Jalkut Shimoni, part i. fol. 53, 1.) It is hardly needful to point out -the absurdity of this narration. Just think of the Israelites running -away twelve miles, when they heard a commandment, and then brought back -again, and then running away again. How unlike the simple and dignified -narrative which Moses has left! We ask every intelligent Israelite what -he thinks? Is this story a falsehood? If so, why is it left in the -prayers of the synagogue? If it stood alone, we might suppose that by -some oversight or other it had crept in, but we have already noticed -many like it, and the very next sentence of this same prayer contains -another. - -ברדתו לדבר לאם עולם , רעשו אומות העולם , פחד קראם ורעד החילם , חיל -כיולדה הבהילם , סערו וחרדו וסר עלם , ואצל קמואל באו כלם , לנחש בקסמי -קלקולם , ושאלו לו מה זה בא לעולם , שמא היום למימיו חוזר העולם ׃ - -“When he came down to speak to the immortal people, the people of the -world were moved, dread seized them, and trembling laid hold on them; -pain troubled them as a woman in travail: they were shaken and -disturbed, and their shadow departed from them; they all came to Kemuel, -to divine with their erroneous divinations, and asked him, What is this -that hath happened to the world? Perhaps the world is this day to return -to its chaos.” The preceding story told us what happened to Israel, the -allusion in this sentence tells us of the terror which came upon the -Gentiles; but to understand the allusion, we must again refer to the -Talmud. - -וישמע יתרו כהן מדין מה שמועה שמע ובא ונתגייר ר׳ יהושוע אומר מלחמה עמלק -שמע שהרי כתוב בצדו ויחלש יהושע את עמלק ואת עמו לפי הרב , ר׳׳א המודעי -אומר מתן תורה שמע שכשנתנה תורה לישראל קולו הולך מסוף עולם ועד סופו וכל -אומות העולם אחזתן רעדה בהיכליהן ואמרו שירה שנאמר ובהיכלו כולו אומר כבוד -נתקבצו כולם אצל בלעם הרשע ואמרו לו מה קול ההמון הזה אשר שמענו שמא מבול -בא לעולם אמר להם ה׳ למבול ישב וישב ה׳ למך לעולם , כבר נשבע הקב׳׳ה שאינו -מביא מבול לעולם אמרו לו מבול של מים אינו מביא אבל מבול של אש מביא שנאמר -כי הנה באש ה׳ נשפט אמר להם כבר נשבע שאינו משחית כל בשר , ומה קול ההמון -הזה אשר שמענו אמר להן חמדה טובה יש לו בבית גנזין שהיתה גנוזה אצלו -תתקע׳׳ד דורות קודם שנברא העולם ובקש ליתנה לבניו שנאמר ה׳ עוז לעמו יתן -פתחו כולם ואמרו ה׳ יברך את עמו בשלום ׃ - -“‘And Jethro the priest of Midian heard.’ (Exod. xviii. 1.) What was it -that he heard which induced him to come and be a proselyte? R. Joshua -says, he heard of the war with Amalek, for immediately before it is -written, ‘And Joshua discomfited Amalek and his people with the edge of -his sword.’ (Exod. xvii. 13.) R. Eliezer, the Modite, says, he heard the -giving of the law, for when the law was given to Israel, his voice went -from one end of the world to the other, and all the nations of the world -were seized with trembling in their temples, and they repeated a hymn, -as it is said, ‘In his temple doth every one speak of his glory.’ (Psalm -xxix. 9.) They gathered themselves together to Baalam the wicked, and -said to him, What is the voice of the tumult which we have heard? -Perhaps a flood is coming upon the world. He replied, ‘The Lord sitteth -upon the flood; yea, the Lord sitteth King for ever.’ (Verse 10.) The -Holy One, blessed be He, has sworn long since that He will not bring a -flood upon the world. They replied, He will not bring a flood of waters, -but He will bring a flood of fire! for it is said, ‘By fire will the -Lord plead.’ (Isaiah lxvi. 16.) He answered them, He has sworn long -since that he will not destroy all flesh. What, then, is the voice of -the tumult which we have heard? He said to them, God has had a most -desirable good in the house of his treasures, which has been treasured -up with him for nine hundred and seventy-four generations before the -creation of the world, and he now seeks to give it to his children, for -it is said, ‘The Lord will give strength to his people.’ Then they all -began and said, ‘The Lord will bless his people with peace.’” (Ps. xxix. -11.) (Zevachin, fol. 116, 1.) This is the fable to which your prayers -refer, and which all Israel throughout the world is taught to believe, -and to commemorate in the solemn act of public worship. That it is a -mere fable is very easy to prove. First, it contradicts the narrative -given by Moses. This fable says that the tremendous noise made at the -giving of the law, brought Jethro to Moses—that this was what he heard. -But if you will read the whole verse, from which the Talmud quotes a few -words, you will find that there was no occasion for asking what Jethro -heard, for Moses himself expressly tells us what he heard, and why he -came. “When Jethro, the priest of Midian, Moses’ father-in-law, heard of -all that God had done for Moses, and for Israel his people, and that the -Lord had brought Israel out of Egypt, then Jethro,” &c. (Exodus xviii. -1-5.) If you will read the whole chapter, you will find that Jethro was -come and gone before the law was given, and consequently before the -tremendous noise was made; so that it is certainly false that this was -the cause of his coming. Secondly, that all the nations heard the voice -of God is false, for it also contradicts the language of Moses, who -makes it the peculiar privilege of Israel, that they alone heard the -voice. “Did ever people hear the voice of God speaking out of the midst -of the fire, as thou hast heard, and live?” (Deut. iv. 33.) Lastly, this -story is palpably absurd. The Talmud represents Balaam and his Gentile -contemporaries quoting Scripture like two rabbies, and that, hundreds of -years before the portions which they quote were written! They both quote -the 29th Psalm, a Psalm of David, about 500 years before he was born, -and the Gentiles quote the 66th of Isaiah above 700 years before it was -written! And your rabbies have not been content to keep this absurd and -foolish story in the Talmud, but have inserted it in the prayers for the -solemn festival of Pentecost. According to these prayers, you are taught -to believe that, at the giving of the law, God turned Mount Sinai over -the people of Israel like a tub, and compelled them to receive the law -against their will; and yet that, for their ready obedience, six hundred -thousand angels were sent down to crown each man with two crowns. You -are taught to believe that when the commandments were given, Israel -walked backwards and forwards two hundred and forty miles. And that the -voice of God was so loud that it was heard by all the nations of the -world, who all went to Balaam, and all knew and quoted the Psalms and -the prophets, centuries before they were written. This is what you have -got by following the oral law. It is in vain for you to say that you do -not believe these things—there they stand in your Prayer-book. If you do -not believe them, why do you leave them there? But whatever individuals -may say, it is evident that the compilers of the Jewish Liturgy heartily -believed every word of them, and therefore introduced them into their -prayers. And it is equally certain that, wherever the Talmud maintains -its authority, these fables form part of the faith of Israel. But some -will say, We do not believe them. Why not; Do you disbelieve them -because they are true? No, but because they are false. Then you confess -that the oral law contains downright palpable falsehoods, and that in -many of its narrations it is not worthy of credence. Of what value, -then, is the oral law, and what credit can we give to the authors of it, -who did not scruple to invent these foolish stories? - - - - - No. XX. - LEGENDS IN THE PRAYERS FOR PENTECOST. - - -Nearly eighteen centuries have now elapsed since a large portion of the -Jewish nation deliberately chose Rabbinism in preference to -Christianity. The great question between Jews and Christians is, whether -those persons made a right choice. The means of answering the question -are within our reach. The oral law exists, diffused through the volumes -of the Talmud, and compressed in the prayers of the synagogue. There we -can look for it, and judge of its spirit and its intrinsic excellence -and evidence. The Rabbinists say, that the oral law was given to Moses -on Mount Sinai, and that the oral law which they now possess, is -identically the same as that then received; and they appeal in proof of -this assertion to the continuity of its transmission from father to son -down to the present day. The Christian objects that this oral law is -full of fables. The Talmudist replies by making a distinction between -the דינים the laws and the Agadah, or legendary part: and the Christian -is satisfied or silenced until he opens the Jewish Prayer-book, and -finds that the most absurd and improbable of all the Talmudic legends -are there recognised as undoubted verities, and integral parts of modern -Judaism. Many of these, and sufficient to annihilate all claims which -the oral law can make to truth, have been examined, but as this part of -the subject is important, two more must be considered before we can at -present take leave of them. In the sentence immediately following our -last extract from the Jewish prayers we read as follows:— - -וכל דור ודור ומנהיגיהם , אשר עמדו לפניהם , והעתידים לעמוד אחריהם , כולם -העמידם בסיני עמהם , להודיעם כי דור דע נחשק מכולהם , טוב טעם ודעת -להשכילהם , וכל מום לא היה בהם , כי שלמים ומושלמים היו כולהם ׃ - -Which D. Levi thus translates, “And every generation, and its governors -that existed before them, and those that rose after them, were all -placed at Mount Sinai with them, to let them know, that the intelligent -generation was more acceptable than them; to make them understand good -judgment and knowledge: there was no blemish in them, for they were -entirely perfect.” (Pentecost Prayers, p. 87.) The assembling of the -living nation of Israel, to hear the voice of the Creator, was not grand -enough for the rabbies, they have therefore added that the souls of all -the unborn generations were present to hear and receive the law. The -comparison of this tradition with some already considered suggests -several interesting topics for inquiry. For instance, whether these -souls were under the mountain or not when it was turned over -them—whether they performed the journey of two hundred and forty miles -backwards and forwards at the giving of the ten commandments, &c.? But -the authority, which this tradition confers on the oral law, demands our -more immediate attention, and is particularly manifest in that version -of the story, which is found in Medrash Rabba. - -וידבר אלהים את כל הדברים האלה לאמר , אמר ר׳ יצחק מה שהנביאים עתידין -להתנבאות בכל דור ודור קבלו מהר סיני שכן משה אומר להם לישראל כי את אשר -ישנו פה עמנו עומד היום ואת אשר איננו פה עמנו היום , עמנו עומד היום אין -כתיב כאן אלא איננו עמנו היום אלו הנשמות העתידות להבראות שאין בהן ממש שלא -נאמרה בהן עמידה שאע׳׳פ שלא הין באותה שעה כל אחד ואחד קבל את שלו וכן הוא -אומר משא דבר ה׳ אל ישראל ביד מלאכי , בימי מלאכי לא נאמר אלא ביד מלאכי -שכבר היתה הנבואה בידו מהר סיני ועד אותה שעה לא נתנה לו רשות להתנבאות , -וכן ישעיה אומר מעת היותה שם אני , אמר ישעיה מיום שנתנה תורה בסיני שם -הייתי וקבלתי את הנבואה הזאת אלא ועתה ה׳ אלהים שלחני ורוחו עד עכשיו לא -נתן לי רשות להתנבאות , ולא כל הנביאים בלבד קבלו מסיני נבואתן אלא אף -החכמים העומדים בכל דור ודור כל אחד ואחד קבל את שלו מסיני וכן הוא אומר את -הדברים האלה דבר ה׳ אל כל קהלכם ׃ - -“‘And God spake all these words, saying.’ (Exod. xx. 1.) R. Isaac says, -that all those things, which the prophets were to prophesy in every -generation, they received from Mount Sinai, for so Moses says to Israel, -‘But with him that standeth here with us this day, and also with him -that is not here with us this day.’ (Deut. xxix. 15.) Here in the latter -clause, it is not said, ‘That _standeth_ with us this day,’ but ‘With -him that _is not_ here with us this day.’ These are the souls that were -to be created, who had no corporeal existence, and of whom therefore it -could not be said they _stood_ there. But although they did not exist in -that hour, every one of them received his own, and so it is written, -‘The burden of the Word of the Lord to Israel in the hand of Malachi.’ -(Mai. i. 1.) Here it is not said in the days of Malachi, but in the hand -of Malachi, for this prophecy had been long since in his hand, even from -Mount Sinai: but up to that time permission had not been given him to -prophesy. In like manner Isaiah says, ‘From the time that it was, there -am I.’ (Isaiah xlviii. 16.) Isaiah means to say, From the day that the -law was given there was I, and I received this prophecy, only ‘Now the -Lord God and His Spirit hath sent me;’ that is, until then permission -had not been given him to prophesy. But it was not the prophets only who -received their prophecy from Sinai, but also the wise men in every -generation, each one of them received his own from Sinai, and so it is -said, ‘These words the Lord spake unto all your congregation.’ (Deut. v. -22.)” (Shemoth Rabba Parashah, 28.) The object of this fable is very -plain, it is to clothe the rabbies with infallible authority. It is here -asserted that the rabbies of every generation were all present at the -giving of the law, and each received immediately from Sinai those legal -decisions and doctrines which he was to communicate to the world, and -consequently every thing, that a rabbi teaches, is infallibly right and -true, and as authoritative as the words of Moses and the prophets, for -“God spake all these words,” as this legend interprets this verse. The -rabbies of every generation are included, so that, according to this -tradition the wise men of Israel, even in this degenerate time, still -deliver infallible instructions which they received more than three -thousand years ago from the mouth of God himself. But this fable avers -too much. If all Israel was present at Sinai, and each individual, -whether prophet, or rabbi, or layman, received the law at that time, -what use was there in the transmission from father to son, from the time -of Moses down to us? Nay, more, what use is there in teaching at all, -for every man then received his own? Nay, further, what use is the -written law, for if every man was taught at Sinai, there is no need for -him to read and learn now? But this is a matter which every Israelite -can decide for himself. Let him ask himself, how much he remembers of -this wonderful event in his existence, his presentation at Sinai, and -his reception of the law from the Lord himself. The Scripture proofs -which are here given are evidently nothing to the purpose. The first -proof is, “God spake all these words, saying.” (Exod. xx. 1.) But every -one who will take the trouble of reading the chapter will see, that “all -these words” cannot apply to the prophecies, nor to the decisions of the -rabbies, but to the ten commandments and to them only. So far from -delivering all the decisions and comments since taught by the rabbies, -God spake only the ten commandments to the people, and when they heard -these, “they said unto Moses, Speak thou with us and we will hear; but -let not God speak with us, lest we die.” (Verse 19.) To say, therefore, -that God’s speaking “all these words” includes the whole oral law and -all the rabbinical comments, is gross perversion of the text, and direct -contradiction of Moses’ account. - -The next and most usual verse adduced to prove this fable is Deut. xxix. -14, 15, where it is said, “Neither with you only do I make this covenant -and oath; but with him that standeth here with us this day, before the -Lord our God, and also with him that is not here with us this day.” But -this verse plainly proves the contrary, that the other generations of -Israel were there in no sense whatever. The Hebrew words are as strong -as they can be. - -ואת אשר איננו פה עמנו היום ׃ - -Those with whom the covenant is made are divided into two classes, “Him -that standeth here,” and “Him that is not here.” If the word standeth -had been repeated, if the verse said, “With him that standeth here, and -with him that standeth not here,” there might have been some colour for -this fable: the rabbies might have urged that though the unborn -generations did not stand there, they stood somewhere else; but the -present wording of the verse utterly excludes all possibility of -existence, either corporeal or incorporeal. “With him that is not here, -איננו” shows that they were there in no sense. - -The proof taken from Malachi, “The burden of the word of the Lord to -Israel in the hand of Malachi,” is nonsense. Every one, that knows -anything of Hebrew, knows that ביד signifies “by,” “by means of.” But -even taken literally, it will not prove that Malachi was at Sinai; there -is nothing in the words to inform us when Malachi received the prophecy. -The proof from Isaiah is more unhappy still. The whole context shows -that it is God who speaks in that verse, and not the prophet. Indeed we -might ask, if Isaiah had already received all his prophecies at Sinai, -what was the use of the vision of the Lord sitting upon his throne, and -the commission which is there given? (Isai. vi.) And so we might ask -concerning most of the prophets. The case of Samuel is here particularly -worthy of consideration. According to the above tradition cited in the -Jewish prayers, Samuel had been at Sinai, and there received all that he -was to deliver during his sublunary existence. And yet when the word of -the Lord came to him, he did not recognise the Divine call, and three -times went to Eli, and it was Eli who at last told him that it was God. -Now how is this written history to be reconciled with the above -tradition? The tradition says that Samuel had heard the voice of God at -Sinai, that there all the prophetic words which he was ever to deliver -were made known to him, and yet the Bible says, “Now Samuel did not yet -know the Lord, neither was the word of the Lord yet revealed unto him.” -(1 Sam. iii. 7.) - -The last proof, taken from Deut. v. 22, if considered in its context, -also proves the contrary. The tradition quotes only a part of the verse, -“These words the Lord spake unto all your congregations;” but if you -read on you will find, “And he added no more,” which words plainly limit -the first sentence to the ten commandments. This tradition, then, as -being contrary to Scripture, to the law of Moses, is a falsehood, and is -therefore unworthy of a place in the prayers of that people, whom God -selected from all the nations of the earth to be his witnesses, and the -depositories of his truth. But this tradition is objectionable not only -as a fable, though that is a very strong objection to any thing proposed -as an article of faith, but on account of the purpose which it was -intended to serve. It was invented for the purpose of strengthening the -spiritual tyranny of the Scribes and Pharisees over the minds of the -people. It is not therefore merely an erroneous interpretation of -Scripture, nor the dream of a fanatic imagination, but the deliberate -invention of men who knew what they were about, and had an object which -they were endeavouring to compass, and for the attainment of which they -did not stick at deliberate falsehood. They were, however, too wise to -confine all the advantages of this appearance at Sinai to themselves; -they asserted that the whole people of Israel obtained an advantage -which makes them superior to all other nations. The prayer which we have -quoted above alludes to this, when it says, “There was no blemish in -them, for they were all entirely perfect.” This sentence rather puzzles -an ordinary reader of the Bible, who thinks of the conduct and character -of Israel as there described; the Talmud, however, helps us to -understand this eulogy:— - -מפני מה גוים מזוהמין שלא עמדו על הר סיני שבשעה שבא הנחש על חוה הטיל בה -זוהמא , ישראל שעמדו על הר סיני פסקה זוהמתן גוים שלא עמדו על הר סיני לא -פסקה זוהמתן , אמר ליה רב אחא בריה דובא לרב אשי גרים מאי אמר ליה אע׳׳ג -דאינהו לא הוו מזליהו הוה , דכתיב את אשר ישנו פה עמנו עומד היום לפני ה׳ -אלהינו ואת אשר איננו פה וגו׳ ׃ - -“Why are the Gentiles defiled? Because they did not stand upon Mount -Sinai, for in the hour that the serpent came to Eve, he communicated a -defilement, which was taken away from Israel when they stood on Mount -Sinai: but the defilement of the Gentiles was not removed, as they did -not stand on Sinai. Rav Acha, the son of Rabba, said to Rav Ashai, how, -then, does it fare with proselytes? He replied, although they went not -there, their good fortune (or star) was there, as it is written, ‘With -him that standeth here with us this day, before the Lord our God, and -also with him that is not here with us this day.’ (Deut. xxix. 15.)” -(Shabbath. fol. 145, col. 2, at the bottom of the page.) The commentary -on this passage quotes still further particulars from Siphri, and says— - -כל שעמדו על הר סיני נתקדשו ונטהרו , ונתרפאו מכל מום ואף עורים ופסחים -שהיו בישראל כדתניא בספרי ׃ - -“All that stood on Mount Sinai were sanctified and purified, and were -healed from every blemish, even the blind and the lame that then -happened to be in Israel, as is taught in Siphri.” In this part of the -fable the inventors of the oral law endeavour to flatter the vanity of -the Israelites, and thus to engage their affections in behalf of that -tradition which was to secure their own power. The Scribes understood -well the deceitfulness of the human heart, and knew that men love to -hear and are ready to believe any thing that tends to their own -personal aggrandizement. But in thus flattering the people, they were -turning their backs upon that example which Moses set them; and -contradicting the whole current of Scripture testimony. Moses and the -prophets, as the servants of God, told the people of their sins and -their evil deeds, that they might repent and be saved. Their object -was not to secure popular favour, nor to advance their own selfish -purposes; they therefore could afford to be honest and to speak truth. -The inventors of the oral law, on the contrary, were endeavouring to -erect a fabric of personal honour and power: they were therefore -obliged to address themselves to the weak side of the human heart; and -in doing so, were compelled to run counter to the plainest -declarations of God’s Word. All men and every nation like to be told -that they are superior to the rest of the world, and are distinguished -by moral endowments from the mass of mankind. The inventors of the -oral law, therefore, told Israel that they were far elevated above all -other nations, for they had been cleansed at Sinai from that innate -defilement which still contaminates all the rest of the children of -men. But is this true—is this what Moses and the prophets say? Moses -says, “Understand, therefore, that the Lord thy God giveth thee not -this good land to possess it for thy righteousness: for thou art a -stiff-necked people.” “Ye have been rebellious against the Lord from -the day that I knew you.” (Deut. ix. 6, 24.) Isaiah says of Israel, -“From the sole of the foot even unto the head there is no soundness in -it, but wounds, and bruises, and putrifying sores.” “Ah! sinful -nation!—a people laden with iniquity; a seed of evil-doers—children -that are corrupters.” (Isaiah i. 4-6.) And again he says, “Woe is me, -for I am undone: because I am a man of unclean lips, and I dwell in -the midst of a people of unclean lips.” (Isaiah vi. 5.) Jeremiah says, -“Can the Ethiopian change his skin and the leopard his spots? Then may -ye also do good that are accustomed to do evil.” (Jer. xiii. 23.) And -again, “All these nations are uncircumcised, and all the house of -Israel are uncircumcised in the heart.” (Jer. ix. 26.) The Lord -himself says to Ezekiel, “Son of man, I send thee to the children of -Israel, to a rebellious nation that hath rebelled against me: they and -their fathers have transgressed against me to this very day. For they -are impudent children and stiff-hearted.” (Ezek. ii. 3, 4.) And again, -“Thou art not sent to a people of a strange speech and of an hard -language, but to the house of Israel: not to many people of a strange -speech and of an hard language, whose words thou canst not understand; -surely had I sent thee to them, they would have hearkened unto thee. -But the house of Israel will not hearken unto thee: for they will not -hearken unto me; for all the house of Israel are impudent and -hard-hearted.” (Ezek. iii. 4, 7, &c.) We do not quote these passages -to show that the Gentiles have a more favoured constitution of moral -nature. Far from it; in reading these accounts given by the prophets, -we recognise the features of our own picture. Far be it from us to -glory; we cite these passages to show you how miserably your oral law -endeavours to blind and delude you by flattering your vanity. It tells -you that you have been purged from every stain; Moses and the prophets -teach you the truth—that you are just like the other sons of men, and -have no moral superiority or advantage whatever. We wish to point out -to you how the system of rabbinism is diametrically opposed to Moses -and the prophets, and above all, to impress upon you that the authors -of this oral law are not worthy or your confidence, for they have, for -their own private interests, invented narratives and doctrines which -contradict that Word of God, which ought to be Israel’s glory. We wish -to show you how certain principles of evil pervade every part of that -system, not even excepting those prayers which are offered up in the -public worship of God. There these fables also occur, and we ask every -Israelite who loves the law of Moses or hopes in the promises of God -by the prophets, how he can conscientiously stand by in the synagogue -and hear the words of Moses and the prophets openly contradicted? How -can he remain silent when the reader declares of Israel that there is -no blemish in them, for they are all entirely perfect, when he knows -and feels that he and all his brethren are just as frail, as sinful, -and as imperfect as the other sons of men? How can they expect the -return of God’s favour to their nation so long as these fictions are -made a part of public worship? Moses teaches very different doctrine. -He says, “If they shall confess their iniquity, and the iniquity of -their fathers, with their trespass which they have trespassed against -me, and that also they have walked contrary unto me; and that I also -have walked contrary unto them, and have brought them into the land of -their enemies: if then their uncircumcised hearts be humbled, and they -then accept of the punishment of their iniquity: then will I remember -my covenant with Jacob, and also my covenant with Isaac, and also my -covenant with Abraham will I remember: and I will remember the land.” -(Levit. xxvi. 40-42.) Here Moses makes a conviction and acknowledgment -of guilt, an indispensable preliminary to the return of God’s favour -to the nation. Israel must feel that, so far from being cleansed from -all impurity, their heart is uncircumcised, and this uncircumcised -heart must be humbled; but how is this possible, so long as the oral -law and the prayers of the synagogue teach that the Israelites are the -most righteous of mankind, because they received the law, which the -other nations rejected—and the most pure, or rather the only pure, of -mankind, inasmuch as they were cleansed from every taint at Sinai? -These doctrines harden the heart against true humility, prevent true -repentance, and thereby retard the happiness and the glory of Israel. - - - - - No. XXI. - LEGENDS IN THE PRAYERS FOR PENTECOST. - - -If Moses or the prophets had any where recorded, that God had, along -with the written law also given an oral law, our duty would then be to -find out where it is: and to inquire whether that oral law, which now -forms the keystone of modern Judaism, is the one which was given by God. -But neither Moses nor any other prophet has said one word on the -subject. The words הורה שבעל פה “oral law” are no where to be found in -the Bible, nor is there any mention of the thing itself. If the Bible -had plainly alluded to the existence of the thing, we should not quarrel -about the name, which might have been invented for the sake of brevity -and convenience. But it is remarkable that when Moses commanded the law -to be read publicly in the ears of all the people, he says not a -syllable about the oral explanation, which if it existed must at least -have been of equal importance; and still more so that the succeeding -prophets should have observed such a profound silence about that, which -now constitutes the main substance of Israel’s religion, and is the key -to the observances and prayers of the synagogue. This silence is in -itself suspicious, and compels us to examine the evidence of its -transmission. The first step here is to ascertain the character of the -witnesses, who say that they received the oral law from their fathers -and transmitted it to their posterity. If it appear that, in their -general testimony, they were disinterested and truth-loving persons, who -have never been convicted of distorting truth for their private -advantage, nor of receiving and circulating fables as authentic history, -their testimony in this particular matter will be of considerable value. -But if it can be proved that either from a deliberate desire to deceive, -or from an incapacity to weigh evidence and to distinguish between fact -and fiction, they have transmitted a huge mass of foolish fables as -authentic history, then their testimony is worth nothing, and the story -of an oral law having no other evidence must be classed amongst the -other fables which have come down to us on their authority. That the -account of the giving and transmission of the oral law rests solely and -exclusively on the testimony of the rabbies is clear from the account -itself, as it is found in the Jad Hachasaka. - -כל המצוות שנתנו לו למשה בסיני בפירושן נתנו שנאמר ואתנה לך את לוחות האבן -והתורה והמצוה , תורה זו תורה שבכתב , והמצוה זו פירושה , וצונו לעשות -התורה על פי המצוה . ומצוה זו היא הנקראת תורה שבע׳׳פ ׃ - -“All the commandments which were given to Moses were given with their -explanation, for it is said, ‘I will give thee the tables of stone and -the law and the commandment.’ (Exod. xxiv. 12.) ‘The law,’ this is the -written law, ‘And the commandment,’ this is the explanation thereof. And -he has commanded to fulfil ‘the law’ according to ‘the commandment.’ And -the commandment is that which is called _The oral law_.” Truly the -rabbies must have been hard set when they chose this passage to prove -the existence of an oral law. The keen and clear mind of the sagacious -Rambam evidently felt the difficulty; he, therefore, to give some -plausibility to the proof, omitted the concluding part of the sentence -which he quotes from the Bible. He says, “As it is written ‘I will give -thee tables of stone and the law and the commandment,’” and there he -stops, but let every Israelite open his Pentateuch and read the -remainder, and he will find the whole sentence to be this, “I will give -thee tables of stone, and the law and the commandment which _I have -written_, to teach them.” Not one word here about an oral law, but about -that which God had written. It is true that the passage of the Talmud -from which Rambam derived this doctrine gives the whole passage, but it -appears from the process of abbreviation which he has applied, as if he -were ashamed of the explanation there given and thought it more prudent -to omit it. But as it is one of the main passages which support the -doctrine of an oral law, it must be considered. - -ואמר ר׳ לוי בר חמא אמר ר׳ שמעון בן לקיש מאי דכתיב ואתנה לך את לוחות האבן -והתורה והמצוה אשר כתבתי להורותם , לוחות אלו עשרת הדברות תורה זו מקרא -והמצוה זר משנה אשר כתבתי אלו נביאים וכתובים להורותם זו גמרא מלמד שכולם -נתנו למשה מסיני ׃ - -“R. Levi bar Chama says, R. Simon ben Lakish says, what is that that is -written ‘I will give thee tables of stone, and the law and the -commandment which I have written to teach them?’ ‘_The tables_’ are the -ten commandments. ‘_The law_’ is the written law. ‘The commandment’ is -the Mishna. ‘Which I have written’ means the prophets and sacred -writings. ‘To teach them’ means the Gemara. It teaches us that they were -all given to Moses from Sinai.” (Berachoth, fol. 5, col. 1.) Can any man -of common understanding receive this interpretation, which throws all -grammar and context to the winds, and gravely asserts that not only the -law and its explanation, but the prophets and the whole Talmud, were -given to Moses at Sinai? Will he give up his own reason and the word of -the living God to the authority of R. Simon ben Lakish? There cannot -possibly be any argument which would prove the falsehood of the -narrative concerning the oral law so completely as this interpretation, -which is regarded as one of its main foundations. The words of Moses -which are here perverted plainly speak of that which God had written. “I -will give thee tables of stone, and the law and the commandment which I -have written to teach them.” Did God write the oral law, and give it to -Moses? What became of it then? If it was written, how did it become -oral? These words “Which I have written,” have sadly puzzled the -rabbinical commentators, who know not how to reconcile the plain and -obvious sense of the words, with that interpretation which had been -already put upon them in the Talmud. Rashi seemed to think that the -difficulty might be got over by saying— - -כל שש מאות ושלש עשרה מצוות בכלל עשרת הדברית הן ׃ - -“All the six hundred and thirteen commandments are comprehended in the -ten commandments.” (Com. in Exod. xxiv. 12.) But this, though true in -one sense, will not obviate the difficulty. God promises to give Moses -the law and the commandment which he had written. If the oral law had -not been written, it was not included. Saadiah Gaon, as quoted by Aben -Ezra, proposes another solution:— - -אמר הגאון כי אשר כתבתי דבוק עם לוחות האבן לא עם התורה והמצוה כי השם לא -כתב רק עשרה הדברים ׃ - -“The Gaon says that the words, ‘_Which I have written_,’ are to be -connected with ‘_The tables of stone_,’ and not with ‘_The law and the -commandment_,’ for God wrote only the ten words.” But unfortunately -Moses has so connected them, and we have no warrant for reversing his -order. Aben Ezra himself, after giving the Talmudic exposition, gives it -as his own opinion, that these words refer to the ten commandments. He -says— - -ולפי דעתי כי התורה הדבור הראשון והחמישי והמצוה השמונה הדברים ׃ - -“But in my opinion, ‘_The law_’ refers to the first and fifth -commandment; and ‘_The commandment_’ to the other eight.” (Aben Ezra, -Com. in loc.) This is about the truth. God gave Moses the law and the -commandment which he had written; but as Saadiah admits, God wrote only -the ten words, therefore the ten words are the same as “the law and the -commandments.” Some will say there is tautology here, that when God -says, “I will give thee tables of stone,” he means the ten commandments, -and that therefore the additional promise “of the law and the -commandment” is only an unnecessary repetition. But this is not true. By -“tables of stone,” God meant tables of stone. He might have given to -Moses the ten commandments without giving him stone tables, or he might -have given him the tables of stone without giving him the ten words; but -as he intended to give him both, He says, “I will give thee tables of -stone, and the law, and the commandment.” Neither is there any -difficulty in the circumstance that these ten words are called both “law -and commandment.” Inasmuch as they were a revelation of God’s will, they -are justly denominated “law,” תורה; and as they were proposed as a rule -of life, obedience to which was required, they are entitled, המצוה “The -commandment.” The simple meaning, therefore, is, that God promises to -give the ten commandments which he had written. Every thing else, and -therefore the oral law, is excluded. This passage, therefore, gives no -support to the doctrine that Moses received an oral as well as a written -law on Mount Sinai. Indeed, the desperate perversion to which this text -has been subjected, throws discredit upon the whole; and the necessity -for such perversion shows that there was no plain text in the writings -of Moses, to which the inventors of the oral law could appeal. - -The authority, then of the oral law must rest altogether upon the -character of those witnesses who handed it down. But this is a very -sandy foundation, for we have already seen that these men were guilty of -inventing or propagating the most absurd fables; their testimony, -therefore, is of no value. This has been proved abundantly already; but -there is one story for which we had not room in our last number, and -which, as being immediately connected with the giving of the law, must -now be considered. Like the others, it comes before us authenticated by -its introduction into the prayers of the synagogue, in which the -following plain allusion is made:— - -ויקרא לציר ולמרומו העלו , ובינו לבין עם שלישי עלו , והעמידו ונגש אל -ערפלו , ופנים בפנים דבר לו , וקרנים מידו לו , ידודון ידודון רעשו למולו , -ודברו לפני צור ואמרו לו , מה אנוש כי תגדלו , ומה תחשבהו למקומנו להעלו , -קנין שעשועים להנחיל לו ׃ - -“When he called the messenger (Moses) and made him ascend to heaven, and -appointed him as the third person between him and his people, and caused -him to approach and stand in the thick darkness, and spake to him face -to face, and rays streamed from his hand to him, the angels were moved, -and rushed towards him; and in the presence of the Creator they spake, -saying thus to him, What is man that thou shouldest exalt him? and -wherefore make such an account of him as to bring him up to our place -and cause him to inherit the delightful possession (the law)?” -(Pentecost Prayers, fol. 88.) Here it is plainly said, that the angels -remonstrated with God at the favour shown to Moses. This circumstance is -not to be found in the writings of Moses, but it is recorded in the -Talmud, and the particulars are thus given:— - -בשעה שעלה משה למרום אמרו מלאכי השרת לפני הקב׳׳ה רבונו של עולם מה לילוד -אשה בינינו , אמר להם לקבל תורה בא , אמרו לפניו חמדה גנוזה שגנוזה לך מששת -ימי בראשית תשע מאות ושבעים וארבעה דורות קודם שנברא העולם אתה מבקש ליתנה -לבשר ודם , מה אנוש כי תזכרנו ובן אדם כי תפקדנו ה׳ אדונינו מה אדיר שמך -בכל הארץ אשר תנה הודך על השמים , אמר לו הקב׳׳ה למשה חזור להן תשובה אמר -לפניו רבונו של עולם מתיירא אני שמא ישרפוני בהבל שבפיהם , אמר לו אחוז -בכסא כבודי וחזור להן תשובה שנאמר מאחז פני כסא פרשז עליו עננו ואמר ר׳ -נחום מלמד שפירש שדי מזיו שכינתו ועננו עליו אמר לפניו רבונו של עולם תורה -שאתה נותן לי מה כתיב בה אנכי ה׳ אלהיך אשר הוצאתיך מארץ מצרים אמר להם -למצרים ירדתם לפרעה השתעבדתם תורה למה תהא לכם , שוב מה כתיב בה לא יהיה לך -אלהים אחרים בין ערלים אלם שרויין שעובדין ע׳׳ז שוב מה כתיב בה זכור את יום -השבת לקדשו כלום אתם עושין מלאכה שאתם צריכין שבות , שוב מה כתיב בה לא תשא -משא ומתן יש ביניכם שוב מה כתיב בה כבד את אביך ואת אמך אב ואם יש לכם שוב -מה כתיב בה לא תרצח לא תנאף לא תגנוב קנאה יש ביניכם יצר הרע יש ביניכם מיד -הודו לו להקב׳׳ה ׃ - -“In the hour when Moses ascended up on high, the ministering angels said -before God, O Lord of the world, what business has he that is born of a -woman amongst us? He replied, He is come to receive the law. They -answered, This most desirable treasure, which has been treasured up from -the six days of creation, six hundred and seventy-four generations -before the world was created, dost thou now wish to give it to flesh and -blood—what is man that thou art mindful of him, and the son of man that -thou visitest him? O Lord, our Lord, how excellent is thy name in all -the earth, who hast set thy glory above the heavens. The Holy One said -to Moses, Give them an answer. He replied, O Lord of the world, I am -afraid, lest they burn me with the breath of their mouth. He said, Lay -hold on the throne of my glory and give them an answer, for it is said, -‘He that holdeth the face of his throne, he spreadeth his cloud over -him.’ (Job xxvi. 8, 9.) Rabbi Nahum says, This teaches us that the -Almighty spread some of the glory of the Shechinah and his cloud over -him. He then said, Lord of the world, what is written in the law that -thou art about to give me? ‘I am the Lord thy God that brought thee out -of Egypt.’ He then said, Did ye ever go down into Egypt and serve -Pharaoh—why, then, should ye have the law? Again, what is written -therein? ‘Thou shalt have none other God.’ He then asked them, Do ye -then dwell amongst the uncircumcised, that ye should commit idolatry? -Again, what is written? ‘Remember the Sabbath-day to sanctify it.’ Do -ye, then, do any work, so as to need rest? Again, what is written? ‘Thou -shalt not take the name of the Lord,’ &c. Have ye, then, any business -that would lead to this sin? Again, what is written? ‘Honour thy father -and mother.’ Have ye, then, got any father and mother? Again, what is -written? ‘Thou shalt not kill, thou shalt not commit adultery, thou -shalt not steal.’ Have ye, then, got envy or the leading principle that -would lead to these sins? Immediately they praised the Holy One, blessed -be He,” &c. (Shabbath, fol. 88, col. 2, &c.) It is not necessary to -prove that this account is a fiction. The absurdity of the whole scene -is too palpable. To what purpose should the angels wish for the law of -Moses, or be envious of men to whom it was given? Is it possible that -the spirits that minister before the throne of God, were not able to see -the unsuitableness of the law for them, until Moses pointed it out to -their consideration? We think that if this scene had ever taken place, -Moses might have given them other passages of the law much more to the -purpose; but it is plainly a fable invented by the designing, and -propagated by the credulous. These two stories then, that Moses received -the oral law, and that he disputed with the angels in heaven, come to us -upon one authority; they are both circumstances in one event; and the -fabulousness of the one takes away all credit from the other. The oral -law rests solely upon the testimony of its transmitters, but here these -persons are convicted of transmitting palpable falsehood: their -testimony to the oral law is therefore useless, and the whole fabric of -tradition falls. This one fable is sufficient, but the readers will -remember that this is only one of a considerable number selected from -the Jewish Prayer-book. To extract all similar stories from the Talmud -would be to make some folio volumes. The Prayer-book, however, gives -enough to invalidate the testimony of the Scribes and Pharisees, and to -incapacitate them for ever from appearing as witnesses. Perhaps some one -will say, But they are also the witnesses for the written law, and -therefore, if we reject their testimony, we must give up the written law -also. But this is not so. For _that_ we have other testimony—we have -that of the Jewish nation, of which the Scribes and Pharisees were at -first only an inconsiderable portion. We have the testimony of Jesus and -his disciples, the great opposers of the oral law. We have the testimony -of the predictions, which we behold still accomplishing. We have the -whole internal evidence, so that if there never had been Pharisees, the -evidence for the written law would be just as valid. As it is, the -contrast which the written law presents, when compared with the oral -law, furnishes in itself a strong evidence of its truth and -authenticity. The written law is simple, sober, dignified. The oral law -is multifarious, extravagant, absurd. The oral law is poison—the written -law is the antidote. The oral law is a counterfeit, which proves the -existence of the genuine coin. Men who receive both on the sole -authority of the rabbies may, when they find the falsehood of the one, -reject the other also, but this can never be the case with those who -calmly compare and weigh the two in the balance of right reason. - -We now dismiss these Talmudic fables for the present. We have proved by -instances that the oral law abounds with such. We have proved by -extracts from the Prayers of the synagogue, that these fables form a -part of the faith of all rabbinical Jews. We have, therefore, proved -that the inventors of these fables attained their object. They have -succeeded in deceiving the great majority of their countrymen. It is for -the Jews of the present day to consider whether these extravagant -fictions are still to be handed down to unborn generations—still to -appear as a reproach upon Israel’s understanding—still to disfigure and -dishonour the public worship of the chosen people. Former generations -may have handed them down in ignorance, and be therefore partly -excusable. But in the present day there is a large body of Jews here in -England who are fully convinced that these legends are false: it is the -duty, the sacred duly, of all such to protest against their further -propagation. If they do not, they make themselves accomplices in the -guilt of those who invented them, and responsible for all the injury, -temporal and spiritual, which the propagation of such error may inflict -upon their brethren and their posterity. But whatever course they may -pursue, the existence of these fables shows that the oral law itself is -altogether an invention of men, and proves that Jesus of Nazareth -conferred a great and substantial benefit on the nation and on mankind, -by vindicating and preserving for us the unadulterated truth of God’s -written Word. - -These fables prove further, that there is neither weight nor value in -the sentence which these men pronounce against the Lord Jesus Christ. It -is the sentence of those who did not scruple to falsify and pervert the -law of God; it is the testimony given by the notorious inventors and -propagators of fables, and cannot be received by any one competent to -weigh evidence. Fables of any kind will invalidate testimony, but -religious fables utterly incapacitate their inventors and propagators -from being admitted as witnesses at all. The man who will venture to -tamper with sacred history, either by adding to, or diminishing from, -its records, clearly shows that he has lost all reverence for truth, and -all sense of the divine character, as a vindicator of truth and a -punisher of falsehood. The man who trifles with sacred facts, cannot be -regarded as a witness at all in those which he considers profane or -common. When, therefore, the Talmudists, or the wise men of his time, -bear witness against Jesus of Nazareth, whom they hated, we must -remember that they have been convicted of false witness again and again -in the case of Moses, whom they professed to love. Their testimony is -therefore a nullity, and if we wish to examine the claims of Jesus of -Nazareth, we must look elsewhere for the data which are to form the -basis of our judgment. - - - - - No. XXII. - RABBINIC MAGIC. - - -Modern Judaism is the religion of the oral law. The dogmas, rites, -ceremonies, and prayers, all rest upon its authority. If, therefore, the -oral law can be proved to be an invention of men, the whole fabric of -modern Judaism crumbles into dust. It then follows that the Jews have -been more than eighteen centuries the disciples of error, and that, if -they now desire to believe and profess the true religion, revealed by -God to their forefathers, they must renounce their present Talmudic -system, and return to the law and the prophets. But the oral law is a -human invention. It has been proved, on the authority of the Jewish -Prayer-book, that it abounds with the most absurd fables, which cannot -be the Word of God, but are evidently and obviously the invention of -man. It appears, therefore, that the Jewish nation has been for -centuries deluded by the traditions of the Scribes and Pharisees—that -they have been utterly mistaken in their faith, taking the fictions of -men for the truth of God—and have thereby sunk from the honourable -position, in which God placed them as depositories of the truth, to the -unenviable situation of the credulous and superstitious. Such is the -result of an inquiry into the contents of prayers of the synagogue. An -examination of the traditional commandments will show in like manner, -that the oral law is every where inseparably mingled with fables, which -throw discredit upon the whole. One of the most important parts of the -oral law is that which relates to the constitution of the great tribunal -the Sanhedrin, for, as is asserted, that council fixed the authority of -all traditions, and even examined into the claims, and decided upon the -divine mission of the prophets. If it appear, therefore, that the oral -law teaches what is manifestly fabulous with respect to that tribunal, -the main pillar of tradition is taken away. Now without entering into -the whole subject at present, the following specimen will show what -degree of credit can be given to the traditional accounts respecting -it:— - -אמר ר׳ יוחנן אין מושיבין בסנהדרין אלא בעלי קומה ובעלי חכמה ובעלי מראה -ובעלי זקנה ובעלי כשפים ויודעים בשבעים לשון שלא תהא סנהדרין שומעת מפי -התורגמן ׃ - -“Rabbi Johannan says, none were allowed to sit in the Sanhedrin, who -were not men of stature, men of wisdom, men of good appearance, aged, -skilled in magic, and acquainted with the seventy languages, so that the -Sanhedrin might not be obliged to hear through an interpreter.” -(Sanhedrin, fol. 17, col. 1.) In this short extract there are several -fables—first, that all the members of the Sanhedrin should be skilled in -magic, or magicians, is plainly contrary to the express command of God, -who says, “There shall not be found among you any one that maketh his -son or his daughter to pass through the fire, or that useth divination, -or an observer of times, or an enchanter, or a witch מכשף—for all that -do these things are an abomination unto the Lord: and because of these -abominations the Lord thy God doth drive them out from before thee.” -(Deut. xviii. 10-12.) This command of God makes no exception in favour -of the members of the Sanhedrin. It absolutely forbids any such in -Israel for any purpose. The commentary indeed tells us, that this -magical skill was required in self-defence. - -להמית מכשפים הבוטחים בכשפיהם להנצל מידי בית דין ׃ - -“In order to kill the magicians who trusted in their magical arts to -deliver them out of the hands of the tribunal.” But this explanation -does not mend the matter. Magic is a thing absolutely unlawful and -expressly forbidden by God. It was therefore unlawful either to learn or -to practise it, even for the purpose of killing a magician. If the plea -of self-defence or necessity made it lawful for the Sanhedrin to learn -magic, the same argument would justify it doubly in the case of the -people, who were more likely to be the objects of the magician’s -attacks; for surely these persons would be careful to avoid all contact -with the members of the Sanhedrin, whom they knew to be more than a -match for them in the black art. According to this method of arguing all -Israel might have been skilled in magic, though the law requires that -not one such person should be found among them. Either then this account -is absolutely false, or the members of the Sanhedrin were bad men, who -learned what was expressly forbidden by the law of God; and in either -case, the Talmudic accounts of this tribunal are unworthy of credit. - -But it may well be doubted whether the members of this great council -confined their magical exercitations to the killing of magicians. We -find elsewhere, if the Talmud speak truth, that the rabbies at least -made other magical experiments, and have even recorded the means which -they employed, for the benefit of posterity. - -אבא בנימן אומר אלמלא נתנה רשות לעין לראות אין כל ברית יכולה לעמוד מפני -המזיקין אמר אביי אינהו נפישי מינן וקימי עלן כי כסלא לאוגיא , אמר רב הונא -כל חד וחד מינן אלפי משמאליה ורבבתא מימיניה אמר רבא האי דוחקא דהוה בכלה -מיניהו הוי הני ברכי דשלהי מיניהו , הני מאני דרבנן דבלי מחופיה דידהו הני -כרעי דמנקפא מיניהו האי מאן דבעי למדע להו ליתי קיטמא נהילא ונהדר אפורייה -ובצפרא חזי כי כרעי דתרנגולא האי מאן דבעי למחזינהו ליתי שליתא דשונרא -אוכמתא בר אוכמתא בוכרתא בת בוכרתא ולקליה בנורא ולשחקיה ולימליה עיניה -מיניה וחזי להו ולשדייה בגובתא דפרזלא ולחתמיה בגושפנקא דפרזלא דילמא גנבי -מיניה ולחתום פומיה כי היכי דלא ליתזק רב ביבי בר אביי עבד הכי ואתזק בעי -רבנן רחמי עליה ואתסי ׃ - -“Abba Benjamin says, if permission had been given to see them, no -creature could stand before the hurtful demons. Abbai says, They are -more than we, and stand against us like the trench round the garden-bed. -Rav Huna says, Every one of us has a thousand on his left hand, and ten -thousand on his right hand. Rabba says, The want of room at the sermon -is caused by them—the wearing out of the rabbies’ clothes is caused by -their rubbing against them—the bruised legs are caused by them. -Whosoever wishes to ascertain their existence, let him take ashes that -have been passed through a sieve, and let him strew his bed, and in the -morning he will see the marks of a cock’s claws. Whosoever wishes to see -them, let him take the interior covering of a black cat, the daughter of -a first-born black cat, which is also the daughter of a first-born, and -let him burn it in the fire, and pulverise it, and let him then fill his -eyes with it, and he will see them. But let him pour the powder into an -iron tube, and seal it with an iron signet, lest they should steal any -of it, and let him also seal up the mouth thereof, that no injury may -arise. Rav Bibi bar Abbai did thus, and received an injury. But the -rabbies prayed for mercy upon him, and he was cured.” (Berachoth, fol. -6, col. 1.) Here, then, is magic for the people, and all Israel is -instructed in the means to see demons. It is not for us to decide -whether those, who might use these means, would ever see men again, but -this is certain, that the oral law here gives a magical recipe to those -who are not members of the Sanhedrin, sets before us one of the Talmudic -doctors as an example, and moreover encourages to do as he did, by -holding out the possibility of a miraculous cure, if any injury should -arise. If, then, this story be true, the oral law permits magic, which -the law of God forbids; if it be false, then the oral law is convicted -of another monstrous falsehood, and is altogether unworthy of credit. -How long will the people of Israel suffer themselves to be deluded by a -system, of which the striking characteristic is, that it has no regard -for truth? The Jews object against Jesus of Nazareth, that he leads them -away from the law of Moses, but where does he, or his disciples, -inculcate the study of magic, or prescribe rules for facilitating -intercourse with demons, contrary to the express command of God? Just -suppose that this whole extract, instead of being found in the Talmud, -had formed a portion of the New Testament, how would the Jews have -laughed at this prescription for its folly, and argued against its -wickedness, how triumphantly would they have shown that a law that -teaches and encourages magic could not have been given by God? The -existence of one such passage would have been sufficient, in their eyes, -to condemn the whole Christian system. Let, then, the Jews deal with the -oral law in the same way. Let them judge it and its fables by an appeal -to Moses and the prophets. But let them remember that in this, as in -many other instances, the New Testament agrees with the law of Moses, -whilst the oral law differs from both. The New Testament classes -witchcraft along with idolatry, and other sins which exclude from the -joys of eternal life. “The works of the flesh are manifest, which are -these: adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, _witchcraft_, -hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, -envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like; of the which -I tell you before, as I have also told you in times past, that they -which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.” (Galat. v. -19-21.) In this case, then, where the oral law leads you away from the -doctrine of Moses, the religion of Jesus of Nazareth brings you back -again. - -This is, however, not the only fable contained in that short law -concerning the members of the Sanhedrin. We are told, besides, that no -one was allowed to sit in that council “unless he understood the seventy -tongues.” Now we would ask every disciple of the oral law calmly to -consider this statement, and then say what he thinks of its veracity. -Did he ever hear or know of scholars in the present times acquainted -with seventy languages, and that so perfectly as to be able to converse -with and examine witnesses, and form a judgment upon their evidence, -without the aid of an interpreter? Surely, the study of languages is as -much cultivated in the present day as it was then, and there are at -least as many facilities for their acquisition. The system of grammar is -now fully developed. The art of printing has made it easy to obtain -foreign books. Lexicons and other apparatus may be procured, and yet, -with all these facilities, we much doubt whether there be, in the whole -world, one single person possessing that knowledge of languages here -ascribed to every individual member of the Sanhedrin. According to the -oral law, there always had been, in Israel, seventy-one such persons at -least, but probably more; for as a member died, or became superannuated, -another was found ready to succeed him. But the wonder is here made -still more wonderful, for there were not only seventy-one persons -acquainted with seventy languages, but those persons were also -acquainted, as Rambam tells us, with medicine, astronomy, and all the -existing systems of idolatry, and moreover skilled in magic. And, -besides all this, all these persons were fine handsome fellows, “Men of -stature, men of good appearance.” Is this credible—can all Israel, or -all the world, furnish one such person at present, handsome or ugly, -tall or short? or can there be found amongst that intelligent people the -Jews, one man, woman, or child, so silly as to believe so manifest a -falsehood? We can tell them that their great rabbi, Rambam, did not -believe it, and therefore in his Compendium took the liberty of altering -this Talmudic statement. Instead of seventy languages, he says simply— - -ושידעו ברוב הלשונות ׃ - -“And that they should be acquainted with most languages.” It was too -much for him. Being a learned man himself, he knew the impossibility of -such universal knowledge; and he therefore softened down the Talmudic -hyperbole to the limits of what he considered possibility. This is not -merely our conclusion from Rambam’s alteration, the commentator has -expressly said the same:— - -וכתב רבינו יודעין ברוב הלשונות משום דדבר זר להמצא מי שידע בכל ע׳ לשון ׃ - -“Our rabbi has written, ‘Acquainted with most languages,’ because it is -a rarity to find a person acquainted with all the seventy languages.” -(Hilchoth Sanhedrin, c. 2.) Rambam himself, then, is here a witness -against the fabulous exaggerations of the Talmud. - -But perhaps some one will say, that seventy is only a round number to -signify many, that we must not, therefore, be too strict in its -exposition. This subterfuge, however, will not serve here. The authors -of the Talmud said seventy, because they believed that, by giving this -number, they included all the languages in the world. They believed that -there were seventy nations, and therefore they said seventy languages. -This article of Jewish faith is found everywhere in the Talmud, and in -the commentaries, as for instance— - -אמר ר׳ יוחנן מאי דכתיב יתן אומר המבשרות צבא רב כל דבור ודבור שיצא מפי -הגבורה נחלק לשבעים לשונות ׃ - -“R. Johannan says, What is the meaning of that Scripture, ‘The Lord gave -the Word: great was the company of those that published it?’ It teaches, -that as each commandment proceeded from the mouth of God, it was divided -into seventy languages.” (Shabbath, fol. 88, col. 2.) The foundation of -this opinion is an arbitrary interpretation or a verse in the song of -Moses. “When the Most High divided to the nations their inheritance, -when he separated the sons of Adam, he set the bounds of the people -according to the number of the children of Israel.” (Deut. xxxii. 8.) -Upon which Rashi thus comments:— - -בשביל מספר בני ישראל שעתידין לצאת מבני שם ילמספר שבעים נפש של בני ישראל -שירדו למצרים הציב גבולות עמים שבעים לשון ׃ - -“On account of the number of the children of Israel who were to proceed -from the sons of Shem, and according to the number of the seventy souls -of the children of Israel who descended into Egypt, he set the bounds of -the people, that is, the seventy languages.” That this latter clause is -altogether arbitrary, and a mere gratuitous addition, is plain from an -inspection of the text, where not one syllable is said about the seventy -souls, nor about the number of the nations, but about the fixing the -bounds of their habitations. Rashi himself did not trust in this -exposition, and he has therefore given another:—“On account of the -number of the children of Israel who were to proceed from the children -of Shem.” Aben Esra also passes by the seventy nations altogether, and -says that, “According to the number of the children of Israel,” means, -that the bounds of the nations were so set as to leave sufficient room -for the Israelites. His words are— - -אמרו המפרשים על דור הפלגה שנפחה כל הארץ כי אז גזר השם להיות ארץ ז׳ גוים -לישראל והיא שתספיק למספרם ועל כן למספר בני ישראל ׃ - -“The commentators have interpreted this of the generation of the -dispersion, when all the earth was scattered, for then God decreed that -Israel should have the land of the seven nations, which would be -sufficient for them, therefore it is said, ‘according to the number of -the children of Israel.’” This verse, then, gives no colour to the -opinion that there are only seventy nations and seventy languages. Fact -proves that the number is much greater, for the Bible exists already in -twice that number of languages, and the work of translation is not yet -accomplished. The oral law, therefore, fails altogether in attaining the -object which it had in view in telling this extraordinary story. It -wished to say, that in the Sanhedrin there never was need of an -interpreter, for that every member understood every language in the -world, and believing that there were only seventy languages, it stated -this number. But now we know that even if each member understood seventy -languages, yet to be able to decide cases for all the nations of the -earth, they would have required to know as many more. The oral law then, -betrays here an utter ignorance of the state of the world, which shows -that it is not from that God who confounded the languages of the earth, -and therefore knows how many there are; but from men who desired to -magnify the acquirements of the nation far beyond the sober truth. The -men who could deliberately say, that the Sanhedrin was composed of -seventy-one persons, all handsome, all men of stature, all skilled in -magic, and all so perfectly acquainted with seventy languages, as to -need no interpreter, would have said seven hundred, or seven thousand, -or any thing else that suited their purpose. They are evidently wilful -exaggeraters, whose word is therefore not to be trusted. The motive here -is vain glory. The object is simply to give all the honour to men, to -the Rabbies whose learning and genius were so marvellous. There is no -intimation that God gave the members of the Sanhedrin this knowledge, -which far exceeds the power or the life of man to attain by ordinary -means. No, all the glory of these marvellous acquirements is ascribed to -man alone. This forms a striking contrast to a narrative recorded in the -New Testament. We are there told that on a certain occasion the -disciples of Jesus of Nazareth addressed in their own language, -“Parthians, and Medes, and Elamites, and the dwellers in Mesopotamia, -and in Judea and Cappadocia, in Pontus and Asia, Phrygia, and Pamphylia, -in Egypt, and in the ports of Lybia about Cyrene, and strangers of Rome, -Jews and proselytes, Cretes and Arabians,” that is, the inhabitants of -sixteen countries. Now, the small number here stated is a presumptive -evidence of the truth of the fact. If an impostor, a Rabbinist who -wished to make a good story, had written this account, he would, beyond -all doubt, instead of sixteen, have specified all the seventy languages. -To his countrymen, who believed in the acquirements of the Sanhedrin, -this would have appeared no wise incredible. Indeed, if a man of that -time had wished to invent a miracle, the number seventy would have been -absolutely necessary for his purpose. For if every member of the -Sanhedrin could speak seventy languages, to say that other men spoke -sixteen would have been no miracle at all. The small number, therefore, -here given, shows that the authors of the narrative had no wish to -invent a miracle, but to state the sober truth. But then consider the -entire absence of vain-glory. The praise and the power of speaking even -this small number of languages is given altogether to God. The men were -Galileans, and had not acquired this by their own labour and genius. -“They were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other -tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.” (Acts ii. 1-11.) Here then -is a striking difference between the narratives of the Talmud and those -of the New Testament. The former exalts men. The latter gives glory to -God. - - - - - No. XXIII. - ASTROLOGY. - - -The favourite Jewish objection to the claims of Jesus of Nazareth is -that passage at the beginning of the thirteenth chapter of Deuteronomy: -“If there arise among you a prophet, or a dreamer of dreams, and giveth -thee a sign or a wonder, and the sign or the wonder come to pass, -whereof he spake unto thee, saying, Let us go after other gods, which -thou hast not known, and let us serve them, thou shalt not hearken unto -the words of that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams.” In citing this -passage, the Jews take for granted that the religion of Jesus is -essentially different from that of Moses; that it leads to the worship -of strange gods: and that it is in fact a species of heathenism, whilst -the religion of the oral law, which they now profess, is utterly free -from all heathen elements, and identical with the religion of their -prophets. All this they take for granted; but the subject is capable of -being inquired into. The oral law and the New Testament are both extant, -and a little examination will enable us to decide, on rational grounds, -whether Judaism or Christianity savour most of heathenism. In our last -number, we saw that Judaism contains magic for the Sanhedrin and magic -for the people, whilst the New Testament utterly forbids it: in this -respect then Judaism resembles the heathen religion. Our business in -this number shall be to point out, in astrology, another feature of -resemblance. The Talmud and its doctors all agree in asserting the -influence of the stars over the fates and fortunes of men. In the first -place, the Talmud lays down these general maxims:— - -היי בני ומזוני לאו בזכותא תליא מלתא אלא במזלא תליא מלתא ׃ - -“Life, children, and a livelihood depend not on merit, but on the -influence of the stars.” (Moed Katon, fol. 28, col. 1.) - -מזל מחכים ומזל מעשיר ׃ - -“The influence of the stars makes wise, the influence of the stars makes -rich.” (Shabbath, fol. 156, col. 1.) But it also tells us the following -particulars:— - -האי מאן דבחד בשבא יהי גבר ולא חדא ביה ... האי מאן דבתרי בשבא יהי גבר -רגזן מ׳׳ט משום דאיפליגו ביה מיא , האי מאו דבתלתא בשבא יהי גבר עתיר וזנאי -מ׳׳ט משום דאיברו ביה עשבים , האי מאן דבארבעה בשבא יהי גבר חכם ונהיר מ׳׳ט -משום דאיתלו ביה מאורות . האי מאן דבחמשא בשבא יהי גבר גומל חסדים מ׳׳ט -משום דאיברו ביה דגים ועופות , האי מאן דבמעלא שבתא יהי גבר חזרן אמר ר׳ -נחמן בר יצחק חזרן במצוות , האי מאן דבשבתא יהי בשבתא ימות עלי דאחילו -עלוהי יומא רבא דשבתא אמר רבא בר רב שילא וקדישא רבה תקרי ׃ - -“He that is born on the first day of the week, will be a man excelling, -but in one quality only.[20]... He that is born on the second day of the -week will be an angry man. What is the reason? Because on it the waters -were divided. He that is born on the third day of the week will be a -rich and profligate man. What is the reason? Because on it the herbs -were created. He that is born on the fourth day of the week will be a -wise man and have a powerful memory. What is the reason? Because on that -day the lights were hung up in the heavens. He that is born on the fifth -day of the week will be a benevolent man. What is the reason? Because on -it were created the fishes and the fowls. He that is born on the eve of -the Sabbath will be a man who makes a circuit. Rav Nachman bar Isaac -says, who makes the circuit in the commandments.[21] He that is born on -the Sabbath, on the Sabbath also he shall die, because on his account -they profaned the great day of the Sabbath. Rabba bar Rav Shila says, he -shall possess an eminent degree of holiness.” (Shabbath, fol. 156, col. -1.) Here is completely the heathen doctrine of fate. Not only the -external circumstances of fortune, but the moral qualities of the soul -are made to depend upon the day of a man’s nativity. Whether a man be -profligate or holy, according to this doctrine, does in no wise depend -upon himself, his own choice, or conscience, but simply on the -circumstance of his birth happening on a Tuesday or a Saturday. There is -indeed a difference of opinion amongst the Talmudic doctors, as to the -nature of the sidereal influence, but all agree in the fact, as may be -seen further from the opinion of R. Huna:— - -לא מזל יום גורם אלא מזל שעה גורם האי מאן דבחמה יהי גבר זיותן יהי אכל -מדליה ושתי מדליה ורזוהי גלן אם גניב לא מצלח . האי מאן דבכוכב נוגה יהי -גבר עתיר וזנאי יהי מאי טעמא משום דאיתיליד ביה נורא , האי מאן דבכוכב יהי -גבר נהיר וחכים משום דספרא דחמא הוא , האי מאן דבלבנה יהי גבר סביל מרעין -בכאי וסתיר סתיר ובנאי אכל דלא דיליה ושתי דלא דיליה ורזוהי כסן אם גנב -מצלח , האי מאן דבשבתי יהי גבר מחשבתיה בטלין ואית דאמר כל דמחשבין עליהי -בטלין , האי מאן דבצדק יהי גבר צדקן אמר רב נחמן בר יצחק וצדקן במצוות , -האי מאן דבמאדים יהי גבר אשיד דמא אמר רב אשי אי אומנא אי גנבא אי מהולא -אמר רבה אנא במאדים הואי אמר אביי מר נמי עניש וקטיל וכו׳ ׃ - -“These things do not depend upon the sidereal influence of the day, but -on the sidereal influence of the hour. He that is born under the -influence of the sun will be a splendid man, eating and drinking of that -which belongs to himself, and will reveal his secrets: if he be a thief -he will not prosper. He that is born under Nogah (Venus) will be a rich -and profligate man. What is the reason? Because on it the fire was -created. He that is born under Kochav (Mercury) will be a man of strong -memory, and wise, for Mercury is secretary to the sun. He that is born -under the influence of the moon, will suffer much, building and -destroying, destroying and building: eating and drinking what does not -belong to him, and a keeper of his own secrets. If a thief he will -prosper. He that is born under Shabthai (Saturn) will be a man whose -thoughts come to nought, but some say those, that think against him, -shall come to nought. He that is born under Tsedek (Jupiter) will be a -righteous man. Rav Nachman bar Isaac says, righteous in the -commandments.[22] He that is born under Maadim (Mars) will be a shedder -of blood. Rav Achai says, either a letter of blood, or a thief, or a -circumciser. Rabbah said, I was born under Mars. Abbai answered, -Therefore, you are fond of punishing and killing.” (Shabbath, ibid.) In -this passage the heathenism is still more apparent. It is notorious that -the ancient Greek and Roman idolaters considered Venus as the patroness -of profligacy, Mercury as the god of eloquence and learning, Mars as the -god of war, and behold! here in the oral law you have the very same -doctrine. “If a man be born under Venus, he will be a rich and -profligate man; if under Mercury, a man of strong memory and wise; if -under Mars, a shedder of blood.” The habits of the mind are here also -expressly attributed to the influence of the planets, and a thief has -got the promise of success, if his nativity happened under the influence -of the moon. What then becomes of human responsibility, and how does -this doctrine agree with the words of Moses, “Behold I have set before -you life and death, blessing and cursing, therefore choose life, that -both thou and thy seed may live?” (Deut. xxx. 19.) It will be replied by -Talmudists, that the oral law also says:— - -אין מזל לישראל ׃ - -“Israel is not under the influence of the stars.” We shall, therefore, -consider that passage in its context which immediately follows:— - -ר׳ חנינא אומר מזל מחכים מזל מעשיר ויש מזל לישראל ר׳ יוחנן אמר אין מזל -לישראל ואזדא ר׳ יוחנן לטעמיה דאמר ר׳ יוחנן מניין שאין מזל לישראל שנאמר -כה אמר ה׳ אל דרך הגוים אל תלמדו ומאותות השמים אל תחתו כי רחתו הגוים מהמה -יחתו הגוים ולא ישראל אמר רב אין מזל לישראל דאמר רב יהודה אמר רב מניין -שאין מזל לישראל שנאמר ויוצא אותו החוצה אמר אברהם לפני הקב׳׳ה רבונו של -עולם בן ביתי יורש אותי אמר לו לאו כי אם אשר יצא ממעיך אמר לפניו רבונו של -עולם נסתכלתי באיצטגנינות שלי ואיני ראוי להוליד בן אמר לו צא מאיצטגנינות -שלך שאין מזל לישראל ׃ - -“Rabbi Chanina says, the influence of the stars makes wise, the -influence of the stars makes rich, and Israel is under that influence. -Rabbi Jochanan says, Israel is not under the influence of the stars, and -Rabbi Jochanan helped his argument, for Rabbi Jochanan says, From whence -is it proved that Israel is not under the influence of the stars? -Because it is said, ‘Thus saith the Lord, Learn not the way of the -heathen, and be not dismayed at the signs of heaven; for the heathen are -dismayed at them.’ (Jer. x. 2.) The heathen but not Israel. Rav says, -Israel is not under the influence of the stars, for Rabbi Judah says, -Rav says, From whence is it proved that Israel is not under the -influence of the stars? From that which is said, ‘And he brought him -forth abroad.’ (Gen. xv. 5.) Abraham said before God, ‘Lord of the -world, One born in my house is my heir.’ God replied not so, but ‘He -that shall come forth out of thine own bowels.’ Abraham replied, I have -consulted my astrology, and am not fit to beget a son. God said, Go -forth from thy astrology, for Israel is not under the influence of the -stars.” (Shabbath, ibid.) Now this passage, if taken in the most -favourable point of view, proves only that Israel is not under the -influence of the stars; but this exception proves to demonstration that -the oral law teaches, that all other nations are under that influence. -According to this doctrine, all the Gentiles, and of course Christians -among the number, are given up to unchanging and unchangeable fate. They -are good and bad, rich and poor, happy and unhappy, according to the -sidereal influence at their nativity, and consequently are utterly -irresponsible for their actions. A Gentile thief, or murderer, or -adulterer, is not so, because he yielded to temptation, or to evil -dispositions, but because he happened to be born under the influence of -the Moon, or of Mars, or of Venus. This is the religion of the oral law, -on the most favourable view of the case, and consequently God is -represented first as a partial governor, who gives constitutional -advantages to one favourite nation, which He withholds from all others; -and then, secondly, as an unjust judge, who punishes the Gentiles for -doing what the irresistible influence of the stars compelled them to do. -This doctrine is of itself sufficient to prove that the oral law is not -of God, and that as a religion it stands upon a line with the heathen -and Mahometan systems of fate, and is consequently infinitely below -Christianity. The New Testament recognises no system of favouritism, but -represents God as a just judge, “who will render to every man according -to his deeds” (Rom. ii. 6); and all men as responsible for the evil -which they commit. “There is no respect of persons with God. For as many -as have sinned without law, shall also perish without law; and as many -as have sinned in the law, shall be judged by the law.” (Ibid., 11, 12.) -This is a view worthy of the Divine character, whereas the astrological -system of the oral law, which represents God as giving up all nations to -the influence of the stars, and then punishing them for following that -influence which He himself ordained, is nothing short of blasphemy, and -is much more akin to heathenism than to the doctrine of Moses and the -prophets. But, secondly, this passage of the Talmud contains two -statements directly contradicting each other. Rabbi Chanina says, Israel -is under the influence of the stars—the others say, Israel is not under -the influence of the stars; whichever statement we receive as true, the -other is necessarily false, and therefore the oral law contains -falsehood, and therefore is unworthy of credit. Thirdly, the story which -is here given of Abraham has falsehood on the face of it, and after all -does not disprove, but rather confirms the doctrine that Israel, as well -as the other nations, is under the influence of the stars; for as Rashi -tells us, Abraham and Sarah escaped from their sidereal destiny only by -changing their names. Rashi’s words are— - -אמר לו צא מאיצגטנינות שלך שראית במזלות שאינך עתיד להעמיד בן אברם אין לו -בן אבל אברהם יש לו בן שרי לא תלד אבל שרה תלד אני קורא לכם שם אחר וישתנה -המזל ׃ - -“God said to Abraham, Go forth from thy astrology, for thou hast seen in -the stars that thou art not to have a son. _Abram_ is not to have a son, -but _Abraham_ is to have a son. _Sarai_ is not to bear a child, but -_Sarah_ shall bear a child. I call you by another name, and thus the -influence of the stars will be changed.” (Com. in Gen. xv. 5.) Here it -is plainly intimated, and that in the name of God himself, that Abraham -and Sarah were both under the influence of the stars, and that if they -had not changed their names, they never could have had a child. This was -evidently Rashi’s opinion; and when we remember that the majority of the -Jews in the world implicitly follow Rashi’s interpretation, we may -conclude that this is the prevailing doctrine. And perhaps some of the -readers of this paper may even know instances of Jews who, led by this -interpretation, have actually changed their name, in the hope of -bettering their luck, or even of escaping from death. But however that -be, it is easy to show that the Talmud and the rabbies generally believe -in the astrological influence of the heavenly bodies. In addition to the -passages already cited, the Talmud says expressly— - -בזמן שהחמה לוקה סימן רע לאומות עולם לבנה לוקה סימן רע לשונאיהם של ישראל -מפני שישראל מונין ללבנה ואומות העולם לחמה לוקה במזרח סימן רע ליושבי מערב -וכו׳ ׃ - -“An eclipse of the sun is an evil sign to the nations of the world. An -eclipse of the moon is an evil sign to Israel; for Israel reckons by the -moon, the nations of the world by the sun. When the eclipse happens in -the east, it is an evil sign to the inhabitants of the east. When it -happens in the west, it is an evil sign to the inhabitants of the west,” -&c., &c. (Succah, fol. 29. col. 1.) The rabbies who have lived since, -teach the same doctrine. For instance, Saadiah Gaon, speaking of the -manner in which the influence of the stars is modified by the signs of -the zodiac, says— - -ופעמים שמקצת כוכב תהלוכו במזל טוב ומקצתו האחר במזל רע , ולאדם שיהיה לו -אותו מזל יהיה לו בראשונה טוב ולאחריתו רע ׃ - -“Sometimes the course of a star is partly in a good sign and partly in a -bad sign. The man born under this will first prosper and then suffer -adversity. (Comment. in Sepher Jetsirah, fol. 98, col. 1.) He also -explains, there, how it is possible for astrologers to foretell sickness -and death; but this is enough to shew his opinion, and what he had -learned from the Talmud. The writings of Aben Esra bear the same -testimony. For instance, in his commentary on the ten commandments, he -says— - -והדבור הרביעי דבור השבת כנגד גלגל שבתי כי חכמי הנסיון אומרים כי לכל אחד -מן המשרתים יש יום ידוע בשבוע שבו יראה כחו והוא בעל השעה הראשונה ביום וכן -מי שהוא בעל השעה הראשונה בלילה ואומרים כי שבתי ומאדים הם כוכבים המזיקים -ומי שיחל מלאכה או ללכת בדרך באחד משניהם כשהם מושלים יבוא לידי נזק על כן -אמרו קדמונינו שנתן רשות לחבל בלילי רביעיות ובלילי שבתות והנה לא תמצא בכל -ימי השבוע לילה ויום זה אחר זה שימשלו אלו שני המזיקים בהם רק ביום הזה על -כן אין ראוי להתעסק בו בדברי העולם רק ביראת השם לבדו ׃ - -“The fourth commandment is that respecting the Sabbath, and answers to -the orb of Saturn; for the experimental philosophers say, that each one -of the ministering servants has a certain day of the week in which he -exhibits his strength, and he is master of the first hour in the day, -and thus it is also with him who is master of the first hour in the -night. They say, also, that Saturn and Mars are the two hurtful stars, -and whosoever begins a work, or to walk in the way, when either of these -two is in the ascendant, is sure to fall into harm. Therefore our -ancients have said, that permission is given to do injury on the nights -of the fourth and seventh days of the week. And behold, thou wilt not -find, in all the days of the week, a night and a day, one after the -other, on which these two hurtful stars rule except on this day; -therefore it is not suitable on it to engage in worldly affairs, but to -devote it entirely to the fear of God.” This exposition shows that Aben -Esra believed in astrology, and that the power of the stars extended to -Israel as well as to the other nations, nay the power of the stars to do -harm is here made the foundation of the command respecting the -Sabbath-day. A man, whose mind was not thoroughly imbued with faith in -astrology, could never have been led even to entertain such an opinion, -when God himself has assigned another and entirely different reason for -the institution of the Sabbath. But indeed it is not necessary to go to -the rabbies to prove that modern Judaism teaches astrology. That common -wish which one so often hears amongst the Jews, even at the present day, -מזל טוב _mazzal tov_, or good luck, has its origin in the doctrine of -the Talmud, and shows how universally it has been received. And thus we -see the influence which the oral law has had in leading away both -learned and unlearned from the Word of God, and of spreading amongst -them, as a tradition from Moses, what is merely one of the numerous -errors of heathen idolatry. The heathen worshipped the host of heaven. -The sun, and the moon, and other heavenly bodies, they considered as -deities; it was, therefore, natural for them to suppose that they -exercised an influence over the affairs of men. The Chaldeans were -especially devoted to this doctrine, and had almost exalted it to the -rank of a science. From them, probably during the Babylonish captivity, -the Jaws learned this system; and though altogether idolatrous in its -origin, and learned from idolaters, it was congenial to the minds of the -superstitious rabbies, and was, therefore, introduced into the oral law, -where it has ever since continued. The oral law has, therefore, in this -respect, adopted heathen doctrine, and teaches heathenism. Every Jew who -wishes his neighbour מזל טוב, _mazzal tov_, uses a heathen idolatrous -expression—sanctioned, indeed, by the Talmud, but utterly repugnant to -the doctrine of Moses. But where will he find in the New Testament any -warrant either for such a doctrine or such a wish? The New Testament is -entirely free from all shadow and tincture of this heathenism. Your oral -law has taught you that the course of events depends upon the stars. -Jesus of Nazareth has taught us, that the ordering of all events, even -the minutest, proceeds from our Heavenly Father. He says, “Are not two -sparrows sold for a farthing? and one of them shall not fall on the -ground without your Father. But the very hairs of your are all -numbered.” (Matt. x. 29, 30.) Jesus of Nazareth, therefore, whom you are -afraid to follow, lest he should lead you after other gods, directs all -his followers to the one living and true God, the Creator, Preserver, -and Redeemer of all things. Those men, on the contrary, who crucified -Jesus of Nazareth, and that oral law, which you prefer to Christianity, -have led you away from the doctrines of Moses and the prophets to the -principles of heathenism. The general doctrine, that the moral nature, -the weal and wo of men, are altogether dependent upon the stars, is not -Mosaic, it is heathen; and the particular details concerning the -influence of Venus, Mars, and Mercury, are plainly the offspring of the -worst part of heathen mythology. If, then, Jews believe in this Talmudic -astrology, they approach very nearly to heathenism, and such has been -the case with the majority and the most learned of the nation for the -last eighteen hundred years. If from the unavoidable influence of -Christian knowledge, they now reject this portion of the oral law, they -declare that all their most learned rabbies have been in gross error, -and that the oral law, which led them astray, is not from God, but, on -the contrary, in one of its most important features, a mere copy of -idolatrous heathenism. - -Footnote 20: - - According to Rashi. - -Footnote 21: - - According to Rashi, one who goes from house to house to get alms. - -Footnote 22: - - Rashi says a man who is liberal in almsgiving. - - - - - No. XXIV. - AMULETS. - - -In magic and astrology we have discovered two features common to -idolatrous heathenism, and to the religion of the oral law. We have seen -that it pervades the Talmud and the writings of the subsequent rabbies, -and that it has tinctured the language of every-day life. It occurs, -therefore, as might be expected, incidentally, when the oral law treats -of other things; and we are induced to notice one passage of this kind, -not only because it proves that faith in astrology is an essential -element in the religion of the oral law, but because it sets before us -another feature of resemblance to heathenism. In treating of the virtues -of amulets, and of the tests, whereby to try them and those that write, -the following passage occurs— - -אמר רב פפא פשיטא לי תלת קמיעא לתלת גברי תלתא תלתא זימני אתמחי גברא -ואתמחי קמיעא תלתא קמיעי לתלתא גברי חד חד זימני גברא אתמחי קמיעא לא אתמחי -חד קמיעא לתלתא גברי קמיעא אתמחי גברא לא אתמחי בעי רב פפא תלתא קמיעי לחד -גברא מאי קמיעא ודאי לא אתמחי גברא אתמחי או לא אתמחי מי אמרינן הא אסי ליה -או דילמא מזלא גברא הוא דקא מקבל כתבא תיקו וכו׳ ׃ - -“Rav Papa says, I am certain in the case of three amulets for three men; -where three copies of one amulet have cured three times, then both the -writer and the amulet are approved. In the case of three amulets for -three men, where each performs only one cure, then the writer is -approved, the amulet is not approved. In the case of one amulet for -three men, then the amulet is approved, the writer is not approved. But -Rav Papa asks, What is to be the decision when there are three amulets -for one man? The amulet is certainly not approved, the writer may or may -not be. Shall we say that he cured him? Or was it perhaps the influence -of the stars, belonging to that man, that had an affinity for that which -was written? That must remain undecided.” (Shabbath, fol. 61, col. 2.) -Here we have the influence of the stars again, and that not in the case -of the heathen, but in the case of Israelites. The whole passage refers -to none but Israelites. The question, from which this digression about -amulets arose, was whether it is lawful to wear amulets on the -Sabbath-day, a question concerning the Jews, and them only. In this -question, then, we find the doctrine of sidereal influence mixed up, or -rather so certainly pre-supposed as to prevent the solution of a doubt. -A case is supposed where a man has been cured by the help of three -amulets, and thence arises a doubt as to whether the maker may be -considered as an approved writer of amulets; and upon this case R. Papa -does not venture to decide, because it is possible that the cure may be -owing to the influence of the stars. How can there be a stronger proof -of faith in the power of the stars over Israelites as well as over other -persons? - -This passage proves incontrovertibly that the heathen notion of -astrology is inseparably interwoven with the religious system of the -oral law, but it also presents to our consideration another circumstance -equally startling, and that is, that the oral law sanctions the use of -amulets or charms, as a cure for, or defence against, sickness and other -evils. What, is it possible, that the Jews who think that their religion -is the true religion revealed by God to Moses, and whose chief objection -to Christianity is the fear lest it should lead them to strange gods, is -it possible that this people should still entertain the old heathen -notion concerning amulets? Yes, whilst the followers of Jesus of -Nazareth have learned from him to renounce this superstitious and wicked -practice, the Jews, taught by those who rejected and crucified him, -still believe in the oral law which teaches the manner of making and -using charms. But perhaps some one will say, it occurs only in the -Gemara, but not in the Mishna. This is at all times but a poor apology -for the oral law, or rather an open confession that the greatest part of -that law is indefensible, but it will not serve here. The doctrine of -amulets proceeds from the Mishna, which says,— - -ולא בקמיע בזמן שאינו מן המומחה ׃ - -“It is not lawful to go forth on the Sabbath-day with an amulet, unless -it be from an approved person.” The Gemara then takes up this -commandment, and comments thus upon it,— - -אמר ר׳ פפא לא תימא עד דמומחא גברא ומומחא קמיע אלא כיון דמומחא גברא אע׳׳ג -דלא מומחא קמיע דיקא נמי דקתני ולא בקמיע בזמן שאינו מן המומחה , ולא קתני -בזמן שאינו מומחה ש׳׳מ , ת׳׳ר איזה וקמיע מומחה כל שריפא ושנה ושלש אחד -קמיע של כתב ואהד קמיע של עקרין אחד חולה שיש בו סכנה ואחד חולה שאין בו -סכנה לא שנבפה אלא שלא יכפה רכר׳ ׃ - -“Rav Papa says, do not think that it is necessary that both the man and -the amulet must be approved; it is enough if the man be approved, even -though the amulet be not approved. The proof is, that the Mishna says, -‘Unless the amulet be from an approved person,’ but does not say, -‘Unless the amulet be approved,’ from which it is plain. Our rabbies -have taught thus, What is an approved amulet? Any amulet that has -effected a cure, and done so twice or thrice. The doctrine holds good, -whether the amulet be a written one, or made of roots—whether the man be -dangerously ill or not—not only if he be epileptic, but that he may not -become epileptic.” (Shabbath, fol. 61, col. 1.) From this it appears -that there are two sorts of amulets, one containing some written words, -the other made of roots of various kinds, and it is equally plain that -the object of wearing them was either to prevent sickness or to effect a -cure. On the Sabbath those only are lawful, which have been manufactured -by a man, who has already established his character for making -efficacious amulets, or which have been already tried and proved to be -so. This is the doctrine of the Talmud, and let every Jew remember that -this doctrine is not extracted from the legendary part, but from those -laws which are binding upon the consciences of all who acknowledge an -oral law. And this is not any private opinion of our own, as may be seen -by referring to any compilation where the laws are collected, as for -instance the Jad Hachazakah, where this law is thus expressed:— - -ויוצאין בקמיע מומחה ואי זה הוא קמיע מומחה זה שריפא לשלשה בני אדם או -שעשהו אדם שריפא שלשה בני אדם בקמיעין אחרים ׃ - -“It is lawful to go out with an approved amulet. What is an approved -amulet? One that has cured three persons, or has been made by a man who -has cured three persons with other amulets.” (Hilchoth Shabbath, c. xix. -14.) The Arbah Turim enters more at length into the subject, thus— - -אין יצאין בקמיע שאינו מומחה ואם הוא מומחה יוצאין בו לא שנא אתמחי גברא -ולא קמיע כגון שכתב לחש אחד בג׳ אגרות ורפאו שלשתן דאתמחי גברא לאותו לחש -בכל פעם שיכתבנו אבל לא שאר לחשימ וגם אין הקמיע מומחה אם יכתבנו אחר , ולא -שנא אתמחי קמיע ולא גברא כגון שכתב לחש שחד באגרת אחת וריפא בו שלשה פעמים -שאותה אגרת מומחה לכל אדם וכ׳׳ש אתמחי גברא וקמיע כגון שכתב לחש אחד בג׳ -אגרות וכל אחד הועילה לג׳ אנשים או לאדם אחד שלשה פעמים אתמחי גברא ללחש זה -בכל אגרות שיכתוב ואתמחו אגרות הללו לכל אדם , אבל אם כתב ג׳ קמיעים לאדם -אחד ורפאו ג׳ פעמים לא אתמחי גברא ולא קמיע , ומותר לצאת בקמיע מומחה לא -שנא הוא של כתב או של עקרין בין בחולה שיש בו סכנה בין שאין בו סכנה , ולא -שנכפה כבר ותולהו לרפואה אלא אפילי לא אחזר חחולי אלא שהוא ממשפחת נכפין -ותולהו שלא יאחזנו שרי ׃ - -“It is not lawful to go out in an amulet, which is not approved, but if -it be approved, it is lawful. Whether it be the man or the amulet, which -is approved, makes no difference; for instance, if a man have written -one and the same charm in three copies, and all three have affected a -cure, the man is approved with respect to that charm every time that he -writes it, but not with respect to other charms; neither is the amulet -approved if written by another. There is also no difference in the case, -when the amulet is approved but the man not so; for instance, if a man -write one charm, and only one copy, and has with it effected a cure -three times, then that copy is approved for every man. A third case is, -when both the man and the amulet are approved; for instance, if a man -write one charm in three copies, and each has been of use to three men -or to one man three times, then the man is approved with respect to this -charm in every copy which he may write, and these copies are considered -as approved for the use of all men. But if he have written three -different amulets for one man, and have cured him three times, then -neither the man nor the amulet is approved. Further, it is lawful to go -out with an approved amulet, whether it be a writing or one made of -roots, and whether the man be dangerously ill or not. Neither is it -necessary that he should have been already epileptic, and now makes use -of it for a cure. On the contrary, if he be of an epileptic family, and -wear it as a preventive, it is lawful.” (Orach Chaiim. sec. 301.) There -can be no mistake here. This is Jewish law binding upon all who -acknowledge tradition. Neither is it a doubtful or passing notice; on -the contrary, the different cases are all enumerated, and every -particular specified. The oral law here gives the most unqualified -sanction to the use of amulets or charms, and that even on the -Sabbath-day. That such charms are near akin to magic or witchcraft is -plain from the nature and purpose of the manufacture, and from the -undisguised use of the word לחש “charms;” but there is a passage in -Rashi’s commentary on another Talmudic treatise, which puts this beyond -all doubt; we therefore give both the text and the commentary— - -תנו רבנן שמונים תלמידים היו להלל הזקן שלשים מהן ראוים שתשרה עליהם שכינה -כמשה רבינו שלשים מהם ראוים שתעמוד להם חמה כיהושע בן נון עשרים בינוניים -בדול שבכולן יונתן בן עוזיאל קטן שבכולן ר׳ יוחנן בן זכאי אמרו עליו על ר׳ -יוחנן בן זכאי שלא הניח מקרא משנה גמרא הלכות והגדות דקדוקי תורה ודקדודי -סופרים וקלין וחמורין וגזרות שוות ותקופות וגמטריאות ומשלות כובסים ומשלות -שועלים שיחת שדים ושיחת דקלים מלאכי שרת וכו׳ ׃ - -“Our rabbies have handed down the tradition that Hillel the elder had -eighty disciples, of whom thirty were as worthy as Moses our master to -have the Shechinah resting upon them. Thirty others were as worthy as -Joshua the son of Nun that for them the sun should stand still. Twenty -were in the middle rank, of whom the greatest was Jonathan the son of -Uziel; and the least of all was Rabbi Johanan ben Zachai. Of this -last-named rabbi it is said, that he did not leave unstudied the Bible -or the Mishna, Gemara, the constitutions, the Agadoth, the niceties of -the law and the Scribes, the argument, _a fortiori_, and from similar -premises, the theory of the change of the moon, Gematria, the parables -taken from grapes and from foxes, the language of demons, the language -of palm-trees, and the language of the ministering angels,” &c. (Bava -Bathra, fol. 134, col. 1.) This was pretty well, considering that he was -the least of the eighty; what then must have been the knowledge of the -others? This tradition alone, from its gross exaggeration, would be -sufficient to mark the character of the rabbies as false witnesses. It -is plainly a fable, such as one might expect in the “Arabian Nights’ -Entertainments,” but not in a law that professes to have come from God. -It is another proof that the account of the oral law is a mere fiction. -But our object in quoting the passage here, is to point out its -connexion with charms and amulets. It tells us, that this rabbi -understood the language of the ministering angels? Now what use was -this? Rashi tells us in his commentary, להשביעם to conjure or to adjure -them: that is, to compel them to serve him, when he adjured them; that -is, by their means to act the part of a conjuror. It may perhaps be -said, these were the good angels, with whom a holy man might hold -converse, but we are also told that he understood “the language of -demons.” What was the object of this? Rashi answers again— - -להשביעם ונפקא מיניה לעשות קמיע לרפואה ׃ - -“For the purpose of adjuring them: and hence it follows that amulets may -be made in order to effect cures.” From this it appears that the Talmud -allows a man to have converse with evil spirits, and that this precedent -establishes the lawfulness of amulets. And this is the religion of the -oral law, these the doctrines and practices of the men who rejected -Jesus of Nazareth! Here is real heathenism, not one shade of which -appears in the New Testament. Oh! how different is this from the -doctrine of Moses and the prophets. The oral law sends sick men to seek -help in amulets and charms, but not to the God of Israel. Now what -difference is there between this and the conduct of Ahaziah, when he -fell down through the lattice in his upper chamber in Samaria, and was -sick? “He sent messengers, and said unto them, Go inquire of Beelzebub -the god of Ekron, whether I shall recover of this disease. But the angel -of the Lord said to Elijah the Tishbite, Arise, go up to meet the -messengers of the King of Samaria, and say unto them, Is it not because -there is not a God in Israel, that ye go to inquire of Beelzebub, the -god of Ekron?” (2 Kings i. 2, 3.) And so it may still be said to Israel, -Is it not because there is not a God in Israel, that ye go to amulets -and charms in order to get cured of your diseases? Moses points to God -as the great physician; he says, “Wherefore it shall come to pass, if ye -hearken to these judgments, and keep and do them, that the Lord thy God -shall keep unto thee the covenant and the mercy which he sware unto thy -fathers. And the Lord will take away from thee all sickness.” (Deut. vi. -12-15.) God himself says— - -אני ה׳ רופאך ׃ - -“I am the Lord that healeth thee.” (Exod. xv. 26.) But the oral law -leads men away from God, and tells them to go to an approved man and to -get an approved amulet, and for this allows to learn the language of -demons, and to compel them by adjuration to be subservient. Where, in -all the Old Testament, is there any thing like this? When the widow’s -son was sick, Elijah did not give her an amulet to make him well, and -yet, if there were such things, it might be supposed that he knew of -them, and knew how to make them; in short, that he was an approved man -and could make an approved amulet; but Elijah’s trust was not in such -heathen nonsense, but in the God of Israel. Before Him he prostrated -himself and said, “O Lord my God, I pray thee, let this child’s soul -come into him again.” (1 Kings xvii. 22.) When Hezekiah was sick, we -read not that he sent for an approved amulet, but that “He turned his -face towards the wall, and prayed unto the Lord.” Not charms, but faith -and prayer, are the amulets of the Old Testament, and also of the New. -The Lord Jesus Christ wrought many miracles of healing, and multitudes -of sick people applied to him for relief, but he never directed them to -amulets in order to attain it. His direction is, “Be not afraid, only -believe.” (Mark v. 36.) His disciples also wrought great miracles on the -sick, but not by amulets. Their confession is “His name, through faith -in his name, hath given him this perfect soundness in the presence of -you all.” (Acts iii. 16.) And their command is, not to wear amulets, but -to pray. “Is any sick among you? Let him call for the elders of the -Church; and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name -of the Lord; and the prayer of faith shall save the sick, and the Lord -shall raise him up; and if he have committed sins they shall be forgiven -him. The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much. -Elias was a man subject to like passions as we are, and he prayed -earnestly that it might not rain, and it rained not on the earth by the -space of three years and six months. And he prayed again, and the heaven -gave rain, and the earth brought forth her fruit.” (James v. 13-18.) -This is the doctrine of the New Testament, exactly agreeing with that of -Moses and the prophets, so that you need not fear that Christianity will -lead you to heathenism: on the contrary, it will lead you back from the -heathenism of magic and astrology, and amulets, to the God of Israel. - -But there is another feature in this doctrine concerning amulets, which -must not be overlooked, and that is that the manufacture of amulets may -be made a mere trade for collecting the money of the credulous. If a man -get a reputation as an approved manufacturer, the believers in the oral -law will naturally apply to him in case of sickness, or other -circumstances, where amulets are of service, and of course the remedy is -not to be had for nothing. We have known and heard of such things both -in the west and in the east. And thus the poor Israelites are led away -from the God of Israel, and induced, as the prophet says, “To spend -their money for that which is not bread, and their labour for that which -satisfieth not.” But what a testimony does this whole doctrine furnish -to the conduct and the doctrine of Jesus of Nazareth? His great -endeavour was to show the apostacy of the oral law, and to lead the -people back from tradition to the Holy Scriptures. Was he right or was -he wrong? Which is the religion, of the oral law or of the New -Testament, most agreeable to the religion revealed to Moses and the -prophets. Is the practice of magic a Mosaic doctrine? Is permission to -hold converse with evil demons a Mosaic doctrine? Is astrology a Mosaic -doctrine? Is the manufacture of amulets and charms a Mosaic doctrine? -No; they are all directly opposed to the doctrine and commandments of -Moses, and the practice of all the holy men of old. Are these things -doctrines of the oral law? Yes. Are they the doctrines of the New -Testament? No. Christians are taught to abstain from all such things. -Then in this, at least, Christianity is more like Mosaism. How long will -the Jews suffer themselves to be thus deluded and imposed upon? Many are -perhaps ignorant of the details of that system which they profess, but -such ignorance is highly culpable. If men profess a religion they ought -to know what it is, and what are its doctrines, and what the practices -which it prescribes. Modern Judaism teaches, as the truth of God, all -these heathenish notions and practices; it is time, then, for the Jews -to inquire whether this be the true religion in which they have -continued for so many centuries, and if not, to stand in the ways and -ask for the old paths. It is a vain thing for a few individuals of the -nation to attempt to deny that these superstitions are an essential -portion of modern Judaism. As long as the oral law is acknowledged to be -of Divine authority, that oral law must itself be taken as the witness -for its own doctrines, and the standard of the modern Jewish religion. -There is no possible middle course: either Jews must altogether and -publicly renounce the Talmud as false, superstitions, and heathenish, or -they must be content to be regarded in one of two characters, either as -its faithful disciples, who believe all it says, or as timid -men-pleasers, who are afraid to confess the truth of God, or to protest -against the errors of man, lest they should suffer some worldly loss or -inconvenience. But is it possible that cowards, in the cause of God, -should be found amongst the people of Gideon, who stood boldly against -the idolatry of a whole city, and overthrew the altar of Baal, or -amongst the offspring of Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah, who dared a -fiery furnace, or amidst the countrymen of Daniel who trembled not at -the view of the lion’s den? No, we will rather believe that all the Jews -are still bigoted Talmudists, and that when they cease to be, they will -come forward with the spirit of their fathers and the strength of their -God to vindicate the truth. - - - - - No. XXV. - CHARMS. - - -Both Jew and Gentile will agree that true religion is the fear of the -Lord, but the difficulty is how are we to know it, and what are the -marks that will help us to distinguish the true from the false? The Word -of God gives many, of which at present we select this one:— - -ראשית חכמה יראת ה׳ ׃ - -“The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom.” (Psalm cxi. 10.) True -religion, as the Bible teaches, does not only better the heart, but also -improves the understanding; whereas false religion not only corrupts, -but also makes its votaries foolish. This is the uniform representation -of the Bible, and thus we read of true religion, “The law of the Lord is -perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of the Lord is sure, making -wise the simple.” (Psalm xix. 7.) And again, the wisest of men says, -“Then shalt thou understand righteousness, judgment, and equity; yea, -every good path. When wisdom entereth into thine heart, and knowledge is -pleasant to thy soul, discretion shall preserve thee, understanding -shall keep thee.” (Prov. ii. 9-11.) The votaries of false religion are, -on the contrary, described as devoid of all wisdom. “They are altogether -brutish and foolish; the stock is a doctrine of vanities.” (Jer. x. 8.) -And again, “None considereth in his heart, neither is there knowledge -nor understanding to say, I have burned part of it in the fire; yea, -also, I have baked bread on the coals thereof; I have roasted flesh and -eaten it; and shall I make the residue thereof an abomination? Shall I -fall down to the stock of a tree? He feedeth on ashes; a deceived heart -hath turned him aside, that he cannot deliver his soul, nor say, Is -there not a lie in my right hand?” (Isaiah xliv. 19, 20.) According to -these passages of Scripture, wisdom is a test of true religion, and -folly of a false one, let us then apply this test to the religion of the -oral law, does it commend itself to the understanding by its wisdom, and -the wisdom of its teachers? It is true, that it speaks well of itself, -and calls all its doctors חכמים “Wise men,” but the chapter on amulets, -quite fresh in the memory of our readers, excites some doubts upon the -subject, though of these we consider only the theory. The histories, -which the Talmud gives of the Rabbinical practice with regard to such -charms, lead to the inevitable conclusion that wisdom is not one of the -characteristics of the oral law. Take for example the following -direction to stop a bleeding at the nose:— - -לדמא דאתי מנחירא ליתי גברא כהן דשמיה לוי ולכתוב ליה לוי למפרע ואי לא -ליתי אינש מעלמא ונכתוב ליה אנא פפי שילא בר סומקי למפרע ואי לא ניכתוב ליה -הכי טעם דלי במי כסף טעם דלי במי פגם ואי לא ליתיה עקרא דאספסתא ואשלא -דפורייא עתיקא וקורטסא ומוריקא וסומקא דלוליבא ונקלינהו בהדי הדדי וליתי -גבבא דעמרא וניגדול תרתי פתילתא ולטמיש בחלא וניגדבל בקיטמא הדין וניתיב -בנחירא ואי לא ליחזי אמת המים דאזלא ממזרח כלפי מערב וניפסע וניקום חד כרעא -להאי גיסא וחד כרעא להאי גיסא ונישקל טינא בידיה דימינא מתותי כרעא דשמאליה -ובידיה דשמאלא מתותי כרעא דימיניה ונגדול תרתי פתילתא דעמרא וניטמיש בטינא -וניתב בנחיריה ואי לא ליתיה תותא מרזבא ונייתי מיא ולישדי עליה ולימרו כי -היכי דפסקי הני מיא ליפסק דמיה דפלניא בר פלנירא ׃ - -“For a bleeding at the nose, let a man be brought who is a priest, and -whose name is Levi, and let him write the word Levi backwards. If this -cannot be done, get a layman, and let him write the following words -backwards:—‘Ana pipi Shila bar Sumki;’[23] or let him write these words, -‘Taam dli bemi keseph, taam li bemi paggan;’[24] or let him take a root -of grass, and the cord of an old bed, and paper and saffron, and the red -part of the inside of a palm tree, and let him burn them together, and -let him take some wool, and twist two threads, and let him dip them in -vinegar, and then roll them in the ashes, and put them into his nose. Or -let him look out for a small stream of water that flows from east to -west, and let him go and stand with one leg on each side of it, and let -him take with his right hand some mud from under his left foot, and with -his left hand from under his right foot, and let him twist two threads -of wool, and dip them in the mud, and put them into his nostrils. Or let -him be placed under a spout, and let water be brought and poured upon -him, and let them say, ‘As this water ceases to flow, so let the blood -of M., the son of the woman N., also cease.’” (Gittin, fol. 69, col. 1.) -Now we ask any Jew of common sense, whether this passage savours most of -wisdom or folly? Vinegar and water may be very useful in such a case, or -even mud, if used in sufficient quantity, might stop up the nose, and -therefore stop the bleeding too, but what manner of benefit can proceed -from the word Levi written backwards, or from those words which Rashi -pronounces to be magical? Why is the mud of water flowing from east to -west more efficacious, and why is it to be taken with the right hand -from under the left foot, and with the left hand from under the right -foot? Plainly because the authors of this passage thought there was some -charm or magic power, and their minds were so overpowered by -superstition, as to lead them to disregard the plain words of Moses -forbidding all magic. It cannot be pretended that this is a rare case, -the Talmud abounds in such remedies, all equally wise. For instance, -take the following mode of treatment for the scratch or bite of a mad -dog:— - -תנו רבנן חמשה דברים נאמרו בכלב שוטה פיו פתוח ורירו נוטף ואזניו סרוחות -וזנבו מונח לו על ירכותיו ומהלך בצדי דרכים ויש אומרים אף נובח ואין קולו -נשמע , ממאי הוי רב אמר נשים כשפניות משחקות בו , ושמואל אמר רוח רעה שורה -עליו , מאי בינייהו איכא בינייהו למקטליה בדבר הנזרק תניא כותיה דשמואל -כשהורגין אותו אין הורגין אותו אלא בדבר הנזרק דחייף ביה מסתכן דנכית ליה -מיית דחייף ביה מסתכן מאי תקנתיה נישלח מאניה ונירהוט תב הונא בריה דרב -יהושע חף ביה חד מינייהו בשוקא שלחינהו למאניה ורהיט אמר קיימתי בעצמי -והחכמה תחיה בעליה דנכית ליה מאית מאי תקנתיה אמר אביי ניתי משכא דאפא -דדיכרא וניכתוב עליה אנא פלניא בר פלניתא אמשכא דאפא דדיכרא כתיבנא עלך -כנתי כנתי קלירוס ואמרו לה קנדי קנדי קלורוס יה יה ה׳ צבאות אמן אמן סלה -ונשלחינהו למאניא ולקברינהו בי קברי עד תריסר ירחי שתא ונפקינהו ונקלינהו -בתנורא ונבדרינהו לקטמיה אפרשת דרכים והנך תריסר ירחי שתא כי שתי מיא לא -לשתי אלא בגובתא דנחשא דלמא חזי בבואיה דשידא וליסתכן כי הא דאבא בר מרתא -הוא אבא בר מניומי עבדי ליה אימיה גובתא דדהבא ׃ - -“The rabbies have handed down the tradition, that there are five things -to be observed of a mad dog: his mouth is open, his saliva flows, his -ears hang down, his tail is between his legs, and he goes by the sides -of the ways. Some say also, that he barks, but his voice is not heard. -What is the cause of his madness? Rav says, it proceeds from this, that -the witches are making their sport with him. Samuel says, it is an evil -spirit that rests upon him. What is the difference? The difference is -this, that in the latter case he is to be killed by some missile weapon. -The tradition[25] agrees with Samuel, for it says, In killing him no -other mode is to be used but the casting of some missile weapon. If a -mad dog scratch any one, he is in danger; but if he bite him he will -die. In case of a scratch there is danger; what then is the remedy? Let -the man cast off his clothes and run away. Rav Huna, the son of Rav -Joshua, was once scratched in the street by one of them; he immediately -cast off his clothes and ran away. He also says, I fulfilled in myself -those words, ‘Wisdom giveth life to them that have it.’ (Eccles. vii. -12.) In case of a bite, the man will die; what then is the remedy? Abai -says, He must take the skin of a male adder, and write upon it these -words, ‘I, M., the son of the woman N., upon the skin of a male adder, I -write against thee, Kanti, Kanti, Klirus.’ Some say, ‘Kandi, Kandi, -Klurus, Jah, Jah, Lord of Hosts, Amen, Amen, Selah.’ Let him also cast -off his clothes, and bury them in the grave-yard for twelve months of -the year; then let him take them up and burn them in an oven, and let -him scatter the ashes at the parting of the roads. But during these -twelve months of the year, when he drinks water, let him drink out of -nothing but a brass tube, lest he should see the phantom-form of the -demon and be endangered. This was tried by Abba, the son of Martha, who -is the same as Abba, the son of Manjumi. His mother made a golden tube -for him.” (Joma, fol. 83, col. 1.) This is a very plain case of the use -of an amulet and of magic, but whether it be a proof of profound wisdom -we leave to the judgment of the reader. What good can the poor man get -from certain words written on the skin of a male adder? or from first -burying and then burning his clothes, and scattering the ashes on the -cross-roads? It cannot be pretended that this is medical treatment, and -still less that it is the treatment commanded by the Word of God. If it -had pleased God to command all this, we should not only submit, but -gladly recommend this recipe in every similar case. To God Almighty no -man can prescribe. He chooses what means he pleases, and may do so -because his omnipotence can render them effectual. He healed the -Israelites bitten by the fiery serpents by the sight of the brazen -image, and he cured Naaman’s leprosy by bathing in the waters of Jordan. -Whatever then be the means which He prescribes, our highest wisdom is to -make use of them. But as he has not prescribed the means recommended by -the Talmud, but forbidden them in his general prohibition of magic, we -must say that the man who uses them has bid adieu to all true wisdom. No -wonder, then, if his own inventions are stamped with folly. But what -will our readers think of the cause of the canine madness here assigned? -“Rav says, It proceeds from the witches who are making their sport with -him. Samuel says, It is an evil spirit that rests upon him.” Rav -believed, then, that God, whose mercies are over all his works, allows -wicked women to torment his creatures, and to inflict upon them a -dreadful malady to make sport for themselves. Is this wise, is it -according to Scripture? This is the doctrine of the oral law; and if -Jesus of Nazareth had not protested against it, and taught a true -doctrine by asserting the truth of Scripture, this would be the -universal doctrine and practice of the Jews. Whoever believes the -Talmud, must believe in this and all the other follies which it -contains. Whoever rejects these things, confesses that the Talmud -contains what is false and foolish, and thereby shakes or rather -overthrows its authority. Some person will perhaps say that similar -superstitions and follies have been found amongst Christians. We grant -that this has been the case wherever Christians have departed from the -written Word of God, but can anything similar be found in the New -Testament? That book is our standard of Christianity. As you say that -the oral law is of divine authority, we say that the New Testament is of -divine authority. We point out to you these follies, not in individual -Jews, but in your book of authority. If you would make out a parallel -case, you must do the same. But you cannot. The New Testament has -nothing of the kind; and it is for you to explain how this happens that -the New Testament, which you believe to be false, is entirely free from -every thing of the kind. - -Further, we ask every right-minded Israelite, whether he is not shocked -at that profanation of the reverend and holy names of God which is here -not only countenanced but prescribed. What can a devout Jew think either -of the man or the book that tells us to write the names, - -יה יה יהוה צבאות ׃ - -“Jah, Jah, the Lord of Hosts,” by the side of such nonsense as Kanti, -Kanti, Klurus? Would he say that this is consistent with true religion? -And yet this profane use of the name of God for magical purposes, is not -rare in the Talmud. The following is another instance:— - -אמר רבה אשתעו לי נחותי ימא , האי גלא דמטבע לספינה מיתחזי כי צוציתא דנורא -חיוורתא ברישא ומחינן ליה באלוותא דחקיק עליה אהיה אשר אהיה יה ה׳ צבאות -אמן אמן סלה ונייח אמר רבה אשתעו לי נחותי ימא בין גלא לגלא תלת מאה פרסי -זמנא חדא הוה אזלינן באורחא ודלינן גלא עד דחזינן בי מרבעתא דכוכבא זוטא -והויא בי מבזר ארבעין גריוי בזרא דחרדלא , ואי דלינן טפי מקלינן מהבלי , -ורמי ליה גלא קלא לחברתה חברתי שבקת מידי בעלמא דלא שטפתיה דניתי אנא -ונאבדיה א׳׳ל הזי גבורתא דמריך מלא חוטא חלא ולא עברי שנאמר האותי לא תיראו -נאום ה׳ אם מפני לא תחילו אשר שמתי חול גבול לים חק עולם ולא יעברנהו ׃ - -“Rabbah says, They that go down to the sea have told me, that when a -wave is going to overwhelm a ship, sparks of white light are seen on its -head. But if we strike it with a staff on which are graved the words, ‘I -am that I am, Jah, Lord of Hosts, Amen, Amen, Selah,’ it subsides. They -that go down to the sea have told me, that the distance between one wave -and another, is three hundred miles. It happened once that we were -making a voyage, and we raised a wave until we saw the resting-place of -the least of all the stars. It was large enough to sow forty bushels of -mustard seed, and if we had raised it more we should have been burned by -the vapour of the star. One wave raised its voice and called to its -companion, O, companion, hast thou left anything in the world that thou -hast not overflowed? Come, and let us destroy it. It replied, Come and -see the power of thy Lord. I could not overpass the sand even a -hair’s-breadth, for it is written, ‘Fear ye not me? saith the Lord: will -ye not tremble at my presence, which have placed the sand for the bound -of the sea, by a perpetual decree that it cannot pass it?’ (Jer. v. -22.)” (Bava Bathra, fol. 73, col. 1.) Here is the same profanation of -the peculiar and holy names of God: it is to be engraved on a staff -either to lay or to raise the waves. But besides the profanity, just -consider the folly of this whole story. In the first place, it ascribes -to men, no matter whether they are good or wicked, absolute power over -the waves of the sea. Anybody can engrave those names of God upon a -staff, anybody can use the staff to strike the sea, and thus a wicked -man, without either faith, fear, or love of God, may make and use an -instrument which almost invests him with omnipotence. Is it possible -that any son of Israel can be so credulous as to believe such manifest -absurdity? But this story reminds us again of the utter disregard of -truth which characterises the Talmud. Here we are told that, by power of -this magic staff, a wave was raised so high as to enable those -travellers to see the resting-place of the smallest of all the stars, -and that so distinctly, too, as to be able to make a good guess at its -measure. The slightest knowledge of modern astronomy is sufficient to -show not only the improbability, but the utter impossibility of anything -of the kind. The least of the stars visible to the naked eye is at an -almost immeasurable distance from the earth, so as to make it perfectly -ludicrous to talk of a wave being raised to such a height. All the water -on the face of the globe would be far from sufficient for the formation -of one such wave. But the Talmud intimates that they had the power of -raising it still higher, and were prevented only by the fear of being -scorched. But the Talmud is not satisfied with these wonders, it goes on -to describe a conversation between two waves. The commentator, who -evidently believed every word of the story, suggest that this -conversation was carried on by the angels presiding over the waves. - -ורמי ליה גלא נתן קולו כלומר צעק כדוגמא תהום אל תהום קורא , ושמא מלאכים -הממונים עליהם הם ׃ - -“The wave lifted up his voice, that is, it cried, and so we find, ‘Deep -calleth unto deep.’ And perhaps this means the angels who were set over -them.” The commentator, it appears, had no doubt of the truth of the -story, and how should he have, if he believed in the Divine authority of -the Talmud? But we ask our readers do they believe this story—and if -they do not, why not? Because it is too absurd, and too far beyond the -bounds of possibility. Can, then, a book that swarms with similar -accounts be from God? By what means did all these things about magic, -astrology, amulets, magical cures, and staves, get into the Talmud? No -doubt they were put in by the authors. Either, then, the authors -believed in all these things, or they did not. If they did not believe -in them, then they were evidently bad men, who deliberately wrote -falsehood. But if they did believe these things, then, though not guilty -of wilful falsehood, they were credulous, superstitious persons, who had -no clear idea of the religion of Moses and the prophets; and in either -case they are most unsafe guides in religion. It is for the Jews of the -present day to consider whether they will still adhere to a system that -involves the belief of so many incredibilities and sanctions the -profanation of the names of God for the purposes of magic. Eighteen -centuries are surely long enough to have remained in such thick -darkness. Those who have been brought up in such a system ought now, at -least, to arise and ask what have they and their forefathers been about -all this while? And how it is that the New Testament, which they have -rejected, is entirely free from such deformities? Something has been -decidedly wrong, or the chosen people of God could not have remained so -long in captivity, unheeded and unhelped by the Holy One of Israel. An -exhibition of the doctrines of the oral law explains the cause. Israel -has departed from the religion of Moses, and pertinaciously adhered to a -system compounded of human inventions, and idolatrous heathenism. They -call Moses their master, and say that the oral law is derived from him, -but if we may from the work, form a conjecture about the author, it is -much more probably a tradition from the magicians of Egypt or the witch -of Endor. And if it had been handed down as such—if the Israelites had -presented the Talmud to the world and their posterity as part of the -heavy yoke of Egypt, we should not have been astonished at the -universality of its reception. But that Israel should ever have been so -far imposed upon, as to believe that Moses or the prophets ever had -anything to do with the oral law appears almost inexplicable. However -unwilling one may be to apply to fellow-sinners any prophecy that -contains a denunciation of God’s wrath, one cannot help asking, was it -of this that the prophet said, “The Lord hath poured out upon you the -spirit of deep sleep, and hath closed your eyes; the prophets and your -rulers the seers hath he covered. And the vision of all is become unto -you as the words of a book that is sealed, which men deliver to one that -is learned, saying, read this, I pray thee; and he saith, I cannot, for -it is sealed: and the book is delivered to him that is not learned, -saying, Read this, I pray thee, and he saith, I am not learned.” (Isaiah -xxix. 10-12.) This question is, however, far more important to Israel -than to us, and to them we leave the answer. Some will still persist in -the assertion that this heathenish compound is the highest wisdom. The -great majority of the nation is devoted to the Talmud, which is still -the cistern whence the synagogues endeavour to draw the waters of life. -The multitude does it in ignorance, they are, therefore, not so -culpable. But there are many that know better, what then is the reason -that they do not strain every nerve to deliver their brethren? These few -do not suffer the oral law to interfere either with their business or -their convenience. They profane the Sabbath, eat Gentile food, carry on -their business on feasts and festivals. If they do all this on -principle, why not protest against error? Is it because they are -indifferent to the welfare of their brethren? If indifference be the -only fruit of this intellectual progress, instead of rising above, they -have sunk below superstition itself. - -Footnote 23: - - The only explanation which Rashi gives of these words is לחש הוא “It - is a charm.” - -Footnote 24: - - Literally, לחש הוא “It is a charm.”—Rashi. - -Footnote 25: - - The Bareitha. - - - - - No. XXVI. - CHARMS CONTINUED. - - -If men would only employ in religion a little of that common sense and -earnestness, which they find so necessary for the affairs of this life, -they would by God’s blessing soon arrive at the truth. For example, if -the father of a family should find, that by following the advice of a -physician, sickness and death were constant guests, he would soon look -out for another; and he would be much quickened in his measures, if this -physician’s counsel had produced the same results in the house of his -father and his grandfather. He would not think it any shame, under such -circumstances, to change his father’s physician for another; on the -contrary, he would think, and most men would agree with him, that it -would be both a sin and a shame to retain him. Now let Israel make the -application to their spiritual physicians, the Scribes, Pharisees, and -Rabbies. For many centuries they have punctually followed their advice, -and the consequence has been one misfortune after another, and centuries -of exile from the land which God gave to their fathers; the very -contrary of that which God has promised. God has said, if the Jews will -obey the religion of Moses, that they shall be restored to their land. -“It shall come to pass ... if thou shalt return unto the Lord thy God, -and shalt obey his voice according to all that I command thee this day, -thou and thy children, with all thy heart and with all thy soul; that -then the Lord thy God will turn thy captivity, and have compassion upon -thee, and will return and gather thee from all nations,” &c. (Deut. xxx. -2, 3.) The Jews have obeyed the commands of the rabbies, and have not -been gathered; what is the conclusion? Either that God’s promise has -failed, which is impossible, or that the religion of the rabbies is not -the religion of Moses. Such is the inevitable conclusion from the words -of Moses and the facts of the case; let it then lead the sufferers to -examine the religion which they have hitherto professed. A very little -examination will convince any reasonable man, that it is a fearful -corruption of divine truth, a compilation made by men who professed to -be astrologers and magicians. Let not the Jews think that our opinion is -the result of prejudice. It has been deliberately formed on evidence -furnished by the oral law itself. If we are wrong, let the rabbies prove -the contrary. Let them, for example, explain the following law of modern -Judaism. - -מי שנשכו עקרב או נחש מותר ללחוש אל מקום הנשיכה ואפילו בשבת כדי לישב דעתו -ולחזק לבו אף על פי שאין הדבר מועיל כלום הואיל ומסוכן הוא התירו לו כדי -שלא תטרף דעתו עליו ׃ - -“If any person be bitten by a scorpion or a serpent, it is lawful to -charm the place of the bite, even on the Sabbath-day, in order to quiet -his mind, and to encourage his heart, although it is a thing utterly -profitless. Because the man is in danger, they have pronounced this -lawful for him that his mind may not be distracted.” (Hilchoth Accum. c. -xi. 11.) Here the rabbies have allowed what God has absolutely -forbidden. The men who profess such reverence for the Sabbath allow it -to be profaned by magic, which is one of the works of the devil. Rambam, -whose words we have just quoted, felt that it was both wicked and -foolish, and has therefore endeavoured to furnish an excuse, saying that -it is of no use, and is only allowed to quiet the mind of the sufferer. -But that does not alter the unlawfulness. Besides, what sort of opinion -could Rambam and the rabbies have had of the Jews, when they say that -magic is permitted in order to quiet their minds? They evidently -supposed that the Jews were a weak and superstitious people, who -believed so firmly in charms, that the use of them would quiet the mind; -and so ignorant or careless about God’s commandments, that they could be -comforted by their transgressions. The excuse, therefore, only makes the -case worse. It takes for granted that the professors of the oral law are -ignorant and superstitious; and then to quiet their minds allows the -transgression of the law of Moses, and that on the Sabbath-day. But this -excuse is altogether Rambam’s invention. The original passage in the -Talmud says nothing about quieting the man’s mind, it simply says— - -ולוחשין לחישת נחשים ועקרבים בשבת ׃ - -“It is lawful to charm serpents and scorpions on the Sabbath-day.” -(Sanhedrin, fol. 101, col. 1.) And Rashi’s commentary on the passage— - -בשביל שלא יזיקו ׃ - -“That they may not do injury.” This man, then, who spent his life in the -study of the Talmud, knew nothing of Rambam’s apology. He plainly -believed that by charming serpents on the Sabbath, they might be -prevented from doing harm, and that on this account, and not for the -purpose of quieting the mind, they were permitted so to do. This was -also the opinion of that famous expounder of Jewish law, the Baal Turim, -for after quoting Rambam’s words, he adds:— - -מי שרודפים אחריו נחש או עקרב מותר להבר ללחש כדי שלא יזיקוהו כתב הרמב׳׳ם -הלוחש על המכה והקורא פסוק מן התורה וכן הקורא על התינוק שלא יבעת או מניח -ס׳׳ת או תפילין על הקטן לא די להם שהם בכלל חברים ומנחשים אלא שהם בכלל -הכופרים בתורה שעושין דברי תורה רפואת הגוף ואינן אלא רפואת הנפש ור׳׳י -פירש דוקא בלוחש על המכה ומזכיר שם שמים ורוקק אותו הוא שאין לו חלק לעולם -הבא אבל אם אינו רוקק לא חמיר כולי האי ומיהו איסורא איכא בלוחש פסוק על -המכה אפילו בלא רקיקה ובלא הזכרת שם שמים , ואם יש כו סכנת נפשות הכל מותר -ומותר לקרוא פסוק פהגן כגון בלילה על מטתו ׃ - -“If any person be pursued by a serpent or a scorpion, it is lawful to -charm it to prevent it from doing injury. Rambam has written, He that -charms a wound, or reads a verse from the law (as a charm), and also he -that reads over an infant that it may not be afraid, or who lays a roll -of the law or phylacteries upon a child, are not only to be accounted as -one of the charmers and magicians, but as of the deniers of the law, for -they use the words of the law as medicine for the body, whereas it is -only a medicine for the soul. R. Isaac says absolutely, that he who -charms a wound, mentioning at the same time the name of God and -spitting, is the charmer of whom it is said that he has no share in the -world to come: but if he does not spit, the matter is not so grave. It -is, however, forbidden to use a verse as a charm over a wound, even -though there will be no spitting nor mentioning the name of God. _But if -life be in danger, every thing is lawful_; and it is lawful to read a -verse as a defence, for instance at night in bed.” (Joreh Deah. § 179.) -From this it is pretty plain that the charming of serpents was allowed, -not as Rambam says to quiet the mind of him that had been bitten, but to -prevent injury, for it is allowed before the man is bitten at all, if he -be only pursued by a serpent or a scorpion. But what a picture does this -whole passage give us of the religious state of the Rabbinic Jews, both -rabbies and people. Here you have the people described, not by -Christians, but by the rabbies themselves, as sunk in the depths of -superstition, using a sepher torah, a roll of the law, or phylacteries -as a sort of charm for the benefit of children, and you have the rabbies -forbidding this at one time, but allowing what is equally forbidden by -God, to charm serpents: and, in case of danger, declaring that “Every -thing is lawful,” that is, allowing them to do what will make them, -according to Rambam’s opinion, charmers, magicians, and deniers of the -law. And this is the Jewish religion, and this is what the Jews have -gained by rejecting Christianity. We, poor Gentiles, who cannot trace -our pedigree to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, should be ashamed of such -follies. And if such wicked heathenish practices were to be found in our -religious books, we would not let an hour pass over until we had lifted -up our voice and protested against them, and should use every lawful -means to deliver our children from such ungodliness and error. - -We have now given quotations from the two great digests of Jewish law on -the subject of using charms, but it is worth while to consider the -context of the original passage, upon which these laws are based, as -that will prove that the Talmud has not been misrepresented by its -compilers. - -תנו רבנן סכין וממשמשין בבני מעיין בשבת ולוחשין לחישת נחשים ועקרבים בשבת -ומעבירין כלי על גב העין בשבת אמר רבן שמעון בן גמליאל במה דברים אמורים -בכלי הניטל אבל בכלי שאינו ניטל אסור ואין שואלין בדבר שדים בשבת ר׳ יוסי -אומר אף בחול אסור אמר רב הונא אין הלכה כר׳ יוסי ואף ר׳ יוסי לא אמרה אלא -משום סכנה כי הא דרב יצחק בר יוסף דאיבלע בארזא ואתעביד ליה ניסא פקע ארזא -ופלטיה ׃ - -“Our rabbies have handed down the tradition that it is lawful to anoint -and rub the stomach (of a sick man) on the Sabbath, also to charm -serpents and scorpions on the Sabbath: also to pass an instrument across -the eye on the Sabbath. R. Simeon, the son of Gamaliel, says, that this -only applies to an instrument which may be moved,[26] but with one that -may not be moved, it is unlawful. But it is unlawful on the Sabbath to -make inquiry of demons. R. Jose says, this is also unlawful on -week-days. Rav Huna says, the decision is not according to R. Jose: and -R. Jose himself said this only on account of danger, for that is what -occurred in the case of R. Isaac, the son of Joseph, who was swallowed -up in a cedar tree, but a miracle was wrought for him—the cedar opened -and cast him out.” (Sanhedrin, fol. 101, col. 1.) We have here, first, -the charming of serpents; we ask, then, could the Talmudic doctors -really believe in such folly or allow such wickedness on the Sabbath? Is -there any misunderstanding, or does the context show, that they were men -of that superstitious turn of mind to justify this idea? The context is -all of a piece, for after permitting the charming of serpents, it goes -on to discuss the lawfulness of asking counsel of demons, and here Rashi -shall explain what this means:— - -בדבר שדים שכן עושין כשאובדין שום דבר שואלין במעשה שדים והם מגּידים להם -ואסור לעשות בשבת משום ממצוא חפציך ׃ - -“To make inquiry of demons, is what they do when any thing is lost. They -make inquiry by the work of demons, and they tell them, and this is -forbidden on the Sabbath, on account of the words, ‘Not finding thine -own pleasure.’ (Isaiah lviii. 13.)” This is plainly a magical operation, -but yet the rabbies do not say that it is unlawful because it is -magical, but because it would be attending to one’s own concerns. In -like manner, they say, it is unlawful on week-days, only on account of -the danger. And an instance is given in Rabbi Isaac of what might -happen; and here, again, we ask counsel of Rashi, in order to understand -what Rabbi Isaac was about. This commentator tells us:— - -היה שואל במעשה שדים ובקש השד להזיקו ונעשה לו נס ובלעו הארז ׃ - -“He was asking counsel, by means of a demoniacal operation, and the -demon sought to do him an injury, but a miracle was wrought for him, and -a cedar tree swallowed him.” Such, then, is the context, those men who -permit the charming of serpents, also teach the doctrine of asking -advice of demons, and give us a practical example in one of their -friends. There can, therefore, be no mistake; the one feature of their -religious system exactly agrees with the other: and the authors of the -oral law represent themselves as patrons and practisers of charms and -magic, and therefore to every lover of the Mosaic law, as unwise and -ungodly men. It is, however, curious to see how they endeavoured to -quiet their own conscience, and that of the people, in a matter so -evidently repugnant to the plain words of Scripture. They pretended, -that there was a holy sort of magic in the practical Cabbala, which men -might learn, and then perform the greatest miracles. - -אי בעו צדיקי ברו עלמא שנאמר כי עונותיכם היו מבדילים וגו׳ רבא ברא גברא -שדריה לקמיה דר׳ זירא הוה קא משתעי בהדיה ולא הוה קא מהדר ליה אמר ליה מן -חבריא את הדר לעפריך רב חנינא ורב אושעיא הוו יתבי כל מעלי שבתא ועסקו בספר -יצירה ומיברו להו עיגלא תילתא ואכלי ליה ׃ - -“If the righteous wished, they might create the world, for it is -written, ‘But your sins separate, &c.’ Rabba created a man, and sent him -to Rabbi Zira. He spoke with him, but when the other did not answer him, -he said, Thou art from the magicians, return to thy dust. Rav Chanina -and Rav Oshaia used to sit every Sabbath eve and study the book of -Jetzirah, and then created for themselves a three-years-old calf, and -ate it.” (Sanhedrin, fol. 65, col. 2.) The second miracle is here -ascribed to the study of a certain book. In Rashi the first miracle -performed by Rabba is ascribed to the same source. - -ברא גברא ע׳׳י ספר יצירה שמלמדו צרוף אותיות של שם ׃ - -“He created the man by means of the book of Jetzirah, for it taught him -the combination of the letters of the name of God.” According to this -account, these rabbies were much greater men than Moses or any of the -prophets, for in the whole Old Testament there is not one such miracle -recorded. Moses never created any thing, neither did he perform any of -his miracles without the help of God. Either the Lord immediately -commanded him, or he sought the Lord’s help. But these rabbies acquired -the power of omnipotence by studying a particular book, and exercised it -either for their amusement or their profit. Rabba created a man, and -sent him to Rabbi Zira, not as it appears to do any good, or to glorify -God, but simply to show his power, or to act a little bit of waggery; -and the other two created a fat calf for themselves every Sabbath eve, -that they might have a good dinner. The difference between these -miracles and those recorded in Scripture is obvious. The Scripture -miracles are either for the glory of God, or the good of man. The -rabbinical miracles are altogether for the glory of man, and the -gratification of self. Moses smote the rock, and supplied all Israel -with water. The rabbies create a calf, and eat it themselves. No doubt -there were many poor people in Israel at the time of Rabbies Oshaia and -Chanina, who would have been very glad of a calf for their Sabbath -dinner, why did they not create a calf or two for them? This selfish -falsehood betrays itself, and bears on its front its own condemnation. -The whole doctrine of the combination of the letters in the name of God -is a pure invention of men, whose minds have been debased by -superstition. There is not a word about it in the whole Bible, and it is -derogatory to the honour of God, who is the only Creator. - -The whole Talmudic doctrine of magic does, however, explain the reason -why the Scribes and Pharisees were so little moved by the real miracles -of Jesus of Nazareth and his disciples. Their minds were fully possessed -with faith in the power of cabalistic magic, they therefore were -insensible to the real displays of divine power. They were in the same -state of mind as Pharaoh and his magicians, who looked on the miracles -of Moses as a mere proof of magical skill, and hardened their hearts. -Even when they confessed “This is the finger of God,” they were not -converted. Pharaoh still persisted in his resistance. And so it was with -the Scribes and Pharisees. When the Lord had raised Lazarus from the -dead, “then gathered the chief priests and the Pharisees in council, and -said, What do we? for this man doeth many miracles.” They acknowledged -the fact of the miracles, but did not receive their evidence, for they -believed that the study of the book of Jetzirah would enable them to do -greater. No miracle, therefore, could convince them. But besides this, -their hearts were corrupt, and they had apostatized from the law of -Moses; they therefore did not love the truth. They had turned aside to -charms and magic, and asking counsel of demons; and when men do this, -the understanding becomes darkened, so that it is rendered impervious to -the light. Their unbelief, therefore, becomes an evidence to the truth -of Christianity. If such transgressors of the law of Moses, and such -unblushing relaters of falsehood had believed, it would have cast a -shade of suspicion over the whole Gospel history. If the men, who say -that Rabba created a man, and the two other worthies created a calf -every week, had appeared as witnesses for the truth of Christianity, the -miracles of the Gospel would have appeared in one category with these -most absurd fictions. But when such men appear as the enemies and -persecutors of Jesus, it testifies that He was not one of them, and that -as they were bad men, and loved a false system, his doctrine must -necessarily have had something good in it, or they would not have -opposed it. - -But this doctrine explains still more clearly the cause of God’s wrath -against Israel. The Jews boast that since the Babylonian captivity, they -have been free from idolatry, but this is not true. They have not made -images, that is, they have avoided the form, but they have retained all -the substance of idolatrous heathenism. The man who charms a serpent is -an idolater, and the religion which permits it is idolatrous and -heathenish. The man who asks counsel of demons is an idolater of the -worst class, for he does homage to unclean spirits. He turns his back -upon the allwise God, who ought to be the counsellor of all his -children, and by making demons his advisers, makes them his gods, and -yet this is also allowed in the religion of the rabbies if it can be -done without danger. Those Jews, therefore, who believe in the oral -law—that is, all Jews who make use of the synagogue prayers, have -departed from the law and the God of Moses, and have chosen for -themselves the doctrines and the gods of the rabbies. How then can God -have compassion upon them and gather them? The thing is impossible, -until they utterly renounce all these delusions, confess their sin in -having followed them so long, and “return and seek the Lord their God -and David their king.” A long trial has been made of the rabbinical -medicine, and it has altogether failed. Wherever the religion of the -oral law has been or is predominant, its sway has been marked by the -misery of the people. And the first dawn of a happier day has appeared -only since the time that a part of the nation burst the fetters of -rabbinic superstition. Compare the state of the German Jews with that of -their brethren in Turkey or on the coast of Morocco. Some of the former -have abandoned the oral law, and the latter still cling to it with a -bigoted devotion; and yet the former have had a blessing in the -improvement of their temporal and intellectual condition, and the latter -still remain in mental and corporeal slavery. The mere renunciation of -Rabbinism has produced these beneficial effects, and if the Jews of -Europe go on from the renunciation of error to the attainment of truth, -that is, if they return to the religion of Moses and the prophets, the -promises of God will be fulfilled, and the nation will be restored to -the land of their fathers. - -The Rabbinic Jews comfort themselves with the idea, that they cannot -have this world and the world to come too; but they confound two things -which are perfectly distinct, God’s mode of dealing with individuals, -and his mode of dealing with nations. Individuals have not only an -existence in time, but for eternity. Worldly misfortune to an individual -is, therefore, no proof of God’s displeasure, because the world is only -a part, and that the smallest part, of his existence. But the case of -nations is different. They exist only in time, and therefore the rewards -and punishments must be temporal, and so God has uniformly promised to -the Jewish people temporal prosperity, in case of national obedience, -and temporal calamity in the former case. Whenever, therefore, we see -Israel exiled from their land and scattered among the nations, we must -infer, if Moses has spoken the truth, that it is because they have -departed from the God of their fathers. - -Footnote 26: - - Such as a key, a ring, or a knife.—Rashi. - - - - - No. XXVII. - SABBATIC LAWS. - - -How little the oral law has hitherto done to promote the peace and -happiness of Israel, we considered in our last number. It may, however, -be replied, that it has not had a fair trial, and that the failure is to -be attributed rather to the people than to the law. This possible reply -naturally leads us to think, what then would be the state of Israel and -of the world at large, if the oral law were universally and exactly -observed, and its disciples had supreme dominion in the world? Suppose -that all the kingdoms of the world were melted into one vast and -universal monarchy, and the sceptre swayed by a devout and learned -rabbi, and all the magisterial offices filled by able and zealous -Talmudists, would the world be happy? This is a fair question, and well -deserves consideration, for there can be no doubt that true religion was -intended by its Divine Author to promote the happiness of his -creatures:— - -דוכיה דרכי נועם וכל נתיבוביה שלום ׃ - -“Her ways are ways of pleasantness, and all her paths are peace.” (Prov. -iii. 17.) And that not of a few, but of all without exception. - -הלא אב אחד לכלנו , הלא אל אחד בראנו ׃ - -“Have we not all one father? Hath not one God created us?” (Mal. ii. -10.) That religion, therefore, cannot be of God, which would make the -greatest portion of his creatures miserable, and confer happiness on a -very limited number. The religion that came from heaven, wherever it -exists, must contain the elements of happiness for all nations, and -include all the families of man. It must exclude none but the wilfully -and obstinately wicked, who carry the torments of hell in their own -bosom, and would be necessarily unhappy even in heaven itself. A -religion, whose principles, if triumphant, would effect so desirable a -consummation, must be true. The question is, whether modern Judaism, if -it had full and free scope for the realization of all its principles, -would bear such blessed fruit? Our late inquiries about amulets and -magic led us to consider some of the laws about the Sabbath-day, and as -when true religion prevails, this ought to be the happiest day of the -week, the laws respecting it shall furnish materials for our answer. -That a rabbinical Sabbath would be the happiest day in the week we much -doubt, for, in the first place, to keep the rabbinical Sabbath aright, -it is necessary to be perfectly acquainted with all the laws relating to -it, which are very many and very intricate, occupying even in Rambam’s -compendium, including the notes, above one hundred and seventy folio -pages.[27] That any conscientious man can be happy with such a load of -law about his neck appears impossible. He must be in continual fear and -trembling lest he should through forgetfulness or inadvertence be guilty -of transgression, and the continued watchfulness and anxiety would be -more intolerable than the hardest labour. But if Rabbinism wielded the -supreme power, he would have to dread the most severe and immediate -punishment:— - -שביתה בשביעי ממלאכה מצות עשה שנאמר וביום השביעי תשבות , וכל העושה בו -מלאכה ביטל מצות עשה ועבר על לא תעשה שנאמר לא תעשה כל מלאכה , ומהו חייב -על עשיית מלאכה אם עשה ברצונו בזדון חייב כרת ואם היה שם עדים והתראה נסקל -ואם עשה בשגגה חייב קרבן הטאת קבועה ׃ - -“To rest on the seventh day from work is an affirmative precept, for it -is said, ‘On the seventh day thou shalt rest.’ Whosoever, therefore, -does any work, annuls an affirmative, and transgresses a negative -precept, for it is said, ‘Thou shalt do no manner of work.’ What is -meant by being guilty on account of doing work? If it be done -voluntarily and presumptuously, the meaning is, that he is liable to -excision, and if there were witnesses and a warning, he is to be stoned. -If he did it in error, he must bring a certain sin-offering.” (Hilchoth -Shabbath, c. i. 1.) This sounds something like the law of Moses, but is -in reality far more severe. The whole force depends upon the meaning of -the word “work,” and the rabbinical sense would entirely destroy the -peace of society. If, for instance, a poor man could not afford to have -his Sabbath lamp burn all day, and should extinguish it to save the oil; -or if a humane man should see burning coals in some place likely to do -injury to others, and should extinguish them, they would both be guilty, -and if some zealous Talmudists happened to be present, and first -remonstrated with them on the unlawfulness of the act, they would both -be tried, found guilty, and stoned to death:— - -כל העושה מלאכה בשבת אע׳׳פ שאינו צריך לגופה של מלאכה חייב עליה , כיצד הרי -שכבה את הנר מפני שהוא צריך לשמן או לפתילה כדי שלא יאבד או כדי שלא ישרף -או כדי שלא יבקע חרס של נר מפני שהכבוי מלאכה והרי נתכוון לכבות ואע׳׳פ -שאין צריך לגוף הכבוי ולא כבה אלא מפני השמן או מפני החרס או מפני הפתילה -הרי זה חייב , וכן המעביר את הקוץ ד׳ אמות ברה׳׳ר או המכבה את הגחלת כדי -שלא יזוקו בו רבים חייב ואע׳׳פ שאינו צריך לגוף הכבוי או לגוף חהעברה אלא -להרחיק ההיזק הרי זה חייב וכן כל כיוצא בזה ׃ - -“Whosoever does any work on the Sabbath, even though he does not do it -for the sake of the work itself, is nevertheless guilty. How so? If, for -instance, a man extinguishes a lamp, because he wants the oil or the -wick, and wishes that it should not waste, nor be burned, or that the -earthenware part of the lamp should not be cracked; inasmuch as the -extinguishing is work, and his intention was to extinguish it: although -the mere act of extinguishing it was not the ultimate object, but on the -contrary, the saving of the oil or the wick, or the earthen lamp, he is, -nevertheless, guilty. And in like manner, whosoever, removes thorns a -distance of four ells in a public place, or whosoever extinguishes coals -to prevent the public from being injured, is guilty: although the -ultimate object was not the extinguishing nor the moving, but he simply -intended to prevent the injury, he is guilty, and so in all similar -cases.” (Ibid.) If this were the law of the land, and the executive were -in the hands of Talmudistic zealots, the peace of the world would be at -an end. The poor man could not be happy, when he saw his little property -wasting; and the humane man would either be made miserable at the -thought of being able to prevent much injury, and yet not doing it, or -would have to expose himself to the danger of a cruel and ignominious -death. We know enough of the general character of the Jewish nation to -believe that there are amongst them those who would brave the danger, -whose generous hearts would rise above personal considerations, but how -dreadful would be the consequences! A man of a tender heart, the father -of a family, would be induced, by the best of feelings, to save his -fellow-men from injury. He would return to his family, and tell them how -God had given him an opportunity of doing good. The family worthy of -such a father would rejoice to hear the information, but the sequel of -his story would turn their joy into mourning. He would have to tell them -that ignominious death would be the consequence, and that because he -dared to do an act of charity, and to love his brother as himself, the -morrow would see his wife a widow and his children orphans. But suppose, -that when he performed the act, he had been attended by two of his sons, -now grown up, and zealots for the oral law—that they had warned him, and -then became his accusers, as they must, if firm believers in Talmudic -religion, he would have the additional pangs of seeing his own flesh and -blood as the foremost of his executioners. This one law would clothe the -world with mourning, and make the light of the Sabbath sun the curse of -mankind. Though men might be found at first to brave the danger, the -course of time and the inflexible severity of the law would soon -annihilate all generous feeling. Children would be trained up with the -idea that humanity is not a Sabbath virtue, and the constant resistance -of the tender feelings would harden the heart, and mankind in time -become totally insensible on week-days as well as Sabbath-days; and thus -the enforcement of this one law would produce universal selfishness, and -this would certainly not promote the happiness of the world. But take -another case of a man, who leaves his home on the Friday morning to go a -short distance into the country, intending to return before the -commencement of the Sabbath; he meets with an accident, and breaks a -limb; on the Sabbath he is sufficiently restored to think of the anxiety -of his family, and writes a short note to inform them of his state, this -act of common love and kindness would cost him his life; nay, if he had -only begun the letter, and then overcome by fear or weakness, had left -it unfinished, a rabbinic tribunal would condemn him to be stoned. - -כל המתכוון לעשות מלאכה בשבת והתחיל בה ועשה כשיעור חייב אע׳׳פ שלא השלים -כל המלאכה שנתכוון להשלימה , כיצד הרי שנתכוון לכתוב אגרת או שטר בשבת אין -אומרים לא יתחייב זה עד שישלים חפצו ויכתות כל השטר או כל האגרת אלא -משיכתוב שתי אותיות חייב ׃ - -“Whosoever intends to do any work on the Sabbath, and begins it, and -does a certain measure, is guilty, although he does not finish all that -he intended. How so? Suppose he intended to write a letter, or a -contract on the Sabbath, it is not to be thought that he will not be -guilty until he finish his business, and write the whole contract or the -whole letter. On the contrary, as soon as he shall have written two -letters (of the alphabet) he is guilty.” (Ibid.) And consequently, if it -can be proved, must be stoned. Every one’s daily experience will tell -them of the many similar cases where a letter may be necessary for the -peace or well-being of an individual or a family, and where the delay of -a day would be a serious injury. If rabbinism held the reins of power, -the anxiety, the sorrow, the injury must all be endured; the Sabbath-day -must be made a burden and a curse, instead of a blessing, or life itself -must be exposed to danger. But this would not be the only misery. These -sanguinary laws would, as religious laws, bind the consciences of the -weak and superstitious. A man’s domestics, or his children, or even his -wife, would become spies over all his Sabbath doings, and the denouncers -of every transgression; and thus domestic confidence, without which not -even the shadow of happiness can exist, would be destroyed, and a man’s -foes would be those of his own household. Much has lately been thought -and said about the sanguinary nature of the laws of England, but the -laws of Draco himself were merciful when compared with the religious -enactments of the rabbies. Draco only sentenced to death men convicted -of a crime. The oral law condemns to stoning the man, woman, or child -who will venture to write two letters of the alphabet, or even who will -extinguish fire to prevent a public injury. Nay, in some cases, where it -actually pronounces a man innocent, it nevertheless commands him to be -flogged. - -נתכוון ללקוט תאנים שחורות וליקט לבנות או שנתכוון ללקוט תאנים ואחר כך -ענבים ונהפך הדבר וליקט הענבים בתחלה ואח׳׳כ תאנים פטור אע׳׳פ שליקט כל מה -שחשב הואיל ולא ליקט כסדר שחשב פטור שבלא כוונה עשה שלא אסרה התורה אלא -מלאכת מחשבת ׃ - -“If a man intended to gather black figs, but gathered white figs, or if -he intended to gather figs and afterwards grapes, but the matter has -been inverted, and he gathered the grapes first, and afterwards the -figs, he is not guilty. Although he have gathered all that he thought of -gathering, yet, because he did not gather them in the intended order, he -is not guilty, for he did what was unintentional, and the law forbids -only intentional work.” (Ibid.) We pass by the manifest absurdity of -this decision, which is, however, sufficient to prove that this law is -not of God, because it is more important to consider what is to be done -with a man not guilty. The law of England, or any other civilized -country, would say, of course, that he is to go free; but not so the -oral law, it commands that the man should be flogged. - -וכל מקום שנאמר שהעושה דבר זה פטור , הרי זה פטור מן הכרת ומן הסקילה ומן -הקרבן אבל אסור לעשות אותו דבר בשבת ואיסורו מדברי סופרים והוא הרחקה מן -המלאכה והעושה אותו בזדון מכין אותו מכות מרדות ׃ - -“Wherever it is said, he that doeth anything is not guilty, the meaning -is, that he is not liable to excision, nor stoning, nor a sacrifice, but -that thing is unlawful to be done, and the prohibition is of the words -of the Scribes, and is intended as a removal from the possibility of -work: and he that does it presumptuously, is to be flogged with the -flogging of rebellion.” (Ibid.) Here, then, we have a whole class of -crimes which the oral law itself allows are no crimes according to the -law of Moses, but which it thinks fit to punish with that dreadful and -degrading infliction. Are the professors of this traditional religion -really acquainted with its ordinances? or can any man believe that a -religion which, if it had full scope and power, would become the torment -of the human race, can emanate from God? - -If ever this religion attains supreme power, its adherents will be -reduced to a state of the most deplorable bondage, but what would be its -effect upon the other nations of the world? It would, in the first -place, deprive all other nations of a Sabbath; for we have already -quoted the law (No. 3, p. 22), which decides, “That a Gentile who keeps -a Sabbath, though it be on one of the week-days is guilty of death,” and -though not to be executed, is yet to be flogged. This would be a very -serious diminution from the happiness of millions of human beings. The -Gentile—who, like the Jew, must earn his bread by the sweat of his brow, -and devote six days to the concerns of the world—requires a day of rest -from secular labours, and cares, and thoughts, to relieve his body and -to refresh his soul, and hold communion with his God. Of this the oral -law would deprive him, or, if his conscience compelled him to sanctify -one day in seven, he would have to purchase his spiritual enjoyment by -corporeal suffering. Many would, no doubt, be terrified at the thought -of the punishment, and all trace of a Sabbath would in time cease -amongst the Gentiles. The multitude would soon be left destitute of -religious instruction, and general vice and misery be the consequence. -This religion, then, of the oral law, would certainly not promote the -happiness of the Gentiles, and they are the overwhelming majority of -mankind: it therefore cannot be of God. But the violent deprivation of a -holy day of rest would be far from producing kindly feelings towards the -Jews. Mankind would rebel against such oppression; and the religion -which commanded it instead of obtaining their reverence, as it ought to -do if true, would become their detestation. This unhappy feeling would -be increased by other similar laws, equally wanting in charity. For -instance— - -אין מילדין את הגויה בשבת ואפילו בשכר ואין חוששין לאיבה ואע׳׳פ שאין שם -חילול השם אבל מילדין את בת גר תושב מפני שאנו מצווין להחיותו ואין מחללין -עליה את השבת ׃ - -“A Gentile woman is not to be delivered upon the Sabbath, not even for -payment, neither is the enmity to be regarded. It is not to be done, -even though no profanation of the Sabbath should be implied. But the -daughter of a sojourning proselyte may be delivered, for we are -commanded to preserve the life of such, but the Sabbath is not to be -profaned on her account.” (Ibid. chap. ii. 12.) We ask every Jew who has -got the heart of a man, whether such a law can be from God? or whether -the religion of which it forms a part can be true? A poor woman, in the -hour of her extremity, is to be left to her fate, simply because she is -an idolatress. The mother and the child are both to be left to perish, -because, either through her own fault, or through the circumstances of -her birth, she has remained ignorant of the true God. But grant, for the -sake of argument, that the mother is so hardened a sinner as to be -beyond the mercies of sinful men, what has the child done, that its life -is to be given as a sport to chance? Is that the way to convert a sinner -from the error of her ways, or to recommend the true religion? The most -besotted of idolaters, who believes at all in a Divine and merciful -being, would pronounce such religion false. A few such cases would soon -spread through the world, and Judaism become the aversion of every heart -that can sympathize with suffering. And thus, if true, it would confirm -all mankind in error. But it cannot be: the religion that comes from God -bears the impress of its author, and teaches such love and kindness that -the practice of it softens, where it does not convert. Its bitterest -enemies must confess that its practical principles are worthy of all -admiration. But there is here a second case, the daughter of a -sojourning proselyte, towards whom the oral law is a little more -lenient, it allows such an one to be delivered, but does not permit the -Sabbath to be profaned on her account. Suppose then that such an one -found herself in the midst of Jews, and after her delivery required the -comfort of a fire or warm food for herself or her infant, or any other -assistance that would imply a breach of the Sabbath, it could not be -done, but for an Israelitess it may be done; can this proceed from Him -who seeks the happiness of all his creatures? It cannot be said that -this is a rare case, for it is easy to show that this is the general -spirit of the oral law:— - -היתה חצר שיש בה גוים וישראלים אפילו ישראל אחד ואלף גוים ונפלה עליהם -מפולת מפקחין על הכל מפני ישראל , פירש אחד מהם לחצר אחרת ונפלה אליו אותו -חצר מפקהין עליו שמא זה שפירש היה ישראל והנשארים גוים , נעקרו כולן מחצר -זו לילך לחצר אחרת ובעת עקירתן פירש אחד מהם ונכנס לחצר אחרת ונפלה עליו -מפולת ואין ידוע מי הוא אין מפקחין עליו , שכיון שנעקרו כולם אין כאן ישראל -, וכל הפורש מהן כשהן מהלכין הרי הוא בחזקת שפירש מן הרוב ׃ - -“If Gentiles and Israelites live together in one court, even if there be -only one Israelite and a thousand Gentiles, and a ruin fall on one of -them, the rubbish is to be cleared away, on account of the Israelite. If -one of them had gone by himself to another court, and that court fell -upon him, the rubbish is also to be cleared away, for perhaps this one -was the Israelite, and the rest were Gentiles. But if they all set out -to go from this court to another court, and during the time of their -moving, one of them separated and went to another court, and a ruin fell -upon him, and it is not known who he is, the rubbish is not to be -cleared away. For as they all moved together, it is certain that the -Israelite was not amongst them; and every one who separated from them, -whilst going, is to be reckoned as belonging to the majority.” (Ibid. -20, 21.) Here the same utter recklessness of Gentile life or comfort is -displayed, and no one will pretend that such laws, if carried into -effect, would promote the happiness of mankind. Accidents, like births, -happen on the Jewish Sabbath as well as on the other days, but if the -oral law had power, the Gentiles to whom any accident happened, might -wait until the Sabbath was over, and must thus lose the only comfort -which is possible on such an occasion. When a man is suffering from -severe bodily injury, there are but two sources of consolation; the one -is the kind and benevolent attentions of man, the other the remembrance -of God’s mercy and goodness, but the oral law cuts off both from the -suffering Gentile. It forbids its disciples to help him, and says at the -same time that this is the law of God. But could the Jews themselves be -happy on that Sabbath, where such an accident occurred, and where they -had left a poor Gentile buried under the ruins of a building? Could they -enjoy peace in the bosom of their family, or could they find holy -pleasure in the prayers of the synagogue when they had left one of God’s -creatures, a fellow-man, to perish in his misery? But this law would -affect more than the individual sufferer, and the few surrounding -spectators. It would prevent all brotherly love between Jews and -Gentiles, and until all men learn the reality of charity, the world -cannot be happy. If it be true that the religion given by God, wherever -it is carried into practice, makes men happy, then the religion of the -oral law cannot be true, for, if practised, it would make, all men -miserable. - -Footnote 27: - - Hilchoth Shabbath and Hilchoth Eruvin extend from fol. 140 to fol. - 226. - - - - - No. XXVIII. - FAST FOR THE DESTRUCTION OF THE TEMPLE. - - -All who believe the Bible look forward, in full assurance of hope, to -that happy period, when Israel shall be gathered from the four corners -of the earth, and restored to the land of their forefathers and the -favour of their God. The days of their mourning shall then be ended, and -their fasts, now observed on account of the misfortunes of the nation, -shall be turned into joy and gladness:— - -כה אמר ה׳ צבאות צום הרביעי וצום החמיש וצום השביעי וצום העשירי רהרה לבית -יהודה לששו ולשמחה ולמועדים טובים והאמת והשלום אהבו ׃ - -“Thus saith the Lord of hosts, the fast of the fourth month, and the -fast of the fifth, and the fast of the seventh, and the fast of the -tenth, shall be to the house of Judah joy and gladness, and cheerful -feasts: therefore love the truth and peace.” (Zech. viii. 19.) At that -time, the prophet goes on to tell us, Jerusalem shall be the metropolis -of the world, and the common centre to which all the nations of the -earth shall flow “to seek the Lord of hosts and to pray before him.” We -Christians believe this as fully, and long for the happy accomplishment -as ardently as the Jews. It would give us unspeakable pleasure to behold -the Jews on that height of moral dignity and glory for which God -destined them, from the first hour that he chose their father Abraham to -be His friend. We desire the arrival of this happy period, for the sake -of the Jews themselves, but surely no Jew will feel offended with us if -we say that we desire it also for our own sakes and for the sake of all -the families of men. We should wish to see Divine truth triumphant, sin -and misery banished, and brotherly love universal, but we see all these -things connected with the restoration of Israel, and the establishment -of the kingdom of God upon earth, and therefore we join with all our -heart in the the most ardent aspirations of the Jewish people, and say, -“Amen” to every prayer that God “would remember his covenant with -Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and that he would also remember the land.” -But, alas! these prayers and wishes and anticipations all remind us that -that happy day is still future. Israel is still scattered among the -nations, and instead of having days of joy and gladness, is about to -observe another solemn day of mourning in remembrance of the desolation -of their city and temple. The ninth of the month of Av is still a fast, -and Rambam thus describes the causes of mourning on that day:— - -וט׳ באב ה׳ דברים אירעוּ בו , נגזר על ישראל במדבר שלא יכנסו לארץ , וחרב -הבית בראשונה ובשניה , ונלכדה עיר גדולה וביתר שמה , והיו בה אלפים ורבבות -מישראל , והיה להם מלך גדול רדמו כל ישראל וגדולי החכמים שהוא מלך המשיח , -ונפל ביד הגוים ונהרגו כולם והיתה צרה גדולה כמו חורבן בית המקדש את ההיכל -ואת סביביו לקיים מה שנאמר ציון שדה תחרש ׃ - -“On the ninth of Av five things happened. It was decreed in the -wilderness that Israel should not enter into the land. The temple was -destroyed, both the first and second time. The great city named Bither -was taken, and there were in it thousands and tens of thousands of -Israel, and they had a great king, whom all Israel and the greatest of -the wise men imagined to be the King Messiah. But he fell into the hands -of the Gentiles, and the Israelites were all slain, and there was a -great affliction similar to the desolation of the temple. On this same -day, destined for punishment, the wicked Turnus Rufus ploughed up the -sanctuary and the adjacent parts, to fulfil that which is said, ‘Zion -shall be ploughed as a field.’ (Mich. iii. 12.)” (Hilchoth Taanioth, c. -v.) The mere enumeration of all these dreadful inflictions of the -Almighty suggest many and grave topics for reflection, but the most -important of all is, the cause of the last desolation of the temple, and -the present long captivity. To mourn over past misfortunes and to humble -ourselves for past sins, is indeed good and wholesome; but if it does -not teach us how to remedy the one and to avoid the other, it can only -terminate in despair. Every Israelite, therefore, who weeps for the -desolation of the holy and beautiful house where his fathers worshipped, -should also set himself earnestly to inquire into the cause and remedy -of this great calamity. Why was it that the God of mercy desolated his -own house, the only temple that He had in the world built by his own -express command? The idolatry of the nation was the cause of the -destruction of the first temple. - -גם כל שרי הכהנים והצם הרבו למעול מעל ככל תועבות הגוים ויטמאו את ה׳ אשר -הקדיש בירושלים , וישלח ה׳ אלהי אבותיהם עליהם ביד מלאכיו השכם ושלוח כי -חמל על עמו ועל מעונו , ויהיו מלעיבים במלאכי האלהם ובוזים דבריו ומתעתעים -בנביאיו עד עלות חמת ה׳ בעמו עד לאין מרפא , ויעל עליהם את מלך כשדים -ויהרוג בחוריהם בחרב בבית מקרשם , ולא חמל על בחור ובתולה זקן וישש הכל נתן -בידו ... וישרפו את בית האלהים וינתצו את חומת ירושלים וכל ארמנותיה שרפו -באש וכל כלי מחמדים להשחים ׃ - -“Moreover, all the chief of the priests, and the people, transgressed -very much, after _all the abominations of the heathen_, and polluted the -house of the Lord which he had hallowed in Jerusalem. And the Lord God -of their fathers sent to them by his messengers, rising up betimes and -sending; because he had compassion on his people, and on his -dwelling-place: but they mocked the messengers of God, and despised his -words, and misused his prophets, until the wrath of the Lord arose -against his people, till there was no remedy. Therefore he brought upon -them the King of the Chaldeans, who slew their young men with the sword -in the house of their sanctuary, and had no compassion upon young man or -maiden, old man or him that stooped for age: he gave them all into his -hand—and they burned the house of God and broke down the wall of -Jerusalem, and burned all the palaces thereof with fire, and destroyed -all the goodly vessels thereof.” (2 Chron. XXXVI. 14-19.) Here, then, -obstinate idolatry is represented as the cause of the first desolation. -Israel learned and practised the abominations of the heathen, and thus -polluted the temple, and therefore God destroyed the temple and sent -them into captivity. There were no doubt many and other great sins in -Israel, but they are not mentioned, as if to show that nothing short of -wilful and obstinate departure from God could have led him to adopt so -severe a measure. As long as they retained their allegiance to God and -rejected the abominations of the heathen, there was a hope and a -possibility that they might repent of other sins, but when men -obstinately turn away from God, and will not hearken to his warnings, -all hope of repentance is at an end, and there is no alternative but -just judgment. But was this the case in the second temple? Were the Jews -then obstinate idolaters? Had they images amongst them, and did they -pollute the second temple with such abominations of the heathen? No, -rather than bow down to images, they willingly endured every torture, -and offered up even their lives as a sacrifice to the truth, and when -the second temple was destroyed, there was not amongst Israel a single -vestige of idolatry. Never, in the whole course of their history, from -the going forth out of Egypt to that day, was there such an apparently -scrupulous observation of the letter of the law, and never had Israel -had so many learned men devoted to the study of the commandments. What -then could be the cause of the second desolation? It was not idolatry, -but it must have been something equally odious in the sight of God, and -it must have been a sin committed equally by the priests and the people. -You observe that in the above description of the first destruction, it -is said, “All the chief of the priests, and the people transgressed very -much.” If the priests had remained faithful to their God, He would not -have destroyed their temple, for there would have been hope, that, by -their exertions and teaching, the people might be brought to a better -mind. Or, if the people had remained faithful, God would not have -punished the people for the sins of the priests; he would have cut off -the wicked priests and raised up others according to his own heart. -Nothing short of the unanimous wickedness of priests and people could -have brought on so great a calamity. In like manner we infer that the -cause of the second destruction was not any partial wickedness, but some -sin, of which both priests and people were guilty, that drew down that -calamity. And, further, it must have been a sin against which they were -warned by special messengers of God. When the priests and the people -fell into idolatry, God did not immediately destroy the first temple. He -first tried whether they would listen to his warnings and repent, and -therefore “he sent to them by his messengers, rising up betimes, and -sending; because he had compassion on his people, and on his -dwelling-place.” Now, surely, when we see that God showed such -compassion, when He was about to send so small a calamity as the seventy -years’ captivity, we may safely infer that he would not bring the more -tremendous judgment of eighteen hundred years’ desolation, without -exhibiting a compassion proportionate to the coming infliction. In the -former case he sent special messengers and prophets to warn them, he -must also have acted similarly before the second destruction. Who, then, -were the messengers and the prophets that warned the Jews of their sin? -The Jews say, that during the second temple there was no prophecy; but -is it possible to imagine that the God of Israel would shut up his -bowels of compassion, and pity neither his people nor his -dwelling-place, but give them both over to the most dreadful visitation -that ever descended on a nation without one word of warning? When he was -about to destroy Nineveh he first sent Jonah to call them to repentance, -and when his judgments were about to descend upon Babylon, the words of -warning were miraculously written on the wall; can we suppose, then, -that God would not have as much mercy on Jerusalem and the Jews as on -Babylon and Nineveh? The supposition is utterly inconsistent with God’s -character and dealings. There must have been prophets who announced the -coming judgment and warned the people of their sin. Who were they, then, -and what was that sin equal to idolatry which priests and people -committed and obstinately persevered in, despite of all warning, and in -which their descendants still persevere? Idolatry is a departure from -the true God, and the setting up a false system of religious worship. -Now it is granted that the Jews did not make images, but did they set up -a false system of worship and religion contrary to the religion of Moses -and the prophets? Let the oral law and the Jewish Prayer-books answer -that question. We have shown in these papers that the oral law, -sanctioned by the Jewish Prayer-books, is directly at variance with the -written Word of God. It teaches the Jews to put trust in amulets, -charms, and magic, which are mere heathenism. It teaches a cruel and -unmerciful system for the Jews, gives false ideas of the character of -God, and actually forbids the Jews to love their Gentile brethren as -themselves. The setting up of this system was the great sin which -priests and people all joined in committing, and in which their -posterity still continue. They were warned against this sin: God sent -them extraordinary messengers, He sent them Jesus of Nazareth, the -prophet like unto Moses, and the Messiah. The great burden of his -preaching was against this false religion, the oral law, but they would -not hearken to his words. Priests and people conspired together to -reject and crucify him. Here, then, was the result of the false system -which they adopted. The oral law was the tree, the rejection of the -Messiah the fruits. But still the Lord had compassion upon his people, -and upon his dwelling-place, he spared them yet for forty years, and in -the meanwhile sent his apostles to warn them and testify against their -iniquity; “but they mocked the messengers of God, and despised his -words, and misused his prophets, until the wrath of the Lord arose -against his people, till there was no remedy,” and he gave them into the -hands of the Romans. Because they rejected Jesus of Nazareth and his -disciples, the temple and city were desolated. The Jews have been taught -to think that Jesus and his disciples were deceivers, but let them -consider this fact, that, if they were, God himself has sealed the truth -of their assertions by the acts of His Providence. The preservation of -the temple and city to this day would have been incontestable evidence -that they were deceivers. Had no judgments followed upon the crucifixion -of Jesus, it would have been evident to all mankind, that he was not -what he pretended to be. But if he was indeed the Messiah, the strongest -possible attestation that God could give, was the exemplary punishment -of those who crucified him, and this God has given. They crucified -Jesus, and God destroyed the temple and scattered the people. Without -this, the religion of Jesus never could have triumphed as it has done. -If the temple were still standing, and the Jews in their land, they -could point to the temple and say, “See that temple, the monument of -God’s favour and presence, it is still amongst us, and shows that Jesus -could not have been the Messiah. If he had been the Messiah, God would -not have left us this unequivocal testimony of his favour.” But this -proof of their righteousness God has taken away, and that within forty -years after the crucifixion of Jesus; so that God himself has given the -strongest possible attestation to the truth of his claims. Let any -reflective Israelite calmly consider this, that, if Jesus was not what -he claimed to be, his crucifixion was the most meritorious act that the -Jews ever performed. They thereby did what they could to stay the -progress of a false religion that was to overrun the world, and to -uphold the truth; can they, then, suppose that God would punish them for -doing that which was right, and give the sacred sanction of His -providence to him that was doing wrong? When Phinehas, the son of -Eleazar, slew the Israelite and the Midianitish woman with his spear, -the plague was stayed from Israel, and can we imagine that the high -priests who condemned Jesus would have had a less reward if his claims -had been false? If Christianity be not true, then God himself has -interposed to crush the truth, and to build up falsehood. If -Christianity be true, then God could do nothing more to attest its truth -than he has done by the destruction of the temple. There was but one -unanswerable argument against Christianity, and that was the existence -of the temple; but God himself has answered that argument by taking away -the temple, and therefore we infer that as God has done all that he -could to establish the truth of Christianity, it must be true. - -The Jews think that if Jesus had been the Messiah, it is impossible that -the priests and learned men of his time could have rejected him. But the -events which they commemorate on the ninth of Av show the untenableness -of this argument. On this day the Jews commemorate, first of all, the -decree that the Israelites should die in the wilderness. And why did -they die in the wilderness? Because they would not believe in Moses. -“And all the children of Israel murmured against Moses and against -Aaron: and the whole congregation said unto them, Would God that we had -died in the land of Egypt! or would God that we had died in this -wilderness! And they said one to another, Let us make a captain, and let -us return into Egypt.” (Numbers XIV. 2.) Yet they had seen the plagues -of Egypt, and they had passed through the Red Sea, and were at that -moment supplied miraculously with food, but for all that they did not -believe, and that “The whole congregation.” Will any Jew say, that this -unbelief proves that Moses was a false prophet? If not, why not? Every -argument, that will prove that the unbelief of that generation is no -argument against the claims of Moses, will equally demonstrate that the -unbelief of the Jews in the time of Jesus is no argument against his -Messiahship. If it was possible for them to disbelieve the word of -Moses, after all that they had seen, it is equally possible that they -should have rejected Christ. - -But remark here, it was only the old generation that God sentenced to -die in the wilderness. The children who did not participate in the -unbelief of their fathers entered into the land. Now if anything similar -had happened to the Jews since the destruction of the second temple, -that is, if after a few years’ captivity they had returned to their land -_without becoming Christians_, they might then argue that the rejection -of Jesus was not the sin for which they were exiled. They might say, we -have not become Christians, and yet God has restored us; it is plain -therefore that this was not the cause of the second desolation. But -God’s dealings have been just the reverse. The Jewish nation have gone -on from century to century, fasting and humbling themselves before the -God of their fathers, and yet he does not restore them, a plain token -that they still participate in the sin of their fathers. And a plainer -proof still of the truth of Christianity, for God still continues the -providential act, whereby he originally proved that Christianity was -true. Israel still rejects Christianity, and therefore Israel still -continues in dispersion. The only argument, that could even appear to -prove that the rejection of Jesus was not the cause of the second -desolation, would be the restoration of the Jews in an unconverted -state. But that argument God refuses to grant, and has refused it to his -beloved people for many centuries. If Judaism be true, why should he -thus continue to declare against it? If Christianity be false, why -should he from century to century stamp it with the seal of truth? - -But, in the next place, the Jews commemorate the destruction of the -first temple, that is, they commemorate the idolatry of the chief -priests and the people. They remember that the learned and the unlearned -of the nation rejected the true God and turned to dumb idols. How then -can the Jews say that it is impossible for a nation, that openly -rejected the God of their fathers, to reject the Messiah? There can be -no greater proof of folly and wickedness than to reject God and worship -a stock or a stone; but of this Israel has been guilty, and because of -this sin the first temple was destroyed. The man who rejects the true -God will also reject his messenger. But Israel has done the one, why -then should it be denied that they could do the other? The only possible -answer that can be given is, that the priests and the people were a -great deal wiser and better in the days of Jesus than in those of the -first temple. But if this be true, why was the temple destroyed? why -were those who were so much wiser and better, punished with a more -dreadful punishment than those who were so much more foolish and wicked? -If we are to judge of the comparative wisdom and piety of the two by the -measure of punishment, then we must say, that the idolatrous priests and -people of the first temple were a great deal wiser and better than the -priests and people of the second temple, for the former escaped, after a -captivity of seventy years, the latter have been exiled for seventeen -centuries. The tremendous nature of the punishment would show, that the -priests and people, who rejected Jesus, were more wicked than their -idolatrous forefathers, and if so, their testimony against Jesus is of -no value. - -But the Jews also commemorate on this day the destruction of the city of -Bither, that is, they commemorate the folly of all their greatest -rabbies in following an impostor, and believing in him as their Messiah. -There Bar Kochav took refuge with those whom he deluded. Rambam says, -“All Israel, and the greatest of their wise men, imagined him to be the -Messiah,” and we know that the famous Rabbi Akiva was amongst the -number. Here, then, we have practical proof that the judgment of those -rabbies, who rejected Jesus, was not to be depended upon. If they had -succeeded in their efforts, they would have taught all Israel to believe -in an impostor; but the providence of God gave them all over to -destruction in the very act of following a false prophet. And yet these -are the men who have handed down the oral law, and compiled the precepts -of rabbinic religion; men, whom the Jews themselves tell us, were the -followers of a false prophet and the dupes of an impostor. How can they -possibly believe in a system which has such men for its authors; men who -seduced thousands and tens of thousands of Israel to plunge themselves -into ruin? If Rabbi Akiva, and his colleagues, had not espoused the -cause of Bar Kochav, he could never have succeeded in deluding such -numbers of Israelites; they, therefore, are answerable for that dreadful -calamity. But when the Jews of the present day commemorate the sore -affliction, should they not remember also that it is high time to give -up that religious system that was the cause of it, and of all the evils -that have since followed; or at least seriously and carefully -investigate a religion, fidelity to which is compatible with the -departure of God’s favour, the destruction of the temple, and a long and -awful captivity? - - - - - No. XXIX. - SABBATIC LAWS CONTINUED. - - -In our last number but one the Bible-doctrine, that true religion must -necessarily promote the happiness of man, was laid down as the basis of -our reasonings. The truth of the principle is admitted by every thinking -man, whether Jew or Christian; but plain as it is, it is frequently -overlooked, and a large portion of mankind is accustomed to look on -religion and its ordinances, not as blessings in themselves, nor as a -course of moral discipline devised by the wisdom of God for the good of -man, but as a system of arbitrary enactments instituted to give men an -opportunity of treasuring up a store of merit, and of earning an eternal -reward. Hence in all the superstitions, which man has invented, we -perceive an undue regard for the mere external act; and an expectation -that the performance of the act will ensure the Divine favour. Thus the -modern Hindoo stands on a sharp spike, or suspends his poor body by an -iron hook, or offers it to be crushed under the wheels of the idol’s -chariot, and thinks thereby to purchase eternal felicity. And thus also -the more ancient idolaters, the worshippers of Baal, in the time of -their need, wounded themselves with knives and lances, and expected that -for such meritorious religious observances their prayers should be heard -and that they should have a blessing. But it is possible, without -professing a totally false religion, to view God’s true commandments in -the same light, and overlooking the spirit and the object of his -institution, to fix the whole attention upon the letter or outward act, -and the quantum of reward which it may purchase. This the rabbies have -done, particularly, in reference to the institution of the Sabbath-day. -They appear to have forgotten altogether that the Sabbath was made for -man as a blessing and means of grace, and have therefore in their -attempts to promote the observance of the day, entirely sacrificed the -peace, comfort, and happiness of man to the mere appearance of -preserving the letter of the command inviolate. Their fundamental idea -of keeping the Sabbath-day is, that it is an act of obedience whereby -something may be purchased. - -גרסינו בפ׳ כל כתבי אמר ר׳ יוחנן משום ר׳ יוסי כל המענג את השבת נותנין לו -נחלה בלי מצרים , רב נחמן בר יצחק אומר אף ניצול משיעבוד מלכיות , אמר רב -יהודה אמר רב כל המענג את השבת נותנין לו משאלות לבו , ואמר ר׳ חייא בר אבא -אמר ר׳ יוחנן , כל המשמר שבת כהלכתה אפילו עובד ע׳׳ז כאנוש מוחלין לו , אמר -רב יהודה אמר רב אלמלא שמרו ישראל שבת ראשונה כהלכתה לא שלטה בהם אומה -ולשון אמר ר׳ שמעון בר יוחי אלמלא משמרים ישראל שתי שבתות מיד נגאלין ׃ - -“We read in the sixteenth chapter of the treatise Shabbath, R. Johanan -says, in the name or R. Jose, that to every one who makes the Sabbath a -delight, an infinite inheritance is given. Rav Nachman, the son of Isaac -says, He shall, besides, be delivered from serving the monarchies. R. -Judah says, Rav says, To every one who makes the Sabbath a delight, the -desires of his heart are given. R. Chiia, the son of Abba, says, in the -name of Rabbi Johanan, whosoever keeps the Sabbath according to its -constitutions, even though he were an idolater like Enosh, he shall be -forgiven. R. Judah says, Rav says, If Israel would keep the first -Sabbath according to its constitutions, no nation nor tongue should rule -over them. R. Simeon, the son of Jochai, says, If Israel would keep two -Sabbaths, they should be immediately delivered.” (Arbah Turim. Orach -Chaim, § 242.) Thus the rabbles sanction the false and superstitious -notion, that an external act can purchase the favour of God, and even -atone for the most atrocious violation of the divine law. The Israelites -are taught to believe that if they would only observe the Sabbath -according to the rabbinic constitution, all their other transgressions -would immediately be forgiven, and they themselves restored to the land -of their fathers, and in the meanwhile the individual sinner is told not -to be uneasy, for that if he had committed idolatry, the most heinous -offence against God, the observation of the rabbinical precepts -respecting the Sabbath will wipe away the score. What then will he -think, who has ever kept himself outwardly from this capital offence, -and only been guilty, as he thinks, of sinning against his neighbour? He -will make sure that the Sabbath observance will wipe out the week’s -reckoning, and commence his sinful career again the following week with -the assurance that if he only live until the Sabbath-day, he can make -all good again. And thus the Sabbath-day, ordained by God for the -purpose of nurturing true religious feeling, is by the oral law turned -into the means of eradicating all religious principle out of the heart. -The end for which the external observance was instituted, is not only -forgotten, but misrepresented. The holy affections which it was meant to -produce and nourish as a preparation for eternity are overlooked, and -the mere outward form held up as the price which men are to pay for -eternal felicity. - -That the rabbinical laws are almost altogether occupied with the merest -external observances will be plain to any one who will take the trouble -to read them through. Take, for instance, some of the laws which refer -to the keeping food warm on the Sabbath-day:— - -מניחין קדרה על גבי האש או בשר בתנור או על גבי גחלים והם מתבשלים והולכין -כל השבת ואוכלין אותו בשבת ויש בדבר זה דברים שהם אסורים גזירה שמא יחתה -בגחלים בשבת , כיצד תבשיל שלא בשל כל צרכו וחמין שלא הוחמו כל צרכן או -תבשיל שבישל כל צרכו וכל זמן שמצטמק הוא יפה לו אין משהין אותו על גבי האש -בשבת אע׳׳פ שהונח מבעוד יום , גזירה שמא יחתה בגחלים כדי להשלים בשולו או -כדי לצמקו , לפיכך אם גרף האש או שכסה אש הכירה באפר או בנעורת הפשתן הדקה -או שעממו הגחלים שהרי הן כמכוסין באפר או שהסיקוה בקש או בגבבה או בגללי -בהמה דקה שהרי אין שם גחלים בוערות הרי זה מותר לשהות עליה שהרי הסיח דעתו -מזה ואין גוזרין שמא יחתה באש ׃ - -“It is lawful to leave a pot on the fire, or meat in the oven or upon -the coals, and although the cooking thus continues, it is lawful to eat -them on the Sabbath. But in this matter there are some things forbidden, -and the cause of the prohibition is lest any man should stir the fire on -the Sabbath. For example, food that has not been cooked as much as it -requires, or hot water that has not been sufficiently heated, or food -which has had the requisite cooking, but which improves all the time -that it is left to stew, must not be left on the fire on the Sabbath, -even though it may have been placed there, whilst it was yet day on the -Friday. This has been decreed, lest one should stir the coals in order -to finish the cooking thereof, or to stew it. Therefore, if the fire be -swept up, or covered with ashes, or with the coarse part of flax, or if -the coals have ceased to glow, for then they are looked upon as covered -with ashes, or if the fire had been made with straw or stubble, or with -the dung of small cattle, then, as there are no burning coals, it is -lawful to leave the food there on the Sabbath, for in this case the -man’s mind will be turned away from the cooking, and the only object of -the decree is, lest the fire should be stirred.” (Hilchoth Shabbath, c. -iii. 3.) No one can deny that this passage prescribes the merest outward -observances. The general principle is that it is not lawful to stir the -fire on the Sabbath, for that would be doing work, and from this follow -those other prohibitions of all things which might tempt a man to be -guilty of this grave offence. But they all refer to outward acts, from -which it is easy for any one, without any great exertion of self-denial, -or any advance in moral discipline, to abstain, and yet he has all the -merit and satisfaction of the most self-denying piety, and thinks that -he is thereby paying a part of the price of his salvation, and making -atonement for the gravest moral transgressions of which he may have been -guilty during the week. Take, again, the following precepts, and say -whether they be not of the very same character:— - -מי שהחשיך לו בדרך בערב שבת ועמו כיס אם יש עמו נברי וחמור יתן כיסו לנכרי -אף לאחר שתחשך ולא יניחנו על החמור , אבל אם מצא מציאה אינו יכול ליתנה -לנכרי אלא אם כן באה לידו מבעוד יום דהשתא הויא ככיסו , אין עמו נכרי -יניחנה על החמור כשהוא הולך ויזהר ליטול ממנו בכל שעה שיעמוד , וכשיחזור -וילך יניחנו עליו , היה עמו חמור וחרש שוטה וקטן יניחנו על החמור ולא יתננה -לאחד מאלה כיון שהם אדם כמותו , היה עמו חרש ושוטה יתננו לשוטה לפי שאין לו -דעת כלל , שוטה וקטן יתננו לשוטה שהקטן יבוא לכלל דעת , חרש וקטן יתננה למי -שירצה , אין עמו לא זה ולא זה יטלטלנו פחרת פחות מארבע אמות ׃ - -“If a man travelling on the Sabbath-eve be overtaken by night,[28] and -has with him a purse, and there be also with him a Gentile and an ass, -let him give his purse to the Gentile, even after it be dark, but let -him not lay it on the ass.[29] But if he find anything, he may not give -it to the Gentile, unless it came into his hand whilst it was yet day, -for then it is a similar case to that of his purse. If there be no -Gentile with him, then let him lay it on the ass, whilst he is moving, -but let him take great care to take it off every time he stands still. -But when he begins to move again, then let him lay it on. If there be -with him an ass, and a deaf and dumb person, an idiot and a child, then -let him lay it on the ass, but let him not give it to one of these, for -they are human beings like himself. If there be with him a deaf and dumb -person and an idiot, let him give it to the idiot, as he has no -understanding at all. If an idiot and a child, let him give it to the -idiot, for the child will be reckoned amongst those that have -understanding. If a deaf and dumb person and a child, let him give it to -whichever he pleases. If there be with him neither one nor the other, -let him move it along gradually, each time less than four ells.” (Orach -Chaim, sec. 266.) Here again the great concern is to observe the form -and letter of the rabbinical command, which represents the carrying of a -purse on the Sabbath-day as work, and therefore unlawful. The law of -Moses says nothing either one way or the other, but leaves it to every -man’s conscience. The rabbies who made it unlawful soon found that -serious inconvenience might arise, as in the case of a man on a journey -overtaken by the Sabbath, before he could get to a resting-place. What -is he to do, is he to leave his purse behind rather than profane the -Sabbath? That alternative the Pharisees did not like, and therefore set -their wits to work to devise some plan, whereby the outward form might -be observed, and yet the purse be safely conveyed along with its -proprietor. In the first place, they allow it to be given to a Gentile, -but every man of common sense will see that this only saves the outward -appearance, for it be unlawful to carry the purse, it must be equally -unlawful to cause it to be carried, for he who commands or causes work -to be done is really and in the sight of God the doer, just as he who -hires a man to murder a third person is in reality the murderer. If, -therefore, the Jew dare not carry the purse himself, neither may he give -it to a Gentile, nor an idiot, nor a child, nor even lay it upon his -ass. This case only shows the insincerity of the Scribes and Pharisees, -and their love of money rather than of God’s commandment. In other cases -they lay it down as a law that no Jew is to ask a Gentile to do work for -him on the Sabbath:— - -אסור לומר לגוי לעשות לנו מלאכה בשבת אע׳׳פ שאינו מצווה על השבת ואע׳׳פ -שאמר לו מקודם השבת ואע׳׳פ שאינו צריך לאותה מלאכה אלא לאחר השבת ודבר זה -אסור מדברי סופרים כדי שלא תהיה שבת קלה בעיניהן ויבואו לעשות בעצמן ׃ - -“It is unlawful to tell a Gentile to do work for us on the Sabbath, -although the Sabbath command is not binding upon him, and although he -told him before the Sabbath, and even though he should not require that -work until after the Sabbath. This prohibition is of the words of the -Scribes, and was made to prevent Israelites from thinking lightly of the -Sabbath, and thus coming at last to do the work themselves.” (Hilchoth -Shabbath, c. vi. 1.) Here, then, the very thing which is allowed above, -is expressly forbidden on the authority of the Scribes, and consequently -a transgression would make a man liable to be flogged, as is expressly -stated in this chapter:— - -ישראל שאמר לגוי לעשות לו מלאכה זו בשבת אע׳׳פ שעבר ומכין אותו מכת מרדות , -מותר לו ליהנות באותה מלאכה לערב אחר שימתין בכדי שתעשה ׃ - -“An Israelite who tells a Gentile to do a certain work for him on the -Sabbath, although he has transgressed, and is to be flogged with the -flogging of rebellion, yet he may lawfully make use of that work when -the Sabbath is over, if he wait as long as it would take to accomplish -the work.” (Ibid. 8.) These two passages, then, plainly contradict each -other. The one says it is unlawful to tell a Gentile to do work on the -Sabbath, and that he who does so is to be flogged. The other permits a -Jew to give a Gentile his purse to carry, and this is work, or else the -Jew might carry it himself. Now if the latter case be lawful, then the -former is also lawful; and it is most cruel and tyrannical to flog a man -for doing what is lawful. On the other hand, if, according to the -general rule, it be unlawful, then it is plainly unlawful in this -particular case; and it is plain that the Scribes, with all their -pretensions, thought it better to transgress what they considered a -Divine command, then to lose their money. But if the traveller has got -neither an ass, nor an idiot, nor a Gentile with him, then there is -apparently no way of escape, for it is unlawful, according to the oral -law, to carry any burden more than a distance of four ells on the -Sabbath-day; and one would naturally expect, that those who punish a -profanation of the Sabbath with stoning or flogging—that is, who spare -neither human blood nor life—would tell him to leave his purse, rather -than transgress the Divine command. But no, they tell him to carry it -less than four ells, then to lay it down, take it up and carry it again -a distance of less than four ells, and thus, bit by bit, carry it to the -first inn. Here, again, there is an appearance of preserving the letter -of the rabbinical command; but no man in his senses can see that there -is any real difference between carrying it at one turn, or at five -hundred short turns of less than four ells, the whole distance is just -the same, and the work just the same in the sight of God. Either it is -altogether lawful, and then the rabbinical precepts appear as folly and -tyranny, or it is altogether unlawful, and then these precepts appear as -a mere evasion and a trick. But, in every case, a cheap way is presented -for purchasing salvation, and atoning for past sin. There is no great -exertion of moral principle necessary to make the traveller let another -person, or an ass carry his purse to an inn. - -Another part of the rabbinical mode of observing the Sabbath, the -preparation of the Sabbath table, has just the same tendency to direct -the mind to the mere external act:— - -ויסדר שלחנו ויציע המטות ויתקן כל עניני הבית כדינ שימצאנו ערוך ומסודר -בבואו מבית הכנסת , דאמר ר׳ יוסי בר חנינא שני מלאכי השרת מלוין לו לאדם -בערב שבת מבית הכנסת לביתו אחד טוב ואחד רע כשבא לביתו מצא נר דלוק ושלחן -ערוך ומטה מוצעת מלאך טוב אומר יהי רצון שיהא כו לשבת הבאה ומלאך רע עונה -אמן בעל כרחו ואם לאו מלאך רע אומר יהי רצון שיהא כן לשבת הבאה ומלאך טוב -עונה אמן בעל כרחו ׃ - -“Let a man arrange his table and spread the couches, and order all the -affairs of his house, that he may find it ready and ordered when he -returns from the synagogue; for Rabbi Jose says, in the name of Rabbi -Chanina, That two angels accompany a man on the Sabbath eve, on his -return from the synagogue, the one good, the other evil. When he comes -to his house, if the Sabbath lamp be found lighted, and the table -prepared, and the couch spread, the good angel says, God grant that it -may be so the next Sabbath; and the evil angel must say Amen, in spite -of himself. But if this be not the case, then the evil angel says, God -grant that it may be so on the next Sabbath, and then the good spirit -must say Amen, in spite of himself.” (Orach Chaiim, § 262.) Let not the -Israelite think that we object to the decent and reverential preparation -of the house for the Sabbath, that is all right and proper; but to exalt -this into a command, and represent obedience to it as a meritorious act, -is to turn the mind to trivial outward performances, and to teach men to -rest on them as on the great duties of religion. And here the mere -putting of the house into order is represented as so grave a matter, -that two angels are sent home with every Israelite on the Sabbath eve, -to take cognizance of the matter. The story of the angels is evidently a -fable, and is another proof of the fictitious character of the oral law; -but it shows how the rabbies wandered from the substance of religion to -the mere shadow of external observances. The Sabbath lamp here mentioned -is another instance of the same kind:— - -ויהא זהיר לעשות נר יפה דאמר רב הונא הרגיל בנר שבת להשתדל בו לעשותו יפה -הוין ליה בנים תלמידי חכמים ׃ - -“Let a man be careful to have a handsome lamp, for Rav Huna says, He -that is accustomed to take great care in trimming his Sabbath lamp well, -will have children who shall be disciples of the wise, _i.e._ learned -men.” No one can deny that this is a mere external act, but yet it is -represented as meritorious, and payment is promised: but the mode in -which the performance is required is still more calculated to promote -the idea, that this external act is of great importance:— - -ואחד אנשים ואחד נשים חייבין להיות בבתיהן נר דלוק בשבת אפילו אין לו מה -יאכל שואל על הפתחים ולוקח שמן ומדליק את הנר שזה בכלל עונג שבת וחייב לברך -קודם הדלקה ברוך אתה יי אלהינו מלך העולם אשר קדשנו במצוותיו וצונו להדליק -נר של שבת ׃ - -“Men and women are equally obligated to have a lighted lamp in their -house on the Sabbath. Yea, though a man have nothing to eat, he must beg -from door to door, and get oil, and light the lamp, for this is an -essential part of the Sabbath delight. He is also bound to pronounce the -benediction, Blessed art thou, O Lord, King of the world! who has -sanctified us by his commandments, and commanded us to light the Sabbath -lamp.” (Hilchoth Shabbath, c. v. 1.) Of course every Jew, who thinks -that a Sabbath lamp is as necessary as food, and that God requires it -even from him that has no food, must think that it is of great value, -and that obedience to this command is a most meritorious act. And yet -all must confess that it is a mere outward performance, which may be -observed by him who has neither the fear nor the love of God. The -tendency of all these laws is the same, that is, to draw the mind away -from the solemn duties of religion, and to persuade the impenitent -sinner that these observances will atone for his transgressions. When -conscience reminds him of sins, not those which he has committed long -since, of which he has repented, and which, he has forsaken, but of -those which he has been committing the past week, and intends to commit -again, as soon as the Sabbath is over, it is silenced by an enumeration -of the various acts of obedience, which are to be set down at the other -side of the account. He remembers that he has never left a pot of -victuals on a forbidden fire, nor carried his purse on the Sabbath-day a -distance of more than four ells, nor asked a Gentile to do work for him. -That, on the contrary, he has always prepared his table, and lighted his -Sabbath lamp, and pronounced the benediction; or, in other words, that -he has kept the Sabbath according to its constitution, and that, -therefore, though he had been guilty of idolatry, he shall obtain -forgiveness. Thus these rabbinic precepts have a direct tendency to -mislead the multitude, to harden them in sin, and thus to make and keep -them unfit for that great Sabbath, which yet remains for the people of -God. - -Footnote 28: - - That is, if the Sabbath commence before he can get to a resting place. - -Footnote 29: - - דחמור אתה מצווה על שביתתו ולא דנכרי ׃ - - For thou art commanded respecting the resting of the ass, but not - respecting that of the Gentile. - - - - - No. XXX. - SABBATIC LAWS CONTINUED. - - -That religion, which is true, and has God for its author, is, like the -light of the sun, the common property of all who will only open their -eyes, and gaze upon the gift of God. It is not a religion for the rich -or the studious only, but is equally open to the understanding and the -hearts of the poor and unlearned. And therefore the Bible describes the -heavenly wisdom thus—“She standeth in the top of high places, by the way -in the places of the paths; she crieth at the gates at the entry of the -city, at the coming in at the doors: Unto you, O men, I call; and my -voice is to the sons of man. O ye simple, understand wisdom; and, ye -fools, be of an understanding heart.” (Prov. viii. 2-5.) And so God -invites men of every class by the mouth of the prophet—“Ho, every one -that thirsteth, come ye to the waters, and he that hath no money; come -ye, buy and eat; yea, come, buy wine and milk without money and without -price.” (Isa. lv. 1.) Every religion of man’s making, presents, on the -contrary, peculiar advantages to the rich and the learned. It offers -salvation either as the purchase of almsgiving, or as the reward of -religious study, or it makes religion so difficult and intricate as to -put it out of the poor labouring man’s power to acquire any competent -knowledge of its requirements. And any system that does so must -necessarily be false. Religion is as necessary to the soul as daylight -is to the corporeal eye, and it would be a hard case, indeed, if the -poor, who want it most, should be excluded from the possibility of -acquiring its consolations; or if, in the day of judgment, the man who -devotes his life to books should have a better chance, than he who -labours hard to get an honest living for himself and his family; yet -this is the case with the labouring classes of the Jews. The religion of -the oral law has so perplexed even the simplest commandments, that an -unlearned man has no chance of being able to keep them. If nothing more -were required for salvation than the rabbinic sanctification of the -Sabbath-day the majority of the Jewish people must despair of attaining -it; for the accurate knowledge of the innumerable precepts and -distinctions, which is indispensable to obedience, requires time and -study, which no labouring man can bestow. And we are convinced that a -considerable portion of the Jewish population of this city live in -continual profanation of the Sabbath-day, if the rabbinic explanations -be true. Either they move something which they ought not to move, or -they carry something which they ought not to carry; and, if they do it -wilfully, render themselves liable to the utmost severity of the law. -For instance, the rabbies have determined that in one place it is lawful -to move or carry certain things on the Sabbath-day, but in another place -the very some act is unlawful, and calls down extreme punishment. They -distinguish between these places thus— - -ארבע רשויות לשבת , רשות היחיד ורשות הרבים כרמלית ומקום פטור , רשות היחיד -הוא המקום המוקף מחיצות גבוהות עשרה ויש בו ארבעה טפחים על ארבעה ואפילו אם -יש בו כמה מילין אם מוקף לדירה ודלתותיו נעולות בלילה הוי רשות היחיד , -ודיר וסהר וחצר . וכן חריץ עמוק עשרה ורחב ד׳ על ד׳ או יותר וכן תל גבוה י׳ -ורחב ארבעה על ארבעה , וכותלים המקיפין רשות היחיד על גביהן וחוריהן רשות -היחיד , ואויר רשות היחיד הוא רשות היחיד עד לרקיע ואפילו כלי אם גבוה י׳ -ורחב ד׳ על ד׳ כגון תיבה או כוורת או מגדל הוי רשות היחיד , ורשות היחיד -הוא רחובות ושווקים הרחבים י׳ אמה על י׳ אמה ומפולשים משער לשער וששים רבוא -עוברין בו , וכל דבר שהוא ברשות הרבים ואינו גבוה ג׳ טפחים חשוב כקרקע והוא -רשות הרבים אפילו קוצים או צואה שאין רבים דורסין עליהם , ואם הוא גבוה ג׳ -ומג׳ עד ט׳ ולא ט׳ בכלל אם הוא רחב ד׳ על ד׳ הוי כרמלית פחות מכאן הוי מקום -פטור ׃ - -In reference to the Sabbath, places are distinguished into four sorts of -jurisdiction. 1st, the private jurisdiction; 2d, the public -jurisdiction; 3d, the place called Karmelith; 4th, the place which is -free. - -By a _private jurisdiction_ is meant a place surrounded by walls, ten -handbreadths high, and in which there is a space of four handbreadths by -four. But even though it should contain many miles, if it be inclosed -for habitation, and its gates be bolted at night, it is a private -jurisdiction. A lodging-place, an inclosed space, and a court, are -considered as in the same class. And thus, also, a pit which is ten -handbreadths deep, and whose breadth is four by four, or more; and a -raised place which is ten handbreadths high, and whose breadth is four -by four. The top of the walls, also, by which a private jurisdiction is -surrounded, and the openings in them, are considered as private -jurisdiction. The air of a private jurisdiction, up to the firmament, is -also considered; and even a vessel like a chest, if it be ten -handbreadths high, and in breadth four by four. A hollow vessel, or a -tower, is also considered as a private jurisdiction. - -The term _public jurisdiction_ includes roads and streets, if their -breadth be sixteen ells by sixteen, and they be open from gate to gate, -and six hundred thousand persons pass thereon. And everything in a -public jurisdiction, which is not three handbreadths high, is reckoned -as the ground, and is public jurisdiction: even thorns and filth upon -which the public does not tread. - -But if it be from three to nine handbreadths high, but not nine -entirely, and its breadth be four by four, it is called a _Karmelith_. - -“If it be less, it is called a _free place_.” (Orach Chaiim, 344.) - -Now it may well be doubted, concerning many Jews in this city, whether -they are acquainted with even this portion of the Sabbath laws, but it -is quite certain that they are ignorant of the innumerable modes of -possible transgression which arise from these distinctions; for the oral -law then goes on to define what is lawful concerning each. In a public -jurisdiction he may move anything four ells:— - -כל אדם יש לו ד׳ אמות ברשות הרבים שיכול לטלטל בהם ׃ - -“Every man has got four ells within which he may move things.” Or, as -Rambam expresses it— - -רשות היחיד ומקים פטור מותר לטלטל בכולן אפילו היה אורך כל אחת משתיהן כמה -מילין מטלטל בכולה , אבל רשות הרבים והכרמלית אין מטלטלין בהן אלא בארבע -אמות ׃ - -“In a private jurisdiction, and in a free place it is lawful to move -things the whole length of the place, even though the length of each -should be many miles. But in a public jurisdiction or a Karmelith things -may not be moved more than four ells.” (Hilchoth Shabbath, c. xxiv. 11.) -Now, it may well be asked, upon what passage of the law of Moses these -distinctions are grounded, and what there is in a public jurisdiction -which converts an act lawful in a private jurisdiction, into a sin to be -expiated only by stoning the offender? For instance, in a private -jurisdiction a man may carry certain matters for miles without violating -the Sabbath commands, but if he venture out into a public jurisdiction -with a pocket-handkerchief or a snuff-box, or a half-crown in his -pocket, and carry it only five ells, he is guilty of death; and if the -Talmudists held the reigns of power, would be led out as soon as the -Sabbath was over, and stoned. Reason revolts against such doctrine, the -act is the very same in both cases, and is therefore in both cases a -sin, or in both cases lawful. Humanity shudders at the thought of -stoning a man for carrying a pocket-handkerchief, and the Bible teaches -us that a religion, teaching such inexorable and wanton cruelty, cannot -be from God. It is true that at present the power of Christianity -protects Israelites from such harsh treatment; but wherever the Talmud -has any degree of influence, Israel groans under its bondage. Many a -time have we seen Jews with their pocket-handkerchief tied round their -knee like a garter, for this is lawful, though to carry it in his pocket -would be a grave and capital offence. And we once knew an Israelite who -was taking a walk on the Sabbath-day, and being addressed by a Gentile -beggar, put his hand into his pocket and gave the poor man a small coin. -He was observed by some Talmudists, who immediately attacked him for his -profanation of the Sabbath. Afraid of losing his character, and being at -that time more anxious for the praise of man than that which cometh of -God, he defended himself by saying, that he had unintentionally taken -out the money in his pocket, but had remembered it when addressed by the -beggar, and therefore took the opportunity of getting rid of that which -it was not lawful to carry. The Talmudists were satisfied, and their -wrath changed into profound admiration for his piety. These cases -exemplify the practical working of the rabbinic system. It burdens the -consciences of the sincere, and makes the unscrupulous hypocrites. It -may be replied that such things could not happen in England, and that -here the Jews are too enlightened to observe such distinctions. But -every one who makes this reply condemns modern Judaism as a religion -unfit for the observation of the enlightened, and if he be a -conscientious man, should protest against doctrines which he believes to -be false, and laws which he abhors as cruel. These Sabbatic laws are a -part, an essential part, of modern Judaism. There is not any part of the -oral law upon which Talmudists lay more stress. The man, therefore, who -does not observe them has changed his religion. He has got a new faith, -as really, as if he had been baptized and professed Christianity. Every -Israelite who carries a pocket-handkerchief in his pocket through the -streets of London on the Sabbath-day, has apostatized from that Jewish -religion, which has been professed for near two thousand years, and -practically declares that the religion of the synagogue is false. How -then can he, without hypocrisy, profess to believe in the religion of -the Jews? or how can he, as an honest man, uphold a system which he -regards as false, and which would have him executed as a criminal if it -had the power? If such persons, who live in the habitual transgression -of all the Sabbatic laws, have any regard for truth and for Divine -revelation, they should openly declare their sentiments, announce to the -world that they have forsaken the religion of their fathers, and assert -that religion which they regard as true. The blindest and most bigoted -Talmudist is a far more respectable man, and more acceptable in the -sight of God, than he who pretends to profess a religion in which he -does not believe, and whose precepts he regards as fanatical and -superstitious. - -But to return. From the above laws it appears that it is a sin to carry -anything in a public jurisdiction a distance of more than four ells. But -suppose, then, that there was something which the Talmudists might find -it convenient or desirable to move to a greater distance, is there no -provision to effect its conveyance? Yes. These scrupulous persons, who -would stone a man to death for carrying anything five ells, have an -expedient for conveying it a hundred miles if necessary:— - -לגיכך מותר לאדם לעקור החפץ מרשות הרבים ולתנו לחברו שאצלו בתוך ד׳ אמותיו -וחברו לחברו שאצלו אפילו ק׳ מילין אע׳׳פ שהחפץ הולך כמה מילין ברשות הרבים -שכל אחד לא יטלטלנו אלא בתוך ד׳ אמותיו ׃ - -“Therefore it is lawful for a man to move a matter from the public -jurisdiction, and to give it to his neighbour, who is within a distance -of four ells; and his neighbour to his neighbour again, and so on, even -for a hundred miles. For although the thing itself go many miles, each -person has only moved it his four ells.” (Orach Chaiim, 348.) We have -often heard of the wonderful effects of division of labour, but never -knew before that it could convert a capital offence into an innocent -employment. Surely it is not necessary to prove that if it be unlawful -for one person to do a particular act, it is equally unlawful for a -hundred persons to combine for its performance. This law really has more -the appearance of a caricature devised by some enemy of the oral law, -than the grave decision of religious men in a matter of life and death. -But if we examine a little further, we shall find that it is unlawful to -move this same thing, whatever it be, from one jurisdiction to another, -though that other be close at hand:— - -כשם שאסור לטלטל בכל הכרמלית אסור להוציא ממנה לרשות היחיד או לרשות הרבים -או להכניס לכרמלית מרשות היחיד או מרשות הרבים , ואם הוציא או הכניס פטור ׃ - -“As it is unlawful to move anything in the place called Karmelith, so it -is unlawful to carry anything out of it into a public or private -jurisdiction, or, _vice versa_, to introduce anything from either of -these into the Karmelith. But if any one does either he is not guilty,” -that is, he is only to get a flogging, but not to be stoned. An -unlearned man who had already seen something conveyed by the above -expedient, might easily be led to commit an offence of this kind. His -untutored mind might not perceive why the one should be sinful, if the -other was lawful; but such an assertion of common sense would draw down -certain chastisement. At all events, he might be tempted to put his head -from one jurisdiction into another, especially if he was standing in the -street, and was offered a drink by a friend in a house, he might put his -head into the window and take what was offered, but would soon find, to -his cost, that he had broken one of the Sabbatic laws:— - -לא יעמוד אדם ברשות היחיד ויוציא ראשו לרשות הרבים וישתה שם או איפכא אלא -אם כן יכניס ראשו ורובו למקים שהוא שותה דכיון שהוא צריך לאלו המים אנו -חוששין שמא יביאם אליו אבל מותר לעמוד ברשות היחיד או ברשות הרבים ולשתות -בכרמלית ׃ - -“A man may not stand in a private jurisdiction, and put forth his head -into a public jurisdiction, and then drink, or vice versa. But if he -does so, let him introduce his head and most of his body into the place -in which he drinks, for as he wants the water, we fear lest he should -take it to himself (into the place where he is standing). But it is -lawful to stand in a private or public jurisdiction and drink in that -which is called Karmelith. (Orach Chaiim, 349.) It is evident that no -unlearned man can stand a fair chance with laws like these. He could not -hope even to escape corporal punishment. But if the accurate observance -of such laws was the condition of salvation, he would have reason to -despair. The most honest desire to yield obedience and the utmost -exertion of his understanding will not help him, nor compensate for his -ignorance. If, for instance, he should conclude, because it is unlawful -for himself to have his head in one jurisdiction and his body in another -whilst he is drinking, that it would be equally unlawful for cattle in -the same predicament to get food, he would be mistaken:— - -בהמה שהיתה רובה בחוץ וראשה בפנים אובסין אותה ׃ - -“A beast that has got most of its body outside, and its head inside, may -be fed.” And if he should take this as the general rule of his conduct, -he would be mistaken again, for long-necked animals form an exception:— - -ובגמל עד שיהא ראשו ורובו בפנים הואיל וצוארו ארוך ׃ - -“But in the ease of the camel, he must have his head and most of his -body inside, because his neck is long.” (Hilchoth Shabbath, c. xxv. 1.) -And so with endless cases which arise from this one distinction of -places into four classes. Judaism is in all its parts a religion for the -studious, and for them only. For an unlearned man to keep the Sabbath, -as the oral law requirers, is absolutely impossible. And after all, what -good does it bestow upon those who spend their life in the study? Does -it improve the heart, or open more abundant views of the Divine mercy, -or fill the soul with love to man? That it sharpens the wit and -subtlety, we do not doubt, but that is but small profit to man in -general. The criminal law of any country will do the same, and in truth -the oral law is very little more than the rabbinical criminal code. Its -great subject is guilty and not guilty. And even in this it does not -address itself to the conscience, and lead a man to consider the -workings of the heart and the wanderings of the thought, and shew him -sin at its fountain-head. It is a mere dry detail of external -observances, as may be seen from the numerous specimens adduced in these -papers, and as might be shown more fully by translating the whole. If -real devout feeling and improvement of the heart in the fear of God and -the love of man be true religion, we might expect it, if anywhere, in -the Sabbath laws. The Sabbath is that holy day which God has set apart -to raise men’s thoughts from earth to heaven. It is that period of -earned relaxation on which even the poor and the unlearned may lay aside -their worldly cares and occupations, and meditate upon the love and will -of God, and that eternity to which he is hastening. In the laws, then, -respecting the observance of this day, we might naturally expect the -spirit of devotion to be manifested; but in the oral law we look in vain -for anything of the kind. Its directions about the Sabbath are one -continued dry detail of external observances, which to a conscientious -man acquainted with them, must constitute a load upon his conscience, -sufficient to make the Sabbath the most unhappy day of all the seven. -But as to the poor and labouring classes, who have no time for study, it -is impossible that they should know, and much more that they should -keep, all that is necessary for the right observation of the rabbinic -Sabbath. If, therefore, the oral law were true, the poor must lose a -large portion of the blessings, and even be in danger of perdition. Nay, -if it be true, then we must believe that God has given a religion -impossible to be observed by the poor, and offering great advantages to -the rich and learned, that is that He is a respecter of persons, though -Moses and the prophets teach the contrary. But we would ask our readers, -what use is it to them to profess a religion of which they can never -attain a competent knowledge? We venture to affirm that the majority of -Israelites do not know enough of the oral law to help them to keep the -Sabbath, much less to observe the six hundred and thirteen commandments; -can it be said, then, that they possess a religion with which they are -not even acquainted? If the knowledge and practice of the oral law be -necessary to constitute a true Jew, ninety-nine out of every hundred -must give up their claims to the Jewish name. But then what is to become -of the Jewesses, who are not even obligated to learn? Every rabbi will -be willing to confess that the women at least are ignorant of the oral -law. Can they then have a portion in the world to come? If the knowledge -and practice of the oral law be necessary to salvation, they cannot. But -if they can be saved without it, then it follows that God has given a -law, the knowledge of which is not necessary to salvation. Let every Jew -ask himself this question, Am I acquainted with all the precepts of the -oral law? If not, can I be saved without this knowledge? If I cannot, -then the Jewish religion is one which makes it impossible for the poor -to be saved. If I can, then the Jewish religion is of no real use, for I -can be saved even without knowing it. Such a religion cannot be from -God. His religion is necessary to be known by every man, woman, and -child in the world, and the knowledge of it is just as easy to be -acquired by the poor and unlearned as by the rich and studious. Let then -the poor and the unlearned consider the folly of professing a religion, -with which they can never hope to become acquainted, and let them return -to the religion of Moses and the prophets, which, by the help of the God -of Israel, every one can understand, at least so far as is necessary to -salvation. The Bible, like everything that has God for its author, has -beauties discoverable by the eye of the poor, at the same time that it -has perfections to exercise the observation and skill of the most -learned. And this holy book is the heritage of Israel, which the oral -law can never be. The oral law may be the heritage and religion of the -rabbies who know it, but it has no more to do with the religion of those -who know it not, than the laws of the Chinese. The great majority of the -Jewish people might just as well call themselves followers of Confucius. -No man can be said to believe in doctrines which he does not know, and -can never hope to know: and this is the case with nine-tenths of the -oral law. - - - - - No. XXXI. - RABBINIC EXCOMMUNICATION. - - -It is a fact, that the religion of the oral law has hitherto done but -little to promote the temporal welfare of the Jewish people, and it is -equally certain that, if supreme, it would destroy the happiness both of -Jews add Gentiles. Its endless definitions would necessarily produce -transgression. Its severity and readiness in excommunication would be -the source of constant trouble to individuals and families, and the -sanguinary spirit of its criminal code would make the Jews a nation of -mourners. Indeed, we seriously doubt, whether any, but a few fanatics, -wish to see the oral law vested with supreme power, and ruling over the -lives and properties of the Jewish nation. Every reflecting Israelite -must know that the Sanhedrin, wielding the absolute power ascribed to it -in the rabbinic traditions, would be the most oppressive tribunal that -ever lorded it over the consciences of men. But we must remember that it -would not be with the Sanhedrin and other tribunals alone, that the -Israelites would have to do. Every rabbi, and every disciple of a wise -man, would have the right of excommunicating any one who offended them. -After determining that the tribunals can and ought in certain cases to -excommunicate, the oral law adds— - -וכן החכם עצמו מנדה לכבודו לעם הארץ שהקפיד בו ואין צריך לא עדים ולא התראה -, ואין מתירין לו עד שירצה את החכם , ואם מת החכם באין שלשה ומתירין לו . -ואם רצה החכם למחול לו ולא לנדהו הרשות בידו ׃ - -“And in like manner the wise man himself may, on account of his honour, -excommunicate an unlearned man who has treated him with contumely, and -there is no need of witnesses nor admonition. And the excommunicate -person is not to be absolved until he appease the wise man. But if the -wise man die, three persons come and absolve him. If, however, the wise -man wish to pardon, and not excommunicate him, the power is in his own -hand.” (Hilchoth Talmud Torah, c. vi. 12.) From this law we see that the -restoration of rabbinic power would be the most oppressive system of -government ever devised. Every learned man would be a petty tyrant, -constituting both judge and jury in his own person, and able, at his own -caprice, to inflict a severe punishment. The most absolute aristocracy -of the feudal times never dared to assume or exercise a power so -monstrous and so oppressive. No priesthood, even in the darkest times, -ever claimed such personal authority as is here given to every -individual rabbi. It is true that he may, if he please, forgive the -unfortunate offender, but it is much to be feared that such absolute -power would in most cases be too strong a temptation to the frail sons -of men. And at all events the principle is utterly inconsistent with -wise legislation, and most dangerous to the liberty of the poor and -unlearned; for the reader will observe that it is only an unlearned man, -an “am-haaretz,” who may be dealt with in this summary manner. And this -is another proof that the religion of the oral law is a religion devised -for the advantage of the rich and learned, but regardless of the -spiritual and temporal welfare of the lower classes. For the learned and -the great the law is very different:— - -חכם זקן בחכמה וכן נשיא או אב ב׳׳ד שסרח אין מנדין אותו בפרהסיא לעקלם אלא -אם כן עשה כירבעם בן נבט וחביריו אבל כשחטא שאר חטאות מלקין אותו בצנעה -שנאמר וכשלת היום וכשל גם נביא עמך לילה אע׳׳פ שכשל כסהו בלילה , ואומרים -לו הכבד ושב בביתך וכן כל ת׳׳ח שנתחייב נידוי אסור לב׳׳ד לקפוץ ולנדותו -במהרה ׃ - -“A wise man, old in wisdom, or a prince, or a president of a tribunal, -who has sinned, is never to be excommunicated publicly, unless he have -done as Jeroboam, the son of Nebat, and his companions. But when he -commits other sins, he is to be flogged in private. For it is said, -‘Therefore shalt thou fall in the day, and the prophet also shall fall -with thee in the night,’ (Hos. iv. 5,) _i.e._, although he fall, cover -him as it were with the night. And they say to him, ‘Honour thyself, and -abide in thy house.’ (2 Kings xiv. 10.) In like manner, when a disciple -of a wise man makes himself guilty of excommunication, it is unlawful -for the tribunal to be too quick, and to excommunicate him hastily.” -(Ibid. c. vii. 1.) The rabbies have endeavoured to justify this -different legislation for the learned and unlearned by a verse of the -Bible, but their interpretation of that verse is quite erroneous. When -God says, “Therefore shalt thou fall in the day, and the prophet shall -also fall with thee in the night,” he is not speaking of the learned and -unlearned, nor of the different way in which their sins were to be -punished, but of the destruction which was coming upon Israel, as may be -seen in Kimchi’s Commentary. He interprets the verse thus— - -וכשלת היום אמר כנגד ישראל בעבור מעשיך תכשל ותפול , היום ר׳׳ל חזמן הזה -בקרוב תבוא מפלתך , וכן וחרה אפי בו ביום ההוא , ביום ההוא שורש ישי -והדומים להם , ענינם עת וזמן , וכשל גם נביא עמך לילה נביא שקר המתעה אותך -יכשל עמך כמו האדם נכשל בלילה בחשכה וכן תרגם יונתן ׃ - -“_Therefore shalt thou stumble in the day._” This refers to Israel, and -means on account of thy deeds thou shalt stumble and fall. _This day_; -that is, in this time; thy fall shall soon come. And so we read, “Then -my anger shall be kindled against them in that day.” (Deut. xxxi. 17.) -And again, “In that day there shall be a root of Jesse,” (Isaiah xi. -10,) where day means time and period. _And the prophet also shall fall -with thee in the night_, that is, the false prophet who deceiveth thee -shall stumble with thee, as men stumble in the night in darkness; and so -the Targum of Jonathan has it. (Kimchi, Comment. in Hos. iv. 2.) Kimchi -and Jonathan, then, both testify that the oral law gives a false -interpretation of this verse. This is in itself rather awkward for a law -that professes to have been given by God, but still more so when it is -made the basis of most unjust and partial legislation, to save the -learned from the punishment which an unlearned man would have in similar -circumstances to suffer. No one can deny that the learned and unlearned -are here placed on very unequal terms. If an unlearned man provoke a -rabbi, he may be excommunicated by that individual without either judge -or jury, or even the form of a trial. But if a learned man makes himself -liable to the same punishment, even a court of justice has not the power -to pronounce the sentence. Who can doubt that the rabbies made these -laws for their own convenience? Can any one believe that God has given -this law, which makes the learned a privileged class of persons, who, -though guilty of the same offence as the working classes, is to be -spared, whilst they are to be punished? God is no respecter of persons, -and therefore no such law can be from him. - -The extreme injustice of this mode of legislation will appear still more -from considering the nature of the punishment:— - -מהו המנהג שינהג המנודה בעצמו ושנוהגין עמו , מנודה אסור לספר ולכבס כאבל -כל ימי נידויו , ואין מזמנין עליו , ולא כוללין אותו בעשרה לכל דבר שצריך -עשרה , ולא יושבין עמו בארבע אמות , אבל שונה הוא לאחרים ושונין לו , ונשכר -ושוכר , ואם מת בנדויו בית דין שולחין ומניחין אבן על ארונו , כלומר שחן -רוגמין אותו , לפי שהוא מובדל מן הציבור ואין צריך לומר שאין מספידין אותו -ואין מלוין את מטתו ... מי שישב בנידויו שלשים יום ולא בקש להתירו מנדין -אותו שנייה ישב שלשים יום אחרים ולא בקש להתירו מחרימין אותו ׃ - -“How is an excommunicate person to conduct himself, and how are others -to conduct themselves towards him? It is unlawful for an excommunicate -person, as for a mourner, to trim his heard or hair, or to wash all the -days of his excommunication; neither is he to be associated in -pronouncing the benedictions; neither is he to be reckoned as one of -ten, wherever ten persons are required; neither may any one sit within -four ells of him. He may however teach others and be taught. He may hire -and be hired. But if he die in his excommunication, the tribunal send -and lay a stone upon his coffin to signify that they stone him because -he is separated from the congregation. And it is unnecessary to say that -he is not to be mourned for, and that his funeral is not to be -attended.... Whosoever remains thirty days in his excommunication -without seeking to be absolved, is to be excommunicated a second time. -If he abide thirty days more without seeking absolution, he is then to -be anathematized.” (Hilchoth Talmud Torah, ibid.) This, then, is the -punishment which a learned man has it in his power to inflict at will. -He may deprive him of the comforts of cleanliness and perhaps injure his -health. He may hold him up to the public scorn by separating him by four -ells from all decent people. He may heap obloquy upon his death and -deprive him of a respectful burial, or if the man survive under the -public contempt, and refuse to give the rabbi satisfaction, he will be -anathematized, and his prospects for this world, at least, irretrievably -ruined. The law respecting the anathematized person is this:— - -אינו שונה לאחרים ואין שונין לו אבל שונה הוא לעצמו שלא ישכח תלמודו ואינו -נשכר ואין נשכרין לו , ואין נושאין ונותנין עמו , ואין מתעסקין עמו אלא מעט -עסק כדי פרנסתו ׃ - -“He is not to teach others nor to be taught, but may learn by himself -that he may not forget the learning. He is not to be hired, nor to hire. -Men may have no dealings with him, nor any business except a little that -he may get a livelihood.” Now then suppose that an unlearned man does or -says something, which a rabbi interprets as contempt, he is first -excommunicated. If, in the consciousness of innocence, he refuses to ask -for the rabbi’s forgiveness, he is at last anathematized, and all his -business stopped, and all this is done to him because he is an unlearned -man. He is himself to be dishonoured, his business ruined, and he -himself to die of a broken heart, not because he has committed some -grievous crime, but because he has been wanting in respect either to the -rabbi’s person or his words. The most absolute autocrat never made a law -more despotic. - -But some one will say, that the rabbi has the power of forgiving if he -please, and that the oral law recommends him to do so. It is true that -if the affront be given in private, he has this power, and is told to -forgive, but not so if it be offered in public, he has then no choice. -He is bound to excommunicate the offender. That we may not appear to act -unfairly, we will give the whole passage:— - -אף על פי שיש רשות לחכם לנדות לכבודו אינו שבח לתלמיד חכם להנהיג עצמו בדבר -זה אלא מעלים אזניו מדברי עם הארץ ולא ישית לבו להן כענין שאמר שלמה בחכמתו -גם לכל הדברים אשר ידברו אל תתן לבך , וכן היה דרך חסידים הראשונים שומעים -חרפתם ואינן משיבין ולא עוד אלא שמוחלים למחרף וסולחים לו , וחכמים גדולים -היו משתבחים במעשיהם הנאים ואומרים שמעולם לא נידו אדם ולא החרימוהו לכבודן -, וזו היא דרכם של תלמידי חכמים שראוי לילך בה , במה דברים אמורים כשבזוהו -או חרפוהו בסתר אבל תלמיד חכם שבזהו או חרפו אדם בפרהסיא אסור לו למחול על -כבודו ואם מחל נענש שזה בזיון של תורה אלא נוקם ונוטר הדבר כנחש עד שיבקש -ממנו מחילה ׃ - -“Although a wise man has the power to excommunicate on account of his -honour, yet it is not to be praised in the disciple of a wise man who -does so. On the contrary he ought to shut his ears against the words of -an unlearned man (am-haaretz), and not to attend to them, according as -Solomon has said in his wisdom, ‘Take no heed to all the things that are -spoken.’ (Eccles. vii. 21.) And such was the custom of the saints of -old, who heard their reviling, but did not answer; and not only so, but -they pardoned the reviler, and forgave him. The greatest of the wise men -used to glory in their good deeds, and say, that they had never -excommunicated nor anathematized any man on account of their honour, and -this is the way in which the disciples of the wise men ought to walk. In -what case is this to be applied? When they have been despised or reviled -in secret. _But if the disciple of a wise man be despised or reviled by -any man publicly, it is unlawful for him to forgive any affront to his -honour, and if he forgive he is to be punished, for this is a contempt -of the law. He is on the contrary, to avenge and keep the thing in mind, -like a serpent, until the offender entreat to be forgiven._” (Ibid. c. -vii. 13.) The great object of these laws is plainly to uphold the power -and dignity of the rabbies, and to make it impossible for the people to -shake off their yoke. The care which is taken to punish every offence -against the wise men betrays a lurking consciousness of error, and a -fear lest the common people should compare their precepts with -Scripture, assert the plain unsophisticated truth, and thus shake off -the galling chains of rabbinism. To prevent this, the very first -semblance of disobedience is to be punished with excommunication. But -for the poor and unlearned, if insulted by a learned man, there is no -satisfaction. He cannot thunder out an excommunication or an anathema in -return. For him the oral law makes no provision, except for his -punishment. If Judaism, therefore, should ever attain the supreme power, -the working and unlearned classes will be placed in the power and at the -mercy of the learned, and every disciple of a wise man will wield the -absolute power of an autocrat. - -But some one may say, that if the disciple of a wise man should -excommunicate any one hastily that the people would not regard his -excommunication. But if they did not, they would do it at their peril, -for the oral law expressly declares that they are bound to observe the -excommunication not only of a rabbi, but of one of his disciples:— - -הרב שנידה לכבודו כל תלמידיו חייבין לנהוג בו נדוי במנודה אבל תלמיד שנידה -לכבוד עצמו אין הרב חייב לנהוג בו נדוי אבל כל העם חייבין לנהוג בו נדוי ׃ - -“When a rabbi excommunicates on account of his honour, all his disciples -are bound to treat the excommunicate person as such. But when a disciple -excommunicates on account of his own honour, the rabbi is not bound to -treat that person as excommunicate, but all the people are bound.” -(Ibid. c. vi. 13.) Nothing can more clearly prove the injustice of such -excommunication. If the rabbi be not bound to regard the disciples’ -excommunication, why should all the people be bound? If the offence -committed against the disciple be a sin before God, and such it ought to -be to require such severe punishment, the excommunication ought to be as -binding upon the rabbi as upon the people. But if it be not binding upon -the rabbi, then the offence for which it was inflicted cannot be a sin -in the sight of God, it is therefore an arbitrary and unjust punishment, -and it is both wicked and cruel to require the people to obey it. But -the principle itself is monstrous, that the disciple of a rabbi should -be constituted both judge and jury in his own case, and have the power -of lording it over those, whose circumstances do not permit them to -devote their time to study, and who, therefore, cannot be enrolled in -the privileged class. Just suppose that the clergy of this land, or the -professors and students at our Universities, were to claim such power, -and to excommunicate and anathematize all who treated them with -disrespect, and that without any trial or conviction before a legal -tribunal, and that the unfortunate victims were to be separated from -society, ruined, and then their dead bodies treated with dishonour, -would not this be regarded as a monstrous and insupportable tyranny? Yet -this is what the oral law claims for the rabbies and their disciples, -and what they would possess and exercise if Judaism ever attains to -supreme power. Would the Jews wish such a power established? Do they -desire to live under such a government? If they do not, if they prefer -the personal liberty and the even-handed justice secured to them by -Christian laws, then they confess that the Christian principles are -better than those of their own religion, and they must be charged with -inconsistency in professing and asserting the truth of a religion, which -they hope may never triumph. Every man who believes his religious -principles to be Divine, must wish that they should triumph, and that -they should have free scope for their development. Any man who dreads -the triumph of his religion must have secret misgivings that it is -false. We therefore ask every Jew whether he desires that the oral law -should attain that absolute power which it claims, and that every rabbi -and his disciples should have the power of excommunicating and -anathematizing all who affront them? One of the most perfect tests of a -religion, is to consider what would be its effects if supreme. At -present there are various systems of religion in the world, some of -which, as directly contradicting others, must be decidedly false. The -hope of all reflecting men is, that the truth will ultimately triumph, -that God himself will at last interpose, and establish the dominion of -truth and eradicate all error. Each hopes that his own system will then -prevail, but let him follow out that system, and see how it will work, -when all resistance shall be vain. Let the Jews calmly consider the -state of things, when the rabbies and their disciples shall be masters -of the world, as they must one day be, if Judaism be true. The unlearned -will then be completely at their mercy, their servants and their -bondmen. Will this be a happy condition, or is this state of things -desirable? In the first place, there will be no personal liberty. Any -man who may chance to differ from a rabbi, and treat him with disrespect -will immediately be excommunicated. In the second place, there will be -no liberty of conscience or of thought. Every man must then let the -rabbies think for him, and he must be content to receive their decisions -without any appeal. The body will scarcely have the appearance of being -free, and the intellect will be bound in fetters of adamant. It will no -doubt be a glorious period for the wise men and their disciples, but -they will always form a small minority, compared with the bulk of -mankind. The majority of Israel, not now to speak of the Gentiles, will -then be degraded into poor, crouching, submissive servants of the -learned, afraid to use their reason, and always having the fear and -dread of excommunication before their eyes. Do they then honestly wish -for such a state of things, to be tied hand and foot, and given into the -hands of their learned men? If they do not, if they see the horror and -the injustice and degradation of such a state of things, why do they -profess a religion which will inevitably lead to it, if it be true? If -such laws be unjust, and such a consummation dreadful, instead of -desirable, the religion of the oral law must necessarily be false; and -it is the duty of every Israelite to consider what he is doing in -upholding it. The present state of things will not continue always. The -Jewish nation cannot always wish to be wanderers in foreign lands. They -look forward to a restoration to the land of their fathers, and they -wish in that land to be happy and prosperous. But happiness and -prosperity will be unknown words, if they are then to be governed -according to the principles of the oral law. That law gives the learned -a monopoly of power and happiness, but leaves the mass of the nation in -bondage. Do they then, in contemplating the re-establishment of the -kingdom of Israel, expect another than the oral law, and other -principles of religion and justice? If they do, they confess that the -oral law is false, and if it would be false and hurtful, and destructive -of all happiness, if supreme, it is equally false and hurtful now. The -Israelite, therefore, who upholds it, is upholding a false system. He -may do it in ignorance, and we believe that this is the case with the -majority; but it is most unbecoming in any reasonable man to profess a -religion of which he is ignorant. He may answer, I have no time to -acquire an accurate knowledge of my religion. The books in which it is -contained are too voluminous to admit of my acquiring an acquaintance -with them. I must work for my bread. We grant that this is the fact, but -then this brings us back to our original position, that Judaism is only -a religion for those who have leisure, that is, for the rich and the -learned, and we conclude, on that very account, that it cannot be from -God, who looks neither at riches nor learning, but considereth the -welfare, and above all, the religious welfare of the poorest of his -creatures. The especial character of the Messiah is, that he will care -for the poor. “He shall judge the poor of the people, he shall save the -children of the needy.” (Psalm lxxii. 4.) He, therefore, cannot have the -religion of the oral law. He will not be a rabbi, nor a rabbi’s -disciple. - - - - - No. XXXII. - NEW YEAR’S DAY. - - -The season of the Jewish year, which we are now approaching, naturally -leads us to the consideration of some subjects more important than those -which we have lately discussed, the oral law teaches that the festival -of the new year is nothing less than a day of judgment, on which God -pronounces sentence respecting the state of every individual: - -וכשם ששוקלין זכיות אדם ועוונותיו בשעת מיתתו כך בכל שנה ושנה שוקלין -עוונות כל אחד ואחד מבאי עולם עם זכיותיו ביום של ראש השנה , מי שנמצא צדיק -נחתם לחיים ומי שנמצא רשע נחתם למיתה , והבינונים תולין אותו עד יום -הכפורים אם עשה תשובה נחתם לחיים ואם לאו נחתם למיתה ׃ - -“As the merits and the sins of a man are weighed at the hour of his -death, so likewise every year, on the festival of New Year’s Day, the -sins of every one that cometh into the world are weighed against his -merits. Every one who is found righteous is sealed to life. Every one -who is found wicked is sealed to death. But the judgment of the -intermediate class is suspended until the Day of Atonement. If they -repent, they are sealed to life, but if not, they are sealed to death.” -(Hilchoth T’shuvah, c. iii. 3.) This naturally leads us to consider the -rabbinic doctrine of justification, and to inquire how far it agrees -with Moses and the prophets. And here our first business must be to -state the doctrine as it is found in the oral law. - -This law teaches, first, that he whose merits are more than his sins is -accounted a righteous man:— - -כל אחד ואחד מבני אדם יש לו זכיות ועוונות , מי שזכיותיו יתרות על עוונותיו -צדיק , ומי שעוונותיו יתרות על זכיותיו רשע , מחצה למחצה בינוני ׃ - -“Every one of the children of many has merits and sins. If his merits -exceed his sins, he is righteous. If his sins exceed his merits, he is -wicked. If they be half and half, he is a middling or intermediate -person.” (Ibid. 1.) - -It teaches, secondly, that in estimating the comparative state, respect -is had not only to the number but to the quality of the actions:— - -ושקול זה אינו לפי מנין הזכיות והעוונות אלא לפי גדלם , יש זכות שהיא כנגד -כמה עוונות שנאמר יען נמצא בו דבר טוב , ויש עוון שהוא כנגד כמה זכיות , -שנאמר וחוטא אחד יאבד טובה הרבה ׃ - -“And this weighing is made, not with respect to the number of the merits -and the sins, but according to their greatness. There is a merit which -may outweigh many sins, as it is said, ‘Because in him there is found -some good thing.’ (1 Kings xiv. 13.) And there are sins which may -outweigh many merits, for it is said, ‘One sinner destroyeth much -good.’” (Ecclesiast. ix. 18.) - -It teaches, thirdly, that it is possible by transgression or obedience -to turn the scale:— - -חטא חטא אחד הרי הכריע את עצמו ואת כל העולם כולו לכף חובה וגרם לו השחתה , -עשה מצוה אחת הרי הכריע את עצמו ואת כל העולם כולו לכף זכות וגרם לו ולהם -תשועה והצלה שנאמר וצדיק יסוד עולם זה שצדק הכריע את כל העולם לזכות והצילו -, מפני ענין זה נהגו כל בית ישראל להרבות בצדקה ובמעשים טובים ולעסוק -במצוות מראש השנה ועד יום הכפורים יתר מכל השנה ׃ - -“If a man sin one sin, he gives the preponderance for himself and for -all the world to the scale of guilt, and causes destruction. But if he -perform one commandment, he gives the preponderance both for himself and -all the world to the scale of merit, and causes salvation and -deliverance to himself and them, as it is said, ‘The righteous is the -foundation of the world’ (Prov. x. 25), which means that righteousness -gives the world a preponderance in the scale of merit and delivers it. -And on this account all the house of Israel are accustomed to abound in -almsgiving, and in good deeds, and to be diligent in the commandments in -the interval between New Years Day and the Day of Atonement more than in -all the year besides.” (Ibid. 4.) This then is the doctrine which we -have to consider. - -The first great principle is that “Every one of the children of men has -merits and has sins.” That every man has sins we readily admit; but that -any man, or any angel, or any of God’s creatures, has any merit in the -sight of God we deny. First, because the idea of merit is utterly -inconsistent with the idea of the relation in which the creature stands -to the Creator. Every created being is bound by the very fact of his -creation to love God with all his heart and soul, and mind and strength, -and to do all his will. Whatsoever, therefore, he does, he can never -exceed the limit of his bounden duty, and can therefore never lay any -claim to merit. If created beings were free from all obligation to love -God or to do his will—if they were independent and masters of -themselves, then by loving God or doing his will they might have merit, -for they would be doing him a service which He has no right to require. -Just as a man that is free may hire himself to do work for another man, -which he is not bound to do, and thereby earn wages. But not so the -slave, who is his maker’s property. He can only do his duty, and if he -toil all the day and be diligent and faithful in his master’s service, -he still can lay no claim to wages or to merit; he has only done what he -is bound to do. To lay any claim to merit, we must stand on equal terms, -and confer what the other has no right to expect. But this no created -being can ever do. He is a debtor overwhelmed with such an amount of -debt, that all that he has or can raise only goes in part payment, and -who therefore will never be able to confer anything which is not already -due. And therefore it is said, “Can a man be profitable unto God?” and -again, “Is it gain to him, that thou makest thy ways perfect?” (Job -xxii. 2, 3.) The unfallen angels themselves have no merit before God, -and much less fallen and rebellious man. - -But, secondly, the assertion that man has merits is contradicted by the -plain testimonies of Scripture. If man have merits, however few, then so -far as those merits are concerned, his nature must be good and holy, but -God declares the contrary: “Behold, he putteth no trust in his saints; -yea the heavens are not clean in his sight: how much more abominable and -filthy is man, which drinketh iniquity like water.” (Job xv. 15, 16.) -Such language cannot be applied to any creature capable of meriting -anything in the sight of God. Again, if man have merits, his merits must -proceed from the good things which he has done. He that does nothing -good cannot be meritorious, but yet God says, “There is none that doeth -good, no, not one. They are all gone aside, they are all together become -filthy; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.” (Ps. xiv. 1-3.) If -this be true, then no man has merits. If man have merits, they must -proceed from an inherent good principle in his nature, but God says even -of Israel that were is no such principle of good: on the contrary, he -declares that “the whole head is sick, and the whole heart faint. From -the sole of the foot, even unto the head, there is no soundness in it: -but wounds, and bruises, and putrefying sores.” (Isaiah i. 5, 6.) Here -God describes Israel, and the description is generally true of mankind, -as totally corrupt. There is no soundness in it. The intellect is -corrupt, for “the whole head is sick.” The affections are corrupt, for -“the whole heart is faint.” How, then, can he that has a perverted -intellect and a corrupt heart have merits? Again, if man have merits, -his good deeds, whatever they be, must be such as to deserve the -approbation of God; but the confession of the prophet is— - -ונהי כטמא כלנו וכבגד עדים כל צדקותינו ׃ - -“But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousness as filthy -rags.” (Isa. lxiv. 6.) Either, then, the oral law or the Bible says what -is false. The Bible says that the very best of man’s deeds, “all his -righteousnesses,” are no better in the sight of God than filthy rags: if -this be true, then man has no merit whatsoever. - -But again, the assertion that every man has merits and sins, is based -upon a false principle. It takes for granted that God judges men by -their individual acts, and not by the state of their hearts; that is, -that he judges as we do. When we consider a man’s conduct, we can only -look at his acts, and to us some of them appear good and others bad. In -our sight, therefore, he may have some merits and some demerits. But God -looks at the heart, and sees whether a man loves him or not, and by the -whole habit of his mind and affections judges the man’s state and all -his actions. We short-sighted creatures judge a man’s heart by his -actions; but God judges his actions by his heart, and where the heart is -wrong, he is so far from counting any actions as meritorious, that he -looks upon the whole conduct as one mass of abominable sin. - -The next assertion of the oral law is, that “If a man’s merits exceed -his sins, he is righteous.” This pre-supposes, first, that a man’s -merits may exceed his sins; and asserts, secondly, that in this case he -is accounted righteous. But where is the man whose “merits exceed his -sins?” Where is the man who keeps any one of God’s commandments -perfectly? In all our best deeds and efforts there is sin of admixture -or of imperfection. Often, when by the help of God, a good thought or an -honest intention is conceived in the heart, before it can be realized in -action, some selfish and unworthy motive associates itself with it, and -spoils the whole. And in every case the obedience is imperfect, so that -all our best acts become occasions of committing sins either of -infirmity or imperfection, and thus our sins are certainly as many as -our good deeds, for each one of them has a sin as its associate. But how -many are our sins of thought, word, and deed, which are mere sins -without any admixture of good, and which in themselves are “more than -the hairs of our head?” And even if we should admit that the final -result depends not upon number, but upon magnitude, then there is one -sin that extends from the moment of our birth to the latest hour of our -existence, and that is, want of perfect love to God. This he requires at -every moment, but yet how many hours of every day do we pursue our -business or our pleasures without a single remembrance of him? And how -few, how hasty, and how interrupted are our grateful recollections of -the love and mercy of God! Here then is a sin which in magnitude far -exceeds the aggregate of all our gratitude and all our services, and -which in itself would sink the scale of guilt down to the lowest hell. -But by the side of it there is another equally immense, and that is our -continued transgression of the commandment, “Thou shalt love thy -neighbour as thyself.” The very best of all God’s saints makes, at the -most, but a feeble struggle against the love of self. He admits the -extent of his duty to his neighbour, he knows it—he desires to fulfil -it. He watches against himself, and yet with all his care, self-love -creeps in again and again, and asserts the mastery over his thoughts and -actions. These two sins would outweigh a thousand times all the six -hundred and eleven remaining commandments of which Israel boasts, even -if they kept them all without a single transgression or a shade of -imperfection. With these two sins on our consciences, it is perfectly -absurd to talk of our merits exceeding our sins. There is not, and never -was in the world, a mere child of Adam, whose sins did not for exceed -his good deeds. If, therefore, it be necessary, in order to be accounted -just, that our merits should exceed our sins, we must give up all hope -of being justified before God. - -But let us suppose for a moment that such a thing were possible, that -there was a man whose merits exceeded his sins, would such an one be -accounted just before God? First let us ask Moses, let us hear what he -says. Does he promise that if your merits exceed your sins, ye shall be -considered just? and does he promise life, as the oral law does, to -imperfect obedience? Hear the words of Moses himself:— - -ושמרתם לעשות כאשר צוה ה׳ אלהיכם אתכם לא תסורו ימין ושמאל , בכל הדרך אשר -צוה ה׳ אלהיכם אתכם תלכו למען תחיון וטוב לכם והארכתם ימים בארץ אשר תירשון -׃ - -“Ye shall observe to do therefore as the Lord your God hath commanded -you: ye shall not turn aside to the right hand or to the left. Ye shall -walk in ALL the ways which the Lord your God hath commanded you, that ye -may live, and that it may be well with you, and that ye may prolong your -days in the land which ye shall possess.” (Deut. v. 32, 33.) Here Moses -requires perfect obedience as the condition of life, and does not allow -a single deviation either to the right hand or to the left. It is not a -single declaration, nor a sentiment wrested from its context. Moses -repeats the same again and again. In the very next verses to those just -quoted, he says— - -וזאת המצוה החקים והמשפטים אשר צוה ה׳׳ אלהיכם ללמד אתכם לעשות בארץ אשר -אתם עוברים שמה לרשתה , למען תירא את ה׳ אלהיך לשמור את כל חקותיו ומצותיו -אשר אנכי מצוך אתה ובנך ובן בנך כל ימי חייך ולמען יאריכון ימיך ׃ - -“Now these are the commandments, the statutes, and the judgments, which -the Lord your God commanded to teach you, that ye might do them in the -land whither ye go to possess it; that thou mightest fear the Lord they -God, to keep ALL his statutes and his commandments, which I command -thee; thou and thy son, and thy son’s son, all the days of thy life: and -that thy days may be prolonged.” (vi. 1, 2.) Here again Moses requires -perfect obedience to the whole law. He requires it of every individual -of Israel. “Thou and thy son, and thy son’s son;” and this universal -obedience he exacts not at some stated period of the year, but every day -of a man’s whole life. “All the days of thy life.” Moses leaves no room -for some merits and some sins. If a man does what Moses requires, he can -have no sins. If a man have any sins whatever, he does not fulfil what -Moses requires as the condition of life. We might quote several other -similar passages, but content ourselves with one, where Moses expressly -declares that universal obedience is necessary to righteousness:— - -ויצינו ה׳ לעשות את כל החקים האלה ליראה את ה׳ אלהינו לטוב לנו כל הימים -לחיותנו כיום הזה , וצדקה תהיה לנו כי נשמר לעשות את כל המצוה הזאת לפני ה׳ -אלהינו כאשר צונו ׃ - -“And the Lord commanded us to do ALL these statutes, to fear the Lord -our God always, that he might preserve us alive, as it is at this day. -_And it shall be our righteousness_, if we observe to do ALL these -commandments before the Lord our God, as he hath commanded us.” (Deut. -vi. 24, 25.) This is Moses’ idea of righteousness, and if Moses be right -the oral law is wrong. It says, “If a man’s merits exceed his sins, he -is righteous.” Moses says, If a man keep all the commandments all the -days of his life he is righteous. The oral law promises life to him who -confessedly has sins. Moses requires perfect and universal obedience as -the condition of life. It becomes, therefore, an important, an awfully -important, consideration for every Israelite, whether he will rest his -soul’s salvation on the word of Moses, or on that of the oral law. If he -rests upon the oral law, than he will be satisfied that a partial -obedience is sufficient to secure everlasting salvation, and in this -hope he will die. But if he is to be judged according to the law of -Moses, he will, at the hour of God’s judgment, find himself awfully -mistaken. Moses knows of no righteousness, but that of universal -obedience every day of a man’s life, and promises life to none but those -who have this righteousness. He that has it not, therefore, must be -condemned. And let every Israelite mark well that Moses has not left us -to draw this just conclusion from the premises which he has laid down, -but has himself stated, in the distinctest and plainest terms, That he -who does not yield this universal obedience is accursed. And that no man -may mistake his meaning, he sums up all that he has said upon this -subject, and repeats, that he who keeps ALL God’s commandments shall be -blessed, and that he who does not keep ALL God’s commandments shall be -accursed:— - -ונינ אם שמוע תשמע בקול ה׳ אלהיך לשמור לעשות את כל מצותיו אשר אנכי מצוך -היום ונתנך ה׳ אלהיך עליון על כל גויי הארץ , ובאו עליך כל הברכות האלה -וגו׳ ׃ - -“And it shalt come to pass, if thou shalt hearken diligently unto the -voice of the Lord thy God, to observe and to do ALL his commandments -which I command thee this day, that the Lord thy God will set thee high -above all nations of the earth; and all these blessings shall come on -thee,” &c. And then, after enumerating the blessings, he adds— - -והיה אם לא תשמע בקול ה׳ אלהיך לשמור לעשות את כל מצותיו וחקותיו אשר אנכי -מצוך היום ובאו עליך כל הקללות האלה והשיגוך , ארור אתה בעיר וארור אתה -בשדה וגו׳ ׃ - -“But it shall come to pass, if thou wilt not hearken unto the voice of -the Lord thy God, to observe to do ALL his commandments and his statutes -which I command thee this day, that all these curses shall come upon -thee, and overtake thee. Cursed shalt thou be in the city, and cursed -shalt thou be in the field,” &c. (Deut. xxviii. 1-15.) Here Moses -plainly says, that he who is perfectly obedient is blessed, and that he -who is not perfectly obedient is cursed. And it is to be noted that -Moses knows nothing of an intermediate state of man, the בינוניים who -are neither righteous nor wicked. He divides all Israel into two -classes, the blessed and the cursed. He who keeps ALL God’s commandments -belongs to the former; he who does not keep ALL God’s commandments to -the latter. In this matter, than, the most important that can employ the -mind of man, the oral law contradicts the plain words of Moses. One of -the two is certainly in error. It is for the Israelites to choose -whether they will believe Moses, or that oral law which contradicts his -words. If they believe in Moses, then no one is accounted just before -God, but that man who has all the days of his life kept all God’s -commandments without one deviation. Every other person is so far from -being just, that he is accursed. If there were a human being who had all -his life kept all the commandments, and only once been guilty of -transgression, that one transgression makes him unjust and accursed. But -there is no such person. Every man’s conscience tells him that his sins -far exceed his obedience, and therefore if Moses speak truth he is -accursed. Oh, let no one endanger his salvation by trusting to the oral -law. Let him take up the law of Moses, let him investigate the -conditions which Moses lays down. We ask not now, that the Israelites -should read the New Testament, or that they should listen to our -arguments or any reasoning of man. We simply point out to them the words -of Moses, and we show other passages of the oral law which teaches an -entirely different doctrine. We ask, then, whether the man who rebels -against the law of Moses can hope for salvation? Yet this is what every -one who follows the oral law is doing. If his temporal welfare only were -concerned, it would not be of such moment. But here his eternal -interests are at stake. If the oral law be mistaken, and mistaken it is -if Moses spoke truth, their eternal salvation is forfeited by every one -who follows it. We therefore entreat every reader of this paper to take -up the law of Moses, and to investigate this question:—“What are the -conditions of blessing and cursing, of life and death, according to the -declarations of Moses? Does he promise life to that man whose merits -exceed his sins, or does he require universal obedience?” To Moses -himself we appeal, and him we constitute the arbiter of our differences. - - - - - No. XXXIII. - NEW YEAR, CONTINUED. - - -We showed in our last number that the first axiom of the. oral law -respecting the mode of justification is false. Moses requires perfect -and universal obedience to all the commandments as the condition of -justification and life, whereas the oral law says it is sufficient if a -man’s merits exceed his sins. One of the two, then, has spoken -falsehood. It is for the Jews to consider which of them they will brand -with the character of liar. As for ourselves, we believe that Moses -spoke the truth, and by his standard of right and wrong we proceed to -examine the second and third principles of Rabbinic justification. The -oral law tells us, further, that when God weighs the merits and the -offences, “This weighing is made not with respect to the number of the -merits and the sins, but according to their greatness. There is a merit -which may outweigh many sins, as it is said, ‘Because in him there is -found some good thing.’ (1 Kings xiv. 13.) And there are sins which may -outweigh many merits, for it is said, ‘One sinner destroyeth much good.’ -(Ecclesiast. ix. 18.)” And for this reason we are told that “In the ten -days between the New Year and the Day of Atonement, Israel abounds in -almsgiving and good works more than in all the year besides.” Such is -the hope which the oral law holds out to Israel. It first tells a man, -that if his merits exceed his sins, he is safe. Then feeling that none -but a fool or madman can dream of his merits exceeding his sins, it -tries to quiet the conscience by assuring the guilty, that the quality -of the deeds is regarded more than their number, and that there may be -one meritorious act which will outweigh many sins. It endeavours to -prove this by a citation from the Book of Kings. This is in itself -suspicious. Why did it not bring one or more plain passages from the -Books of Moses? They contain the law of God, and the great principles of -God’s judgment. In determining a case like this, an appeal to the letter -of the law is absolutely necessary. Let every Israelite, then, before he -trusts his salvation to the oral law, find out one passage in the law of -Moses, where Moses himself declares that “one merit may outweigh many -sins.” We know not of one similar declaration, and therefore hesitate -not to say, that whosoever rests his salvation on this hope, has -apostatized from the religion of Moses. - -But the passage itself, which the oral law cites, proves nothing in -support of the above principle. The words were spoken of the son of -Jeroboam. “He only of Jeroboam shall come to the grave, because in him -there is found some good thing towards the Lord God of Israel in the -house of Jeroboam.” (1 Kings xiv. 13.) There is not one word said here -about his being justified by that one good thing, whatever it was. It -did not save the child from his sickness. It did not change the sentence -of death into life. All it did was to procure him a peaceable burial. -How, then, can any reasonable man argue, because the son of Jeroboam had -a peaceable burial, that therefore some meritorious act will save him -from the punishment due to his offences? To warrant such a conclusion, -he ought first to show that the son of Jeroboam had been a grievous -sinner like his father, which the Bible does not say; and, secondly, -that this one meritorious act had obtained pardon of his sins, and -restored him to life; and moreover it ought to be expressly said, that -God considered him as just. The very circumstance that the rabbies were -obliged to have recourse to such a passage, and that they could find -nothing better in the law or the prophets, shows that they were hard -pushed to find anything that would even bear a faint resemblance to -their doctrine. - -The law of Moses gives no countenance to this doctrine, and can give -none, because it is directly subversive of all the principles of law and -justice. The stern principle of justice is, that every transgression of -the law should be followed by punishment without any reference whatever -to the good deeds or merits of the transgressor. Even before an earthly -tribunal, there is no deviation from this principle. If a murderer or a -robber be convicted, no degree of previous or subsequent merit can be -listened to as a plea against the just sentence of the law. He may in -all other respects be an unexceptionable character, he may feed the poor -and clothe the naked, and give all his goods in alms, but none of these -things can change the sentence of guilty into not guilty, or cause him -to be considered as a just or innocent person. And shall we suppose that -God is less just than man? The law of Moses gives us no reason for such -a supposition. It says distinctly— - -ולא תקחו כופר לנפש רוצח אשר הוא רשע למות כי מות יומת ׃ - -“Moreover, ye shall take no satisfaction for the life of a murderer, -which is guilty of death; but he shall surely be put to death.” (Num. -xxxv. 31.) According to this declaration, the good deeds or merits of a -murderer are not to be regarded, and there is nothing which he can do -which can avert the sentence of the law. And shall we suppose that God -himself will do what he forbids men to do? If so, why did he forbid it -to be done? The plain reason of this prohibition is, because it is -contrary to the eternal principles of right and wrong, which God himself -cannot violate without detracting from his holiness. But it is not with -respect to murder only that God has laid down these stern principles of -justice. He says generally— - -והנפש אשר תעשה ביד רמה מן האזרח ומן הגר את ה׳ הוא מגדף ונכרתה הנפש ההיא -מקרב עמה , כי דבר ה׳ בזה ואת מצותו הפר הכרת תכרת הנפש ההיא עונה בה ׃ - -“But the soul that doeth ought presumptuously, whether he be born in the -land, or a stranger, the same reproacheth the Lord, and that soul shall -be cut off from among his people. Because he hath despised the Lord, and -hath broken his commandment, that soul shall utterly be cut off; his -iniquity shall be upon him.” (Numb. xv. 30, 31.) There is here no -promise that his merits shall be weighed against his offences. One -presumptuous sin will outweigh all his supposed merits, and for that one -he shall die in his iniquity. The doctrine of the prophets is just the -same:— - -הנפש החוטאת היא תמות ׃ - -“The soul that sinneth it shall die.” - -ובשוב צדיק מצדקתו ועשה עול ככל התועבות אשר עשה הרשע יעשה וחי כל צדקתיו -אשר עשה לא תזכרנה במעלו אשר מעל ובחטאתו אשר חטא בם ימות ׃ - -“But when the righteous turneth away from this righteousness, and -committeth iniquity, and doeth according to all the abominations that -the wicked man doeth, shall he live? _All his righteousness that he hath -done shall not be mentioned_: in his trespass that he hath trespassed, -and in his sin that he hath sinned, in them shall he die.” (Ezek. xviii. -20-25.) When one reads this passage, it appears as if God had dictated -it on purpose to contradict the doctrine of the oral law. There is here -no mention of weighing merits against sins, and no promise that some few -extraordinary merits may outweigh many sins. On the contrary, it is -distinctly stated, that when the righteous man turneth away from his -righteousness, “All his righteousness that he hath done shall not be -mentioned.” If this be true, the doctrine of the oral law is necessarily -and totally false. But some one may object that there is a similar -declaration made respecting the wicked:— - -והרשע כי ישוב מכל חטאתיו אשר עשה ושמר את כל חקותי ועשה משפט וצדקה חיה -יחיה לא ימות , כל פשעיו אשר עשה לא יזכרו לו בצדקתו אשר עשה יחיה ׃ - -“But if the wicked man will turn from all his sins that he hath -committed, and keep all my statutes, and do that which is lawful and -right, he shall surely live, he shall not die. All transgressions that -he hath committed, they shall not be mentioned to him, in his -righteousness that he hath done he shall live.” But this verse is as -strongly against the doctrine of the oral law as the others already -cited. In the first place, it does not say, that he whose sins exceed -his merits is wicked, but that he who commits sin is wicked. In the -second place, it does not say that, by causing his merits to exceed his -sins, he can become righteous, but by turning away, “from ALL his sins -that he hath committed,” and by keeping “ALL my statutes.” It confirms -the doctrine laid down already from the law of Moses, that to be -righteous in the sight of God, a man must commit no sin, and keep all -God’s commandments. It therefore directly contradicts the oral law, and -overturns the doctrine that some merits may outweigh many sins. - -If more proof be needful, we have it in the case of Moses himself. Very -few, if any, even of the most devoted friends of the oral law, can -imagine that he has so many merits as Moses his master; and yet the -merits of Moses did not outweigh one apparently trifling transgression. -Because of one sin, he was sentenced to die with the disobedient -generation in the wilderness, and not permitted to enter into the land -of Israel. If Moses’ merits, then, could do nothing for him, how vain -must be the hope of others, who think that, by abounding in almsgiving -and good works for ten days, they can turn the scale of God’s righteous -judgment? Neither the law nor the prophets know of any intermediate -class between the righteous and the wicked. They specify only the two -classes, the righteous and the wicked. Those who fulfil all God’s -commandments belong to the one, and those who transgress any of God’s -commandments belong to the other. Let every man, then, examine his own -heart and life, and it will not require much time nor trouble to -ascertain to which class he belongs. A very little reflection will -convince him that he has been, and is, a transgressor of God’s -commandments; that he has no merits and no righteousness; and therefore -belongs to that class of whom Moses says, that they are accursed. Such a -conclusion may appear dreadful, and so it ought to be; but the grand -question is, Is it true? Let every man ask himself, “Have I kept, or do -I keep, ALL God’s commandments?” If he can say, Yes: then, according to -the law of Moses, he is righteous, and has the promise of life. But if -he must say, No: then he is unrighteous, and the curse of God is hanging -over him, ready to descend and destroy him:— - -ארור אשר לא יקים את דברי התורה הזאת לעשות אותם ואמר כל העם אמן ׃ - -“Cursed be he that confirmeth not all the words of this law to do them. -And all the people shall say, Amen.” (Deut. xxvii. 26.) Moses holds out -no nope, except to those who yield a perfect and universal obedience. - -But some one will reply, if this be true, then no man can be accounted -righteous, on account of his deeds:— - -כי אדם אין צדיק בארץ אשר יעשה טוב ולא יחטא ׃ - -“For there is not a just man upon earth, that doeth good, and sinneth -not.” (Eccles. vii. 20.) And this is the truth, no man can be justified -because of his good works. We must renounce all our pride, and appear at -the bar of God as miserable sinners, looking only for mercy, and not for -payment. We must come to the same conclusion as Job did— - -אמנם ידעת כי כן ומה יצדק אנוש עם אל , אם יחפוץ לריב עמו לא יעננו אחת מני -אלף ׃ - -“I know it is so of a truth: but how should man be just with God? If he -will contend with him, he cannot answer him one of a thousand.” (Job ix. -2, 3.) Job had no idea that his merits exceeded his sins, but knew well -that if God entered into judgment with him, he could not answer -respecting even the thousandth part of his transgressions. David, the -man after God’s own heart, had the same conviction, and had therefore, -no wish that his merits should be weighed with his sins. His prayer was— - -אל תבוא במשפט את עבדך כי לא יצדק לפניך כל חי ׃ - -“Enter not into judgment with thy servant: for in thy sight shall no man -living be justified.” (Ps. cxliii. 2.) And when Daniel prayed, he did -not venture to prefer his petitions on the score of merits, or to expect -an answer as the reward of righteousness, but cast himself simply on the -mercy of God: - -כי לא על צדקותינו אנחנו מפילים תחנונינו לפניך כי על רחמיך הרבים ׃ - -“For we do not present our supplications before thee for our -righteousnesses, but for thy great mercies.” (Dan. ix. 18.) How, then, -can the modern Jews hope to stand at the tribunal of a heart-searching -God, and not only escape condemnation, but obtain a reward because their -merits exceed their sins? Are they more pure than Job, more holy than -David, more righteous than Daniel? or were those three most holy men -mistaken, or ignorant of the way of salvation? Certain it is that there -must be some mistake somewhere. Either the rabbies were right, and then -Job, David, and Daniel were mistaken, or these three men were right, and -then the rabbies are fearfully and awfully mistaken. If the law requires -perfect obedience, and denounces a curse against all disobedience, then -the former were right in deprecating God’s judgment, and casting -themselves upon his mercy. But if the law requires only that a man’s -merits should exceed his sins, and says that all deficiencies can be -made up by almsgiving and good works in the ten days between the New -Year and the Day of Atonement, then they were wrong. Job was utterly -mistaken when he said, “How should man be just with God?” for the -rabbies say, Only be careful for the first ten days of the year, and you -will be just and sealed unto life. David was utterly mistaken when he -said, “In thy sight shall no man living be justified;” for the rabbies -say that a man’s merits may exceed his sins, and that such an one is -just before God. Daniel was mistaken in not offering his prayers on the -score of righteousness, but on the plea of mercy. But still, -notwithstanding the certainty with which the rabbies speak, we would -rather trust our own salvation to the word of Moses, of Ezekiel, of Job, -David, and Daniel, than to that of the rabbies. We would rather kneel as -supplicants, than claim the reward of our deeds with the rabbies. - -But we cannot pass this subject without observing here also how the -religion of the rabbies exhibits itself at every turn as a religion for -the rich and the learned, rather than for the poor and laborious class -of mankind. It teaches that almsgiving and good works, at a certain -season of the year, will turn the wicked into righteous men, and -transform the sinner into the saint. So the rich sinner puts his hand -into his pocket, and lavishes his gold to the poor and needy, and buys -what is wanting to make up his deficit of merit. The learned man sets to -work at his books; for the oral law says:— - -אין לך מצוה בכל המצוות כולן שהיא שקולה כנגד תלמוד תורה , אלא תלמוד תורה -כנגד כל המצוות כולן שהתלמוד מביא לידי מעשה לפיכך התלמוד קודם למעשה בכל -מקום ׃ - -“Amongst all the commandments, there is not one that is equivalent to -the study of the law. Whereas the study of the law is equivalent to all -the commandments: for study leads to practice. Therefore, study always -goes before good deeds.” (Hilchoth Talmud Torah.) The one with his -money, therefore, and the other with his books, can effect a balance in -his favour; but what is to become of the poor labouring classes, who -have no money to buy righteousness, and no time for study, which is -equivalent to all the other commandments? For them to turn the balance -is impossible—they have not the means; and therefore, according to the -oral law, they stand but a poor chance when the final account comes to -be made up. This of itself would prove that the doctrine of the oral law -cannot be true. God is a righteous judge, and he accepts no man’s money -and no man’s learning. He takes no bribes, and will not wrest the -judgment of the poor. The true mode, therefore, of appearing just before -God, is some other than that pointed out by the oral law, and one -according to which the poor sinner will stand on equal terms with his -rich brother. - -There is, however, another point to which we wish to direct attention. -The oral law says, if a man’s merits exceed his sins, he is just and -sealed unto life; but if his sins exceed his merits, then he is sealed -unto death: what then are we to think of all who die in each succeeding -year? It is plain that they have not been sealed unto life, for then -they could not have died. Then they were sealed unto death; then we must -conclude that their sins exceed their merits; and as all die, then we -must conclude, further, that all die in their sins—that their sins are -more than their merits; and so, after all, this rabbinical doctrine -comes to nothing. It tells a man that by having his merits greater than -his sins, he is righteous, and will be sealed unto life; and yet, after -all his almsgiving and good works, he dies like other men, and it turns -out that he is not a just man, nor even one of the intermediate class, -but one of the wicked. How can any rational man put his faith in such a -system, which promises a great deal, but does not keep its promise? -Above all, how can he trust his soul’s everlasting welfare upon a -promise which each successive year proves to be false? Many an one has -passed into eternity already before the New Year, and of all such the -oral law says they have died in their sins. Many more may pass into -eternity between the New Year and the Day of Atonement. If the oral law -be true, all such belong to the decidedly wicked who did not deserve the -ten days’ grace. Their friends and relations must, therefore, stamp -their memory with the brand of the impenitently wicked, or if they -entertain a hope that such persons have not died in their sins, they -must declare of the oral law that it is false. If they would have a -promise that will not and cannot deceive, let them take up the law and -the prophets. The reader of this paper is still alive, but who can tell -how soon his turn must come, and come it will, and that soon in every -case. What consolation, then, will he have on his dying bed? Will he -begin to balance his account of merit and sin? Alas! there is no use in -that. If the oral law be true, it was balanced on the last Day of -Atonement, and the sins were found to outweigh the merits, as his -approaching death testifies. Where then will he flee for refuge or for -consolation? In the agony and feebleness of a death-bed hour there is no -time for doing good works, and poverty may cut off the rabbinic hope of -purchasing salvation. In the oral law there is no hope. Can he find it, -then, in the law of Moses? That law requires perfect and universal -obedience, and pronounces the sinner accursed. As an accursed sinner, -then, he must stand at the bar of God, unless there be some other way -and some other hope. When Jacob was on his death-bed he had another -hope. He could say— - -לישועתך קויתי ה׳ ׃ - -“I have waited for thy salvation, O Lord.” (Gen. xlix. 18.) Oh! let the -reader seek this salvation in time, that when his last hour comes, he -may be as calm, as happy, and as full of hope as his pious forefather. -He died in a foreign land, but he died happy, trusting not in his own -righteousness, but in the salvation of God. He had learned by experience -that man cannot deliver himself from mere temporal trouble, but that -even there God is his only refuge and his hope, and still more so in the -hour of death and the day of judgment. But he had learned also to -believe in המלאך הגואל the Angel who had redeemed him from all evil, and -was persuaded that He would not forsake him in the great transition from -time to eternity. He had not put off the consideration of salvation to -the last. He could say, “I _have_ waited for thy salvation, O Lord,” and -therefore when the awful moment arrived, he could in perfect -tranquillity gather his children about him, and tell them of Shiloh who -was to come, and of the salvation which he had expected. - - - - - No. XXXIV. - NEW YEAR, CONTINUED. - - -All who believe in Divine Revelation look forward to a great day, when -the secrets of all hearts shall be revealed, and a righteous sentence -pronounced upon all the sons of men. The most important thing in the -world, then, for us to know is, the way of acceptance with God, at that -solemn hour. And if men are bound as rational beings to examine the -grounds of their opinions and belief on other subjects, they must be -considered as altogether devoid of reason, who do not thoroughly examine -and weigh the doctrines which have been taught them with regard to -justification at the bar of God. A mistake on other subjects may be -endured, but a mistake here is fatal and irreparable. What will be the -horror of those who find that they have through their own want of -consideration been trusting in a delusive hope, and have rejected, -wilfully rejected, that way of acceptance which God has appointed. If -there be any one point of difference between Jews and Christians, which -requires profound and attentive consideration, it is this. We Christians -believe that, on this all-important point, the oral law is utterly -mistaken, and that all who trust their salvation to the hope which it -holds out, will find themselves awfully mistaken if Moses and the -prophets speak truth. We have endeavoured to show that the hope of -justification by merits is contrary to the Word of God. But we shall now -proceed to show that the oral law by this doctrine contradicts itself, -and that therefore it is most unsafe to rest our salvation upon any of -its assertions. In that law, which teaches that if a man’s merits exceed -his sins, he is justified, we also find the following parable, intended -to explain God’s dealings in the judgment of the New Year:— - -משל למדינה שחייבת מס למלך ולא נתנה לו בא אליה בחיל לגבותו , כשנתקרב אליה -בי׳ פרסאות יצאו גדולי המדינה לקראתו ואמרו לו אין לנו מה ליתן לך הניח להם -שליש , כיון שנתקרב יותר יצאו בינוני העיר לקראתו הניח להם שליש השני , -כשנתקרב יותר יצאו כל בני העיר לקראתו הניח לחם הכל , כך המלך זה הקב׳׳ה , -בני המדינה אלו ישראל שמסגלין עוונות כל השנה ערב ראש השנה הגדולים מתענין -ומוותר להם שליש עוונותיהם , בי׳ ימים בינונים מתענין ומוותר להם שני -שלישים , ביום הכפורים הכל מתענין ומוותר להם הכל ׃ - -“A parable. There was a certain city, which owed tribute to the king, -but did not pay it, whereupon he came upon it with an army to collect -it. When he came within ten leagues of it, the great men of the city -went forth to meet him, and said to him, We have nothing wherewith to -pay thee, so he forgave them one-third. When he approached nearer still, -the middle classes of the city went forth to meet him, and he forgave -them a second-third. When he approached still nearer, all the population -of the city went forth to meet him, and he forgave them all. The King -here is the Holy One, blessed be He. The inhabitants of the city are -Israel, who accumulate sins all the year. On the eve of the New Year, -the great men fast, and one-third of their sins is remitted to them. In -the ten days, the intermediate class fast, and two-thirds are remitted. -On the Day of Atonement all fast, and all is remitted to them.” (Orach -Chaiim, 581.) Now this representation is quite at variance with the -doctrine that those are justified whose merits exceed their sins. This -parable, in the first place, represents all as in debt, and secondly, -that they have nothing to pay, and thirdly, that the King forgives them -freely and for nothing. Now this statement is directly contrary to the -notion of merit. If a man has more merits than sins, and is on that -score accounted just, he cannot be said to be in debt, and he needs no -remission. But if it be true of the great men as well as the middle -class, that they are in debt and have nothing wherewith to pay, then it -is certain that they have no merits, and cannot be considered as just, -but as sinners. Merit and forgiveness are as essentially opposed as -payment and debt. The man who has paid his creditor all his demands can -have no debt, and so the man who has kept God’s commands so as to have -merit, needs not forgiveness. But he who has nothing to pay, that is, he -who has no merits, must either be condemned, or he must have a free -forgiveness of all; and this the parable says is the case of Israel. -They have nothing to pay, and God forgives them all. Merit is therefore -altogether out of the question, and if this statement be true, then the -doctrine of justification by merits is false, and therefore the oral law -contradicts itself. How then can the Israelite trust his everlasting -welfare to a system at variance with itself? - -The prayers for the New Year are equally decisive against the doctrine -of justification by merits. Out of many passages which deny the -existence of merit, and asserts the necessity of a free forgiveness, we -cite the following:— - -קהלות ורבבות ואלפים , אשר לפנינו עברו חלופים , ולא יכלו להצטדק היות חפים -, הן שמים בעינו לא זכו , וכל לגיוני שחק כפשתה דועכו , ונתעב ונאלח מה -יזכו , קובץ מרמה ומסתתר בעיניו , אם יאמר בלבו מי יעידני לפניו , קורותיו -ורהיטיו ועציו ואבניו , טהור עינים ברע מראות , הצלל חטאינו בעמקי מחבואות -, ועשה עמנו לטובה אות ׃ - -“Thousands and ten thousands of congregations, which have persecuted us -and are vanished, were not able to justify themselves in purity. Lo! the -heavens are not pure in his sight, and all the heavenly angels are as -beaten flax: how then can he that is filthy and abominable be pure? He -gathereth riches by deceit; and working in secret, he says in his heart, -Who can bear witness against me before him? Even the beams, rafters, -planks, and stones of his house. O Thou who art too pure of sight to -view evil, sink our sins in the deepest recesses, and work the good sign -for us.” (Prayers for the New Year, p. 149.) Here is an express -acknowledgment that the congregations of old could not justify -themselves by merit, an assertion in the words of the Psalm, that all -men are filthy and abominable, and a prayer, not for payment of deserts, -but for forgiveness of sins. If this prayer contain the sentiments of -truth, and be offered in sincerity, then Israel has no merits, and the -doctrine, that any man is justified by the superabundance of his merits, -is a mere fiction. The man who will venture to offer this prayer, and -yet hope to be saved by his good deeds, is a hypocrite, or is not right -in his mind. Here again, then, the oral law is inconsistent with itself: -for here it places the hope of salvation not in merit, but in the free -and undeserved mercy of God. It is the duty of every Israelite, -therefore, to ascertain which of the two ways is in accordance with the -declaration of Moses and the prophets. It is impossible that they should -both be true. The fact appears to be, that the authors of the oral law, -like all other men, loved the honour and glory of personal -righteousness, and hoped that all those deeds, and fasts, and -almsgiving, which were so lovely in their own eyes, and gained them so -much credit amongst men, would also be duly acknowledged at the bar of -God’s judgment. At the same time their conscience was continually -awakened and terrified by the plain declarations of the Word of God, and -therefore, to quiet their conscience, they were driven even against -their wills to acknowledge their guilt, and to seek for a quietus. This -they partly found in the hope of free mercy, but partly in inventions of -their own. They placed no small dependence upon fasting and almsgiving, -but their troubled conscience was not satisfied with these, and they -have therefore fled for refuge to observances the most trivial, and -hopes the most childish. By blowing the horn the whole month of Elul, -they hope to deceive Satan, so that he may not know which is the first -day of the new year, and may not be able to accuse them:— - -לכן התקינו חז׳׳ל שיהיו הוקעין בר׳׳ח אלול בכל שנה ושנה וכל החודש כדי -להזהיר את ישראל שיעשו תשובה שנאמר אם יתקע בשופר וגו׳ וכדי לערבב השטן ׃ - -“Therefore our wise men of blessed memory have ordained that the horn -should be blown on the first day of the month of Elul every year, and -during the whole month, to warn Israel to repent, as it is said, ‘Shall -a trumpet be blown in the city, and the people not be afraid?’ (Amos -iii. 6), and also to confuse Satan.” How can any man of understanding -believe that a law teaching such absurdity is from God? We are told in -Zechariah and Job, that Satan does accuse the people of God: but how can -any one, who has been taught by the Word of God, imagine that Satan is -to be deceived by blowing the horn at a wrong time, or that even if he -did not accuse at all, that God is ignorant of man’s sins, or that he -will judge unjustly unless he is reminded by Satan? In accusing sinners, -Satan gratifies his own malignity, but his accusation is not wanted at -the bar of God to convict man of sin. When men appear there they will be -seen as they are. All their transgressions will be as visible as is now -their bodily presence. The eye of God will penetrate every secret recess -of the soul, and the conscience itself will testify and condemn the -impenitent. It is therefore most absurd and irrational to hope to escape -by confounding the accuser; and it is to us serious matter of -astonishment how such an absurdity could have been tolerated for so many -centuries, and how a people of such intellect as the Jews confessedly -are, should remain the disciples of such senseless superstition. - -But the rabbies expect not only to confound Satan by blowing the horn at -the wrong time, but to obtain God’s mercy by blowing it at the right -time. Thus we are told in Vaijikra Rabbah— - -בשעה שישראל נוטלין את שופריהן ותוקעין לפני הקב׳׳ה עומד מכסא הדין ויושב -בכסא רחמים דכתיב ה׳ בקול שופר ומתמלא עליהם רחמים ומרחם עליהם והופך עליהם -מדת הדין לרחמים אימתי בחודש השביעי ׃ - -“At the hour in which Israel take their horns, and sound before the Holy -One, blessed be He, He rises from the throne of judgment and sits on the -throne of mercy, as it is written, ‘The Lord, with the sound of the -trumpet’ (Ps. xlvii. 5); and he is filled with mercy towards them, and -has pity upon them, and changes the attribute of judgment which was -against them into mercy. When does this happen? In the seventh month.” -(Vaijikra Rabbah, sect. 29.) This then is one of the means whereby the -rabbies try to quiet a guilty conscience. If true, it would no doubt be -very convenient for a man who has spent the year in iniquity, and who -has not repented, and does not intend to repent, to get rid of all his -sins by blowing a horn on the new year, and thus turning God’s wrath -into mercy. But it is a statement altogether opposed to the Word of God, -and derogatory to his character for mercy and for justice. No mere -ceremonial act can atone for sin, neither does God need the blowing of a -horn to remind him of mercy. To suppose, that such a miserable ceremony -can stop God in his course of justice, and make him reverse his -determinations, is to deprive him of all the attributes of Deity, and to -represent him as exceeding in imbecility the weakest of all the sons of -men that ever occupied the judgment-seat. And yet this most absurd and -unscriptural hope is not merely a rabbinic legend, or an allegory, but -is in the prayers of the synagogue gravely inserted as a devout -petition:— - -תחנה לתוקע לפני התקיעה , יהי רצון מלפניך יי אלהי ואלהי אבותי אלהי השמים -ואלהי הארץ אלהי אברהם אלהי יצחק ואלהי יעקב האל הגדול הגבור והנורא שתשלח -לי המלאכים הקדושים והטהורים נאמנים משרתים ונאמנים בשליחותם חפצים ורוצים -לזכות את ישראל ואת המלאך הגדול פצפציה הממונה להוציא זכיותיהן של ישראל -בעת שהם תוקעין בשופר ואת המלאך הגדול תשבש הממונה להשמיע זכיותיהן של -ישראל ולהבעית השטן בתקיעתם ואת השרים הגדולים הממונים על השופר אנקתם פסתם -ומלאכים הגדולים הדרניאל וסנדלפון הממונים על תקיעתנו המעלים תקיעתנו לפני -כסא כבודך ואת המלאך שמשיאל הממונה על התרועה ואת המלאך פרסטא הממונה על -קשר׳׳ק להיותם מזומנים בשליחותם להעלות תקיעתנו לפני הפרוכת ולפני כסא -כבודך והמלא על עמך ישראל ברחמים ותכנס להם לפנים משורת הדין ותתנהג עם -בניך במדת רחמים ותעלה תקיעתנּו לפני כסא כבודך וכו׳ ׃ - -The following prayer is said by the person who sounds the cornet, before -he begins:—“May it be acceptable in thy presence, O Lord, my God, and -the God of my fathers, the God of heaven, and the God of the earth; the -God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob; the great God, -mighty and tremendous; to send me the holy and pure angels, who are -faithful ministers, and faithful in their message; and who are desirous -and willing to justify Israel; and also the great angel Patzpatziah, who -is appointed to present the merits of Israel, when they sound the cornet -this day; and likewise the great angel Tashbach, who is appointed to -declare the merits of Israel, and confound Satan with their sound of the -cornet; and the great princes, who are appointed over the cornet, -Enkatham and Pastam, and the great angels, Hadarniel and Sandalphon, who -are appointed over our sounding, who introduce our sounding before the -throne of thy glory; and also the angel Shamshiel, who is appointed over -the joyful sound; and the angel Prasta, who is appointed to superintend -קש׳׳רק that they may all be expeditious in their errand; to introduce -our soundings before the veil, and before the throne of thy glory; and -mayest thou be filed with mercy over thy people Israel; and lead us -within the temperate line of strict justice; and conduct thyself towards -thy children, with the attribute of mercy, and suffer our soundings to -ascend before the throne of thy glory.” (Prayers for the New Year, p. -81.) Here, then, we have, in the language of solemn prayer, the very -same monstrous doctrine, that the sounding of the cornet on the new year -can change God’s determinations; and we have it in even a more -objectionable form, for it is connected with other most unscriptural -superstitions. This prayer asserts what is nowhere found in Holy -Scripture, that there is a certain number of angels whose express office -it is to superintend the blowing of the horn, and to bear the soundings -thereof before the throne of God, and at the same time to advocate their -merits. In the first place, this is a pure invention, and a fond -superstition. In the Word of God, not one word is mentioned of anything -of the kind. We should be sorry to treat any religious tenet of any -people, but especially of the Jews, with ridicule, but we cannot help -asking the good sense of every reader, whether the representation here -given is not in the highest degree ridiculous? The angels are to be sent -down from heaven. For what purpose? Is it to warn men of the impending -wrath of God, or to announce the coming redemption of Israel, or to -execute God’s judgments? No, but to attend to the blowing of a ram’s -horn, and to carry up the sounds before the throne of God, that they may -turn his attribute of judgment into that of mercy. Is it necessary, -then, for the angels to interfere in this matter? cannot God hear the -sounding of the cornet, unless it be conveyed to him by angels? or do -the movings of his compassion depend upon the blowing of a cornet? What -would Elijah have said to such doctrine as this? When the priests of -Baal only cried aloud, he mocked them, and said, “Cry aloud, for he is a -God; either he is talking, or he is pursuing, or he is on a journey, or -peradventure he sleepeth, and must be awaked.” (1 Kings xviii. 27.) And -yet the priests of Baal were not sounding a cornet, that they might -rouse their pretended Deity to compassion. If we had not read this -prayer with our own eyes, we could scarcely have believed that even -Rabbinism itself could have fallen into such manifest absurdity. But the -subject is far too grave to be treated with levity. Upon this absurdity, -the rabbies teach Israel to rest their hope of salvation. Conscious that -the hope of justification by merit is fallacious, and yet unwilling to -give up what is so palatable to the pride of man, they seek about to -find something that will compensate for the deficiency, and in the -eagerness of desperation grasp at any thing. The trivial ceremony of -blowing the cornet was therefore turned into a mystery, and a suitable -apparatus of angels invented to meet the apprehensions of the -superstitious and unenlightened, and in some degree to take off the -apparent irrationality of believing that an act so insignificant should -effect a change so great in the purposes of the Almighty. But whatever -was the motive or the origin of this fable, there it now stands in the -prayers of the synagogue, to lead the ignorant away from the true means -of justification, and the true ideas of God’s justice and God’s -judgment. Let no man say it is an innocent error. No error is innocent. -Error in every form is pernicious; in religion it is deadly. And the -most mischievous of all religious errors are those which confirm men in -the idea, that external ceremonies will atone for moral delinquencies; -and this is precisely the tendency of the fable here noticed. An -ignorant and superstitious man, and there are many such in every -religion, finds in his Prayer-book that the blowing of the cornet can -change the attribute of judgment into the attribute of mercy: he -believes it to be true, not only because of the book where he finds it, -but because every man is glad to hear of a way of acceptance, which will -save the trouble of repentance and thorough change of heart and life. He -therefore perseveres through the year in the practice of those things -which his heart condemns, trusting that the blowing of the cornet will -set all straight, and thus he goes on from year to year until death -overtakes him hardened and impenitent, and he finds too late at the bar -of God, that he has been in fatal error. Upon whom then will the guilt -of such person’s destruction be charged? Not only upon those who -invented the falsehood, but on those also who sanction it, who leave it -in the Prayer-book, and thus practically teach the people superstition. -Every Jew who attends the worship of the synagogue is responsible in his -station and calling, for the error and falsehood which its prayers -propagate amongst the people. But at all events every person who -disbelieves this story of the angels carrying up the sounding of the -cornet, must grant that a system teaching such a method of salvation is -very unsafe; and that, as it grossly errs in this one article it is -suspicious in all. But besides the absurdity of this doctrine, we must -notice its inconsistency. The Prayer-book states that the blowing of the -cornet is necessary to the procuring of pardon; it therefore implies -that pardon is necessary, and therefore that Israel is guilty; what, -then, becomes of merits? If Israel can be justified by merits, the -blowing of the cornet is superfluous; for, in that case, all they want -is justice. Where a man can claim salvation because of all his good -deeds, he need not fear the attribute of righteousness, מדת הדין, and -does not want the attribute of mercy. But the moment that he -acknowledges his need of forgiveness, he confesses that he has no -merits. If, therefore, the Prayer-book be right in acknowledging sin and -praying for pardon, the oral law is wrong in teaching justification by -merits. One contradicts the other, and therefore they cannot both be -from God; and the man who believes both is guilty of renouncing his -reason. But the man who trusts his salvation to a system so inconsistent -with itself, is utterly devoid of wisdom. He is hazarding his eternal -welfare on the testimony of a witness who contradicts himself; who says -at one time, that a man can be saved by his merits, and at another time -that he has no merits that can stand the scrutiny of God’s righteous -judgment. - - - - - No. XXXV. - JUSTIFICATION. - - -The doctrine of justification by merits is agreeable, and seems very -reasonable, so long as a man can theorize, that is, so long as he is not -in earnest. But so soon as the prospect of death, or any other similar -circumstance, compels him to realize the act of Divine judgment upon -himself, it loses all its beauty and plausibility; the conscience is -unsatisfied by its consolations, and reason pronounces that the hope -built on merits is insecure. A solemn and earnest review of our past -years soon convinces, that our good deeds are but few, that our best -deeds are defiled by mixed motives; and, above all, that the love of God -has not been the heart’s dominant principle, and that, therefore, some -other mode of justification is absolutely necessary. The truth of this -statement is confirmed by the inconsistency of the oral law with itself. -The great principle of the oral law is, that the observance of any one -of its commands, purchases a certain quantity of merit, and that an -accumulation of these merits will, at last, constitute a sufficiency; -but when the solemn season of the New Year and the Day of Atonement -arrives, this sufficiency is found to be insufficient, and the alarmed -conscience eagerly looks round to find something, that may compensate -for the deficiency of merit. We have already noticed some of the -rabbinic inventions for this purpose, and now proceed to consider -another, and that is, _the merit of their progenitors_. One of the main -props of rabbinic hope is the righteousness of their forefathers, as may -be seen almost on every page of the Jewish Prayer-book, and as is -apparent in the following extracts:— - -קשת רוח אשר הועקרה , רופאה לקץ תשעים כנתבקרה , שלחה פאורות ולא שקרה , -תפן בנצרים אשר חוללו כהיום , ושלש עקרות שהפקדו בזה יום , תצדיק בצדקתם -מיחליך איום ׃ - -“She who was sorrowful when barren, was made to rejoice with good -tidings when ninety years of age; she then sent forth shoots that failed -not. Regard the merit of your ancestors who were born on this day, and -the three barren ones, who were visited on this day: justify, through -their righteousness, those who hope in thee, O Thou, who art -tremendous.” (Levi’s Prayer for the New Year, p. 61.) - -And again— - -את חיל יום פקודה , באימיו כל לחום לשקדה , גשים בו ברך ליקודה , דעם לישר -כעל מוקדה , היוצר יחד כסל נשפט , ושוע ודל בפלוס יושפט , זכר לא יעשה משפט -, חין ערכו יזכר במשפט , טרם כל מפעל חצב , יזם במחשבת צור חוצב , כאחור -וקדם בתוך נחצב , ליהב עליו כל המחצב , מנתו כהיום כח דושנה , נצר להחניט -לתשעים שנה , סוימה אות היות לשושנה , עבור לפניו בזה ראש השנה , פולצו -פרחיה בזה יום , צגתם פני כס איום , קול דבובם ירחישו כהיום , רוגשים להריע -למצוא פדיום , שעונים עליה בה להפקדה , שואגים בלהק דלתות לשקדה , תמוכים -בדשן שה עקידה , תשר אשר בו נפקדה ׃ - -“The fearful day of visitation is come, its dread goads all flesh; they -present themselves with bended knees; O may their repentance be -accounted as a burnt-offering. Thou who hast formed them judgest all -their thoughts: the rich and poor are all weighed in the balance; -_remember the merit of_ him who said, ‘Shall he not do justice?’ O, -remember the tenor of his prayer in judgment. Ere ought was created -didst thou purpose to ordain him the rock from whence the nation was to -spring; he was as the centre, the support of all creatures. His wife was -on this day endued with youth, to cause the branch to put forth at -ninety years of age; she was appointed as a sign to those who are -likened to the rose, who are to pass before thee in judgment on this New -Year’s-day. Her posterity tremble this day; when they stand before thy -terrible throne; they utter the voice of prayer this day; they assemble -to sound the cornet, that they may obtain redemption. _They depend on -her merit_ to be visited like her; their assemblies cry aloud and hasten -to enter into thy doors. They depend on the ashes of him who was bound -as a lamb,[30] with whom she was visited in the month Tishri.” (Ibid., -p. 57.) The offering of Isaac is regarded as particularly meritorious, -and constantly urged as a plea for merit. Thus— - -והסתכל באפרו של יצחק הצבור על גבי המזבח וזכור לנו עקדתו היום לזרעו של -יצחק ׃ - -“Attentively view the ashes of Isaac, heaped upon the altar;[31] and -remember this day unto his seed, his being bound on the altar.” (Ibid., -p. 81.) And again— - -סמוכים בצדקת אב היה אחד , נשענים בסבך יחיד ומיוחד , מובטחים בתם וביושר -אב אחד ׃ - -“They depend on the righteousness of the first patriarch, and rest on -the merit of the only peculiar Son, and are secure in the perfection and -rectitude of the father of the nation.” (Ibid., p. 105.) - -These passages show plainly that, after all, the rabbies felt their own -doctrine of justification by merits very unsafe ground on which to build -their hope of salvation; and that they were glad to flee to merits more -adequate, which they hoped to find in the righteousness of their -ancestors. The modern Jews, who still adopt these prayers, profess to -entertain the same hope, and we therefore proceed to inquire, whether it -be built on a better foundation than that which they are compelled to -relinquish. We think that it is not; for, in the first place, the saints -of old, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, though we revere them as pious and -holy men, were after all only sinful men like ourselves. They did not, -and could not, save themselves by their own righteousness, and if they -did not save themselves, it is folly to think that they can save us. -Abraham, though by the grace of God, the father of the faithful, was yet -in himself so weak in faith, and so distrustful in the goodness and -mercy of God, as to endeavour to save himself from the Egyptians by -means of a deliberate falsehood. Sarah had so little faith as to laugh -within herself at the promise of God, and then to defend herself by a -lie. Isaac was guilty of similar conduct, and Jacob’s sin in deceiving -his brother plainly shows, that he also was a poor sinful creature. -Where then are their superabundant merits, whereby they are to justify -all their posterity? The Word of God says expressly,— - -אח לא פדה יפדה איש לא יתן לאלהים כפרו ׃ - -“No man can by any means redeem his brother, nor give to God a ransom -for him.” (Ps. xlix. 8.) How then are these three men to redeem all -their posterity? If they have got merits sufficient to compensate for -the unrighteousness of their children, then they have a ransom; and then -the Word of God, which says that no man has a ransom, is not true. But -if the words of the Psalm be true,—and he is no Jew who thinks them -false,—then the patriarchs have no superabundant merits, and no ransom -to offer for their children, and then the hope built on their -righteousness is deceitful, and those that lean on it will find -themselves mistaken in the hour of judgment. Nay, more, they will find -themselves accursed for departing from the Lord. He that trusts in the -righteousness of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, to deliver him from the -wrath to come, is evidently trusting in man, and making flesh his arm. -If the merits of the patriarchs can save their children from the wrath -of God, then God is not the Saviour of Israel, but the patriarchs are -Israel’s redeemers, and poor mortal men are their hope and their trust: -but the Prophet says,— - -ארור הגבר אשר יבטח באדם ושם בשר זרועו ומן ה׳ יסור לבו ׃ - -“Cursed be the man that trusteth in man, and maketh flesh his arm, and -whose heart departeth from the Lord.” (Jer. xvii. 5.) So far, then, from -being secure by trusting in the righteousness of Abraham, Isaac, and -Jacob, this trust increases the sinner’s guilt, and draws down upon him -a double curse. But it has pleased God himself to argue this question at -large with the Jews, to suppose the case of a righteous father who has -an unrighteous son, and to declare that the son cannot be saved by the -righteousness of the father. In the Prophet Ezekiel, God says, “If a man -be just, and do that which is lawful and right—he is just, he shall -surely live, saith the Lord God. If he beget a son that is a robber, a -shedder of blood, and that doeth the like to any of these things, and -that doeth not any of those duties, but even hath eaten upon the -mountains, and defileth his neighbour’s wife, hath oppressed the poor -and needy, hath spoiled by violence, hath not restored the pledge, and -hath lifted up his eyes to the idols, hath committed abomination, hath -given forth upon usury, and hath taken increase: shall he then live? he -shall not live: he hath done all these abominations: he shall surely -die; his blood shall be upon him.” (Ezek. xviii. 5-13.) Here God sets -the matter at rest, and decides that the righteousness of a father is of -no use to an unrighteous son, and cannot deliver him from the punishment -due to his evil deeds. The doctrine, then, of justification by the -merits of ancestors, is directly opposed to the plain declaration of God -himself, and, therefore, in this case also the Jewish prayers and the -oral law teach error, and seduce the Jews to their everlasting -destruction, by teaching them to trust in that which can do them no -good. It is an awful and melancholy spectacle to see God’s ancient -people thus misled. At this season of the year, the devout amongst them -endeavour to turn to God, fast and pray, and yet neither the one nor the -other is accepted, because they put their trust in the merits of men, -and their heart is turned away from God their Saviour. The prayers of -the synagogue, instead of drawing down a blessing, only help to -accumulate wrath, by seducing them from the Redeemer of Israel to -refuges of lies. And hence it happens that all the fasts and the prayers -of Israel for these seventeen centuries have been disregarded by God, -and that Israel still continues in captivity. But as every lie and every -error is built upon some truth as its foundation, it will be well to -inquire what truth it was that gave rise to this error of justification -by the merits of ancestors? The principle is _that the guilty may be -saved by the merits of another person, who is righteous_: how, then, did -this principle become current among the Jews? It was certainly not the -invention of human reason, for reason can discover no necessary -connexion between the merits of one righteous man and the pardon of -another who is guilty. The principle does not hold in the ordinary -judicial proceedings of this world: a robber or a murderer is not and -cannot be pardoned because another member of the community, or of his -family, is a good and righteous man. We must therefore look elsewhere -for the origin of the principle, and we find it in the revealed will of -God. We see it in the appointment of sacrifice and atonement, according -to which a guilty man was pardoned by the suffering of an innocent -animal. Here is at once the principle of substitution of the innocent -for the guilty; and human reason, when it once has the substratum, can -easily proceed to erect the superstructure. In the present case it -naturally argued, if the death of one of the brute creation could effect -so much, how much more would the merits of a righteous man avail, if -such an one could be found? The error, then, is not in the principle, -but in its application. According to the Scripture, it is true that the -innocent may be substituted for the guilty; but the rabbies were wrong -in applying this truth to the case of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and other -men, who were only sinners as themselves. The Word of God, which gave -the principle, also directs us to the right application. It tells us of -one for whose righteousness’ sake the Lord will forgive sin:— - -ה׳ חפץ למען צדקו יגדיל תורה ויאדיר ׃ - -“The Lord is well pleased for his righteousness’ sake; he will magnify -the law and make it honourable.” (Isa. xlii. 21.) Who, then, is this -person? The preceding verses tell us that it is the servant of the Lord. -Who, then, is the servant of the Lord? Kimchi says, on this verse, that -the servant of the Lord is the prophet; but this cannot possibly be -true, for the prophet was not righteous, but a sinner, as he himself -tells us in the sixth chapter—“I am a man of unclean lips.” The servant -mentioned in the nineteenth verse is the same person as he who is called -“My servant,” in the first verse of the chapter—“Behold my servant, whom -I uphold, mine elect, in whom my soul delighteth: I have put my spirit -upon him: he shall bring forth judgment to the Gentiles.” But here -Kimchi says,— - -זה הוא מלך המשיח כמו שפירשנו ׃ - -“This is the King Messiah, as we have interpreted.” If then, in the -first verse, “The servant of the Lord” means the Messiah, it must mean -the same through the chapter, and the Messiah is the person for whose -righteousness’ sake the Lord is well pleased. - -This same prophet tells us again, concerning this servant,— - -בדעתו יצדיק צדיק עבדי לרבים ועונותם הוא יסבול ׃ - -“By his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall -bear their iniquities.” (Isa. liii. 11.) That the Messiah is here -intended no Jew can doubt, who uses the Synagogue Prayers; for on the -Day of Atonement and at the Passover, this chapter is applied to -him.[32] Here, then, it is expressly stated, that the Messiah, by his -righteousness, shall justify the guilty. And, therefore, the prophet -calls the Messiah יהוה צדקנו “THE LORD OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS.” (Jer. xxiii. -6.) That the Messiah is here intended there can be no doubt, for he is -described as “the righteous branch” of David, and thus all the -commentators explain it. In these three passages, then, of the Word of -God, sinners are pointed to the Messiah as their hope and their -righteousness. He is God’s righteous servant, and his sufferings and his -merits are all-sufficient to do that which Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob -cannot do. The great mistake of the oral law is to point to wrong -persons, who have no righteousness, and almost totally to pass by Him -whom God hath set forth as the hope of sinners. But it may here be -asked, if Messiah be a man, how can he have merits more than Abraham, or -any other of the children of Adam? The answer is, that though very man, -he is not a sinful man as we are, neither is he a mere man. If he were a -man like us, he could have no merits, and therefore could not justify us -any more than we could justify him. The declaration, therefore, that he -is the Lord’s righteous servant, and that he is appointed for the -justification of sinners, necessarily implies that he is more than a -man, and the title given him by the Prophet Jeremiah puts this beyond -doubt. Jeremiah calls him by the incommunicable name of God יהוה , -concerning which God himself says:— - -אני יהוה הוא שמי וכבודי לאחר לא אתן ׃ - -“I am the LORD: that is my name, and my glory will I not give to -another.” (Isa. xlii. 8.) If then יהוה be the name of God, then that -Being who is called by that holy name must be God. Some of the modern -rabbies reply, that this holy name is also given to the city of -Jerusalem, both by Jeremiah and Ezekiel. But even if we admit this, -still this is no answer to our argument. There is no fear that a city -which, however great or noble, is only a mass of stones and mortar, -should be mistaken for the living God, the Creator of the Universe. -When, therefore, the name of God is attributed to the city, God’s honour -is not given to it. But when we are told of the Messiah, first that he -is righteous, secondly that his righteousness is so great as to justify -the guilty, and lastly that his name is יהוה, “THE LORD our -Righteousness;” that is when we see that the attributes and the name of -God are attributed to him, then we must conclude either that he is God, -or that God has done what he has declared that he would not do, and -given his honour to another. Righteousness is the attribute of God -alone, and so Daniel says:— - -לך ה׳ הצדקה ולנו בושת הפנים כיום הזה ׃ - -“O Lord, righteousness belongeth unto thee, but unto us confusion of -faces, as at this day.” (Dan. ix. 7.) But, in the above passages, -righteousness is said to belong to the Messiah, and that in such an -immeasurable degree as to be sufficient to justify the guilty sons of -men; if then he have this attribute of God, he must also have the nature -of God. Again, another prophet says, that of God men will say that they -have righteousness in him:— - -אך בה׳ לי אמר צדקות ועוז ׃ - -“Surely shall one say, in the Lord have I righteousness and strength. -(Isa. xlv. 24.) And again:— - -בה׳ יצדקו ויתהללו כל זרע ישראל ׃ - -“In the Lord shall all the seed of Israel be justified, and shall -glory.” Here it is said that God is our righteousness, and that in Him -we shall be justified; but in the passages quoted above, it is said that -the Messiah is our Righteousness, and that in Him we shall be justified; -the person then intended in these different passages must be one and -identical. Thus the difficulties are all removed, and we have one in -whose righteousness we may safely trust, without making ourselves liable -to the curse denounced against those who put their trust in sinful men. -This is the Christian’s hope. Many Jews think, and speak, and argue too, -as if Christians had departed from the living God and put their trust in -a man; but that of which they accuse us, they have done themselves. We -have not departed from the living God. Our hope and trust and confidence -is in יהוה צדקנו, The LORD our Righteousness. You have departed from the -Lord, for in your prayers you say that your hope and trust is in the -merits of sinful men. Our confidence is based upon the Word of God, and -your hope is taught you by the rabbies, who are fallible men. Your -doctrine is the doctrine of men, and your hope is in the merits of men. -You have, therefore, doubly departed from God, both from his word and -his righteousness. Our desire is that you would return to Him, not to -us,—to his word, and not to ours. You have no merits more than we have. -Your forefathers have no more than either of us, and the blowing of a -ram’s horn is but a poor foundation on which to build our hope of -salvation; and yet these are the things on which your rabbies have -taught you to depend. Examine your prayers, and compare them with the -Word of God, and you will find, that as long as the Jewish nation -continues to offer such petitions, their cry cannot be heard; and that -if they wish for salvation, they must forsake their arm of flesh, and -return to Him who was the hope of their fathers. - -It was not by his own merits, nor the merits of his forefathers, nor by -any ceremonial observance, that Abraham was justified, but by faith in -the LORD, יהוה, as it is written:— - -והאמין בה׳ ויחשבה לו צדקה ׃ - -“And he believed in the LORD, and it was counted to him for -righteousness.” (Gen. xv. 6.) David the King did not expect to be -forgiven and justified on account of Abraham’s or his other ancestors’ -merits; neither did he say, Blessed is the man who puts his trust in the -righteousness of the patriarchs, but— - -אשרי נשוי פשע כסוי חטאה , אשרי אדם לא יחשב ה׳ לו עון ואין ברוחו רמיה ׃ - -“Blessed is he whose transgression is forgiven, whose sin is covered. -Blessed is the man unto whom the LORD imputeth not iniquity, and in -whose spirit there is no guile.” (Ps. xxxii. 1.) Every one, then, who -desires to have this blessing, must renounce all pretensions to merit, -and acknowledge himself a sinner needing forgiveness; and for this -forgiveness he must look not to anything that man had done, or can do, -but to the mercy of God in passing by transgression and sin. And -therefore the Prophet Habakkuk lays it down as a general rule— - -וצדיק באמונתו יהיה ׃ - -“The just shall live by his faith.” (Habak. ii. 4.) This is the -Scriptural mode of justification, and this the hope of Abraham, David, -and Habakkuk. Will the Jews, then, cast in their lot with their father -Abraham, and trust to that way of justification in which he walked? or -will they refuse to be justified as he was, and still persist in -following the inventions of men, which are not even consistent with -themselves? If the oral law pointed out one way of justification, and -then consistently adhered to it, there would at least be an appearance -of reason in following its directions. But it points out two ways as -opposite as east and west. It says a man may be justified by his own -merits, and then it tells him he is to be justified by the merits of -another. Both cannot possibly be true. It is the duty, then, of every -man earnestly to inquire which is the true way of Salvation, and to -decide, whether he is to be saved by his own merits, or the merits of -his forefathers, or the merits of “THE LORD OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS.” - -Footnote 30: - - Isaac. - -Footnote 31: - - “Alluding to Isaac’s being bound; and thus considered as if he had - been offered, and his body burnt to ashes on the altar.” (Levi’s - note.) - -Footnote 32: - - See the Machsor for the Day of Atonement, in אז מלפני בראשית and for - the Passover, in ברה דודי. - - - - - No. XXXVI. - DAY OF ATONEMENT. - - -The law and the prophets both abound with plain declarations entirely -subversive of the rabbinic doctrine of human merit. But it has pleased -God, besides these plain and repeated declarations, to ordain a public -and solemn act to instruct even the most ignorant, and to convince the -most obstinate, that by human merit there is no salvation. He commanded -that, once every year, an atonement should be made by the high-priest, -for himself, and for all the people of every class and degree. - -וכפר את מקדש הקודש ואת אהל מועד ואת המזבח יכפר ועל הכהנים ועל כל עם הקהל -יכפר ׃ - -“And he shall make an atonement for the holy sanctuary, and he shall -make an atonement for the tabernacle of the congregation, and for the -altar; and he shall make an atonement for the priests and for all the -people of the congregation.” (Levit. xvi. 33.) Now this ordinance -implies, that all Israel, the high-priest, the priests, and the people, -are all sinners, all need an atonement; and, therefore, utterly -annihilates all idea of justification by merits. If Israel could have -been justified either by their own merits, or by the merits of their -forefathers, the solemn act of annual atonement would have been -superfluous. But if this atonement be necessary,—and if it were not, why -did God appoint it—then there is no room for the assertion of human -merits. But the truth is, as we have already seen, that the rabbies felt -that their doctrine was insufficient to quiet the awakened conscience, -and gladly fled to any refuge that they could discover; it is no wonder -then that they have clung with uncommon tenacity to the shadow of that -hope that was held out in the law of Moses. In spite of their doctrine -of merit, they are glad to have even the appearance of a day of -atonement to reconcile them to the Almighty. It is true they have no -high-priest and no sacrifice, yet so convinced are they of the need of -an atonement, that rather than confess that they have absolutely none, -they teach that repentance and the day itself will atone for all sin:— - -בזמן הזה שאין בית המקדש קיים ואין לנו מזבח כפרה אין שם אלא תשובה , -התשובה מכפרת על כל העבירות אפילו רשע כל ימיו ועשה תשובה באחרונה אין -מזכירין לו שום דבר מרשעו , שנאמר רשעת הרשע לא יכשל בה ביום שובו מרשעו , -ועצמו של יום הכפורים מכפר לשבים שנאמר כי ביום הזה יכפר עליכם ׃ - -“At this time, when there is no temple, and we have no altar, there is -no atonement but repentance. Repentance atones for all transgressions, -yea, though a man be wicked all his days, and repent at last, none of -his wickedness is mentioned to him, for it is said, ‘As for the -wickedness of the wicked, he shall not fall thereby, in the day that he -turneth from his wickedness.’ (Ezek. xxxiii. 12.) The Day of Atonement -itself also atones for them that repent, for it is said, ‘For on that -day he shall make an atonement for you.’ Lev. xvi. 30.” (Hilchoth -T’shuvah, c. i. 2.) This is the last refuge of Jewish hope, and we, -therefore, propose to consider, whether it is a refuge on which a -reasonable man may hazard his hope of salvation? No man of sense would -hazard his life or his property upon a statement, of which one part -contradicted the other; and such is the statement which we have just -read. It first tells us, that in this present time “There is no -atonement but repentance,” and that “Repentance atones for all -transgressions;” and yet, immediately after, it adds, that “The Day of -Atonement itself atones for them that repent.” Now the latter assertion -contradicts the former. If the Day of Atonement, as is here asserted, be -necessary to atone for the penitent, then it is not true, that -repentance atones for all sins. But if repentance atones for all sins, -then when a man repents, his sins are forgiven, and then the Day of -Atonement is not necessary. There is here, therefore, a palpable -contradiction, and it cannot be safe to trust to a hope at variance with -itself. But, secondly, as the two parts of which this statement is -composed, contradict each other, so each of them is contrary to the law -of Moses. The first of them is, that “Repentance atones for all -transgressions;” but if so, then the atonement prescribed by Moses is -useless, in fact, it is no atonement at all. Moses says, that the two -goats were appointed by God for the atonement, but here it is said, that -repentance is, in itself, sufficient. If this be true, if repentance can -now atone for sins, without any sacrifice, why did Moses appoint such an -useless, and even cruel rite, as the taking away the lives of poor -innocent animals? If repentance be sufficient now, it was sufficient -always, and then it follows, that God commanded what was useless. But if -the appointment, the slaying of one goat, and the sending the other, -laden with the sins of the people, into the wilderness, was necessary -formerly to procure forgiveness of sins, it must be equally necessary -now: unless the rabbies will take upon them to assert, that God is an -arbitrary and changeable master, who, to forgive sins, at one time, -requires what at another time he does not require. That the slaying of -one goat, and the sending away of the other was once absolutely -necessary, no man can deny. Moses prescribes it so plainly, that if -there be one thing more plain than another, it is this, that when the -Jews were in their own land, repentance was not a sufficient atonement -for sins. Indeed, Rambam himself says:— - -שעיר המשתלח מכפר על כל עבירות שבתורה הקלות והחמורות בין שעבר בזדון בין -שעבר בשגגה בין שהודע לו בין שלא הודע לו הכל מתכפר בשעיר המשתלח והוא שעשה -תשובה אבל אם לא עשה תשובה עין השעיר מכפר לו אלא על הקלות ׃ - -“The goat that was sent away atoned for all the transgressions mentioned -in the law, whether light or grave. Whether a man transgressed -presumptuously or ignorantly, consciously or inconsciously, all was -atoned for by the goat that was sent away, if a man repented. But if a -man did not repent, then the goat atoned only for the light offences.” -(Hilchoth T’shuvah, ibid.) We do not agree with the whole of this -doctrine, but we cite it to show, that formerly repentance was not a -sufficient atonement for sins, but that besides repentance, the goat, as -appointed by God, was also necessary. And we infer, that as an -atonement, besides repentance, was once necessary, it is necessary -still, unless the rabbies will affirm that God has changed his mind, and -abrogated the law of Moses. If repentance without any atonement be now -sufficient to procure forgiveness of sins, then, beyond all doubt, the -law of Moses is abrogated or changed. If the law of Moses be not -abrogated and not changed, then repentance alone cannot atone for sins; -and, therefore, this assertion of the oral law is false. - -But the oral law endeavours to prove its assertion, by a citation from -Ezekiel, “As for the wickedness of the wicked, he shall not fall thereby -in the day that he turneth from his wickedness.” And it might be further -urged, that Ezekiel here mentions repentance only, and omits all notice -of sacrifice and the Day of Atonement. But the answer is easy. Either -Ezekiel meant, in this declaration, to repeal the law of Moses, or he -did not. If he meant to repeal the law of Moses, then the law is -repealed, and a new way of obtaining forgiveness, not taught by Moses, -has been introduced, and then the whole Jewish nation is, on their own -showing, palpably in the wrong in adhering to that which is repealed. -But if he did not mean to repeal the law of Moses, then he made this -assertion with that implied restriction which the law of Moses required; -that is, he implied the necessity of sacrifice: and then this passage -does not prove what the oral law asserts. But in every case, this first -assertion is contrary to the law of Moses. - -It is, however, evident, that the rabbies themselves were dissatisfied -with their own assertion, for they immediately add to it a second, “That -the Day of Atonement itself atones for them that repent, as it is said, -‘For on that day he shall make an atonement for you.’” Notwithstanding -the confidence of their assertion about repentance, they did not feel -easy without some appearance of an atonement, and as they had no priest -and no victim, they say, that the day itself atones, and endeavour to -prove this assertion by a citation from Moses. But, unfortunately, this -citation entirely overthrows their assertion. Moses does not say:— - -היום הזה יכפר עליכם ׃ - -“This day will atone for you,” but he says:— - -ביום הזה יכפר עליכם ׃ - -“On that day he (the priest) shall atone for you.” Moses ascribes no -virtue whatever to the day itself, but only to the rites on that day to -be observed, and the person by whom they were performed. Moses -prescribes, first, a high-priest; Secondly, a goat, whose blood was -brought into the Holy of holies; and thirdly, a goat to be sent away: so -that where these three are wanting, nay, where any one of the three is -wanting, the conditions prescribed by Moses are not fulfilled, and there -is, therefore, no atonement. Without these three things the day itself -has no virtue, and is nothing different from the commonest day in the -year; and now, therefore, as they are all wanting, Israel has no -atonement. The assertion about the day itself, is a mere invention of -the rabbies, the only value of which is to show how deeply they felt the -insufficiency of repentance, and the necessity of a real atonement, in -order to procure remission of sins. - -But the rabbies always betray themselves by adding something to make up -for the deficiency, of which they are sensible. We have seen this in -their assertion about merits, and so we find it here in their assertion -about atonement. They assert, that “The Day of Atonement itself atones -for the penitent,” but in spite of this, they have felt the need of -something more, which would a little better resemble real sacrificial -atonement; and hence has arisen the custom of sacrificing a cock on the -eve of that solemn day. The following account of this custom is given in -the קהלת שלמה, of which we have before us an edition published at -Breslau, so late as the year 1830; and it is selected, partly on account -of its recent publication, and partly because the directions how to act -are given in Jewish-German, which shows that they are intended even for -the most illiterate, and that the custom is not confined to a few -speculators, but is general amongst the people:— - -סדר כפרות ׃ - -בני אדם יושבי חושך וצלמות אסירי עני וברזל , יוציאם מחושך וצלמות -ומוסרותיהם ינתק , אוילים מדרך פשעם ומעונינותיהם יתענו , כל אוכל תתעב -נפשם ויגיעו עד שערי מות , ויזעקו אל יי בצר להם ממצוקותיהם יושיעם , ישלח -דברו וירפאם וימלט משחיתותם , יודו ליי חסדו ונפלאותיו לבני אדם , אם יש -עליו מלאך מליץ אחד מני אלף להגיד לאד ישרו , ויחננו ויאמר פדעהו מרדת שחת -מצאתי כופר ׃ - -זה חליפתי , זה תמורתי , זה כפרתי , זה התרנגול ילך למיתה ואני עכנס ואלך -לחיים טובים ארוכים ולשלום ׃ - -“ORDER OF THE ATONEMENTS.—On the eve of the Day of Atonement, the custom -is to make atonements. A cock is taken for a man, and a hen for a woman; -and for a pregnant woman a hen and also a cock, on account of the child. -The father of the family first makes the atonement for himself, for the -high-priest first atoned for himself, then for his family, and -afterwards for all Israel.” The order is as follows: - -_He takes the cock in his hand and says these verses_: - -“The children of men that sit in darkness and the shadow of death, being -bound in affliction and iron; he brought them out of darkness and the -shadow of death, and brake their bands in sunder. Fools, because of -their transgression, and because of their iniquities, are afflicted. -Their soul abhorreth all manner of meat; and they draw near unto the -gates of death. Then they cry unto the Lord in their trouble; and he -saveth them out of their distresses. He sendeth his word, and healeth -them, and delivereth them from their destructions. O, that men would -praise the Lord for his goodness, and for his wonderful works, to the -children of men? (Psalm cvii.) If there be for him an angel, an -intercessor, one among a thousand, to show unto man his uprightness, -then he is gracious unto him, and saith, Deliver him from going down to -the pit; I have found a ransom.” (Job xxxiii. 23.) - -_Whilst moving the atonement round his head, he says_, - -“This is my substitute. This is my commutation. This cock goeth to -death, but may I be gathered and enter into a long and happy life, and -into peace.” - -He then begins again at the words, “The children of men,” and so he does -three times. - -Then follow the various alterations that are to be made, when the -atonement is made for a woman or another person, &c., and is added:— - -“As soon as one has performed the order of the atonement, he should lay -his hands on it, as the hands used to be laid on the sacrifices, and -immediately after give it to be slaughtered.” This custom, extensively -prevalent amongst the Jews, proves abundantly the internal -dissatisfaction of the Jewish mind with their own doctrines, and the -deeply-rooted conviction of their heart, that without shedding of blood -there is no remission of sin. If they really believed that repentance, -or the Day of Atonement itself, or almsgiving, or merits, either their -own or their forefathers’, atoned for sin, they would never have devised -such a custom as this. But the spirit of the Mosaic law has taken too -deep a hold on the nation to suffer them to rest satisfied with anything -short of actual sacrifice; and as they have no high-priest and no altar -now, they make a sad and desperate attempt to tranquillize the mind with -this invention. The custom then, proves, that the rabbinical doctrine -respecting the atoning power of repentance is not believed nor heartily -received, even by the Rabbinists themselves, how, then, can a Jew hazard -his salvation on a doctrine which is contrary to the law of Moses, and -which its professors do not consider satisfactory? Will he rest upon the -self-devised sacrifice of a cock? God nowhere promises pardon to this -observance; and how can any man of sense be satisfied without a sure -promise of the unchanging and unchangeable Creator? This trust is as -unsatisfactory as any of those that we have already considered. Every -one of the rabbinic hopes has proved unsafe on examination. Personal -merit, the merit of ancestors, the blowing of the ram’s horn, -repentance, the present observance of the Day of Atonement, the -sacrifice of a cock, all are either directly opposed to, or unwarranted -by, the Word of God. How, then, is a Jew to obtain pardon for his sins? -The custom which we have just considered, speaks the sense of the Jewish -nation upon this subject, and plainly declares, that an atoning -sacrifice is the only real hope. It expresses, in the first place, the -heartfelt conviction, that every human being is guilty and needs an -atonement. It prescribes a victim for man, woman, and child, yea, even -for the unborn babe, thereby teaching that the nature of man is corrupt, -and that the hereditary guilt, even where there is no actual -transgression, must be washed away by the blood of atonement. It -expresses, further, the Jewish opinion as to the nature of sacrifice, -that the sins are laid upon the victim, and that the victim is -substituted for the guilty. Nothing can be plainer than the prescribed -formulary, “This is my substitute. This is my commutation. This is my -atonement.” It declares, further, that he who offers an atonement for -another, must himself be free from guilt, for it requires the father of -the family first to atone for himself, and then for those of his house. -These are the recorded sentiments of the Jewish nation, expressed not -only in words, but embodied in a solemn religious observance on the eve -of their most sacred season. By this act the Jews declare that an -atonement by blood is absolutely necessary. The law of Moses makes the -same declaration, by the appointment of all the rites for the Day of -Atonement. Is it, then, likely that the God of Israel would leave his -people without that which their hearts desire, and his law declares to -be necessary for salvation? Judaism says, Yes. It affirms, by an act -repeated every year, that sacrifice is necessary, and yet confesses, in -its solemn prayers, that they have none. It asserts, therefore, that God -has left them without that which is indispensable to procure -forgiveness. Christianity presents a more merciful view of the Divine -character. It does, indeed, acknowledge the necessity of atonement, but -it presents a victim and a high-priest, whose one offering is sufficient -for the sins of the whole world. It says, that God has left neither his -own people nor the Gentiles without the means of forgiveness, but sent -his righteous servant, the Messiah, to bear our sins in his own body -upon the tree. The Priest after the order of Melchisedek needed no -atonement to take away his own sins first, for he had none. Born in a -miraculous manner, by the power of God, his humanity inherited nothing -of the guilt of Adam, and as the Lord our Righteousness, he could -contract no taint of sin. He is, therefore, every way qualified to make -an atonement for us all. Our Christian hope, therefore, is not in a -cock, the sacrifice of which God never commanded, but in that great -atonement which He appointed. Our faith, our hope, our trust, are all -built upon God’s promise, and cannot be better expressed than in his -most holy words:— - -והוא מחולל מפשעינו מדכא מעונותינו מוסר שלומנו עליו ובחברתו נרפא לנו ׃ - -“But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our -iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him, and with his -stripes we are healed.” - -It cannot, therefore, be said, that we Christians rest our hope upon an -invention of our own. Our hope rests, not upon the dictates of our -priests or rabbies, but upon the words which God himself spake by the -mouth of his prophet. We can, therefore, confidently appeal to the Jews -themselves to decide, which of the two hopes is the most reasonable. -Both agreeing that an atonement, by the shedding of blood, is necessary -for the remission of sins, Rabbinism tells its disciples to trust to a -species of sacrifice nowhere mentioned in the Word of God. Christianity -tells us to trust in the sacrifice of that great Redeemer, for whose -salvation Jacob waited, whose atonement the Mosaic rites prefigured, and -the Jewish prophets predicted. Their hope rests upon the unwarranted -words of men; ours is built upon the Word of the living God, and is -involuntarily confirmed by the rabbies themselves in the very custom -which we have just considered. Even the nature of the victim is pointed -out in the selection of the animal. גבר (gever) signifies both “a man” -and “a cock,” and thereby signifies, that a righteous man must be the -sinful man’s substitute: and so some of the rabbies say, that this -animal, “a cock,” was selected,— - -כיון ששמו גבר תמורת גבר בגבר ׃ - -“Because, as its name signifies ‘a man,’ there is a substitution of a -man for man.” (Orach Chaiim, 605.) The principles exactly agree, but -Christianity is directed in their application by the Word of God, to Him -who is, indeed, very man, but also THE LORD OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS, יהוה. -צדקנו. - - - - - No. XXXVII. - FEAST OF TABERNACLES. - - -The progress of the year brings with it again that season, in which God -commanded his people to observe THE FEAST OF TABERNACLES; and the -constancy with which Israelites in every part of the world still observe -the rites and customs handed down by their forefathers, necessarily -commands respect and admiration. When we remember the many centuries -during which their dispersion has continued, the universal oppression -which they have been compelled to suffer, and the unmerited contempt -with which they have had to contend, we cannot but honour the strength -of moral courage which they have displayed, in thus observing and -handing down to their children a religion, which has been the cause of -their misfortunes. But this very constancy, and the respect which it -begets, naturally leads us to inquire whether the religious system -itself be true, and, therefore, worthy of that fidelity with which it -has been preserved; and, above all, whether this constancy is such as at -the last great day to meet the approbation of Him who judgeth not as man -judgeth. The professors of this system think, of course, that it is, and -that by observing these rites and ceremonies, they are keeping the -commands of God, and thereby ensuring his favour; and with regard to the -observance of the Feast of Tabernacles in particular, they are taught to -believe that they alone are so important, as at the day of judgment, to -prove Israel’s obedience, and the disobedience of the other nations. We -will first state the doctrines of modern Judaism on this subject, and -then examine whether they be well founded. In the Synagogue Prayers for -this feast we find it stated, that the construction of a tabernacle -according to rabbinic prescription, is a work of merit:— - -חשובה ארבע אמות על ארבע , פסולה פחותה מארבע , כדי לזכות עם רובע ׃ - -“It must be four cubits long, and four cubits broad: but if it be less, -it is profane; that it may render the people of Israel meritorious. (P. -116.) And a little lower down, after describing the feast in Paradise on -the salted Leviathan and Behemoth, it adds, that this one precept will -form the last trial vouchsafed to the Gentiles, and that their -unwillingness to keep it will prove the cause of their final -condemnation:— - -נכנסין כל האומות לדין , פני יושב על כסא דין , ובצדק אותנו ידין , סדר -מצוותיך תן לנו ונקימה , ונזכה עם אלו בנחמה , שגיא כח שוכן רומה , עליון -השופט כל באמונה , ישמיע להם בתבונה , יש לי מצוה קטנה , פירוש סוכה ושאליה -, ארבע דפנות וצל עליה , אל תרחקו מאליה , צללים לעשות בה יעטו , וחמה קדחה -עליהם ולוהטו , וברגליהם יבעטו , קדוש ישפוך עליהם חימה , ויפילם בגיהנם -בלי רחימה , במדרגה התחתונה במהומה ׃ - -“All nations will come to be judged in the presence of Him who sitteth -upon the throne of judgment; in righteousness will he judge us. _The -nations will then say_, Give us the order of thy precepts, and we will -perform them, that we may be equal with those in happiness, O Thou, who -art great in power, dwelling on high. The Most High, who judgeth all in -truth, will cause them to hear, and understand his words, saying, I have -one small precept; its name, tabernacle, and its ordinations: four -sides, and a shade over it: fail ye not to observe it. They then will -make the shadowy booths to abide under, but the sun will shine so hot as -nearly to burn them, when they will spurn at it with their feet. The -Holy One will then pour out his wrath upon them, and cast them into -gehinnom [hell] without mercy, into the lowest part with confusion.” -(Ibid.) This extraordinary account of the day of judgment, and the -condemnation of the Gentiles, has been adopted from the Talmud, where it -is given at great length, and all the particulars fully detailed. To -give the whole would occupy too much of our space; but as parts of it -are necessary to the full consideration of this subject, we give the -following extracts:— - -לעתיד לבוא מביא הקב׳׳ה ספר תורה בחיקו ואומר כל מי שעסק בה יבוא ויטול -שכרו מיד מתקבצין ובאין אומות הצולם בערבוביא שנאמר כל הגוים נקבצו יחדו , -אמר להם הקב׳׳ה אל תכנסו לפני בערבוביא אלא תכנס כל אומה ואומה וסופריה ׃ - -“In the time to come, the Holy One, blessed be He, will bring a roll of -the law in his bosom, and say, Let every one, who has occupied himself -herein, come and receive his reward. Immediately the nations of the -world will gather themselves together, and come in promiscuous crowds, -as it is said, ‘Let all the nations be gathered together.’ (Isaiah -xliii. 9.) The Holy One, blessed be He, will then say, Come not before -me promiscuously, but let each nation come by itself along with its -learned men.” Then follows an account of the appearance of each nation, -and of the vain attempts which they make to justify their conduct. After -which the narrative thus proceeds:— - -אומרים לפניו רבונו של עולם ישראל שקבלוה היכן קיימוה אמר להם הקב׳׳ה אני -מעיד בהם שקיימו את התורה , אומרים לפניו רבונו של עולם כלום יש אב שמעיד -על בנו דכתיב בני בכורי ישראל אמר להם הקב׳׳ה שמים וארץ יעידו בהם שקיימו -את התורה כולה , אומרים לפניו רבונו של עולם שמים וארץ נוגעין בעדותן שנאמר -אם לא בריתי יומם ולילה חוקות שמים וארץ לא שמתי , ואמר ר׳ שמעון בן לקיש -מאי דכתיב ויהי ערב ויהי בוקר יום הששי , מלמד שהתנה הקב׳׳ה במעשה בראשית -ואמר אם ישראל מקבלין את תורתי מוטב ואם לאו אחזיר אתכם לתוהו ובוהו והיינו -דאמר חזקיה מאי דכתיב משמים השמעת דין ארץ יראה ושקטה אם יראה למה שקטה ואם -שקטה למה יראה אלא בתחלה יראה ולבסוף שקטה , אמר להם הקב׳׳ה מכם יבואו -ויעידו בהן בישראל שקיימו את התורה כולה , יבוא נמרוד ויעיד באברהם שלא עבד -ע׳׳ז יבוא לבן ויעיד ביעקב שלא נחשד על הגזל תבוא אשת פוטיפרע ותעיד בחנניה -מישאל ועזריה שלא השתחוו לצלם יבוא דריוש ויעיד בדניאל שלא ביטל את התפלה -יבוא בלדד השוחי וצופר הנעמתי ואליפז התמני ואליהו בן ברכאל הבוזי ויעידו -בהן בישראל שקיימו את התורה כולה שנאמר יתנו עדיהן ויצדקו , אמרו לפניו -רבונו של עולם תנו לנו מראש ונעשה אמר להם הקב׳׳ה שוטים שבעולם מי שטרח -בערב שבת יאכל בשבת מי שלא טרח בערב שבת מהיכן יאכל בשבת אלא אע׳׳פ כן מצוה -קלה יש לי וסוכה שמה לכו ועשו אותו , ומי מצית אמרת הכי והא אמר ר׳ יהושע -בן לוי מאי דכתיב אשר אנכי מצוך היום היום לעשותם ולא למחר לעשותם היום -לעשותם ולא היום ליטול שכר אלא שאין הקב׳׳ה בא בטרוניא עם בריותיו ואמאי -קרי ליה מצוה קלה משום דלית ביה חסרון כיס מיד כל אחד נוטל והולך ועושה -סוכה בראש גגו והקב׳׳ה מקדיח עליהם המה בתקופת תמוז וכל אחד ואחד מבעט -בסוכתו ויוצא וכו׳ ׃ - -“The Gentiles will then say before him, O Lord of the world, the -Israelites received the law, but how did they keep it? The Holy One, -blessed be He, will reply, I bear them witness that they have kept the -law. The Gentiles will say, O Lord of the world, is it fair that a -Father should be a witness for his children? For it is written, ‘Israel -is my son, even my first-born.’ (Exod. iv. 22.) The Holy One, blessed be -He, will then say to them, Let the heaven and the earth bear witness to -them, that they have kept the whole law. The Gentiles will answer, O -Lord of the world, the heavens and the earth are interested witnesses, -for it is said, ‘If my covenant be not with day and night, and if I have -not appointed the ordinances of heaven and the earth.’ (Jer. xxxiii. -25.) R. Simon Ben Lakish says, What is the meaning of the words ‘And it -was evening and it was morning, the sixth day?’ They show us that the -Holy and Blessed One, made a condition with the creation, and said, If -Israel will receive my law, all is well; but if not, then I will turn -you back into chaos. Hezekiah also teaches this same truth, saying, What -is the meaning of the words, ‘Thou didst cause judgment to be heard from -heaven; the earth feared, and was still?’ (Ps. lxxvi. 9, Eng. 8.) If it -feared, how could it be still; and if it was still, how could it fear? -The answer is, at first it feared [that Israel would not receive the -law, and it should be turned into chaos]; but afterwards it was still. -God will then say to the Gentiles, Then let some of yourselves come, and -bear witness to Israel that they have kept the whole law. Nimrod shall -then come forth and testify of Abraham that he did not commit idolatry. -Laban shall come forth and testify of Jacob that he was not suspected of -dishonesty. Potiphar’s wife shall come forth and testify of Joseph that -he was not suspected of the transgression. Nebuchadnezzar shall come -forth and testify of Hannaniah, Mishael, and Azariah, that they would -not worship the image. Darius shall come and testify of Daniel that he -did not neglect prayer. Bildad the Shuhite, and Zophar the Naamathite, -and Eliphaz the Temanite, and Elihu the son of Beracheel, shall come -forth and testify of Israel that they have kept the whole law, as it is -said, ‘Let them being forth their witnesses, that they may be -justified.’ (Isaiah xliii. 9.) The Gentiles will then say, O Lord of the -world, give us the law from the beginning, and we will do it. To this -the Holy One will reply, O fools, he that works on the eve of the -Sabbath shall eat on the Sabbath. He that will not work on the Sabbath -eve, from whence should he eat on the Sabbath? Nevertheless, I have one -easy commandment, Tabernacle is its name, go, therefore, and do it. But -how is it possible, to affirm that God will do this, when R. Joshua, the -son of Levi, says, What is the meaning of the words, ‘Which I command -thee this day?’ And says, the meaning is, they are to be observed to-day -[i.e., in this world], and not tomorrow [_i.e._, in the world to -come].[33] To-day they are to be observed; but the reward is not to be -received to-day. The answer is, that God does not deal with his -creatures in a tyrannical manner. But why is this called an easy -commandment? Because it is not attended with any pecuniary loss. -Immediately every one of the Gentiles will hasten away, and make a -tabernacle on the roof of his house. But the Holy One, blessed be He, -will cause the sun to pierce them with an extraordinary heat at that -season, and then every one of them will kick down his tabernacle and go -forth,” &c. (Avodah Zarah, fol. 2, 3.) Such is the doctrine of the -Talmud, adopted, and therefore sealed with the most solemn sanction, by -the public worship of the synagogue. In the first place it is perfectly -false; it has not even the merit of plausibility. It is only astonishing -how an imagination so absurd should ever have found its way into the -prayers of Israel; and stranger still that the Jews of England should -suffer such a foul blot still to remain on their public services. It -certainly represents Judaism in the most unfavourable point of view, as -a religion of the grossest and most inconsistent superstition; and -proves, beyond all controversy, first, that the synagogue receives, as -of divine authority, even the fables of the Talmud; and, secondly, that -the authors of the oral law, who could either invent or believe so -absurd a statement, cannot be depended upon as faithful transmitters of -the religion of the prophets. - -Further, it totally misrepresents the character of God. It describes -Him, first, as bearing witness to the obedience of Israel, whilst in His -Word he bears constant testimony to their disobedience. Here he is -represented also as calling upon heaven and earth to attest their -innocence and righteousness, whilst in His Word he calls upon them to be -the witnesses of their rebellion. “Hear, O heavens; and give ear, O -earth; for the Lord hath spoken: I have nourished and brought up -children, and they have rebelled against me.” (Isaiah i. 2.) And again, -“Be astonished, O ye heavens, at this, and be horribly afraid, be ye -very desolate, saith the Lord. For my people have committed two evils; -they have forsaken me, the fountain of living waters, and hewed them out -cisterns, broken cisterns, that can hold no water.” (Jer. ii. 12.) These -passages of the word of God are directly opposed to the above statement -of the oral law. But farther, it misrepresents the Divine Being as an -unmerciful and unjust judge, who pretends to give the guilty Gentiles -another and easy trial by giving them the commandment respecting the -tabernacles, and then employs his omnipotence so to plague them with the -heat of the sun, as to render it impossible for them to yield obedience. -Such a representation is altogether unworthy of the Judge of all the -earth, who will deal justly by the Gentiles as well as the Jews. - -But besides misrepresenting the divine character, it misleads the -unlearned and superstitious to believe that, at the day of judgment, -God will not render to every man according to his deeds, but will pass -by their sins and their impenitence, if only they be Israelites. It -therefore begets a false confidence, and is eminently calculated to -lull men asleep in their sins. The man who believes this fable of the -Gentiles bearing witness to the righteousness of Abraham, Joseph, -Daniel, &c., and thinks that this is sufficient for his acquittal at -the bar of judgment, can have no motive for personal repentance or -righteousness. Neither does this fable tend to produce good will and -respect towards his Gentile fellow-sinners. Few men will elevate -themselves above their notions of the Deity. When, then, the -Rabbinists see that, according to the oral law, God treats the -Gentiles with injustice and cruelty, is it natural to suppose that he -will treat them differently? This and similar passages well merit the -serious consideration of all influential Israelites. It is imperative -upon all such to determine, whether such passages of their prayers and -their law are of divine authority or not; and if they are convinced of -their falsehood, to use their unceasing exertions to expunge them from -their religious system. As long as they exist, and are publicly read -in the synagogue, men can only come to one conclusion, and that is, -that the characteristics of the Rabbinical religion are superstition -and uncharitableness. Nothing but a public protest against the error, -and an erasure from the prayer-book, will satisfy the mind, or wipe -away the reproach from Israel. The private professions of individuals -can be of no avail in this matter. Men will go to the authorized -books, especially to the prayer-book of every class of religionist, in -order to judge of his principles; and no one will believe that any man -can be so careless or so presumptuous as to address the Divine Being -in the language of acknowledged falsehood. But above all, let every -Jew compare this account of the day of judgment with that contained in -our Christian books. Judaism teaches that at that great day God will -appear as a partial and cruel judge. Christianity gives us the -following account of the same period:—“When the Son of man shall come -in his glory and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon -the throne of his glory; and before him shall be gathered all nations -and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth -his sheep from the goats: and he shall set the sheep on his right -hand, but the goats on the left. Then shall the King say unto them on -his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my father, inherit the kingdom -prepared for you from the foundation of the world: for I was an -hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I -was a stranger, and ye took me in: naked, and ye clothed me: I was -sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me. Then -shall the righteous answer and say, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, -and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink? when saw we thee a -stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee? or when saw we -thee sick, and in prison, and came unto thee? And the King shall -answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have -done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it -unto me. Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart -from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and -his angels: for I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was -thirsty, and ye gave me no drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me not -in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited -me not. Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we -thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in -prison, and did not minister unto thee? Then shall he answer them, -saving, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the -least of these, ye did it not to me. And these shall go away into -everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.” (Matt. -xxv. 31-46.) Such is the view which Christianity sets before us of the -day of judgment, and the principles according to which that judgment -shall be conducted. You will observe that the whole account is -essentially different from that given by the Talmud. In the first -place it represents God as a just Judge, altogether overlooking -nationality; taking no notice of the temporary distinctions of Jew and -Gentile: but fixing his eyes on the eternal features of moral -character, and according to these fixing the eternal destinies of each -individual. In the second place it tends to promote good will and -charity between man and man, for it represents charity or the want of -charity as the main points of inquiry, and the distinctions according -to which the eternal portion of each is assigned. We ask, then, every -impartial and candid Jew to tell us, which of these two accounts are -most worthy of the great God whom we worship? We Christians believe -that the synagogue-worshippers are in error, and they again think us -in error; but we have now before us the doctrines of the two systems -on the most important point in all theology—the principle of final -judgment; by their respective statements, then, on this subject let -each system be judged. Judaism says, that one class of men is to be -saved by the partiality of the Judge, and the other class condemned -simply because they are Gentiles. Christianity says, that all men -shall be tried impartially by one rule, and that neither prepossession -nor prejudice, but justice alone, shall influence the decision. Which, -then, Judaism or Christianity, is most agreeable to the character of -Him of whom the Psalmist says, “He cometh to judge the earth: with -righteousness shall he judge the world, and the nations with equity?” - -We are sure that the good sense of the Jewish nation must decide, that -the impartial justice of the New Testament-representation is most in -accordance with the spirit of the law and the prophets. Nay, we believe -that every devout and thinking Israelite will feel that the Talmudic -picture of God’s judgment misrepresents the God of Israel as much as any -graven image ever deified by heathen idolaters. To suppose that God -would make a mock overture of mercy, or offer a mock trial to any of his -creatures, is to strip him of the attributes of Deity, and to exhibit a -blind and senseless bigot as the object of Israel’s worship. A statement -so abhorrent even from human reason, and so inconsistent with the Word -of God, proves that its authors were not moved by the Spirit, and that -the religion of which it forms a part cannot be divine. But here, as in -many cases which we have already pointed out, the New Testament avoids -the error of the Talmud, and teaches the doctrine conformable to the -law, and in accordance with right reason. Let the advocates of the oral -law explain the fact. - -But this Talmudic representation of the day of judgment is not only -opposed to reason and Scripture, but also seems to contradict other -statements of the oral law. Here the Gentiles appear to be marked out -for destruction; whereas, we are told elsewhere, that the pious of the -nations of the world are to have a part in the world to come: and that -obedience to the seven commandments of the sons of Noah, is all that is -required from a Gentile. If this be true, what need is there of giving -them the command to keep the Feast of Tabernacles? But, above all, if -they are to be cast down into the lowest hell, as the Prayer-book says, -how can they have a part of the blessings of the world to come? It is at -the very least, the duty of those who advocate the oral law, to explain -this matter to us Gentiles. We cannot persuade ourselves that a -religion, which makes so little provision for the eternal welfare of the -great bulk of the human race, can possibly proceed from Him who is the -God of the spirits of all flesh, the Creator and Preserver of all -mankind. Living daily by his bounty, and receiving all we have at his -most gracious hands we believe that if he makes such provision for our -bodies, He has made still more for our immortal spirits; and therefore, -amongst other reasons, we believe in Christianity; for if it be not -true, there is no spiritual provision for the Gentiles, and God has left -the majority of his rational creatures without any proof of his paternal -affection. - -Footnote 33: - - היים לעשותם בעולם הזה , ולא למהר דאינו יכול לעשותם לעולם הבא ׃ - - - - - No. XXXVIII. - PRAYERS FOR THE DEAD. - - -To the fool, who hath said in his heart, There is no God, it is a matter -of little consequence, whether the religion of his forefathers afford a -reasonable ground of hope or not. He may therefore consistently neglect -all inquiry into the nature and evidences of that religion in which he -happened to be born. He does not believe in it, whatever it may be, and -such an inquiry could have no interest for him. Not so with the Jew or -the Christian, who honestly believes, as he has been taught, that there -is, in another world, an abode of bliss, and another of woe. His earnest -desire must be to know how he may attain to the one and escape the -other; and if his religion does not afford him a hope, a reasonable, -well-grounded hope of salvation, it is not worth the having. We say a -reasonable hope, for as it has pleased God to endow us with reason and -understanding, and to give us his Word to guide our reason, no other -hope can or ought to satisfy us. In examining, then, the modern Jewish -religion, one great test of its value is, whether it affords a hope on -which a reasonable man can rely, and upon which he can hazard his -eternal welfare. We think not, and we have already given some reasons -for this opinion. The inconsistency and contradictory nature of the -rabbinic doctrines respecting justification and atonement appear to us -so glaring as to destroy all confidence in the hope which they propose: -and _the custom, which prevails at this and other festivals, of praying -for the dead, proves, beyond a doubt, that the rabbinic hope is a mere -delusion_. Amongst the prayers of the Feast of Tabernacles, we find the -following declaration and prayer:— - -נוהגים בתפוצות ישראל להזכיר נשמות אבותיו ביום כפור ובשלש רגלים ביום מתנת -יד לאחר הפטורה , יזכור אלהים נשמת אבא מורי פלוני בר׳ פלוני שהלך לעולמו -בעבור שאני נודר צדקה בעדו בשכר זה תהא נפשו צרורה בצרור החיים עם נשמת -אברהם יצחק ויעקב שרה רבקה רחל ולאה ועם שאר צדיקם וצדקניות שבגן עדן ונאמר -אמן ׃ - -יזכור אלהים נשמת אמי וכו׳ ׃ - -“It is customary among the dispersions of Israel, to make mention of the -souls of their departed parents, &c., on the day of atonement, and the -ultimate days of the three festivals; and to offer prayers for the -repose of their souls. - -“May God remember the soul of my honoured father, A. B. who is gone to -his repose; for that I now solemnly vow charity for his sake; in reward -of this, may his soul be bound up in the bundle of life, with the souls -of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob; Sarah, Rebekah, Rachel, and Leah, with the -rest of the righteous males and females that are in Paradise; and let us -say, Amen.” - -“May God remember the soul of my honoured mother,” &c. (Prayer for the -Feast of Tabernacles, p. 156.) Now this custom and this prayer show that -the Jews themselves do not believe in their own doctrines, nor put any -trust in the hopes held out by the oral law; for if they did, they would -never observe this custom nor offer this prayer. If they believed that -their departed parents were already safe—that their merits, or the -merits of their ancestors, or the Day of Atonement, &c., had procured -for them pardon and eternal life, why should they offer alms, and pray -that God would accept the alms as a ransom for the deceased? The fact of -making such a vow and offering such a prayer proves, that the Rabbinical -Jew has no ground for believing in the salvation of even his own father -and mother; that on the contrary his belief is, that they have not been -bound up in the bundle of life, and that they are not in paradise with -Abraham and the other saints; but that they are in some other place, -whence he hopes, by his prayer and his almsgiving, to ransom them. Here, -then, we see that the rabbinical hope is a mere delusion. After all his -fasting and ceremonial observances, he has no hope after death of going -to the mansions of the blessed. His sad prospect is, that when he goes -hence, he must go to the place of punishment, and there abide until the -prayers and almsgiving of his children purchase his liberation. -According, then, to this doctrine, every Jew and Jewess dies without -pardon, for if they were pardoned, they would not go to the place of -punishment, and if they did not go to the place of punishment, there -would be no necessity to offer alms in order to deliver their souls. So -then, after all the pretensions and promises of the rabbies, they here -fairly confess that all the hopes which they have held out are a mere -lie and a delusion; that none of their observances can deliver the soul, -and that even after the dread hour of death, the survivors have still to -undertake the work of saving the deceased. - -This inference follows inevitably from the custom and the prayer which -we have just considered; but it does not rest solely on these. The oral -law furnishes other adequate proof, that the Jewish survivors of a -departed parent do not believe that he is safe, and that therefore a -dying Jew can have no hope of his own salvation; for it requires the -surviving son to repeat a certain prayer for his departed parent, and -that for many months, in order to procure his release, as we read in the -_Joreh Deah_:— - -על כן נהגו לומר קדיש על אב ואם בתרא י׳׳ב חודש , וכן נהגו להפטיר בנביא -ולהתפלל ערבית במוצאי שבת שהוא הזמן שחוזרין הנשמות לגיהנם , וכשהבן מתפלל -ומקרש ברבים פודה אביו ואמו מגיהנם ׃ - -“Therefore the custom is for twelve months to repeat the prayer called -Kaddish, and also to read the lesson in the prophets, and to pray the -evening-prayer at the going out of the Sabbath, for that is the hour -when the souls return to hell; but when the son prays and sanctifies in -public, he redeems his father and his mother from hell.” (376.) Now -every child who observes this custom, makes a public confession, that -his deceased parent is not enjoying the bliss of paradise, but suffering -the torments of hell. This is but a poor hope for a child respecting his -parent, the very utmost limit of which is, that he is not one of the -notoriously wicked, and that he may perhaps, by his prayers, get him out -of the place of torment. But if he believes in the oral law, he must be -convinced that his father or mother, with all their exertions, and -notwithstanding the merits of their forefathers, and the benefits of the -Day of Atonement, died in sin, sunk into perdition, and that he must now -undertake the work of their salvation. The dying Jew, therefore, has no -hope when he dies of being admitted to a state of happiness; he cannot -die with the peace of one who knows that his sins are forgiven, but must -look forward with horror to at least eleven dreary months of punishment -in the abodes of the damned. The doctrine of the Talmud is, that those -who die in communion with the synagogue, or who have never been Jews, -are punished for twelve months, but that Jewish heretics and apostates -are doomed to eternal punishment. - -פושעי ישראל בגופו ופושעי אומות העולם בגופן יורדין לגיהנם ונידונין בה -שנים עשר חודש לאחר שנים עשר חודש גופן כלה ונשמתן נשרפת ורוח מפזרתן תחת -כפות רגלי הצדיקים שנאמר ועסותם רשעים כי יהיו אפר תחת כפות רגליכם אבל -המינין והמוסרין והאפיקורסין שכפרו בתורה ושכפרו בתחיית המתים ושפירשו -מדרכי צבור ושנתנו חתיתם בארץ חיים ושחטאו והחטיאו את הרבים כגון ירבעם בן -נבט וחביריו יורדין לגיהנם ונידונין בה לדורי דורות ׃ - -“Israelites who sin with their body, and also Gentiles, descend into -hell, and are judged there for twelve months. After the twelve months -their body is consumed and their soul is burnt, and the wind scatters -them under the soles of the feet of the righteous, as it is said, ‘Ye -shall tread down the wicked, for they shall be ashes under the soles of -your feet.’ (Mal. iv. 3.) But heretics, and informers, and Epicureans, -who have denied the law or the resurrection of the dead, or who have -separated from the customs of the congregation, or who have caused their -fear in the land of the living, who have sinned, or caused many to sin, -as Jeroboam, the son of Nebat, all such go down to hell and are judged -for ever.” (Rosh Hashanah, fol. 17. 1.) According to this, the dying -Israelite ought to expect twelve months of torment, and his surviving -son ought to repeat the prescribed prayer for twelve months; but the -rabbies have commanded that the prayer should be repeated only for -eleven months, to intimate that the deceased was not so wicked as to be -obliged to remain all the time of torment:— - -ונהגו שאין אומרים קדיש ותפלה רק י׳׳א חדשים כדי שלא יעשו אביהם ואמם רשעים -כי משפט רשע י׳׳ב הודש ׃ - -“The custom is, not to say Kaddish more than eleven months, so as not to -cast a reproach on the character of the deceased father and mother as if -they were wicked, for twelve months are the term appointed for the -wicked.” (Joreh Deah, 376.) From this it is clear that a dying Jew’s -expectation must be to endure the torments of hell for at least eleven -months; and when he is dead, his son confesses, in the most public -manner, and the appointed prayers of the synagogue confess, of every -departed Jew, that he died in sin, and was not worthy to enter into the -bliss of paradise; and express, moreover, their conviction that his -portion is actually with the damned. Thus it is evident that Judaism -holds out no hope of the forgiveness of sins, and that all its -prescribed observances are of no avail in the hour of need. A Jew’s sad -contemplation on his death is, then, that he is going down to hell, and -his hope of liberation is based upon the prayers of his son, or upon the -fact of his being an Israelite. But is this a reasonable ground of hope? -No hope of salvation can be reasonable which is not built upon a plain -promise of God. Our reason can tell us nothing about either heaven or -hell; and therefore no speculations of our own can satisfy us respecting -either one or the other. The only satisfactory testimony can come from -God’s revealed will; but in the whole volume of the Old Testament, there -is not one promise declaring that an Israelite shall be delivered from -hell after twelve months’ punishment, or that the son’s public prayers -in the synagogue shall deliver the father. This is all the mere -invention of the rabbies, without the least warrant from the Word of -God. It is, therefore, not a hope on which any reasonable man can rest -in peace. The sum of the whole matter is, that every Jew expects to go -to hell, and that he has no promise of God to assure him that he shall -be redeemed thence. Judaism is not, therefore, a religion which affords -a rational hope of salvation. In asserting that every Israelite must go -down to hell, it teaches that sin is not forgiven by God, but must be -atoned for by the personal suffering of the offender; and that happiness -cannot be enjoyed until personal satisfaction has been yielded by twelve -months’ torments. Now if this principle were true, there could be no -salvation at all. Sin, as being an offence against an infinite Being, is -infinite in magnitude, and therefore, requires infinite punishment. The -justice of God is also infinite, and requires an infinite satisfaction; -so that if this satisfaction is to be rendered by the personal suffering -of the offender, that suffering must be infinite, that is, it must -endure for ever and ever, and thus salvation is altogether out of the -question. The Jewish hope is, therefore, unwarranted by Scripture, and -contrary to reason, and, we may add, inconsistent with itself. In the -custom and doctrine which we have just considered, a dying Jew is taught -to hope that he shall be delivered from that place of torment, whither -he is going, either on account of his son’s prayers, or on account of -his Jewish origin. But on his death-bed he is taught to believe that his -death will be an atonement for his sins, for in his dying confession, -these words are put into his mouth:— - -ואם קרבה עת פקודתי למות , תהא מיתתי כפרה לכל חטאותי ולכל עוונותי ולכל -פשעי שחטאתי ושעויתי ושפשעתי מיום היותי ׃ - -“But if the time of my visitation to death be near, O let my death be an -expiation for all my sins, iniquities, and transgressions, wherein I -have sinned, offended, and transgressed against thee, from the day of my -existence.” These two doctrines are plainly contrary the one to the -other. If death be an atonement for all sins, then, when it is once -suffered, all these sins are forgiven, and there is no need of further -punishment in hell for twelve months. But if this further punishment be -inflicted, then the death of the individual is not an atonement for his -sins. The Jew may choose which of these hopes he pleases; but whichever -he may assert to be true, the other is necessarily false; and if one be -false, then the oral law teaches falsehood, and cannot be depended upon -with respect to the other. There is, then, in these two statements, a -glaring inconsistency, which makes them both suspicious in themselves: -and the Word of God is as opposed to this last statement, as to the -former. The Bible represents death as a consequence and punishment of -Adam’s sin, not as an atonement: and hence it is that infants die, who -have never committed actual sin, and do not need an atonement on that -account. Death is, therefore, a punishment, and that which is a -punishment can never be an atonement. The dying Jew, then, if he be a -reasonable man, has no hope that can yield him peace and consolation in -that solemn hour. He prays that his death may atone for his sins, and -yet believes the very contrary—that he is going down to the place of the -damned, and that his son will have to undertake the work of his -redemption. How any thoughtful man, especially how any Israelite who has -read the Law and the Prophets, can be content with such a religion, we -cannot comprehend. The very essence of religion, the very consideration -that gives it any value, is the comfort which it affords to the -departing sinner. If it cannot soothe, support, and comfort him in the -hour of death, it is not worth the having. The Christian faith is very -different, and, in our opinion, far more in accordance with the Old -Testament. We believe, in the first place, that there is a full and -perfect pardon for all sins by the atonement of the Messiah, so that the -sinner who dies in repentance and faith, is delivered from all -punishment and other consequences of sin, and enters at once into the -abodes of the blessed, there to await the morning of the resurrection. -The Old Testament promised that Messiah should bear our sins. The New -Testament tells us that He has borne them, and that therefore we can -“now be justified from all things from which we could not be justified -by the law of Moses.” (Acts xiii. 38, 39.) It tells us that “God made -Him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the -righteousness of God in him” (2 Cor. v. 21); and “that if any man sin, -we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus, the Messiah, the Righteous; -and he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also -for the sins of the whole world.” (1 John ii. 1, 2.) We believe, -therefore, that Messiah has borne all that we ought to have borne, as -the prophet says— - -מוסר שלומנו עליו ובחבורתו נרפא לנו ׃ - -“The chastisement of our peace was upon him, and with his stripes we are -healed,” (Isaiah liii. 5,) and that now we are delivered. There is no -twelvemonth of torment awaiting those whom Messiah has redeemed, neither -do we trust in our own death as a possible atonement. Our hope is firmly -fixed, and, therefore, though sinners, we can die in peace, resting on -the salvation which God himself has wrought, in no fear of the torments -of the damned, but humbly expecting, for the Messiah’s sake, to be -admitted into the mansions of the blessed. Resting on this hope, the -Christian can say, “To me to live is Christ, and to die is gain.” -(Philip, i. 21.) He can look forward from death to the glorious -consummation, as St. Paul did, who, when the hour of his martyrdom -approached, was enabled to say, “I am now ready to be offered, and the -time of my departure is at hand. I have fought a good fight; I have -finished my course; I have kept the faith: henceforth there is laid up -for me a crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous Judge, -shall give me at that day; and not to me only, but unto all them also -that love his appearing.” The Christian expects after death not to spend -twelve dreary months in hell, “For we know that if our earthly house of -this tabernacle were dissolved, we have a building of God, an house not -made with hands, eternal in the heavens. For in this we groan, earnestly -desiring to be clothed upon with our house which is from heaven: if so -be, that being clothed, we shall not be found naked. For we that are in -this tabernacle do groan, being burdened: not for that we would be -unclothed, but clothed upon, that mortality might be swallowed up of -life.” (2 Cor. v. 1-4.) Such is the hope which Christianity holds out, -and it is hardly necessary to prove that it is more satisfactory, and -more calculated to convey peace to the conscience of a dying believer, -than the dread prospect, of twelve months’ sojourn in the place of -torment. This in itself proves, that Christianity is greatly superior to -Judaism, and even affords a presumption that Christianity is true. -Reason tells us, that if God has given a revelation at all, that -revelation must contain the way of obtaining pardon for sins, and be -able to administer consolation to the dying. In this respect Judaism -fails. It promises forgiveness and justification to a thousand -ceremonial observances, but in the hour of man’s extremity, it tells him -that there is no way of pardon, but that he must go down into torment, -and expiate his sins by actual suffering. This system cannot, therefore, -be of God. Christianity, on the contrary, has the first great essential -in religion; it informs man how he can obtain forgiveness, and tells him -how to die in peace; and the system of pardon and consolation which it -proposes, is in exact accordance with the doctrine of Moses and the -prophets. Moses promises pardon to an atoning sacrifice. Isaiah says, -that Messiah is to be the true atonement; and Christianity rests upon -these two principles. The Jew himself must admit, that our hope has at -least a strong appearance of truth, and that we have the letter of the -Old Testament in our favour. We have, therefore, more reason to trust to -Christianity, than he has for resting on Judaism, which has not even a -semblance of proof, and is as far from the letter as from the spirit of -the Old Testament. We would earnestly request of every Jew to consider -what is his hope in death, and what is his prospect after it? Can he be -content with that which Judaism offers? Can he be happy in the prospect -of twelve months’ torment? Or, can the repetition of Kaddish afford him -any hope of liberation from that place, whither his sins have brought -him? - -He cannot pretend to have any warrant from Scripture. Where does Moses -tell a Jewish child to say Kaddish for his deceased parent, or that the -saying of it will deliver the soul from the grasp of Divine justice? And -reason does not offer a greater measure of consolation. Reason says -plainly, either that the deceased is guilty or not guilty; either, -therefore, justice demands that he should be punished or delivered. In -the one case the prayer is unavailing, in the other unnecessary. Reason -says that God either pardons or punishes; but that there is no middle -way. Judaism then offers a hope equally unwarranted by reason and -Scripture, and thus, forsaking a poor sinner in the hour of his -extremity, is not worthy of the profession of any one who uses his -reason, or reveres the Word of God. - - - - - No. XXXIX. - ALMSGIVING. - - -The object of our late numbers has been to point out the inconsistency -and precariousness of the various hopes, which the oral law holds out to -its advocates, and the consequent inadequacy of a religion which leaves -its professors without a reasonable hope of eternal happiness. In the -course of our observations, the subject of almsgiving twice presented -itself prominently to our notice; first, as a means of compensating for -the sins and omissions of the past year; and secondly, as a means of -promoting the repose of departed souls; from which it appears that the -oral law considers this duty as most important and beneficial both to -the living and the dead. The object of the present paper shall therefore -be, to inquire into the rabbinic doctrine of almsgiving, and to compare -it with the law and the prophets. The duty and extent of almsgiving are -thus defined:— - -מצות עשה ליתן צדקה לעניי ישראל כפי מה שראוי לעני אם היתה יד הנותן משגת , -שנאמר פתח תפתח את ידך לו , ונאמר והחזקת בו גר ותושב וחי עמך ונאמר וחי -אחיך עמך , וכל הרואה עני מבקש והעלים עיניו ממנו ולא נתן לו צדקה עבר בלא -תעשה שנאמר לא תאמץ את לבבך תקפוץ את ידך מאחיך האביון ; לפי מה שיחסר העני -אתה מצווה ליתן לו , אם אין לו כסות מכסים אותו , אם אין לו כלי בית קונין -לו , אם אין לו אשה משיאין אותו , ואם היתה אשה משיאין אותה לאיש , אפילו -היה דרכו של זה העני לרכוב על הסוס ועבד רץ לפניו והעני ירד מנכסיו קונין -לו סוס לרכוב עליו ועבד לרוץ לפניו שנאמר די מחסורו אשר יחסר לו , מצווה -אתה להשלים חסרונו , ואין אתה מצווה להצשירו . יתום שבא להשיאו אשה , -שוכרין לו בית ומציעים לו מטה וכל כלי תשמישו ואחר כך משיאין לו אשה , בא -העני ושאל די מחסורו ואין יד הנותן משגת נותנין לו כפי השגת ידו וכמה עד -חמישית נכסיו מצוה מן המובחר ואחד מעשרה בנכסיו בינוני , פחות מכ עין רעה ׃ - -“It is an affirmative precept to give alms to the poor of Israel, -according as the poor have need, if in the power of the giver; for it is -said, ‘Thou shalt open thine hand wide to him’ (Deut. xv. 8); and again, -‘Thou shalt relieve him, a proselyte[34] or a sojourner, that he may -live with thee;’ and again, ‘That thy brother may live with thee.’ (Lev. -xxv. 35, 36.) Whosoever sees a poor man begging, and shuts his eyes -against him, and does not give him alms, transgresses a negative -precept: for it is said, ‘Thou shalt not harden thine heart nor shut -thine hand from thy poor brother.’ (Deut. xv. 7.) According as the poor -hath need, thou art commanded to give. If he has no clothing, he is to -be clothed; if he has no furniture, it is to be bought for him; if he -has no wife, he is to be helped to marry one; if a woman, she is to be -assisted in getting a husband: yea, if it had been the poor man’s custom -to ride upon a horse, and to have a servant running before him—but he is -now come down in the world,—it is a duty to buy him a horse to ride, and -a servant to run before him, for it is said, ‘Sufficient for his need, -in that which he wanteth’ (Deut. xv. 8); and thou art commanded -perfectly to relieve his want, but not to make him rich. If an orphan -apply for assistance in order to marry, it is a duty to hire a house for -him, and to provide all necessary furniture, and afterwards to help him -to marry. If a poor man come and ask for relief, and the giver has not -as much as he wants, he ought to give what his means afford. How much? -He that gives a fifth of his property fulfils the commandment well. He -that gives one part in ten fulfils it in a middling manner. He that -gives less must be regarded as a person with an evil eye.” (Hilchoth -Matt’noth Aniim, cvii. 1-5.) In this definition of the nature and extent -of the duty of almsgiving, there is much that is good and worthy of our -admiration, especially in this selfish and money-loving age, when -poverty is regarded, if not punished, as a crime, and the poor are, by -many, considered as unworthy of all domestic comfort. Without binding -ourselves to the approval of all the details here specified, we must -acknowledge, that the spirit of this passage is agreeable to the idea of -true charity, and, if universally acted upon, would do more for the -happiness of mankind than some theories now afloat. But though ready to -admire and to acknowledge the general beauty and excellence of this -passage, we must also remark that the main feature of charity is, by the -rabbinical system, excluded. God commands that this help should extend -beyond the narrow limits of selfishness and nationality, to “the -stranger and the sojourner,” but the oral law neutralizes the -mercifulness of God’s commandment by making the word stranger signify a -proselyte to Judaism. The original Hebrew word גר (_Ger_) plainly means -a stranger, as may be seen in the words of Moses— - -ואהבתם את הגר כי גרים הייתם בארץ מצרים ׃ - -“Love ye therefore the stranger; for ye were strangers in the land of -Egypt.” (Deut. x. 19.) It is certain that the Israelites were not -proselytes, but strangers; this word, _Ger_, therefore, signifies -stranger, not proselyte; and yet the oral law says that no one can be a -_Ger_ without sacrifice, circumcision, and baptism, or now, that there -is no temple, without the two last requisites:— - -ובזמן הזה שאין שם קרבן צריך מילה וטבילה וכשיבנה בית המקדש יביא קרבן , גר -שמל טבל או טבל ולא אינו גר עד שימול ויטבול ׃ - -“At the present time when there is no sacrifice, circumcision and -baptism are necessary, and when the temple is rebuilt, he must bring a -sacrifice. A _Ger_ who is circumcised but not baptized, or baptized but -not circumcised, is not a _Ger_, until he be both baptized and -circumcised. (Hilchoth Issure Biah, c. xiii. 5, 6.)” This rabbinical -definition of what is meant by _Ger_, restricts the exercise of charity -within a much narrower limit than that prescribed by God, and does, in -fact, destroy one of the most beautiful features of the Mosaic law, -namely, the merciful provision which it makes for the relief of the -stranger. The law of Moses has the spirit of its divine Author. He calls -himself “a jealous God,” and it may well be called a jealous law, -watching carefully over every departure from truth, and punishing it -rigorously: and yet, like God himself, this just jealousy is tempered -with mercy, and beams with love. The oral law, on the contrary, is an -envious and vindictive code, and its zeal degenerates into -narrow-hearted bigotry. It would not only punish the idolater, but -exclude every stranger from the pale of charity, unless he be a -proselyte; and an Israelite too, if he had in any wise dared to -transgress the rabbinical commands. A remarkable instance of this -hatred, to those whom it considers apostates, occurs in these laws -respecting almsgiving. The oral law says, that the most meritorious -exercise of charity is, the ransoming of captives:— - -פדיון שבוים קרדם לפרנסת עניים ולכסותם , ואין לך מצוה גדולה כפדיון שבוים -׃ - -“The ransoming of captives goes before the feeding and clothing of the -poor, and there is no commandment so great as this.” (Hilchoth Matt’noth -Aniim, c. 8.) And yet if a brother Israelite should deviate from the -rabbinical commands, the oral law makes it unlawful to ransom him, at -the same time that it enjoins the ransom of a slave if he be a -proselyte: - -עבד שנשבה הואיל שטבל לשם עבדות וקבל עליו מצוות פודין אותו כישראל שנשבה , -ושבוי שהמיר אפילו למצוה אחת כגון שהיה אוכל נבלה להכעיס וכיוצא בזה אסור -לפדותו ׃ - -“A slave who is in captivity because he has received the baptism of -slaves, and taken upon himself the commandments, is to be redeemed. But -as to a captive who has altered even one commandment, if for instance he -has eaten forbidden food in order to vex, it is forbidden to ransom such -an one.” (Ibid.) Thus the oral law forbids all compassion even to an -Israelite, if he is not of the rabbinic religion. The conduct which it -prescribes towards poor Gentiles, “for the sake of the ways of peace,” -מפני דרכי שלום, we have considered long since; but the prohibition to -receive alms of the Gentiles, deserves notice here, as it furnishes -another proof of the contracted views of the rabbies, and the falsehood -of the oral law:— - -אסור לישראל ליטול צדקה מן הגוים בפרהסיא ואם אינו יכול לחיות בצדקה של -ישראל ואינו יכול ליטלה מן הגוים בצנעה הרי זה מותר , ומלך או שר מן הגוים -ששלח ממון לישראל לצדקה אין מחזיריו אותו משום שלום מלכות אלא נוטלין ממנו -וינתן לעניי גוים בסתר כדי שלא ישמע המלך ׃ - -“It is unlawful for an Israelite to receive alms from the Gentiles -openly. But if he cannot live by the alms of Israel, and cannot receive -it from the Gentiles privately, then it is lawful. If a king or prince -of the Gentiles sends money to Israel as alms, it is not to be returned, -on account of the peace of the kingdom. On the contrary, it is to be -received, but it is to be given to the poor of the Gentiles privately, -so that the king may not hear of it.” (Ibid.) Here the oral law -endeavours to pervert that kindly feeling which should exist between all -the families of man, and spurns a demonstration even of love, because it -comes from a man of a different religion. At the same time its authors -had not the moral courage to do this openly and honestly, and if need -be, suffer for conscience sake. They command that the proffered alms -should be taken from the king, as if they intended to devote it to the -object for which he gave it, and then privately to apply it to a totally -different purpose. This want of good faith shows abundantly that the -oral law does not come from the God of truth. The narrow bigotry of the -system thus neutralizes all the individual trials of excellence which -the oral law contains. They appear beautiful only when viewed apart from -their context; but the moment we view them in relation to the other -parts of Rabbinism, their beauty is gone. Thus the duty and extent of -almsgiving, as prescribed by the oral law, at first sight appears -admirable; but the narrow spirit of bigotry by which it is -circumscribed, totally destroys its moral value in the sight of God and -man. Almsgiving is lovely only when it is the offspring of charity. God -looks not at the mere outward act of giving money, but at the heart, and -if there be no love there, almsgiving is valueless in his sight. And how -can any one pretend that there is a grain of true God-like charity in a -system which turns stranger into proselyte, prohibits to help a brother -because he is not of our own religious sentiments, and refuses even to -receive a kindness from one of a different religion? Just contrast this -with the Christian doctrine, “Love your enemies, bless them that curse -you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully -use you, and persecute you; that ye may be the children of your Father -which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the -good, and sendeth rain on the just and the unjust. For if ye love them -which love you, what reward have ye? Do not even the publicans the same? -And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? Do not -even the publicans so? Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father -which is in heaven is perfect.” (Matt. v. 44-48.) - -But the oral law not only perverts and falsifies the true doctrine -concerning charity, but also misleads its followers by teaching them to -think that almsgiving is a peculiarly meritorious act, and will atone -for other transgressions. Thus it is said— - -הייבין אנו להזהר במצות צדקה יותר מכל מצות עשה , שהצדקה סימן לצדיק זרע -אברהם אבינו שנאמר כי ידעתיו למען אשר יצוה את בניו לעשות צדקה , ואין כסא -ישראל מתכונן ודת אמת עומדת אלא בצדקה שנאמר בצדקה תכונני , קאין ישראל -נגאלין אלא בצדקה שנאמר ציון במשפט יפדה ושביה בצדקה ׃ - -“We are bound to be more careful respecting this commandment of alms -than about any other of all the affirmative precepts, for almsgiving is -a characteristic of the righteous seed of our father Abraham, as it is -said, ‘I know him that he will command his children to do alms.’ (Gen. -xviii. 19.) By almsgiving alone it is that the throne of Israel is -established, and that the law of truth standeth, for it is said, ‘by -alms (literally in righteousness) thou shalt be established.’ (Isaiah -liv. 14.) By alms alone it is that Israel shall be delivered, for it is -said ‘Zion shall be redeemed with judgment, and her converts with alms -(righteousness).’” (Isaiah l. 27.) (Ibid. c. x. 1.) According to this -doctrine, the man who gives alms has the merit of upholding truth in the -world and helping to deliver Israel from captivity. But the following -passage tells us that it will deliver from the punishment which he -deserves, and which is already impending over his head:— - -הצדקה דוחה את הגזירות הקשות וברעב תציל ממות כמו שאירע לצרפית ׃ - -“Almsgiving annuls the evil decrees, and in famine it delivers from -death, as happened to the widow of Sarepta.” (Joreh Deah, 347.) And -hence it is that, as we have seen, at the approach of the New Year the -Rabbinists practise almsgiving abundantly, and also, that the survivors -offer for the repose of the souls of their debased relations. The -tendency of this doctrine is obviously pernicious, for it encourages men -to persist in sin, under the idea that almsgiving will compensate for -all other deficiencies. The doctrine itself is positively false. Where -does the law of Moses say that almsgiving can purchase forgiveness? -Moses requires obedience to all the commandments, and he enjoins the -practice of charity to the poor, but he denounces wrath against all -transgression. The doctrine of Moses is not that obedience to one -command will compensate for disobedience to another, but that -disobedience to one command will make obedience to others of none -effect. The doctrine that the giving of money to the poor can change the -course of God’s judgment, or alter this sentence, is very little short -of blasphemy: for it represents him as an unjust judge who can be -bribed, whose severity can be bought off, and whose favour can be -purchased with money. A more degrading view of the Divine character can -scarcely be imagined. Such conduct in a human judge would stamp him with -infamy, and cannot possibly be true of Him who is a God of truth and -justice. This one feature of rabbinic religion is sufficient to prove -that it is the invention of men, and of men too without any very exalted -notion of justice and equity. - -Besides, this view or almsgiving takes away all the virtue of obedience -and love to God, and turns it into a mere mercenary transaction. The -great beauty of almsgiving is that it proceeds from love to God and man, -and that its motives be mercy and obedience. But the man, who gives alms -in order to atone for other transgressions, or to avert the punishment -which he deserves, is not performing an act either of obedience or -charity, he is simply making a purchase and driving a bargain which is -much to his advantage. He has got money, and with that money he can buy -a house, or a horse, or deliverance from punishment. It is, therefore, a -simple question of interest. He considers which will be the most -profitable investment of his money, and if he decide that deliverance -from God’s wrath is the most advantageous, he lays it out in almsgiving. -Obedience, or love to God or man, is here altogether out of the -question. Can any one, who has got the law and the prophets in his -hands, imagine that such a doctrine can come from God? or can any -reasonable being suppose, that escape from God’s wrath, or the enjoyment -of his favour depends not upon man’s moral worth, but upon his ability -to give alms: in a word, that his salvation depends not upon the state -of his heart, but the laying out of his money? This one doctrine, if -thoroughly believed and acted upon, would overturn the whole law of -Moses, and offer life not to the obedient, but to the moneyed. - -In this doctrine of almsgiving, however, the oral law errs at the very -foundation. It has chosen the Hebrew word צדקה to stand for -“almsgiving,” whereas its true signification is “righteousness,” as may -be easily proved by reference to passages where it cannot possibly -signify “almsgiving,” as for instance— - -וצדקה תהיה לנו כי נשמור לעשות את כל המצוה הזאת לפני ה׳ אלהינו כאשר צונו -׃ - -“And it shall be our _righteousness_ (not our almsgiving), if we observe -to do all these commandments before the Lord our God as he hath -commanded us.” (Deut. vi. 25.) Here צדקה cannot possibly signify -almsgiving. And again, - -והאמין בה׳ ויחשבה לו צדקה ׃ - -“And he believed in the Lord; and he counted it to him for righteousness -(not for almsgiving).” (Gen. xv. 6.) And again, - -לך אדני הצדקה ולנו בושת הפנים ׃ - -“O Lord, righteousness belongeth unto thee, but unto us confusion of -face” (Dan. ix. 7), where it is impossible to say that “Almsgiving -belongeth unto the Lord.” The oral law is therefore guilty of perverting -the meaning of one of the plainest and most commonly repeated words in -the Bible, and of course of thereby giving an erroneous sense to the -passage where it occurs. Thus it says, as we have seen above, “that by -almsgiving the throne of Israel is established and the law of truth -standeth,” and it proves this assertion by referring to a verse of -Isaiah, where the word צדקה occurs, and which signifies “by -righteousness shalt thou be established,” but which it perverts to mean -“by almsgiving thou shalt be established.” Here then the oral law is -plainly convicted of falsifying the Word of God, and perverting its -meaning in order to serve its own purposes and favour its own false -doctrine. To teach false doctrine is bad enough, but to pervert the -plain sense of Scripture is a great deal worse. Either charge, if -proved, would be sufficient to prove that the oral law is a false -religion, but here both charges are proved together. The oral law here -teaches that almsgiving can do that which it cannot do, namely, bribe -God to have mercy; and it supports its false doctrine by interpreting -צדקה to signify “almsgiving,” whereas it plainly signifies -“righteousness.” A religion guilty of such error cannot be from God. It -is for the Jews, then, to consider whether they will persist in -upholding the truth of a system which opposes the doctrines of Moses and -the prophets, and perverts the Word of God. The great boast of the Jews -is, that they are faithful to Moses and to the religion of Moses: but -this boast is vain so long as they profess Judaism. If Moses were to -rise from the dead, and get the oral law into his hands, he would not be -able to recognise it as the religion which he left to Israel. And, as to -the commands about almsgiving, he would not be able even to translate -them, for in his time צדקה signified righteousness. - -The prophet Isaiah would feel equal astonishment if he were to return -and learn, that the oral law quoted him as an authority for the -assertion, that Zion is to be redeemed, not with righteousness, but with -almsgiving. And we doubt not that both Moses and Isaiah would protest as -earnestly as we do against a doctrine based upon perversion. But it is -extraordinary, if the Rabbinists really believe their own doctrine, that -Israel can be delivered from captivity by almsgiving, that they should -set any bounds to their liberality, or ever stop giving, until the -desired redemption be effected. If their doctrine be true, then all that -they so earnestly pray for, is entirely in their own power. They know -the means, and they possess the means of terminating this long -captivity. They need only to give a sufficiency of alms, and, according -to the oral law, even Zion itself shall be delivered. How extraordinary -then, that they should have suffered so many centuries of misery to pass -over their heads, and left their brethren to endure such calamities, -when liberality in almsgiving could have put a period to all their -sorrows. We think too highly of Israel’s charity to suppose for a moment -that they would hesitate to make the sacrifice, if they were persuaded -of its efficacy. We must therefore infer, that they do not believe in -the doctrine, and ask them, why do they profess a religion in which they -do not believe? - -Footnote 34: - - Literally, “a stranger.” - - - - - No. XL. - PRIESTS AND LEVITES. - - -The great test of a man’s faith in, and love to, his religion is his -practice. If a man live in open and perpetual transgression of its -commands, no profession can satisfy us that he is in earnest, or that he -really believes what his creed confesses. Now let the advocates of the -oral law examine themselves by this test. They profess to believe in, -and to love the law of Moses; and their great boast is, that Moses is -their master, and that they are his disciples, but do they prove the -reality of their faith by their obedience? They sometimes tax Christians -with inconsistency in professing to believe in Moses, and yet in -neglecting the observance of certain ceremonial observances; but are -they themselves more careful and less guilty in this matter? We do not -mean to allude to the weightier matters of the law, love to God and man: -that is a question for the conscience, not a subject for controversy, -but we refer to some mere external matters, easy of observance, and open -to the cognisance of every man. Moses and the prophets have commanded -that the priests, the Levites, הכהנים הלוים, should be the teachers of -the law, and that from them the people should learn. Moses does not say -one word about rabbies or wise men, חכמים, but restricts the office of -teaching to the priests, the Levites: now, do the modern Jews obey Moses -in this respect? Who are their teachers of religion, and from whom do -they learn? Are the priests and the Levites the teachers of Israel, as -Moses commanded, or are they taught by their rabbies and Chachamim, of -whom Moses does not say one syllable? - -We assert, that Moses has commanded that the priests, the Levites, -should be the religious teachers in Israel, and in proof we refer to the -words of Moses himself. In the tenth chapter of ויקרא, Leviticus, he -thus writes:— - -וידבר ה׳ אל אחרן לאמר . יין ושכר אל תשת אתה ובניך אתך בבאכם אל אהל מועד -ולא תמותו חקה עולם לדורותיכם . ולהבדיל בין הקודש ובין ההול ובין הטמא -ובין הטהור . ולהורות את בני ושראל את כל החקים אשר דבר ה׳ אליהם ביד משה ׃ - -“And the Lord spake unto Aaron, saying, Do not drink wine nor strong -drink, thou nor thy sons with thee, when ye go into the tabernacle of -the congregation, lest ye die: it shall be a statute for ever throughout -your generations: and that ye may put difference between holy and -unholy, and between unclean and clean; and that ye may teach the -children of Israel all the statutes which the Lord hath spoken unto them -by the hand of Moses.” Here the nature of the priest’s office is clearly -defined. It is, in the first place, to go into the tabernacle of the -congregation, and there to serve before the Lord: and secondly to -instruct the children of Israel in the difference between holy and -profane, clean and unclean, and especially to teach the children of -Israel “ALL THE STATUTES,” which the Lord had given to Moses. The -commission is not only very comprehensive, but very exclusive. If the -priests were to teach “all the statutes,” there is no room left for -rabbies, or Chachamim, or any other description of teacher, the priests -are the only divinely-accredited religious teachers in Israel. - -If this passage stood alone, it would be quite sufficient to establish -the doctrine; but it does not. Moses was particularly anxious to impress -upon the Israelites the nature of the priestly office, and therefore -repeats the instruction again and again. Thus in the law respecting a -dead body found lying in a field, after commanding that the elders and -judges should come forth, he adds— - -ונגשו הכהנים בני לוי כי בם בחר ה׳ אלהיך לשרתו ולברך בשם ה׳ ועל פיהם יהיה -כל ריב וכל ננע ׃ - -“And the priests, the sons of Levi, shall come near: for them the Lord -thy God hath chosen to minister unto him, and to bless in the name of -the Lord: and by their word shall every controversy and every stroke be -tried.” (Deut. xxi. 5.) One should have thought that the elders and -judges were enough in such a case. But not so. God had determined that -the priests were to teach Israel “all his statutes,” and therefore -commands that they should be present in this case, that they should give -the decision. - -Again, when Moses was about to part from Israel, and to leave them his -dying benediction, he was directed by the spirit of prophecy to impress -upon them the same great truth, and in the most solemn manner:— - -וללוי אמר תמיך ואוריך לאיש חסידך אשר נסיתו במסה תריבהו על מי מריבה , -האומר לאביו ולאמו לא ראיתיו ואת אחיו לא הכיו ואת בניו לא ידע כי שמרו -אמרתך ובריתך ינצרו . יורו משפטיך ליעקב תורתך לישראל וגו׳ ׃ - -“And of Levi he said, Let thy Thummim and thy Urim be with thy Holy One, -whom thou didst prove at Massah, and with whom thou didst strive at the -waters of Meribah: who said unto his father and mother, I have not seen -him; neither did he acknowledge his brethren, nor knew his own children: -for they have observed thy word, and kept thy covenant. _They shall -teach Jacob thy judgments, and Israel thy law._” (Deut. xxxiii. 8-10.) -And as this doctrine forms a part of Moses’ last words, so also it is -found in the last prophetic message which God vouchsafed to Israel. -Malachi, the last of the prophets, reminds Israel— - -כי שפתי כהן ישמרו דעת ותורה יבקשו מפיהו כי מלאך ה׳ צבאות הוא ׃ - -“That the priest’s lips should keep knowledge, and they should seek the -law at his mouth: for he is the messenger of the Lord of hosts” (Mal. -ii. 7): so that if there be any one thing more plain than another in the -Old Testament it is this, that the sons of Levi are the -divinely-appointed religious teachers of Israel, and that it is the duty -of all Israelites to seek instruction from them. - -It cannot be said that the priests are not now well known, and that on -this account these commands have lost their force; for those who believe -in the oral law, profess to know the family of Levi, and in the -synagogue, at the reading of the law, the priest and the Levite are -called up in a certain order: - -בכל קריאה וקריאה מאלו כהן קורא ראשון ואחריו לוי ואחריו ישראל , ומנהג -פשוט הוא היום בישראל שאפילו כהן עם הארץ קודם לקרות לפני חכם גדול ישראל ׃ - -“At every time of reading the priest reads first, and after him the -Levite, and after him the Israelite. And the simple custom of the -present time is, that a priest, even though he be an unlearned man -(amhaaretz), takes precedence in reading before the most learned, who is -only an Israelite.” (Hilchoth T’phillah, c. xii. 18.) And as the priests -are thus supposed to be known, so the oral law expressly maintains that -they still retain their priestly office, and are bound to discharge the -duties of it, so far as is possible, in the captivity: and therefore -requires them to bless the people as Moses commanded. Indeed the firm -conviction of the Talmudists on this subject is strikingly exhibited in -their assertion, that a priest, although unlearned, or even notoriously -wicked, is still not exempted from his obligation to perform this duty:— - -כהן שלא היה לו דבר מכל אלה המונעין נשיאת כפים אע׳׳פ שאינו חכם ואינו -מדקדק במצוות או שהיה חבריו מרננים אחריו או שלא היה משאו ומתנו בצדק הרי -זה נושא את כפיו ואין מונאין אותו , לפי שזו מצות עשה על כל כהן וכהן שראוי -לנשיאת כפים ואין אומרים לאדם רשע הוסף רשע והמנע מן המצוות , ואל תתמה -ותאמר מה תועיל ברכת הדיוט זה , שאין קבול הברכה תלוי בכהנים אלא בהקב׳׳ה -שנאמר ושמו את שמי על בני ושראל ואני אברכם , הכהנים עושים מצוה שנצטוו בה -והקב׳׳ה ברחמיו מברך את ישראל כחפצו ׃ - -“A priest who has none of these disqualifications for the lifting up of -hands, even though he be not learned, nor accurate in the commandments; -and although his companions make a mock of him, or his dealings should -not be righteous, still he is to lift up his hands [to bless], and is -not to be prevented, for this is an affirmative precept binding upon -every priest, who is otherwise qualified; and we must not say to a -wicked man, Away, thou wicked man, be thou disqualified from keeping the -commandments. Do not ask, saying, What profit can there be in the -blessing of this simple fellow? for the receiving of the blessing does -not depend upon the priests, but upon the Holy One, blessed be He, for -it is said, ‘They shall put my name upon the children of Israel, and I -will bless them.’ The priests perform the duty commanded them, and God, -in his mercy, blesses Israel according to his pleasure.” (Ibid. c. xv. -6.) The existence, then, of the priests, and their continued obligation -to perform such official duties as are now possible, are fully -acknowledged, yea, it is even asserted that a wicked priest is by no -means to be prevented from doing his duty: it has also been plainly -proved, from the words of Moses and the prophets, that it is the duty of -the priests to teach, and of the Israelites to be taught by them: and no -man can deny that the performance of this duty is possible. The -destruction of the temple has prevented the priest from sacrificing, but -it has made no difference with regard to the possibility of teaching: it -is, therefore, a fair question to propose, to those who boast in their -obedience to the law of Moses, _How is this Mosaic command respecting -the teaching of the law fulfilled?_ Are the priests, the Levites, the -religious teachers in all Jewish congregations? or have they been -excluded from the office assigned to them by Moses? and is it occupied -by others to whom Moses did not give it? Every Jew must answer that this -command of Moses is utterly disregarded—that the office of the -priesthood, as established by Moses, has now scarcely the shadow of an -existence amongst the Jews—that the rabbies, Chachamim, and the -Melamm’dim are universally the religious teachers—and that hundreds, if -not thousands, of the priests are left in utter obscurity, and not a few -in destitution. Jeremiah complained of the heathen— - -פני כהנים לא נשאו ׃ - -“They respected not the persons of the priests” (Lam. iv. 16); but it is -equally applicable to the adherents of the oral law. Here and there a -son of Levi may be a rabbi, and then he has the honour attached to the -rabbinical office; but the Mosaic institution of the priesthood, as the -appointed order of religious, teachers to Israel is utterly disregarded. -Moses declares, as we have seen above, that it is the priest’s office -“to distinguish between holy and unholy, and between clean and unclean;” -but if a Jew has got a שאלה, a question or a difficulty, it is to the -rabbi that he goes to get the decision. Moses says that the priests are -appointed by God “to teach Israel all the statutes which the Lord hath -spoken to them;” but now men are made rabbies and Melamm’dim who do not -pretend to be of the family of Levi: and there are congregations even -where there is no Levite nor priest at all, and where, therefore, this -command is utterly despised. But the worst feature in this disobedience -is, that it is systematic. It is not one of the casualties of the -captivity, but it is the deliberate aim of the oral law to degrade the -priesthood, as established by Moses, and to set up above it another -office, that of rabbi, of which Moses does not say one word. The oral -law, instead of deprecating the possibility of an Israelite congregation -existing without a priest a son of Levi, quietly layeth down the law for -doing without them. When prescribing the order in which persons are to -be called up to the reading of the law, it says— - -אין שם כהן עולה ישראל ולא יעלה אחריו לוי כלל ׃ - -“If there be no priest there, then an Israelite is to go up, but no -Levite is to follow him.” (Ibid., c. xii. 19.) And again, - -ואם אין להם כהן כלל כשיגיע שליח צבור לשים שלום וכו׳ ׃ - -“But if the congregation has no priest at all, when the reader comes to -that part of the prayers he is to say,” &c. (Ibid., c. xv. 10.) Now if -the oral law were anxious to maintain the institution of Moses it could -make no such supposition. On the contrary it would urge upon every -congregation the indispensable necessity of having a priest or the -family of Levi. The supposition shows that its authors cared but little -about the commands of Moses, for where there is no priest it is plainly -impossible for the people to obey that often-repeated precept to learn -the law from the sons of Levi. And yet the authors of the oral law, who -care so little for this commandment of Moses about the priests, command -the appointment of Melamm’dim, or schoolmasters, wider pain of utter -destruction— - -מושיבין מלמדי תינוקות בכל מדינה ומדינה ובכל פלך ופלך ובכל עיר ועיר , וכל -עיר שאין בה תינוקות של בית רבן מחרימין את אנשי העיר יד שמושיבין מלמדי -תינוקות ואם עוד לא הושיבו מחרימין את הציר ׃ - -“Teachers of children are to be established in every province and -district and city. And every city in which there are not school children -the men of that city are to be visited with the Cherem, and if they -still neglect, the city itself is to be devoted.” (Hilch. Talm. Torah, -c. ii.) When we see them enforce this commandment of their own with such -zeal and severity, and yet appear so careless and negligent about the -commandment of Moses, we justly infer that this neglect was intentional, -and that the object was to exalt themselves, and to depress that office -which God himself had ordained, And this inference is abundantly -confirmed by הלכות כבוד רבו, the numerous and minute laws respecting the -honour due to a rabbi, whilst the respect due to the family of Levi is -almost entirely disregarded, and his office evidently depreciated below -that of the former. As, for instance, in establishing the order in which -captives are to be redeemed, the oral law says the priest is to be -redeemed before the Levite, and the Levite before the Israelite, but -then adds— - -במה דברים אמורים כשהיו שניהם שוין בחכמה , אבל אם היה כהן גדול עם הארץ -וממזר תלמיד חכם תלמיד חכם קודם ׃ - -“In what case does this hold good? In case that they were both equal in -wisdom. But if the high priest be an unlearned man, and an illegitimate -child be the disciple of a wise man (chacham), the latter is to have the -precedence.” (Hilchoth Matt’noth Aniim, c. viii. 17.) Here the office of -the priesthood and even of the high priesthood itself is put below that -of the rabbi or chacham, and the intention of the Rabbinists to exalt -themselves, and their utter disregard for the law of Moses and his -commandments, is especially apparent. The high priest was the chief -person in the whole Mosaic dispensation. Without him the blood of the -offering could not be carried into the holy of holies on the Day of -Atonement, and yet the oral law says, that if he and an illegitimate -child, that is, the least honoured person in Israel, be both in -captivity, and the latter be the disciple of a rabbi, he is to be -redeemed first. It is needless to add any further proof of the fact that -the command of Moses, respecting the family of Levi, is systematically -and intentionally transgressed by the authors and adherents of the oral -law. The priests, the Levites, have been thrust out of that office which -God gave them, and others have been made the religious teachers of -Israel who have no right at all to this appointment. How then can the -modern Jews pretend to be zealous for the law of Moses? They are living -in plain and systematic violation of one of his plainest commands. It -will not do to say that the office of rabbi is also of divine -appointment. An assertion which nullities a Mosaic institution must have -the most unexceptionable evidence. Its proof must be at least as clear -as the original appointment. To persuade any real lover of the Mosaic -law that the rabbies have a right to thrust out the family of Levi from -their office, and to take it upon themselves, the express declaration of -God is absolutely necessary. And if the rabbies could prove, which they -cannot, that they are the lawful teachers of Israel, it would -necessarily follow that the Mosaic law has been changed, and then one of -the chief dogmas of modern Judaism, the immutability of the Mosaic law, -is entirely overthrown. When Moses gave the law the priests were the -religious teachers of Israel. Since the dominion of the oral law, not -the priests, but the rabbies have been the teachers. Here then is an -important, yea, an organic change in the Mosaic constitution. This -change then is either unlawful or lawful. If it be unlawful, then the -rabbies have no right to be the teachers of Israel. If it be lawful, -then to change and alter the Mosaic law is lawful, and then modern -Judaism, which teaches that there can be no change, is false. This is -the only alternative which modern Jews can adopt,—they must either -maintain the immutability of the law at the expense of the rabbinic -office, or they must assert the legitimacy of the rabbinic office at the -expense of the law. In either case the oral law is convicted of teaching -falsehood; and in neither case can the modern Jews make a boast of -loyalty to the law of Moses. They charge Christians with disregarding -and transgressing the Mosaic law, but let them point out, even in the -practice of Gentile Christians, any one apparent transgression more -heinous than the expulsion of the family of Levi from the office to -which Moses appointed them. The fact is notorious. This family is every -where neglected and in obscurity, struggling with the cares and business -of the world, instead of occupying the station given to them by Moses. -Let all the lovers of modern Judaism consider this fact, and then ask -themselves how they can pretend to be keeping the law of Moses? Let them -remember that they have themselves made a change in the law by -appointing rabbies instead of the priests, and that, if they defend this -change, they teach the very same doctrine which they blame in Gentile -Christians, namely, the mutability and abrogation of the Mosaic law. Of -course we do not mean to dictate to Israel in this matter. If they are -conscientiously persuaded that the institutions of Moses have been -abrogated, they can then consistently maintain the appointment of -rabbies, but let them give up their common, though mistaken, argument -against Christianity. But if they believe what they so commonly profess, -that the law of Moses is not, and cannot be abrogated, then let them act -consistently, renounce the oral law, and restore the family of Levi to -the office from which modern Judaism has excluded them for so many -centuries. To follow the oral law, and at the same time to obey the -written law of Moses in this matter, is plainly impossible. The oral law -is for the rabbies and the Chachamim—the words of Moses are for the -family of Levi. The Jews may, and of course will, choose as they think -best; but, if they determine upon maintaining the rabbinical system, let -them not pretend to be followers of Moses. Let them honestly confess -that they do not like Moses and his laws, and that they prefer the new -and modern religion of the rabbies. The subject is important to all -Israel, but especially so to the sons of Levi themselves. God gave them -the important charge of instructing the house of Israel in his laws, are -they then at liberty to resign their sacred office into the hands of -others? Has God dispensed them from obedience to his command? If so, -what obligation rests upon them to bless the people? By lifting up their -hands and blessing the people, they confess that their office still -continues; and, if so, the obligation to perform all its duties -continues also. Either the law of Moses is abrogated, or the priests are -still the appointed religious teachers of Israel. - -The priests have the some alternative as the people, i.e., either to -assert the rights and perform the duties of their priestly office, or -honestly to acknowledge that they do not believe in Moses, nor care for -his religion, but that their religion is that of the rabbies. The -responsibility is however much heavier on the family of Levi than on -Israelites of another tribe. To the sons of Levi, God committed the -honourable office of instructing Israel. They have been set as the -watchmen in Israel, and are therefore answerable, not only for their own -neglect, but for the error and destruction of the people. It is then -high time for them to remember their duty and the zeal of their -forefathers in extirpating error, and to show themselves worthy of their -high origin, and of their divine appointment, by opposing the errors of -the oral law. - - - - - No. XLI. - RABBINIC IDEAS OF THE DEITY. - - -It is an indisputable fact, that the modern Jews have entirely cast off -the laws of Moses respecting the priests of the family of Levi, and have -chosen and appointed to themselves other teachers, of whom Moses says -nothing. What the cause was of such extraordinary conduct in those who -profess a great zeal for the law of Moses, we do not now profess to -inquire; but we think that every Jew ought to have a very good reason -for thus wilfully, systematically, and continually transgressing the -commandments of God. He ought, at the very least, to be able to show -that the doctrines of these new teachers are far superior to those of -the religious teachers appointed by Moses; and that the superabundant -excellence and wisdom of rabbinic teaching does, at least, justify the -change which they have made in the Mosaic law. We have had occasion in -these papers to consider the nature of the new doctrine chosen instead -of the law of Moses, and to us it certainly appears that “The Old Paths” -were better. To-day we propose to illustrate the rabbinic notions of the -Deity, and do not intend by any means to select the most objectionable -representations contained in the rabbinical writings, but shall confine -ourselves to a few well-known passages, which are intended to explain to -us the mode in which God spends his time. Concerning the day, the -rabbies say that it is spent in the following manner:— - -שתים עשרה שעות הוי היום , שלש הראשונות הקב׳׳ה יושב ועוסק בתורה , שניות -יושב ודן את כל העולם כולו , כיון שרואה שנתחייב העולם כליה , עומד מכסא -הדין ויושב על כסא הרחמים , שלישיות יושב וזן את כל העולם כולו , מקרני -ראמים עד ביצי כינים , רביעיות יושב ומשחק עם לויתן , שנאמר לויתן זה יצרת -לשחק בו וכו׳ ׃ - -“The day has twelve hours. The first three, the Holy One, blessed be He, -sits and occupies himself in the law. The second, he sits and judges the -whole world. When he perceives that the world deserves utter -destruction, He stands up from the throne of judgment, and sits on the -throne of mercy. The third, he sits, and feeds all the world, from the -horns of the unicorns to the eggs of the vermin. In the fourth, he sits -and plays with Leviathan, for it is said (Psalm civ. 26) ‘The Leviathan -whom thou hast formed to play therewith.’” (Avodah Zarah, fol. iii., -col. 2.) In another place we have an account of the manner in which the -night is spent:— - -ר׳ אליעזר אומר שלש משמרות הוי הלילה ועל כל משמר ומשמר יושב הקב׳׳ה ושואג -כארי שנאמר ה׳ ממרום ישאג ממעו קדשו יתן קולו שאוג ישאג על נוהו ׃ - -“Rabbi Eliezer says, The night has three watches, and at every watch, -the Holy One, blessed be He, sits and roars like a lion, for it is said, -‘The Lord shall roar from on high, and utter his voice from his holy -habitation: roaring he shall roar upon his habitation.’” (Jer. xxv. 30.) -And again, a little lower down, the same assertion is made in the name -of two other rabbies, and the cause of God’s roaring assigned:— - -אמר רב יצחק בר שמואל משמיה דרב שלש משמרות הוי הלילה ועל כל משמר ומשמר -יושב הקב׳׳ה ושואג כארי ואומר אוי שחרבתי את ביתי ושרפתי את היכלי והגליתי -את בני לבין אומות העולם ׃ - -“Rabbi Isaac, the son of Samuel, says, in the name of Rav, The night has -three watches, and at every watch, the Holy One, blessed be He, sits and -roars like a lion, and says, Woe is me that I have laid desolate my -house, and burned my sanctuary, and sent my children into captivity -amongst the nations of the world.” (Berachoth, fol. iii., col. 1.) Now -we ask every reasonable man whether this is a representation worthy of -the Creator of heaven and earth? We are told here, first, that God is -like a man in observing day and night—that he has set times for -different employments, and a time for amusement. We are told, secondly, -that instead of comprehending all things past, present, and to come, at -all times, and instead of upholding all things by the continual fiat of -his omnipotent rule, that he is obliged to consider each thing in -succession; and that, like a poor frail child of man, He can do only one -thing at a time. And thirdly, we are here informed, that the Divine -Being sits all night, and mourns like a child, over an act which he -rashly committed, but now wishes to have undone. Is this a fit -representation of Deity, or is it awful blasphemy? How different is the -description given by Moses—“Lord, thou hast been our dwelling-place in -all generations. Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever thou -hadst formed the earth and the world, even from everlasting to -everlasting, thou art God. A thousand years in thy sight are but as -yesterday when it is past, and as a watch in the night” (Ps. xc. 1-4); -and again, that other beautiful passage of the Psalmist, “Of old thou -hast laid the foundations of the earth; and the heavens are the work of -thy hands. They shall perish, but thou shalt endure; yea all of them -shall wax old like a garment: and as a vesture shalt thou change them, -and they shall be changed; but thou art the same, and thy years shall -have no end.” (Ps. cii. 25-27.) In both these passages, -unchangeableness, entire freedom from all vicissitude and succession, is -presented to our view as the prominent feature in the character of -Deity. Whereas, the God whom the rabbies describe, is a being subject to -the same alterations as ourselves, and liable to change, in its worst -form, that is, to that change of will which ensues on disappointed -expectations. They say, that their God destroyed his temple and sent his -children into captivity, and that now he is very sorry for it, and vents -the bitterness of his grief in lamentations compared to the roaring of a -lion. Such a deity is no more like the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, -than Jeroboam’s calves. He may not be a graven image, but he is -nevertheless an idol, not indeed of gold or silver, but of the -imagination. Nothing can be more different than the Being described by -the rabbies, and that God declared in Moses and the Prophets. And yet on -this very point, where the oral law errs so grievously, Christianity -maintains the truth. The New Testament declares unto us the same Being -revealed in the Old. It says, “Every good gift, and every perfect gift -is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is -no variableness, neither shadow of turning.” (James i. 17.) - -But the rabbies falsely ascribe to God not only variableness, but -imperfect knowledge also. They say, that He spends a fourth part of the -day in the study of the law. Now either God knows the law, or he does -not. If he does know the law, then study is useless; and if he does not, -then his knowledge is imperfect, and either supposition is altogether -unworthy of the Deity. Indeed it is very difficult to argue against a -doctrine so monstrous, or to show the full absurdity where the subject -is so grave and sacred. But we put it to the good sense of every -Israelite, and ask him whether he can believe that the God of knowledge -studies in his own law? Is not such an assertion a blasphemous -falsehood, and does it not show that those who made it were themselves -utterly devoid of all true knowledge of God? Some persons endeavour to -excuse this blasphemy by saying that the words are not to be taken -literally, and that the rabbies employed oriental figures. But this will -not save the credit of the oral law; for if we admit the figure, we -cannot excuse the blasphemy contained in the assertion, that God studies -the law one fourth of every day. No man that has any reverence for his -Creator would venture to use such language, not even in the way of a -parable. It proves in every case that those rabbies were totally devoid -of that reverence which is due to God, and therefore most unfit teachers -of religion. But, further, if these passages be figurative, what is the -real sense? What is meant by studying in the law, or playing with -Leviathan, or uttering complaints at the beginning of every watch in the -night; or what is intended by ascribing to God one sort of employment in -the day and the other in the night? It is not enough to say that these -are all figures conveying the most profound wisdom; this assertion must -be proved by showing what this wisdom is. Let the Rabbinists explain -these figures satisfactorily, and they will then have some chance of -being believed, though even that would not amount to a proof, that the -authors of these passages intended that they should be understood -mystically. It is a certain fact that many of the rabbies have -understood these and similar passages literally. In the commentary on -the assertion, “That in the second three hours God sits and judges the -world,” we are told, that some believed this so firmly as to think that -on this very account the additional form of prayer, called מוסף, was -prescribed:— - -יש אומרים כי לכך תקנו בקדושת מודף לומר ממקומו הוא יפן כי סתם מוסף בשניות -בא ואז הוא יושב ודן ואנו מתפללין שיפנה מכסא דין לשבת בכסא רחמים ׃ - -“Some say, that on this account the words ‘Let him turn from his place,’ -have been appointed in the sanctification of the Musaph, for this part -of the prayer generally occurs in the second three hours, when he is -sitting in judgment, and that we pray that he may turn from the throne -of judgment, and sit on the throne of mercy.” Those who held this -opinion plainly thought, that the hours were literal hours, and that the -distribution of the day into four different employments was not -figurative, but real. These persons, therefore, believed that God -studies in the law, that he plays with Leviathan, and observes the -distinction of day and night. And it must be confessed that, if they -believed in the Talmud, they had good reason for this literal -interpretation, as the corresponding passage, respecting God’s roaring -like a lion at every watch of the night, cannot be explained -figuratively, if it be taken in connexion with its context. The context -contains a discussion about real, not figurative night-watches. The -question proposed by the Mishna is, Until what hour of the night is it -lawful to perform the evening-reading of the Sh’mah Israel (Hear, O -Israel)? R. Eliezer says, It is lawful until the end of the first watch. -The Gemara then considers what the rabbi could mean by this definition— - -מה קסבר ר׳ אליעזר אי קסבר ג׳ משמרות הוי הלילה לימא עד ארבע שעות ואי קסבר -ארבע משמרות הוי הלִלה לימא עד שלש שעות , לעולם קסבר שלש משמרות הוי הלילה -והא קא משמע לן איכא משמרות ברקיעא ואיכא משמרות בארעא דתניא וכו׳ ׃ - -“What did R. Eliezer mean? If he meant that the night had three watches, -he ought to have said until the fourth hour: but if he meant that the -night has four watches, he ought to have said until the third hour. -There can be no doubt that he meant that the night has three watches, -and intended to say, that there are watches in heaven and watches upon -earth, for the Bareitha says, &c.”——And then follows the passage, -saying, that in each watch God roars like a lion. It cannot, then, be -pretended that the night-watches here are figurative or mystical. It is -expressly said that there are the same watches in heaven and earth, and -the whole question is about the real distribution of time. The following -context is equally unequivocal. R. Eliezer, immediately after saying -that in each watch God roars like a lion, goes on to give the signs -whereby each watch may be recognised even in the dark:— - -קסימן לדבר משמרה ראשונה חמור נוער , שנייה כלבים צועקים , שלישית תינוק -יונק משדי אמו ואשה מספרת עם בעלה ׃ - -“The sign of the thing is—In the first watch the ass brays; in the -second watch the dogs bark; in the third watch the infant sucks at its -mother’s breast, and the wife talks with her husband.” This is plain -matter-of-fact way of speaking, and proves, beyond a doubt, that the -whole passage is to be taken literally. And if any doubt at all -remained, it is entirely removed, a little lower down on the page, by an -anecdote told by the veracious R. Jose. He says, that he once went into -one of the ruins of Jerusalem to pray, and that whilst he was engaged in -prayer, the prophet Elijah came to the entrance of the ruin, and very -civilly waited for him until he had concluded, when they had some -conversation together. - -Amongst other particulars, R. Jose relates as follows:— - -ואמר לי בני מה קול שמעת בחורבה זו לאמרתי לו שמעתי בת קול שמנהמת כיונה -ואומרת אוי שחרבתי את ביתי ושרפתי את היכלי והגליתי את בני לבין האומות -ואמר לי חייך וחיי ראשך לא שעה זר בלבד אורת כך , אלא בכל יום ויום שלש -פעמים אומרת כך , ולא זו בלבד , אלא בשעה שישראל נכנסין לבתי כנסיות ולבתי -מדרשות ועונין אמן יהא שמא רבא מברך הקב׳׳ה מנענע ראשו ואומר אשרי המלך -שמקלסין אותו בביתו כך מה לו לאב שהגלה את בניו ׃ - -“And he (Elias) said to me, What sort of a voice didst thou hear in the -ruin? I said to him, I heard a Bath Kol cooing like a dove, and saying, -Woe is me that I have desolated my house, and burnt my sanctuary, and -sent my children into captivity amongst the nations. And he said unto -me, As thou livest, and thy head liveth, it is not at this hour only, -but three times every day the voice says these words. And not only so, -but when the Israelites enter the synagogues, and the houses of study, -and say, ‘Amen, may his great name be blessed,’ the Holy One, blessed be -He, shakes his head, and says, Blessed is the King who is praised in his -house; but what profit has the father who sends his children into -captivity,” &c. Here we have the testimony of R. Jose to the truth of -the fact, that God does thus complain in the manner described above, and -we have the Prophet Elijah swearing that this happens three times every -day. It is plain, therefore, that the authors of the Talmud knew of no -mystical interpretation and intended none. It was their simple belief -that God observed the three watches of the night, and at the beginning -of each roared like a lion. And if this passage must be taken literally, -why should the other passage respecting the distribution and employments -of the day be taken figuratively? The literal interpretation of the one -furnishes a strong argument for the literal interpretation of the other. -And it is certainly of no use to ascribe a mystical sense to the one, -whilst the other is interpreted literally. The advocates of the oral law -gain nothing by it, for the one is not more absurd nor more unworthy of -the Deity than the other. Nothing can exceed the folly of representing -God as observing the night-watches, and roaring like a lion for grief, -because he sent Israel into captivity. Nothing can be more blasphemous -than the assertion that God does not foresee the results of his own -actions, and that he is afterwards obliged to sit down and mourn over -what he has done. This one passage, which cannot be explained away, is -quite sufficient to show that the rabbies were utterly ignorant of the -nature of God; and that, however they might be acquainted with the -letter of the Law and the Prophets, they knew nothing of the real -meaning of their writings. This one excess of folly and absurdity -entirely overthrows all the claims and pretensions of the oral law in -which it is found. - -But there is another feature in the passage which we cannot pass without -notice, and that is, the total disregard of truth which it manifests. R. -Jose’s story is evidently a barefaced and wilful lie, unless we say, -that when he went into the ruin to pray, he fell asleep, and dreamed -that he heard the Bath Kol and had this conversation with Elijah; but -either supposition will equally destroy the credit of the Talmud. If it -be a lie, it is one of the most profane and wicked lies that can be -imagined. We have here a professed teacher of the law telling not only a -falsehood about his intercourse with Elijah, but daring falsely to -assert that he heard the voice of God mourning over the ruins of the -temple. The most profane and wicked lie that can be devised is that -which introduces God himself, and trifles with the sacred character of -the Deity. If this story be a lie, it oversets the Talmud and the -Talmudical religion at once. A religion built upon falsehoods, must -itself be necessarily false. But if the other supposition be adopted, -that R. Jose mistook a dream for a reality, what shall we say of a -religion whose teachers tell their dreams as sacred truths? And what -shall we say of the compilers of the Talmud, who were unable to detect -the folly and profanity of this narrative, and actually inserted it in -their oral law as an undoubted fact? This supposition may save R. Jose -from the unhappy character of a liar, but it will not do much towards -proving the truth of the oral law; for there it is not given as a dream, -but as a fact. R. Jose was silly enough to tell his dream as a reality; -and the rabbies to whom he told it were silly enough to believe; and the -most learned men of the Rabbinists at that time were silly enough to -embody it in their collection of holy and undoubted traditions. We do -not mean to ascribe any peculiar degree of folly to the rabbies. Persons -calling themselves Christians have been just as foolish, have believed -stories just as absurd, and have handed them down as religious truths. -But then, we do not receive these legends as a part and parcel of our -religion. We are as free to say of them, as of the Talmudic fables, that -they are wicked falsehoods. But the modern Jews tell us that the Talmud -is a divine book—that it contains their religion, and that without it -Moses and the Prophets are unintelligible; and therefore we point out -these fables as plain proofs of the falsehood of such an assertion. We -wish to direct the Jewish attention to that system which they have -called their religion for the last eighteen hundred years, and which -they have preferred to Christianity. We desire that they should consider -what they have gained, by expelling the family of Levi from the -teacher’s office and choosing the rabbies as their religious guides. We -ask every Israelite of common sense, whether R. Jose and his companions -are trustworthy leaders in the way to salvation; and whether they are -still prepared to follow the religion of a man who can only be acquitted -of being a liar by admitting that he is a dreamer? Or, whether they -still choose to worship the Deity proclaimed by the rabbies—a Deity -subject to succession of time—imperfect in knowledge so as to require -daily study—requiring amusement, and therefore playing for three hours -every day with Leviathan—and liable to disappointment, so as to be -obliged to spend the night, in mourning over one of his most deliberate -and solemn acts? - -We are sure that every Israelite would be sadly offended at being told, -that he does not worship the God of his fathers, but a strange god, -invented by the imagination of the rabbles; and yet, if he worship the -god of the Talmud, it is nothing but the truth. The god of the Talmud is -certainly not the God of the Bible. Israelites are often shocked at the -folly and wickedness of those whom they see falling down before stocks -and stones; and yet, if they receive the oral law, and believe an a -Deity who plays with Leviathan, &c., the object of their worship is not -a whit more rational. They are just as guilty of idolatry, and the only -way in which they can clear themselves from the charge is, by rejecting -the oral law, and forsaking that superstition which the rabbies have -palmed off upon them as the religion of their fathers. It is a most -deplorable and melancholy sight to behold that nation, which once was -the sole depository of truth, enslaved by a system so senseless; but it -is more melancholy still to think, that there is not one among her sons -who has the moral courage to denounce its falsehood, and to vindicate -the truth as taught by Moses. The priests, the sons of Levi, were once -zealous for the honour of God, and united with Moses in destroying the -golden calf; but where are they now, and where is their zeal? Alas! they -too, are found amongst the worshippers of the Talmudical deity, and -uphold the system which has expelled them from their holy office. - - - - - No. XLII. - TITLE OF RABBI. - - -That the people, at present scattered over the whole world, and known by -the name of Jews, are descendants of the chosen people of God, we freely -admit. That the Old Testament contains prophecies of their future return -to the God and the land of their fathers, and their subsequent happiness -and glory, we firmly believe: but, that the religion which they at -present profess is the religion of Moses, we confidently deny. Modern -Judaism has not retained the doctrines of Moses; no not even with -respect to the fundamental article of religion, the nature of God. Our -last number showed how widely the rabbies have departed from the -Scripture representation of the divine character, and the number -preceding proved that the Jews haw not retained even the outward form of -the Mosaic edifice. Indeed we know not any problem more difficult of -solution than, to assign a reason, why the rabbinic Jews profess any -respect at all for Moses, when they have rejected both the form and the -substance of his teaching. If they boldly denied his authority, or -asserted that the Mosaic law was long since abrogated, and the rabbinic -precepts given in its stead, we could, at least, give them credit for -consistency; but at present we cannot possibly divine their motives for -professing attachment to the lawgiver of their forefathers. Their -conduct for ages would appear to indicate a fixed determination to get -rid and keep clear of every thing Mosaic, and that for the mere purpose -of having something else; for no one can pretend, that the new law and -the new teachers, that they have chosen, can lay any claim to superior -excellence or antiquity. Of the value of the rabbinic teaching we have -given many proofs; and now think of examining a little the _novelty_ of -the rabbinic order. It is certain that the word, rabbi, does not occur -in the law of Moses nor the prophets; it is, therefore, clearly not -Mosaic. This one fact does in itself go far to shake the authority of -modern Judaism and the oral law. There we cannot go a step without -hearing of the rabbies—Rabbi Eliezer said this, and Rabbi Bar Bar Chanah -said that. The whole oral law is made up of the sayings of the rabbies, -and yet neither their name nor their order was so much as known to Moses -our master. The other favourite appellation of the Talmudic doctors חכם -_Chacham_, or wise man, does indeed occur, and it appears from the -prophets, that there were some even in their time who laid exclusive -claim to that epithet, but unfortunately the prophets bring against them -the very same charge, which we prefer against their successors, namely, -that they had forsaken the law of Moses:— - -איכה תאמרו חכמים אנחנו ותורת ה׳ אתנו אכן הנה לשקר עשה עט שקר סופרים , -הובישו חכמים חתו וילכדו הנה בדבר ה׳ מאסו וחכמת מה להם ׃ - -“How do ye say, We are wise (Chachamim) and the law of the Lord is with -us? Lo, certainly in vain made he it; the pen of the scribes is in vain. -The wise men (Chachamim) are ashamed. They are dismayed and taken: lo, -_they have rejected the word of the Lord_: and what wisdom is in them?” -(Jer. viii. 8, 9.) The rabbies will scarcely acknowledge that they have -succeeded these persons in their office, and yet if they give up such -passages as these, they must abdicate all claim to antiquity. Indeed -some of them plainly acknowledge that the rabbies are a new order of -men, and that the word rabbi was not heard of until less than a century -before the destruction of the second temple. Thus the Baal Aruch says— - -והדורות הראשונים שהיו גדולים מאוד לא היו צריכין לרברבם לא ברבן ולא ברבי -ולא ברב לא לחכמי בבל ולא לחכמי ארץ ישראל שהרי הלל עלה מבבל ולא נאמרה -רבנות בשמו , ובנביאים היו חשובים שאמר חגי הנביא , לא עלה עזרא מבבל , -ואין מרברבין אותן עם הזכרת שמותיהן ולא שמענו כי התחילו זו אלא בנשיאים -מרבן גמליאל הזקן ורבי שמעון בנו שנהרג בחרבן בית שני ורבן יוחנו בן זכעי -כולן נשיאים ואף רבי התחיל מסמוכים מאותה שעה צדוק ורבי אליעזר בן יעקב -ופשט הדבר מתלמידי ר׳ יוחנן בן זכאי ולהלן ׃ - -“The first generations, which were very great, did not require the -titles of Rabban, or Rabbi, or Rav, wherewith to honour the wise men of -Babylon, or the wise men of the land of Israel; for behold Hillel went, -up from Babylon, but the title of Rabbi is not added to his name. There -were honourable persons amongst the prophets, for it is said, ‘Haggai -the prophet’—‘Ezra did not go up from Babylon’—and at the mention of -their names the title of Rabbi is not added: neither have we heard that -this was begun until the princes Rabban Gamaliel the elder, and Rabban -Simon his son, who was killed at the destruction of the second temple, -and Rabban Johannan ben Zakkai, who were all princes. Rabbi also began -with those who were promoted at the same time, Zadok and R. Eliezer, the -son of Jacob, and the thing spread from the disciples of Rabban Johannan -ben Zakkai onwards.” (Aruch in אביי) We need not wonder, then, that -Moses knows nothing of rabbies, for here is a plain confession, that the -name was never heard of until a few years before the last dispersion. It -may, however, be said, that the office itself existed, though the name -did not, and this is in fact asserted by Rambam, when he says:— - -ומשה רבנו סמך יהושע ביד שנאמר ויסמוך את ידיו עליו ויצוהו , וכן השבעים -זקנים משה רבנו סמכם ושרתה עליהן שכינה ואותן הזקנים סמכו לאחרים , ואחרים -לאחרים , ונמצאו הסמוכין איש מפי איש עד בית דינו של יהושע ועד בית דינו של -משה רבינו ׃ - -“Moses our master promoted Joshua with his hands; for it is said, ‘and -he laid his hands upon him, and gave him a charge.’ (Numb. xxvii. 23.) -And in like manner with regard to the seventy elders, Moses our master -promoted them, and the Shechinah rested upon them; and these elders -promote others, and they again others; and thus we have a succession of -promoted persons, until the council of Joshua, and until the council of -Moses our master.” (Hilchoth Sanhedrin, iv. 1.) And so he tells us that— - -ודוד המלך סמך שלשים אלף ביום אחד ׃ - -“King David promoted thirty thousand persons in one day.” According to -this statement, it would appear that there had been always a class of -persons qualified to be teachers and judges, and a pretty numerous class -too, from the time of Moses; but it is very extraordinary that their -office should have continued fifteen hundred years without a name, and -that the nation should never have felt the inconvenience, nor remedied -it until the last few years of their existence; and it is more -extraordinary still that so large and important a body should never once -be mentioned in the law or the prophets. The land must perfectly have -swarmed with them. Thirty thousand would have been a large proportion to -the population of the land of Israel; but David made this number in one -day; and we cannot suppose that he exerted his right only once in his -life, nor that all the other doctors neglected the duty of raising up -disciples; and the oral law tells us that before the time of Hillel -every one thus promoted had the right of promoting others:— - -בראשונה היה כל מי שנסמך סומך לתלמידיו , וחכמים חלקו כבוד להלל הזקן -והתקינו שלא יהא אדם נסמך אלא ברשות הנשיא וכו׳ ׃ - -“At first every promoted person could promote his disciples; but the -wise men gave the honour to Hillel the elder, and ordained that no man -should promote except by permission of the prince (the Nasi).” According -to this, the number must have been very great; and yet that they should -have continued so long without a name, and without any mention whatever -by any of the inspired writers, is perfectly incredible. But there are -in the account itself various particulars which excite suspicion. -David’s extensive work of promotion in one day entirely exceeds the -limits of probability, no matter how the promotion took place, whether -by laying on of hands, or by command, or by letter: for if we grant that -he devoted the entire four-and-twenty hours of that day to the work, -still, in order to make up the number of thirty thousand, it will be -necessary to believe that he promoted at the rate of twelve hundred and -fifty an hour, or twenty in every minute. One such notorious untruth -discredits the whole account in which it is found. But, farther, the -admission that the right of conferring the dignity of doctor was taken -from those who had possessed it, and restricted to those who obtained -permission from the prince, shows that the ordinance of promotion was -not derived from Moses, but was an invention of men. If it had been of -Moses, the wise men could have had no authority to take it away, neither -is it at all likely that the numerous possessors of the right, and least -of all, the disciples of Shammai, would have quietly resigned it. We -must suppose either that the wise men altered an ordinance of Moses, and -thereby committed a great sin, or that the ordinance of promotion was a -mere human invention. By the latter supposition the whole story of the -continued existence of this class of doctors is given up; and by the -former supposition the charge of disregard for the law of Moses is fixed -upon the wise men, and the value of their testimony taken away. Lastly, -the account of the manner of promotion is at variance with the -above-quoted assertion of the Baal Aruch. The oral law, says that the -doctors were promoted in the following manner:— - -לא שיסמכו את ידיהם על ראש הזקן , אלא שקורין לו רבי ואומרים לו הרי אתה -סמוך ויש לך רשות לדון אפילו דיני קנסות ׃ - -“They not only laid their hands upon the head of the elder, but also -saluted him with the title, Rabbi, and said to him, Behold thou art -prompted, and hast authority to judge, even in cases of mulct.” Here the -conferring the title of Rabbi is made an integral part of the act of -promotion, whereas the Baal Aruch says that the title of Rabbi was not -in use until after the time of Hillel. The assertion, therefore, that -the office of Rabbi existed without the name, even from the time of -Moses, is not only unsupported by any proof from the inspired writings, -but is inconsistent with other assertions of the rabbies themselves; and -is, besides, found very close to a palpable untruth, and is therefore -unworthy of credit. Thus the antiquity of the rabbinic office is -destroyed, and appears to be a comparatively new invention: so that -those who profess the religion of the rabbies cannot pretend to have the -religion of Moses or of their forefathers, but that of a new set of -teachers, who did not arise until a very few years before the -destruction of the second temple. One of the common objections of modern -Jews against Christianity is, its novelty. They say that we have got a -new religion, whereas they have the ancient religion; that we follow a -new teacher, but that they follow Moses. The foregoing examination shows -how little ground they have for such a boast. If novelty be a valid -objection, they must confess that the religion of the rabbies is false. -If the distance of time that elapsed between Moses and Jesus of Nazareth -constitute a fair ground of objection, it is as valid against the -rabbies as against the Lord Jesus. Nay, if supposed novelty be the -reason why they reject Christianity, they must now reject the religion -of the rabbies, and embrace that of Christ. We have proved that the -religion of the rabbies is a novelty, and every one knows that one -peculiar feature in the teaching of Jesus of Nazareth was, that he -opposed the rabbinic doctrines, that is, he opposed novelty: this -opposition, therefore, is presumptive evidence that the Lord Jesus -retained the ancient religion, and has on that very account a claim upon -all those who profess to venerate antiquity. At all events the charge of -novelty can be as fairly urged against Rabbinism as against -Christianity, and every Jew who urges it, is, if he be in earnest about -truth, bound to compare Christianity with the law and the prophets, in -order to ascertain whether it be a new religion or not. One thing is -certain, that the ordinances of no religion can be farther from the -Mosaic appointment than those of Rabbinism. The Rabbinists have rejected -the religious teachers appointed by Moses, and have chosen others, who -cannot pretend even to any degree of antiquity; and not only so, but -even when the possibility of having regularly appointed rabbies ceased, -they preferred those, who in fact have no authority at all, to those -teachers appointed in the law. The oral law makes promotion necessary to -the exercise of the rabbinical office, and limits the ceremony of -promotion by two conditions, first, that it be conferred with the -consent of the נשיא, as we have seen above, and, secondly, that it be -performed in the land of Israel:— - -אין סומכין זקנים בחוצה לארץ ואע׳׳פ שאלו הסומכין נסמכו בארץ ישראל , אפילו -היו הסומכין בארץ והנסמך בחוץ לארץ אין סומכין ׃ - -“Elders are not promoted anywhere, except in the land of Israel; even -although the promoters should have been promoted there themselves. Yea, -though the persons conferring the promotion be in the land, if the -person to be promoted be outside the land, the promotion is not to take -place.” Now it is plain that these conditions cannot be fulfilled. The -great majority of the present rabbies have never been in the land of -Israel; and even if they had been, there has not been a נשיא prince for -many a century. For centuries, therefore, there has not been a rabbi -promoted to the office as the oral law requires; and yet the Jews, -rather than have the priests, the sons of Levi, still keep up the shadow -of the rabbinical office. A more determined opposition to the -institutions of Moses cannot be imagined. First, the Jewish people -rejected the ordinance of Moses, and devised an order of teachers of -their own, limited by certain conditions. Then God, in great mercy, made -the fulfilment of those conditions impossible. He took away the prince, -he drove them out of the land of Israel, to give them, as it were, an -opportunity, yea, to compel them to return to his own appointment: but -in vain. Although the Jews cannot fulfil the conditions of their own -devising, and could fulfil God’s appointment, they refuse the latter, -and have invented something newer still, and that is, an order of -religious teachers, who have not even the qualifications required by the -oral law. Truly this is to transgress, for the mere sake of -transgressing. How, then, can the Jews pretend to be disciples of Moses, -or assert that the Mosaic law is unchangeable? Now, for near two -thousand years they have lived in disobedience to one of Moses’ simplest -commandments, and have changed one of the essential institutions of the -law. The most superficial reader of the writings of Moses must see, that -a charge of prime importance was assigned to the family of Levi, not -only as respected the ministration in the temple, but also with regard -to the instruction of the people. God in His providence has deprived -them of the former. The Jews themselves, by rejecting the commands of -Moses, have taken away the latter office, and thus have destroyed not -only the interior, but actually demolished the external form of the -Mosaic edifice. It is, therefore, as we have said, a most difficult -problem to account for the profession which modern Jews make of zeal for -the law of Moses, and one which well deserves the consideration of the -Jews themselves. Why should they profess to be disciples of Moses, when -they openly trample upon his commands, and reject both the substance and -the form of his religion? If they really believe that obedience to the -law of Moses is necessary to salvation, they ought instantly to -reinstate the family of Levi in their office. But if they prefer the new -religion of the rabbies to the old religion of Moses, then they ought -honestly to say so; and not go on halting between two opinions. And they -ought to do this, not merely to avoid the charge of inconsistency before -men, but to satisfy their own consciences before God. How can any man -reasonably hope to be saved by a religion whose commands he constantly -transgresses, and never intends to obey? And yet this is exactly the -case with the Rabbinists with regard to the law of Moses. There have -been attempts at reform amongst the Jews, but we have never heard of any -who intended to restore the family of Levi to their office; and yet, -without this, there is no return to the Mosaic institutions. - -A disciple of the rabbies may perhaps think, that he can retort this -argument upon the Christians, and say that Jesus of Nazareth was not of -the tribe of Levi. Certainly he was not; but as the Messiah, the -prophets foretold that he was to be of the tribe of Judah: and as the -Messiah, promised and appointed of God, he has a right to the obedience -of all, both Jew and Gentile. If he had been only an ordinary prophet, -he would have had a divine right to teach the people and to require -their obedience; for, besides the priests, God also appointed prophets, -but to the prophetic office the rabbies do not lay claim. The Lord -Jesus, on the contrary, claimed not only the prophetic character, but -asserted that he was the Messiah, and proved the truth of his claims by -exhibiting miraculous powers, and especially by his resurrection from -the dead. As a prophet, therefore, and above all, as the Messiah, his -teaching in no wise interfered with the office of the priests: and his -conduct, as recorded in the New Testament, shows that, though in -determined and constant opposition to the Pharisees, the advocates of -the oral law, he never lifted up his voice against the office of the -priesthood. On the contrary, when occasion offered, he showed a -scrupulous regard for the commandments of Moses respecting the priests; -as for instance when he healed the leper, he “said onto him, See thou -tell no man; but go thy way, show thyself to the priests, and offer the -gift that Moses commanded, for a testimony unto them.” (Matt. viii. 4.) -And this conduct is perfectly conformable to one professed object of the -Lord Jesus, which was to vindicate the authority of the law against the -unauthorized additions of men. He professed himself the defender of the -Mosaic law, and opposed the whole system of the Rabbinists, on the -professed ground that they made it void by their traditions. The -objections, therefore, which we have brought against the oral law, as -overturning the institutions of Moses, cannot be applied to the -doctrines or conduct of the Lord Jesus Christ. He never opposed the -priests, never interfered with their office, never diminished aught from -their authority. In these most important respects, the doctrine of Jesus -of Nazareth is necessarily more agreeable to the law of Moses than the -traditions of the Pharisees, who have forcibly altered that great -institution of Moses, the Levitic priesthood, and have themselves -usurped the office and the rights of the priests. Modern Judaism is -directly in opposition to the Mosaic law, and has at present no excuse -for its opposition. The Jews of the dispersion cannot possibly keep its -requirements concerning the promotion of rabbies; their adherence, -therefore, to that system has now the appearance of mere gratuitous and -wilful hatred to the law of Moses. They profess to know the family of -the priests, and could therefore restore them to their office, if they -pleased. What is there to prevent them? Nothing but the want of love for -Moses and his institutions. We are convinced that many of the Jews have -never considered this matter, or they would not act as they do. The -habits of thought induced by early education, the customs of their -nation for two thousand years, have drawn a sort of veil over their -understandings, so that they have not been able to see the palpable -inconsistency of professing a zeal for Moses, whilst they do homage to -principles which cut up his institutions by the roots. Until the priests -be reinstated in their functions and their rights, as the divinely -appointed teachers of religion, the Jews can have no ground whatever to -pretend that they are disciples of Moses. They are, at present, nothing -but partisans of the sect of the Rabbinists. And if they choose to -persevere in their attachment to this sect, they are bound, as honest -men, to renounce all profession of regard for the law of Moses. - - - - - No. XLIII. - SANHEDRIN. - - -It is certain that the Jews cannot appeal to the law of the prophets to -defend their rejection of the old religion of Moses, and their -preference for the new religion of the rabbies. Neither Moses nor the -prophets knew anything about the rabbies. They are quite a new order of -men, never heard of until the Jewish polity was tottering to its -destruction. There is, however, another argument to which they might -appeal, in order to justify the reception of new religious teachers, and -that is, the existence of the Sanhedrin. It may be said, that when the -rabbies arose and taught, both they and their doctrines were approved by -this great council, and that this approval is sufficient to establish -the justice of their claims, and the truth of what they taught. Indeed, -the rabbinists do actually look upon the Sanhedrin as the great -foundation on which the oral law rests:— - -בית דין הגדול שבירושלים הם עיקר תורה שבע׳׳פ והם עמודי ההוראת ומהם חוק -ומשפט יוצא לכל ישראל , ועליהי הבטיחה תורה שנאמר על פי התורה אשר יורוך זו -מצות עשה וכל המאמין במשה רבינו יבתורתו חייב לסמוך מעשה הדת עליהן ולישען -עליהן ׃ - -“The Great Council in Jerusalem is the foundation-stone of the oral law, -and the pillars of the doctrine: and from them the statute and the -judgment goes forth to all Israel. They have the warrant of the law, for -it is said, ‘According to the sentence of the law which they shall teach -thee,’ &c. (Deut. xvii. 11); which is an affirmative precept, and every -one who believes in Moses our master, and in his law, is bound to rest -the practice of the law on them, and to lean on them.” (Hilchoth Mamrim, -c. i. 1.) Here the indispensable duty of every Israelite to follow the -decisions of the Sanhedrin is plainly asserted: it becomes, then, -absolutely necessary for us to examine into the nature of the foundation -on which claims so unlimited are based. One would suppose that, at the -very least, the Sanhedrin was infallible, and could never say or do -anything wrong; for if this council was liable to error, and yet -undeviating obedience to its decisions required, whenever they went -wrong, all Israel must have gone wrong also. But yet, strange to say, -the infallibility of the Sanhedrin is not only not asserted, but plainly -denied—yea, the possibility of error unequivocally intimated, and even -provided for:— - -בית דין גדול שדרשו באחת מן המדות כפי מה שנראה בעיניהם שהדין כך ודנו דין -, ועמד אחריהם בית דין אחר לסתור אותו הרי זה סותר ודן כפי מה שנראה בעיניו -, שנאמר אל השופט אשר יהיה בימים ההם אינך חייב ללכת אלא אחר בית דין -שבדורך , בית דין שגזרו גזרה או תקנו תקנה והנהיגו מנהג ופשט הדבר בכל -ישראל , ועמד אחריהם ב׳׳ד אחר ובקש לבטל דברים הראשונים ולעקור אותה התקנה -ואותה הגזרה ואותו המנהג אינו יכול עד שיהיה גדול מן הראשונים בחכמה ובמנין -וכו׳ ׃ - -“When a great council has decided by one of the rules, and according to -the best of their judgment, that the judgment is so and so, and has -passed sentence; if there arise after them another council of a contrary -opinion, the latter may reverse the sentence, and pass another according -to the best of their judgment, for it is said, ‘Unto the judge that -shall be in those days’ (Deut. xvii. 9); thou art, therefore, not bound -to follow any other but the existing council. But if a council decree a -decree, or ordain an ordinance, or sanction a custom, and the thing has -spread in all Israel; and there arise after them another council, which -wishes to abrogate the former things, and to root out that ordinance, -decree, or custom, it is not permitted, unless they excel the former in -wisdom and in number.” (Ibid. c. ii. 1, 2.) According to this doctrine -the Sanhedrin in one generation may teach one doctrine, and in the next -generation another Sanhedrin may abrogate all the legislative acts of -the former, and teach another doctrine, and yet, though one of the two -must necessarily be in the wrong, Israel is bound to obey both; and thus -the law is made to sanction disobedience to itself. Nay, more, the will -of God is made actually to depend upon the wit and the will of man. -Instead of being eternal and unchangeable truth, it must vary with each -succeeding generation, so that what was truth to a father, might be -falsehood to his son; and every new Sanhedrin would, in fact, have the -power to make a new law. How, then, can the Jews pretend that the Mosaic -law is unchangeable? Here it is asserted, that the Jews are to receive, -as the law of Moses, whatever the Sanhedrin may think right to teach—and -that every new Sanhedrin may overturn the doctrines of their -predecessors, and teach the very opposite; so that instead of being -eternal, the law would be one of the most changeable things in the -world, and might never last the same for even two generations. But how -can any man possibly believe, that a command so preposterous should come -from God, or that he would deliver over his people Israel, bound hand -and foot, into the power of seventy-one persons, and require -unconditional obedience, no matter whether these persons were in the -right or in the wrong? Pretensions so extravagant justly excite -suspicion, and entirely destroy the credit of those that make them. They -betray an inordinate lust of power, and savour far more strongly of -ambition than piety. It was no doubt very convenient for the members of -the Sanhedrin to be able to reverse the decisions of their predecessors. -On these terms, the law could never stand in the way of their own -schemes. No matter how it had been explained or understood before, they -had the power of giving a new interpretation to suit their own purpose. -It is truly wonderful how the Jews can suffer themselves to be deluded -by an imposture so exceedingly coarse. A child ought to be able to see, -that God could never require a man to renounce his understanding, and to -receive two direct contradictions as true. - -The manifest absurdity of this doctrine is sufficient to prove that the -passage cited from Deut. xvii. is misinterpreted and misapplied; and a -little consideration will show that it does not refer to the Sanhedrin -at all. In the first place there is no mention of that council, nor any -thing that even implies a reference to such a body. The command of God -is, “Thou shalt come unto the _priests_, _the Levites_, and unto the -_judge_ that shall be in those days, and inquire.” It is not said to the -judges, but to the judge השופט. To these, and not to the Sanhedrin, -Moses requires absolute obedience, and that for a just and sufficient -reason, because, as we have shown in Number 2, they had the means of -obtaining an infallible answer by means of the אורים ותומים Urim and -Thummim. It was the privilege of Israel to be able to ask counsel -immediately of God; and it was therefore only rational to expect -unconditional obedience to the command of the Almighty. Such decisions -were absolutely unchangeable as God himself, for “He is not a man that -he should lie, nor the son of man that He should repent;” and no man in -his senses would have thought of getting a sentence of this kind -reversed. These words can therefore by no means apply to a tribunal -fallible in judgment, and as changeable in its opinions as in the -persons of which it was composed: but if this passage does not apply, -there is no other in the Bible which requires us to receive the decision -of the Sanhedrin as of divine authority, nor in the oral law either, for -it supposes that this council was capable of mistake. Consequently, the -Sanhedrin’s approval of the new order and new religion of the rabbies is -of no weight whatever. The Bible does not command us to believe that -they were always in the right; and they themselves tell us that they -might be in the wrong, and therefore might be in the wrong in their -approval of the rabbies. - -But the truth is, that neither the Bible nor history gives us any -warrant whatever for regarding the Sanhedrin as a Mosaic institution. In -the first place, it is never once mentioned either in the Law or in the -Prophets. The word _Sanhedrin_ is Greek, and so far as it goes would -lead us to suppose that this tribunal was not instituted until some time -after the building of the second temple, and after the Greek occupation -of the land, when the Jews had become acquainted with the Greek -language. This Greek word would lead us even to suppose that the -Sanhedrin was instituted by the Greek rulers, and that they gave the -tribunal its name. If it had been an old Mosaic institution, the Jews -themselves, who hated the Greeks, and that with good reason, would never -have given it a Greek name: and even if the Greeks had assigned this -name to a Jewish tribunal, which had previously existed, the Jews would -not have adopted it. It is true that there is also a Hebrew name for -this tribunal, בית דין הגדול, “The great house of judgment,” but if this -had been the original name, it is not at all likely that the Greek name -would have supplanted it; whereas if it was a Greek institution, and -therefore had a Greek name, it is not to be wondered at that that name -should have obtained general currency, or that it should also be -translated into Hebrew. The Hebrew name will not do more than the Greek -to prove the antiquity of the tribunal, for it never once occurs in the -Bible, and it would be very strange, if this council had existed from -the time of Moses, that it should never once be mentioned. The High -Court of Parliament does not hold a more important place in the history -of this country, than the Sanhedrin must have done in the history of -Israel, if it had really existed: how then are we to account for the -fact, that neither the historians nor the prophets of Israel ever make -the most distant allusion to its being? If the rabbies speak truth, the -prophets, the high priests, and the kings of Israel, were mere ciphers -compared with the Sanhedrin, for it had supreme power over them all, and -could try, condemn, and execute them, and yet they are mentioned again -and again, and the Sanhedrin passed by in mysterious silence! There are -two books of Kings, and two of Chronicles, relating the history of the -Royal rulers of Israel, but the Supreme Council of the nation, the -rulers of kings and priests, the foundation-stone of the law, the pillar -of religion, have never obtained even a casual notice! Is this at all -probable? Would it be possible to write a history of the British -Constitution without ever once mentioning the existence of the -Parliament? And yet this is what has happened, according to the rabbies -to the essential feature of the Constitution of Israel. Neither the -lawgiver, nor the historians, nor the prophets, have said one word about -it. - -The rabbies have felt the necessity of finding something or other in the -written law, that would look like the recognition of the Sanhedrin, and -have therefore fixed on two passages which they think will serve their -cause. One is that to which we have already alluded, “Thou shalt come -unto the priests the Levites, and unto the judge that shall be in those -days.” (Deut. xvii. 9.) We have already said sufficient to show that -this passage is totally irrelevant, and now add one remark more, which -is in itself decisive, and that is, that the constitution of the -Sanhedrin, as described in the oral law, is altogether at variance with -the conditions laid down in this passage. The oral law says— - -ומצוה להיות בסנהדרין גדולה כהנים ולוים שנאמר שנאמר ובאת אל הכהנים הלוים -ואם לא מצאו אפילו היו כולם ישראלים דרי זה מותר ׃ - -“The command is, that there should be in the great Sanhedrin, priests -and Levites, for it is said, ‘Thou shalt come to the priests, the -Levites.’ But if they find none, yea, though they be all mere -Israelites, this is lawful.” (Hilchoth Sanhedrin, c. ii. 2.) According -to this the Sanhedrin was to consist of three distinct classes, priests, -Levites, and Israelites; but Moses does not say one word of the Levites, -as distinguished from the priests. His words are, “Thou shalt come to -the priests, the Levites.” He does not say, “The priests _and_ the -Levites;” but simply, “The priests, the Levites;” from which it is plain -that he was speaking only of that one class of the sons of Levi, who had -the office of the priesthood; but not of that other class, whose only -title was “The Levites.” This is the first difference. The second is -like it, inasmuch as it is also an unauthorized addition, and that is, -that there should be Israelites members of this council, of whom Moses -does not say one word more than he does of the Levites. Besides the -priests, Moses mentions none but the judge השופט, not the judges, so -that if the judge was an Israelite, there could at the very most be only -one Israelite amongst those whom Moses appoints as the highest court of -appeal in Israel. But if the judge השופט was himself a priest, then -there was not even one Israelite; but the court was composed exclusively -of priests. This court cannot, therefore, be the same as the Sanhedrin, -which was to be composed of all the three classes. Thirdly, the oral law -says, That though the Sanhedrin should not reckon one priest amongst its -members, but should consist entirely of Israelites, that still it is -lawful; this court can, therefore, never be the same as that of which -Moses says, “Thou shalt come to the priests, the Levites, and to the -judge.” The court which the rabbies have appointed might not have even -one priest, and yet they ask us to believe that this is identical with -that, which, according to the appointment of Moses, could never have -more than one Israelite, but might, and in the days of Eli actually did, -consist exclusively of priests. Truly the rabbies must have calculated -upon disciples with a most inordinate measure of credulity. The man that -would believe this, would believe that black is white; or as Rashi says, -that his right hand is the left, and his left hand the right. And this -is really what modern Judaism expects, and absolutely commands in so -many words. In Rashi’s commentary on the words “Thou shalt not decline -from the sentence which they shall show thee, to the right nor to the -left” (Deut. xvii. 11); which words, as we have seen, the rabbies apply -to the Sanhedrin, he says— - -אפילו אומר לך על ימין שהוא שמאל ועל שמאל שהוא ימין ׃ - -“Yea, though they should tell thee of the right hand, that it is the -left, and of the left hand, that it is the right.” Of course men that -expected from their followers this perfect renunciation of reason, might -say any thing they liked, and might therefore ask them to believe that a -court consisting of all priests was identical with one from which -priests were altogether excluded. But as we are not willing to give up -that reason, which we consider a noble gift of God, we cannot help -thinking that these two courts are as different as day and night, and -that the appointment of Moses does not in the remotest degree serve as a -warrant for the appointment of the Sanhedrin. Indeed, the sad perplexity -of the rabbies to find out some passage or other on which to father -their own inventions, and the desperate necessity which they felt of -appealing to this passage, proves to us most satisfactorily, that the -Sanhedrin is not a Mosaic institution at all. It is as impossible that -there could be two supreme courts, as that a man can have two heads. -Moses did appoint a supreme court, from which there was no appeal, as is -plain from the words, “Thou shalt come to the priests, the Levites, and -to the judge,” and we have proved that this court is not identical with -the Sanhedrin. But according to the rabbies, the Sanhedrin was a supreme -court; if, therefore, it had existed, there would have been two supreme -courts, perfectly independent of each other, which is plainly -impossible. It never entered into the head even of human lawgivers to be -guilty of such absurdity, and it would be an affront to the wisdom of -the Almighty to suppose that he had sanctioned it in his own law. This -one argument is in itself sufficient to overthrow the doctrine of a -Sanhedrin as taught in the oral law. It was not only unknown to Moses, -but is directly opposed to his own institution. - -This portion of the oral law is, however, most important for proving the -total disregard, or rather contempt, which the rabbies had for the -institutions of Moses, and the motives by which they were actuated. -Moses ordained a supreme court of judicature, to consist exclusively of -priests, together with the chief civil governor for the time being. The -rabbies not only did not choose to obey the command of Moses, but -actually abrogated his institution, and set up another instead of it. -They were probably enabled to do this in the time of confusion which -followed the Greek conquest. The Greeks, who cared nothing for Moses or -his laws, naturally disregarded the priests and the lawful civil -governor; and therefore when they conquered the land, set up a tribunal -of their own, composed not of those whom Moses had appointed, but of any -whom they could find. Indeed, to secure their own dominion, their -natural policy was to exclude those who had previously held the reins of -government. To this new tribunal they of course gave a Greek name, and -called it in their own language, συνέδριον, or, as the Talmud pronounces -it, Sanhedrin. The Jews, whom they appointed members, liked the power -which it gave them, and therefore, when the Greeks were gone, -endeavoured to perpetuate it; and as they could not find a warrant for -it in the written law, declared that the institution was a part of the -oral law: and thus, to gratify their own ambition, trampled upon the law -of Moses. This is the probable history of the rise of the Sanhedrin; but -however that be, it is certain that it is directly opposed to that -supreme court appointed by Moses, and that it was love of power which -induced the rabbies to sanction it. They thereby depressed the authority -of the priests and the civil governor, and in fact became the dictators -of the Jewish commonwealth. A tribunal supported from such motives, and -so directly subversive of the commands of Moses, cannot prove to any -lover of the old religion the authority of the rabbies. Indeed, the -approval of such a body would go far to prove that the oral law and the -rabbies were Moses’s enemies. The Mosaic law was first pulled down -before the Sanhedrin could be built up, and it was founded on the ruins -of the Mosaic institutions. - -We have not space at present to enter into the other passage which the -rabbies cite in proof of the authority of the Sanhedrin, but hope to do -so in our next number—not that it is necessary to the argument, but -simply because it is our earnest wish that the people of Israel should -see how the rabbies are in difficulty to find even a semblance of proof -for the foundation-stone of their whole fabric. That one passage from -Deuteronomy—“Thou shalt come unto the priests, the Levites, and unto the -judge,” is quite sufficient to prove that Moses did not institute the -Sanhedrin but that, on the contrary, it must have been established by -some determined enemies of the Mosaic law; and that it was perpetuated -by those whose ambition led them to usurp power, which Moses had -committed unto others. We have thus another proof that modern Judaism -has demolished even the external form of the Mosaic constitution. The -rabbies were not content with rejecting the religion of Moses, and -casting out the religious teachers whom he had appointed, but have also -revolutionized the national polity. Moses ordained a supreme council, -consisting of the priests, the Levites, together with the judge, the -chief civil governor; but the rabbies have preferred a tribunal -established by idolatrous Greeks, because this Greek institution gave -the power into their own hands. No wonder that the God of Moses -destroyed their city, and put an end to that delusion with which -ambitious and wicked men deceived his people Israel. - - - - - No. XLIV. - SANHEDRIN CONTINUED. - - -The Sanhedrin is, as we said in our last number, the foundation-stone on -which the authority of the rabbies, and the whole fabric of tradition -rests. Take away this, and not the shadow of an argument remains to -justify the Jews in their rejection of the Mosaic religion, and their -demolition of the Mosaic constitution. But this we have done. Enough has -already been said to make it probable that the Sanhedrin, with its Greek -name, was invented and established by the idolatrous Greeks; and to make -it certain that it is subversive of the Supreme Council established by -Moses, and that, for that reason, it was not one of his institutions. We -have already disposed of one of the passages which the rabbies quote -from the Pentateuch, to prove the Divine authority of the Sanhedrin; -but, as they have, with much difficulty, found two, we now proceed to -consider the second. It is quoted in the following manner:— - -כמה בתי דינין קבועין יהיו בישראל וכמה יהיה מנינן , קובעין בתחלה בית דין -הגדול במקדש , והוא הנקרא סנהדרי גדולה ומנינם ע׳׳א , שנאמר אספה לי שבעים -איש מזקני ישראל ומשה על גביהן , שנאמר והתיצבו שם עמך הרי ע׳׳א ׃ - -“How many councils (or tribunals) ought to be established in Israel, and -of how many members ought they to consist? _Ans._ The Great Council in -the temple called the Great Sanhedrin, ought to be established first, -and the number of its members ought to be seventy-one; for it is said, -‘Gather unto me seventy men of the elders of Israel;’ and to them Moses -is to be added, and as it is said, ‘And they shall stand there with -thee.’ (Numb. xi. 16.) This makes seventy-one.” (Hilchoth Sanhedrin, c. -i. 2.) Here the rabbies have certainly found the number seventy-one; but -to prove that this was the Sanhedrin, they ought first, to show, that -these seventy-one persons were not to be scattered through the tribes, -but always to remain together as one council; and, secondly, that this -council was to be permanent; and, thirdly, that this council did really -exist from the time of Moses to the destruction of Jerusalem; and, -fourthly, and most important of all, that this was the _Supreme_ -Council; for even if the other three points could be made out, they -would be insufficient without this. The Sanhedrin claims to be the -Supreme Council, and, therefore, if it cannot be shown, that the -assembly of the seventy elders is identical with the Supreme Council -appointed by Moses, this passage is of no more use than the former one. -Now, respecting the three first points, nothing whatever is said, either -in the Law or the Prophets. And respecting the fourth; even if we grant -the three first, we can shew that these seventy elders did not -constitute the Supreme Council of the nation. We have proved in our last -paper, that the supreme power was vested in an exclusive council -composed of the priests, together with the judge השופט, but the seventy -elders, here spoken of, were to be chosen promiscuously from the tribes -of Israel, and therefore cannot be identical with that exclusive -assembly; and therefore did not compose the Supreme Council; and -therefore had nothing of the nature of the Sanhedrin, which pretended to -be supreme over all. Thus it appears on examination, that there is not -one text in the whole law of Moses, which authorizes the establishment -of such a council as the Sanhedrin; but that on the contrary, it stands -in direct opposition to that order of things prescribed by Moses. - -We can, however, go farther, and show that all the particulars which the -rabbies detail concerning it are manifest falsehoods; and that, if the -Jews choose to believe what the oral law says concerning the Sanhedrin -they most not only give up Moses, but renounce all the other inspired -writers of the Old Testament. The particular and exclusive duties of the -Sanhedrin are thus detailed:— - -אין מעמידין מלך אלא על פי בית דין של ע׳׳א , ואין עושין סנהדרי קטנה לכל -שבט ושבט ולכל עיר ועיר אלא על פי בית דין של ע׳׳א , ואין דנין לא את השבט -שהודח כולו ולא את נביא השקר ולא את כהן הגדול בדיני נפשות אלא בבית דין -הגדול , אבל דיני ממונות בשלשה , וכן אין עושין זקן ממרא ולא עושין עיר -הנדחת ולא משקין את הסוטה אלא בבית דין הגדול , ואין מוסיפין על העיר ועל -העזרות ולא מוציאין למלחמת הרשות ולמדידת החלל אלא על פי בית דין הגדול , -שנאמר כל הדבר הגדול יביאו אליך ׃ - -“A king is not to be appointed except by the decision of the Great -Council of Seventy-one. The minor councils through the tribes and towns -are not to be established except by the Council of Seventy-one. Judgment -is not to be passed on a tribe that has been entirely seduced, nor upon -a false prophet, nor upon a high priest in capital cases, except by the -Great Council, (In mere money matters the tribunal of three is -competent.) In like manner an elder is not declared rebellious, nor a -city dealt with as seduced,[35] nor the bitter waters administered to -the suspected adulteress, except by the Great Council. Neither is an -addition made to the city nor to the courts. Neither are armies led -forth to the wars of permission; nor the elders led forth to measure in -the case of a slain person (Deut. xxi. 1, &c.), except by command of the -Great Council, for it is said, ‘Every great matter they shall bring to -thee.’ (Exod. xviii. 22.)” (Hilchoth Sanhedrin, c. v. 1.) Such is the -power and jurisdiction attributed by the rabbies to the Sanhedrin, and -which we have now to consider. The mere reading over of these details is -sufficient to convince any reasonable man that the whole affair is a -waking dream of some man or men, intoxicated with the love of dominion. -No man in his senses can believe that God could be the author of a -despotism so dreadful over the minds and bodies of men. In the first -place, here is an aristocracy of seventy persons, described as having -supreme jurisdiction over the King, the High Priest, the Prophets, and -the people—possessing the power not only to judge individuals, but to -pass sentence on whole cities and tribes, and utterly to destroy them if -they pleased—and this without any other law or precedent to guide them -than their own will—and, inasmuch as they were self-elective, subject to -no control whatever, either of the king or the people. We have heard -much of corrupt corporations lately, but any thing at all equal to the -self-elective corporation of the Sanhedrin we never heard of, excepting -another college of seventy-one, the grand council of another oral law of -later date. It is vain to say that this body was controlled by the law -of Moses. When the Sanhedrin existed there was no law of Moses, but -their own will. They expounded the law as they liked; and as we saw in -our last, were not bound even by the decisions of their predecessors: -and if any man dared to think for himself or to dispute their -interpretation, he was strangled:— - -כל חכם שמורה על דבריהם מיתתו בחנק ׃ - -“Strangulation was the mode of execution for any learned man, who -rebelled against their words.” (Hilchoth Mamrim, c. i 2.) They had thus -the power to make the law say what they liked: and there was no power on -earth to control them. If they had been appointed by the king, or -elected by the people, they would have been responsible for the abuse of -their power; but they elected their members, and could be deposed by -none but themselves. A despotism so complete and so dreadful, so -inimical to personal security, and so subversive of all liberty of -conscience, could never have been created by God, but must necessarily -be the offspring of the distempered brain of man. We can hardly believe -that many Jews, except the Talmudistic zealots, who might hope to be -made members wish for the restoration of the Sanhedrin; and yet, if they -do not, they do not believe in the Jewish religion, for the -re-establishment of that Great Council is the consummation of Judaism: -and if they do not believe in this religion, can they consider -themselves honest men in professing it? - -But we must proceed to consider on what authority the rabbies make these -claims to such extensive jurisdiction. One would expect to find some -distinct command of God, expressly addressed to the council; but no, -their only authority is the words of Jethro to Moses, “Every great -matter they shall bring to thee;” a plain confession that there is in -the whole Bible nothing to warrant their pretensions, or they never -would have taken refuge in words so totally irrelevant. Indeed, we are -rather surprised that they appealed to the Bible at all, for such an -appeal is fatal to all their pretensions. Just let us examine some of -the particulars detailed above, by the light of God’s word. The first -pretension is, that “A king is not to be appointed except by the -decision of the Great Council of Seventy-one.” Now is this true? Is it -possible to show that any one of the Kings of Israel was appointed by -the Sanhedrin? Not one; but it is possible to prove of many that they -were appointed without any reference whatever to any such council. Take, -for instance, Saul, the first king of Israel; what had the Sanhedrin to -do with his election to the kingly office? Nothing at all. So far as man -was concerned, Samuel, and Samuel alone, was the instrument of his -election. When the people wished a king, they did not go to the -Sanhedrin, but to Samuel. He dissuaded them, “Nevertheless, the people -refused to obey the voice of Samuel.” Would they have ventured to do so -if he had been president of so dreadful a council as the Sanhedrin? When -Saul was anointed, it was not by the Sanhedrin, nor by their command. No -man was present but the king elect and the prophet. “Then Samuel took a -vial of oil, and poured it upon his head, and kissed him, and said, Is -it not because the Lord hath anointed thee to be captain over his -inheritance?” (1 Sam. x. 1.) And when Saul was solemnly confirmed before -the people, Samuel was still the sole agent. “Samuel called the people -together unto the Lord to Mizpeh, and said, Now therefore present -yourselves before the Lord by your tribes and by your thousands; and -Saul the son of Kish was taken.” (xi. 17-21.) It cannot be pretended -that the Sanhedrin had anything whatever to do with the matter. But let -us try another instance. Let us look at the election of David; was he -chosen by the voice of the Sanhedrin? Just as little as Saul. Samuel was -again the sole agent. “The Lord said unto Samuel, How long wilt thou -mourn for Saul, seeing I have rejected him from reigning over Israel? -Fill thine horn with oil and go; I will send thee to Jesse, the -Bethlehemite; for I have provided me a king among his sons.” And so -Samuel went and anointed him, without any intervention whatever of the -Sanhedrin, or any one else. These two cases are sufficient to prove the -falsehood of the rabbinic pretensions; but there is one more decisive -still, and that is the case of Solomon. Adonijah had made himself king, -and Bathsheba, by the advice of Nathan the prophet, took measures to -make her son Solomon king. But to whom did Nathan advise her to go? Did -he tell her to go to the Sanhedrin and to seek justice? No, but to go to -David the king, and to him she accordingly went, and found him not in -council, or surrounded by the members of the Sanhedrin, but with -Abishag, the Shunammite, ministering to him; and David, without asking -any advice, sware unto her, “Assuredly Solomon, thy Son, shall reign -after me.” The Sanhedrin had nothing whatever to do with the matter. The -assertion, then, that “Nothing was appointed except by the authority of -the Sanhedrin,” is a gross falsehood, and very evidently made by -ambitious men, grasping after power to which they had no right. - -In like manner, we might appeal to history to show, that the tribe of -Dan was judged, and that Saul, David, and the other kings of Israel, -waged wars without once consulting the Sanhedrin; but there is one of -these pretensions so directly opposed to the plain letter of the Mosaic -law, that we prefer noticing it. The oral law says, that the waters of -jealousy were not administered except by the authority of the Sanhedrin. -But what says Moses? When the spirit of jealousy comes upon a man, does -he tell him to bring his wife to the Sanhedrin? No, but to the priest. -“Then shall the man bring his wife unto the priest,” &c. (Numb. v. 15.) -What then is the priest to do? Is he to go first to the Sanhedrin, and -get its sanction? No; as soon as the man has brought his wife, and the -offering of jealousy, the priest’s business is to bring her before the -Lord—“And the priest shall bring her near, and set her before the -Lord,”—and is then to proceed with all the prescribed rites; and the -whole ends with these plain words, “And the priest shall execute upon -her all this law.” There is not only no mention of the Sanhedrin, but -immediate power is unequivocally given to the priest, yea, he is -commanded to proceed without awaiting the decision of any other -tribunal. Here again, then, the pretenders of rabbinic tradition are in -direct opposition to the plain commands of Moses, and are therefore -unfounded. It is unnecessary to enter into more of these particulars. -The two which we have examined are contrary to truth; and two falsehoods -are quite enough to shake the credit of any claims. The only possible -way of establishing the authority of the Sanhedrin, in answer to this -argument, is, to deny the authority of the Bible. There is no other -alternative—either the authors of the Pentateuch, the books of Samuel -and Kings, are mistaken, or the jurisdiction of the Sanhedrin is a mere -fiction. Moses commands a very different institution, and the historical -books represent a very different form of government. He who receives -these books as inspired, must renounce the authority of the Sanhedrin, -whilst he who maintains it must give up the sacred books. - -There is, however, another tribunal mentioned in the above-quoted -passage of the oral law which it is necessary to notice, and that is the -minor Sanhedrin, or council of twenty-three. It is said, “The minor -councils through the tribes and towns are not to be established except -by the council of seventy-one;” and elsewhere we read:— - -ימעמידין בכל עיר ועיר בישראל שיש בה ק׳׳כ או יותר סנהדרי קטנה , וכמה יהיה -מנינם כ׳׳ג דיינים ׃ - -“In every city of Israel that contains one hundred and twenty Israelites -or more, a minor Sanhedrin ought to be appointed, and of how many -members ought it to consist? Of twenty-three judges.” (Hilchoth -Sanhedrin, i. 3.) Now this is another innovation for which there is no -warrant whatever in the law of Moses. “Moses chose able men out of all -Israel, and made them heads over the people, rulers of thousands, rulers -of hundreds, rulers of fifties, and rulers of tens. And they judged the -people at all times.” (Exod. xviii. 25, 26.) This is the provision which -Moses made for the administration of justice, but he says not a syllable -about the appointment of minor Sanhedrins of twenty-three, so that in -this we have another instance of the effort, which the rabbies made, to -get rid of all the Mosaic institutions, and to substitute their own. And -also another proof that the laws of the Sanhedrin were not given by -Moses, for they require this Council to appoint minor courts, contrary -to his ordinances. It appears, then, from what has been said in these -two papers, that the Sanhedrin was altogether an unlawful tribunal, and -that therefore the oral law can receive no support from its approval: -and it appears, further, that modern Judaism has entirely subverted that -order of things established by Moses. He ordained the priests, the -Levites, as the teachers of Israel. Modern Judaism has turned them out -of their office, and substituted the rabbies. Moses ordained a Supreme -Council, consisting of the priests and the judge. Modern Judaism has -destroyed that Council, and established the Sanhedrin in its place. -Moses appointed rulers over thousands, hundreds, fifties, and tens. -Modern Judaism has put an end to that order, and erected new tribunals -of twenty-three. In fact, if it were possible for the Jews to realize -all the commands of the oral law in their own land, and Moses were to -come amongst them again, he could never recognize them as his disciples. -He would not find one of his institutions remaining as he left it. It is -quite absurd, and if the subject were not so grave, it would be -ludicrous to hear the Rabbinists exclaiming that the law of Moses is -unchangeable, when they themselves have changed all its main provisions, -and made an entirely new religion. But to the Jews it ought to be a -matter of very serious enquiry, whether the Mosaic law is unchangeable -or not. If the law be unchangeable, then no rabbinical Jew can entertain -a reasonable hope of salvation, for he professes a religion which has -effected the most extensive changes. In his creed he denies the -lawfulness of change, and in his practice he changes without scruple. If -the law be unchangeable, it is the bounden duty of every Jew to give up -at once the new religion of the rabbies, and to return with all haste to -the institutions of Moses. But if he believe that the law is changeable -at pleasure, then he ought to renounce that article of his creed which -teaches its immutability. In so serious a matter as religion, he ought -to endeavour to be consistent, and not halt between two opinions. If -Moses be his lawgiver, then let him serve him. But if he be determined -to continue in the new religion of the rabbies, he ought to inquire into -their character, and the authority and motives which led them to -overturn the religion of their forefathers. Is the religion of Moses a -bad religion, which it was necessary to renounce? Or, was it only given -for a certain period, and when that period had expired, exchanged for a -new one? Had the rabbies Divine authority for the changes which they -made, or did they change it for their own convenience and interest? The -nature of the changes looks very suspicious, they all added to their -influence and power. As long as the law of Moses was observed, the -rabbies had no power either in Church or State. But by the changes which -they made, they became absolute despots over the bodies and souls of all -Israel. They had, thus, every possible temptation to reject the one and -adopt the other. But is this a reason why the Jewish people should also -reject the law of Moses? They gain nothing, and loose everything, both -for time and eternity, by the change. By adopting the new religion of -the rabbies, they give up the use of that most precious gift, their -reason, in all that regards the law and service of God. A Jew, who -receives the oral law, can have nothing but a blind faith. He has lost -the privilege of considering what God requires of him, and must simply -receive what the rabbies choose to prescribe as his duty: and if they -should even go so far as to tell him that his left hand is his right, -and his right hand his left, he must believe in the decision, and reject -the evidences of his senses. Or, if he should dare to doubt, where -Judaism reigns triumphant, he must be strangled. There is certainly -nothing very inviting in this system, nothing that should tempt a man to -prefer it to the just, and equitable, and rational religion of Moses. He -gives the law of God into the hands of the Israelite, and says, “Behold -I have set life and death before you, choose ye.” He deals with men as -rational beings, and requires implicit obedience, not to the word of -man, but to the oracles of God. He established a supreme council, but -did not permit that council to pass off their own opinions as -infallible, but commanded them to inquire of Him who alone is free from -error. It is truly astonishing that so large a portion of the Jewish -people should still prefer the religious despotism of the oral law; and -it is more astonishing still, that they should be deluded to believe, -that a system, which has subverted all the institutions of Moses, is the -Mosaic religion. But the most astonishing circumstance of all is, that -those Jews who have detected the grossness of the delusion and have -themselves renounced the practice of the oral law, should feel so -indifferent about the welfare of their brethren, and so reckless of the -interests of truth, as to look on in silence; or even appear to -countenance error by joining in the rights and ceremonies of tradition. -Even the tribe of Levi itself has lost its zeal, and abdicated the -sacred office committed to it by God. For eighteen hundred years there -has not appeared in Israel one single person zealous for the law of -Moses. All have been content with calling Moses their master, and there -the matter ends. The priests and the people all unite in violating his -laws, and trampling upon the ruins of his institutions, and then expect -other people to believe that they are the faithful disciples of Moses. - -Footnote 35: - - Compare Deut. xiii. 13, and Hilchoth Accum, c. iv. - - - - - No. XLV. - SANHEDRIN CONTINUED. - - -How a nation, so acute and so fond of learning as the Jews, should ever -have been imposed upon by so clumsy an imposture as that of the oral -law, is truly astonishing. The exceeding folly of some of its -ordinances, the incredibility of the legends with which it abounds, the -extravagant pretensions of its doctors, the grinding tyranny of its -despotic tribunals, all seem calculated to awaken doubt in the mind of -the most credulous, and the most ignorant. But the utter want of -evidence to support its claims ought to be sufficient to open the eyes -of even superstition itself. To establish the genuineness of an oral -tradition, an unbroken chain of witnesses, from the rise of the -tradition to the present time, is indispensably necessary. The -succession of persons who received it from their predecessors, and -transmitted it to their followers, must be clearly and accurately made -out; and the want of a single link, or the existence of a single chasm -in the chain of transmission is quite sufficient to discredit the whole, -and to invalidate the claims to genuineness. To prove the genuineness of -the תורה שבעל פה, oral law, it is necessary not only to point out a -succession of persons, but a succession of Sanhedrins, for, as we have -seen, the Sanhedrin was regarded as the foundation and pillar of -tradition. If a single chasm in history exists, where a Sanhedrin cannot -be pointed out, or if the assigned succession be inconsistent with the -written and inspired records of the people, the claims of the oral law -are invalidated, and the Jewish nation convicted as the abettors of a -pious fraud, or the unwitting dupes of an imposture. Now we have already -shown that the Sanhedrin was not instituted by Moses, and was never -heard of until after the Greek conquest of the land of Israel; and hence -it inevitably follows, that the oral law is totally destitute of that -chain of testimony, by which alone its genuineness could be established. -From Moses to the Maccabees there is one continued chasm, an immense and -impassable abyss, which separates between modern Judaism and truth. But -as the rabbies have endeavoured to fill up the yawning gulf or rather to -build a bridge in the air for the purpose of passing it, we think it -necessary to examine the success of their efforts. They say, that a -chain of testimony, such as is wanted, does actually exist, and have -endeavoured to point out the various links. If this prove fallacious, -then the last and only hope of modern Judaism is gone; to prove the -fallacy does not require much argument. The chain of testimony as -pointed out by the rabbies themselves, is inconsistent with history, and -wants continuity even at the very commencement. The first part of the -succession is thus described:— - -אף על פי שלש נכתבה תורה שבע׳׳פ למדה משה רבינו כולה בבית דינו לשבעים -זקנים ואלעזר ופנחס ויהושע שלשתן קבלו ממשה , וליהושע שהוא תלמידו של משה -רבינו מסר תורה שבע׳׳פ וצוהו עליה , וכן יהושע כל ימי חייו למד על פה , -וזקנים רבים קבלו מיהושע , וקבל עלי מן הזקנים ומפנחס ׃ - -“Although the oral law was not written, Moses our master taught it all -in his Council to the seventy elders; Eleazar also, and Phinehas, and -Joshua, all three, received it from Moses. But to Joshua, who was the -disciple of Moses our master, he delivered the oral law, and gave him a -charge concerning it In like manner Joshua taught it by word of mouth -all the days of his life; and many elders received it from Joshua, and -Eli received it from the elders, and from Phinehas.” (Preface to the Yad -Hachazakah.) Now here the want of continuity begins, immediately after -the third link in the chain. That Joshua should inherit the oral law -from Moses is very likely, if there was any to be inherited, but who was -Joshua’s successor the rabbies cannot tell us. It is not enough to say -that the elders received it from Joshua; who were the elders, and who -was the next president of the Sanhedrin, and who was the president after -that? To make out a chain of witnesses, we must at least have their -names, but ought to know, besides, their character, their piety, their -probity, before we can depend upon their testimony. The absence of this -detail shows that the rabbies had no information on the subject, and -were merely trying to make up a story to impose upon the credulous. It -is self-evident that if they had possessed an accurate detail, they -would have given it; but as they do not, we must infer that they had it -not; and as the Bible gives no information on the subject, we must -assert, that the chain of testimony terminates at the second link. So -far are the rabbies from being able to prove a succession of Sanhedrins -from the time of Joshua to their own, that they are compelled to make a -grand leap from Joshua to Eli, and thus to leave a chasm of more than -two hundred years, which of itself is sufficient to overthrow the claims -of the oral law, and to stamp the Jews as the most credulous of men if -they believe without any evidence. It is true that the rabbies endeavour -to stop up this great cavity with a great falsehood. They say that Eli -received the oral law from Joshua’s elders, and from Phinehas; which -assertion implies that all these persons lived to be about three hundred -years old! And yet, if it were true, it would not be sufficient to make -out the proof, for which the succession of Sanhedrins is absolutely -necessary, and especially for this period. From the book of Judges, it -appears, that in the interval between Joshua and Eli, and even in the -next generation after Joshua’s death, the people forsook the law of -Moses, even the written law, and gave themselves up to idolatry. Thus we -read, “And Joshua the son of Nun, the servant of the Lord, died, being -an hundred and ten years old.... And also all that generation were -gathered unto their fathers: and there arose another generation after -them, which knew not the Lord, nor the works which he had done for -Israel. And the children of Israel did evil in the sight of the Lord, -and served Baalim.” (Judges ii. 8-11.) Now, here the inspired writer -says that Joshua and all that generation died, which expressly -contradicts the rabbinic assertion that Joshua’s elders lived to the -time of Eli; and, further, he says, that the Israelites turned aside to -idols: where was the Sanhedrin at that time? If it existed, why did it -not stop the torrent of corruption, and punish the transgressors? And -why was it necessary for God to raise up Judges to do the Sanhedrin’s -work? We do not once read of the Sanhedrin, or any other council, -helping Israel. In the book of Judges, deliverance is ascribed solely to -the judges whom God raised up. “When the Lord raised them up judges, -then the Lord was with the judge, and delivered them out of the hand of -their enemies all the days of the judge.... And it came to pass when the -judge was dead, that they returned and corrupted themselves more than -their fathers.” (Ibid. 18, 19.) Indeed, that saying so often repeated in -the book of Judges, “In those days there was no king in Israel, but -every man did that which was right in his own eyes,” shows that there -was no Sanhedrin either. If any council of the kind, armed with such -despotic power, had existed, the children of Israel could not have done -that which was right in their own eyes. Whether, then, we look at the -Bible or at the rabbinic account, we have a period of more than two -hundred years, during which there is no evidence at all either for the -existence of the Sanhedrin or of the oral law. The chain of testimony, -therefore, offered by the rabbies, is not complete; and is, moreover, -unworthy of credit, as it contains a gross falsehood concerning the age -to which Joshua’s elders lived. A little more examination will show us -that it contains more than one falsehood. After telling us that David -received the oral law from Samuel and his council, it thus proceeds:— - -אחיה השילוני מיוצאי מצרים היה ולוי היה ושמע ממשה והיה קטן בימי משה והוא -קבל מדוד ובית דינו , ואליהו קבל מאחיה השילוני ובית דינו ׃ - -“Ahijah the Shilonite was one of those who came out of Egypt, and a -Levite, and he heard the oral law from Moses: but he was little in the -days of Moses, and received the oral law from David and his council. And -Elijah received from Ahijah the Shilonite and his council.” Now, in the -first place, this statement is very absurd. To suppose that one, who had -heard the law from Moses, should at last receive it from David, is -contrary to probability: but to assert that Ahijah was a little boy in -the time of Moses, and that he lived until the reign of Solomon, that -is, above five hundred years, is manifestly a falsehood, and, whether -wilful or not, completely destroys the credibility of this attempt at a -succession of witnesses. If involuntary, and the result of error, it -shows that the rabbies who have transmitted this story were so weak in -intellect as to swallow any improbability; and that as they transmitted -one lie, they may have transmitted more. But if voluntary, no one will -argue that the testimony of wilful liars is worth much. This last -attempt, therefore, to prop up the authority of the oral law is vain. - -But this rabbinic chain of testimony goes on to tell us that, amongst -others, the oral law passed through Jeremiah the prophet:— - -וירמיהו קבל מצפניה ובית דינו , וברוך בן נריה קבל מירמיה ובית דינו ׃ - -“Jeremiah received from Zephaniah and his council, and Baruch the son of -Neriah received from Jeremiah and his council.” Now, if this means that -Jeremiah was the נשיא, or President of the Sanhedrin, it is plainly -false. The whole history of Jeremiah shows us that he was not the -powerful head of a despotic and irresistible council, but an unprotected -and persecuted man. Had he been president of a tribunal so dreadful, and -whose sentence of excommunication was in itself sufficient to protect -him, the people and the princes would never have dared to reject his -words as they did, much less to make an attempt on his life. But if, on -the other hand, it be said that Jeremiah’s council does not mean the -Sanhedrin, then we have another chasm in the succession of Sanhedrins, -and consequently the proof fails again. But this chain of evidence is -not only contrary to fact, and to the inspired writings of the prophets; -it is also inconsistent with the oral law itself, for it asserts that -two proselytes form a part of the chain of transmission:— - -שמעיה ואבטליון גרי הצדק ובית דינם קבלו מיהודה ושמעון ובית דינם , הלל -ושמאי ובית דינם קבלו משמעיה ואבטליון ובית דינם ׃ - -“Shemaiah and Abtalion, proselytes of righteousness, and their council, -received from Judah and Simon and their council. Hillel and Shammai and -their council received from Shemaiah and Abtalion and their council.” -Now, according to the oral law, it is unlawful for proselytes to be -members of any council or tribunal. Respecting the Supreme Council, it -is expressly said:— - -אין מעמידין בסנהדרין אלא כהנים לויים וישראלים המיוחסים הראויים להשיא -לכהונה , שנאמר והתיצבו שם עמך בדומין לך בחכמה וביראה וביחס ׃ - -“None are to be made members of the Sanhedrin except priests and -Levites, and Israelites of so good a genealogy as to be fit to -intermarry with the priests; for it is said, ‘And they shall stand there -with thee,’ (Numb. xi. 16,) _i.e._ like unto thee in wisdom, in piety, -and in genealogy.” (Hilchoth Sanhedrin, c. ii. 1.) And even of an -inferior tribunal it is said:— - -בית דין של שלשה שהיה אחד מהם גר הרי זה פסול ׃ - -“A tribunal of three, one of whom is a proselyte, is unlawful.” (Ibid. -9.) If then, it was unlawful for a proselyte to be a member of the -Sanhedrin, or any other tribunal, how is it that we find two at the head -of one of those councils through which the oral law was transmitted? If -the decisions of the oral law be valid, that council was illegitimate, -and therefore totally incompetent to the transmission of tradition, and -then we have a break in the chain of testimony even at that end which is -nearest to the rabbies. But if that council be considered competent, -then the oral law which condemns it cannot contain the true tradition. -But in either case, the genuineness of the law is overthrown. - -The sum of what we have said is this:—That even if we were to give up -our other arguments against the authority of the Sanhedrin and the oral -law, and were willing to rest this question on the testimony of the -rabbies themselves, the defectiveness, inconsistency, and falsehood -manifested in that testimony, would be sufficient to throw discredit on -all their claims. They have not only no proof from Scripture, but are -not able themselves to find in tradition an unbroken chain of testimony. -They fail at the very outset. After producing two links, they leave a -chasm of above two hundred years unaccounted for. When they take it up -again, they are convicted of gross falsehood in asserting that men -lived, after the deluge, to the age of five hundred years: and are not -able even to make out a story that will agree with the oral law itself. -The most favourable ground, then, that can be taken for the defence of -the oral law proves untenable. But if to this we add the arguments -contained in the former papers, and remember that the Sanhedrin is in -direct opposition to the law of Moses, is never mentioned in any of the -sacred books, nor heard of until the Greek language was spoken in the -land of Israel, every support is taken from the oral law, and it sinks -down to the level of a mere imposture, of which the Jewish people have -been the dupes and the victims. How long they will remain so, it is for -themselves to consider. The times of blind faith, such as modern Judaism -requires, are gone by; the Jews can therefore no longer remain the blind -followers of the superstitious and ambitious rabbies. Either they must -honestly confess that they and their fathers have been deceived for the -last eighteen hundred years, and earnestly set about seeking that truth -which they lost; or they most be content to be regarded either as -interested upholders of error, or reckless despisers of truth. No one, -who at all knows the nation, will ever believe that they are so weak in -understanding as to be unable, under present circumstances, to detect -the clumsy pretensions of the oral law. Some Jews may, indeed, still -obstinately refuse to investigate the evidences of their paternal -religion, and persist in professing Judaism simply because their fathers -did so before them: but such persons must be content to acknowledge that -their faith is not that of a rational being, or that their religion will -not stand the test of reason. All who will take the trouble to -investigate, must, if they be honest men, make up their minds to -renounce the religion of the rabbies. There is not any one argument, -either of internal or external evidence, in its behalf, on which a man -of ordinary understanding can rest for a moment. The only shadow of a -basis on which to support the oral law is the doctrine of the Sanhedrin, -but this, as we have seen, disappears so soon as we approach the -illusion. Instead of giving authority to the other parts of the oral -law, the doctrine of a Sanhedrin appears one of the most objectionable -of its many errors, for it bears upon its front the stamp of selfishness -and ambition. It was an invention of men, who aimed not only at a -spiritual dominion, but also at a secular despotism. The Sanhedrin was -merely the engine whereby the rabbies hoped to get all the power, both -of Church and State, into their own hands, and thereby distinguishes the -rabbinical religion in the most striking manner from that of Jesus of -Nazareth. Christianity contains no apparatus for securing to its -teachers the dominion of the world; and therefore the professing -followers of Christ, when they aimed at worldly power, were first -obliged to invent an oral law of their own. Jesus of Nazareth seeks -nothing but the dominion of truth. “When he perceived that they would -come and take him by force, to make him a king, he departed again into a -mountain himself alone.” (John vi. 15.) His doctrine was, “My kingdom is -not of this world.” And in like manner he taught his disciples not to -seek after worldly power. “Ye know that they which are accounted to rule -over the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and their great ones -exercise authority upon them. But so shall it not be among you: but -whosoever will be great among you, shall be your minister: and whosoever -will be chiefest, shall be servant of all. For even the Son of man came -not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a -ransom for many.” (Mark x. 42-45.) Jesus and his apostles are perfectly -free man the suspicion of making religion subservient to the promotion -of ambitious schemes. The teachers of the oral law had, and even now -have a temptation to uphold its doctrines, because they make them the -absolute rulers of the Jewish people, and this tendency is a strong -ground of suspicion. When God sent Moses, he preserved him from all -similar imputation, for though he possessed the supreme power during his -life, his claims were attested by miracles which could not be denied: -and at his decease his children were chief neither in Church nor State. -The priesthood remained in the family of Aaron, and the chief magistracy -fell to the lot of Joshua. Thus disinterestedness distinguished the -characters of Moses and Jesus from those of the rabbies. The doctrine of -the Sanhedrin reveals but too plainly the motives by which the authors -of the oral law were actuated. Of course we do not mean to ascribe the -same motives to all the advocates of the oral law in the present day. -Those motives are necessarily confined to those times when Judaism can -be realized, and cannot, therefore, be called forth until there is a -prospect of restoring the rabbinic polity. Our object is not to condemn -the modern Jews, but to open their eyes to a true view of that system by -which they have been so long deluded. And if they should ask us, Where, -then, is the truth to be found? we reply, in Moses and the prophets. For -though we are Christians, we firmly believe that true faith in the Old -Testament must terminate in Christianity. The only real obstacle in the -way of a Jew’s receiving Jesus as the Messiah, is the prejudice, that -his fathers, who rejected him, must have been in the right; and this -obstacle we are endeavouring to remove. We have already made it appear -that they were in the wrong; and our late papers have removed the -strongest objection that they urge, namely, that the sentence of the -Sanhedrin was decisive against his claims. We have shown that the -Sanhedrin was altogether an unlawful tribunal, not established by Moses, -but, as its name intimates, by the Greeks, and modelled by artful and -ambitious men for their own purposes: and as the tribunal was unlawful, -so was the sentence. Indeed the fact that the Lord Jesus Christ was -condemned by an unlawful tribunal is a testimony in his favour. It shows -that he disapproved of and opposed their unlawful doings. Jesus was not -condemned by the friends of Moses, but by his enemies. The religion of -Christ was persecuted, not by those who conscientiously kept Moses’ -commands, but by those who had first defaced every feature of Mosaism. -The men who condemned the Lord Jesus were the tyrannical usurpers of an -authority which Moses had given to others; and if Moses himself had -appeared amongst them, and asserted the rights of the priests and -Levites against the rabbies, they would just as readily have crucified -him as the Lord Jesus Christ. The Jews, therefore, of the present day, -who approve the condemnation of Jesus, unite with the enemies of Moses; -but those who are lovers of the Mosaic law must approve the efforts of -Jesus to deliver it from the corruptions or wicked and ambitious men. An -unlawful tribunal condemned him for doing what every true Jew must -acknowledge to be right. Whether, then, they acknowledge him as the -Messiah, or not, they must confess that he died a martyr to his zeal for -the law of Moses, and are, therefore, bound to re-consider his claims. -Jesus was put to death, not because he violated the Mosaic precepts, but -because he reproved others for their transgressions—not because he -endeavoured to overturn the religion of Moses, but because he resolutely -defended its truth against those who were introducing a new religion -upon its ruins. - - - - - No. XLVI. - CONTEMPT FOR THE FEMALE CHARACTER. - - -Modern Judaism, or the religion of the oral law, cannot bear the -slightest investigation. Its existence depends altogether upon a blind -faith. As long as a man is willing to deliver up his understanding into -the hands of the rabbies, and at their bidding believe that his right -hand is his left, as they require; so long he may be a zealous professor -of Judaism. But, the moment that he begins to think and to reason, and -to compare his traditional faith with the doctrines of Moses and the -prophets, he must begin to doubt, and if he really has a love for the -law of God, he must ultimately renounce that superstition which caused -the destruction of the temple and all the subsequent calamities of his -people, and still enslaves the greatest portion of his nation. It -matters not at which point he views it—its theoretic principles and its -practical effects equally condemn it, and prove that it is so far from -being a revelation from God, that it is not even the work of good or -wise men. The doctrine of the Sanhedrin, which we lately considered, -exhibits it as a spiritual despotism the most intolerable; but the utter -contempt with which it looks down upon the female portion of mankind -makes it to this hour a positive curse to the daughters of Israel, and -proves that it does not proceed from Him who created male and female, -and pronounced a blessing upon the one as well as the other. One of the -prominent characteristics in every false religion is the degradation of -womankind. The Mahometan imposture debases women to the level of the -brute creation. Judaism places them in the same category with slaves. In -Mahometan countries, women are deprived of all culture of head and -heart. Rabbinism, as we saw in No. 3, pronounces that fathers are exempt -from all obligation to teach their daughters the law of the lord: but we -must proceed to consider fully _the estimate which Rabbinism teaches the -Jews to form of their daughters, their sisters, their mothers, and even -the wife of their bosom_: and in doing this we shall not go to the -opinions of the ignorant, the vicious, or the superstitious, but to the -standard books of the nation. It is not possible to produce in English -much of the slanderous assertions contained in the Talmud; many are too -bad for translation, but still enough can be brought forward to prove -satisfactorily that the rabbies look upon womankind with contempt. It is -generally agreed that Rambam, or Maimonides, was one of the most learned -and enlightened of the rabbies, and yet the contempt which he felt for -the female head and heart appears very plainly in the following -passage:— - -אל יאמר אדם הריני עושה מצוות התורה ועוסק בחכמתה כדי שאקבל כל הברכות -הכתובות בה או כדי שאזכה לחיי העולם הבא , ואפרוש םן העבירות שהזהירה תורה -מהן כדי שאנצל מן הקללות הכתובות בתורה או כדי שלא אכרת מחיי העולם הבא , -אין ראוי לעבוד השם על הדרך הזה , שעובד על דרך זה הוא עובד מיראה ואיננה -מעלת הנביאים ולא מעלת החכמים , ואין עובדין ה׳ על דרך זה אלא עמי הארץ -והנשים והקטנים שמחנכין אותן לעבוד מיראה עד שתרבה דעתן ויעבדו מאהבה ׃ - -“Let not any man say, Behold I perform the commandments of the law, and -study in its wisdom, in order to obtain the blessings written therein, -or to be worthy of the life of the world to come: and I abstain from the -transgressions against which it warns, in order to be delivered from the -curses written in the law, or that I may not be cut off from eternal -life. It is not right to serve God in this way, for he that serves thus, -serves from fear, and that is not the degree to which the prophets and -wise men attained. No one serves God in this way, except unlearned men -(Amharatzin), women, and children, whom they accustom to serve from -fear, until their understanding increases, so that they may serve from -love.” (Hilchoth T’shuvah, c. x. 1.) Here Maimonides sinks women down to -the level of children, and even classes their moral and intellectual -faculties with those of the despised _Amharatzin_. We saw in No. 1 that -an _amhaaretz_ is of so little value, that his life is not considered -more precious than that of a fish, and such it appears was Rambam’s -estimate of the value of a woman. This most learned rabbi considered it -impossible for a woman to love God or to serve him aright; and when he -wished to warn the Jews against serving God in an erroneous manner, he -actually tells them not to serve Him as the women do. A more debasing -imputation cannot be cast upon a human being than this, that he is -physically incapable of loving God or serving Him aright. If he had -asserted that since the fall of Adam, the whole human race is far gone -from original righteousness, and that therefore the love of God is not -in them, he would have said what is asserted in Scripture: but the -opinion that women, that is, one half of the human species, have a -physical incapacity to love and serve God; and that we are to regard -them as a sort of finger-post for pointing out error, or a notorious -example of that irreligion which we are to avoid, is to blaspheme the -Creator, and to hold up the whole female sex to the universal scorn of -their sons, their brothers, and their husbands. It may be said, in -palliation of so foul a libel, that Rambam lived amongst Mahometans, and -that he insensibly imbibed the opinions of the followers of the false -prophet. Now it is most true that he could never have learned this -sentiment from Christians. The New Testament does not teach us to look -upon women as Amharatzin, but to regard them as rational and responsible -beings, capable of doing God the same acceptable service as men, liable -to the same awful judgment, and partakers of the same blessed hope. This -apology, if true, would only serve to excuse Rambam: it would not defend -the sentiment itself, but on the contrary, stamp it as Mahometan. It is -not true, however, that Rambam imbibed this notion from intercourse with -Mahometans: he learned it in the oral law, which has such a low opinion -of women as to pronounce their testimony invalid. - -עשרה מיני פסלות הם , כל מי שנמצא בו אחד מהן הרי הוא פסול לעדות , ואלו הן -הנשים , והעבדים , והקטנים , והשוטים , והחרשים , והסומים , והרשעים , -והבזויין , והקרותים והנוגעין בעדותן , הרי אלו עשרה ׃ - -“There are ten sorts of disqualification, and every one in whom any one -of them is found, he is disqualified from giving evidence; and these are -they—women, slaves, children, idiots, deaf persons, the blind, the -wicked, the despised, relations, and those interested in their -testimony—behold these are ten.” (Hilchoth Eduth., c. ix. 1.) Now, it -will be observed that these ten classes may be reduced to two—those who -are disqualified by physical or intellectual infirmity, as children, -idiots, deaf and blind persons; and secondly, those whose moral -integrity is exposed to suspicion, as slaves, wicked and despised -persons, relations, and those who have an interest in the cause. To one -of these two classes women must belong: they are disqualified either -because of incapacity, or because their moral feeling may not be -trusted, and in either case are treated with a most unmerited contempt. -It is true, that the rabbies endeavour to prove that the law of Moses -excludes women from giving testimony, saying— - -נשים פסולות לעדות מן התורה שנאמר על פי שנים עדים לשון זכר ולא לשון נקבה -׃ - -“Women are disqualified by the law from giving testimony, for it is -said, ‘At the mouth of two witnesses,’ where the word witness is of the -masculine, not the feminine gender;” but this proof is altogether -inconclusive; on the same principle it might be proved that women might -break all the ten commandments, for they are all given in the masculine -gender. Indeed it is self-evident that God could not have given a law so -absurd. There are thousands of cases, where, if women could not give -evidence, all the ends of justice would be defeated. Take, for instance, -the famous judgment of Solomon, where the two women laid claim each to -the living child. In this case there could be no testimony but that of -the women themselves, and Solomon did not send them away because they -were women. Take also the case of Boaz and Ruth. When Boaz wished to -marry Ruth, it was necessary first to redeem the inheritance, and for -this it was absolutely necessary to prove that Ruth was the wife of -Naomi’s son. But there was no testimony but that of the women -themselves. Elimelech, Chilion, and Mahlon, were all dead, and the -marriage had taken place in a foreign land, yet we do not read of any -difficulties being raised. Boaz himself, Naomi’s kinsman, and the elders -of Israel, appear all to have been perfectly satisfied. The -disqualification of women, therefore, was not ordained by Moses, but is -the invention of the rabbies, and shows that the rabbies had so low an -opinion of the intellect or the integrity of women, as to think either -that women are so half-witted as not to be fit to give testimony, or so -dishonest as not to be trusted in the testimony which they may give. - -But this degradation of the female character is not confined to the -rabbinic courts of law. They have dared to carry it even into the house -of God, and to make it prominent in the public worship of the Creator. -The oral law has ordained that no public worship, nor indeed many -religious solemnities, can be performed, unless there be ten persons -present, but from this number it has carefully excluded the women, -determining that— - -ואלו העשרה צריך שיהיו כולם בני חורין וגדולים שהביאו ב׳ שערות ׃ - -“It is necessary that all these ten be free and adult men.” (Orach -Chaiim, 55.) So that if there should be ten thousand women in the -synagogue, they are counted as nobody, and unless there be ten men there -can be no service. Hence it is that the daughters of Israel are never -suffered to appear as participators in the worship of God, but are -compelled to look on from a distance, as if they had neither part nor -lot in the matter. Now what reason is there why women should not be -regarded as worshippers? Are they not rational beings? are they not -creatures of God? are they not heirs of immortality just as well as the -men? Will they not join in the praises of the redeemed in Paradise; or -is the Mahometan doctrine true, that women have no souls? Certainly, -when one looks at the Jewish synagogue, one would think so. Before -marriage the women never go there at all, and after marriage how seldom. -On the Barbary coast they hardly ever go, and in Poland how common is -it, whilst the men are in the synagogue at prayer, to see their wives -outside loitering and chatting, as if the public worship of God was no -concern of theirs. Even in this country the attendance of females is not -at all equal to that of the men. How contrary is this state of things to -the command of God in the Psalms, “Both young men and maidens; old men -and children; let them praise the name of the Lord.” (Psalm cxlviii. 12, -13.) And again, “Let every thing that hath breath praise the Lord.” -(Psalm cl. 6.) How different is the condition of the Jewish females -under the oral law, from that described by Moses:—“When Miriam, the -prophetess, the sister of Aaron, took a timbrel in her hand; and all the -women went out after her, with timbrels and with dances. And Miriam -answered them, Sing ye to the Lord, for he hath triumphed gloriously.” -(Exod. xi. 21.) Then the women were permitted to unite in the noblest -work that can engage the soul of human beings, the praises of our God. -But now they are shut out, according to the ordinance of the -rabbies—they are not reckoned amongst God’s worshippers, and if ten -thousand of them should go to the synagogue, unless there should also be -a sufficient number of men, a disciple of the rabbies would count them -as nobody, and not think it worth his while to read prayers for them. A -law like this cannot possibly proceed from God, He makes no such -difference between male and female. - -לא בגבותת הסוס יחפץ לא בשוקי האיש ירצה ׃ - -“He delighteth not in the strength of the horse; he taketh not pleasure -in the legs of a man.” (Ps. cxlvii. 10.) “The sacrifices of God are a -broken spirit; a broken and contrite heart, O God, thou wilt not -despise” (Ps. li. 17); no matter whether it be male or female. - -But the oral law is not content with degrading women by refusing to -number them as a part of the congregation, it actually prescribes a form -of daily prayer expressive of their contempt. Every day the men say— - -ברוך אתה ה׳ אלהינו מלך העולם שלא עשני אשה ׃ - -“Blessed art thou, O Lord, our God! king of the universe, who hath not -made me a woman.” Whilst the women are directed to say— - -ברוך אתה ה׳ אלהינו מלך העולם שעשני כרצונו ׃ - -“Blessed art thou, O Lord our God! King of the universe, who hath made -me according to his will.” (Daily Prayers, p. 6.) The proud benediction -of the men is founded altogether on the oral law, which promises rewards -not to the state of the heart, but to the external operation of keeping -God’s commands, and as many of them cannot be kept by the women, -intimates that the men will have a greater reward. This prayer, or -rather thanksgiving, refers especially to the study of the law, from -which they suppose the woman to be dispensed, and for which they expect -no small reward in the world to come, and upon which they pride -themselves, particularly in this present life. The man who remembers the -day of judgment, when the secrets of all hearts shall be revealed, or -bears in mind that the distinction of sex, like the difference of rank -or office or nationality, is only for this world, will find but little -reason for offering up any such thanksgiving. He knows that God will -render to every human being, not according to sex, but according to -deeds; and feeling that all, both male and female, are sinners, will see -that such arrogance is unbecoming at all times, and particularly odious -at the moment when he comes to ask pardon of Him “who spieth out all our -ways.” Instead of despising others, under the pretence of thanking God, -the truly devout man will be much more ready to take up the language of -David, and say—“Enter not into judgment with thy servant, O Lord; for in -thy sight shall no man living be justified.” - -It appears, from these quotations, that Maimonides did not learn his -contempt for womankind from the Mahometans, but from the oral law and -the prayers of the synagogue. Modern Judaism disqualifies a woman from -giving evidence, shuts her out from the study of God’s Word, excludes -her from the number of his worshippers, and even in its prayers to God -pronounces her as nothing better than a heathen, or a slave: for in the -preceding benedictions, the man says first—“Blessed art thou, O God, -&c., who hath not made me a heathen;” then, “Blessed art thou, &c., who -hath not made me a slave;” and, finally, “Blessed art thou, &c. who hath -not made me a woman.” Now we ask every Jew and Jewess, into whose hands -this book may fall, whether a religion which teaches one-half of the -human race to despise and degrade the other half, can possibly come from -God? or whether it is not the invention of narrow-minded and -vain-glorious men? Even reason itself would tell us that God can never -teach us to despise the works of his own hands, and still less to hold -up the mother who bore us, or the companion who has shared all our joys -and sorrows, to the scorn of a privileged class of human beings. And yet -this is what the oral law does, and thereby shows that it does not -proceed from Him who inspired Moses and the prophets. The writings of -the Old Testament furnish no warrant for female degradation. They -commence by telling us that the woman as well as the man was formed in -the image of God, and that though woman was first led into -transgression, yet that she should have the honour of giving birth to -him who should bruise the serpent’s head. (Gen. iii. 15.) They tell us -farther, that when God was pleased to give the commandments from Sinai, -that he exacted of all children to honour the mother as well as the -father—“Honour thy father and thy mother.” But how is it possible for -any one to honour his mother who despises her as an inferior being, does -not look upon her as fit to give evidence in a court of law, and even -makes it a matter of public thanksgiving that he is not like her? Surely -such an one is much more like him of whom it is said— - -כסיל אדם בוזה ׃ - -“A foolish man despiseth his mother.” (Prov. xv. 20.) The oral law is, -in this respect, altogether inconsistent with the law of God. The former -tells fathers to leave their daughters without any religious education, -and the latter supposes that they have been so well taught as to be able -to teach their sons. Thus Solomon says, more than once, “My son, keep -thy father’s commandment, and forsake not the law of thy mother,” תורת -אמך. (Prov. vi. 20.) But how is it possible for those Jewish mothers, in -Poland or Africa for instance, who cannot even read themselves, to teach -their sons? or, even suppose they could read, how can a son believe in -his mother’s instruction, when the oral law tells him that she is not -qualified to give testimony? But the Bible does not teach us merely to -have a respect for our own mother, but shows as generally that God is no -respecter of persons, and that he bestows his gifts upon all. It -presents to our view many women, as Sarah, Rebecca, Miriam, Deborah, and -Hannah, as examples of piety, and informs us that in the time of -salvation, he will pour out his Spirit upon all flesh, without any -distinction of sex or nation. “And it shall come to pass afterward, that -I will pour out my spirit upon all flesh; and your sons and your -daughters shall prophesy.” (Joel iii. 1. In the English Bible, ii. 28.) -Yea, as if to mock the rabbies and the oral law, God adds, that it shall -be given even to the male and female slaves. - -וגם על הצבדים ואל השפחות בימים ההמה אשפוך את רוחי ׃ - -“Yea, even upon the servants and handmaids, in those days, will I pour -out my spirit.” The two classes of human beings whom, next to the -_Amharatzin_, the oral law treats with the most indignity, are women and -slaves: but God’s thoughts are not like the rabbies’ thoughts, and he, -therefore, graciously stands forth as the vindicator of the oppressed, -and promises even to these classes the gift of prophecy. Here again, -then, we see that “as far as the east is from the west,” so different is -God’s law from the present religion of the Jewish people. The religion -of the rabbies is a grinding tyranny, oppressive to the Gentiles, to -slaves, yea, and to all unlearned Jews, and that does not even spare the -wives, the mothers, and the daughters of Israel. Wherever the oral law -can have its full sway, as in Mahometan countries, the women are left -totally destitute of learning and religion—they are not even taught to -read. In not one of those countries is a school for female children to -be found. It is only in Christian lands that the daughters of Israel get -any education, or ever attain to anything like that station which God -destined them to fill. Wherever the light of Christianity shines, -however feeble, it ameliorates the condition of the female portion of -the Jewish nation, and compels even the disciples of Rabbinism to take a -little more care of their souls and their intellects. Jewish females are -therefore deeply indebted to the doctrines of Jesus of Nazareth. If he -had not risen up against the oral law, they would be universally classed -with slaves, idiots, and Amharatzin. He has delivered them from this -degradation. Let them then consider the religion of Jesus, and the -religion which the rabbies have taught them, and then let them decide -which is most beneficial to their temporal and eternal welfare. The -religion that comes from God must be beneficial to all his rational -creatures. A religion that oppresses or disdains any one class, and -deprives them of religious instruction, cannot come from him. - - - - - No. XLVII. - POLYGAMY. - - -Great and striking is the difference of position which womankind -occupies in Europe and in the countries of the East. In the latter they -are men’s slaves: in the former his companions. In the latter they are -objects of contempt even to their own sons. In the former they are the -honoured instruments to impart the first elements of learning and -religion. Here in Europe they appear as co-heirs, with man, of reason, -of intellect, of liberty and immortality; but there they seem to be an -inferior race of beings, at the very most a better sort of domestic -animal. That the European state of things is more agreeable to God’s -intention in the creation of male and female is evident from the -consideration, that there one half of the human race is doomed to -degradation and misery, whilst here they enjoy a becoming respect, and a -much larger portion of happiness; and still more from observing the -effects of the two systems. Here the intellectual and moral powers of -mankind have far advanced towards perfection, but there the human race -is still debased and barbarous. Now that, which makes happy and -improves, must necessarily be more agreeable to God’s purpose in -creation, than that which degrades and makes unhappy; and this argument -will also go far to prove that another striking feature of difference, -which distinguishes the West from the East, is also more in accordance -with the will of God; we mean the fact that here men have only one wife, -whilst there they have many. There can be no doubt that this -characteristic of European life conduces much to the well-being and the -peace of families, as well as to the moral and intellectual improvement -of individuals. In these two great advantages and means of happiness the -Jewesses of Europe participate. They are not illiterate slaves like -their sisters in the east, neither do they divide their husbands’ -affections with many. Here the Jews, like the Christians, have only one -wife. It becomes, therefore, a most interesting subject of inquiry to -know to what the European Jewesses are indebted for this superiority of -respect and happiness. Is it to their own religion, or to the religion -of Christians, that is, is it to Judaism or Christianity? We might -answer at once, that Judaism has certainly not produced this salutary -difference, for then it would have produced the same effect in Mahometan -countries, but we prefer referring to the oral law itself. We have -already shown that modern Judaism degrades women to the level of slaves -and _Amharatzin_: we shall now prove that _the Jewesses are not indebted -to it for the abolition of polygamy_. When Napoleon assembled the famous -Parisian Sanhedrin, he proposed this question to the Jewish deputies, -“_Is it lawful for Jews to marry more than one wife?_” To which they -returned the following answer:—“It is not lawful for Jews to marry more -than one wife: in all European countries they conform to the general -practice of marrying only one. Moses does not command expressly to take -several; but he does not forbid it. He seems even to adopt that custom -as generally prevailing, since he settles the rights of inheritance -between children of different wives. Although this practice still -prevails in the East, yet their ancient doctors have enjoined them to -restrain from taking more than one wife, except when the man is enabled -by his fortune to maintain several. The case has been different in the -West; the wish of adopting the customs of the inhabitants of this part -of the world has induced the Jews to renounce polygamy. But as several -individuals still indulged in that practice, a synod was convened at -Worms in the eleventh century, composed of one hundred rabbies, with -Guerson (Gershom) at their head. This assembly pronounced an anathema -against every Israelite who should, in future, take more than one wife. -Although this prohibition was not to last for ever, the influence of -European manners has universally prevailed.” (Transactions of the -Sanhedrin, p. 150.) A more evasive, false, and inconsistent answer has -rarely been given to a plain straightforward question. First they say -decidedly, that it is not lawful for Jews to marry more than one wife: -then they spend a page in contradicting themselves, and at last -acknowledge that the abolition of polygamy was first owing to the -anathema of a rabbi, and that it is now to be attributed to the -influence of European manners. But what are European manners? What -religion do Europeans profess? Plainly the religion of Jesus of -Nazareth, so that here the Jewish deputies acknowledge that if Jewish -wives have not got three or four or more rivals shut up with them in the -same house, they owe this benefit to Christianity. But we must not rest -satisfied with this answer of the Parisian deputies; we must ask the -oral law itself, whether it is lawful for Jews to marry more than one -wife, and must hear the oral law’s reply. It answers thus:— - -נושא אדם כמה נשים אפילו מאה בין בבת אחת בין בזו אחר זו ואין אשתו יכולה -לעכב , והוא שיהיה יכול ליתן שאר כסות ועונה כראוי לכל אחת ואחת ׃ - -“A man may marry many wives, even a hundred, either at once, or one -after the other, and his wife cannot prevent it, provided that he is -able to give to each suitable food, clothing, and marriage-duty.” (Iad -Hachasakah Hilchoth Ishuth., c. xiv. 3.) This is rather different -doctrine from that of the Parisian Sanhedrin. Here it is plain that the -oral law allows a man to have more than one wife, and does not stint him -at all as to the number. The Arbah Turim teaches precisely the same -doctrine, except that it advises a man not to marry more than four:— - -נושא אדם כמה נשים דאמר רבא נושא אדם כמה נשים , והוא דאפשר למיקם -בסיפוקוהי , ומכל מקום נתנו חכמים עצה טובה שלא ישא אדם יותר מד׳ נשים ׃ - -“A man may marry many wives, for Rabba says it is lawful to do so, if he -can provide for them. Nevertheless, the wise men have given good advice, -that a man should not many more than four wives.” (Even Haezer, 1.) So -far then as Judaism is concerned, polygamy is lawful; and a Jew that -would even restrict himself according to the advice of the rabbies, -might still have four wives. It is not his religion that teaches him to -be content with one: and therefore, we must, farther, inquire how it is -that the Jews, who consider polygamy lawful, do not indulge in it. The -Parisian deputies have already informed us that it still prevails in the -East, and that it prevailed in Europe until the eleventh century, when -R. Gershom anathematized it. In the place just cited we find a similar -statement:— - -במקום שנהגו שלא לישא אלא אשה אחת אינו רשאי לישא אשה אחרת על אשתו , ר׳ -גרשון החרים על הנושא על אשתו אבל ביבמה לא החרים וכן בארוסה , ולא פשטה -תקנתו בכל הארצות , ולא החרים אלא עד סוף האלף החמישי ׃ - -“In a place where the custom is to marry only one wife, it is not -permitted to marry more than one woman. R. Gershom anathematized any one -that should many a second, whilst his wife was alive; but this anathema -does not extend to the case of the widow of a brother, who has died -without children, nor to the case of a woman who is only betrothed. This -ordinance, however, does not obtain in all lands, and the anathema was -only to last until the end of the fifth thousand years.” Hence it -appears that before R. Gershom, polygamy was lawful and practised by the -Jews in Europe, but that he forbade it except in particular cases; and -further, that R. Gershom’s prohibition was only temporary, it was to -have full force until the end of the fifth thousand years, that is, -until the year 1240 of the Christian era. This period is how long past, -for the Jews reckon this year 5597, and Gershom’s anathema has therefore -lost its force; consequently, the only obstacle, which their religion -opposed to polygamy has been removed, and, so far as conscience is -concerned, every professor of Judaism must feel himself at liberty to -marry as many wives as he likes. He knows that R. Gershom’s anathema has -expired, and if he goes to the codes of Jewish law, he finds that it is -left doubtful. For instance, the note on the passage just cited says— - -ומכל מקום בכל מדינות אלו התקנה והמנהג במקומו עומד ואין נושאין שתי נשים -וכופין בחרמות ומנדין מי שעובר ונושא ב׳ נשים לגרש אחת מהן ויש אומרים -דבזמן הזה אין לכוף מי שעבר חרם דר׳ גרשון מאחר שכבר נשלם אלף החמישי , -ואין נוהגין כן ׃ - -“Nevertheless, in all these countries the ordinance and the custom -remain in force, and it is not lawful to marry two wives; and he that -transgresses and does so is to be compelled by anathema and -excommunication to divorce one of them. But some say that in the present -time he that transgresses the anathema of R. Gershom is not to be -compelled, for the five thousand years have been completed long since; -but the custom is not according to this.” Here then are two opinions. -The most strict of the two is, that polygamy is now not lawful, and that -he who marries two wives must divorce one of them: but even this cannot -be very satisfactory to the woman whom he first married, for it does not -define which of the two is to be divorced. It only requires that one of -them should be divorced, and leaves it to the man himself to divorce -which he pleases. The other opinion is, that polygamy is now lawful, and -that he is not to be compelled to divorce either. Hence it appears that -it is not Judaism which protects the rights and the happiness of Jewish -women, or the peace and comfort of Jewish families. The influence and -the laws of Christianity forbid polygamy. To Christianity, then, Jewish -females are indebted, not only for the station which they hold in -society, but for the peace which they enjoy in their homes. Wherever -Christianity has no power, there the Jews may take as many wives as they -please: and if ever Judaism should obtain supreme power, Jewesses must -expect to be again degraded into the category of slaves and -_Amharatzin_, and to have their domestic peace annihilated by the -introduction of new wives and families. It may be replied, that this -objection applies with equal force to the written law, for that Moses -himself allows polygamy. But to this we answer, that Moses only -_tolerated_ polygamy, but that he shows clearly that it was not the -purpose of God, that men should have more wives than one. He found an -evil custom existing amongst a people debased by Egyptian slavery, and -like a wise reformer, he did not commence his improvements by destroying -all that existed, but endeavoured to restrain the evil, to show that it -was contrary to God’s original institution, and to point out the -consequences. He did not immediately pronounce it unlawful, for that -would have been attended with serious inconveniences, but by the -direction of God gave laws to protect the wives and children. In the -beginning of Genesis—he showed that God’s will was, that a man should -have only one wife, for that he did not create several women, but only -one. He gives the words of God, saying, “It is not good that the man -should be alone: I will make him an help meet for him” עזר כנגדו where -“help” is in the singular number, to show that man was not to have more -than one help meet for him. And again, those words, “Therefore shall a -man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife,” -not unto his wives, but to his wife; where it is also to be observed, -that God is laying down a law, not for Adam only, but for coming -generations. By exhibiting the original institution of marriage in -Paradise, whilst man was yet innocent, and stating the original law and -purpose of God, Moses plainly showed, that God’s will was, that a man -should have only one wife. He then goes on to show, that the first who -departed from this original institution was Lamech, one of the wicked -descendants of wicked Cain. “And Lamech took unto him two wives,” (Gen. -iv. 19,) whom he held up as a warning, recording of him only that he had -two wives, and that he was a murderer. With this he contrasts the -conduct of Noah and his sons, who had only one wife each. In the history -of the patriarchs he shows the evil consequences of polygamy. He shows -that it was not the will of Abraham to take a second wife, but that -Sarah in her eagerness to have children misled him, and that discord and -domestic trouble soon followed. And by all the troubles which the sons -of Ishmael have since inflicted upon the children of Isaac, God has, in -his providence, confirmed the moral to be drawn from the Mosaic -narrative. Moses then points out the happiness of Isaac, who had only -one wife; and the troubles of Jacob, who, not by his own choice, but by -the wickedness of Laban and the folly of Laban’s daughters, had more -than one; and last of all, Moses gave in himself an example of the -conduct which he wished Israel to pursue by having only one wife -himself. A careful examination, therefore, of the law of Moses will show -that he only tolerated polygamy as an existing evil, but that he -intended to discourage it, by exhibiting the original institution of -marriage, and the many evils that result from a departure from God’s -purpose. When, therefore, we show that the oral law permits men to have -more wives than one, and that consequently it is accountable for all the -evil thence resulting, we cannot be charged with reproaching the law of -Moses. The oral law says expressly, that a man may marry many wives, -even a hundred. The law of Moses nowhere says any thing of the kind. It -only legislates in case that such a thing should happen. The oral law -plainly advises a man not to take more than four wives. The law of Moses -holds up the evil of having more than one. If men would carefully read -the law of Moses, they would see that the original intention was, that a -man should have only one wife. But if a man follow the oral law, he will -be encouraged to take as many as he can support. It is evident, -therefore, that if the Jews in Europe do not practise polygamy, their -conduct is not to be ascribed to the influence of Judaism, but of -Christianity. - -It is, further, evident that this Christian practice of having only one -wife, cannot be objected to as an unauthorized alteration of the law of -Moses. If R. Gershom was allowed to forbid polygamy, and the Jews -considered themselves bound to obey him, they cannot reasonably object -to the Christian laws on the same subject. Christianity has only -effected by its influence what R. Gershom endeavoured to accomplish by -anathema. The only difference is, that Christianity was first, and that -R. Gershom learnt the evil of polygamy from Christians. If it was lawful -for a rabbi, it was still more lawful for the Messiah to restore the -original constitution of marriage as established in Paradise, and to -deliver Jewish wives and families from all that confusion and discord -which results from polygamy. But it is particularly deserving of notice -that R. Gershom, by forbidding the Jews to have more wives than one, -made a great and decided change in the oral law. That which the oral law -allows, R. Gershom forbids. We grant, indeed, that by thus changing the -oral law, he approximated to the mind and intention of Moses: but he -altered the oral law, and thereby shows us that he himself did not -believe that the oral law was to last for ever, or that it is of eternal -obligation. If he had considered it unchangeable, he would not have -dared to make the change; but by making so important a change as this, -to forbid what it allows, he plainly shows it as his opinion, that where -there is a grave reason, the oral law may be changed or abolished; and -all the Jews who acquiesce in his ordinance, and think it is unlawful to -marry more wives than one; consent to the change. But if it be lawful to -change in one thing, it must also be lawful to change in another, so -that the rabbinical Jews have no reason whatever for reproaching their -brethren who renounce the oral law totally. Such persons are only acting -upon a principle practically acknowledged by all the Jews of Europe. It -may be said that R. Gershom’s change was only temporary, and that the -present acquiescence of European Jews is only a sort of homage to -Christian principles. This is certainly true, and this reply leads us to -consider the dreary prospect presented to Jewish females, if ever modern -Judaism should obtain power. The influence of Christian principle would -then cease,—polygamy would again be lawful, and the matrons of Israel, -who now appear as the participators in the family government and the -guides of their households, would again be degraded into one of a herd -of female slaves. They might have a hundred competitors and rivals in -their husbands’ affections, and even if the husband should follow the -advice of the rabbies, and take only four wives, they would at least -have three. Now, we ask every matron in Israel whether she would wish -such a change, or whether she would prefer the present state of things, -where a man can have only one wife? If she prefers the present state, -then she prefers the Christian principle, and acknowledges that -Christianity is better than Judaism. If she does not wish for the -restoration of polygamy, then she confesses that the doctrines of -Judaism are injurious, and that she does not desire the triumph of her -own religion. Then why should she profess a religion which she -acknowledges to be prejudicial to her welfare—or why should she reject a -religion which protects her peace and comfort? There can be no question, -that Christianity has prevented amongst the Jews that practice of having -many wives; it has, therefore, been a blessing to Jewish families for -centuries; why, then, should they despise or oppose a religion which has -been, and still is, a blessing? And we propose this question, not only -to Jewish wives, but to Jewish husbands. Is it not a fact, that God’s -original institution was that a man should have only one wife—does not -Moses show that the first polygamist was a descendant of wicked Cain, -and, that family discord and unhappiness is the consequence of having -more wives than one? Does not reason, and the state of Mahometan -countries, show that where there are many wives, woman is degraded, and -the education of children necessarily neglected? Is not the moral, the -intellectual, and scientific progress of mankind greatly superior in -Christian countries, where men have only one wife? Is not, then, the -practice of having only one wife a blessing? Has it not been a blessing -to Jewish husbands, wives, and children? Are not, then, the Jews deeply -indebted to Christianity for that measure of peace and moral improvement -which they have derived from this practice? And would not an adherence -to their own oral law in the same degree have proved a disadvantage, if -not a curse? How, then, can they oppose a religion which has been to -them a blessing?—or how can they adhere to a religion which contains -principles subversive of their domestic peace, and destructive to the -well-being, and the moral and intellectual improvement of one-half the -human race? The rabbies say, that the oral law is eternal in its -obligation: if so, then polygamy is to be eternal in its continuance, -and then men are never to return to that state of perfection which they -enjoyed in Paradise. Who is there that does not see that the race of men -was most happy when sin was unknown, and most perfect in intellect when -he could hold converse with the Deity and dwell in the garden of God? -But if Judaism be true, men are never again to enjoy that state, for -then polygamy was unknown. Adam had only one wife; and until sin entered -into the world, and ripened even into murder, no man had two wives. -Judaism is, therefore, opposed to the pure and perfect state of things -that existed in Paradise, and favourable to that confusion introduced by -the murderous Lamech, the son of murderous Cain—and Christianity -resembles, in its principles of marriage, the happy state ordained by -God in Paradise. Here, then, we have another and a practical proof that -the oral law is not of God. Its authors totally misunderstood the mind -and purpose of Moses, the servant of God, and misinterpreted his -temporary toleration of an existing evil into a positive permission and -sanction for continuing it. We have also another proof of the divine -origin of Christianity. - - - - - No. XLVIII. - DIVORCE. - - -When God delivered the commandments at Sinai, he placed those which -related to himself first, to teach us that our first duty is to love and -serve him: and immediately after these he gave the command “Honour thy -father and thy mother,” to show us that, next to himself, we are bound -to reverence, to love, and to obey those to whom we owe our existence. -This order of things was not an arbitrary choice, but founded in that -natural constitution of creation which God ordained as most conducive to -the intellectual and moral well-being as well as to the happiness of his -creatures. He does not command us to love and serve Him, and Him only, -merely because He has the light on the one hand, and it is our bounden -duty on the other; but because a conformity to his will is an -approximation both to wisdom and happiness. Neither does he tell us to -honour father and mother, because we owe them all such reverence, as -from them we have derived our being, and to them are indebted for all -the care and affection with which they have tended and watched over our -infancy; but because He has himself constituted the relation of parent -and child, and ordained parental affection and filial duty as the means -of promoting our welfare in time and in eternity. Any religion, -therefore, whose tendency is to render obedience to that command -impossible, must not only be contrary to the will of God, but to the -happiness of man; and this is one of the many reasons for which we think -that Judaism must be false. The religion of the oral law has a direct -tendency to diminish a son’s respect for his mother. We do not mean to -say that in this or any other Christian country Jewish sons despise -their mothers. The co-existence of Christianity necessarily counteracts -the development of rabbinical principles. We intend only to exhibit the -natural and necessary consequences, if there were no counteracting -force. The contempt which the oral law pours upon women in general, and -the encouragement which it gives to polygamy have necessarily the effect -of lessening their respect both in the eyes of their husbands and their -sons, and this tendency is still more increased by the _rabbinic -doctrine of divorce_, which we now propose to consider. The law of Moses -permits divorce under certain circumstances. It says, “When a man hath -taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no -favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness, רות דבר, in -her; then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her -hand, and send her out of his house,” &c. (Deut. xxiv. 1.) But this -permission, founded on grave and important considerations, the rabbies -have perverted into an unlimited licence to divorce on the most trifling -pretext. - -בית שמאי אומרים לא יגרש אדם את אשתו אלא אם כן מצא בה ערות דבר דדרשי ליה -לקרא כפשטיה אם לא תמצא חן בעינו לפי שמצא בה ערות דבר , ובית הלל סברי -אפילו הקדיחה תכשילו דדרשי לקרא הכי כי מצא בה ערות דבר או ערוה או דבר אחר -שפשעה כנגדו , ור׳ עקיבא סבר אפילו מצא אחרת נאה הימנה דדריש ליה לקרא הכי -והיה אם לא תמצא חן בעיניו פי׳ חן של נוי או שמצא ערות דבר והלכה כבית הלל -שאם פשעה כנגדו יכול לגרשה ׃ - -“The school of Shamai says, A man is not to divorce his wife unless he -shall find some uncleanness in her, for they interpret the verse -according to its simple meaning, if she find no favour in his eyes on -account of his finding some uncleanness in her. The school of Hillel -thinks, that if a woman let the broth burn it is sufficient for they -interpret the words, ‘a matter of uncleanness,’ to mean, Either -uncleanness, or any other matter in which she has offended him. But R. -Akiva thinks, that a man may divorce his wife, if he only find another -handsomer than she is, for he interprets the verse thus, ‘If she find no -favour in his eyes,’ where he explains favour to refer to the favour of -beauty, or if he find a matter of uncleanness. But the legal decision is -according to the school of Hillel, that is, if a wife sin against her -husband, he may divorce her.” (Arbah Turim, Hilchoth Gittin., 1.) This -monstrous passage is in itself sufficient to shake the authority of the -oral law, for in the first place we find three grave authorities, -Shamai, Hillel, and Akiva, all differing as to the sense of a most -important passage, bearing upon a subject that most nearly affects the -happiness and well-being of human society. One of the gravest questions -that can be propounded is, When is a man justified in divorcing his -wife? If there be an oral law at all, it ought certainly to answer this -question clearly, unequivocally, and satisfactorily. The existence of -disputation shows that these three rabbies had no authoritative -tradition on the subject, but were merely giving their own private -opinions: and that therefore the assertion, that an oral law exists, is -a mere fiction invented to impose upon the credulous, but insufficient -to beget faith in any man or woman that will make use of the reason -given by God. The old fable, that God caused a voice to be heard from -heaven, saying, when the rabbies differ, “That - -אלו ואלו דברי אלהים חיים ׃ - -both speak the words of the living God,” will not do now. Every one can -understand that God does not speak contradictions. No one will believe -that the profane sentiment of R. Akiva, That a man may divorce his wife -as soon as he finds another who pleases him better, can proceed from the -God of holiness and justice. It is true that his opinion is not the law; -but the opinion of Hillel, which is the law, is not a whit better. It -pronounces that if a woman only spoil the broth she may be divorced: now -this interpretation or the words of Moses is plainly contrary to the -grammatical sense: עֶרְוַת is in Regimen (סמיכה) and joined to דָּבָר by -a munach, and can therefore by no means be separated from it so as to -signify “Either uncleanness or some other matter.” The words of Moses, -the points, and the accents, all decide that there is only one cause for -which a man may put away his wife. Hillel and his successors have -wilfully passed by the plain sense of the Hebrew words, in their -eagerness to obtain a facility for putting away their wives. They were -not ignorant of the right sense, for that was plainly asserted by -Shamai, but were determined to get rid of it; and such was the state of -the Jews at the time, that they had influence enough to turn their false -interpretation into law; and such has been the state of the Jews ever -since, that it continues law to this very hour. A rabbinical Jew may, -according to his religious tenets, turn away his wife, the mother of his -children, on a pretext that would hardly justify the dismissal of a -servant. He may rudely tear asunder the sacred ties of conjugal -affection, and separate between mother and children, if the unhappy -woman should only make a mistake in her cookery. One of the worst -charges brought against the slave-dealers was, that they had no respect -either for maternal or filial affection; that they separated between -mother and children. The very same accusation can be brought against -modern Judaism, which legitimatizes the very same disregard for the -feelings of a mother. Can, then, such a religion, which thus daringly -snaps the ties of nature, be from God? Is it possible that God should -thus expose one half of his rational creatures to the caprice and the -tyranny of those who ought to be their defenders and protectors from -every insult and every harm? If the same right were given to women, -though the laws would be most contrary to the divine institution of -marriage, it would at least have the appearance of justice; but this is -denied. The oral law says,— - -אם לא תמצא חן בעיניו , מלמד שאינו מגרש אלא ברצונו ואם נתגרשה שלא ברצונו -אינה מגורשת , אבל האשה מתגרשת ברצונה ושלא ברצונה ׃ - -“The words, ‘If she find no favour in his eyes,’ teach, that the husband -does not divorce except voluntarily; and if the woman be divorced -against his will, she is not divorced. But the woman is divorced with or -without her will.” (Jad Hachazakah Hilchoth, Gerushin, c. 1, 2.) -According to this doctrine the happiness of the wife and the children is -absolutely vested in the power of the man; and in any paroxysm of -ill-humour, he may make them both unhappy for life; he may turn the -mother out of her home, drive her forth like a criminal from the bosom -of her family, and introduce a stranger. Who does not see that this is a -power unfit to be trusted to the hands of any man or any people? We do -not mean to impute anything peculiar to the Jews; we believe that as to -their natural propensities, humours, and caprices, all men are much -alike, and that therefore none ought to have the power of thus lightly -breaking up the domestic constitution. It is no answer to this to say, -that in this country divorce is not so lightly practised. Thanks to the -power of Christian principle and the existence of Christian laws, it -cannot be. But every one, who has had much opportunity of seeing -rabbinical Jews, knows that divorce is practised amongst them with a -facility and frequency that is astonishing. But this is not the -question; we are not examining Jewish manners, but the modern Jewish -religion; and if divorce had never been practised, we should still -pronounce of the oral law, which inculcates such principles, that it -cannot be from God; and of its authors that they were bad men, or they -would never have thus trifled with God’s most holy institution. The -truth is, that the rabbies were altogether ignorant of the nature of -marriage as God established it. They not only allow divorce on the most -trifling pretext, but they sanction the practice of marrying for a given -length of time, and, when that time is expired, of dissolving the -marriage by divorce:— - -לא ישא אדם אשה ודעתו לגרשה , ואם הודיעה בתחלה שהוא נושא אותה לימים מותר -׃ - -“A man must not marry a woman with the intention of divorcing her; but, -if he previously inform her that he is going to marry her for a season, -it is lawful.” (Hilchoth Gittin in Even Haezer, 1.) Now how contrary is -such doctrine to the express words of Scripture. “This is bone of my -bones, and flesh of my flesh. Therefore shall a man leave his father and -his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife; and they shall be one -flesh.” (Gen. ii. 23.) Here Adam, in his state of innocence, pronounces -that the tie of marriage is more sacred and more binding, than even that -which exists between parent and child. A man may, and for his wife’s -sake shall, forsake father and mother, but should no more think of -separating from his wife, than from his own bones and flesh. Who would -lightly think of parting with a limb, or a portion of his body? Urgent, -indeed, must be the necessity that will induce a man to permit the -separation of a portion of himself, and equally urgent should be the -cause that should move a man to part with her who is bone of his bones, -and flesh of his flesh. Such is the Mosaic doctrine of the marriage -obligation; but so little did the rabbies understand it, that they -permit a man to marry for a week, a month, or a year; and when that -season is expired, to tear asunder the sacred ties, and that without any -cause whatever. But the evident evil that must result from the rabbinic -doctrine of divorce is still more apparent from the first sentence of -the passage last quoted—“A man must not marry a woman with the intention -of divorcing her.” These words show the direct tendency of the doctrine. -When power is given to a man to turn out his wife when he likes, a -temptation is at once held out to the evil-disposed to marry with the -express intention of divorcing. The rabbies, therefore, find it -necessary to forbid it; but is it likely that this prohibition will have -much force in the eyes of a man who is wicked enough to form the -intention? And suppose a wicked man does form the intention, and execute -it, what remedy had the poor injured woman? Thus the oral law leaves the -daughters of Israel completely at the mercy of the unprincipled, and -places them beyond this possibility of obtaining justice. - -But the cruelty and total want of feeling which the oral law displays -and teaches, with regard to women, appears still more plainly from the -following extract:— - -מי שנתחרשה אשתו הרי זה מגרשה בגט ותהיה מגורשת , אבל אם נשתטת אינו מוציאה -עד שתבריא , ודבר זה תקנת חכמים הוא , כדי שלא תהיה הפקר לפרוצין שהרי אינה -יכולה לשמור את עצמה ; לפיכך מניחה ונושא אחרת ומאכילה ומשקה משלה ; ואין -מחייבין אותו בשאר כסות ועונה , שאין כח בבן דעת לדור עם השוטים בבית אחד , -ואינו חייב לרפאותה ולא לפדותה , ואם גרשה הרי זו מגורשת ומוציאה מביתו -ואינו חייב לחזור ולהטפל בה ׃ - -“If a man’s wife should become deaf and dumb, he gives her a bill of -divorce, and she is divorced. But if she become insane, he is not to -send her forth until she is recovered: and this thing is an ordinance of -the wise men, that she should not become a prey to the immodest, because -she is not able to take care of herself. The husband therefore, leaves -her where she is, and marries another, and gives her meat and drink out -of her own property. But he is not to be compelled to give her food and -raiment, and duty of marriage, for it is not in the power of a sane -person to dwell in one house with the insane. Neither is he obligated to -have her cured, nor to ransom her. But if he should divorce her, then -she is divorced, and is to be put out of his house: and he is not -obligated to return and take any trouble about her.” (Hilchoth Gerushin, -x. 23.) Principles more contrary to God’s Word, and to the common -feelings of humanity, were never inculcated under the name of religion. -We have been astonished at the cruelty with which the oral law treats -Gentiles—we have been horrified at the coolness with which it speaks of -splitting open an _Amhaaretz_—but here it surpasses itself, and -out-herods Herod. A man accustomed to judge of his duty by the words of -Moses and the prophets, or even to follow toe dictates of -unsophisticated nature, would conclude that, as he is at all times bound -to love and cherish his wife, the obligation is doubly imperative in -case of sickness, but especially so when that sorest calamity with which -human frailty is visited, insanity, attacks the partner of his life. -Then it is that the man, who has one spark of the fear of God or of the -love of man, will show all his tenderness, watch over the sufferer with -all care and anxiety, and if necessary, devote all his worldly goods to -minister to her recovery. No, says the oral law, when the wife of your -bosom most requires your attention, then marry another: give her neither -food nor raiment, and, if you please, cast her out of your house, and -leave her to her fate. The most charitable conclusion would be, to -suppose that the men who uttered such sentiments under the mask of -religion, were themselves insane. But what are we to think of Israel, -that for eighteen hundred years they have been unable to detect so -manifest an imposture? And what are we to think of Israel at present, -that they sit still and suffer their children to be deluded, by being -taught that this most atrocious system of inhumanity, is that pure and -holy religion which the God of Israel revealed to Moses? Let not any -Israelite mistake us. We do not mean to charge such wickedness upon -them. The Providence of God has in a measure delivered them from such an -odious yoke. The influence of Christianity has successfully counteracted -the full development of these anti-human principles. We only mean to -direct their attention to the nature of that religion to which they have -adhered so long; and to induce them to consider what would be the state -of the world, if Jesus of Nazareth had not arisen to protest against -such gross corruptions, and to assert the truth. Just suppose that the -traditions had triumphed. The universal law would then be, that men -might divorce their wives when they please, and in the time of their -calamity cast them forth into the streets. All the bonds of natural -affection would be rent asunder. Conjugal affection would cease, filial -duty be unknown—no son would honour his mother, for how could a son -honour the unhappy being whom his religion pronounces unworthy either of -succour or compassion in the time of her utmost need? If such principles -had attained dominion, mankind would have been turned into a race of -fiends, and this earth have become a hell. What, then, has stopped all -this misery? Christianity, and Christianity alone. It teaches very -different principles. When a Christian man is married, the vow which he -is required to make is this—“Wilt thou have this woman to thy wedded -wife, to live together after God’s ordinance in the holy estate of -matrimony? Wilt thou love her, comfort her, honour, and keep her in -sickness and in health; and, forsaking all other, keep thee only unto -her, so long as ye both shall live?” This is the doctrine of the New -Testament. The Pharisees asked the Lord Jesus, “Is it lawful for a man -to put away his wife for every cause? And he answered and said unto -them, Have ye not read, that He which made them at the beginning made -them male and female, and said, For this cause shall a man leave father -and mother, and shall cleave to his wife; and they twain shall be one -flesh? Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore -God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.” (Matt. xix. 3-7.) In -like manner, Paul teaches, “So ought men to love their wives as their -own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself.” (Ephes. v. 28.) And -Peter teaches in the same spirit, “Likewise, ye husbands, dwell with -them according to knowledge, giving honour unto the wife, as unto the -weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life; that -your prayers be not hindered.” (1 Peter iii. 7.) - -Let any unprejudiced, yea, or any prejudiced, man, if he have only the -use of his senses, compare these two doctrines, and say which is most -agreeable to the will and character of God, as revealed in the Old -Testament—and, which is most calculated to promote the happiness of the -human race. The combination of mercy and justice forms a striking -feature in the revealed character of God, but is there either justice or -mercy in the laws which we have just considered? The happiness of the -human race depends, in a more than ordinary measure, upon the right -organization of the family relations: but how can there be any such -thing as domestic order or peace, so long as the mother is looked upon -as belonging to an inferior caste, whom it is permitted at any moment, -even in the most afflictive of all visitations, to outlaw, and drive -forth from the family circle? The uncontrolled dominion of the oral law -would practically annihilate all the sympathies and consolations of the -domestic constitution. The husband could not love the wife whom his -religion teaches to despise, and forbids to pity. The wife could not -love the husband, whom she must suspect not only of being destitute of -affection, but devoid of pity; and from whom she could only expect -divorce and expulsion in the hour of calamity. The son would learn to -despise his mother, whom his religion marks out as a fit object for -contempt, and a suitable victim for the exercise of cruelty. The mother, -cast out by her own partner, would not even have the consolation of -being pitied by her own children. A false religion would have taught -them that this unnatural conduct was only obedience to the Divine will. -The principles of Christianity, on the contrary, produce and protect all -that domestic happiness which distinguishes Christian countries from the -rest of the world; and in which Jews participate. The influence of -Christianity has prevented that misery of which we have given but a -faint outline. Can, then, the Jews deny that Christianity has been, and -is, to them a blessing? or that it is, in its principles and effects, -more agreeable to the character of God, and more productive of human -happiness, and therefore more excellent and more true than modern -Judaism. - - - - - No. XLIX. - RABBINIC LAWS CONCERNING MEAT. - - -Conscientious adherence to the dictates of true religion is one of the -noblest traits that can adorn the human character, and this trait has -appeared in its most vivid light in not a few of the Israelite nation. -Elijah the prophet, for instance, is a bright example of religious -constancy. At a time when all Israel had forsaken the true God, and -zealously professed a false religion, neither the allurements of -self-interest, nor the power of universal example, nor the natural -desire of self-preservation, could draw him aside from the paths of -truth and righteousness. Daniel and his three friends in Babylon exhibit -the same unwavering firmness in the assertion of truth. The Royal -dainties could not prevail upon them to partake of food offered to -idols. The fiery furnace could not terrify Hananiah, Mishael, and -Azariah, to commit idolatry; the lions’ den possessed no terrors that -could move Daniel to omit the worship of his God. But as constancy for -the truth ennobles and adorns, in the very same degree an obstinate -perseverance in error diminishes from man’s moral or intellectual value. -It shows either that his moral perception is so blunted as to be unable -to discern between truth and error, or his moral taste so perverted as -not to care for the difference—or that there is some intellectual -deficiency which renders the moral powers inoperative. It leads to the -suspicion that there is something wrong either with the head or the -heart. There is, however, a class of persons, who persevere in error, -not because the head is weak, or the heart sick, but because they have -never fairly beheld the light of truth. They have grown up in a mist of -error, and circumstances have prevented them from emerging into a purer -atmosphere. To this class, we would hope, the professors of modern -Judaism belong. That they have been for centuries in error is certain. -Many incontestable proofs of this have been already advanced; _The -rabbinic laws concerning_ שחיטה, _or the slaughtering of animals_, will -add another link to the chain of evidence. The Rabbinists have an idea -that wherever they may be wrong, in this doctrine they are infallibly in -the right; and yet, if the force of education did not afford some aid, -it would be impossible to imagine how they can be deceived by a doctrine -so manifestly false, and so entirely devoid of Scriptural foundation. In -the first place, the slaughtering of beasts is, like eating, of -every-day and universal concernment—a matter that affects the poor and -unlearned as much as the studious; and yet the rabbinic rules are so -many and so intricate that either a man must be learned himself, or -employ a man of competent learning, to perform this business; or, he -must, in spite of himself, turn Pythagorean and renounce the use of -animal food. The oral law gives the following outline of what is to be -understood by the word שחיטה or _slaughtering_:— - -זביחה זו האמורה בתורה סתם צרך לפרש אותה ולידע באי זה מקום םן הבהמה -שוחטין , וכמה שיעור השחיטה , ובאיזה דבר שוחטין ומתי שוחטין והיכן שוחטין -וכיצד שוחטין , ומה הן הדברים המפסידין את השחיטה ומי הוא השוחט , ועל כל -הדברים האלה צונו בתורה ואמר וזבחת מבקרך וכו׳ כאשר צותיך ואכלת בשעריך -וכו׳ ׃ - -“It is absolutely necessary to explain the killing (or slaughtering -mentioned in the law), and to know, in what part of the beast one -slaughters—what is the measure of the slaughtering—with what implement -one slaughters—when—where—and how one slaughters—what things they are -which invalidate the act of slaughtering—and who is permitted to -slaughter. Concerning all these things, He has commanded us in the law -where it is said, ‘Then thou shalt kill of thy herd and of thy flock, -which the Lord hath given thee, as I have commanded thee, and thou shalt -eat in thy gates whatsoever thy soul lusteth after!’ (Deut. xii. 21.)” -(Jad Hachazakah, Hilchoth Shechitah, c. i. 4.) Here we have at once a -list of eight particulars, which must first be known, but then most of -these again require a long and learned explanation; for instance the -first is thus defined:— - -ואיזה הוא מקום שחיטה בקנה משפוי כובע ולמטה עד ראש כנף הריאה כשתמשוך -הבהמה צוארה לרעות זה הוא מקום השחיטה בקנה , וכל שכנגד המקוא הזה מבחוץ -נקרא צואר , אנסה הבהמה עצמה ומשכה צוארה הרבה או שאינס השוחט את הסימנין -ומשכן למעלה ושחט במקום שחיטה בצואר , ונמצאת השחיטה בקנה או בושט שלא -במקום שחיטה הרי זה ספק נבלה ׃ - -“On what part of the animal is the slaughtering to be effected? On the -wind-pipe, from the edge of the uvula downwards as far as the top or the -extremity of the lungs, as these parts are situated when the beast -stretches out its neck to feed: this is the place of the slaughtering in -the wind-pipe; and all the part outside which answers to this place, is -called the neck. If the beast forces itself and stretches out its neck -much, or if the slaughterer has forced the sinews, and drawn them -upwards, and he slaughters at the right part of the neck, but afterwards -it is found that the wind-pipe or the œsophagus is not cut at the right -place, then it is a doubtful case of carrion.” (Ibid. 7.) In like -manner, the _measure of the slaughtering_ is accurately defined, and -must be as accurately attended to, or else the slaughtering must be -considered unlawful, and then it becomes unlawful for the Rabbinists to -eat it. But the most care is required in examining the knife, which may -be of any material that will cut, on condition that there be no gap in -it:— - -אבל אם היה כמו תלם בחודו של דבר ששוחטין בו ואפילו היה התלם קטן ביותר -שחיטתו פסולה ׃ - -“But if there be anything like a furrow in the edge of the implement -wherewith the slaughtering is effected, even though the furrow be the -least possible, the slaughtering is unlawful.” The slaughterer is -therefore required to examine the knife before and after the act; for if -a gap be found in it after the slaughtering, it is doubtful whether the -beast is not be considered carrion:— - -לפיכך השוחט בהמות רבות או עופות רבות צריך לבדוק בין כל אחת ואחת שאם לא -בדק ובדק אחרונה ונמצאת סכין פגומה הרי הכל ספק נבלות ואפילו הראשונה ׃ - -“Therefore he that has to slaughter many beasts or many fowls, must -examine the knife after each; for if he does not, but examines at the -end, and the knife is found to have a gap, then all are to be considered -as doubtful carrion, even the first.” (Ibid. 24.) From these few -particulars, it appears that great care, and not a little study and -practice, are required in order to slaughter an animal for food -according to the oral law, and that it is very easy, by mistake or want -of knowledge, to make the meat unfit for rabbinic eating: but then, -besides all this, there are the five circumstances which invalidate the -slaughtering altogether:— - -חמשה דברים מפסידים את השחיטה ועיקר הלכות שחיטה להזהר בכל אחת מהן ואלו הן -שהיית דרסה חלדה הגרמה ועיקר ׃ - -“There are five things which invalidate the slaughtering: and the most -important thing respecting the constitutions of slaughtering is, to -attend to each one of them, and these are they—1st, If the person makes -a stop of a certain length before the act is completed. 2d, If the -throat be cut at a single blow, as with a sword. 3d, If the knife enters -too deep, and is hidden. 4th, When the knife slips up or down from the -right place. 5th, When the wind-pipe or œsophagus is torn and comes out, -before the act is completed.” (Ibid. c. iii.) These five essentials of -rabbinic slaughtering lead again to endless questions and definitions; -so that, putting all together, it is much to be doubted whether a beast -ever was, or ever will be, rightly slaughtered according to the oral -law. And yet these things, of which there is not the slightest mention -in the Mosaic law, are tied like a heavy burden about the necks of the -poor and ignorant, and are most oppressive to their bodies and their -souls. The rich may not, perhaps, feel the oppression, but the poor sigh -and groan under the load; and no man considers their sorrow, or -stretches out a hand to help them. In the first place, the intricacy of -the act always makes rabbinic meat a great deal dearer than other meat, -so that the poor man and his family, who can at any time, or under any -circumstances, afford to buy but little food, are compelled by the oral -law to do with still less, and in many cases to do without it -altogether. Let any one visit the haunts of the poor Jews in this city, -or enter their abodes, and he will find many a wretched family pining -away for want of proper food; and yet it is too dear to procure a -sufficiency; and if any benevolent Christian should wish to assist them, -offer them some of his own, or give them a ticket to some of those -institutions which distribute meat to the poor, the starving family -would not dare to accept it, even if their conscience allowed them, or -if they did, would inevitably draw down upon themselves a storm of -persecution, and be treated as if they had committed the greatest -crimes: yea, if the oral law had power, the poor starving creatures, -that had partaken of Christian bounty, would be flogged for satisfying -the wants of nature:— - -נכרי ששחט אע׳׳פ ששחט בפני ישראל בסכין יפה ואפילו היה קטן שחיטתו נבלה -ולוקה על אכילתה מן התורה שנאמר , וקרא לך ואכלת מזבחו ׃ - -“If a Gentile slaughters, even though he does it in the presence of an -Israelite, with a proper knife, his slaughtering is carrion; and he that -eats of it is to be flogged according to the written law, for it is -said, ‘And one call thee, and thou eat of his sacrifice.’ (Exod. xxxiv. -15.)” Yea, the oral law goes so far as to extend this rule even to the -case of a Gentile who is not an idolater:— - -וגדר גדול גדרו בדבר שאפילו גוי שאינו עובד ע׳׳ז שחיטתו נבלה ׃ - -“A very strong fence has been made round this matter, so that the -slaughtering even of a Gentile, who is not on idolater, is carrion.” -(Ibid., c. iv. 11, 12.) It is hardly necessary to say, that the above -quotation from the oral law is now-a-days altogether out of place. Moses -was not speaking of Christians nor of the inhabitants of these -countries, but of the nations of Canaan. He had been declaring the words -of the Lord, “Behold, I drive out before thee the Amorite, and the -Canaanite, and the Hittite, and the Perizzite, and the Jebusite.” And -then adds, “Take heed to thyself, lest thou make a covenant with the -inhabitants of the land, and they go a whoring after their gods, and do -sacrifice unto their gods, and one call thee, and thou eat of his -sacrifice.” (Exod. xxxiv. 11-15.) So then, according to the oral law, -because Moses forbade the Israelites to partake of the idolatrous -sacrifices of the Hivites and the Jebusites, a poor famished creature -here in London is not to touch Christian meat, nor to partake of -Christian bounty. A more cruel or oppressive law could hardly have been -devised. It is all very well for the rich, but it is very little short -of murder to the poor. It binds their consciences with fetters of iron, -so that even when relief is offered, many turn from good and wholesome -food sent to them by a kind Providence; and if a spark of light has -visited the mind of some victim of poverty, and he thinks it lawful to -bring home the Christian bounty to save the lives of his starving -children, fear prevents him. Perhaps his wife is still enveloped in all -the darkness of superstition, and would spurn the proffered relief as an -unclean thing, or perhaps his children might innocently betray him, and -draw down all the weight of rabbinic indignation. A grosser insult has -rarely been offered to the Majesty of heaven, than to call good and -proper food, the work of his hands, carrion. A mistake in the -slaughtering, an ignorance of the rabbinic art, a Gentile hand, is to be -sufficient to turn the bounty of Almighty God into an unclean thing, and -to deprive the poor of their daily food. How can the Jews expect God’s -blessing so long as this state of things continues—how can they be -surprised if poverty and want, and wretchedness and scorn, tread close -upon their heels, when they themselves spurn God’s bounty from them with -disdain? As nations deal with God and his word, so he deals with them, -מדה כמדה, measure for measure; and therefore, so long as the oral law -teaches them to scorn his bounty, and to deprive the poor of their -food—so long as the cries of the poor ascend and enter into the ears of -the Lord of Hosts, so long must they expect to feel the rod of his -indignation. The times of ignorance and superstition God winked at; but -those times have passed away. Good or bad, there is a stir in the -world—there is a shaking of all old opinions, true and false; and from -its effects the Jews have not escaped. There are many who, for -themselves and their families, have renounced Rabbinism—who eat Gentile -food, and know that in doing so they commit no sin. These are the -persons who are most guilty in looking upon the misery of their poor -brethren without pity or concern and without an effort to deliver them. -The rabbinic zealot who would persecute his brother for eating meat not -slaughtered according to rabbinic precept is in comparison innocent. He -conscientiously thinks that he is doing right; but for the man, who -himself openly transgresses the oral law, and yet sees the faces of his -brethren ground by that system, without a sentiment of pity, there is no -excuse. If he had the common feelings of humanity, he would rise up, -fearless of all consequences, and cry out with all his might against -those principles which have been and are the curse of his nation. He -would stand forth as the advocate and defender of the poor—yea, and he -would have God’s blessing. But so long as this class of anti-rabbinic -Jews remain silent, whether from fear or from interest, or from -indifference, let them not boast of their superior light. Let them not -look with self-complacency on the poor victims of superstition. They are -themselves less respectable and more guilty. They are conniving at what -they know to be falsehood. They are with their eyes open consenting to -oppression and starvation. They are, by their silence, helping to -strengthen and confirm a system of anti-social intolerance, which has -been the source of all the calamities which their nation has endured for -eighteen centuries. What can be more pernicious than to teach the -ignorant that the food which their neighbours eat is carrion, so unfit -for the nourishment of a Rabbinist that he ought to die, and suffer his -family to die of want, rather than eat it? Is it likely to produce -kindly feeling on either side, considering that the mass of mankind is -not actuated by the dictates of reason or the precepts of the Bible? On -the one side it is likely to produce proud contempt, and on the other a -spirit of retaliation. Every Jew that wishes well to his nation, and -knows that these rabbinic principles are false, is bound to protest -against them. He ought not to be a poor selfish thing, insensible to the -wants and the sufferings of others, but should do what in him lies, to -assert what he knows to be the truth. And is it necessary to remind such -of the misery which these rabbinic principles are still working in every -part of the world? Here in London the poor are suffering. In the various -towns of England many Jews are suffering. In some places a single Jewish -family is found, generally poor, and the father ignorant of the rabbinic -art of slaughtering: such persons are compelled to abstain altogether -from animal food, or to do violence to their conscience. The poor Jews -who go out to the colonies to seek employment are in the same case, and -are precluded from taking such situations as require them to partake of -the food of their employers. Even if they can buy an animal, they are -not allowed to kill it for themselves:— - -ישראל שאינו יודע חמשה דברים שמפסידין את השחיטה וכיוצא בהן מהלכות שחיטה -שביארנו ושחט בינו לבין עצמו אסור לאכול משחיטתו לא הוא ולא אחרים , והרי -זו קרובה לספק נבלה והאוכל ממנה כזית מכין אותו מכת מרדות ׃ - -“If an Israelite does not know the five things which invalidate the act -of slaughtering, as we have explained, and slaughters by himself, it is -unlawful to eat of his slaughtering, both for himself and others; for -this case is much the same as that of doubtful carrion, and he that eats -of it a quantity equal to an olive, is to be flogged with the flogging -of rebellion.” (Ibid., c. iv.) Such is the mercy of the oral law, and -such its justice. It punishes the eating of what God has allowed, with -the same severity that it would visit a great crime. It makes no -provision for those numerous cases of distress which we have mentioned. -Whether one of its disciples has or has not food, it never considers. -Without reflection and without mercy it sentences every one, who eats -meat not rabbinically slaughtered, to be flogged. But, besides the -cruelty, what is the effect upon the minds of its votaries? It teaches -them that to transgress this mere human observance is a sin of the -deepest die, more dreadful far than many which God has forgiven. A -Rabbinist would be more grieved to hear that his son had transgressed -the law of slaughtering, than to find that he had been guilty of -falsehood. Its tendency is directly to draw off the mind from the -weightier matters of the law, judgment, justice, and mercy, and to -flatter the ill-informed that they are good Jews, if only they abstain -from meat not slaughtered according to rabbinic art. - -Let not any Jew imagine that we wish him lightly to transgress the law -of Moses, or to eat of food which the law of God has forbidden. We now -speak of that which Moses has allowed. If a Jew would see meat offered -to idols, or be invited to partake of an idolatrous feast, let him -abstain—let him refuse, and protest as strongly as he will and can -against the sinfulness of such conduct. But where does Moses forbid the -poor to partake of meat slaughtered by a Gentile worshipper of the true -God, or by an Israelite who has not learned the rabbinic art? Certainly -not in that passage to which the oral law refers. Moses gives a general -permission to every Israelite, without exception, to kill and eat. -“Notwithstanding thou mayest kill and eat flesh in all thy gates, -whatsoever thy soul lusteth after, according to the blessing of the Lord -thy God which he hath given thee.” (Deut. xii. 15.) He makes no mention -of any mysteries, connected with the art of slaughtering, the ignorance -of which would disqualify. Why then should a Jew be prevented from doing -what Moses has allowed—why should he be flogged with the flogging of -rebellion, or avow that that mode and measure of punishment is -impracticable—why should he be persecuted for satisfying the cravings of -nature, and endeavouring to supply the wants of his family? There is not -room now to show fully how groundless the rabbinic commands are; but the -one fact of their cruelty and oppression of the poor is sufficient to -show that they are not from God. Is it possible that any man in his -senses can believe that God would sentence a poor famishing creature to -be flogged without mercy for doing what the letter of the law allows him -to do? or, that the All-wise Being, who foresees and foreknows all -things, would give a system of laws respecting food, which must expose a -large portion of his chosen people to want and starvation? The -worshippers of some cruel heathen deity might possibly be led to believe -such things, but the disciples or Moses and the Prophets know that God -is a God of mercy. Let, then, every one who has got the sacred books -contrast their doctrines with those of the rabbies. But, above all, let -those Israelites, who reject the rabbinic laws concerning the -slaughtering of meat, show that they have not done it from levity nor -indifference, but upon principle. Let them explain to their brethren the -reasons and the motives by which they are actuated, and let them -protest, by word and deed, against such cruelty, oppression, and -intolerance. - - - - - No. L. - THE BIRTH OF MESSIAH. - - -This season of the year naturally draws away our thoughts from the -subject last under consideration, and reminds us of a remarkable -difference between Jews and Christians. The latter are now about to -commemorate the birth of the Messiah.[36] In two days more the voice of -praise and thanksgiving will ascend to the Creator and Preserver of men -from every part of the world. On the frozen shores of Labrador, and the -glowing plains of Hindostan—in the isles of the sea, and on the -continents of the old and new worlds, millions of Christians will lift -up their hands and voices to thank the God of heaven for his unspeakable -gift, and this shall be the burden of their song, “Unto us a child is -born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his -shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, the mighty -God, the everlasting Father, the Prince of Peace.” (Isaiah ix. 6.) But -amongst the followers of the oral law not a sound of sympathy will be -heard. Not a single heart will beat with joy, not a tongue offer up the -tribute of praise. Here is a great and sinking difference, that should -naturally lead both Jew and Christian to inquire, Who is in the right: -Those who believe that Messiah is born, and joy in the remembrance of -his nativity; or, those who refuse to join in the general rejoicing, and -deny that the Redeemer has appeared? The question is whether there is -reason to believe that the Messiah was born eighteen hundred years ago? -and there are several ways in which it can be satisfactorily answered. -An appeal may be made to the predictions contained in the Old Testament, -or to the evidence for the truth of the Christian Scriptures—or, it may -be shown that the Jewish rabbies have plainly confessed that the time -for the birth and appearance of the Messiah is long since past; and this -is the mode which we shall adopt at present. The Jews now deny that -Messiah is come, and consequently believe that Christians are mistaken -as to the time of his appearing. If they had always said so—if they had -always assigned a time for the coming of Messiah different from that in -which Christians think the Messiah was born, their present assertion -would have at least the merit of consistency, and the Jews of the -present day might urge that their present belief has been inherited from -their fathers, and that Christians have adopted a notion unknown to the -nation at large. But, if it should appear that the ancient Jews expected -the coming of Messiah at the very time, when, as Christians say, he did -actually come, then the ancient Jews testify that Christians are in the -right, and that modern Jews are in the wrong, and this is really the -state of the case. In the first place, the Talmud contains a general -declaration that the time is long since past:— - -אמר רב כלו כל הקצין ׃ - -“Rav says, The appointed times are long since past” (Sanhedrin, fol. 97, -col. 2), where it is to be noted that the word קץ is taken from Daniel, -and literally signifies “End,” as it is said:— - -עד מתי קץ הפלאות ׃ - -“How long shall it be to the end of these wonders; and again:— - -ואתה לך לקץ ותנוח ותעמוד לגורלך לקץ הימין ׃ - -“But go thou thy way till the end be, for thou shalt rest, and stand in -thy lot at the end of the days.” (Daniel xii. 6-13.) Rav was therefore -of opinion that the period appointed by Daniel the prophet was past. But -is it possible to believe that the God of truth would suffer the time, -which he had appointed, to pass away without accomplishing what he had -promised? When the time which God had fixed for the deliverance from -Egypt had arrived, not a single day was lost. “It came to pass at the -end קץ of the four hundred and thirty years, even the self-same day, - -בעצם היום הזה ׃ - -it came to pass, that all the hosts of the Lord went out from the land -of Egypt.” (Exod. xii. 41.) When the period fixed for the return from -Babylon was come, we read, “In the first year of Cyrus, King of Persia -(that the word of the Lord by the mouth of Jeremiah might be -accomplished), the Lord stirred up the spirit of Cyrus king of Persia, -that he made a proclamation through all his kingdom.” (2 Chron. xxxvi. -22.) And can we think that the Lord God, who so graciously fulfilled his -word on these occasions should break it with reference to the coming of -the Messiah? Rav is either right or wrong. If he be right, then the time -fixed by God is long since past, and as God cannot break his word, the -Messiah must have come long since. But if, to get out of a difficulty, -the Rabbinists say, that Rav was wrong, then we have another proof that -no reliance is to be placed on the doctors of the oral law; indeed we -have a proof that the Rabbinists themselves do not believe it, except -when they like; and that therefore they are not thoroughly in earnest -about their religion. - -But, secondly, the ancient Jews not only believed that the time for the -coming of the Messiah was past: they also fixed the exact period:— - -תנא דבי אליהו ששה אלפים שנה הוי עלמא שני אלפים תוהו , שני אלפים תורה , -שני אלפים ימות המשיח ׃ - -“Tradition of the school of Elijah. The world is to stand six thousand -years. Two thousand, confusion. Two thousand, the law. Two thousand, the -days of Messiah.” (Sanhedrin, fol. 97, col. 1.) Upon which Rashi -remarks— - -שלאחר שני אלפים תורה הוה דינו שיבוא משיח ותכלה מלכות הרשעה ויבטל השיעבוד -מישראל ׃ - -“After the two thousand years of the law, according to the decree. -Messiah ought to have come, and the wicked kingdom should been destined, -and Israel’s state of servitude should have been ended.” Here, then, it -is expressly stated, that Messiah ought to have come at the end of the -fourth thousand years, that is, according to the Jewish reckoning, -fifteen hundred and ninety-seven years ago; or, according to the -Christian reckoning, about eighteen hundred and thirty-six years -ago—that is, at the very time when Jesus of Nazareth did appear. We do -not quote this tradition because we believe that it is really a -tradition of the school of Elijah, but to show what was the opinion of -the more ancient Jews, and this it certainly does, if the general -expectation of the Jews at that time had not been that Messiah was to -appear at the end of the four thousand years, this tradition, whether -genuine or forged, could never have obtained currency nor belief. If it -be a genuine tradition from Elijah, then the Messiah is certainly come. -But if it be fictitious, then it shows the general belief of the Jews at -the time, and in every case proves that the modern Jews do not hold the -doctrines of their forefathers, but have got a new doctrine of their -own. And it further shows, that Christians do not hold any new or -peculiar opinion about the time of Messiah’s coming, but that they -believe, as the ancient Jews believed, that the end of the fourth -thousand years is the right time of Messiah’s coming. - -The only answer that the Jews have, is, that the promise of Messiah’s -coming was conditional upon their repentance, but that evasion has been -long since refuted in the Talmud as contrary to Scripture:— - -ר׳ אליעזר אומר אם ישראל עושין תשובה נגאלין ואם לאו אינם נגאלין , אמר לו -ר׳ יהושע אם אין עושין תשובה אינם נגאלין אלא הקב׳׳ה מעמיד להן מלך -שגזרותיו קשות כהמן וישראל עושין תשובה ומחזירן למוטב , תניא אידך ר׳ -אליעזר אומר אם ישראל עושין תשובה נגאלין , שנאמר שובו בנים שובבים ארפא -משובותיכם , אמר לו ר׳ יהושע והלא כבר נאמר חנם נמכרתם ולא בכסף תגאלו חנם -נמכרתם בעבודה זרה ולא בכסף תגאלו לא בתשובה ומעשים טובים , אמר לו ר׳ -אליעזר לר׳ יהושע והלא כבר נאמר שובה אלי ואשובה אליכם , אמר לו ר׳ יהושע -והלא כבר נאמר כי אנכי בעלתי אתכם ולקחתי אתכם אחד מעיר ושנים ממשפחה -והבאתי אתכם ציו , אמר לו ר׳ אליעזר והלא כבר נאמר בשובה ונחת תושעון אמר -לו ר׳ יהושע לר׳ אליעזר והלא כבר נאמר כה אמר ה׳ גואל ישראל וקדושו לבזה -נפש למתעב גוי לעבד מושלים מלכים יראו וקמו שרים וישתחוו , אמר לו ר׳ -אלֻיעזר והלא כבר נאמר אם תשוב ישראל נאם ה׳ אלי תשוב אמר לו ר׳ יהושע והלא -כבר נאמר ואשמע את האיש לבוש הבדים אשר ממעל למימי היאר וירם ימינו ושמאלו -אל השמים נפץ יד עם קודש תכלינה כל אלה וגו׳ ושתק ר׳ אליעזר ׃ - -“R. Eliezer said, If Israel do repentance they will be redeemed, but, if -not, they will not be redeemed. R. Joshua replied, If they do not repent -they will not be redeemed: but God will raise up to them a king whose -decrees shall be as dreadful as Haman, and then Israel will repent, and -thus he will bring them back to what is good. Another tradition. R. -Eliezer said, If Israel do repentance, they shall be redeemed, for it is -said, ‘Turn, O backsliding children; I will heal your backsliding.’ R. -Joshua replied, But was it not said long since, ‘Ye have sold yourselves -for nought; and ye shall be redeemed without money,’ (Isaiah lii. 3.) -Where the words ‘sold for nought’ mean, for idolatry; and the words -‘redeemed without money,’ signify, not for money and good works. R. -Eliezer then said, to R. Joshua, But has it not been said long since, -‘Return unto me, and I will return unto you.’ (Mal. iii. 7.) R. Joshua -replied, But has it not been said long since, ‘I am married unto you, -and I will take you one of a city, and two of a family, and I will bring -you to Zion.’ (Jer. iii. 14.) R. Eliezer said, But has it not been -written long since, ‘In returning and rest ye shall be saved.’ (Isaiah -xxx. 15.) R. Joshua replied to R. Eliezer, But has it not been said long -since, ‘Thus saith the Lord, the Redeemer of Israel, and his Holy One, -to him whom man despiseth, to him whom the nation abhorreth, to a -servant of rulers, kings shall see and arise, princes also shall -worship.’ (Isaiah xlix. 7.) R. Eliezer said to him again, But has it not -been said long since, ‘If thou wilt return, O Israel, return unto me.’ -(Jer. iv. 1.) To which R. Joshua replied, But has it not been written -long since, ‘I heard the man clothed in linen, which was upon the waters -of the river, when he held up his right hand and his left hand unto -heaven, and swore by Him that liveth for ever, that it shall be for a -time and times and half a time; and when he shall have accomplished to -scatter the power of the holy people, all these things shall be -finished.’ Whereupon R. Eliezer was silent.” Here then, on the showing -of the Talmud itself, the opinion that the coming of the Messiah is -dependent upon Israel’s repentance, is false; and consequently it is -true, that Messiah was to come unconditionally at the time appointed; -and therefore, as the time is long since past, the Messiah must have -come. But the ancient rabbies do not leave us to reason upon their -words; on the contrary, they tell us expressly that Messiah was born -about the time that the temple was destroyed. In the Jerusalem Talmud, -R. Judan tells us a story of a Jew who actually went and saw him:— - -עובדא הוה בחד יהודאי דהוה קאים רדי געת תורתיה קומוי עבר חד ערביי ושמע -קלה , אמר ליה בר יודאי בר יודאי שרי תורך ושרי קנקנך דהא חרב בית מקדשא , -געת זמן תניינות , אמר ליה בר יודאי בר יודאי קטור תורך וקטור קנקנך דהא -יליד מלכא משיחא , אמר ליה מה שמיה אמר ליה מנחם , אמר ליה ומה שם דאבוי -אמר ליה חזקיהו , אמר ליה םן הן הוא , אמר ליה מן בירת מלכא דבית לחם יהודה -׃ - -“It happened once to a certain Jew, who was standing ploughing, that his -cow lowed before him. A certain Arab was passing and heard its voice; he -said, O Jew, O Jew! unyoke thine ox, and loose thy plough-share, for the -temple has been laid waste. It lowed a second time, and he said, O Jew, -O Jew! yoke thine oxen, and bind on thy plough-shares, for King Messiah -is born. The Jew said, What is his name? Menachem. He asked further, -What is the name of his father? The other replied, Hezekiah. He asked -again, Whence is he? The other said from the Royal residence of -Bethlehem of Judah.” (Berachoth, fol. 5, col. 1.) The story, then, goes -on to tell us how he went and saw the child, but when he called the -second time, the mother told him that the winds had carried the child -away. We are quite willing to grant that this story is a fable. We do -not quote it because we give it the slightest degree of credit, but -simply to show that the more ancient Jews were so fully persuaded that -the right time of Messiah’s advent was past, that they readily believed -also that he was actually born. The Babylonian Talmud, also, evidently -takes for granted that Messiah is born, as appears from the following -legend:— - -ר׳ יהושע בן לוי אשכחיה לאליהו דהוה קיים אפיתחא דמערתא דר׳ שמעון בן יוחאי -אמר ליה אתינא לעלמא דאתי אמר ליה אם ירצה האדון הזה , אמר ר׳ יהושע בן לוי -שנים ראיתי וקול ג׳ שמעתי , אמר ליה אימת אתי משיח אמר ליה זיל שייליה -לדידיה והיכא יתיב אפיתחא דרומי ומאי סימניה יתיב ביני עניים סובלי חלאים -וכולן שרו ואסירי בחד זמנא איהו שרי חד ואסיר חד אמר דילמא מבעינא דלא -איעכב אזל לגביה אמר ליה שלים עליך רבי ומורי אמו ליה שלום עליך בר ליואי -אמר ליה לאימת אתי מר אמר ליה היום ׃ - -“R. Joshua, the son of Levi, found Elijah standing at the door of the -cave of R. Simeon ben Jochai, and said to him, Shall I arrive at the -world to come? He replied, If this Lord will. R. Joshua, the son of -Levi, said, I see two, but I hear the voice of three. He also asked, -When will Messiah come? Elijah replied, Go, and ask himself. R. Joshua -then said, Where does he sit? At the gate of Rome. And how is he to be -known? He is sitting amongst the poor and sick, and they open their -wounds and bind them up again all at once: but he opens only one, and -then he opens another, for he thinks, perhaps I may be wanted, and then -I must not be delayed. R. Joshua went to him and said, Peace be upon -thee, my master and my Lord. He replied, Peace be upon thee, son of -Levi. The rabbi then asked him, When will my Lord come? He replied, -To-day (alluding to the words of the Psalm, To-day, if ye will hear his -voice).” (Sanhedrin, fol. 98, col. 1.) This is evidently a fiction, and -a proof how little those doctors regarded truth; but it shows that he -who invented it, and those who received it, all equally believed that -Messiah was born, and ready waiting to come forth for the redemption of -Israel. It does, indeed, confirm the common idea, that Messiah’s advent -depends upon the repentance of Israel, for it makes the Messiah say that -he would come this very day, if Israel would only hear his voice. But if -the Messiah may any day, when they repent, come and save Israel, then it -is plain that he must have been born long since. The testimony of the -ancient Jews, then, goes to establish these points—First, That the time -for Messiah’s advent has been long past; Secondly, That the end of the -fourth thousand years was the time when he ought to have come: and, -Thirdly, That at that time he did really come; for about that time, they -say, he was born in Bethlehem of Judah. Fourth, That he was taken into -Paradise, as Rashi explains the gate of Rome to mean the gate of -Paradise opposite Rome; and, Fifthly, That he is waiting to return to -this earth for the redemption of his people. Now who is there that does -not see at once, that this agrees in the main with the Christian -doctrine? We believe that, at the end of the fourth thousand years, the -Messiah was born, and at this season of the year we rejoice at the -remembrance of the Saviour’s birth. The Jews refuse to join with us, but -who has the greatest show of right? Not now to speak of the prophecies, -and of the historical evidence which we have, we have the testimony even -of our opponents to show that we are in the right. The most ancient -rabbinical writings unanimously confess, that the time is past, and that -the Messiah has been long since born, and thus testify the correctness -of our faith respecting the time of Messiah’s advent. Christians, -however, go on consistently and believe further, that God did not break -his word, but performed his promise, and therefore we rejoice. The Jews -do not believe, because they are so engrossed with the temporal -deliverance of the nation, that they cannot see that another and a -greater redemption was necessary. We do not, by any means, wish to deny -that Israel is to be restored to the land of promise, and to inherit all -the blessings promised in the prophets. On the contrary, we fully -believe that the Messiah, who visited this earth, for a short season, -will return and re-establish the Theocracy which was once the glory of -Israel, and that, in a much more glorious form than Israel ever saw -under any of their kings. We heartily wish Israel the enjoyment of every -blessing promised; but we cannot help remembering that Messiah has -another and more important office than that of restoring the kingdom to -Israel, and that is the redemption of the human race. The highest pitch -of national glory and earthly prosperity would be as nothing, and less -than nothing unless the children of men were delivered from the effects -of Adam’s sin, and made partakers of a good hope of everlasting life. -Even the gathering of Israel from all the ends of the earth would appear -but a very insignificant business, if it did not stand in immediate -connexion with the eternal welfare of all nations. Many of the sons of -men have appeared as conquerors and heroes, and have raised their -country to a high degree of glory, and conferred upon them much temporal -prosperity; but if Messiah was to be nothing more, we confess we should -not think him worth the having. We think of the Messiah as the Being, in -whom all the families of the earth shall be blessed, as the restorer -indeed of Israel, but also God’s salvation unto the end of the earth. -This is the doctrine which Christianity teaches, and which is confirmed -by the law and the prophets; and therefore we rejoice that this great -Deliverer has been born—that He came at first in great humility to -bruise the serpent’s head, and to lay down his life a ransom for many. -We remember that this blessed news, these glad tidings of great joy, -were brought to us by Jews; and, therefore, feeling our deep -obligations, we desire to show our gratitude by inviting Israel to come -and partake in our joy. We feel assured that our joy is no illusion. -Even the rabbies themselves bear witness that the Messiah ought to have -been born, and was born at the very time in which we believe the Messiah -to have been born. But if he was born who was he? What other person can -make any claim to the Messiahship, but He whom we acknowledge? Is it -reasonable to believe, as the rabbies do, that God actually sent the -Great Deliverer down into this wretched world, and then took him away -again, without permitting him to accomplish his work? No; if ever he -visited this earth—and that he did visit it, both the ancient Jews and -Christians assert—he could not have left it again without bestowing upon -its inhabitants a remedy for their woes. The ancient rabbies and the -Christians both agree as to the time of Messiah’s birth, and the fact of -his birth in Bethlehem. Indeed the whole nation practically showed their -agreement with Christians, as to the time of Messiah’s advent, by -readily following every military adventurer, who laid claim to the -character of Redeemer. Even before the destruction of the temple, -multitudes had suffered by their credulity; but immediately after the -desolation, the people and the rabbies with one accord followed Bar -Chochba, and thereby showed the reality of their belief, that that was -about the time when Messiah ought to appear. Judaism, therefore, teaches -this doctrine—that God promised the Messiah, that God fixed a time, that -that time is past, and yet that God did not keep his promise. -Christianity, on the contrary, acknowledges the promise, recognises the -time, believes that Messiah was born, but believes further that God -fulfilled his word—that Messiah was not carried away into Paradise, -until he had accomplished the work that was to be done at his first -advent. Then, indeed, we acknowledge that He ascended into heaven, and -sitteth at God’s right hand, from whence he will come again for the -final redemption of his people, and the establishment of the reign of -righteousness. The only real difference between us is, as to the -VERACITY of God. We believe that God did not, and could not, break his -word. Modern Judaism teaches that God broke his promise. It is for -rational beings to decide which doctrine is most agreeable to the Divine -character. For our own parts, we will rejoice in God’s unchangeableness, -and say, in the remembrance, that “His truth endureth for ever.” - -Footnote 36: - - This number was originally published December 23, 1836. - - - - - No. LI. - SLAUGHTERING OF MEAT, CONTINUED. - - -According to the confessions of the rabbies themselves, the time for the -advent of Messiah is long since past, what is there then that prevents -the Jews from believing in him, who came at the appointed time? The -grand objection is, that the nation is still in captivity; they say that -Messiah ought to have given them liberty. The answer to this objection -is, that Messiah was willing, and is willing to this hour, to give them -liberty, but that they will not have it. The very first condition of -national liberty and independence is moral and intellectual -emancipation. No nation was ever yet enslaved until the hearts and -intellects of the people had first become the slaves of corruption or -superstition—and no nation that hugs to its heart the chains of moral -slavery, can ever be made free, nor could it retain its liberty if it -got it. When Messiah came, therefore, as he found the Jewish nation -already under the Roman yoke, the very first step was to endeavour to -emancipate their hearts and minds, and to deliver them from that moral -bondage, of which their national degradation was only a consequence. -This first step Messiah immediately took—he protested against the -superstitions of the oral law, and pointed them to the perfect liberty -of God’s written Word. But the nation chose to retain the cause of their -misfortunes, and to reject the overtures of deliverance. If therefore -they are still in a state of national dependence, they must not cast the -blame on God, and say that He suffered the time to pass away without -fulfilling his promise; nor upon the Messiah, when they themselves -refused to receive that without which no national liberty can possibly -exist. They chose to give themselves, body and soul, as bond-slaves to -the oral law, there was, therefore, no possibility of national -redemption. It would require an act of omnipotent coercion, such as God -does not employ, to make a nation free against its will. But perhaps the -Jews of the present day will deny that they are in a state of moral and -intellectual slavery. We refer them, in reply, to the numerous proofs -already given in these papers, and especially the laws of שחיטה or -_slaughtering_, upon which we have a few words to add. Where in all the -world can a more wretched slave be found, than the man, who himself, -together with his family, is ready to perish of hunger, and yet dare not -partake of wholesome food, offered by the providence of God, because his -rabbinical task-masters say, No? But now take another instance:— - -כל טבח שלא בדק הסכין שלו ששוחט בה לפני חכם ושחט לעצמו בודקין אותה , אם -נמצאת יפה ובדוקה מנדין אותו לפי שיסמוך על עצמו פעם אחרת ותהיה פגומה -וישחוט בה , ואם נמצאת פגומה מעבירין אותו ומנדין אותו ומכריזין אל כל בשר -ששחט שהוא טרפה ׃ - -“If a slaughterer, who has not had his slaughtering knife examined -before a wise man [a rabbi], slaughters by himself, his knife must be -examined. If it be found in good order and examined, he is to be -excommunicated, because he may depend upon himself another time, when it -has a gap in it and yet slaughter therewith. But, if it be found to have -a gap, he is to be deposed from his office, and excommunicated, and -proclamation is to be made, that all the meat which he has slaughtered -is carrion.” (Jad Hachazakah, Hilchoth Sh’chitah, c. i. 26.) Here we -have the same slavery and the same cruel oppression. In the first place -we see the intention to make the Jews entirely dependent upon the -rabbies. The Jews are not to eat meat unless it be slaughtered as the -rabbies direct, and the slaughterer himself is not even to do that, -which he knows to be right according to the oral law, without the -express sanction of the rabbies. All are to be in bondage, not merely to -the oral law, but to the rabbi for the time being. They are to have no -mind and no judgment of their own. In the simplest concerns of life they -are to be entirely dependent upon the will and judgment of another. In -the second place, we see the determination to maintain this tyranny by -the severest punishments. The man who has slaughtered without showing -his knife to the rabbi, even though they have no fault to find with him, -is to be excommunicated—but if a rabbinic flaw in the knife should be -detected, then not only the man himself is to suffer, but those who -employed him, and also the Israelites themselves to be deprived of food. -All that he has slaughtered is to be declared unfit for use. Who can -deny that those who think their consciences bound by such laws are in -miserable bondage? Who, that has his senses and God’s Word to guide -them, can believe that a small gap in a knife is sufficient to make meat -unfit for food? Who ever saw a knife, or even the finest razor that ever -was manufactured, without a series of such imperfections? Let a rabbi, -who has just pronounced, concerning a knife, that it has no gap in it, -apply a microscope, and he will soon find out that a knife without gaps -never existed. He will be convinced that the oral law requires what is -impossible, and therefore cannot possibly be from God. Who then can deny -that those who are bound by it, are the slaves of superstition? There -never was, and never will be in the world, such a thing as a knife -without the least possible gap, and consequently there never was, and -never will be, any meat fit for the food of a Rabbinist. The Jews must -therefore either give up the use of meat entirely, or they must give up -the oral law. - -If the oral law were uniformly severe, and everywhere required that its -adherents should obtain the best possible evidence that their meat was -properly slaughtered: or in case they could not obtain this evidence, -that they should entirely abstain from meat, the consistency of the -doctrine would in some measure justify, or at least excuse the credulity -of the Jews. But this is not the case, its authors felt the -inconvenience of their own doctrine, and therefore relaxed whenever it -suited themselves. For instance, they say:— - -הרי שראינו ישראל מרחוק ששחט והלך לו ולא ידענו אם יודע או אינו יודע הרי -זו מותרת , וכן האומר לשלוחו צא ושחוט לי ומצא הבהמה שחוטה , ואין ידוע אם -שלוחו שחטה אם אחר הרי זו מותרת , שרוב הטצויין אצל שחיטה מומחין הן ׃ - -“If we were to see an Israelite at a distance who had slaughtered a -beast, and he was to go his way, and we were ignorant of the fact -whether he understood the art or not, in that case the meat is lawful. -And in like manner, if a man should say to his messenger, Go and -slaughter for me, and should find the beast slaughtered, but it should -not be certain whether his messenger, or another person, had slaughtered -it, this also is lawful, for the majority of persons concerned in -slaughtering are skilful.” (Ibid., c. iv. 7.) This relaxation shows how -exceedingly inconvenient the doctrine was found, and how unwilling the -doctors were to bear inconvenience themselves. No doubt cases often -occurred in real life similar to those supposed. An Israelite travelling -might come to a town in which lived a small congregation of Jews, and -might wish to have some dinner, and would of course wish to have it of -lawful meat. The only satisfactory way of obtaining it would be to go to -the person who had slaughtered it, and examine him as to his competency, -but he might be absent, if therefore he should be scrupulous, he would -have to go without his dinner; and the same thing would happen to a rich -man, who might send a messenger to a neighbouring town to have a beast -killed for him. The messenger might send back the meat by some one else, -and thus the owner would not have satisfactory evidence, that the -rabbinic laws had been observed. Here again the man who was rich enough -to do this, might have to go without his dinner, or to wait an -inconvenient time. The oral law has therefore provided in this case that -the meat is lawful for use without any further scruples. But this -decision shows of how little real importance all these precepts about -slaughtering are. If it be a sin to eat meat not properly killed, then -it is also a sin to eat meat, when there is no satisfactory evidence of -this fact. Whenever a man doubts about the right or wrong of any -particular action, he is certainly wrong if he does it. But if it be -certain that he may either do it or leave it undone without guilt, then -that action cannot be sinful. And as the rabbies here affirm, that men -may lawfully eat meat, concerning which they have no satisfactory -evidence that it has been lawfully slaughtered, it follows that the -rabbinic art cannot be of much value. Why then should a poor man be -starved if he does not eat, or flogged if he does eat, meat slaughtered -by a Gentile, when, if he had money to send a beast to be killed, he -might eat what was sent back, even though he had no proof that the laws -were kept? Indeed how are the poor and unlearned ever to know, that they -eat lawful meat? If they were even to stand by, and see the operation -performed, still, as being ignorant of the rabbinic laws, they could not -understand, and must therefore take the matter entirely upon trust: and -thus the mass of the nation, the unlearned and the women, are made the -blind slaves of laws which they neither understand nor know; or rather -of those who expound those laws, for how can it be said that a man -transgresses that of which he does not know the right or wrong? - -If the rabbies were all unanimous in their statement of what is and is -not lawful, the unanimity might in some degree excuse the Jews for -submitting to a yoke so grievous, and holding it that round the necks of -their brethren. They might urge the uniformity of the tradition as a -proof of its genuineness. But this cannot be pretended in the present -case. To this very hour the rabbies themselves are not agreed as to what -is, or what is not the oral law. We have just seen that if a man send a -messenger to have a beast slaughtered, and afterwards find it -slaughtered, that he may eat of it without asking any more questions. -This is the general principle, but as soon as it comes to be applied in -detail the rabbies differ. The Baal Turim thus states the difference:— - -וכתב הרמב׳׳ם דוקא שמצאה בבית אבל מצאה בשוק או באשפה שבבית אסורה וכן כתב -בעל העיטור וא׳׳א ז׳׳ל התיר אפילו באשפה שבבית ולא אסר אלא באשפה שבשוק וכן -הרשב׳׳א ׃ - -“Rambam has written expressly, In case that it should be found in the -house; but, if he find it in the street, or on the dunghill in the -house, it is forbidden. The Baal Haittur has given the same judgment: -but my lord my father of blessed memory says, the meat is lawful, even -if it be found on the dunghill in the house, and has not pronounced it -unlawful, except when found on the dunghill in the street; and Rashba is -of the same opinion.” (Joreh Deah., 1.) Here, then, we have the most -learned of the rabbies, disputing as to what is the law; the one party -pronouncing that to be unlawful which the other party declares lawful. -What, then, are the unlearned to do in this case? Or how can it be said -that there is an oral law which gives the true meaning of the written -law? Or, if there be an oral law, what use is it, when it is itself a -subject of dispute? Every one who has looked into the oral law knows -that this difference of opinion is by no means a rare case; and that it -cannot be said that the difference of opinion is in matters of minor -importance. Let us, for example, consider the case of an Israelite who -is accustomed to eat unlawful meat, and does so to vex Israel—is it -lawful to eat the meat which he has killed? - -כתב הרשב׳׳א שאין מוסרין לו בתחלה לשחוט אפילו אם ישראל עומד על גביו , ואם -שחט בדיעבד כשר ע׳׳י בדיקת סכין תחילה או סוף וא׳׳א הרא׳׳ש ז׳׳ל כתב שדינו -כגוי ׃ - -“Rashba has written that it is not lawful to give him a beast -intentionally to slaughter, even if an Israelite should stand by. But if -he has slaughtered the beast, it may be declared lawful by means of -examining the knife, either at the beginning or at the end; and my lord -my father of blessed memory has written that in the case of such a -person the law is the same as in that of a Gentile.” (Ibid. 2.) Now the -difference here is very great and very important. The one opinion says, -that, under certain circumstances, such meat is lawful. The other, that -it is unlawful as that killed by a Gentile—that is, what the one allows, -the other pronounces to be so unlawful as to deserve the flogging of -rebellion, as we saw in No. 49. Here, then, is a case involving severe -corporal punishment, and yet the rabbies are not agreed as to which is -the law. How, then, can men of sense and reflection give themselves up -to a system, the doctors of which cannot agree upon a question so simple -as this, What sort of food is lawful, and what is unlawful? and who, -nevertheless, require unlimited obedience under the heaviest penalties -temporal and eternal? The oral law does not suffer a wise man to be -contradicted, and declares that all their sayings are “the words of the -living God;” and yet here they contradict one another so widely, that if -a man follow the one, he will be sentenced to a flogging by the -other—and if from fear of the flogging he should agree with the latter, -he will then be contradicting the former, and thereby incur the sentence -of excommunication, and even run a risk of losing his soul. But in every -case he must give up his judgment and his reason, and submit to be led -by those, who are still disputing about the right road: yea, and if he -would obey the oral law, must confess that they are both in the right. -If this be not moral and intellectual slavery of the worst kind, we have -yet to learn the meaning of these words. It will not be a pertinent -reply to say that Christians also differ in opinion on important points. -We confess that they do, and will continue to do so, as long as they -continue to be fallible men: but then these persons do not profess to -have an oral law given by God in order to preserve them from a wrong -interpretation. There is one Christian Church that has followed the -example of the rabbies in this particular, and has therefore fallen into -many of their absurdities. Difference of opinion amongst those who make -no such pretensions is no argument against the truth of the original -records, whence both professedly draw their religion. Two men may differ -as to the sense of a verse in the law of Moses, and yet we know that the -verse itself contains the truth. But when each of these persons tells us -that his interpretation is an inspired tradition, and that both, though -contradicting each other, are equally true and correct, then it is -evident that they say not only what is false, but what is absurd, and -that they are labouring under a delusion. If it be a mere speculative -delusion it is to be deplored—but if it be a practical delusion, -involving the happiness and welfare of thousands, it must be combated -and exposed—and this is precisely the case with the oral law. The -particular part of it which we have now been considering seriously -affects the temporal comfort of many thousands of the poor in every part -of the world. The general principles enslave the minds of the whole -nation, and thus prevent the state of happiness and glory which the -prophets have promised. The Jewish nation is in a state of dispersion, -and in some parts of the world victims of a cruel oppression, simply -because they are the willing slaves of superstition. Until an -intellectual and moral change is effected, they never can appear as “the -peculiar people, the kingdom of priests, the holy nation.” High and holy -is their destiny, and great is the providential mercy of God in still -preserving them, when they refuse obstinately to fulfil it. But neither -their destiny nor God’s forbearance can be of any avail, until they -reassert the glorious liberty of the children of God. The chains of -Rabbinism must be broken, and the mild yoke of Messiah taken upon their -shoulders, before national independence and liberty can return. How -could a nation exist, whose moral and intellectual energies are all -crampt by the endless subtleties of the rabbies? How could a people -maintain national liberty whilst they are such perfect slaves to -superstition as to believe that traditions, which are the curse of the -poor, and many of which flatly contradict others, all proceed from the -God of mercy and truth? The temple must first be cleansed of all -defilement before the glory of God can enter. It is therefore a matter -of the first and highest importance, to every Jew who wishes well to his -nation, to examine that system, whose constant companion for so many -centuries has been misery; and if they are convinced of its falsehood, -then to use every exertion to deliver their brethren, from that which is -mischievous as well as false. We might urge its tendency to produce and -perpetuate an unfriendly separation between the Jews and their -neighbours: not that we are ignorant of God’s declaration, - -הן עם לבדד ישכון ובגוים לא יתחשב ׃ - -“Lo, the people shall dwell alone, and shall not be reckoned among the -nations.” (Numb, xxiii. 9.) We know it and believe it, and are therefore -fully convinced, that all the wit and power of man will never be able to -effect what some so ardently desire, an amalgamation with the nations -where Israel is dispersed. We have no desire to contravene the declared -will of God, and to degrade Israel from their position as a holy nation -to the rank of an inconsiderable religious sect. But still we might urge -against the oral law, that it goes beyond God’s intention by producing -an unfriendly separation and an estrangement between man and man, which -is injurious to the welfare of both Jew and Gentile; we leave this, -however, to the consideration of those Israelites who feel, or profess -to feel, a love and affection for all men; and content ourselves at -present with the indubitable fact, that the laws concerning slaughtering -are most oppressive to the poor and enslaving to the minds of all. It is -not merely the bodily grievance of starvation to which we now allude, -though that is wicked and vexatious to the last degree, and should -therefore not be tolerated for a moment by the humane and the merciful. -There is something that is worse than any bodily suffering, and that is, -to be tempted to do violence to conscience by professing what we do not -believe, or by congealing our real sentiments. And yet in many a Jewish -congregation this is frequently the case. It pleases God to give to the -poor the power of reasoning as well as to the rich, and thus some of -this class are occasionally led to see the absurdity of the oral law, -and to detest those inventions which doom them and their families to -starvation, but yet they would not dare either to avow or to act upon -their conviction. To eat any ether than rabbinical food would at once -cut them off from the bounty of the synagogue, and from the sympathy of -its worshippers. To express their convictions would be sufficient to -have them numbered with the profane and ungodly, and therefore they -conceal their real sentiments, and pretend to be what they are not, that -they may not deprive their families of the little assistance which an -apparent conformity to rabbinic usages may procure. Here then is another -and more unequivocal badge of slavery. The oral law deprives the poor -entirely of liberty of conscience. He not only must not eat, he must not -think, at least he must not express a thought, no, nor even a doubt, -about that system which is the cause of his misery. It is true, that -those who profess or suppress religious sentiments merely to serve their -temporal interests, are either very weak or very guilty. But we must -make some allowance for the infirmity of human nature, and especially in -the case of a poor man, who has no bread for his children, and whose -mind has been debased from his youth by such bondage. It is to the -system that we are to impute these debasing effects. It not only -torments the body, but degrades the mind; and, therefore, every -Israelite who loves and respects liberty of conscience, should endeavour -to procure it for his brethren. According to the law of the land they -have it. They are free to worship and serve God as they think most -agreeable to his will; but the oral law steps in between, and deprives -them of the benefit. The Jewish poor dare not serve God according to -their conscience, nor even express the convictions of their heart. All -the legislators in Christendom could not set them free. The duty as well -as the possibility of delivering them from this bondage rests with their -brethren. But they, alas! whatever the motive, decline the glorious -task. - - - - - No. LII. - LAWS CONCERNING MEAT WITH MILK. - - -It is recorded of the Cutheans and those other nations whom the King of -Assyria placed as colonists at Samaria, that they endeavoured to combine -the service of the true God with the worship of idols. “So these nations -feared the Lord, and served their craven images, both their children and -their children’s children: as did their fathers, so do they unto this -day.” (2 Kings xvii. 41.) Every one can see that this conduct was as -foolish as it was wicked. It was wicked to dishonour the true God by -associating him with them that were no gods; and it was foolish to -imagine that God could be pleased with a partial homage and a divided -heart. Total idolatry would have been more reasonable and less offensive -to the Divine Being, for he, whom we acknowledge as God, must -necessarily have the whole of our fear, our love, and our obedience. And -yet there is perhaps a way of serving God more unreasonable still, and -that is by giving to sinful and fallible men the honour that is due to -God alone. The Cutheans falsely thought that God was one amongst many; -and if they worshipped the many, it was under the impression that they -were really gods. But suppose a nation to acknowledge the one true God, -and then to fix upon a certain number of men to be honoured and served -with the same degree of reverence and obedience; none can doubt that -this nation would be far more irrational than that of the Cutheans, -inasmuch as to pay Divine honours to a number of our fellow-men is more -extravagant still than to worship a plurality of imaginary deities. Some -may think that such a degree of absurdity is impossible, but fact shows -that it is not only possible, but that it has actually occurred. When -men exalt the inventions of their teachers to a level with the known and -acknowledged laws of God, and make obedience to these inventions an -essential part of their religion, they confer upon men the highest -degree of honour and of service that can be rendered to God. The -unreserved submission of the heart and conscience to the will of God is -the highest act of worship, and when it is given to the will of men, in -that degree men are made gods. Whether these remarks apply to those who -make the הלכות בשר בחלה , _i.e._, “The constitutions concerning meat in -milk” a part of their religion, it is for the adherents of the oral law -to inquire. - -The general principle of these constitutions is thus expressed— - -בשר בחלב אסור לבשלו ואסור לאכלו מן התורה ואסור בהנאה וקוברין אותו ואפרו -אסור כאפר כל הנקברין , ומי שיבשל משניהם כזית כאחד לוקה שנאמר לא תבשל גדי -בחלב אמו , וכן האוכל כזית משניהם מהבשר והחלב שנתבשלו כאחד לוקה ואע׳׳פ -שלא בשל ׃ - -“It is unlawful to boil meat in milk—according to the law, it is also -unlawful to eat it; it is likewise unlawful to make any profit by it, -and it is to be buried. Its ashes are also unlawful, like the ashes of -other things that are buried. Whosoever boils together a quantity of -these two things, equal to an olive, is to be flogged, for it is said, -‘Thou shalt not seethe a kid in its mothers milk.’ (Exod. xxiii. 19.) In -like manner, he that eats a quantity of the flesh and the milk, which -have been boiled together, amounting in value to an olive, is to be -flogged, even though be did not boil them.” (Hilchoth Maakhaloth -Asuroth, c. ix. i.) Here the oral law determines generally, that it is -unlawful to boil meat in milk, or to make any use of meat so boiled, and -sentences the transgressor to a severe and degrading corporal -punishment, and yet this determination is altogether an invention of -men, for which there is not the slightest authority in the Word of God. -The prohibition of Moses is confined to one single case, which is -exactly defined: “Thou shalt not seethe a kid in its mother’s milk,” but -there the prohibition ends, for the specification of one particular -shows that that alone is intended, and necessarily excludes all others. -To give some colour to the unwarranted extension, it is asserted that - -וגדי הוא כולל ולד השור ולד השה ולד העז עד שיפרוט ויאמר גדי עזים ׃ - -“Kid includes the young of kine, of sheep, and of goats, so that to -particularize, the word goat is added as ‘a kid of the goats.’” And so -Rashi also affirms in his commentary. Aben Ezra, however, has saved us -the trouble of giving a refutation of our own, for he says— - -ואיננו כן כי גדי לא יקרא רק שהוא מהעזים ובלשון ערבי הוא גדי ולא יאמר על -מין אחר , רק יש הפרש בין גדי ובין גדי עזים כי גדי גדול מגדי עזים כי -עודנו צריך היותו עם העזים וככה שעיר ושעיר עזים וחכמים קבלו שלא יאכלו -ישראל בשר בחלב ׃ - -“This is not so, for nothing is called kid except the young of the -goats; and in Arabic the word has the same signification, and is never -applied to any other species. But there is a difference between _kid_ -and _kid of the goats_, for the former is larger, and it is necessary -for the latter still to be with the goats; and the same thing is true of -שעיר, which is used in the same way. It is by tradition that the wise -men received, that Israel should not eat meat in milk.” (Comment. in -Exod. xxiii. 19.) Thus Aben Ezra, himself a most learned rabbi, -confesses that the words of the written law restrict the prohibition to -one particular case, and that the rest is mere matter of tradition. Of -course if it could be proved that this tradition came from God through -Moses, it would be equivalent to the written law, but there is no -attempt to prove anything of the kind. The authors of the oral law -calculated throughout upon the blind credulity of their followers, and -therefore here, as elsewhere, there is an entire absence of proof. -Indeed, the tradition itself bears the plain mark of forgery. How can -any one possibly believe that, if God meant to forbid meat and milk -entirely, he should first express himself incorrectly, and then leave -the correction of the error to uncertain tradition? If the command had -only been once noticed, it would have been hard to believe such a thing; -but when we remember that this command is thrice repeated, in Exod. -xxiii. 19, xxxiv. 26, and Deut. xiv. 21, it is plainly incredible. -Thrice is the command written, and thrice it is restricted to one -particular case, and yet the rabbies have dared to make unauthorized -additions of their own, and their followers to this day exalt them to a -level with the laws of God. It cannot be replied that the rabbies would -not commit such wickedness as this, for every one who knows anything of -the oral law, knows that a great proportion of it consists merely of the -_words of the Scribes_, acknowledged as such, and distinguished by that -name from the supposed traditions from Sinai. Thus in the constitutions -before us, it is plainly confessed that the written law allows the flesh -of wild animals and of fowl in milk, and yet the rabbies forbid it:— - -וכן בשר חיה ועוף בין בחלב חיה בין בחלב בהמה אינו אסור באכילה מן התורה -לפיכך מותר לבשלו וםותר בהנאה , ואסור באכילה מדברי סופרים כדי שלא יפשטו -העם ויבואו לידי איסור בשר בחלב של תורה ויאכלו בשר בהמה טהורה בחלב בהמה -טהורה שהרי אין משמעות הכתוב אלא גדי בחלב אמו ממש לפיכך אסרו כל בשר בחלב -׃ - -“And thus the flesh of a wild animal or of fowl, whether in the milk of -a wild or tame animal, is not forbidden as food by the written law, and -therefore it is lawful to boil it, and to profit by it. But according to -the words of the scribes, it is unlawful to eat it, lest the people -should go farther, and be led into a transgression of the written law, -and eat the flesh of a clean beast in the milk of a clean beast: for the -letter of the written law refers only to a kid in its mother’s milk in -the strictest sense; therefore the wise men have forbidden all meat in -milk.” In this there is no equivocation, but a simple confession that -the rabbies have taken upon themselves to forbid what God has allowed; -and have, without ceremony or scruple, made great additions to his law. -It matters little what the motive was, the conduct itself is in the -highest degree presumptuous. The pretence, that these additions were -made only for the purpose of keeping the people far removed from sin, -will not serve as a ground of justification. If God had desired such -precautionary measures, as being either necessary or beneficial, he -would have prescribed them himself. If he did not prescribe them, and -the rabbies themselves confess that he did not, but that they are the -words of the scribes, then they can be neither necessary nor beneficial, -unless we can believe what it would be blasphemy to assert, that is, -that God’s law was imperfect until it was mended by the scribes. It is -truly astonishing that men professing respect for the law of Moses -should treat it with such indignity, and still more so that those who -appear so anxious to avoid transgression, should themselves -systematically transgress that plain command. - -לא תוסיפו על הדבר אשר אנכי מצוה אתכם ׃ - -“Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you.” (Deut. iv. 2.) But -the most extraordinary thing of all is, that the modern Jews should -pride themselves on the purity of their faith, and think that they only -of all the nations serve the true God and him only, when they are in -truth serving the authors of the oral law, and dividing their religious -obedience between God and the rabbies. If the rabbinic additions were -specimens of profound wisdom in legislation, or had a tendency to -promote either the moral or temporal welfare of mankind, there would be -some excuse, but what shall we say of those who transgress a plain -command for the sake of such an addition as the following:— - -הבשר לבדו מותר והחלב לבדו מותר ובהתערב שניהם ע׳׳י בישול יאסרו שניהם , -במה דברים אמורים שנתבשלו שניהם ביחד או שנפל חם לתוך חם או צונן לתוך חם -אבל אם נפל אחד משניהם והוא חם לתוך השני והוא צונן קולף הבשר כולו שנגע בו -החלב ואוכל השאר ואם נפל צונן לתוך צונו מדיח החתיכה ואוכלה ׃ - -“The flesh by itself is lawful, and the milk by itself is lawful, but as -soon they are mixed together by means of boiling (or cooking) they both -become unlawful. In what cases does this hold? When both are boiled -together, or when one being hot falls into the other also being hot, or -when one, cold, falls into the other hot. But if one of them being hot -falls upon the second being cold, then all that part of the meat which -was touched by the milk is to be peeled off, and the remainder may be -eaten. But if one in a cold state falls upon the other also cold, then -that piece is to be washed, and after that may be eaten.” (Hilchoth -Maakhaloth Asuroth, c. ix. 17.) We have, in the first place, an -unwarranted extension of the divine command. God has simply forbidden to -seethe a kid in its mother’s milk. The rabbies first extend this to the -young of kine, and sheep. Then they advance another step and forbid the -boiling or cooking of any sort of meat in milk, and now we have seen -another advance still, whereby even any mixture of flesh and milk is -strictly forbidden. Thus the rabbies aim at universal dominion, and are -satisfied with nothing short of an entire subjugation of the heart and -conscience. Other tyrants must rest satisfied with the enslavement of -the body, but cannot touch the thought. The authors of the oral law -attack the liberty of thought, and intrude even into the kitchens of -their victims. They are determined that their followers shall not eat -excepting as they please, and boldly invade the prerogative of God -himself, by forbidding the food which he provides for his people. But -this extract presents, in the second place, an outrage on common sense. -If milk and meat each be lawful by itself, how can the mixture make them -unlawful? Whatever God forbids is unlawful, no matter whether we -understand the reason or not. But here the rabbies themselves -acknowledge that God has not forbidden this mixture; but that the -prohibition is entirely their own invention. We are therefore bound to -use our senses, if God has given us any, and to ask a reason why. Then, -again, why should that which is lawful when cold, be made unlawful by -being hot? It may be said, that this is a matter of little importance. -In itself it is; but as a burden on the consciences of men, it is of the -very highest importance, and as a cheat upon the ignorant it is more -important still. In many countries, these and similar inventions -constitute the whole religion of the ignorant, and especially of the -women. The oral law affirms that it is not necessary to teach women the -law of God, but it is almost a matter of life and death that they should -know these rabbinic laws about meat and milk. If a woman is unable to -read the Word of God, and is as ignorant as a heathen, of God’s will, -the rabbies think that is a trifle. But if a woman were, through -ignorance to serve up meat with any admixture of milk, the whole family -would be in an uproar, and the rabbi himself would have to be consulted -about a remedy for so dreadful a calamity. The consequence is, that with -the mass of the uneducated, accuracy in these observances passes for -piety, and these poor beings hope that they are going straight to -heaven, when they are utterly devoid or ignorant of that holiness, -truth, and purity, which are the first essentials for admission into the -presence of God. Thus the oral law destroys the souls of multitudes, but -others will have to answer for their blood. All who uphold the system -must share in the responsibility. The rabbies who teach, the learned -Jews who aid and abet, the priests and Levites to whom God has committed -the pastorship of his people, but who neglect their sacred office, all -will have to answer for the souls of the lost. But most of all those who -know that these things are wrong, who themselves eat meat and milk, and -laugh at rabbinic superstition, and yet are insensible to the miseries -of their poor and ignorant brethren. Every one practically acquainted -with the working of these laws, knows not only that they beget a false -notion of religion, but that they are also a torment in this life. In -domestic and culinary economy, accidents will happen. Meat may fall into -milk, or milk into a pot of meat. Misery and vexation are the -consequence, and if the unfortunate woman to whom the accident has -happened cannot get satisfaction at home, she must go to the rabbi to -inquire what is to be done. For instance— - -בשר שנפל לתוך החלב , או חלב שנפל לתוך הבשר ונתבשל עמו שיעורו בנותן טעם , -כיצד חתיכה של בשר שנפלה לקדירה רותחת של חלב , טועם הגוי את הקדרה אם אמר -שיש בה טעם בשר אסורה ואם לאו מותרת ואותה חתיכה אסורה , בד׳׳א שקדם והוציא -את החתיכה קודם שתפלוט חלב שבלעה , אבל אם לא סלק משערים אותה בששים מפני -שהחלב שנבלע בה ונאסר יצא ונתערב עם שאר החלב ׃ - -“With respect to meat which falls into milk, or milk that falls into the -midst of meat, the measure is, if it give a taste? How so? If a peace of -meat fall into a boiling pot of milk, a Gentile is to taste the contents -of the pot: and if he says that it has a taste of meat, then it is -unlawful. But if it has not the taste of meat, then the milk is lawful, -but that piece of meat is unlawful. In what cases does this hold? In -case that the piece of meat has been taken out, before it has emitted -the milk which it has sucked in. But if it has not been taken out, then -a calculation must be made whether its proportion to the whole is as one -to sixty; because the milk that was sucked in, and had become unlawful, -has been emitted and has mixed with the rest of the milk.” (Ibid.) Now, -in the most tolerable case, that is, if the owner of the milk can afford -to lose it and the meat too, there is, first, an unnecessary -inconvenience and vexation, which no man has a right to inflict upon -another. But there is, secondly, and what is of far more consequence, a -great sin in wasting good and wholesome, and, according to the written -law, lawful food. If the milk tastes of meat, then the milk and the meat -are rendered not only unlawful but perfectly useless. How then can the -Jews expect peace and plenty, when their oral law teaches them to -despise and cast from them with disdain God’s blessings? But suppose -that the owner of the milk and the meat is a poor man, and that he has -laid out his hard and scanty earnings to provide food for his family, an -accident of this kind will leave them destitute. Their last hope of -support is taken away, and they may die of hunger. If they go to the -rabbies, and urge the necessity of the case—plead that they have no -more—reason that if meat by itself is lawful, that milk is also -lawful—that the law of Moses no where forbids this food—the teachers of -the oral law will answer, that their traditions cannot be broken; and -the poor people must learn that to eat food permitted and given by God -is a sin, but to die of starvation is lawful. How can men with any of -the feelings of humanity believe that such a law is from God?—how can -men of any common sense suffer the consciences and the bodies of the -poor and ignorant to be thus tormented? Above all, how can a nation that -prides itself on the purity of its faith yield an idolatrous obedience -to cruel and oppressive laws invented by men? It is a vain boast for -them to say that they have no images—the oral law and its enactments -constitute a whole host of idols. It is an unfounded triumph which they -celebrate over the worshippers of Moloch. The oral law is a deity as -fierce and as bloody, and to it are daily immolated the souls and bodies -of the poor and ignorant. Any homage rendered to falsehood, or to -cruelty, is idolatrous; and every thinking man must admit, that the -worship of the oral law is of this character. To the Rabbinists -themselves we would say, Just think whether it be possible that God -would have given a law so oppressive, or whether he can have any -pleasure in the obedience which is rendered at the expense of mercy? To -those who reject the oral law we would say, You have a duty to perform -from which nothing can exempt you—and that is, to rest neither day nor -night until Israel is delivered from this idolatrous worship of men, and -set free from a yoke so oppressive to body and soul. We grant that -Christians have also a duty, and in these papers we endeavour to -discharge our share of it. But the duty incumbent upon Israelites is -tenfold more imperative. The ties of flesh and blood—their office as a -kingdom of priests—the mercy of God in giving them the law as their -inheritance—all increase their responsibility and add to the weight of -obligation. It would be a shame for Israel to be silent when even the -Gentiles cry out for the restoration of the religion of Moses and the -prophets. Israelites may have peculiar difficulties. They may be united -in commercial relations or by family ties with those who are in bondage -to the oral law. They may fear the injury of their worldly -prospects—they may dread the frown of relatives and friends. This was -also the case of Abraham, when he determined to renounce the false gods -of his fathers, and to worship the true God alone; and every one who -determines by God’s help to follow and assert the truth, must make up -his mind to love it even more than life itself. But can a son of Abraham -hesitate? Will he forfeit the smile of God to escape the frown of -friends? Nay, if his friends are still in error, is this not a double -motive to urge him forward in the overthrow of that error? Must he not -he doubly anxious to deliver his father, his mother, his brothers and -his sisters from such bondage? The first attempt may be difficult—the -immediate results may be unpleasant; but if for God’s sake he asserts -God’s truth, he shall have God’s blessing, and at last find peace even -amongst those who are now offended. As long as the present state of -things continues, Israel can never be restored to their ancient -position. God in mercy keeps them in dispersion, to prevent the triumph -of the oral law. But when is this state of misery to cease? There must -be a beginning. Some one follower of Moses must be zealous enough and -bold enough to attack the strong holds of superstition, and to rouse his -brethren to a sense of their condition—some one who not only professes -to be a follower of Moses, but who has imbibed his spirit, and whose -trust is in the God of his fathers. - - - - - No. LIII. - RABBINISM OPPRESSIVE TO THE POOR. - - -When God gave Israel the law, by the hand of Moses, he also gave them -several tests, whereby they might at all times try themselves, and know -to a certainty whether they were really obedient or not—and whether the -laws, to which they yielded obedience, were really the laws given by -Moses. One of these tests is found in the following words:—“Behold, I -have taught you statutes and judgments, even as the Lord my God -commanded me, that ye should do so in the land whither ye go to possess -it. Keep, therefore, and do them; for this is your wisdom and your -understanding in the sight of the nations, which shall hear all these -statutes, and say, Surely this great nation is a wise and understanding -people.” (Deut. iv. 5.) By the help of these words, Israel may know at -any time whether they are really keeping the laws of Moses. They have -only to consult their own experience, and determine whether they are -honoured by all nations on account of their wisdom. Moses promises that -a reputation for wisdom, and the honour that accompanies it, shall be -the reward of obedience. If therefore the Jews at this present time are -obedient, this promise must be in daily fulfilment. But, if they are not -honoured and respected for their wisdom, then we must conclude, that -they are deficient in obedience, and further, that the laws to which -they are at present so devoted are not the laws of Moses. Now it is a -certain fact, that admiration for the wisdom of Israel has not been the -prevailing sentiment amongst the nations of the world for the last two -thousand years. The Jewish people has been most deplorably underrated. -Their genius and their literature have been ignorantly undervalued, and -the folly of the authors of the oral law has been unjustly visited upon -each and every individual of the nation. We grant the injustice and the -impiety of such hasty judgments, but cannot deny the fact, and the fact -proves that the laws to which Israel now yields obedience are not the -laws of Moses. They now obey the commands of the oral law, and the -nations have heard of the statutes thereof, but no one says, “Surely -this great nation is a wise and understanding people.” Some may, -perhaps, ascribe this to prejudice, and no doubt there are cases where -prejudice has much to do with the decision, but this is not our case. -Our prepossessions are all in favour of the Jews, and yet we cannot help -questioning the wisdom of those, who make such laws as the following a -part of their religion:— - -אין לשין העיסה בחלב ואם לש כל הפת אסורה מפני הרגל עבירה שמא יאכל בה בשר -, ואין טשין את התנור באליה ואם טש כל הפת אסורה עד שיסיק את התנור שמא -יאכל בה חלב , ואם שינה בצורת הפת עד שתהיה נכרת כדי שלא יאכל בה לא בשר -ולא חלב הרי זה מותר ׃ - -“It is not lawful to knead the dough with milk, and if it be done, all -the bread is unlawful, lest this should lead to further transgression, -and it should be eaten with meat. It is also unlawful to smear the oven -with the tail of a sheep; and if it be done, all the bread is unlawful, -lest milk should be eaten with it. But, if some change be made in the -form of the bread whereby it may be recognized, so as that neither meat -nor milk should be eaten with it, then it is lawful.” (Hilchoth -Maakhaloth Asuroth, c. ix. 22.) We do not wish to persuade the Jews -either to knead dough with milk, or to smear an oven with the tail of a -sheep, but when we remember all the poverty and want that is in the -world, we cannot help asking, What is there so sinful in either of the -above actions, as to make such bread unlawful for the use of God’s -people? Has God forbidden it? or has he so strictly prohibited the use -of meat and milk together, as to make this excess of caution necessary? -Neither the one nor the other. The law of God as given by Moses, allows -the use of meat and milk together. It forbids only one particular case, -the boiling of a kid in its mother’s milk: and to this the rabbies have, -without any authority, added all these other commands, and thus burdened -the conscience, and made religion an intricate and difficult science -intelligible only to the learned, and not always to them. What wisdom is -there in forbidding what God did not think necessary to forbid? What -wisdom is there in neglecting or disregarding the revealed will of God, -and giving up the conscience to the guidance of weak and fallible men -like ourselves? But above all, what wisdom is there in oppressing and -tormenting the poor? The oral law says— - -מי שאכל גבינה או חלב תחלה מותר לאכול אחריו בשר מיד . - -מי שאכל בשר בתחלה בין בשר בהמה בין בשר עוף לא יאכל אחריו חלב עד שיהיה -ביניהם כדי שיעור סעודה אחרת והוא כמו שש שעות מפני הבשר שבין השינים שאינו -סר בקינוח ׃ - -“He that eats cheese or milk first, may eat meat immediately after. - -“He that eats meat first, whether it be the meat of a beast or of a -fowl, must not eat milk after it, until the regular time between two -meals, that is six hours, shall have elapsed; because of the meat which -remains between the teeth, and which is not got out by wiping.” (Ibid., -26, 28.) Now in the case of the rich or the affluent, who can procure a -good and sufficient meal of meat, and can therefore wait for six hours, -this may be no great hardship, though even in that case, we must protest -against the unauthorized burden imposed upon the conscience; but when -applied to the needy and the destitute, this law becomes an intolerable -yoke. Just suppose the father of a starving family who goes forth to beg -assistance from the charitable. He receives a small portion of meat, and -hastens back to divide it with his wife and children. They partake of -the relief, but it is not sufficient to supply their wants. He therefore -goes forth again, and some friend of the poor gives him some milk or -cheese, he brings it home with thankfulness, but dare not touch it -himself nor give it to his children—they have already fasted many an -hour—they are still weak with hunger—a little of the milk or the cheese -would recruit exhausted nature—the children cry and entreat for six -hours more, for though God allows this food, rabbies have forbidden it. -Is there wisdom in this? Is God honoured by such a religion, which -counts his permission as nothing, and exalts the authority of the -rabbies above that of God himself? And may we not ask the some question -of the following law? - -האוכל גבינת הגוים או חלב שחלבו גוי ואין הישראל רואהו מכין אותו מכת מרדות -, והחמאה מקצת הגאונים התירוה שהרי לא גזרו על חחמאה וחלב טמא אינו עומד -ומקצת הגאונים אסרוה מפני צחצוח חלב שישאר בה ׃ - -“He that eats Gentile cheese, or milk which a Gentile has milked, but -the Israelite did not see him, is to be flogged with the flogging of -rebellion. But, as to the butter, some of the Gaons have pronounced it -lawful, because there is no express decision about it, and because -unclean milk will not set. Others of the Gaons, on the contrary, have -pronounced it unlawful, on account of the small drops of milk which -remain in it.” (Joreh Deah, 115.) Here we have the same total want of -consideration for the poor, and the same fierce and cruel spirit. Just -suppose, again, the case of a destitute Jewish family, where the father -is laid on a bed of sickness, and unable to earn daily bread for his -children. The mother, weary with tending the sick couch of her husband, -and her heart half-broken with the children’s cry for bread, goes to -solicit help from the almoners of the synagogue. She obtains eighteen -pence per month, but finds that on this small sum it is impossible for a -family to subsist; she then goes to individuals of her nation, and gets -what she can, but still not sufficient to the wants of her children, and -of her sick husband. In her distress, she goes to some Christian -neighbours, who give her some milk and cheese. The pangs of hunger, and -the affections of a wife and mother overcome her superstition, she -carries this bounty home and partakes of it along with her husband and -children. Has, she thereby committed a sin; has she violated any one -precept of the Mosaic law; has she blasphemed the name of her God? Let -reason, let the Law and the Prophets answer, and they will say, No: she -has done her duty. But what does the oral law say? It says, that she has -committed a dreadful sin. And what is to be her punishment, and that of -her husband and children? Flogging—the flogging of rebellion. If the -oral law had power, it would lead them forth to the place of execution, -and there inflict stripes without number and without mercy. The -bystanders, and those attracted by the cries would ask, What dreadful -crime has this family committed? and the answer would be, To save -themselves from starvation they dared to eat Gentile cheese and milk. -Gentiles would ask again, What, is this the law? Does Judaism teach that -so innocent an action is to be punished with such severity? and being -answered in the affirmative, would go away exclaiming, “What a merciful -religion! Surely this great nation is a wise and understanding people!” -No: they would retire in horror, thanking God that they are not Jews, -and that God has preserved them from so dreadful a delusion, and from -such iniquitous cruelty. What, then, do our Jewish readers think of this -law, and the religion of which it is a part? It is certain that there -are multitudes of Jews in this city who live in the constant violation -of this command; who constantly use milk supplied by Gentiles, and yet -pretend to profess Judaism as their religion. Let all such ask -themselves, by what authority they transgress a command sanctioned by so -severe a punishment. Is it because they think it irrational, or -unwarranted by the law of Moses? if so, they attack at once the -authority of the whole system of Judaism. If the oral low can be proved -to be absurd, or unjust, or cruel, in any one particular, its value as a -divine tradition is utterly destroyed. Let them, then, be consistent; if -they reject Judaism, let them say so, let them not pretend to have the -Jewish religion, when they have it not. Let them honestly confess that -their reason, directed by Scripture, has led them to reject it; and let -them fulfil the consequent duty of endeavouring to deliver their poor -brethren from a bondage so cruel. They must know that these laws about -milk and butter, and the art of slaughtering, cut off many a poor Jew -from the last refuge of the destitute—the poor-house. Many a one who is -now starving with his family, would be glad to have the relief which the -parish provides, but he dare not accept of it. Either his conscience, -perverted by these rabbinical statutes, will not permit him, or he is -afraid of his brethren, who would think that in going into such an -asylum he had renounced his God. Those who use Gentile milk without -scruple, will have much to answer for, if they suffer such oppression -and such superstition to continue. It is a vain excuse for any one to -say, “What can I do?” Any one individual, however weak and -uninfluential, has it in his power by God’s blessing, to deliver the -poor. Let him continually protest against such superstition, let him -reason with his brethren. Let him determine to take no rest, until the -yoke is torn from the necks of his nation. He will ultimately prevail. -He will be the instrument in God’s hand, of offering a greater -deliverance than that from Egypt, inasmuch as the emancipation of the -soul is of more importance than that of the body. In this respect, -amongst others, Jesus of Nazareth has done more than Moses. If he had -not arisen, the oral law would have been universal, and the world have -continued either sunk in idolatry or slaves to a cruel superstition. The -cruelty of a religion, which commands a man to be flogged for eating -that which God permits, is not to be disputed; the prohibition of -Gentile bread furnishes another instance of similar inhumanity. - -יש דברים שאסרו חכמים אע׳׳פ שאין להם עיקר מן התורה כמו פת של גוים אפילו -אפאו לו ישראל והשלקות שמבשלין הגוים ואסרו לשתות במסיבתן אפילו שאר משקין -שאין בהן משום חשש יין נסך וכל אלו דברים אסרו משום חתנות וכו׳ ׃ - -“There are some things which the wise men have pronounced unlawful, -although they have no foundation for the prohibition in the law, as -bread of the Gentiles, even though an Israelite should have baked it for -him—and cooked victuals, which the Gentiles have cooked. They have also -pronounced it unlawful to drink at a Gentile table, even those drinks of -which there can be no suspicion that wine of libation is mixed with -them. And they pronounced these things unlawful to prevent the -possibility of intermarriage,” &c. (Ibid. 112.) There are many remarks -suggested by this passage, but at present we limit ourselves to the -prohibition of Gentile bread. It is here confessed that there is no -foundation for it in the law of Moses, and that therefore the rabbies -have no authority for the prohibition; and yet a very little -consideration is sufficient to show that great inconvenience may arise. -For instance, if a poor Jew is travelling in this country, exhausts his -stock of money, and goes to a farm-house to ask relief, he cannot accept -any meat—he is not to drink any milk on pain of a flogging. Suppose, -then, that the people offer him some home-baked bread, even this is -forbidden:— - -פת של בעל הבית אסורה לעולם ׃ - -“Bread baked by a private house-keeper is eternally forbidden.” The poor -man, therefore, may starve. But the inhumanity appears still more in the -discussion of the question, whether and when it is lawful to eat baker’s -bread. The rabbies are divided. Some allow it, because the rule is— - -מי שהתענה ג׳ ימים מותר בפת של גוים משום חיי נפש וברוב מקומות גליותנו אין -פלטר ישראל מצוי והוה כאלו התענה ג׳ ימים , ויש אוסרין אותו אלא א׳׳כ התענה -ג׳ ימים ממש ׃ - -“He that has fasted three days may lawfully eat Gentile bread, and as in -many places of our captivity there is no Israelite baker, this case is -considered parallel to that of him who has fasted three days. But there -are others who say that it is unlawful, unless he has fasted three days, -in the strictest sense of the word.” (Ibid.) One would think that, in a -case of doubt, men that had the fear of God would naturally incline to -the side of mercy; but here we find teachers of religion forbidding what -God has allowed, unless the victim of poverty has first endured the -torment of starvation for three days; and in one case actually -determining that a fellow-creature shall die of hunger, rather than -suffer their unauthorized traditions to be broken. If a Gentile -Government should seize on a number of unfortunate Israelites guilty of -no crime, and shut them up in a prison, and then leave them to die of -starvation, what just indignation would be excited! Every man would -protest against such wanton cruelty, and yet this is just what modern -Judaism has done. By forbidding Gentile meat, milk, cheese, and bread, -it has consigned hundreds to starvation. There are at this moment -numbers of individuals, if not families, pining away in want, whose -wants could be relieved, if the oral law did not interpose its iron -front, and pronounce starvation lawful, and help from Gentiles unlawful; -and yet their brethren, who pride themselves upon their benevolence and -humanity, leave them to perish, and suffer the system to remain that it -may be a curse to coming generations. It is truly astonishing to see the -indifference of those who pride themselves upon their emancipation from -superstition, and who themselves eat Gentile bread, and milk, and -cheese, and perhaps meat, without any scruple. It is more astonishing -still, how the nation at large suffers itself to be deluded by men who -do not agree amongst themselves as to what the law really is. We saw -above, that the greatest of the rabbies, even the Gaons themselves, -differ as to the lawfulness of Gentile butter;—here we see that they -cannot agree as to the lawfulness of Gentile bakers’ bread. How is it, -then, that the Jews cannot see that their present religion of the oral -law is altogether one of uncertainty and that, therefore, there is no -dependence upon it? Here they eat freely, even the strictest, of Gentile -bread; but yet, according to some of their greatest men, they are -thereby committing a deadly sin. These wise men humanely say, that it is -necessary first to fast for three days. Now of what use is an oral law -that cannot even tell us certainly what sort of bread it is unlawful to -eat? The Rabbinist boast is, that the oral law teaches them the true -meaning of the written law, and thus saves them from all doubtful -disputation. But how can that be true, when the oral law has not yet -settled when it is lawful to eat Gentile bread? If the rabbies cannot -agree on so simple a matter, what trust can be placed in them in -difficult questions? The Jews cannot even tell, by the help of their -religion, whether they are not committing a sin, and leading their -children to commit a sin, when they give them a piece of bread and -butter. How, then, can they be satisfied with a religion where the -simplest concerns of life are still a matter of doubt and disputation; -and especially where the poor are made to suffer the greatest hardships, -whilst, by keeping to Moses and the prophets, they might find relief? -But, above all, how can they believe that a religion is divine, or its -authors good and pious men, when an innocent action, nay, the fulfilment -of a natural duty, is punished with flogging? There is no punishment of -which the oral law is so fond; and it would be a curious and interesting -employment to furnish a list of all the offences to which it is annexed. -Perhaps in nothing does the Talmud differ more from the New Testament. -The New Testament has not, in any one case, prescribed so cruel a -punishment. The Talmud and all its compendiums prescribe it on the most -trifling occasion. The maxim of the New Testament is that of the Old -also, “I will have mercy, not sacrifice.” Now, if the practice of mercy -be more agreeable in the eyes of God, than even those ceremonial rites -which he himself ordained, with what pleasure can he contemplate the -religion of the oral law, which punishes, even what God has allowed, -with unmeasured cruelty? Aben Ezra supposed that this command, “Not to -seethe a kid in its mother’s milk,” was given in order to prevent -cruelty even to the brute creation; if this be true, how does God regard -the perversion of his mercy, which pretends to keep this command, to -spare the brute creation, by dooming hundreds of mankind to starvation, -and by flogging those who endeavour to escape from their misery by -eating what he has nowhere forbidden? If God has compassion upon the -beasts that perish, what can he think of those teachers of religion who -talk with such composure of a fellow-creature’s fasting for three days -before he may eat bread sold by a Gentile baker, and who absolutely -decide that it is his duty to die, rather than partake of bread baked by -a private individual who is not a Jew? We appeal to the good sense of -every Israelite to answer these questions. Is it not evident that the -God of mercy must view with indignation, those teachers who thus -misrepresent the nature of revealed religion, and who cause his holy -name to be blasphemed amongst the ignorant? But if those men are guilty, -a portion of their guilt rests upon all those who aid and abet in -upholding the system. There can be but little excuse for those who have -the Law and the Prophets in their hands, and who therefore ought to -know, that the cruelty of the oral law is as contrary to the character -of God, as light is to darkness. And there is no excuse at all for those -Israelites who themselves despise these Rabbinical laws, and yet by -their silence and indifference leave their brethren still in misery. -They are answerable for all the dishonour done to God; for all the -misery inflicted upon man; and for all the contempt heaped upon the -wisdom of Israel. - - - - - No. LIV. - GENTILE WINE. - - -The Jews of the present day have got one religion—the Christians have -got another. It is much to be desired that all the sons of men should -have the one true religion, but, as this is not likely to be the case -for some little time longer, it becomes those who differ to examine the -nature and grounds of their differences. Whatever Jews may think upon -the subject, Christians feel themselves bound to inquire whether they -have really erred so grievously as modern Judaism asserts. The oral law -brings no less a charge against them than this, That they are guilty of -idolatry, and therefore in a worse state than even the Mahometans. - -כל גוי שאינו עובד עכו׳׳ם כגון אלו הישמעאכים יינן אסור בשתיה ומותר בהנאה -, וכן הורו כל הגאונים , אבל הנוצרים עובדי עכו׳׳ם הם וסתם יינם אסור בהנאה -׃ - -“As to those Gentiles who, like the Ishmaelites, are not idolaters, -their wine is unlawful to drink, but is lawful for purposes of profit, -as is taught by all the Gaons; but Christians are idolaters, and their -wine, even such as has not been used as wine of libation, is unlawful -even for purposes of profit.” (Hilchoth Maakhaloth Asuroth, c. xi. 7.) -These words are very plain, and are confirmed by the practice of -Rabbinists in every part of the world, who abstain as carefully from the -wine belonging to Christians, as their forefathers would have done from -the idolatrous libation of the Canaanites. Jews, therefore cannot be -astonished if we examine with care a religion that brings against us so -grave an accusation, and endeavour to defend ourselves against the -charge. We might ask them, whether they behold in our churches any of -the emblems of idolatry. We might refer them to the ten commandments -written up in the most holy place of our sacred edifices. We might quote -from the New Testament many warnings against idolatry as plain and as -solemn as any to be found in the law of Moses; but there is a previous -question to be considered, and that is, What is the character of that -system, which witnesses against us? Is it worthy of credit—can its -testimony be depended upon? If the oral law be really from God, and if -its teachers should appear as faithful depositories of Divine truth, -their testimony would have great weight. But if the rabbies be detected -as daring corrupters of Divine revelation, and their religion be proved -to be a perversion of the law of Moses, then this charge must fall to -the ground as unworthy of all credit; and this is what we assert. We -have already given many reasons in support of this assertion, and now -add some more which we find in the laws about יין נסך, “wine of -libation,” which laws appear to us to be not only unwarranted additions, -but unmerciful, uncharitable, and irrational. - -We do not mean to deny that it is utterly unlawful to partake of wine -that has been consecrated to idols; on the contrary, we would assert -this as zealously as any Israelite. Concerning things offered to idols, -the New Testament says, “The things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they -sacrifice to devils, and not to God: and I would not that ye should have -fellowship with devils. Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord, and the cup -of devils.” (1 Cor. x. 20, 21.) Let not therefore any Israelite think -that we wish to defend what is contrary both to the Old and New -Testament. But though fully convinced of the unlawfulness of drinking -wine or anything else consecrated to the service of idolatry, we confess -that we cannot see why it is unlawful to make use of wine not -consecrated to idolatry, simply because it belongs to, or has been -touched by, a Gentile; and yet this is the rabbinic law:— - -יין הגוים שאין אנו יודעים אם נתנסך או לא נתנסך והוא הנקרא סתם יינם אסור -בהנאה כמו יין שנתנסך ודבר זה מגזירת הסופרים הוא והשותה מסתם יינם רביעית -מכין אותו מכת מרדות , וכל יין שיגע בו הגוי הרי זה אסור שמא נסך אותו -שמחשבת הגוי לעכו׳׳ם הא למדת שיין ישראל שנגע בו הגוי דינו כסתם יינם שהוא -אסור בהנאה ׃ - -“Wine belonging to Gentiles, of which we do not know whether it has been -consecrated or not, and what is called _common Gentile wine_, is -unlawful even to make a profit of, just like wine that has been -consecrated; and this is by the decree of the scribes. Whosoever drinks -so much as one quarter measure of this common Gentile wine is to be -flogged with the flogging of rebellion. All wine also which a Gentile -touches is unlawful because he may have consecrated it, for the thought -of a Gentile is to idolatry. Hence thou hast learned, that concerning -wine belonging to an Israelite which a Gentile has touched, the law is -the same as in the case of common Gentile wine, which is unlawful even -to make a profit of.” (Ibid., 3, 4.) Now in this law we have first the -unauthorized additions of the rabbies. We have already granted, that -wine, and everything else, consecrated to the service of idols is -unlawful, but with this the rabbies are not content. They forbid wine -that was made by, or ever in the possession of, a Gentile, or even if a -Gentile has touched it, and that not only to drink it, but to make any -use of it, or to sell it, or to be in any way employed about it, so as -to make any profit by it. - -והחמירו חכמים בסתם יינם להיות דמיו אסורין כדמי יין שנתנסך לעכו׳׳ם לפיכך -גוי ששכר את ישראל לעשות עמו ביין שכרו אסור , וכן השוכר את החמור להביא -עליו יין או ששכר ספינה להביא בה יין שכרן אסור , אם מעות נתנו לו ישליכון -לים המלח , ואם נתנו לו בשכרו כסות או כלים או פירות בו , שכר לגוי חמור -לרכוב עליו והניח עליו לוגין של יין שכרו מותר ׃ - -“The wise men have been very strict with respect to the common Gentile -wine, and have pronounced its price to be unlawful, as that of wine -which has been consecrated to idolatry; therefore, if a Gentile have an -Israelite to labour with him, in any thing concerning wine, his wages -are unlawful. In like manner, if he hire an ass, or a ship, to carry -wine, the hire thereof is unlawful: and if it be given to him in money, -he is to throw it into the salt sea. But if the hire be given him in -clothes, or vessels, or fruits, he is to burn them, and to bury their -ashes, that no profit may arise therefrom. But if an Israelite has hired -an ass to a Gentile to ride upon, and he lays upon it bottles of wine, -then the hire thereof is lawful.” (Ibid., c. xiii. 15, &c.) For all this -there is no authority whatever in the law of Moses,—it is a pure -invention of the rabbies, who had but little respect for the Divine law, -and no consideration at all for the necessities of man. It is evident -that these additions must, in many cases, become so many impediments in -the way of earning a subsistence. The proprietor of a ship, or the owner -of cattle, is cut off from one source of employment and profit. Now, -even in the case of the rich, though they may feel it less, this is an -unjustifiable severity; but in the case of the poor, it becomes a most -cruel oppression. In the wine-countries, for example, a poor Jew might -perchance find employment with some of the growers of that article; but -the rabbies have declared that honest industry, in a matter which God -has nowhere forbidden, is unlawful, and the fruits of it so abominable, -as to be fit only for destruction. In this city, also, many examples of -the absurdity and cruelty of this law might be found. Suppose that a -Christian wine-merchant should wish to employ some one or more of those -numerous Israelites, who are destitute of the means of earning a -livelihood, and should therefore offer him a situation, either in his -cellar or his counting-house, the rabbies say that he dare not accept of -it: and that it is more pleasing in the sight of God that the man should -go about idle, and that his family should starve, than that he should -labour honestly, and do what God has permitted. Who is there, except the -rabbies themselves, who does not see that such a decision is irrational, -oppressive, and unmerciful, not now to speak of its injustice to -Christian nations, by classing them with the idolaters of Canaan? But -take another case, suppose that some Christian, finding a Jewish family -in deep distress, some of the members perhaps recovering from sickness, -to whom a little wine might be beneficial, gives them a bottle of wine, -What are they to do with it? May they make use of it to strengthen their -exhausted frames? The rabbies answer, No. May they sell it, and with the -money purchase food, or some other necessary of life? The rabbies -answer, No. What then are they to do with it? The rabbies answer, -Destroy it; destroy what would recruit your fainting bodies—what would -purchase bread for your starving children—destroy what might perhaps -save your life, simply because we have forbidden it; and it is more -important that our unauthorized laws should be preserved inviolate, than -that you should be comforted or strengthened or relieved in your misery. -This is the mercy of Judaism. But we have not done yet. Suppose that the -mother of the family should begin to reason, and say, This wine would -preserve my poor child’s life; a little of it would strengthen me, and -enable me to tend the sick bed with more alacrity; God has nowhere -forbidden it. She accordingly administers to her child, and partakes -herself, when some rabbinic zealot enters and perceives what she has -done. Now suppose that the ministers of the oral law had the liberty to -follow out all its enactments, what would be the consequence? The poor -woman would be summoned before a בית דין, a tribunal; the oral law would -be opened, and her sentence be, The flogging of rebellion, as we have -cited above. Is this merciful, is it just, is it rational? Is there -anything like it in the New Testament, or in the religion of Jesus of -Nazareth? The oral law says that we are idolaters, but is it worthy of -credit? Can any reasonable man place confidence in the teaching of those -who are so senseless as to forbid a perishing fellow-creature to make -use of proffered relief, and so merciless as to flog him with the -flogging of rebellion, if he regards God’s permission more than their -prohibition? But it is not only absurdity and cruelty, which here are to -be noticed, there is also a certain measure of that cleverness which we -have remarked on former occasions, which provides for the transgression -of the law and the retaining of the merit of keeping it. The above -extract says, “If an Israelite has hired an ass to a Gentile to ride -upon, and he lays upon it bottles of wine, then the hire thereof is -lawful;” and on this principle the owner of a ship or a wagon may let -either generally for the transport of merchandize, and provided the word -_wine_ is not mentioned, the Gentile may transport his wine, and the Jew -lawfully receive and use his money, though if the word _wine_ had been -mentioned, the money would have been so unlawful, that it ought not even -be given to relieve the wants of the poor, but thrown into the salt sea. -Here the rabbies betray their own insincerity, and their unbelief in -their own enactments, by their determination to evade their severity, -whenever it interfered with their own interests. But even if there were -no cruelty, no contempt for the law of God, and no evasion, the effect -of multiplying such observances is to lead away the mind from the -weightier matters of religion. The ignorant think, even whilst they are -violating the ten commandments, that, if they abstain from Gentile wine, -they are fulfilling a most meritorious duty, and making compensation for -their other transgressions. Indeed the rabbies themselves are not free -from this effect, if we may judge by the following passage:— - -זונה גויה במסיבה של ישראל היין מותר מפני שאימתה עליה ולא תגע אבל זונה -ישראלית במסיבת גוים יינה שלפניה בכליה אסור מפני שהם נוגעין שלא מדעתה ׃ - -“If a Gentile harlot be at an entertainment of Israelites, the wine is -lawful, for their fear is upon her, so that she would not touch it. But -if an Israelite harlot be at an entertainment of Gentiles, her wine that -is before her in her own vessel is unlawful, because they may touch it -without her knowledge.” (Ibid., c. xii. 26.) Now if men or women are so -wicked as to be found in such circumstances, in the open disregard of -God’s law, is it not deceiving them to tell them, or to lead them to -suppose, that there can be any merit in any mere ceremonial observance, -even though it should have been ordained by God himself: and is it not -straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel, to forbid a poor perishing -Jew to taste wine touched by a Gentile, and to allow it to those who are -feasting with a harlot? Perhaps some one will reply that it is on -account of the idolatry of the Gentile; but we have seen in the first -extract given in this paper, that if wine be touched even by a Gentile -who is not an idolater, it is unlawful for a Jew to drink it; so that to -be a Gentile at all is in the eyes of the rabbies a greater degradation -and of more contaminating influence, than to be guilty of gross -immorality. Now we appeal to the good sense of every Israelite, whether -this is not to exalt vice, and to degrade humanity? God chose a people -to himself, Israel is that people; we honour them as such: but, is that -any reason why Israel should trample upon the ties of our common -humanity, and look upon the touch even of a Gentile who fears God, as so -defiling that it makes wine unfit for the use of a Jew? How are peace -and charity ever to prevail between Jews and Gentiles, so long as this -is looked upon as religion? Yea, and how is true religion and true fear -of God ever to prevail amongst the mass of the Jewish community, so long -as they are taught that Israelites guilty of immorality are more holy -than a Gentile who fears God, and that sin is not so dreadful as -uncircumcision? The object of such commands was plainly to prevent all -social and friendly intercourse between Jews and Gentiles under any -circumstances, and to build up an eternal wall of separation between -them. This is very different from that national and official distinction -instituted by God himself. The object of God’s choice was not to put an -end to the practice of love and charity between the Jews and all the -other nations of the earth, but to cement the bonds of affection. He -made Israel the depository of his oracles, that they might communicate -the truth to other nations, and that thus the nations should feel -gratitude for the benefit conferred, and the Israelites feel that -affection for the nations, which a teacher naturally feels for those -who, by his instrumentality, have forsaken error and embraced the truth. -The oral law prevents the fulfilment of the Divine law, and cuts asunder -also these ties of amity and peace. It makes it impossible for Israel to -communicate any blessing, and for the Gentiles to receive any blessing -at their hands, and goes far towards throwing suspicion on the Divine -law. If there were no other medium of communication, than the rabbies, -between the Divine law and the world, the worship of Jupiter and Bacchus -and all the other heathen deities would still prevail. How could the -nations ever have been converted by those who taught them, in the first -place, that God is such a respecter of persons, as to think immorality -in a Jew less contaminating than the mere external touch of a pious -Gentile? Reason revolts at such profane absurdity, and therefore if God -had had no better messengers and representatives of his truth, idolatry -would still continue. Some may reply, idolatry does still continue, such -at least is the sentence of the oral law, and, though grieved that any -should be so blind as to bring such a charge against Christianity, we -are by no means angry or offended at it. If the Jews still believe in -their own religion, and therefore think that Christians are idolaters, -it is their bounden duty to say so. But then we ask in reply, if -Christianity be idolatry, how is it that its doctrine is more pure, more -merciful, more charitable, and more rational than that of the oral law? -Christianity has no ceremonial laws to be observed by those who feast -together with harlots—Christianity nowhere sentences the poor to -flogging, because they partake of what God allows—Christianity nowhere -represents God as an unjust and impartial judge, who looks not at moral -good and evil, but at a man’s nation. Christianity teaches that true -religion is that of the heart—that at the day of judgment mercilessness -will obtain no mercy, and that God is the God of the spirits of all -flesh. Let then the lovers of the oral law account for this fact, that -Christianity, which they call idolatry, teaches a doctrine that -glorifies God and benefits all men; whilst Judaism, which they say is -the truth, teaches a doctrine dishonouring to God, oppressive to the -Jews, and degrading to all other nations. Some Jews will reply, that -Christians are not idolaters; then we ask such persons how they can -pretend to profess Judaism, which has asserted the contrary for so many -centuries, and also acted upon this principle, prohibiting all -intercourse, as much as Moses did in the land of Canaan? Either -Christianity is idolatry, or Judaism is false; there is no alternative. -Every Jew, therefore, who asserts that Christians are not idolaters, -pronounces of Judaism that it is false. Let all such persons then deal -honestly, let them renounce what they do not believe; and let them -denounce to their brethren what they think it necessary to disavow -before Christians. They are bound to do this, not only to renounce the -injustice with which the oral law treats Christians, but to take away -the cruel and oppressive yoke which bows down their brethren the Jews. -If Christianity be not idolatry, then all the laws concerning יין נסך, -“wine of libation,” are utterly out of place in this country. Then poor -Jews may accept of Christian bounty, and the offices of kindliness and -charity may be practised between Jew and Christian. Those Jews therefore -who profess to believe that Christians are not idolaters, are bound, by -their obligations both to Jews and Christians, to protest against the -oral law, and publicly to disavow all belief in it. So long as they do -not make such a public disavowal, their professions of love and charity -and respect for the religion of Christians must be looked upon as hollow -and insincere. So long as they make such professions, contrary to the -oral law, and yet frequent the worship of the synagogue, which asserts -the divinity of the oral law, they must be regarded either as persons -who have motives for professing what they do not feel, or who want moral -courage to renounce what they disapprove. These remarks apply -particularly to those Israelites who have practically forsaken Judaism, -who associate with Christians, eat Gentile food, and drink Gentile wine, -and some of whom perhaps even deal in it as an article of merchandize. -Such persons, though Israelites by nation, are not Jews by religion, at -least according to that sense in which the word Jew has been used both -by Israel and Gentile nations for the last two thousand years. Such -persons cannot pretend to be professors of the Jewish persuasion. Any -one who is in the habit of drinking Gentile wine has practically -forsaken Judaism, just as much as if he had assumed the turban and -professed himself a Mahometan. It becomes such persons especially to -make a stand against the oral law, and to declare publicly what their -religion is, and whether they have any fixed principles at all. They -cannot be regarded as Christians, for they have not been baptized; they -cannot, say that they are Jews, for they have forsaken Judaism; they -cannot assert that they have the religion of Moses, for unless that -religion be found amongst Christians, it does not exist. There is no -body of religionists to be found in this country who profess themselves -Mosaists. In the synagogue the oral law is professed; in the Church -Christianity is professed; but where is the place of worship frequented -by those who have forsaken Judaism without embracing Christianity? Such -persons appear in a light that is not at all advantageous to their -principles. In private they profess to abhor the intolerance of the oral -law, they violate its precepts, and yet on the occasion of the great -Jewish fasts and festivals they are to be seen in the synagogue joining -in the worship, and observing the rites of the oral law. What then are -we to believe concerning such persons? Are they indifferentists, who -have no religion at all? or are they secret admirers of the oral law, -who, for worldly purposes, deny it when occasion suits, and conform to -it when the conscience is uneasy? We are far from pronouncing them -either one or the other, but simply propose these questions for their -own consideration, remind them of the equivocal light in which they -appear, and would give them advice similar to that of Elijah to their -forefathers. If the oral law be true religion, profess and practise it. -If the oral law be erroneous, superstitious, and uncharitable, renounce -it openly and honestly. - - - - - No. LV. - MOURNING FOR THE DEAD. - - -Modern Judaism, or the religion of the Jews, as it is professed by the -majority of the nation scattered through the world, confessedly consists -of two parts. The first is composed of those laws which are מן התורה, -_i.e._, which are either really found in the written law, or are -supposed to be based upon some passage of it. The second, of those laws -which are מדברי הסופרים “of the words of the scribes,” and which are, -therefore, mere human institutions. Concerning those that were given by -God, we readily grant that they can be changed or abrogated only by God -himself. But respecting the latter, both reason and Scripture concur in -assuring us, that what human authority has ordained, a similar human -authority may also abrogate. We grant that so long as the Jewish polity -remained, and the scribes were magistrates, their ordinances, so far as -they were not contrary to the Word of God, were binding upon the Jews: -but even then those ordinances were not immutable. They might have been -repealed by the scribes and magistrates who succeeded them. And even -then, whenever they stood in opposition to the Word of God, it was the -bounden duty of the Jews to refuse obedience. For what reason, then do -the Jews of the present day still pay the same homage to the words of -the scribes that they do to the Word of God? The scribes are not now the -civil magistrates of the countries where the Jews reside; their words, -therefore, carry with them no authority whatever. The Jews are now in -different circumstances—are subject to other magistrates and lawgivers. -The magisterial sanction, which the words of the scribes had before the -dispersion, has long since been lost; but God nowhere commands the Jews -in England to obey laws made by the civil magistrates of Palestine two -thousand years ago. There is not a shadow of obligation remaining; and -therefore the Jews of the present day have a full right to examine into -their tendency and effects, and if they should be found injurious or -unsuitable to present circumstances, to reject them. If the words of the -scribes be not obligatory by virtue of Divine authority, the only -imaginable reason for observing them is the supposition that they are -conducive to the welfare and happiness of Israel, but if it can be shown -that this supposition is false, then both reason and religion would -suggest the wisdom of rejecting them. We have already shown of several -such laws that they are alike noxious to man and dishonouring to God, -and think now to exhibit a similar result with regard to the _laws -concerning mourners for the dead_. Of many of these it is confessed that -they are not of God, but simply ordinances of the scribes: thus, of the -command to mourn seven days, it is acknowledged, that it is not to be -found in the law:— - -ואין אבלות מן התורה אלא ביום ראשון בלבד שהוא יום המיתה ויום הקבורה אבל -שאר השבעה ימים אינו דין תורה ׃ - -“The only mourning commanded in the law is that on the first day, which -is the day of the death and of the burial. But that of the rest of the -seven days is not an ordinance of the law.” (Hilchoth Avel., c. i. 1.) -And thus with regard to the various things from which the mourner is to -abstain during those seven days, it is acknowledged expressly that the -command is altogether an ordinance of the scribes:— - -אלו הדברים שהאבל אסור בהן ביום הראשון מן התורה ובשאר ימים מדבריהם אסור -לספר ולכבס ולרחוץ ולסוך ולשמש מטתו ולנעול את הסנדל ולעשות מלאכה ולקרות -בדברי תורה ולזקוף את המטה ולפרוע את ראשו ולשאול שלום הכל ׃ - -“These are the things which the mourner is prohibited from doing, -according to the law, on the first day, but according to the words of -the scribes on the remaining days—shaving, washing the clothes, bathing, -anointing, duty of marriage, putting on shoes, working, reading in the -words of the law, elevating the chair, uncovering the head, asking after -the peace of any one.” (Ibid., c. v.) As therefore the rabbies -themselves do not pretend that abstinence from these things during those -days of mourning is required in the law; and it is further a matter of -fact, that this abstinence is not inculcated by the laws of the land, it -naturally becomes a question, Why then do the Jews now observe these -rites? Are they conducive to the happiness and welfare of Israel? We -might doubt respecting several of them, but one is so obviously -oppressive to the poor as to be almost beyond controversy; we mean the -prohibition to work during the seven days’ mourning. We do not mean to -deny, that when death enters a family, it is a providential call to -humiliation and serious reflection, and that therefore those who can -should withdraw for a while from their every-day occupation, and seek by -prayer and penitence to have the affliction turned into a blessing. But -to require of those who have not food for themselves or their families -to embitter their cup of sorrow by adding the pangs of hunger, is to act -the part of an inconsiderate and merciless tyrant, and this is what the -oral law does. It says— - -כל שלשה ימים הראשונים אסור בעשיית מלאכה , אפילו היה עני המתפרנס מן הצדקה -, מכאן ואילך אם היה עני עושה בצנעה בתוך ביתו ׃ - -“All the first three days it is unlawful to work, even though the man -should be so poor as to live on alms. But after that, if he be poor, he -may work privately in his own house.” Thus, all those whose business -lies out of doors, and who are obliged to wander about in order to get a -livelihood, are completely cut off from the possibility of supplying the -wants of their family. The law was evidently made under very different -circumstances from those in which the Jewish people are now found. It -presupposes that every one has got some trade or occupation whereby he -can earn his bread at home, but this is not the case at present. A large -proportion of the people, in every part of the world, now get a living -by frequenting the public resorts of men: to forbid these, then, from -going forth to their work, is equivalent to forbidding them to eat -during seven days. Why then should Israel be bound by these laws, which -even, according to the confession of the rabbies, have no Divine -authority, and are now only oppressive to the poor? - -But it is not merely of inconsideration for the poor that the oral law -is guilty: we have more than once remarked the proud contempt with which -it treats the poor and the unlearned, and are sorry to find it even in -the laws concerning the last sad offices to humanity:— - -עיר שיש בה שני מתים כאחד מוציאין הראשין ואחר כך מוציאין השני , חכם -ותלמיד חכם מוציאין החכם , תלמיד חכם ועם הארץ מוציאין תלמיד חכם ׃ - -“If there be two persons dead in a city at once, he that died first, is -first to be carried forth to burial, and then the second. But if one of -them be a wise man, and the other the disciple of a wise man, the wise -man is to have the precedency. If one be the disciple of a wise man and -the other an unlearned one (amhaaretz), the disciple of the wise man is -to be carried forth first.” (Joreh Deah, 354.) We do not here object to -the practical result, but to the spirit of the law. God has ordained -different ranks and grades of society, and wills, therefore, that honour -should be given to whom honour is due, and the common course of the -world brings men and things to their level. But the doctors of the oral -law were determined not to leave their posthumous honour to the natural -course of events, but whilst they lived, took the matter into their own -hands, and decreed that the honour paid them in life should also be -rendered to their poor bodies after death; and that no plebeian or -unlearned person should take precedency, even in the last sad memento of -human frailty. After death there is but little difference between the -learned and the unlearned, and the real difference is made, not by their -previous learning or ignorance, but by their moral worth. An unlearned -man may be, and often is, far more beloved by man, and far more pleasing -in the sight of God, than the most learned, and therefore, when death -has destroyed the imaginary distinctions of time, if religion makes any -difference between the dead, it surely ought to make it according to -that estimate, which is eternal. But the religion of the oral law cannot -forget worldly distinction, even in the solemn moment of death, and -therefore commands, that as the unlearned man, no matter what his moral -worth may have been, has been despised in his life, he should still bear -the marks of dishonour even in his death and burial. But the homage -which the oral law pays to wealth and mere worldly distinction, is still -more apparent in its commands respecting the measure of lamentation to -be dealt out to the deceased. It says, on this subject— - -בני עשירים כבני חכמים , בני חכמים כבני מלכים לענין שבח מעשיהם ׃ - -“The sons of the rich are to be regarded as the sons of the wise men; -and the sons of the wise men as the sons of kings, with regard to -praising their deeds.” (Ibid., 344.) Here there is no concealment. The -learned makers of the oral law choose to have their children honoured -with the honours of royalty, and show that, however highly they might -prize their learning, they had a due estimate of the value of wealth; -and that however they might despise the unlearned, their contempt might -be moderated, if the object of it was only rich. In the world we are not -astonished at the inordinate homage paid to wealth, but when the -teachers of religion bow down before the golden idol, and assign to mere -wealth an honour which they refuse to the piety and moral worth of the -poor, we cannot help doubting the purity of their professed principles, -and questioning the truth of their religious system. The main object of -religion should be to raise men above the delusive appearances of this -present world—to teach men to look beyond the distinctions of rank, and -wealth, and learning, to that eternal distinction which the righteous -Judge will make according to man’s deeds. And if there be one season -more than another where religion ought to disregard the principles and -customs of the world, it is with respect to the hour of death and -burial. But here the oral law still maintains its love for wealth and -worldly distinction, and its haughty contempt for ignorance, poverty, -and humbleness of station. If any additional proof is still necessary, -it is found in the forms prescribed on the death of slaves:— - -העבדים והשפחות אין עומדין עליהן בשורה ואין אומרים עליהן ברכת אבלים ולא -תנחומי אבלים אלא כשם שאומרין לאדם אל שורו וחמורו שמת המקום ימלא תסרונך -כך אומר על עבדו ושפחתו שמתו ׃ - -“In the case of male and female slaves, the people are not to stand in a -row, nor to say the benediction of the mourners, nor the consolations of -the mourners; but, as one says, to a man whose ox or ass is dead, God -replace your loss, so one is to say, in the case of a male or female -slave who has died.” (Ibid., 377.) Volumes could not so clearly set -forth the genius of Judaism, and the spirit of its authors, as this one -short law. It exhibits the founders of Judaism, not only as void of all -true religious sentiment, but absolutely dead to all the natural -feelings of humanity. If mourners of any description require sympathy -and respect, surely they are the mourning family of a slave, for, -excepting crime, there is not anything that can aggravate the bitterness -of death more than slavery. Here religion should pour in its oil and -wine, and as it alleviated the miseries of life, diminish from the pangs -of death. At such an hour, religion should assert the liberty of the -soul, and remind the children of pride, that in the life after death the -distinction of master and slave is unknown; that there eternal and -spiritual liberty awaits all the children of God, whatever their outward -condition here. At such an hour, religion should especially console the -survivors with the hope, that there is another and better state of -existence, where the slave and the freeman are equally regarded, and -dealt with according to one eternal rule of justice. But the religion of -the oral law, on the contrary, carries the degradation of slavery even -down to the grave, and helps it to survive the period of bondage. It -ordains that the usual religious rites should not be observed, and -places the slave on the same level with the brute that perisheth. It -prescribes no consolation for the slave’s afflicted family, but ordains -that his master should receive the same words of comfort, as if he had -lost an ox or ass. The death of the slave is looked upon as nothing; it -is only for the slave-owner’s loss that the oral law has any -consideration. The fact of his having been a human being, an inheritor -of God’s image, and an heir of everlasting life, is entirely overlooked -by the rabbies. He was a slave, and they think, therefore, that as he -was treated like a beast whilst he lived, he may be buried like a beast -now that he is dead. If these slaves had been Gentiles, it would not -have been surprising that the oral law should treat them with such -little ceremony. But we must remember that all such slaves were -compelled to become proselytes to Judaism. They were, therefore, -co-religionists with their masters; but even this could not procure them -the respect due to human beings. Because the providence of God had made -them slaves, the oral law endeavoured to turn them into beasts. We are -sure that many Jews of the present day will revolt with horror from such -a doctrine; and acknowledge that it is a libel upon religion. They will -be ready to confess, that the poor slave is a fellow-creature, and an -expectant of life eternal; but let such persons stop to consider whence -they have derived these sentiments, so much more just, more merciful, -and more worthy of religion, than those expressed in the oral law. That -they have not derived them from Judaism is clear. May they not, then, be -indebted for them to the influence and atmosphere of Christianity in -which they live? Certain it is, that the New Testament contains very -different principles, respecting the treatment of slaves, from those -which we have discovered in the oral law. But, further, would it not be -well for those who disapprove these rabbinic principles, to ask -themselves why they profess the rabbinic religion? If it be true that a -slave is something better than an ox or an ass, Judaism, which classes -them altogether, must be false: and the men who made such laws, must be -confessed to be very unfit teachers of religion. Nay more, Judaism must -be acknowledged as a religion most unfit to promote the happiness of the -human race. If Judaism should prevail again, and, as its advocates -expect, prevail universally, slavery would also prevail in the same -degree: slaves would again be compelled to become proselytes, and again -be treated as beasts. Such is the great consummation, the regeneration -that Judaism promises the world. We therefore ask every Jewish reader, -Whether he can pray for such a state of things, and whether he wishes to -be thus enabled to degrade and trample upon his fellow-sinners? If he -does not, there must be something wrong in the religious system which he -professes—and if he only detects this one error, or acknowledges only -this one falsehood respecting the classification of slaves with oxen and -asses, it is sufficient to shake the whole rabbinic fabric: and if he -has any concern for the honour of the Jewish nation, he will endeavour -to deliver them from such a foul imputation upon their mercy and their -humanity. - -But there is one point more in these laws respecting mourners, which it -is necessary to notice. The oral law forbids the mourner, as we have -seen above, to read in the words of the law for seven days:— - -אבל אסור לקרות בתורה ונביאים וכתובים , ואסור לשנות במשנה תלמוד הלכות -ואגדות ׃ - -“The mourner is forbidden to read in the law, the prophets, and the -Hagiographa: it is also forbidden to study in the Mishna, Talmud, -Constitutions, and Agadoth.” That a mourner would have no great loss in -not being allowed to study in the oral law, we can readily believe; but -why should he be prohibited from going to the great fountain of -consolation—the revealed Word of God? If there be one season of life -more fit than another for studying the Word of God, surely it is when -death has entered a family, and reminded all its inmates that the wages -of sin is death. If a husband or wife be left to mourn over the -bereavement of a beloved partner, what consolation can be equal to that -which they find in God’s promise of a world where there is neither -sorrow nor death, and where those who meet shall never part again? If -children be left to mourn over the removal of their parents, whither -should they flee for consolation rather than to that Word which tells -them of him who is the father of the fatherless? Every reasonable person -will think also that, when the heart is softened by the paternal -chastisement, then is a peculiarly appropriate season for learning his -precepts and taking heed to his exhortations—and yet the oral law, with -a sort of most perverse ingenuity, has just selected that period of -human life, in which the consolations of God’s Word are most necessary -and its instruction likely to be of most use, to forbid the reading of -it altogether. And here, the rabbies have not scrupled to set aside the -plain command of God. God says of his law, “Thou shalt meditate therein -day and night and makes no exception for the seven days of mourning for -the dead.” In describing the character of the righteous he says, “His -delight is in the law of the Lord, and in his law doth he meditate day -and night and pronounces a blessing upon such a character.” But the -rabbies, in contempt both of the command and of the promised blessing, -forbid the already afflicted mourner to obey the command and to seek the -blessing. Even when the scribes and rabbies were in the plenitude of -their power as civil magistrates in the land of Israel, obedience to -such a command would have been unlawful, as implying disobedience to the -command of God. The law of God and the law of man are here plainly in -collision; the former commanding Israel to study in his law day and -night; the latter prohibiting all study for the seven days of the -mourning; but whenever these two authorities are opposed, no rational -being can doubt that it is Israel’s duty to obey God rather than man. -But, in the present day, when the oral law is not the law of the land, -when, therefore, the ordinances of the scribes have no authority -whatever, it is impossible to conceive why Israel should obey this -prohibition, unless they wish, by some public act, to exhibit their -determination to transgress the laws or God. Every one who abstains from -the study of God’s Word for seven days, plainly disobeys the Divine -command as given by Moses and the prophets; how then can the Jews of the -present day deceive themselves by supposing that they have the religion -of Moses? The main difference between Heathenism and the religion of -Moses is, that the latter gives a revelation of God’s will to guide us -in difficulty and to comfort us in affliction. The main difference -between a Heathen and a Jewish mourner ought to be, that the Jew flees -for consolation to God and his Word, whilst the Heathen indulges in -sorrow as those that have no hope. The oral law, however, breaks down -with this distinction, and reduces the Jew to the level of the Heathen, -by robbing him in his hour of need of God’s promises, and commanding him -to abstain for seven days from all study of God’s Word. These laws -respecting mourning, then, as being oppressive to the poor, insulting to -the unlearned, degrading to humanity, and contrary to the express -precepts of the Divine law, have no intrinsic merit to commend them to -Israel, and no claim upon their obedience. - - - - - No. LVI. - DISPENSATION FROM AN OATH. - - -A religion which is plainly contrary to any of the Divine attributes, -must necessarily be false. For instance, God is a holy God: a religion, -therefore, which would promote unholiness could not have the Holy One of -Israel for its author. God is also a merciful and a just God: a -religion, therefore, which is characterized by cruelty or injustice, -cannot proceed from him; and for this reason, amongst others, we believe -that the religion of the oral law cannot be that true religion which God -gave to Moses and the prophets. The oral law is most unjust in its laws -respecting Gentiles, slaves, and unlearned men, and most unmerciful in -very many of its enactments. But if there be one attribute more than -another, which is distinctive of the true God, it is truth. In the -prophecies of Jeremiah, He is even identified with truth, as it is -said:— - -וה׳ אלהים אמת ׃ - -“The Lord God is Truth.” (Jer. x. 10.) And in that prediction, which he -put into the mouth of Balaam, he says, that it is by this attribute that -he is distinguished from the sons of men. “God is not a man that he -should lie; neither the son of man that he should repent: hath he said, -and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it -good?” (Numbers xxiii. 19.) Men may be wicked enough to promise what -they do not intend to perform, or after promising, may change their -mind, and refuse to fulfil their engagements; but God is too holy to -deceive wilfully, or to alter what has proceeded out of his mouth. A -religion, therefore, which in any wise tends to lessen our reverence for -truth, or encourages men to alter a solemn engagement, or, what is still -worse, teaches how to absolve from oaths, cannot proceed from the God of -truth; and this is what the oral law does in certain cases. We do not -mean to accuse it of teaching, as the religion of Rome does, that -dispensation may be had from every kind of oath. On the contrary, the -rabbies assume the power of dispensation only in the case of שבועות -בטוי, “rash oaths;” but we mean to assert, that even that assumption is -contrary to the Word of God, and injurious to the cause of truth; and, -therefore, sufficient to overthrow the credit of the oral law as a -religion given by God. The doctrine itself is as follows:— - -מי שנשבע שבועת בטוי ונחם על שבועתו וראה שהוא מצטער אם קיים שבועה זו -ונהפכה דעתו לדעת אחרת , או שנולד לו דבר שלא היה בדעתו בשעת השבועה וניחם -בגללו הרי זה נשאל להכם אחד או לשלשה הדיוטות במקים שאי שם חכם ומתירין לו -שבועתו , ויהיה מותר לעשות דבר שנשבע שלא לעשותו או שלא לעשות דבר שנשבע -לעשותו וזה הוא הנקרא היתר שבועות , ודבר זה אין לו עיקר כלל בתורה שבכתב , -אלא כך למדו ממשה רבינו מפי הקבלה שזה הכתוב לא יחל דברו שלא יחלל הוא -בעצמו דרך קלות ראש בשאט נפש כענין שנאמר וחללת את שם אלהיך אבל אם נחם -וחזר בו חכם מתיר לו ׃ - -“If any man swear a rash oath, and afterwards repent of it, because he -sees that if he keep this oath it will cause him grief, and therefore -changes his mind; or if something should occur to him which was not in -his mind at the time when he swore, and he repent on that account; -behold, a person, in such circumstances, is to ask one wise man (rabbi), -or three common men in any place where there is not a wise man, and they -absolve him from his oath; and then it will be lawful to do a thing -which he had sworn not to do, or to leave undone a thing which he had -sworn to do: and this is what is called absolution from oaths. _This -matter has no foundation whatever in the written law_, but it has been -learned from Moses, our master, by oral tradition, that the Scripture, -‘He shall not profane his word,’ (Numbers xxx. 3, in the English Bible -2,) means, that a man shall not himself profane his word in a way of -levity and with a contemptuous mind, according as it is written, -‘Neither shalt thou profane the name of thy God’ (Levit. xix. 12); but -if a man repent and change his mind, a wise man is to absolve him.” -(Hilchoth Sh’vuoth, c. vi. 1, 2.) Here it is plainly taught, that if a -man has reason to fear any personal inconvenience, or even if he changes -his mind, he may escape from the most solemn obligation that can be laid -upon the consciences of men; and that, after appealing to God in -confirmation of his declaration to do or to leave undone some particular -action, one or more of his fellow-sinners can remit his duty to his -Creator, and give him a license to do the very contrary of that which he -had promised before and unto God, that he would do. Now let every -Israelite reader first consult his own reason, and reflect whether this -doctrine is agreeable to the character of God, as set forth in the -Scripture. The God of the Bible is a God of eternal and immutable truth. -One of his peculiar characteristics, that he keepeth covenant and mercy. -A man, therefore, who breaks his word, and still more so, a man who -breaks an oath, is unlike God. Is it probable, then, that God would give -a religion with a special provision for making men unlike himself? -Again, God is a God of knowledge, and therefore knows that the children -of men are in a great degree the children of habit; he knows also that -by habit the evil propensities are strengthened, and that there is in -men a strong propensity to shrink from their word, if it cause any -trouble or damage: is it likely, then, that God would give a law -directly tending to strengthen that evil propensity by forming a habit -of breaking one’s word, even under the solemn circumstances of an oath? -Reason decides that such a law cannot proceed from the God of Israel. -Has it then any support in the written Word of God? It would be strange, -indeed, if the Word of God should contain anything contrary to reason. -As revealing the nature of Him who is incomprehensible, it may contain -things above our reason: but that in giving laws for man it should give -him license to do what his reason tells him is directly opposed to the -character of God, is altogether incredible. The rabbies, themselves, -however, do not endeavour to justify the doctrine by a reference to -Scripture. They say in plain terms, “_This matter has no foundation -whatever in the written law_,” and thus acknowledge that it is -altogether a matter of tradition, the argument against it, therefore, -becomes doubly strong. Every one knows, that a story loses nothing by -passing through many mouths, but that in the course of its progress it -gets so many additions, and undergoes so many changes as at last to be -scarcely recognisable. This circumstance makes all oral tradition -uncertain and unsatisfactory, but is particularly suspicious when it -appears, not only opposed to the Scripture character of God, but also -favourable to the evil propensities of man. If it had exacted a more -scrupulous regard to truth and a willing submission to hardship and -inconvenience for the sake of truth, then, as opposing the principles of -self-interest, it would have been less suspicious; but when it actually -tells men that to do what may save them from worldly trouble or personal -disadvantage is a Divine institution, one cannot help suspecting that it -is an invention of men, who found it convenient occasionally to escape -from the obligation of an oath. But after all, the great arbiter must be -the written Word of God. The rabbies say, That it has been learned from -Moses by oral tradition, that the words, “He shall not profane his -word,” mean that a man shall not himself profane his word in a way of -levity, but that he shall go to a wise man and get absolution; let us -then read the whole verse from which those words are taken:— - -איש כי ידור נדר לה׳ או השבע שבועה לאסר אסר על נפשו לא יחל דברו ככל היוצא -מפיו יעשה ׃ - -“If a man vow a vow unto the Lord, or swear an oath to bind his soul -with a bond, he shall not break his word, he shall do according to all -that proceedeth out of his mouth.” Now let any man of common sense and -honesty say, whether if it had been God’s intention to forbid all -absolution from oaths, He could have employed words more to the purpose -than these; or whether the plain simple grammatical meaning is not -directly opposed to the rabbinic doctrine? God says, If a man swear, he -shall not profane his word. The rabbies say, he may profane his word. To -prevent all mistake, God further adds, “He shall do according to all -that proceeds out of his mouth.” The rabbies say, he need not do what -proceeds out of his mouth; and yet they have the face to tell us, that -their doctrine is from Moses, and is the traditional interpretation of -words which signify the very reverse of what they say. It is only -wonderful that they should have referred to this verse at all, and the -fact can only be accounted for by the supposition that this verse was -too plain to be got over, and therefore they thought it best to take the -bull by the horns, by selecting this very verse as the basis of their -interpretation. That this verse in its grammatical construction is -directly opposed to the oral law no one can doubt, for it forbids what -the rabbies allow, and commands what the rabbies forbid. But the -opposition is not found in this verse only. The other verse to which the -rabbies also allude is equally plain against it. The words, “Ye shall -not swear by my name falsely, neither shalt thou profane the name of thy -God. I am the LORD,” plainly forbid that absolution from oaths which the -rabbies teach not only as lawful, but as of Divine authority. We know -that the rabbies make a distinction between שבועת שקר a false oath and a -שבועת בטוי rash oath; but the distinction, as made by them is unfounded. -A rash oath, according to their doctrine, is an oath concerning -something which it is possible and lawful for a man to do or to leave -undone; for as soon as it interferes with the fulfilment of a Divine -command, it belongs to that class of oaths which they call שבועות שוא -vain oaths. If, therefore, a man swears to do what is both lawful and -possible for him to do, and afterwards draws back and does it not, what -man in his senses can doubt, that that individual, no matter what the -pretext for not keeping the oath, is guilty of having sworn falsely? -What is it to swear falsely, if voluntarily to refuse to do what a man -had previously sworn to do, constitute not that sin? A sinful falsehood -is a wilful departure from truth; here there is that wilful departure: -who, then, will dare to affirm, that such conduct is not contrary to the -express command of God? Rabbinists sometimes say, that though the oral -law sometimes commands more than is commanded in the Scriptures, it -never allows what God has forbidden; but here we have a plain example of -the contrary. Here the oral law allows false swearing, which God has -positively forbidden. The doctrine of absolution from oaths teaches men -to transgress three מטות לא תעשה negative precepts. The man who swears -to do anything and then does it not, because he has got absolution, -violates, first, the negative precept, “He shall not profane his word;” -he violates, secondly, the negative precept, “Ye shall not swear by my -name falsely;” and, lastly, he violates a negative precept more -important than either of the others; and that is, “Neither shalt thou -profane the name of thy God.” Any man, pretending to religion, who -should act upon these principles, first swear and then obtain absolution -from his oath, would expose his religion to the contempt and indignation -of all honest men, and thereby do all that in him lies to profane the -name of his God. Let, then, every Israelite who thinks that the negative -precepts are more important than the affirmative, remember, that in this -one instance the oral law teaches him to violate three such precepts; -and let him reflect further, that the upholding such a law as this is to -profane the name of the God of Israel before those who are ignorant of -the Scripture. - -But the rabbinical doctrine does not stop at prospective absolution, it -goes so far as to absolve from the guilt of perjury actually committed:— - -מי שנשבע שבועת בטוי להבא ושקר בשבועתו , כגון שנשבע שלא יאכל פת זו ואכלה -, ואחר שאכלה קודם שיביא קרבנו אם היה שוגג , או קודם שילקה אם היה מזיד , -נחם ונשאל לחכם והתירה לו הרי זה פטור מן הקרבן או מן המלקות , ולא עוד אלא -אפילו כפתוהו ללקות ונשאל והתירו לו קודם שיתחילו להלקותו הרי זה פגור ׃ - -“If a man swear a rash oath concerning the future, but lies in that -which he has sworn, as, if he should swear not to eat this bread, and -afterwards should eat it; and if, after he has eaten it, before he -brings his sacrifice, in case he did it ignorantly, or before he is -flogged, in case he did it presumptuously—he repent and ask a wise man, -and he absolve him, behold such an one is exempt from the sacrifice or -from the flogging: and not only so, but if they had actually bound him -in order to flog him, and he ask a wise man, and he absolve him before -the flogging has commenced, he is exempt.” (Ibid. 18.) In this rabbinic -decision there are two cases, and both contrary to the Word of God. -First, we have the case of the man who has broken his oath ignorantly, -and respecting whom God has decided in the following words: “If a soul -swear, pronouncing with his lips to do evil, or to do good, whatsoever -it be that a man shall pronounce with an oath, and it be hid from him; -when he knoweth of it, then he shall be guilty in one of these. And it -shall be, when he shall be guilty in one of these things, that he shall -confess that he hath sinned in that thing: and he shall bring his -trespass-offering unto the Lord for his sin which he hath sinned,” &c. -(Levit. v. 4, &c.) Here God positively commands, first, that he should -confess his sin, and secondly, that he should bring a sacrifice in order -to obtain forgiveness; and, by the above law, the rabbies as positively -declare that obedience to these commands is superfluous. A man need only -say that he has changed his mind, and get a rabbi to absolve him, and -then he can set the Word of God at defiance, he need neither confess his -sin, nor bring the sacrifice. How can the men who profess such a -religion pretend to have any regard for the law of Moses, or how can -they with any consistency reproach Christians with the non-observance of -the ceremonial precepts, when they themselves profess religious -principles which unceremoniously subvert such plain commands? The second -case is, however, far more flagrant. It supposes a man to have sworn -that he would not do a certain thing, but afterwards wilfully to have -done it—that is, it supposes a man to have been guilty of wilful -perjury, and yet declares that he may be delivered both from the guilt -and the punishment, by going to a rabbi and getting absolution. This -oral law, which would flog a poor starving creature for eating Gentile -food, or meat and milk together, devises an expedient for delivering him -who is guilty of the grave crime of perjury—that is, though cruel to the -poor, it is merciful to the criminal. If this be not to violate the laws -of God with a high hand, then we know not what sin is. Here both classes -of the precepts, negative and affirmative, are treated with the same -contempt; both equally trampled under foot. The guilty are absolved, not -only from doing what God commands, but from the penalty of actual -transgression. The rabbies presume not only to absolve a man from doing -what he has sworn to do, but also to turn perjury actually committed -into innocence. They have assumed the high prerogative of God, have -abrogated his laws, and taught the guilty to set his threatenings at -defiance. We verily believe that the mass of the Jewish people have been -ignorant of this gross contempt for the Mosaic law, or they could never -have continued so long in such a system, nor so long have suffered the -name of God to be profaned by the attempt to pass off such a religion as -proceeding from Him. Now, then, we call on every reader of this paper to -decide whether the oral law can really be from God? Has this doctrine of -absolution from oaths anything resembling the character of the Divine -Being as a God of truth? Is it possible that God should give an oral law -directly subversive of that which he has given in writing; or will any -one dare to say that the Almighty, when he wished to give a law -permitting absolution from oaths, knew so little of the Hebrew language -as to enunciate it in words which directly forbid it? Let no one -misunderstand us, as if we applied the passages quoted from the oral law -generally to the case of all oaths, or as if we attributed this doctrine -of the oral law to all Israel. We do neither the one nor the other; in a -future number we hope to consider the case of an oath between man and -man, and at present our only intention is to show that the oral law is -dishonouring to God, subversive of the commands given by Moses, and -injurious to the best interests of the Jewish people; nay, that it is -actually a libel on the children of Abraham; and that, therefore, if -they have any love to God, any reverence for Moses, and any respect for -themselves and their brethren, they are bound publicly to renounce the -principles which it inculcates, and by which they have been deluded for -so many centuries. It is possible to do one of two things—either to -approve the doctrine of absolution from oaths, or to disapprove of it. -Those who approve of it will, of course, endeavour to uphold it, and -will thereby continue the profanation of God’s name; and, so far as they -can, stamp dishonour upon the religion of Israel. Those, who disapprove -the idea of a rabbi’s absolving from a solemn oath, and think that oaths -are not to be tampered with, are bound not only to protest against this -particular abuse, but to reject the whole oral law. The rabbies declare -that this doctrine is not an ordinance of the scribes, but an oral -tradition from Moses; if then it be false, the rabbies are again -convicted of passing off an invention of their own as an ordinance of -God, and are therefore wholly unworthy of credit. The oral law depends -altogether upon the validity of the testimony, and if the witnesses can -be proved, in any one instance, to have spoken falsehood, the credit of -the whole is destroyed. Now this is eminently the case, for not only -have they said what is false, but have endeavoured to establish a -principle subversive of all reverence for truth. It would be difficult -for any man, who was known as one in the habit of getting dispensation -from oaths, to find belief or credit in the world, and he would scarcely -be admitted as a valid witness in a court of justice; but the man who -propounds dispensation from oaths as a religious doctrine, and teaches -it systematically as agreeable to the will of God, is a more suspicious -person still, and such are the authors of the oral law. The former might -be regarded as a deluded person, who only broke his oaths when he got -dispensation, but the latter would be considered an artful underminer of -principle, and a wilful despiser of truth; his testimony would, -therefore, have no weight. Now, it is upon the testimony of such persons -that the authority of the oral law entirely depends. It is confessed, -that until the Mishna and Gemara were compiled, there was no written -record of its contents, but that it was propagated from mouth to mouth. -If, therefore, it appear that those who transmitted it were men whose -love for truth was equivocal, we cannot be sure that they did not -transmit a forgery. The doctrine, which we have just considered, shows -that they did not love truth, and that they have actually libelled the -memory of Moses, the servant of God, by asserting that he taught them -how to get absolution from oaths. It is for the Jews to consider whether -they will still be deluded by such incompetent witnesses, and still, -even silently, uphold a doctrine so dishonouring to their religion. - - - - - No. LVII. - DOCTRINE OF OATHS, CONTINUED. - - -Every one naturally thinks that his own religion is the true one. The -Mussulman thinks thus of Mahometanism, the Christian of Christianity, -and the Jew of Judaism, and yet it is plain that they cannot all be -right—two out of the three must necessarily be in error. What then is to -be done? Are they all to go on in listless and lazy indifference, and -leave it to another world to find out whether or not they have been in -the right, or are we to lay it down as a maxim that every one is to -continue in that religion in which he was born, whether right or wrong, -and that therefore the Turk is to remain a Mahometan, and the Hindoo an -idolater, to his life’s end? There are very many in the world who seem -to think so, and who adhere to a religion simply because it was the -religion of their forefathers. Now we grant that no man should -carelessly or lightly abandon the religion of his childhood, and have no -scruple in saying that he who changes his religion as he would his -clothes must be a fool, or something worse. But we must say, at the same -time, that he who retains his religion, merely as a matter of prejudice -or interest, is not a great deal better, and can hardly be considered as -a rational being. Every being, whom the Creator has endowed with reason, -ought to have a religion and to know why he prefers it to all others. -But perhaps some reader will say, I have a religion—I am a Jew, and I -prefer this religion to all others, because God himself gave it to Moses -on Mount Sinai. To this we reply, But how do you know that you have got -the religion of Moses? If you really had Moses’ religion you could not -be wrong, but how can you prove that the religion which you now profess -is really that true religion? Your fathers in the times of old often -forsook Moses and the Prophets, and taught their children a false -religion, how, then, can you be sure that this is not the case with what -you have got at present? Certainty can be had only by examination and -comparison. The Judaism of the present day must be compared with the Law -and the Prophets. If it agrees with them, then the Jews have reason to -believe that they are in the right; but if not, then they must be in the -wrong. Our own firm conviction is, that modern Judaism is altogether -spurious, and plainly opposed to that religion which God gave to your -fathers. The doctrine of dispensation from oaths is sufficient to prove -this, as was shown in the last number. But we have more objections still -to make against that doctrine, and all confirmatory of the conclusion to -which we have come. We saw in our last, that if a man swear an oath to -himself only, where others are not concerned, he can have absolution, -but we now come to consider the case of an oath, made to another person, -respecting which the oral law teaches us as follows:— - -ראובן שהשביע לשמעון וענה אמן או קבל השבועה ונחם שמעון על שבועתו ונשאל -עליה אין מתירן לו אלא בפני ראובן שהשביעו , וכן אם נשבע ראובן או נדר שלא -יהנה בשמעון או שלא יהנה בו שמעון ונחם ונשאל לחכם אין מתירין לו אלא בפני -שמעון שנדר ממנו הנאה ואפילו היה שידע הנידר שהתיר זה נדרו או שבועתו -ולפיכך יהנה ממנו או יהנה לו ׃ - -“If Reuben should adjure Simeon, and he answer Amen, or accept the oath; -and afterwards Simeon should repent of his oath, and ask concerning it, -he is not to be absolved except in the presence of Reuben who adjured -him. In like manner, if Reuben should swear an oath not to receive any -profit from Simeon, or that Simeon should receive no profit from him, -and afterwards should repent and ask a wise man, he is not to be -absolved except in the presence of Simeon, concerning whose profit he -had vowed: yea, even though Simeon were an infant or a Gentile, he is -not to be absolved except in his presence, in order that he, with -respect to whom the vow was made, may know that the other has got -absolution from his oath or vow, and that therefore he may receive from -or confer profit upon him.” (Hilchoth Sh’vuoth, c. vi. 7.) Now in -considering this doctrine, we must not withhold that measure of -approbation which is due to the rabbies. There is here a certain degree -of honesty and plain dealing. The rabbies have determined that where one -man swears to another, he is not to be absolved, except in the presence -of that other, and are in so far vastly superior in morality to those -who hold and teach, not only that all oaths may be absolved, but that -they may be absolved secretly, so that he who is most affected by the -dispensation, knows nothing about it. Bad as the oral law is, it does -not descend to such a depth of hypocrisy and profaneness. Another trait -which deserves notice is, that it does not teach that no faith is to be -kept towards those who have got another religion, but expressly -determines, that if a Jew swear to a Gentile, he is not to be absolved -without that Gentile’s knowledge. We readily admit that this is greatly -superior to a doctrine of dispensation, taught and practised by some who -call themselves Christians; but, having made this admission, and given -the rabbies their due, We must also say, that the doctrine of absolution -here taught is plainly contrary to reason and Scripture, and if -extensively practised, would destroy all confidential intercourse or -dealings between man and man. Just suppose that the law of this country -was, that any one who had entered into a solemn engagement with another, -could be enabled to break it, simply, by calling up the person to whom -he had mode the promise before a magistrate, and by declaring, in his -presence, that he repented of what he had done, who would ever trust -another, or value even an oath? Not only would the commercial -transactions of the country be at an end, but the very bonds of society -would be rent asunder. The existence of human society depends upon that -measure of confidence which a man can place in his brother, but if the -rabbinical doctrine prevailed and were acted upon, there could be no -confidence more. A man’s oath would be good for nothing, and if so, the -value of his word still less. But, besides this, the doctrine that a -rabbi may absolve Simeon from his sworn obligation to Reuben, is absurd. -If Simeon swear to Reuben a lawful oath, no one on earth but Reuben can -release him; but here we are told that a rabbi, who has nothing at all -to do with the matter, may remit the obligation. He might, with as much -reason and with less profanity, undertake to absolve Simeon from his -pecuniary debts. That the dispensation must take place in the presence -of the party to whom Simeon swore, is but poor satisfaction, and would -not remove the inconvenience, nor diminish the guilt. Suppose, for -instance, that Simeon should promise Reuben with an oath, that within a -given time he would complete certain business, or lend him a certain sum -of money, or anything else of the kind, and that Reuben should arrange -his affairs in dependence upon this oath, what satisfaction would it be -to Reuben to be present at the absolution! It would not remove the -inconvenience nor indemnify him for the loss to which the non-fulfilment -of the oath exposed him, nor abate the vexation and sorrow which he must -feel to see a teacher of religion trampling upon the most solemn -sanction with which religion guards the intercourse between man and man. -For, after all, the main objection to the doctrine is, that it allows -what God forbids, as we showed in the last number, and under the -pretence of religion, makes perjury systematic. - -But to estimate this doctrine fully, and also the character of the men -with whom it originated, we must look at the original passage in the -Talmud, on which the above-cited decision is founded:— - -המודר הנאה מחברו אין מתירין לו אלא בפניו מנהני מילי אמר רב נחמן דכתיב -ויאמר ה׳ אל משה במדין לך שוב מצרימה כי מתו כל האנשים אמר לו במדין נדרת -לך והתר נדרך במדין דכתיב ויואל משה אין אלה אלא שבועה דכתיב ויבא אותו -באלה וגם במלך נבוכדנצר מרד אשר השביעו באלהים חיים מאי מרדותים אשכחיה -צדקיהו לנבוכדנצר דהוה קאכיל ארנבת חייא אמר ליה אישתבע לי דלא מגלית עלוי -ולא תיפוק מילתא אישתבע ליה לסוף הוה קא מצטער צדקיהו בגופיה איתשיל -אשבועתיה ואמר שמע נבוכדנצר דקא מבזין ליה שלח ואייתי סנהדרין וצדקיהו אמר -להון חזיתין מאי קא עביד צדקיהו לאו הכי אישתבע בשמא דשמיא דלא מגלינא אמר -ליה איתשלי אשבעתיה [ אמר ליה מתשלין אשבועתא ] אמרי ליה אין אמר להו בפניו -או שלא בפניו אמרי בפניו וכו׳ ׃ - -“He that has a vow upon him, with respect to profit from his neighbour, -is not to be absolved, except in that neighbour’s presence. How is this -proved? Rav Nachman says, it is proved by the words, ‘And the Lord said -unto Moses, in Midian, Go return into Egypt; for all the men are dead -which sought thy life;’ he said to him, In Midian thou hast vowed, go -and get absolution from thy vow in Midian, for it is written, וַיּוֹאֶל -משֶׁה , ‘And Moses was content.’ (Exodus ii. 21.) Now this word means -nothing else but swearing, as it is written, ‘And he took an oath of -him.’ (Ezek. xvii. 13.) It is farther proved by the words, ‘And he also -rebelled against King Nebuchadnezzar, who had made him swear by God.’ (2 -Chron. xxxvi. 13.) What was the nature of his rebellion? Zedekiah found -Nebuchadnezzar eating a live hare, whereupon Nebuchadnezzar said to him, -swear to me not to reveal this, nor to report the matter. Zedekiah -swore, but afterwards he was grieved, and went and got his oath absolved -and told. Nebuchadnezzar heard that they despised him, and sent and -fetched the Sanhedrin and Zedekiah, and said to them, Ye see what -Zedekiah has done, although he swore by the name of God not to reveal -the matter. They said to him, He got a dispensation from his oath. He -said, Is it lawful, then, to get dispensation from an oath? They said, -Yes. He said again, Is this to be done in the other’s presence or -absence? They say, In his presence,” &c. (Nedarim, fol. lxv. 1.) Now -this passage not only illustrates the doctrine of dispensation, but -throws much light upon the character and knowledge of the men from whom -the tradition is derived. In the first place, it shows a strange -confusion of mind to derive וַיּוֹאֶל, “he was willing,” from אלה, “he -sware;” but it is stranger still out of this mistranslation, to invent a -story of Moses having sworn and got absolution; but the most strange of -all is, that any one should be found who can believe this a sufficient -warrant for the doctrine of dispensation from an oath made to a -fellow-creature. If even it were true, as the rabbies say, that Moses -had sworn to Jethro not to return into Egypt, still this is not a case -in point; for Moses did not get absolution from any third person, but -received express permission from Jethro himself to return, as we find in -the chapter referred to, where it is said, “And Moses went and returned -to Jethro, his father-in-law, and said unto him, Let me go, I pray thee, -and return unto my brethren which are in Egypt, and see whether they be -yet alive. And Jethro said to Moses, Go in peace.” (Exod. iv. 18.) If -there was any oath, we see that it was dispensed with, not by a wise -man, nor by any third person or persons, but by him to whom the oath was -made. This passage is, therefore, decidedly against the rabbinic -doctrine, and therefore the rabbinic doctrine cannot be true. The second -case cited by the Talmud is still stronger, as a testimony, both against -the system and the men. It tells us that Zedekiah swore to -Nebuchadnezzar not to betray him in a certain matter, which no law, -either of God or man, compelled him to divulge—that he swore by the name -of the God of Israel, and yet that, after this most solemn transaction, -he did what he had sworn not to do. He betrayed a man from whom he had -received kindness, and equally disregarded the obligations of gratitude -and the sacred ties of an oath—in short, that he committed perjury. This -is in itself bad enough; but the Talmud proceeds further to tell us, -that this was not his own individual act, but the solemn decision of the -Supreme Council of the Sanhedrin. Zedekiah did not perjure himself -without having advice. He went to the Sanhedrin, and they absolved him -from the obligation of the oath, and that contrary to their own maxim, -that an oath sworn to a neighbour cannot be absorbed, except in his -presence. Here, then, the Talmud plainly confesses that the Sanhedrin -did wrong, in fact, that they were aiders and abettors in Zedekiah’s -perjury; that, therefore, they were men who had no regard to truth, and -no fear of God; and, consequently, that no man of any common sense would -believe a single word that came out of their mouths. What, then, becomes -of the whole fabric of Jewish tradition? It depends altogether upon the -unimpeachable character of the various Sanhedrins through whose hands it -passed. If, therefore, we should, find that any one Sanhedrin consisted -of notorious liars, the genuineness of the oral law is at an end. But -here the Talmud itself tells us that even before the deportation of -Zedekiah, the Sanhedrin consisted, not of common liars, but of false -swearers, of men who had so little regard for the name of the Lord, as -to absolve a solemn oath of which that name was the safeguard. If they -had done this in accordance with their traditions, there would be some -appearance of consistency, but they did it in the face of the tradition, -which says, that when an oath is sworn to another person absolution -cannot be given except in his presence. When Zedekiah demanded -absolution, they should have refused, and told him that it was contrary -to the oral law; but, whether from fear or from self-interest, they -acceded to the king’s wish, and helped hint to commit perjury: and these -are the men who have handed down the oral law; what trust, then, can be -placed in their word, when they disregard an oath? The story is either -true or false. If true, then all the members of the Sanhedrin were -guilty of perjury,—if false, then the Talmud has handed down a falsehood -as truth, and in neither case is it worthy of credit. Surely it is time -for the chosen people of God to use the reason which God has given, and -to examine the grounds upon which they profess Judaism. The ignorant and -the thoughtless may retain their profession as a mere matter of -prejudice, but it would be very strange if any, who think religion worth -a thought, should still adhere to a system for which there is not only -no evidence, but against which there is evidence so satisfactory. -According to the Talmud itself, and on its own showing, the persons -whose office it was to guard the traditions in the days of Zedekiah were -men who transgressed those traditions, and made themselves guilty of -perjury; what warrant, then, have the Jews for believing that those men -did not change the traditions, and hand down mere inventions of their -own? What was there to restrain them from such conduct, if they could -free themselves from the obligation of an oath by the name of the God of -Israel? - -But as the men who handed down the traditions are described by their own -successors as wicked and ungodly persons, so the traditions which they -have handed down are of the same character, and, as we have said, if -generally acted upon, would rend asunder all the ties of human society, -and beget universal distrust and suspicion. The oral law plainly and -unequivocally allows a man to swear to his neighbour that he will do or -leave undone something that his neighbour requires, and then to get -absolution from that oath and do the contrary. It is true that it -requires this to be done in the presence of the other person, but that -does not much alter the matter. Whether Zedekiah divulged what he had -sworn to Nebuchadnezzar to keep secret, in his presence or behind his -back, is a thing of very little consequence; the oath is just as much -and as really broken, and the results might be just as pernicious and -injurious. Take, for example, the case of a manufacturer who -communicates to his servant some important secret in his trade, and for -his own security binds him by an oath not to divulge it. In a little -time, the servant, for some reason or other, finds it convenient or -profitable to make this secret known, and goes to a wise man, summons -the manufacturer to be present, gets absolution, and then divulges what -he had sworn to keep secret,—where is the difference as to all practical -purposes, or as to the actual guilt of perjury? But again, suppose that -the wise man was to act as the Sanhedrin did, and absolve the man -without summoning the person to whom he swore, it is a question whether -the servant would then he bound. Zedekiah evidently thought not. All he -was concerned about was to have absolution, and if there was any sin in -giving it, he evidently thought that the onus rested upon those who -gave, and not upon him who received it. According to the oral law, the -Sanhedrin was wrong in giving absolution under the circumstances: but, -according to the same oral law, Zedekiah was right in obeying their -decision. Implicit and universal obedience to the words of the Sanhedrin -and wise men is required by the Talmud; and, therefore, if a wise man -give absolution, even though he give it unlawfully, it is still the duty -of him who is absolved to obey his decision, and act upon it. A -Rabbinist is not allowed to reason; but as we have seen on a former -occasion, to believe that his right hand is his left, and _vice versa_, -if the rabbies say so—and, consequently, if a wise man absolve him, he -is not to trouble either his conscience or his reason as to the right or -the wrong; his duty is not to dispute, but to receive the determination -as the words of the living God. The provision, therefore, that if Simeon -swear to Reuben he is not to be absolved, except in Reuben’s presence, -affords but little protection. If it was possible for the Sanhedrin, a -body consisting of seventy-one persons, to disregard it, it is surely -possible that any other wise man might disregard it also, and absolve -Simeon, even in Reuben’s absence. Now the bare possibility of such -occurrences would make all promises, whether sanctioned by oaths or not, -of no value, and have the most pernicious effect as to the practice of -speaking truth. Men might reason from the greater to the less, and say, -If it be lawful, by means of absolution, to break an oath, קל וחומר, _à -fortiori_, it is lawful to break one’s word without absolution; and, at -all events, those to whom the promise was given would be likely to -reason thus, and say, If we cannot depend upon this man’s oath, much -less can we place confidence in his word. But what is worse still, such -a doctrine is calculated to make men despise all religion, and to render -them a prey to infidelity. The thoughtless and the rash are very likely -to say, If this be religion, better far to be without it; or, to -conclude that as such doctrine cannot possibly be the offspring of the -Divine mind, all revealed religion is a mere imposture. In every case it -is a reproach to the good sense and piety of Israel to profess such a -doctrine; or, if they do not believe it, to remain silent, and suffer -mankind to suppose that this is the religion of the children of Abraham. -So long as they profess that the oral law is the source of their -religion, so long are they responsible for the doctrines which it -teaches; and so long as they abstain from a public renunciation of the -oral law, they must be considered as believers in its authority. It will -not do to renounce one particular doctrine, whilst they profess faith in -the general system. The body of traditions is a whole which cannot be -parted. They have all come down, resting on the same evidence; if, -therefore, the evidence be invalid in any one case, it is invalid in -all; and if any one admits its validity in some cases, he cannot, if a -reasonable man, deny it in others. He may dispute about the conflicting -opinions of the rabbies, but if he admit any one of those doctrines -which are called traditions from Sinai, he must admit them all, and, -consequently, this which professes to be one of them. It remains, -therefore, for the Israelites of the present day to choose, whether they -will still retain the system of the oral law, and thereby sanction the -dispensation from oaths, or whether they will repudiate this doctrine, -and thereby renounce the whole oral law. - - - - - No. LVIII. - MERITORIOUSNESS OF CIRCUMCISION. - - -Wherever there is an internal principle of religion, it will, like all -other principles, manifest itself in external acts, and in an external -form of rites and ceremonies. It is just as impossible for a living man -to continue without giving any signs of life, as for the religious -principle to exist without an outward expression. It is the universal -law of creation that every vital principle should manifest itself and -therefore, when the Creator himself was pleased to give a religion, he -ordained certain rites and ceremonies to give notice of its existence, -and to serve as the body in which the soul should reside. Rites and -ceremonies, therefore, are not to be despised, even when devised by man, -for they are demonstrations of an internal life from which they proceed; -but when instituted by God, they are doubly important, because besides -being a sign, they have all the authority of a Divine command. False -religion, however, is not satisfied with this acknowledgment, nor this -measure of reverence. It goes still further, and elevates the external -sign above the thing signified, by making the external rites the great -essentials of religion. Thus, in the time of the Prophet Isaiah, the -Israelites thought that the act of sacrifice, and the external -observation of the Sabbath and holidays, formed the substance of -religion, and therefore God told them, that even these things, though -ordained by himself, were not pleasing in his sight, unless they -proceeded from the living principle within. “Bring no more vain -oblations: incense is an abomination unto me; the new moons and -Sabbaths, the calling of assemblies, I cannot away with; it is iniquity, -even the solemn meeting.” (Isaiah i. 13.) And again in a subsequent -chapter he says, “They seek me daily, and delight to know my ways, as a -nation that did righteousness and forsook not the ordinances of their -God: they ask of me the ordinances of justice; they take delight in -approaching to God.” (lviii. 2.) And yet at the same time he shows that -this was all mere outside work, and displeasing in his sight. Wherever, -therefore, we find a religion, which places external observances above -the moral duties, we may be sure it is not of God; and for this reason, -amongst others, we believe that the oral law is the invention of men. We -had an instance in the subject last considered, the dispensation from -oaths. The rabbies disregard the moral obligation, but make the mere -form of going to a rabbi to get absolution an essential requisite. -Another proof is furnished by their doctrine concerning _The -meritoriousness of Circumcision_, which is set forth as follows:— - -מצות עשה לכל אדם מישראל שימול את בנו וגדולה היא משאר מצוות עשה שיש בה צד -כרת , וגם נכרתו עליה שלש עשרה בריתות בפרשת מילה , ולא נקרא אברהם שלם עד -שנימול ובזכותה נכרתה לו ברית על נתינת הארץ והיא מצלת מדינה של גיהנם כמו -שאמרו חכמים שאברהם אבינו יושב שנימול , ומאוסה היא הערלה שנתגנו בה הגוים -שנאנר כי כל הגוים ערלים , וכל המפר בריתו של אברהם או שמושך ערלתו אע׳׳פ -שיש בידו תורה ומעשים טובים אין לו חלק לעולם הבא ׃ - -“It is an affirmative precept, binding on every man of Israel, to -circumcise his son; and this is greater than any of the other -affirmative precepts, for there is a threat of excision attached to it; -and further, on account of it, thirteen covenants were made, as is -recorded in the chapter of circumcision. Abraham was not called perfect -until he was circumcised, and by the merit of circumcision, a covenant -was made with him respecting the giving of the land. It also delivers -from the judgment of hell, for the wise men have said, that Abraham our -father sits at the door of hell, and does not suffer any one that is -circumcised to be cast into it. Uncircumcision is despised, for the -Gentiles are reproached with it, as it is said, ‘All the nations are -uncircumcised’ (Jer. ix. 25); and every one who breaks the covenant of -Abraham our father, either by not being circumcised or by becoming -uncircumcised, has no part in the world to come, even though he possess -a knowledge of the law and good works.” (Joreh Deah., 260.) Here we have -the very same misconception, which God reproved by the mouth of Isaiah; -an external act is preferred to holiness of life, and a mere preparation -of the body to purity of heart. It is gravely and solemnly asserted that -the precept concerning circumcision is greater than all the other -affirmative precepts, that is, it is exalted above our duty to God and -our duty to our neighbour. The command - -ואהבת לרעך כמוך - -“Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself,” is an affirmative precept, -and is therefore one of those to which circumcision is preferred. The -command - -כבד את אביך ואת אמך - -“Honour thy father and thy mother,” is an affirmative precept, and has a -promise of long life in the land attached to it. It concerns our duty to -those, to whom, under God, we owe our existence, and yet the oral law -teaches that obedience to it is not so important as to the precept -concerning circumcision. We do not mean to deny the scriptural -importance of circumcision, nor of any other of the Divine institutions, -but we do mean to appeal to every Israelite of understanding to judge, -which of these commandments is of most importance. Can an Israelite, -merely because he is circumcised, though he has no love to his -fellow-men, and no reverence for his parents, be acceptable in the sight -of God, or can he be more acceptable than a Gentile who obeys these -commands? But the sweeping declaration of the oral law, not only teaches -men that circumcision is more valuable than love to man, but exalts it -even above love to God. The commandment, “Thou shalt love the Lord thy -God, with all thy heart,” &c., is an affirmative precept, and is -consequently included amongst those which are stated to be inferior to -circumcision. This conclusion seems so monstrous, that one is almost -afraid of having misunderstood the sense; but Rashi, who must be -acknowledged as an authority, goes still farther, and endeavours to -prove that circumcision is equal in importance to all the other -commandments put together. - -שהיא שקולה כנגד כל המצוות שבתורה ׃ - -“It is equivalent to all the commandments which are in the law.” -(Nedarim, fol. 31, col. ii.) So that there can be no doubt that this is -the doctrine of the oral law. Now just let the reader consider the -nature of circumcision. It is, in the first place, an external act,—it -is, in the second place, an act performed without the will of the -infant, and at a time when he can exercise no act of moral -responsibility, and yet the mere act is placed above the highest -perfection of a created being, love to God and his fellow-creatures. But -the oral law does not merely assert this doctrine, but gives its proofs, -and the first is, that to the precept of circumcision the threat of -excision is annexed. Of course, we admit the fact, for it is plainly -said, “The uncircumcised man-child, whose flesh of his foreskin is not -circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken -my covenant” (Gen. xvii. 14.); but we deny the consequence. There is -nothing peculiar to circumcision in the annexed threat of excision. God -has pronounced the same threat against every presumptuous sin, as it is -written, “But the soul that doeth ought presumptuously, whether he be -born in the land or a stranger, the same reproacheth the Lord; and that -soul shall be cut off from among his people. Because he hath despised -the word of the Lord, and hath broken his commandment, that soul shall -be utterly cut off; his iniquity shall be upon him.” (Numb. xv. 30, 31.) -Here we see that presumptuous transgression of any one of God’s -commandments will be visited with the same punishment denounced against -the omission of circumcision, so that the annexed threat is far from -proving that this precept is superior to all the other affirmative -commandments. On the contrary, it shows that God does not judge by the -external act, but by the state of the heart, and that presumptuous -disobedience of any commandment, as demonstrating an utter want of love -to him, will be visited with the severity of his wrath. It is further -alleged, “That Abraham was not called perfect until he was -circumcised,”—and this is proved in the Talmud, by the words, “Walk -before me, and be thou perfect.” But these words do not prove that, even -after his circumcision, Abraham was called perfect; they are a command -to be perfect, but not a declaration that he was so; and it cannot be -urged that by being circumcised he obeyed this command, and thus became -perfect, for this would open an easy way of attaining perfection to the -most abandoned of mankind. Besides, it is easy to prove that this word -“perfect” is also given to the uncircumcision. Long before circumcision -was given, it was applied to Noah. “Noah was a just man, and perfect in -his generations, and Noah walked with God” (Gen. vi. 9), where that -which is only commanded to Abraham, is asserted to have been found in -Noah. God commanded to Abraham to walk with him, and to be perfect; but -he declares of the uncircumcised Noah, that he was perfect, and did walk -with him. In this respect, therefore, even if the rabbinic -interpretation of the words were correct, circumcision has no -superiority over uncircumcision. The next proof, namely, “That by the -merit of circumcision a covenant was made with Abraham, respecting the -giving of the land,” is equally inconclusive. Long before the covenant -of circumcision God had promised the land to Abraham, and that -repeatedly; and not only had promised it, but had actually made a -covenant with him respecting the gift, as we read, “In the same day, the -Lord made a covenant with Abram, saying, Unto thy seed have I given this -land, from the river of Egypt unto the great river, the river -Euphrates.” (Gen. xvi. 18.) This covenant was made before the birth of -Ishmael; and when Ishmael was born, Abraham was eighty-six years of age; -consequently, it was at least fourteen years before circumcision, so -that the assertion that the covenant respecting the land was made on -account of the merit of circumcision is altogether false. God made the -covenant, not because Abraham deserved it, but according to his own -grace and mercy, when Abraham had no bodily mark to distinguish him from -the surrounding nations. Here again, then, the oral law asserts what is -false. But the rabbies were not contented with Scripture proof; they -felt that the letter of Scripture was against them, and therefore had -recourse to their own invention, and have devised the fable that -“Circumcision delivers from the judgment of hell, for that Abraham sits -at the door of hell, and does not suffer any one that is circumcised to -be cast into it.” That this is a regular and wilful falsehood, no one -that has reason, and takes the Scripture to guide it, can possibly -doubt. It implies that many who are circumcised deserve the punishment -of hell, and are led to the very door, but that Abraham interferes, and -delivers them from their just punishment. If they did not deserve it, -and were not liable to it, there could be no necessity for Abraham’s -sitting in so unpleasant a situation. The guilt of these persons is, -therefore, fully admitted, and yet the wise men say, that out of regard -to the mere external token of the covenant, God gives up his attribute -of justice, and acquits those who deserve punishment. But it implies -further, that God does not deal thus to the Gentiles—that to them he -exercises all justice, and shows no mercy. Abraham looks on with -unconcern when a Gentile is brought to the place of the damned, feels no -compassion and exercises none, and the Divine Being himself is made a -party in this injustice, and want of compassion. Religion is -misrepresented as a mere system of favouritism, and the Judge of all the -earth as a doer of wrong. That this is the plain drift of the story is -plain from what follows: “Circumcision is despised, for the Gentiles are -reproached with it, as it is said, ‘All the nations are uncircumcised.’” -Here the rabbies plainly tell us, that God despises the works of his own -hands, that he disdains the overwhelming majority of his rational -creatures, and that not because of their wickedness, or their cruelty, -or their idolatry, or their profanity, but because they have not got a -commandment which He never gave them. The rabbies themselves will admit -that God never gave the Gentiles the commandment of circumcision, how -then is it possible that he should blame them, or despise them, or treat -them with unmitigated severity, because they have not got what He never -gave them? If it had been offered to them, and they had refused, there -would have been some ground for such a representation, but at present -there is none. It is not true that God reproaches the Gentiles in the -words, “All the nations are uncircumcised;” on the contrary, He is -reproaching Israel. The context is, “Behold the days come, saith the -Lord, that I will punish all them which are circumcised with the -uncircumcised; Egypt, and Judah, and Edom, and the children of Ammon and -Moab, and all that are in the utmost corners, that dwell in the -wilderness; for all the nations are uncircumcised, and all the house of -Israel are uncircumcised in the heart.” (Jer. ix. 25, 26.) This is very -different doctrine from that of the rabbies. God declares that the mere -outward sign of circumcision shall not save from punishment; that he -makes no difference whatever between the uncircumcised and the -circumcised, but that he looks upon the heart, and deals out to all -evenhanded justice. He says, that he will punish the idolatrous nations, -whom he has enumerated, but declares that he will punish the sinners of -Israel along with them, and then to obviate the very objection which the -oral law urges, and to take away all false confidence in circumcision, -he adds, “The nations are uncircumcised, and all the house of Israel are -uncircumcised in heart;” as if he would have said, Do not deceive -yourselves, thinking that your circumcision will save you: there is a -worse uncircumcision than that of the flesh, the uncircumcision of the -heart. This is doctrine worthy of the Divine Being, consistent with his -attributes of justice and holiness, and consolatory and encouraging to -all his rational creatures; whereas the rabbinic doctrine is -dishonouring to God, and contemptuous to all the Gentile nations. If it -were believed, no Gentile would have any motive to serve or honour the -true God, from whom he could expect neither justice nor mercy. It is -equally pernicious and destructive to the moral and spiritual welfare of -the Israelites themselves. Any man who believes that his circumcision -will save him from hell, will feel himself at liberty to violate other -commands without fear. Why should he be holy, or chaste, or honest, or -true? His father Abraham is sitting at the gate of hell waiting for him, -and will deliver him from the just reward of his delinquencies. We do -not mean to attribute such reasoning to all Israelites—far from it; but -it is certain that on the minds of the ignorant and superstitious this -doctrine must have this effect. Those who are acquainted with the Word -of God, or know how to reason, must believe that it is false, but then -it is their duty not only to disbelieve it in their hearts, but to -renounce it publicly, and to teach the ignorant and uneducated that it -is false. Israelites often feel justly indignant at the want of due -appreciation which characterizes public opinion with regard to the -nation, but let them reflect on the causes, and they will cease to -wonder. Mankind in general does not distinguish between the Jews and -Judaism, but erroneously attribute, without any discrimination, the -errors of the system to the men; and how can they do otherwise, so long -as the oral law is still upheld as a Divine code of law? Let Israel -renounce the errors publicly, and all the causes of misconception will -be removed. - -But we would ask our readers to go a little farther, and compare the -doctrines of Christianity on this subject with those of the oral law. -They will find that where the rabbies have erred, the disciples of Jesus -of Nazareth have taught the truth. St. Paul admits the importance and -the privileges of circumcision. He asks, “What advantage then hath the -Jew? or what profit is there of circumcision?” And answers, “Much every -way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God.” -(Rom. iii. 1.) He does not undervalue God’s mercy to Israel, but at the -same time he honours God’s justice and holiness, by declaring that “God -will render to every man according to his deeds: to them who by patient -continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, -eternal life: but unto them that are contentious, and do not obey the -truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath, tribulation and -anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil, of the Jew first, and -also of the Gentile; but glory, honour, and peace, to every man that -worketh good, to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile: for there is no -respect of persons with God.” (Romans ii. 6-11.) This exactly agrees -with the words of Jeremiah, and with the character of God, as set forth -by Moses and the Prophets, and must commend itself to the mind of every -reflecting person. Let then those who reject Christianity account for -the fact, that where the rabbies are wrong, the preachers of -Christianity are right. If all truth come from God, and unassisted human -reason must go wrong, how is it that God should have helped Christians -to the truth, and left the Jews in deadly error for so many centuries? - -Judaism teaches that the Gentiles are despised, simply because they have -not got an outward sign, which God never intended they should have. -Christianity proclaims that God is a just Judge. It says, “Circumcision -verily profiteth, if thou keep the law; but if thou be a breaker of the -law, thy circumcision is made uncircumcision. Therefore if the -uncircumcision keep the righteousness of the law, shall not his -uncircumcision be counted for circumcision?” Judaism teaches that -Abraham sits at the gate of hell to deliver even the wicked, if they be -only circumcised. Christianity teaches that Abraham has no respect to -the outward sign, unless it be accompanied by purity of heart. “There -was a certain rich man, which was clothed in purple and fine linen, and -fared sumptuously every day: and there was a certain beggar named -Lazarus, which was laid at his gate, full of sores. And it came to pass -that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham’s -bosom: the rich man also died, and was buried; and in hell he lifted up -his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in -his bosom. And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and -send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool -my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame. But Abraham said, Son, -remember that thou in thy lifetime receivedst thy good things, and -likewise Lazarus evil things; but now he is comforted, and thou art -tormented. And beside all this, between us and you there is a great gulf -fixed: so that they which would pass from hence to you cannot; neither -can they pass to us, that would come from thence. Then he said, I pray -thee therefore, father, that thou wouldest Send him to my father’s -house: for I have five brethren; that he may testify unto them, lest -they also come into this place of torment. Abraham said unto him, They -have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them. And he said, Nay, -father Abraham: but if one went to them from the dead, they will repent. -And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither -will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.” (Luke xvi. -19-31.) Let the reader compare this with the rabbinic doctrine, and then -explain why it is that where the oral law errs, God has given the truth -in the New Testament. - - - - - No. LIX. - CRUELTY TO THE UNLEARNED. - - -The great object of these papers has been to compare Judaism, as it at -present exists, with the religion of Moses and the Prophets, and thus to -ascertain whether the Jews of the present day walk in the good old paths -pointed out to their forefathers. We have endeavoured to give our -reasons for believing that the Jews have been imposed upon by the -inventors of the oral law, and have now got a religion diametrically -opposed to that which was revealed to them by God. More than a year has -elapsed since the first of these papers was published, and yet no answer -has appeared. This silence may be attributed to one of three causes. -Either there has been a want of sufficient zeal on the part of those who -profess Judaism—or, prudence has suggested that the system would not -bear discussion—or, these papers have been thought unworthy of notice. -It is for the Jewish people at large to consider, which of these three -reasons have influenced the champions of the oral law. The Jews -certainly have a right to some explanation from those, whose learning -and station point them out as the natural defenders of Judaism. Every -reflecting man must be staggered by the fact, that a strong case has -been made out against the oral law—that, contemporaneously with the -publication of these papers, strong symptoms of dissatisfaction with -certain parts of Judaism have been manifested in one of the most -respectable synagogues in London—and yet, that nothing has appeared, -either in the shape of defence or explanation. That this silence has not -proceeded altogether from contempt is made probable by another fact, and -that is, That it is confidently asserted that a public answer was given -orally to the first number, and that this answer was satisfactory to -those who heard it. It is much to be regretted that the answer was not -made known generally, so as to afford the same satisfaction to others. -For ourselves, we should have been most happy, if convinced of error, to -have retracted any erroneous charge. We have, in the interval, -frequently considered the subject which is said to have been answered; -and now consider it our duty, before closing this series, to make known -our reasons for still believing, that that one topic is in itself -sufficient to prove that the religion of the oral law is a system of -error. Our arguments were simply these. A religion which despises and -insults the unlearned cannot be from God. The oral law does despise and -insult the unlearned, for it commands its disciples not to marry the -daughters of the unlearned on the ground that they are no better than -beasts. Therefore the oral law cannot be from God. Secondly, a religion -which makes the murder of an unlearned man lawful, cannot be from God. -The oral law does make it lawful, for, as we showed in No. 1, Rabbi -Eleazer says, That it is lawful even on the most solemn day of the -Jewish year, to kill an unlearned man without observing any of the -technicalities of the rabbinic art of slaughtering; or, as another says, -to rend him asunder like a fish. Therefore the oral law cannot be from -God. We now proceed to show why we still think that that line of -argument is valid. - -The first step is, to establish the meaning of the expression עם הארץ -_Amhaaretz_, which we translated “an unlearned man.” The literal English -of this expression is, “People of the land,” it might therefore signify -the inhabitants of Canaan, but in the Bible it is more commonly used of -the mass of the Israelitish people, as for instance:— - -וכל עם הארץ שמח ותוקע בחצוצרות ׃ - -“And all the people of the land rejoiced, and blew with trumpets.” (2 -Kings xi. 14. See also verses 18-20.) Here the expression is opposed to -king and princes, and evidently means the mass of the population, or, as -some would say, “The common people.” And, again, to give an example from -the Prophets:— - -ועתה חזק זרבבל נאם ה׳ וחזק יהושע בן יהוצדק הכהן הגדול וחזק כל עמי הארץ ׃ - -“Yet now be strong, O Zerubbabel, saith the Lord; and be strong, O -Joshua, son of Josedech, the high priest; and be strong, all ye people -of the land.” (Hag. ii. 4.) Here, also, the expression is opposed to the -governor of Judah and the high priest, and plainly signifies the mass of -the population. In the oral law, it has much the same signification; it -stands for those who are not counted amongst the learned, nor the great -men of the time, nor the almoners, nor the schoolmasters, as appears in -the extract given in page 7, with this difference, that in the oral law -the want of learning is a prominent idea, and the expression may -therefore be applied to a high priest if he be unlearned. In further -proof we might appeal to the common parlance of the Jews, even at this -day, for they commonly call an unlearned man an _Amhaaretz_. We prefer, -however, giving one or two extracts more from the laws, where the -expression _Amhaaretz_ is put in opposition to “The disciple of a wise -man,” that is, to a learned man. We read, for instance, that in a court -of justice, - -דין תלמיד חכם קודם לדין עם הארץ ׃ - -“The cause of the disciple of a wise man takes precedence of the cause -of an Amhaaretz.” (Hilchoth Sanhedrin, c. xxi. 6.) Again, - -וכן אסור לו לנהוג בהן קלות ראש אע׳׳פ שהן עמי הארץ , ולא יפסיע על ראשי עם -הקודש אע׳׳פ שהן הדיוטות ושפלים בני אברהם יצחק ויעקב הם ׃ - -“In like manner, it is unlawful for an elder to behave with levity to -the congregation, even though they be Amharatzin. Neither let him behave -haughtily to the holy people, for although they be common and humble -persons, they are children of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.” (Ibid., c. -25.) Again, - -לפיכך כשמלמדין את הקטנים ואת הנשי וכל עמי הארץ אין מלמדין אותן אלא לעבוד -מיראה וכדי לקבל שבר וכו׳ ׃ - -“Therefore, when children and women, and the whole genus of Amharatzin, -are instructed, they are to be taught to serve God only from the motive -of fear, and the desire to receive a reward until,” &c. (Hilchoth -T’shuvah, c. x. 5.) In these passages, and many, many more may be added, -_Amhaaretz_ plainly signifies an unlearned man, and it does not appear -from any one, that there is any crime to be laid to his charge. He may -appear as suitor in a court of law; he is considered as a son or -Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob; he is put on a level with the children and -the women of Israel. The only disparagement is, that he has not been -brought up at the feet of a learned rabbi, and, therefore, cannot be -reckoned amongst the disciples of the wise men. - -The next thing to be established is, that the oral law despises and -insults those whose misfortune it is to be unlearned; and here, in -addition to the complement paid to their wives and daughters, noticed in -No. 1, we bring, as a proof, the general rule which is given respecting -their treatment:— - -תנו רבנן ששה דברים נאמרו בעמי הארץ אין מוסרין להן עדות ואין מקבלין מהן -עדות ואין מגלין להן סוד ואין ממנין אותן אפוטרופוס על היתומים ואין ממנין -אותן אפוטרופוס על קופה של צדקה וא׳׳ן מתלוין עמהן בדרך וי׳׳א אף אין -מכריזין על אבדתן ׃ - -“Our rabbies have handed down as a tradition, that six things are said -with respect to Amharatzin. Testimony is not to be given to them, nor -received from them. A secret is not to be revealed to them. They are not -to be appointed as guardians to orphans, nor to an alms-fund. One is not -to bear them company in the way. And some say, that if they have lost -any thing, and it is found, no public notice is to be given respecting -it.” (Pesachim, fol. 49, col. 2.) Here, then, the unlearned are branded -as liars, whose word is not to be depended upon—as rogues, unfit to be -trusted with property—as murderers, with whom it is unsafe to walk by -the way-side. Can contempt or insult add more? Yes; rabbinic contempt -had one insult more galling than these, and that was to put them on a -level with Gentiles, and this it has done by forbidding public notice to -be given, if any thing which they had lost should be found. Now, we fear -not to assert, that this one passage is fatal to the claims of the oral -law. There is not a particle of resemblance in it to the merciful and -just religion made known by Moses. It is the effusion of a mind -intoxicated with self-conceit and arrogance. The authors of the oral law -were determined, so far as they could, to lay it down as a maxim, not -only that no wisdom, but no truth, no honesty, and no humanity, was to -be found, except amongst themselves, and their disciples; they wished to -have the monopoly of all moral virtue, as well as of all learning. We -ask both the learned and the unlearned, whether it be possible that such -a law could have emanated from the God of Israel? But there is not only -excessive arrogance, there is also gross injustice in their law. It is -ordained, first, that in a court of law, the cause of the learned is to -be heard before the cause of the unlearned; this is in itself most -unjust, but is not to be compared with what follows. The oral law -forbids the appointment of an unlearned man as guardian to orphans; can -any thing be more oppressive? Suppose that an unlearned man, on his -death-bed, thinks of a guardian for his orphan children, and looks to a -brother, or an intimate friend, as unlearned as himself, but whose -worth, and honesty, and affection, he has long known and valued; the -oral law forbids him to make such an appointment; and if he has no -learned friend—and how, where such a law exists, is it ever possible -that the learned and the unlearned should be friends?—he must die with -the agonizing thought, that his children must be left to the -guardianship of a perfect stranger. Is it possible to conceive anything -more oppressive, unjust, or cruel? But the oral law is not content with -this; it will not permit an unlearned man, even in his lifetime, to -recover property that has been lost. Whoever finds it may keep it. The -law for other people is, that if any thing be found, the finder is to -have proclamation made in the city, or, if the majority of the -inhabitants be Gentiles, in the synagogue, that the loser may hear of -it. But the poor Amhaaretz is excluded from the benefit of this command. -It may, however, puzzle the reader, how the finder is to know whether -the thing which he has found belongs to a learned or an unlearned man. -One of the commentators has solved this difficulty in the following -manner:— - -וא׳׳ת מאין יודע שהוא של עם הארץ ואמר ר׳ יצחק כגון ששיירא של עם הארץ -עוברת וראינו שנפל מהם ׃ - -“If you ask, How is the finder to know that the thing found belongs to -an Amhaaretz? R. Isaac says, it is in such a case as when a crowd of -Amharatzin is passing, and we see that it fell from them.” (Ibid.) So -that, according to this interpretation, the disciples of the wise men -are positively allowed to retain what they know does not belong to them, -if they only see that it does belong to an unlearned man; and yet these -are the men who are so afraid of the dishonesty of the unlearned, as to -forbid their appointment to the office of guardian to orphans, or -treasurer to a charitable fund. Let any man of common sense decide, -whether this law is honest or dishonest, and then let him decide, -whether it can come from God, and whether such a religion is fit for an -honest man? - -The most important point, however, remains, and that is, the permission -to kill an unlearned man, or to rend him like a fish. We have been told -that this is merely figurative language, but the context is not such as -to lead to this conclusion; on the contrary, the passage itself, and all -that precedes and follows, leads us to believe that it was meant -literally. In the first place, it is said, that it is lawful to kill an -Amhaaretz without observing the rules of שחיטה slaughtering, and when -the disciples ask the reason, R. Eleazar replies, Because these rules -would require a benediction to be pronounced, whereas he would not have -an Amhaaretz treated with such respect. Let any man explain the -figurative meaning of all this. Secondly, R. Samuel, to take away all -ambiguity, says, in the name of R. Johannan, that it is lawful to rend -him as a fish. Now it is known that, with regard to fish, the rules of -שחיטה or slaughtering, are not observed. All ambiguity, therefore, as to -R. Eleazar’s meaning, is here removed. Thirdly, it is evident that the -rabbies looked upon the unlearned as nothing better than beasts. They -say, that the daughters of the unlearned are an abomination, and their -wives vermin: yea, that their daughters are beasts. Now, when men are so -wicked as to use such language concerning their fellow-creatures, are we -to be astonished that they would draw the conclusion that necessarily -follows from such premises, and that they should allow these beasts and -vermin to be killed? When we see that these rabbies allow an unlearned -man to be robbed with impunity of that which he has lost, what principle -of conscience or justice is there left to prevent them from killing him -whom they have robbed? If all the other principles of these rabbies were -just, honest, upright, and merciful, we might be tempted to suppose, -that in these words they enveloped some mystical sense. But when we see -that the principles which precede and follow are an outrage upon -humanity, justice, and mercy, no such supposition is necessary. - -But, after all, how did the commentators understand the passage? If we, -as Gentiles, are accused of misrepresenting the sense, what did the -rabbies, who succeeded, make of this passage? The commentary from which -we have just quoted, after saying, that if a crowd of Amharatzin let any -thing fall, it is lawful to keep it without giving public notice, adds, -that this is to be understood strictly of what is lost, but that it does -not warrant the learned to rob them by force; upon which the following -difficulty is started:— - -אמאי ממונו אסור השתא נופו מותר שמותר לקרצו כדג וכו׳ ׃ - -“Why should it be unlawful to deal thus with his money, when it is -lawful to deal violently with his body, for it is lawful to rend him as -a fish.” (Ibid.) Now here this rabbi evidently interpreted the -permission to kill literally, and he naturally asks, If it be lawful to -take away a man’s life by violence, why should it not be lawful to take -away his money? If the words had been taken figuratively, there would -have been no room for this question. We have, therefore, neither -misunderstood nor misrepresented the meaning. The oral law allows the -murder of an unlearned man, and that with as little ceremony as it -permits the killing of an unclean animal, or a fish. We therefore repeat -our assertion, that the oral law cannot be from God. One such passage is -quite sufficient to discredit the whole, not only because of its -intrinsic wickedness, but because it displays the character of those men -with whom the oral law originated. Superabundant self-conceit, -cold-blooded cruelty, and unrelenting enmity, are the striking -characteristics of those men, who, by dint of force and fraud, gradually -enslaved the minds of the Jewish people. It appears from these passages, -and from the plain confessions of the rabbies in the context, that the -common people struggled hard before they submitted to the yoke of the -oral law. The attempt to impose such a burden, evidently produced the -most bitter animosity between the rabbies and the people. The people -were ready, as one of the rabbies says, to kill all the wise men, and -these, in return laid down the principles of retaliation which we have -just considered, and which are a disgrace to the name of religion. These -principles, however, would not have triumphed if the rabbies had not got -the whole power of the State into their own hands. By means of that -unlawful and heathenish tribunal, the Sanhedrin, they were able to -coerce the people, and to kill all who refused to submit. Judaism, -therefore, as it at present exist, is a religion which was originally -forced upon the Jewish people against their will, and therefore has no -claims upon their reverence or gratitude. By the dispersion, God has -removed the main difficulties in the way of their moral and spiritual -emancipation. Christianity is in the ascendant, and will not permit any -“wise men” to kill the unlearned without ceremony. The people may, -therefore, assert their religious liberty in perfect security, and -without any fear of the Sanhedrin. We tell the Jews, even on the -admissions of the Talmud itself, that their present religion is not even -the object of their choice, and much less the religion given by God, but -that it was imposed upon the consciences of their fathers by force; and, -therefore, ask the Jews, Whether they still wish to continue slaves to -superstition and cruelty, when God has, in his providence, arranged the -means of their delivery? The Jewish people have often had reason to -complain of the injustice, contempt, and cruelty of the nations amongst -whom they have been scattered; but we ask them, Have the most barbarous -nations ever treated them with more contempt, injustice, and cruelty -than that which we have just found authorized by the oral law? Ignorant -and superstitious Gentiles have turned the holy name of Jew into a term -of reproach, but where was it ever known or heard of, that the most -ignorant and most superstitious called the Jews vermin, or compared the -wives and daughters of Israel to beasts? It is Judaism, and Judaism -only, that utters this foul and inhuman slander. In seasons of popular -tumult, mobs have risen and plundered the Jews; but where is the nation, -or the religion, which has made a law that it is lawful to keep the lost -property of a Jew? Judaism, and Judaism alone, is guilty of this -injustice. Prejudice has unjustly assailed the character of the Jewish -people, but what sect or party of Christians ever thought of branding -them as liars, whose evidence is not to be received; as rogues, unworthy -to be appointed as guardians to orphans or property; as murderers, with -whom it is unsafe to walk by the road-side? Yet this is the deliberate -sentence of Judaism respecting the unlearned; that is, respecting the -great mass of the Jewish people. Just suppose that the Parliament of -England was to pass a law, declaring that the Jews are to be considered -incompetent to give testimony, or to be guardians of property, warning -people to beware of walking with a Jew, and permitting men to kill them, -or to rend them like a fish; would not the Jewish people perceive in a -moment the injustice and the cruelty of such legislation? Would they not -have just reason to complain of the blind prejudice which possessed the -minds of the legislators? And yet, this is only what the rabbies have -done. If Judaism be true, then the mass of the Jewish people are liars, -rogues, and murderers; for this is what Judaism asserts; and if the -Jewish people consent to its truth, they are stamping themselves, their -wives, and their daughters with infamy. The truth or falsehood of the -oral law is not simply a speculative question, or a question relating to -their eternal interests in another world; it is a question deeply -affecting their characters and their welfare at present. It simply comes -to this, are all unlearned Jews, that is, the overwhelming majority of -the people, to be considered as utterly destitute of truth, honesty, and -humanity? If Judaism be true, the answer is, Yes. Let, then, every Jew, -rich or poor, learned or unlearned, consider whether he will still -profess a religion that defames and insults the mass of his countrymen. -The character of the nation is foully attacked, defamed, and vilified, -but not by Gentiles, not by Turk, Infidel, or Heretic, but by the Talmud -and the Rabbies. The only way in which this calumny can be met and wiped -away, is, by a renunciation of that system which has dared to utter it. -If there live a Jew who has the slightest regard for the honour of the -nation, he is bound to protest aloud against the falsehood of the oral -law. That it is false, requires no great stretch of argument to prove. -Every unlearned Jew, who is conscious that he is not a liar, a rogue, -and a murderer, has the proof in his own breast, that Judaism is false. -Every unlearned Jew, who duly honours and respects his wife and -daughters, and believes that they are neither vermin nor beasts, is a -witness against the truth of the oral law. Every one who believes that -dishonesty is contrary to the will of God, and that the murder of the -unlearned is unlawful, has the proof that that system which was imposed -upon his fathers, is not from God. - - - - - No. LX. - RECAPITULATION. - - -Having, by the help and mercy of God, brought those papers to the last -number, we propose here to sum up their contents, and to give a review -of the arguments which have been urged. The topics discussed have been -very various, but the object in all has been the same,—To show that -Judaism, or the religion of the oral law, is not the old religion of -Moses and the Prophets, but a new and totally different system, devised -by designing men, and unworthy of the Jewish people. That Judaism is -identical with the religion of the oral law was proved in the first -number by an appeal to the highest possible authority, the Prayer-book -of the synagogue, which is not only formed in obedience to the -directions of the oral law, but declares expressly that the Talmud is of -Divine authority. So long, therefore, as that Prayer-book is the ritual -of the synagogue, the worshippers there must be considered as -Talmudists, believers in all the absurdities, and advocates of all the -intolerance of that mass of tradition. That this is no misrepresentation -and no unfounded conclusion of our own, appears from the latest book -published in this country by a member of the Jewish persuasion. Joshua -Van Oven, Esq., has, in his “Introduction to the Principles of the -Jewish Faith,” a chapter, headed JUDAISM, which begins thus,—“The Jewish -religion, or Judaism, is founded solely on the law of Moses, so called -from its having been brought down by him from Mount Sinai. With the -particulars of these laws he had been inspired by the Almighty during -the forty days he remained on the mount, after receiving the Ten -Commandments; these he afterwards embodied in the sacred volume, known -and accepted as the written law, and called the Pentateuch, or the Five -Books of Moses, contained in the volume we term the Bible. _We also, -from the same source, receive, as sacred and authentic_, a large number -of traditions not committed to writing, but transmitted by word of mouth -down to later times; without which many enactments in the Holy Bible -could not have been understood and acted upon; these, termed traditional -or oral laws, were collected and formed into a volume called the -‘Mishna,’ by Rabbi Jehudah Hakodesh, A.M. 4150. In addition to this, _we -are guided_ by the explications of the later schools of pious and -learned rabbies, _constituting what is now known by the name of the -Talmud, or Gemara_.”[37] - -Nothing can be more explicit than this avowal. A learned and pious Jew -of the nineteenth century honestly avows that Judaism is the religion of -the Talmud; and upon this principle we have examined Judaism, and -compared it with Moses and the Prophets, and the result of this -comparison is— - -I. THAT JUDAISM IS A FALSE RELIGION. - -The premises, from which we draw this conclusion, are— - -1. _That the oral law is altogether destitute of external evidence._ To -establish the authority of the oral law, it is absolutely necessary to -prove a succession of Sanhedrins from the time of Moses to that of Rabbi -Jehudah, or at the least an unbroken chain of tradition. But it has been -proved, in Nos. xliii. and xliv., that there was no such thing as a -Sanhedrin until after the Greek conquest of Judea, and in No. xlv., that -there is no continuous chain of tradition. The only evidence, therefore, -which could beget faith in the mind of a reasonable man is wanting. - -2. _The oral law itself is full of manifest fables._ This has been -proved almost in every number, but particularly from Nos. xvii.-xxi., -where the fables selected are such as are particularly noticed in the -prayers of the synagogue. No one can doubt that the stories about -Leviathan and Behemoth—of Adam’s singing the 92d Psalm after a -conversation with Cain—of the river Sambation—of the experiment made by -Turnus Rufus to raise his father—of Mount Sinai having been turned, like -a tub, over the Israelites—of the descent of 600,000 angels to crown the -Israelites—of the people’s travelling 240 miles backwards and forwards -during the delivery of the Ten Commandments, &c., &c.,—are all downright -fables, not a whit more authentic than similar stories contained in the -Koran, or the Arabian Nights’ Entertainments. Any one fable would be -sufficient to overturn the credit of the oral law, but what are we to -think of the host of downright falsehoods here enumerated? - -3. _It is directly subversive of the state of things established in the -written law._ Moses appointed the priests, the sons of Levi, as the -religious teachers of Israel. The oral law has ousted them altogether -from their office, as was shown in No. xli. - -4. _The oral law encourages those Heathen superstitions expressly -forbidden by Moses and the Prophets_, such as magic, astrology, amulets, -and charms, as is shown from Nos. xxii.-xxvi. - -5. _The oral law loosens the moral obligations._ It teaches men how to -evade the Divine commandments, as was shown in Nos. xi., xiv., and xv. -It allows dispensation from oaths, as proved in Nos. lvi. and lvii. It -allows men to retain what they know does not belong to them, if it only -belongs to a Gentile (p. 18), or to an unlearned Jew, as appears from -No. lix. It sanctions the murder of the unlearned. - -6. _It leads men to put trust in mere external acts as a compensation -for moral delinquencies._ The washing of hands (No. x.)—the external -sanctification of the Sabbath (No. xxix.)—the blowing of the cornet at -the new year (No. xxxiv.)—the rite of circumcision (No. lviii.), &c., -&c., are represented as sufficient to save wicked men from the just -punishment of their misdeeds. - -7. _Though called an oral law, because not written with ink, it is -really written in blood._ For the most trifling offences it sentences -the offender to be flogged (Nos. xiii. and liii.)—for the transgression -of the rabbinic commands respecting the Sabbath, it awards the sentence -of death (No. xxvii.)—and, by its laws respecting the killing and -cooking meat (Nos. xlix.-liv.), it prevents the poor from getting food -for themselves and their children. - -8. _It degrades the female sex_, by permitting polygamy (No. xlvii.)—by -permitting divorce on the most trifling pretext (No. xlviii.)—by -declaring women incompetent to give evidence—by excluding them from the -public worship of God—and by teaching that they are under no obligation -to learn the revealed will of their Creator (No. iii.). - -9. _It oppresses and insults slaves_, by forbidding them to be -instructed in the law (No. iii.), and by placing them, when dead, on a -level with brutes (No. lv.). - -10. _It is a persecuting and intolerant system._ It gives every rabbi -the power of excommunicating the Jews (No. xxxi.), and it commands the -conversion of all the Gentile nations by the sword (No. vi.). - -11. _It forbids the exercise of the commonest feelings of humanity to -those whom it calls idolaters._ It will not permit a drowning idolater -to be helped, nor a perishing idolater to be rescued, nor an idolatrous -woman in travail to be delivered (Nos. iv. and v.). - -12. _It leaves those Gentiles who are not idolaters without religion._ -It teaches that they are not commanded to love God, and breaks up all -the happiness of domestic life, by asserting that amongst Gentiles there -is no such thing as marriage (No. viii.). For these and other reasons -which might be adduced, we believe that Judaism is contrary to the -religion of Moses and the Prophets—that it has not proceeded from God, -but is the mere invention of men, and therefore false. - -II. From these premises we have concluded, secondly, THAT JUDAISM HAS -FOR ITS AUTHORS WICKED MEN, UNWORTHY OF CREDIT. One of the most daring -acts of wickedness, that can be committed is to invent laws and -principles, and pass them off as the laws of God. Every degree of wilful -falsehood is sinful; but to forge Divine laws, and impose upon the -consciences of men, is the most daring of all wickedness, for it not -only deceives men, but it dishonours God. The Divine Being is -represented as the author of principles and practices which are abhorred -by the good even amongst men. Is it possible that those men could be -good, who invented the fables of which we have spoken above—or who -overturned the Mosaic constitution for the purposes of personal -aggrandisement—or who teach that oaths may be broken with impunity—or -that men may keep what does not belong to them—or that unlearned men may -be murdered without ceremony—or that it is lawful to look upon the -agonies and pain of an idolater without rendering him any assistance or -feeling any pity? If falsehood, perjury, dishonesty, cruelty, and -inhumanity, constitute men wicked, then the authors of the oral law are -wicked men, and altogether unworthy of credit. And therefore we -conclude— - -III. THAT THEIR TESTIMONY AGAINST CHRISTIANITY IS OF NO VALUE. Many Jews -of the present day reject Christianity simply because the rulers of the -nation rejected the Lord Jesus Christ. But the discoveries which we have -made of the principles and practices of these men show, that there is no -force whatever in this argument. Their testimony against Jesus of -Nazareth is not to be trusted any more than Mahomet’s testimony against -the fidelity of the Jewish nation in preserving the Scriptures. This -impostor says, that the Jews have corrupted the Old Testament, but no -one believes the charge, because he has been convicted himself of -forging revelations and laws. The authors of the oral law have been -convicted of the same offence, and their testimony must be rejected for -the very same reason. They have passed off their own inventions as -Divine laws—they have taught their absurd legends as undoubted matters -of fact—they are plainly convicted of falsehood, and the only -alternative is to say that these falsehoods are wilful, and then the men -who witness against Christianity are wilful liars, or to confess that -the authors were mad, and therefore incompetent to give any testimony. -In every case they must be regarded as propagaters of falsehood. But -falsehood is not the only trait in their character; they were interested -in their testimony against Jesus: they were his personal enemies, -because he opposed their pretensions and condemned all their inventions. -They had, therefore, a strong motive for condemning him, and there is -nothing in their character to lead us to suppose that their love of -justice would prevail over their private feelings. When the general -tenour of a man’s conduct is evidently the result of upright principle, -it is possible to believe that he would be just even to an enemy. When a -man’s whole life has been distinguished by tender compassion, it is -possible to believe that he would not be cruel even to a foe. But -neither supposition holds good with respect to the authors of the oral -law. They do not even profess integrity, for they teach that it is -lawful to defraud an unlearned man—they declare, by their permission to -kill an Amhaaretz, that they had no value for human life. If they were -capable of murdering in cold blood a man who had never offended them, -simply because he did not belong to their party, is it to be wondered at -that they should endeavour to destroy one who who was a direct opposer? -The condemnation of the Lord Jesus Christ by such men is not only no -argument against his character or claims, but even an argument in his -favour. It is a decisive proof that he did not belong to their party, -and that, therefore, there are not the same objections to his testimony -as to theirs. The Jews of the present day, therefore, must find some -other reasons for rejecting Jesus of Nazareth. The conduct of their -great and learned men at the time can supply no warrant for unbelief at -present: it is, on the contrary, a sort of presumptive evidence that He -was a good man. And this presumption is much strengthened by comparing -the oral law with the New Testament, whereby we learn— - -IV. THAT IN ALL THOSE POINTS WHERE THE ORAL LAW IS WEAK, THE NEW -TESTAMENT IS STRONG. In the first place, it is entirely free from all -fabulous additions to the Old Testament history. It recognises the -authority, and frequently cites the writings, of Moses and the Prophets, -but it is never, like the Talmud, guilty of forgeries. Neither Jesus nor -his disciples pretended to have an oral interpretation of the law, -unknown to the people at large, and therefore capable of being twisted -to their own purposes. They referred simply to the written word, and by -it desired to have all their doctrines judged. In the second place, it -is free from all superstitious doctrines concerning magic, astrology, -and other heathenish arts. It does not allow absolution from oaths, nor -mark out any class of society as the lawful victims of fraud and -violence. It is merciful to the poor and to slaves. It teaches that the -souls of women are as precious in the sight of God as those of men. It -forbids polygamy, and allows divorce only in one case where it is -necessary, and thus protects the weaker sex, and guards the sacredness -and the happiness of domestic life. It differs especially from the oral -law in its estimation of external rites, and thus gives the strongest -evidence of its Divine origin. If there be one sign of true religion -more satisfactory than another, it is the placing of holiness of heart -and life as the first great requisite, at the same time that it does not -undervalue any of God’s commands. Now this mark Christianity has, and -Judaism wants. The former teaches expressly, That without holiness no -man shall see the Lord, and that for the want of it no external -ceremonies can compensate. Further, Christianity knows of no violent -methods of propagating the truth. It nowhere tells its followers, when -they have the power, to compel all men to embrace its doctrines, or to -put them to death if they refuse. It has not a criminal code written in -blood, and prescribing floggings of rebellion, or even death, for a mere -ceremonial offence. It does not allow each individual teacher to torment -the people by excommunication and anathema at his pleasure. And lastly, -it does not misrepresent God as an unjust and partial judge, who -confines the benefits of revelation to one small nation, and sentences -the overwhelming majority of mankind to unholiness and unhappiness. If -ever Judaism should attain to universal dominion, and the principles of -Judaism be brought into action, the whole Gentile world would be doomed -to misery and ignorance. By pronouncing that amongst Gentiles there is -no marriage-tie, it would rob them of all domestic peace. By sentencing -every Gentile reader of the Bible to death, it would deprive them of all -the consolations and instructions of the Word of God, and by forbidding -them to keep a Sabbath, it would, so far as it could, annihilate every -token of God’s care and loving-kindness. The triumph of Christianity, on -the contrary, and the full development of all its principles, would fill -the world with peace, and joy, and happiness. The fundamental principles -of Christianity, namely, that the Messiah has died for the sins of the -whole world, sets forth God as the tender father who cares for all his -children, and therefore teaches all men to regard one another as -fellow-heirs of the same eternal salvation. It does not deny that Israel -has peculiar privileges as a nation, but fully acknowledges that “they -are still beloved for the fathers’ sakes,” and that they are yet to be -the benefactors of the human race as they were of old. But it asserts, -at the same time, that God is not the God of the Jews only, but of the -Gentiles also, and thus makes it possible for Jew and Gentile to love -each other. The only foundation for the peace and unity of all nations -is the recognition of God as the Father of all, and this foundation is -the very corner-stone of Christianity, whilst it neither does nor can -form any part of the fabric of Judaism. Christianity teaches that the -first and great commandment is, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with -all thy heart; and the second is, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as -thyself; and teaches, at the same time, that all men are our neighbours. -Judaism teaches that circumcision is the greatest of all the -commandments, and that none but Jews and proselytes are neighbours. Thus -Judaism divides, whilst Christianity tends to unite, all the children of -men in the bands of peace. It has only one principle of God’s dealings -to men, and that principle is love; and one principle for the guiding of -man’s conduct to men, and that is love also. Let not the Jewish reader -think that we Gentiles wish to ascribe any merit to ourselves, as if by -our own wit or wisdom we had found out a religious system superior to -anything that Israel had been able to devise. Far from it; we -acknowledge again, as we did in the first number, that we are only -disciples of one part of the Jewish nation. From the Jews Christianity -came to us. It has been a light to lighten us Gentiles, but we -acknowledge its Divine Author as the glory of his people Israel. All we -mean by instituting the comparison is, to show those who still adhere to -the oral law, that there is another Jewish religion infinitely superior, -and more like that of Moses and the Prophets. And we appeal confidently -to every reader of these papers to decide whether the New Testament or -the Talmud is the better book, and to say which is the most agreeable to -the will of God as revealed to their forefathers. We earnestly call upon -them to make the decision, and to deliver themselves from that unmerited -weight of odium which has rested upon them for centuries; and from that -still more dreadful evil, the displeasure of Almighty God, which has -followed them ever since they forsook the Old Paths wherein their -fathers walked. - -It is time for those, at least, who profess to abhor certain parts of -the Talmud and oral law, to justify their professions by consistent -conduct. If they wish people to believe them when they profess love and -charity towards all men, they must begin by repudiating the authority of -the oral law, and renouncing the worship of the synagogue. How can we -possibly believe that those are sincere in their professions to men, who -declare that they are insincere in their worship of the heart-searching -God? Every man who uses the prayers of the synagogue, there confesses -himself to God as a believer in the oral law, and consequently ready to -execute all its decrees of cruelty, fraud, and persecution—ready, when -he has the power, to convert all nations with the sword. That is his -profession in the synagogue; when, then, he comes forth from the solemn -act of Divine worship, and tells me that he is liberal and charitable, -and that he abhors persecution, how can I possibly believe him? There is -falsehood somewhere, and the only possible mode of removing this -appearance is by a public renunciation of the oral law, and an erasure -of those passages in the public prayers which affirm its Divine -authority. This all truly liberal-minded Jews owe to themselves, to the -Christian public, to their brethren, and, above all, to their God. To -themselves they owe it, because so long as their words and their deeds -contradict each other, a mist hangs over them. To the Christian public -they owe it, for they must naturally desire to know the principles of -those with whom they are connected. To their brethren they owe it, for -this is the only way of delivering the nation from the calamities of -centuries. To their God they owe it, for by the blasphemies of the oral -law, His character is misrepresented, and His name blasphemed. - -THE END. - -Footnote 37: - - “A Manual of Judaism,” by Joshua Van Oven, Esq., M.R.C.S.L., London, - 1835. Page 22. - - - - - INDEX. - - - Abarbanel, 124 - - Aben Ezra, 123 - - Abraham at the door of hell, 450 - - Adam, 136 - - Agadah, recognized in Jewish Prayer-book, 3 - - Ahijah, the Shilonite, fable about, 352 - - Almsgiving, Rabbinic, 302 - merit of, 307 - - Amhaaretz, meaning of the word, 458 - disqualifications of, 459 - may be robbed and slain with impunity, 461 - lawful to kill, 6 - - Amulets, virtues of, 183 - - Angels carry up the sound of the horn at new year, 267 - - Angels, of the waves, 197 - - Angel, evil, 229 - - Angels ministering, 164 - - Apostates, to be killed, 36 - - Arbah, Turim, 112 - - Astrology, taught and practised, 175 - - Atonement, day of, 279 - itself an atonement, 279 - repentance an, 279 - a cock killed as an, 283 - death an, 299 - - - Baptism necessary to a proselyte, 304 - - Bar Kochav, 222 - - Bechai, 142 - - Behemoth, legend of, 128, &c. - - Bither, the city of, 216 - - - Cain, 138 - - Catechism, Bavarian Jewish, 25 - gives a false view of Judaism, 26 - - Charity, Rabbinic, 112 - - Charm, Rabbinic, for a bleeding of the nose, 192 - for the bite of a mad dog, 193 - for a storm at sea, 196 - for the bite of a scorpion, 200 - - Charms allowed on the Sabbath-day, 200 - - Charm for bed time, 201 - - Christianity, a Jewish religion, 1 - - Christianity, the religion of the New Testament, 2 - - Christians considered as idolaters, 419 - not counted amongst the pious of the nations, 4 - not in a state of salvation, 4 - - Circumcision equivalent to all the commandments, 451 - meritoriousness of, 450 - - Cock, killing a cock as atonement, 283 - - Commandments, 442; 162 - - Cruelty, Rabbinic, 8, 99, 209 - to women, 377 - - - Dead, Rabbinic mourning for, 428 - prayers for the, 295 - - Death, an atonement, 299 - - Demons, asking counsel of, 203 - - Deniers of the law, three classes of, 4 - - Deputies, French Jewish, 24 - - Deuteronomy xvii. 8, &c., explained, 11 - - Dispensation, Rabbinic, from oaths, 434 - - Divorce, Rabbinic, doctrine of, 373 - - Drunkenness allowed on feast of Purim, 47 - - - Edomites, Christians called, 123 - - Eleazar, Rabbi, 6 - - Elijah, the Prophet, conversation of, with R. Jose, 323 - - Epicureans, 4 - to be killed, 36 - - Epicurean, reader in synagogue suspected of being, 127 - - Evasion, Rabbinic, 80, 83, 107, 225, 235 - - Excommunication for not washing hands, 75 - Rabbinic, 239 - laws concerning, with respect to the unlearned and learned, 239 - injustice of, 239 - - - Fast on the ninth of Av, 216 - - Fasting, merit of, 264 - - Fire, not to be extinguished, 102 - - Flogging of rebellion, 99, 211, 228, 383, 386, 420 - - Friday, Good, 87 - - - Gentile, who studies the law, guilty of death, 22 - who keeps a Sabbath-day, guilty of death, 22 - good advice not to be given to, 33 - woman not to be helped in child-bed, 33 - not neighbour, 34 - lost property not to be restored to, 35 - Daniel punished for giving good advice to, 33 - who wishes to turn Jew, 63 - a Jew not publicly to receive alms from, 306 - Sabbath not to be profaned to save a Gentile’s life, 212, 214 - food regarded as carrion, 383 - food not to be eaten, 383, 416 - wine unlawful, 419 - he that steals from, only to pay the principal, 34 - wine, to drink, worse than fornication, 424 - - Gentiles, idolatrous, to be exterminated, 42 - to be converted by force, 42 - idolatrous, not to be suffered in the land of Israel, 28 - - Gentile, drowning, not to be delivered, 30 - - Gentiles, duties towards, 24 - not brethren, 26 - not neighbours, 26 - not to be greeted except from fear, 10, 26, 28 - condemned for transgressing the command about tabernacles, 288 - still have the defilement of the serpent, 156 - cursing the, on the feast of Passover, 120, 121, 122 - no pious, now, 67 - marriage of, not binding, 58 - and dogs, 107 - - Gershom, R., anathema by, 366 - - - Hands, laying on of, 328 - washing of, 71 - - Heathen, who are not in a state of salvation, 5 - - High Priest, an unlearned man, 7 - - Hilchoth Accum, 28, 33 - Avadim, 21 - Avel, 428 - Berachoth, 71, 73 - Deoth, 113 - Genevah, 34 - Gezelah, 34 - Girushin, 375 - Gittin, 374 - Iom Tov, 116 - Ishuth, 366 - Issure Biah, 64 - Kiddush Hachodesh, 100 - Maakaloth Asuroth, 419 - Mamrim, 335 - Matt’noth Aniim, 304 - Megillah, 48 - Mikvaoth, 72 - M’lachim, 22, 25 - P’riah u’r’viah, 7 - Rotzeach, 32, 33 - Sanhedrin, 172, 342 - Sh’vuoth, 436 - Taanith, 216 - Talmud Torah, 17, 148 - T’phillah, 2, 128 - T’shuvah, 4, 247 - - Hillel, the elder, 187 - - Holyday, how to make fire on, 106 - - Holydays, additional, prescribed by the rabbies, 98, 101 - - - Jeremiah unjustly condemned, 13 - - Jewish-German, 283 - - Jews persecuted in Spain and Portugal, 42 - - Illegitimate, a learned man takes precedence of High Priest, 7 - - Intolerance, Talmudic, 28-39 - - Ioma, 19 - - Jonathan, son of Uzziel, 187 - - Jost’s history, 125 - - Isaac, merit of offering, 271 - - Jubilee, year of, 66 - - Judaism the religion of the oral law, 2 - and of the Jewish Prayer-book, 2 - and Christianity cannot both be true, 3 - a false religion, 465 - its authors wicked men, 467 - - Judgment, Rabbinic, idea of the final, 287 - - - Karo, R. Joseph, 17 - - K’hillath Shlomoh, 282 - - Kiddushin, 19 - - Kimchi, 93 - - - Leaven, putting away of, 80 - - Legends, 127-167 - - Levi, family of, still known, 312 - privileges of, in the synagogue, 313 - David, 134 - - Leviathan, legend of, 128, &c. - - Levites, scriptural privileges of, 311 - - Liberty, religious, first taught by Jesus Christ, 46 - - Luck, good, 182 - - - Magic allowed by Talmud, 168-174 - - Maimonides, 25, et passim - intolerance, 26 - - Meat, lawful and unlawful, 397 - in milk, laws concerning, 404 - contrary to Scripture, 404, 405 - - Medrash Rabba, 153 - - Merit of ancestors, 285 - - Merit, doctrine of, 247, &c. - - Messiah, already come, 387 - - Miracles, Rabbinic, 203 - - Mishna, recognised in Jewish Prayer-book, 3 - - Mixture, Rabbinic, command of, 116 - - Muktzeh, 103 - - - Napoleon, 24 - - New Year, Jewish, 247 - - New Year, judgment at, 247 - prayers for, 264 - merit and advantage of blowing the horn on, 266 - - Noachidæ, 25, 41 - who they are, 55 - seven commandments of, 56 - may transgress commandments, 57 - murderer of, not to be put to death, 62 - unintentionally killing a Jew, to be put to death, 61 - when received, 67 - how received, 68 - - - Oral law opposed to the Word of God in duty to parents, 9, 10 - a mixed system of good and evil, 16 - how much time to be devoted to the study of, 16 - women and children not to study, 18 - perpetual and unchangeable, 53 - precepts of, given to Moses, 161 - - Oaths, Rabbinic dispensation from, 435, 450 - - - Parable of Good Samaritan illustrated, 29 - - Parents, if in captivity, to be redeemed after the Rabbi, 9 - duty to, according to oral law, 9 - - Passover, rites of, 79 - Christ our, 91 - four cups of, 96 - - Pentecost prayers, 145 - - Pesachim, treatise, 6 - - Pharisees, enemies of the Lord Jesus, 9 - bad men, 8 - - Physician, Jewish, not to cure idolaters, 33 - - Pirke, Eleazer, 137 - - Planets, 175 - - Polygamy, allowed, 366 - - Poor, Rabbinic, oppression of the, 97 - Rabbinic religion not for the, 237 - Rabbinic cruelty to, 414, 429 - - Power, Rabbinic, to excommunicate, 239 - - Prayer-book, Jewish, acknowledges and teaches the authority of the - Talmud, 2, 3 - Jewish, full of legends, 127-167 - - Priests, scriptural office of, 310 - - Proselytes, sojourning, 26 - how to be instructed, 63 - baptism of, 304 - - Purgatory, Rabbinic, 296 - - Purim, feast of, 47 - - - Rabbi, duty to, goes before duty to parents, 9, 10 - fear of, as the fear of God, 11 - reverence due to, 15 - whosoever despises a, to be excommunicated, 15 - not to forgive a public affront, 243 - method of creating a, 328 - - Rabbies not agreed, 399, 400 - - Rabbinic charity, 112 - evasion, 107, 110 - order, novelty of, 328 - power to excommunicate, 239 - acknowledgments that Messiah is born, 389-393 - - Ramban, 142 - - Rome called Edom, 123 - - Rosh Hashanah, 298 - - - Saadiah Gaon, 162 - - Sabbath, unlawful for a Gentile to keep a, 22 - laws of, 104, 114-119 - spirits cannot be cited on, 141 - damned have rest on, 141 - - Sabbath-day, amulets on, 184 - - Sabbath, laws concerning, 285-290 - lamp, reward for, 229 - moving things on, 232 - merit of keeping the, 224 - jurisdictions, 232 - - Salvation, who are excluded from, by the oral law, 4 - - Sambation, 139 - - Sanhedrin, not infallible, 8 - great council of, 168 - members of, magicians, 168 - understood seventy languages, 168 - all handsome men, 171 - pillar of the oral law, 335 - a later, may reverse the decision of a former, 335 - not a Divine institution, 337 - of Greek origin, 341 - greater and lesser, 343 - business of, 345 - death to those who rebelled against, 344 - contrary to Scripture, 345 - Parisian, 366 - - Satan deceived by the blowing of the horn in the month of Elul, 266 - - Scapegoat, 280 - - Schoolmasters, Rabbinic, 315 - - Scripture, women not bound to study, 18 - not to be studied so much as the Talmud, 16 - when not to be studied at all, 17 - - Sepher Jetzirah, 181 - - Schulchan Aruch, 7 - - Sinai, 163 - - Slaughtering, laws concerning, 380 - laws of, 396 - - Slaves exempt from the duty of studying the law of God, 17 - unlawful to teach, 21 - regarded as beasts, 431 - - Souls of all Israel at Sinai, 152 - - Sotah, 76 - - Stars, influence of, 175 - - Study of the law equivalent to all the commandments, 51 - - - Tabernacles, feast of, 287 - merit of, 287 - prayers for the feast of, 295 - - Talmud, recognised in Jewish Prayer-book, 3 - legends of, 128, 167 - - Tradition, Rabbinic argument for overthrow, 11 - no unbroken train of, 350 - - Treatise, Avodah Zarah, 291 - Bava Bathra, 187 - Berachoth, 161 - Gittin, 192 - Moed Katon, 175 - Shabbath, 157 - Succah, 180 - Z’vachin, 150 - - Turnus Rufus, 140, 216 - - - Unlearned man, lawful to kill, 6 - the wives and daughters of, not to be taken as wives, 6 - to be accounted as beasts, 6 - man, unlawful for, to eat meat, 7 - - - Van Oven, Joshua, Esq., Manual of Judaism, 465 - - Venus planet, 177 - - Washing of hands, 71 - to neglect, as bad as fornication, 76 - who neglects, excommunicated, 75 - - Wine, Gentile, unlawful, 419 - - Woman, insane, to be turned out, 377 - - Women, exempt from the duty to study the law, 17 - do not receive the same reward as a man, 18 - not to be taught the law, 18 - minds of, not equal to the study of the law, 18 - command of Moses, respecting, 21 - duties of, prescribed in New Testament, 22 - Rabbinic degradation of, 359 - cannot give testimony, 360 - not regarded as part of the congregation, 361 - - World to come, who are excluded from, 4 - all Israel has a share in, 64 - Rabbinic opinions about, 129 - -Printed at the Operative Institution, Palestine Place, Bethnal Green, -London. - - - - - ● Transcriber’s Notes: - ○ Text that was in italics is enclosed by underscores (_italics_). - ○ Footnotes have been moved to follow the chapters in which they are - referenced. - -*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE OLD PATHS, OR THE TALMUD -TESTED BY SCRIPTURE *** - -Updated editions will replace the previous one--the old editions will -be renamed. - -Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S. copyright -law means that no one owns a United States copyright in these works, -so the Foundation (and you!) can copy and distribute it in the -United States without permission and without paying copyright -royalties. Special rules, set forth in the General Terms of Use part -of this license, apply to copying and distributing Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic works to protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm -concept and trademark. Project Gutenberg is a registered trademark, -and may not be used if you charge for an eBook, except by following -the terms of the trademark license, including paying royalties for use -of the Project Gutenberg trademark. If you do not charge anything for -copies of this eBook, complying with the trademark license is very -easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose such as creation -of derivative works, reports, performances and research. Project -Gutenberg eBooks may be modified and printed and given away--you may -do practically ANYTHING in the United States with eBooks not protected -by U.S. copyright law. Redistribution is subject to the trademark -license, especially commercial redistribution. - -START: FULL LICENSE - -THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE -PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK - -To protect the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting the free -distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work -(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase "Project -Gutenberg"), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full -Project Gutenberg-tm License available with this file or online at -www.gutenberg.org/license. - -Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic works - -1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to -and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property -(trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all -the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or -destroy all copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in your -possession. If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a -Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work and you do not agree to be bound -by the terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the -person or entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph -1.E.8. - -1.B. "Project Gutenberg" is a registered trademark. It may only be -used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who -agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few -things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works -even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See -paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic works if you follow the terms of this -agreement and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic works. See paragraph 1.E below. - -1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation ("the -Foundation" or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection -of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works. Nearly all the individual -works in the collection are in the public domain in the United -States. If an individual work is unprotected by copyright law in the -United States and you are located in the United States, we do not -claim a right to prevent you from copying, distributing, performing, -displaying or creating derivative works based on the work as long as -all references to Project Gutenberg are removed. Of course, we hope -that you will support the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting -free access to electronic works by freely sharing Project Gutenberg-tm -works in compliance with the terms of this agreement for keeping the -Project Gutenberg-tm name associated with the work. You can easily -comply with the terms of this agreement by keeping this work in the -same format with its attached full Project Gutenberg-tm License when -you share it without charge with others. - -1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern -what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are -in a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States, -check the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this -agreement before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, -distributing or creating derivative works based on this work or any -other Project Gutenberg-tm work. The Foundation makes no -representations concerning the copyright status of any work in any -country other than the United States. - -1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg: - -1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other -immediate access to, the full Project Gutenberg-tm License must appear -prominently whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg-tm work (any work -on which the phrase "Project Gutenberg" appears, or with which the -phrase "Project Gutenberg" is associated) is accessed, displayed, -performed, viewed, copied or distributed: - - This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and - most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no - restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it - under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this - eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the - United States, you will have to check the laws of the country where - you are located before using this eBook. - -1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is -derived from texts not protected by U.S. copyright law (does not -contain a notice indicating that it is posted with permission of the -copyright holder), the work can be copied and distributed to anyone in -the United States without paying any fees or charges. If you are -redistributing or providing access to a work with the phrase "Project -Gutenberg" associated with or appearing on the work, you must comply -either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 or -obtain permission for the use of the work and the Project Gutenberg-tm -trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. - -1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is posted -with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution -must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any -additional terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms -will be linked to the Project Gutenberg-tm License for all works -posted with the permission of the copyright holder found at the -beginning of this work. - -1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg-tm -License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this -work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg-tm. - -1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this -electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without -prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with -active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project -Gutenberg-tm License. - -1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary, -compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including -any word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access -to or distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg-tm work in a format -other than "Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other format used in the official -version posted on the official Project Gutenberg-tm website -(www.gutenberg.org), you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense -to the user, provide a copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means -of obtaining a copy upon request, of the work in its original "Plain -Vanilla ASCII" or other form. Any alternate format must include the -full Project Gutenberg-tm License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1. - -1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying, -performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg-tm works -unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. - -1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing -access to or distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works -provided that: - -* You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from - the use of Project Gutenberg-tm works calculated using the method - you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is owed - to the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark, but he has - agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the Project - Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments must be paid - within 60 days following each date on which you prepare (or are - legally required to prepare) your periodic tax returns. Royalty - payments should be clearly marked as such and sent to the Project - Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the address specified in - Section 4, "Information about donations to the Project Gutenberg - Literary Archive Foundation." - -* You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies - you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he - does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg-tm - License. You must require such a user to return or destroy all - copies of the works possessed in a physical medium and discontinue - all use of and all access to other copies of Project Gutenberg-tm - works. - -* You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of - any money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the - electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days of - receipt of the work. - -* You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free - distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm works. - -1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic work or group of works on different terms than -are set forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing -from the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the manager of -the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark. Contact the Foundation as set -forth in Section 3 below. - -1.F. - -1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable -effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread -works not protected by U.S. copyright law in creating the Project -Gutenberg-tm collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may -contain "Defects," such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate -or corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other -intellectual property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or -other medium, a computer virus, or computer codes that damage or -cannot be read by your equipment. - -1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the "Right -of Replacement or Refund" described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project -Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project -Gutenberg-tm trademark, and any other party distributing a Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all -liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal -fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT -LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE -PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE -TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE -LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR -INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH -DAMAGE. - -1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a -defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can -receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a -written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you -received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium -with your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you -with the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in -lieu of a refund. If you received the work electronically, the person -or entity providing it to you may choose to give you a second -opportunity to receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If -the second copy is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing -without further opportunities to fix the problem. - -1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth -in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you 'AS-IS', WITH NO -OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT -LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE. - -1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied -warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of -damages. If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement -violates the law of the state applicable to this agreement, the -agreement shall be interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or -limitation permitted by the applicable state law. The invalidity or -unenforceability of any provision of this agreement shall not void the -remaining provisions. - -1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the -trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone -providing copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in -accordance with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the -production, promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic works, harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, -including legal fees, that arise directly or indirectly from any of -the following which you do or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this -or any Project Gutenberg-tm work, (b) alteration, modification, or -additions or deletions to any Project Gutenberg-tm work, and (c) any -Defect you cause. - -Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg-tm - -Project Gutenberg-tm is synonymous with the free distribution of -electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of -computers including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It -exists because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations -from people in all walks of life. - -Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the -assistance they need are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg-tm's -goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg-tm collection will -remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project -Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure -and permanent future for Project Gutenberg-tm and future -generations. To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation and how your efforts and donations can help, see -Sections 3 and 4 and the Foundation information page at -www.gutenberg.org - -Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation - -The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non-profit -501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the -state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal -Revenue Service. The Foundation's EIN or federal tax identification -number is 64-6221541. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent permitted by -U.S. federal laws and your state's laws. - -The Foundation's business office is located at 809 North 1500 West, -Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887. Email contact links and up -to date contact information can be found at the Foundation's website -and official page at www.gutenberg.org/contact - -Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg -Literary Archive Foundation - -Project Gutenberg-tm depends upon and cannot survive without -widespread public support and donations to carry out its mission of -increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be -freely distributed in machine-readable form accessible by the widest -array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations -($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt -status with the IRS. - -The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating -charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United -States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a -considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up -with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations -where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To SEND -DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any particular -state visit www.gutenberg.org/donate - -While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we -have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition -against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who -approach us with offers to donate. - -International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make -any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from -outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff. - -Please check the Project Gutenberg web pages for current donation -methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other -ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations. To -donate, please visit: www.gutenberg.org/donate - -Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works - -Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project -Gutenberg-tm concept of a library of electronic works that could be -freely shared with anyone. For forty years, he produced and -distributed Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks with only a loose network of -volunteer support. - -Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks are often created from several printed -editions, all of which are confirmed as not protected by copyright in -the U.S. unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not -necessarily keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper -edition. - -Most people start at our website which has the main PG search -facility: www.gutenberg.org - -This website includes information about Project Gutenberg-tm, -including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to -subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks. diff --git a/old/68214-0.zip b/old/68214-0.zip Binary files differdeleted file mode 100644 index 3485949..0000000 --- a/old/68214-0.zip +++ /dev/null diff --git a/old/68214-h.zip b/old/68214-h.zip Binary files differdeleted file mode 100644 index 66feb56..0000000 --- a/old/68214-h.zip +++ /dev/null diff --git a/old/68214-h/68214-h.htm b/old/68214-h/68214-h.htm deleted file mode 100644 index edcbd31..0000000 --- a/old/68214-h/68214-h.htm +++ /dev/null @@ -1,23634 +0,0 @@ -<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN" - "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd"> -<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" xml:lang="en" lang="en"> - <head> - <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;charset=UTF-8" /> - <title>The Project Gutenberg eBook of The Old Paths, by Alexander McCaul</title> - <link rel="coverpage" href="images/cover.jpg" /> - <style type="text/css"> - body { margin-left: 8%; margin-right: 8%; } - h1 { text-align: center; font-weight: normal; font-size: 1.4em; } - h2 { text-align: center; font-weight: normal; font-size: 1.2em; } - p { text-indent: 0; margin-top: 0.5em; margin-bottom: 0.5em; text-align: justify; } - sup { vertical-align: top; font-size: 0.6em; } - .fss { font-size: 75%; } - .sc { font-variant: small-caps; } - .large { font-size: large; } - .xlarge { font-size: x-large; } - .xxlarge { font-size: xx-large; } - .index li {text-indent: -1em; padding-left: 1em; } - .index ul {list-style-type: none; padding-left: 0; } - ul.index {list-style-type: none; padding-left: 0; } - ul.ul_1 {padding-left: 0; margin-left: 2.78%; margin-top: .5em; - margin-bottom: .5em; list-style-type: disc; } - ul.ul_2 {padding-left: 0; margin-left: 6.94%; margin-top: .5em; - margin-bottom: .5em; list-style-type: circle; } - div.footnote {margin-left: 2.5em; } - div.footnote > :first-child { margin-top: 1em; } - div.footnote .label { display: inline-block; width: 0em; text-indent: -2.5em; - text-align: right; } - div.pbb { page-break-before: always; } - hr.pb { border: none; border-bottom: thin solid; margin-bottom: 1em; } - @media handheld { hr.pb { display: none; } } - .chapter { clear: both; page-break-before: always; } - .figcenter { clear: both; max-width: 100%; margin: 2em auto; text-align: center; } - .figcenter img { max-width: 100%; height: auto; } - .id001 { width:425px; } - @media handheld { .id001 { margin-left:23%; width:53%; } } - .ig001 { width:100%; } - .nf-center { text-align: center; } - .nf-center-c1 { text-align: left; margin: 1em 0; } - .c000 { margin-top: 1em; } - .c001 { page-break-before: always; margin-top: 4em; } - .c002 { margin-top: 4em; } - .c003 { page-break-before:auto; margin-top: 4em; } - .c004 { margin-top: 2em; margin-bottom: 0.5em; } - .c005 { margin-top: 0.5em; margin-bottom: 0.5em; } - .c006 { text-decoration: none; } - .c007 { margin-top: 2em; } - .c008 { margin-top: .5em; } - div.tnotes { padding-left:1em;padding-right:1em;background-color:#E3E4FA; - border:1px solid silver;margin:1em 5% 0 5%;text-align:justify; } - </style> - </head> - <body> -<p style='text-align:center; font-size:1.2em; font-weight:bold'>The Project Gutenberg eBook of The old paths, or the Talmud tested by Scripture, by Alexander McCaul</p> -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and -most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions -whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms -of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online -at <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org">www.gutenberg.org</a>. If you -are not located in the United States, you will have to check the laws of the -country where you are located before using this eBook. -</div> - -<p style='display:block; margin-top:1em; margin-bottom:0; margin-left:2em; text-indent:-2em'>Title: The old paths, or the Talmud tested by Scripture</p> -<p style='display:block; margin-left:2em; text-indent:0; margin-top:0; margin-bottom:1em;'>Being a comparison of the principles and doctrines of modern Judaism with the religion of Moses and the prophets</p> -<p style='display:block; margin-top:1em; margin-bottom:0; margin-left:2em; text-indent:-2em'>Author: Alexander McCaul</p> -<p style='display:block; text-indent:0; margin:1em 0'>Release Date: June 6, 2022 [eBook #68214]</p> -<p style='display:block; text-indent:0; margin:1em 0'>Language: English</p> - <p style='display:block; margin-top:1em; margin-bottom:0; margin-left:2em; text-indent:-2em; text-align:left'>Produced by: MFR, David King, and the Online Distributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net. (This file was produced from images generously made available by The Internet Archive.)</p> -<div style='margin-top:2em; margin-bottom:4em'>*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE OLD PATHS, OR THE TALMUD TESTED BY SCRIPTURE ***</div> - -<div class='figcenter id001'> -<img src='images/cover.jpg' alt='' class='ig001' /> -</div> -<div class='pbb'> - <hr class='pb c000' /> -</div> -<div> - <h1 class='c001'>THE OLD PATHS</h1> -</div> -<div class='pbb'> - <hr class='pb c000' /> -</div> -<div class='nf-center-c1'> -<div class='nf-center c002'> - <div><a id='Page_i'></a><span class='xxlarge'><b>THE OLD PATHS,</b></span></div> - <div class='c000'><span class='large'><b>OR</b></span></div> - <div class='c000'><span class='xxlarge'><b>THE TALMUD TESTED BY SCRIPTURE;</b></span></div> - <div class='c000'><span class='large'><b>BEING</b></span></div> - <div class='c000'><span class='xlarge'><b>A COMPARISON OF THE PRINCIPLES AND DOCTRINES</b></span></div> - <div class='c000'><span class='large'><b>OF</b></span></div> - <div class='c000'><span class='xxlarge'><b>MODERN JUDAISM,</b></span></div> - <div class='c000'><span class='large'><b>WITH THE</b></span></div> - <div class='c000'><span class='xlarge'><b>RELIGION OF MOSES AND THE PROPHETS.</b></span></div> - <div class='c000'><span class='large'><b>BY THE</b></span></div> - <div class='c000'><span class='xxlarge'><b>REV. ALEXANDER McCAUL, D.D.,</b></span></div> - <div class='c000'><span class='large'><b>LATE PROFESSOR OF DIVINITY, KING’S COLLEGE, LONDON;</b></span></div> - <div><span class='large'><b>AND LATE PREBENDARY OF ST. PAUL’S.</b></span></div> - <div class='c000'>LONDON:</div> - <div>LONDON SOCIETY’S HOUSE,</div> - <div>16, Lincoln’s Inn Fields.</div> - <div class='c000'>1880.</div> - </div> -</div> - -<div class='nf-center-c1'> -<div class='nf-center c002'> - <div><a id='Page_iii'></a>TO</div> - <div class='c000'>THE RIGHT HONOURABLE AND RIGHT REVEREND</div> - <div class='c000'>CHARLES JAMES, LORD BISHOP OF LONDON,</div> - <div class='c000'>ETC., ETC.,</div> - <div class='c000'>WHOSE APPROBATION OF HIS LABOURS</div> - <div class='c000'>HAS BEEN AN ENCOURAGEMENT AND A REWARD,</div> - <div class='c000'>THE FOLLOWING PAGES</div> - <div class='c000'>ARE RESPECTFULLY</div> - <div class='c000'>AND GRATEFULLY INSCRIBED, BY</div> - <div class='c000'>THE AUTHOR.</div> - </div> -</div> - -<div class='chapter'> - <a id='Page_v'></a> - <h2 class='c003'>ADVERTISEMENT TO THE SECOND EDITION.</h2> -</div> -<p class='c004'>Nine years have now elapsed since “The Old Paths” -appeared as a volume. They have been translated, in the -meantime, into Hebrew, German, and French; and their -merits discussed by the learned and unlearned of the -Jewish people, in all the countries of their dispersion. The -reception has in general been favourable, and the effect -upon the Jewish mind perceptible. Since their first appearance, -the West London Synagogue and the Liturgies -of the British Jews, both renouncing that which “The Old -Paths” pronounced objectionable, have started into existence. -The assembled rabbies at Brunswick and Frankfort -have discussed topics similar to some treated in “The -Old Paths,” and in some cases come to similar conclusions -respecting the value of Rabbinic Traditions. The Reform -Societies of Germany have commenced a formidable attack -upon the Oral Law, and a free discussion is now carried on -in the numerous Jewish periodicals of that country, of -which the results are easily foretold. The promised German -translation of the Talmud, if ever completed, must, -without any discussion, overthrow Talmudism. Its exhibition -in any European language is the most fatal attack -that can be made on its authority. It needs only to be -seen as it is, in order to be rejected. The reader is again -<a id='Page_vi'></a>warned against mistaking this discussion of the merits of -Rabbinism for an attack upon the Jewish people, or the -rabbies of the present day. The reproach attaches not to -the victims, but to the authors of tradition. The Jews are -a great and a noble people, and the majority ignorant of -the details of the system, by which they have been bowed -down and misrepresented for centuries; so ignorant, indeed, -that some zealously undertake a defence of the -whole, maintain that Rabbinism is a perfect model of charity -and wisdom, and regard “The Old Paths” as a mere -emanation of common Anti-Jewish prejudice. Such persons -are requested to compare these papers with the -articles in the Jewish periodical, entitled, “Der Israelit -des Neunzehnten Jahrhunderts,” written by Rabbi -Dr. Holdheim, and other distinguished Jewish scholars. -They will there find that, had the author not been influenced -by a desire to avoid all occasion of unnecessary -offence, truth might have been stated with more severity.</p> - -<p class='c005'>A mistake in one number, not, however, affecting the -argument, has been corrected.</p> -<div class='chapter'> - <a id='Page_vii'></a> - <h2 class='c003'>ADVERTISEMENT TO THE FIRST EDITION.</h2> -</div> -<p class='c004'>The reader will perceive, by the date at the head of each -number, that the following papers were published weekly, -and, from the contents, he will readily infer that they were -intended for distribution amongst those Jews who still -adhere to the rabbinic system. But in presenting them -to the public as a volume, it may be well to state that the -great object was to exhibit Judaism as it appears in its -practical workings, and that, therefore, most references -are made to the Jewish Prayer-book, and to the codes of -law commonly in use amongst rabbinic Jews, and which -are considered as authoritative. It was the Author’s -wish, not to ridicule any man’s superstition, but to instruct -those, whom Moses and the Prophets would have declared -to be in error. He has therefore, carefully avoided the -tone in which Eisenmenger and others have treated this -subject, and, in treating the Jewish legends, has confined -himself to those which are mentioned in the prayers of the -<a id='Page_viii'></a>Synagogue. The materials are the result of many years’ -study and practical observation. Buxtorf, Majus, Edzard, -Eisenmenger, Wagenseil, &c., have been carefully consulted, -but the Jewish Liturgies, the Arbah Turim, the -Shulchan Aruch, the Yad Hachasakah, are the principal -sources, whence this view of Judaism has been drawn. -The Author has only to add a hope, that these papers may -not be misunderstood, either by Jew or Christian, but that -all who read them will carefully distinguish between Judaism -and the Jewish people—and a wish, that they may -contribute to the welfare of Israel, and the promotion of -truth.</p> -<div class='chapter'> - <a id='Page_ix'></a> - <h2 class='c003'>CONTENTS.</h2> -</div> - -<p class='c004'><a href='#chap01'>I. Rabbinism not a Safe Way of Salvation</a> <a href='#Page_1'>1</a></p> - -<p class='c005'><a href='#chap02'>II. Implicit Faith not due to the Rabbies</a> <a href='#Page_8'>8</a></p> - -<p class='c005'><a href='#chap03'>III. Rabbinic Injustice to Women, Slaves, and Gentiles</a> <a href='#Page_16'>16</a></p> - -<p class='c005'><a href='#chap04'>IV. Rabbinic Intolerance towards other Nations</a> <a href='#Page_24'>24</a></p> - -<p class='c005'><a href='#chap05'>V. Talmudic Intolerance contrasted with the Charity of the Bible</a> <a href='#Page_32'>32</a></p> - -<p class='c005'><a href='#chap06'>VI. Compulsory Conversion of the Gentiles</a> <a href='#Page_39'>39</a></p> - -<p class='c005'><a href='#chap07'>VII. The Feast of Purim</a> <a href='#Page_47'>47</a></p> - -<p class='c005'><a href='#chap08'>VIII. Rabbinic Contempt for the Sons of Noah</a> <a href='#Page_55'>55</a></p> - -<p class='c005'><a href='#chap09'>IX. Christians cannot be reckoned amongst the “Pious of the Nations of the World”</a> <a href='#Page_63'>63</a></p> - -<p class='c005'><a href='#chap10'>X. Rabbinic Washing of Hands</a> <a href='#Page_70'>70</a></p> - -<p class='c005'><a href='#chap11'>XI. Rabbinic Artifices respecting Leaven at the Passover</a> <a href='#Page_79'>79</a></p> - -<p class='c005'><a href='#chap12'>XII. The Passover a Type of Future Deliverance</a> <a href='#Page_87'>87</a></p> - -<p class='c005'><a id='Page_x'></a><a href='#chap13'>XIII. Severity of the Rabbinic Ordinances</a> <a href='#Page_95'>95</a></p> - -<p class='c005'><a href='#chap14'>XIV. Severity and Artifice</a> <a href='#Page_103'>103</a></p> - -<p class='c005'><a href='#chap15'>XV. Sabbath Mixture</a> <a href='#Page_111'>111</a></p> - -<p class='c005'><a href='#chap16'>XVI. Intolerance of Rabbinic Prayers</a> <a href='#Page_119'>119</a></p> - -<p class='c005'><a href='#chap17'>XVII. Rabbinic Legends in the Synagogue Services</a> <a href='#Page_127'>127</a></p> - -<p class='c005'><a href='#chap18'>XVIII. Rabbinic Legends, continued</a> <a href='#Page_136'>136</a></p> - -<p class='c005'><a href='#chap19'>XIX. Legends in the Prayers for Pentecost</a> <a href='#Page_144'>144</a></p> - -<p class='c005'><a href='#chap20'>XX. Legends in the Prayers for Pentecost</a> <a href='#Page_152'>152</a></p> - -<p class='c005'><a href='#chap21'>XXI. Legends in the Prayers for Pentecost</a> <a href='#Page_160'>160</a></p> - -<p class='c005'><a href='#chap22'>XXII. Rabbinic Magic</a> <a href='#Page_167'>167</a></p> - -<p class='c005'><a href='#chap23'>XXIII. Astrology</a> <a href='#Page_175'>175</a></p> - -<p class='c005'><a href='#chap24'>XXIV. Amulets</a> <a href='#Page_183'>183</a></p> - -<p class='c005'><a href='#chap25'>XXV. Charms</a> <a href='#Page_191'>191</a></p> - -<p class='c005'><a href='#chap26'>XXVI. Charms, continued</a> <a href='#Page_199'>199</a></p> - -<p class='c005'><a href='#chap27'>XXVII. Sabbatic Laws</a> <a href='#Page_207'>207</a></p> - -<p class='c005'><a href='#chap28'>XXVIII. Fast for the Destruction of the Temple</a> <a href='#Page_215'>215</a></p> - -<p class='c005'><a href='#chap29'>XXIX. Sabbatic Laws, continued</a> <a href='#Page_223'>223</a></p> - -<p class='c005'><a id='Page_xi'></a><a href='#chap30'>XXX. Sabbatic Laws, continued</a> <a href='#Page_231'>231</a></p> - -<p class='c005'><a href='#chap31'>XXXI. Rabbinic Excommunication</a> <a href='#Page_239'>239</a></p> - -<p class='c005'><a href='#chap32'>XXXII. New Year’s Day</a> <a href='#Page_247'>247</a></p> - -<p class='c005'><a href='#chap33'>XXXIII. New Year, continued</a> <a href='#Page_255'>255</a></p> - -<p class='c005'><a href='#chap34'>XXXIV. New Year, continued</a> <a href='#Page_262'>262</a></p> - -<p class='c005'><a href='#chap35'>XXXV. Justification</a> <a href='#Page_270'>270</a></p> - -<p class='c005'><a href='#chap36'>XXXVI. Day of Atonement</a> <a href='#Page_279'>279</a></p> - -<p class='c005'><a href='#chap37'>XXXVII. Feast of Tabernacles</a> <a href='#Page_287'>287</a></p> - -<p class='c005'><a href='#chap38'>XXXVIII. Prayers for the Dead</a> <a href='#Page_295'>295</a></p> - -<p class='c005'><a href='#chap39'>XXXIX. Almsgiving</a> <a href='#Page_302'>302</a></p> - -<p class='c005'><a href='#chap40'>XL. Priests and Levites</a> <a href='#Page_310'>310</a></p> - -<p class='c005'><a href='#chap41'>XLI. Rabbinic Ideas of the Deity</a> <a href='#Page_319'>319</a></p> - -<p class='c005'><a href='#chap42'>XLII. Title of Rabbi</a> <a href='#Page_326'>326</a></p> - -<p class='c005'><a href='#chap43'>XLIII. Sanhedrin</a> <a href='#Page_334'>334</a></p> - -<p class='c005'><a href='#chap44'>XLIV. Sanhedrin, continued</a> <a href='#Page_342'>342</a></p> - -<p class='c005'><a href='#chap45'>XLV. Sanhedrin, continued</a> <a href='#Page_349'>349</a></p> - -<p class='c005'><a href='#chap46'>XLVI. Contempt for the Female Character</a> <a href='#Page_357'>357</a></p> - -<p class='c005'><a id='Page_xii'></a><a href='#chap47'>XLVII. Polygamy</a> <a href='#Page_365'>365</a></p> - -<p class='c005'><a href='#chap48'>XLVIII. Divorce</a> <a href='#Page_372'>372</a></p> - -<p class='c005'><a href='#chap49'>XLIX. Rabbinic Laws concerning Meat</a> <a href='#Page_380'>380</a></p> - -<p class='c005'><a href='#chap50'>L. The Birth of Messiah</a> <a href='#Page_387'>387</a></p> - -<p class='c005'><a href='#chap51'>LI. Slaughtering of Meat, continued</a> <a href='#Page_396'>396</a></p> - -<p class='c005'><a href='#chap52'>LII. Laws concerning Meat with Milk</a> <a href='#Page_403'>403</a></p> - -<p class='c005'><a href='#chap53'>LIII. Rabbinism oppressive to the Poor</a> <a href='#Page_411'>411</a></p> - -<p class='c005'><a href='#chap54'>LIV. Gentile Wine</a> <a href='#Page_419'>419</a></p> - -<p class='c005'><a href='#chap55'>LV. Mourning for the Dead</a> <a href='#Page_427'>427</a></p> - -<p class='c005'><a href='#chap56'>LVI. Dispensation from an Oath</a> <a href='#Page_434'>434</a></p> - -<p class='c005'><a href='#chap57'>LVII. Doctrine of Oaths, continued</a> <a href='#Page_442'>442</a></p> - -<p class='c005'><a href='#chap58'>LVIII. Meritoriousness of Circumcision</a> <a href='#Page_449'>449</a></p> - -<p class='c005'><a href='#chap59'>LIX. Cruelty to the Unlearned</a> <a href='#Page_457'>457</a></p> - -<p class='c005'><a href='#chap60'>LX. Recapitulation</a> <a href='#Page_464'>464</a></p> -<div class='chapter'> - <a id='Page_1'></a> - <h2 id='chap01' class='c003'>No. I.<a id='r1' /><a href='#f1' class='c006'><sup>[1]</sup></a> <br /> RABBINISM NOT A SAFE WAY OF SALVATION.</h2> -</div> -<p class='c004'><span class='sc'>Salvation is of the Jews.</span> Amongst all the religions -systems existing in the world, there are but two deserving of -attentive consideration, and they are both of Jewish origin, -and were once exclusively confined to the Jewish nation. -They are now known by the names of Judaism and Christianity; -but it must never be forgotten that the latter is as -entirely Jewish as the former. The Author of Christianity -was a Jew. The first preachers of Christianity were Jews. -The first Christians were all Jews; so that, in discussing the -truth of these respective systems, we are not opposing a Gentile -religion to a Jewish religion, but comparing one Jewish -creed with another Jewish creed. Neither in defending -Christianity, do we wish to diminish aught from the privileges -of the Jewish people; on the contrary, we candidly -acknowledge that we are disciples of the Jews, converts to -Jewish doctrines, partakers of the Jewish hope, and advocates -of that truth which the Jews have taught us. We are fully -persuaded that the Jews whom we follow were in the right—that -they have pointed out to us “the old paths,” “the good -way,” and “we have found rest to our souls.” And we, -therefore, conscientiously believe, that those Jews who follow -the opposite system are as wrong as their forefathers, who, -when God commanded them to walk in the good old way, replied, -“We will not walk therein.” Some modern Jews think -that it is impossible for a Jew to be in error, and that a Jew, -because he is a Jew, must of necessity be in the right. Such -persons seem to have forgotten how the majority of the people -erred in making the golden calf—how the generation that -came out of Egypt died in the wilderness because of their unbelief—how -the nation at large actually opposed and persecuted -<a id='Page_2'></a>the truth of God in the days of Elijah—how their -love of error sent them into the Babylonish captivity—and how -there has been some grievous error of some kind or other, -which delivered them into the hands of the Romans, and has -kept them in a state of dispersion for so many hundred years. -But the passage from which our motto is taken sets forth most -strikingly the possibility of fatal mistake on the part of the -Jewish nation, and also the possibility, in such a case, of God’s -turning to the Gentiles. “Thus saith the Lord, Stand ye in -the ways, and see, and ask for the old paths, where is the good -way, and walk therein, and ye shall find rest for your souls. -But they said, We will not walk therein. Also, I set watchmen -over you, saying, Hearken to the sound of the trumpet. -But they said, We will not hearken. <i>Therefore hear, ye -nations,</i> שמעו הגוים, and know, O congregation, what is -among them. Hear, O earth; behold, I will bring evil upon -this people, even the fruit of their thoughts, because <i>they have -not hearkened unto my words, nor to my law, but rejected it</i>.”—Jer. -vi. 16-19. Who will dare to deny, after such a passage, -the possibility of a Jew’s being in error?</p> - -<p class='c005'>But some may ask, What is Judaism? what is Christianity? -<span class='sc'>Answer.</span>—Judaism is that religious system contained and -acknowledged in the prayers of the Jewish synagogue, whether -German or Portuguese, and professed by all who use them as -the ritual of their worship. Christianity is the religious system -taught in the New Testament; or, in other words, Judaism -is the Old Testament explained according to the traditional -law, תורה שבעל פה. Christianity is the Old Testament -explained according to the New. According to this -explanation, the Jewish Prayer-book teaches the divine authority -of the oral law. Of this there can be no doubt, for, in the -first place, the whole ritual of the synagogue service, and the -existence and arrangement of the synagogue itself, is according -to the prescription of the oral law, as may be seen by comparing -the Jewish prayers with the Hilchoth T’phillah. If it be -asked why the Jew uses these prayers, and no other—why he -wears phylacteries (תפילין) and the veil (טלית)—why he conforms -to certain ceremonies at the New Year, and the Day of -Atonement, and the other feasts—why he repeats a certain -benediction at the reading of the law—why he reads out of -a parchment roll, rather than out of a printed book—why a roll -of the law written in one way is lawful, and in another way -unlawful, the only answer is, the oral law commands us thus to -do. The whole synagogue worship, therefore, from the beginning -to the end of the year, is a practical confession of the -authority of the oral law, and every Jew who joins in the -synagogue worship does, in so far, conform to the prescriptions -of Rabbinism. But, secondly, the Jewish Prayer-book explicitly -<a id='Page_3'></a>acknowledges the authority of the oral law. In the -daily prayers, fol. 11, is found a long passage from the oral -law, beginning,</p> - -<p class='c005'>איזהו מקומן של זבחים,</p> - -<p class='c005'>“which are the places where the offerings were slaughtered,” -&c. On fol. 12, we find the thirteen Rabbinical rules for -expounding the law, beginning,</p> - -<p class='c005'>רבי ישמעאל אומר,</p> - -<p class='c005'>“Rabbi Ishmael says,” &c. At the end of the daily prayers -we find a whole treatise of the oral law, called, פרקי אבות, -“the ethics of the fathers,” the beginning of which treatise -asserts the transmission of the oral law. In the morning -service for Pentecost, there is a most comprehensive declaration -of the authority and constituent parts of the oral law. “He, -the Omnipotent, whose reverence is purity, with his mighty -word he instructed his chosen, and clearly explained the law, -with the word, speech, commandment, and admonition, in the -Talmud, the Agadah, the Mishna, and the Testament, with the -statutes, the commandment, and the complete covenant,” &c., -p. 89. In this prayer, as used, translated, and published by the -Jews themselves, the divine authority of the oral law is explicitly -asserted, and the Talmud, Agadah, and Mishna, are -pointed out as the sources where it is to be found. For these -two reasons, then, we conclude that the Judaism of the Jewish -Prayer-book is identical with the Judaism of the oral law, and -that every Jew who publicly joins in those prayers does, with -his lips at least, confess its divine authority.</p> - -<p class='c005'>Having explained what we mean by Judaism, we now go on -to another preliminary topic. Some one may ask, what is the -use of discussing these two systems? May they not both -be safe ways of salvation for those that profess them? To this -we must, according to the plain declarations of these systems -themselves, reply in the negative. The New Testament -denounces the oral law as subversive of the law of God. “Then -the Pharisees and scribes asked him, Why walk not thy disciples -according to the tradition of the elders, but eat bread -with unwashen hands? He answered and said unto them, -Well hath Esaias prophesied of you hypocrites, as it is written, -This people honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is far -from me. Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for -commandments the doctrines of men.” (Mark vii. 5-7.) The -oral law is still more exclusive. It excludes from everlasting -life all who deny its authority, and explicitly informs us that -Christians are comprehended in anathema,—</p> - -<p class='c005'>ואלו הן שאין להם הלק לעולם הבא אלא נכרתין -<a id='Page_4'></a>ואובדין ונדונין על גודל רשעם וחטאתם לעולם -ולעולמי עולמים המינין והאפיקורסין והכופרים -בתורה וכו ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“<i>These are they who have no part in the world to come, but -who are cut off, and perish, and are condemned on account of the -greatness of their wickedness and sin for ever, even for ever and -ever, the heretics and the Epicureans, and the deniers of the -law</i>,” &c. Here is the general statement. But to prevent all -mistake, a particular definition of each of these classes is added, -from which we extract the following passage:—</p> - -<p class='c005'>שלשה הן הכופרים בתורה האומר שאין התורה מעם -ה׳ אפילו פסוק אחד אפילו תיבה אחת אם אמר משה -אמרו מפי עצמו הרי זה כופר בתורה וכן הכופר -בפירושיה והיא תורה שבעל פה והמכחיש במגידיה -כנון צדוק וביתום והאומר שהבורא החליף מצוה זו -במצוה אחרת וכבר בטלה תורה זו אף על פי שהיא -היתה מעם ה׳ כנון הנוצרים וההנרים כל אחד משלשה -אלה הוא כופר בתורה ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“<i>There are three classes of the deniers of the law. He who -says that the law is not from God, yea, even one verse or one -word: or if he says that Moses gave it of his own authority. -Such an one is a denier of the law. Thus, also, he who denies -its interpretations: that is, the oral law, and rejects its Agadoth -as Sadok and Baithos: and he who says that the Creator has -changed one commandment for another, and that the law has long -since lost its authority, although it was given by God, as the -Christians and Mahometans, each of these three is a denier -of the law.</i>”—Hilchoth T’shuvah, c. iii. 8.</p> - -<p class='c005'>In the first extract we see that those persons called “deniers -of the law,” are, according to the doctrine of modern Judaism, -shut out from a hope of salvation. In the second extract we -see that Christians are by name included in that class: from -the two together it inevitably follows that modern Judaism -teaches that Christians cannot be saved. We do not find any -fault with modern Judaism for pronouncing this sentence; we -do not tax the Jews either with uncharitableness or intolerance -because of this opinion. On the contrary, we honour those who, -conscientiously holding this opinion, have the honesty and the -courage to declare it. If they consider us as deniers of the law, -they must, of course, believe that our state is far from safe; and -if this be their conviction, the best proof which they can give -of true charity, is to warn us of our danger. But, at the same -time, when a religious system condemns us by name, and pronounces -<a id='Page_5'></a>sentence concerning our eternal state in so decided a -tone, and that simply because we dissent from some of its -tenets, we not only think that we have a right to defend ourselves -and our religion, but consider it our bounden duty to examine -the grounds on which a system of such pretension rests, -and honestly, though quietly, to avow our reasons for rejecting -it. We know, indeed, that there are some Rabbinical Jews, who -think this sentence harsh, and consider themselves justified in -denying it, because there is another sentence in this same oral -law, which says, “that the pious amongst the nations of the -world have a part in the world to come.” But can they prove, -by any citation from the oral law, that Christians are included -“amongst the pious of the nations of the world?” If they can, -then they will prove that in one place the oral law denies, and -in another place affirms the salvability of Christians; that is, -they will prove that the oral law contains palpable contradictions, -and therefore cannot be from God. If they cannot produce -any such citation, then the general declaration that “the -pious of the nations of the world” may be saved, is nothing to -the purpose; for the same law which makes this general declaration, -does also explicitly lay down the particular exception -in the case of Christians, and that after it has made the general -declaration. In fact, the exception follows close on the heels -of the general rule. The general rule is,—</p> - -<p class='c005'>כל ישראל יש להם חלק לעולם הבא .... וכן -חסידי אומות העולם יש להם חלק לעולם הבא ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“<i>All Israel has a share in the world to come ... and also -the pious of the nations of the world have a share in the world -to come.</i>” The words which immediately follow this declaration -contain the exception,—</p> - -<p class='c005'>ואלו הן שאין להם חלק לעולם הבא וכו</p> - -<p class='c005'>“<i>But these are they which have no part in the world to come</i>,” -&c. This exception is, therefore, plainly made in order to -guard against any false inference from the general statement, -and, therefore, according to the oral law, Christians cannot be -saved. We proceed, therefore, to inquire into the merits of this -system, which makes so decided a statement respecting our -eternal state. We have a standard of comparison to which no -Jew will object, even that Holy Book, which contains the -writings of Moses and the prophets. We reject the oral law, -not because it seems in itself bad or good to our judgment, but -because it is repugnant to the plain words of the Old Testament. -There is not space to enter at large into the proof at -present, but we subjoin one passage, which is in itself amply -sufficient to disprove the divine authority of any religious -<a id='Page_6'></a>system where it occurs. In the Talmud, in the Treatise -Pesachim, fol. 49, col. 2, we read as follows:—</p> - -<p class='c005'>אמר רבי אלעזר עם הארץ מותר לנחרו ביום -הכפורים שחל להיות בשבת אמרו לו תלמידיו -רבי אמור לשחטו אמר להן זה טעון ברכה וזה -אינו טעון ברכה ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>Rabbi Eleazar says, “It is lawful to split open the nostrils of -an amhaaretz (an unlearned man) on the Day of Atonement -which falls on the Sabbath. His disciples said to him, Rabbi, -say rather that it is lawful to slaughter him. He replied, -That would require a benediction, but here no benediction is -needful.” It is hardly needful to remind the reader that the -law of Moses says, לא תרצח, “Thou shalt not kill.” But -there is in this passage a sneering contempt for the unlearned, -which is utterly at variance with the character of Him “whose -mercies are over all his works,” the unlearned and the poor, as -well as the mighty and the learned.</p> - -<p class='c005'>Indeed the passage is so monstrous, that one is almost inclined -to think that it must have crept into the Talmud by -mistake; or, at the least, to expect that it would be followed by -reprehension the most explicit and severe. But no, a little -lower down another of these “wise men” says,—</p> - -<p class='c005'>עם הארץ מותר לקרעו כדג,</p> - -<p class='c005'>“It is lawful to rend an amhaaretz like a fish;” and, a little -above, an Israelite is forbidden to marry the daughter of such a -person, for that she is no better than a beast. But the whole -of the preceding passage is so characteristic of the spirit of -Rabbinism, that it is worth inserting—</p> - -<p class='c005'>תנו רבנן וכו׳ ,</p> - -<p class='c005'>“Our Rabbies have taught. Let a man sell all that he has, -and marry the daughter of a learned man. If he cannot find -the daughter of a learned man, let him take the daughter -of the great men of the time. If he cannot find the daughter -of a great man of the time, let him marry the daughter of the -head of a congregation. If he cannot find the daughter of the -head of a congregation, let him marry the daughter of an -almoner. If he cannot find the daughter of an almoner, let him -marry the daughter of a schoolmaster. But let him not marry -the daughter of the unlearned, for they are an abomination, and -their wives are vermin; and of their daughters it is said, -‘Cursed is he that lieth with any beast.’” Here, again, one is -inclined to suppose that there is a mistake, or that these words -were spoken in jest, though such a jest would be intolerably -profane; but all ground for such supposition is removed on -<a id='Page_7'></a>finding this passage transcribed into the digest of Jewish law, -called the Schulchan Aruch, part 2; in the Hilchoth P’riah -ur’viah, by which transcription it is stamped, with all the -authority of a law. Here, then, the reader is led to think, that -an amhaaretz must mean something more and worse than -an unlearned man—that it ought, perhaps, to be taken in its -literal signification, “people of the land,” and that it may refer -to the idolatrous and wicked Canaanites. But the common -usage of the Talmud forbids a supposition. There is a well-known -sentence which shows that even a High Priest might be -an amhaaretz:—</p> - -<p class='c005'>ממזר ת׳׳ח קודם לכהן גדול עם הארץ ,</p> - -<p class='c005'>“A learned man, though illegitimate, goes before a High -Priest, who is an amhaaretz.” Here the amhaaretz is plainly -opposed to him that is learned. And so, on the page of the -Talmud from which we have quoted above, we find the following -words:—</p> - -<p class='c005'>עם הארץ אסור לאכול בשר בהמה שנאמר זאת תורת -הבהמה והעוף כל העוסק בתורה מותר לאכול בשר -בהמה ועוף וכל שאינו עוסק בתורה אסור לאכול -בשר בהמה ועוף ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“An amhaaretz is forbidden to eat the flesh of a beast, for it -is said, ‘This is the <i>law</i> of the beast and the fowl.’ (Levit. xi. -46.) Every one that laboureth in the law, it is lawful for him -to eat the flesh of the beast and the fowl. But for him who -does not labour in the law, it is forbidden to eat the flesh of the -beast and the fowl.” According to this passage an amhaaretz -is one who does not labour in the study of the law; and it being -found on the very same page with the above most revolting -declarations, it plainly shows the proud and haughty spirit of -the authors of the Talmud, and their utter contempt for the -poor, whose circumstances preclude them from the advantages -of study. But, in reading such passages, the question naturally -suggests itself, to which of the two classes does the poor Jewish -population of London belong? There must be at the least -hundreds, if not thousands of poor Jews in this great city who -cannot possibly devote themselves to study. Amongst whom, -then, are they to be classed? Amongst the learned תלמידי חכמימ? -or amongst the unlearned עמי הארץ? Are they, -their wives, and daughters, as the Talmud says, to be called an -abomination, vermin, and compared to the beasts? Or can a -religion inculcating such sentiments proceed from that Holy -One who is no respecter of persons? See here, ye children of -Abraham, whom the providence of God has placed amongst the -children of poverty, and cut off from the advantage of a -<a id='Page_8'></a>learned education. You are not disciples of the wise, nor the -great men of the time, nor heads of synagogues, nor almoners, -nor even schoolmasters. You are quite shut out from these -classes whom your Talmudical doctors favour so highly. See, -then, in the above passages, what the Talmud says of yourselves, -your wives, and daughters? Can you believe that this -is the law of the God of Israel? Can you think for one -moment, that these doctors knew “the old paths,” “the good -way?” If you do we must assure you that we cannot. We -rather find it in that book, which says, “Blessed is the man -that considereth the poor and needy.” (Psalm xli. 1.) And in -that other book, which speaks in the same spirit, and says that -“God hath chosen the foolish things of this world to confound -the wise; and the weak things of this world to confound the -things which are mighty, and base things of the world, and -things which are not, to bring to nought things that are; that -no flesh should glory in his presence.” (1 Cor. i. 27, 28.)</p> - -<div class='chapter'> - <h2 id='chap02' class='c003'>No. II. <br /> IMPLICIT FAITH NOT DUE TO THE RABBIES.</h2> -</div> -<p class='c004'>It appears from the undisguised acknowledgments of the -New Testament, that the doctors and rabbies of the Jews, the -Pharisees, and scribes, were the implacable enemies of Jesus -of Nazareth, and that they were the main instruments in effecting -his death. The modern Jews consider this fact as a sufficient -apology for their rejection of his claims to the Messiahship. -They take it for granted that the great and learned men of -that day were also good men, and that they had valid reasons -for their conduct. They think if Jesus of Nazareth had been -the true Messiah, that the Sanhedrin, the great Jewish council -of the time, would have acknowledged him, and conclude that, -as they rejected him, he cannot be the true Messiah. The -New Testament, on the contrary, accounts for their unbelief by -plainly telling us, that they were bad men; and that they were -enemies to the Lord Jesus, because he told them the truth, and -exposed their hypocrisy. Now, which of these two representations -accords with the truth? Were the scribes and Pharisees, -those great advocates of the <i>oral law</i>, תורה שבעל פה, -good men or bad men? The readers of our first number will -be in some degree qualified to answer this question. Could -<a id='Page_9'></a>those be good men who profanely talked of the lawfulness of -killing an unlearned man, and who contemptuously compared -the wives and daughters of the unlearned to “vermin and -beasts?” If they could talk with levity of “rending like a -fish” an unlearned man, one of their own brethren who had -never done them any harm, what were they likely to do with -one who exposed their wickedness, and boldly told them that -they by their traditions made void the law of God? The very -fact, that Jesus of Nazareth was put to death by such men, is -presumptive evidence, that he was a good man, and that his -claims were just. But, however that be, it is worth while to -inquire into the charges, which the New Testament brings -against these learned men, and to see whether they are substantiated -by the memorials of their character and spirit, which -they themselves have left us in their laws. One of the charges -preferred against them is, that they were ambitious men, covetous -of worldly honour, and loving the pre-eminence. “But -all their works they do to be seen of men; they make broad -their phylacteries, and enlarge the borders of their garments. -And love the uppermost rooms at feasts, and the chief seats in -the synagogues, and greetings in the markets, and to be called -of men, Rabbi, Rabbi.” (Matt. xxiii. 5-7.) Now, is this -charge true? Does the oral law justify this assertion, or does -it prove, on the contrary, that the enemies of Jesus were -humble, pious men, whose piety serves as a warrant for the -uprightness of their conduct in their treatment of the Lord -Jesus? Let the reader judge from the following laws which -these men framed with respect to themselves. In the first -place they claim for themselves more honour and reverence -than is due to a man’s own parents:—</p> - -<p class='c005'>כשם שאדם מצווה בכבוד אביו וביראתו כד הוא -חייב בכבוד רבו וביראתו יותר מאביו וכו׳ ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“As a man is commanded to honour and fear his father, so -he is bound to honour and fear his Rabbi more than his father; -for his father has been the means of bringing him into the life -of this world, but his Rabbi, who teaches him wisdom, brings -him to the life of the world to come.” (Hilchoth Talmud -Torah, c. 5.) This general rule is bad enough, but the particulars -are still worse. “If a man should see something that -his father has lost, and something that his Rabbi has lost, he is -first to return what his Rabbi has lost, and then to return that -which belongs to his father. If his father and his Rabbi be -oppressed with a load, he is first to help down that of his -Rabbi, and then that of his father. If his father and his -Rabbi be in captivity, he is first to ransom his Rabbi and afterwards -his father unless his father be the disciple of a wise man -<a id='Page_10'></a>(<i>i.e.</i>, learned), in which case he may ransom his father first.” -How fearful is this doctrine! A man is to see his father, the -author of his existence, the guardian of his infancy, who has -laboured for his support, and watched over him in the hour of -sickness, he is to see this friend, to whom, under God, he owes -everything, pining away in the bitterness of captivity, and yet, -when he has got the means of restoring him to liberty and his -family, he is to leave him still in all his misery, and ransom -the Rabbi; where is this written in the Old Testament? -“Honour thy father and thy mother,” is there the first commandment -that follows after our duty to God, and the first -movement of natural affection. But this Rabbinical doctrine -silences the voice of nature, and makes void the law of God. -What is the doctrine of the New Testament here? “If any -provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own -house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel.” -(1 Tim. v. 8.) The disciples of the Lord Jesus Christ -never claimed for themselves any honour like this. In the -passage just cited, they plainly declare that the first, in the -circle of duties to men, is the duty to our own flesh and blood. -And the only case in which the New Testament permits a -deviation from this rule, is that where the same exception is -made in the law of Moses, when love to parents would interfere -with love to God. “If any man come to me and hate -not his father and mother, and wife and children, and brethren -and sisters, yea, and <i>his own life also</i>, he cannot be my disciple.” -(Luke xiv. 26.) Here father and mother, and kindred, are -put in one category with a man’s own life, in order to show -that there is but one case in which the natural ties of blood -may be overlooked, and this is when the service of God requires -it. As it is also written in the law of Moses, “If thy brother, -the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife -of thy bosom, or thy friend who is as thine own soul, entice -thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which -thou hast not known, thou nor thy fathers.... Thou -shalt not consent unto him, nor hearken unto him, neither -shall thine eye pity him,” &c. (Deut. xiii. 6-9.) And thus -the tribe of Levi is praised, because “He said unto his father -and his mother, I have not known him; neither did he -acknowledge his brethren, nor know his own children.” (Deut. -xxxiii. 9.) But this Talmudical law is widely different. It -has no saving clause to show that the case specified is an exception -to the general rule. It does not pretend to suppose -that the father is a bad man, or an idolater, or an apostate. It -specifies but one exception, and that is, where the father is -“the disciple of a wise man;” otherwise, though he be a good -man, and a pious man, a loving and tender parent, still he is to -be disregarded by his own son, and the Rabbi preferred before -<a id='Page_11'></a>him. Is it possible to doubt that the men who conceived, -sanctioned, and promulgated a law like this, had an eye to -their own personal honour and interest? Is it reasonable to -suppose that men who would sacrifice their own father to the -honour of their Rabbi, would be very tender about the life -of one who appeared, like Jesus of Nazareth, as an opposer of -their pretensions? Or can the Jews, with the law and the -prophets in their hands, suppose that these men pointed to -“the old paths,” “the good way?” This is certainly not the -doctrine of Moses. He says:—</p> - -<p class='c005'>ארור מקלה אביו ואמו ואמר כל העם אמן ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“Cursed be he that setteth light by his father or his mother, -and all the people shall say, Amen.” (Deut. xxvii. 16.)</p> - -<p class='c005'>But these men did not stop here. They were not content -with being exalted above father and mother. They did not -scruple to assert, that their honour was as sacred as that of -God himself:—</p> - -<p class='c005'>ואין לך כבוד גדול מכבוד הרב ולא מורא ממורא -הרב אמרו חכמים מורא רבך כמורא שמים ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“Thou must consider no honour greater than the honour of -the Rabbi, and no fear greater than the fear of the Rabbi. The -wise men have said, The fear of thy Rabbi is as the fear of -God.”</p> - -<p class='c005'>They endeavour to prove the validity of these extravagant -claims by such passages as Exod. xvi. 8, “Your murmurings are -not against us, but against the Lord.” But they have taken -for granted what they can never prove, and that is, that every -Rabbi is invested with the same office and authority as Moses. -But where, in all the law of Moses, is there any warrant for such -an assumption? Moses could with all propriety say, “Your -murmurings are not against us, but against the Lord,” for he -held a special commission from God, and had proved to the -people the reality of his commission by a series of miracles. -But this the Rabbies never pretended to do. In this dearth of -evidence the advocates of tradition flee for refuge to Deut. xvii. -8, &c. “If there arise a matter too hard for thee in judgment, -between blood and blood, between plea and plea, and between -stroke and stroke, being matters of controversy within thy -gates; then shalt thou arise, and get thee up into the place -which the Lord thy God shall choose; and thou shalt come -unto the priests, the Levites, and unto the judge that shall be -in those days, and inquire, and they shall show thee the sentence -of judgment. And thou shalt do according to the sentence, -which they of that place which the Lord shall choose shall shew -<a id='Page_12'></a>thee; and thou shalt observe to do according to all that they -inform thee; according to the sentence of the law which they -shall teach thee, and according to the judgment which they shall -tell thee, thou shalt do; thou shalt not decline from the sentence -which they shall show thee to the right hand nor to the left.” -Here, say the traditionists, is a plain and unequivocal command. -No doubt, God here plainly declares what is to be done in a -difficult case. He commands the Israelites to go to the place -which the Lord God chose, that is, to the place where was found -the ark of the covenant; and to inquire, not of the Rabbies, but -of the priests, the Levites, and the judge השופט. But this -passage, instead of proving that “the fear of the Rabbi is as the -fear of God,” proves the contrary. It supposes first, that the -Rabbies and learned men may differ in judgment, that there -may be a controversy, and consequently, that one party may be -in the wrong. It, therefore, effectually overthrows Rabbinical -infallibility. It shows that these learned men are, after all, only -poor fallible creatures like ourselves, and that, therefore, we are -not to fear them as we would fear God, nor reverence their dictates, -as the Word of God. It shows secondly, that in a case of -difficulty, the Israelites were not to appeal to the Rabbies, but -to the priests כהנים, and to the judge שופט, and even to them -only in the place which the Lord should choose. There is not -one word said about the Rabbies or the wise men, and, therefore, -this passage completely annihilates all their lofty pretensions. -For centuries the place which the Lord chose has been desolate, -and there has been no priest standing to minister before the -Lord. The Jews have thus lost all possibility of appeal. They -have neither ministering priest nor judge, and the Mosaic law -nowhere recognises the pretensions of the Rabbies. But some -Jew may say, that though this passage does not prove the -authority of the Rabbies, it does at least warrant the Jews in -persisting to reject the claims of the Lord Jesus, for that he was -condemned by the priests, and in Jerusalem, the place which the -Lord chose. We confess that this objection is plausible; but -can easily prove that it is nothing more. In order to this, we -ask the Jews, whether the above command to abide by the sentence -of the priests is in every case, and without any exception, -binding? To this question there are two answers possible—Yes -and No. If they say No, then they admit that the priests might -sometimes be in the wrong, and we would, of course, take advantage -of this admission to show that they erred in their judgment -on Jesus of Nazareth. They will then, most probably, -say, Yes; the sentence of the priests, the Levites, and the judges, -is in every case binding, and Israel is commanded not to deviate -from it, either to the right hand or to the left, upon pain of -capital punishment. We beg of them then to turn to the 26th -chapter of the Prophet Jeremiah, and to consider the case there -<a id='Page_13'></a>set before them. We there find that Jeremiah had delivered a -message from God, very similar to our Lord’s prediction of the -destruction of Jerusalem. “I will make this house like Shiloh, -and will make this city a curse to all the nations of the earth.” -We find, further, that for this message the priests condemned -Jeremiah to death, just as their successors condemned Jesus of -Nazareth. “Now it came to pass, when Jeremiah had made an -end of speaking all that the Lord had commanded him to speak -unto all the people, that <i>the priests</i>, and the prophets, and all -the people took him, saying, Thou shalt surely die.” We find, -further, that this sentence was pronounced “in the place which -the Lord had chosen,” in the Temple itself. “And all the people -were gathered against Jeremiah in the house of the Lord.” We -find, further, that the sentence against Jeremiah was no rash -sudden act, but the deliberate judgment of the priests. For -when the princes of Judah came afterwards to inquire into the -matter, “Then spake <i>the priests</i> and the prophets unto the -princes and to all the people, saying, <i>This man is worthy to die</i>, -for he hath prophesied against this city, as ye have heard with -your ears.” Now, then, we ask again, whether the people of Israel -was in duty bound to abide by this sentence, and not to decline -from it, either to the right hand or to the left? We fearlessly -reply, that they were not bound by this sentence, and that, if -they had executed it, they would have been guilty of murder, as -Jeremiah himself declares: “But know ye for certain, that if ye -put me to death, ye shall surely bring innocent blood upon yourselves, -and upon this city, and upon the inhabitants thereof: for -of a truth the Lord hath sent me unto you to speak all these -words in your ears.” We infer, therefore, that it was possible -for the priests, assembled in solemn deliberation in the house of -the Lord, to err in judgment, and to pronounce on unrighteous -sentence. We infer, further, that it was possible for the priests -so far to err, as to condemn to death a true prophet of the Lord. -We infer, further, that in such a case the people was not bound -by this mistaken judgment; but that it was their duty to decline -from it, both to the right hand and to the left. We infer, lastly, -that as the priests might mistake, and unjustly condemn to -death a true prophet, their sentence against Jesus of Nazareth -forms no more argument against the Messiahship of Jesus, than -the similar sentence just considered did against the true prophetic -character of Jeremiah; and that it affords just as little -warrant for Jewish unbelief as the former sentence did for putting -Jeremiah to death.</p> - -<p class='c005'>But it may be asked, if the judgment of the priests was not -infallible, and if men were sometimes justifiable in refusing it, -what use was there in the above commandment to apply to -them in cases of difficulty, and to abide by their sentence? The -answer to this is very simple. The priest that stood to minister -<a id='Page_14'></a>before the Lord had it in his power, before the destruction of -the first Temple, to inquire of the Lord and to receive a miraculous -answer from God himself, which answer was, of course, -infallible, and universally obligatory, without the possibility of -exception. We find in the Old Testament many instances in -which the Israelites availed themselves of this power, as in -Judges xx. 27, “And the children of Israel inquired of the -Lord (for the ark of the covenant of God was there in those -days: and Phinehas, the son of Eleazar, the son of Aaron, -stood before it in those days), saving, Shall I yet again go out -to battle against the children of Benjamin my brother, or shall I -cease? And the Lord said, Go up; for to morrow I will -deliver them into thine hand.” And in the history of David’s -life, there are several instances of his employment of this miraculous -power, as 1 Sam. xxiii. 4, “Then David inquired of the -Lord yet again. And the Lord answered him and said, Arise, -go down to Keilah; for I will deliver the Philistines into thine -hand.” In all such cases where the priest first inquired of the -Lord, his sentence was, of course, infallible, and the Israelites -were bound to abide by it. But where they did not inquire of -the Lord, their sentence was only that of fallible men, and, -therefore, not binding upon the consciences of the people. Of -this sort was their sentence upon Jeremiah. Being wicked -men, they did not choose to ask counsel of the Lord, but -pronounced sentence according to the devices of their own -hearts. In the case of the Lord Jesus Christ the priests could -not ask counsel of the Lord, for in the second Temple the Urim -and Thummim, and the ark of the covenant, were wanting; the -miraculous power, therefore, did not exist, and for this very -reason the sentence of the priests, during the whole period of -the second Temple, was only fallible, like that of other men, -and, therefore, not binding, and consequently of no force as an -argument against the Messiahship of the Lord Jesus Christ. -The above passage, therefore, from the 17th of Deuteronomy, -is of no use to the Rabbinical Jews, it does not prove the -infallibility of the priests in the second Temple, and is still less -applicable for sanctioning the traditions of the oral law, and -the extravagant claims of the Rabbies. Having given this -passage the consideration it deserves, we now return to the -laws which the Rabbies have made in favour of themselves, and -for their own honour. We consider that the two passages of -the oral law already quoted, prove that the New Testament -gives a fair delineation of their character. When men, without -any warrant from God’s Word, claim for themselves the same -degree of reverence which is due to God, it must be admitted -that they are vainglorious and wicked in no ordinary degree. -But it is possible to descend to particulars:—For instance, our -Lord says, that these men “loved greetings in the market-places, -<a id='Page_15'></a>and to be called of men, Rabbi, Rabbi.” Now one of -the laws, still extant, forbids a man, when speaking of his -Rabbi, to call him by name:—</p> - -<p class='c005'>אסור לו לתלמיד לקרות לרבו בשמו ואפילו שלא בפניו ,</p> - -<p class='c005'>“It is forbidden to a disciple to call his Rabbi by name, even -when he is not in his presence.” Another law, still extant, -prescribes the formula of greeting or salutation:—</p> - -<p class='c005'>ולא יתן שלום לרבו או יחזיר לו שלום כדרך שנותנים -לריעים ומחזירים זה לזה אלא שוחה לפניו ואומר לו -ביראה וכבוד שלום עליך רבי ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“Neither is he to salute his Rabbi, nor to return his salutation -in the same manner that salutations are given or -returned amongst friends. On the contrary, <i>he is to bow down -before the Rabbi, and to say to him, with reverence and honour, -Peace be unto thee, Rabbi</i>.” The Rabbinical Jews, who see -this, must not mistake us. We do not consider it in anywise -sinful, but decorous, to treat a Rabbi with all due respect. -We should feel no objection ourselves to make a bow to a -Rabbi, and to salute him in the prescribed formula. But we -cite these laws to show that the New Testament gives a fair -representation of the Pharisees: for men, who could gravely sit -down and enter into all these details of the mode in which -they were to be honoured, and then give out these laws as -divine, and, besides all this, call in the civil power to enforce -them, must have had no mean idea of themselves and their -own dignity. It must never be forgotten that these laws are -not the mere regulations of a religious community. When the -Rabbies had the power in their own hands, they enforced -them by civil sanctions. They were not satisfied with excluding -despisers of Rabbinical authority from eternal life, -<i>they prosecuted such before the tribunals, and sentenced them to -a pecuniary fine and excommunication</i>, as may be seen from the -following law:—</p> - -<p class='c005'>וכל המבזה את החכמימ אין לו חלק לעולם הבא והרי -הוא בכלל כי דבר יהוה בזה ׃ אף על פי שהמבזה את -החכמים אן לו חלק לעולם הבא אם באו עדים שבזהו -אפילו בדברים חייב נדוי , ומנדין אותו בית דין ברבים -וקונסין אותו ליטרא זהב בכל מקום ונותנין אותו -לחכם והמבזה את החכם בדברים אפילו לאחר מיתה -מנדין אותו בית דין וכו׳ ,</p> - -<p class='c005'>“Whosoever despises the wise men has no share in the world -to come. But notwithstanding this, if there come witnesses to -prove that he has been guilty of contempt, even in words, his -<a id='Page_16'></a>sentence is excommunication, and the tribunal (house of judgment) -excommunicates him publicly, and everywhere mulct -him in a pound of gold, and give it to the wise man. He that -despiseth a wise man in words, even after his death, is to be -excommunicated by the tribunal,” &c. We now ask the Jews -of modern times what they think of those who made their own -personal honour the subject of legislation, who required the -same reverence for their words as the Word of God, and who -dragged up him that refused it before a tribunal, had him -sentenced to pecuniary fine, and excommunication; and, besides -all this, excluded him from the hope of everlasting life? -Had such men any idea of liberty of conscience?</p> -<div class='chapter'> - <h2 id='chap03' class='c003'>No. III. <br /> RABBINIC INJUSTICE TO WOMEN, SLAVES, AND GENTILES.</h2> -</div> -<p class='c004'>If any of our readers should think that the design of these -papers is to represent the oral law as a system of unmixed evil, -we beg to assure them that they are mistaken. We are fully -aware that a system based on the law and the prophets, must -and does contain much that is good and worthy of admiration. -Of this nature is the general command to all Israelites to study -the law, which is as follows:—“Every man of Israel is bound -to study the law. Whether he be poor or rich, healthy or unhealthy, -young or old, yea, though he live upon alms, and beg -from door to door, and though he have a wife and children, he -is bound to set apart a fixed time for the study of the law, by -day and by night, as it is written, ‘Thou shalt meditate therein -by day and by night,’” And again, the maxim, “Every one -that is bound to learn is also bound to teach;” and that, -“therefore, a man is bound to teach his son and his son’s son,” -&c., is in accordance with the plain command of God, and is -therefore good. But the explanation and development of these -good principles shows that the system itself is radically bad, -and therefore cannot be from God. No one will deny that the -Rabbies are right in asserting the obligation resting on every -Israelite to study the law: but they are wrong in their -explanation of what the law is. Immediately after the above -good command, the oral law goes on to say, “Every one is -bound to divide the time of his study into three parts: one-third -to be devoted to the written law; one-third to Mishna; -and one-third to Gemara:” so that the written law of God is -to have only half as much attention as the traditions of men. -<a id='Page_17'></a>This is bad enough. But the Rabbies do not stop here. They -go on to say, that this third of attention is only required when -a man begins to study, but that when he has made progress, -he is to read the law of God only at times, and to devote -himself to Gemara.</p> - -<p class='c005'>בד׳׳א בתחלת תלמודו של אדם אבל כשיגדיל -בחכמה ולא יהא צריך לו ללמוד תורה שבכתב ולא -לעסוק תמיד בתורה שבעל פה יקרא בעתים מזומנים -תורה שבכתב ודברי השמועה כדי שלא ישכח דבר -מדברי דיני תורה ויפנה כל ימיו לגמרא ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“What has been said refers only to the beginning of a man’s -learning, but as soon as a man becomes great in wisdom, and -has no need of learning the written law, or of labouring constantly -in the oral law, let him at fixed times read them, that -he may not forget any of the judgments of the law, <i>but let him -devote all his days to Gemara</i>.” It is to be observed that “oral -law” is here taken in a limited sense, as referring to the expositions -of the written law, or, as Rabbi Joseph Karo<a id='r2' /><a href='#f2' class='c006'><sup>[2]</sup></a> explains -it, the Mishna; and Gemara signifies the legal decisions which -are inferred by a process of reasoning, and to this third topic of -Jewish theology the Israelites are commanded to give the chief -of their time and attention, rather than to the written Word of -God.</p> - -<p class='c005'>The apparent excellence of the above command to study the -law is thus utterly destroyed by the Rabbinical exposition of -what is to be studied. And if we go on to inquire upon whom -this command is binding, the Rabbinical answer will afford just -as little satisfaction. When the Rabbies say, that “every man -of Israel is bound to study the law,” they mean to limit the -study to the men of Israel, and to exclude the women and slaves. -The very first sentence of the Hilchoth Talmud Torah is</p> - -<p class='c005'>נשים ועבדים וקטנים פטורים מתלמוד תורה ,</p> - -<p class='c005'>“Women and slaves and children are exempt from the study -of the law.” According to this declaration, women are not -obliged to learn. The following extract will confirm this -opinion, and at the same time show that there is no obligation -on fathers to have their daughters taught.</p> - -<p class='c005'>אשה שלמדה תורה יש לה שכר אבל אינו כשכר -האיש מפני שלא נצטוית , וכל העושה דבר שאינו -מצווה עליו לעשותו אין שכרו כשכר המצווה ועושה -אלא פחות ממנו ואע׳׳פ שיש לה שכר צוו חכמים -<a id='Page_18'></a>שלא ילמד אדם את בתו תורה מפני שרוב הנשים -אין דעתן מכוונת להתלמד אלא הן מוציאות דברי -תורה לדברִי הבאי מפי עניות דעתן , אמרו חכמים -כל המלמד את בתו תורה כאלו למדה תיפלות , -בד׳׳א בתורה שבעל פה אבל תורה שבכתב לא ילמד -אותה לכתחלה ואם למדה אינו כמלמדה תיפלות ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“A woman who learns the law has a reward, but it is not -equal to the reward which the man has, <i>because she is not -commanded to do so</i>: for no one who does anything which he is -not commanded to do, receives the same reward as he who is -commanded to do it, but a less one. But though the woman -has a reward, the wise men have commanded that no man -should teach his daughter the law, for this reason, that the -majority of women have not got a mind fitted for study, but -pervert the words of the law on account of the poverty of their -mind. The wise men have said, Every one that teacheth his -daughter the law is considered as if he taught her transgression.<a id='r3' /><a href='#f3' class='c006'><sup>[3]</sup></a> -<i>But this applies only to the oral law.</i> As to the written law, -he is not to teach her systematically; but if he has taught her, -he is not to be considered as having taught her transgression.”</p> - -<p class='c005'>According to this decision, it is absolutely forbidden to teach -a woman the oral law; and the teaching of it is looked upon -as the teaching of transgression תיפלות. We cannot forbear -asking the advocates of the oral law, whether it does not here -testify against itself that it is bad. It declares of itself that it -is unfit for the perusal and study of the pure female mind, and -that it is as corrupting as the teaching of transgression. We -ask, then, can such a law be divine? Can it proceed from the -God of Israel, who hath said, “Be ye holy, for I am holy?” -What a noble testimony to the superiority of the written Word, -and to the justice of the Lord Jesus Christ’s opposition to the -oral law! The oral law itself says, “He that teacheth his -daughter the oral law, is to be considered as if he taught her -transgression. He that teacheth her the written law, is not -to be so considered.” With such a confession, we fearlessly -ask the sons and daughters of Israel, who then was in the right? -Jesus of Nazareth, who opposed it, or the scribes and Pharisees -who defended it?</p> - -<p class='c005'>But “the wise men” also forbid Israelites to teach women the -written law, and declare that women are not bound to learn. -For the prohibition they assign two reasons. First, they say -that God has commanded them to teach only their sons, in -proof of which they refer to Deut. xi. 19, “And ye shall teach -<a id='Page_19'></a>them your children.” In the Hebrew it is בניכם “your -sons;” and the rabbies infer ולא את בנותיכם, “and -not your daughters.”<a id='r4' /><a href='#f4' class='c006'><sup>[4]</sup></a> Secondly, they say, as we have -seen above, “that the majority of women have not got -minds fitted for study,” and in the Talmud<a id='r5' /><a href='#f5' class='c006'><sup>[5]</sup></a> this is attempted -to be proved from Scripture. “A wise woman once asked -R. Eliezer, How it was that after the sin of the golden calf, -those who were alike in transgressions did not all die the -same death? He replied, A woman’s wisdom is only for the -distaff, as it is written, ‘All the women that were wise-hearted -did spin with their hands.’” (Exod. xxxv. 25.) We hesitate not -to say, that both these reasons are contrary to Scripture. We -do not deny that בניכם signifies sons, but we utterly deny the -conclusion of the Rabbies, that because the masculine word is -used, therefore the women are not included in the command. -There is an abundance of instances in which the masculine word -בנים is used for children generally, without any allusion to sex. -Take for example Exod. xxii. 23 (in the English 24), “And my -wrath shall wax hot, and I will kill you with the sword; and -your wives shall be widows, and your children בניכם (literally -your sons) orphans.” Here again the masculine word is used, -so that if the Rabbinical argument be valid in the above case, -it will be valid here, and consequently the daughters are excluded -from this denunciation, so that the sons were to be -orphans, but not the daughters, which is plainly impossible. In -the same way we can prove that the daughters of Israel did not -wander in the wilderness forty years, for in Numbers xiv. 33, -it is said, “And your children ובניכם (literally your sons, and, -therefore, according to Talmudic logic, not your daughters) -shall wander in the wilderness forty years.” The same logic -will also prove that during the three days of miraculous darkness -in Egypt, the women of Israel were left in darkness as well as -the Egyptians, for it is said all the children of Israel (ולכל בני ישראל, -literally the sons of Israel) had light in their -dwellings. And thus also it might be proved that not one of -the ten commandments is binding upon the women, for the -masculine gender is employed throughout. This logic, therefore, -is evidently false; and we conclude, on the contrary, that as the -women are included in all these passages—as they wandered -through the wilderness, and had light in their dwellings—and -are bound to keep the ten commandments as well as the men, so -also they are included in the command, “Ye shall teach them -your children,” and that, therefore, the command of the oral -law not to teach women, is contrary to the Word of God. But -we are not confined to argument, God has plainly commanded -that the women should learn as well as the men. “And Moses -<a id='Page_20'></a>commanded them, saying, At the end of every seven years, in -the solemnity of the year of release in the Feast of Tabernacles, -when all Israel is come to appear before the Lord thy God in -the place which he shall choose, thou shalt read this law before -all Israel in their hearing. Gather the people together, men <i>and -women</i>, and children, and thy stranger that is within thy gates, -that they may hear, and <i>that they may learn</i> ולמען ילמדו, and -fear the Lord your God, and observe to do all the words of this -law.” (Deut. xxxi. 10-12.) Here a most beautiful order is -observed, and required of women as well as men; hearing—learning—fearing—keeping -the words of the law—God wills -that that women should fear him and keep his commandments -as well as the men; and therefore he wills that they should -make use of the same means, that they should hear, and learn -all the words of the law. The traditionists have, therefore, in -this case plainly made void the law of God. God commands -women as well as men to learn the law; the Rabbies say they -are exempt from this duty. God commands that the woman -should be taught. It is plain, therefore, that the oral law, -which contradicts the written law, cannot be from God. The -command of God is so plain that it is unnecessary to enter deeply -into the second Rabbinical reason for the prohibition to teach -women the law. It is evident that God did not think that the -poverty of their understanding was any obstacle to their -learning his will. Indeed it has pleased Him to show that He -is no respecter of persons with regard to male or female, more -than with regard to rich or poor. He has not only given them -his law, but conferred on women as well as men the gift of -prophecy, so that the names of Deborah, Hannah, and Huldah, -must ever be remembered amongst the inspired messengers of -God. The Rabbies seem to have forgotten that “the fear of the -Lord is the beginning of wisdom,” and that this fear may be -implanted by God just as easily in the heart of a woman as of -a Rabbi. But without inquiring further into their reasons or -their motives, suffice it to say, that the oral law in thus robbing -women of their right and inheritance in the law of God, and in -degrading them to the same category with children and slaves, -is opposed to the plain commands of the written law. But not -so the New Testament. It exactly agrees with the Old in -considering woman as a rational and responsible being, and a -candidate for everlasting life. It, therefore, gives one general -rule for the education of children, male and female. “Ye fathers, -provoke not your children to wrath, but bring them up in the -nurture and admonition of the Lord.” (Ephes. vi. 4.) It does -indeed prescribe modesty and subjection to the women in the -mode or learning, but in so doing it plainly points out their -duty to become acquainted with the will of God. “Let the -woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a -<a id='Page_21'></a>woman to teach nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be -in silence.” (1 Tim. ii. 11, 12.)</p> - -<p class='c005'>In these and other passages the woman is placed in the -position assigned her in the Old Testament, and not in the very -subordinate rank imposed upon her by the oral law. “Women, -and slaves (עבדים), and children, are exempt from the study -of the law.” But we think that this rule is as false with -regard to slaves as to women. Here the oral law says that -slaves are not bound to learn. In Hilchoth Avadim, c. viii. -18, we find that they are not to be taught.</p> - -<p class='c005'>אסור לאדם ללמד את עבדו תורה ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“It is forbidden to a man to teach his slave the law.” But, -alas, the passage of the Word of God which forbids it, is not -referred to. It is only an inference from the passage, “Ye -shall teach your <i>sons</i>;” but is evidently contrary to the whole -tenour of the law of Moses. In the first place, the Israelite -who had been sold by the tribunal, or who, on account of -poverty, had sold himself, was still an Israelite, and did not -forfeit, finally, his right to his inheritance in the land; how, -then, could he forfeit his right to the law, which Moses gave -as “the inheritance of the congregation of Jacob?” The law -of Moses expressly provides a day of rest “for the man servant -and the maid servant,” that they may not only have rest for -their bodies, but may have time to learn the will of God, and -provide for that eternity to which they are hastening as well -as their masters. Indeed, if meditation on the Word of God -was more necessary for one Israelite than another, it was for -the Hebrew servant. If he had been guilty of theft, and had -been sold by the tribunal, he had special need of instruction in -the law of God to lead him to repentance, and to teach him his -duty for the future. If he had been guilty of no crime, but -had been compelled by poverty to sacrifice his liberty, surely -he needed the consolation which the Word of God can supply, -to enable him to bear his hard lot with patience, and to prevent -him from murmuring. But here the oral law steps in, and -actually prohibits his master from teaching him; and instead -of encouraging him in his leisure time to turn to the Word of -God as his refuge and his comfort, it tells him that he is not -bound to study it. Here, again, the New Testament is much -more like the law of Moses, which breathes, all through, a -spirit of the most tender compassion for those in servitude. -Moses commands the Israelites to remember that they had -themselves been bondmen in Egypt. The New Testament -reminds Christian masters that they have a master in heaven. -“Ye masters, do the same things unto them, forbearing -threatening: knowing that your master also is in heaven; -<a id='Page_22'></a>neither is there respect of persons with him.” (Ephes. vi. 9.) -It also plainly teaches that the relation which exists between -believing masters and servants is, before God, that of brethren. -“And they that have believing masters, let them not despise -them, because they are brethren; but rather do them service -because they are faithful and beloved, partakers of the benefit.” -(1 Tim. vi. 2.) Yea, the New Testament lays down a general -principle, the very opposite of that, that “women, and slaves, -and children are exempt from the study of the law.” It says, -“There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor -free, there is neither male nor female, for ye are all one in Christ -Jesus.” (Gal. iii. 28.) It does not dispense men from their -relative duties, nor deprive any of their legitimate privileges, -but teaches that for all, Jew or Greek, bond or free, male or -female, there is but one way of salvation. Very different is -the doctrine of the oral law. We have seen that it makes -a grand distinction between male and female, bond and free, we -need not, therefore, be surprised if it make the line of demarcation -broader still between Jew and Greek.</p> - -<p class='c005'>גוי שעסק בתורה חייב מיתה , לא יעסוק אלא בשבע -מצוות שלהן בלבד , וכן גוי ששבת אפילו ביום מימות -החול , אם עשהו לעצמו כמו שבת חיב מיתה , ואין -צריך לומר אם עשה מועד לעצמו , כללו של דבר אין -מניחין אותן לחדש דת ולעשות מצוות לעצמן מדעתן , -אלא או יהוה גר צדק ויקבל כל המצוות , אל יעמוד -בתורתו ולא יוסיף ולא יגרע , ואם עסק בתורה או שבת , -או חדש דבר , מכין אותו ועונשין אותו ומודיעין אותו -שהוא חייב מיתה על זה אבל אינו נהרג ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“A Gentile who employs himself in the law is guilty of death. -He is not to employ himself except in the seven commandments -that belong to the Gentiles. And thus a Gentile who keeps a -Sabbath, though it be on one of the week days—if he make it to -himself as a Sabbath, he is guilty of death. It is not necessary -to add, if he appoint for himself a festival. The general rule is -that they are not permitted to innovate in religion, or to make -commandments for themselves out of their own heads. Either -let a Gentile become a proselyte of righteousness, and take upon -him the whole law: or let him remain in his own law, and -neither add nor diminish. But if he employs himself in the -law, or keeps a Sabbath, or makes any innovation, he is to be -beaten and punished, and informed that he is for this guilty of -death—but he is not to be killed.” (Hilchoth Melachim, c. x. -9.) This law is taken from the Talmudical treatise Sanhedrin,<a id='r6' /><a href='#f6' class='c006'><sup>[6]</sup></a> -<a id='Page_23'></a>where it is followed by an apparently contradictory statement, -“that a Gentile who employs himself in the law is as good as a -high priest;” but the contradiction is immediately removed by -the explanation which there follows, and says, that “law” is to -be understood of the seven commandments of the Gentiles. -Now we admit liberty of conscience was not understood at the -time; and that it would be unjust to expect that the compilers -of the oral law (who were ignorant of, or opposed to, the New -Testament, where liberty of conscience was first plainly revealed) -should be at all elevated above the level of their own times. -But making this admission and apology for the men, we cannot -help saying that the law itself is bad, and cannot be from God. -Religion is a matter between God and man. The heart, the -conscience, and the understanding are all alike concerned. -Instruction out of God’s Word is, therefore, the only means of -producing conviction. Entertaining these sentiments, we endeavour -to compare the oral law with the Word of God, and to -convince its advocates that they are in error. We do not wish -to have the modern Jews confounded with the authors of the -system. Very many Jews of the present day are ignorant of its -details. Not having time to make the inquiry, they take it for -granted, that their forefathers were right in preferring their -own system to Christianity, and that they are bound to do the -same. But even those who are learned in the oral law, and -know its details, are not to be viewed in the same light as -the original compilers. They have received the system from -their forefathers, and view it through the medium of filial -affection and national prejudice. They remember that to the -Jews the law was given, and that the Jewish nation has been -the original instrument in God’s hand to diffuse light over the -world; they have therefore hitherto taken it for granted that -they must be right. The narrow prejudices of Christians for -ages confirmed them in their views. But now circumstances -are different. Christians begin to understand the position in -which God has placed the Jewish nation, and to look forward to -their restoration to the favour of God as the time of blessing for -the whole world. Christians can now honour and estimate the -learning, the talent, and the constancy of those very Rabbies -whose system they consider as erroneous. Now, then, is the time -for the Jews themselves to inquire into those religious opinions, -which have been handed down to them, and to compare them -with the law and the prophets. We trust that many will admit, -that the laws which we have been considering are bad, and -therefore cannot be from God. Let them then remember, that -the originators of these laws are the men who rejected the -claims of the Lord Jesus Christ. If then these men were in -error in making these laws, they were in condemning Jesus of -Nazareth because he opposed them; and if the laws be bad, the -<a id='Page_24'></a>Lord Jesus was right in opposing them. Yea, and where they -taught error He and his disciples taught the truth. The -Rabbies have taught constraint. Jesus of Nazareth and his -disciples have taught that fire is not to be called down from -heaven on those who differ from us; that “the servant of God -must not strive; but be gentle to all men, apt to teach, patient, -in meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God -will peradventure give them repentance to the acknowledging of -the truth.” (2 Tim. ii. 25.)</p> - -<div class='chapter'> - <h2 id='chap04' class='c003'>No. IV. <br /> RABBINIC INTOLERANCE TOWARDS OTHER NATIONS.</h2> -</div> -<p class='c004'>The Jewish deputies, when asked by Napoleon whether they -considered Frenchmen as their brethren, replied in the affirmative, -and after quoting the Mosaic laws respecting the -stranger said, “To these sentiments of benevolence towards the -<i>stranger</i>, Moses has added the precept of general love for mankind: -‘<i>Love thy fellow-creature as thyself</i>.’”<a id='r7' /><a href='#f7' class='c006'><sup>[7]</sup></a> And in the -authorized Jewish Catechism used in Bavaria, after the explanation -of the moral duties, we find the following question:—“Are -these laws and duties, affirmative and negative commandments, -binding with respect to a non-Israelite?” <span class='sc'>Answer</span>—“By -all means, for the fundamental law of all these duties, -‘<i>Love thy neighbour as thyself</i>,’ is expressly laid down by the -Holy Scriptures in reference to the non-Israelite, yea, to the -heathen, as it is written, ‘And if a stranger sojourn with thee -in your land, ye shall not vex him. But the stranger that -dwelleth with you shall be unto you as one born amongst you, -<i>and thou shalt love him as thyself</i>: for ye were strangers in the -land of Egypt: I am the Lord your God.’” (Levit. xix. -33-35.)<a id='r8' /><a href='#f8' class='c006'><sup>[8]</sup></a> These declarations are very explicit, and, as forming -part of public documents, highly satisfactory. The representatives -of the Jewish people in France, and the teachers of -the Jewish youth in Bavaria, declare, that in the scriptural -command, “Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself,” neighbour -means <i>fellow-man</i>, without distinction of nation or religion. -Where then did they learn this interpretation? From the -<a id='Page_25'></a>Talmud or from the New-Testament? The Jewish deputies -say, from the former. On the page cited above they add, “This -doctrine is also professed by the Talmud. We are bound, says -a Talmudist, to love as brethren all those who observe the -<i>Noachides</i>,<a id='r9' /><a href='#f9' class='c006'><sup>[9]</sup></a> whatever their religious opinions may otherwise -be. We are bound to visit their sick, to bury their dead, to -assist their poor, like those of Israel. In short, there is no act -of humanity which a true Israelite is not bound to perform -towards those who observe the <i>Noachides</i>.” The Bavarian -Catechism is more cautious. It makes no such bold assertion -respecting the Talmud. It only intimates that the oral law -teaches this doctrine, by subjoining to the passage from Leviticus -the same extract from Maimonides, alluded to by the Jewish -deputies. The Catechism gives the extract a little more at -length, and as follows:—“We are bound in everything to treat -the non-Israelite, who sojourns with us, with justice and with -love, as we would treat an Israelite. Yea, we are even bound -to maintain him, as the Scripture teaches in the words, ‘Thou -shalt give it to the stranger that is in thy gates, that he may eat -it.’ (Deut. xiv. 21.) Our wise men have commanded us for the -good of society, even to visit the sick of the heathen, to bury -their dead, and to deal out alms to them: for of our Creator it -is said, ‘The Lord is good to all; and his tender mercies are over -all his works.’ (Psalm cxlv. 9.) (Maimonid. Hilchoth Melachim, -10, 12.)”</p> - -<p class='c005'>No doubt the passage as here given, both by the French -deputies and the Bavarian Catechism, is very plausible; and if -it could be found verbatim, either in the Talmud or any of its -compendiums, would go far to justify the bold assertion of the -former, and the cautious insinuation of the latter. But unfortunately -the original passage is very different. In the above -citations, it is mutilated in order to suit the purpose of the -citers. In the Jad Hachasakah it stands as follows:—</p> - -<p class='c005'>וכן יראה לי שנוהגין עם גרי תושב בדרך ארץ -וגמילות חסדים כישראל , שהרי אנו מצווין להחיותן -שנאמר לגר אשר בשעריך תתננה ואכלה , וזה -שאמרו חכמים אין כופלין להם שלום , בגוים לא -בגר תושב , אפילו הגוים צוו חכמים לבקר חוליהם , -ולקבור מתיהם עם מתי ישראל , ולפרנס את ענייהם -בכלל עניי ישראל , מפני דרכי שלום , הרי נאמר -טוב ה׳ לכל ורחמיו על כל מעשיו ונאמר דרכיה -דרכי נועם וכל נתיבותיה שלום ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'><a id='Page_26'></a>“And thus it appears to me, that <i>the proselytes allowed to -sojourn</i> are to be treated with the same courtesy and benevolence -as the Israelites; for behold, we are commanded to -maintain them, as it is written, ‘Thou shalt give it to the -stranger (proselyte) that is in thy gates, that he may eat it.’ -<i>As to that saying of our wise men not to return their salute, -it refers to the Gentiles, not to the proselyte allowed to sojourn.</i> -But even with regard to the heathen, the wise men have -commanded us to visit their sick, and to bury their dead -with the dead of Israel, and to feed their poor along with the -poor of Israel, <span class='fss'>FOR THE SAKE OF THE WAYS OF PEACE</span>: -for it is written, ‘The Lord is good to all, and his mercies -are over all his works;’ and again, ‘Her ways are ways of -pleasantness, and all her paths are peace.’” (Prov. iii. 17.) -The reader will observe that there are several striking differences -between this translation and that of the Bavarian -Catechism; and these differences prove that, by the word -“neighbour,” the oral law does not understand a fellow-man -without any regard to his religious opinions. First, the -Bavarian Catechism says, “We are bound in everything to treat -the non-Israelite who sojourns with us with justice and with -love, and as we would treat an Israelite.” The original says, -“And thus <i>it appears to me</i>, that <i>the proselytes allowed to sojourn</i> -are to be treated with the same courtesy and benevolence -as the Israelites.” The Bavarian Catechism translates this -passage as it if were the undisputed law of Israel thus to act; -whereas Maimonides only offers his own opinion. He says, “It -appears to me.” Here the French deputies represent the matter -more accurately, by saying, “We are bound, says <i>a Talmudist</i>.” -Not the Talmud, but a Talmudist. Then, again, the Bavarian -Catechism speaks generally of “non-Israelites.” Maimonides -speaks of only one particular class, the proselytes who had -permission to sojourn in the land of Israel. That we do not -misrepresent Maimonides’ meaning, is plain from the words of -the Jewish deputies, who also restrict the sense to that one -particular class. “We are bound, says a Talmudist, to love as -brethren all those who observe the <i>Noachides</i>, whatever their -religious opinions may otherwise be.” Here, then, on the -showing of the Jewish deputies themselves, the Talmud does -not teach that all men are to be loved as brethren, but only -those who keep the seven commandments of Noah. How, -then, are we to regard the idolater and the heathen, who have -not embraced these seven commandments, and how are we -to treat them? This leads us to notice,</p> - -<p class='c005'>2dly, The important <i>omission</i> made by the Bavarian -Catechism. In citing the words of Maimonides, the compilers -have omitted the whole sentence, “As to the saying of our -wise men not to return their salute, it refers to the Gentiles, -<a id='Page_27'></a>not to the proselytes allowed to sojourn.” To this sentence, the -French Jewish deputies have also made no allusion; and yet -this sentence is found in the very middle of the passage quoted. -What goes before and what follows is quoted by both, but both -have with one common consent omitted this passage. Now this -mere fact of omission is, in itself, sufficient to excite the -suspicions of Israelites not acquainted with the oral law. The -Jewish deputies in Paris, and the compilers of the Jewish Catechism -in Bavaria, had one common object—they wished to -prove, or to intimate, that the Talmud teaches us to love as -ourselves all our fellow-men, without any respect to religious -differences. In order to prove this, they both refer to one and -the same passage—and from the middle of that passage they -both omit one important sentence. What conclusion will be -drawn by any man of common understanding? Just this, that -as they both quote one and the same passage, there must be a -great scarcity of proof from the Talmud: and that; as they both -make the same omission, the sentence omitted must be unfavourable -to that proof; and that, therefore, this one passage -does not prove that the Talmud teaches any such doctrine. -Such is the conclusion to which we are led by considering the -facts of the case. An examination of the omitted passage will -show that this conclusion is most just—“As to the saying of -our wise men, not to return their salute, it refers to the -Gentiles, not to the proselytes allowed to sojourn.” Had this -passage been inserted in its place, the Bavarian Catechism -could not have been translated גרי תושב (sojourning proselytes) -“non-Israelites,” for from this passage it appears that -these <i>sojourners</i> are different from the “Gentiles,” whose -salute is not to be returned. In plain English, this passage -restricts “the courtesy and benevolence” to those proselytes -who, by taking upon them the seven commandments of Noah, -obtained the privilege of sojourning in the land of Israel; and -consequently excludes “the Gentiles”—and consequently disproves -the assertion that the Talmud teaches us to love as -ourselves all our fellow-men without any respect to religious -differences. On the contrary, this passage tells us that the -salutation of the Gentiles is not to be returned. It prescribes -two different lines of conduct to be pursued towards different -religionists, and makes the difference of religious persuasion -the basis of the rule. But some readers may say, that the -difference is very small—that the command “not to return the -salute of the Gentiles,” is a mere matter of etiquette—whereas -the command to visit the sick of the Gentiles, to bury their -dead, and to feed their poor; is a substantial kindness. This -we should admit, if the reason assigned for such conduct, “for -the sake of the ways of peace,” did not utterly remove all the -apparent kindness. And this brings us to:</p> - -<p class='c005'><a id='Page_28'></a>The third misrepresentation of the Bavarian Catechism. It -translates the words מפני דרכי שלום (for the sake of the -ways of peace) “for the good of society.” Here, then, there is -an evident difference between us. But who is right? We do -not ask the Israelite to believe us. Maimonides here refers to -another passage of the oral law, where this expression is fully -explained, and where the command “not to return the salutation -of the Gentiles” is also found. We will give this -passage, and then the unlearned can judge for themselves:—</p> - -<p class='c005'>מפרנסין עניי עכו׳׳ם עם עניי ישראל מפני דרכי -שלום . ואין ממחין בידי עניי עכו׳׳ם בלקט שכחה -ופאה מפני דרכי שלום . ושואלין בשלומם אפי׳ ביום -חגם מפני דרכי שלום ואין כופלין להם שלום לעולם , -ולא יכנס לביתו של נכרי עכו׳׳ם ביום חגו לתת לו -שלום , מצאו בשוק נותן לו שלום בשפה רפה ובכובד -ראש , אין כל הדברים האלו אמורים אלא בזמן שגלו -ישראל לבין האומות או שיד עכו׳׳ם תקיפה על ישראל -אבל בזמן שיד יDראל תקיפה עליהם אסור לנו -להניח עכו׳׳ם בינינו , אפילו יושב ישיבת ארעי או -עובר ממקום למקום בסחורה לא יעבור בארצנו אלא -עד שיקבל עליו שבע מצוות שנצטוו בני נח , שנאמר -לא ישבו בארצך אפילו לפי שעה ואם קבל עליו ז׳ -מצוות הרי זה גר תושב וכו׳ ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“The poor of the idolaters are to be fed with the poor of Israel -<i>for the sake of the ways of peace</i>. They are also permitted to -have part of the gleaning, me forgotten sheaf, and the corner -of the field, <i>for the sake of the ways of peace</i>. It is also lawful -to ask after their health, even on their feast-day, <i>for the sake of -the ways of peace</i>; but never to return (literally, reiterate) the -salutation, nor to enter the house of an idolater on the day of -his festival to salute him. If he be met in the street, he is to -be saluted in a low tone of voice, and with a heavy head. <i>But -all these things are said only of the time that Israel is in -captivity among the nations, or that the hand of the idolaters is -strong upon Israel. But when the hand of Israel is strong upon -them, we are forbidden to suffer an idolater amongst us, even so -much as to sojourn incidentally, or to pass from place to place -with merchandize.</i> He is not to pass through our land until he -take upon him the seven commandments given to the children -of Noah, for it is said ‘They shall not dwell in thy land,’ -(Exod. xxiii. 33,) not even for an hour. But if he take upon -himself the seven commandments, then he is a proselyte -permitted to sojourn (גר תושב).” Hilchoth Accum, c. x. 5 &c. -<a id='Page_29'></a>This is the passage alluded to, and the reader may now -judge whether the words, “For the sake of the ways of peace,” -can be interpreted as the Bavarian Catechism renders them, “for -the good of society.” If so, then “the good of society” is to be -consulted only whilst the Jews are in captivity, and the -Gentiles have got the power: but as soon as the Jews get the -the power, “the good of society” may safely be disregarded. -The meaning plainly is, that in the present position of affairs it -is advisable to keep the peace between Jews and Gentiles, -inasmuch as the Gentiles are at present the strongest. Now, -then, it is expedient to visit the sick, and feed the poor, and -bury the dead of the Gentiles, for this will promote that object; -but when the tables are turned, and the Gentiles are the -weakest, there will be no necessity “for the ways of peace,” or, -as the Bavarian Catechism has it, “for the good of society.” -It is plain, therefore, that the passage cited by the French -deputies and the Bavarian Catechism, does not answer the -purpose for which it is cited. It does not prove that the -Talmud teaches us to love our fellow-men as ourselves, whatever -be their religious opinions. On the contrary, it teaches -that a wide distinction is to be made between one class of -religionists and another: and that if men be idolaters, we are -to show them no kindness, except for fear of the consequences -that might result from betraying our real sentiments. When, -therefore, the Jewish deputies and the compilers of the -Bavarian Catechism asserted the true explanation of the Mosaic -command, “Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself,” it is -plain that they had not learned it from the Talmud, but somewhere -else. We hesitate not to say, that they learned it from -the New Testament, for there it is taught plainly, repeatedly, -and without any reservation. A certain lawyer once asked -Jesus of Nazareth, “Who is my neighbour? And Jesus -answering, said, A certain man went down from Jerusalem to -Jericho, and fell among thieves, which stripped him of his -raiment, and wounded him, and departed, leaving him half -dead. And by chance there came down a certain priest that -way; and when he saw him he passed by on the other side. -And likewise a Levite, when he was at the place, came -and looked on him, and passed by on the other side. But -a certain Samaritan, as he journeyed, came where he was; -and when he saw him, he had compassion on him, and went to -him, and bound up his wounds, pouring in oil and wine, and -set him on his own beast, and brought him to an inn, and took -care of him. And on the morrow when he departed, he took -out two-pence, and gave them to the host, and said unto him, -Take care of him; and whatsoever thou spendest more, when I -come again, I will repay thee. Which now of these three, -thinkest thou, was neighbour to him that fell among the -<a id='Page_30'></a>thieves? And he said, He that showed mercy on him. Then -said Jesus unto him, Go thou and do likewise.” (Luke x. 29, -&c.) Here then the Lord Jesus Christ teaches us that we are -to show kindness even to an idolater, for that even he is -included in the class specified by the word “neighbour.” -Jesus of Nazareth makes no limitation “for the sake of the -ways of peace,” but gives a general command. And he appears -to have selected this case of a man lying half dead, in order to -contrast it with a similar case supposed in the oral law.</p> - -<p class='c005'>“If a Gentile, and idolater, be seen perishing, or drowning in -a river, he is not to be helped out. If he be seen near to death, -he is not to be delivered. But to destroy him by active means, -or to push him into a pit, or such-like things, is forbidden, as he -is not at war with us.”<a id='r10' /><a href='#f10' class='c006'><sup>[10]</sup></a> The Lord Jesus does not say that the -man who went down from Jerusalem to Jericho was an idolater. -He only says, “a certain man.” But he evidently intimates -that he was such, for if he had been a Jew, the priest and the -Levite would not have passed him without rendering assistance. -As he was only an idolater, according to the oral law, the priest -and the Levite were not simply not to blame in leaving him to -his fate, but were obeying a command. They saw him perishing—near -to death. They did not use any violence to accelerate -it. They only looked at him, and left him to perish. So far, -then, the lawyer who asked the question thought that the priest -and Levite were in the right. But then the Lord Jesus introduces -a Samaritan, whom the oral law also looks upon as an idolater, -and showing how he acted, he appeals to the plain common -sense of the questioner, “Which of these three was neighbour -to him that fell among thieves?” And the lawyer is compelled -to acknowledge, “He that showed mercy.” We make a similar -appeal to the advocates of the oral law. We ask, which is, the -oral law or the New Testament, the most like the law of God? -The oral law forbids you to help a poor dying fellow-creature in -his hour of need, because he is an idolater. It commands you to -stifle the natural instinct of the human heart, which is indeed -the voice of the God of nature—to behold the agonizing -struggles, and hear the heartrending cries of a drowning fellow-sinner, -and yet when you have it in your power to snatch him -from the jaws of death, and from that everlasting destruction -which awaits him, to leave him to his fate, without help and -without pity. The New Testament, on the contrary, tells you, -that though, by his idolatry, he has incurred the wrath of God, -yet he is your neighbour—that it is your duty to help him, and -by that very help to endeavour to lead him to the truth. -Which then agrees with the law of God? We are quite sure -that the language of your heart is, the New Testament is right. -<a id='Page_31'></a>The oral law is wrong. Your brethren in France and Bavaria -have already proclaimed that opinion to the world. In the -answer of the Jewish deputies to Napoleon and in the Bavarian -Catechism, they have said, “that we are to love our fellow-creature -as ourselves,” whatever be his religion. They have -thus made an involuntary acknowledgment of the superiority of -the New Testament, and of the benefit which it has been to the -world. Just suppose, for a moment, that the scribes and -Pharisees had succeeded in extirpating the doctrine of Jesus of -Nazareth, what would have been the consequence to you and to -the world? Had the doctrines of Jesus perished, the oral law -would have had an undisturbed and universal domination, for -the Karaites have always been few in number, and have never -exerted any influence on mankind at large. The Jews in -France, Bavaria, as well as in England and elsewhere, would all -have known the law only according to the oral interpretation, -and consequently would not have understood the command, -“Thou shalt love they neighbour as thyself.” They would still -have held the fearful doctrine, that a perishing idolater was not -to be helped. They would, moreover, have had none but -idolaters around them, for all the knowledge of God that -prevails amongst us Gentiles comes from Jesus of Nazareth. -Jew and Gentile, then, would have lived “hateful and hating -each other.” You may think, perhaps, that some mighty spirit -would have burst the chains of tradition, and reasserted, the -simple truth of God. But such an event is altogether beyond -the limits of probability. One of the mightiest intellects that -ever dwelt in a tenement of clay was that of Moses, the son of -Maimon; a man whose learning and industry were equal to his -genius. If ever there was a Jew, who was likely to overcome -the prejudices of tradition, it was he. And yet with all his -genius and all his opportunities, he never was able to arrive at -the true sense of the command which we have just considered. -The atrocious passages, which we have above discussed, are all -taken from his compendium of the oral law. You are indebted, -then, to Jesus of Nazareth for your deliverance from this foul -error. With respect to your duty to your neighbour, your own -brethren in France and Bavaria confess, that you are right if -you follow Jesus of Nazareth, and that you are wrong if you -follow those who rejected him. Remember, then, that your -duty to your neighbour is half of the whole law of God, and -examine whether the Christians, who are confessedly right -in the second table of the law do not, also, possess the truth -respecting the first.</p> - -<div class='chapter'> - <a id='Page_32'></a> - <h2 id='chap05' class='c003'>No. V. <br /> TALMUDIC INTOLERANCE CONTRASTED WITH THE CHARITY OF THE BIBLE.</h2> -</div> -<p class='c004'>Any one who considers the circumstances of the Jewish people -after the desolation of the first temple, will be inclined to make -great allowances for the spirit of the Rabbinical laws against -idolaters. Idolatry was not to them a mere system of religious -error. It was the source of all their misfortunes; and idolaters -were the destroyers of their country—the desolaters of their -temple—and their own most cruel and tyrannical oppressors. -Scarcely had they emerged from the horrors of the Babylonish -captivity, when they were exposed to the insults and outrages as -well as the persecutions of Antiochus; and hardly had they recovered -from the havoc of his fury, before they were overrun -by the fierce and haughty Romans, who were at last the -executioners of the wrath of the Almighty. They not only saw -the abominations of idolatry, but they felt the hard hand of the -idolater; no wonder, then, if they hated the man as well as the -system. In the Hilchoth Rotzeach there is a law which amply -illustrates the misery of their situation, and the habitual treatment -which they received from idolaters. According to this law, “It -is forbidden to a Jew to be alone with Gentiles, for they are -suspected of shedding blood; neither is a Jew to join company -with them in the way; if he meet a Gentile, he is to cause him -to pass on his right hand (that the Jew, as the commentary says, -may be able to defend himself, in case the Gentile should make -an attempt on his life); if they be ascending a height, or going -down a descent, the Jew is not to be below and the Gentile -above him; but the Jew above and the Gentile below, lest he -should fall upon him to kill him; neither is he to stoop down -before him, lest he should break his skull.” What an affecting -picture does this present of the Jews under heathen domination; -and who can wonder if such treatment called forth the natural -feelings of the human heart, and dictated laws in the same fierce -and merciless spirit? We, for our part, are quite ready to admit -and to deplore the mighty provocations, which roused the spirit -of retaliation in the Rabbies, and consequently, to make all due -allowance for the men. But that is not the question before us. -We are inquiring whether their religious system, the oral law, -is or is not from God, and whether this religious system teaches -Jews to love all their fellow-men as themselves? We have -shown that the evidence adduced on this point by the French -and Bavarian Jews, proves the contrary; and is therefore, -nothing to the purpose. But we do not wish to rest the decision -upon such limited proof, even though it be strong; we are -<a id='Page_33'></a>willing to look at the whole system, and to compare it with the -law and the prophets, which we all admit as divine authority. -We say, then, that the Talmud not only does not teach us to -love all our fellow-men, but that it puts idolaters altogether -without the pale of humanity. We have seen already that it forbids -its followers to save the life of a perishing idolater. But it -goes farther still, and extends this precept even to an idolater’s -infant, which knows not its right hand from its left:—</p> - -<p class='c005'>בת ישראל לא תיניק את בנה של נכרית מפני -שמגדלת בן לעבודה אל כוכבים ומזלות ולא תילד -את הנכרית עכו׳׳ם אבל מילדת היא בשכר משום איבה ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“A daughter of Israel shall not suckle the son of a heathen -woman, because that would be to bring up a son for idolatry; -neither shall she act as midwife to a heathen idolatress. But -if she should, it must be for pay, on account of the enmity (that -might otherwise be excited)”. (Hilchoth Accum, c. ix. 16.) -What is meant by “pay, on account of the enmity,” is fully -explained in the following passage, which forbids a Rabbinical -physician to cure a sick idolater:—</p> - -<p class='c005'>מכאן אתה למד שאסור לרפאות עובדי כוכבים -ומזלות אפילו בשכר ואם היה מתירא מהן או -שהיה חושש משום איבה מרפא בשכר אבל בחנם -אסור ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“Hence thou learnest, that it is forbidden to cure idolaters even -for pay. But if (an Israelite) is afraid of them, or is anxious on -account of enmity, he may cure them for pay; but to do it -gratuitously is forbidden.” Hence the commonest offices of -humanity are forbidden. But the Talmud goes further still, -and prohibits even the giving of good advice to these outcasts.</p> - -<p class='c005'>ואסור להשיא עצה טובה לגוי או לעבד רשע ... -ולא נתנסה דניאל אלא על שהשיא עצה טובה -לנבוכדנצר ליתן צדקה , שנאמר להן מלכא מלכי -ישפר עלך ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“It is forbidden to give good advice to a heathen or to a wicked -slave.... Daniel was exposed to danger for no other reason -than this, that he advised Nebuchadnezzar to give alms, as it is -written, ‘Wherefore, O king, let my counsel be acceptable -unto thee.’ (Dan. iv. 23, in English 27.)”<a id='r11' /><a href='#f11' class='c006'><sup>[11]</sup></a> A more striking -instance of the spirit of the Talmud can hardly be found. Nebuchadnezzar -was the benefactor of Daniel, and had elevated -<a id='Page_34'></a>him from the situation of a captive to the first dignity of the -empire; and Daniel had not refused, but voluntarily taken upon -himself the duties and responsibilities of the king’s chief adviser. -Under such circumstances, an ordinary reader of the -Bible would imagine that Daniel was bound by every tie of gratitude -to his benefactor, of duty and fidelity to his sovereign, to -give him the best advice in his power. No, says the Talmud. -If the man be an idolater, gratitude, duty, and fidelity are out -of the question; and because Daniel exercised those godlike -graces, he was punished. It appears, at all events, on the -Talmud’s own showing, that Daniel was not a Talmudist. These -extracts seem sufficient to prove, that the Talmud altogether -excludes idolaters from all benefit of the command, “Thou shalt -love thy neighbour as thyself.” The system which makes -it unlawful to save his life, to cure his sickness, to suckle his -child, to help his wife in the hour of nature’s trial, or even -to give him good advice, can scarcely be said to teach us -to love all our fellow-men, without any regard to religious -differences. It may, however, be said, that the passages adduced -lead to this conclusion only by inference, and that none -of them expressly declares that an idolater is not our neighbour. -We shall, therefore, add a few passages where this is plainly -taught.</p> - -<p class='c005'>הגונב את הגוי או שגנב נכסי הקדש אינו משלם -אלא הקרן בלבד שנאמר ישלם שנים לרעהו , לרעהו -ולא להקדש , לרעהו ולא לגוי ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“He that steals from a Gentile, or he that steals property -<i>devoted</i> to sacred purposes, is only to pay the principal: for it -is said, ‘He shall pay double unto <i>his neighbour</i>.’ (Exod. xxii. -8, English 9.) To his neighbour, not to devoted property. To -his neighbour, and <i>not to a Gentile</i>.” (Hilchoth Genevah, -c. ii. 1.) The same decision is given with respect to the law -found, Levit. v. 20, in English vi. 1, “If a soul sin, and commit -a trespass against the Lord, and <i>lie unto his neighbour</i>, ... -all that about which he has sworn falsely; he shall even restore -it in the principal, and shall add the fifth part more thereto.” -The oral law says—</p> - -<p class='c005'>הנשבע לגוי משלם את הקרו ואינו חייב בחומש -שנאמר וכחש בעמיתו ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“He that sweareth to a Gentile must pay the principal, but is -not bound to add the fifth part—(why not?) because it is said, -‘and lie unto his neighbour.’” (Hilchoth Gezelah, c. i. 7.) So -that the reason here assigned why the Gentile is not to get the -fifth part in addition, is, because he is not a neighbour. In like -manner, in the 11th chapter of this same treatise, which treats -<a id='Page_35'></a>of the restoration of things found, it is expressly commanded to -restore whatever belongs to a Jew, because he is a brother; but -to keep whatever belongs to an idolater, because he is not -a brother.</p> - -<p class='c005'>השבת אבדה לישראל מצות עשה שנאמר השב -תשיבם ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“To restore to an Israelite anything that he has lost, is an -affirmative commandment, for it is said, ‘Thou shalt in any -case bring them again unto thy brother.’” (Deut. xxii. 1.)</p> - -<p class='c005'>אבדת גוי עובד ע׳׳ז מותרת שנאמר אבדת אחיך , -והמחזירה הרי זה עובר עבירה מפני שהוא מחזיק -ידי רשעי עולם , ואם החזירה כדי לקדש את השם -שיפארו את ישראל וידעו שהם בעלי אמונה הרי זה -משובח ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“Anything that a Gentile has lost is lawful, for it is said, -‘With all lost things of <i>thy brother’s</i>.’ (Deut. xxii. 3.) And -he that restores it transgresses a transgression, for he strengthens -the hands of the wicked of the world. But if he restore it in -order to sanctify the Name, that they may think well of Israel, -and know that they are honest people, this is praiseworthy.” -In these passages (and many more might be added if it were -necessary) it is plainly taught that an idolatrous Gentile is not -to be regarded as “our neighbour,” or our brother. We think, -then, that we have fully proved that the Jewish deputies -in France, and the compilers of the Jewish Catechism in -Bavaria, did not learn their exposition of the command, “Thou -shalt love thy neighbour as thyself,” from the Talmud; neither -in the particular passage which they quote, nor from the general -principles of the Talmudic system. We have already stated our -belief that they learned that exposition from the New Testament, -for there it is taught plainly and repeatedly. We quoted, in -proof, a parable spoken by the Lord Jesus Christ. We shall now -add a few more passages in confirmation.</p> - -<p class='c005'>As to <i>showing kindness</i> to all our fellow-men, the New -Testament teaches us to make no exception with regard to -idolaters, or others who have not the same creed, but gives the -following general rules:—“As we have, therefore, opportunity, -let us do good <span class='fss'>UNTO ALL MEN</span>, especially unto them that are of -the household of faith.” (Gal. vi. 10.) “See that no man -render evil for evil <span class='fss'>UNTO ANY MAN</span>; but ever follow that which -is good both among yourselves, and <span class='fss'>TO ALL MEN</span>.” (1 Thess. -v. 15.) “The Lord make you to increase and abound <span class='fss'>IN LOVE</span> -one toward another, and <span class='fss'>TOWARD ALL MEN</span>.” (1 Thess. iii. 12.) -You observe that in these general rules the New Testament -<a id='Page_36'></a>makes no reservation with respect to idolaters, or epicureans, or -heretics, or any other of those unfortunate beings whom the -Talmud outlaws from all the common charities of humanity. It -commands us to do good to <i>all</i>—and that not to avoid enmity, -nor for the sake of the ways of peace, nor because we are -afraid, nor because we wish them to speak well of us, and to be -thought honest people, but because it is our duty. The New -Testament requires of its followers, not only to abstain “from -active violence” in injuring them, but to do active good in -assisting them, and the examples, which it proposes for our -imitation, are of the same character as the precepts which -it imposes upon our obedience. It sets before us Jesus of -Nazareth, whom the traditionists crucified, praying for his -murderers, and saying, “Father, forgive them; for they know -not what they do”—and Stephen, his first martyr, interceding -for them that stoned him, “Lord, lay not this sin to their -charge.” And Paul, whose feelings to those who differed from -him in religion are thus expressed, “Brethren, my heart’s desire -and my prayer to God for Israel is, that they may be saved.” -It sets before us the disciples of the Lord Jesus healing the -diseases of all who applied, without reference to their religious -opinions. (Acts xix. 11.) We repeat our question, then, which -system is according to the truth and the will of God, the -Talmud, or the New Testament? Your brethren in France and -Bavaria have declared, by adopting the New Testament exposition, -that it is right; and by rejecting the intolerant -principle which pervades the oral law, that the oral law -is wrong. We trust that your hearts respond to their declarations. -But we do not rest the decision on the natural -feelings of the heart, we appeal to Moses and the prophets.</p> - -<p class='c005'>The question is, do the laws, which God gave respecting the -idolatrous nations of Canaan, apply to all other idolaters, and -under all circumstances? The oral law answers this question -in the affirmative, and hence the source of all those revolting -laws which we have just considered. But the oral law is -wrong: 1st, Because it draws a general conclusion from a particular -case, which is contrary to all sound reasoning. That -the command to destroy these nations was peculiar appears -from the command itself—God does not speak generally of all -the heathen, but only of certain nations which he specifies—“When -the Lord thy God shall bring thee into the land, -whither thou goest to possess it, and hath cast out many -nations before thee, the Hittites, and the Girgashites, and the -Amorites, and the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, and the -Hivites, and the Jebusites, seven nations greater and mightier -than thou; and when the Lord thy God shall deliver them -before thee; thou shalt smite them, and utterly destroy them; -thou shalt make no covenant with, nor shew mercy unto -<a id='Page_37'></a>them.” (Deut. vii. 1, 2.) Here the command is precise, and -is as much violated by extending it to those to whom God has -not extended it, as by refusing to execute it on those whom -He has here designated as the just victims of his wrath.</p> - -<p class='c005'>2dly, The oral law is wrong in this general application, for -it contradicts the written law—God expressly distinguishes between -these and the other nations—“When thou comest nigh -unto a city to fight against it, then proclaim peace unto it. -And it shall be, if it make thee answer of peace, and open -unto thee, then it shall be, that all the people that is found -therein shall be tributaries unto thee, and they shall serve -thee.... Thus shalt thou do unto all the cities which are -very far from thee, which are not of the cities of these nations. -But of the cities of these people, which the Lord thy God doth -give thee for an inheritance, thou shalt save alive nothing that -breatheth, but thou shalt utterly destroy them; the Hittites, -and the Amorites, the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, the -Hivites, and the Jebusites; as the Lord thy God hath commanded -thee.” (Deut. xx. 10, 18.) In the first case God -commands mercy—in the second, extermination. And if, as -in the first case, he commands merciful dealing even to a -nation at war with Israel, much more does he command it -towards those, with whom Israel is not at war.</p> - -<p class='c005'>3dly, The written law not only gives a general rule, but -lays down exceptions founded on certain principles. “Thou -shalt not abhor an Edomite, for he is thy brother; thou shalt -not abhor an Egyptian, because thou wast a stranger in his -land.” (Deut. xxiii. 7.) Now the Egyptians were idolaters, -yet God commands the Israelites not to abhor them, and gives -a reason which will now apply to most nations of the earth—“Because -thou wast a stranger in his land.” Suppose, then, -that a Rabbinist were to see an Egyptian drowning, is he to -show him mercy? To say, No, will contradict the written -law; and to say, Yes, will overthrow the monstrous fabric of -Rabbinic legislation respecting idolaters.</p> - -<p class='c005'>4thly, The general practice of the Israelites, as described in -the subsequent books of the Old Testament, directly contradicts -the oral law. We have seen already that the Prophet -Daniel did not hold the doctrine, that no mercy was to be -shown to an idolater. When he knew of the judgment that -was about to descend on Nebuchadnezzar, he was deeply distressed. -“He was astonied for one hour, and his thoughts -troubled him;” and instead of leaving the idolater to perish, -he endeavoured to find means to ward off the calamity. The -prophet Elisha was of the same mind: when the idolatrous -leper came to him for help, he administered it, and, contrary -to the Talmudic command, he administered it <i>gratuitously</i>; -and Gehazi, for acting in conformity to Talmudic ordinance, -<a id='Page_38'></a>and making the idolater pay, was smitten with the leprosy. -(2 Kings v. 20.) In like manner, when the Syrian host was -miraculously led into Samaria, and the King of Israel proposed -to act as a Talmudist and smite them, the man of -God answered, “Thou shalt not smite them; wouldest thou -smite those whom thou hast taken with thy sword and bow? -Set bread and water before them, that they may eat and drink -and go to their master.” (2 Kings vi. 21, 22.) This answer -is important, as it not only furnishes an example, but exhibits -the principle, according to which idolatrous captives, not -Canaanites, were to be treated. The prophet appeals to the -general rule, “Wouldest thou smite those whom thou hast -taken captive with thy sword and bow? Even then, as they -are not Canaanites, they ought not to be smitten: therefore, -in this case much more, they ought to be treated with mercy.” -We have still another instance of a prophet acting contrary to -the oral law, and in conformity with the New Testament interpretation. -The prophet Jonah once saw idolaters “nigh -unto death,” and ready to sink in the great deep, but he had -mercy on them, and pointed out the means of deliverance. -When he fled from the presence of the Lord, the mariners in -whose ship he sailed were idolaters; for when the storm raged, it -is said, “They cried every man unto his god.” In their anguish -they said unto him, “What shall we do unto thee, that the -sea may be calm unto us?” In other words, “What shall we -do to save our lives?” Now if Jonah had been a Talmudist, it -would have been plainly not his duty to have told them, but -to have allowed the sea to rage on until the ship went to -pieces, and he had the satisfaction of seeing the idolaters go to -the bottom. This would have been an act of obedience to a -precise command, and could have made no difference to Jonah. -For, as to himself, there are two suppositions possible, either -he knew that the Lord had prepared a fish to swallow him, or -he knew it not. If he knew it, then he was secure of his own -safety, and would have known that the fish could find him out -just as readily if the ship went to pieces, as if the idolaters -threw him into the sea. It would, therefore, have been doubly -his duty to conceal from the idolaters the means of deliverance. -On this supposition, Jonah’s counsel to them can only -be accounted for on the principle that he was not a Talmudist, -but considered it his duty to save the lives of perishing idolaters, -even when nothing was to be feared or to be gained. -If, on the other hand, he did not know of the fish, he must -have expected a watery grave, whether the idolaters threw -him into the sea, or whether he waited until the ship went to -pieces. In this case, also, if a Talmudist, it would have been -his duly to have staged where he was, and if he perished, die -in the fulfilment or the command, to show no mercy to idolaters. -<a id='Page_39'></a>But he did not—he had compassion on them, and, to -save their lives, relinquished his only chance of safety, by -telling them to throw him into the sea. It is plain, therefore, -Jonah was not a Talmudist. We have here, then, three -inspired prophets, Daniel, Elisha, and Jonah, all bearing a -practical testimony against the Talmudic principle, which -extends God’s law against the Canaanites to all idolaters, and -under all circumstances.</p> - -<p class='c005'>Lastly, We have the testimony of the God of Israel himself. -He who gave the command to destroy the Canaanites on account -of their exceeding wickedness, shows by his own dealings -with the world, that this case is an exception to the -general rule, for “The Lord is good to all, and his mercies are -over all his works.” He provides food and clothing for the -idolater, as well as for those who worship him in truth; or, -as the New Testament says, “He maketh his sun to rise on -the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and the -unjust.” (Matt. vi. 45.) He, then, whose conduct most resembles -that of his Creator, is, beyond all doubt, the nearest -to the truth. The Talmud, therefore, is wrong, and the New -Testament explanation of the command, “Thou shalt love thy -neighbour as thyself,” is right. We ask the Jews, then, to -account for this fact, that Jesus of Nazareth was right, and -those who condemned him wrong, respecting one-half of the -whole law. And we ask, moreover, those Jews who abhor -the above Talmudic principles, how they can conscientiously -join in the synagogue prayers, which ascribe to the Talmud -Divine authority? We ask them why, at the very least, they -have never publicly protested against these enormities; but -allow their brethren through the world to remain victims to a -system, which not only contradicts the written law of God, -but outrages all the better feelings of even fallen humanity?</p> - -<div class='chapter'> - <h2 id='chap06' class='c003'>No. VI. <br /> COMPULSORY CONVERSION OF THE GENTILES.</h2> -</div> -<p class='c004'>When, at the close of the fifteenth century, the Jews were -driven out of Spain, some of the magnanimous exiles, who had -preferred loss of all things to a compulsory change of religion, -arrived at the frontiers of Portugal, and there sought an asylum. -A permanent abode was refused, and a temporary sojourn was -<a id='Page_40'></a>granted them on two conditions—1st, That each should pay a -certain quantity of gold for his admission; and 2dly, That if -they were found in Portugal after a certain day, they should -either consent to be baptized, or be sold for slaves.<a id='r12' /><a href='#f12' class='c006'><sup>[12]</sup></a> Now Jews -of every degree and shade of religious belief will agree with us, -that these conditions were most disgraceful to those who imposed -them. To refuse gratuitous assistance to the poor and -needy, merely because they had been brought up in a different -religious faith, was utterly unworthy of those professing faith -in Divine revelation. To compel the unfortunate to choose -between loss of liberty or of conscience was the act of a fiend. -But now suppose that the Portuguese had endeavoured to persuade -these poor exiles that their conduct, however base it -might appear, was commanded by God himself. Suppose, -further, that when called upon to prove that this command was -from God, they had confessed that no such command was to be -found in the written books of their religion, that it was only a -tradition of their oral law, do you think that the Jewish exiles -would have been satisfied with such proof, and submitted? -Would they not, in the first place, have questioned the authority -of a command resting merely upon uncertain tradition? -And would they not have argued, from the detestable nature of -the command itself, that it could not possibly emanate from the -God of truth and love? We ask you then to apply these principles -to תורה שבעל פה the oral law. The Portuguese -refused to perform an act of humanity to the unfortunate Jewish -exiles, unless they were paid for it. Your oral law, as we -showed in our last number, forbids you to give medical advice -to a sick idolater gratuitously. The Portuguese voluntarily -undertook to convert the Jews by force. Your oral law teaches -compulsory conversion as a Divine command. If the oral law -could be enforced, liberty of conscience would be at an end. -Neither Jew nor Gentile would be permitted to exercise the judgment, -which God has given him. His only alternative would be -submission to Rabbinic authority, or death. The dreadful command -to kill, by any means, those Israelites who have become -epicureans, or idolaters, or apostates, is well known,<a id='r13' /><a href='#f13' class='c006'><sup>[13]</sup></a> and sufficiently -proves that the oral law recognises no such thing as -liberty of conscience in Israel. It pronounces a man an apostate -if he denies its Divine authority, and demands his life as the -penalty. The execution of this one command would fill the -world with blood and horror; and recall all the worst features of -inquisitorial tyranny. Not now to mention those Israelites who -have embraced Christianity, there are in England, and every -part of Europe, many high-minded and honourable Jews, who -have practically renounced the authority of the oral law. The -<a id='Page_41'></a>Rabbinical millennium would commence by handing over all -such to the executioner. Their talents, their virtue, their -learning, their moral excellence, would avail nothing. Found -guilty of epicureanism or apostasy, because they dared to think -for themselves, and to act according to their convictions, they -would have to undergo the epicurean’s or the apostate’s fate.</p> - -<p class='c005'>Such is the toleration of the oral law towards native Israelites, -but it is equally severe to converts. It allows no second -thoughts. It legislates for relapsed converts, as the Spanish -Inquisition did for those Jews who, after embracing Christianity, -returned to their former faith and sentences all such -to death.</p> - -<p class='c005'>בן נח שנתגייר ומל וטבל , ואחר כך וצה לחזור -מאחרי ה׳ ולהיות גר תושב בלבד כשהיה מקודם , -אין שומעין לו , אלא יהיה כישראל לכל דבר או -יהרג ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“A Noahite who has become a proselyte, and been circumcised -and baptized, and afterwards wishes to return from after -the Lord, and to be only a sojourning proselyte, as he was before, -is not to be listened to—on the contrary, either let him be -an Israelite in everything, or let him be put to death.” (Hilchoth -Melachim, c. x. 3.) In this law there is an extraordinary -severity. The oral law admits that a Noahite, that is, a -heathen who has taken upon himself the seven commandments -of the children of Noah, may be saved. It cannot, -therefore, be said that the severity was dictated by a wish to -deter men from error, and to restrain them from rushing upon -everlasting ruin, as the Inquisition pleads. The oral law goes -a little further, and not only will not permit a man to change -his creed, but will not even suffer him to change his ceremonial -observances. Though the man should commit no crime, and -though he should continue to worship the one true God, in -spirit and in truth, yet if he only alter the outward forms of his -religion, modern Judaism requires that he should be put to -death.</p> - -<p class='c005'>But the tender care of the oral law is not limited to the -narrow confines of Judaism, it extends also to the heathen, -amongst whom it directs the true faith to be propagated by the -sword. First, it gives a particular rule. In case of war with -the Gentiles, it commands the Jews to offer peace on two conditions—the -one that they should become tributaries, the other -that they should renounce idolatry and take upon them the -seven precepts of the Noahites, and then adds—</p> - -<p class='c005'>ואם לא השלימו או שהשלימו ולא קבלו שבע -מצוות עושין עמהם מלחמה והורגין כל הזכים -<a id='Page_42'></a>הגדולים , ובוזזין כל ממונם וטפם ואין הורגין אשה -ולא קטן שנאמר והנשים והטף וכו׳ ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“But if they will not make peace, or if they will make peace -but will not take upon them the seven commandments, the war -is to be carried on against them, and all the adult males are to -be put to death; and their property and their little ones are to -be taken as plunder. But no woman or male infant is to be put -to death, for it is said, ‘The women and the little ones’ (Deut. -xx. 14.), and here little ones mean male infants.” (Hilchoth -Melachim, c. vi. 4.) Now what difference, we would ask, is -there between the conduct here prescribed, and that actually -practised by the Portuguese, at the period above referred to, -and thus described by a Jew:<a id='r14' /><a href='#f14' class='c006'><sup>[14]</sup></a>—“At the expiration of the -appointed time, most of the Jews had emigrated, but many still -remained in the country. The King therefore gave orders -to take away from them all their children under fourteen years -of age, to distribute them amongst Christians, to send them to -the newly-discovered islands, and thus to pluck up Judaism by -the roots. Dreadful was the cry of lamentation uttered by the -parents, but the unfortunates found no mercy.” Do you -condemn this conduct in the Portuguese? Be then consistent, -and condemn it in the Talmud too. As for ourselves, we abhor -it as much, yea more, in those calling themselves Christians, -We look upon the actors in that transaction as a disgrace to the -Christian name, and the deed itself as a foul blot upon the -history of Christendom. But we cannot help thinking that, -dreadful and detestable as this mode of conversion is, it pleased -God in his providence to suffer wicked men thus to persecute -Israel, that the Jews might have a practical experience of the -wickedness of the oral law, and thus be led to reject such -persecuting principles. The Jewish nation rejected the Lord -Jesus Christ, and preferred the oral law. This law, not dictated -by a spirit of retaliation upon the Portuguese, but invented by -the Pharisees centuries before Portugal was a kingdom, commanded -the Jews to convert the heathen by force, to murder all -who would not consent to be thus converted, and to take away -the children. And God suffered them to fall into the hands -of men of similar principles, who took away their children, -attempted to convert themselves by force, and sold for slaves -the Jews who refused to be thus converted; so that the -very misfortunes of the nation testify aloud against those -traditions which they preferred to the Word of God. But -perhaps some Jew will say that this is only a particular -command, referring to the nations in the vicinity of the land of -Israel. We reply, that the command to convert the heathen by -<a id='Page_43'></a>force, is not particular, but general, referring to the whole -world. If the Jews had the power, this is the conduct which -they are to pursue towards all the nations of the earth.</p> - -<p class='c005'>וכן צוה משה רבינו מפי הגבורה לכוף את כל באי -העולם לקבל מצוות שנצטוו בני נח , וכל מי שלא -קבל יהרג ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“And thus Moses our master, has commanded us, by Divine -tradition, to compel all that come into the world to take upon -themselves the commandments imposed upon the sons of Noah, -and whosoever will not receive them is to be put to death.” -(Hilchoth Melachim, c. viii. 4.)</p> - -<p class='c005'>Such is the Talmudic system of toleration, and such the -means which it prescribes for the conversion of the world. We -acknowledge that persons calling themselves Christians have -had an oral law very similar in its principles and precepts, -but we fearlessly challenge the whole world to point out -anything similar in the doctrines of Jesus Christ, or in the -writings of his apostles. The New Testament does, indeed, -teach us to seek the conversion of the world, not by force of -arms, but by teaching the truth. “Go ye, therefore, and make -disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the -Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost; teaching them -to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you.” -(Matt. xxviii. 19.) In the parable of the tares and wheat, Jesus -of Nazareth hath expressly taught us that physical force is not -to be employed in order to remove moral error. The servants -are represented as asking the master of the house, whether they -should go and root out the tares that grew amongst the wheat, -but the answer is, “Nay, lest while ye gather up the tares, ye -root up also the wheat with them. Let both grow together -until the harvest; and in the time of harvest I will say to the -reapers, Gather ye together first the tares, and bind them in -bundles to burn them: but gather the wheat into my barn.” -(Matt. xiii. 24-43.) He tells us expressly to have nothing to -do with the sword, “For all they that take the sword, shall -perish with the sword.” (Matt. xxvi. 52.) And therefore the -apostle says, “The weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but -mighty through God to the pulling down of strong holds.” -(2 Cor. x. 4.) Here again, then, there is a great difference -between the oral law and the New Testament. The former -commands that the truth be maintained and propagated by the -sword. The latter tells us that “faith cometh by hearing, and -hearing by the Word of God.” Which, then, is most agreeable -to the doctrine of Moses and the prophets? We answer fearlessly, -the means prescribed by the New Testament, for—</p> - -<p class='c005'>1st, No instance can be adduced from the Old Testament, in -<a id='Page_44'></a>which God commanded the propagation of the truth by the -power of the sword. The extirpation of the seven nations of -Canaan is not in point, for the Israelites were not commanded -to make them any offer of mercy on condition of conversion. -The measure of their iniquity was full, and therefore the command -to destroy every soul absolute. Neither in the command -referred to by Maimonides is there the least reference to -conversion. It simply says, “When thou comest nigh unto a -city to fight against it, then proclaim peace unto it. And it -shall be if it make thee answer of peace, and open unto thee, -then it shall be that all the people that is found therein shall -be tributaries unto thee, and they shall serve thee. And if it -will make no peace with thee, but will make war against thee, -then thou shalt besiege it: and when the Lord thy God hath -delivered it into thine hands, thou shalt smite every male -thereof with the edge of the sword. But the women and the -little ones, and the cattle, and all that is in the city, even all -the spoil thereof, shalt thou take unto thyself.” (Deut. xx. -10-14.) Here is not one word said about conversion, or about -the seven commandments of the sons of Noah. The command -itself is hypothetical, “When thou comest nigh unto a city;” -and therefore gives no colour nor pretext for setting out on a -war of conversion, “to compel all that come into the world.” -As it stands, it is a humane and merciful direction to restrain -the horrors of the then prevailing system of warfare; and -beautifully exemplifies the value which God sets upon the life -of man, whatever his nation or his religion. He will not suffer -it to be destroyed unnecessarily; and even in case of extremity, -he commands the lives of the women and the children, who -never bore arms against Israel, to be spared. There is not a -syllable about forcing their consciences: that is all pure -gratuitous addition of the oral law, which turns a merciful -command into an occasion of bigotry and religious tyranny.</p> - -<p class='c005'>2dly, As God has given no command to propagate religion by -the sword, so neither has He given any countenance to such -doctrine, by the instrumentality which He has employed for the -preservation of religion in the world. He did not choose a -mighty nation of soldiers as the depositories of his truth, nor -any of the overturners of kingdoms for his prophets. If it had -been his intention to convert the world by force of arms, Nimrod -would have been a more suitable instrument than Abraham, and -the mighty kingdom of Egypt more fitted for the task than the -family of Hebrew captives. But by the very choice He showed, -that truth was to be propagated by Divine power working -conviction in the minds of men, and not by physical strength. -It would have been just as easy for him to have turned every -Hebrew captive in Egypt into a Samson, as to turn the waters -into blood; and to have sent them into the world to overturn -<a id='Page_45'></a>idolatry by brute force; but He preferred to enlighten the -minds of men by exhibiting a series of miracles, calculated to -convince them of his eternal power and Godhead. When -the ten tribes revolted, and fell away into idolatry, He did -not employ the sword of Judah, but the voice of his prophets, to -recall them to the truth. He did not compel them, as the oral -law would have done, to an outward profession, but dealt with -them as with rational beings, and left them to the choice -of their hearts. Nineveh was not converted by Jewish soldiers, -but by the preaching of Jonah. So far is God from commanding -the propagation of religion by the sword, that He would -not even suffer a man of war to build a temple for his worship. -When David thought of erecting a temple, the Lord said -unto him, “Thou hast shed blood abundantly, and hast made -great wars; thou shalt not build an house unto my name, -because thou hast shed much blood upon the earth.” (1 Chron. -xxii. 8.) Thus hath God shown his abhorrence of compulsory -conversion, and in all his dealings confirmed his Word, “Not by -might nor by power, but by my Spirit, saith the Lord of hosts.” -(Zech. iv. 6.)</p> - -<p class='c005'>3dly, God has in his Word promised the conversion of the -world, but not by the means prescribed in the oral law. His -promise to Abraham was, “In thy seed shall all the families of -the earth be blessed.” (Gen. xxii. 18.) Now this can hardly -mean that his descendants are to treat all nations, as the -Portuguese treated the Jews. The 72nd Psalm gives rather -a different view of the fulfilment of this promise. It promises -not a victorious soldier like Mahomet, but one “in whose days -the righteous shall flourish, and abundance of peace so long as -the moon endureth.... All nations shall call Him blessed.” -The prophet Isaiah tells us “that out of Zion shall go forth -(not conquering armies to compel, but) the law, and the Word -of the Lord from Jerusalem. And he shall judge among the -nations, and rebuke many people; and they shall beat their -swords into ploughshares, and their spears into pruning-hooks; -nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they -learn war any more.” Zechariah says, “He shall speak peace -to the heathen;” and declares that the conversion of the world -will not be the reward of conquest, but the result of conviction. -“In those days it shall come to pass, that ten men shall take -hold, out of all the languages of the nations, even shall take -hold of the skirt of him that is a Jew, saying, We will go with -you, <i>for we have heard</i> that God is with you.” (Zech. viii. 23.) -Here again, then, you see that whilst the oral law differs from -Moses and the prophets, the New Testament agrees with them. -Account, then, for this extraordinary fact, that whilst the -whole Jewish nation lost the great and glorious doctrine of -liberty of conscience, it has been preserved for you and for all -<a id='Page_46'></a>mankind by Jesus of Nazareth. Just suppose that the principles -of the Talmud had triumphed, either amongst the Jews -or the Portuguese, what would have been the consequence to -the world? If the Talmudists had attained to supreme power, -we should have had to choose between compulsory conversion -and the sword. If the Portuguese had attained to universal -dominion, both you and we should have had the alternative of -compulsory conversion or the fires of the Inquisition. In either -case, the noblest and most precious gift that the God of heaven -ever sent down to earth, liberty of conscience, would have been -extinct. But, thank God, the doctrine of Jesus of Nazareth has -triumphed over the oral laws of both Jews and Portuguese, and -the result is, that both you and we have the liberty of -worshipping God according to the convictions of our understanding -and the dictates of our conscience. Behold, then, how -you are indebted to Jesus of Nazareth. Without him you -would not have known religious liberty, either theoretically or -practically. He is right on this all-important point, whilst -those who condemned him to death and rejected his claims are -wrong. If he was not the true Messiah, but only a pretender, -how is it that God has made him and his doctrine the exclusive -channel for preserving the truth of his Word, and conveying -such blessings to you as well as to us Gentiles? If the -Pharisees were right in rejecting him, how is it that God has -rewarded their piety by giving them over to such gross -delusions, and making them the transmitters of doctrines, -which would fill the world with blood and hatred and discord, -and make even the truth odious in the eyes of all mankind? -For ourselves we cannot help coming to the conclusion, that -He who has taught us mercy and love to all men, and delivered -both you and us from such horrors—and who, in doing this, -rose above all the doctrines of his nation and his times, was -taught of God, and is, therefore, the true Messiah, the Saviour -of the world.</p> - -<p class='c005'>Certain it is, that this doctrine has already been a blessing -to the world; and that until your nation embrace its principles, -at least on this one point of love and toleration, it is impossible -that the promised glory and pre-eminence of the Jewish nation -should come. With such principles as are inculcated in the -oral law, a restoration to the land of your forefathers would be -no blessing. It would only realize all the legislative and -religious speculations of the Talmudists, and arm them with the -power to tyrannize over their more enlightened brethren. It -would be the triumph of tradition over the Word of God, and -that the God of truth will not permit. It would be to instal -the spirit of intolerance and persecution on the throne of love -and charity, and that God will not suffer. The Talmud is, -thus, a main obstacle in the way of God’s fulfilling his promises -<a id='Page_47'></a>to the nation, because it incapacitates Israel for the reception -or the right employment of the promised blessings. Is it not, -then, the duty of all Jews who desire and long for the glory -and the happiness which God has promised, to lift up their -voice with power, and to protest against that system which -prevents the fulfilment of God’s promises; and by all lawful -means to endeavour to deliver their brethren from the bondage -of such intolerance?</p> - -<div class='chapter'> - <h2 id='chap07' class='c003'>No. VII. <br /> THE FEAST OF PURIM.</h2> -</div> -<p class='c004'>The feast of Purim now at hand, recalls to the Jewish recollection -one of those miraculous deliverances, with which the -history of Israel abounds. The narrative of the institution, as -contained in the Bible, is a signal proof and illustration of the -superintending providence of God, instructive to all the world, -but calling peculiarly for the gratitude and praise of the Jewish -nation, whose forefathers were then delivered. And it is much -to the honour of their posterity that they have not suffered the -lapse of more than twenty centuries to wear out the memory of -this great event, but that to this day they observe its anniversary -with alacrity and zeal. If the oral law simply contented -itself with commanding the observance and prescribing the -mode of worship for such an important season, we should have -no fault to find; but the oral law claims for itself Divine origin -and authority, anathematizes any denial of these claims as -heresy, and sentences the heretic to death. We are, therefore, -compelled to examine its pretensions, and to scrutinize its -features, in order to see whether they really bear the stamp of -divinity. We have already pointed out some, that savoured -more of earth than heaven: the constitutions for the feast of -Purim may be traced to the same source. The following law -respecting the meal to be provided on this occasion did -certainly not come to man from heaven:—</p> - -<p class='c005'>חובת סעודה זו שיאכל בשר ויתקן סעודה נאה -כפי אשר תמצא ידו , ושותה יין עד שישתכר וירדם -בשכרותו ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“A man’s duty with regard to the feast is, that he should eat -<a id='Page_48'></a>meat and prepare a suitable feast according to his means; and -drink wine, until he be drunk, and fell asleep in his drunkenness.” -(Hilchoth Megillah, c. ii. 15.) The Talmud, however, -is not satisfied with so indefinite a direction, but lays down, -with its usual precision, the exact measure of intoxication -required.</p> - -<p class='c005'>חייב איניש לבסומי בפוריא עד דלא ידע בין ארור -המן לברוך מרדכי ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“A man is bound to get so drunk with wine at Purim, as not -to know the difference between Cursed is Haman, and Blessed -is Mordecai.” (Megillah, fol. 7, col. 2.) But perhaps some -learned champion of the Talmud will fly to that sort of refuge -for destitute commentators, the parabolic language of the -orient, and tell us that this precept is not to be understood -literally but figuratively; and that so far from recommending -intoxication, it means to inculcate excess of sobriety or devotion, -such abstraction of the senses, from all outward objects, as not -to distinguish between cursed is Haman and blessed is -Mordecai. This sort of defence is neither imaginary nor novel. -In this way Rabbi Eliezer’s permission to split open an unlearned -man like a fish has been made to signify the spiritual -opening of the understanding, and of course the overweening -anxiety of the Rabbies to communicate instruction to the -ignorant. But however we dull Gentiles may be enlightened -by such an exposition, we much doubt whether the greatest -amhaaretz in Israel will believe the interpretation. The great -and learned Rabbies Solomon Jarchi and Moses Maimonides -have understood literal drunkenness, and have named wine as -the legitimate liquor. R. Joseph Karo has simply given the -command verbatim as it stands in the Talmud, but a note in -the Orach Chaiim shows, that some of the modern Rabbies -were not able to swallow such a command, and, therefore, say -that an Israelite does his duty, if he only drink a little more -than usual. The Talmud itself admits of no such softening -down, nor explaining away, for immediately after the precept -it goes on to propose an example and to furnish an illustration -of its meaning in the following history of the very Rabbi, on -whose authority this traditional command rests;—</p> - -<p class='c005'>רבה ורבי זירא עבדו סעודת פורים בהדי הדדי , -איבסום קם רבה שחטיה לרבי זירא למחר בעא רחמי -ואחייה , לשנה אמר ליה ניתי מר ונעביד סעודת -פורים בהדי הדדי אמר ליה לאו בכל שעתא ושעתא -מתרחיש ניסא ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“Rabba and Rabbi Zira made their Purim entertainment -<a id='Page_49'></a>together. When Rabba got drunk, he arose and killed Rabbi -Zira. On the following day he prayed for mercy, and restored -him to life. The following year Rabba proposed to him again -to make their Purim entertainment together, but he answered, -‘Miracles don’t happen every day.’” (Talmud, Tr. Megillah, -fol. 7, col. 2.) This history of one of the men who are authorities -for the above Talmudic command to get drunk, plainly -illustrates its meaning, and shows that the Talmud meant and -commanded its followers to drink wine to excess on this occasion. -It sets before them the example of one of the greatest -Rabbies committing murder in his drunkenness, and so far -from reprobating this sin, it gravely tells us that God interposed -by a miracle to prevent the ill-consequences; and that the -Rabbi, far from being cured of his propensity, or making any -declaration of his intention to amend, continued in that state -of mind, that his colleague found it imprudent to trust himself -at his table. Now every body that is acquainted with the -Jews, knows that they are a temperate and sober people; and -because they are so, we ask them whether the above command -can be from God? and whether they believe that the Talmud -speaks truth in giving the above narrative? It says not merely -that men may get drunk with impunity, but that to get drunk -is an act of piety, and obedience to a command! Here, again, -the Talmud is directly at issue with the New Testament, -which says, “Be not drunk with wine, wherein is excess.” -(Ephes. v. 18.) “Take heed to yourselves, lest <i>at any time</i> -your hearts be overcharged with surfeiting, and <i>drunkenness</i>, -and the cares of this life, and so that day come upon you unawares.” -(Luke xxi. 34.) The New Testament holds out to us -no hope, that if in our drunkenness, we should commit murder, -a miracle will be wrought in order to deliver us from the consequences; -but tells us, that “neither murderers nor drunkards -shall inherit the kingdom of God.” (1 Cor. vi. 9, 10.) Now -which of these two doctrines is the most agreeable to the -revealed will of God? How would you desire to meet death, -if death should come upon the feast of Purim? Would you -wish the angel of death to find you, in obedience to the oral -law, insensible from overmuch wine? or in that state of sobriety -and thoughtfulness prescribed by Jesus of Nazareth? Does not -the inward tribunal of the heart decide that Jesus of Nazareth -is right, and that the Talmud is wrong? And does not the -Old Testament confirm the sentence? Isaiah says, “Woe unto -them that rise up early in the morning, that they may follow -strong drink; that continue until night, till wine inflame them! -and the harp and the viol, the tabret and pipe, and wine are in -their feasts; but they regard not the work of the Lord, neither -consider the operation of his hands. Therefore my people are -gone into captivity, because they have no knowledge; and -<a id='Page_50'></a>their honourable men are famished, and their multitude dried -up with thirst.” (Isaiah v. 11-13.) And so Moses commands -the parents that should they have a son “a glutton and a drunkard,” -to bring him to justice, and to have him stoned. (Deut. xxi. 20.) -The Talmud, then, manifestly contradicts the Old Testament; it -therefore cannot speak truth when it narrates that God wrought -a miracle in order to save a drunkard and a murderer from that -punishment, which He had himself commanded to be visited -upon either of these crimes. The story of the miracle is therefore -a palpable falsehood, contradictory to the law of Moses, and -derogatory to the honour of God. How, then, can the Talmud -be of God? If you attempt to distinguish, as some do, between -the Talmud and the oral law, and say that though the Talmud -contains the oral law, yet it is not all inspired, then we ask, -how can you rely upon the testimony of a witness convicted of -wilful, gross, and flagrant falsehood? If you do not believe in -the above miracle of the drunken Rabba, you denounce it as a -liar. If it lie, then, upon this solemn occasion in relating a -miracle, in handing down the law of God, how can you depend -upon it at all? If it does not scruple to forge miracles, what -warrant have you for believing that it does not forge laws also?</p> - -<p class='c005'>But suppose, which is far more probable, that Rabbi Zira, -when killed by Rabba, had not come to life again, would Rabba, -in the eye of the modern Jewish law, be considered as a murderer, -and guilty of death, or as an innocent person, who might -safely be permitted to go at large, and pursue his usual avocations? -This is a question well deserving an answer from some -of your learned men, and naturally suggested by some principles -asserted and implied in the following decisions of the -oral law:—</p> - -<p class='c005'>קריאת המגלה בזנה מצות עשה מדברי סופרים , -והדברים ידועים שהיא תקנת הנביאים , והכל חייבים -בקריאתה , אנשים ונשים וגרים ועבדים משוחררים , -ומחנכין את הקטנים לקריאתה , ואפילו כהנים -בעבודמן מבטלין עבודתן ובאין לשמוע מקרא -מגלה , וכן מבטלין תלמוד תורה לשמוע מקרא -מגלה , קל וחומר לשאר מצוות של תורה שכולן -נדחין מפני מקרא מגלה , ואין לך דבר שנדחה -מקרא מגלה מפניו חוץ ממה מצוה שאין לו קוברים -שהפוגע בו קוברו תחלה ואחר כך קורא ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“The reading of the Megillah (the book of Esther) in its time -is an affirmative precept according to the words of the scribes, -and it is known that this is an ordinance of the Prophets. -The obligation to read it rests upon all, men, women, and -proselytes, and manumitted slaves. Children also are to be -<a id='Page_51'></a>accustomed to the reading of it. Even priests in their service -are to neglect their service, and to come to hear the reading of -the Megillah. In like manner the study of the law is to be -omitted, in order to hear the reading of the Megillah, and <i>a -fortiori</i> all the remaining commandments of the law, all of -which give way to the reading of the Megillah: but there is -nothing to which the reading of the Megillah gives way, -except that particular class of dead person called the dead of -the commandment, who has none to bury him. He that -happens upon him is first to bury him, and afterwards to -read.” (Hilchoth Megillah, c. i. 1.) On this extract we have -several remarks to make, but at present we request the -attention of our readers to the reason given why the reading of -the Megillah is more important than any of the commandments. -It is this. According to the oral law, “the study -of the law is equivalent to all the commandments, and the -other commandments are to give way to this study.” But according -to the passage before us, the study of the law is to -give way to the reading of the Megillah. The reading of the -Megillah, therefore, being greater than the greatest of the -commandments, is of course greater than all the inferior ones. -Now apply this reasoning to the above command to get drunk, -and you will prove that getting drunk at Purim feast is the -greatest of all the commandments. In order to get drunk, it -is plain that the study of the law must give way. The man -who cannot distinguish between “Cursed be Haman and -blessed be Mordecai,” certainly cannot study, neither can he -bury the dead. The commandment, therefore, to which the -study of the law and the burying of the dead give way, must -be the greatest of all the commandments; <i>i.e.</i>, the getting -drunk on Purim is the greatest of all the commandments. -This conclusion, which inevitably follows upon Talmudic -principles, necessarily shows that those principles are false. -But that is not the object for which I have exhibited this -conclusion; it is with reference to the case of Rabba above-mentioned. -Having got drunk according as the oral law commanded, -and having thereby obeyed the greatest of the -commandments, and one to which all others are necessarily in -abeyance, was he guilty or innocent in having murdered R. -Zira? It certainly seems a very hard case to condemn him to -death for an act, which resulted from his obedience to the greatest -of all the commandments. He might urge that he had a great -dislike to drunkenness—that he had overcome his natural -aversion simply to satisfy the Rabbinical requirements—that -by the time that he had arrived at the prescribed incompetency -to distinguish between Haman and Mordecai, he had lost all -power of distinguishing between right and wrong—that, therefore, -he had not done it with malice propense; what sentence, -<a id='Page_52'></a>therefore, does the Talmud pronounce against a murderer of -this sort? If Rabba was allowed to go at large, as would -appear from his invitation to Rabbi Zira the following year, a -repetition of the same offence was possible, a repetition of the -miracle in R. Zira’s opinion highly improbable. Thus Rabba -might go on from year to year killing one or more with -impunity, and would be a far more dangerous neighbour than -“the ox that was wont to push with his horn.” If, on the -other hand, he is to be punished capitally, then the oral law is -plainly not from God; for obedience to the greatest of its commandments -makes it possible for a man to commit the greatest -of crimes, and to subject himself to the extremity of punishment. -But we object, secondly, to <i>the exaltation of a mere -human ordinance above the Word of God</i>. The reading of the -book of Esther at the feast of Purim, is no doubt a very -appropriate, and may be a very profitable exercise. But it is -confessedly of human appointment. It is of the words of the -scribes; the time and the mode are altogether Rabbinical -ordinances. Why, then, “are all the remaining commandments -of the law to give way to the reading of the Megillah?” -The priest was to neglect the service to which God had -appointed him, in order to obey a mere human institution. -And the Israelites to neglect the duties of love and charity, to -fulfil a mere ceremonial commandment. Here is a plain token -that the oral law is not from God, but is the offspring of -human invention and superstition. The human mind exalts -ceremonies above moral duties. God declares that all outward -observances are secondary. “I desired mercy and not sacrifice, -and the knowledge of God more than burnt offerings.” (Hos. -vi. 6.) “He hath showed thee, O man, what is good; and -what doth the Lord require of thee, but to do justly, and to -love mercy, and to walk numbly with thy God?” (Mic. vi. 8.) -And so the New Testament says in the very same spirit, “The -first of all the commandments is, Hear O Israel: the Lord our -God is one Lord, and thou shalt love the Lord thy God with -all thy heart, &c. This is the first commandment. And the -second is like, namely this, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as -thyself. There is none other commandment greater than -these.” (Mark. xii. 29-31.) The oral law, on the contrary, -tells us that “all the commandments, except the burying of -the dead, are to give way to the reading of the Megillah,” to a -mere ceremony; and that not even of God’s appointment. -God prefers mercy before the sacrifices which He himself has -instituted. The Talmud prefers a human institution to all -God’s commandments. A more striking instance of genuine -superstition, and a stronger proof of the human origin of the -oral law cannot be found.</p> - -<p class='c005'>The book of Esther appears to have been a peculiar favourite -<a id='Page_53'></a>of the Rabbies. The reading of it takes precedence of all other -duties but one, and is considered as obligatory, even upon the -women, who are declared exempt from the study of the law. -It is true that it contains a very notable warning for disobedient -wives, and a striking instance of the deliverance of Israel by -the instrumentality of a woman; but when we consider that -the name of God does not occur once in the whole book, and -that the law contains the account of man’s creation and fall, -the ten commandments, the deliverance from Egypt, and all -those events of primary interest to women as well as men, it -becomes of some importance to consider why the women, who -are not bound to study the law of God, are bound to read the -book of Esther. The authors of the oral law appear to have -attached uncommon importance to this book, as appears from -this circumstance, and still more so from the following startling -declaration of Maimonides:—</p> - -<p class='c005'>כל ספרי הנביאים וכל הכתובים עתידן ליבטל -לימות המשיח חוץ ממגלת אסתר , והרי היא קיימת -כחמשה חומשי תורה וכהלכות של תורה שבעל -פה שאינן לעולם ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“All the books of the prophets, and all the Hagiographa, except -the roll of Esther, will cease in the days of Messiah. But it is -perpetual as the five books of the written law, and the constitutions -of the oral law, which shall never cease.” (Hilchoth -Megillah.) Some of the Rabbies say that this is to be taken -conditionally, “although they were all to cease, yet this would -not cease.” But this still attributes a decided superiority to the -book of Esther above all the other books. What then is there in -it, that gives this book such a peculiar favour, and makes the -history of Esther more important than that of the conquest of -Canaan, or of the glory of Solomon, or of the restoration of the -house of the Lord? Is there more devotion and piety to be found -in it than in the Psalms of David? Does it contain more wisdom -than the Proverbs of Solomon? Is there a sublimer flight of -Divine poetry, a more heavenly afflatus than in the visions of -Isaiah? A more open revelation of the mysteries of the Deity -than is to be found in Job, or Daniel, or Ezekiel? Why do the -Rabbies pronounce it worthy of preservation, whilst they -contemplate without emotion the loss of all the other books? -We cannot possibly discover, unless it be that it furnishes more -gratification to the spirit of revenge so natural to all the -children of Adam, whether they be Jew or Gentile. To forgive -is to be like God—and God alone can teach forgiveness either -speculatively or practically. But the book of Esther contains -an account of the revenge which the Jews took upon their enemies, -not like the destruction of the Canaanites, fulfilling the -<a id='Page_54'></a>commands of God upon His enemies, but taking personal and -individual revenge on their own. And this very fact may be -one reason why God did not permit his most holy name to -occur in the whole book—just as he did not permit David to -build him a temple, so he would not have his name associated -with deeds of personal revenge. But, however that be, we can -discover no other reason for the decided preference which the -oral law gives to the book of Esther. And we think that -after the specimens which we have already given of their spirit -towards idolaters we do them no injustice; especially as, in this -particular case, the oral law breathes this spirit aloud.</p> - -<p class='c005'>צריך שיאמר ארור המן ברוך מרדכי , ארורה זרש -ברוכה אסתר , ארורים כל עכו׳׳ם ברוכים כל ישראל ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“It is necessary to say, Cursed be Haman, Blessed be -Mordecai, Cursed be Zeresh, Blessed be Esther, Cursed -be all idolaters, Blessed be all Israel.” (Orach Chaiim, sec. -690.) Why this is necessary, is not told us. It appears -not to bring glory to God, nor any blessing to man. Haman -and Zeresh have long since passed into eternity, and received -from the just Judge the reward of their deeds. Mordecai and -Esther have in like manner appeared before the God of Israel, -and received according to their faith. To these, then, the voice -of human praise or reproach is as nothing. But to curse a -dead enemy, to pursue with unrelenting hatred those who have -already fallen into the hands of the living God, is certainly not -a Divine ordinance, and cannot be an acceptable act of worship -in poor sinners, who themselves stand so much in need of -forgiveness. To curse the dead is bad, but to curse the living -is, in one sense, still worse. “Cursed be all idolaters.” -According to our calculation, there are 600 millions of idolaters—according -to the Jewish account, there must be more. Why, -then, should they be cursed? That will not convert them from -the error of their ways. It will not make them more happy, -either in this world or in the next. We are not aware, even if -God were to hear this execration and curse the idolatrous -world, that it would be productive of any blessing to Israel. -Why make a day of thanksgiving for mercies received an -opportunity of invoking curses upon the majority of mankind? -The Word of God teaches a very different petition for the -heathen. “God, be merciful to us, and bless us, and cause his -face to shine upon us. That thy way may be known upon -earth, thy saving health among all nations. Let the people -praise thee, O God; yea, let all the people praise thee.” (Ps. -lxvii.)</p> -<div class='chapter'> - <a id='Page_55'></a> - <h2 id='chap08' class='c003'>No. VIII. <br /> RABBINIC CONTEMPT FOR THE SONS OF NOAH.</h2> -</div> -<p class='c004'>The noblest inquiry, to which the mental powers can be -directed, is, Which religion comes from God? The most satisfactory -mode of conducting such an inquiry, independently of -the external evidence, is to compare the principles of one -system with those of the other, and both with an acknowledged -standard, if such there be, and this is what we are endeavouring -to do in these papers. We by no means wish to make the -modern Jews responsible for the inventions of their forefathers, -but to show them that their traditional argument for rejecting -Christianity, and that is the example of the high priest and -the Sanhedrin, is of no force; inasmuch as these same persons, -who originally rejected Jesus of Nazareth, were in great and -grievous error in the fundamental principles of religion, whilst -He who was rejected taught the truth. To do this we must -appeal to the oral law, and discuss its merits. We have shown -already that those persons did not understand at least one half -of the law; that their doctrines were in the highest degree -uncharitable. It has, however, been replied, that the Talmud -is more tolerant than the New Testament, for it allows “that -the pious of the nations of the world may be saved;” whereas -the latter asserts that “whosoever believeth not shall be -damned.” We must, therefore, inquire into the extent of -toleration and charity contained in that Talmudic sentence. -The first step in this inquiry, is to ascertain who are the -persons intended in the expression “The pious of the nations -of the world.” The oral law tells us, as quoted in <a href='#chap06'>No. 6</a>, that -the Israelites are commanded to compel all that come into the -world to receive the seven commandments of the sons of Noah, -and adds,</p> - -<p class='c005'>והמקבל אותם הוא הנקרא גר תושב בכל מקום ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“He that receives them is called universally a sojourning -proselyte.” And a little lower down it says plainly</p> - -<p class='c005'>כל המקכל שבע מצוות ונזהר לעשותן הרי זה -מחסידי אומות העולם , ויש לו חלק לעולם הבא ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“Whosoever receives the seven commandments, and is careful -to observe them, he is one of the pious of the nations of the -world, and has a share in the world to come.” (Hilchoth -Melachim, c. viii. 10.) From these two declarations, then, we -learn that “the pious of the nations of the world” are the -same, as “the sojourning proselytes,” who were allowed to -<a id='Page_56'></a>reside in the land of Israel, and that their piety consisted in -receiving and practising the seven commandments. What -these commandments were, we are informed in the next chapter -of the same treatise.</p> - -<p class='c005'>על ששה דברים נצטוה אדם הראשון , על ע׳׳ז , -ועל ברכת השם , ועל שפיכת דמים , ועל גלוי -עריות , ועל הגזל , ועל הדינים , אף על פי שכולן -הן קבלה בידנו ממשה רבינו , והדעת נוטה להן , -מכלל דברי תורה יראה שעל אלה נצטוה , הוסיף -לנח אבר מן החי שנאמר אך בשר בנפשו דמו לא -תאכלו , נמצאו שבע מצוות , וכן היה הדבר בכל -העולם עד אברהם ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“The first Adam was commanded concerning six things—idolatry, -blasphemy, shedding of blood, incest, robbery, and -administration of justice. Although we have all these things as -a tradition from Moses, our master, and reason naturally inclines -to them, yet, from the general tenour of the words of the law, -it appears that he was commanded concerning these things. -Noah received an additional command concerning the limb of a -living animal, as it is said, ‘But flesh in the life thereof, which -is the blood thereof, ye shall not eat.’ (Gen. ix. 4.) Here -are the seven commandments, and thus the matter was in all -the world until Abraham.” (Ibid. ix. 1.)</p> - -<p class='c005'>Now, without stopping to dispute about the command given -to Noah, we cannot help saying that the above tradition is very -defective, and certainly not derived from Moses, for it is -opposed to the history which he himself has given us. In the -first place, that command, on which, the oral law lays such -stress, “Be fruitful and multiply,” was originally given to -Adam (Gen. i. 28,), and was renewed to Noah, after the deluge. -If the Rabbies reckon this as a separate command in the case of -the Jews, as may be seen in the Hilchoth Priah Ureviah, it is -only fair to reckon it as a separate command in the case of the -Gentiles, and thus we get an eighth command. In the second -place, God ordained marriage as a holy state. “The Lord God -said, It is not good that man should be alone; I will make him -an help meet for him.” “And the rib which the Lord God had -taken from man made he a woman, and brought her unto the -man.” Here is God’s holy institution, and in the following -verses we have the obligations of marriage distinctly acknowledged. -“And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and -flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman, because she was -taken out of man. Therefore shall a man leave his father and -his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife, and they shall be -one flesh.” Here, then, is a ninth commandment. We know, -<a id='Page_57'></a>indeed, that the oral law gives a different account, but its -doctrine is false and pernicious. In the face of the above plain -narrative, it teaches as follows:—</p> - -<p class='c005'>קודם מתן תורה היה אדם פוגע אשה בשוק אם -רצה הוא והיא לישא אותה מכניסה למוך ביתו -ובועלה בינו לבין עצמו ומהיה לו לאשה ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“Before the giving of the law, a man might happen to meet a -woman in the street; if they both agreed on marriage, he took -her to his house, and cohabited with her, and she became his -wife.” (Hilchoth Ishuth, c. i. 1.) Now, not to speak of profane -history, there is not in the law of Moses a single passage to give -colour to this statement, unless it be the following:—“And it -came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the -earth, and daughters were born unto them, that the sons of God -saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took -them wives of all which they chose.” But, whatever is meant -by “Sons of God,” it is plain that this conduct is mentioned, not -as having the sanction or approval of God, but as a proof of antediluvian -wickedness, for it is immediately added, “And the -Lord said, My Spirit shall not always strive with man, for that -he also is flesh.” But it is not simply an error of judgment, it -is most pernicious as it regards both Gentiles and Jews, for it -completely annuls the sanctity and obligation of the marriage -tie. It teaches that as the marriage of Noahites is contracted -without solemn espousals, so it may be dissolved without the -formality of a divorce.</p> - -<p class='c005'>ומאימתי תהיה אשת חברו כגרושה שלנו ? -משיוציאנה מביתו וישלחנה לעצמה , או שתצא היא -מתחת רשותו ותלך לה , שאין להן גירושין בכתב , -ואין הדבר תלוי בו לבד , אלא כל זמן שירצה הוא -או היא לפרוש זה מזה פורשין ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“When is his (the Noahite’s) neighbour’s wife to be considered -in the same light, as a divorced woman with us?</p> - -<p class='c005'>From the time that he sends her forth from his house, and -leaves her to herself. Or from the time that she goes forth -from under his power, and goes her way; for they have no -divorces in writing, neither does the matter depend upon that -alone;<a id='r15' /><a href='#f15' class='c006'><sup>[15]</sup></a> but whenever he or she please to separate one from -the other, they separate.” (Hilchoth Melachim, c. ix. 8.) -We Gentiles have great reason to be thankful that Jesus of -Nazareth has taught us a different doctrine, according with -the original institution of marriage. What would have been -<a id='Page_58'></a>the state of the world, if the oral law had attained supreme -power, and the Gentiles had been instructed in the above law -as Divine? What would result from the doctrine that every -man may turn out his wife, and every woman leave her husband, -whenever they like? The peace and well-being of -Gentile society would be at an end. The frightful state of -disorder and misery that would ensue, as well as the words -of the original institution, plainly show that this doctrine is -not from God. But the effect upon the believers in the oral -law is still worse. With reference to them, the marriage of -Gentiles is no marriage at all. The oral law says distinctly—</p> - -<p class='c005'>אין אישות לגוים .</p> - -<p class='c005'>“There is no matrimony to the Gentiles.” (Hilchoth Melachim, -viii. 3.) And again,</p> - -<p class='c005'>אין אישות אלא לישראל או לגוים על הגוים אבל -לא לעבדים על עבדים ולא לעבדים על ישראל ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“There is no matrimony except to Israel, or to Gentiles with -respect to Gentiles; but not to slaves with respect to slaves, -nor to slaves with respect to Israel.” (Hilchoth Issure Biah, -c. xiv. 19.) Here, then, the oral law directly makes void the -law of God, and pronounces that a command given to Adam -in Paradise, and therefore equally binding on all his descendants, -is in particular cases of no force at all. The oral -law, therefore, is certainly not from God.</p> - -<p class='c005'>We have already made out nine commandments; in -sacrifice we find a tenth. Cain and Abel brought sacrifices, -and the only reason that can be assigned is, that they had -received a command to that effect. Sacrifice was either a -Divine command or the dictate of their own reason. But -it was not the dictate of reason, for reason says, that the -Creator of all things has no need of gifts, and, least of all, -such gifts as imply the slaughter of an innocent animal. It -must, therefore, have been of Divine command. The reason -why the Rabbies excluded this command is plain. They did -not choose that there should be acceptable sacrifices offered -anywhere but amongst themselves. But that this doctrine -is altogether of a recent date is plain. It was not known to -Job. He says not a word about the seven commandments, -and he was in the habit of offering sacrifices. “And it was -so when the day of their feasting was gone about, that Job -sent and sanctified them, and rose up early in the morning, -and offered burnt-offerings according to the number of them -all.” (Job i. 5.) And the Lord himself expressly commanded -Job’s friends to do so likewise. “And it was so, -that after the Lord had spoken these words unto Job, the -<a id='Page_59'></a>Lord said to Eliphaz the Temanite, My wrath is kindled -against thee, and against thy two friends.... Therefore, -take unto you now seven bullocks and seven rams, and go to -my servant Job, and offer up for yourselves a burnt-offering, -and my servant Job shall pray for you, for him will I accept.” -(Job xlii. 7, 8.) It was not known to Elisha. When -Naaman said, “Shall there not then, I pray thee, be given -to thy servant two mules’ burden of earth? For thy servant -will henceforth offer neither burnt-offering nor sacrifice unto -other gods, but unto the Lord.” (2 Kings v. 17.) Elisha -made no objection. He did not tell him that he had only -seven commandments to attend to. Neither had Isaiah any -idea that, when Judaism triumphed, the whole world was -to be compelled to adhere to the seven commandments, for -he plainly predicts the contrary. “And the Lord shall be -known to Egypt, and the Egyptians shall know the Lord -in that day, and shall do sacrifice and oblation: yea, they -shall vow a vow unto the Lord and perform it.” (Isaiah -xix. 21.) Here again, then, the oral law contradicts the Word -of God.</p> - -<p class='c005'>But the law of God points out to us an eleventh commandment, -in the distinction between clean and unclean animals. The -Lord commanded Noah to take of the former by sevens and of -the latter by pairs. (Gen. vii. 2.) And when Noah came forth -from the ark “he builded an altar unto the Lord; and took of -every clean beast, and of every clean fowl, and offered burnt-offerings -on the altar.” (Gen. viii. 2.) It is plain, from the -command, that a greater number of clean than unclean animals -was required. Noah’s conduct shows that the rite of sacrifice -was the cause of the requirement. We have a twelfth commandment -in the appointment of a priesthood. “Melchizedek -was the priest of the Most High God,” (Gen. xiv. 10,) which he -most certainly could not have been, if he had not been Divinely -appointed. From the law itself, then, we have made out twelve -distinct commandments. Eight would have been sufficient to -overthrow the oral tradition. But we appeal to the common -sense of every Talmudist. We ask him to look over the meagre -list of the seven commandments, in which neither love to God -nor man is included, and to tell us whether it be at all probable -that “the God of the spirits of all flesh” would leave all -mankind, excepting the small company of Rabbinists, without -any better rule for time, and any better guide to eternity? Is -it possible that the God of love and mercy should leave the -minority of his reasonable creatures in doubt as to his love, and -tell them that he requires no love from them? Yet this is -what the oral law says. The Gentiles are, according to it, left -without any direction as to the worship of God, and are pronounced -guilty of death if they study the law. Nay, they are -<a id='Page_60'></a>expressly told that God does not require them to glorify him -by their obedience.</p> - -<p class='c005'>בן נח שאנסו אנס לעבור על אחת ממצוותיו , -מותר לו לעבור , אפילו נאנס לעבוד ע׳׳ז עובד , לפי -שאינן מצווין על קדוש השם ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“A Noahite who is forced to transgress one of his commandments, -it is lawful for him to do so. Even if he be compelled to -commit idolatry he may commit it, for they are not commanded -to sanctify God.” (Hilchoth Melachim, c. x. 2.) So that, -according to the Rabbies, the Noahite who is compelled to -commit murder, adultery, or even to deny his God, may do it -with impunity; he still belongs “to the pious of the nations of -the world,” and may have a share in the world to come. We -confess that we cannot see in this doctrine either charity or -toleration. We can discover only that narrowness of heart -which characterizes the oral law. In order to magnify themselves, -and depreciate the other nations, the Rabbies first swell -out their own commandments to 613, and reduce the commandments -of the nations to seven. But not content with that, they -also strive to confine the glories of martyrdom to themselves, -and tell the Gentiles that God does not require them to sanctify -His name. Can such doctrine come from God? Is God the -God of the Rabbinists only? We grant that the Jews are his -“peculiar people.” We acknowledge that “they have much -advantage every way”—that “they are beloved for the fathers’ -sakes”—that the time is coming when “all that see them shall -acknowledge them that they are the seed whom the Lord has -blessed.” But we still think that God’s heart is large enough -to comprehend us Gentiles too in his love. We know that we -are the work of His hand, and we trust that, as He is our -Father, he requires, and is pleased to see even in Gentiles, the -feelings of children, love and filial fear. And we found this -our faith on your Scriptures as well as ours. The Word of God -tells us that, long before there were any Rabbies in the world, -He had a gracious and tender care for all mankind. He promised -to our first parents a Saviour who should “bruise the -serpent’s head.” He saved Noah and his family, not one of -whom was a Rabbi, from the deluge; and when they came forth -from the ark, He made a gracious covenant not with one nation -only, but “with all flesh,” and hung up on high a lovely and -glittering arch, from one end of the heavens to the other, that -all the habitants of earth might have a token of their Father’s -love and learn to look up to Him with humble confidence. -When he chose Abraham and his seed, it was not an act of -partiality, but that in his seed all the families of the earth -might be blessed. He did not leave himself without witness to -<a id='Page_61'></a>the nations. He manifested himself to Job, and taught him -“that his Redeemer liveth,” and moved even the prophets of -Israel to predict again and again the happy times when, “from -the rising of the sun to the going down of the same, His name -should be great among the Gentiles, and in every place incense -should be offered to his name, and a pure offering; for my -name shall be great among the heathen, saith the Lord of hosts.” -(Mal. i. 11.) Having this word, we reject the oral law which -contradicts it, and would make God the God of the Rabbinists -only: and we believe in the New Testament, which exactly -agrees with your written law, and asks, “Is he the God of the -Jews only? Is he not also of the Gentiles?”—and answers, -“Yes, of the Gentiles also” (Rom. iii. 29)—and which also -declares that, in the sight of God, “There is no difference -between the Jew and the Greek; for the same Lord over all is -rich unto all that call upon him, for whosoever shall call upon -the name of the Lord shall be saved.” (Rom. x. 12, 13.)</p> - -<p class='c005'>In the fixing of the commandments, then, for the sons of -Noah, we have detected an intolerant and uncharitable spirit -very different from that of the Old and New Testament. But -we have further to inquire, what was the extent of toleration -conceded to them? We do not stop to prove that they were -not allowed to possess land, nor to be judges, nor members of -the Sanhedrin, nor to hold any office, nor to intermarry with the -Jews. From all that, they were excluded by the law of God -himself. They were allowed to sojourn in the land, and hence -their name “sojourning proselytes.” Further, “They were to -be treated with the same courtesy and benevolence as the -Israelites.” (See <a href='#chap04'>No. 4</a>, p. <a href='#Page_26'>26</a>.) But further than this the -toleration did not extend. The oral law, though it commands -“courtesy and benevolence,” does not administer even-handed -justice to the “pious of the nations of the world,” as may be -seen from the following specimens:—</p> - -<p class='c005'>ישראל שהרג בשגגה את העבד או את גר תושב -גולה .</p> - -<p class='c005'>וכן גר תושב שהרג את גר תושב או את העבד -בשגגה גולה .</p> - -<p class='c005'>גר תושב שהרג את ישראל בשגגה אף על פי -שהיה שוגג הרי זה נהרג .</p> - -<p class='c005'>“An Israelite who unintentionally kills a slave, or a -sojourning proselyte, is imprisoned (in one of the cities of -refuge).”</p> - -<p class='c005'>“And so a sojourning proselyte who unintentionally kills a -sojourning proselyte, or a slave, is imprisoned.”</p> - -<p class='c005'>“A sojourning proselyte who unintentionally kills an -<a id='Page_62'></a>Israelite, although he did it unintentionally, is to be put to -death.” (Hilchoth Rotzeach, c. v. 3.) The written law, on the -contrary, says, “These six cities shall be a refuge, both for the -children of Israel and for the stranger, and for the sojourner -among them: that any one that killeth any person unawares -may flee thither.” (Numbers xxxv. 15.) Again, the oral law -says—</p> - -<p class='c005'>ישראל שהרג גר תושב אינו נהרג עליו בבית דין , -שנאמר וכי יזיד איש על רעהו ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“An Israelite who kills a sojourning proselyte, is not put to -death on his account by the tribunal, for it is said, ‘But if a -man come presumptuously upon his neighbour.’ (Exodus xxi. -14.)” The law of God says, “Whoso sheddeth man’s blood, by -man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he -man.” (Gen. ix. 6.) And to this law the New Testament -commands us Christians to adhere, rejecting the oral traditions; -and in consequence the laws of Christian countries make no -difference between the murderer of a Jew, a Christian, Turk, -Infidel, or Heretic. Short as all Christian nations confessedly -come of the pure morality of the New Testament, their laws -direct the administration of impartial justice, and are a terror to -all evil doers of every creed and sect. The liberality of the -Talmud then, in allowing a share of salvation to the pious of -the world is not so very great, nor its toleration of a very -comprehensive character. It not only withholds justice from the -pious of the world, but gives as the reason, because they are not -considered as neighbours. Want of room prevents us from -pursuing this subject further at present. We therefore ask, Is -this law from God? Can God, in an oral law, directly contradict -his written law? Can you point out anything similar -in the New Testament? Is this law just or unjust? You will -grant that it is unjust and erroneous. Then your fathers have -been mistaken about one of the first principles of the administration -of justice, for many centuries. And your brethren -who adhere to this system as Divine, as on the Barbary coast, -for instance, are still mistaken. Why do you not protest aloud -against such error? Why not endeavour to convince your -brethren that they are wrong? In England there is nothing -to prevent you. There is full liberty, free toleration. You -may lift up your voice like a trumpet against the errors of the -Talmud. You may expunge all acknowledgment of its authority -from your prayers—you may return to Moses and the -prophets, and no man will say nay.</p> - -<div class='chapter'> - <a id='Page_63'></a> - <h2 id='chap09' class='c003'>No. IX. <br /> CHRISTIANS CANNOT BE RECKONED AMONGST THE “PIOUS OF THE NATIONS OF THE WORLD.”</h2> -</div> -<p class='c004'>We said, in our last number, that “the pious of the nations -of the world” are, according to the oral law, those who have -received the seven commandments of the sons of Noah. We -said that of the laws laid down for their own conduct, some, as -for instance that respecting divorces, are such as would introduce -confusion and misery into Gentile society—and that -others, referring to the administration of justice by Rabbinical -tribunals, are extremely unjust. But the advocates of the oral -law think, nevertheless, that it is very tolerant, more tolerant -than the New Testament, because it says that “the pious of -the nations of the world have a share in the world to come.” -Now we cannot help feeling a curiosity to know how great or -how small that share will be. And this our curiosity is excited -by the following information, which the oral law commands to -be communicated to a Gentile who wishes to turn Jew:—</p> - -<p class='c005'>וכשם שמודיעין אותו עונשן של מצוות כך מודיעין -אותו שכרן של מצוות , ומודיעין אותו שבעשית -מצוות אלו יזכה לחיי העולם הבא , ושאין שום צדיק -גמור אלא בעל החכמה שעושה ויודען ׃ ואומרים לו -הוי יודע שהעולם הבא אינו צפון אלא לצדיקים והם -ישראל , וזה שתראה ישראל בצער בעולם הזה טובה -היא צפונה להם שאין יכולין לקבל רוב טובה בעולם -הזה כאומות , שמא ירום לבם ויתעו ויפסידו שכר -העולם הבא כענין שנאמר וישמן ישורון ויבעט ׃ -ואין הקדוש ברוך הוא מביא עליהן רוב פורענות כדי -שלא יאבדו אלא כל האומות כלין והן עומדין וכו׳ ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“As they are to make known to him the punishments attached -to the commandments, so they are also to inform him of the rewards -for keeping them. They should inform him, that, by the -doing of these commandments, he will be worthy of everlasting -life; and that there is no perfectly righteous man, except that -possessor of wisdom who does and knows them. And they are to -say to him, Be assured that <i>the world to come is laid up for none -but the righteous, and they are Israel</i>; and as to this that thou -seest Israel in trouble in this world, their good things are laid -up for them, <i>for they cannot receive an abundance of good things -in this world, like the nations</i>. Their heart might, perchance, -be lifted up, and they might go astray, and lose the reward of -<a id='Page_64'></a>the world to come, as it is said, ‘Jeshurun waxed fat and -kicked.’ The Holy One, blessed be he, brings upon them the -abundance of afflictions for no other reason than this, that they -may not be lost. <i>All the nations shall be utterly destroyed</i>, but -they shall abide.” (Hilchoth Issure Biah., c. xiv. 3-5.) To -us this sounds very much like a flat contradiction to the above -declaration, that “the pious of the nations of the world have a -share in the world to come.” Here, on the contrary, it is stated -that the blessings of that state are reserved “for none but the -righteous, and they are Israel;” and again, “All the nations -snail be utterly destroyed.” And it is even implied that the -nations get their good things in this world, and do not suffer -affliction, as they are not to have that blessedness, which -is reserved for the righteous. How, then, are we to reconcile -these two sayings? There are only two ways which occur -to us, either by saying that this is not strictly true, but only -a fair speech in order to catch proselytes; or, if it be strictly -true, that then “the pious of the world” are to have a much -smaller share in the blessedness to come. In any case the -spirit is far from charitable or tolerant. It represents God -as an accepter of persons, saving Israelites simply because they -are Israelites, and destroying the other nations because they -are not Israelites. The New Testament representation is very -different, and far more worthy of “the Judge of all the earth.” -It does indeed say, “He that believeth shall be saved, and he -that believeth not shall be damned.” But in this very declaration, -we have an impartial rule applied to all mankind. “He -that believeth,” of whatsoever nation, kindred, or tongue—Jew -or Gentile, white or black—“shall be saved.” “He that believeth -not,” whether he be called a Jew or a Christian, -whether he be a son of Japhet, of Shem, or of Ham, “shall be -damned.” The New Testament asserts no monopoly of salvation -for one favoured family. It excludes none because he had -not the happiness to be descended from a privileged stock. It -lays down a general and impartial rule to be applied to all the -children of men. The oral law says,</p> - -<p class='c005'>כל ישראל יש להם חלק לעולם הבא ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“All Israel has a share in the world to come.” The New -Testament says, “Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, -Lord, shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he that doeth the -will of my Father which is in heaven.” (Matt. vii. 21.) The -oral law says, “The world to come is laid up for none but the -righteous, and they are Israel.” The New Testament says, -“God is no respecter of persons; but in every nation he that -feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him.” -(Acts x. 34, 35.) Now then we appeal to the good sense of -every Jew, even of the Talmudists to tell us which of these two -<a id='Page_65'></a>statements is most just, impartial, and worthy of the Just -Judge?</p> - -<p class='c005'>But the reasoning employed in the above extract from the -oral law, is as false as the principles which it is intended to -support, when it says, “As to this that thou seest Israel in -trouble in this world, their good things are laid up for them, -for they cannot receive an abundance of good things in this -world like the nations,” it directly contradicts the law of Moses, -which everywhere promises an abundance of temporal blessings -to Israel, if obedient. “It shall come to pass, if thou shalt -hearken diligently unto the voice of the Lord thy God, to -observe and to do all the commandments which I command -thee this day, that the Lord thy God will set <i>thee on high above -all nations</i> of the earth, and all these blessings shall come upon -thee, and overtake thee, if thou shalt hearken unto the voice of -the Lord thy God. Blessed shalt thou be in the city, and -blessed shalt thou be in the field. Blessed shall be the fruit of -thy body, and the fruit of thy ground, and the fruit of thy -cattle, the increase of thy kine, and the flocks of thy sheep.... -The Lord shall cause thine enemies that rise up against -thee to be smitten before thy face; they shall come out against -thee one way, and flee before thee seven ways. The Lord shall -command the blessing upon thee in thy store-houses, and in all -that thou settest thine hand unto; and he shall bless thee in -the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee.” (Deut. -xxviii. 1-8, &c.) Here, then, is temporal blessing in abundance, -promised to obedience; and the afflictions which have -come upon Israel are not because of their piety, but because of -their disobedience. In this case, then, the oral law speaks utter -falsehood. God has not two ways of dealing with nations, but -one way. He gives every nation a fair trial, and if they refuse -to hearken to his voice, he pours out upon them his wrath. -The rise, and growth, and trial, of a nation is slower, and -requires more time than the growth and trial of individual men. -The life of a nation is, so to speak, longer than the life of a -man. Centuries are required as the time of a nation’s trial, -but all history, sacred and profane, testifies the truth of the -general rule given in the Old Testament, “Righteousness -exalteth a nation, but sin is a reproach to any people.” The -only difference which God makes between Israel and the other -nations, is with regard to their national existence in this world. -He has crumbled the mighty empires of Assyria, Babylon, -Greece, and Rome into dust, but he still preserves the independent -existence of the family of Abraham, according to his -covenant; and when, as a nation, they repent and return to -him, He will remove the rod of his anger, and give them the -temporal prosperity which He has promised by the mouth -of Moses his servant. But this promise of temporal blessing -<a id='Page_66'></a>will not justify any impenitent Jew at the tribunal of God’s -judgment. The hopes held out by the oral law are utterly fallacious, -and dishonouring to God, inasmuch as he is represented -as unduly favouring one nation, and unjustly condemning -all others.</p> - -<p class='c005'>An advocate of the oral law may, however, find out some -other way of evading the evident intolerance of the above -statement, and still insist upon it, that as the Talmud says, -“The pious of the nations of the world have a share in the -world to come,” it is a very tolerant book. We therefore -proceed to inquire what pains the Rabbies have taken to add -to the number of those who are to be saved. They believe, as -we are told, that every one, who receives and observes the -seven commandments of the sons of Noah, will be saved; they -believe that all others must be lost; have they then taken any -pains to make known this important information to the world? -Or, if that was not to be expected during the captivity, did -they during the days of their power and dominion? Or, at -least, did they offer every facility to those Gentiles who might -come to renounce idolatry, to receive the necessary instruction? -Did they command all their disciples to be ready day and -night to open their doors at the knock of the penitent idolater, -and by receiving rescue him from everlasting destruction? -Not one of all these things. They commanded that, when -there was no jubilee, such converts should be refused, and -that if they did not choose to be circumcised and observe the -whole Mosaic law, they should be left to perish.</p> - -<p class='c005'>אי זה הוא גר תושב זה גוי שקבל עליו שלא -יעבוד עכו׳׳ם עם שאר המצוות שנצטוו בני נח ולא -מל ולא טבל הרי זה מקבליו אותי והוא מחסידי -אומות העולם , וממה נקרא שמו תושב לפי שמותר -לנו להושיבו בינינו בארץ ישראל כמו שבארנו -בחלכות עכו׳׳ם , ואין מקבלין גר תושב אלא בזמן -שהיובל נוהג ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“What is meant by a sojourning proselyte? Such an one is -a Gentile, who has taken upon himself not to commit idolatry, -together with the remaining commandments given to the sons -of Noah, but is not circumcised nor baptized. Such an one is -received, and is of the pious of the nations of the world. And -why is he called a <i>sojourner</i>? Because it is lawful for us to -let him dwell amongst us in the land of Israel, as we have explained -in the laws concerning idolatry. <i>But a sojourning -Proselyte is not received</i> <span class='fss'>WHEN THE JUBILEE CANNOT BE -OBSERVED</span>.” (Hilchoth Issure Biah., c. xiv. 7, 8.) At all other -times the unfortunate heathen might perish, if they did not -<a id='Page_67'></a>choose to become Jews altogether. Now what will be thought -of the charity of this law if we add, that there has been no -jubilee, and consequently no pious amongst the nations for two -thousand seven hundred years and more? Yet this is what -the oral law tells us.</p> - -<p class='c005'>משגלו שבט ראובן ושבט גד וחצי שבט מנשה -בטלו היובלות שנאמר וקראתם דרור בארץ לכל -יושביה , בזמן שכל יושביה עליה , והוא שלא יהיו -מעורבבין שבט בשבט אלא כולן יושבים כתקונן ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“Since the time that the tribe of Reuben, and the tribe of Gad -and the half-tribe of Manasseh were led away captive, the -jubilees have ceased, for it is said, ‘And ye shall proclaim -liberty throughout the land unto all the inhabitants thereof’ -(Lev. xxv. 10); that means, when all its inhabitants are upon -it, and, moreover, when the tribes are not mixed one with another, -but all dwelling according as they were appointed.” -(Hilchoth Shemitah, c. x. 8.) We have the account of this -captivity in the following words, “In those days the Lord began -to cut Israel short: and Hazael smote them in all the coasts of -Israel: from Jordan eastward, all the land of Gilead, the Gadites, -and the Reubenites, and the Manassites.” (2 Kings x. 32, 33.) -That was, according to the common chronology about 884 years -before the Christian era. If to this we add 1836, we have 2720 -years since the time that there could be a jubilee, and consequently -2720 years since any Gentiles were converted from -the errors of idolatry to the religion of the sons of Noah. What -is it then but solemn mockery, in any one acquainted with the -oral law, to tell us that the Talmud is tolerant, and admits -“that the pious of the nations of the world may be saved;” -when according to that same book seven-and-twenty centuries -have elapsed, since any such converts were received? We -believe that those who make this defence are unacquainted -with the principles of the system which they undertake to defend. -The truth is, that the authors of the oral law, finding -that they could not altogether deny salvation to the pious of -other nations, were determined not to add to their number, and -therefore limited the possibility of this mode of conversion to -times that had elapsed long before they were born. But in -their own times they would not receive any one who was not -willing to be circumcised and to receive the whole law. And -hence we see how exactly the New Testament represents the -state of the case, when Christianity was first propagated -amongst the Gentiles, and free salvation was proclaimed to all -who believed, without becoming Jewish proselytes. The -Rabbinists opposed with all their might. “And certain men -which came down from Judea taught the brethren and said, -<a id='Page_68'></a>Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot -be saved.” And again, “There rose up certain of the sect of -the Pharisees which believed, saying that it was needful to -circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of -Moses.” (Acts xv. 1-5.) There was no year of jubilee, and -therefore renunciation of idolatry was not sufficient in the eyes -of these traditionists, who believed that at such a time there -was no salvation except for those who observed the whole law. -But how is it now? If a Gentile should desire now to become -one of the pious of the nations, could the Jews receive him? -According to the above general principles, certainly not. The -tribes are still scattered and mixed up together. The land has -not got “all its inhabitants.” There can be no jubilee, and -therefore those that wish to be saved, must, according to the -oral law, turn Jews, or take their chance of living to a year of -jubilee. But we are not necessitated to argue from the principles. -The thing is expressly laid down in the oral law. After -explaining, as we have quoted above, who are the pious of the -world, and that when the jubilee is possible, is the only time -for receiving them, it adds—</p> - -<p class='c005'>אבל בזמן הזה אפילו קבל עליו כל התורה כולה -חוץ מדקדוק אחד אין מקבלין אותו ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“But in the present time, though a man should be willing -to take upon him the whole law, with the exception of only one -of its least requirements, he is not to be received.” Now then -what becomes of the boasted toleration of the Talmud? It says, -that “the pious of the nations of the world may be saved.” But -it says, first, that such converts can only be received when the -jubilee can be celebrated. It says, secondly, that this only -opportunity has not occurred for the last 2,700 years; and, -lastly, it positively forbids the Jews in the present time to give -the Gentiles a chance of salvation, unless they are willing to -receive the whole law. What use is it then to talk of the pious -of the world, or to say that people of other religions may be -saved? According to the Talmud, there are no pious of the -nations, unless perchance there may be some descendants of -those who were received 2,700 years ago. But all history that -we have ever seen is silent on the subject. We do not know -of a single congregation of Noahites in the whole world. The -forefathers of the Christians were not received during the usage -of jubilee. They were idolaters received against the wishes of -the Rabbinists. The Britons and the Saxons were converted -to Christianity long after the final dispersion of the Jews, that -is, at a time when, according to the Talmud, it was unlawful to -add to the pious amongst the nations. Neither were they -received according to the Talmudic condition, in the presence of -three learned Jews.</p> - -<p class='c005'><a id='Page_69'></a>וצריך לקבל עליו בפני שלשה חברים ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“And it is necessary for such an one to take the seven commandments -on him in the presence of three learned men, -who are qualified to be Rabbies.” (Hilchoth Melachim, -c. viii. 10.) According to the oral law, then, there are no -such persons now existing as “the pious of the nations of the -world.” It is, therefore, idle to talk of the liberality with -which they would be treated, were they forthcoming. Thus -the only appearance of an argument in favour of the Talmud -vanishes into thin air, and mocks our grasp, as soon as we -endeavour to lay hold of it. Those who caught at this -phantom of charity, no doubt meant it sincerely. They -thought that the oral law was misrepresented. They were -told that it was charitable, and they therefore nobly came -forward in its defence. If they had known its true principles, -they would have renounced them. Their advocacy went -on a false supposition. But now that we have set forth -the true bearings of the case, and given them chapter and -verse to which they may refer, and convince themselves, -we call upon them to do so: and then, as they hate intolerance, -to join with us in protesting against it, even though -it should be found in that system, which hitherto they have -believed, on the testimony of others, to be Divine. At the -same time we would seriously ask of them to compare this -system, which has been for more than 1,700 years the religion -of the majority of the Jewish nation, with the system laid -down in the New Testament, and to decide which is most -agreeable to the character of God, as revealed in the law -and the prophets, and most beneficial to the world. The -oral law says, that God has commanded the heathen to be -left for 2,700 years without the means of instruction, and -that when the days of Israel’s prosperity come, the nations -are to be converted by force; but that even then, they will -not be raised to the rank of brethren, but only be sojourning -proselytes. The oral law looks forward to no reunion of all -the sons of Adam into one happy family. The New Testament -has, on the contrary, commanded its disciples to afford -the means of instruction “to every creature.” It speaks to -us Gentiles, who were once regarded as poor outcasts, in -the language of love, and says, “Now, therefore, ye are no -more strangers and foreigners, but fellow-citizens with the -saints, and of the household of God.” (Ephes. ii. 19.) It -takes nothing from you. It asserts your privileges as the -peculiar people of God; but it reveals that great, and to us, -most comfortable truth, “That the Gentiles should be follow-heirs, -and of the same body;” and it promises a happy time, -when there shall be one fold and one Shepherd. It does, -<a id='Page_70'></a>indeed, tell us not to forget what we once were, “aliens from -the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the -covenant of promise, having no hope, and without God -in the world.” (Eph. ii. 12.) It reminds us that the olive-tree -is Jewish, and that you are the natural branches, and -warns us against all boasting. (Rom. xi. 16-24.) And we -desire to remember these admonitions, and to acknowledge -with thankfulness, that all that we have received, is derived -from the Jewish nation. We ask you not to compare the -oral law with any Gentile speculations, or systems, or inventions, -but with doctrines essentially and entirely Jewish. -Christianity has effected great and glorious changes in the -world, but we take not the glory to ourselves. We give it -to God, who is the author of all good, and under Him, to the -people of Israel. We ask you, then, to compare these two -Jewish systems, Rabbinism, which has done no good to the -Gentiles, and perpetuated much error amongst the Jews; and -Christianity, which has diffused over the world the knowledge -of the one true God—disseminated the writings of Moses and -the prophets, and increased the happiness of a large portion of -mankind. The comparison may require time, and ought to -be conducted with calmness and seriousness. But we think -that, even without instituting that comparison, you must -acknowledge that the principles of the oral law, discussed -in this paper, are contrary to the law of Moses; and that, -therefore, a decided and solemn protest against these Rabbinical -additions, is an immediate and imperative duty.</p> -<div class='chapter'> - <h2 id='chap10' class='c003'>No. X. <br /> RABBINIC WASHING OF HANDS.</h2> -</div> -<p class='c004'>There are various marks by which a religion of man’s -making may be detected. It is usually intolerant, superstitious, -and voluminous. It limits the love of God to a particular class. -It exalts ceremonial observances above the worship of the -heart; and so multiplies its laws and definitions, as to put the -knowledge of it beyond the reach of any but the learned. -Any one of these marks would go far towards shaking the -claims of a religious system. Far instance, if it lay down as -religious duties so many and such subtle laws, as it is impossible -for the unlearned to attain a knowledge of, it is plainly -<a id='Page_71'></a>the invention of the learned, who have thought only of themselves, -and have not that tender regard and consideration for -the ignorant, which the Creator has. His religion must be for -all, the poor as well as the rich, and the ignorant as well as -the wise of this world. We fear that the oral law of the -Rabbies will not stand any one of these tests: it is, at all -events, a religion for the learned, and the learned only. There -is scarcely one of its commandments that is not so encumbered -with distinctions and definitions, as to make the right -interpretation of it the sole property of the educated. Take, -for example, one of the first and most frequent of the commandments, -in the Rabbinist’s daily practice, נטילת ידים -(the washing of hands.) The command appears very simple. -It says—</p> - -<p class='c005'>ירחץ ידיו ויברך על נטילת ידים ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“Let him wash his hands, and pronounce the benediction for -the washing of hands.” (Orach Chaiim., § 4.) But out of -this short command arise endless distinctions, according to -which the act performed is regarded as a valid or invalid -fulfilment of the command.</p> - -<p class='c005'>כל הנוטל ידיו צריך להזהר בארבעה דברים , -במים עצמן שלא יהיו פסולין לנטילת ידים ובשיעור -שיהיה בהן רביעית לכל שתי ידים , ובכלי שיהיו -המים שנוטלין בהן בכלי , ובכוטל שיהיו המים באין -מכח נותן ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“Every one who washes his hands must attend to four things. -1st, To the water, that it be not unlawful for the washing of -hands. 2d, To the measure, that there be a quartern for the -two hands. 3d, To the vessel, that the water, wherewith the -washing is performed, be in a vessel. 4th, To the washer, -that the water come with force from him that pours.” -(Hilchoth Berachoth, vi. 6.) Each of these four limitations -requires new explanations and definitions of its own, as for -example, there are four things that make water unlawful for -the washing of hands; one of these is, if any work be done -with it. This necessarily requires fresh definitions of what is -and is not work. Then come the directions as to how for the -washing is to reach, the position of the hands, whether they -are to be held up or down, the drying of the hands. A -perfect and accurate knowledge of all these conditions can be -attained only by the learned. And after all the care which -these things require, the Israelite may after all fall short of -Talmudic requirement, for there is still another condition, that -involves another host of Rabbinic definitions, the non-observance -of which will invalidate the merit of his washing.</p> - -<p class='c005'><a id='Page_72'></a>כל החוצץ בטבילה חוצץ בידים וכו׳ ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“Every thing that is an impediment in baptism is an impediment -in washing of hands.” (Hilchoth Mikvaoth, xi. 2.) -This, of course, leads to a new inquiry, what constitutes an -impediment.</p> - -<p class='c005'>אלו חוצצין באדם , לפלוף שחוץ לעין , וגלד -שחוץ למכה , והדם היבש שעל גבי המכה , והרטיה -שעליה , וגלדי צואה שעל בשרו , ובצק או טיט -שתחת הצפורן , והמלמולין שעל הגוף היון , -וטיט היוצרים וכו׳ ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“These are the impediments in human beings. The film that -is outside the eye. The incrustation outside a wound. Dry -blood that is on a wound. The plaster that is on it. Filth -upon the flesh. The impurity or dirt under the nails. Dirt -upon the body, mud, potter’s clay, &c.” (Ibid., c. ii. 1.) -Every one of these can give rise to endless questions in -casuistry, which are evidently beyond the powers of the -unlearned, and must draw him, if he be a conscientious man, to -the Rabbi to solicit his advice. Thus, one of the very first -commandments with which the Jew begins the day, requires -for its accurate fulfilment a degree of knowledge which is far -beyond the attainment of the multitude. This one commandment -involves scores of others. Nay, we doubt not that an -accurate Talmudist might make 613 constitutions out of this -one alone; and we appeal to the conscience of the great -majority of Jews in London to decide whether they possess the -knowledge here required, and consequently whether it is -possible for them to keep this one commandment. If they -transgress any one of these Rabbinic distinctions, their hands -are not washed, and consequently they are unfit for prayer. -But this is not a command for the morning only. It must be -repeated through the day.</p> - -<p class='c005'>כל האוכל הפת שמברכין עליו המוציא צריך -נטילת ידים תחלה וסוף , ואף על פי שהוא פת -חולין ואף על פי שאין ידיו מלוכלכות ואינו יודע להן -טומאה לא יאכל עד שיטול שתי ידיו , וכן כל דבר -שטיבולו במשקה צריך נטילת ידים תחלה ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“Every one who eats that sort of bread, for which the benediction -is, ‘Blessed art thou, O Lord our God, King of the -universe! who bringeth forth bread from the earth,’<a id='r16' /><a href='#f16' class='c006'><sup>[16]</sup></a> is bound -to wash his hands at the beginning and end. And although -<a id='Page_73'></a>the bread be common, and although his hands have not been -defiled, and he is not aware of any uncleanness upon them, he -is not to eat until he wash both his hands. And thus, also, -with regard to anything that is dipped in fluid, the washing of -hands is necessary at the beginning.” (Hilchoth Berachoth, -vi. 1.) Here, again, it is necessary to know the different sorts -of bread, and the compounds that may be made with the -different sorts of flour, and the various forms of benediction, -and out of these again may arise as many doubts and questions -as out of the former, for the solution of which learning, -acuteness, and practice are required; and the want of these -may lead to transgression, and, according to the Rabbies, to -most fatal consequences. For instance, neglect of this command -after the meal may cause blindness.</p> - -<p class='c005'>כל פת שהמלח בו צריך נטילת ידים באחרונה -שמא יש בו מלח סדומית או מלח שטבעו כמלח -סדומית ויעביר ידיו על עיניו ויסמא . מפני זה חייבין -ליטול ידים בסיף כל סעודה מפני המלח . ונמחנה -פטורִם מנטילה ידים בתחלה . מפני שהם טרודים -במלחמה וחייבין באחרונה מפני הסכנה ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“All bread that has salt in it requires washing of hands after -it; lest perhaps it might be the salt of Sodom, or salt of the -same nature, and a man might pass his hand over his eyes and -become blind. On this account all are bound to wash their -hands at the end of every meal, because of the salt. But in a -camp they are exempt from washing at the beginning, because -they are oppressed with the fatigues of war, and are bound to -wash after meal on account of the danger.” (Ibid., 3.) Suppose, -then, that a poor ignorant man, with the best intention in the -world, set about this washing, and made a mistake with regard -to the water, or the vessel, or the pouring, or the position -of his hands; or suppose that a soldier, in the hurry of a camp, -were to make this mistake, or omit the washing altogether, and -then have the ill luck to put his hands to his eyes, according to -the oral law, blindness would be the consequence. Any neglect -or defect in the morning ablution would be more fatal still.</p> - -<p class='c005'>יידקדק לערות עליהן ג׳ פעמים מפני שרוח רעה -שורה על הידים קודם נטילה ואינה סרה אד שיערה -עליהן שלש פעמים . ועל כן צריך למנוע מהגיע -בידו קודם הנטילה לפה , ולחוטם , ולאזנִם , ולעינים . -מפני שרוח רעה שורה עליהם ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“A man must be very careful in pouring water on his hands -three times for an evil spirit rests upon the hands before -<a id='Page_74'></a>washing, and does not depart until water be poured on them -three times. Therefore it is necessary, before washing, to -abstain from touching the hand to the mouth, and the nose, and -the ears, and the eyes, because an evil spirit rests upon them.” -(Orach Chaiim., § 4.)</p> - -<p class='c005'>Now, is this the religion of the God of love, and mercy, and -justice? Is it at all like Him to give laws so subtle and -multifarious in their distinctions, that it is next to impossible -for the unlearned man to obey them aright, and then to attach -to this non-observance such calamitous consequences? If it be -replied that the punishment is visited only on those who -transgress wilfully, then there are thousands of Jews, perhaps -in this very city, who live in the habitual and wilful omission -of this precept, and who have the use of their eyes, just as well -as the strictest Rabbinist. This fact, which no one will dispute, -proves beyond doubt, that the oral law has spoken falsehood, -and therefore throws utter discredit upon its testimony respecting -the tradition of the commandment itself. It is confessedly -not a commandment from God, but from the scribes.</p> - -<p class='c005'>כבר ביארנו שנטילת ידים וטבילתן מדברי סופרים ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“We have explained long ago, that the washing and bathing of -the hands are derived from the words of the scribes.” (Hilchoth -Mikvaoth, xi. 1.) That they had no Divine authority for the -command is evident from the subtilty and superstition of its -ordinances; for we presume that few will question the superstition -of the threat of blindness to the disobedient, or of the fable -of the evil spirit resting upon the hands. One such command, -then, will go far to discredit the whole story of an oral law, -and to invalidate the character of its witnesses. They were -evidently superstitious men, no way elevated above the vulgar -prejudices or the times, not at all scrupulous in adding to the -law of God, and evidently aiming at a complete domination -over the consciences of their followers. It is hardly possible to -believe that they were not aware of the necessary result of the -system, the complete subjugation of the consciences of the -multitude. The mass of mankind has no leisure for the study -of juristic distinctions, they must, therefore, if they believe such -to be Divine, cast themselves upon the mercy of the learned, -and there can be no doubt that those who have the keys of -salvation, will also possess no small degree of influence and -power in this world. But, whatever was the motive, there can -be no doubt about the severity with which the Rabbies enforced -this command. They exacted even from the poor unfortunate, -whom circumstances left only enough water to slake -his thirst, that he should sacrifice a port of it to this Rabbinical -purification.</p> - -<p class='c005'><a id='Page_75'></a>אפילו אין לו מים אלא כדי שתייה נוטל ידיו -במקצתן ואח׳׳כ אוכל ושותה מקצתו ׳</p> - -<p class='c005'>“Though he should only have enough water to drink, he is to -wash his hands with a part of it, and then to eat, and to drink -the remainder.” (Hilchoth Berachoth, vi. 19.) And not content -with this harsh requirement, they sentence the despiser of -their commands to excommunication.</p> - -<p class='c005'>וצריך ליזהר בנטילת ידים שכל המזלזל בנטילתם -חייב נדוי ׳</p> - -<p class='c005'>“It is necessary to be very careful in washing of hands, for -every one who despises the washing of hands is guilty of excommunication.” -(Orach Chaiim., § 158.) And this same book -confirms this decision by a case which actually occurred of a -man thus excommunicated, and who dying in his excommunication -had the usual indignities offered to his corpse.</p> - -<p class='c005'>את מי נדו את אלעזר בן חצר שפקפק בנטילת -ידים וכשמת שלחו בית דין והניחו אבן גדולה על -ארונו ללמדך שכל המתנדה ומת בנדויו בית דיו -סוקלין את ארונו ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“Whom did they excommunicate? Eleazar ben Chatzar, who -despised the washing of hands; and when he was dead, the tribunal -sent, and had a great stone laid on his coffin, to teach thee -that of every one who is excommunicated and dies in his excommunication, -the coffin is stoned by the tribunal.” (Talmud, -Berachoth, fol. 19, col. 1.) When they had the power they -employed it to the full, and now that they have it not, the oral -law still threatens poverty and extirpation to every transgressor.</p> - -<p class='c005'>כל המזלזל בנטילת ידים בא לידי עניות ׃ ואמר -ר׳ זריקא אמר ר׳ אלעזר כל המזלזל בנטילת ידים -נעקר מן העולם ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“Every one who despises washing of hands sinks into poverty. -R. Zerika says, in the name of R. Eliezer, Every one that -despises the washing of hands is rooted out of the world.” -(Orach Chaiim., ibid.) Such is the toleration of the oral law -towards Jews, accused of no breach of God’s commandment, -convicted of no denial of God’s Word, guilty of no crime. And -yet these same men, who are strict even to persecution about -one of their own institutions, allow that which they consider -the Word of God to be transgressed with impunity, if it be expedient. -They assert their belief, that the law of Moses forbids -the Jews to have clothing, like that of the Gentiles, to shave or -to wear their hair like the other nations, and yet they say the -<a id='Page_76'></a>transgression of this Divine command is lawful under the -following circumstances:—</p> - -<p class='c005'>ישראל שהיה קרוב למלכות וצריך לישב לפני -מלכיהם והיה לו גנאי לפי שלא ידמה להם הרי זה -מותר ללבוש במלבושיהן ולגלח בנגר פניו כדרך -שהן עושין ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“An Israelite who is near to Royalty, and is obliged to sit -before Gentile kings, and for whom it would be disgraceful not -to be like them, is allowed to dress and to shave as they do.” -(Hilchoth Accum., xi. 3.) But it is not to be wondered at, that -those should lightly esteem the Word of God, who are capable -of confounding the guilt of transgressing a mere human ceremony -with the guilt of transgressing a Divine command. The Talmud -makes the sin of neglecting this command as great as that of -gross immorality.</p> - -<p class='c005'>כל האוכל לחם בלא נטילת ידים כאלו בא על -אשה זונה וכו׳ ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“Every one who eats bread without washing of hands, is as -guilty as if he had committed fornication.” (Sotah, fol. iv., -col. 2.)</p> - -<p class='c005'>The sum of all that has been said is, that the scribes and -Pharisees added a commandment not given by Moses, that they -so refined upon the conditions of its fulfilment as to make it -almost impossible for the unlearned not to transgress it, and yet -denounced such heavy penalties upon the transgressor as to -make it an intolerable burden to the conscientious; that when -they had the power, they persecuted all that refused obedience, -and did not scruple to pronounce the guilt of transgression as -great as that of breaking one of the moral commandments. -They have presented as the religion of Moses a system which -is voluminous, superstitious, and intolerant; difficult to the -comprehension of the unlearned, terrific to their consciences, -and cruel to their persons. But when the poor were ground -down and oppressed under this weight of superstition and -tyranny, God sent them a deliverer in Jesus of Nazareth, who -asserted the revealed truth of God, and protested against this -mental bondage. “Then come together unto him the Pharisees, -and certain of the scribes which came from Jerusalem. And -when they saw some of his disciples eat bread with defiled -(that is to say, with unwashen) hands they found fault.... -He answered and said unto them, Well hath Esaias prophesied -of you hypocrites, as it is written, This people honoureth me -with their lips, but their heart is far from me. Howbeit in -vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments -<a id='Page_77'></a>of men.... And when he had called all the people -unto him, he said unto them, Hearken unto me every one of -you and understand: there is nothing from without a man that, -entering into him, can defile him: but the things which come -out of him, those are they that defile him.... For from -within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, -fornications, murders, thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, -lasciviousness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness: all -these things come from within, and defile the man.” (Mark -vii. 1-23.) Here the Lord Jesus asserts what is alike the -truth of God, and agreeable to the dictates of sound sense. So -Samuel said in the Old Testament.</p> - -<p class='c005'>האדם יראה לעינים ויהוה יראה ללבב ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“Man looketh on the outward appearance, but God looketh on -the heart.” (1 Sam. xvi. 7.) But the scribes and Pharisees -treated the Lord Jesus in the spirit of the laws which we have -adduced above. They persecuted him unto death, and to the -death He willingly went a martyr for the truth, and a sacrifice -for the sin of the world. The authors of the oral law had but a -short triumph. He rose from the dead, and his doctrine spread -through the world, and everywhere announced freedom from -the bondage of superstition as well as a hope of everlasting life. -And the Jewish nation is at this hour enjoying the fruits -of His death and doctrine in their liberty from Rabbinic -domination. Many of you now hold some of those principles, -the assertion of which was the cause of His death. You believe -that moral duties are far beyond ceremonial observances. You -believe, many of you, that to eat with unwashen hands is no -sin, and have given up the practice. You transgress this -commandment of the scribes, and yet you are not excommunicated -nor persecuted. For all this you are indebted to -Jesus of Nazareth. If the oral law had triumphed, and the -doctrine of Jesus been silenced, you would still be living the -victims of superstition or persecution. You would have been -afraid of being struck with blindness, or haunted with an evil -spirit, or even of being rooted out of the world. If a ray of -Divine light had visited your understanding, and you had -protested against these traditions, you would have had to feel -the weight of Rabbinical persecution, like Jesus of Nazareth. -You would have been excommunicated like Eleazar, and if God -had given you strength to remain faithful, would have died -excommunicated, and have had a stone upon your coffin. How -is it that now you are free, that you can think and act without -any such fear? Is it because the Talmud has altered? No, it is -just what it was. The conscientious believers in the Talmud -are just the same as their fathers, and as conscientious men, if -<a id='Page_78'></a>they had the power, they would think it their bounden duty to -treat you, as their predecessors treated Eleazar. But the -doctrine of Jesus of Nazareth delivers you; and the followers -of Jesus of Nazareth are your protectors against the rigour of -the oral law, and the intolerance of your brethren. Should not -this fact, then, lead you to examine into the claims of that same -Nazarene? How is it that if the principles of Jesus of Nazareth -should ever become universal, the world will be universally -happy; whereas if the principles of those who rejected him -become universal, the whole world will groan under superstition -and cruelty? What stronger testimony can there be to the -justice of his claims, and the injustice of his condemnation? -Examine, then, into the other evidence, and in the meanwhile -protest against the principles of the Talmud, and endeavour to -deliver your brethren. There are multitudes of Jews who still -groan under the superstitious laws respecting the washing of -hands. In the book of daily prayer published here in London, -the ordinance of washing of hands is acknowledged as Divine. -On the 151st leaf, col. 2, you will find the following blessing:—</p> - -<p class='c005'>ברוך אתה ה׳ אלהינו מלך העולם אשר קדשנו -במצותיו וצונו על נטילת ידים ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“Blessed art thou, O Lord our God! King of the universe! who -hath sanctified us with his commandments, and commanded us -to cleanse our hands.” Now this is a positive untruth; God -has not given the commandment respecting the washing of -hands. And yet here your prayer-book solemnly tells him -that he has. And this prayer-book has also put a rubric -to this benediction, “When the children wash their hands in -the morning, they are taught to say the following blessing.” -From which it appears that the Jewish children in England -are still taught to acknowledge the Divine authority of the -Talmud, for the only way in which that benediction can be -defended, is by saying that the oral law is Divine, and that its -commandments were given by God. It is therefore a holy and -imperative duty on all those Israelites who reject Talmudic -superstition and intolerance to have this benediction erased from -their prayer-book, and to preserve the children from the infection -of that law which persecutes the living and insults the -dead.</p> - -<div class='chapter'> - <a id='Page_79'></a> - <h2 id='chap11' class='c003'>No. XI. <br /> RABBINIC ARTIFICES RESPECTING LEAVEN AT THE PASSOVER.</h2> -</div> -<p class='c004'>One of the many bright features in the national character of -Israel is the devoted constancy, with which they have, in the -most troublous times and under the most disastrous circumstances, -celebrated the anniversary of their first great national -deliverance. More than three thousand years have now rolled -away since Israel’s God heard the cries of the first-born in -Egypt, and by slaying the first-born of their enemies, effected -their salvation with a mighty hand and on outstretched arm. -And yet the memory of that great event is still fresh in the -hearts of the nation, and the children of Israel, wherever -scattered, in the wilds of Poland, the coasts of Africa, or the -torrid regions of India, as well as amongst ourselves, are now -making consentaneous preparation for the approaching festival. -Such constancy and such devotion bespeak minds of no ordinary -mould, and naturally lead us to ask, how is it that the Lord -does not now hear Israel’s cries and prayers, which ascend -from every region under heaven, and restore them to that place -in His dispensations and that rank amongst the sons of men, -which his Word assigns to them? A Christian would give -the answer suggested by the New Testament, but we waive -that at present. The oral law gives a reply the same in -substance. It tells us that the mass of the nation has obscured -the light of Divine revelation by the admixture of human -inventions, that, therefore, a restoration would only be the -establishment of error, and is consequently impossible. We -have already given some proofs of this assertion, the Rabbinical -laws relating to the Passover furnish us with many more, and -to these the season of the year now naturally refers us.</p> - -<p class='c005'>Amongst the first directions relating to the Passover, the -Word of God gives this plain command, “Even the first day -shall ye put away leaven out of your houses.” (Exod. xii. 15.) -This is intelligible to the most illiterate, and easy to be obeyed, -but the Rabbles have superadded a mass of explanations and -observances, which tend only to perplex and to burden the -conscience. In the first place they are not satisfied with the -honest endeavour of an Israelite to obey the command of God, -unless he does it according to the form and manner which they -prescribe.</p> - -<p class='c005'>ומה היא השבתה זו האמורה בתורה היא שיבטלו -בלבו ויחשוב אותו כעפר וישים בלבו שאין ברשותו -חמץ , ושכל חמץ שברשותו הרי הוא כעפר -וכדבר שאין בו צורך כלל ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'><a id='Page_80'></a>“What is meant by the putting away (of leaven) mentioned in -the law? It is this, that a man annul it in his heart, and -count it as dust, and intend in his heart to have no leaven -whatever in his possession, and that all the leaven in his -possession shall be as dust, and of no necessity whatever.” -(Hilchoth Chometz Umatzah, c. ii. 2.) Here, then, they -require a formal intention, but they have also prepared a form -of words in which to clothe it.</p> - -<p class='c005'>כל חמירא וחמיעא דאיכא ברשותי דחמיתיה ודלא -חמיתיה דבערתיה ודלא בערתיה לבטל ולהוי כעפרא -דארעא ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“All manner of leaven that is in my possession, which I have -seen, and which I have not seen; which I have removed, and -which I have not removed, shall be null, and accounted as the -dust of the earth.” (Levi’s Prayers for the Passover, fol. 2, -col. 1.) And to this form a rubric is added, “If the master is -not at home, he annuls the leaven wherever he is.” Now this -may at first sight appear as a very innocent ceremony, but God -warns us against all additions to His Word and commandments. -It is in itself presumptuous, and as connected with the -Rabbinical doctrine of merit, must have an injurious tendency -upon the minds of the multitude. They will argue that by -observing this form, they have fulfilled a commandment, and -that consequently there is an additional sum of merit to be put -to the credit side of their account, as a set off against their -transgressions. And on the other hand, if they forget to go -through this form at the right hour, and afterwards any leaven -be found in their houses, the Rabbies bring them in guilty of -transgressing two negative commandments, which they say is -a more heinous offence than disobeying the affirmative precepts.</p> - -<p class='c005'>לפיכך אם לא בטל קודם שש ומשש שעות -ולמעלה מצא חמץ שהיה דעתו עליו והיה בלבו -ושכחו בשעת הביעור ולא בערו הרי זה עבר על -לא יראה ולא ימצא שהרי לא בער ולא בטל ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“Therefore, if a man does not annul (the leaven) before the -sixth hour, and afterwards from the sixth hour and onwards -should find leaven, which was on his mind and in his heart, -but he forgot it at the hour of removal, and did not remove it; -Behold, such an one has transgressed the command, ‘It shall -not be seen with thee’ (Exod. xiii. 7), and also the command, -‘It shall not be found in your houses’ (Exod. xii. 19), for he -neither removed it nor annulled it.” (Hilchoth Chometz, c. -iii. 8.) Now, can you believe that this decision is from God who -<a id='Page_81'></a>searcheth the heart? Can you believe that a man who had it -in his mind and heart to remove a piece of leaven according to -God’s commandment, but whilst removing the rest forgot this -one piece, is to be brought in guilty, simply because he did not -observe a mere form, which God has nowhere commanded? -Or that he would not have been guilty, if he had repeated -some half dozen words prescribed by men, sinners like himself? -Very different is the declaration of God himself, יען אשר היה, -עם לבבך “Because it was in thine heart” (1 Kings viii. 18): -he accepted the intention, and gave it the blessing of obedience. -The Rabbinic decision is, therefore, not of God, and goes far -towards overthrowing the claims of the whole oral law. But -the Rabbies were not satisfied with this invention of בטול -חמץ annulling the leaven, they have imposed upon the consciences -of their followers another observance, utterly unknown -to Moses, and that is בדיקת חמץ, the searching for leaven.</p> - -<p class='c005'>אור לארבעה עשר בנסן קודם צאת הכוכבים -בודקין את החמץ לאור הנר של שעוה היחידי , -ומשהגיע זמנו אסור לעשות שום מלאכה ולא לאכול -ולא ללמוד ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“On the evening before the 14th of Nisan, before the coming -out of the stars, they are to search for the leaven by the light -of a single wax taper: and when the time draws near, it is unlawful -to do any work, or to eat, or to study.” (Passover -Prayers, fol. 1, col. 2.) For this command there is evidently -no foundation in the law of Moses. It is confessedly מדברי -סופרים of the words of the Scribes, and yet the most minute -directions are given, and the greatest attention required, as if it -had been from God himself, and various cases supposed where -a second search is necessary, as for instance:—</p> - -<p class='c005'>אם ראה עכבר שנכנס לבית וחמץ בפיו אחר בדיקה -צריך לבדוק פעם שניה אף על פי שמצא פירורִן -באמצע הבית אין אומרין כבר אכל אותה הפת -במקום זה והרי הפירורין אלא חוששין שמא הניחה -בחור או בחלון ואלו הפירורין שם היו ולפיכך חוזר -ובודק , אם לא מצא כלום הרי זה בודק כל הבית -ואם מצא אותה הפת שנטל העכבר ונכנס אין צריך -בדיקה ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“If, after the search, he see a mouse come into the house with -leaven in his mouth, it is necessary to search a second time. -And although he should find the crumbs about the house, he is -not to say, the mouse has eaten the bread long since, and these -are the crumbs, but, on the contrary, he must fear lest it should -<a id='Page_82'></a>have left the leaven in a hole or a window, and these crumbs -were there before; he must therefore search again. If he find -nothing, then he must search the whole house; but if he find -the bread with which the mouse went off, then no further search -is necessary.” Another case of equal importance, and more -ingenuity, is the following:—</p> - -<p class='c005'>נכנס עכבר לבית וככר בפיו ויצא עכבר משם -וככר בפיו אומרים הוא הראשון שנכנס הוא האחרון -שיצא ואינו צריך לבדוק . היה הראשון שגכנס שחור -וזה שיצא לבן צריך לבדוק . נכנס עכבר וככר בפיו -ויצאה משם חולדה וככר בפיה צריך לבדוק . יצאה -משם חולדה ועכבר וככר בפיה אינו צריך לבדוק -שזה הככר הוא שהיה בפי העכבר ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“If a mouse enter a house with bread in his mouth, and a -mouse also go out of the same house with bread in his mouth, -one may conclude that this is one and the self-same mouse, and -it is not necessary to search. But if the former that entered -was black, and the latter that went out white, a search is -necessary. If a mouse went in with bread in his mouth, and a -weasel come out with bread in her mouth, it is necessary to -search. If a mouse and a weasel both go out, and bread in the -weasel’s mouth, there is no search required, for this is the -identical bread that had been before in the mouse’s mouth.” -(Hilchoth Chometz, c. ii.) We do not mean to say that this -sort of wisdom was never found in Christians. We are well -aware that the scholastic divines display much of the same -perverse ingenuity, and the achievements of mice have figured -in Gentile theology too, but we have renounced that whole -system as contrary to the Word of God. You still adhere to -the theology of the Scribes, and are now about to keep a solemn -festival according to their ordinances. And yet you see how -poor their view of true piety, and how perverse the application -of their time and their ingenuity. The most unlearned Israelite -who has read the law of Moses in its simple dignity, will know -very well that when God commanded the Israelites to remove -leaven from their houses, he did not mean that they should go -and rummage out the mouse-holes, or spend their time looking -after mice and weasels. If, instead of the oral law, you had -read this in the New Testament, would you not have taken it -as complete evidence against the claims of that book? and if -St. Paul or St. Peter had given such commands to the Gentile -converts, would you not have said, these men were either fools -or knaves? But in the New Testament nothing like it is to be -found. The precepts there given, and the instruction there -conveyed, is all of a noble and dignified character, whilst the -<a id='Page_83'></a>trifling and the folly still exist in the oral law handed down by -those who rejected Jesus of Nazareth. If the testimony of -men at all depends upon the wisdom of him who gives it, the -testimony of the Scribes is not worth much. But the trifling -is exceeded by the presumption. These men have said, as we -have quoted above from your prayer-book, “that when the time -for the search draws near, it is unlawful to do any work, or to -eat, or to study;” so that the poor man is to give up his lawful -business, the hungry man to abstain from his lawful food, and -all to neglect even the reading of God’s holy Word, in order to -go and search into holes and corners, for that which they know -is not to be found, or to find that which was laid in their way -intentionally and for that very purpose. We ask you can this -be from God, or, are the men who make the reading of God’s -Word give way to this ceremony, to be depended upon as -teachers of the true religion?</p> - -<p class='c005'>But the oral law not only adds human inventions, but lays -down principles which involve considerable difficulties, the -solution of which requires no small share of ingenuity. For -instance—</p> - -<p class='c005'>חמץ שעבר עליו הפסח אסיר בהנאה לעולם ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“It is for ever unlawful to have any profit from leaven, that -has existed during the season of the Passover.” This is understood -of leaven belonging to Israelites, and according to this -all Israelites are obliged to sell, or give away, or lose all the -leaven which they may have at the commencement of Passover, -and of course, if they have much, the loss would be very -serious. But the Rabbies who have made the difficulty, have -also found various ways of evading it. One is by pledging -the leaven with a certain form of words—</p> - -<p class='c005'>ישראל שהרהין חמצו אצל הגוי אם אםר לו אם -לא הבאתי לך מעות מכאן ועד יום פלוני קנה חמץ -זה מעכשיו הרי זה ברשות הגוי ואותו החמץ מותר -לאחר הפסח ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“An Israelite who has pawned his leaven to a Gentile, if he -says to him, in case I do not bring thee the money from this -time to a certain day, you have purchased this leaven from the -present time; then this leaven is considered as in the possession -of the Gentile, and it is lawful after the Passover.” (Hilchoth -Chometz, c. iv.) If, therefore, an Israelite, who has a large -quantity of leaven, wishes to keep the commandment of -removing all leaven from his possession, and at the time -to be able to resume the possession after the Passover; and to -have the worldly gain too, as well the spiritual profit, he has -nothing to do but to pawn it with this form of words. Now -<a id='Page_84'></a>we ask every Jew of common sense, whether this be not a mere -trick, an attempt to cheat one’s own conscience, an unworthy -artifice to serve God, and yet to avoid the loss which would -result from a simple observance of the command? It is plain -that a man who acts thus has no real intention of renouncing -the possession of the leaven. And this is not a single case; the -oral law is rich in such cases, as it allows a mock pawning, so -it allows a mock sale or gift.</p> - -<p class='c005'>אעפ׳׳י שהישראל מכירו לעכו׳׳ם ויודע בו שלא -יגע בו כלל , אלא ישמרנו לו עד לאחר הפסח -ויחזור ויתננו לו מותר ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“Although the Israelite knows that the Gentile will not touch -the leaven at all, but keep it for him until after the Passover, -and will then return it to him, it is lawful.” Of course a -learned Israelite, acquainted with this provision of the oral -law, will select a Gentile of this description to whom to sell or -give his leaven, fully aware that after Passover it will be his -again, and he may enjoy the profit. But suppose a Jew had -lent money to a Gentile, and received the interest every week -in bread, what is he to do? It is evident that at Passover he -cannot make use of the bread on account of the leaven, neither -after the Passover can he receive that bread nor money for it, -as according to the oral law he must have no profit from leaven -which has witnessed the Paschal week. This is a difficult -case, but it is not of our making. The oral law which has -proposed the difficulty, has also provided a solution.</p> - -<p class='c005'>ישראל שמקבל מגוי ככרות ברבית בכל שבוע -כתב אבי העזרי שיאמר לו קודם הפסח שיתן לו -בשבוע של פסח קמח או מעות ואז אפילו אם באו -אחר כך לחשבון מותר לקבל ממנו מה שלא קבל -בתוך הפסח ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“An Israelite who receives bread from a Gentile every week -as interest, is, according to Avi Haezri, to tell him before -the Passover, that in the Passover week he must give him -flour or money, and then when they come to make up their -accounts, he may receive from him that which he did not -receive during the Passover.” (Arbah. Turim. Orach Chaiim, -sec. 450.) According to this simple device, merely by saying -a few words, he can make that lawful, which before would -have been a great sin. It is not needful even to intend to -have money or flour, he may intend to have the leaven after -the Passover; the words have the transforming efficacy. The -same book gives Rashi’s solution of another similar difficulty.</p> - -<p class='c005'>שאלה לרש׳׳י , ישראל וגוי שיש להם תנור בשותפות -<a id='Page_85'></a>מהו לומר לגוי טול אתה של פסח ואני אטול אחר -כך והשיב שיתנה קודם הפסח ויטול דמים מאות -שבוע ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“A question proposed to Rashi—Suppose that an Israelite -and a Gentile had an oven in partnership, shall he say to the -Gentile, Take thou the profit during the Passover, and I -will take afterwards? He replied, Let him make a bargain -before the Passover, and take the price of that week.” (Ibid.) -A man of common sense will see that here, as in the other -cases, the Jew does really receive the profit from leaven in -existence during the Passover, and that whether he receive -the money or the profit before or afterwards, there is no real -difference in the circumstances of the transaction; one principle -pervades all these decisions, and that is, evasion of what -is considered a Divine command. The man who gives away -the leaven with the full intention of resuming possession after -the Passover, and the man who sells only for the week, in full -persuasion that his right and interest remain, does in reality -neither give nor sell. There may be an outward appearance -of the thing, but God does not judge according to the -appearance; he looks on the intention of the heart. He is -not satisfied with the form of giving or selling, but looking -at the inmost thoughts of the soul, He sees that the man -does not wish nor intend to do either one or the other, and -marks him as a deliberate, and wilful transgressor. But we -appeal to every unsophisticated mind in Israel, would such a -system of evasion be considered as honourable, even according -to the maxims of this world? Or can that conduct, which -men would call dishonourable, be considered as an acceptable -service before God? But, above all, can it be the law given -to Moses by the God of truth? This it is which gives this -discussion all its importance. If the Talmud and all its -decisions were retained merely as a curious remnant of antiquity, -as the effusions of a perverse ingenuity, or the waking -dreams of scholastics, we might both pass it by with a -smile. But it is proposed as the law of God. It is the religion -of the great majority of the Jewish people, and no -doubt at this very time, many an Israelite in Poland and -elsewhere, if not in England, is preparing a mock sale, or -drawing up a contract for the imaginary disposal of the -leaven in his possession, in obedience to the above directions. -They do it in simplicity, with a mistaken devotion. They -are misled; but does not a fearful load of responsibility rest -upon those Israelites who know better, and yet leave their -brethren in this grievous error, yea, and confirm them in it -by joining in all the ceremonies which that system prescribes? -Because of this system, the nation is still exiled from the land -<a id='Page_86'></a>of Israel. Because of this system, the anger of the Lord is -not turned away, but His arm is stretched out still. If then -you love your people—if you desire their national exaltation, -and their eternal welfare, lift up your voice and protest -against the oral law. Condemn the Scribes and Pharisees as -the inventors of the system, and the first authors of that moral -captivity in which the people has been held for so many -centuries. Now when you remember the mercies of the Lord -in delivering you from the house of bondage, make an effort -to deliver your brethren from the more degrading chains of -error and superstition. At the same time we would ask you -to consider the case of so many of your nation, who, when -these chains were rivetting, gloriously maintained their -freedom, and have left us a collection of writings, entirely -free from every trace of this mistaken ingenuity. We mean -the disciples of Jesus of Nazareth. They, too, were Jews, -children of Abraham, and of the stock of Israel. How is it -then, that they who were condemned by the Talmudists as -heretics, and propagators of a false religion, have left us the -principles of a healthy, manly, and rational piety, whilst their -judges and accusers have fallen headlong into error and even -absurdity? If Jesus and his disciples were deceivers or -fanatics, how is it that they were preserved from inculcating -such false doctrines: and if the Scribes and Pharisees were -right in condemning and persecuting them—were actually -serving God in resisting false pretensions, how is it that they -were given over to such delusions, and to such a system of -trifling? That they were not infallible, the above extracts -from the oral law prove beyond all controversy. They have -altogether erred in the first element of acceptable worship, -simplicity of intention and uprightness of heart. They have -confounded the form with the reality of obedience to God’s -commands. And in all these things where they have erred, -Jesus and his disciples have asserted and maintained the -truth. Account for this fact. The Talmud tells you to light -a taper and search for leaven in a mousehole, and to get rid -of all in your possession by a fictitious contract. The New -Testament says, “Purge out the old leaven, that ye may be -a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our -Passover is sacrificed for us: therefore let us keep the feast -not with old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and -wickedness; but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and -truth.” (1 Cor. v. 7, 8.)</p> -<div class='chapter'> - <a id='Page_87'></a> - <h2 id='chap12' class='c003'>No. XII. <br /> THE PASSOVER A TYPE OF FUTURE DELIVERANCE.</h2> -</div> -<p class='c004'>This year, the Jewish and the Christian times for celebrating -the Feast of the Passover nearly coincide; and the coincidence -ought to remind us both of that happy period, when all -the children of man, so long divided, shall again be united into -one great, holy, and happy family; all rejoicing in the mercy -and favour of their Heavenly Father, and all loving each other -in sincerity and truth. To that period we look forward, and -even now we use our humble endeavours to accelerate its approach. -Yea, one of the reasons, why we endeavour to lead -Israel to a rejection of the oral law, is because we firmly believe -that it is one of the main hindrances in the way of their -happiness and that of the nations of the world. We have no -wish to rob you of any one blessing promised in the Word of -God. We would not deprive you of one hope founded upon -God’s promises. On the contrary, we rejoice to think that notwithstanding -all the vain traditions of the Scribes and Pharisees, -it has pleased God to keep alive in your hearts the memory -of his past mercy, and the hope of his future goodness. -To the consideration of these two points, the law of Moses and -your appointed prayers lead you at this season, and through the -mercy of God, and the love of some of your brethren, we of the -Gentiles have been brought to rejoice in similar considerations. -Let us then endeavour to anticipate the future, and rejoice -together even now, omitting on this solemn occasion a special -discussion of the oral law. If God’s mercy were all past, and -only a matter of history, we might and ought to feel grateful -for the benefits bestowed upon our fathers: our joy would, -however, suffer a considerable diminution. But this is not the -case. In the midst of your grateful acknowledgment for the -wonders in Egypt, you can mingle a prayer for the future, -and say,</p> - -<p class='c005'>לשנה הבאה בירושלים ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“Next year in Jerusalem.”</p> - -<p class='c005'>רחם נא י׳׳י אלהינו על ישראל עמך ועל ירישלים -עירך ועל מזבחך ועל היכלך , ובנה ירושלים עיר -הקודש במהרה בימינו והעלנו לתוכה ושמחנו בה ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“O Lord our God, have mercy, we beseech thee, upon Israel -thy people, and upon Jerusalem thy city, and upon thine altar, -and upon thy temple; and build Jerusalem, the holy city, -speedily, in our days, and bring us up into the midst of it, and -<a id='Page_88'></a>make us glad therein.” (Haggadah Shel Pesach.) And to this -prayer we can say, “Amen” with all our hearts. The future -restoration and blessedness of Israel is one of our fondest expectations; -and whilst we contemplate the circumstances and -the glory of the first Exodus, the Word of the living God leads -us to look forward to that which is to come.</p> - -<p class='c005'>כימי צאתך מארץ מצרים אראנו נפלאות ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“According to the days of thy coming out of the land of Egypt -will I show unto him marvellous things,” is the promise by the -mouth of Micah the prophet (c. vii. 10).</p> - -<p class='c005'>והחרים יהוה את לשון ים מצרים והניף ידו על -הנהר בעים רוחו והכהו לשבעה נחלים והדריך -בנעלים , והיתה מסלה לשאר עמו אשר ישאר מאשור -כאשר היתה לישראל ביום עלותו מארץ מצרים ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“And the Lord shall utterly destroy the tongue of the Egyptian -sea, and with his mighty wind shall he shake his hand -over the river, and shall smite it in the seven streams, and shall -make men go over dry shod. And there shall be a highway for -the remnant of his people, which shall be left from Assyria; -like as it was to Israel in the day that he came up out of the -land of Egypt,” is the declaration of the Prophet Isaiah (xi. 15, -16). Seeing that neither of these declarations was fulfilled at -the return from Babylon, nor at any period since, we firmly believe -that they shall be fulfilled in the time to come, and that -therefore the compilers of the Haggadah were fully warranted -in intermingling, with their Passover thanksgivings, a prayer -for the fulfilment of the promised mercies; and we do not -scruple to say that in this respect, the Jewish Rabbies have -been right, whilst many Christian interpreters have been -wrong; though they might have known and given a true explanation -of all similar passages, if they had only followed the -plain words of their master, Jesus of Nazareth, “Think not -that I am come to destroy the law or the prophets.” (Matt. -v. 17.) We make this remark to show that we do not condemn -the Rabbies inconsiderately; but that we are willing to do -them all justice, where their opinions agree with the Word of -God. Their expectation of the future restoration of Israel is -well founded, and their faith in the promises relating to it -worthy of all imitation. Oh, that the whole nation had more -of it—that their hearts were more directed to the land of their -forefathers—that their thoughts were more full of the Divine -promises. Then they would cry more earnestly to God, and -He would “hear their groaning, and remember his covenant -with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob,” as he did at the deliverance -from Egypt. The careless and the ungodly deceive themselves -<a id='Page_89'></a>with the idea, that when God’s time comes, the deliverance will -take place without any endeavour of theirs. Let them read the -law of Moses, and they will find that though God had promised -to bring their fathers out of Egypt, the deliverance itself was -preceded by a time of prayer and crying unto God. To -Abraham he had said,</p> - -<p class='c005'>ידוע תדע כי גר יהיה זרעך בארץ לא להם -ועבדום וענו אותם ארבע מאות שנה ... ודור רביעי -ישובו הנה וגו׳ ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“Know of a surety that thy seed shall be a stranger in a land -that is not theirs, and shall serve them; and they shall afflict -them four hundred years.... But in the fourth generation they -shall come hither again,” &c. (Gen. xv. 13, 16.) But this -promise was no warrant for their remaining careless, and at -ease; it was on the contrary a basis for earnest prayer and -supplication, and a plea for mercy. And, therefore, when the -time drew near, we read,</p> - -<p class='c005'>יואנחו בני ישראל מן העבודה ויזעקו ותעל -שועתם אל האלהים מן העבודה ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“And the children of Israel sighed by reason of the bondage, -and they cried, and their cry came up unto God, by reason of the -bondage.” And God himself gives this as one reason why he -came to deliver them.</p> - -<p class='c005'>ועתה הנה צעקת בני ישראל באה אלי ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“Now, therefore, behold the cry of the children of Israel is -come unto me.” (Exod. iii. 9.) Here, then, all Israelites, who -desire the fulfilment of God’s promises should learn that state -of mind, which is a pre-requisite to the interposition of their -great deliverer. Israel can no more be delivered now than of -old, unless they earnestly desire deliverance. To what purpose -should He deliver and restore those, who care nothing about -the land of their forefathers, nor about the glory of the nation—who -say, We are very comfortable and happy here, and all we -desire is to be like the other nations (נהיה כגוים)—what good -would it do to us to return to the land of Israel? God’s promises -are not to such grovelling and unbelieving spirits. Along with -his promise of mercy, he gives a command for continual supplication,</p> - -<p class='c005'>המזכירים את יהוה אל דמי לכם , ואל תהנו דמי -לו עד יכונן ועד ישים את ירושלים תהלה בארץ ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“Ye that make mention of the Lord, keep not silence, and give -him no rest, till he establish, and till he make Jerusalem a praise -<a id='Page_90'></a>in the earth.” (Isaiah lxii. 6, 7.) And in Ezekiel, after the -declaration, “This land that was desolate is become like the -garden of Eden; and the waste, and desolate and ruined cities, -are become fenced, and are inhabited,” &c., he adds—</p> - -<p class='c005'>כה אמר אדני יהוה עוד זאת אדרש לבית ישראל -לעשות להם ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“Thus saith the Lord God, I will yet for this be inquired of by -the house of Israel, to do it for them.” (Ezek. xxxvi. 37.) Upon -which Rashi remarks—</p> - -<p class='c005'>אתפתה להם בתפלתם בדושם אותי על זאת ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“I will be made favourable to them through their prayer, when -they seek me with regard to this.” Hence prayer is commanded; -in Hosea we are told, that without prayer deliverance -is impossible.</p> - -<p class='c005'>אלך אשובה אל מקומי עד אשר יאשמו ובקשו פני ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“I will go and return to my place, till they acknowledge their -offence, and seek my face.” (Hosea v. 15.) Let the children of -Israel return then, and seek the Lord their God, and David their -King, then they shall fear the Lord and His goodness in the -latter days. (Hosea iii. 5.)</p> - -<p class='c005'>In the consideration of the deliverance from Egypt there is, -however, one circumstance which should teach the Israelites to -rejoice with trembling, and that is, that the majority of those, -who went forth from Egypt, never entered the land of Israel, -but died in the wilderness on account of their sin and unbelief. -That which has happened, may happen again. Israel might be -delivered again from the lands of their dispersion, and be led -forth with a mighty hand, and outstretched arm, and with great -signs and wonders, and yet after all die in their sins. Indeed, -it is not merely a legitimate deduction from the past, but an -express prophecy of the future. “As I live, saith the Lord God, -surely, with a mighty hand, and with a stretched out arm, and -with fury poured out, will I rule over you; and I will bring you -out from the people, and will gather you out of the countries -wherein ye are scattered, and with a mighty hand, and with a -stretched out arm, and with fury poured out. And I will bring -you into the wilderness of the people, and there will I plead with -you face to face. Like as I pleaded with your fathers in the -wilderness of the land of Egypt, so will I plead with you, saith -the Lord God. And I will cause you to pass under the rod, and -I will bring you into the bond of the covenant.”</p> - -<p class='c005'>וברותי מכם המורדים והפושעים בי מארץ מגוריהם -אוציא אותם ואל אדמת ישראל לא יבוא ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'><a id='Page_91'></a>“And I will purge out from among you the rebels, and them -that transgress against me; I will bring them forth from the -country where they sojourn, and they shall not enter into the -land of Israel.” (Ezek. xx. 33-38.) Here then we see, whether -we consider the past or the future, that a mere temporal -deliverance is not sufficient—that God’s greatest temporal -blessings, and even his mighty signs and wonders, may lead us in -the more dreadful and fatal captivity of sin. Surely if a -miraculous deliverance could deliver the soul, those that saw the -miracles in Egypt, and experienced the Lord’s mercy in their -preservation from the destroying angel, and in the passage -through the Red Sea, ought to have been perfect in holiness. -Yet we find, after all that they saw and heard, that they were -a disobedient and faithless generation, and that they perished in -the wilderness. The history, then, of this great deliverance -reminds us in the most forcible manner of the bondage of sin, -and the necessity of a more noble and gracious emancipation. -Israel was in bondage in Egypt, and the Lord had compassion -and delivered them. All mankind, Jews and Gentiles, are born -slaves to sin, and dreadful is the misery which they have -suffered, and hopeless the prospect for the future, unless God -have provided a way of escape. Now is it likely that that God -who had compassion on the Israelites in their temporal affliction, -should look, unmoved and unpitying, upon the temporal and -spiritual wretchedness of the whole human race? Is it conceivable -that those gracious ears, which heard the cries of Israel in -Egypt, should be deaf to the groans and lamentations of all the -sons of men? Is it consistent with the Bible-character of God -to provide a remedy for temporal sorrow, and yet furnish no -means of deliverance from everlasting woe? Is it like our -Heavenly Father to stretch out his hand to save a few of his -children from Egypt, and yet leave the great majority to perish -in ignorance and sin? Blessed be God, who, in his great mercy, -sent Jews to our forefathers to tell us of the blood of another -and greater passover, which can preserve Gentiles as well as -Jews from the wrath to come.</p> - -<p class='c005'>משיח פסחנו נזבח בעדנו ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“Messiah, our passover, is sacrificed for us;” and therefore we -too keep the feast, and join in the hymn of thanksgiving, -“Blessed be the Lord God of Israel, for He hath visited and -redeemed his people.” You remember the paschal lamb of -Egypt. We can say—</p> - -<p class='c005'>הנה שה אלהים הנושא את חטאות כל העולם ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“Behold the Lamb of God, that taketh away the sin of the -world.” You remember the sprinkling of blood that delivered -your fathers from temporal death. We rejoice because,</p> - -<p class='c005'><a id='Page_92'></a>דם ישּוע המשיח יטהרנו מכל חטא ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“The blood of Jesus, the Messiah, cleanseth us from all sin.” -You remember how, four days before the Passover, it was -necessary to select a lamb without spot and without blemish. -We think of the true Paschal Lamb, the Messiah, how, four -days before the great sacrifice, he came up to Jerusalem, and -was examined before the tribunals, and declared to be without -sin. Pilate’s testimony was, “Ye have brought this man unto -me, as one that perverteth the people; and, behold, I, having -examined him before you, have found no fault in this man -touching those things whereof ye accuse him: no, nor yet -Herod: for I sent you to him; and lo, nothing worthy of death -is done unto him.” (Luke xxiii. 14, 15.) You remember how -the destroying angel passed over the houses where the blood -was sprinkled: we look forward to that more dreadful time, -when he shall come as the Psalmist describes:—</p> - -<p class='c005'>יבא אלהינו ואל יהרש אש לפניו תאכל וסביביו -נשערה מאוד , יקרא אל השמים מעל ואל הארץ -לדין עמו . אספו לי חסידי כורתי בריתי עלי זבח ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“Our God shall come, and shall not keep silence: a fire shall -devour before him, and it shall be very tempestuous round -about him. He shall call to the heavens from above, and to -the earth, that he may judge his people. Gather my saints -together unto me: those <i>that have made a covenant with me by -sacrifice</i>.” (Ps. l. 3-5.) And we hope to be found amongst -that number, and that the blood of the true Sacrifice will then -deliver us. It is evident that the Psalmist here is not speaking -of the sacrifices of the temple, for immediately after we read—</p> - -<p class='c005'>שמעה עמי ואדברה ישראל ואעידה בך אלהים -אלהיך אנכי . לו אל זבחיך אוכיחך ועולותיך לנגדי -תמיד . לו אקח מביתך פר ממכלאותיך עתודים ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“Hear, O my people, and I will speak; O Israel, and I will -testify against thee: I am God, even thy God. I will not -reprove thee for thy sacrifices or thy burnt offerings, to have -been continually before me. I will take no bullock out of thy -house, nor he goats out of thy folds.” Here God plainly -excepts the offerings of bulls and goats, and thereby overthrows -the exposition of Rashi and others, who say that the covenant -and sacrifices here alluded to are the same as those described -at the giving of the law, when Moses said, “Behold the blood -of the covenant,” &c. (Exod. xxiv. 8.) The sacrifices then -offered were “burnt-offerings and peace-offerings of oxen,” -which God here declares that he will not accept. Besides, God -is not speaking of many sacrifices, but of one sacrifice אלי זבח . -<a id='Page_93'></a>He is moreover speaking of one great sacrifice, by virtue of -which sinful men may stand before him as saints at the great -day of judgment, and obtain mercy. This certainty cannot -mean the sacrifices of the Mosaic covenant at Sinai, for by -reason of that sacrifice, they will appear as guilty sinners who -have broken God’s covenant, as he himself says—</p> - -<p class='c005'>אשר המה הפרו את ברית ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“Which my covenant they brake.” (Jer. xxxi. 32.) At that -solemn hour the Mosaic covenant will only condemn, and -therefore cannot be meant here. Indeed the rabbies appear to -have felt the untenableness of this exposition, and therefore -invented another figurative one—</p> - -<p class='c005'>ויש דרש כי על ברית מילה שהחזיקו בה ישראל -בגלות ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“There is also an allegorical interpretation referring it to the -covenant of circumcision, which Israel has faithfully adhered -to in the captivity.” (Kimchi, in loc.) But this exposition is -as unfounded as the former. Circumcision is never called a -sacrifice in Scripture. Neither will it serve a man in the day -of judgment. What then is the sacrifice which is here -intended? We answer, the true Passover, the blood of the -Messiah, whereby the new covenant is ratified. Some object -that the shedding of blood is altogether unnecessary—that if -God will forgive at all, he can forgive without atonement or -sacrifice. But this objection will equally affect the sacrifice of -the first Passover. On the very same grounds, we may say, -What necessity was there for killing a lamb, and sprinkling -its blood upon the door-posts? The directions given by Moses -are very striking—“Kill the passover. And ye shall take a -bunch of hyssop, and dip it in the blood that is in the bason, -and strike the lintel and the two side posts with the blood that -is in the bason; and none of you shall go out at the door of his -house until the morning. For the Lord will pass through to -smite the Egyptians; and when he seeth the blood upon the -lintel, and on the two side posts, the Lord will pass over the door, -and will not suffer the destroyer to come in unto your houses -to smite you.” (Exod. xii. 21-23.) Surely the blood was -not necessary to make known to him which house belonged to -an Israelite. He could have saved them as well without the -blood as with it. Why then destroy the life of a lamb, and -give them all this trouble? Suppose that an Israelite had -thus argued at that time, had refused to kill the passover, or -having killed it, had neglected to sprinkle the blood, or having -done both, was not content to abide in his house, but had gone -forth before the morning, what would have been the consequence? -<a id='Page_94'></a>Certain punishment. God was indeed determined -to save Israel, but only in a certain way: and he that did not -choose to submit to God’s method, would naturally lose the -benefit of his appointment. Our business is not to argue with -God, but having ascertained His will, to submit to it. Inquire, -then, what God means by “his saints who have made a -covenant with Him by sacrifice;” and endeavour to enter -into that covenant, that when He appears to judgment, ye -may be gathered unto Him. If the Christian view be not the -true one, then since the destruction of the temple there has -been no sacrifice, and no way of entering into that covenant -with Him. You observe the season—you abstain from leaven—but -there is no sacrifice. The main, yea the essential, -element of the Passover is wanting. The lamb cannot be slain. -And even if it could be, if you had again a temple and a high-priest, -and all the service of a sanctuary, still the sacrifice of -the Passover would only be a memorial of mercies long since -gone by. It would be no real atonement for your sins, and -when you had slain it, and eaten of it, the question would still -remain, How am I, a sinner, to appear in the presence of the -righteous Judge?</p> - -<p class='c005'>The first part of this paper will have shown you, that we are -firm believers in the future glory and blessedness of Israel; -that we do not, therefore, in offering you our hope for eternity, -wish to deprive you of your own hopes for time. No, we wish -you every blessing which God has promised by the mouth of -Moses and the prophets, and can affectionately join in the -words—</p> - -<p class='c005'>לשנה הבאה בירושלִם ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>If it should please God to spare us all to see the re-union of -all the families of the earth, we should rejoice to unite with -others in acknowledging “that ye are the seed whom the Lord -has blessed.” But we should rejoice a thousandfold more to -meet you in the heavenly Jerusalem, and to mingle our voices -with yours in singing,</p> - -<p class='c005'>“Worthy is the Lamb that was slain to receive power, and -riches, and wisdom, and strength, and honour, and glory, and -blessing.” Amen.</p> -<div class='chapter'> - <a id='Page_95'></a> - <h2 id='chap13' class='c003'>No. XIII. <br /> SEVERITY OF THE RABBINIC ORDINANCES.</h2> -</div> -<p class='c004'>The feast of the Passover, ordained as a memorial of past -mercies, has at the same time served to remind us of another -deliverance necessary both for Jew and Gentile, and also of a -happy time when “there shall be one fold and one shepherd”—“One -<span class='sc'>Lord</span> and His name One.” But the blessed anticipations -of the future cannot, and ought not, withdraw our thoughts -from the reality of the present. That happy time is not yet -come. Jews and Christians are not yet agreed as to the articles -of faith; and this feast of the Passover especially directs our -attention to the cause and origin of the difference. At this -solemn season of the year, Jesus of Nazareth was condemned -by the Scribes and Pharisees, and by them delivered to the -Roman power to be executed as a malefactor. One portion of -the Jewish nation, and that the majority, concurred in the -judgment of the rulers. Another portion, at first small, but -ultimately considerable in number and station, arraigned the -justice of the sentence, and professed their faith in His Messiahship. -The question between Jews and Christians at present is, -which of these two portions of the Jewish nation was in the -right. In these papers we have taken up this simple position, -that the religious system of those who rejected Jesus of Nazareth -is contrary to the law and the prophets, and is therefore false; -whilst the doctrines of Him, that was rejected, are in conformity -with those writings, and must therefore be true. When we -say that the rabbinical system is false, we do not mean that the -Pharisees held no truth. On the contrary, we showed in our -last number that some of their expectations were agreeable to -the Word of God, and therefore true. All we intend is, that -the peculiarities of Rabbinism of which the system is composed -are erroneous. The laws relating to the present festival furnish -us with abundant proof of our assertion. The Divine commands -relating to it exhibit the care, consideration, and condescension -of God in providing an opportunity of instruction, a time of -relaxation, and a season of joy for the poor as well as the rich. -The rabbinical laws, on the other hand, are burdensome, oppressive, -and hurtful, especially to the poor and unlearned.</p> - -<p class='c005'>We take our first proof from one of the laws relating to the -ארבע כוסות “the four cups”—God has given a simple command -to Israel to make known to their children the reasons for -the feast. והגדת לבנך וגו׳ “And thou shalt declare unto -thy son in that day, saying, This is done because of that which -the Lord did unto me, when I came forth out of Egypt.” -(Exod. xiii. 8.) In order to fulfil this command, a sort of -<a id='Page_96'></a>liturgy has been composed, much of which is solemn and -beautiful: and a ceremonial appointed, of which one ordinance -is, that there should be four cups or glasses of wine.</p> - -<p class='c005'>וכל אחד ואחד בין אנשים בין נשים חייב לשתות -בלילה הזה ארבע כוסות אל יין ואין פוחתין לו מהן ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“All persons, whether men or women, are obligated on this -night to drink four cups (or glasses) of wine, and this number -is not to be diminished.” (Hilchoth Chometz, c. vii.) As to -the ceremony of the four cups, the circumstances connected with -them evidently show that they are not for the purpose of revelry, -but part of a solemn religious observance.</p> - -<p class='c005'>כל כוס וכוס מארבע כוסות הללו מברך עליו -ברכה בפני עצמה . כוס ראשון אומר עליו קידוש -היום . כוס שני קורא עליו את ההגדה . כוס שלישי -מברך עליו ברכת המזון . כוס רביעי גומר עליו את -ההלל ומברך עליו ברכת השיר ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“Over each of these four cups a benediction is to be pronounced. -Over the first cup is said the consecration of the day. -Over the second cup the Haggadah is read. Over the third cup -the benediction for food is pronounced. And over the fourth -the Hallel is completed, and the benediction for the song pronounced.” -(Ibid.) With a solemn religious ordinance it is not -for us to find fault. On the contrary, in these and their other -prayers, we earnestly wish the Jews the blessing of God, and -the spirit of grace and supplication. But when we find this -human institution imposed as a burden upon the conscience, and -the observance of it exacted from those who have not the means -of gaining their daily bread, we must protest against it as harsh -and oppressive. Now in the oral law this requirement is -made.</p> - -<p class='c005'>מי שאין לו יין עבר אדרבנן דאמרי ולא יפחתו -לו מארבע כוסות , וצריך למכור מה איא לו לקיים -מצות חכמים ולא יסמוך על הפת שאם קיים כוס -אחד לא קיים השלשה לכן ימכור מה שיש לו ולהוציא -הוצאות עד שימצא יין או צמוקים ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“Whosoever has not got wine transgresses a command of the -Rabbies, for they have said, that there is to be no diminution -from the four cups. And it is necessary to sell what he has in -order to keep the command of the wise men. He is not to -depend upon the bread, for if he fulfil the command concerning -one cup, he has not fulfilled that respecting the three. Therefore -let him sell what he has, and furnish the expense, until he -<a id='Page_97'></a>procure wine or raisins.” (Arbah Tur. Orach Chaiim, 483.) It -may be replied, that the congregation furnishes those who have -not the means. But what is to become of those who have -displeased the dispensers of the congregation’s bounty, or what -is a Jew to do, who is living alone in the midst of Gentiles, as -is frequently the case, particularly in this country? If he be a -conscientious Rabbinist he must either grieve his conscience by -transgression, or sell what he may not be well able to spare. -The same may also be said of the unleavened cakes. The -Rabbies have given so many directions about the lawful mode -of preparing them, as to make it almost impossible for a Jew, -living at a distance from a congregation, to keep the command, -and to keep the poor in a state of perpetual bondage to -the synagogue, if they wish to be supplied by the bounty of -the congregation.</p> - -<p class='c005'>But if this utter want of consideration for the poor is more -strikingly displayed in the institution and exaction of a second -holy day, where God has required the observance of only -one, as the Rabbies themselves acknowledge in the following -passage:—</p> - -<p class='c005'>ששת ימים האלה שאסרן הכתוב בעשיית מלאכה -שהן ראשון ושביעי של פסח וראשון וח׳ של חג -הסוכות וביום חג השבועות ובאחד לחודש השביעי -הן הנקראים ימים טובים . ושביתת כולן שוה שהן -אסורין בכל מלאכת עבודה חוץ ממלאכה שהיא לצורך -אכילה שנאמר אך אשר יאכל לכל נפש וכו׳ ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“These are the six days on which the Scripture has forbidden -the doing of work. The first and seventh day of Passover: the -first and eighth day of the Feast of Tabernacles: the day of the -Feast of Weeks, and the first day of the seventh month; and -these days are called holy days. The sabbatism of all is alike; -it is unlawful on them to do any manner of work, excepting -that which is necessary for the preparation of food, as it is said, -‘Save that which every man must eat.’ (Exod. xii. 16.)” -(Hilchoth Jom. Tov., c. i. 1.) Here is an express recognition of -what God has commanded. And yet the Scribes were not -content with this ordinance of God, but have appointed the -observance of a second day on all these occasions, and have -annexed the sentence of excommunication to any transgression -of their command.</p> - -<p class='c005'>ואנו שעושים שני ימים טובים כל מה שאסור בראשון -אסור גם בשני , ומנדין עליו למי שמזלזל בו , ואם -הוא צורבא מרבנן אין מחמיריו לנדותו אלא מלקין -אותו ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'><a id='Page_98'></a>“To us, who observe two days, every thing that is forbidden on -the first day, is also forbidden on the second day; and whosoever -makes light of it, is to be excommunicated. But if he be -an acute Talmudist the excommunication is not to be severe, only -he is to be beaten.” (Orach Chaiim, 496.) In the Yad Hachasakah -we find the same severity, and the same exception.</p> - -<p class='c005'>יום טוב שני אף על פי שהוא מדברי סופרים כל -דבר שאסור בראשון אסור בשני . וכל המחלל יום -טוב שני ואפילו של ראש השנה בין בדבר שהוא -משום שבות ובין במלאכה בין שיצא חוץ לתחום -מכין אותו מכת מרדות או מנדין אותו אם לא יהיה -מן התלמידים ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“Although the second holy day is only of the words of the -Scribes, every thing that is forbidden on the first day, is -forbidden on it also. And every one who professes the -second holy day, even that of the new year, whether it be in -a matter relating to the sabbatism, or by work, or by going -beyond the Sabbath limit, is to receive the beating denounced -against rebellion, or to be excommunicated, unless he be a -learned man.” (Hilchoth Jom. Tov., c. i. 24.) The hardship, -oppression, and severity of this ordinance are apparent -at first sight, and are severely felt by many a poor Jew in -this city, who hardly knows how to get bread for himself -and his children. In every case it robs him in one week of -two days, on which God has allowed him to work, and to -endeavour to gain a livelihood. But if the first day of a -festival happen on a Thursday, then that day, Friday, and -Saturday, he dare not do anything to earn the means of -subsistence for his family. Sunday is the Christian Sabbath, -so that in one week four successive days are lost, and in the -following week four more. What, then, is the poor man -to do? If he does not work, his children may starve; if -he makes use of the time allowed him by his merciful God, -and pursues his daily occupations, he transgresses a command -of unmerciful men, and renders himself obnoxious -to his more bigoted brethren. True that they cannot now -beat him with the stripes awarded to the rebellious, and -that they would hardly dare, in the present state of things, -to excommunicate him; yet there are other ways and means -of persecution more secret, but equally sure. But whatever -be the present circumstances, the cruel and oppressive spirit -of the oral law remains the same. If the Rabbinists had -the power, they would soon proceed to excommunicate and -flog all the profaners of the second holy day. We appeal, -then, to the common sense of every Jew, and ask him, What -<a id='Page_99'></a>right have men to rob the poor of that time which God hath -given them? or to sentence a man who only goes to get -bread for his children, and in so doing transgresses none -of God’s commandments, to excommunication or flogging, -especially to that severe species of flogging here specified?</p> - -<p class='c005'>The flogging here spoken of is called מכת מרדות, “the -flogging of rebellion,” and is altogether different from that -merciful punishment prescribed in the law. God says, “And -it shall be, if the wicked man be worthy to be beaten, that -the judge shall cause him to lie down, and to be beaten -before his face, according to his fault by a certain number. -Forty stripes he may give him, and not exceed; lest, if he -should exceed, and beat him above these with many stripes, -then thy brother should seem vile to thee.” (Deut. xxv. 2, 3.) -Here, as everywhere else, in the midst of judgment, God -remembers mercy. The Rabbies, never satisfied unless they -can add to, or diminish from, God’s commandments, have -reduced the number to thirty-nine, lest they should make any -mistake. But to compensate for this diminution, they have -invented “the flogging of rebellion,” which is without number -and without mercy, as may be seen from the following explanation -of the Baal Aruch:—</p> - -<p class='c005'>מי שעובר על מצות עשה שאמר לו עשה סוכה -עשּה לולב ואינו עושה מכין אותו עד שתצא נשמתו -בלא אומד ובלא מכה משולשה וכן מי שעובר על -דברי חכמים מכין אותו בלא מספר ובלא מנין ובלא -אומד ולמה קורון אותו מכת מרדות שמרד בדברי -תורה ובדברי סופרים ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“Whosoever transgresses an affirmative commandment, for -instance, he was commanded to make a tabernacle, or a lulav, -and did not, he is to be beaten until his soul go out, without -any consideration of his strength, and without dividing the -flogging into three. And, in like manner, whosoever transgresses -the words of the wise men, he is to be beaten without -number, and without consideration. Why is this called the -flogging of rebellion? Because he has rebelled against the -words of the law and against the words of the Scribes.” (Baal -Aruch, in voc.) This, then, is the punishment denounced -against those who try to get bread for their children on the -second holy day; a punishment invented by the Rabbies -themselves, not against the immoral or the irreligious, but -against the transgressors of their own commandments. What -could have been the spirit, the temper, the religious feeling of -such men? Had they any perception of the merciful character -of the law, or any resemblance to the compassionate nature of -the God of Israel? Can you put any confidence in the religious -<a id='Page_100'></a>instruction of those who would excommunicate or flog a fellow-creature -to death because he obeyed the instincts of nature, -because he could not stay at home and listen to the cries of his -famishing children, but went forth, to procure them food in -the manner, and on the day which God had permitted him to -do so? These are the men who condemned Jesus of Nazareth -to death, and this is the religion of the oral law, which you -prefer to the mild and merciful doctrines of Christianity. If -Rabbinism had continued in its power, you would have been -exposed to all the severity of this intolerance. The triumph of -Christianity has, in this respect, also been a blessing to the -Jewish nation, and the power of the followers of Jesus of -Nazareth protects you from excommunication and corporal -chastisement.</p> - -<p class='c005'>The cruelty and hardship of the imposition of a second holy -day, with such a punishment annexed appears not only from -the circumstance of its being altogether a human institution, -but further, that the original object of its institution has long -since ceased. The Scribes appointed the observance of two -days at a time, when the feast-days were fixed by the appearance -of the moon, lest those at a distance from Jerusalem -should keep a wrong day, but now that they are fixed by -calculation, this is altogether unnecessary.</p> - -<p class='c005'>בזמן הזה שאין שם סנהדרים ובית דין של ארץ -ישראל קובעין על חשבון זה היה מן הדין שיהיו -בכל המקומות עושין יום טוב אחד בלבד אפילו -המקומות הרחוקות שבחוץ לארץ כמו בני ארץ -ישראל שהכל על חשבון אחד סומכין וקובעין אבל -תקנת חכמים הוא שיזהרו במנהג אבותיהם שבידם ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“In the present time, when there is no Sanhedrin, nor house -of judgment in the land of Israel, the feasts are fixed by -calculation, and therefore all places, even those that are remote -from the land of Israel, ought properly to observe only one day -as a holy day, as well as the inhabitants of that country, for all -depend on and fix the feast by one and the same calculation; -but it is an ordinance of the wise men to adhere diligently to -the custom of their forefathers.” (Hilchoth Kiddush Hachodesh, -c. v. 5.) There is, therefore, no excuse for this burden imposed -upon the poor, and much less for the cruel punishments, -denounced against those who cease to observe what is confessedly -an useless custom. How different is the doctrine of -Christianity with respect to such days. No excommunication, -no flogging, no imposing of burdens upon the consciences of -our brethren. The New Testament condemns even all rash -judgment in such matters. It says, “Who art thou, that -<a id='Page_101'></a>judgeth another man’s servant? To his own master he standeth -or falleth. Yea he shall be holden up, for God is able to make -him stand. One man esteemeth one day above another; -another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully -persuaded in his own mind. He that regardeth the day, -regardeth it to the Lord; and he that regardeth not the day, -to the Lord he doth not regard it. He that eateth, eateth to -the Lord, for he giveth God thanks; and he that eateth not, to -the Lord he eateth not, and giveth God thanks. For none of -us liveth to himself, and no man dieth to himself. For -whether we live, we live onto the Lord, and whether we die, -we die unto the Lord; whether we live, therefore, or die, we -are the Lord’s.” (Rom. xiv. 2-8.) Here is the spirit of love -and mercy, and therefore the spirit of God. How is it, then, -that Jesus and his disciples were able to overcome the prejudices -of their times, and to stem the torrent of authority and -learning, which was altogether in favour of the opposite -opinions? How is it, if they were impostors and deceivers -that they have left a tolerant and merciful system, whilst the -Scribes and Pharisees, who, according to that supposition, were -the true servants of God, have left a religion of oppression and -cruelty? “Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men -gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Even so every good -tree bringeth forth good fruit, and every evil tree bringeth forth -evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither -can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.” (Matt. vii. 16-18.) -This is certainly true in nature. Now the Pharisees have -brought forth evil fruit, Jesus of Nazareth and his disciples -have brought forth good fruit. What is the conclusion from -such premises?</p> - -<p class='c005'>But we have hitherto spoken only generally of the Institution -of a second holy day, we have yet to consider the details -of the commandment, which will show still more clearly that -“The Scribes and Pharisees bind heavy burdens, and grievous -to be borne, and lay them on other men’s shoulders.” (Matt. -xxiii. 4.) They are, as usual, most exact in defining what is -and is not work. They say,</p> - -<p class='c005'>כל שאסור בשבת בין משום שהוא דומה למלאכה -או מניא לידי מלאכה בין שהוא משום שבות הרי -הוא אסור ביום טוב אלא אם כן היה צורך אכילה -וכיוצא בה . או דברים שהם מותרים ביום טוב כמו -שיתבאר בהלכות אלו . וכל שאסור לטלטלו בשבת -אסור לטלטלו ביום טוב אלא לצורך אכילה וכיוצא -בה וכל שמותר בשבת מותר ביום טוב ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“Every thing that is unlawful on the Sabbath, either because -<a id='Page_102'></a>it has the appearance of work, or because it leads to work, or on -account of sabbatising, is unlawful on a holy day, unless it be -necessary for the preparation of food, and the like, or such -things as are allowed on the holy day, as will be explained in -these constitutions. And every thing that it is unlawful to -move on the Sabbath, is also unlawful to be moved on the holy -day, unless it be necessary for food: and every thing that is -lawful on the Sabbath is lawful on a holy day.” (Hilchoth -Jom. Tov., c. i. 17.) This law effectually ties up the hands of -the poor Rabbinist. He not only dare not pursue his trade, -but he dare not make any domestic arrangement, that might -promote order in his house, or conduce to his comfort. He -must not write a letter to his friends, nor even extinguish a -fire, though it be to save his property.</p> - -<p class='c005'>אף על פי שהותרה הבערה ביום טוב שלא לצורך -אסור לכבות את האש אפילו הובערה לצורך אכילה , -אהכבוי מלאכה ואין בו צורך אכילה כלל , וכשם -שאין מכבין את האש כך אין מכבין את המר ואם -כבה לוקה במי שארג או בנה ... אין מכבין את -הדליקה כדי להציל ממון ביום טוב כדרך שאין -מכבין בשבת אלא מניחה ויוצא ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“Although it has been pronounced lawful to kindle fire on the -holy day, even where not absolutely necessary, yet it is unlawful -to extinguish fire, even though it had been kindled for the -preparation of food; for the extinguishing of fire is work, and -is not at all necessary for the dressing of food. And as fire is not -to be extinguished, so neither is a candle to be extinguished -and whosoever extinguishes is to be flogged, just as he that -weaves or builds.... Fire is not to be extinguished, -in order to save property on a holy day, no more than on -the Sabbath. On the contrary, one lets it burn and goes -away.” (Ibid., c. iv. 2, 4.) In the Arbah Turim this law -is laid down with still more precision.</p> - -<p class='c005'>אסור לכבות את הדליקה ביום טוב אפילו רואה -את ביתו שנשרף . אסור לכבות הבקעת בין אם מכבה -מפני שחס עליה שלא תשרף בין אם מכבה שלא -תתעשן הקדרה . ודוקא כשאפשר לו להצילה מעישון -בלא כבוי כגון שיסירנה מאש זה ויתננה על אש אחר -אבל אם אין לו אש אחר ואם לא יכבנה תתעשן -הקדרה מותר לכבותה כדי שלא תתעשן הקדרה ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“It is unlawful to extinguish fire on a holy day, even though a -man should see his house burning. It is unlawful to extinguish -split wood, either for the sake of saving it from being burned, -<a id='Page_103'></a>or to keep a pot from being smoked, that is to say, if he can -keep it from being smoked without extinguishing the fire, as -by removing it from one fire to another. But if he has not got -another fire, and if the pot must be smoked unless he extinguish -it, then the extinguishing is lawful, that the pot may not be -smoked.” (Orach Chaiim, 514.) Now we put it to the common -sense of every Jew, whether in these laws there be justice, -mercy, and religion; or hardship, inconsideration, and absurdity?</p> -<div class='chapter'> - <h2 id='chap14' class='c003'>No. XIV. <br /> SEVERITY AND ARTIFICE.</h2> -</div> -<p class='c004'>The oral law says, as we saw in our last, that, on a holy day, -it is unlawful to extinguish a fire in order to save a man’s house -and property, but that it is lawful, on the same day, to do the -very same thing to keep a pot of cookery from being smoked. -This sentence may perhaps appear wise and pious to those who -have got more houses than one, or the means of procuring -them; but with respect to the poor man, who in such a case -loses his all, and must see his family left without a roof over -their heads or a bed to lie on, this decision is as cruel as it is -senseless. There is, however, a tyranny more dreadful than that -which affects only the temporal condition of men. The spiritual -despotism, which burdens and fetters the conscience and -enslaves the soul, is more intolerable still. Under temporal -losses a man’s mind may be supported by a sense of religion; -but when his religion, by the multiplicity and rigour, and -intricacy of its requirements, becomes his tormentor, man is -bereft of his last consolation. The religion of the oral law -appears to us to be of this character, and its enactments with -regard to the holy days will serve to justify this our opinion. -We have seen already, that it requires two days’ cessation from -business, where God requires only one, and that the general rule -is, Whatsoever is unlawful on the Sabbath, is unlawful on the -holy day, with one exception. The Scribes, however, were not -content with this, they have contrived to invent something, -which, though lawful on the Sabbath, is on these days unlawful. -They say, that there is a certain class of things, which, if not -deliberately destined the day before for the use of the holy day, -are unlawful. To this class they give the name of מוקצה -<i>Muktzeh</i>, which literally signifies “separated or cut off,” but -<a id='Page_104'></a>which, for shortness’ sake and for want of a better word in -English, we shall call “<i>undestined</i>.”</p> - -<p class='c005'>ויש ביום טוב מה שאין בשבת איסור מוקצה -שהמוקצה אסור ביום טוב ומותר בשבת מפני שיום -טוב קל משבת אסרו בו המוקצה שמא יבואו לזלזל בו ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“There is on the holy day one thing which is not found on the -Sabbath, and that is, the forbidding of the <i>undestined</i>, for the -<i>undestined is</i> unlawful on the holy day, and is lawful on the -Sabbath. Because the holy day is less sacred than the Sabbath, -they forbade the <i>undestined</i> on that day, lest persons should be -led to make light of it.” (Hilchoth Jom. Tov. c. i. 17.)</p> - -<p class='c005'>כיצד תרנגולת העומדת לגדל ביצים ושור הצומד -לחרישה ויוני שובך ופירות העומדין לסחורה כל -אלו וכיוצא בהן מוקצה הן ואסור לאכול מהן ביום -טוב עד שיכין אותה מבערב ויחשוב עליהם לאכילה ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“For instance, a hen that is kept for the purpose of hatching -eggs, and an ox that is kept for ploughing, pigeons in a pigeon -house, and fruits that are kept for sale, all these and the like -are <i>undestined</i>, and it is unlawful to eat of them on a holy day, -unless a man destine them on the eve preceding, and form an -intention to eat them.” (Ibid.) By this law a numerous class of -things is forbidden, which God has no where forbidden, and -fresh chains are forged for the conscience. An unlearned man -can hardly tell what does or does not belong to the class, and if -he be in doubt must first go to the rabbi, before he can eat or -make use of any thing doubtful; for this definition extends not -only to eatables, but to other things, as for instance, fuel. -Suppose, for example, that a man or a family had eaten nuts or -almonds on the eve of the holy day, is it lawful or unlawful to -burn the shells on the holy day itself? The Word of God -leaves the Jew at perfect liberty to do as he pleases, but the -oral law tells him that he may by doing either commit a great -sin. If he cannot resolve his scruples in this matter, he must -be content to go to the rabbi or some learned man, and submit -to his decision, and thus every unlearned and devout Jew is -brought into complete captivity to the decisions of the learned. -Another very similar law, and tending to the same bondage, is -that which makes any thing that is born or comes into existence -on the holy day, unlawful.</p> - -<p class='c005'>וכשם שהמוקצה אסור ביום טוב כך הנולד אסור . -חול מכין לשבת וחול מכין ליום טוב אבל אין יום -טוב מכין לשבת ולא שבת מכינה ליום טוב . לפיכך -ביצה שנולדה ביום טוב אחר השבת אסורה ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'><a id='Page_105'></a>“And as the undestined is unlawful on the holy day, so also -what is born is unlawful. On a common day a man may -destine things for the Sabbath, and also for the holy day. But -on a holy day things may not be destined for the Sabbath, -nor on the Sabbath for the holy day, therefore an egg that is -laid on the holy day after the Sabbath is unlawful.” (Ibid.) -Now not to speak of the minute trifling of this law, there are -cases where it may become very oppressive. Suppose that by -some means an unlawful egg should get amongst a number of -lawful eggs, they would all become unlawful.</p> - -<p class='c005'>ואפילו נתערבה באלף כולן אסורות ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“Yea, though it should be mixed up amongst a thousand, -they are all unlawful.” It is true that the rabbies endeavour -to guard against such on accident, by forbidding the removal -of such an egg on the holy day; but a Gentile or a child -might, through inadvertently putting such an egg amongst -others, produce great inconvenience or even loss, and to this -the poor man must submit, or burden his conscience with a -wilful transgression. But this law forbidding to eat or -move whatsoever comes into existence on the holy day extends -beyond the class of eatables. Wood accidentally broken -on this day belongs to this class, and it is therefore unlawful -to use it as fuel, or to move it. In like manner, ashes of -wood that has been burnt on the holy day, is considered -as having come into existence, and it is a sin to move it, -when once it has cooled. And again, if a fire should go out -on the holy day, it is a grave question whether the fuel that -remains may be kindled again.</p> - -<p class='c005'>Thus the conscience is burdened with definitions of unlawful, -but the directions about things lawful are quite as -numerous and perplexing. For instance, it is lawful to make -a fire on a holy day, and to put on the pot for cooking, -but an unlearned man or woman may commit a sin in the -mode of doing it, and, therefore, the Baal Turim says,</p> - -<p class='c005'>כשעושה האש ונותן עליה קדירה צריך ליזהר -בסדור העצים ובנתינת הקדירה עליהם שלא יהיה -דומה לבנין דאמר רב יהודה מדורתא מלמעלה -למטה שרי , ממטה למעלה אסור ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“When one makes a fire and puts on a pot, it is necessary -to be very careful in the arranging of the wood, and the mode -of setting the pot upon it, so that there should be no resemblance -to budding, for Rav Judah has said, every pile -of wood begun from the top to the bottom is lawful, from the -bottom to the top is unlawful.” (Orach Chaiim, 502.) For -<a id='Page_106'></a>this reason very minute directions are given for the performance -of each of these operations. The fire is to be made -in the following manner:—</p> - -<p class='c005'>העושה מדורה ביום טוב כשהוא עורך את העצים -אינו מניח זה על זה עד שיסדר המערכה מפני -שנראה כבונה . ואף על פי שהוא בנין עראי אסור -אלא או שופך העצים בערבוב או עורך בשנוי . כיצד -מניח עץ למעלה ומניח אחר תחתיו ואחר תחתיו -עד שהוא מגיע לארץ ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“He that makes a pile of fire on a holy day, when he is -arranging the wood, is not to lay one piece upon another, -so as to make an orderly arrangement, for that looks as if -he were building; and although it be an accidental building -it is unlawful. But either he is to scatter the wood in confusion, -or to arrange them with some variation. How so? -He is to lay one piece at the top, and another piece under it, -and another under that, until it reaches the ground.” (Hilchoth -Jom. Tov. c. iv. 14.) In like manner the pot is not -to be placed upon stones, or whatever else is to support it, -but is to be held up, and the support placed under it; and -so with other things. The great principle is, that some -difference is to be made between the work done on the holy -day and on a common day, and therefore in the carrying -of wine, or wood, or other things, they are not to be carried -in a basket, nor as usual, but on the shoulder or in some extraordinary -way. Now, as the speculations of men who had -not much to do, or who chose to devote the powers that God -had given them to such minutiæ, these things hardly appear -as harmless; but when imposed as a burden upon the consciences -of others, they are utterly unjustifiable, and if they -were found in the New Testament, they would furnish -abundant matter for Jewish wit and ridicule. They would -naturally say, what, is this the religion that the Messiah -came to teach? Had he nothing better to do than to look -after the making of fires, and the putting on of pots? But -this is not the religion of Jesus of Nazareth, nor of his -apostles. There is nothing similar in the New Testament. -This is the religion, and these the laws of those who reject -him.</p> - -<p class='c005'>But this system of minute legislation has another and a -worse consequence; it leads to difficulty, and the difficulty -leads to artifice, and thus the mind, instead of being improved -and benefited, is actually corrupted by the practice -of this rabbinical religion. Thus the oral law says, that it -is unlawful on a holy day to cook food for the following day, -<a id='Page_107'></a>especially to a common day, but that if any of the food -remain it is lawful. What is the consequence? Naturally -that more food is prepared than is necessary for the holy day -because they know that this may be eaten the day after. -And this is no imaginary deduction of ours, it is a case propounded -most fully, and allowed by the rabbies.</p> - -<p class='c005'>ממלאה אשה קדירה בשר אף על פי שאינה צריכה -אלא לחתיכה אחת . ממלא נחתום הבית של מים אף -על פי שאינו צריך אלא לקיתון אחד . ממלאה אשה -תנור פת אף על פי שאינה צריכה אלא לככר אחד -שבזמן שהפת מרובה בתנור היא נאפת יפה . ומולח -אדם כמה חתיכות בשר בבת אחת אף על פי שאינו -צריך אלא לחתיכה אחת וכן כל כיוצא בזה ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“A woman may fill a pot with meat, though she wants only -one piece. A cook may fill a boiler with water, though he -wants only the least quantity. A woman may fill an oven -with bread, though she want only one loaf, for when the -oven is full, the bread bakes better. A man may salt a -great many pieces of meat at once, although he require -only one piece; and so with similar things.” (Hilchoth -Jom. Tov. c. i. 10.) Now this is plainly an evasion of what -is considered a Divine command. In like manner the oral -law forbids the preparing of food for Gentiles.</p> - -<p class='c005'>אין אופין ומבשלין ביום טוב כדי להאכיל גוים או -כלבים שנאמר הוא לבדו יעדו יעשה לכם לכם ול לגוים -לכם ולא לכלבים ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“It is unlawful to bake or to cook on a holy day, in order -to feed Gentiles or dogs; for it is said, ‘That only may be -done for you.’ (Exod xii. 16.) ‘For you,’ and not for -Gentiles. ‘For you,’ and not for dogs.” (Ibid.) The -principle of this decision may lead to several difficulties: -first, a Jew may have Gentiles in his employ and service -whom he boards, what is he to do then? This difficulty he -may get over in the manner just mentioned, by having more -cooked than he wants, then it is lawful for the Gentile to -eat of the surplus. But suppose a Gentile and a Jew had -a beast in partnership, and either wished to have it -slaughtered on the holy day, is it lawful for a Jew to -slaughter it? According to the above decision, it would -appear not, for it is preparing food to feed a Gentile; but -the rabbies have found out a reason for evading the command.</p> - -<p class='c005'>בהמה שחציה של גוי וחציה של ישראל מותר -לשחטו ביום טוב שאי אפשר לאכול ממנה כזית בשר -בלא שחיטה ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'><a id='Page_108'></a>“A beast which partly belongs to a Gentile and partly to -an Israelite, may lawfully be slaughtered on a holy day, for -it is impossible to eat the size of an olive of the meat, if -it be not slaughtered by a Jew.” (Ibid.) This, also, is -nothing more nor less than an evasion. But now suppose -that a Jew finds on a holy day, and after he has eaten -his meals, that a beast belonging to him is likely to die, -and that therefore he is likely to lose it altogether, what -is he to do? The oral law lays it down that it is unlawful -to slaughter for the following day, and yet if it die without -slaughtering, it must be totally unlawful to eat. In this -case there is a saving clause which removes the difficulty.</p> - -<p class='c005'>מי שהיתה לו בהמה מסוכנת לא ישחוט אותה -ביום טוב אלא אם כן יודע שיוכל לאכול ממנה -כזית צלי מבעוד יום , כדי אלא ישחוט ביום טוב -מה שיאכל בחול ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“He that has a beast near unto death must not slaughter it on -a holy day, unless he knows that he can eat of its flesh the size -of an olive, roasted, whilst it is still day, that he may not -slaughter on a holy day what is to be eaten on a common day.” -(Ibid.) Here the evasion is palpable. The man has already eaten -his meals, he knows that it is not for the holy day, that it is -simply to save himself from loss, and yet the oral law obliges -him to be guilty of deceit, and to eat a minute particle of it, that -the appearance may be kept up. If it were intended mercifully -to save the poor from loss, why not make it lawful at once, -without any such condition? Here the mercy of the enactment -is quite destroyed by the encouragement of deceit. In the same -way the oral law forbids open, straightforward buying and -selling on a holy day, and yet prescribes a method of evasion.</p> - -<p class='c005'>לא יאמר אדם לטבח תן לי בדינר בשר אלא תן -לי חלק או חצי חלק ולמחר עושין השבון אל שוויו ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“A man must not say to a butcher, Give me meat for so much -money, only, Give a portion, or half a portion, and on the -morrow they settle the account as to its value.” (Ibid. c. iv. 20.)</p> - -<p class='c005'>הולך אדם אצל חנוני או רועה הרגיל אצלו או -אצל הפטם הרגיל אצלו ולוקח ממנו בהמות ועופות -וכל מה שירצה והוא שלא יזכור לו שום דמים ולא -סכום מנין ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“A man may go to his accustomed shopkeeper, or shepherd, or -grazier, and take from him cattle, fowls, and whatsoever he -pleases; only he must not mention to him any money, nor any -number.” (Ibid.) To take any thing from a shopkeeper by -<a id='Page_109'></a>weight or measure is also forbidden, if it be done openly and -honestly, but allowed if it be done cunningly and deceitfully.</p> - -<p class='c005'>וכן לא יקח מבעל החנות במדה או במשקל אלא -כיצד הוא עושה אומר לחנוני מלא לי כלי זה ולמחר -נותן לו שוויו ואפילו היה כלי המיוחד למדה ימלאנו -והוא שלא יזכור לו שם מדה ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“And thus a man must not take any thing from a shopkeeper -by weight or measure, only let him say to the shopkeeper, Fill -this vessel for me; and on the morrow he gives him the value. -And even though the vessel should be one set apart for the -purpose of measuring, he may fill it, provided that the name of -a measure be not mentioned.” (Ibid.) In all these cases it is -plain that a real transaction of buying and selling takes place, -and on the showing of the rabbies themselves, contrary to the -Word of God. Those men who would flog a fellow-creature -for not keeping their own commandment of a second holy day, -make no scruple of devising and prescribing a system of -fraudulent evasion of God’s commands. Perhaps some may -think that we use too strong language when we apply the -words cunning and deceit to those devices of the oral law, but -this language was suggested by the oral law itself, which does -not scruple to use similar words, and to pronounce that, in -similar cases, cunning or deceit is lawful.</p> - -<p class='c005'>אותו ואת בנו שנפלו לבור מעלה את הראשון על -מנת לשחטו ואינו שוחטו . ומערים ומעלה את השני -על מנת לשחטו ושוחט אי זה מהן שירצה משום -צער בעלי חיים התירו להערים ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“If a first-born beast and its offspring fall into a pit, the first -is to be helped out on condition of slaughtering it, but it is not -slaughtered. Then guile is to be used, and the second also -helped out on condition of slaughtering it, and then they -slaughter which of the two they please. On account of the -affliction of the animals, it has been pronounced lawful to use -guile.” (Ibid. c. ii.) Here the oral law speaks plainly, it fairly -says that guile may be used. It is no defence to say, that this -guile was suggested by compassion for the animals. If it be -lawful to help the animals out of the pit at all, it is lawful to do -it without any guile, openly and honestly. And if it be -unlawful to help them out, it is doubly unlawful to do so -through guile and deceit, as if God was ignorant of the -thoughts and designs of their hearts, and could be satisfied with -false and fictitious conditions. But there is another case, where -this same word is also used, and where the excuse of compassion -is altogether out of the question.</p> - -<p class='c005'><a id='Page_110'></a>המפשיט עור בהמה ביום טוב לא ימלחנו שזה -עיוד הוא ונמצא עושה מלאכה שלא לצורך אכילה ... -ומותר למלוח בשר לצלי על גבי העור ומערימים -בדבר זה . כיצד מולח מעט בשר מכאן ומעט מכאן -עד שימלח העור כולו ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“He that takes off the hide of a beast on a holy day, must not -salt it, for this is work, and he would be guilty of doing work -that is not necessary for the preparation of food.... But it -is lawful to salt meat for roasting on the top of the hide, and in -this matter guile is employed. How so? Thus. A little meat -is salted on one part, and then a little on another part, until the -whole hide be salted.” (Ibid. c. iii. 4.) Here no defence -whatever can be offered. The oral law confesses that to salt a -hide is unlawful, its compilers therefore set to work to find out -a method of doing what was forbidden, and yet have the -appearance of keeping the law, and they sagaciously discovered -the above solution of the difficulty. Thus the law of God is -made null by the traditions of men. The commandments of -the Scribes are enforced by flogging and excommunication, but -full permission given to violate God’s commands, if only an -appearance of obedience can be preserved. No wonder that -Jesus of Nazareth, whose characteristic is mildness and gentleness, -used such harsh language to the authors of this system. -His general address to them was, “Woe unto you, Scribes and -Pharisees, hypocrites.” They professed the utmost anxiety to -have the law of God observed. This was the professed object -of their commandments. They were invented as a hedge to -keep off every Israelite from even an approach to transgression; -and they enforced the observance of this defence by the severest -punishments. But where the law of God interfered with their -worldly interest, their profit or their gain, they fearlessly made -void the law, and inculcated a system of guile and evasion. -And this is perhaps the most deadly element in the Talmudic -potion. The human heart is ever ready to imbibe what is bad, -and the human mind most quick in generalizing the principles -of evil. The only efficient remedy for this disease of head and -heart is the inculcation of those pure and holy principles, which -God has graciously revealed. But when these principles are -themselves adulterated, and a system of guileful evasion -taught as the religion of Moses and the prophets, what are the -results to be expected? The cruel oppression of the poor is -bad enough. The enslaving the consciences of the weak is -worse; but the corrupting the minds of the simple by such -pernicious doctrines, is the worst of all. Yet this is the work -of the Jewish religion, as taught in the oral law, and as -recognized in the prayers of the synagogue. We do not mean -<a id='Page_111'></a>to say that there is anything peculiar in the system. We -know that the Provincial Letters develop a Gentile system as -corrupt and corrupting. But that system has nothing to do -with the Christianity of the New Testament. Our forefathers -renounced it long ago. The Jews still adhere to the oral law, -and in their prayers and observances still acknowledge its -Divine authority; and wherever Judaism exists in vigour, -these are the doctrines instilled into the minds of the young, -and to which the flower of the Jewish nation devote the vigour -of their manhood and the judgment of their old age. That there -are Jews who abhor this system, and have adopted the purer -principles of the New Testament, even though they do not -profess Christianity, we well know. But how is it that there -are none who have courage to protest against it? How is it -that there is not one who comes forward to emancipate his -brethren from moral slavery and the galling chain of superstition -and error? “There is none to guide her among all the -sons whom she hath brought forth: neither is there any that -taketh her by the hand of all the sons that she hath brought -up.” (Isaiah li. 18.)</p> -<div class='chapter'> - <h2 id='chap15' class='c003'>No. XV. <br /> SABBATH MIXTURE.</h2> -</div> -<p class='c004'>In discussing the substance and tendency of the oral law, the -very nature of our design compels us to dwell upon its peculiarities, -and to notice those traits which appear as its essential -characteristics. Our object is not, primarily, to show its defects -and fruits, but to prove that it is not of Divine authority. In -proving this, it is absolutely necessary to show, by a comparison -with the law and the prophets, as the unerring standard of -right and wrong, that the system is bad. We know, and have -more than once admitted, that as it is not a mere human -invention, but a corruption of a divinely revealed religion, -it must contain much that is good. But this admission no more -justifies the system, than a small quantity of gold in a mixed -metal would prove that the whole mass is gold. And this -comparison may be well illustrated by the holy day constitutions, -which have lately occupied our attention. The -concluding paragraph of these constitutions contains several -beautiful and pious precepts; as, for example, after the -<a id='Page_112'></a>command to rejoice on such days, and to provide nuts and -such-like things for the children, new clothes and ornaments -for the women, and good eating and drinking for the men, we -read as follows:—</p> - -<p class='c005'>וכשהוא אוכל ושותה חייב להאכיל לגר ליתום -ולאלמנה עם שאר העניים אבל מי שנועל דלתי ביתו -ואוכל ושותה עם בניו ואשתו ואינו מאכיל ומשקה -לעניים ולמרי נפש אין זו מצוה אלא שמחת כרסו -ועל אלו נאמר זבחיהם כלחם אונים להם כל אוכליו -יטמאו כי לחמם לנפשם וגו׳ ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“And when he eats and drinks, he is bound to feed the stranger, -the orphan, and the widow, with the other poor. But he that -bolts the doors of his house, and eats and drinks with his -children and his wife, but does not furnish meat and drink to the -poor and afflicted, is not to be regarded as having fulfilled the -commandment; on the contrary, his joy is that of a glutton, -and of such persons it is said, ‘Their sacrifices shall be unto -them as the bread of mourners; all that eat thereof shall be -polluted: for their bread for their soul shall not come into the -house of the Lord.’ (Hos. ix. 4.)” (Arbah Turim, 529.) This -makes a merciful provision for the poor, and as teaching all -who partake of the good things of this world to remember their -poorer brethren, is worthy of praise and imitation. We know -also that this charity is practised by all devout Jews in every -part of the world, and that they are on this account entitled to -the respect of all who can appreciate benevolence. But the -reason why every believer in revelation will approve this -commandment is, because it accords with the Word of God. -Moses has made this precept a part of his law: “The stranger, -and the fatherless, and the widow, which are within thy gates, -shall come, and shall eat and be satisfied; that the Lord thy -God may bless thee in all the work of thine hand which thou -doest.” (Deut. xiv. 29.) And in the New Testament there is -found a similar command: “When thou makest a dinner or a -supper, call not thy friends, nor thy brethren, neither thy -kinsmen nor thy rich neighbours; lest they also bid thee again, -and a recompense be made thee. But when thou makest a -feast, call the poor, the maimed, the lame, the blind; and thou -shalt be blessed; for they cannot recompense thee; for thou -shalt be recompensed at the resurrection of the just.” (Luke xiv. -12-14). But excellent as this rabbinical commandment is in -itself, it loses considerably when interpreted according to the -system. A person acquainted only with the law of Moses, or -the doctrine of Jesus of Nazareth, would say, that one of the -most lovely features in the command is the universal love -<a id='Page_113'></a>inculcated towards the stranger as well as the Israelites. But -an acquaintance with the oral law would compel him to retract -this commendation, for there universally the stranger is -interpreted to mean, “a proselyte to Judaism,” as for instance—</p> - -<p class='c005'>אהבת הגר שבא ונכנס תחת כנפי השכינה שתי -מצוות עשה , אחת מפני שהוא בכלל רעים , ואחת -מפני שהוא גר והתורה אמרה ואהבתם את הגר ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“To love the stranger who comes, and is gathered under the -wings of the Shechinah, is to fulfil two affirmative precepts; -one, because he is included in the number of those considered -‘neighbours,’ and a second, because the law says, ‘Ye shall -love the stranger.’” (Hilchoth Deoth, c. vi. 4.) Here, then, -that comprehensive word “stranger” is narrowed down to the -signification “religious proselyte,” and abundance of similar -passages have already been given in Nos. 4 and 5. But even -with this great drawback we admit that there is much to -be commended in the above commandment. We are quite -willing to recognize all the good which we can, and therefore -add another passage or two which deserve notice.</p> - -<p class='c005'>מדת החסידים אשר השם לנגדם תמיד ובכל -דרכיהם ידעוהו בעת שמחתם אז יותר ויותר מברכים -ומשבחים להקב׳׳ה אשר שמחם . ויאמר האדם בלבו -בעת שמחתו והנאתו אם כך היא שמחת העולם הזה -אשר הוא הבל כי יש אחרים תוגה וצער אם כן מה -תהיה שמחת העה׳׳ב התמידה שאין אחריה תוגה ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“It is a characteristic of the pious, who set the Lord always -before them, and in all their ways acknowledge him, that in the -time of their joy they multiply still more the blessings and -praises of the Holy One, blessed be He, who makes them -to rejoice. At such a season, too, a man ought to think, if -such be the joy of this world, which is vanity, for it is -followed by sorrow and trouble, what will be the joy of the -world to come, which is everlasting, and to which no sorrow -can succeed.” (Arbah Turim, ibid.) This passage also, as -resting upon the unsophisticated Word of God, must receive -unqualified assent. The character of the pious is here -beautifully described by the union of two passages of -Scripture. They are those “who set the Lord always before -them,” (Ps. xvi. 8,) and who “in all their ways acknowledge -him.” (Prov. iii. 6.) God grant that all, both Jews -and Christians, may earnestly endeavour to realize this -character. The piety of this passage is equalled by the -prudence of one of their police regulations for the three -great feasts.</p> - -<p class='c005'><a id='Page_114'></a>חייבין ב׳׳ד להעמיד שוטרים ברגלים שיהיו שוטטים -ומחפשים בגנות ופרדסים ועל הנהרות שלא יתקבצו -שם לאכול ולשתות אנשים ונשים ויבואו לידי עבירה ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“The tribunal is bound, at the three feasts, to appoint officers -for the purpose of going about and inspecting gardens, and -parks, and rivers, that men and women may not congregate in -such places to eat and drink, and be led to commit sin.” If -the authors of the oral law had confined themselves to such -commandments as these, there would be but little to blame. -But unfortunately the good and useful precepts bear but a -small proportion to the whole, and are often directly counteracted -by the peculiar principles of the system. The above -general description of piety is unexceptionable, but the detail -of the requirements, even for the holy day alone, is such as -must effectually pervert and distort the features there delineated. -How can a man have a just idea of setting the Lord always -before him, who thinks that a cunning evasion of God’s -commandments is permitted, as was shown in the last number? -Or how can a man be said to acknowledge God, when his mind -is filled and occupied with the manifold and perplexing ceremonies -of man’s institution? Of these inventions many have -already been given, but more remain, and the Jewish Prayer-book -for the passover especially reminds us of one.</p> - -<p class='c005'>דיני עירוב תבשילין ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“The laws of the mixture for the cooking of victuals.” This -oral law has made it unlawful on the holy day to prepare food -for the Sabbath.</p> - -<p class='c005'>יום טוב שחל להיות ערב שבת אין אופין ומבשלין -ביום טוב מה שהוא אוכל למחר בשבת ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“When a holy day falls on the eve of the Sabbath, it is -unlawful to bake or to cook on that day what is to be eaten on -the morrow, <i>i.e.</i> on the Sabbath.” (Hilchoth Jom. Tov. c. vi. -1.) This law may of course create a great inconvenience, for -if nothing remains after the meals of the holy day, there will -be no food for the Sabbath, and on that day the law of Moses -forbids all cooking. And, strange to say, the evasion which is -allowed at other times is here forbidden. A man is not permitted -to cook a surplus of victuals under the pretence that it is for -the holy day. Another and more solemn mode of evasion has -been invented, and is thus prescribed in the Jewish Prayer-book—</p> - -<p class='c005'>אם חל ערב פסח ביום ד׳ אז צריכין לעשות ערוב -תבשילין קרדם י׳׳ט . וכך מעשהו . לוקחין מצה שלימה -<a id='Page_115'></a>וכזית תבשיל או בשר או ביצה צלויה ומניחין אותה -על המצה . ובעל הבית וכו׳ ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>Of which D. Levi gives the following translation, which -though not very literal, is preferable to a new one, as occurring -in an authorized edition of the Jewish prayers:—</p> - -<p class='c005'>“If the first day of the festival happens on the Thursday, -the following ceremony is observed. On the day preceding -the festival, the master of every family takes a whole cake and -a piece of meat, fish, or a roasted egg; and having delivered -them to one standing by, to denote that all the other Jews in -the city that may have forgotten to make the mixture shall, -nevertheless, have the benefit of the said mixture, so as to be -able to prepare on the festival what is necessary for the -Sabbath, he then says the following:—</p> - -<p class='c005'>ברוך אתה יי אלהינו מלך העולם אשר קדשנו -במצותיו וצונו על מצות ערוב ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>בהדין ערובא יהא שרי לנא למיפא ולבשלא ולאטמנא -ולאדלקא שרגא ולמעבד כל צרכנא מיומא טבא -לשבתא . לנו ולכל ישראל הדרים בעיר הזאת ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“Blessed art thou, O Lord, our God! King of the universe, -who has sanctified us with thy commandments, and commanded -us concerning the mixture.”</p> - -<p class='c005'>“By this mixture it shall be allowable for us to bake, boil, and -to keep the victuals warm: to light up lights, and to do, and -prepare all things necessary, on the festival for the Sabbath; -we, and all Israel that dwell in this city.” (Levi’s Prayers, -vol. v. pp. 4, 5.) Now, against this ceremony several and -serious objections may be made. First, if it be absolutely unlawful -on the holy day to cook for the Sabbath-day, how is the -unlawfulness removed, by going through a trifling ceremony, -and repeating a few words? The cooking is, in the sight of -God, either lawful or unlawful. If lawful, then this ceremony -is utterly useless, and the solemn calling upon God is only -a solemn profanation. If unlawful, then nothing but a -dispensation from Israel’s great lawgiver, God himself, can -make it lawful. Any thing short of this must, by every honest -man, be regarded either as an evasion, or a bold and wilful -transgression. Secondly, the unlawfulness on which this -ceremony is founded, is altogether of man’s making—God has -nowhere forbidden the Jews to prepare for Sabbath on the holy -day. The Scribes have here as elsewhere dared to add to the -law of God.</p> - -<p class='c005'>ואיסר זה מדברי סופרים כדי שלא יבוא לבשל -<a id='Page_116'></a>מיום טוב לחול . שקל וחומר הוא לשבת אינו מבשל -כל שכן לחול ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“This prohibition is of the words of the Scribes, that a -man may not be led to prepare on a holy day for a common -day. For if he feel it unlawful to cook for Sabbath, still more -will he feel this for a common day.” (Hilchoth Jom. Tov. vi. 1.) -Here it is plainly confessed that the prohibition is not from -God but from man. A reason is assigned for this addition, -which is unsatisfactory, and shows that the Scribes thought -the law imperfect, and themselves wiser than God. They -were afraid, if men got into a habit of cooking on the holy -day for the following day, when that day was the Sabbath, -they might get into the habit of cooking generally for the -following day, and thus cook for common days. But did -not God foresee this possibility, and know the frailty of -human nature just as well as the rabbies? why then did -he not take this precaution himself? If this precaution -be absolutely necessary, as it was not given by God, it will -necessarily follow that God did not give that which was -necessary, and therefore that the law of God was imperfect -until it was mended by the rabbies. If the law, as given -by God, be perfect, and who can deny it without blasphemy, -then this precaution of the rabbies is useless, and they are -proved guilty of making additions to the law of God, and -of imposing needless burdens on the consciences of their -brethren. If this ceremony were left to the free will of -every individual, it would be very different, but it is imposed -as an indispensable duty, and a man pronounced a -sinner if he does not comply.</p> - -<p class='c005'>מי שאיפשר לו לערב ואינו מערב אלא שרוצה -לסמוך על עירובו של גדול העיר נקרא פושע ואינו -יוצא בו ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“He who can make the mixture, and does not, but chooses -to depend on the mixture made by the great men of the -city, is called a sinner, and has not fulfilled his duty.” -(Arbah Turim, 527.) Here then his conscience is burdened, -but further, he may be exposed to considerable inconvenience, -to escape from which he is driven again to a prescribed -exercise of artifice and guile.</p> - -<p class='c005'>מי שלא הניח עירוב תבשילין ולא הניחו לו -אחרים כשם שאסור לו לבשל ולאפות כך קמחו -ומאכלו אסור . ואסור לאחר שהניח לעצמו לבשל -ולאפות לזה שלא הניח עד שיקנה לו . שנמצא זה -<a id='Page_117'></a>מבשל ואופה שלו שהרי קנהו ואם רצה יתן אחר -כך לזה שלא הניח במתנה ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“He that has not performed the ceremony of the mixture -for himself, and for whom others have not done it, as it is -unlawful for him to boil or to bake, so his flour and food -are unlawful; and it is unlawful for another, who has -performed the ceremony for himself, to boil and bake for -such an one until he buy for himself. Then he may boil -and bake of his own, for he has bought it, and if he please -may make a present of it to the other.” Here of course -the purchase is fictitious. In like manner it is unlawful -for him to light the Sabbath candle. This would be a -great misfortune, and a learned rabbi has accordingly found -out a remedy of the same kind.</p> - -<p class='c005'>כתב הר׳ מאיר מרוטנבורק שיכול לחפש בחדר -שום חפץ בנר אפילו מבעוד יום ולהניחנו דולק עד -הלילה ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“Rabbi Meyer, of Rothenburg, has said in his writings, -that a man may seek for something in the room by the -light of a candle, yea though it be still day, and then leave -it lighting until night.” (Arbah Turim, 527.) We ask the -Jews seriously to consider this specimen of rabbinical -wisdom and conscientiousness. A man who has not performed -the ceremony of the mixture dare not do what God -has allowed him to do, he dare not light the candle for -Sabbath, that is, if he does it honestly and openly, he -would, according to the oral law, commit a sin. But then -he may do this same thing by using guile and deceit, which -God has forbidden, and then according to these same teachers, -the act is lawful. He may light a candle under pretence -of searching for something, even though he has the daylight, -and therefore evidently does not want it for that -purpose, and then he can leave it lighting. Thus the oral -law teaches that the neglect of a mere human invention is -a greater sin than guile and deceit. Is not this to strain -at a gnat and to swallow a camel? But some Rabbinist -may say, if the oral law encourages guile and deceit, why -does it forbid the employment or guile in the preparation -of food for the Sabbath, as has been stated above? This -is a curious point, and deserves attention. The oral law -says, if food be left after the meals of the holy day, it is -lawful to eat it on the Sabbath, provided that no guile be -used; but if guile be used, it is unlawful. Whereas, if a -man wilfully neglect the ceremony of the mixture, and -cook notwithstanding for the Sabbath he may lawfully -<a id='Page_118'></a>eat what he has prepared. This has at first sight, the -appearance of wishing to discourage guile, but the reasons, -given for this decision, show that this is far from being -the case.</p> - -<p class='c005'>ולמה החמירו ואסרו על המערים ולא אסרו על -המזיד שאם התירו למערים נמצאו הכל מערימיו -וישתקע שם ערובי תבשילין . אבל המזיד אינו מצוי -ואם עבר היום לא יעבור פעם אחרת ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“What is the reason that they were more severe upon him -that used guile than upon the wilful transgressor, and made -it unlawful for the former, but not for the latter? The -reason is this, if they had pronounced it lawful for him -that uses guile, all would use guile, and the very name -of mixture for food would perish. On the other hand, a -wilful transgressor is rare, and if he transgresses to-day, -he will not transgress again.” The employment of guile, -then, is not forbidden because it is odious in the sight of -God and man, but simply from the fear that it might operate -prejudicially upon the observance of a rabbinic command. -Such is and must be the effect of multiplying religious -ceremonies, and imposing them upon the conscience as -necessary to salvation. The conscience becomes burdened, -and beset with difficulties, and is glad of any refuge or relief, -even though it should be derived from artifice and deceit. -Artifice is at last made lawful, or even prescribed, as we -have seen in many instances, and then religion, which God -intended as a remedy for our moral disease, becomes itself -a new source of infection. But if any burdened conscience -should awake and become sensible of the cheat that has -been put upon it by the oral law, the probability is that -it will cast off religion altogether, and mistake Moses too -for a companion or the Scribes and Pharisees; and thus -many a rabbinical Jew has been led to utter infidelity.</p> - -<p class='c005'>But there is still a third objection to be urged against this -ceremony of the mixture, and that is, that it prescribes a form -of thanksgiving to God for appointing that which he never -appointed: “Blessed art thou, O Lord our God! King of the -universe! who has sanctified us with thy commandments, and -commanded us concerning the mixture.” Where has God -commanded the mixture? Where, from one end of the law to -the other, or in the prophets, is there one word about this -ceremony? It is from first to last a pure invention of the -Scribes. God never appointed it. This prayer, then, contains -a positive untruth, and thus the ignorant and unlearned are -deceived, and taught even in the solemn act of public worship -to believe that God has commanded what he never commanded. -<a id='Page_119'></a>The minds of children, too, are thus imbued with the commandments -of men, and taught in the language of prayer to stamp -the divine authority upon the invention of the Scribes and -Pharisees. And this is done not only in the forests of Poland, -or on the uncivilized coasts of Barbary, but here in England. -This ceremony and this prayer are prescribed in the two -editions of the Jewish prayer-book, published by Levi and -Alexander. In this country, where full liberty of conscience -prevails, the language of the synagogue is just the same as in -the darkest and most oppressed regions of the habitable globe. -The Jewish children are still taught to bless God for giving -what he never gave, and the sacred voice of prayer still -consecrates the intolerance, the errors, and the absurdities of -the oral law. In other countries, where the circumstances -were not so favourable, the Jews have made more than one -attempt to renounce and repudiate the errors of the Talmud. -But in England, whether from listlessness or from a love to -these Talmudic doctrines, we do not presume to say, nothing -has been done either by the German or the Portuguese Jews. -In England the Talmud still maintains its empire of error and -uncharitableness, and spiritual tyranny, and not one individual -has dared publicly to protest against it. We ask the Jews -seriously to consider this matter, and to compare the extracts -which we give with Moses and the prophets; if the oral law -agrees with that which is confessedly the Word of God, then -we beg of them to explain the lawfulness of using guile, of -inventing new commandments, and enforcing them with the -severest punishments. But if they decide that these things are -altogether forbidden by God, then we call upon them to protest -aloud against these adulterations of revealed truth.</p> -<div class='chapter'> - <h2 id='chap16' class='c003'>No. XVI.<a id='r17' /><a href='#f17' class='c006'><sup>[17]</sup></a> <br /> INTOLERANCE OF RABBINIC PRAYERS.</h2> -</div> -<p class='c004'>In our last number we ventured to say, that in the English -synagogues “The sacred voice of prayer still consecrates the -intolerance, the errors, and the absurdities of the oral law;” -and we gave an instance in proof of our assertion. But to some -<a id='Page_120'></a>Israelites, who have overlooked the contents of their Prayer-book, -this assertion may require more proof; we therefore, -proceed to give it, and first of all with regard to intolerance. -In the ceremonial for the first two evenings of the Passover, in -the midst of the rejoicings and thanksgivings, which the -memory of their great deliverance naturally calls forth, we -suddenly find the following prayer:—</p> - -<p class='c005'>שפוך חמתך אל הגוים אשר לא ידעוך ואל -ממלכות אשר בשמך לא קראו . כי אכל את יעקב -ואת נוהו השמו . שפוך עליהם זעמך וחרון אפך -ישיגם . תרדף באף ותשמידם מתחת שמי ה׳ ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“Pour out thy wrath upon the heathen that have not known -thee, and upon the kingdoms that have not called upon thy -name. For they have devoured Jacob, and laid waste his -dwelling place. (Psalm lxxix. 6, 7.) Pour out thine indignation -upon them, and let thy wrathful anger take hold of them. -(Psalm lxix. 24.) Persecute them in anger, and destroy them -from under the heavens of the Lord.” (Lament. iii. 66.) Here -are three passages of Scripture, taken from their context, and -joined together to make one prayer. In their context, and -with reference to the times for which those portions of Scripture -were given by God, they are intelligible. After the destruction -of Jerusalem by the Romans, whilst the Jewish mind was still -in a state of violent excitement against the authors of that -calamity, such on imprecation may appear natural. During -the persecutions of the Crusaders or the Inquisition it might be -excusable, but in the present time and circumstances it is -indefensible. Who are the heathen and the kingdoms, whom -the offerers of these petitions wish to be pursued with God’s -wrath, and to be destroyed from under the heavens? Are -they the Christians, or the heathen idolaters of Africa and -India? The Mahometans profess a faith in the Unity very -similar to that of the later rabbies: they, therefore, cannot be -intended. If it be said that the idolatrous heathen are here -intended, we must still protest against the intolerance of this -imprecation; why should the Jews wish for their destruction? -What evil did these poor ignorant people ever do to the Jews -in England, that they should pray for their destruction rather -than their conversion? If it be said, that nobody at all is -intended in the present day, why, we would ask, is it still -made a part of the Passover ceremonial? We have before us -several copies of the Haggadah, some printed very lately, and -it occurs in them all.</p> - -<p class='c005'>If this were the only passage of the kind to be found in -the liturgies of the synagogue, it might perhaps admit of -palliation or excuse, but it is only one of a similar class, all -<a id='Page_121'></a>breathing the same spirit. In the morning service for the -second day of the Passover, as translated by D. Levi, we -find another more fearful still.</p> - -<p class='c005'>ברח דודי אל לבך ועיניך שם , ואם זנחנו טוב -מדשם , אנא שמע שאנת קול צורריך , רוה -מדם גושם , ועפרם מחלב ידשם , ופגיהם יעלה -באשם ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“Hasten, O my beloved, to where thy heart and eyes are; -and though we have cast off that that is good and pleasant, yet -hear the roaring raging voice of those that oppress thy people; -satiate the clods with their blood; manure the earth with their -fat; and let the stench of their carcasses ascend.” (Levi’s -Prayers, vol. 5, fol. 142.) The translation is D. Levi’s, so that -it cannot be said, that the sense has been misrepresented or -distorted for polemical purposes. It is the translation of a -Jew, and of a Jew in England, and the title-page tells us that it -is the second edition “carefully revised and corrected, and -illustrated by Isaac Levi.” The title-page also says, “As read -in their synagogues and used in their families.” Is not this -prayer intolerant? Is there any thing like it in the New -Testament, or in our Christian Prayer-books? And yet we are -told that modern Judaism is more tolerant than Christianity, -and that it teaches charity to all men. Let not the Jews think -that we impute this spirit to the whole nation. No such thing. -This passage is quoted as a specimen of the spirit of the oral law -and its authors, who not only were possessed of this spirit of -resentment, but so overwhelmed with it, as to transfuse it into -their addresses to the God of mercy, and to prescribe it as a -port of the public worship of the congregation. Whenever -introduced, there it still remains, as a testimony to the spirit of -the first opposers of Jesus of Nazareth, and as a portion of the -liturgic service of the synagogue. In these passages, however, -it does not appear what nations are intended; no name or -particular characteristic is given, though the allusion, in the last -quoted prayer, to Isaiah xxxiv., naturally leads the reader to -think of Edom; but in other places a more definite form is -prescribed, from which we find that Edom is the great object -of hatred.</p> - -<p class='c005'>ליל שמורים אל חצה , בחצות לילה בתוך מצרים -כיצא , גבור על אדום יחצנה כחצה ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“God divideth the night of preservation, when in the midst of -the night he went forth through the <i>land</i> of Egypt: may the -mighty God also divide it concerning Edom.” (Levi, ibid. fol. -7.) This is a petition that God would do to Edom as he did -unto Egypt. Again, a little further on we read,</p> - -<p class='c005'><a id='Page_122'></a>פסח חרב חרה על אדום , ביד צח ואדום , כימי -חג פסח ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“On the Passover, a sharp sword shall fall on Edom, by the -hand of him who is white and ruddy, as in the days of the -feast of Passover.” (Ibid. fol. 10.) And so throughout the -prayers there are frequent allusions to this subject, as for -instance—</p> - -<p class='c005'>שם יקרא ככתיבתו , מחציו תתמלא תיבתו , עוד -תתנשא מלכותו , וכסאו תכון במלאתו , נכדי שעיר -בהכותו , באויביו יתן נקמתו ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“Then will his name be pronounced as it is written: when the -other half will complete the word; his dominion also will be -greatly exalted, and his throne be completely established; when -he shall smite the descendants of Esau, and take vengeance -on his enemies.” (Ibid. fol. 214.) But these are sufficient to -show that Edom is the great object of antipathy, and of course -the great question is, whom do the Jews understand by Edom? -Let the most famous of their rabbies instruct us in this matter, -and first let us hear Maimonides:—</p> - -<p class='c005'>אדומים עובדי עכו׳׳ם הם ויום ראשון הוא יום -אידם לפיכך אסור לשאת ולתת עמהם בא׳׳י יום -חמישי ויום ששי שבכל שבת ושבת ואצ׳׳ל יום ראשון -עצמו שהוא אסור בכל מקום ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“The Edomites are idolaters, and the first day of the week is -the day of their festival; therefore it is forbidden to have -commerce with them in the land of Israel, on the fifth and -sixth day of every week. It is not necessary to say that the -first day itself is every where unlawful.” (Hilchoth Accum. c. -ix. 4.) There is but one class of religionists who observe the -first day of the week as sacred. Now let us hear Kimchi. In -his commentary on Joel iii. 19, “Egypt shall be a desolation, -and Edom shall be a desolate wilderness, for the violence -against the children of Judah, because they have shed innocent -blood in their land:” he says,</p> - -<p class='c005'>זכד מצרים בעבור ישמעאלים ואבור מלכות -רומי , ואלה שתי האומות הנה הגוברות זה ימים -רבים ותהיינה עד עת הגאולה והיא חיותא רביעאה -במראות דניאל ... ואמר זה בעבור כי מלכות רומי -רובם אדומים ואעפ׳׳י שנתערבו בהם עמים רבים כמו -שנתערבו גם כן במלכות ישמעאלים נקראים על -העיקר ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'><a id='Page_123'></a>“The prophet mentions Egypt and Edom: Egypt, on account -of the Turks, and Edom, on account of the Roman empire; and -these two have now had dominion for a long time, and will -continue until the redemption. This is the fourth beast in the -visions of Daniel.... And this is said, because the majority -of the Roman empire is composed of Edomites. For although -many other nations are mixed among them, as is also the case -with the Turkish empire, they are called after the root.” -Kimchi then fixes Edom upon the Roman empire, in which he -evidently includes the Greek empire, for he wrote in the 12th -century, long before the Constantinopolitan dynasty was -overturned. Aben Esra gives a similar interpretation on the -blessing of Esau.</p> - -<p class='c005'>ורומי שהגלתנו היא מזרע כתים וכן אומר המתרגם -וצים מיד כתים והיא מלכות יון בעצמו כאשר -פירשתי בספר דניאל והיו אנשים מתי מספר שהאמיו -באיש ששמוהו אלוה וכאשר האמינה רומי בימי -קונסטאנטין שחדש כל הדת ושם על דגלו צורת -האיש , ולא היו בעולם שישמרו התורה החדשה חוץ -מאדומים מעטים על כן נקראה רומי מלכות אדום ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“Rome, which led us away captive, is of the seed of Kittim, -and so the Targumist has said, in Numbers xxiv. 24, ‘And -ships shall come from the coast of Kittim.’ And this is the -same as the Greek monarchy, as I have explained in the book -of Daniel; and there were very few who believed on the man -of whom they made a god. But when Rome believed in the -days of Constantine, who changed the whole religion, and put -an image of that man upon his standard, there were none in -the world who observed the new law except a few Edomites, -therefore Rome is called the kingdom of Edom.” (Comment. -on Gen. xxix.) We do not now stop to refute the false statements -which Aben Ezra here makes. Every one that knows -anything of history, knows that in less than a century after the -time of Jesus of Nazareth, the Christian religion had made -great progress in the whole Roman empire, and that the -propagation of the new law, as Aben Ezra calls it, before the -time of Constantine, was more rapid and more extensive than -after his conversion. Our business at present is with his -interpretation of the word Edom; he says plainly that Edom -and Edomites mean the Christians. Now let us hear -Abarbanel:—</p> - -<p class='c005'>ומזה תדע שלא לבד על ארץ אדום הסמובה -לא׳׳י נבא הנביא כ׳׳א גם על האומה שנסתעפה משם -ונתפשטה בכל העולם והיא אומת הנוצרים היום הזה -שהם מבני אדום ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'><a id='Page_124'></a>“From this you may learn that the prophet (Obadiah) did -not prophesy only against the land of Edom, which is in -the neighbourhood of the land of Israel, but also against that -people which branches off from thence, and is spread through the -whole world, and that is the people of the Christians in this -our day, for they are of the children of Edom.” (Comment. on -Obadiah.) Here, then, we have Maimonides, Kimchi, Aben -Ezra, and Abarbanel, all giving the same interpretation, and -all asserting that Edom means the Christians. According to -this interpretation, then, the above dreadful imprecations are -for the destruction of the Christians. Is this tolerant or charitable? -Is this in accordance with Moses’ account of the Divine -character—“Merciful and gracious, long-suffering, and abundant -in goodness and truth?” Are these the petitions that -poor sinful creatures ought to offer when they assemble for the -worship of the Creator of all flesh? Above all, are they -suitable in an English synagogue, and in the present day? -You may say that Kimchi and those other commentators, lived -in the times of Popery, and that Edom only means the Roman -Catholic Christians. But what will those Jews say who live in -Rome itself, and France, and Bavaria, and other Roman -Catholic countries? You may think them in error, so do we, -but we cannot for that pray that God “would satiate the clods -with their blood, manure the earth with their fat, and cause -the stench of their carcases to ascend.” We could not utter -such an imprecation against the cannibals of New Zealand, -nor the man-stealers of Africa. But if you say that you do -not offer up these petitions against the Christians, whether -Protestant or Romanist, may we ask against whom then are -they directed? And what are your thoughts when you hear -these petitions read, and join in them in the synagogue? The -literal Edom was destroyed long since; the children of Edom -have long since been utterly lost. Where are their posterity -now to be found? The above-named rabbies say the Romans -were descended from Edom, but where is their proof, either from -the Bible or from profane history? But suppose it was so, how -will that prove that the Greeks, the French, the Germans, or -the inhabitants of the British isles are thus descended? The -truth is, there is no historical evidence whatever to give even -a colour to this assertion respecting Rome. The rabbies found -dreadful denunciations of wrath against Edom in the prophets, -particularly in Obadiah and the thirty-fourth of Isaiah, and -they thought that Rome and the Christians deserved such -punishment more than any one else; they therefore applied -them to these objects of their antipathy. As far as authentic -history will carry us, the descendants of the Edomites are to be -sought for rather amongst the Jews themselves, than amongst -any other people; for the last that we read of the Edomites is, -<a id='Page_125'></a>that they were subdued by John Hyrcanus, and converted to -Judaism at the point of the sword.<a id='r18' /><a href='#f18' class='c006'><sup>[18]</sup></a> Amongst the Jews, then, -their descendants have ever since continued, and strange -enough some of them may now be offering in the synagogue -these imprecations against themselves. But, however that be, -the prophecies against Edom do certainly not apply to the -Christian religion, which was not Edomitical, but altogether -Jewish in its origin. Jesus of Nazareth was a Jew, and his -apostles and first disciples from a province of Judea as remote -as possible from Edom. And even if the rabbies could prove -that Rome is Edom, still this will have nothing to do with the -other nations who are no wise descended from, or connected -with that city or people.</p> - -<p class='c005'>We are not ignorant of the many prophecies against Edom, -but, however many or severe, they form no justification of these -prayers, even if the rabbies know who is intended. God is -a merciful God, as well as a just Judge, and when he arises to -judgment, or when he utters a denunciation of wrath, we may -be sure that he does all in truth and righteousness. But that -furnishes no excuse for the sons of men who presumptuously -take upon themselves to call down God’s wrath by prayer, or -to offer themselves as the executioners of his anger. The -Word of God contains many denunciations of wrath against the -Jews, but this does not justify the nations who have persecuted -and oppressed them. What would the Jews think of us if we -collected all the fearful passages in the twenty-sixth chapter of -Leviticus, and the twenty-eight of Deuteronomy, and wove them -into a prayer to call down God’s wrath upon the people of -Israel? What would they say if we appointed this form -for the most solemn days, and for the time of our festivity? -Yet this is what the rabbies have done, and what the oral law -prescribes, and therefore we say, that such teaching is not from -God. And we say this, not simply because reason leads to this -conclusion, but because such prayers are directly contrary to -the express command of God. When he sent the Jews into -captivity to Babylon, he did not tell them to pray that “he -might pour out his wrath” upon that city, and much less to -“satiate the clods with the blood” of its inhabitants. On the -contrary, he said—</p> - -<p class='c005'>“And seek the peace of the city whither I have caused you -to be carried away captives, and pray unto the Lord for it: for -in the peace thereof shall ye have peace.” (Jerem. xxix. 7.) -Now how does this command agree with the above prayers? -Suppose even that the rabbies were right, and that Edom does -mean Rome, how can the Jews there pray for its peace and for -its utter destruction at the same time? Those prayers are -<a id='Page_126'></a>utterly irreconcilable with this command of God, and therefore -furnish another proof of the error as well as the intolerance -of the oral law. This was the object which we had peculiarly -in view. We do not wish to burden every Israelite in London -with this intolerance. Many are perhaps ignorant that such -prayers are offered in the synagogue—many overlook them -through inattention, and many others disapprove of them. -But in those who do know and disapprove, it is exceedingly -inconsistent to join in them, or to remain silent. The spirit of -these prayers is thus countenanced, and the intolerance handed -down from generation to generation. Children go to the synagogue, -and hear these prayers offered; they think as it is -the language of prayer, of public prayer, of the prayers of the -people of Israel, it must be right. What other conclusion can -they form? Thus they imbibe the same spirit, and thus the -people of Israel are kept in bondage to the intolerance of -by-gone generations. But some will say, We acknowledge -that these prayers are contrary to the Bible. Remember, then, -that in making this acknowledgment, you admit the -synagogue—yea, the whole nation of Jews, has been in error -for many centuries. And if the Jewish nation has been -universally mistaken upon so simple, yet essential, a point -of religion as true charity, it is highly probable that they are -mistaken on other points too, especially those that are more difficult -and less obvious to human reason. But above all, -remember that whilst the whole system of the oral law, in -its precepts and prayers, has taught you to curse your enemies, -Jesus of Nazareth has taught us to bless. “Ye have heard -that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate -thine enemy: but I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless -them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray -for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you.” (Matt. -v. 43, 44.) “Bless them which persecute you: bless, and curse -not.” (Rom. xii. 14.) But some Israelites may still think that -it is unfair to judge the oral law by this one service to the -Passover. Such an one we would remind of the blessing of -the Epicureans, as it is called, which he is bound to say—</p> - -<p class='c005'>בכל תפלה שבכל יום ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“in every prayer, every day.” (Hilchoth T’phillah, c. ii. 2.)</p> - -<p class='c005'>ולמלשינים אל תהי תקוה וכל עושי רשעה כרגע -יאבדו והזדים מהרה יכרתו ומכניעם במהרה בימינו . -ברוך אתה ה׳ שובר אויבים ומכניע זדים ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“O let the slanderers have no hope: all the wicked be annihilated -speedily, and all the tyrants be cut off quickly; humble -thou them quickly in our days. Blessed art thou, O Lord, who -<a id='Page_127'></a>destroyed our enemies.” (Daily Prayers, fol. 36.) Here is the -same utter want of mercy. No desire for their amendment, no -prayer for their conversion, but an invocation of sudden wrath -and destruction. And this the synagogue prescribes, not on -its feasts only, but every day; yea, and every time of prayer is -to be marked by the voice of malediction. There is also another -command relating to this daily malediction, which illustrates -still farther the spirit of the oral law.</p> - -<p class='c005'>שליח צבור שטעה ונבהל ולא ידע מהיכן יתחיל -ושהה שעה יעמוד אחר תחתיו . ואם טעה בברכת -האפיקורסין אין ממתינין לו אלא מיד יעמוד אחר -תחתיו שמא אפיקורסות נזרקה בו ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“If the reader in the synagogue should make a mistake, or -be confused and not know where to begin, and delay for -an hour, then let another rise up in his stead. But if he made -the mistake with regard to the blessing of the Epicureans, he -is not to be waited for, but let another instantly rise up in his -stead, for perhaps he is infected with Epicureanism.” (Ibid. c. -x. 3.) According to this law, if the reader go wrong in invoking -a blessing, or offering up an intercessory prayer for -mercy, such a petition may be delayed for a whole hour. But -if this malediction should be the place of his mistake, there is to -be no delay and no postponement. If the reader cannot offer -it in time, another is to rise up immediately, and cry to heaven -for a curse.</p> - -<div class='chapter'> - <h2 id='chap17' class='c003'>No. XVII. <br /> RABBINIC LEGENDS IN THE SYNAGOGUE SERVICES.</h2> -</div> -<p class='c004'>We have just considered the extraordinary command of the -oral law, which provides, that, if the reader in the synagogue -should make a mistake in reading the prayers, the congregation -shall wait for him for an hour: except the mistake occur in -cursing the Epicureans, for then, “He is not be waited for, but -let another instantly rise up in his stead, for he is, perhaps, -infected with Epicureanism.” The special notice of this case is -as honourable to the Jews as it is condemnatory of the oral law. -It would appear from this that such mistakes had occurred. -Readers in the synagogues have sometimes stumbled and -stammered when thy came to this fearful malediction. And -<a id='Page_128'></a>truly we are not surprised, if a man of piety, acquainted with -God’s Word, should be overwhelmed in publicly cursing his -fellow-men, and be unable to bring the words of imprecation -over his lips. The care which the Scribes took to legislate for -such an occurrence, implies an honourable testimony to the good -feeling of the nation, though it strongly marks their own intolerance, -and forms a striking contrast to the spirit inculcated -in the teaching of Jesus of Nazareth. When his disciples -asked him to teach them to pray, he taught them a short form; -but short as it was, it contained the petition, “Forgive us our -trespasses, as we forgive them that trespass against us,” and -was followed by this admonition, “For if ye forgive men their -trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. But if -ye forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your Father -forgive your trespasses.” (Matt. vi. 14, 15.)</p> - -<p class='c005'>The intolerance which we have noticed, proves sufficiently -that the religious ideas of the oral law have not been drawn -from Moses and the prophets; and this will appear still further -from the absurd legends which are alluded to in the prayers of -the synagogue, as if they were acknowledged verities. In the -Liturgy for the feast of Pentecost, which is now approaching, -we find more than one such allusion, to which we would most -earnestly call your attention. And first of all, those prayers -recognise the legend of Leviathan and Behemoth. In the -morning service for that day the Jews repeat the following -words:—</p> - -<p class='c005'>מנת דילן דמלקדמין פרש בארמותא . טלולא -דלויתן ותור טור רמותא , וחד בחד כי סביך ועביד -קרבותא . בקרנוהי מנגח בהמות ברברבותא . יקרטע נון -לקבליה בציצוי ובגבורתא . מקרב ליה בריה בחרביה -ברברבותא . ארסטון לצדיקי יתקן ושרותא , מסחרין -עלי תכי דכדכוד וגומרתא , נגיין קמיהון אפרסמון -נהרתא , ומתפנקין ורוי בכסי רויתא , חמר מרת -דמבראשית נטיר ביה נעותא ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>Which D. Levi thus translates:—“He will certainly <i>bestow on</i> -us the portion which he hath promised us of old. The sporting -of Leviathan with the ox of the high mountains,<a id='r19' /><a href='#f19' class='c006'><sup>[19]</sup></a> when they -shall approach each other and engage in battle. With his horn -he thrusts at the mightiest beasts, but the Leviathan will leap -towards him with his fins and great strength. His Creator -will then approach him with his great sword, and will prepare -him for an entertainment (or a banquet) for the righteous; who -will be seated at a table formed of jasper and carbuncle, with a -<a id='Page_129'></a>river of balm flowing before them. When they will delight -themselves and be satiated with the bowls of wine prepared at -the creation, and reserved in the wine-press.” In this portion -of the Liturgy of the synagogue, there is a very plain reference -to the battle between Behemoth and Leviathan. The felicity -of the righteous in the world to come is also described, and a -part of it is said to consist of the banquet which God will -prepare for them from the flesh of Leviathan, when he shall -have killed him. It is true that D. Levi has the following -note on this banquet: “All this is to be understood in a -figurative sense, and by no means literally, as several Christian -commentators have done, and thus cast undeserved reproach -on the Rabbinical writers.” But he has neither given us his -authority, nor his reasons for this assertion; nor has he explained -the meaning of the figure. We should be glad to -know what ninety-nine out of every hundred Jews understand -when they hear this read in the synagogue. What do they -understand by the name Behemoth? What by Leviathan? -What by God’s killing him? What by preparing him as a -banquet for the righteous? But however Jews in the present -day may explain it away, there can be little doubt how the -authors of this hymn and the Jews of old understood it. In the -Talmud we have the following account of these two great -beasts:—</p> - -<p class='c005'>אמר רב יהודה אמר רב כל שברא הקב׳׳ה בעולמו -זכר ונקבה בראם . אף לויתן נחש בריח ולויתן נחש -עקלתון זכל ונקבה בראם ואלמלא נזקקין זה לזה -מהריבן כל העולם כולו . מה עשה הקב׳׳ה סירס -את הזכר והרג את הנקבה ומלחה לצדיקים לעתיד לבוא -שנאמר והרג את התנין אשר בים . ואף בהמות בהררי -אלף זכר ונקבה בראם ואלמלא נזקקין זה לזה מחריבין -כל העולם כולו מה עשה הקב׳׳ה סירס הזכר וצינן -הנקבה ושמרה לצדיקים לעתיד לבוא ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“R. Judah said, Rav said, Everything that God created in -this world he created male and female. And thus he did with -Leviathan the piercing serpent, and Leviathan the crooked -serpent, he created them male and female. But if they had -been united, they would have desolated the entire world. -What, then, did the Holy One do? He took away the strength -of the male Leviathan, and slew the female and salted her for -the righteous for the time to come, for it is said, ‘And he shall -slay the whale (or dragon) that is in the sea.’ (Isaiah xxvii. 1.) -In like manner with regard to Behemoth upon a thousand -mountains, he created them male and female, but if they had -been united they would have desolated the entire world. -<a id='Page_130'></a>What then did the Holy One do? He took away the strength -of the male Behemoth, and made the female barren, and -preserved her for the righteous for the time to come.”—(Bava -Bathra, fol. 74, col. 2.) In this narrative there are no marks -of allegory. The creation of the world is not an allegory, but -a fact. The creating of living creatures male and female is -another fact. The weakening of the male and the salting of -the female to prevent the desolation of the world, does not look -like a figure. The Jewish commentators certainly take the -matter very seriously, and speak of the creation of Leviathan, -not as of an allegory, but as of a real occurrence. Thus R. -Moses, the son of Nachman, in his commentary on the words, -“And God made great whales,” after describing the great size, -adds,—</p> - -<p class='c005'>ורבותינו אמרו כי התנינים הגדולים הוא לויתן -ובת זוגו שבראם זכר ונקבה והרג הנקבה ומלחד -לצדיקים לעתיד לבוא . אפשר כי מפני זה לא היה -ראוי שיאמר בהם ויהי כן כי לא עמדו עוד ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“And our rabbies have said that ‘the great whales’ mean Leviathan -and his mate, for God created them male and female, -but slew the female, and salted her for the righteous for the time -to come: and perhaps this is the reason why the words, ‘And -it was so,’ are not added, for they (the race of Leviathan) did -not continue.” (Com. in Gen. i. 21.) From this it is evident -that the famous rabbi knew nothing of an allegory, for he -makes this legend the reason why certain words used after the -other works of creation are not here applied. In like manner -Abarbanel speaks of this same pair of living creatures as real, -and as possibly belonging to the class of great whales.</p> - -<p class='c005'>ואם כלל הכתוב השרץ והדגה כאחד יאמר הכתוב -שברא השם בהם מינים מתחלפים כי יש מהם תנינים -גדולים וכמו שאמרו בפרק הספינה אמר רבה בר בר -חנא זמנא חדא הוה קא אזלינא בספינתא וחזינא -לההיא כוורא דיתבא ליה חלתא על גביה וקרח -אגמא עלויה . סברינא די יבשתא היא וסלקינן ויתבינן -ובשלינן הם גביה דכוורא ואיתהפיך ואי לא דהוה -ספינתא מקרבא לון הוה מטבע . וכיוצא בזה -יספרו גם היום יורדי הים באניות . ואולי לויתן ובת -זוגו שזכרו רבותינו מאלה היו עם היות שהפילוסופים -מבני עמנו ייחסו לאותה הגדה ענינים עמוקים -מהחכמה ואין צורך להם במקום הזה ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“But if the Scripture class creeping things and fish together, -then this verse tells us that God created various species, -<a id='Page_131'></a>for some of them are great whales, as is said in the 5th -chapter of Bava Bathra, ‘Rabbah Bar Bar Channa says, Once -upon a time we were sailing in a ship, and we saw that -fish upon whose back the sand remains and rushes grow; -we thought it was terra firma, and landed, and remained -there and cooked. But when the fish’s back grew warm, -he turned round, and if the ship had not been at hand we -must have been drowned.’ They that go down to the sea -in ships in the present time tell similar stories: and perhaps -the Leviathan and his mate, mentioned by our rabbies, -belonged to this species. However, the philosophers of -the children of our people attribute to this chapter matter -deeper than philosophy, but which we do not want in -this place.” (Com. in Gen. i. 21.) It is true that Abarbanel -here distinctly admits the existence of mysteries in that -chapter of the Talmud. But it is equally plain, that he -considered the Leviathan, mentioned by the rabbies, not as -an allegory, but a real creation; and therefore assigned -it to the same class as the wonderful fish seen by Bar Bar -Channa, unless we take his words as a sly insinuation, that -the story of Leviathan is about as true as that narrated -by the veracious rabbi.</p> - -<p class='c005'>These two great rabbies, then, did not take the legend -of Leviathan figuratively; and we might add some other -similar testimonies, but that Behemoth also claims a share -of our attention, and an inquiry into his nature will contribute -evidence to the same effect, that this legend was not -taken figuratively but literally. In the first place, D. Levi -himself refers us to Job xl. 15, and there we read, “Behold -now Behemoth, which I made with thee; he eateth grass -like an ox.” Here there certainly is no allegory. The -words speak of a living creature, and so they are interpreted -by all the Jewish commentators, whom we have an -opportunity of consulting. Ralbag says—</p> - -<p class='c005'>בהמות הוא בעל חיים שמו כן ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“Behemoth is an animal, that is his name.” (Com. -in loc.) Aben Esra, on the words, “Behold now Behemoth, -which I made with thee,” says—</p> - -<p class='c005'>בהמות שם בהמה גדולה אין בישוב גדולה ממנה -וטעם עמך לפי שהיתה ביבשה כי באחרית יזכור -הלויתן שהוא בים ויש אומרים כי טעם עמך שהבהמות -נולדו ביום אחד עם אדם הראשון וזה דרך דרש ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“<i>Behemoth</i> is the name of a great beast. In the habitable -world there is not a greater than it. The reason why the -words ‘<i>with thee</i>’ are added, is, that it is a land animal, -<a id='Page_132'></a>and at the end he mentions Leviathan, which is an animal -of the sea. But some say the meaning of ‘with thee’ is, -that the beasts were created on the same day with the first -Adam; but this interpretation is after the manner of a -drash.” (Aben Esra in loc.) This passage not only gives -Aben Esra’s opinion as to the real existence of Behemoth, -but shows that other commentators, to whom he alludes, -were of the same mind. Rashi not only asserts the existence, -but says plainly, בהמות מוכן לעתיד, “Behemoth, -that is prepared for the time to come.” And again, -in his commentary on Psalm l. 10, he takes the words -בהמות בהררי אלף, which we translate, “The cattle -upon a thousand hills,” as referring to “Behemoth upon a -thousand hills,” and says—</p> - -<p class='c005'>הוא המתוקן לסעודת העתיד שהוא רועה אלף -הרים ליום וכל יום ויום צומחים ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“This is he that is prepared for the banquet of the time -to come, for he eats up the produce of a thousand hills in -one day, and every day they grow again.” The context -of these words evidently show that Rashi, the most popular, -and the most read of all the Jewish commentators, looked -for a real, not an allegorical, feast upon the flesh of the -Leviathan and Behemoth. The preceding and following -words speak not of allegorical, but of real cattle and fowls. -According to Rashi, the whole passage would read thus:—“I -will take no bullock out of thy house, nor he-goats out -of thy folds. For every beast of the forest is mine, and -Behemoth upon a thousand hills. I know all the fowls of -the mountain,” &c. Here, then, Behemoth is introduced -amongst real animals all fit for food, so that it is impossible -to take it figuratively. This animal is also suitable in size -for so great an entertainment; he consumes the produce of -a thousand mountains every day. This was also the opinion -of Jonathan, for in his Targum on the fiftieth Psalm he -has paraphrased the tenth verse as follows:—</p> - -<p class='c005'>ארום דילי כל חיות חורשא ועתדת לצדיקיא בגן -עדן בעיריא דכין ותור בר דרעי בכל יומא בטורין -אלפא ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“For every beast of the wood is mine, and I have prepared -for the righteous in Paradise pure cattle, and the wild ox, -that feeds every day upon a thousand mountains.” All -these testimonies (and many more might be added) plainly -prove, that the Jews, in times past, looked for a real and -substantial feast upon Leviathan and Behemoth; and when -<a id='Page_133'></a>we remember that the commentary of Rashi is the first that is -put into the hands of the Jewish youth all over the world, and -that it is generally regarded as almost, if not altogether, inspired, -it is easy to conclude what is the opinion of the great -majority of Jews, even in the present day, as to this entertainment. -Maimonides, indeed, denies that there will be any -eating and drinking in the world to come. He says—</p> - -<p class='c005'>העולם הבא אין בו גוף וגויה אלא נפשות הצדיקים -בלבד בלא גוף כמלאכי השרת . הואיל ואין בו גויות -אין בו לא אכילה ולא שתיה ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“In the world to come there is neither body nor corporeality, -but only the souls of the righteous without a body, like the -ministering angels. So neither is there eating and drinking.” -(Hilchoth T’shuvah, c. viii. 2.) But this is a solitary opinion, -as is evident from the note on the passage by Abraham ben -Dior, who says—</p> - -<p class='c005'>דברי האיש הזה בעיני קרובים למי שאומר אין -תחיית המתים לגופות אלא נשמות בלבד וחיי ראשי -לא היה דעת חז׳׳ל על זה ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“The words of this man are, in my eyes, very near to those -of him who says, that there is no resurrection to the body, -but only to the soul; and I sware by my life that this was -not the opinion of our wise men of blessed memory.” Indeed -Maimonides himself acknowledges, in his Commentary -upon the Mishna, that the majority of the Jews thought very -differently of the world to come. He there enumerates five -classes of opinions, amongst which one is, that at that time -the earth will bring forth clothes ready made, and bread -ready baked; but in every one of the five, good eating and -drinking is a main article. Of the fifth class he says—</p> - -<p class='c005'>וכת חמישית והם הרבה מחברים הענינים האלה -כולם ואומרים כי התוחלת הוא שיבא המשיח ויחיה -המתים ויכנסו לגן עדן ויאכלו שם וישתו ויחיו בריאים -כל ימות עולם ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“And the fifth class (and they are numerous) include all these -things, and say that the great hope is, that Messiah shall -come and raise the dead, and they shall be gathered into -Paradise, and there shall eat and drink and be in good health -to all eternity.” (Sanhedrin, fol. 119, col. 1.) This, then, -Maimonides gives as the general expectation of the majority, -and this expectation exactly agrees with the above description -of the feast to be prepared from Leviathan and Behemoth. -<a id='Page_134'></a>We have, therefore, not only the testimony of the most celebrated -rabbies to prove that this feast is not allegorical but -literal, but we have the still stronger evidence of the general -expectations of the nation as enumerated by Maimonides. -D. Levi ought, therefore, to have said that <i>he</i> understood it -allegorically, but we have seen that this is not the opinion of -the nation, nor of the most celebrated rabbies. We are therefore -warranted in saying that the prayers of the synagogue -not only consecrate the intolerance of the Talmud, but also -stamp its absurd legends with authority. It is surely not -exceeding the bounds of soberness and modesty to call this -story of the battle between Leviathan and Behemoth, and the -feast to be prepared of their flesh, and the salt meat of the -female Leviathan, an absurd legend. David Levi evidently -thought it was such, and was therefore glad to betake himself -to allegory. In the Bible there is not one word about -the killing or salting of the female Leviathan, nor about the -capacious stomach of Behemoth, which requires a thousand -mountains daily to satisfy it. This is all the pure invention -of the rabbles, and we ask the Jews whether such legends -form fit subjects for the prayers or praises of the synagogue, -or whether they can be acceptable in the eyes of the God of -Israel? We do not mean to conceal the fact, that Christian -prayer-books may be found with legends as fabulous, and as -foolish. But they are the prayer-books of former generations, -or of those who still adhere to traditions of men. With them -we have nothing to do. Three hundred years have now -elapsed since our forefathers cleared out all such follies. But -the Jewish prayer-books still remain unchanged, and unless -the Jews make some vigorous effort, the legend of Leviathan -and Behemoth will be read with all solemnity in the synagogues -of England at the coming Feast of Pentecost. It is -grievous to think that that nation which once held up the -torch of Divine truth to enlighten the world, should still -abide in the darkness and superstitions of the Talmud. And -yet this is, beyond all doubt, the condition of Israel, so long -as the Divine authority of the Talmud is recognised in their -public prayers. Individuals may say, that they do not believe -in its follies, nor cherish its intolerance, but this cannot be -said of the majority. The synagogue, in its public worship, -still pronounces the maledictions, and recites the legends of -the oral law, and thus declares, in the most solemn manner -that can be devised, that the religion of the Talmud is the -religion of the congregation. A mere confession of faith is -nothing to such a declaration as this. A man may trifle with -his fellow-men, but sentiments addressed to God in prayer -or praise must justly be considered as the language of the -heart.</p> - -<p class='c005'><a id='Page_135'></a>How different is the doctrine of the New Testament. -There all these monstrous fables are utterly rejected; there -is not even an allusion to them. Mahomet, confessedly the -author of a false religion, has incorporated not a few of the -Talmudic legends into the Koran. But the disciples of Jesus -of Nazareth, though they lived at a time when the patronisers -of these fables had power, were altogether preserved from -such absurdity. They have transmitted no such distorted view -of God’s dealings in creation, nor of the joys which he has -prepared for his people in eternity. Their doctrine is, that, -“Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of -the world.” (Acts xv. 18.) He is “The Father of lights, -with whom is no variableness nor shadow of turning.” (James -i. 17.) They also give us an account of the felicity of the -blessed, but a feast upon Leviathan or Behemoth is not one -of its features. “Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, -and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, -and God himself shall be with them, and be their God. -And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there -shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying; neither -shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed -away.” (Rev. xxi. 3, 4.) “Beloved, now are we the sons of -God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be; but we -know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him, for -we shall see him as he is.” (1 John iii. 2.) These are the -hopes and expectations which that body of Jews, who rejected -the oral law, have taught us to entertain and to cherish. -Yes, brethren of the house of Israel, our hope is altogether -Jewish. We do not mean to charge upon “the peculiar -people of God” the folly of the Talmud. Some of the nation -forsook the pure Word of God, and adopted the doctrine of -an oral law. The natural consequence was, that they advanced -gradually farther and farther in the mazes of error; -and there all their followers continue. But we never forget -that it was another portion of the Jewish nation which -taught us to worship the true and living God. Our only -wish is, that you would forsake Jewish error, and embrace -Jewish truth.</p> - -<div class='chapter'> - <a id='Page_136'></a> - <h2 id='chap18' class='c003'>No. XVIII. <br /> RABBINIC LEGENDS CONTINUED.</h2> -</div> -<p class='c004'>That the traditions of the Talmudists abound with the most -absurd and incredible stories, is a matter of notoriety. But -when a Talmudist is pressed with any one of these, as a proof -that the oral law is not from God, he has a ready answer. It -is an allegory, and contains the most profound and mysterious -wisdom. It would be very easy to show from the books printed -in Jewish-German, for the edification of the women and the -unlearned, and where the legends are related as undoubted -matter of fact, that this is a mere evasion. But we have other -evidence that is indisputable. The Liturgy of the synagogue -alludes to many as to authentic history, and we would not -believe any one who should dare to assert, that the Rabbinists, -in prayer, utter with their lips, what they do not believe in -their heart. In the Pentecost prayers, from which we have -already quoted, we find allusion to an anecdote recorded of -Adam,</p> - -<p class='c005'>תכלית כל פועל רום ותחתונים , שביעי לימים -הנמנים , ראשון למקראי זמנים , קדוש לאדוני האדונים , -צבי קודש שבת שאננים , פדה מדין יציר מלפנים , -ענתה שירה וכפרה פנים ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>Which D. Levi thus translates, “It (the Sabbath-day) is the end -of all work above and beneath; it is accounted the seventh -among the days; the first convocation of seasons; holy to the -Lord of hosts; a glorious holy Sabbath to those who rest -thereon; it redeemed the first created man from judgment; he -chanted a song, and appeased the wrath of God.” (fol. 81.) -Here two important circumstances, not mentioned by Moses, -are alluded to. First, that the Sabbath redeemed Adam from -judgment, and secondly, that his song appeased the wrath -of God. They are found in the traditions of the rabbies at -full length, and are related as follows:—</p> - -<p class='c005'>בשבע שעות ביום בערב שבת נכנס אדם הראשון -בגן עדן והיו מלאכי השרת מקלסין אותו ומכניסין -אותו לגן עדן ובין השמשות בערב שבת גורש ויצא -והיו מלאכי השרת קוראין עליו ואומרין אדם ביקר -בל ילין נמשל כבהמות נדמו . כבהמה נדמה אין -כתיב אלא כבהמות נדמו שניהם . בא יום השבת -ונעשה סניגור לאדם הראשון אמר לפניו רבון העולמים -בששת ימי המעשה לא נהרג הרג בעולם ובי אתה -<a id='Page_137'></a>מתחיל זו היא קרושתי וזו היא ברכתי שנאמר ויברך -אלהים את יום השביעי ויקדש אותו . ובזכות יום -השבת ניצל אדם מדינה של גיהנם וראה אדם כחה -של שבת אמר לא לחנם ברך הקב׳׳ה את השבת וקרש -אותו התחיל משורר ומזמר ליום השבת . שנאמר מזמור -שיר ליום השבת . ר׳ ישמעאל אומר המזמור הזה -אדם הראשון אמרו ונשכח בכל הדורות עד שבא -משה וחדשו וגו׳ ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“At the seventh hour of the day, on the eve of the Sabbath, the -first Adam was introduced into Paradise; and the ministering -angels were engaged in lauding and introducing him. But -between the suns, on the eve of the Sabbath, he was driven out, -and went forth; and the ministering angels were calling to -him, and saying, ‘Adam being in honour abideth not: he -is like the beasts that perish.’ It is not written, ‘like a beast -that perishes,’ but ‘like the beasts that perish;’ <i>i.e.</i>, they both. -The Sabbath-day came, and became an advocate for the first -Adam. It said before God, Lord of the world, in the six days -of the creation, nothing in the world was killed, and wilt thou -begin with me? Is this my sanctification, and is this my -blessing, as it is said, ‘And God blessed the seventh day, and -sanctified it.’ Therefore by the merit of the Sabbath-day Adam -was delivered from the judgment of hell; and when Adam saw -the power of the Sabbath, he said, It was not for nothing, that -the Holy One, blessed be He, blessed and sanctified it, so -he began singing and chanting to the Sabbath-day, as it is -said, ‘A psalm or song to or for the Sabbath-day.’ (Psalm -xcii. 1.) Rabbi Ishmael says, This psalm was said by the first -Adam, but was forgotten in all the generations, until Moses -came and restored it.” (Pirke Eleazar, fol. 13, col. 3.) The -Yalkut Shimoni gives the story substantially the same, excepting -that when Adam said, “A psalm or song to the Sabbath-day,” -the Sabbath reproved him, and said, “Dost thou sing -hymns to me? Come and let us both sing hymns to the Holy -One, blessed be He, ‘It is a good thing to give thanks unto the -Lord.’” (Ps. xcii. 1.) This, then is the story which the -prayer-book of the synagogue authenticates, by interweaving, -in its addresses to the God of Israel, the above-quoted words -concerning the Sabbath, “It redeemed the first created man -from judgment; he chanted a song, and appeased the wrath of -God.” From first to last it bears the plain marks of mendacity. -It misrepresents the merciful character of God, as if he would -have destroyed Adam, had it not been the Sabbath-day. It -ascribes a certain degree of merit to Adam, who had been -guilty of the most inexcusable ingratitude to his Divine Benefactor. -<a id='Page_138'></a>And it directly contradicts the narrative of Moses, -who ascribes the mercy vouchsafed to the spontaneous over-flowings -of the grace of God. Besides all this, it is perfectly -ludicrous to imagine that Adam, just driven out of Paradise for -his disobedience, with the curse of the Almighty resting upon -him, goaded by the pangs of a guilty conscience, and his whole -frame undergoing the mighty transition from immortality to -corruption—it is perfectly ludicrous to imagine that he could -be in a fit mood to sit down and compose a poem. Indeed the -rabbies themselves have not left this story a fair appearance of -credibility, for on the very same page of the Yalkut, where this -origin of the ninety-second Psalm is described, another equally -veracious incident in the life of Adam, is assigned as the -occasion of its composition.</p> - -<p class='c005'>אמר ר׳ המזמור הזה אדם הראשון אמרו פגע -אדם הראשון בקין אמר ליה מה נעשה בדינך אמר -ליה עשיתי תשובה ונתפשרתי התחיל אדם הראשון -מטפח על פניו אמר כך הוא גדול כחה של תשובה -ולא הייתי יודע מיד עמד אדם הראשון ואמר מזמור ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“Rabbi Levi says, this hymn was said by the first Adam. -Adam happened to meet Cain, and said to him, What has -been done in the matter of thy judgment? He replied, -I have repented, and been reconciled. Adam began to -strike his forehead with his hand, and said, So great is the -power of repentance, and I did not know it! Immediately the -first Adam stood, and said this Psalm.” Thus, on the showing -of the traditions themselves, this legend, formally adapted in -the prayers of the synagogue, is a falsehood. Can this be -acceptable worship? Is it reasonable worship? Is the legend -itself, in any of its features, worthy of that great people, that -received the law of God at Sinai? This is the religion of the -High-priests and Pharisees who rejected Jesus of Nazareth, -this the wisdom of those who condemned Him, and that -fully accounts for their conduct. Men, who had let loose their -imaginations into the regions of romance and fiction, were not -likely to love the sober truth inculcated by Jesus and his -disciples. Their appetites were vitiated, and they were not -satisfied with the unadorned narrative of Moses. They had lost -all relish for the simple majesty of the “oracles of God.” We -appeal to the native acuteness, and unsophisticated feeling of -every right-minded Jew, and ask whether it is not a melancholy -spectacle to behold the wise men of Israel thus trifling with the -sin of Adam, that sad event, the source of all our woes? Very -different is the tone in which the New Testament speaks both -of it, and of the mind of God in reference to it. “Wherefore, -<a id='Page_139'></a>as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; -and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned: -for until the law sin was in the world; but sin is not imputed -when there is no law. Nevertheless death reigned from Adam -to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude -of Adam’s transgression, who is the figure of Him that was to -come. But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if -through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace -of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus -Christ, hath abounded unto many.” (Romans v. 12-15.) But -whatever the Jews may think of the New Testament representation, -we have have shown that their Liturgy contains an absurd -legend, borrowed from tradition ages ago, and which remains -there to this day. But, alas! the very next sentence of -the prayer, from whim we have quoted, contains two more.</p> - -<p class='c005'>סוימה לאות ולעד בין אב לבנים , נצור יציאותיה -כהורו נבונים . משא בלי להוציא מבפנים . למחלליה -מיתות דנים . כרת ורגימת אבנים . ידועה היא לך -במן מימים קדמונים . טעמו לא רד בה ממעונים . -חוברי אוב בה לא נענים . זכור כי בה ישבות נהר -צפונים ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“It (the Sabbath) is noted as a sign and a witness between the -heavenly Father and his children: observe its removals, as -taught by the wise men, not to bring out a load from within; -death is pronounced against those that profane it, either by -excision or stoned with stones; by the manna it was well -known unto thee in ancient days, for on the Sabbath that food -did not descend; <i>the necromancers were not answered on it; -remember that on it the incomprehensible river resteth</i>.” -Amongst the other honours of the Sabbath-day, and the other -testimonies to its sacredness, this prayer recounts two miracles. -The one, that necromancers could not bring up the dead on that -day; the other, the weekly Sabbatarian rest of the river Sambation. -The first of these miracles has been left by D. Levi -without notice or explanation. He thought, perhaps, that it -would not do in English. But to the second, the resting “of -the incomprehensible river” he has attached the following -note:—</p> - -<p class='c005'>“This denotes the river סמביון, said to rest on the Sabbath -from throwing up stones, &c., which it does all the week. See -Sanhedrin, fol. lxv. 2; Yalkut on Isaiah, fol. lii. 1; Pesikta, -Tanchuma, sect. כי תשא. See also Shalsheleth Hakkabala, -and Juchsin.”</p> - -<p class='c005'>D. Levi himself thus acknowledges, that no allegory is here -intended, but that the Rabbinists do really believe that there -<a id='Page_140'></a>is a river that throws up stones all the week, and rests on the -Sabbath-day. Many and various are the accounts which the -rabbies give of it, but we shall confine ourselves to one or other -of D. Levi’s references, which also throw light upon the subject -of the necromancers.</p> - -<p class='c005'>ואף שאלה זה שאל טורנוס רופוס הרשע את ר׳׳ע -אמר לו ומה יום מיומים אמר לו ומה גבר מגוברין -א׳׳ל דמרי צבי שבת נמי דמרי צבי . אמר ליה הכי -קאמינא לך מי יימר דהאידנא שבתא . אמר לו נהר -סמבטיון יוכיח בעל אוב יוכיח קברו של אביו יוכיח -שאין מעלה עשן בשבת ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“Turnus Rufus, the wicked, also proposed this question to R. -Akiva, saying, Why is the Sabbath-day better than other days? -He replied, Why art thou greater than other men? He -answered, So is the will of my Master. The rabbi said, So is it -with the Sabbath, such is the will of God. Turnus Rufus said, -But I mean to say, who will prove to me that this day is the -Sabbath-day? The rabbi answered, The river Sambation will -prove this;—a necromancer will prove this;—the grave of thy -father will prove this, for the smoke is not made to ascend from -it on the Sabbath.” (Sanhed. fol. 65, col. 2.) In his commentary -upon this passage, Rashi says of the Sambation,</p> - -<p class='c005'>נהר אחד של אבנים ובכל ימות השבת שוטף -והולך וביום השבת שוקט ונח ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“The Sambation is a certain river of stones, which rolls along -all the days of the week, but on the Sabbath-day it is perfectly -still.” He also explains to us what is meant by the smoke not -ascending from the grave on the Sabbath-day, in the following -note:</p> - -<p class='c005'>קברו של אביו דטורנוס רופוס כל ימות השבת -היה מעלה עשן שהיה נדון ונשרף ובשבת פושעי -גיהנם שובתין ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“On all the other days of the year a smoke was made to ascend -from the grave of the father of Turnus Rufus, for he was -suffering the judgment of burning, but on the Sabbath-day, the -sinners in hell have rest.” Whether Turnus Rufus saw the -smoke or not, the Talmud does not inform us, but the Bereshith -Rabba, another work of equal credibility in such matters of fact, -tells the story a little more at length, and informs us that he -was not satisfied with the argument drawn from the river -Sambation. R. Akiva therefore advised him to cite his father -from the dead on the Sabbath and the other days, and that this -<a id='Page_141'></a>experiment would convince him. To this Turnus Rufus -consented, and the results are described in the following -words:—</p> - -<p class='c005'>וסלק כל יומי דשבתא ובשבתא לא סלק בחד -בשבא אסקיה אמר ליה מן דמיתת איתעבדית יהודי -אתמהא מפני מה עלית כל ימות השבת ושבת לא -עלית אמר ליה כל מי שאינו משמר את השבת -אצלכם ברצונו כאן הוא משמר אותו בעל כרחו . -אמר לו וכי עמל יש לכם שאתם עמלים כל ימות -השבת ובשבת אתם נוחין אמר לו כל ימות השבת -אנו נידונין ובשבת אנו נוחין ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“His father came up every day of the week, but on the -Sabbath-day he did not come up. On the first day of the week -he brought him up again, and said to him, Father, hast thou -been made a Jew since thy death; why is it that thou comest -up on all the other days of the week, but not on Sabbath? He -replied, Whosoever will not keep the Sabbath voluntarily in -your world, must keep it here in spite of himself. He then -said, Father, have you then got work on the other days of the -week, and rest on the Sabbath? The father replied, On the -other days of the week we are judged, but on the Sabbath we -are at rest.” (Bereshith Rabba, fol. 9, col. 4.) Such are the -legends which the Jewish Prayer-book, on the solemn feast of -Pentecost, stamps with all the authority of authentic history. -Is it necessary to prove to the Jews of England that both these -stories are utterly untrue? Is it necessary to say, that there is -not, and never was, such a river as the Sambation? Within a -century the world has been explored in every direction. From -Cooke to Kotzebue the globe has been many times circumnavigated, -but none has brought us any tidings of the Sambation. -Since the times of Benjamin of Tudela, and Abraham Peritsol, -there has been a host of adventurous travellers, but none had -the luck to behold the miraculous torrent of the Sambation. In -this very city Jews are occasionally found from every part of -the world, but from the banks of the Sambation no messenger -has yet arrived. The whole account is a fiction, and is unworthy -of a place in the prayers of the Jews of England. The same -may be said of the necromancers, who obtain no answer on the -Sabbath-day. It is nothing more than a clever fiction. By -the law of Moses necromancy is forbidden to the Jews, and -therefore the inventor well knew that no pious Jew would ever -make the experiment, either on the Sabbath or the other days. -The story of Turnus Rufus, and his father, as told in the -Bereshith Rabba, is plainly contrary, even to the assertions of -the oral law itself. The father is made to say, “Whosoever -<a id='Page_142'></a>will not keep the Sabbath voluntarily in your world, must keep -it here, in spite of himself;” which implies that all, who do not -keep the Jewish Sabbath, must be punished in the flames of -hell; whereas the oral law says that the observance of the -Sabbath is not required of the sons of Noah. When this prayer -was introduced into the Liturgy of the synagogue we know not, -but there it now stands, and in one short paragraph contains -three downright falsehoods. David Levi himself points us to -R. Akiva as the author of the last two; and accordingly the -Talmud records the original reference to the business of the -necromancers and the river Sambation, as proceeding from the -mouth of that great Rabbi. This brings us back to the time -immediately succeeding the rejection of Jesus of Nazareth, and -shows us the superstition and the falsehood of those who -rejected him. Either R. Akiva invented these things himself, -and then he is guilty of deliberate falsehood, or he received -these accounts from others who went before him, and then he -was a superstitious man, and the guilt of inventing falsehood is -thrown back on the earlier rabbies. What is to be thought -then of the wisdom of those men who were weak enough to -believe, or wicked enough to invent, such absurd fables? Yet -these are the men who opposed Christianity, and this is the -system which a large portion of the Jewish nation has preferred -for 1700 years. That the Rabbinical Jews have firmly believed -these legends is plain. They occur in the Talmud, whose -authority is regarded as divine. They are repeated by Rashi, -Ramban, Bechai, and a whole host of the most esteemed Jewish -writers. They have formed a part of the synagogue service -for centuries, and are still found in the Prayer-books of the -English Jews, to testify that they are not yet emancipated -from the chains of superstition. If they had been, if any -considerable number of Jews had been convinced of the -falsehood of these stories, they would never have suffered them -to remain in the worship of God. It is utterly impossible to -suppose that men would sanction the solemn propagation of -falsehood, and yet whenever the Pentecost prayers are read or -printed, there the fables of Behemoth and Leviathan, Adam -and the Sabbath, Turnus Rufus and the Sambation, are -solemnly accredited to the world as worthy of all belief and -honour. The fact that they constitute a part of a solemn -address to Almighty God, and that not from an individual, but -from the congregation of Israel, gives them a sanction that -nothing else could confer. The foreign Jew who comes to -England from some country where there is not so much light, -might, if he found such fables struck out of the English -synagogue service, obtain a little light, and go back to his -countrymen with the news, that the enlightened English Jews -have rejected all these absurdities; and thus the moral emancipation -<a id='Page_143'></a>of the nation might be prepared throughout the world. -But no; the superstitious Talmudist from Turkey, or from -Barbary, or the North, arrives in England, goes to the synagogue, -and finds the same fables and the same superstitions -that he had learned in his less favoured native land, and -returns as he came. Perhaps he takes with him a copy of the -synagogue prayers, printed in London, and exhibits to his -countrymen Behemoth and Leviathan, the necromancers and -the Sambation, adorned with all the beauty of English printing, -paper, and binding. There is surely a great and solemn -responsibility resting on those Israelites who do not believe -these fables, to protest against their admission into the prayers -of the synagogue. The honour of the nation, the welfare of -their brethren, and the glory of God, all call for such a public -protestation. The Jewish nation is a great and intellectual -people, highly gifted by God with those powers that adorn and -dignify humanity. But this is not the estimate formed by the -world at large. Why not? Because the world at large knows -only the fables and absurdities of the Talmud, but is ignorant -of the real monuments of Jewish genius. What can be said, -then, by an advocate for the Jews, to one who holds the Jewish -mind cheap? All arguments will prove powerless as long as -these instances of superstition and folly are contained in the -Jewish prayers. The objector will still point to them, and say, -If you want to know what men really believe, do not look at -their controversial works, or their apologetic writings, but -examine their Prayer-book. Consider not what they say to -man, but listen to what they say to God. There they are -sincere. What can we answer to this argument? Can we say -that all the follies and intolerance of former generations are -expunged? No; whether from love or from listlessness, there -they abide to this day.</p> - -<p class='c005'>But the honour of the nation is but of small weight compared -with its spiritual and temporal prosperity. The English Jews -might, by erasing all such passages, and thoroughly reforming -their Prayer-book, prove a blessing to their brethren scattered -through the world. Do the intelligent and enlightened part -of the nation really wish to raise their brethren in the moral -scale? It must be done by purifying their religious notions. -There is an inseparable bond of union between religion and -moral virtue. Superstition degrades and enfeebles the mind; -but zeal for the glory of God calls still more loudly upon every -devout Israelite to vindicate the honour of that revelation -which God consigned to their care, and which is obscured by -these fabulous additions.</p> -<div class='chapter'> - <a id='Page_144'></a> - <h2 id='chap19' class='c003'>No. XIX. <br /> LEGENDS IN THE PRAYERS FOR PENTECOST.</h2> -</div> -<p class='c004'>One of the most glorious circumstances in the national history -of Israel, as well as one of the most extraordinary facts in -the records of mankind, is the descent of the Lord God upon -Mount Sinai to proclaim the law. Glorious it is for Israel, for -never did nation hear the voice of the Lord, speaking out of the -midst of the fire, as Israel heard. The display of God’s grace -and favour is the glory of his people, and here they were both -displayed pre-eminently. The grandeur and awfulness of the -scene we cannot now enter upon, except to remark, that the -grandeur of the reality is equalled by the dignity of the -narrative, which Moses has left us in the 19th and 20th -chapters of Exodus. None but an inspired historian could -have treated an event so honourable to his nation, with such -majestic simplicity. The style and tone furnish an irresistible -evidence to the truth of the relation. And perhaps this -evidence is much strengthened by the contrast presented in -the writings of the rabbies. There is no part of the Scripture -history which they have more amplified by additions of their -own; as plainly stamped with falsehood, as the other with -truth. We have here a wide field before us, but shall confine -ourselves to those legends which are authenticated in the -synagogue prayers for the anniversary of that great event. -In the morning service for the second day is found an account -of the giving of the law, in which the following wonderful -passage occurs:—</p> - -<p class='c005'>צבאות קודש אחזום בעתה , צלע כגיגית עליהם -כפפת , צרופה קבלו במנוד ואימתה ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“Dread seized the holy hosts, when thou didst turn the -mountain over them as a tub: they received the pure law with -fear and tremor.” (D. Levi’s Pentecost Prayers, fol. 150.) -Here is a circumstance in the giving of the law, which few -readers of the Pentateuch will remember. All will grant that -to see Mount Sinai hanging over them, like a tub or an extinguisher, -was a very dreadful sight, if it really happened. -But surely every reasonable Israelite will inquire upon what -evidence it rests? In all the previous history God appears as -a merciful Father, visiting his children in their affliction, redeeming -them from bondage, and exhibiting miracle after -miracle as their safety or their necessity required; how is it, -then, that He appears so suddenly in the character of a tyrant -or a destroyer, ready to drop the mighty mountain upon the -<a id='Page_145'></a>heads of his people, and cover them up for ever under the rocky -mass? Moses throws no light upon the subject. The oral law, -the Talmud, must explain the mystery.</p> - -<p class='c005'>ויתיצבו בתחתית ההר אמר ר׳ אבדימי בר חמא -בר חסא מלמד שכפה עליהם הקב׳׳ה את ההר כגיגית -ואמר להם אם תקבלו את התורה מוטב ואם לאו שם -תהא קבורתכם , אמר ר׳ אחא בר יעקב מכאן מודעא -רבה לאורייתא וכו׳ ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“And they stood at the nether part of the mountain (or -beneath the mountain). (Exod. xix. 17.) R. Avdimi, the son -of Chama, the son of Chasa, says, These words teach us that -the Holy One, blessed be He, turned the mountain over them -like a tub, and said to them, If ye will receive the law, well; -but if not, there shall be your grave. R. Acha, the son of -R. Jacob, says, This is a great confession for the law.” -(Shabbath, fol. 88, 1.) From this extract it appears that the -whole foundation of the fable is a sort of pun upon the words -בתחתית ההר, “beneath the mountain,” or as the English -translators rightly have it, “at the nether port of the -mountain.” R. Avdimi thought that these words meant, as -Rashi says, תחת ההר ממש, “under the mountain in the -strictest sense of the words.” But then the puzzle was, how the -Israelites got into that situation. R. Abdimi’s imagination -supplied the rest. But in the first place, the word תחתית -occurs often enough in both the singular and plural, but never -has this signification. In the second place, this fable directly -contradicts the Mosaic account. God had already sent notice -to inform the people of the giving of the law, and they -had replied, “All that the Lord hath spoken we will do.” -(Ver. 8.) In the third place, if the mountain was turned over -them like a tub, how did Moses get up to the top, and what -necessity was there for the command, “Go down, charge the -people, lest they break through?” &c. (Ver. 21.) And lastly, -if the law was forced upon the Israelites contrary to their -wish, cannot they make this an apology for disobedience? -Is not this what R. Acha, the son of Jacob, actually does, -when he says, “This is a great confession for the law?” -So at least Rashi explains his words.</p> - -<p class='c005'>מודעא רבה שאם יזמינם לדין למה לא קיימתא -מה שקבלתם עליכם יש להם תשובה שקבלוה באוס ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“A great confession, for if he call them to judgment, saying, -Why have ye not kept that which ye took upon yourselves, -they have an answer, that they were forced to receive it.” -(Rashi Comment. in loc.) And this fable, contrary to the -<a id='Page_146'></a>narrative of Moses, derogatory to the mercy of God, and subversive -to the principle of human responsibility, the rabbies -have introduced into the prayers of the synagogue, and there it -still stands as an evidence of the absence of God’s Spirit from -those who rejected Jesus of Nazareth, and imposed the oral law -upon Israel. But this want of wisdom appears not only in the -nature of the additions which they have made to the Word of -God, but also in the conflicting statements which these additions -contain. In the legend just given Israel is represented -as having been unwilling to receive the law, and yet in the -morning service for the first day of Pentecost, we have an -allusion to another legend, which describes the great reward -bestowed upon them, because they received it with such a -ready mind.</p> - -<p class='c005'>הם קבלו עול תורה עלימו , ונעשה לנשמע הקדימו , -מרם נשמע נעשה נמו , וצדקה בה נחשבה למו , -ולשני כתרים סוימו , למלוכה וכהונה וללויה אוימו ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“They willingly took the yoke of his law upon them, and -caused the expression, ‘We will do,’ to precede, ‘We will -hearken;’ before they heard it they said, ‘We will do,’ and -which was accounted for righteousness to them; and they were -dignified with two crowns; and rendered awful with the -sovereignty of the priesthood, and the Levitical institution.” -(Pentecost Prayers, fol. 86.) At first sight it would appear as -if this were a mere figurative expression to denote either the -priesthood and the Levitical institution, or the monarchy and -the priesthood. But then a difficulty occurs, why are only two -crowns mentioned? Every one knows that in a figurative sense -the oral law says that Israel is crowned with three crowns, as -it is said,</p> - -<p class='c005'>בשלש כתרים נכתרו ישראל כתר תורה וכתר -כהונה וכתר מלכות ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“Israel is crowned with three crowns, the crown of the law, -and the crown of the priesthood, and the crown of the -kingdom.” (Hilchoth Talmud Torah, chap. iii. 1.) Why -then does this prayer only mention two? It is because it -refers to a totally different circumstance. The number of -the crowns, and the reason assigned for their bestowal, -“because they caused the expression ‘We will do,’ to precede -‘We will hearken,’” both identify the allusion as being made -to the following Talmudic legend:—</p> - -<p class='c005'>בשעה שהקדימו ישראל נעשה לנשמע באו ששים -ריבוא של מלאכי השרת לכל אחד ואחד מישראל -קשרו לו שני כתרים אחד כנגד נעשה ואחד כנגד -<a id='Page_147'></a>נשמע וכיון שחטאו ישראל ירדו מאה ועשרים רבוא -מלאכי חבלה ופרקום שנאמר ויתנצלו בני ישראל את -עדים מהר חורב ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“In the hour when Israel caused, ‘We will do,’ to precede -‘We will hearken,’ there came six hundred thousand ministering -angels, one to each Israelite, and invested him with two -crowns, one answering to ‘We will do;’ and the second answering -to ‘We will hearken.’ But when Israel sinned, there -descended twelve hundred thousand evil angels, and took them -away: as it is said, ‘The children of Israel stripped themselves -(or were stripped) of their ornaments by the mount Horeb.’” -(Ex. xxxiii. 6.) (Shabbath, fol. 88, 1.) Here, then, is no -allegory, no allusion to the allegorical crowns of Israel, but -a narrative of a supposed fact, which occurred in the history -of each of the six hundred thousand Israelites who went forth -from Egypt. The commentary in the Talmud evidently treats -this as a grave and authentic history, for it tells us the material -of which the crowns were composed.</p> - -<p class='c005'>שני כתרים של הוד היו לפיכך כשנטלם משה -קרן עור פניו ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“The two crowns were crowns of glory, therefore, when -Moses wore them the skin of his face shone.” From this it is -evident that the Rabbinists considered this legend to be as -authentic as the fact recorded in the Bible (Exod. xxxiv. 30), -that the skin of Moses’ face shone. They were not satisfied -with the honour conferred upon Moses, but were led, by a vainglorious -feeling, to extend it to every individual Israelite, and -to add what is not said of Moses, but what increases the marvellousness -of the narrative, that six hundred thousand angels -descended for the purpose of crowning Israel, and that twice -that number was necessary for the removal of the crowns once -conferred. But how does this story agree with the former? -If the Israelites were compelled to receive the law against -their will, by the terrors of the mountain hanging over their -heads, what great merit was there to deserve these two crowns? -If the Israelites were so willing, and received such a glorious -reward, what necessity was there for turning the mountain over -them like a tub? These stories are inconsistent in themselves, -without foundation in the Word of God, and are therefore -unworthy of a place in the prayers of Israel. But this prayer -has other particulars equally wonderful, to which we proceed. -A sentence or two farther on, this prayer describes the effect -which the delivery of the ten commandments produced upon -Israel.</p> - -<p class='c005'>ואחת בדברו החריד עולמו , ועשרים וארבעה מיל -מהלך נעו עמו , שתים זו כהשמיעו נואמו ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'><a id='Page_148'></a>“When he spoke the first word, his world was terrified, and -when they heard two commandments, they moved backward -the space of twenty-four מיל miles.” (Pentecost Prayers, fol. -87.) To understand this, we must again refer to the Talmud, -which gives us the particulars.</p> - -<p class='c005'>אמר ר׳ יהושע בר לוי כל דבור ודבור שיצא מפי -הקב׳׳ה חזרו ישראל לאחוריהן י׳׳ב מיל והיו מלאכי -השרת מדדין אותן שנאמר מלאכי צבאות ידודון ידודון -אל תקרא ידודון אלא ידדון ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“Rabbi Joshua, the son of Levi, says, as each commandment -proceeded from the mouth of the Holy One, blessed be He, -Israel retreated twelve miles, and the ministering angels led -them back, as it is said, ‘the angels of the host did flee apace.’ -(Ps. lxviii. 13.) Do not read יְדַֹדּוּן ‘they fled;’ but יְדַדּוּן, ‘they -led.’” (Shabbath, fol. 88, 2.) In this short passage we have -two deliberate alterations of the Word of God, in order to -square it with this absurd tradition. In the first place, -מלכי צבאות “Kings of hosts” is changed into מלאכי צבאות -“angels of hosts,” and in the second place, “They fled,” is -changed into “they led.” These alterations do of themselves -throw discredit upon the story which requires them, and not -only upon this story, but upon the whole oral law, which -allows such trifling with the Word of God. But our business -is at present with the legend, and as it is told a little more -circumstantially in the Jalkut, it will be well to give that -version of it also.</p> - -<p class='c005'>ויעמדו מרחוק חוץ לשנים עשר מיל מגיד שהיו -ישראל נרתעין לאחוריהן שנים עשר מיל וחוזרין -לפניהם שנים עשר מיל הרי עשרים וארבעה מיל על -כל דבור ודבור נמצאו מהלכין באותו היום מאתים -וארבעים מיל באותה שעה אמר הקב׳׳ה למלאכי השרת -רדו וסייעו את אהיכם שנאמר מלכי צבאות ידודון -ידודון ידודון בהליכה ידודון בחזרה ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“‘They removed and stood afar off’ (Exod. xx. 18)—a distance -of twelve miles. This shows us that Israel retreated backwards -twelve miles, and then advanced forwards twelve miles, -altogether twenty-four miles, as each commandment was -delivered. Thus they travelled in that day two hundred -and forty miles. At that time the Holy One, blessed be -He, said to the ministering angels, Descend and help your -brethren, for it is said, ‘The Kings of hosts did lead, did -lead.’ (Ps. lxviii. 13.) That is, they led when they went, -and they led them when they returned.” (Jalkut Shimoni, part -<a id='Page_149'></a>i. fol. 53, 1.) It is hardly needful to point out the absurdity -of this narration. Just think of the Israelites running away -twelve miles, when they heard a commandment, and then -brought back again, and then running away again. How unlike -the simple and dignified narrative which Moses has left! -We ask every intelligent Israelite what he thinks? Is this story -a falsehood? If so, why is it left in the prayers of the synagogue? -If it stood alone, we might suppose that by some oversight -or other it had crept in, but we have already noticed -many like it, and the very next sentence of this same prayer -contains another.</p> - -<p class='c005'>ברדתו לדבר לאם עולם , רעשו אומות העולם , -פחד קראם ורעד החילם , חיל כיולדה הבהילם , -סערו וחרדו וסר עלם , ואצל קמואל באו כלם , לנחש -בקסמי קלקולם , ושאלו לו מה זה בא לעולם , שמא -היום למימיו חוזר העולם ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“When he came down to speak to the immortal people, the -people of the world were moved, dread seized them, and -trembling laid hold on them; pain troubled them as a woman -in travail: they were shaken and disturbed, and their shadow -departed from them; they all came to Kemuel, to divine with -their erroneous divinations, and asked him, What is this that -hath happened to the world? Perhaps the world is this day to -return to its chaos.” The preceding story told us what -happened to Israel, the allusion in this sentence tells us -of the terror which came upon the Gentiles; but to understand -the allusion, we must again refer to the Talmud.</p> - -<p class='c005'>וישמע יתרו כהן מדין מה שמועה שמע ובא -ונתגייר ר׳ יהושוע אומר מלחמה עמלק שמע שהרי -כתוב בצדו ויחלש יהושע את עמלק ואת עמו לפי -הרב , ר׳׳א המודעי אומר מתן תורה שמע שכשנתנה -תורה לישראל קולו הולך מסוף עולם ועד סופו וכל -אומות העולם אחזתן רעדה בהיכליהן ואמרו שירה -שנאמר ובהיכלו כולו אומר כבוד נתקבצו כולם אצל -בלעם הרשע ואמרו לו מה קול ההמון הזה אשר -שמענו שמא מבול בא לעולם אמר להם ה׳ למבול -ישב וישב ה׳ למך לעולם , כבר נשבע הקב׳׳ה שאינו -מביא מבול לעולם אמרו לו מבול של מים אינו -מביא אבל מבול של אש מביא שנאמר כי הנה באש -ה׳ נשפט אמר להם כבר נשבע שאינו משחית כל -בשר , ומה קול ההמון הזה אשר שמענו אמר להן -חמדה טובה יש לו בבית גנזין שהיתה גנוזה אצלו -<a id='Page_150'></a>תתקע׳׳ד דורות קודם שנברא העולם ובקש ליתנה -לבניו שנאמר ה׳ עוז לעמו יתן פתחו כולם ואמרו -ה׳ יברך את עמו בשלום ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“‘And Jethro the priest of Midian heard.’ (Exod. xviii. 1.) -What was it that he heard which induced him to come and be -a proselyte? R. Joshua says, he heard of the war with Amalek, -for immediately before it is written, ‘And Joshua discomfited -Amalek and his people with the edge of his sword.’ (Exod. -xvii. 13.) R. Eliezer, the Modite, says, he heard the giving of -the law, for when the law was given to Israel, his voice went -from one end of the world to the other, and all the nations of the -world were seized with trembling in their temples, and they -repeated a hymn, as it is said, ‘In his temple doth every one -speak of his glory.’ (Psalm xxix. 9.) They gathered themselves -together to Baalam the wicked, and said to him, What -is the voice of the tumult which we have heard? Perhaps -a flood is coming upon the world. He replied, ‘The Lord -sitteth upon the flood; yea, the Lord sitteth King for ever.’ -(Verse 10.) The Holy One, blessed be He, has sworn long -since that He will not bring a flood upon the world. They -replied, He will not bring a flood of waters, but He will bring -a flood of fire! for it is said, ‘By fire will the Lord plead.’ -(Isaiah lxvi. 16.) He answered them, He has sworn long since -that he will not destroy all flesh. What, then, is the voice of -the tumult which we have heard? He said to them, God has -had a most desirable good in the house of his treasures, which -has been treasured up with him for nine hundred and seventy-four -generations before the creation of the world, and he now -seeks to give it to his children, for it is said, ‘The Lord will -give strength to his people.’ Then they all began and said, -‘The Lord will bless his people with peace.’” (Ps. xxix. 11.) -(Zevachin, fol. 116, 1.) This is the fable to which your prayers -refer, and which all Israel throughout the world is taught to -believe, and to commemorate in the solemn act of public -worship. That it is a mere fable is very easy to prove. First, -it contradicts the narrative given by Moses. This fable says -that the tremendous noise made at the giving of the law, -brought Jethro to Moses—that this was what he heard. But if -you will read the whole verse, from which the Talmud quotes a -few words, you will find that there was no occasion for asking -what Jethro heard, for Moses himself expressly tells us what he -heard, and why he came. “When Jethro, the priest of Midian, -Moses’ father-in-law, heard of all that God had done for Moses, -and for Israel his people, and that the Lord had brought Israel -out of Egypt, then Jethro,” &c. (Exodus xviii. 1-5.) If you -will read the whole chapter, you will find that Jethro was come -<a id='Page_151'></a>and gone before the law was given, and consequently before the -tremendous noise was made; so that it is certainly false that -this was the cause of his coming. Secondly, that all the nations -heard the voice of God is false, for it also contradicts the -language of Moses, who makes it the peculiar privilege of -Israel, that they alone heard the voice. “Did ever people hear -the voice of God speaking out of the midst of the fire, as thou -hast heard, and live?” (Deut. iv. 33.) Lastly, this story is -palpably absurd. The Talmud represents Balaam and his -Gentile contemporaries quoting Scripture like two rabbies, and -that, hundreds of years before the portions which they quote -were written! They both quote the 29th Psalm, a Psalm of -David, about 500 years before he was born, and the Gentiles -quote the 66th of Isaiah above 700 years before it was written! -And your rabbies have not been content to keep this absurd and -foolish story in the Talmud, but have inserted it in the prayers -for the solemn festival of Pentecost. According to these -prayers, you are taught to believe that, at the giving of the law, -God turned Mount Sinai over the people of Israel like a tub, -and compelled them to receive the law against their will; and -yet that, for their ready obedience, six hundred thousand -angels were sent down to crown each man with two crowns. -You are taught to believe that when the commandments were -given, Israel walked backwards and forwards two hundred and -forty miles. And that the voice of God was so loud that -it was heard by all the nations of the world, who all went to -Balaam, and all knew and quoted the Psalms and the prophets, -centuries before they were written. This is what you have -got by following the oral law. It is in vain for you to say -that you do not believe these things—there they stand in your -Prayer-book. If you do not believe them, why do you leave -them there? But whatever individuals may say, it is evident -that the compilers of the Jewish Liturgy heartily believed every -word of them, and therefore introduced them into their prayers. -And it is equally certain that, wherever the Talmud maintains -its authority, these fables form part of the faith of Israel. But -some will say, We do not believe them. Why not; Do you -disbelieve them because they are true? No, but because they -are false. Then you confess that the oral law contains downright -palpable falsehoods, and that in many of its narrations it -is not worthy of credence. Of what value, then, is the oral -law, and what credit can we give to the authors of it, who did -not scruple to invent these foolish stories?</p> -<div class='chapter'> - <a id='Page_152'></a> - <h2 id='chap20' class='c003'>No. XX. <br /> LEGENDS IN THE PRAYERS FOR PENTECOST.</h2> -</div> -<p class='c004'>Nearly eighteen centuries have now elapsed since a large -portion of the Jewish nation deliberately chose Rabbinism in -preference to Christianity. The great question between Jews -and Christians is, whether those persons made a right choice. -The means of answering the question are within our reach. -The oral law exists, diffused through the volumes of the -Talmud, and compressed in the prayers of the synagogue. -There we can look for it, and judge of its spirit and its intrinsic -excellence and evidence. The Rabbinists say, that -the oral law was given to Moses on Mount Sinai, and that -the oral law which they now possess, is identically the same -as that then received; and they appeal in proof of this assertion -to the continuity of its transmission from father to -son down to the present day. The Christian objects that -this oral law is full of fables. The Talmudist replies by -making a distinction between the דינים the laws and the -Agadah, or legendary part: and the Christian is satisfied or -silenced until he opens the Jewish Prayer-book, and finds -that the most absurd and improbable of all the Talmudic -legends are there recognised as undoubted verities, and integral -parts of modern Judaism. Many of these, and sufficient -to annihilate all claims which the oral law can make -to truth, have been examined, but as this part of the subject -is important, two more must be considered before we can at -present take leave of them. In the sentence immediately -following our last extract from the Jewish prayers we read -as follows:—</p> - -<p class='c005'>וכל דור ודור ומנהיגיהם , אשר עמדו לפניהם , -והעתידים לעמוד אחריהם , כולם העמידם בסיני -עמהם , להודיעם כי דור דע נחשק מכולהם , טוב -טעם ודעת להשכילהם , וכל מום לא היה בהם , כי -שלמים ומושלמים היו כולהם ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>Which D. Levi thus translates, “And every generation, and -its governors that existed before them, and those that rose -after them, were all placed at Mount Sinai with them, to let -them know, that the intelligent generation was more acceptable -than them; to make them understand good judgment -and knowledge: there was no blemish in them, for they -were entirely perfect.” (Pentecost Prayers, p. 87.) The -assembling of the living nation of Israel, to hear the voice -of the Creator, was not grand enough for the rabbies, they -<a id='Page_153'></a>have therefore added that the souls of all the unborn generations -were present to hear and receive the law. The comparison -of this tradition with some already considered suggests -several interesting topics for inquiry. For instance, whether -these souls were under the mountain or not when it was -turned over them—whether they performed the journey of -two hundred and forty miles backwards and forwards at the -giving of the ten commandments, &c.? But the authority, -which this tradition confers on the oral law, demands our -more immediate attention, and is particularly manifest in that -version of the story, which is found in Medrash Rabba.</p> - -<p class='c005'>וידבר אלהים את כל הדברים האלה לאמר , אמר -ר׳ יצחק מה שהנביאים עתידין להתנבאות בכל דור -ודור קבלו מהר סיני שכן משה אומר להם לישראל -כי את אשר ישנו פה עמנו עומד היום ואת אשר -איננו פה עמנו היום , עמנו עומד היום אין כתיב כאן -אלא איננו עמנו היום אלו הנשמות העתידות להבראות -שאין בהן ממש שלא נאמרה בהן עמידה שאע׳׳פ -שלא הין באותה שעה כל אחד ואחד קבל את שלו -וכן הוא אומר משא דבר ה׳ אל ישראל ביד מלאכי , -בימי מלאכי לא נאמר אלא ביד מלאכי שכבר היתה -הנבואה בידו מהר סיני ועד אותה שעה לא נתנה לו -רשות להתנבאות , וכן ישעיה אומר מעת היותה שם -אני , אמר ישעיה מיום שנתנה תורה בסיני שם הייתי -וקבלתי את הנבואה הזאת אלא ועתה ה׳ אלהים -שלחני ורוחו עד עכשיו לא נתן לי רשות להתנבאות , -ולא כל הנביאים בלבד קבלו מסיני נבואתן אלא אף -החכמים העומדים בכל דור ודור כל אחד ואחד קבל -את שלו מסיני וכן הוא אומר את הדברים האלה -דבר ה׳ אל כל קהלכם ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“‘And God spake all these words, saying.’ (Exod. xx. 1.) -R. Isaac says, that all those things, which the prophets were -to prophesy in every generation, they received from Mount -Sinai, for so Moses says to Israel, ‘But with him that standeth -here with us this day, and also with him that is not here -with us this day.’ (Deut. xxix. 15.) Here in the latter -clause, it is not said, ‘That <i>standeth</i> with us this day,’ but -‘With him that <i>is not</i> here with us this day.’ These are the -souls that were to be created, who had no corporeal existence, -and of whom therefore it could not be said they <i>stood</i> there. -But although they did not exist in that hour, every one of -them received his own, and so it is written, ‘The burden of -the Word of the Lord to Israel in the hand of Malachi.’ -<a id='Page_154'></a>(Mai. i. 1.) Here it is not said in the days of Malachi, but -in the hand of Malachi, for this prophecy had been long since -in his hand, even from Mount Sinai: but up to that time -permission had not been given him to prophesy. In like -manner Isaiah says, ‘From the time that it was, there am I.’ -(Isaiah xlviii. 16.) Isaiah means to say, From the day that -the law was given there was I, and I received this prophecy, -only ‘Now the Lord God and His Spirit hath sent me;’ that -is, until then permission had not been given him to prophesy. -But it was not the prophets only who received their prophecy -from Sinai, but also the wise men in every generation, each -one of them received his own from Sinai, and so it is said, -‘These words the Lord spake unto all your congregation.’ -(Deut. v. 22.)” (Shemoth Rabba Parashah, 28.) The object -of this fable is very plain, it is to clothe the rabbies with infallible -authority. It is here asserted that the rabbies of -every generation were all present at the giving of the law, -and each received immediately from Sinai those legal decisions -and doctrines which he was to communicate to the -world, and consequently every thing, that a rabbi teaches, -is infallibly right and true, and as authoritative as the words -of Moses and the prophets, for “God spake all these words,” -as this legend interprets this verse. The rabbies of every -generation are included, so that, according to this tradition -the wise men of Israel, even in this degenerate time, still -deliver infallible instructions which they received more than -three thousand years ago from the mouth of God himself. -But this fable avers too much. If all Israel was present at -Sinai, and each individual, whether prophet, or rabbi, or layman, -received the law at that time, what use was there in the -transmission from father to son, from the time of Moses down -to us? Nay, more, what use is there in teaching at all, for -every man then received his own? Nay, further, what use -is the written law, for if every man was taught at Sinai, there -is no need for him to read and learn now? But this is a matter -which every Israelite can decide for himself. Let him ask -himself, how much he remembers of this wonderful event in -his existence, his presentation at Sinai, and his reception of -the law from the Lord himself. The Scripture proofs which -are here given are evidently nothing to the purpose. The first -proof is, “God spake all these words, saying.” (Exod. xx. 1.) -But every one who will take the trouble of reading the chapter -will see, that “all these words” cannot apply to the prophecies, -nor to the decisions of the rabbies, but to the ten commandments -and to them only. So far from delivering all the -decisions and comments since taught by the rabbies, God spake -only the ten commandments to the people, and when they heard -these, “they said unto Moses, Speak thou with us and we will -<a id='Page_155'></a>hear; but let not God speak with us, lest we die.” (Verse 19.) -To say, therefore, that God’s speaking “all these words” includes -the whole oral law and all the rabbinical comments, is -gross perversion of the text, and direct contradiction of Moses’ -account.</p> - -<p class='c005'>The next and most usual verse adduced to prove this fable is -Deut. xxix. 14, 15, where it is said, “Neither with you only -do I make this covenant and oath; but with him that standeth -here with us this day, before the Lord our God, and also with -him that is not here with us this day.” But this verse plainly -proves the contrary, that the other generations of Israel were -there in no sense whatever. The Hebrew words are as strong -as they can be.</p> - -<p class='c005'>ואת אשר איננו פה עמנו היום ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>Those with whom the covenant is made are divided into two -classes, “Him that standeth here,” and “Him that is not here.” -If the word standeth had been repeated, if the verse said, -“With him that standeth here, and with him that standeth -not here,” there might have been some colour for this fable: -the rabbies might have urged that though the unborn generations -did not stand there, they stood somewhere else; but -the present wording of the verse utterly excludes all possibility -of existence, either corporeal or incorporeal. “With him that -is not here, איננו” shows that they were there in no sense.</p> - -<p class='c005'>The proof taken from Malachi, “The burden of the word of -the Lord to Israel in the hand of Malachi,” is nonsense. Every -one, that knows anything of Hebrew, knows that ביד signifies -“by,” “by means of.” But even taken literally, it will not -prove that Malachi was at Sinai; there is nothing in the words -to inform us when Malachi received the prophecy. The proof -from Isaiah is more unhappy still. The whole context shows -that it is God who speaks in that verse, and not the prophet. -Indeed we might ask, if Isaiah had already received all his -prophecies at Sinai, what was the use of the vision of the Lord -sitting upon his throne, and the commission which is there -given? (Isai. vi.) And so we might ask concerning most of -the prophets. The case of Samuel is here particularly worthy -of consideration. According to the above tradition cited in the -Jewish prayers, Samuel had been at Sinai, and there received -all that he was to deliver during his sublunary existence. And -yet when the word of the Lord came to him, he did not recognise -the Divine call, and three times went to Eli, and it was -Eli who at last told him that it was God. Now how is this -written history to be reconciled with the above tradition? -The tradition says that Samuel had heard the voice of God at -Sinai, that there all the prophetic words which he was ever to -<a id='Page_156'></a>deliver were made known to him, and yet the Bible says, -“Now Samuel did not yet know the Lord, neither was the -word of the Lord yet revealed unto him.” (1 Sam. iii. 7.)</p> - -<p class='c005'>The last proof, taken from Deut. v. 22, if considered in its -context, also proves the contrary. The tradition quotes only a -part of the verse, “These words the Lord spake unto all your -congregations;” but if you read on you will find, “And he -added no more,” which words plainly limit the first sentence -to the ten commandments. This tradition, then, as being -contrary to Scripture, to the law of Moses, is a falsehood, and -is therefore unworthy of a place in the prayers of that people, -whom God selected from all the nations of the earth to be his -witnesses, and the depositories of his truth. But this tradition -is objectionable not only as a fable, though that is a very strong -objection to any thing proposed as an article of faith, but on -account of the purpose which it was intended to serve. It was -invented for the purpose of strengthening the spiritual tyranny -of the Scribes and Pharisees over the minds of the people. It -is not therefore merely an erroneous interpretation of Scripture, -nor the dream of a fanatic imagination, but the deliberate -invention of men who knew what they were about, and had an -object which they were endeavouring to compass, and for the -attainment of which they did not stick at deliberate falsehood. -They were, however, too wise to confine all the advantages of -this appearance at Sinai to themselves; they asserted that the -whole people of Israel obtained an advantage which makes -them superior to all other nations. The prayer which we have -quoted above alludes to this, when it says, “There was no -blemish in them, for they were all entirely perfect.” This -sentence rather puzzles an ordinary reader of the Bible, -who thinks of the conduct and character of Israel as there -described; the Talmud, however, helps us to understand this -eulogy:—</p> - -<p class='c005'>מפני מה גוים מזוהמין שלא עמדו על הר סיני -שבשעה שבא הנחש על חוה הטיל בה זוהמא , -ישראל שעמדו על הר סיני פסקה זוהמתן גוים שלא -עמדו על הר סיני לא פסקה זוהמתן , אמר ליה רב -אחא בריה דובא לרב אשי גרים מאי אמר ליה אע׳׳ג -דאינהו לא הוו מזליהו הוה , דכתיב את אשר ישנו -פה עמנו עומד היום לפני ה׳ אלהינו ואת אשר איננו -פה וגו׳ ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“Why are the Gentiles defiled? Because they did not -stand upon Mount Sinai, for in the hour that the serpent came -to Eve, he communicated a defilement, which was taken away -from Israel when they stood on Mount Sinai: but the defilement -<a id='Page_157'></a>of the Gentiles was not removed, as they did not stand on Sinai. -Rav Acha, the son of Rabba, said to Rav Ashai, how, then, -does it fare with proselytes? He replied, although they went -not there, their good fortune (or star) was there, as it is written, -‘With him that standeth here with us this day, before the Lord -our God, and also with him that is not here with us this day.’ -(Deut. xxix. 15.)” (Shabbath. fol. 145, col. 2, at the bottom -of the page.) The commentary on this passage quotes still -further particulars from Siphri, and says—</p> - -<p class='c005'>כל שעמדו על הר סיני נתקדשו ונטהרו , ונתרפאו -מכל מום ואף עורים ופסחים שהיו בישראל כדתניא -בספרי ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“All that stood on Mount Sinai were sanctified and purified, -and were healed from every blemish, even the blind and the -lame that then happened to be in Israel, as is taught in -Siphri.” In this part of the fable the inventors of the oral -law endeavour to flatter the vanity of the Israelites, and thus -to engage their affections in behalf of that tradition which -was to secure their own power. The Scribes understood well -the deceitfulness of the human heart, and knew that men love -to hear and are ready to believe any thing that tends to their -own personal aggrandizement. But in thus flattering the -people, they were turning their backs upon that example -which Moses set them; and contradicting the whole current -of Scripture testimony. Moses and the prophets, as the -servants of God, told the people of their sins and their evil -deeds, that they might repent and be saved. Their object -was not to secure popular favour, nor to advance their own -selfish purposes; they therefore could afford to be honest and -to speak truth. The inventors of the oral law, on the contrary, -were endeavouring to erect a fabric of personal honour -and power: they were therefore obliged to address themselves -to the weak side of the human heart; and in doing so, were -compelled to run counter to the plainest declarations of God’s -Word. All men and every nation like to be told that they -are superior to the rest of the world, and are distinguished -by moral endowments from the mass of mankind. The -inventors of the oral law, therefore, told Israel that they -were far elevated above all other nations, for they had been -cleansed at Sinai from that innate defilement which still -contaminates all the rest of the children of men. But is -this true—is this what Moses and the prophets say? Moses -says, “Understand, therefore, that the Lord thy God giveth -thee not this good land to possess it for thy righteousness: -for thou art a stiff-necked people.” “Ye have been rebellious -against the Lord from the day that I knew you.” (Deut. -<a id='Page_158'></a>ix. 6, 24.) Isaiah says of Israel, “From the sole of the foot -even unto the head there is no soundness in it, but wounds, -and bruises, and putrifying sores.” “Ah! sinful nation!—a -people laden with iniquity; a seed of evil-doers—children -that are corrupters.” (Isaiah i. 4-6.) And again he says, -“Woe is me, for I am undone: because I am a man of unclean -lips, and I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips.” -(Isaiah vi. 5.) Jeremiah says, “Can the Ethiopian change -his skin and the leopard his spots? Then may ye also do -good that are accustomed to do evil.” (Jer. xiii. 23.) And -again, “All these nations are uncircumcised, and all the house -of Israel are uncircumcised in the heart.” (Jer. ix. 26.) The -Lord himself says to Ezekiel, “Son of man, I send thee to -the children of Israel, to a rebellious nation that hath rebelled -against me: they and their fathers have transgressed against -me to this very day. For they are impudent children and -stiff-hearted.” (Ezek. ii. 3, 4.) And again, “Thou art not -sent to a people of a strange speech and of an hard language, -but to the house of Israel: not to many people of a strange -speech and of an hard language, whose words thou canst not -understand; surely had I sent thee to them, they would have -hearkened unto thee. But the house of Israel will not -hearken unto thee: for they will not hearken unto me; for -all the house of Israel are impudent and hard-hearted.” -(Ezek. iii. 4, 7, &c.) We do not quote these passages to -show that the Gentiles have a more favoured constitution of -moral nature. Far from it; in reading these accounts given -by the prophets, we recognise the features of our own picture. -Far be it from us to glory; we cite these passages to show -you how miserably your oral law endeavours to blind and -delude you by flattering your vanity. It tells you that you -have been purged from every stain; Moses and the prophets -teach you the truth—that you are just like the other sons of -men, and have no moral superiority or advantage whatever. -We wish to point out to you how the system of rabbinism -is diametrically opposed to Moses and the prophets, and -above all, to impress upon you that the authors of this oral -law are not worthy or your confidence, for they have, for -their own private interests, invented narratives and doctrines -which contradict that Word of God, which ought to be -Israel’s glory. We wish to show you how certain principles -of evil pervade every part of that system, not even excepting -those prayers which are offered up in the public worship -of God. There these fables also occur, and we ask every -Israelite who loves the law of Moses or hopes in the promises -of God by the prophets, how he can conscientiously stand -by in the synagogue and hear the words of Moses and the -prophets openly contradicted? How can he remain silent -<a id='Page_159'></a>when the reader declares of Israel that there is no blemish -in them, for they are all entirely perfect, when he knows -and feels that he and all his brethren are just as frail, as -sinful, and as imperfect as the other sons of men? How -can they expect the return of God’s favour to their nation -so long as these fictions are made a part of public worship? -Moses teaches very different doctrine. He says, “If they shall -confess their iniquity, and the iniquity of their fathers, with -their trespass which they have trespassed against me, and -that also they have walked contrary unto me; and that I -also have walked contrary unto them, and have brought them -into the land of their enemies: if then their uncircumcised -hearts be humbled, and they then accept of the punishment -of their iniquity: then will I remember my covenant with -Jacob, and also my covenant with Isaac, and also my covenant -with Abraham will I remember: and I will remember the -land.” (Levit. xxvi. 40-42.) Here Moses makes a conviction -and acknowledgment of guilt, an indispensable preliminary -to the return of God’s favour to the nation. Israel -must feel that, so far from being cleansed from all impurity, -their heart is uncircumcised, and this uncircumcised heart -must be humbled; but how is this possible, so long as the oral -law and the prayers of the synagogue teach that the Israelites -are the most righteous of mankind, because they received the -law, which the other nations rejected—and the most pure, -or rather the only pure, of mankind, inasmuch as they were -cleansed from every taint at Sinai? These doctrines harden -the heart against true humility, prevent true repentance, and -thereby retard the happiness and the glory of Israel.</p> -<div class='chapter'> - <a id='Page_160'></a> - <h2 id='chap21' class='c003'>No. XXI. <br /> LEGENDS IN THE PRAYERS FOR PENTECOST.</h2> -</div> -<p class='c004'>If Moses or the prophets had any where recorded, that God -had, along with the written law also given an oral law, our -duty would then be to find out where it is: and to inquire -whether that oral law, which now forms the keystone of -modern Judaism, is the one which was given by God. But -neither Moses nor any other prophet has said one word on the -subject. The words הורה שבעל פה “oral law” are no -where to be found in the Bible, nor is there any mention of -the thing itself. If the Bible had plainly alluded to the existence -of the thing, we should not quarrel about the name, -which might have been invented for the sake of brevity and -convenience. But it is remarkable that when Moses commanded -the law to be read publicly in the ears of all the -people, he says not a syllable about the oral explanation, -which if it existed must at least have been of equal importance; -and still more so that the succeeding prophets should have observed -such a profound silence about that, which now constitutes -the main substance of Israel’s religion, and is the key to -the observances and prayers of the synagogue. This silence is -in itself suspicious, and compels us to examine the evidence of -its transmission. The first step here is to ascertain the character -of the witnesses, who say that they received the oral law from -their fathers and transmitted it to their posterity. If it appear -that, in their general testimony, they were disinterested and -truth-loving persons, who have never been convicted of distorting -truth for their private advantage, nor of receiving and -circulating fables as authentic history, their testimony in this -particular matter will be of considerable value. But if it can -be proved that either from a deliberate desire to deceive, or -from an incapacity to weigh evidence and to distinguish between -fact and fiction, they have transmitted a huge mass of -foolish fables as authentic history, then their testimony is -worth nothing, and the story of an oral law having no other -evidence must be classed amongst the other fables which have -come down to us on their authority. That the account of the -giving and transmission of the oral law rests solely and exclusively -on the testimony of the rabbies is clear from the -account itself, as it is found in the Jad Hachasaka.</p> - -<p class='c005'>כל המצוות שנתנו לו למשה בסיני בפירושן נתנו -שנאמר ואתנה לך את לוחות האבן והתורה והמצוה , -תורה זו תורה שבכתב , והמצוה זו פירושה , וצונו -<a id='Page_161'></a>לעשות התורה על פי המצוה . ומצוה זו היא -הנקראת תורה שבע׳׳פ ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“All the commandments which were given to Moses were -given with their explanation, for it is said, ‘I will give thee -the tables of stone and the law and the commandment.’ -(Exod. xxiv. 12.) ‘The law,’ this is the written law, ‘And -the commandment,’ this is the explanation thereof. And he -has commanded to fulfil ‘the law’ according to ‘the commandment.’ -And the commandment is that which is called <i>The -oral law</i>.” Truly the rabbies must have been hard set when -they chose this passage to prove the existence of an oral law. -The keen and clear mind of the sagacious Rambam evidently -felt the difficulty; he, therefore, to give some plausibility to -the proof, omitted the concluding part of the sentence which -he quotes from the Bible. He says, “As it is written ‘I will -give thee tables of stone and the law and the commandment,’” -and there he stops, but let every Israelite open his Pentateuch -and read the remainder, and he will find the whole sentence to -be this, “I will give thee tables of stone, and the law and the -commandment which <i>I have written</i>, to teach them.” Not one -word here about an oral law, but about that which God -had written. It is true that the passage of the Talmud from -which Rambam derived this doctrine gives the whole passage, -but it appears from the process of abbreviation which he has -applied, as if he were ashamed of the explanation there given -and thought it more prudent to omit it. But as it is one of -the main passages which support the doctrine of an oral law, -it must be considered.</p> - -<p class='c005'>ואמר ר׳ לוי בר חמא אמר ר׳ שמעון בן לקיש -מאי דכתיב ואתנה לך את לוחות האבן והתורה -והמצוה אשר כתבתי להורותם , לוחות אלו עשרת -הדברות תורה זו מקרא והמצוה זר משנה אשר -כתבתי אלו נביאים וכתובים להורותם זו גמרא מלמד -שכולם נתנו למשה מסיני ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“R. Levi bar Chama says, R. Simon ben Lakish says, what -is that that is written ‘I will give thee tables of stone, and the -law and the commandment which I have written to teach -them?’ ‘<i>The tables</i>’ are the ten commandments. ‘<i>The law</i>’ is -the written law. ‘The commandment’ is the Mishna. ‘Which -I have written’ means the prophets and sacred writings. -‘To teach them’ means the Gemara. It teaches us that they -were all given to Moses from Sinai.” (Berachoth, fol. 5, -col. 1.) Can any man of common understanding receive this -interpretation, which throws all grammar and context to the -<a id='Page_162'></a>winds, and gravely asserts that not only the law and its -explanation, but the prophets and the whole Talmud, were -given to Moses at Sinai? Will he give up his own reason and -the word of the living God to the authority of R. Simon -ben Lakish? There cannot possibly be any argument which -would prove the falsehood of the narrative concerning the -oral law so completely as this interpretation, which is regarded -as one of its main foundations. The words of Moses which are -here perverted plainly speak of that which God had written. -“I will give thee tables of stone, and the law and the commandment -which I have written to teach them.” Did God -write the oral law, and give it to Moses? What became of it -then? If it was written, how did it become oral? These words -“Which I have written,” have sadly puzzled the rabbinical -commentators, who know not how to reconcile the plain and -obvious sense of the words, with that interpretation which had -been already put upon them in the Talmud. Rashi seemed -to think that the difficulty might be got over by saying—</p> - -<p class='c005'>כל שש מאות ושלש עשרה מצוות בכלל עשרת -הדברית הן ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“All the six hundred and thirteen commandments are -comprehended in the ten commandments.” (Com. in Exod. -xxiv. 12.) But this, though true in one sense, will not obviate -the difficulty. God promises to give Moses the law and -the commandment which he had written. If the oral law -had not been written, it was not included. Saadiah Gaon, -as quoted by Aben Ezra, proposes another solution:—</p> - -<p class='c005'>אמר הגאון כי אשר כתבתי דבוק עם לוחות האבן -לא עם התורה והמצוה כי השם לא כתב רק עשרה -הדברים ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“The Gaon says that the words, ‘<i>Which I have written</i>,’ -are to be connected with ‘<i>The tables of stone</i>,’ and not with -‘<i>The law and the commandment</i>,’ for God wrote only the -ten words.” But unfortunately Moses has so connected them, -and we have no warrant for reversing his order. Aben -Ezra himself, after giving the Talmudic exposition, gives it -as his own opinion, that these words refer to the ten commandments. -He says—</p> - -<p class='c005'>ולפי דעתי כי התורה הדבור הראשון והחמישי -והמצוה השמונה הדברים ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“But in my opinion, ‘<i>The law</i>’ refers to the first and -fifth commandment; and ‘<i>The commandment</i>’ to the other -eight.” (Aben Ezra, Com. in loc.) This is about the -<a id='Page_163'></a>truth. God gave Moses the law and the commandment which -he had written; but as Saadiah admits, God wrote only the -ten words, therefore the ten words are the same as “the -law and the commandments.” Some will say there is tautology -here, that when God says, “I will give thee tables of stone,” he -means the ten commandments, and that therefore the additional -promise “of the law and the commandment” is only an -unnecessary repetition. But this is not true. By “tables of -stone,” God meant tables of stone. He might have given to -Moses the ten commandments without giving him stone tables, -or he might have given him the tables of stone without giving -him the ten words; but as he intended to give him both, -He says, “I will give thee tables of stone, and the law, -and the commandment.” Neither is there any difficulty in the -circumstance that these ten words are called both “law -and commandment.” Inasmuch as they were a revelation of -God’s will, they are justly denominated “law,” תורה; and -as they were proposed as a rule of life, obedience to which -was required, they are entitled, המצוה “The commandment.” -The simple meaning, therefore, is, that God promises to -give the ten commandments which he had written. Every -thing else, and therefore the oral law, is excluded. This -passage, therefore, gives no support to the doctrine that -Moses received an oral as well as a written law on Mount -Sinai. Indeed, the desperate perversion to which this text -has been subjected, throws discredit upon the whole; and -the necessity for such perversion shows that there was no -plain text in the writings of Moses, to which the inventors -of the oral law could appeal.</p> - -<p class='c005'>The authority, then of the oral law must rest altogether -upon the character of those witnesses who handed it down. -But this is a very sandy foundation, for we have already -seen that these men were guilty of inventing or propagating -the most absurd fables; their testimony, therefore, is of no -value. This has been proved abundantly already; but there is -one story for which we had not room in our last number, -and which, as being immediately connected with the giving of -the law, must now be considered. Like the others, it -comes before us authenticated by its introduction into the -prayers of the synagogue, in which the following plain -allusion is made:—</p> - -<p class='c005'>ויקרא לציר ולמרומו העלו , ובינו לבין עם שלישי -עלו , והעמידו ונגש אל ערפלו , ופנים בפנים -דבר לו , וקרנים מידו לו , ידודון ידודון רעשו למולו , -ודברו לפני צור ואמרו לו , מה אנוש כי תגדלו , ומה -תחשבהו למקומנו להעלו , קנין שעשועים להנחיל לו ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'><a id='Page_164'></a>“When he called the messenger (Moses) and made him -ascend to heaven, and appointed him as the third person -between him and his people, and caused him to approach -and stand in the thick darkness, and spake to him face to face, -and rays streamed from his hand to him, the angels were -moved, and rushed towards him; and in the presence of the -Creator they spake, saying thus to him, What is man that -thou shouldest exalt him? and wherefore make such an account -of him as to bring him up to our place and cause him to -inherit the delightful possession (the law)?” (Pentecost -Prayers, fol. 88.) Here it is plainly said, that the angels -remonstrated with God at the favour shown to Moses. This -circumstance is not to be found in the writings of Moses, but -it is recorded in the Talmud, and the particulars are thus -given:—</p> - -<p class='c005'>בשעה שעלה משה למרום אמרו מלאכי השרת -לפני הקב׳׳ה רבונו של עולם מה לילוד אשה בינינו , -אמר להם לקבל תורה בא , אמרו לפניו חמדה גנוזה -שגנוזה לך מששת ימי בראשית תשע מאות ושבעים -וארבעה דורות קודם שנברא העולם אתה מבקש -ליתנה לבשר ודם , מה אנוש כי תזכרנו ובן אדם כי -תפקדנו ה׳ אדונינו מה אדיר שמך בכל הארץ אשר -תנה הודך על השמים , אמר לו הקב׳׳ה למשה חזור -להן תשובה אמר לפניו רבונו של עולם מתיירא אני -שמא ישרפוני בהבל שבפיהם , אמר לו אחוז בכסא -כבודי וחזור להן תשובה שנאמר מאחז פני כסא פרשז -עליו עננו ואמר ר׳ נחום מלמד שפירש שדי מזיו -שכינתו ועננו עליו אמר לפניו רבונו של עולם תורה -שאתה נותן לי מה כתיב בה אנכי ה׳ אלהיך אשר -הוצאתיך מארץ מצרים אמר להם למצרים ירדתם -לפרעה השתעבדתם תורה למה תהא לכם , שוב מה -כתיב בה לא יהיה לך אלהים אחרים בין ערלים -אלם שרויין שעובדין ע׳׳ז שוב מה כתיב בה זכור -את יום השבת לקדשו כלום אתם עושין מלאכה -שאתם צריכין שבות , שוב מה כתיב בה לא תשא -משא ומתן יש ביניכם שוב מה כתיב בה כבד את -אביך ואת אמך אב ואם יש לכם שוב מה כתיב בה -לא תרצח לא תנאף לא תגנוב קנאה יש ביניכם יצר -הרע יש ביניכם מיד הודו לו להקב׳׳ה ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“In the hour when Moses ascended up on high, the ministering -angels said before God, O Lord of the world, what -business has he that is born of a woman amongst us? He -<a id='Page_165'></a>replied, He is come to receive the law. They answered, This -most desirable treasure, which has been treasured up from -the six days of creation, six hundred and seventy-four generations -before the world was created, dost thou now wish to give -it to flesh and blood—what is man that thou art mindful -of him, and the son of man that thou visitest him? O -Lord, our Lord, how excellent is thy name in all the earth, -who hast set thy glory above the heavens. The Holy One -said to Moses, Give them an answer. He replied, O Lord -of the world, I am afraid, lest they burn me with the breath of -their mouth. He said, Lay hold on the throne of my glory and -give them an answer, for it is said, ‘He that holdeth the face -of his throne, he spreadeth his cloud over him.’ (Job xxvi. -8, 9.) Rabbi Nahum says, This teaches us that the Almighty -spread some of the glory of the Shechinah and his cloud over -him. He then said, Lord of the world, what is written in the -law that thou art about to give me? ‘I am the Lord thy God -that brought thee out of Egypt.’ He then said, Did ye ever go -down into Egypt and serve Pharaoh—why, then, should ye -have the law? Again, what is written therein? ‘Thou shalt -have none other God.’ He then asked them, Do ye then dwell -amongst the uncircumcised, that ye should commit idolatry? -Again, what is written? ‘Remember the Sabbath-day to -sanctify it.’ Do ye, then, do any work, so as to need rest? -Again, what is written? ‘Thou shalt not take the name of -the Lord,’ &c. Have ye, then, any business that would lead -to this sin? Again, what is written? ‘Honour thy father -and mother.’ Have ye, then, got any father and mother? -Again, what is written? ‘Thou shalt not kill, thou shalt -not commit adultery, thou shalt not steal.’ Have ye, then, -got envy or the leading principle that would lead to these -sins? Immediately they praised the Holy One, blessed be -He,” &c. (Shabbath, fol. 88, col. 2, &c.) It is not necessary -to prove that this account is a fiction. The absurdity of -the whole scene is too palpable. To what purpose should the -angels wish for the law of Moses, or be envious of men to -whom it was given? Is it possible that the spirits that -minister before the throne of God, were not able to see the -unsuitableness of the law for them, until Moses pointed it -out to their consideration? We think that if this scene had -ever taken place, Moses might have given them other passages -of the law much more to the purpose; but it is plainly a fable -invented by the designing, and propagated by the credulous. -These two stories then, that Moses received the oral law, -and that he disputed with the angels in heaven, come to us -upon one authority; they are both circumstances in one event; -and the fabulousness of the one takes away all credit from the -other. The oral law rests solely upon the testimony of its -<a id='Page_166'></a>transmitters, but here these persons are convicted of transmitting -palpable falsehood: their testimony to the oral law -is therefore useless, and the whole fabric of tradition falls. -This one fable is sufficient, but the readers will remember -that this is only one of a considerable number selected from -the Jewish Prayer-book. To extract all similar stories from -the Talmud would be to make some folio volumes. The -Prayer-book, however, gives enough to invalidate the testimony -of the Scribes and Pharisees, and to incapacitate them -for ever from appearing as witnesses. Perhaps some one -will say, But they are also the witnesses for the written law, -and therefore, if we reject their testimony, we must give up -the written law also. But this is not so. For <i>that</i> we have -other testimony—we have that of the Jewish nation, of which -the Scribes and Pharisees were at first only an inconsiderable -portion. We have the testimony of Jesus and his disciples, -the great opposers of the oral law. We have the testimony of -the predictions, which we behold still accomplishing. We -have the whole internal evidence, so that if there never had -been Pharisees, the evidence for the written law would be -just as valid. As it is, the contrast which the written law -presents, when compared with the oral law, furnishes in itself -a strong evidence of its truth and authenticity. The written -law is simple, sober, dignified. The oral law is multifarious, -extravagant, absurd. The oral law is poison—the written law -is the antidote. The oral law is a counterfeit, which proves -the existence of the genuine coin. Men who receive both -on the sole authority of the rabbies may, when they find -the falsehood of the one, reject the other also, but this can -never be the case with those who calmly compare and weigh -the two in the balance of right reason.</p> - -<p class='c005'>We now dismiss these Talmudic fables for the present. -We have proved by instances that the oral law abounds with -such. We have proved by extracts from the Prayers of the -synagogue, that these fables form a part of the faith of all -rabbinical Jews. We have, therefore, proved that the inventors -of these fables attained their object. They have -succeeded in deceiving the great majority of their countrymen. -It is for the Jews of the present day to consider whether these -extravagant fictions are still to be handed down to unborn -generations—still to appear as a reproach upon Israel’s understanding—still -to disfigure and dishonour the public worship -of the chosen people. Former generations may have handed -them down in ignorance, and be therefore partly excusable. -But in the present day there is a large body of Jews here in -England who are fully convinced that these legends are false: -it is the duty, the sacred duly, of all such to protest against -their further propagation. If they do not, they make themselves -<a id='Page_167'></a>accomplices in the guilt of those who invented them, -and responsible for all the injury, temporal and spiritual, -which the propagation of such error may inflict upon their -brethren and their posterity. But whatever course they may -pursue, the existence of these fables shows that the oral law -itself is altogether an invention of men, and proves that Jesus -of Nazareth conferred a great and substantial benefit on the -nation and on mankind, by vindicating and preserving for -us the unadulterated truth of God’s written Word.</p> - -<p class='c005'>These fables prove further, that there is neither weight -nor value in the sentence which these men pronounce against -the Lord Jesus Christ. It is the sentence of those who did -not scruple to falsify and pervert the law of God; it is the -testimony given by the notorious inventors and propagators of -fables, and cannot be received by any one competent to weigh -evidence. Fables of any kind will invalidate testimony, but -religious fables utterly incapacitate their inventors and propagators -from being admitted as witnesses at all. The man -who will venture to tamper with sacred history, either by -adding to, or diminishing from, its records, clearly shows that -he has lost all reverence for truth, and all sense of the divine -character, as a vindicator of truth and a punisher of falsehood. -The man who trifles with sacred facts, cannot be regarded as a -witness at all in those which he considers profane or common. -When, therefore, the Talmudists, or the wise men of his time, -bear witness against Jesus of Nazareth, whom they hated, we -must remember that they have been convicted of false witness -again and again in the case of Moses, whom they professed to -love. Their testimony is therefore a nullity, and if we wish to -examine the claims of Jesus of Nazareth, we must look elsewhere -for the data which are to form the basis of our judgment.</p> -<div class='chapter'> - <h2 id='chap22' class='c003'>No. XXII. <br /> RABBINIC MAGIC.</h2> -</div> -<p class='c004'>Modern Judaism is the religion of the oral law. The -dogmas, rites, ceremonies, and prayers, all rest upon its -authority. If, therefore, the oral law can be proved to be an -invention of men, the whole fabric of modern Judaism crumbles -into dust. It then follows that the Jews have been more -than eighteen centuries the disciples of error, and that, if they -<a id='Page_168'></a>now desire to believe and profess the true religion, revealed by -God to their forefathers, they must renounce their present -Talmudic system, and return to the law and the prophets. But -the oral law is a human invention. It has been proved, on the -authority of the Jewish Prayer-book, that it abounds with the -most absurd fables, which cannot be the Word of God, but are -evidently and obviously the invention of man. It appears, -therefore, that the Jewish nation has been for centuries deluded -by the traditions of the Scribes and Pharisees—that they have -been utterly mistaken in their faith, taking the fictions of men -for the truth of God—and have thereby sunk from the -honourable position, in which God placed them as depositories -of the truth, to the unenviable situation of the credulous -and superstitious. Such is the result of an inquiry into the -contents of prayers of the synagogue. An examination of the -traditional commandments will show in like manner, that the -oral law is every where inseparably mingled with fables, which -throw discredit upon the whole. One of the most important -parts of the oral law is that which relates to the constitution of -the great tribunal the Sanhedrin, for, as is asserted, that council -fixed the authority of all traditions, and even examined into -the claims, and decided upon the divine mission of the prophets. -If it appear, therefore, that the oral law teaches what is manifestly -fabulous with respect to that tribunal, the main pillar of -tradition is taken away. Now without entering into the whole -subject at present, the following specimen will show what degree -of credit can be given to the traditional accounts respecting -it:—</p> - -<p class='c005'>אמר ר׳ יוחנן אין מושיבין בסנהדרין אלא בעלי -קומה ובעלי חכמה ובעלי מראה ובעלי זקנה ובעלי -כשפים ויודעים בשבעים לשון שלא תהא סנהדרין -שומעת מפי התורגמן ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“Rabbi Johannan says, none were allowed to sit in the -Sanhedrin, who were not men of stature, men of wisdom, men -of good appearance, aged, skilled in magic, and acquainted with -the seventy languages, so that the Sanhedrin might not be -obliged to hear through an interpreter.” (Sanhedrin, fol. 17, -col. 1.) In this short extract there are several fables—first, -that all the members of the Sanhedrin should be skilled in -magic, or magicians, is plainly contrary to the express command -of God, who says, “There shall not be found among you any -one that maketh his son or his daughter to pass through the -fire, or that useth divination, or an observer of times, or an -enchanter, or a witch מכשף—for all that do these things are -an abomination unto the Lord: and because of these abominations -the Lord thy God doth drive them out from before thee.” -<a id='Page_169'></a>(Deut. xviii. 10-12.) This command of God makes no exception -in favour of the members of the Sanhedrin. It absolutely -forbids any such in Israel for any purpose. The commentary -indeed tells us, that this magical skill was required in self-defence.</p> - -<p class='c005'>להמית מכשפים הבוטחים בכשפיהם להנצל מידי -בית דין ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“In order to kill the magicians who trusted in their magical -arts to deliver them out of the hands of the tribunal.” But -this explanation does not mend the matter. Magic is a thing -absolutely unlawful and expressly forbidden by God. It was -therefore unlawful either to learn or to practise it, even for the -purpose of killing a magician. If the plea of self-defence or -necessity made it lawful for the Sanhedrin to learn magic, the -same argument would justify it doubly in the case of the people, -who were more likely to be the objects of the magician’s -attacks; for surely these persons would be careful to avoid all -contact with the members of the Sanhedrin, whom they knew -to be more than a match for them in the black art. According -to this method of arguing all Israel might have been skilled in -magic, though the law requires that not one such person should -be found among them. Either then this account is absolutely -false, or the members of the Sanhedrin were bad men, who -learned what was expressly forbidden by the law of God; and -in either case, the Talmudic accounts of this tribunal are -unworthy of credit.</p> - -<p class='c005'>But it may well be doubted whether the members of this -great council confined their magical exercitations to the killing -of magicians. We find elsewhere, if the Talmud speak truth, -that the rabbies at least made other magical experiments, and -have even recorded the means which they employed, for the -benefit of posterity.</p> - -<p class='c005'>אבא בנימן אומר אלמלא נתנה רשות לעין לראות -אין כל ברית יכולה לעמוד מפני המזיקין אמר אביי -אינהו נפישי מינן וקימי עלן כי כסלא לאוגיא , אמר -רב הונא כל חד וחד מינן אלפי משמאליה ורבבתא -מימיניה אמר רבא האי דוחקא דהוה בכלה מיניהו -הוי הני ברכי דשלהי מיניהו , הני מאני דרבנן דבלי -מחופיה דידהו הני כרעי דמנקפא מיניהו האי מאן -דבעי למדע להו ליתי קיטמא נהילא ונהדר אפורייה -ובצפרא חזי כי כרעי דתרנגולא האי מאן דבעי למחזינהו -ליתי שליתא דשונרא אוכמתא בר אוכמתא בוכרתא -בת בוכרתא ולקליה בנורא ולשחקיה ולימליה עיניה -<a id='Page_170'></a>מיניה וחזי להו ולשדייה בגובתא דפרזלא ולחתמיה -בגושפנקא דפרזלא דילמא גנבי מיניה ולחתום פומיה -כי היכי דלא ליתזק רב ביבי בר אביי עבד הכי -ואתזק בעי רבנן רחמי עליה ואתסי ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“Abba Benjamin says, if permission had been given to see -them, no creature could stand before the hurtful demons. -Abbai says, They are more than we, and stand against us like -the trench round the garden-bed. Rav Huna says, Every one -of us has a thousand on his left hand, and ten thousand on his -right hand. Rabba says, The want of room at the sermon is -caused by them—the wearing out of the rabbies’ clothes is -caused by their rubbing against them—the bruised legs are -caused by them. Whosoever wishes to ascertain their existence, -let him take ashes that have been passed through a sieve, and -let him strew his bed, and in the morning he will see the -marks of a cock’s claws. Whosoever wishes to see them, let -him take the interior covering of a black cat, the daughter of a -first-born black cat, which is also the daughter of a first-born, -and let him burn it in the fire, and pulverise it, and let him -then fill his eyes with it, and he will see them. But let him -pour the powder into an iron tube, and seal it with an iron -signet, lest they should steal any of it, and let him also seal up -the mouth thereof, that no injury may arise. Rav Bibi bar -Abbai did thus, and received an injury. But the rabbies -prayed for mercy upon him, and he was cured.” (Berachoth, -fol. 6, col. 1.) Here, then, is magic for the people, and all -Israel is instructed in the means to see demons. It is not for -us to decide whether those, who might use these means, would -ever see men again, but this is certain, that the oral law here -gives a magical recipe to those who are not members of the -Sanhedrin, sets before us one of the Talmudic doctors as an -example, and moreover encourages to do as he did, by holding -out the possibility of a miraculous cure, if any injury should -arise. If, then, this story be true, the oral law permits magic, -which the law of God forbids; if it be false, then the oral law -is convicted of another monstrous falsehood, and is altogether -unworthy of credit. How long will the people of Israel suffer -themselves to be deluded by a system, of which the striking -characteristic is, that it has no regard for truth? The Jews -object against Jesus of Nazareth, that he leads them away from -the law of Moses, but where does he, or his disciples, inculcate -the study of magic, or prescribe rules for facilitating intercourse -with demons, contrary to the express command of God? Just -suppose that this whole extract, instead of being found in the -Talmud, had formed a portion of the New Testament, how -would the Jews have laughed at this prescription for its folly, -<a id='Page_171'></a>and argued against its wickedness, how triumphantly would -they have shown that a law that teaches and encourages magic -could not have been given by God? The existence of one such -passage would have been sufficient, in their eyes, to condemn the -whole Christian system. Let, then, the Jews deal with the -oral law in the same way. Let them judge it and its fables by -an appeal to Moses and the prophets. But let them remember -that in this, as in many other instances, the New Testament -agrees with the law of Moses, whilst the oral law differs -from both. The New Testament classes witchcraft along with -idolatry, and other sins which exclude from the joys of eternal -life. “The works of the flesh are manifest, which are these: -adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, <i>witchcraft</i>, -hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, -envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like; of -the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in times -past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the -kingdom of God.” (Galat. v. 19-21.) In this case, then, -where the oral law leads you away from the doctrine of Moses, -the religion of Jesus of Nazareth brings you back again.</p> - -<p class='c005'>This is, however, not the only fable contained in that short -law concerning the members of the Sanhedrin. We are told, -besides, that no one was allowed to sit in that council “unless -he understood the seventy tongues.” Now we would ask -every disciple of the oral law calmly to consider this statement, -and then say what he thinks of its veracity. Did he ever hear -or know of scholars in the present times acquainted with -seventy languages, and that so perfectly as to be able to -converse with and examine witnesses, and form a judgment -upon their evidence, without the aid of an interpreter? Surely, -the study of languages is as much cultivated in the present day -as it was then, and there are at least as many facilities for their -acquisition. The system of grammar is now fully developed. -The art of printing has made it easy to obtain foreign books. -Lexicons and other apparatus may be procured, and yet, with all -these facilities, we much doubt whether there be, in the whole -world, one single person possessing that knowledge of languages -here ascribed to every individual member of the Sanhedrin. -According to the oral law, there always had been, -in Israel, seventy-one such persons at least, but probably more; -for as a member died, or became superannuated, another was -found ready to succeed him. But the wonder is here made -still more wonderful, for there were not only seventy-one persons -acquainted with seventy languages, but those persons were also -acquainted, as Rambam tells us, with medicine, astronomy, -and all the existing systems of idolatry, and moreover skilled -in magic. And, besides all this, all these persons were fine -handsome fellows, “Men of stature, men of good appearance.” -<a id='Page_172'></a>Is this credible—can all Israel, or all the world, furnish one -such person at present, handsome or ugly, tall or short? or can -there be found amongst that intelligent people the Jews, one -man, woman, or child, so silly as to believe so manifest a -falsehood? We can tell them that their great rabbi, Rambam, -did not believe it, and therefore in his Compendium took the -liberty of altering this Talmudic statement. Instead of -seventy languages, he says simply—</p> - -<p class='c005'>ושידעו ברוב הלשונות ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“And that they should be acquainted with most languages.” -It was too much for him. Being a learned man himself, he -knew the impossibility of such universal knowledge; and he -therefore softened down the Talmudic hyperbole to the limits -of what he considered possibility. This is not merely our -conclusion from Rambam’s alteration, the commentator has -expressly said the same:—</p> - -<p class='c005'>וכתב רבינו יודעין ברוב הלשונות משום דדבר זר -להמצא מי שידע בכל ע׳ לשון ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“Our rabbi has written, ‘Acquainted with most languages,’ -because it is a rarity to find a person acquainted with all the -seventy languages.” (Hilchoth Sanhedrin, c. 2.) Rambam -himself, then, is here a witness against the fabulous exaggerations -of the Talmud.</p> - -<p class='c005'>But perhaps some one will say, that seventy is only a round -number to signify many, that we must not, therefore, be too -strict in its exposition. This subterfuge, however, will not -serve here. The authors of the Talmud said seventy, because -they believed that, by giving this number, they included all -the languages in the world. They believed that there were -seventy nations, and therefore they said seventy languages. -This article of Jewish faith is found everywhere in the Talmud, -and in the commentaries, as for instance—</p> - -<p class='c005'>אמר ר׳ יוחנן מאי דכתיב יתן אומר המבשרות -צבא רב כל דבור ודבור שיצא מפי הגבורה נחלק -לשבעים לשונות ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“R. Johannan says, What is the meaning of that Scripture, -‘The Lord gave the Word: great was the company of those -that published it?’ It teaches, that as each commandment -proceeded from the mouth of God, it was divided into seventy -languages.” (Shabbath, fol. 88, col. 2.) The foundation of this -opinion is an arbitrary interpretation or a verse in the song of -Moses. “When the Most High divided to the nations their -inheritance, when he separated the sons of Adam, he set the -<a id='Page_173'></a>bounds of the people according to the number of the children of -Israel.” (Deut. xxxii. 8.) Upon which Rashi thus comments:—</p> - -<p class='c005'>בשביל מספר בני ישראל שעתידין לצאת מבני שם -ילמספר שבעים נפש של בני ישראל שירדו למצרים -הציב גבולות עמים שבעים לשון ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“On account of the number of the children of Israel who -were to proceed from the sons of Shem, and according to the -number of the seventy souls of the children of Israel who -descended into Egypt, he set the bounds of the people, that is, -the seventy languages.” That this latter clause is altogether -arbitrary, and a mere gratuitous addition, is plain from an -inspection of the text, where not one syllable is said about the -seventy souls, nor about the number of the nations, but about -the fixing the bounds of their habitations. Rashi himself did -not trust in this exposition, and he has therefore given another:—“On -account of the number of the children of Israel -who were to proceed from the children of Shem.” Aben Esra -also passes by the seventy nations altogether, and says that, -“According to the number of the children of Israel,” means, -that the bounds of the nations were so set as to leave sufficient -room for the Israelites. His words are—</p> - -<p class='c005'>אמרו המפרשים על דור הפלגה שנפחה כל הארץ -כי אז גזר השם להיות ארץ ז׳ גוים לישראל והיא -שתספיק למספרם ועל כן למספר בני ישראל ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“The commentators have interpreted this of the generation -of the dispersion, when all the earth was scattered, for -then God decreed that Israel should have the land of the seven -nations, which would be sufficient for them, therefore it is -said, ‘according to the number of the children of Israel.’” -This verse, then, gives no colour to the opinion that there -are only seventy nations and seventy languages. Fact proves -that the number is much greater, for the Bible exists already -in twice that number of languages, and the work of translation -is not yet accomplished. The oral law, therefore, -fails altogether in attaining the object which it had in view -in telling this extraordinary story. It wished to say, that -in the Sanhedrin there never was need of an interpreter, -for that every member understood every language in the -world, and believing that there were only seventy languages, -it stated this number. But now we know that even if each -member understood seventy languages, yet to be able to decide -cases for all the nations of the earth, they would have -required to know as many more. The oral law then, betrays -here an utter ignorance of the state of the world, which shows -that it is not from that God who confounded the languages -<a id='Page_174'></a>of the earth, and therefore knows how many there are; but -from men who desired to magnify the acquirements of the -nation far beyond the sober truth. The men who could deliberately -say, that the Sanhedrin was composed of seventy-one -persons, all handsome, all men of stature, all skilled in -magic, and all so perfectly acquainted with seventy languages, -as to need no interpreter, would have said seven hundred, -or seven thousand, or any thing else that suited their purpose. -They are evidently wilful exaggeraters, whose word is therefore -not to be trusted. The motive here is vain glory. The -object is simply to give all the honour to men, to the -Rabbies whose learning and genius were so marvellous. -There is no intimation that God gave the members of the -Sanhedrin this knowledge, which far exceeds the power or -the life of man to attain by ordinary means. No, all the glory -of these marvellous acquirements is ascribed to man alone. -This forms a striking contrast to a narrative recorded in the -New Testament. We are there told that on a certain occasion -the disciples of Jesus of Nazareth addressed in their -own language, “Parthians, and Medes, and Elamites, and -the dwellers in Mesopotamia, and in Judea and Cappadocia, -in Pontus and Asia, Phrygia, and Pamphylia, in Egypt, and -in the ports of Lybia about Cyrene, and strangers of Rome, -Jews and proselytes, Cretes and Arabians,” that is, the inhabitants -of sixteen countries. Now, the small number here -stated is a presumptive evidence of the truth of the fact. If -an impostor, a Rabbinist who wished to make a good story, -had written this account, he would, beyond all doubt, instead -of sixteen, have specified all the seventy languages. To his -countrymen, who believed in the acquirements of the Sanhedrin, -this would have appeared no wise incredible. Indeed, -if a man of that time had wished to invent a miracle, the -number seventy would have been absolutely necessary for his -purpose. For if every member of the Sanhedrin could speak -seventy languages, to say that other men spoke sixteen would -have been no miracle at all. The small number, therefore, -here given, shows that the authors of the narrative had no -wish to invent a miracle, but to state the sober truth. But -then consider the entire absence of vain-glory. The praise -and the power of speaking even this small number of languages -is given altogether to God. The men were Galileans, -and had not acquired this by their own labour and genius. -“They were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to -speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.” -(Acts ii. 1-11.) Here then is a striking difference between -the narratives of the Talmud and those of the New Testament. -The former exalts men. The latter gives glory to God.</p> -<div class='chapter'> - <a id='Page_175'></a> - <h2 id='chap23' class='c003'>No. XXIII. <br /> ASTROLOGY.</h2> -</div> -<p class='c004'>The favourite Jewish objection to the claims of Jesus of -Nazareth is that passage at the beginning of the thirteenth -chapter of Deuteronomy: “If there arise among you a -prophet, or a dreamer of dreams, and giveth thee a sign or -a wonder, and the sign or the wonder come to pass, whereof -he spake unto thee, saying, Let us go after other gods, which -thou hast not known, and let us serve them, thou shalt not -hearken unto the words of that prophet, or that dreamer of -dreams.” In citing this passage, the Jews take for granted -that the religion of Jesus is essentially different from that -of Moses; that it leads to the worship of strange gods: and -that it is in fact a species of heathenism, whilst the religion -of the oral law, which they now profess, is utterly free from -all heathen elements, and identical with the religion of their -prophets. All this they take for granted; but the subject -is capable of being inquired into. The oral law and the -New Testament are both extant, and a little examination -will enable us to decide, on rational grounds, whether -Judaism or Christianity savour most of heathenism. In -our last number, we saw that Judaism contains magic for -the Sanhedrin and magic for the people, whilst the New -Testament utterly forbids it: in this respect then Judaism -resembles the heathen religion. Our business in this number -shall be to point out, in astrology, another feature of resemblance. -The Talmud and its doctors all agree in asserting -the influence of the stars over the fates and fortunes -of men. In the first place, the Talmud lays down these -general maxims:—</p> - -<p class='c005'>היי בני ומזוני לאו בזכותא תליא מלתא אלא -במזלא תליא מלתא ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“Life, children, and a livelihood depend not on merit, but -on the influence of the stars.” (Moed Katon, fol. 28, col. 1.)</p> - -<p class='c005'>מזל מחכים ומזל מעשיר ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“The influence of the stars makes wise, the influence of -the stars makes rich.” (Shabbath, fol. 156, col. 1.) But it -also tells us the following particulars:—</p> - -<p class='c005'>האי מאן דבחד בשבא יהי גבר ולא חדא ביה ... -האי מאן דבתרי בשבא יהי גבר רגזן מ׳׳ט משום -דאיפליגו ביה מיא , האי מאו דבתלתא בשבא יהי גבר -<a id='Page_176'></a>עתיר וזנאי מ׳׳ט משום דאיברו ביה עשבים , האי מאן -דבארבעה בשבא יהי גבר חכם ונהיר מ׳׳ט משום -דאיתלו ביה מאורות . האי מאן דבחמשא בשבא יהי -גבר גומל חסדים מ׳׳ט משום דאיברו ביה דגים ועופות , -האי מאן דבמעלא שבתא יהי גבר חזרן אמר ר׳ נחמן -בר יצחק חזרן במצוות , האי מאן דבשבתא יהי בשבתא -ימות עלי דאחילו עלוהי יומא רבא דשבתא אמר רבא -בר רב שילא וקדישא רבה תקרי ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“He that is born on the first day of the week, will be a -man excelling, but in one quality only.<a id='r20' /><a href='#f20' class='c006'><sup>[20]</sup></a>... He that -is born on the second day of the week will be an angry -man. What is the reason? Because on it the waters were -divided. He that is born on the third day of the week -will be a rich and profligate man. What is the reason? -Because on it the herbs were created. He that is born on -the fourth day of the week will be a wise man and have -a powerful memory. What is the reason? Because on that -day the lights were hung up in the heavens. He that is -born on the fifth day of the week will be a benevolent man. -What is the reason? Because on it were created the fishes -and the fowls. He that is born on the eve of the Sabbath -will be a man who makes a circuit. Rav Nachman bar -Isaac says, who makes the circuit in the commandments.<a id='r21' /><a href='#f21' class='c006'><sup>[21]</sup></a> -He that is born on the Sabbath, on the Sabbath also he -shall die, because on his account they profaned the great -day of the Sabbath. Rabba bar Rav Shila says, he shall -possess an eminent degree of holiness.” (Shabbath, fol. 156, -col. 1.) Here is completely the heathen doctrine of fate. -Not only the external circumstances of fortune, but the -moral qualities of the soul are made to depend upon the -day of a man’s nativity. Whether a man be profligate or -holy, according to this doctrine, does in no wise depend -upon himself, his own choice, or conscience, but simply on -the circumstance of his birth happening on a Tuesday or a -Saturday. There is indeed a difference of opinion amongst -the Talmudic doctors, as to the nature of the sidereal influence, -but all agree in the fact, as may be seen further -from the opinion of R. Huna:—</p> - -<p class='c005'>לא מזל יום גורם אלא מזל שעה גורם האי מאן -דבחמה יהי גבר זיותן יהי אכל מדליה ושתי מדליה -ורזוהי גלן אם גניב לא מצלח . האי מאן דבכוכב -<a id='Page_177'></a>נוגה יהי גבר עתיר וזנאי יהי מאי טעמא משום דאיתיליד -ביה נורא , האי מאן דבכוכב יהי גבר נהיר וחכים -משום דספרא דחמא הוא , האי מאן דבלבנה יהי גבר -סביל מרעין בכאי וסתיר סתיר ובנאי אכל דלא דיליה -ושתי דלא דיליה ורזוהי כסן אם גנב מצלח , האי מאן -דבשבתי יהי גבר מחשבתיה בטלין ואית דאמר כל -דמחשבין עליהי בטלין , האי מאן דבצדק יהי גבר -צדקן אמר רב נחמן בר יצחק וצדקן במצוות , האי -מאן דבמאדים יהי גבר אשיד דמא אמר רב אשי אי -אומנא אי גנבא אי מהולא אמר רבה אנא במאדים -הואי אמר אביי מר נמי עניש וקטיל וכו׳ ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“These things do not depend upon the sidereal influence -of the day, but on the sidereal influence of the hour. He that -is born under the influence of the sun will be a splendid -man, eating and drinking of that which belongs to himself, -and will reveal his secrets: if he be a thief he will not -prosper. He that is born under Nogah (Venus) will be a -rich and profligate man. What is the reason? Because -on it the fire was created. He that is born under Kochav -(Mercury) will be a man of strong memory, and wise, for -Mercury is secretary to the sun. He that is born under the -influence of the moon, will suffer much, building and destroying, -destroying and building: eating and drinking -what does not belong to him, and a keeper of his own -secrets. If a thief he will prosper. He that is born under -Shabthai (Saturn) will be a man whose thoughts come to -nought, but some say those, that think against him, shall -come to nought. He that is born under Tsedek (Jupiter) -will be a righteous man. Rav Nachman bar Isaac says, -righteous in the commandments.<a id='r22' /><a href='#f22' class='c006'><sup>[22]</sup></a> He that is born under -Maadim (Mars) will be a shedder of blood. Rav Achai says, -either a letter of blood, or a thief, or a circumciser. Rabbah -said, I was born under Mars. Abbai answered, Therefore, -you are fond of punishing and killing.” (Shabbath, ibid.) -In this passage the heathenism is still more apparent. It -is notorious that the ancient Greek and Roman idolaters -considered Venus as the patroness of profligacy, Mercury as -the god of eloquence and learning, Mars as the god of war, -and behold! here in the oral law you have the very same -doctrine. “If a man be born under Venus, he will be a -rich and profligate man; if under Mercury, a man of strong -memory and wise; if under Mars, a shedder of blood.” -The habits of the mind are here also expressly attributed -<a id='Page_178'></a>to the influence of the planets, and a thief has got the promise -of success, if his nativity happened under the influence -of the moon. What then becomes of human responsibility, -and how does this doctrine agree with the words of Moses, -“Behold I have set before you life and death, blessing and -cursing, therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed -may live?” (Deut. xxx. 19.) It will be replied by Talmudists, -that the oral law also says:—</p> - -<p class='c005'>אין מזל לישראל ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“Israel is not under the influence of the stars.” We shall, -therefore, consider that passage in its context which immediately -follows:—</p> - -<p class='c005'>ר׳ חנינא אומר מזל מחכים מזל מעשיר ויש מזל -לישראל ר׳ יוחנן אמר אין מזל לישראל ואזדא ר׳ יוחנן -לטעמיה דאמר ר׳ יוחנן מניין שאין מזל לישראל -שנאמר כה אמר ה׳ אל דרך הגוים אל תלמדו ומאותות -השמים אל תחתו כי רחתו הגוים מהמה יחתו הגוים -ולא ישראל אמר רב אין מזל לישראל דאמר רב יהודה -אמר רב מניין שאין מזל לישראל שנאמר ויוצא אותו -החוצה אמר אברהם לפני הקב׳׳ה רבונו של עולם בן -ביתי יורש אותי אמר לו לאו כי אם אשר יצא ממעיך -אמר לפניו רבונו של עולם נסתכלתי באיצטגנינות -שלי ואיני ראוי להוליד בן אמר לו צא מאיצטגנינות -שלך שאין מזל לישראל ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“Rabbi Chanina says, the influence of the stars makes wise, -the influence of the stars makes rich, and Israel is under that -influence. Rabbi Jochanan says, Israel is not under the influence -of the stars, and Rabbi Jochanan helped his argument, -for Rabbi Jochanan says, From whence is it proved that Israel -is not under the influence of the stars? Because it is said, -‘Thus saith the Lord, Learn not the way of the heathen, and -be not dismayed at the signs of heaven; for the heathen are -dismayed at them.’ (Jer. x. 2.) The heathen but not Israel. -Rav says, Israel is not under the influence of the stars, for -Rabbi Judah says, Rav says, From whence is it proved that -Israel is not under the influence of the stars? From that -which is said, ‘And he brought him forth abroad.’ (Gen. xv. -5.) Abraham said before God, ‘Lord of the world, One born in -my house is my heir.’ God replied not so, but ‘He that shall -come forth out of thine own bowels.’ Abraham replied, I have -consulted my astrology, and am not fit to beget a son. God -said, Go forth from thy astrology, for Israel is not under the -influence of the stars.” (Shabbath, ibid.) Now this passage, if -<a id='Page_179'></a>taken in the most favourable point of view, proves only that -Israel is not under the influence of the stars; but this exception -proves to demonstration that the oral law teaches, that -all other nations are under that influence. According to this -doctrine, all the Gentiles, and of course Christians among the -number, are given up to unchanging and unchangeable fate. -They are good and bad, rich and poor, happy and unhappy, -according to the sidereal influence at their nativity, and consequently -are utterly irresponsible for their actions. A Gentile -thief, or murderer, or adulterer, is not so, because he yielded -to temptation, or to evil dispositions, but because he happened -to be born under the influence of the Moon, or of Mars, or -of Venus. This is the religion of the oral law, on the most -favourable view of the case, and consequently God is represented -first as a partial governor, who gives constitutional -advantages to one favourite nation, which He withholds -from all others; and then, secondly, as an unjust judge, -who punishes the Gentiles for doing what the irresistible -influence of the stars compelled them to do. This doctrine -is of itself sufficient to prove that the oral law is not of God, -and that as a religion it stands upon a line with the heathen -and Mahometan systems of fate, and is consequently infinitely -below Christianity. The New Testament recognises no system -of favouritism, but represents God as a just judge, “who will -render to every man according to his deeds” (Rom. ii. 6); -and all men as responsible for the evil which they commit. -“There is no respect of persons with God. For as many as -have sinned without law, shall also perish without law; and as -many as have sinned in the law, shall be judged by the law.” -(Ibid., 11, 12.) This is a view worthy of the Divine character, -whereas the astrological system of the oral law, which represents -God as giving up all nations to the influence of the -stars, and then punishing them for following that influence -which He himself ordained, is nothing short of blasphemy, -and is much more akin to heathenism than to the doctrine of -Moses and the prophets. But, secondly, this passage of the -Talmud contains two statements directly contradicting each -other. Rabbi Chanina says, Israel is under the influence of -the stars—the others say, Israel is not under the influence of -the stars; whichever statement we receive as true, the other is -necessarily false, and therefore the oral law contains falsehood, -and therefore is unworthy of credit. Thirdly, the story which -is here given of Abraham has falsehood on the face of it, and -after all does not disprove, but rather confirms the doctrine -that Israel, as well as the other nations, is under the influence -of the stars; for as Rashi tells us, Abraham and Sarah escaped -from their sidereal destiny only by changing their names. -Rashi’s words are—</p> - -<p class='c005'><a id='Page_180'></a>אמר לו צא מאיצגטנינות שלך שראית במזלות -שאינך עתיד להעמיד בן אברם אין לו בן אבל אברהם -יש לו בן שרי לא תלד אבל שרה תלד אני קורא -לכם שם אחר וישתנה המזל ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“God said to Abraham, Go forth from thy astrology, for -thou hast seen in the stars that thou art not to have a son. -<i>Abram</i> is not to have a son, but <i>Abraham</i> is to have a son. -<i>Sarai</i> is not to bear a child, but <i>Sarah</i> shall bear a child. -I call you by another name, and thus the influence of the stars -will be changed.” (Com. in Gen. xv. 5.) Here it is plainly -intimated, and that in the name of God himself, that Abraham -and Sarah were both under the influence of the stars, and that -if they had not changed their names, they never could have -had a child. This was evidently Rashi’s opinion; and when -we remember that the majority of the Jews in the world implicitly -follow Rashi’s interpretation, we may conclude that this -is the prevailing doctrine. And perhaps some of the readers of -this paper may even know instances of Jews who, led by this -interpretation, have actually changed their name, in the hope -of bettering their luck, or even of escaping from death. But -however that be, it is easy to show that the Talmud and the -rabbies generally believe in the astrological influence of the -heavenly bodies. In addition to the passages already cited, -the Talmud says expressly—</p> - -<p class='c005'>בזמן שהחמה לוקה סימן רע לאומות עולם לבנה -לוקה סימן רע לשונאיהם של ישראל מפני שישראל -מונין ללבנה ואומות העולם לחמה לוקה במזרח סימן -רע ליושבי מערב וכו׳ ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“An eclipse of the sun is an evil sign to the nations of the -world. An eclipse of the moon is an evil sign to Israel; for -Israel reckons by the moon, the nations of the world by -the sun. When the eclipse happens in the east, it is an -evil sign to the inhabitants of the east. When it happens in -the west, it is an evil sign to the inhabitants of the west,” &c., -&c. (Succah, fol. 29. col. 1.) The rabbies who have lived -since, teach the same doctrine. For instance, Saadiah Gaon, -speaking of the manner in which the influence of the stars -is modified by the signs of the zodiac, says—</p> - -<p class='c005'>ופעמים שמקצת כוכב תהלוכו במזל טוב ומקצתו -האחר במזל רע , ולאדם שיהיה לו אותו מזל יהיה -לו בראשונה טוב ולאחריתו רע ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“Sometimes the course of a star is partly in a good sign and -<a id='Page_181'></a>partly in a bad sign. The man born under this will first -prosper and then suffer adversity. (Comment. in Sepher -Jetsirah, fol. 98, col. 1.) He also explains, there, how it is -possible for astrologers to foretell sickness and death; but this -is enough to shew his opinion, and what he had learned from -the Talmud. The writings of Aben Esra bear the same -testimony. For instance, in his commentary on the ten commandments, -he says—</p> - -<p class='c005'>והדבור הרביעי דבור השבת כנגד גלגל שבתי כי -חכמי הנסיון אומרים כי לכל אחד מן המשרתים יש -יום ידוע בשבוע שבו יראה כחו והוא בעל השעה -הראשונה ביום וכן מי שהוא בעל השעה הראשונה -בלילה ואומרים כי שבתי ומאדים הם כוכבים המזיקים -ומי שיחל מלאכה או ללכת בדרך באחד משניהם -כשהם מושלים יבוא לידי נזק על כן אמרו קדמונינו -שנתן רשות לחבל בלילי רביעיות ובלילי שבתות -והנה לא תמצא בכל ימי השבוע לילה ויום זה אחר -זה שימשלו אלו שני המזיקים בהם רק ביום הזה על -כן אין ראוי להתעסק בו בדברי העולם רק ביראת -השם לבדו ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“The fourth commandment is that respecting the Sabbath, -and answers to the orb of Saturn; for the experimental -philosophers say, that each one of the ministering servants has -a certain day of the week in which he exhibits his strength, -and he is master of the first hour in the day, and thus it is also -with him who is master of the first hour in the night. They -say, also, that Saturn and Mars are the two hurtful stars, and -whosoever begins a work, or to walk in the way, when either -of these two is in the ascendant, is sure to fall into harm. -Therefore our ancients have said, that permission is given to do -injury on the nights of the fourth and seventh days of the week. -And behold, thou wilt not find, in all the days of the week, a -night and a day, one after the other, on which these two hurtful -stars rule except on this day; therefore it is not suitable on -it to engage in worldly affairs, but to devote it entirely to the -fear of God.” This exposition shows that Aben Esra believed -in astrology, and that the power of the stars extended to Israel -as well as to the other nations, nay the power of the stars to -do harm is here made the foundation of the command respecting -the Sabbath-day. A man, whose mind was not thoroughly -imbued with faith in astrology, could never have been led even -to entertain such an opinion, when God himself has assigned -another and entirely different reason for the institution of the -<a id='Page_182'></a>Sabbath. But indeed it is not necessary to go to the rabbies -to prove that modern Judaism teaches astrology. That common -wish which one so often hears amongst the Jews, even at the -present day, מזל טוב <i>mazzal tov</i>, or good luck, has its origin -in the doctrine of the Talmud, and shows how universally it -has been received. And thus we see the influence which the -oral law has had in leading away both learned and unlearned -from the Word of God, and of spreading amongst them, as a -tradition from Moses, what is merely one of the numerous -errors of heathen idolatry. The heathen worshipped the host -of heaven. The sun, and the moon, and other heavenly bodies, -they considered as deities; it was, therefore, natural for them -to suppose that they exercised an influence over the affairs of -men. The Chaldeans were especially devoted to this doctrine, -and had almost exalted it to the rank of a science. From them, -probably during the Babylonish captivity, the Jaws learned -this system; and though altogether idolatrous in its origin, -and learned from idolaters, it was congenial to the minds of -the superstitious rabbies, and was, therefore, introduced into the -oral law, where it has ever since continued. The oral law has, -therefore, in this respect, adopted heathen doctrine, and teaches -heathenism. Every Jew who wishes his neighbour מזל טוב, -<i>mazzal tov</i>, uses a heathen idolatrous expression—sanctioned, -indeed, by the Talmud, but utterly repugnant to the doctrine -of Moses. But where will he find in the New Testament -any warrant either for such a doctrine or such a wish? The -New Testament is entirely free from all shadow and tincture of -this heathenism. Your oral law has taught you that the course -of events depends upon the stars. Jesus of Nazareth has taught -us, that the ordering of all events, even the minutest, proceeds -from our Heavenly Father. He says, “Are not two sparrows -sold for a farthing? and one of them shall not fall on the -ground without your Father. But the very hairs of your -are all numbered.” (Matt. x. 29, 30.) Jesus of Nazareth, -therefore, whom you are afraid to follow, lest he should lead -you after other gods, directs all his followers to the one living -and true God, the Creator, Preserver, and Redeemer of all -things. Those men, on the contrary, who crucified Jesus of -Nazareth, and that oral law, which you prefer to Christianity, -have led you away from the doctrines of Moses and the -prophets to the principles of heathenism. The general doctrine, -that the moral nature, the weal and wo of men, are altogether -dependent upon the stars, is not Mosaic, it is heathen; and the -particular details concerning the influence of Venus, Mars, and -Mercury, are plainly the offspring of the worst part of heathen -mythology. If, then, Jews believe in this Talmudic astrology, -they approach very nearly to heathenism, and such has been -the case with the majority and the most learned of the nation -<a id='Page_183'></a>for the last eighteen hundred years. If from the unavoidable -influence of Christian knowledge, they now reject this portion -of the oral law, they declare that all their most learned rabbies -have been in gross error, and that the oral law, which led them -astray, is not from God, but, on the contrary, in one of its most -important features, a mere copy of idolatrous heathenism.</p> - -<div class='chapter'> - <h2 id='chap24' class='c003'>No. XXIV. <br /> AMULETS.</h2> -</div> -<p class='c004'>In magic and astrology we have discovered two features -common to idolatrous heathenism, and to the religion of the -oral law. We have seen that it pervades the Talmud and the -writings of the subsequent rabbies, and that it has tinctured -the language of every-day life. It occurs, therefore, as might -be expected, incidentally, when the oral law treats of other -things; and we are induced to notice one passage of this kind, -not only because it proves that faith in astrology is an essential -element in the religion of the oral law, but because it sets -before us another feature of resemblance to heathenism. In -treating of the virtues of amulets, and of the tests, whereby to -try them and those that write, the following passage occurs—</p> - -<p class='c005'>אמר רב פפא פשיטא לי תלת קמיעא לתלת גברי -תלתא תלתא זימני אתמחי גברא ואתמחי קמיעא -תלתא קמיעי לתלתא גברי חד חד זימני גברא אתמחי -קמיעא לא אתמחי חד קמיעא לתלתא גברי קמיעא -אתמחי גברא לא אתמחי בעי רב פפא תלתא קמיעי -לחד גברא מאי קמיעא ודאי לא אתמחי גברא אתמחי -או לא אתמחי מי אמרינן הא אסי ליה או דילמא -מזלא גברא הוא דקא מקבל כתבא תיקו וכו׳ ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“Rav Papa says, I am certain in the case of three amulets -for three men; where three copies of one amulet have cured -three times, then both the writer and the amulet are approved. -In the case of three amulets for three men, where each performs -only one cure, then the writer is approved, the amulet is not -approved. In the case of one amulet for three men, then the -amulet is approved, the writer is not approved. But Rav Papa -asks, What is to be the decision when there are three amulets -<a id='Page_184'></a>for one man? The amulet is certainly not approved, the writer -may or may not be. Shall we say that he cured him? Or -was it perhaps the influence of the stars, belonging to that man, -that had an affinity for that which was written? That must -remain undecided.” (Shabbath, fol. 61, col. 2.) Here we -have the influence of the stars again, and that not in the -case of the heathen, but in the case of Israelites. The whole -passage refers to none but Israelites. The question, from -which this digression about amulets arose, was whether it -is lawful to wear amulets on the Sabbath-day, a question -concerning the Jews, and them only. In this question, then, -we find the doctrine of sidereal influence mixed up, or rather -so certainly pre-supposed as to prevent the solution of a doubt. -A case is supposed where a man has been cured by the help of -three amulets, and thence arises a doubt as to whether the -maker may be considered as an approved writer of amulets; -and upon this case R. Papa does not venture to decide, because -it is possible that the cure may be owing to the influence of the -stars. How can there be a stronger proof of faith in the power -of the stars over Israelites as well as over other persons?</p> - -<p class='c005'>This passage proves incontrovertibly that the heathen notion -of astrology is inseparably interwoven with the religious -system of the oral law, but it also presents to our consideration -another circumstance equally startling, and that is, that the -oral law sanctions the use of amulets or charms, as a cure for, -or defence against, sickness and other evils. What, is it possible, -that the Jews who think that their religion is the true -religion revealed by God to Moses, and whose chief objection to -Christianity is the fear lest it should lead them to strange gods, -is it possible that this people should still entertain the old -heathen notion concerning amulets? Yes, whilst the followers -of Jesus of Nazareth have learned from him to renounce this -superstitious and wicked practice, the Jews, taught by those who -rejected and crucified him, still believe in the oral law which -teaches the manner of making and using charms. But perhaps -some one will say, it occurs only in the Gemara, but not in the -Mishna. This is at all times but a poor apology for the oral -law, or rather an open confession that the greatest part of that -law is indefensible, but it will not serve here. The doctrine of -amulets proceeds from the Mishna, which says,—</p> - -<p class='c005'>ולא בקמיע בזמן שאינו מן המומחה ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“It is not lawful to go forth on the Sabbath-day with an -amulet, unless it be from an approved person.” The Gemara -then takes up this commandment, and comments thus upon it,—</p> - -<p class='c005'>אמר ר׳ פפא לא תימא עד דמומחא גברא ומומחא -קמיע אלא כיון דמומחא גברא אע׳׳ג דלא מומחא קמיע -<a id='Page_185'></a>דיקא נמי דקתני ולא בקמיע בזמן שאינו מן המומחה , -ולא קתני בזמן שאינו מומחה ש׳׳מ , ת׳׳ר איזה וקמיע -מומחה כל שריפא ושנה ושלש אחד קמיע של כתב -ואהד קמיע של עקרין אחד חולה שיש בו סכנה -ואחד חולה שאין בו סכנה לא שנבפה אלא שלא -יכפה רכר׳ ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“Rav Papa says, do not think that it is necessary that both -the man and the amulet must be approved; it is enough if the -man be approved, even though the amulet be not approved. -The proof is, that the Mishna says, ‘Unless the amulet be from -an approved person,’ but does not say, ‘Unless the amulet be -approved,’ from which it is plain. Our rabbies have taught -thus, What is an approved amulet? Any amulet that has -effected a cure, and done so twice or thrice. The doctrine -holds good, whether the amulet be a written one, or made of -roots—whether the man be dangerously ill or not—not only if -he be epileptic, but that he may not become epileptic.” (Shabbath, -fol. 61, col. 1.) From this it appears that there are two -sorts of amulets, one containing some written words, the other -made of roots of various kinds, and it is equally plain that the -object of wearing them was either to prevent sickness or to -effect a cure. On the Sabbath those only are lawful, which -have been manufactured by a man, who has already established -his character for making efficacious amulets, or which have -been already tried and proved to be so. This is the doctrine of -the Talmud, and let every Jew remember that this doctrine is -not extracted from the legendary part, but from those laws -which are binding upon the consciences of all who acknowledge -an oral law. And this is not any private opinion of our own, -as may be seen by referring to any compilation where the laws -are collected, as for instance the Jad Hachazakah, where this -law is thus expressed:—</p> - -<p class='c005'>ויוצאין בקמיע מומחה ואי זה הוא קמיע מומחה -זה שריפא לשלשה בני אדם או שעשהו אדם שריפא -שלשה בני אדם בקמיעין אחרים ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“It is lawful to go out with an approved amulet. What is -an approved amulet? One that has cured three persons, or -has been made by a man who has cured three persons with -other amulets.” (Hilchoth Shabbath, c. xix. 14.) The Arbah -Turim enters more at length into the subject, thus—</p> - -<p class='c005'>אין יצאין בקמיע שאינו מומחה ואם הוא מומחה -יוצאין בו לא שנא אתמחי גברא ולא קמיע כגון שכתב -לחש אחד בג׳ אגרות ורפאו שלשתן דאתמחי גברא -<a id='Page_186'></a>לאותו לחש בכל פעם שיכתבנו אבל לא שאר לחשימ -וגם אין הקמיע מומחה אם יכתבנו אחר , ולא שנא -אתמחי קמיע ולא גברא כגון שכתב לחש שחד באגרת -אחת וריפא בו שלשה פעמים שאותה אגרת מומחה -לכל אדם וכ׳׳ש אתמחי גברא וקמיע כגון שכתב לחש -אחד בג׳ אגרות וכל אחד הועילה לג׳ אנשים או לאדם -אחד שלשה פעמים אתמחי גברא ללחש זה בכל -אגרות שיכתוב ואתמחו אגרות הללו לכל אדם , אבל -אם כתב ג׳ קמיעים לאדם אחד ורפאו ג׳ פעמים לא -אתמחי גברא ולא קמיע , ומותר לצאת בקמיע מומחה -לא שנא הוא של כתב או של עקרין בין בחולה שיש -בו סכנה בין שאין בו סכנה , ולא שנכפה כבר ותולהו -לרפואה אלא אפילי לא אחזר חחולי אלא שהוא -ממשפחת נכפין ותולהו שלא יאחזנו שרי ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“It is not lawful to go out in an amulet, which is not -approved, but if it be approved, it is lawful. Whether it be the -man or the amulet, which is approved, makes no difference; for -instance, if a man have written one and the same charm in -three copies, and all three have affected a cure, the man is -approved with respect to that charm every time that he writes -it, but not with respect to other charms; neither is the amulet -approved if written by another. There is also no difference in -the case, when the amulet is approved but the man not so; for -instance, if a man write one charm, and only one copy, and has -with it effected a cure three times, then that copy is approved -for every man. A third case is, when both the man and the -amulet are approved; for instance, if a man write one charm in -three copies, and each has been of use to three men or to one -man three times, then the man is approved with respect to this -charm in every copy which he may write, and these copies are -considered as approved for the use of all men. But if he have -written three different amulets for one man, and have cured -him three times, then neither the man nor the amulet is -approved. Further, it is lawful to go out with an approved -amulet, whether it be a writing or one made of roots, and -whether the man be dangerously ill or not. Neither is it -necessary that he should have been already epileptic, and now -makes use of it for a cure. On the contrary, if he be of an -epileptic family, and wear it as a preventive, it is lawful.” -(Orach Chaiim. sec. 301.) There can be no mistake here. This -is Jewish law binding upon all who acknowledge tradition. -Neither is it a doubtful or passing notice; on the contrary, the -different cases are all enumerated, and every particular specified. -The oral law here gives the most unqualified sanction to the use -<a id='Page_187'></a>of amulets or charms, and that even on the Sabbath-day. That -such charms are near akin to magic or witchcraft is plain from -the nature and purpose of the manufacture, and from the -undisguised use of the word לחש “charms;” but there is -a passage in Rashi’s commentary on another Talmudic treatise, -which puts this beyond all doubt; we therefore give both the -text and the commentary—</p> - -<p class='c005'>תנו רבנן שמונים תלמידים היו להלל הזקן שלשים -מהן ראוים שתשרה עליהם שכינה כמשה רבינו -שלשים מהם ראוים שתעמוד להם חמה כיהושע בן -נון עשרים בינוניים בדול שבכולן יונתן בן עוזיאל קטן -שבכולן ר׳ יוחנן בן זכאי אמרו עליו על ר׳ יוחנן בן -זכאי שלא הניח מקרא משנה גמרא הלכות והגדות -דקדוקי תורה ודקדודי סופרים וקלין וחמורין וגזרות -שוות ותקופות וגמטריאות ומשלות כובסים ומשלות -שועלים שיחת שדים ושיחת דקלים מלאכי שרת וכו׳ ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“Our rabbies have handed down the tradition that Hillel -the elder had eighty disciples, of whom thirty were as worthy -as Moses our master to have the Shechinah resting upon them. -Thirty others were as worthy as Joshua the son of Nun that -for them the sun should stand still. Twenty were in the -middle rank, of whom the greatest was Jonathan the son of -Uziel; and the least of all was Rabbi Johanan ben Zachai. -Of this last-named rabbi it is said, that he did not leave -unstudied the Bible or the Mishna, Gemara, the constitutions, -the Agadoth, the niceties of the law and the Scribes, the -argument, <i>a fortiori</i>, and from similar premises, the theory of -the change of the moon, Gematria, the parables taken from -grapes and from foxes, the language of demons, the language -of palm-trees, and the language of the ministering angels,” &c. -(Bava Bathra, fol. 134, col. 1.) This was pretty well, considering -that he was the least of the eighty; what then must have -been the knowledge of the others? This tradition alone, from -its gross exaggeration, would be sufficient to mark the character -of the rabbies as false witnesses. It is plainly a fable, such as -one might expect in the “Arabian Nights’ Entertainments,” -but not in a law that professes to have come from God. It is -another proof that the account of the oral law is a mere fiction. -But our object in quoting the passage here, is to point out its -connexion with charms and amulets. It tells us, that this -rabbi understood the language of the ministering angels? -Now what use was this? Rashi tells us in his commentary, -להשביעם to conjure or to adjure them: that is, to compel -them to serve him, when he adjured them; that is, by their -means to act the part of a conjuror. It may perhaps be said, -<a id='Page_188'></a>these were the good angels, with whom a holy man might hold -converse, but we are also told that he understood “the language -of demons.” What was the object of this? Rashi -answers again—</p> - -<p class='c005'>להשביעם ונפקא מיניה לעשות קמיע לרפואה ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“For the purpose of adjuring them: and hence it follows -that amulets may be made in order to effect cures.” From -this it appears that the Talmud allows a man to have converse -with evil spirits, and that this precedent establishes -the lawfulness of amulets. And this is the religion of the oral -law, these the doctrines and practices of the men who rejected -Jesus of Nazareth! Here is real heathenism, not one shade of -which appears in the New Testament. Oh! how different -is this from the doctrine of Moses and the prophets. The -oral law sends sick men to seek help in amulets and charms, -but not to the God of Israel. Now what difference is there -between this and the conduct of Ahaziah, when he fell down -through the lattice in his upper chamber in Samaria, and was -sick? “He sent messengers, and said unto them, Go inquire -of Beelzebub the god of Ekron, whether I shall recover of this -disease. But the angel of the Lord said to Elijah the Tishbite, -Arise, go up to meet the messengers of the King of Samaria, -and say unto them, Is it not because there is not a God in -Israel, that ye go to inquire of Beelzebub, the god of Ekron?” -(2 Kings i. 2, 3.) And so it may still be said to Israel, Is -it not because there is not a God in Israel, that ye go to -amulets and charms in order to get cured of your diseases? -Moses points to God as the great physician; he says, “Wherefore -it shall come to pass, if ye hearken to these judgments, -and keep and do them, that the Lord thy God shall keep unto -thee the covenant and the mercy which he sware unto thy -fathers. And the Lord will take away from thee all sickness.” -(Deut. vi. 12-15.) God himself says—</p> - -<p class='c005'>אני ה׳ רופאך ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“I am the Lord that healeth thee.” (Exod. xv. 26.) But -the oral law leads men away from God, and tells them to go to -an approved man and to get an approved amulet, and for this -allows to learn the language of demons, and to compel them by -adjuration to be subservient. Where, in all the Old Testament, -is there any thing like this? When the widow’s son was sick, -Elijah did not give her an amulet to make him well, and yet, -if there were such things, it might be supposed that he knew -of them, and knew how to make them; in short, that he was -an approved man and could make an approved amulet; but -Elijah’s trust was not in such heathen nonsense, but in the -<a id='Page_189'></a>God of Israel. Before Him he prostrated himself and said, “O -Lord my God, I pray thee, let this child’s soul come into him -again.” (1 Kings xvii. 22.) When Hezekiah was sick, we -read not that he sent for an approved amulet, but that “He -turned his face towards the wall, and prayed unto the Lord.” -Not charms, but faith and prayer, are the amulets of the -Old Testament, and also of the New. The Lord Jesus Christ -wrought many miracles of healing, and multitudes of sick -people applied to him for relief, but he never directed them to -amulets in order to attain it. His direction is, “Be not afraid, -only believe.” (Mark v. 36.) His disciples also wrought great -miracles on the sick, but not by amulets. Their confession -is “His name, through faith in his name, hath given him this -perfect soundness in the presence of you all.” (Acts iii. 16.) -And their command is, not to wear amulets, but to pray. “Is -any sick among you? Let him call for the elders of the -Church; and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in -the name of the Lord; and the prayer of faith shall save the -sick, and the Lord shall raise him up; and if he have committed -sins they shall be forgiven him. The effectual fervent -prayer of a righteous man availeth much. Elias was a man -subject to like passions as we are, and he prayed earnestly that -it might not rain, and it rained not on the earth by the space -of three years and six months. And he prayed again, and the -heaven gave rain, and the earth brought forth her fruit.” -(James v. 13-18.) This is the doctrine of the New Testament, -exactly agreeing with that of Moses and the prophets, so that -you need not fear that Christianity will lead you to heathenism: -on the contrary, it will lead you back from the heathenism -of magic and astrology, and amulets, to the God of Israel.</p> - -<p class='c005'>But there is another feature in this doctrine concerning -amulets, which must not be overlooked, and that is that the -manufacture of amulets may be made a mere trade for collecting -the money of the credulous. If a man get a reputation -as an approved manufacturer, the believers in the oral law will -naturally apply to him in case of sickness, or other circumstances, -where amulets are of service, and of course the remedy -is not to be had for nothing. We have known and heard of such -things both in the west and in the east. And thus the poor -Israelites are led away from the God of Israel, and induced, as -the prophet says, “To spend their money for that which is not -bread, and their labour for that which satisfieth not.” But what -a testimony does this whole doctrine furnish to the conduct and -the doctrine of Jesus of Nazareth? His great endeavour was -to show the apostacy of the oral law, and to lead the people -back from tradition to the Holy Scriptures. Was he right or -was he wrong? Which is the religion, of the oral law or of -the New Testament, most agreeable to the religion revealed to -<a id='Page_190'></a>Moses and the prophets. Is the practice of magic a Mosaic -doctrine? Is permission to hold converse with evil demons -a Mosaic doctrine? Is astrology a Mosaic doctrine? Is the -manufacture of amulets and charms a Mosaic doctrine? No; -they are all directly opposed to the doctrine and commandments -of Moses, and the practice of all the holy men of old. -Are these things doctrines of the oral law? Yes. Are they -the doctrines of the New Testament? No. Christians are taught -to abstain from all such things. Then in this, at least, Christianity -is more like Mosaism. How long will the Jews suffer -themselves to be thus deluded and imposed upon? Many are -perhaps ignorant of the details of that system which they profess, -but such ignorance is highly culpable. If men profess a religion -they ought to know what it is, and what are its doctrines, -and what the practices which it prescribes. Modern Judaism -teaches, as the truth of God, all these heathenish notions and -practices; it is time, then, for the Jews to inquire whether this -be the true religion in which they have continued for so many -centuries, and if not, to stand in the ways and ask for the old -paths. It is a vain thing for a few individuals of the nation -to attempt to deny that these superstitions are an essential -portion of modern Judaism. As long as the oral law is acknowledged -to be of Divine authority, that oral law must itself -be taken as the witness for its own doctrines, and the standard -of the modern Jewish religion. There is no possible middle -course: either Jews must altogether and publicly renounce the -Talmud as false, superstitions, and heathenish, or they must -be content to be regarded in one of two characters, either as its -faithful disciples, who believe all it says, or as timid men-pleasers, -who are afraid to confess the truth of God, or to protest -against the errors of man, lest they should suffer some -worldly loss or inconvenience. But is it possible that cowards, -in the cause of God, should be found amongst the people of -Gideon, who stood boldly against the idolatry of a whole city, -and overthrew the altar of Baal, or amongst the offspring of -Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah, who dared a fiery furnace, or -amidst the countrymen of Daniel who trembled not at the view -of the lion’s den? No, we will rather believe that all the Jews -are still bigoted Talmudists, and that when they cease to be, -they will come forward with the spirit of their fathers and -the strength of their God to vindicate the truth.</p> -<div class='chapter'> - <a id='Page_191'></a> - <h2 id='chap25' class='c003'>No. XXV. <br /> CHARMS.</h2> -</div> -<p class='c004'>Both Jew and Gentile will agree that true religion is the -fear of the Lord, but the difficulty is how are we to know -it, and what are the marks that will help us to distinguish -the true from the false? The Word of God gives many, of -which at present we select this one:—</p> - -<p class='c005'>ראשית חכמה יראת ה׳ ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom.” -(Psalm cxi. 10.) True religion, as the Bible teaches, does -not only better the heart, but also improves the understanding; -whereas false religion not only corrupts, but also -makes its votaries foolish. This is the uniform representation -of the Bible, and thus we read of true religion, “The law -of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of -the Lord is sure, making wise the simple.” (Psalm xix. 7.) -And again, the wisest of men says, “Then shalt thou understand -righteousness, judgment, and equity; yea, every good -path. When wisdom entereth into thine heart, and knowledge -is pleasant to thy soul, discretion shall preserve thee, -understanding shall keep thee.” (Prov. ii. 9-11.) The -votaries of false religion are, on the contrary, described as -devoid of all wisdom. “They are altogether brutish and -foolish; the stock is a doctrine of vanities.” (Jer. x. 8.) -And again, “None considereth in his heart, neither is there -knowledge nor understanding to say, I have burned part -of it in the fire; yea, also, I have baked bread on the coals -thereof; I have roasted flesh and eaten it; and shall I make -the residue thereof an abomination? Shall I fall down to -the stock of a tree? He feedeth on ashes; a deceived heart -hath turned him aside, that he cannot deliver his soul, nor -say, Is there not a lie in my right hand?” (Isaiah xliv. 19, -20.) According to these passages of Scripture, wisdom is a -test of true religion, and folly of a false one, let us then -apply this test to the religion of the oral law, does it commend -itself to the understanding by its wisdom, and the -wisdom of its teachers? It is true, that it speaks well of -itself, and calls all its doctors חכמים “Wise men,” but the -chapter on amulets, quite fresh in the memory of our readers, -excites some doubts upon the subject, though of these we -consider only the theory. The histories, which the Talmud -gives of the Rabbinical practice with regard to such charms, -lead to the inevitable conclusion that wisdom is not one of -<a id='Page_192'></a>the characteristics of the oral law. Take for example the -following direction to stop a bleeding at the nose:—</p> - -<p class='c005'>לדמא דאתי מנחירא ליתי גברא כהן דשמיה לוי -ולכתוב ליה לוי למפרע ואי לא ליתי אינש מעלמא -ונכתוב ליה אנא פפי שילא בר סומקי למפרע ואי לא -ניכתוב ליה הכי טעם דלי במי כסף טעם דלי במי -פגם ואי לא ליתיה עקרא דאספסתא ואשלא דפורייא -עתיקא וקורטסא ומוריקא וסומקא דלוליבא ונקלינהו -בהדי הדדי וליתי גבבא דעמרא וניגדול תרתי פתילתא -ולטמיש בחלא וניגדבל בקיטמא הדין וניתיב בנחירא -ואי לא ליחזי אמת המים דאזלא ממזרח כלפי מערב -וניפסע וניקום חד כרעא להאי גיסא וחד כרעא להאי -גיסא ונישקל טינא בידיה דימינא מתותי כרעא דשמאליה -ובידיה דשמאלא מתותי כרעא דימיניה ונגדול תרתי -פתילתא דעמרא וניטמיש בטינא וניתב בנחיריה ואי -לא ליתיה תותא מרזבא ונייתי מיא ולישדי עליה -ולימרו כי היכי דפסקי הני מיא ליפסק דמיה דפלניא -בר פלנירא ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“For a bleeding at the nose, let a man be brought who -is a priest, and whose name is Levi, and let him write the -word Levi backwards. If this cannot be done, get a layman, -and let him write the following words backwards:—‘Ana pipi -Shila bar Sumki;’<a id='r23' /><a href='#f23' class='c006'><sup>[23]</sup></a> or let him write these words, ‘Taam dli -bemi keseph, taam li bemi paggan;’<a id='r24' /><a href='#f24' class='c006'><sup>[24]</sup></a> or let him take a root -of grass, and the cord of an old bed, and paper and saffron, -and the red part of the inside of a palm tree, and let him -burn them together, and let him take some wool, and twist -two threads, and let him dip them in vinegar, and then -roll them in the ashes, and put them into his nose. Or let -him look out for a small stream of water that flows from -east to west, and let him go and stand with one leg on each -side of it, and let him take with his right hand some mud -from under his left foot, and with his left hand from under -his right foot, and let him twist two threads of wool, and dip -them in the mud, and put them into his nostrils. Or let him -be placed under a spout, and let water be brought and poured -upon him, and let them say, ‘As this water ceases to flow, -so let the blood of M., the son of the woman N., also cease.’” -(Gittin, fol. 69, col. 1.) Now we ask any Jew of common -sense, whether this passage savours most of wisdom or folly? -<a id='Page_193'></a>Vinegar and water may be very useful in such a case, or even -mud, if used in sufficient quantity, might stop up the nose, -and therefore stop the bleeding too, but what manner of benefit -can proceed from the word Levi written backwards, or from -those words which Rashi pronounces to be magical? Why is -the mud of water flowing from east to west more efficacious, -and why is it to be taken with the right hand from under -the left foot, and with the left hand from under the right -foot? Plainly because the authors of this passage thought -there was some charm or magic power, and their minds were -so overpowered by superstition, as to lead them to disregard -the plain words of Moses forbidding all magic. It cannot be -pretended that this is a rare case, the Talmud abounds in such -remedies, all equally wise. For instance, take the following -mode of treatment for the scratch or bite of a mad dog:—</p> - -<p class='c005'>תנו רבנן חמשה דברים נאמרו בכלב שוטה פיו -פתוח ורירו נוטף ואזניו סרוחות וזנבו מונח לו על -ירכותיו ומהלך בצדי דרכים ויש אומרים אף נובח -ואין קולו נשמע , ממאי הוי רב אמר נשים כשפניות -משחקות בו , ושמואל אמר רוח רעה שורה עליו , -מאי בינייהו איכא בינייהו למקטליה בדבר הנזרק -תניא כותיה דשמואל כשהורגין אותו אין הורגין אותו -אלא בדבר הנזרק דחייף ביה מסתכן דנכית ליה מיית -דחייף ביה מסתכן מאי תקנתיה נישלח מאניה ונירהוט -תב הונא בריה דרב יהושע חף ביה חד מינייהו -בשוקא שלחינהו למאניה ורהיט אמר קיימתי בעצמי -והחכמה תחיה בעליה דנכית ליה מאית מאי תקנתיה -אמר אביי ניתי משכא דאפא דדיכרא וניכתוב עליה -אנא פלניא בר פלניתא אמשכא דאפא דדיכרא כתיבנא -עלך כנתי כנתי קלירוס ואמרו לה קנדי קנדי קלורוס -יה יה ה׳ צבאות אמן אמן סלה ונשלחינהו למאניא -ולקברינהו בי קברי עד תריסר ירחי שתא ונפקינהו -ונקלינהו בתנורא ונבדרינהו לקטמיה אפרשת דרכים -והנך תריסר ירחי שתא כי שתי מיא לא לשתי אלא -בגובתא דנחשא דלמא חזי בבואיה דשידא וליסתכן -כי הא דאבא בר מרתא הוא אבא בר מניומי עבדי -ליה אימיה גובתא דדהבא ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“The rabbies have handed down the tradition, that there -are five things to be observed of a mad dog: his mouth is -open, his saliva flows, his ears hang down, his tail is between -his legs, and he goes by the sides of the ways. Some say -also, that he barks, but his voice is not heard. What is the -<a id='Page_194'></a>cause of his madness? Rav says, it proceeds from this, that -the witches are making their sport with him. Samuel says, -it is an evil spirit that rests upon him. What is the difference? -The difference is this, that in the latter case he is -to be killed by some missile weapon. The tradition<a id='r25' /><a href='#f25' class='c006'><sup>[25]</sup></a> agrees -with Samuel, for it says, In killing him no other mode is to be -used but the casting of some missile weapon. If a mad dog -scratch any one, he is in danger; but if he bite him he will die. -In case of a scratch there is danger; what then is the remedy? -Let the man cast off his clothes and run away. Rav Huna, -the son of Rav Joshua, was once scratched in the street by one -of them; he immediately cast off his clothes and ran away. -He also says, I fulfilled in myself those words, ‘Wisdom -giveth life to them that have it.’ (Eccles. vii. 12.) In case of -a bite, the man will die; what then is the remedy? Abai -says, He must take the skin of a male adder, and write upon -it these words, ‘I, M., the son of the woman N., upon the -skin of a male adder, I write against thee, Kanti, Kanti, -Klirus.’ Some say, ‘Kandi, Kandi, Klurus, Jah, Jah, Lord of -Hosts, Amen, Amen, Selah.’ Let him also cast off his clothes, -and bury them in the grave-yard for twelve months of the -year; then let him take them up and burn them in an oven, -and let him scatter the ashes at the parting of the roads. But -during these twelve months of the year, when he drinks water, -let him drink out of nothing but a brass tube, lest he should see -the phantom-form of the demon and be endangered. This was -tried by Abba, the son of Martha, who is the same as Abba, -the son of Manjumi. His mother made a golden tube for him.” -(Joma, fol. 83, col. 1.) This is a very plain case of the use of -an amulet and of magic, but whether it be a proof of profound -wisdom we leave to the judgment of the reader. What good -can the poor man get from certain words written on the skin -of a male adder? or from first burying and then burning his -clothes, and scattering the ashes on the cross-roads? It cannot -be pretended that this is medical treatment, and still less that -it is the treatment commanded by the Word of God. If it had -pleased God to command all this, we should not only submit, -but gladly recommend this recipe in every similar case. To -God Almighty no man can prescribe. He chooses what means -he pleases, and may do so because his omnipotence can -render them effectual. He healed the Israelites bitten by -the fiery serpents by the sight of the brazen image, and -he cured Naaman’s leprosy by bathing in the waters of -Jordan. Whatever then be the means which He prescribes, -our highest wisdom is to make use of them. But as he has -not prescribed the means recommended by the Talmud, but -<a id='Page_195'></a>forbidden them in his general prohibition of magic, we must -say that the man who uses them has bid adieu to all true -wisdom. No wonder, then, if his own inventions are stamped -with folly. But what will our readers think of the cause of -the canine madness here assigned? “Rav says, It proceeds -from the witches who are making their sport with him. Samuel -says, It is an evil spirit that rests upon him.” Rav believed, -then, that God, whose mercies are over all his works, allows -wicked women to torment his creatures, and to inflict -upon them a dreadful malady to make sport for themselves. -Is this wise, is it according to Scripture? This is the doctrine -of the oral law; and if Jesus of Nazareth had not protested -against it, and taught a true doctrine by asserting the truth -of Scripture, this would be the universal doctrine and practice -of the Jews. Whoever believes the Talmud, must believe in -this and all the other follies which it contains. Whoever -rejects these things, confesses that the Talmud contains what -is false and foolish, and thereby shakes or rather overthrows -its authority. Some person will perhaps say that similar -superstitions and follies have been found amongst Christians. -We grant that this has been the case wherever Christians have -departed from the written Word of God, but can anything -similar be found in the New Testament? That book is our -standard of Christianity. As you say that the oral law is of -divine authority, we say that the New Testament is of divine -authority. We point out to you these follies, not in individual -Jews, but in your book of authority. If you would make out -a parallel case, you must do the same. But you cannot. The -New Testament has nothing of the kind; and it is for you to -explain how this happens that the New Testament, which you -believe to be false, is entirely free from every thing of the kind.</p> - -<p class='c005'>Further, we ask every right-minded Israelite, whether he -is not shocked at that profanation of the reverend and holy -names of God which is here not only countenanced but -prescribed. What can a devout Jew think either of the man -or the book that tells us to write the names,</p> - -<p class='c005'>יה יה יהוה צבאות ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“Jah, Jah, the Lord of Hosts,” by the side of such -nonsense as Kanti, Kanti, Klurus? Would he say that this -is consistent with true religion? And yet this profane use -of the name of God for magical purposes, is not rare in the -Talmud. The following is another instance:—</p> - -<p class='c005'>אמר רבה אשתעו לי נחותי ימא , האי גלא דמטבע -לספינה מיתחזי כי צוציתא דנורא חיוורתא ברישא -ומחינן ליה באלוותא דחקיק עליה אהיה אשר אהיה -<a id='Page_196'></a>יה ה׳ צבאות אמן אמן סלה ונייח אמר רבה אשתעו -לי נחותי ימא בין גלא לגלא תלת מאה פרסי זמנא -חדא הוה אזלינן באורחא ודלינן גלא עד דחזינן בי -מרבעתא דכוכבא זוטא והויא בי מבזר ארבעין גריוי -בזרא דחרדלא , ואי דלינן טפי מקלינן מהבלי , ורמי -ליה גלא קלא לחברתה חברתי שבקת מידי בעלמא -דלא שטפתיה דניתי אנא ונאבדיה א׳׳ל הזי גבורתא -דמריך מלא חוטא חלא ולא עברי שנאמר האותי לא -תיראו נאום ה׳ אם מפני לא תחילו אשר שמתי חול -גבול לים חק עולם ולא יעברנהו ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“Rabbah says, They that go down to the sea have told -me, that when a wave is going to overwhelm a ship, sparks -of white light are seen on its head. But if we strike it -with a staff on which are graved the words, ‘I am that I -am, Jah, Lord of Hosts, Amen, Amen, Selah,’ it subsides. -They that go down to the sea have told me, that the distance -between one wave and another, is three hundred miles. It -happened once that we were making a voyage, and we raised -a wave until we saw the resting-place of the least of all -the stars. It was large enough to sow forty bushels of -mustard seed, and if we had raised it more we should have -been burned by the vapour of the star. One wave raised its -voice and called to its companion, O, companion, hast thou -left anything in the world that thou hast not overflowed? -Come, and let us destroy it. It replied, Come and see the -power of thy Lord. I could not overpass the sand even a -hair’s-breadth, for it is written, ‘Fear ye not me? saith the -Lord: will ye not tremble at my presence, which have -placed the sand for the bound of the sea, by a perpetual -decree that it cannot pass it?’ (Jer. v. 22.)” (Bava Bathra, -fol. 73, col. 1.) Here is the same profanation of the peculiar -and holy names of God: it is to be engraved on a staff -either to lay or to raise the waves. But besides the profanity, -just consider the folly of this whole story. In the -first place, it ascribes to men, no matter whether they are -good or wicked, absolute power over the waves of the sea. -Anybody can engrave those names of God upon a staff, -anybody can use the staff to strike the sea, and thus a -wicked man, without either faith, fear, or love of God, may -make and use an instrument which almost invests him with -omnipotence. Is it possible that any son of Israel can be so -credulous as to believe such manifest absurdity? But this -story reminds us again of the utter disregard of truth which -characterises the Talmud. Here we are told that, by power -of this magic staff, a wave was raised so high as to enable -<a id='Page_197'></a>those travellers to see the resting-place of the smallest of all -the stars, and that so distinctly, too, as to be able to make -a good guess at its measure. The slightest knowledge of -modern astronomy is sufficient to show not only the improbability, -but the utter impossibility of anything of the kind. -The least of the stars visible to the naked eye is at an almost -immeasurable distance from the earth, so as to make it -perfectly ludicrous to talk of a wave being raised to such a -height. All the water on the face of the globe would be far -from sufficient for the formation of one such wave. But the -Talmud intimates that they had the power of raising it still -higher, and were prevented only by the fear of being scorched. -But the Talmud is not satisfied with these wonders, it goes -on to describe a conversation between two waves. The commentator, -who evidently believed every word of the story, -suggest that this conversation was carried on by the angels -presiding over the waves.</p> - -<p class='c005'>ורמי ליה גלא נתן קולו כלומר צעק כדוגמא תהום -אל תהום קורא , ושמא מלאכים הממונים עליהם הם ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“The wave lifted up his voice, that is, it cried, and so we -find, ‘Deep calleth unto deep.’ And perhaps this means the -angels who were set over them.” The commentator, it appears, -had no doubt of the truth of the story, and how -should he have, if he believed in the Divine authority of -the Talmud? But we ask our readers do they believe this -story—and if they do not, why not? Because it is too -absurd, and too far beyond the bounds of possibility. Can, -then, a book that swarms with similar accounts be from -God? By what means did all these things about magic, -astrology, amulets, magical cures, and staves, get into the -Talmud? No doubt they were put in by the authors. -Either, then, the authors believed in all these things, or -they did not. If they did not believe in them, then they -were evidently bad men, who deliberately wrote falsehood. -But if they did believe these things, then, though not -guilty of wilful falsehood, they were credulous, superstitious -persons, who had no clear idea of the religion of Moses and -the prophets; and in either case they are most unsafe guides -in religion. It is for the Jews of the present day to consider -whether they will still adhere to a system that involves the -belief of so many incredibilities and sanctions the profanation -of the names of God for the purposes of magic. Eighteen -centuries are surely long enough to have remained in such -thick darkness. Those who have been brought up in such -a system ought now, at least, to arise and ask what have -they and their forefathers been about all this while? And -<a id='Page_198'></a>how it is that the New Testament, which they have rejected, -is entirely free from such deformities? Something has been -decidedly wrong, or the chosen people of God could not have -remained so long in captivity, unheeded and unhelped by the -Holy One of Israel. An exhibition of the doctrines of the -oral law explains the cause. Israel has departed from the -religion of Moses, and pertinaciously adhered to a system -compounded of human inventions, and idolatrous heathenism. -They call Moses their master, and say that the oral law is -derived from him, but if we may from the work, form a -conjecture about the author, it is much more probably a -tradition from the magicians of Egypt or the witch of Endor. -And if it had been handed down as such—if the Israelites -had presented the Talmud to the world and their posterity -as part of the heavy yoke of Egypt, we should not have -been astonished at the universality of its reception. But -that Israel should ever have been so far imposed upon, as -to believe that Moses or the prophets ever had anything to -do with the oral law appears almost inexplicable. However -unwilling one may be to apply to fellow-sinners any prophecy -that contains a denunciation of God’s wrath, one cannot help -asking, was it of this that the prophet said, “The Lord -hath poured out upon you the spirit of deep sleep, and hath -closed your eyes; the prophets and your rulers the seers hath -he covered. And the vision of all is become unto you as -the words of a book that is sealed, which men deliver to one -that is learned, saying, read this, I pray thee; and he saith, -I cannot, for it is sealed: and the book is delivered to -him that is not learned, saying, Read this, I pray thee, and -he saith, I am not learned.” (Isaiah xxix. 10-12.) This -question is, however, far more important to Israel than to us, -and to them we leave the answer. Some will still persist -in the assertion that this heathenish compound is the highest -wisdom. The great majority of the nation is devoted to the -Talmud, which is still the cistern whence the synagogues -endeavour to draw the waters of life. The multitude does -it in ignorance, they are, therefore, not so culpable. But -there are many that know better, what then is the reason -that they do not strain every nerve to deliver their brethren? -These few do not suffer the oral law to interfere either with -their business or their convenience. They profane the Sabbath, -eat Gentile food, carry on their business on feasts and festivals. -If they do all this on principle, why not protest -against error? Is it because they are indifferent to the -welfare of their brethren? If indifference be the only fruit -of this intellectual progress, instead of rising above, they -have sunk below superstition itself.</p> - -<div class='chapter'> - <a id='Page_199'></a> - <h2 id='chap26' class='c003'>No. XXVI. <br /> CHARMS CONTINUED.</h2> -</div> -<p class='c004'>If men would only employ in religion a little of that -common sense and earnestness, which they find so necessary -for the affairs of this life, they would by God’s blessing soon -arrive at the truth. For example, if the father of a family -should find, that by following the advice of a physician, -sickness and death were constant guests, he would soon look -out for another; and he would be much quickened in his -measures, if this physician’s counsel had produced the same -results in the house of his father and his grandfather. He -would not think it any shame, under such circumstances, to -change his father’s physician for another; on the contrary, -he would think, and most men would agree with him, that -it would be both a sin and a shame to retain him. Now -let Israel make the application to their spiritual physicians, -the Scribes, Pharisees, and Rabbies. For many centuries they -have punctually followed their advice, and the consequence -has been one misfortune after another, and centuries of -exile from the land which God gave to their fathers; the -very contrary of that which God has promised. God has -said, if the Jews will obey the religion of Moses, that they -shall be restored to their land. “It shall come to pass ... -if thou shalt return unto the Lord thy God, and shalt obey -his voice according to all that I command thee this day, -thou and thy children, with all thy heart and with all thy -soul; that then the Lord thy God will turn thy captivity, -and have compassion upon thee, and will return and gather -thee from all nations,” &c. (Deut. xxx. 2, 3.) The Jews -have obeyed the commands of the rabbies, and have not -been gathered; what is the conclusion? Either that God’s -promise has failed, which is impossible, or that the religion of -the rabbies is not the religion of Moses. Such is the inevitable -conclusion from the words of Moses and the facts of the case; -let it then lead the sufferers to examine the religion which -they have hitherto professed. A very little examination will -convince any reasonable man, that it is a fearful corruption of -divine truth, a compilation made by men who professed to be -astrologers and magicians. Let not the Jews think that our -opinion is the result of prejudice. It has been deliberately -formed on evidence furnished by the oral law itself. If we are -wrong, let the rabbies prove the contrary. Let them, for -example, explain the following law of modern Judaism.</p> - -<p class='c005'>מי שנשכו עקרב או נחש מותר ללחוש אל מקום -<a id='Page_200'></a>הנשיכה ואפילו בשבת כדי לישב דעתו ולחזק לבו -אף על פי שאין הדבר מועיל כלום הואיל ומסוכן -הוא התירו לו כדי שלא תטרף דעתו עליו ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“If any person be bitten by a scorpion or a serpent, it is -lawful to charm the place of the bite, even on the Sabbath-day, -in order to quiet his mind, and to encourage his heart, although -it is a thing utterly profitless. Because the man is in danger, -they have pronounced this lawful for him that his mind may -not be distracted.” (Hilchoth Accum. c. xi. 11.) Here the -rabbies have allowed what God has absolutely forbidden. The -men who profess such reverence for the Sabbath allow it to be -profaned by magic, which is one of the works of the devil. -Rambam, whose words we have just quoted, felt that it was -both wicked and foolish, and has therefore endeavoured to -furnish an excuse, saying that it is of no use, and is only -allowed to quiet the mind of the sufferer. But that does not -alter the unlawfulness. Besides, what sort of opinion could -Rambam and the rabbies have had of the Jews, when they say -that magic is permitted in order to quiet their minds? They -evidently supposed that the Jews were a weak and superstitious -people, who believed so firmly in charms, that the use of them -would quiet the mind; and so ignorant or careless about God’s -commandments, that they could be comforted by their transgressions. -The excuse, therefore, only makes the case worse. -It takes for granted that the professors of the oral law are -ignorant and superstitious; and then to quiet their minds -allows the transgression of the law of Moses, and that on the -Sabbath-day. But this excuse is altogether Rambam’s invention. -The original passage in the Talmud says nothing -about quieting the man’s mind, it simply says—</p> - -<p class='c005'>ולוחשין לחישת נחשים ועקרבים בשבת ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“It is lawful to charm serpents and scorpions on the Sabbath-day.” -(Sanhedrin, fol. 101, col. 1.) And Rashi’s commentary -on the passage—</p> - -<p class='c005'>בשביל שלא יזיקו ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“That they may not do injury.” This man, then, who spent -his life in the study of the Talmud, knew nothing of Rambam’s -apology. He plainly believed that by charming serpents on -the Sabbath, they might be prevented from doing harm, and -that on this account, and not for the purpose of quieting the -mind, they were permitted so to do. This was also the opinion -of that famous expounder of Jewish law, the Baal Turim, for -after quoting Rambam’s words, he adds:—</p> - -<p class='c005'><a id='Page_201'></a>מי שרודפים אחריו נחש או עקרב מותר להבר -ללחש כדי שלא יזיקוהו כתב הרמב׳׳ם הלוחש על -המכה והקורא פסוק מן התורה וכן הקורא על התינוק -שלא יבעת או מניח ס׳׳ת או תפילין על הקטן לא די -להם שהם בכלל חברים ומנחשים אלא שהם בכלל -הכופרים בתורה שעושין דברי תורה רפואת הגוף -ואינן אלא רפואת הנפש ור׳׳י פירש דוקא בלוחש על -המכה ומזכיר שם שמים ורוקק אותו הוא שאין לו -חלק לעולם הבא אבל אם אינו רוקק לא חמיר כולי -האי ומיהו איסורא איכא בלוחש פסוק על המכה -אפילו בלא רקיקה ובלא הזכרת שם שמים , ואם יש -כו סכנת נפשות הכל מותר ומותר לקרוא פסוק פהגן -כגון בלילה על מטתו ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“If any person be pursued by a serpent or a scorpion, it is -lawful to charm it to prevent it from doing injury. Rambam -has written, He that charms a wound, or reads a verse from -the law (as a charm), and also he that reads over an infant -that it may not be afraid, or who lays a roll of the law or -phylacteries upon a child, are not only to be accounted as one -of the charmers and magicians, but as of the deniers of the law, -for they use the words of the law as medicine for the body, -whereas it is only a medicine for the soul. R. Isaac says -absolutely, that he who charms a wound, mentioning at the -same time the name of God and spitting, is the charmer of -whom it is said that he has no share in the world to come: but -if he does not spit, the matter is not so grave. It is, however, -forbidden to use a verse as a charm over a wound, even though -there will be no spitting nor mentioning the name of God. <i>But -if life be in danger, every thing is lawful</i>; and it is lawful to -read a verse as a defence, for instance at night in bed.” (Joreh -Deah. § 179.) From this it is pretty plain that the charming of -serpents was allowed, not as Rambam says to quiet the mind -of him that had been bitten, but to prevent injury, for it is -allowed before the man is bitten at all, if he be only pursued -by a serpent or a scorpion. But what a picture does this -whole passage give us of the religious state of the Rabbinic -Jews, both rabbies and people. Here you have the people -described, not by Christians, but by the rabbies themselves, -as sunk in the depths of superstition, using a sepher torah, -a roll of the law, or phylacteries as a sort of charm for -the benefit of children, and you have the rabbies forbidding -this at one time, but allowing what is equally forbidden by -God, to charm serpents: and, in case of danger, declaring that -“Every thing is lawful,” that is, allowing them to do what -<a id='Page_202'></a>will make them, according to Rambam’s opinion, charmers, -magicians, and deniers of the law. And this is the Jewish -religion, and this is what the Jews have gained by rejecting -Christianity. We, poor Gentiles, who cannot trace our pedigree -to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, should be ashamed of -such follies. And if such wicked heathenish practices were to -be found in our religious books, we would not let an hour pass -over until we had lifted up our voice and protested against -them, and should use every lawful means to deliver our children -from such ungodliness and error.</p> - -<p class='c005'>We have now given quotations from the two great digests of -Jewish law on the subject of using charms, but it is worth -while to consider the context of the original passage, upon -which these laws are based, as that will prove that the Talmud -has not been misrepresented by its compilers.</p> - -<p class='c005'>תנו רבנן סכין וממשמשין בבני מעיין בשבת ולוחשין -לחישת נחשים ועקרבים בשבת ומעבירין כלי על גב -העין בשבת אמר רבן שמעון בן גמליאל במה דברים -אמורים בכלי הניטל אבל בכלי שאינו ניטל אסור ואין -שואלין בדבר שדים בשבת ר׳ יוסי אומר אף בחול -אסור אמר רב הונא אין הלכה כר׳ יוסי ואף ר׳ יוסי -לא אמרה אלא משום סכנה כי הא דרב יצחק בר -יוסף דאיבלע בארזא ואתעביד ליה ניסא פקע ארזא -ופלטיה ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“Our rabbies have handed down the tradition that it is lawful -to anoint and rub the stomach (of a sick man) on the Sabbath, -also to charm serpents and scorpions on the Sabbath: also -to pass an instrument across the eye on the Sabbath. R. -Simeon, the son of Gamaliel, says, that this only applies to an -instrument which may be moved,<a id='r26' /><a href='#f26' class='c006'><sup>[26]</sup></a> but with one that may not -be moved, it is unlawful. But it is unlawful on the Sabbath -to make inquiry of demons. R. Jose says, this is also unlawful -on week-days. Rav Huna says, the decision is not according -to R. Jose: and R. Jose himself said this only on account of -danger, for that is what occurred in the case of R. Isaac, the -son of Joseph, who was swallowed up in a cedar tree, but a -miracle was wrought for him—the cedar opened and cast him -out.” (Sanhedrin, fol. 101, col. 1.) We have here, first, the -charming of serpents; we ask, then, could the Talmudic -doctors really believe in such folly or allow such wickedness -on the Sabbath? Is there any misunderstanding, or does the -context show, that they were men of that superstitious turn of -mind to justify this idea? The context is all of a piece, for after -<a id='Page_203'></a>permitting the charming of serpents, it goes on to discuss the -lawfulness of asking counsel of demons, and here Rashi shall -explain what this means:—</p> - -<p class='c005'>בדבר שדים שכן עושין כשאובדין שום דבר שואלין -במעשה שדים והם מגּידים להם ואסור לעשות בשבת -משום ממצוא חפציך ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“To make inquiry of demons, is what they do when any -thing is lost. They make inquiry by the work of demons, and -they tell them, and this is forbidden on the Sabbath, on account -of the words, ‘Not finding thine own pleasure.’ (Isaiah -lviii. 13.)” This is plainly a magical operation, but yet the -rabbies do not say that it is unlawful because it is magical, -but because it would be attending to one’s own concerns. In -like manner, they say, it is unlawful on week-days, only on -account of the danger. And an instance is given in Rabbi -Isaac of what might happen; and here, again, we ask counsel -of Rashi, in order to understand what Rabbi Isaac was about. -This commentator tells us:—</p> - -<p class='c005'>היה שואל במעשה שדים ובקש השד להזיקו ונעשה -לו נס ובלעו הארז ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“He was asking counsel, by means of a demoniacal operation, -and the demon sought to do him an injury, but a miracle -was wrought for him, and a cedar tree swallowed him.” Such, -then, is the context, those men who permit the charming of -serpents, also teach the doctrine of asking advice of demons, and -give us a practical example in one of their friends. There can, -therefore, be no mistake; the one feature of their religious -system exactly agrees with the other: and the authors of the -oral law represent themselves as patrons and practisers of -charms and magic, and therefore to every lover of the Mosaic -law, as unwise and ungodly men. It is, however, curious to -see how they endeavoured to quiet their own conscience, and -that of the people, in a matter so evidently repugnant to the -plain words of Scripture. They pretended, that there was a -holy sort of magic in the practical Cabbala, which men might -learn, and then perform the greatest miracles.</p> - -<p class='c005'>אי בעו צדיקי ברו עלמא שנאמר כי עונותיכם היו -מבדילים וגו׳ רבא ברא גברא שדריה לקמיה דר׳ זירא -הוה קא משתעי בהדיה ולא הוה קא מהדר ליה אמר -ליה מן חבריא את הדר לעפריך רב חנינא ורב אושעיא -הוו יתבי כל מעלי שבתא ועסקו בספר יצירה ומיברו -להו עיגלא תילתא ואכלי ליה ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'><a id='Page_204'></a>“If the righteous wished, they might create the world, for -it is written, ‘But your sins separate, &c.’ Rabba created a -man, and sent him to Rabbi Zira. He spoke with him, but -when the other did not answer him, he said, Thou art from -the magicians, return to thy dust. Rav Chanina and Rav -Oshaia used to sit every Sabbath eve and study the book of -Jetzirah, and then created for themselves a three-years-old -calf, and ate it.” (Sanhedrin, fol. 65, col. 2.) The second -miracle is here ascribed to the study of a certain book. In -Rashi the first miracle performed by Rabba is ascribed to the -same source.</p> - -<p class='c005'>ברא גברא ע׳׳י ספר יצירה שמלמדו צרוף אותיות -של שם ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“He created the man by means of the book of Jetzirah, for -it taught him the combination of the letters of the name of -God.” According to this account, these rabbies were much -greater men than Moses or any of the prophets, for in the -whole Old Testament there is not one such miracle recorded. -Moses never created any thing, neither did he perform any -of his miracles without the help of God. Either the Lord -immediately commanded him, or he sought the Lord’s help. -But these rabbies acquired the power of omnipotence by -studying a particular book, and exercised it either for their -amusement or their profit. Rabba created a man, and sent -him to Rabbi Zira, not as it appears to do any good, or to -glorify God, but simply to show his power, or to act a little -bit of waggery; and the other two created a fat calf for -themselves every Sabbath eve, that they might have a good -dinner. The difference between these miracles and those -recorded in Scripture is obvious. The Scripture miracles are -either for the glory of God, or the good of man. The -rabbinical miracles are altogether for the glory of man, and -the gratification of self. Moses smote the rock, and supplied -all Israel with water. The rabbies create a calf, and eat it -themselves. No doubt there were many poor people in Israel -at the time of Rabbies Oshaia and Chanina, who would -have been very glad of a calf for their Sabbath dinner, why -did they not create a calf or two for them? This selfish -falsehood betrays itself, and bears on its front its own condemnation. -The whole doctrine of the combination of the -letters in the name of God is a pure invention of men, whose -minds have been debased by superstition. There is not a -word about it in the whole Bible, and it is derogatory to -the honour of God, who is the only Creator.</p> - -<p class='c005'>The whole Talmudic doctrine of magic does, however, -explain the reason why the Scribes and Pharisees were so -<a id='Page_205'></a>little moved by the real miracles of Jesus of Nazareth and his -disciples. Their minds were fully possessed with faith in the -power of cabalistic magic, they therefore were insensible to -the real displays of divine power. They were in the same -state of mind as Pharaoh and his magicians, who looked on -the miracles of Moses as a mere proof of magical skill, and -hardened their hearts. Even when they confessed “This is -the finger of God,” they were not converted. Pharaoh still -persisted in his resistance. And so it was with the Scribes -and Pharisees. When the Lord had raised Lazarus from the -dead, “then gathered the chief priests and the Pharisees -in council, and said, What do we? for this man doeth many -miracles.” They acknowledged the fact of the miracles, but -did not receive their evidence, for they believed that the study -of the book of Jetzirah would enable them to do greater. No -miracle, therefore, could convince them. But besides this, -their hearts were corrupt, and they had apostatized from the -law of Moses; they therefore did not love the truth. They -had turned aside to charms and magic, and asking counsel of -demons; and when men do this, the understanding becomes -darkened, so that it is rendered impervious to the light. -Their unbelief, therefore, becomes an evidence to the truth -of Christianity. If such transgressors of the law of Moses, -and such unblushing relaters of falsehood had believed, it -would have cast a shade of suspicion over the whole Gospel -history. If the men, who say that Rabba created a man, -and the two other worthies created a calf every week, had -appeared as witnesses for the truth of Christianity, the -miracles of the Gospel would have appeared in one category -with these most absurd fictions. But when such men appear -as the enemies and persecutors of Jesus, it testifies that He -was not one of them, and that as they were bad men, and -loved a false system, his doctrine must necessarily have had -something good in it, or they would not have opposed it.</p> - -<p class='c005'>But this doctrine explains still more clearly the cause of -God’s wrath against Israel. The Jews boast that since the -Babylonian captivity, they have been free from idolatry, but -this is not true. They have not made images, that is, they -have avoided the form, but they have retained all the substance -of idolatrous heathenism. The man who charms a serpent is -an idolater, and the religion which permits it is idolatrous and -heathenish. The man who asks counsel of demons is an idolater -of the worst class, for he does homage to unclean spirits. -He turns his back upon the allwise God, who ought to be the -counsellor of all his children, and by making demons his advisers, -makes them his gods, and yet this is also allowed in -the religion of the rabbies if it can be done without danger. -Those Jews, therefore, who believe in the oral law—that is, all -<a id='Page_206'></a>Jews who make use of the synagogue prayers, have departed -from the law and the God of Moses, and have chosen for themselves -the doctrines and the gods of the rabbies. How then -can God have compassion upon them and gather them? The -thing is impossible, until they utterly renounce all these delusions, -confess their sin in having followed them so long, and -“return and seek the Lord their God and David their king.” -A long trial has been made of the rabbinical medicine, and it -has altogether failed. Wherever the religion of the oral law -has been or is predominant, its sway has been marked by the -misery of the people. And the first dawn of a happier day has -appeared only since the time that a part of the nation burst -the fetters of rabbinic superstition. Compare the state of the -German Jews with that of their brethren in Turkey or on -the coast of Morocco. Some of the former have abandoned -the oral law, and the latter still cling to it with a bigoted -devotion; and yet the former have had a blessing in the improvement -of their temporal and intellectual condition, and the -latter still remain in mental and corporeal slavery. The mere -renunciation of Rabbinism has produced these beneficial effects, -and if the Jews of Europe go on from the renunciation of error -to the attainment of truth, that is, if they return to the religion -of Moses and the prophets, the promises of God will be fulfilled, -and the nation will be restored to the land of their -fathers.</p> - -<p class='c005'>The Rabbinic Jews comfort themselves with the idea, that -they cannot have this world and the world to come too; but -they confound two things which are perfectly distinct, God’s -mode of dealing with individuals, and his mode of dealing -with nations. Individuals have not only an existence in time, -but for eternity. Worldly misfortune to an individual is, -therefore, no proof of God’s displeasure, because the world is -only a part, and that the smallest part, of his existence. But -the case of nations is different. They exist only in time, and -therefore the rewards and punishments must be temporal, and -so God has uniformly promised to the Jewish people temporal -prosperity, in case of national obedience, and temporal calamity -in the former case. Whenever, therefore, we see Israel exiled -from their land and scattered among the nations, we must -infer, if Moses has spoken the truth, that it is because they -have departed from the God of their fathers.</p> - -<div class='chapter'> - <a id='Page_207'></a> - <h2 id='chap27' class='c003'>No. XXVII. <br /> SABBATIC LAWS.</h2> -</div> -<p class='c004'>How little the oral law has hitherto done to promote the -peace and happiness of Israel, we considered in our last number. -It may, however, be replied, that it has not had a fair trial, -and that the failure is to be attributed rather to the people -than to the law. This possible reply naturally leads us to -think, what then would be the state of Israel and of the world -at large, if the oral law were universally and exactly observed, -and its disciples had supreme dominion in the world? Suppose -that all the kingdoms of the world were melted into one vast -and universal monarchy, and the sceptre swayed by a devout -and learned rabbi, and all the magisterial offices filled by able -and zealous Talmudists, would the world be happy? This is a -fair question, and well deserves consideration, for there can be -no doubt that true religion was intended by its Divine Author -to promote the happiness of his creatures:—</p> - -<p class='c005'>דוכיה דרכי נועם וכל נתיבוביה שלום ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“Her ways are ways of pleasantness, and all her paths are -peace.” (Prov. iii. 17.) And that not of a few, but of all -without exception.</p> - -<p class='c005'>הלא אב אחד לכלנו , הלא אל אחד בראנו ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“Have we not all one father? Hath not one God created -us?” (Mal. ii. 10.) That religion, therefore, cannot be of God, -which would make the greatest portion of his creatures miserable, -and confer happiness on a very limited number. The religion -that came from heaven, wherever it exists, must contain -the elements of happiness for all nations, and include all -the families of man. It must exclude none but the wilfully -and obstinately wicked, who carry the torments of hell in their -own bosom, and would be necessarily unhappy even in heaven -itself. A religion, whose principles, if triumphant, would effect -so desirable a consummation, must be true. The question is, -whether modern Judaism, if it had full and free scope for the -realization of all its principles, would bear such blessed fruit? -Our late inquiries about amulets and magic led us to consider -some of the laws about the Sabbath-day, and as when true -religion prevails, this ought to be the happiest day of the -week, the laws respecting it shall furnish materials for our -answer. That a rabbinical Sabbath would be the happiest -day in the week we much doubt, for, in the first place, to keep -the rabbinical Sabbath aright, it is necessary to be perfectly -acquainted with all the laws relating to it, which are very -<a id='Page_208'></a>many and very intricate, occupying even in Rambam’s compendium, -including the notes, above one hundred and seventy -folio pages.<a id='r27' /><a href='#f27' class='c006'><sup>[27]</sup></a> That any conscientious man can be happy with -such a load of law about his neck appears impossible. He must -be in continual fear and trembling lest he should through forgetfulness -or inadvertence be guilty of transgression, and the -continued watchfulness and anxiety would be more intolerable -than the hardest labour. But if Rabbinism wielded the supreme -power, he would have to dread the most severe and -immediate punishment:—</p> - -<p class='c005'>שביתה בשביעי ממלאכה מצות עשה שנאמר וביום -השביעי תשבות , וכל העושה בו מלאכה ביטל מצות -עשה ועבר על לא תעשה שנאמר לא תעשה כל -מלאכה , ומהו חייב על עשיית מלאכה אם עשה -ברצונו בזדון חייב כרת ואם היה שם עדים והתראה -נסקל ואם עשה בשגגה חייב קרבן הטאת קבועה ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“To rest on the seventh day from work is an affirmative -precept, for it is said, ‘On the seventh day thou shalt rest.’ -Whosoever, therefore, does any work, annuls an affirmative, -and transgresses a negative precept, for it is said, ‘Thou shalt -do no manner of work.’ What is meant by being guilty on -account of doing work? If it be done voluntarily and presumptuously, -the meaning is, that he is liable to excision, and -if there were witnesses and a warning, he is to be stoned. -If he did it in error, he must bring a certain sin-offering.” -(Hilchoth Shabbath, c. i. 1.) This sounds something like the -law of Moses, but is in reality far more severe. The whole -force depends upon the meaning of the word “work,” and the -rabbinical sense would entirely destroy the peace of society. -If, for instance, a poor man could not afford to have his Sabbath -lamp burn all day, and should extinguish it to save the -oil; or if a humane man should see burning coals in some place -likely to do injury to others, and should extinguish them, they -would both be guilty, and if some zealous Talmudists happened -to be present, and first remonstrated with them on the unlawfulness -of the act, they would both be tried, found guilty, and -stoned to death:—</p> - -<p class='c005'>כל העושה מלאכה בשבת אע׳׳פ שאינו צריך לגופה -של מלאכה חייב עליה , כיצד הרי שכבה את הנר -מפני שהוא צריך לשמן או לפתילה כדי שלא יאבד -או כדי שלא ישרף או כדי שלא יבקע חרס של נר -מפני שהכבוי מלאכה והרי נתכוון לכבות ואע׳׳פ שאין -<a id='Page_209'></a>צריך לגוף הכבוי ולא כבה אלא מפני השמן או מפני -החרס או מפני הפתילה הרי זה חייב , וכן המעביר -את הקוץ ד׳ אמות ברה׳׳ר או המכבה את הגחלת -כדי שלא יזוקו בו רבים חייב ואע׳׳פ שאינו צריך לגוף -הכבוי או לגוף חהעברה אלא להרחיק ההיזק הרי -זה חייב וכן כל כיוצא בזה ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“Whosoever does any work on the Sabbath, even though he -does not do it for the sake of the work itself, is nevertheless -guilty. How so? If, for instance, a man extinguishes a lamp, -because he wants the oil or the wick, and wishes that it should -not waste, nor be burned, or that the earthenware part of the -lamp should not be cracked; inasmuch as the extinguishing -is work, and his intention was to extinguish it: although the -mere act of extinguishing it was not the ultimate object, but on -the contrary, the saving of the oil or the wick, or the earthen -lamp, he is, nevertheless, guilty. And in like manner, whosoever, -removes thorns a distance of four ells in a public place, or -whosoever extinguishes coals to prevent the public from being -injured, is guilty: although the ultimate object was not the -extinguishing nor the moving, but he simply intended to -prevent the injury, he is guilty, and so in all similar cases.” -(Ibid.) If this were the law of the land, and the executive were -in the hands of Talmudistic zealots, the peace of the world -would be at an end. The poor man could not be happy, when -he saw his little property wasting; and the humane man would -either be made miserable at the thought of being able to prevent -much injury, and yet not doing it, or would have to expose -himself to the danger of a cruel and ignominious death. We -know enough of the general character of the Jewish nation to -believe that there are amongst them those who would brave the -danger, whose generous hearts would rise above personal considerations, -but how dreadful would be the consequences! A -man of a tender heart, the father of a family, would be induced, -by the best of feelings, to save his fellow-men from injury. -He would return to his family, and tell them how God had -given him an opportunity of doing good. The family worthy -of such a father would rejoice to hear the information, but the -sequel of his story would turn their joy into mourning. He -would have to tell them that ignominious death would be the -consequence, and that because he dared to do an act of charity, -and to love his brother as himself, the morrow would see his -wife a widow and his children orphans. But suppose, that -when he performed the act, he had been attended by two of his -sons, now grown up, and zealots for the oral law—that they -had warned him, and then became his accusers, as they must, if -firm believers in Talmudic religion, he would have the additional -<a id='Page_210'></a>pangs of seeing his own flesh and blood as the foremost of his -executioners. This one law would clothe the world with -mourning, and make the light of the Sabbath sun the curse of -mankind. Though men might be found at first to brave the -danger, the course of time and the inflexible severity of the law -would soon annihilate all generous feeling. Children would be -trained up with the idea that humanity is not a Sabbath virtue, -and the constant resistance of the tender feelings would harden -the heart, and mankind in time become totally insensible on -week-days as well as Sabbath-days; and thus the enforcement -of this one law would produce universal selfishness, and this -would certainly not promote the happiness of the world. But -take another case of a man, who leaves his home on the Friday -morning to go a short distance into the country, intending to -return before the commencement of the Sabbath; he meets -with an accident, and breaks a limb; on the Sabbath he is -sufficiently restored to think of the anxiety of his family, and -writes a short note to inform them of his state, this act of -common love and kindness would cost him his life; nay, if he -had only begun the letter, and then overcome by fear or weakness, -had left it unfinished, a rabbinic tribunal would condemn -him to be stoned.</p> - -<p class='c005'>כל המתכוון לעשות מלאכה בשבת והתחיל בה -ועשה כשיעור חייב אע׳׳פ שלא השלים כל המלאכה -שנתכוון להשלימה , כיצד הרי שנתכוון לכתוב אגרת -או שטר בשבת אין אומרים לא יתחייב זה עד שישלים -חפצו ויכתות כל השטר או כל האגרת אלא משיכתוב -שתי אותיות חייב ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“Whosoever intends to do any work on the Sabbath, and -begins it, and does a certain measure, is guilty, although he -does not finish all that he intended. How so? Suppose he -intended to write a letter, or a contract on the Sabbath, it is -not to be thought that he will not be guilty until he finish his -business, and write the whole contract or the whole letter. On -the contrary, as soon as he shall have written two letters (of -the alphabet) he is guilty.” (Ibid.) And consequently, if it -can be proved, must be stoned. Every one’s daily experience -will tell them of the many similar cases where a letter may be -necessary for the peace or well-being of an individual or a -family, and where the delay of a day would be a serious injury. -If rabbinism held the reins of power, the anxiety, the sorrow, -the injury must all be endured; the Sabbath-day must be made -a burden and a curse, instead of a blessing, or life itself must -be exposed to danger. But this would not be the only misery. -These sanguinary laws would, as religious laws, bind the -<a id='Page_211'></a>consciences of the weak and superstitious. A man’s domestics, -or his children, or even his wife, would become spies over all -his Sabbath doings, and the denouncers of every transgression; -and thus domestic confidence, without which not even the -shadow of happiness can exist, would be destroyed, and a man’s -foes would be those of his own household. Much has lately -been thought and said about the sanguinary nature of the laws -of England, but the laws of Draco himself were merciful when -compared with the religious enactments of the rabbies. Draco -only sentenced to death men convicted of a crime. The oral -law condemns to stoning the man, woman, or child who will -venture to write two letters of the alphabet, or even who will -extinguish fire to prevent a public injury. Nay, in some cases, -where it actually pronounces a man innocent, it nevertheless -commands him to be flogged.</p> - -<p class='c005'>נתכוון ללקוט תאנים שחורות וליקט לבנות או -שנתכוון ללקוט תאנים ואחר כך ענבים ונהפך הדבר -וליקט הענבים בתחלה ואח׳׳כ תאנים פטור אע׳׳פ -שליקט כל מה שחשב הואיל ולא ליקט כסדר שחשב -פטור שבלא כוונה עשה שלא אסרה התורה אלא -מלאכת מחשבת ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“If a man intended to gather black figs, but gathered white -figs, or if he intended to gather figs and afterwards grapes, -but the matter has been inverted, and he gathered the grapes -first, and afterwards the figs, he is not guilty. Although he -have gathered all that he thought of gathering, yet, because he -did not gather them in the intended order, he is not guilty, for -he did what was unintentional, and the law forbids only -intentional work.” (Ibid.) We pass by the manifest absurdity -of this decision, which is, however, sufficient to prove that this -law is not of God, because it is more important to consider -what is to be done with a man not guilty. The law of England, -or any other civilized country, would say, of course, that he is -to go free; but not so the oral law, it commands that the man -should be flogged.</p> - -<p class='c005'>וכל מקום שנאמר שהעושה דבר זה פטור , הרי -זה פטור מן הכרת ומן הסקילה ומן הקרבן אבל -אסור לעשות אותו דבר בשבת ואיסורו מדברי סופרים -והוא הרחקה מן המלאכה והעושה אותו בזדון מכין -אותו מכות מרדות ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“Wherever it is said, he that doeth anything is not guilty, -the meaning is, that he is not liable to excision, nor stoning, -nor a sacrifice, but that thing is unlawful to be done, and the -<a id='Page_212'></a>prohibition is of the words of the Scribes, and is intended as a -removal from the possibility of work: and he that does it presumptuously, -is to be flogged with the flogging of rebellion.” -(Ibid.) Here, then, we have a whole class of crimes which the -oral law itself allows are no crimes according to the law of -Moses, but which it thinks fit to punish with that dreadful -and degrading infliction. Are the professors of this traditional -religion really acquainted with its ordinances? or can any man -believe that a religion which, if it had full scope and power, -would become the torment of the human race, can emanate -from God?</p> - -<p class='c005'>If ever this religion attains supreme power, its adherents will -be reduced to a state of the most deplorable bondage, but what -would be its effect upon the other nations of the world? It -would, in the first place, deprive all other nations of a Sabbath; -for we have already quoted the law (<a href='#chap03'>No. 3</a>, p. <a href='#Page_22'>22</a>), which -decides, “That a Gentile who keeps a Sabbath, though it be -on one of the week-days is guilty of death,” and though not to -be executed, is yet to be flogged. This would be a very serious -diminution from the happiness of millions of human beings. -The Gentile—who, like the Jew, must earn his bread by the -sweat of his brow, and devote six days to the concerns of the -world—requires a day of rest from secular labours, and cares, -and thoughts, to relieve his body and to refresh his soul, and -hold communion with his God. Of this the oral law would -deprive him, or, if his conscience compelled him to sanctify one -day in seven, he would have to purchase his spiritual enjoyment -by corporeal suffering. Many would, no doubt, be terrified at -the thought of the punishment, and all trace of a Sabbath -would in time cease amongst the Gentiles. The multitude -would soon be left destitute of religious instruction, and general -vice and misery be the consequence. This religion, then, of -the oral law, would certainly not promote the happiness of the -Gentiles, and they are the overwhelming majority of mankind: -it therefore cannot be of God. But the violent deprivation of a -holy day of rest would be far from producing kindly feelings -towards the Jews. Mankind would rebel against such oppression; -and the religion which commanded it instead of obtaining -their reverence, as it ought to do if true, would become -their detestation. This unhappy feeling would be increased by -other similar laws, equally wanting in charity. For instance—</p> - -<p class='c005'>אין מילדין את הגויה בשבת ואפילו בשכר ואין -חוששין לאיבה ואע׳׳פ שאין שם חילול השם אבל -מילדין את בת גר תושב מפני שאנו מצווין להחיותו -ואין מחללין עליה את השבת ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“A Gentile woman is not to be delivered upon the Sabbath, -<a id='Page_213'></a>not even for payment, neither is the enmity to be regarded. It -is not to be done, even though no profanation of the Sabbath -should be implied. But the daughter of a sojourning proselyte -may be delivered, for we are commanded to preserve the life of -such, but the Sabbath is not to be profaned on her account.” -(Ibid. chap. ii. 12.) We ask every Jew who has got the heart -of a man, whether such a law can be from God? or whether -the religion of which it forms a part can be true? A poor -woman, in the hour of her extremity, is to be left to her fate, -simply because she is an idolatress. The mother and the child -are both to be left to perish, because, either through her own -fault, or through the circumstances of her birth, she has remained -ignorant of the true God. But grant, for the sake of -argument, that the mother is so hardened a sinner as to be -beyond the mercies of sinful men, what has the child done, -that its life is to be given as a sport to chance? Is that the -way to convert a sinner from the error of her ways, or to -recommend the true religion? The most besotted of idolaters, -who believes at all in a Divine and merciful being, would -pronounce such religion false. A few such cases would soon -spread through the world, and Judaism become the aversion of -every heart that can sympathize with suffering. And thus, if -true, it would confirm all mankind in error. But it cannot be: -the religion that comes from God bears the impress of its author, -and teaches such love and kindness that the practice of it -softens, where it does not convert. Its bitterest enemies must -confess that its practical principles are worthy of all admiration. -But there is here a second case, the daughter of a sojourning -proselyte, towards whom the oral law is a little more lenient, -it allows such an one to be delivered, but does not permit the -Sabbath to be profaned on her account. Suppose then that -such an one found herself in the midst of Jews, and after her -delivery required the comfort of a fire or warm food for herself -or her infant, or any other assistance that would imply a -breach of the Sabbath, it could not be done, but for an -Israelitess it may be done; can this proceed from Him who -seeks the happiness of all his creatures? It cannot be said that -this is a rare case, for it is easy to show that this is the general -spirit of the oral law:—</p> - -<p class='c005'>היתה חצר שיש בה גוים וישראלים אפילו ישראל -אחד ואלף גוים ונפלה עליהם מפולת מפקחין על -הכל מפני ישראל , פירש אחד מהם לחצר אחרת -ונפלה אליו אותו חצר מפקהין עליו שמא זה שפירש -היה ישראל והנשארים גוים , נעקרו כולן מחצר זו -לילך לחצר אחרת ובעת עקירתן פירש אחד מהם -ונכנס לחצר אחרת ונפלה עליו מפולת ואין ידוע מי -<a id='Page_214'></a>הוא אין מפקחין עליו , שכיון שנעקרו כולם אין כאן -ישראל , וכל הפורש מהן כשהן מהלכין הרי הוא -בחזקת שפירש מן הרוב ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“If Gentiles and Israelites live together in one court, even -if there be only one Israelite and a thousand Gentiles, and a -ruin fall on one of them, the rubbish is to be cleared away, -on account of the Israelite. If one of them had gone by -himself to another court, and that court fell upon him, the -rubbish is also to be cleared away, for perhaps this one was -the Israelite, and the rest were Gentiles. But if they all -set out to go from this court to another court, and during -the time of their moving, one of them separated and went -to another court, and a ruin fell upon him, and it is not -known who he is, the rubbish is not to be cleared away. -For as they all moved together, it is certain that the Israelite -was not amongst them; and every one who separated from -them, whilst going, is to be reckoned as belonging to the -majority.” (Ibid. 20, 21.) Here the same utter recklessness -of Gentile life or comfort is displayed, and no one will pretend -that such laws, if carried into effect, would promote -the happiness of mankind. Accidents, like births, happen -on the Jewish Sabbath as well as on the other days, but -if the oral law had power, the Gentiles to whom any -accident happened, might wait until the Sabbath was over, -and must thus lose the only comfort which is possible on -such an occasion. When a man is suffering from severe -bodily injury, there are but two sources of consolation; the -one is the kind and benevolent attentions of man, the other -the remembrance of God’s mercy and goodness, but the oral -law cuts off both from the suffering Gentile. It forbids its -disciples to help him, and says at the same time that this -is the law of God. But could the Jews themselves be -happy on that Sabbath, where such an accident occurred, -and where they had left a poor Gentile buried under the -ruins of a building? Could they enjoy peace in the bosom -of their family, or could they find holy pleasure in the prayers -of the synagogue when they had left one of God’s creatures, -a fellow-man, to perish in his misery? But this law would -affect more than the individual sufferer, and the few surrounding -spectators. It would prevent all brotherly love -between Jews and Gentiles, and until all men learn the -reality of charity, the world cannot be happy. If it be true -that the religion given by God, wherever it is carried into -practice, makes men happy, then the religion of the oral -law cannot be true, for, if practised, it would make, all men -miserable.</p> - -<div class='chapter'> - <a id='Page_215'></a> - <h2 id='chap28' class='c003'>No. XXVIII. <br /> FAST FOR THE DESTRUCTION OF THE TEMPLE.</h2> -</div> -<p class='c004'>All who believe the Bible look forward, in full assurance -of hope, to that happy period, when Israel shall be gathered -from the four corners of the earth, and restored to the land -of their forefathers and the favour of their God. The days -of their mourning shall then be ended, and their fasts, now -observed on account of the misfortunes of the nation, shall -be turned into joy and gladness:—</p> - -<p class='c005'>כה אמר ה׳ צבאות צום הרביעי וצום החמיש -וצום השביעי וצום העשירי רהרה לבית יהודה לששו -ולשמחה ולמועדים טובים והאמת והשלום אהבו ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“Thus saith the Lord of hosts, the fast of the fourth -month, and the fast of the fifth, and the fast of the seventh, -and the fast of the tenth, shall be to the house of Judah joy -and gladness, and cheerful feasts: therefore love the truth -and peace.” (Zech. viii. 19.) At that time, the prophet -goes on to tell us, Jerusalem shall be the metropolis of the -world, and the common centre to which all the nations of -the earth shall flow “to seek the Lord of hosts and to pray -before him.” We Christians believe this as fully, and long -for the happy accomplishment as ardently as the Jews. It -would give us unspeakable pleasure to behold the Jews on -that height of moral dignity and glory for which God destined -them, from the first hour that he chose their father -Abraham to be His friend. We desire the arrival of this -happy period, for the sake of the Jews themselves, but surely -no Jew will feel offended with us if we say that we desire -it also for our own sakes and for the sake of all the families -of men. We should wish to see Divine truth triumphant, sin -and misery banished, and brotherly love universal, but we see -all these things connected with the restoration of Israel, and -the establishment of the kingdom of God upon earth, and -therefore we join with all our heart in the the most ardent -aspirations of the Jewish people, and say, “Amen” to every -prayer that God “would remember his covenant with Abraham, -Isaac, and Jacob, and that he would also remember the -land.” But, alas! these prayers and wishes and anticipations -all remind us that that happy day is still future. Israel is -still scattered among the nations, and instead of having days -of joy and gladness, is about to observe another solemn day -of mourning in remembrance of the desolation of their city -<a id='Page_216'></a>and temple. The ninth of the month of Av is still a fast, and -Rambam thus describes the causes of mourning on that day:—</p> - -<p class='c005'>וט׳ באב ה׳ דברים אירעוּ בו , נגזר על ישראל -במדבר שלא יכנסו לארץ , וחרב הבית בראשונה -ובשניה , ונלכדה עיר גדולה וביתר שמה , והיו בה -אלפים ורבבות מישראל , והיה להם מלך גדול רדמו -כל ישראל וגדולי החכמים שהוא מלך המשיח , ונפל -ביד הגוים ונהרגו כולם והיתה צרה גדולה כמו חורבן -בית המקדש את ההיכל ואת סביביו לקיים מה -שנאמר ציון שדה תחרש ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“On the ninth of Av five things happened. It was decreed -in the wilderness that Israel should not enter into the land. -The temple was destroyed, both the first and second time. -The great city named Bither was taken, and there were in -it thousands and tens of thousands of Israel, and they had a -great king, whom all Israel and the greatest of the wise men -imagined to be the King Messiah. But he fell into the hands -of the Gentiles, and the Israelites were all slain, and there -was a great affliction similar to the desolation of the temple. -On this same day, destined for punishment, the wicked Turnus -Rufus ploughed up the sanctuary and the adjacent parts, to -fulfil that which is said, ‘Zion shall be ploughed as a field.’ -(Mich. iii. 12.)” (Hilchoth Taanioth, c. v.) The mere enumeration -of all these dreadful inflictions of the Almighty suggest -many and grave topics for reflection, but the most important -of all is, the cause of the last desolation of the temple, and the -present long captivity. To mourn over past misfortunes and -to humble ourselves for past sins, is indeed good and wholesome; -but if it does not teach us how to remedy the one and -to avoid the other, it can only terminate in despair. Every -Israelite, therefore, who weeps for the desolation of the holy -and beautiful house where his fathers worshipped, should also -set himself earnestly to inquire into the cause and remedy of -this great calamity. Why was it that the God of mercy desolated -his own house, the only temple that He had in the -world built by his own express command? The idolatry of -the nation was the cause of the destruction of the first temple.</p> - -<p class='c005'>גם כל שרי הכהנים והצם הרבו למעול מעל ככל -תועבות הגוים ויטמאו את ה׳ אשר הקדיש -בירושלים , וישלח ה׳ אלהי אבותיהם עליהם ביד -מלאכיו השכם ושלוח כי חמל על עמו ועל מעונו , -ויהיו מלעיבים במלאכי האלהם ובוזים דבריו ומתעתעים -<a id='Page_217'></a>בנביאיו עד עלות חמת ה׳ בעמו עד לאין מרפא , -ויעל עליהם את מלך כשדים ויהרוג בחוריהם בחרב -בבית מקרשם , ולא חמל על בחור ובתולה זקן וישש -הכל נתן בידו ... וישרפו את בית האלהים וינתצו -את חומת ירושלים וכל ארמנותיה שרפו באש וכל -כלי מחמדים להשחים ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“Moreover, all the chief of the priests, and the people, transgressed -very much, after <i>all the abominations of the heathen</i>, -and polluted the house of the Lord which he had hallowed in -Jerusalem. And the Lord God of their fathers sent to them by -his messengers, rising up betimes and sending; because he -had compassion on his people, and on his dwelling-place: but -they mocked the messengers of God, and despised his words, -and misused his prophets, until the wrath of the Lord arose -against his people, till there was no remedy. Therefore he -brought upon them the King of the Chaldeans, who slew their -young men with the sword in the house of their sanctuary, and -had no compassion upon young man or maiden, old man or him -that stooped for age: he gave them all into his hand—and they -burned the house of God and broke down the wall of Jerusalem, -and burned all the palaces thereof with fire, and destroyed all -the goodly vessels thereof.” (2 Chron. XXXVI. 14-19.) Here, -then, obstinate idolatry is represented as the cause of the first -desolation. Israel learned and practised the abominations of -the heathen, and thus polluted the temple, and therefore God -destroyed the temple and sent them into captivity. There -were no doubt many and other great sins in Israel, but they -are not mentioned, as if to show that nothing short of wilful -and obstinate departure from God could have led him to adopt -so severe a measure. As long as they retained their allegiance -to God and rejected the abominations of the heathen, there was -a hope and a possibility that they might repent of other sins, -but when men obstinately turn away from God, and will not -hearken to his warnings, all hope of repentance is at an end, -and there is no alternative but just judgment. But was this -the case in the second temple? Were the Jews then obstinate -idolaters? Had they images amongst them, and did they -pollute the second temple with such abominations of the -heathen? No, rather than bow down to images, they willingly -endured every torture, and offered up even their lives as a -sacrifice to the truth, and when the second temple was -destroyed, there was not amongst Israel a single vestige of -idolatry. Never, in the whole course of their history, from the -going forth out of Egypt to that day, was there such an -apparently scrupulous observation of the letter of the law, and -never had Israel had so many learned men devoted to the study -<a id='Page_218'></a>of the commandments. What then could be the cause of the -second desolation? It was not idolatry, but it must have been -something equally odious in the sight of God, and it must have -been a sin committed equally by the priests and the people. -You observe that in the above description of the first destruction, -it is said, “All the chief of the priests, and the people -transgressed very much.” If the priests had remained faithful -to their God, He would not have destroyed their temple, for -there would have been hope, that, by their exertions and -teaching, the people might be brought to a better mind. Or, -if the people had remained faithful, God would not have -punished the people for the sins of the priests; he would have -cut off the wicked priests and raised up others according to his -own heart. Nothing short of the unanimous wickedness of -priests and people could have brought on so great a calamity. -In like manner we infer that the cause of the second destruction -was not any partial wickedness, but some sin, of which -both priests and people were guilty, that drew down that -calamity. And, further, it must have been a sin against which -they were warned by special messengers of God. When the -priests and the people fell into idolatry, God did not immediately -destroy the first temple. He first tried whether they would -listen to his warnings and repent, and therefore “he sent to -them by his messengers, rising up betimes, and sending; because -he had compassion on his people, and on his dwelling-place.” -Now, surely, when we see that God showed such compassion, -when He was about to send so small a calamity as the seventy -years’ captivity, we may safely infer that he would not bring -the more tremendous judgment of eighteen hundred years’ -desolation, without exhibiting a compassion proportionate to -the coming infliction. In the former case he sent special -messengers and prophets to warn them, he must also have acted -similarly before the second destruction. Who, then, were the -messengers and the prophets that warned the Jews of their -sin? The Jews say, that during the second temple there was -no prophecy; but is it possible to imagine that the God of Israel -would shut up his bowels of compassion, and pity neither his -people nor his dwelling-place, but give them both over to the -most dreadful visitation that ever descended on a nation without -one word of warning? When he was about to destroy Nineveh -he first sent Jonah to call them to repentance, and when his -judgments were about to descend upon Babylon, the words of -warning were miraculously written on the wall; can we suppose, -then, that God would not have as much mercy on Jerusalem -and the Jews as on Babylon and Nineveh? The supposition -is utterly inconsistent with God’s character and dealings. There -must have been prophets who announced the coming judgment -and warned the people of their sin. Who were they, then, and -<a id='Page_219'></a>what was that sin equal to idolatry which priests and people -committed and obstinately persevered in, despite of all warning, -and in which their descendants still persevere? Idolatry is a -departure from the true God, and the setting up a false system -of religious worship. Now it is granted that the Jews did not -make images, but did they set up a false system of worship and -religion contrary to the religion of Moses and the prophets? -Let the oral law and the Jewish Prayer-books answer that -question. We have shown in these papers that the oral law, -sanctioned by the Jewish Prayer-books, is directly at variance -with the written Word of God. It teaches the Jews to put -trust in amulets, charms, and magic, which are mere heathenism. -It teaches a cruel and unmerciful system for the Jews, gives -false ideas of the character of God, and actually forbids the Jews -to love their Gentile brethren as themselves. The setting up of -this system was the great sin which priests and people all joined -in committing, and in which their posterity still continue. -They were warned against this sin: God sent them extraordinary -messengers, He sent them Jesus of Nazareth, the prophet -like unto Moses, and the Messiah. The great burden of his -preaching was against this false religion, the oral law, but they -would not hearken to his words. Priests and people conspired -together to reject and crucify him. Here, then, was the result -of the false system which they adopted. The oral law was the -tree, the rejection of the Messiah the fruits. But still the Lord -had compassion upon his people, and upon his dwelling-place, -he spared them yet for forty years, and in the meanwhile sent -his apostles to warn them and testify against their iniquity; -“but they mocked the messengers of God, and despised his -words, and misused his prophets, until the wrath of the Lord -arose against his people, till there was no remedy,” and he -gave them into the hands of the Romans. Because they rejected -Jesus of Nazareth and his disciples, the temple and city were -desolated. The Jews have been taught to think that Jesus and -his disciples were deceivers, but let them consider this fact, that, -if they were, God himself has sealed the truth of their assertions -by the acts of His Providence. The preservation of the temple -and city to this day would have been incontestable evidence -that they were deceivers. Had no judgments followed upon -the crucifixion of Jesus, it would have been evident to all -mankind, that he was not what he pretended to be. But if -he was indeed the Messiah, the strongest possible attestation -that God could give, was the exemplary punishment of those -who crucified him, and this God has given. They crucified -Jesus, and God destroyed the temple and scattered the people. -Without this, the religion of Jesus never could have triumphed -as it has done. If the temple were still standing, and the Jews -in their land, they could point to the temple and say, “See that -<a id='Page_220'></a>temple, the monument of God’s favour and presence, it is -still amongst us, and shows that Jesus could not have been -the Messiah. If he had been the Messiah, God would not -have left us this unequivocal testimony of his favour.” But -this proof of their righteousness God has taken away, -and that within forty years after the crucifixion of Jesus; -so that God himself has given the strongest possible attestation -to the truth of his claims. Let any reflective -Israelite calmly consider this, that, if Jesus was not what he -claimed to be, his crucifixion was the most meritorious act that -the Jews ever performed. They thereby did what they could -to stay the progress of a false religion that was to overrun the -world, and to uphold the truth; can they, then, suppose that -God would punish them for doing that which was right, and -give the sacred sanction of His providence to him that was -doing wrong? When Phinehas, the son of Eleazar, slew the -Israelite and the Midianitish woman with his spear, the plague -was stayed from Israel, and can we imagine that the high -priests who condemned Jesus would have had a less reward if -his claims had been false? If Christianity be not true, then -God himself has interposed to crush the truth, and to build up -falsehood. If Christianity be true, then God could do nothing -more to attest its truth than he has done by the destruction -of the temple. There was but one unanswerable argument -against Christianity, and that was the existence of the temple; -but God himself has answered that argument by taking away -the temple, and therefore we infer that as God has done all -that he could to establish the truth of Christianity, it must -be true.</p> - -<p class='c005'>The Jews think that if Jesus had been the Messiah, it is -impossible that the priests and learned men of his time could -have rejected him. But the events which they commemorate -on the ninth of Av show the untenableness of this argument. -On this day the Jews commemorate, first of all, the decree -that the Israelites should die in the wilderness. And why -did they die in the wilderness? Because they would not -believe in Moses. “And all the children of Israel murmured -against Moses and against Aaron: and the whole congregation -said unto them, Would God that we had died in the land of -Egypt! or would God that we had died in this wilderness! -And they said one to another, Let us make a captain, and let -us return into Egypt.” (Numbers XIV. 2.) Yet they had seen -the plagues of Egypt, and they had passed through the Red -Sea, and were at that moment supplied miraculously with -food, but for all that they did not believe, and that “The -whole congregation.” Will any Jew say, that this unbelief -proves that Moses was a false prophet? If not, why not? -Every argument, that will prove that the unbelief of that -<a id='Page_221'></a>generation is no argument against the claims of Moses, will -equally demonstrate that the unbelief of the Jews in the time -of Jesus is no argument against his Messiahship. If it was -possible for them to disbelieve the word of Moses, after all -that they had seen, it is equally possible that they should -have rejected Christ.</p> - -<p class='c005'>But remark here, it was only the old generation that -God sentenced to die in the wilderness. The children -who did not participate in the unbelief of their fathers -entered into the land. Now if anything similar had happened -to the Jews since the destruction of the second -temple, that is, if after a few years’ captivity they had returned -to their land <i>without becoming Christians</i>, they might -then argue that the rejection of Jesus was not the sin for -which they were exiled. They might say, we have not -become Christians, and yet God has restored us; it is plain -therefore that this was not the cause of the second desolation. -But God’s dealings have been just the reverse. The Jewish -nation have gone on from century to century, fasting and -humbling themselves before the God of their fathers, and yet -he does not restore them, a plain token that they still participate -in the sin of their fathers. And a plainer proof still -of the truth of Christianity, for God still continues the providential -act, whereby he originally proved that Christianity -was true. Israel still rejects Christianity, and therefore -Israel still continues in dispersion. The only argument, that -could even appear to prove that the rejection of Jesus was not -the cause of the second desolation, would be the restoration of -the Jews in an unconverted state. But that argument God refuses -to grant, and has refused it to his beloved people for many -centuries. If Judaism be true, why should he thus continue -to declare against it? If Christianity be false, why should -he from century to century stamp it with the seal of truth?</p> - -<p class='c005'>But, in the next place, the Jews commemorate the destruction -of the first temple, that is, they commemorate the idolatry -of the chief priests and the people. They remember that the -learned and the unlearned of the nation rejected the true God -and turned to dumb idols. How then can the Jews say that -it is impossible for a nation, that openly rejected the God of -their fathers, to reject the Messiah? There can be no greater -proof of folly and wickedness than to reject God and worship -a stock or a stone; but of this Israel has been guilty, and -because of this sin the first temple was destroyed. The man -who rejects the true God will also reject his messenger. But -Israel has done the one, why then should it be denied that -they could do the other? The only possible answer that can -be given is, that the priests and the people were a great deal -wiser and better in the days of Jesus than in those of the first -<a id='Page_222'></a>temple. But if this be true, why was the temple destroyed? -why were those who were so much wiser and better, punished -with a more dreadful punishment than those who were so -much more foolish and wicked? If we are to judge of the -comparative wisdom and piety of the two by the measure of -punishment, then we must say, that the idolatrous priests -and people of the first temple were a great deal wiser and -better than the priests and people of the second temple, for -the former escaped, after a captivity of seventy years, the -latter have been exiled for seventeen centuries. The tremendous -nature of the punishment would show, that the -priests and people, who rejected Jesus, were more wicked than -their idolatrous forefathers, and if so, their testimony against -Jesus is of no value.</p> - -<p class='c005'>But the Jews also commemorate on this day the destruction -of the city of Bither, that is, they commemorate the folly of -all their greatest rabbies in following an impostor, and believing -in him as their Messiah. There Bar Kochav took -refuge with those whom he deluded. Rambam says, “All -Israel, and the greatest of their wise men, imagined him to -be the Messiah,” and we know that the famous Rabbi Akiva -was amongst the number. Here, then, we have practical proof -that the judgment of those rabbies, who rejected Jesus, was -not to be depended upon. If they had succeeded in their -efforts, they would have taught all Israel to believe in an -impostor; but the providence of God gave them all over to -destruction in the very act of following a false prophet. And -yet these are the men who have handed down the oral law, -and compiled the precepts of rabbinic religion; men, whom -the Jews themselves tell us, were the followers of a false -prophet and the dupes of an impostor. How can they -possibly believe in a system which has such men for its -authors; men who seduced thousands and tens of thousands -of Israel to plunge themselves into ruin? If Rabbi Akiva, -and his colleagues, had not espoused the cause of Bar Kochav, -he could never have succeeded in deluding such numbers of -Israelites; they, therefore, are answerable for that dreadful -calamity. But when the Jews of the present day commemorate -the sore affliction, should they not remember also -that it is high time to give up that religious system that was -the cause of it, and of all the evils that have since followed; -or at least seriously and carefully investigate a religion, -fidelity to which is compatible with the departure of God’s -favour, the destruction of the temple, and a long and awful -captivity?</p> -<div class='chapter'> - <a id='Page_223'></a> - <h2 id='chap29' class='c003'>No. XXIX. <br /> SABBATIC LAWS CONTINUED.</h2> -</div> -<p class='c004'>In our last number but one the Bible-doctrine, that true -religion must necessarily promote the happiness of man, was -laid down as the basis of our reasonings. The truth of the -principle is admitted by every thinking man, whether Jew -or Christian; but plain as it is, it is frequently overlooked, -and a large portion of mankind is accustomed to look on -religion and its ordinances, not as blessings in themselves, -nor as a course of moral discipline devised by the wisdom of -God for the good of man, but as a system of arbitrary enactments -instituted to give men an opportunity of treasuring up -a store of merit, and of earning an eternal reward. Hence -in all the superstitions, which man has invented, we perceive -an undue regard for the mere external act; and an expectation -that the performance of the act will ensure the Divine -favour. Thus the modern Hindoo stands on a sharp spike, -or suspends his poor body by an iron hook, or offers it to be -crushed under the wheels of the idol’s chariot, and thinks -thereby to purchase eternal felicity. And thus also the more -ancient idolaters, the worshippers of Baal, in the time of -their need, wounded themselves with knives and lances, and -expected that for such meritorious religious observances their -prayers should be heard and that they should have a blessing. -But it is possible, without professing a totally false religion, -to view God’s true commandments in the same light, and -overlooking the spirit and the object of his institution, to -fix the whole attention upon the letter or outward act, and -the quantum of reward which it may purchase. This the -rabbies have done, particularly, in reference to the institution -of the Sabbath-day. They appear to have forgotten altogether -that the Sabbath was made for man as a blessing and -means of grace, and have therefore in their attempts to promote -the observance of the day, entirely sacrificed the peace, -comfort, and happiness of man to the mere appearance of -preserving the letter of the command inviolate. Their fundamental -idea of keeping the Sabbath-day is, that it is an -act of obedience whereby something may be purchased.</p> - -<p class='c005'>גרסינו בפ׳ כל כתבי אמר ר׳ יוחנן משום ר׳ יוסי -כל המענג את השבת נותנין לו נחלה בלי מצרים , -רב נחמן בר יצחק אומר אף ניצול משיעבוד מלכיות , -אמר רב יהודה אמר רב כל המענג את השבת נותנין -לו משאלות לבו , ואמר ר׳ חייא בר אבא אמר ר׳ -<a id='Page_224'></a>יוחנן , כל המשמר שבת כהלכתה אפילו עובד ע׳׳ז -כאנוש מוחלין לו , אמר רב יהודה אמר רב אלמלא -שמרו ישראל שבת ראשונה כהלכתה לא שלטה בהם -אומה ולשון אמר ר׳ שמעון בר יוחי אלמלא משמרים -ישראל שתי שבתות מיד נגאלין ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“We read in the sixteenth chapter of the treatise Shabbath, -R. Johanan says, in the name or R. Jose, that to every one -who makes the Sabbath a delight, an infinite inheritance is -given. Rav Nachman, the son of Isaac says, He shall, besides, -be delivered from serving the monarchies. R. Judah -says, Rav says, To every one who makes the Sabbath a -delight, the desires of his heart are given. R. Chiia, the son -of Abba, says, in the name of Rabbi Johanan, whosoever keeps -the Sabbath according to its constitutions, even though he were -an idolater like Enosh, he shall be forgiven. R. Judah says, -Rav says, If Israel would keep the first Sabbath according to -its constitutions, no nation nor tongue should rule over them. -R. Simeon, the son of Jochai, says, If Israel would keep two -Sabbaths, they should be immediately delivered.” (Arbah -Turim. Orach Chaim, § 242.) Thus the rabbles sanction the -false and superstitious notion, that an external act can purchase -the favour of God, and even atone for the most atrocious -violation of the divine law. The Israelites are taught to -believe that if they would only observe the Sabbath according -to the rabbinic constitution, all their other transgressions -would immediately be forgiven, and they themselves restored -to the land of their fathers, and in the meanwhile the individual -sinner is told not to be uneasy, for that if he had committed -idolatry, the most heinous offence against God, the -observation of the rabbinical precepts respecting the Sabbath -will wipe away the score. What then will he think, who has -ever kept himself outwardly from this capital offence, and only -been guilty, as he thinks, of sinning against his neighbour? -He will make sure that the Sabbath observance will wipe out -the week’s reckoning, and commence his sinful career again -the following week with the assurance that if he only live until -the Sabbath-day, he can make all good again. And thus the -Sabbath-day, ordained by God for the purpose of nurturing -true religious feeling, is by the oral law turned into the means -of eradicating all religious principle out of the heart. The -end for which the external observance was instituted, is not -only forgotten, but misrepresented. The holy affections which it -was meant to produce and nourish as a preparation for eternity -are overlooked, and the mere outward form held up as the -price which men are to pay for eternal felicity.</p> - -<p class='c005'>That the rabbinical laws are almost altogether occupied -<a id='Page_225'></a>with the merest external observances will be plain to any one -who will take the trouble to read them through. Take, for -instance, some of the laws which refer to the keeping food -warm on the Sabbath-day:—</p> - -<p class='c005'>מניחין קדרה על גבי האש או בשר בתנור או על -גבי גחלים והם מתבשלים והולכין כל השבת ואוכלין -אותו בשבת ויש בדבר זה דברים שהם אסורים גזירה -שמא יחתה בגחלים בשבת , כיצד תבשיל שלא בשל -כל צרכו וחמין שלא הוחמו כל צרכן או תבשיל -שבישל כל צרכו וכל זמן שמצטמק הוא יפה לו אין -משהין אותו על גבי האש בשבת אע׳׳פ שהונח מבעוד -יום , גזירה שמא יחתה בגחלים כדי להשלים בשולו -או כדי לצמקו , לפיכך אם גרף האש או שכסה אש -הכירה באפר או בנעורת הפשתן הדקה או שעממו -הגחלים שהרי הן כמכוסין באפר או שהסיקוה בקש -או בגבבה או בגללי בהמה דקה שהרי אין שם גחלים -בוערות הרי זה מותר לשהות עליה שהרי הסיח -דעתו מזה ואין גוזרין שמא יחתה באש ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“It is lawful to leave a pot on the fire, or meat in the oven -or upon the coals, and although the cooking thus continues, it -is lawful to eat them on the Sabbath. But in this matter there -are some things forbidden, and the cause of the prohibition -is lest any man should stir the fire on the Sabbath. For -example, food that has not been cooked as much as it requires, -or hot water that has not been sufficiently heated, or food -which has had the requisite cooking, but which improves all -the time that it is left to stew, must not be left on the fire on -the Sabbath, even though it may have been placed there, -whilst it was yet day on the Friday. This has been decreed, -lest one should stir the coals in order to finish the cooking -thereof, or to stew it. Therefore, if the fire be swept up, or -covered with ashes, or with the coarse part of flax, or -if the coals have ceased to glow, for then they are looked -upon as covered with ashes, or if the fire had been made -with straw or stubble, or with the dung of small cattle, -then, as there are no burning coals, it is lawful to leave -the food there on the Sabbath, for in this case the man’s mind -will be turned away from the cooking, and the only object -of the decree is, lest the fire should be stirred.” (Hilchoth -Shabbath, c. iii. 3.) No one can deny that this passage prescribes -the merest outward observances. The general principle -is that it is not lawful to stir the fire on the Sabbath, for that -would be doing work, and from this follow those other prohibitions -of all things which might tempt a man to be guilty -<a id='Page_226'></a>of this grave offence. But they all refer to outward acts, from -which it is easy for any one, without any great exertion of -self-denial, or any advance in moral discipline, to abstain, and -yet he has all the merit and satisfaction of the most self-denying -piety, and thinks that he is thereby paying a part of -the price of his salvation, and making atonement for the -gravest moral transgressions of which he may have been -guilty during the week. Take, again, the following precepts, -and say whether they be not of the very same character:—</p> - -<p class='c005'>מי שהחשיך לו בדרך בערב שבת ועמו כיס אם -יש עמו נברי וחמור יתן כיסו לנכרי אף לאחר שתחשך -ולא יניחנו על החמור , אבל אם מצא מציאה אינו -יכול ליתנה לנכרי אלא אם כן באה לידו מבעוד יום -דהשתא הויא ככיסו , אין עמו נכרי יניחנה על החמור -כשהוא הולך ויזהר ליטול ממנו בכל שעה שיעמוד , -וכשיחזור וילך יניחנו עליו , היה עמו חמור וחרש -שוטה וקטן יניחנו על החמור ולא יתננה לאחד -מאלה כיון שהם אדם כמותו , היה עמו חרש ושוטה -יתננו לשוטה לפי שאין לו דעת כלל , שוטה וקטן -יתננו לשוטה שהקטן יבוא לכלל דעת , חרש וקטן -יתננה למי שירצה , אין עמו לא זה ולא זה יטלטלנו -פחרת פחות מארבע אמות ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“If a man travelling on the Sabbath-eve be overtaken -by night,<a id='r28' /><a href='#f28' class='c006'><sup>[28]</sup></a> and has with him a purse, and there be also -with him a Gentile and an ass, let him give his purse -to the Gentile, even after it be dark, but let him not lay -it on the ass.<a id='r29' /><a href='#f29' class='c006'><sup>[29]</sup></a> But if he find anything, he may not give -it to the Gentile, unless it came into his hand whilst it -was yet day, for then it is a similar case to that of his purse. -If there be no Gentile with him, then let him lay it on the -ass, whilst he is moving, but let him take great care to take it -off every time he stands still. But when he begins to move -again, then let him lay it on. If there be with him an -ass, and a deaf and dumb person, an idiot and a child, then let -him lay it on the ass, but let him not give it to one of these, -for they are human beings like himself. If there be with -him a deaf and dumb person and an idiot, let him give it to -the idiot, as he has no understanding at all. If an idiot and a -child, let him give it to the idiot, for the child will be reckoned -amongst those that have understanding. If a deaf and dumb -<a id='Page_227'></a>person and a child, let him give it to whichever he pleases. -If there be with him neither one nor the other, let him move -it along gradually, each time less than four ells.” (Orach -Chaim, sec. 266.) Here again the great concern is to observe -the form and letter of the rabbinical command, which represents -the carrying of a purse on the Sabbath-day as work, and -therefore unlawful. The law of Moses says nothing either one -way or the other, but leaves it to every man’s conscience. -The rabbies who made it unlawful soon found that serious -inconvenience might arise, as in the case of a man on a -journey overtaken by the Sabbath, before he could get to a -resting-place. What is he to do, is he to leave his purse -behind rather than profane the Sabbath? That alternative -the Pharisees did not like, and therefore set their wits to work -to devise some plan, whereby the outward form might be -observed, and yet the purse be safely conveyed along with its -proprietor. In the first place, they allow it to be given to -a Gentile, but every man of common sense will see that this -only saves the outward appearance, for it be unlawful to carry -the purse, it must be equally unlawful to cause it to be carried, -for he who commands or causes work to be done is really and -in the sight of God the doer, just as he who hires a man -to murder a third person is in reality the murderer. If, -therefore, the Jew dare not carry the purse himself, neither -may he give it to a Gentile, nor an idiot, nor a child, nor even -lay it upon his ass. This case only shows the insincerity of -the Scribes and Pharisees, and their love of money rather than -of God’s commandment. In other cases they lay it down -as a law that no Jew is to ask a Gentile to do work for -him on the Sabbath:—</p> - -<p class='c005'>אסור לומר לגוי לעשות לנו מלאכה בשבת אע׳׳פ -שאינו מצווה על השבת ואע׳׳פ שאמר לו מקודם השבת -ואע׳׳פ שאינו צריך לאותה מלאכה אלא לאחר השבת -ודבר זה אסור מדברי סופרים כדי שלא תהיה שבת -קלה בעיניהן ויבואו לעשות בעצמן ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“It is unlawful to tell a Gentile to do work for us on the -Sabbath, although the Sabbath command is not binding upon -him, and although he told him before the Sabbath, and even -though he should not require that work until after the Sabbath. -This prohibition is of the words of the Scribes, and was made -to prevent Israelites from thinking lightly of the Sabbath, and -thus coming at last to do the work themselves.” (Hilchoth -Shabbath, c. vi. 1.) Here, then, the very thing which is allowed -above, is expressly forbidden on the authority of the Scribes, -and consequently a transgression would make a man liable to -be flogged, as is expressly stated in this chapter:—</p> - -<p class='c005'><a id='Page_228'></a>ישראל שאמר לגוי לעשות לו מלאכה זו בשבת -אע׳׳פ שעבר ומכין אותו מכת מרדות , מותר לו ליהנות -באותה מלאכה לערב אחר שימתין בכדי שתעשה ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“An Israelite who tells a Gentile to do a certain work for -him on the Sabbath, although he has transgressed, and is to be -flogged with the flogging of rebellion, yet he may lawfully -make use of that work when the Sabbath is over, if he wait as -long as it would take to accomplish the work.” (Ibid. 8.) -These two passages, then, plainly contradict each other. The -one says it is unlawful to tell a Gentile to do work on the -Sabbath, and that he who does so is to be flogged. The other -permits a Jew to give a Gentile his purse to carry, and this is -work, or else the Jew might carry it himself. Now if the -latter case be lawful, then the former is also lawful; and it is -most cruel and tyrannical to flog a man for doing what is -lawful. On the other hand, if, according to the general rule, -it be unlawful, then it is plainly unlawful in this particular -case; and it is plain that the Scribes, with all their pretensions, -thought it better to transgress what they considered a Divine -command, then to lose their money. But if the traveller has -got neither an ass, nor an idiot, nor a Gentile with him, then -there is apparently no way of escape, for it is unlawful, -according to the oral law, to carry any burden more than a -distance of four ells on the Sabbath-day; and one would -naturally expect, that those who punish a profanation of the -Sabbath with stoning or flogging—that is, who spare neither -human blood nor life—would tell him to leave his purse, rather -than transgress the Divine command. But no, they tell him -to carry it less than four ells, then to lay it down, take it up -and carry it again a distance of less than four ells, and thus, -bit by bit, carry it to the first inn. Here, again, there is an -appearance of preserving the letter of the rabbinical command; -but no man in his senses can see that there is any real difference -between carrying it at one turn, or at five hundred short -turns of less than four ells, the whole distance is just the same, -and the work just the same in the sight of God. Either it is -altogether lawful, and then the rabbinical precepts appear as -folly and tyranny, or it is altogether unlawful, and then these -precepts appear as a mere evasion and a trick. But, in every -case, a cheap way is presented for purchasing salvation, and -atoning for past sin. There is no great exertion of moral principle -necessary to make the traveller let another person, or an -ass carry his purse to an inn.</p> - -<p class='c005'>Another part of the rabbinical mode of observing the -Sabbath, the preparation of the Sabbath table, has just the same -tendency to direct the mind to the mere external act:—</p> - -<p class='c005'><a id='Page_229'></a>ויסדר שלחנו ויציע המטות ויתקן כל עניני הבית -כדינ שימצאנו ערוך ומסודר בבואו מבית הכנסת , -דאמר ר׳ יוסי בר חנינא שני מלאכי השרת מלוין לו -לאדם בערב שבת מבית הכנסת לביתו אחד טוב -ואחד רע כשבא לביתו מצא נר דלוק ושלחן ערוך -ומטה מוצעת מלאך טוב אומר יהי רצון שיהא כו -לשבת הבאה ומלאך רע עונה אמן בעל כרחו ואם -לאו מלאך רע אומר יהי רצון שיהא כן לשבת הבאה -ומלאך טוב עונה אמן בעל כרחו ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“Let a man arrange his table and spread the couches, and -order all the affairs of his house, that he may find it ready and -ordered when he returns from the synagogue; for Rabbi Jose -says, in the name of Rabbi Chanina, That two angels accompany -a man on the Sabbath eve, on his return from the -synagogue, the one good, the other evil. When he comes to -his house, if the Sabbath lamp be found lighted, and the table -prepared, and the couch spread, the good angel says, God grant -that it may be so the next Sabbath; and the evil angel must -say Amen, in spite of himself. But if this be not the case, then -the evil angel says, God grant that it may be so on the next -Sabbath, and then the good spirit must say Amen, in spite of -himself.” (Orach Chaiim, § 262.) Let not the Israelite think -that we object to the decent and reverential preparation of the -house for the Sabbath, that is all right and proper; but to -exalt this into a command, and represent obedience to it as a -meritorious act, is to turn the mind to trivial outward performances, -and to teach men to rest on them as on the great duties -of religion. And here the mere putting of the house into order -is represented as so grave a matter, that two angels are sent -home with every Israelite on the Sabbath eve, to take cognizance -of the matter. The story of the angels is evidently a -fable, and is another proof of the fictitious character of the oral -law; but it shows how the rabbies wandered from the substance -of religion to the mere shadow of external observances. The -Sabbath lamp here mentioned is another instance of the -same kind:—</p> - -<p class='c005'>ויהא זהיר לעשות נר יפה דאמר רב הונא הרגיל -בנר שבת להשתדל בו לעשותו יפה הוין ליה בנים -תלמידי חכמים ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“Let a man be careful to have a handsome lamp, for Rav -Huna says, He that is accustomed to take great care in trimming -his Sabbath lamp well, will have children who shall be -disciples of the wise, <i>i.e.</i> learned men.” No one can deny -that this is a mere external act, but yet it is represented as -<a id='Page_230'></a>meritorious, and payment is promised: but the mode in which -the performance is required is still more calculated to promote -the idea, that this external act is of great importance:—</p> - -<p class='c005'>ואחד אנשים ואחד נשים חייבין להיות בבתיהן נר -דלוק בשבת אפילו אין לו מה יאכל שואל על הפתחים -ולוקח שמן ומדליק את הנר שזה בכלל עונג שבת -וחייב לברך קודם הדלקה ברוך אתה יי אלהינו מלך -העולם אשר קדשנו במצוותיו וצונו להדליק נר של -שבת ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“Men and women are equally obligated to have a lighted -lamp in their house on the Sabbath. Yea, though a man have -nothing to eat, he must beg from door to door, and get oil, and -light the lamp, for this is an essential part of the Sabbath -delight. He is also bound to pronounce the benediction, Blessed -art thou, O Lord, King of the world! who has sanctified us by -his commandments, and commanded us to light the Sabbath -lamp.” (Hilchoth Shabbath, c. v. 1.) Of course every Jew, -who thinks that a Sabbath lamp is as necessary as food, and -that God requires it even from him that has no food, must -think that it is of great value, and that obedience to this command -is a most meritorious act. And yet all must confess that -it is a mere outward performance, which may be observed by -him who has neither the fear nor the love of God. The tendency -of all these laws is the same, that is, to draw the mind away -from the solemn duties of religion, and to persuade the -impenitent sinner that these observances will atone for his -transgressions. When conscience reminds him of sins, not those -which he has committed long since, of which he has repented, -and which, he has forsaken, but of those which he has been -committing the past week, and intends to commit again, as soon -as the Sabbath is over, it is silenced by an enumeration of the -various acts of obedience, which are to be set down at the other -side of the account. He remembers that he has never left a -pot of victuals on a forbidden fire, nor carried his purse on the -Sabbath-day a distance of more than four ells, nor asked a -Gentile to do work for him. That, on the contrary, he has -always prepared his table, and lighted his Sabbath lamp, and -pronounced the benediction; or, in other words, that he has -kept the Sabbath according to its constitution, and that, -therefore, though he had been guilty of idolatry, he shall -obtain forgiveness. Thus these rabbinic precepts have a -direct tendency to mislead the multitude, to harden them in sin, -and thus to make and keep them unfit for that great Sabbath, -which yet remains for the people of God.</p> - -<div class='chapter'> - <a id='Page_231'></a> - <h2 id='chap30' class='c003'>No. XXX. <br /> SABBATIC LAWS CONTINUED.</h2> -</div> -<p class='c004'>That religion, which is true, and has God for its author, is, -like the light of the sun, the common property of all who will -only open their eyes, and gaze upon the gift of God. It is not -a religion for the rich or the studious only, but is equally open -to the understanding and the hearts of the poor and unlearned. -And therefore the Bible describes the heavenly wisdom thus—“She -standeth in the top of high places, by the way in the places -of the paths; she crieth at the gates at the entry of the city, at -the coming in at the doors: Unto you, O men, I call; and my -voice is to the sons of man. O ye simple, understand wisdom; -and, ye fools, be of an understanding heart.” (Prov. viii. 2-5.) -And so God invites men of every class by the mouth of the -prophet—“Ho, every one that thirsteth, come ye to the waters, -and he that hath no money; come ye, buy and eat; yea, come, -buy wine and milk without money and without price.” (Isa. -lv. 1.) Every religion of man’s making, presents, on the -contrary, peculiar advantages to the rich and the learned. It -offers salvation either as the purchase of almsgiving, or as -the reward of religious study, or it makes religion so difficult -and intricate as to put it out of the poor labouring man’s power -to acquire any competent knowledge of its requirements. And -any system that does so must necessarily be false. Religion is -as necessary to the soul as daylight is to the corporeal eye, and -it would be a hard case, indeed, if the poor, who want it most, -should be excluded from the possibility of acquiring its consolations; -or if, in the day of judgment, the man who devotes -his life to books should have a better chance, than he who -labours hard to get an honest living for himself and his family; -yet this is the case with the labouring classes of the Jews. The -religion of the oral law has so perplexed even the simplest -commandments, that an unlearned man has no chance of being -able to keep them. If nothing more were required for salvation -than the rabbinic sanctification of the Sabbath-day the -majority of the Jewish people must despair of attaining it; for -the accurate knowledge of the innumerable precepts and distinctions, -which is indispensable to obedience, requires time and -study, which no labouring man can bestow. And we are convinced -that a considerable portion of the Jewish population of -this city live in continual profanation of the Sabbath-day, if -the rabbinic explanations be true. Either they move something -which they ought not to move, or they carry something -which they ought not to carry; and, if they do it wilfully, -render themselves liable to the utmost severity of the law. For -<a id='Page_232'></a>instance, the rabbies have determined that in one place it is -lawful to move or carry certain things on the Sabbath-day, -but in another place the very some act is unlawful, and -calls down extreme punishment. They distinguish between -these places thus—</p> - -<p class='c005'>ארבע רשויות לשבת , רשות היחיד ורשות הרבים -כרמלית ומקום פטור , רשות היחיד הוא המקום המוקף -מחיצות גבוהות עשרה ויש בו ארבעה טפחים על -ארבעה ואפילו אם יש בו כמה מילין אם מוקף לדירה -ודלתותיו נעולות בלילה הוי רשות היחיד , ודיר וסהר -וחצר . וכן חריץ עמוק עשרה ורחב ד׳ על ד׳ או יותר -וכן תל גבוה י׳ ורחב ארבעה על ארבעה , וכותלים -המקיפין רשות היחיד על גביהן וחוריהן רשות -היחיד , ואויר רשות היחיד הוא רשות היחיד עד -לרקיע ואפילו כלי אם גבוה י׳ ורחב ד׳ על ד׳ כגון -תיבה או כוורת או מגדל הוי רשות היחיד , ורשות -היחיד הוא רחובות ושווקים הרחבים י׳ אמה על י׳ -אמה ומפולשים משער לשער וששים רבוא עוברין בו , -וכל דבר שהוא ברשות הרבים ואינו גבוה ג׳ טפחים -חשוב כקרקע והוא רשות הרבים אפילו קוצים או צואה -שאין רבים דורסין עליהם , ואם הוא גבוה ג׳ ומג׳ -עד ט׳ ולא ט׳ בכלל אם הוא רחב ד׳ על ד׳ הוי -כרמלית פחות מכאן הוי מקום פטור ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>In reference to the Sabbath, places are distinguished into -four sorts of jurisdiction. 1st, the private jurisdiction; 2d, the -public jurisdiction; 3d, the place called Karmelith; 4th, the -place which is free.</p> - -<p class='c005'>By a <i>private jurisdiction</i> is meant a place surrounded by -walls, ten handbreadths high, and in which there is a space of -four handbreadths by four. But even though it should contain -many miles, if it be inclosed for habitation, and its gates be -bolted at night, it is a private jurisdiction. A lodging-place, -an inclosed space, and a court, are considered as in the same -class. And thus, also, a pit which is ten handbreadths deep, -and whose breadth is four by four, or more; and a raised place -which is ten handbreadths high, and whose breadth is four by -four. The top of the walls, also, by which a private jurisdiction -is surrounded, and the openings in them, are considered as -private jurisdiction. The air of a private jurisdiction, up to -the firmament, is also considered; and even a vessel like a -chest, if it be ten handbreadths high, and in breadth four by -four. A hollow vessel, or a tower, is also considered as a -private jurisdiction.</p> - -<p class='c005'><a id='Page_233'></a>The term <i>public jurisdiction</i> includes roads and streets, if -their breadth be sixteen ells by sixteen, and they be open from -gate to gate, and six hundred thousand persons pass thereon. -And everything in a public jurisdiction, which is not three -handbreadths high, is reckoned as the ground, and is public -jurisdiction: even thorns and filth upon which the public does -not tread.</p> - -<p class='c005'>But if it be from three to nine handbreadths high, but not -nine entirely, and its breadth be four by four, it is called a -<i>Karmelith</i>.</p> - -<p class='c005'>“If it be less, it is called a <i>free place</i>.” (Orach Chaiim, 344.)</p> - -<p class='c005'>Now it may well be doubted, concerning many Jews in this -city, whether they are acquainted with even this portion of the -Sabbath laws, but it is quite certain that they are ignorant of -the innumerable modes of possible transgression which arise -from these distinctions; for the oral law then goes on to define -what is lawful concerning each. In a public jurisdiction he -may move anything four ells:—</p> - -<p class='c005'>כל אדם יש לו ד׳ אמות ברשות הרבים שיכול -לטלטל בהם ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“Every man has got four ells within which he may move -things.” Or, as Rambam expresses it—</p> - -<p class='c005'>רשות היחיד ומקים פטור מותר לטלטל בכולן -אפילו היה אורך כל אחת משתיהן כמה מילין מטלטל -בכולה , אבל רשות הרבים והכרמלית אין מטלטלין -בהן אלא בארבע אמות ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“In a private jurisdiction, and in a free place it is lawful to -move things the whole length of the place, even though the -length of each should be many miles. But in a public jurisdiction -or a Karmelith things may not be moved more than -four ells.” (Hilchoth Shabbath, c. xxiv. 11.) Now, it may -well be asked, upon what passage of the law of Moses these -distinctions are grounded, and what there is in a public -jurisdiction which converts an act lawful in a private -jurisdiction, into a sin to be expiated only by stoning the -offender? For instance, in a private jurisdiction a man may -carry certain matters for miles without violating the Sabbath -commands, but if he venture out into a public jurisdiction with -a pocket-handkerchief or a snuff-box, or a half-crown in his -pocket, and carry it only five ells, he is guilty of death; and if -the Talmudists held the reigns of power, would be led out as -soon as the Sabbath was over, and stoned. Reason revolts -against such doctrine, the act is the very same in both cases, -and is therefore in both cases a sin, or in both cases lawful. -<a id='Page_234'></a>Humanity shudders at the thought of stoning a man for -carrying a pocket-handkerchief, and the Bible teaches us that -a religion, teaching such inexorable and wanton cruelty, -cannot be from God. It is true that at present the power of -Christianity protects Israelites from such harsh treatment; but -wherever the Talmud has any degree of influence, Israel -groans under its bondage. Many a time have we seen Jews -with their pocket-handkerchief tied round their knee like a -garter, for this is lawful, though to carry it in his pocket would -be a grave and capital offence. And we once knew an Israelite -who was taking a walk on the Sabbath-day, and being -addressed by a Gentile beggar, put his hand into his pocket -and gave the poor man a small coin. He was observed by some -Talmudists, who immediately attacked him for his profanation -of the Sabbath. Afraid of losing his character, and being at -that time more anxious for the praise of man than that which -cometh of God, he defended himself by saying, that he had -unintentionally taken out the money in his pocket, but had -remembered it when addressed by the beggar, and therefore -took the opportunity of getting rid of that which it was not -lawful to carry. The Talmudists were satisfied, and their -wrath changed into profound admiration for his piety. These -cases exemplify the practical working of the rabbinic system. -It burdens the consciences of the sincere, and makes the -unscrupulous hypocrites. It may be replied that such things -could not happen in England, and that here the Jews are too -enlightened to observe such distinctions. But every one who -makes this reply condemns modern Judaism as a religion unfit -for the observation of the enlightened, and if he be a conscientious -man, should protest against doctrines which he believes -to be false, and laws which he abhors as cruel. These Sabbatic -laws are a part, an essential part, of modern Judaism. There -is not any part of the oral law upon which Talmudists lay -more stress. The man, therefore, who does not observe them -has changed his religion. He has got a new faith, as really, -as if he had been baptized and professed Christianity. Every -Israelite who carries a pocket-handkerchief in his pocket -through the streets of London on the Sabbath-day, has -apostatized from that Jewish religion, which has been professed -for near two thousand years, and practically declares that -the religion of the synagogue is false. How then can he, -without hypocrisy, profess to believe in the religion of the -Jews? or how can he, as an honest man, uphold a system -which he regards as false, and which would have him executed -as a criminal if it had the power? If such persons, who live -in the habitual transgression of all the Sabbatic laws, have any -regard for truth and for Divine revelation, they should openly -declare their sentiments, announce to the world that they have -<a id='Page_235'></a>forsaken the religion of their fathers, and assert that religion -which they regard as true. The blindest and most bigoted -Talmudist is a far more respectable man, and more acceptable -in the sight of God, than he who pretends to profess a religion -in which he does not believe, and whose precepts he regards as -fanatical and superstitious.</p> - -<p class='c005'>But to return. From the above laws it appears that it is a -sin to carry anything in a public jurisdiction a distance of more -than four ells. But suppose, then, that there was something -which the Talmudists might find it convenient or desirable to -move to a greater distance, is there no provision to effect its -conveyance? Yes. These scrupulous persons, who would -stone a man to death for carrying anything five ells, have an -expedient for conveying it a hundred miles if necessary:—</p> - -<p class='c005'>לגיכך מותר לאדם לעקור החפץ מרשות הרבים -ולתנו לחברו שאצלו בתוך ד׳ אמותיו וחברו לחברו -שאצלו אפילו ק׳ מילין אע׳׳פ שהחפץ הולך כמה -מילין ברשות הרבים שכל אחד לא יטלטלנו אלא -בתוך ד׳ אמותיו ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“Therefore it is lawful for a man to move a matter from the -public jurisdiction, and to give it to his neighbour, who is -within a distance of four ells; and his neighbour to his neighbour -again, and so on, even for a hundred miles. For although -the thing itself go many miles, each person has only moved it -his four ells.” (Orach Chaiim, 348.) We have often heard of -the wonderful effects of division of labour, but never knew -before that it could convert a capital offence into an innocent -employment. Surely it is not necessary to prove that if it be -unlawful for one person to do a particular act, it is equally -unlawful for a hundred persons to combine for its performance. -This law really has more the appearance of a caricature devised -by some enemy of the oral law, than the grave decision of -religious men in a matter of life and death. But if we -examine a little further, we shall find that it is unlawful to -move this same thing, whatever it be, from one jurisdiction to -another, though that other be close at hand:—</p> - -<p class='c005'>כשם שאסור לטלטל בכל הכרמלית אסור להוציא -ממנה לרשות היחיד או לרשות הרבים או להכניס -לכרמלית מרשות היחיד או מרשות הרבים , ואם -הוציא או הכניס פטור ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“As it is unlawful to move anything in the place called -Karmelith, so it is unlawful to carry anything out of it into a -public or private jurisdiction, or, <i>vice versa</i>, to introduce anything -from either of these into the Karmelith. But if any one -<a id='Page_236'></a>does either he is not guilty,” that is, he is only to get a flogging, -but not to be stoned. An unlearned man who had already seen -something conveyed by the above expedient, might easily be -led to commit an offence of this kind. His untutored mind -might not perceive why the one should be sinful, if the other -was lawful; but such an assertion of common sense would draw -down certain chastisement. At all events, he might be tempted -to put his head from one jurisdiction into another, especially if -he was standing in the street, and was offered a drink by a -friend in a house, he might put his head into the window and -take what was offered, but would soon find, to his cost, that he -had broken one of the Sabbatic laws:—</p> - -<p class='c005'>לא יעמוד אדם ברשות היחיד ויוציא ראשו לרשות -הרבים וישתה שם או איפכא אלא אם כן יכניס ראשו -ורובו למקים שהוא שותה דכיון שהוא צריך לאלו -המים אנו חוששין שמא יביאם אליו אבל מותר לעמוד -ברשות היחיד או ברשות הרבים ולשתות בכרמלית ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“A man may not stand in a private jurisdiction, and put -forth his head into a public jurisdiction, and then drink, or vice -versa. But if he does so, let him introduce his head and most -of his body into the place in which he drinks, for as he wants -the water, we fear lest he should take it to himself (into the -place where he is standing). But it is lawful to stand in a -private or public jurisdiction and drink in that which is called -Karmelith. (Orach Chaiim, 349.) It is evident that no -unlearned man can stand a fair chance with laws like these. -He could not hope even to escape corporal punishment. But if -the accurate observance of such laws was the condition of -salvation, he would have reason to despair. The most honest -desire to yield obedience and the utmost exertion of his -understanding will not help him, nor compensate for his -ignorance. If, for instance, he should conclude, because it is -unlawful for himself to have his head in one jurisdiction and -his body in another whilst he is drinking, that it would be -equally unlawful for cattle in the same predicament to get food, -he would be mistaken:—</p> - -<p class='c005'>בהמה שהיתה רובה בחוץ וראשה בפנים אובסין -אותה ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“A beast that has got most of its body outside, and its head -inside, may be fed.” And if he should take this as the general -rule of his conduct, he would be mistaken again, for long-necked -animals form an exception:—</p> - -<p class='c005'>ובגמל עד שיהא ראשו ורובו בפנים הואיל וצוארו -ארוך ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'><a id='Page_237'></a>“But in the ease of the camel, he must have his head and -most of his body inside, because his neck is long.” (Hilchoth -Shabbath, c. xxv. 1.) And so with endless cases which arise -from this one distinction of places into four classes. Judaism -is in all its parts a religion for the studious, and for them only. -For an unlearned man to keep the Sabbath, as the oral law -requirers, is absolutely impossible. And after all, what good -does it bestow upon those who spend their life in the study? -Does it improve the heart, or open more abundant views of the -Divine mercy, or fill the soul with love to man? That it -sharpens the wit and subtlety, we do not doubt, but that is but -small profit to man in general. The criminal law of any -country will do the same, and in truth the oral law is very -little more than the rabbinical criminal code. Its great subject -is guilty and not guilty. And even in this it does not address -itself to the conscience, and lead a man to consider the workings -of the heart and the wanderings of the thought, and shew him -sin at its fountain-head. It is a mere dry detail of external -observances, as may be seen from the numerous specimens -adduced in these papers, and as might be shown more fully by -translating the whole. If real devout feeling and improvement -of the heart in the fear of God and the love of man be true -religion, we might expect it, if anywhere, in the Sabbath laws. -The Sabbath is that holy day which God has set apart to raise -men’s thoughts from earth to heaven. It is that period of -earned relaxation on which even the poor and the unlearned -may lay aside their worldly cares and occupations, and meditate -upon the love and will of God, and that eternity to which he is -hastening. In the laws, then, respecting the observance of this -day, we might naturally expect the spirit of devotion to be -manifested; but in the oral law we look in vain for anything -of the kind. Its directions about the Sabbath are one continued -dry detail of external observances, which to a conscientious -man acquainted with them, must constitute a load upon his -conscience, sufficient to make the Sabbath the most unhappy -day of all the seven. But as to the poor and labouring classes, -who have no time for study, it is impossible that they should -know, and much more that they should keep, all that is -necessary for the right observation of the rabbinic Sabbath. -If, therefore, the oral law were true, the poor must lose a large -portion of the blessings, and even be in danger of perdition. -Nay, if it be true, then we must believe that God has given a -religion impossible to be observed by the poor, and offering great -advantages to the rich and learned, that is that He is a respecter -of persons, though Moses and the prophets teach the contrary. -But we would ask our readers, what use is it to them to profess -a religion of which they can never attain a competent knowledge? -We venture to affirm that the majority of Israelites do -<a id='Page_238'></a>not know enough of the oral law to help them to keep the -Sabbath, much less to observe the six hundred and thirteen -commandments; can it be said, then, that they possess a -religion with which they are not even acquainted? If the -knowledge and practice of the oral law be necessary to -constitute a true Jew, ninety-nine out of every hundred must -give up their claims to the Jewish name. But then what is to -become of the Jewesses, who are not even obligated to learn? -Every rabbi will be willing to confess that the women at least -are ignorant of the oral law. Can they then have a portion in -the world to come? If the knowledge and practice of the oral -law be necessary to salvation, they cannot. But if they can be -saved without it, then it follows that God has given a law, the -knowledge of which is not necessary to salvation. Let every -Jew ask himself this question, Am I acquainted with all the -precepts of the oral law? If not, can I be saved without this -knowledge? If I cannot, then the Jewish religion is one -which makes it impossible for the poor to be saved. If I can, -then the Jewish religion is of no real use, for I can be saved -even without knowing it. Such a religion cannot be from God. -His religion is necessary to be known by every man, woman, -and child in the world, and the knowledge of it is just as easy -to be acquired by the poor and unlearned as by the rich and -studious. Let then the poor and the unlearned consider the -folly of professing a religion, with which they can never hope -to become acquainted, and let them return to the religion of -Moses and the prophets, which, by the help of the God of -Israel, every one can understand, at least so far as is necessary -to salvation. The Bible, like everything that has God for its -author, has beauties discoverable by the eye of the poor, at the -same time that it has perfections to exercise the observation -and skill of the most learned. And this holy book is the -heritage of Israel, which the oral law can never be. The oral -law may be the heritage and religion of the rabbies who know -it, but it has no more to do with the religion of those who know -it not, than the laws of the Chinese. The great majority of -the Jewish people might just as well call themselves followers -of Confucius. No man can be said to believe in doctrines -which he does not know, and can never hope to know: and -this is the case with nine-tenths of the oral law.</p> -<div class='chapter'> - <a id='Page_239'></a> - <h2 id='chap31' class='c003'>No. XXXI. <br /> RABBINIC EXCOMMUNICATION.</h2> -</div> -<p class='c004'>It is a fact, that the religion of the oral law has hitherto done -but little to promote the temporal welfare of the Jewish people, -and it is equally certain that, if supreme, it would destroy the -happiness both of Jews add Gentiles. Its endless definitions -would necessarily produce transgression. Its severity and -readiness in excommunication would be the source of constant -trouble to individuals and families, and the sanguinary spirit of -its criminal code would make the Jews a nation of mourners. -Indeed, we seriously doubt, whether any, but a few fanatics, -wish to see the oral law vested with supreme power, and ruling -over the lives and properties of the Jewish nation. Every -reflecting Israelite must know that the Sanhedrin, wielding the -absolute power ascribed to it in the rabbinic traditions, would -be the most oppressive tribunal that ever lorded it over the -consciences of men. But we must remember that it would not -be with the Sanhedrin and other tribunals alone, that the -Israelites would have to do. Every rabbi, and every disciple -of a wise man, would have the right of excommunicating any -one who offended them. After determining that the tribunals -can and ought in certain cases to excommunicate, the oral -law adds—</p> - -<p class='c005'>וכן החכם עצמו מנדה לכבודו לעם הארץ שהקפיד -בו ואין צריך לא עדים ולא התראה , ואין מתירין לו -עד שירצה את החכם , ואם מת החכם באין שלשה -ומתירין לו . ואם רצה החכם למחול לו ולא לנדהו -הרשות בידו ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“And in like manner the wise man himself may, on account -of his honour, excommunicate an unlearned man who has -treated him with contumely, and there is no need of witnesses -nor admonition. And the excommunicate person is not to be -absolved until he appease the wise man. But if the wise man -die, three persons come and absolve him. If, however, the -wise man wish to pardon, and not excommunicate him, the -power is in his own hand.” (Hilchoth Talmud Torah, c. vi. 12.) -From this law we see that the restoration of rabbinic power -would be the most oppressive system of government ever -devised. Every learned man would be a petty tyrant, constituting -both judge and jury in his own person, and able, at his -own caprice, to inflict a severe punishment. The most absolute -aristocracy of the feudal times never dared to assume or exercise -a power so monstrous and so oppressive. No priesthood, even -<a id='Page_240'></a>in the darkest times, ever claimed such personal authority as is -here given to every individual rabbi. It is true that he may, -if he please, forgive the unfortunate offender, but it is much to -be feared that such absolute power would in most cases be too -strong a temptation to the frail sons of men. And at all -events the principle is utterly inconsistent with wise legislation, -and most dangerous to the liberty of the poor and unlearned; -for the reader will observe that it is only an unlearned man, an -“am-haaretz,” who may be dealt with in this summary manner. -And this is another proof that the religion of the oral law is a -religion devised for the advantage of the rich and learned, but -regardless of the spiritual and temporal welfare of the lower -classes. For the learned and the great the law is very -different:—</p> - -<p class='c005'>חכם זקן בחכמה וכן נשיא או אב ב׳׳ד שסרח אין -מנדין אותו בפרהסיא לעקלם אלא אם כן עשה כירבעם -בן נבט וחביריו אבל כשחטא שאר חטאות מלקין -אותו בצנעה שנאמר וכשלת היום וכשל גם נביא עמך -לילה אע׳׳פ שכשל כסהו בלילה , ואומרים לו הכבד -ושב בביתך וכן כל ת׳׳ח שנתחייב נידוי אסור לב׳׳ד -לקפוץ ולנדותו במהרה ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“A wise man, old in wisdom, or a prince, or a president -of a tribunal, who has sinned, is never to be excommunicated -publicly, unless he have done as Jeroboam, the son of Nebat, -and his companions. But when he commits other sins, he is -to be flogged in private. For it is said, ‘Therefore shalt thou -fall in the day, and the prophet also shall fall with thee in -the night,’ (Hos. iv. 5,) <i>i.e.</i>, although he fall, cover him as -it were with the night. And they say to him, ‘Honour thyself, -and abide in thy house.’ (2 Kings xiv. 10.) In like -manner, when a disciple of a wise man makes himself guilty of -excommunication, it is unlawful for the tribunal to be too quick, -and to excommunicate him hastily.” (Ibid. c. vii. 1.) The -rabbies have endeavoured to justify this different legislation for -the learned and unlearned by a verse of the Bible, but their -interpretation of that verse is quite erroneous. When God -says, “Therefore shalt thou fall in the day, and the prophet -shall also fall with thee in the night,” he is not speaking of the -learned and unlearned, nor of the different way in which their -sins were to be punished, but of the destruction which was -coming upon Israel, as may be seen in Kimchi’s Commentary. -He interprets the verse thus—</p> - -<p class='c005'>וכשלת היום אמר כנגד ישראל בעבור מעשיך -תכשל ותפול , היום ר׳׳ל חזמן הזה בקרוב תבוא -<a id='Page_241'></a>מפלתך , וכן וחרה אפי בו ביום ההוא , ביום ההוא -שורש ישי והדומים להם , ענינם עת וזמן , וכשל גם -נביא עמך לילה נביא שקר המתעה אותך יכשל עמך -כמו האדם נכשל בלילה בחשכה וכן תרגם יונתן ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“<i>Therefore shalt thou stumble in the day.</i>” This refers to -Israel, and means on account of thy deeds thou shalt stumble -and fall. <i>This day</i>; that is, in this time; thy fall shall soon -come. And so we read, “Then my anger shall be kindled -against them in that day.” (Deut. xxxi. 17.) And again, “In -that day there shall be a root of Jesse,” (Isaiah xi. 10,) where -day means time and period. <i>And the prophet also shall fall -with thee in the night</i>, that is, the false prophet who deceiveth -thee shall stumble with thee, as men stumble in the night -in darkness; and so the Targum of Jonathan has it. (Kimchi, -Comment. in Hos. iv. 2.) Kimchi and Jonathan, then, both -testify that the oral law gives a false interpretation of this -verse. This is in itself rather awkward for a law that professes -to have been given by God, but still more so when -it is made the basis of most unjust and partial legislation, -to save the learned from the punishment which an unlearned -man would have in similar circumstances to suffer. No one -can deny that the learned and unlearned are here placed on -very unequal terms. If an unlearned man provoke a rabbi, he -may be excommunicated by that individual without either -judge or jury, or even the form of a trial. But if a learned -man makes himself liable to the same punishment, even a -court of justice has not the power to pronounce the sentence. -Who can doubt that the rabbies made these laws for their -own convenience? Can any one believe that God has given -this law, which makes the learned a privileged class of -persons, who, though guilty of the same offence as the working -classes, is to be spared, whilst they are to be punished? God is -no respecter of persons, and therefore no such law can be from -him.</p> - -<p class='c005'>The extreme injustice of this mode of legislation will appear -still more from considering the nature of the punishment:—</p> - -<p class='c005'>מהו המנהג שינהג המנודה בעצמו ושנוהגין עמו , -מנודה אסור לספר ולכבס כאבל כל ימי נידויו , ואין -מזמנין עליו , ולא כוללין אותו בעשרה לכל דבר -שצריך עשרה , ולא יושבין עמו בארבע אמות , אבל -שונה הוא לאחרים ושונין לו , ונשכר ושוכר , ואם -מת בנדויו בית דין שולחין ומניחין אבן על ארונו , -כלומר שחן רוגמין אותו , לפי שהוא מובדל מן הציבור -ואין צריך לומר שאין מספידין אותו ואין מלוין את -<a id='Page_242'></a>מטתו ... מי שישב בנידויו שלשים יום ולא בקש -להתירו מנדין אותו שנייה ישב שלשים יום אחרים -ולא בקש להתירו מחרימין אותו ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“How is an excommunicate person to conduct himself, and -how are others to conduct themselves towards him? It is -unlawful for an excommunicate person, as for a mourner, to -trim his heard or hair, or to wash all the days of his excommunication; -neither is he to be associated in pronouncing -the benedictions; neither is he to be reckoned as one of ten, -wherever ten persons are required; neither may any one sit -within four ells of him. He may however teach others and be -taught. He may hire and be hired. But if he die in his -excommunication, the tribunal send and lay a stone upon his -coffin to signify that they stone him because he is separated -from the congregation. And it is unnecessary to say that he -is not to be mourned for, and that his funeral is not to be -attended.... Whosoever remains thirty days in his excommunication -without seeking to be absolved, is to be excommunicated -a second time. If he abide thirty days more without -seeking absolution, he is then to be anathematized.” (Hilchoth -Talmud Torah, ibid.) This, then, is the punishment which -a learned man has it in his power to inflict at will. He may -deprive him of the comforts of cleanliness and perhaps injure -his health. He may hold him up to the public scorn by -separating him by four ells from all decent people. He may -heap obloquy upon his death and deprive him of a respectful -burial, or if the man survive under the public contempt, and -refuse to give the rabbi satisfaction, he will be anathematized, -and his prospects for this world, at least, irretrievably ruined. -The law respecting the anathematized person is this:—</p> - -<p class='c005'>אינו שונה לאחרים ואין שונין לו אבל שונה הוא -לעצמו שלא ישכח תלמודו ואינו נשכר ואין נשכרין -לו , ואין נושאין ונותנין עמו , ואין מתעסקין עמו -אלא מעט עסק כדי פרנסתו ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“He is not to teach others nor to be taught, but may learn -by himself that he may not forget the learning. He is not to -be hired, nor to hire. Men may have no dealings with him, -nor any business except a little that he may get a livelihood.” -Now then suppose that an unlearned man does or says something, -which a rabbi interprets as contempt, he is first excommunicated. -If, in the consciousness of innocence, he refuses to -ask for the rabbi’s forgiveness, he is at last anathematized, and -all his business stopped, and all this is done to him because he is -an unlearned man. He is himself to be dishonoured, his business -ruined, and he himself to die of a broken heart, not because he -<a id='Page_243'></a>has committed some grievous crime, but because he has been -wanting in respect either to the rabbi’s person or his words. -The most absolute autocrat never made a law more despotic.</p> - -<p class='c005'>But some one will say, that the rabbi has the power of -forgiving if he please, and that the oral law recommends him -to do so. It is true that if the affront be given in private, he -has this power, and is told to forgive, but not so if it be offered -in public, he has then no choice. He is bound to excommunicate -the offender. That we may not appear to act unfairly, we will -give the whole passage:—</p> - -<p class='c005'>אף על פי שיש רשות לחכם לנדות לכבודו אינו -שבח לתלמיד חכם להנהיג עצמו בדבר זה אלא -מעלים אזניו מדברי עם הארץ ולא ישית לבו להן -כענין שאמר שלמה בחכמתו גם לכל הדברים אשר -ידברו אל תתן לבך , וכן היה דרך חסידים הראשונים -שומעים חרפתם ואינן משיבין ולא עוד אלא שמוחלים -למחרף וסולחים לו , וחכמים גדולים היו משתבחים -במעשיהם הנאים ואומרים שמעולם לא נידו אדם -ולא החרימוהו לכבודן , וזו היא דרכם של תלמידי -חכמים שראוי לילך בה , במה דברים אמורים כשבזוהו -או חרפוהו בסתר אבל תלמיד חכם שבזהו או חרפו -אדם בפרהסיא אסור לו למחול על כבודו ואם מחל -נענש שזה בזיון של תורה אלא נוקם ונוטר הדבר -כנחש עד שיבקש ממנו מחילה ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“Although a wise man has the power to excommunicate on -account of his honour, yet it is not to be praised in the disciple -of a wise man who does so. On the contrary he ought to shut -his ears against the words of an unlearned man (am-haaretz), -and not to attend to them, according as Solomon has said in -his wisdom, ‘Take no heed to all the things that are spoken.’ -(Eccles. vii. 21.) And such was the custom of the saints of old, -who heard their reviling, but did not answer; and not only so, -but they pardoned the reviler, and forgave him. The greatest -of the wise men used to glory in their good deeds, and say, -that they had never excommunicated nor anathematized any -man on account of their honour, and this is the way in which -the disciples of the wise men ought to walk. In what case is -this to be applied? When they have been despised or reviled -in secret. <i>But if the disciple of a wise man be despised or -reviled by any man publicly, it is unlawful for him to forgive -any affront to his honour, and if he forgive he is to be punished, -for this is a contempt of the law. He is on the contrary, to -avenge and keep the thing in mind, like a serpent, until the -offender entreat to be forgiven.</i>” (Ibid. c. vii. 13.) The great -<a id='Page_244'></a>object of these laws is plainly to uphold the power and dignity -of the rabbies, and to make it impossible for the people to shake -off their yoke. The care which is taken to punish every offence -against the wise men betrays a lurking consciousness of error, -and a fear lest the common people should compare their -precepts with Scripture, assert the plain unsophisticated truth, -and thus shake off the galling chains of rabbinism. To -prevent this, the very first semblance of disobedience is to be -punished with excommunication. But for the poor and unlearned, -if insulted by a learned man, there is no satisfaction. -He cannot thunder out an excommunication or an anathema in -return. For him the oral law makes no provision, except for -his punishment. If Judaism, therefore, should ever attain the -supreme power, the working and unlearned classes will be -placed in the power and at the mercy of the learned, and every -disciple of a wise man will wield the absolute power of an -autocrat.</p> - -<p class='c005'>But some one may say, that if the disciple of a wise man -should excommunicate any one hastily that the people would -not regard his excommunication. But if they did not, they -would do it at their peril, for the oral law expressly declares -that they are bound to observe the excommunication not only -of a rabbi, but of one of his disciples:—</p> - -<p class='c005'>הרב שנידה לכבודו כל תלמידיו חייבין לנהוג בו -נדוי במנודה אבל תלמיד שנידה לכבוד עצמו אין -הרב חייב לנהוג בו נדוי אבל כל העם חייבין לנהוג -בו נדוי ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“When a rabbi excommunicates on account of his honour, -all his disciples are bound to treat the excommunicate person -as such. But when a disciple excommunicates on account of -his own honour, the rabbi is not bound to treat that person -as excommunicate, but all the people are bound.” (Ibid. -c. vi. 13.) Nothing can more clearly prove the injustice of -such excommunication. If the rabbi be not bound to regard -the disciples’ excommunication, why should all the people be -bound? If the offence committed against the disciple be a -sin before God, and such it ought to be to require such severe -punishment, the excommunication ought to be as binding -upon the rabbi as upon the people. But if it be not binding -upon the rabbi, then the offence for which it was inflicted -cannot be a sin in the sight of God, it is therefore an arbitrary -and unjust punishment, and it is both wicked and cruel to -require the people to obey it. But the principle itself is -monstrous, that the disciple of a rabbi should be constituted -both judge and jury in his own case, and have the power -of lording it over those, whose circumstances do not permit -<a id='Page_245'></a>them to devote their time to study, and who, therefore, -cannot be enrolled in the privileged class. Just suppose -that the clergy of this land, or the professors and students -at our Universities, were to claim such power, and to excommunicate -and anathematize all who treated them with -disrespect, and that without any trial or conviction before -a legal tribunal, and that the unfortunate victims were to -be separated from society, ruined, and then their dead bodies -treated with dishonour, would not this be regarded as a -monstrous and insupportable tyranny? Yet this is what -the oral law claims for the rabbies and their disciples, and -what they would possess and exercise if Judaism ever attains -to supreme power. Would the Jews wish such a -power established? Do they desire to live under such a -government? If they do not, if they prefer the personal -liberty and the even-handed justice secured to them by -Christian laws, then they confess that the Christian principles -are better than those of their own religion, and they -must be charged with inconsistency in professing and asserting -the truth of a religion, which they hope may never -triumph. Every man who believes his religious principles -to be Divine, must wish that they should triumph, and that -they should have free scope for their development. Any man -who dreads the triumph of his religion must have secret -misgivings that it is false. We therefore ask every Jew -whether he desires that the oral law should attain that -absolute power which it claims, and that every rabbi and -his disciples should have the power of excommunicating -and anathematizing all who affront them? One of the most -perfect tests of a religion, is to consider what would be its -effects if supreme. At present there are various systems of -religion in the world, some of which, as directly contradicting -others, must be decidedly false. The hope of all reflecting -men is, that the truth will ultimately triumph, that -God himself will at last interpose, and establish the dominion -of truth and eradicate all error. Each hopes that his own -system will then prevail, but let him follow out that system, -and see how it will work, when all resistance shall be vain. -Let the Jews calmly consider the state of things, when the -rabbies and their disciples shall be masters of the world, as -they must one day be, if Judaism be true. The unlearned will -then be completely at their mercy, their servants and their -bondmen. Will this be a happy condition, or is this state -of things desirable? In the first place, there will be no -personal liberty. Any man who may chance to differ from -a rabbi, and treat him with disrespect will immediately be -excommunicated. In the second place, there will be no -liberty of conscience or of thought. Every man must then -<a id='Page_246'></a>let the rabbies think for him, and he must be content to -receive their decisions without any appeal. The body will -scarcely have the appearance of being free, and the intellect -will be bound in fetters of adamant. It will no doubt be a -glorious period for the wise men and their disciples, but they -will always form a small minority, compared with the bulk -of mankind. The majority of Israel, not now to speak of -the Gentiles, will then be degraded into poor, crouching, -submissive servants of the learned, afraid to use their reason, -and always having the fear and dread of excommunication -before their eyes. Do they then honestly wish for such a -state of things, to be tied hand and foot, and given into the -hands of their learned men? If they do not, if they see the -horror and the injustice and degradation of such a state of -things, why do they profess a religion which will inevitably -lead to it, if it be true? If such laws be unjust, and such -a consummation dreadful, instead of desirable, the religion of -the oral law must necessarily be false; and it is the duty of -every Israelite to consider what he is doing in upholding it. -The present state of things will not continue always. The -Jewish nation cannot always wish to be wanderers in -foreign lands. They look forward to a restoration to the -land of their fathers, and they wish in that land to be happy -and prosperous. But happiness and prosperity will be unknown -words, if they are then to be governed according to -the principles of the oral law. That law gives the learned -a monopoly of power and happiness, but leaves the mass of -the nation in bondage. Do they then, in contemplating the -re-establishment of the kingdom of Israel, expect another -than the oral law, and other principles of religion and -justice? If they do, they confess that the oral law is false, -and if it would be false and hurtful, and destructive of all -happiness, if supreme, it is equally false and hurtful now. -The Israelite, therefore, who upholds it, is upholding a false -system. He may do it in ignorance, and we believe that -this is the case with the majority; but it is most unbecoming -in any reasonable man to profess a religion of which -he is ignorant. He may answer, I have no time to acquire -an accurate knowledge of my religion. The books in which -it is contained are too voluminous to admit of my acquiring -an acquaintance with them. I must work for my bread. -We grant that this is the fact, but then this brings us back -to our original position, that Judaism is only a religion for -those who have leisure, that is, for the rich and the learned, -and we conclude, on that very account, that it cannot be -from God, who looks neither at riches nor learning, but -considereth the welfare, and above all, the religious welfare -of the poorest of his creatures. The especial character of -<a id='Page_247'></a>the Messiah is, that he will care for the poor. “He shall -judge the poor of the people, he shall save the children of -the needy.” (Psalm lxxii. 4.) He, therefore, cannot have -the religion of the oral law. He will not be a rabbi, nor a -rabbi’s disciple.</p> -<div class='chapter'> - <h2 id='chap32' class='c003'>No. XXXII. <br /> NEW YEAR’S DAY.</h2> -</div> -<p class='c004'>The season of the Jewish year, which we are now approaching, -naturally leads us to the consideration of some -subjects more important than those which we have lately -discussed, the oral law teaches that the festival of the new -year is nothing less than a day of judgment, on which God -pronounces sentence respecting the state of every individual:</p> - -<p class='c005'>וכשם ששוקלין זכיות אדם ועוונותיו בשעת מיתתו -כך בכל שנה ושנה שוקלין עוונות כל אחד ואחד -מבאי עולם עם זכיותיו ביום של ראש השנה , מי -שנמצא צדיק נחתם לחיים ומי שנמצא רשע נחתם -למיתה , והבינונים תולין אותו עד יום הכפורים אם -עשה תשובה נחתם לחיים ואם לאו נחתם למיתה ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“As the merits and the sins of a man are weighed at the -hour of his death, so likewise every year, on the festival of -New Year’s Day, the sins of every one that cometh into the -world are weighed against his merits. Every one who is -found righteous is sealed to life. Every one who is found -wicked is sealed to death. But the judgment of the intermediate -class is suspended until the Day of Atonement. If -they repent, they are sealed to life, but if not, they are sealed -to death.” (Hilchoth T’shuvah, c. iii. 3.) This naturally -leads us to consider the rabbinic doctrine of justification, and -to inquire how far it agrees with Moses and the prophets. -And here our first business must be to state the doctrine as -it is found in the oral law.</p> - -<p class='c005'>This law teaches, first, that he whose merits are more than -his sins is accounted a righteous man:—</p> - -<p class='c005'>כל אחד ואחד מבני אדם יש לו זכיות ועוונות , מי -שזכיותיו יתרות על עוונותיו צדיק , ומי שעוונותיו -יתרות על זכיותיו רשע , מחצה למחצה בינוני ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'><a id='Page_248'></a>“Every one of the children of many has merits and sins. -If his merits exceed his sins, he is righteous. If his sins -exceed his merits, he is wicked. If they be half and half, -he is a middling or intermediate person.” (Ibid. 1.)</p> - -<p class='c005'>It teaches, secondly, that in estimating the comparative -state, respect is had not only to the number but to the quality -of the actions:—</p> - -<p class='c005'>ושקול זה אינו לפי מנין הזכיות והעוונות אלא -לפי גדלם , יש זכות שהיא כנגד כמה עוונות שנאמר -יען נמצא בו דבר טוב , ויש עוון שהוא כנגד כמה -זכיות , שנאמר וחוטא אחד יאבד טובה הרבה ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“And this weighing is made, not with respect to the -number of the merits and the sins, but according to their -greatness. There is a merit which may outweigh many -sins, as it is said, ‘Because in him there is found some good -thing.’ (1 Kings xiv. 13.) And there are sins which may -outweigh many merits, for it is said, ‘One sinner destroyeth -much good.’” (Ecclesiast. ix. 18.)</p> - -<p class='c005'>It teaches, thirdly, that it is possible by transgression or -obedience to turn the scale:—</p> - -<p class='c005'>חטא חטא אחד הרי הכריע את עצמו ואת כל -העולם כולו לכף חובה וגרם לו השחתה , עשה -מצוה אחת הרי הכריע את עצמו ואת כל העולם -כולו לכף זכות וגרם לו ולהם תשועה והצלה שנאמר -וצדיק יסוד עולם זה שצדק הכריע את כל העולם -לזכות והצילו , מפני ענין זה נהגו כל בית ישראל -להרבות בצדקה ובמעשים טובים ולעסוק במצוות -מראש השנה ועד יום הכפורים יתר מכל השנה ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“If a man sin one sin, he gives the preponderance for himself -and for all the world to the scale of guilt, and causes -destruction. But if he perform one commandment, he gives -the preponderance both for himself and all the world to the -scale of merit, and causes salvation and deliverance to himself -and them, as it is said, ‘The righteous is the foundation of -the world’ (Prov. x. 25), which means that righteousness -gives the world a preponderance in the scale of merit and -delivers it. And on this account all the house of Israel are -accustomed to abound in almsgiving, and in good deeds, and -to be diligent in the commandments in the interval between -New Years Day and the Day of Atonement more than in all -the year besides.” (Ibid. 4.) This then is the doctrine which -we have to consider.</p> - -<p class='c005'>The first great principle is that “Every one of the children -of men has merits and has sins.” That every man has sins -<a id='Page_249'></a>we readily admit; but that any man, or any angel, or any of -God’s creatures, has any merit in the sight of God we deny. -First, because the idea of merit is utterly inconsistent with -the idea of the relation in which the creature stands to the -Creator. Every created being is bound by the very fact of -his creation to love God with all his heart and soul, and mind -and strength, and to do all his will. Whatsoever, therefore, -he does, he can never exceed the limit of his bounden duty, -and can therefore never lay any claim to merit. If created -beings were free from all obligation to love God or to do his -will—if they were independent and masters of themselves, -then by loving God or doing his will they might have merit, -for they would be doing him a service which He has no right -to require. Just as a man that is free may hire himself to -do work for another man, which he is not bound to do, and -thereby earn wages. But not so the slave, who is his maker’s -property. He can only do his duty, and if he toil all the -day and be diligent and faithful in his master’s service, he -still can lay no claim to wages or to merit; he has only done -what he is bound to do. To lay any claim to merit, we must -stand on equal terms, and confer what the other has no right -to expect. But this no created being can ever do. He is -a debtor overwhelmed with such an amount of debt, that all -that he has or can raise only goes in part payment, and who -therefore will never be able to confer anything which is not -already due. And therefore it is said, “Can a man be profitable -unto God?” and again, “Is it gain to him, that thou -makest thy ways perfect?” (Job xxii. 2, 3.) The unfallen -angels themselves have no merit before God, and much less -fallen and rebellious man.</p> - -<p class='c005'>But, secondly, the assertion that man has merits is contradicted -by the plain testimonies of Scripture. If man have -merits, however few, then so far as those merits are concerned, -his nature must be good and holy, but God declares the -contrary: “Behold, he putteth no trust in his saints; yea the -heavens are not clean in his sight: how much more abominable -and filthy is man, which drinketh iniquity like water.” (Job -xv. 15, 16.) Such language cannot be applied to any creature -capable of meriting anything in the sight of God. Again, if -man have merits, his merits must proceed from the good things -which he has done. He that does nothing good cannot be -meritorious, but yet God says, “There is none that doeth good, -no, not one. They are all gone aside, they are all together -become filthy; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.” -(Ps. xiv. 1-3.) If this be true, then no man has merits. If -man have merits, they must proceed from an inherent good -principle in his nature, but God says even of Israel that were -is no such principle of good: on the contrary, he declares that -<a id='Page_250'></a>“the whole head is sick, and the whole heart faint. From the -sole of the foot, even unto the head, there is no soundness in -it: but wounds, and bruises, and putrefying sores.” (Isaiah i. -5, 6.) Here God describes Israel, and the description is -generally true of mankind, as totally corrupt. There is no -soundness in it. The intellect is corrupt, for “the whole head -is sick.” The affections are corrupt, for “the whole heart is -faint.” How, then, can he that has a perverted intellect and a -corrupt heart have merits? Again, if man have merits, his -good deeds, whatever they be, must be such as to deserve the -approbation of God; but the confession of the prophet is—</p> - -<p class='c005'>ונהי כטמא כלנו וכבגד עדים כל צדקותינו ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousness -as filthy rags.” (Isa. lxiv. 6.) Either, then, the oral law -or the Bible says what is false. The Bible says that the very -best of man’s deeds, “all his righteousnesses,” are no better in -the sight of God than filthy rags: if this be true, then man has -no merit whatsoever.</p> - -<p class='c005'>But again, the assertion that every man has merits and sins, -is based upon a false principle. It takes for granted that God -judges men by their individual acts, and not by the state of -their hearts; that is, that he judges as we do. When we -consider a man’s conduct, we can only look at his acts, and to -us some of them appear good and others bad. In our sight, -therefore, he may have some merits and some demerits. But -God looks at the heart, and sees whether a man loves him or not, -and by the whole habit of his mind and affections judges the -man’s state and all his actions. We short-sighted creatures -judge a man’s heart by his actions; but God judges his actions -by his heart, and where the heart is wrong, he is so far from -counting any actions as meritorious, that he looks upon the -whole conduct as one mass of abominable sin.</p> - -<p class='c005'>The next assertion of the oral law is, that “If a man’s merits -exceed his sins, he is righteous.” This pre-supposes, first, that -a man’s merits may exceed his sins; and asserts, secondly, that -in this case he is accounted righteous. But where is the man -whose “merits exceed his sins?” Where is the man who -keeps any one of God’s commandments perfectly? In all our -best deeds and efforts there is sin of admixture or of imperfection. -Often, when by the help of God, a good thought or an -honest intention is conceived in the heart, before it can be -realized in action, some selfish and unworthy motive associates -itself with it, and spoils the whole. And in every case the -obedience is imperfect, so that all our best acts become occasions -of committing sins either of infirmity or imperfection, -and thus our sins are certainly as many as our good deeds, for -each one of them has a sin as its associate. But how many are -<a id='Page_251'></a>our sins of thought, word, and deed, which are mere sins without -any admixture of good, and which in themselves are “more -than the hairs of our head?” And even if we should admit -that the final result depends not upon number, but upon magnitude, -then there is one sin that extends from the moment of -our birth to the latest hour of our existence, and that is, want -of perfect love to God. This he requires at every moment, but -yet how many hours of every day do we pursue our business -or our pleasures without a single remembrance of him? And -how few, how hasty, and how interrupted are our grateful -recollections of the love and mercy of God! Here then is a -sin which in magnitude far exceeds the aggregate of all our -gratitude and all our services, and which in itself would sink -the scale of guilt down to the lowest hell. But by the side of -it there is another equally immense, and that is our continued -transgression of the commandment, “Thou shalt love thy -neighbour as thyself.” The very best of all God’s saints -makes, at the most, but a feeble struggle against the love of -self. He admits the extent of his duty to his neighbour, he -knows it—he desires to fulfil it. He watches against himself, -and yet with all his care, self-love creeps in again and again, -and asserts the mastery over his thoughts and actions. These -two sins would outweigh a thousand times all the six hundred -and eleven remaining commandments of which Israel boasts, -even if they kept them all without a single transgression or a -shade of imperfection. With these two sins on our consciences, -it is perfectly absurd to talk of our merits exceeding -our sins. There is not, and never was in the world, a mere -child of Adam, whose sins did not for exceed his good deeds. -If, therefore, it be necessary, in order to be accounted just, -that our merits should exceed our sins, we must give up all -hope of being justified before God.</p> - -<p class='c005'>But let us suppose for a moment that such a thing were -possible, that there was a man whose merits exceeded his sins, -would such an one be accounted just before God? First let us -ask Moses, let us hear what he says. Does he promise that if -your merits exceed your sins, ye shall be considered just? and -does he promise life, as the oral law does, to imperfect -obedience? Hear the words of Moses himself:—</p> - -<p class='c005'>ושמרתם לעשות כאשר צוה ה׳ אלהיכם אתכם -לא תסורו ימין ושמאל , בכל הדרך אשר צוה ה׳ -אלהיכם אתכם תלכו למען תחיון וטוב לכם והארכתם -ימים בארץ אשר תירשון ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“Ye shall observe to do therefore as the Lord your God hath -commanded you: ye shall not turn aside to the right hand or -to the left. Ye shall walk in <span class='fss'>ALL</span> the ways which the Lord -<a id='Page_252'></a>your God hath commanded you, that ye may live, and that it -may be well with you, and that ye may prolong your days in -the land which ye shall possess.” (Deut. v. 32, 33.) Here -Moses requires perfect obedience as the condition of life, and -does not allow a single deviation either to the right hand or to -the left. It is not a single declaration, nor a sentiment wrested -from its context. Moses repeats the same again and again. In -the very next verses to those just quoted, he says—</p> - -<p class='c005'>וזאת המצוה החקים והמשפטים אשר צוה ה׳׳ -אלהיכם ללמד אתכם לעשות בארץ אשר אתם עוברים -שמה לרשתה , למען תירא את ה׳ אלהיך לשמור את -כל חקותיו ומצותיו אשר אנכי מצוך אתה ובנך ובן -בנך כל ימי חייך ולמען יאריכון ימיך ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“Now these are the commandments, the statutes, and the -judgments, which the Lord your God commanded to teach you, -that ye might do them in the land whither ye go to possess it; -that thou mightest fear the Lord they God, to keep <span class='fss'>ALL</span> his -statutes and his commandments, which I command thee; thou -and thy son, and thy son’s son, all the days of thy life: and -that thy days may be prolonged.” (vi. 1, 2.) Here again Moses -requires perfect obedience to the whole law. He requires it of -every individual of Israel. “Thou and thy son, and thy son’s -son;” and this universal obedience he exacts not at some stated -period of the year, but every day of a man’s whole life. “All -the days of thy life.” Moses leaves no room for some merits -and some sins. If a man does what Moses requires, he can -have no sins. If a man have any sins whatever, he does not -fulfil what Moses requires as the condition of life. We might -quote several other similar passages, but content ourselves with -one, where Moses expressly declares that universal obedience -is necessary to righteousness:—</p> - -<p class='c005'>ויצינו ה׳ לעשות את כל החקים האלה ליראה את -ה׳ אלהינו לטוב לנו כל הימים לחיותנו כיום הזה , -וצדקה תהיה לנו כי נשמר לעשות את כל המצוה -הזאת לפני ה׳ אלהינו כאשר צונו ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“And the Lord commanded us to do <span class='fss'>ALL</span> these statutes, to fear -the Lord our God always, that he might preserve us alive, as it -is at this day. <i>And it shall be our righteousness</i>, if we observe -to do <span class='fss'>ALL</span> these commandments before the Lord our God, as he -hath commanded us.” (Deut. vi. 24, 25.) This is Moses’ idea -of righteousness, and if Moses be right the oral law is wrong. -It says, “If a man’s merits exceed his sins, he is righteous.” -Moses says, If a man keep all the commandments all the days -of his life he is righteous. The oral law promises life to him -<a id='Page_253'></a>who confessedly has sins. Moses requires perfect and universal -obedience as the condition of life. It becomes, therefore, an -important, an awfully important, consideration for every -Israelite, whether he will rest his soul’s salvation on the word of -Moses, or on that of the oral law. If he rests upon the oral law, -than he will be satisfied that a partial obedience is sufficient -to secure everlasting salvation, and in this hope he will die. -But if he is to be judged according to the law of Moses, he -will, at the hour of God’s judgment, find himself awfully -mistaken. Moses knows of no righteousness, but that of -universal obedience every day of a man’s life, and promises life -to none but those who have this righteousness. He that has it -not, therefore, must be condemned. And let every Israelite -mark well that Moses has not left us to draw this just -conclusion from the premises which he has laid down, but has -himself stated, in the distinctest and plainest terms, That he -who does not yield this universal obedience is accursed. And -that no man may mistake his meaning, he sums up all that he -has said upon this subject, and repeats, that he who keeps <span class='fss'>ALL</span> -God’s commandments shall be blessed, and that he who does -not keep <span class='fss'>ALL</span> God’s commandments shall be accursed:—</p> - -<p class='c005'>ונינ אם שמוע תשמע בקול ה׳ אלהיך לשמור -לעשות את כל מצותיו אשר אנכי מצוך היום ונתנך -ה׳ אלהיך עליון על כל גויי הארץ , ובאו עליך כל -הברכות האלה וגו׳ ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“And it shalt come to pass, if thou shalt hearken diligently -unto the voice of the Lord thy God, to observe and to do <span class='fss'>ALL</span> -his commandments which I command thee this day, that the -Lord thy God will set thee high above all nations of the earth; -and all these blessings shall come on thee,” &c. And then, -after enumerating the blessings, he adds—</p> - -<p class='c005'>והיה אם לא תשמע בקול ה׳ אלהיך לשמור לעשות -את כל מצותיו וחקותיו אשר אנכי מצוך היום ובאו -עליך כל הקללות האלה והשיגוך , ארור אתה בעיר -וארור אתה בשדה וגו׳ ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“But it shall come to pass, if thou wilt not hearken unto the -voice of the Lord thy God, to observe to do <span class='fss'>ALL</span> his commandments -and his statutes which I command thee this day, that all -these curses shall come upon thee, and overtake thee. Cursed -shalt thou be in the city, and cursed shalt thou be in the field,” -&c. (Deut. xxviii. 1-15.) Here Moses plainly says, that he -who is perfectly obedient is blessed, and that he who is not -perfectly obedient is cursed. And it is to be noted that Moses -knows nothing of an intermediate state of man, the בינוניים -<a id='Page_254'></a>who are neither righteous nor wicked. He divides all Israel -into two classes, the blessed and the cursed. He who keeps -<span class='fss'>ALL</span> God’s commandments belongs to the former; he who does -not keep <span class='fss'>ALL</span> God’s commandments to the latter. In this -matter, than, the most important that can employ the mind of -man, the oral law contradicts the plain words of Moses. One -of the two is certainly in error. It is for the Israelites to -choose whether they will believe Moses, or that oral law which -contradicts his words. If they believe in Moses, then no one is -accounted just before God, but that man who has all the days -of his life kept all God’s commandments without one deviation. -Every other person is so far from being just, that he is accursed. -If there were a human being who had all his life kept all the -commandments, and only once been guilty of transgression, -that one transgression makes him unjust and accursed. But -there is no such person. Every man’s conscience tells him that -his sins far exceed his obedience, and therefore if Moses speak -truth he is accursed. Oh, let no one endanger his salvation by -trusting to the oral law. Let him take up the law of Moses, let -him investigate the conditions which Moses lays down. We -ask not now, that the Israelites should read the New Testament, -or that they should listen to our arguments or any reasoning of -man. We simply point out to them the words of Moses, and -we show other passages of the oral law which teaches an -entirely different doctrine. We ask, then, whether the man -who rebels against the law of Moses can hope for salvation? -Yet this is what every one who follows the oral law is doing. -If his temporal welfare only were concerned, it would not be of -such moment. But here his eternal interests are at stake. If -the oral law be mistaken, and mistaken it is if Moses spoke -truth, their eternal salvation is forfeited by every one who -follows it. We therefore entreat every reader of this paper to -take up the law of Moses, and to investigate this question:—“What -are the conditions of blessing and cursing, of life and -death, according to the declarations of Moses? Does he promise -life to that man whose merits exceed his sins, or does he require -universal obedience?” To Moses himself we appeal, and him -we constitute the arbiter of our differences.</p> -<div class='chapter'> - <a id='Page_255'></a> - <h2 id='chap33' class='c003'>No. XXXIII. <br /> NEW YEAR, CONTINUED.</h2> -</div> -<p class='c004'>We showed in our last number that the first axiom of the. -oral law respecting the mode of justification is false. Moses -requires perfect and universal obedience to all the commandments -as the condition of justification and life, whereas the oral -law says it is sufficient if a man’s merits exceed his sins. One -of the two, then, has spoken falsehood. It is for the Jews to -consider which of them they will brand with the character of -liar. As for ourselves, we believe that Moses spoke the truth, -and by his standard of right and wrong we proceed to examine -the second and third principles of Rabbinic justification. The -oral law tells us, further, that when God weighs the merits and -the offences, “This weighing is made not with respect to the -number of the merits and the sins, but according to their -greatness. There is a merit which may outweigh many sins, -as it is said, ‘Because in him there is found some good thing.’ -(1 Kings xiv. 13.) And there are sins which may outweigh -many merits, for it is said, ‘One sinner destroyeth much good.’ -(Ecclesiast. ix. 18.)” And for this reason we are told that “In -the ten days between the New Year and the Day of Atonement, -Israel abounds in almsgiving and good works more than in all -the year besides.” Such is the hope which the oral law holds -out to Israel. It first tells a man, that if his merits exceed his -sins, he is safe. Then feeling that none but a fool or madman -can dream of his merits exceeding his sins, it tries to quiet the -conscience by assuring the guilty, that the quality of the deeds -is regarded more than their number, and that there may be one -meritorious act which will outweigh many sins. It endeavours -to prove this by a citation from the Book of Kings. This is in -itself suspicious. Why did it not bring one or more plain -passages from the Books of Moses? They contain the law of -God, and the great principles of God’s judgment. In determining -a case like this, an appeal to the letter of the law is -absolutely necessary. Let every Israelite, then, before he -trusts his salvation to the oral law, find out one passage in the -law of Moses, where Moses himself declares that “one merit -may outweigh many sins.” We know not of one similar -declaration, and therefore hesitate not to say, that whosoever -rests his salvation on this hope, has apostatized from the -religion of Moses.</p> - -<p class='c005'>But the passage itself, which the oral law cites, proves nothing -in support of the above principle. The words were spoken of -the son of Jeroboam. “He only of Jeroboam shall come to the -grave, because in him there is found some good thing towards -<a id='Page_256'></a>the Lord God of Israel in the house of Jeroboam.” (1 Kings -xiv. 13.) There is not one word said here about his being -justified by that one good thing, whatever it was. It did not -save the child from his sickness. It did not change the -sentence of death into life. All it did was to procure him a -peaceable burial. How, then, can any reasonable man argue, -because the son of Jeroboam had a peaceable burial, that -therefore some meritorious act will save him from the -punishment due to his offences? To warrant such a -conclusion, he ought first to show that the son of Jeroboam -had been a grievous sinner like his father, which the Bible -does not say; and, secondly, that this one meritorious act had -obtained pardon of his sins, and restored him to life; and -moreover it ought to be expressly said, that God considered -him as just. The very circumstance that the rabbies were -obliged to have recourse to such a passage, and that they could -find nothing better in the law or the prophets, shows that they -were hard pushed to find anything that would even bear a -faint resemblance to their doctrine.</p> - -<p class='c005'>The law of Moses gives no countenance to this doctrine, and -can give none, because it is directly subversive of all the -principles of law and justice. The stern principle of justice is, -that every transgression of the law should be followed by -punishment without any reference whatever to the good deeds -or merits of the transgressor. Even before an earthly tribunal, -there is no deviation from this principle. If a murderer or a -robber be convicted, no degree of previous or subsequent merit -can be listened to as a plea against the just sentence of the law. -He may in all other respects be an unexceptionable character, -he may feed the poor and clothe the naked, and give all his -goods in alms, but none of these things can change the sentence -of guilty into not guilty, or cause him to be considered as a -just or innocent person. And shall we suppose that God is less -just than man? The law of Moses gives us no reason for such -a supposition. It says distinctly—</p> - -<p class='c005'>ולא תקחו כופר לנפש רוצח אשר הוא רשע למות -כי מות יומת ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“Moreover, ye shall take no satisfaction for the life of a -murderer, which is guilty of death; but he shall surely be put -to death.” (Num. xxxv. 31.) According to this declaration, -the good deeds or merits of a murderer are not to be regarded, -and there is nothing which he can do which can avert the -sentence of the law. And shall we suppose that God himself -will do what he forbids men to do? If so, why did he forbid -it to be done? The plain reason of this prohibition is, because -it is contrary to the eternal principles of right and wrong, -<a id='Page_257'></a>which God himself cannot violate without detracting from his -holiness. But it is not with respect to murder only that God -has laid down these stern principles of justice. He says -generally—</p> - -<p class='c005'>והנפש אשר תעשה ביד רמה מן האזרח ומן הגר -את ה׳ הוא מגדף ונכרתה הנפש ההיא מקרב עמה , -כי דבר ה׳ בזה ואת מצותו הפר הכרת תכרת הנפש -ההיא עונה בה ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“But the soul that doeth ought presumptuously, whether he -be born in the land, or a stranger, the same reproacheth the -Lord, and that soul shall be cut off from among his people. -Because he hath despised the Lord, and hath broken his -commandment, that soul shall utterly be cut off; his iniquity -shall be upon him.” (Numb. xv. 30, 31.) There is here no -promise that his merits shall be weighed against his offences. -One presumptuous sin will outweigh all his supposed merits, and -for that one he shall die in his iniquity. The doctrine of the -prophets is just the same:—</p> - -<p class='c005'>הנפש החוטאת היא תמות ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“The soul that sinneth it shall die.”</p> - -<p class='c005'>ובשוב צדיק מצדקתו ועשה עול ככל התועבות -אשר עשה הרשע יעשה וחי כל צדקתיו אשר עשה -לא תזכרנה במעלו אשר מעל ובחטאתו אשר חטא -בם ימות ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“But when the righteous turneth away from this righteousness, -and committeth iniquity, and doeth according to all the -abominations that the wicked man doeth, shall he live? <i>All -his righteousness that he hath done shall not be mentioned</i>: -in his trespass that he hath trespassed, and in his sin that he -hath sinned, in them shall he die.” (Ezek. xviii. 20-25.) -When one reads this passage, it appears as if God had dictated -it on purpose to contradict the doctrine of the oral law. There -is here no mention of weighing merits against sins, and no -promise that some few extraordinary merits may outweigh -many sins. On the contrary, it is distinctly stated, that when -the righteous man turneth away from his righteousness, “All -his righteousness that he hath done shall not be mentioned.” -If this be true, the doctrine of the oral law is necessarily and -totally false. But some one may object that there is a similar -declaration made respecting the wicked:—</p> - -<p class='c005'>והרשע כי ישוב מכל חטאתיו אשר עשה ושמר את -<a id='Page_258'></a>כל חקותי ועשה משפט וצדקה חיה יחיה לא ימות , -כל פשעיו אשר עשה לא יזכרו לו בצדקתו אשר -עשה יחיה ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“But if the wicked man will turn from all his sins that he -hath committed, and keep all my statutes, and do that which -is lawful and right, he shall surely live, he shall not die. All -transgressions that he hath committed, they shall not be -mentioned to him, in his righteousness that he hath done he -shall live.” But this verse is as strongly against the doctrine -of the oral law as the others already cited. In the first place, -it does not say, that he whose sins exceed his merits is wicked, -but that he who commits sin is wicked. In the second place, -it does not say that, by causing his merits to exceed his sins, he -can become righteous, but by turning away, “from <span class='fss'>ALL</span> his -sins that he hath committed,” and by keeping “<span class='fss'>ALL</span> my -statutes.” It confirms the doctrine laid down already from the -law of Moses, that to be righteous in the sight of God, a man -must commit no sin, and keep all God’s commandments. It -therefore directly contradicts the oral law, and overturns the -doctrine that some merits may outweigh many sins.</p> - -<p class='c005'>If more proof be needful, we have it in the case of Moses -himself. Very few, if any, even of the most devoted friends of -the oral law, can imagine that he has so many merits as Moses -his master; and yet the merits of Moses did not outweigh one -apparently trifling transgression. Because of one sin, he was -sentenced to die with the disobedient generation in the -wilderness, and not permitted to enter into the land of Israel. -If Moses’ merits, then, could do nothing for him, how vain -must be the hope of others, who think that, by abounding in -almsgiving and good works for ten days, they can turn the -scale of God’s righteous judgment? Neither the law nor the -prophets know of any intermediate class between the righteous -and the wicked. They specify only the two classes, the -righteous and the wicked. Those who fulfil all God’s commandments -belong to the one, and those who transgress any of -God’s commandments belong to the other. Let every man, -then, examine his own heart and life, and it will not require -much time nor trouble to ascertain to which class he belongs. A -very little reflection will convince him that he has been, and -is, a transgressor of God’s commandments; that he has no -merits and no righteousness; and therefore belongs to that -class of whom Moses says, that they are accursed. Such a -conclusion may appear dreadful, and so it ought to be; but the -grand question is, Is it true? Let every man ask himself, -“Have I kept, or do I keep, <span class='fss'>ALL</span> God’s commandments?” If -he can say, Yes: then, according to the law of Moses, he is -righteous, and has the promise of life. But if he must say, -<a id='Page_259'></a>No: then he is unrighteous, and the curse of God is hanging -over him, ready to descend and destroy him:—</p> - -<p class='c005'>ארור אשר לא יקים את דברי התורה הזאת לעשות -אותם ואמר כל העם אמן ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“Cursed be he that confirmeth not all the words of this law -to do them. And all the people shall say, Amen.” (Deut. -xxvii. 26.) Moses holds out no nope, except to those who yield -a perfect and universal obedience.</p> - -<p class='c005'>But some one will reply, if this be true, then no man can be -accounted righteous, on account of his deeds:—</p> - -<p class='c005'>כי אדם אין צדיק בארץ אשר יעשה טוב ולא -יחטא ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“For there is not a just man upon earth, that doeth good, -and sinneth not.” (Eccles. vii. 20.) And this is the truth, no -man can be justified because of his good works. We must -renounce all our pride, and appear at the bar of God as miserable -sinners, looking only for mercy, and not for payment. -We must come to the same conclusion as Job did—</p> - -<p class='c005'>אמנם ידעת כי כן ומה יצדק אנוש עם אל , אם -יחפוץ לריב עמו לא יעננו אחת מני אלף ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“I know it is so of a truth: but how should man be just -with God? If he will contend with him, he cannot answer -him one of a thousand.” (Job ix. 2, 3.) Job had no idea that -his merits exceeded his sins, but knew well that if God entered -into judgment with him, he could not answer respecting even -the thousandth part of his transgressions. David, the man -after God’s own heart, had the same conviction, and had therefore, -no wish that his merits should be weighed with his sins. -His prayer was—</p> - -<p class='c005'>אל תבוא במשפט את עבדך כי לא יצדק לפניך -כל חי ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“Enter not into judgment with thy servant: for in thy sight -shall no man living be justified.” (Ps. cxliii. 2.) And when -Daniel prayed, he did not venture to prefer his petitions on -the score of merits, or to expect an answer as the reward -of righteousness, but cast himself simply on the mercy of God:</p> - -<p class='c005'>כי לא על צדקותינו אנחנו מפילים תחנונינו לפניך -כי על רחמיך הרבים ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“For we do not present our supplications before thee for our -righteousnesses, but for thy great mercies.” (Dan. ix. 18.) How, -then, can the modern Jews hope to stand at the tribunal of -<a id='Page_260'></a>a heart-searching God, and not only escape condemnation, -but obtain a reward because their merits exceed their sins? -Are they more pure than Job, more holy than David, more -righteous than Daniel? or were those three most holy men -mistaken, or ignorant of the way of salvation? Certain it is -that there must be some mistake somewhere. Either the -rabbies were right, and then Job, David, and Daniel were -mistaken, or these three men were right, and then the rabbies -are fearfully and awfully mistaken. If the law requires perfect -obedience, and denounces a curse against all disobedience, then -the former were right in deprecating God’s judgment, and -casting themselves upon his mercy. But if the law requires -only that a man’s merits should exceed his sins, and says that -all deficiencies can be made up by almsgiving and good works -in the ten days between the New Year and the Day of Atonement, -then they were wrong. Job was utterly mistaken when -he said, “How should man be just with God?” for the rabbies -say, Only be careful for the first ten days of the year, and you -will be just and sealed unto life. David was utterly mistaken -when he said, “In thy sight shall no man living be justified;” -for the rabbies say that a man’s merits may exceed his sins, and -that such an one is just before God. Daniel was mistaken in -not offering his prayers on the score of righteousness, but -on the plea of mercy. But still, notwithstanding the certainty -with which the rabbies speak, we would rather trust our own -salvation to the word of Moses, of Ezekiel, of Job, David, and -Daniel, than to that of the rabbies. We would rather kneel as -supplicants, than claim the reward of our deeds with the -rabbies.</p> - -<p class='c005'>But we cannot pass this subject without observing here also -how the religion of the rabbies exhibits itself at every turn as -a religion for the rich and the learned, rather than for the poor -and laborious class of mankind. It teaches that almsgiving -and good works, at a certain season of the year, will turn the -wicked into righteous men, and transform the sinner into -the saint. So the rich sinner puts his hand into his pocket, -and lavishes his gold to the poor and needy, and buys what is -wanting to make up his deficit of merit. The learned man sets -to work at his books; for the oral law says:—</p> - -<p class='c005'>אין לך מצוה בכל המצוות כולן שהיא שקולה -כנגד תלמוד תורה , אלא תלמוד תורה כנגד כל -המצוות כולן שהתלמוד מביא לידי מעשה לפיכך -התלמוד קודם למעשה בכל מקום ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“Amongst all the commandments, there is not one that -is equivalent to the study of the law. Whereas the study -of the law is equivalent to all the commandments: for study -<a id='Page_261'></a>leads to practice. Therefore, study always goes before good -deeds.” (Hilchoth Talmud Torah.) The one with his money, -therefore, and the other with his books, can effect a balance in -his favour; but what is to become of the poor labouring classes, -who have no money to buy righteousness, and no time for study, -which is equivalent to all the other commandments? For -them to turn the balance is impossible—they have not the -means; and therefore, according to the oral law, they stand -but a poor chance when the final account comes to be made -up. This of itself would prove that the doctrine of the oral -law cannot be true. God is a righteous judge, and he accepts -no man’s money and no man’s learning. He takes no bribes, -and will not wrest the judgment of the poor. The true mode, -therefore, of appearing just before God, is some other than -that pointed out by the oral law, and one according to which -the poor sinner will stand on equal terms with his rich -brother.</p> - -<p class='c005'>There is, however, another point to which we wish to direct -attention. The oral law says, if a man’s merits exceed his sins, -he is just and sealed unto life; but if his sins exceed his merits, -then he is sealed unto death: what then are we to think of all -who die in each succeeding year? It is plain that they have -not been sealed unto life, for then they could not have -died. Then they were sealed unto death; then we must -conclude that their sins exceed their merits; and as all die, -then we must conclude, further, that all die in their sins—that -their sins are more than their merits; and so, after all, this -rabbinical doctrine comes to nothing. It tells a man that by -having his merits greater than his sins, he is righteous, and -will be sealed unto life; and yet, after all his almsgiving -and good works, he dies like other men, and it turns out -that he is not a just man, nor even one of the intermediate -class, but one of the wicked. How can any rational man -put his faith in such a system, which promises a great deal, -but does not keep its promise? Above all, how can he trust -his soul’s everlasting welfare upon a promise which each -successive year proves to be false? Many an one has passed -into eternity already before the New Year, and of all such the -oral law says they have died in their sins. Many more may pass -into eternity between the New Year and the Day of Atonement. -If the oral law be true, all such belong to the decidedly -wicked who did not deserve the ten days’ grace. Their -friends and relations must, therefore, stamp their memory -with the brand of the impenitently wicked, or if they entertain a -hope that such persons have not died in their sins, they must -declare of the oral law that it is false. If they would have -a promise that will not and cannot deceive, let them take -up the law and the prophets. The reader of this paper is still -<a id='Page_262'></a>alive, but who can tell how soon his turn must come, and -come it will, and that soon in every case. What consolation, -then, will he have on his dying bed? Will he begin to -balance his account of merit and sin? Alas! there is no -use in that. If the oral law be true, it was balanced on the -last Day of Atonement, and the sins were found to outweigh -the merits, as his approaching death testifies. Where then -will he flee for refuge or for consolation? In the agony -and feebleness of a death-bed hour there is no time for doing -good works, and poverty may cut off the rabbinic hope of -purchasing salvation. In the oral law there is no hope. Can -he find it, then, in the law of Moses? That law requires -perfect and universal obedience, and pronounces the sinner -accursed. As an accursed sinner, then, he must stand at the -bar of God, unless there be some other way and some other -hope. When Jacob was on his death-bed he had another hope. -He could say—</p> - -<p class='c005'>לישועתך קויתי ה׳ ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“I have waited for thy salvation, O Lord.” (Gen. xlix. 18.) -Oh! let the reader seek this salvation in time, that when -his last hour comes, he may be as calm, as happy, and as -full of hope as his pious forefather. He died in a foreign land, -but he died happy, trusting not in his own righteousness, -but in the salvation of God. He had learned by experience -that man cannot deliver himself from mere temporal trouble, -but that even there God is his only refuge and his hope, and -still more so in the hour of death and the day of judgment. -But he had learned also to believe in המלאך הגואל the -Angel who had redeemed him from all evil, and was persuaded -that He would not forsake him in the great transition -from time to eternity. He had not put off the consideration of -salvation to the last. He could say, “I <i>have</i> waited for thy -salvation, O Lord,” and therefore when the awful moment -arrived, he could in perfect tranquillity gather his children -about him, and tell them of Shiloh who was to come, and -of the salvation which he had expected.</p> -<div class='chapter'> - <h2 id='chap34' class='c003'>No. XXXIV. <br /> NEW YEAR, CONTINUED.</h2> -</div> -<p class='c004'>All who believe in Divine Revelation look forward to a -great day, when the secrets of all hearts shall be revealed, and -<a id='Page_263'></a>a righteous sentence pronounced upon all the sons of men. -The most important thing in the world, then, for us to know is, -the way of acceptance with God, at that solemn hour. And if -men are bound as rational beings to examine the grounds of -their opinions and belief on other subjects, they must be -considered as altogether devoid of reason, who do not thoroughly -examine and weigh the doctrines which have been -taught them with regard to justification at the bar of God. -A mistake on other subjects may be endured, but a mistake -here is fatal and irreparable. What will be the horror of -those who find that they have through their own want of -consideration been trusting in a delusive hope, and have -rejected, wilfully rejected, that way of acceptance which God -has appointed. If there be any one point of difference between -Jews and Christians, which requires profound and -attentive consideration, it is this. We Christians believe that, -on this all-important point, the oral law is utterly mistaken, -and that all who trust their salvation to the hope which it -holds out, will find themselves awfully mistaken if Moses and -the prophets speak truth. We have endeavoured to show that -the hope of justification by merits is contrary to the Word -of God. But we shall now proceed to show that the oral law -by this doctrine contradicts itself, and that therefore it is most -unsafe to rest our salvation upon any of its assertions. In -that law, which teaches that if a man’s merits exceed his -sins, he is justified, we also find the following parable, intended -to explain God’s dealings in the judgment of the -New Year:—</p> - -<p class='c005'>משל למדינה שחייבת מס למלך ולא נתנה לו בא -אליה בחיל לגבותו , כשנתקרב אליה בי׳ פרסאות -יצאו גדולי המדינה לקראתו ואמרו לו אין לנו מה -ליתן לך הניח להם שליש , כיון שנתקרב יותר יצאו -בינוני העיר לקראתו הניח להם שליש השני , כשנתקרב -יותר יצאו כל בני העיר לקראתו הניח לחם הכל , -כך המלך זה הקב׳׳ה , בני המדינה אלו ישראל -שמסגלין עוונות כל השנה ערב ראש השנה הגדולים -מתענין ומוותר להם שליש עוונותיהם , בי׳ ימים -בינונים מתענין ומוותר להם שני שלישים , ביום -הכפורים הכל מתענין ומוותר להם הכל ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“A parable. There was a certain city, which owed tribute -to the king, but did not pay it, whereupon he came upon it -with an army to collect it. When he came within ten leagues -of it, the great men of the city went forth to meet him, and -said to him, We have nothing wherewith to pay thee, so he -forgave them one-third. When he approached nearer still, -<a id='Page_264'></a>the middle classes of the city went forth to meet him, and -he forgave them a second-third. When he approached still -nearer, all the population of the city went forth to meet him, -and he forgave them all. The King here is the Holy One, -blessed be He. The inhabitants of the city are Israel, who -accumulate sins all the year. On the eve of the New Year, -the great men fast, and one-third of their sins is remitted to -them. In the ten days, the intermediate class fast, and two-thirds -are remitted. On the Day of Atonement all fast, and -all is remitted to them.” (Orach Chaiim, 581.) Now this -representation is quite at variance with the doctrine that those -are justified whose merits exceed their sins. This parable, in -the first place, represents all as in debt, and secondly, that they -have nothing to pay, and thirdly, that the King forgives them -freely and for nothing. Now this statement is directly contrary -to the notion of merit. If a man has more merits than -sins, and is on that score accounted just, he cannot be said to -be in debt, and he needs no remission. But if it be true of -the great men as well as the middle class, that they are in -debt and have nothing wherewith to pay, then it is certain -that they have no merits, and cannot be considered as just, -but as sinners. Merit and forgiveness are as essentially opposed -as payment and debt. The man who has paid his -creditor all his demands can have no debt, and so the man -who has kept God’s commands so as to have merit, needs not -forgiveness. But he who has nothing to pay, that is, he who -has no merits, must either be condemned, or he must have -a free forgiveness of all; and this the parable says is the -case of Israel. They have nothing to pay, and God forgives -them all. Merit is therefore altogether out of the question, -and if this statement be true, then the doctrine of justification -by merits is false, and therefore the oral law contradicts itself. -How then can the Israelite trust his everlasting welfare -to a system at variance with itself?</p> - -<p class='c005'>The prayers for the New Year are equally decisive against -the doctrine of justification by merits. Out of many passages -which deny the existence of merit, and asserts the necessity of -a free forgiveness, we cite the following:—</p> - -<p class='c005'>קהלות ורבבות ואלפים , אשר לפנינו עברו חלופים , -ולא יכלו להצטדק היות חפים , הן שמים בעינו לא -זכו , וכל לגיוני שחק כפשתה דועכו , ונתעב ונאלח -מה יזכו , קובץ מרמה ומסתתר בעיניו , אם יאמר -בלבו מי יעידני לפניו , קורותיו ורהיטיו ועציו ואבניו , -טהור עינים ברע מראות , הצלל חטאינו בעמקי -מחבואות , ועשה עמנו לטובה אות ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'><a id='Page_265'></a>“Thousands and ten thousands of congregations, which -have persecuted us and are vanished, were not able to justify -themselves in purity. Lo! the heavens are not pure in his -sight, and all the heavenly angels are as beaten flax: how -then can he that is filthy and abominable be pure? He -gathereth riches by deceit; and working in secret, he says -in his heart, Who can bear witness against me before him? -Even the beams, rafters, planks, and stones of his house. O -Thou who art too pure of sight to view evil, sink our sins in -the deepest recesses, and work the good sign for us.” (Prayers -for the New Year, p. 149.) Here is an express acknowledgment -that the congregations of old could not justify themselves -by merit, an assertion in the words of the Psalm, that all men -are filthy and abominable, and a prayer, not for payment of -deserts, but for forgiveness of sins. If this prayer contain the -sentiments of truth, and be offered in sincerity, then Israel -has no merits, and the doctrine, that any man is justified by -the superabundance of his merits, is a mere fiction. The man -who will venture to offer this prayer, and yet hope to be saved -by his good deeds, is a hypocrite, or is not right in his mind. -Here again, then, the oral law is inconsistent with itself: for -here it places the hope of salvation not in merit, but in the -free and undeserved mercy of God. It is the duty of every -Israelite, therefore, to ascertain which of the two ways is in -accordance with the declaration of Moses and the prophets. -It is impossible that they should both be true. The fact -appears to be, that the authors of the oral law, like all other -men, loved the honour and glory of personal righteousness, -and hoped that all those deeds, and fasts, and almsgiving, -which were so lovely in their own eyes, and gained them so -much credit amongst men, would also be duly acknowledged -at the bar of God’s judgment. At the same time their conscience -was continually awakened and terrified by the plain -declarations of the Word of God, and therefore, to quiet -their conscience, they were driven even against their wills -to acknowledge their guilt, and to seek for a quietus. This -they partly found in the hope of free mercy, but partly in -inventions of their own. They placed no small dependence -upon fasting and almsgiving, but their troubled conscience -was not satisfied with these, and they have therefore fled -for refuge to observances the most trivial, and hopes the -most childish. By blowing the horn the whole month of -Elul, they hope to deceive Satan, so that he may not know -which is the first day of the new year, and may not be able -to accuse them:—</p> - -<p class='c005'>לכן התקינו חז׳׳ל שיהיו הוקעין בר׳׳ח אלול בכל -שנה ושנה וכל החודש כדי להזהיר את ישראל שיעשו -<a id='Page_266'></a>תשובה שנאמר אם יתקע בשופר וגו׳ וכדי לערבב -השטן ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“Therefore our wise men of blessed memory have ordained -that the horn should be blown on the first day of the month -of Elul every year, and during the whole month, to warn -Israel to repent, as it is said, ‘Shall a trumpet be blown in -the city, and the people not be afraid?’ (Amos iii. 6), and -also to confuse Satan.” How can any man of understanding -believe that a law teaching such absurdity is from God? -We are told in Zechariah and Job, that Satan does accuse -the people of God: but how can any one, who has been -taught by the Word of God, imagine that Satan is to be -deceived by blowing the horn at a wrong time, or that even -if he did not accuse at all, that God is ignorant of man’s -sins, or that he will judge unjustly unless he is reminded -by Satan? In accusing sinners, Satan gratifies his own -malignity, but his accusation is not wanted at the bar of -God to convict man of sin. When men appear there they -will be seen as they are. All their transgressions will be -as visible as is now their bodily presence. The eye of God -will penetrate every secret recess of the soul, and the conscience -itself will testify and condemn the impenitent. It -is therefore most absurd and irrational to hope to escape by -confounding the accuser; and it is to us serious matter of -astonishment how such an absurdity could have been tolerated -for so many centuries, and how a people of such intellect as -the Jews confessedly are, should remain the disciples of such -senseless superstition.</p> - -<p class='c005'>But the rabbies expect not only to confound Satan by -blowing the horn at the wrong time, but to obtain God’s -mercy by blowing it at the right time. Thus we are told -in Vaijikra Rabbah—</p> - -<p class='c005'>בשעה שישראל נוטלין את שופריהן ותוקעין לפני -הקב׳׳ה עומד מכסא הדין ויושב בכסא רחמים דכתיב -ה׳ בקול שופר ומתמלא עליהם רחמים ומרחם עליהם -והופך עליהם מדת הדין לרחמים אימתי בחודש -השביעי ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“At the hour in which Israel take their horns, and sound -before the Holy One, blessed be He, He rises from the throne -of judgment and sits on the throne of mercy, as it is written, -‘The Lord, with the sound of the trumpet’ (Ps. xlvii. 5); and -he is filled with mercy towards them, and has pity upon them, -and changes the attribute of judgment which was against -them into mercy. When does this happen? In the seventh -month.” (Vaijikra Rabbah, sect. 29.) This then is one of -<a id='Page_267'></a>the means whereby the rabbies try to quiet a guilty conscience. -If true, it would no doubt be very convenient for -a man who has spent the year in iniquity, and who has not -repented, and does not intend to repent, to get rid of all his -sins by blowing a horn on the new year, and thus turning -God’s wrath into mercy. But it is a statement altogether -opposed to the Word of God, and derogatory to his character -for mercy and for justice. No mere ceremonial act can atone -for sin, neither does God need the blowing of a horn to remind -him of mercy. To suppose, that such a miserable ceremony -can stop God in his course of justice, and make him reverse -his determinations, is to deprive him of all the attributes of -Deity, and to represent him as exceeding in imbecility the -weakest of all the sons of men that ever occupied the -judgment-seat. And yet this most absurd and unscriptural -hope is not merely a rabbinic legend, or an allegory, but is -in the prayers of the synagogue gravely inserted as a devout -petition:—</p> - -<p class='c005'>תחנה לתוקע לפני התקיעה , יהי רצון מלפניך יי -אלהי ואלהי אבותי אלהי השמים ואלהי הארץ אלהי -אברהם אלהי יצחק ואלהי יעקב האל הגדול הגבור -והנורא שתשלח לי המלאכים הקדושים והטהורים -נאמנים משרתים ונאמנים בשליחותם חפצים ורוצים -לזכות את ישראל ואת המלאך הגדול פצפציה הממונה -להוציא זכיותיהן של ישראל בעת שהם תוקעין בשופר -ואת המלאך הגדול תשבש הממונה להשמיע זכיותיהן -של ישראל ולהבעית השטן בתקיעתם ואת השרים -הגדולים הממונים על השופר אנקתם פסתם ומלאכים -הגדולים הדרניאל וסנדלפון הממונים על תקיעתנו -המעלים תקיעתנו לפני כסא כבודך ואת המלאך -שמשיאל הממונה על התרועה ואת המלאך פרסטא -הממונה על קשר׳׳ק להיותם מזומנים בשליחותם -להעלות תקיעתנו לפני הפרוכת ולפני כסא כבודך -והמלא על עמך ישראל ברחמים ותכנס להם לפנים -משורת הדין ותתנהג עם בניך במדת רחמים ותעלה -תקיעתנּו לפני כסא כבודך וכו׳ ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>The following prayer is said by the person who sounds -the cornet, before he begins:—“May it be acceptable in thy -presence, O Lord, my God, and the God of my fathers, the -God of heaven, and the God of the earth; the God of Abraham, -the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob; the great God, mighty -and tremendous; to send me the holy and pure angels, who -are faithful ministers, and faithful in their message; and who -<a id='Page_268'></a>are desirous and willing to justify Israel; and also the great -angel Patzpatziah, who is appointed to present the merits of -Israel, when they sound the cornet this day; and likewise the -great angel Tashbach, who is appointed to declare the merits -of Israel, and confound Satan with their sound of the cornet; -and the great princes, who are appointed over the cornet, -Enkatham and Pastam, and the great angels, Hadarniel and -Sandalphon, who are appointed over our sounding, who introduce -our sounding before the throne of thy glory; and also -the angel Shamshiel, who is appointed over the joyful sound; -and the angel Prasta, who is appointed to superintend קש׳׳רק -that they may all be expeditious in their errand; to introduce -our soundings before the veil, and before the throne of thy -glory; and mayest thou be filed with mercy over thy people -Israel; and lead us within the temperate line of strict justice; -and conduct thyself towards thy children, with the attribute of -mercy, and suffer our soundings to ascend before the throne of -thy glory.” (Prayers for the New Year, p. 81.) Here, then, -we have, in the language of solemn prayer, the very same -monstrous doctrine, that the sounding of the cornet on the new -year can change God’s determinations; and we have it in even -a more objectionable form, for it is connected with other most -unscriptural superstitions. This prayer asserts what is nowhere -found in Holy Scripture, that there is a certain number of angels -whose express office it is to superintend the blowing of the -horn, and to bear the soundings thereof before the throne of -God, and at the same time to advocate their merits. In the -first place, this is a pure invention, and a fond superstition. In -the Word of God, not one word is mentioned of anything of -the kind. We should be sorry to treat any religious tenet of -any people, but especially of the Jews, with ridicule, but we -cannot help asking the good sense of every reader, whether the -representation here given is not in the highest degree ridiculous? -The angels are to be sent down from heaven. For -what purpose? Is it to warn men of the impending wrath of -God, or to announce the coming redemption of Israel, or to -execute God’s judgments? No, but to attend to the blowing -of a ram’s horn, and to carry up the sounds before the throne -of God, that they may turn his attribute of judgment into -that of mercy. Is it necessary, then, for the angels to interfere -in this matter? cannot God hear the sounding of the cornet, -unless it be conveyed to him by angels? or do the movings of -his compassion depend upon the blowing of a cornet? What -would Elijah have said to such doctrine as this? When the -priests of Baal only cried aloud, he mocked them, and said, -“Cry aloud, for he is a God; either he is talking, or he is -pursuing, or he is on a journey, or peradventure he sleepeth, -and must be awaked.” (1 Kings xviii. 27.) And yet the -<a id='Page_269'></a>priests of Baal were not sounding a cornet, that they might -rouse their pretended Deity to compassion. If we had not read -this prayer with our own eyes, we could scarcely have believed -that even Rabbinism itself could have fallen into such manifest -absurdity. But the subject is far too grave to be treated with -levity. Upon this absurdity, the rabbies teach Israel to rest -their hope of salvation. Conscious that the hope of justification -by merit is fallacious, and yet unwilling to give up what is so -palatable to the pride of man, they seek about to find something -that will compensate for the deficiency, and in the eagerness -of desperation grasp at any thing. The trivial ceremony of -blowing the cornet was therefore turned into a mystery, and a -suitable apparatus of angels invented to meet the apprehensions -of the superstitious and unenlightened, and in some degree to -take off the apparent irrationality of believing that an act so -insignificant should effect a change so great in the purposes of -the Almighty. But whatever was the motive or the origin of -this fable, there it now stands in the prayers of the synagogue, -to lead the ignorant away from the true means of justification, -and the true ideas of God’s justice and God’s judgment. Let -no man say it is an innocent error. No error is innocent. -Error in every form is pernicious; in religion it is deadly. And -the most mischievous of all religious errors are those which -confirm men in the idea, that external ceremonies will atone -for moral delinquencies; and this is precisely the tendency of -the fable here noticed. An ignorant and superstitious man, -and there are many such in every religion, finds in his Prayer-book -that the blowing of the cornet can change the attribute of -judgment into the attribute of mercy: he believes it to be true, -not only because of the book where he finds it, but because -every man is glad to hear of a way of acceptance, which will -save the trouble of repentance and thorough change of heart -and life. He therefore perseveres through the year in the -practice of those things which his heart condemns, trusting that -the blowing of the cornet will set all straight, and thus he goes -on from year to year until death overtakes him hardened and -impenitent, and he finds too late at the bar of God, that he -has been in fatal error. Upon whom then will the guilt of -such person’s destruction be charged? Not only upon those -who invented the falsehood, but on those also who sanction it, -who leave it in the Prayer-book, and thus practically teach the -people superstition. Every Jew who attends the worship of -the synagogue is responsible in his station and calling, for the -error and falsehood which its prayers propagate amongst the -people. But at all events every person who disbelieves this -story of the angels carrying up the sounding of the cornet, must -grant that a system teaching such a method of salvation is very -unsafe; and that, as it grossly errs in this one article it is -<a id='Page_270'></a>suspicious in all. But besides the absurdity of this doctrine, -we must notice its inconsistency. The Prayer-book states that -the blowing of the cornet is necessary to the procuring of -pardon; it therefore implies that pardon is necessary, and -therefore that Israel is guilty; what, then, becomes of merits? -If Israel can be justified by merits, the blowing of the cornet is -superfluous; for, in that case, all they want is justice. Where -a man can claim salvation because of all his good deeds, he need -not fear the attribute of righteousness, מדת הדין, and does -not want the attribute of mercy. But the moment that he -acknowledges his need of forgiveness, he confesses that he has no -merits. If, therefore, the Prayer-book be right in acknowledging -sin and praying for pardon, the oral law is wrong in -teaching justification by merits. One contradicts the other, -and therefore they cannot both be from God; and the man who -believes both is guilty of renouncing his reason. But the man -who trusts his salvation to a system so inconsistent with itself, -is utterly devoid of wisdom. He is hazarding his eternal -welfare on the testimony of a witness who contradicts himself; -who says at one time, that a man can be saved by his merits, -and at another time that he has no merits that can stand the -scrutiny of God’s righteous judgment.</p> -<div class='chapter'> - <h2 id='chap35' class='c003'>No. XXXV. <br /> JUSTIFICATION.</h2> -</div> -<p class='c004'>The doctrine of justification by merits is agreeable, and -seems very reasonable, so long as a man can theorize, that is, so -long as he is not in earnest. But so soon as the prospect -of death, or any other similar circumstance, compels him to -realize the act of Divine judgment upon himself, it loses all its -beauty and plausibility; the conscience is unsatisfied by its consolations, -and reason pronounces that the hope built on merits -is insecure. A solemn and earnest review of our past years soon -convinces, that our good deeds are but few, that our best -deeds are defiled by mixed motives; and, above all, that the -love of God has not been the heart’s dominant principle, and -that, therefore, some other mode of justification is absolutely -necessary. The truth of this statement is confirmed by the -inconsistency of the oral law with itself. The great principle -of the oral law is, that the observance of any one of its -<a id='Page_271'></a>commands, purchases a certain quantity of merit, and that -an accumulation of these merits will, at last, constitute a -sufficiency; but when the solemn season of the New Year and -the Day of Atonement arrives, this sufficiency is found to be -insufficient, and the alarmed conscience eagerly looks round to -find something, that may compensate for the deficiency of -merit. We have already noticed some of the rabbinic inventions -for this purpose, and now proceed to consider another, -and that is, <i>the merit of their progenitors</i>. One of the main -props of rabbinic hope is the righteousness of their forefathers, -as may be seen almost on every page of the Jewish Prayer-book, -and as is apparent in the following extracts:—</p> - -<p class='c005'>קשת רוח אשר הועקרה , רופאה לקץ תשעים -כנתבקרה , שלחה פאורות ולא שקרה , תפן בנצרים -אשר חוללו כהיום , ושלש עקרות שהפקדו בזה יום , -תצדיק בצדקתם מיחליך איום ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“She who was sorrowful when barren, was made to rejoice -with good tidings when ninety years of age; she then sent -forth shoots that failed not. Regard the merit of your ancestors -who were born on this day, and the three barren ones, -who were visited on this day: justify, through their righteousness, -those who hope in thee, O Thou, who art tremendous.” -(Levi’s Prayer for the New Year, p. 61.)</p> - -<p class='c005'>And again—</p> - -<p class='c005'>את חיל יום פקודה , באימיו כל לחום לשקדה , -גשים בו ברך ליקודה , דעם לישר כעל מוקדה , -היוצר יחד כסל נשפט , ושוע ודל בפלוס יושפט , -זכר לא יעשה משפט , חין ערכו יזכר במשפט , טרם -כל מפעל חצב , יזם במחשבת צור חוצב , כאחור -וקדם בתוך נחצב , ליהב עליו כל המחצב , מנתו -כהיום כח דושנה , נצר להחניט לתשעים שנה , סוימה -אות היות לשושנה , עבור לפניו בזה ראש השנה , -פולצו פרחיה בזה יום , צגתם פני כס איום , קול -דבובם ירחישו כהיום , רוגשים להריע למצוא פדיום , -שעונים עליה בה להפקדה , שואגים בלהק דלתות -לשקדה , תמוכים בדשן שה עקידה , תשר אשר בו -נפקדה ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“The fearful day of visitation is come, its dread goads -all flesh; they present themselves with bended knees; O may -their repentance be accounted as a burnt-offering. Thou who -hast formed them judgest all their thoughts: the rich and -poor are all weighed in the balance; <i>remember the merit of</i> -<a id='Page_272'></a>him who said, ‘Shall he not do justice?’ O, remember the -tenor of his prayer in judgment. Ere ought was created didst -thou purpose to ordain him the rock from whence the nation -was to spring; he was as the centre, the support of all -creatures. His wife was on this day endued with youth, to -cause the branch to put forth at ninety years of age; she was -appointed as a sign to those who are likened to the rose, who -are to pass before thee in judgment on this New Year’s-day. -Her posterity tremble this day; when they stand before -thy terrible throne; they utter the voice of prayer this day; -they assemble to sound the cornet, that they may obtain -redemption. <i>They depend on her merit</i> to be visited like -her; their assemblies cry aloud and hasten to enter into -thy doors. They depend on the ashes of him who was bound -as a lamb,<a id='r30' /><a href='#f30' class='c006'><sup>[30]</sup></a> with whom she was visited in the month Tishri.” -(Ibid., p. 57.) The offering of Isaac is regarded as particularly -meritorious, and constantly urged as a plea for merit. Thus—</p> - -<p class='c005'>והסתכל באפרו של יצחק הצבור על גבי המזבח -וזכור לנו עקדתו היום לזרעו של יצחק ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“Attentively view the ashes of Isaac, heaped upon the -altar;<a id='r31' /><a href='#f31' class='c006'><sup>[31]</sup></a> and remember this day unto his seed, his being bound -on the altar.” (Ibid., p. 81.) And again—</p> - -<p class='c005'>סמוכים בצדקת אב היה אחד , נשענים בסבך יחיד -ומיוחד , מובטחים בתם וביושר אב אחד ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“They depend on the righteousness of the first patriarch, -and rest on the merit of the only peculiar Son, and are secure -in the perfection and rectitude of the father of the nation.” -(Ibid., p. 105.)</p> - -<p class='c005'>These passages show plainly that, after all, the rabbies felt -their own doctrine of justification by merits very unsafe -ground on which to build their hope of salvation; and that -they were glad to flee to merits more adequate, which they -hoped to find in the righteousness of their ancestors. The -modern Jews, who still adopt these prayers, profess to entertain -the same hope, and we therefore proceed to inquire, -whether it be built on a better foundation than that which -they are compelled to relinquish. We think that it is not; for, -in the first place, the saints of old, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, -though we revere them as pious and holy men, were after all -only sinful men like ourselves. They did not, and could not, -save themselves by their own righteousness, and if they did not -save themselves, it is folly to think that they can save us. -<a id='Page_273'></a>Abraham, though by the grace of God, the father of the faithful, -was yet in himself so weak in faith, and so distrustful in the -goodness and mercy of God, as to endeavour to save himself -from the Egyptians by means of a deliberate falsehood. -Sarah had so little faith as to laugh within herself at the -promise of God, and then to defend herself by a lie. Isaac -was guilty of similar conduct, and Jacob’s sin in deceiving his -brother plainly shows, that he also was a poor sinful creature. -Where then are their superabundant merits, whereby they -are to justify all their posterity? The Word of God says -expressly,—</p> - -<p class='c005'>אח לא פדה יפדה איש לא יתן לאלהים כפרו ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“No man can by any means redeem his brother, nor give to -God a ransom for him.” (Ps. xlix. 8.) How then are these -three men to redeem all their posterity? If they have got -merits sufficient to compensate for the unrighteousness of their -children, then they have a ransom; and then the Word of God, -which says that no man has a ransom, is not true. But if the -words of the Psalm be true,—and he is no Jew who thinks -them false,—then the patriarchs have no superabundant merits, -and no ransom to offer for their children, and then the hope -built on their righteousness is deceitful, and those that lean on -it will find themselves mistaken in the hour of judgment. Nay, -more, they will find themselves accursed for departing from -the Lord. He that trusts in the righteousness of Abraham, -Isaac, and Jacob, to deliver him from the wrath to come, is -evidently trusting in man, and making flesh his arm. If the -merits of the patriarchs can save their children from the wrath -of God, then God is not the Saviour of Israel, but the patriarchs -are Israel’s redeemers, and poor mortal men are their -hope and their trust: but the Prophet says,—</p> - -<p class='c005'>ארור הגבר אשר יבטח באדם ושם בשר זרועו ומן -ה׳ יסור לבו ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“Cursed be the man that trusteth in man, and maketh flesh -his arm, and whose heart departeth from the Lord.” (Jer. -xvii. 5.) So far, then, from being secure by trusting in the -righteousness of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, this trust increases -the sinner’s guilt, and draws down upon him a double curse. -But it has pleased God himself to argue this question at large -with the Jews, to suppose the case of a righteous father who -has an unrighteous son, and to declare that the son cannot be -saved by the righteousness of the father. In the Prophet -Ezekiel, God says, “If a man be just, and do that which is -lawful and right—he is just, he shall surely live, saith the -Lord God. If he beget a son that is a robber, a shedder of -<a id='Page_274'></a>blood, and that doeth the like to any of these things, and that -doeth not any of those duties, but even hath eaten upon the -mountains, and defileth his neighbour’s wife, hath oppressed the -poor and needy, hath spoiled by violence, hath not restored the -pledge, and hath lifted up his eyes to the idols, hath committed -abomination, hath given forth upon usury, and hath -taken increase: shall he then live? he shall not live: he hath -done all these abominations: he shall surely die; his blood -shall be upon him.” (Ezek. xviii. 5-13.) Here God sets the -matter at rest, and decides that the righteousness of a father -is of no use to an unrighteous son, and cannot deliver him from -the punishment due to his evil deeds. The doctrine, then, of -justification by the merits of ancestors, is directly opposed to -the plain declaration of God himself, and, therefore, in this case -also the Jewish prayers and the oral law teach error, and -seduce the Jews to their everlasting destruction, by teaching -them to trust in that which can do them no good. It is an -awful and melancholy spectacle to see God’s ancient people -thus misled. At this season of the year, the devout amongst -them endeavour to turn to God, fast and pray, and yet neither -the one nor the other is accepted, because they put their trust -in the merits of men, and their heart is turned away from God -their Saviour. The prayers of the synagogue, instead of -drawing down a blessing, only help to accumulate wrath, by -seducing them from the Redeemer of Israel to refuges of lies. -And hence it happens that all the fasts and the prayers of -Israel for these seventeen centuries have been disregarded by -God, and that Israel still continues in captivity. But as every -lie and every error is built upon some truth as its foundation, -it will be well to inquire what truth it was that gave rise to -this error of justification by the merits of ancestors? The principle -is <i>that the guilty may be saved by the merits of another -person, who is righteous</i>: how, then, did this principle become -current among the Jews? It was certainly not the invention of -human reason, for reason can discover no necessary connexion -between the merits of one righteous man and the pardon of -another who is guilty. The principle does not hold in the ordinary -judicial proceedings of this world: a robber or a murderer is -not and cannot be pardoned because another member of the community, -or of his family, is a good and righteous man. We must -therefore look elsewhere for the origin of the principle, and we -find it in the revealed will of God. We see it in the appointment -of sacrifice and atonement, according to which a guilty -man was pardoned by the suffering of an innocent animal. -Here is at once the principle of substitution of the innocent for -the guilty; and human reason, when it once has the substratum, -can easily proceed to erect the superstructure. In the present -case it naturally argued, if the death of one of the brute -<a id='Page_275'></a>creation could effect so much, how much more would the merits -of a righteous man avail, if such an one could be found? The -error, then, is not in the principle, but in its application. -According to the Scripture, it is true that the innocent may be -substituted for the guilty; but the rabbies were wrong in -applying this truth to the case of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and -other men, who were only sinners as themselves. The Word -of God, which gave the principle, also directs us to the right -application. It tells us of one for whose righteousness’ sake -the Lord will forgive sin:—</p> - -<p class='c005'>ה׳ חפץ למען צדקו יגדיל תורה ויאדיר ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“The Lord is well pleased for his righteousness’ sake; he -will magnify the law and make it honourable.” (Isa. xlii. 21.) -Who, then, is this person? The preceding verses tell us that -it is the servant of the Lord. Who, then, is the servant of the -Lord? Kimchi says, on this verse, that the servant of the -Lord is the prophet; but this cannot possibly be true, for the -prophet was not righteous, but a sinner, as he himself tells us -in the sixth chapter—“I am a man of unclean lips.” The -servant mentioned in the nineteenth verse is the same person -as he who is called “My servant,” in the first verse of the -chapter—“Behold my servant, whom I uphold, mine elect, in -whom my soul delighteth: I have put my spirit upon him: he -shall bring forth judgment to the Gentiles.” But here Kimchi -says,—</p> - -<p class='c005'>זה הוא מלך המשיח כמו שפירשנו ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“This is the King Messiah, as we have interpreted.” If -then, in the first verse, “The servant of the Lord” means the -Messiah, it must mean the same through the chapter, and the -Messiah is the person for whose righteousness’ sake the Lord -is well pleased.</p> - -<p class='c005'>This same prophet tells us again, concerning this servant,—</p> - -<p class='c005'>בדעתו יצדיק צדיק עבדי לרבים ועונותם הוא יסבול ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“By his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; -for he shall bear their iniquities.” (Isa. liii. 11.) That the -Messiah is here intended no Jew can doubt, who uses the -Synagogue Prayers; for on the Day of Atonement and at the -Passover, this chapter is applied to him.<a id='r32' /><a href='#f32' class='c006'><sup>[32]</sup></a> Here, then, it is -expressly stated, that the Messiah, by his righteousness, shall -justify the guilty. And, therefore, the prophet calls the -Messiah יהוה צדקנו “<span class='sc'>The Lord our Righteousness</span>.” -(Jer. xxiii. 6.) That the Messiah is here intended there can -<a id='Page_276'></a>be no doubt, for he is described as “the righteous branch” of -David, and thus all the commentators explain it. In these -three passages, then, of the Word of God, sinners are pointed -to the Messiah as their hope and their righteousness. He is -God’s righteous servant, and his sufferings and his merits are -all-sufficient to do that which Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob -cannot do. The great mistake of the oral law is to point to -wrong persons, who have no righteousness, and almost totally -to pass by Him whom God hath set forth as the hope of -sinners. But it may here be asked, if Messiah be a man, how -can he have merits more than Abraham, or any other of the -children of Adam? The answer is, that though very man, he -is not a sinful man as we are, neither is he a mere man. If he -were a man like us, he could have no merits, and therefore -could not justify us any more than we could justify him. The -declaration, therefore, that he is the Lord’s righteous servant, -and that he is appointed for the justification of sinners, -necessarily implies that he is more than a man, and the title -given him by the Prophet Jeremiah puts this beyond doubt. -Jeremiah calls him by the incommunicable name of God יהוה , -concerning which God himself says:—</p> - -<p class='c005'>אני יהוה הוא שמי וכבודי לאחר לא אתן ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“I am the <span class='sc'>Lord</span>: that is my name, and my glory will I not -give to another.” (Isa. xlii. 8.) If then יהוה be the name of -God, then that Being who is called by that holy name must be -God. Some of the modern rabbies reply, that this holy name -is also given to the city of Jerusalem, both by Jeremiah and -Ezekiel. But even if we admit this, still this is no answer to -our argument. There is no fear that a city which, however -great or noble, is only a mass of stones and mortar, should be -mistaken for the living God, the Creator of the Universe. -When, therefore, the name of God is attributed to the city, -God’s honour is not given to it. But when we are told of the -Messiah, first that he is righteous, secondly that his righteousness -is so great as to justify the guilty, and lastly that his -name is יהוה, “<span class='sc'>The Lord</span> our Righteousness;” that is when -we see that the attributes and the name of God are attributed -to him, then we must conclude either that he is God, or that -God has done what he has declared that he would not do, and -given his honour to another. Righteousness is the attribute of -God alone, and so Daniel says:—</p> - -<p class='c005'>לך ה׳ הצדקה ולנו בושת הפנים כיום הזה ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“O Lord, righteousness belongeth unto thee, but unto us -confusion of faces, as at this day.” (Dan. ix. 7.) But, in the -above passages, righteousness is said to belong to the Messiah, -and that in such an immeasurable degree as to be sufficient to -<a id='Page_277'></a>justify the guilty sons of men; if then he have this attribute of -God, he must also have the nature of God. Again, another -prophet says, that of God men will say that they have righteousness -in him:—</p> - -<p class='c005'>אך בה׳ לי אמר צדקות ועוז ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“Surely shall one say, in the Lord have I righteousness and -strength. (Isa. xlv. 24.) And again:—</p> - -<p class='c005'>בה׳ יצדקו ויתהללו כל זרע ישראל ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“In the Lord shall all the seed of Israel be justified, and -shall glory.” Here it is said that God is our righteousness, -and that in Him we shall be justified; but in the passages -quoted above, it is said that the Messiah is our Righteousness, -and that in Him we shall be justified; the person then intended -in these different passages must be one and identical. Thus -the difficulties are all removed, and we have one in whose -righteousness we may safely trust, without making ourselves -liable to the curse denounced against those who put their trust -in sinful men. This is the Christian’s hope. Many Jews -think, and speak, and argue too, as if Christians had departed -from the living God and put their trust in a man; but that of -which they accuse us, they have done themselves. We have -not departed from the living God. Our hope and trust and -confidence is in יהוה צדקנו, The <span class='sc'>Lord</span> our Righteousness. -You have departed from the Lord, for in your prayers you say -that your hope and trust is in the merits of sinful men. Our -confidence is based upon the Word of God, and your hope is -taught you by the rabbies, who are fallible men. Your doctrine -is the doctrine of men, and your hope is in the merits of -men. You have, therefore, doubly departed from God, both -from his word and his righteousness. Our desire is that you -would return to Him, not to us,—to his word, and not to ours. -You have no merits more than we have. Your forefathers -have no more than either of us, and the blowing of a ram’s -horn is but a poor foundation on which to build our hope of -salvation; and yet these are the things on which your rabbies -have taught you to depend. Examine your prayers, and -compare them with the Word of God, and you will find, that -as long as the Jewish nation continues to offer such petitions, -their cry cannot be heard; and that if they wish for salvation, -they must forsake their arm of flesh, and return to Him who -was the hope of their fathers.</p> - -<p class='c005'>It was not by his own merits, nor the merits of his forefathers, -nor by any ceremonial observance, that Abraham was -justified, but by faith in the <span class='sc'>Lord</span>, יהוה, as it is written:—</p> - -<p class='c005'>והאמין בה׳ ויחשבה לו צדקה ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'><a id='Page_278'></a>“And he believed in the <span class='sc'>Lord</span>, and it was counted to him -for righteousness.” (Gen. xv. 6.) David the King did not -expect to be forgiven and justified on account of Abraham’s or -his other ancestors’ merits; neither did he say, Blessed is the -man who puts his trust in the righteousness of the patriarchs, -but—</p> - -<p class='c005'>אשרי נשוי פשע כסוי חטאה , אשרי אדם לא יחשב -ה׳ לו עון ואין ברוחו רמיה ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“Blessed is he whose transgression is forgiven, whose sin is -covered. Blessed is the man unto whom the <span class='sc'>Lord</span> imputeth -not iniquity, and in whose spirit there is no guile.” (Ps. xxxii. -1.) Every one, then, who desires to have this blessing, must -renounce all pretensions to merit, and acknowledge himself -a sinner needing forgiveness; and for this forgiveness he must -look not to anything that man had done, or can do, but to the -mercy of God in passing by transgression and sin. And -therefore the Prophet Habakkuk lays it down as a general -rule—</p> - -<p class='c005'>וצדיק באמונתו יהיה ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“The just shall live by his faith.” (Habak. ii. 4.) This is -the Scriptural mode of justification, and this the hope of -Abraham, David, and Habakkuk. Will the Jews, then, cast -in their lot with their father Abraham, and trust to that way -of justification in which he walked? or will they refuse to be -justified as he was, and still persist in following the inventions -of men, which are not even consistent with themselves? If -the oral law pointed out one way of justification, and then consistently -adhered to it, there would at least be an appearance of -reason in following its directions. But it points out two ways -as opposite as east and west. It says a man may be justified -by his own merits, and then it tells him he is to be justified by -the merits of another. Both cannot possibly be true. It is the -duty, then, of every man earnestly to inquire which is the true -way of Salvation, and to decide, whether he is to be saved -by his own merits, or the merits of his forefathers, or the -merits of “<span class='sc'>The Lord our Righteousness</span>.”</p> - -<div class='chapter'> - <a id='Page_279'></a> - <h2 id='chap36' class='c003'>No. XXXVI. <br /> DAY OF ATONEMENT.</h2> -</div> -<p class='c004'>The law and the prophets both abound with plain declarations -entirely subversive of the rabbinic doctrine of human -merit. But it has pleased God, besides these plain and -repeated declarations, to ordain a public and solemn act to -instruct even the most ignorant, and to convince the most -obstinate, that by human merit there is no salvation. He -commanded that, once every year, an atonement should be -made by the high-priest, for himself, and for all the people -of every class and degree.</p> - -<p class='c005'>וכפר את מקדש הקודש ואת אהל מועד ואת המזבח -יכפר ועל הכהנים ועל כל עם הקהל יכפר ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“And he shall make an atonement for the holy sanctuary, -and he shall make an atonement for the tabernacle of the congregation, -and for the altar; and he shall make an atonement -for the priests and for all the people of the congregation.” -(Levit. xvi. 33.) Now this ordinance implies, that all Israel, -the high-priest, the priests, and the people, are all sinners, all -need an atonement; and, therefore, utterly annihilates all idea of -justification by merits. If Israel could have been justified -either by their own merits, or by the merits of their forefathers, -the solemn act of annual atonement would have been superfluous. -But if this atonement be necessary,—and if it were -not, why did God appoint it—then there is no room for -the assertion of human merits. But the truth is, as we have -already seen, that the rabbies felt that their doctrine was -insufficient to quiet the awakened conscience, and gladly fled -to any refuge that they could discover; it is no wonder then -that they have clung with uncommon tenacity to the shadow -of that hope that was held out in the law of Moses. In spite -of their doctrine of merit, they are glad to have even the appearance -of a day of atonement to reconcile them to the Almighty. -It is true they have no high-priest and no sacrifice, yet so -convinced are they of the need of an atonement, that rather -than confess that they have absolutely none, they teach that -repentance and the day itself will atone for all sin:—</p> - -<p class='c005'>בזמן הזה שאין בית המקדש קיים ואין לנו מזבח -כפרה אין שם אלא תשובה , התשובה מכפרת על -כל העבירות אפילו רשע כל ימיו ועשה תשובה -באחרונה אין מזכירין לו שום דבר מרשעו , שנאמר -רשעת הרשע לא יכשל בה ביום שובו מרשעו , ועצמו -<a id='Page_280'></a>של יום הכפורים מכפר לשבים שנאמר כי ביום הזה -יכפר עליכם ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“At this time, when there is no temple, and we have no -altar, there is no atonement but repentance. Repentance -atones for all transgressions, yea, though a man be wicked all -his days, and repent at last, none of his wickedness is mentioned -to him, for it is said, ‘As for the wickedness of the -wicked, he shall not fall thereby, in the day that he turneth -from his wickedness.’ (Ezek. xxxiii. 12.) The Day of Atonement -itself also atones for them that repent, for it is said, ‘For -on that day he shall make an atonement for you.’ Lev. xvi. -30.” (Hilchoth T’shuvah, c. i. 2.) This is the last refuge of -Jewish hope, and we, therefore, propose to consider, whether -it is a refuge on which a reasonable man may hazard his hope -of salvation? No man of sense would hazard his life or his -property upon a statement, of which one part contradicted the -other; and such is the statement which we have just read. It -first tells us, that in this present time “There is no atonement -but repentance,” and that “Repentance atones for all transgressions;” -and yet, immediately after, it adds, that “The Day -of Atonement itself atones for them that repent.” Now the -latter assertion contradicts the former. If the Day of Atonement, -as is here asserted, be necessary to atone for the penitent, -then it is not true, that repentance atones for all sins. But if -repentance atones for all sins, then when a man repents, his sins -are forgiven, and then the Day of Atonement is not necessary. -There is here, therefore, a palpable contradiction, and it cannot -be safe to trust to a hope at variance with itself. But, secondly, -as the two parts of which this statement is composed, contradict -each other, so each of them is contrary to the law of Moses. -The first of them is, that “Repentance atones for all transgressions;” -but if so, then the atonement prescribed by Moses is -useless, in fact, it is no atonement at all. Moses says, that the -two goats were appointed by God for the atonement, but here -it is said, that repentance is, in itself, sufficient. If this be true, -if repentance can now atone for sins, without any sacrifice, why -did Moses appoint such an useless, and even cruel rite, as the -taking away the lives of poor innocent animals? If repentance -be sufficient now, it was sufficient always, and then it follows, -that God commanded what was useless. But if the appointment, -the slaying of one goat, and the sending the other, laden -with the sins of the people, into the wilderness, was necessary -formerly to procure forgiveness of sins, it must be equally -necessary now: unless the rabbies will take upon them to -assert, that God is an arbitrary and changeable master, who, to -forgive sins, at one time, requires what at another time he does -not require. That the slaying of one goat, and the sending -<a id='Page_281'></a>away of the other was once absolutely necessary, no man can -deny. Moses prescribes it so plainly, that if there be one thing -more plain than another, it is this, that when the Jews were in -their own land, repentance was not a sufficient atonement for -sins. Indeed, Rambam himself says:—</p> - -<p class='c005'>שעיר המשתלח מכפר על כל עבירות שבתורה -הקלות והחמורות בין שעבר בזדון בין שעבר בשגגה -בין שהודע לו בין שלא הודע לו הכל מתכפר בשעיר -המשתלח והוא שעשה תשובה אבל אם לא עשה -תשובה עין השעיר מכפר לו אלא על הקלות ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“The goat that was sent away atoned for all the transgressions -mentioned in the law, whether light or grave. -Whether a man transgressed presumptuously or ignorantly, -consciously or inconsciously, all was atoned for by the goat -that was sent away, if a man repented. But if a man did -not repent, then the goat atoned only for the light offences.” -(Hilchoth T’shuvah, ibid.) We do not agree with the whole -of this doctrine, but we cite it to show, that formerly repentance -was not a sufficient atonement for sins, but that -besides repentance, the goat, as appointed by God, was also -necessary. And we infer, that as an atonement, besides -repentance, was once necessary, it is necessary still, unless -the rabbies will affirm that God has changed his mind, and -abrogated the law of Moses. If repentance without any -atonement be now sufficient to procure forgiveness of sins, -then, beyond all doubt, the law of Moses is abrogated or -changed. If the law of Moses be not abrogated and not -changed, then repentance alone cannot atone for sins; and, -therefore, this assertion of the oral law is false.</p> - -<p class='c005'>But the oral law endeavours to prove its assertion, by a -citation from Ezekiel, “As for the wickedness of the wicked, -he shall not fall thereby in the day that he turneth from his -wickedness.” And it might be further urged, that Ezekiel -here mentions repentance only, and omits all notice of sacrifice -and the Day of Atonement. But the answer is easy. Either -Ezekiel meant, in this declaration, to repeal the law of Moses, -or he did not. If he meant to repeal the law of Moses, then -the law is repealed, and a new way of obtaining forgiveness, -not taught by Moses, has been introduced, and then -the whole Jewish nation is, on their own showing, palpably -in the wrong in adhering to that which is repealed. But -if he did not mean to repeal the law of Moses, then he made -this assertion with that implied restriction which the law of -Moses required; that is, he implied the necessity of sacrifice: -and then this passage does not prove what the oral law asserts. -<a id='Page_282'></a>But in every case, this first assertion is contrary to -the law of Moses.</p> - -<p class='c005'>It is, however, evident, that the rabbies themselves were -dissatisfied with their own assertion, for they immediately add -to it a second, “That the Day of Atonement itself atones for -them that repent, as it is said, ‘For on that day he shall make -an atonement for you.’” Notwithstanding the confidence of -their assertion about repentance, they did not feel easy without -some appearance of an atonement, and as they had no priest -and no victim, they say, that the day itself atones, and -endeavour to prove this assertion by a citation from Moses. -But, unfortunately, this citation entirely overthrows their -assertion. Moses does not say:—</p> - -<p class='c005'>היום הזה יכפר עליכם ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“This day will atone for you,” but he says:—</p> - -<p class='c005'>ביום הזה יכפר עליכם ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“On that day he (the priest) shall atone for you.” Moses -ascribes no virtue whatever to the day itself, but only to the -rites on that day to be observed, and the person by whom -they were performed. Moses prescribes, first, a high-priest; -Secondly, a goat, whose blood was brought into the Holy of -holies; and thirdly, a goat to be sent away: so that where -these three are wanting, nay, where any one of the three is -wanting, the conditions prescribed by Moses are not fulfilled, -and there is, therefore, no atonement. Without these three -things the day itself has no virtue, and is nothing different -from the commonest day in the year; and now, therefore, -as they are all wanting, Israel has no atonement. The -assertion about the day itself, is a mere invention of the -rabbies, the only value of which is to show how deeply they -felt the insufficiency of repentance, and the necessity of a real -atonement, in order to procure remission of sins.</p> - -<p class='c005'>But the rabbies always betray themselves by adding something -to make up for the deficiency, of which they are sensible. -We have seen this in their assertion about merits, -and so we find it here in their assertion about atonement. -They assert, that “The Day of Atonement itself atones for the -penitent,” but in spite of this, they have felt the need of -something more, which would a little better resemble real -sacrificial atonement; and hence has arisen the custom of -sacrificing a cock on the eve of that solemn day. The following -account of this custom is given in the קהלת שלמה, of which -we have before us an edition published at Breslau, so late as -the year 1830; and it is selected, partly on account of its recent -publication, and partly because the directions how to act are -given in Jewish-German, which shows that they are intended -<a id='Page_283'></a>even for the most illiterate, and that the custom is not confined -to a few speculators, but is general amongst the people:—</p> - -<p class='c005'>סדר כפרות ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>בני אדם יושבי חושך וצלמות אסירי עני וברזל , -יוציאם מחושך וצלמות ומוסרותיהם ינתק , אוילים -מדרך פשעם ומעונינותיהם יתענו , כל אוכל תתעב -נפשם ויגיעו עד שערי מות , ויזעקו אל יי בצר להם -ממצוקותיהם יושיעם , ישלח דברו וירפאם וימלט -משחיתותם , יודו ליי חסדו ונפלאותיו לבני אדם , אם -יש עליו מלאך מליץ אחד מני אלף להגיד לאד ישרו , -ויחננו ויאמר פדעהו מרדת שחת מצאתי כופר ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>זה חליפתי , זה תמורתי , זה כפרתי , זה התרנגול -ילך למיתה ואני עכנס ואלך לחיים טובים ארוכים -ולשלום ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“<span class='sc'>Order of the Atonements.</span>—On the eve of the Day of -Atonement, the custom is to make atonements. A cock is -taken for a man, and a hen for a woman; and for a pregnant -woman a hen and also a cock, on account of the child. The -father of the family first makes the atonement for himself, for -the high-priest first atoned for himself, then for his family, and -afterwards for all Israel.” The order is as follows:</p> - -<p class='c005'><i>He takes the cock in his hand and says these verses</i>:</p> - -<p class='c005'>“The children of men that sit in darkness and the shadow -of death, being bound in affliction and iron; he brought them -out of darkness and the shadow of death, and brake their -bands in sunder. Fools, because of their transgression, and -because of their iniquities, are afflicted. Their soul abhorreth -all manner of meat; and they draw near unto the gates of -death. Then they cry unto the Lord in their trouble; and he -<a id='Page_284'></a>saveth them out of their distresses. He sendeth his word, and -healeth them, and delivereth them from their destructions. O, -that men would praise the Lord for his goodness, and for his -wonderful works, to the children of men? (Psalm cvii.) If -there be for him an angel, an intercessor, one among a thousand, -to show unto man his uprightness, then he is gracious -unto him, and saith, Deliver him from going down to the -pit; I have found a ransom.” (Job xxxiii. 23.)</p> - -<p class='c005'><i>Whilst moving the atonement round his head, he says</i>,</p> - -<p class='c005'>“This is my substitute. This is my commutation. This -cock goeth to death, but may I be gathered and enter into a -long and happy life, and into peace.”</p> - -<p class='c005'>He then begins again at the words, “The children of men,” -and so he does three times.</p> - -<p class='c005'>Then follow the various alterations that are to be made, -when the atonement is made for a woman or another person, -&c., and is added:—</p> - -<p class='c005'>“As soon as one has performed the order of the atonement, -he should lay his hands on it, as the hands used to be laid on -the sacrifices, and immediately after give it to be slaughtered.” -This custom, extensively prevalent amongst the Jews, proves -abundantly the internal dissatisfaction of the Jewish mind -with their own doctrines, and the deeply-rooted conviction of -their heart, that without shedding of blood there is no remission -of sin. If they really believed that repentance, or the Day -of Atonement itself, or almsgiving, or merits, either their own -or their forefathers’, atoned for sin, they would never have -devised such a custom as this. But the spirit of the Mosaic -law has taken too deep a hold on the nation to suffer them to -rest satisfied with anything short of actual sacrifice; and as -they have no high-priest and no altar now, they make a sad -and desperate attempt to tranquillize the mind with this invention. -The custom then, proves, that the rabbinical doctrine -respecting the atoning power of repentance is not believed nor -heartily received, even by the Rabbinists themselves, how, -then, can a Jew hazard his salvation on a doctrine which is -contrary to the law of Moses, and which its professors do not -consider satisfactory? Will he rest upon the self-devised sacrifice -of a cock? God nowhere promises pardon to this observance; -and how can any man of sense be satisfied without a -sure promise of the unchanging and unchangeable Creator? -This trust is as unsatisfactory as any of those that we have -<a id='Page_285'></a>already considered. Every one of the rabbinic hopes has -proved unsafe on examination. Personal merit, the merit of -ancestors, the blowing of the ram’s horn, repentance, the -present observance of the Day of Atonement, the sacrifice of a -cock, all are either directly opposed to, or unwarranted by, the -Word of God. How, then, is a Jew to obtain pardon for his -sins? The custom which we have just considered, speaks the -sense of the Jewish nation upon this subject, and plainly -declares, that an atoning sacrifice is the only real hope. It -expresses, in the first place, the heartfelt conviction, that every -human being is guilty and needs an atonement. It prescribes -a victim for man, woman, and child, yea, even for the unborn -babe, thereby teaching that the nature of man is corrupt, and -that the hereditary guilt, even where there is no actual transgression, -must be washed away by the blood of atonement. -It expresses, further, the Jewish opinion as to the nature of -sacrifice, that the sins are laid upon the victim, and that the -victim is substituted for the guilty. Nothing can be plainer -than the prescribed formulary, “This is my substitute. This -is my commutation. This is my atonement.” It declares, -further, that he who offers an atonement for another, must -himself be free from guilt, for it requires the father of the -family first to atone for himself, and then for those of his -house. These are the recorded sentiments of the Jewish nation, -expressed not only in words, but embodied in a solemn -religious observance on the eve of their most sacred season. -By this act the Jews declare that an atonement by blood is -absolutely necessary. The law of Moses makes the same declaration, -by the appointment of all the rites for the Day of -Atonement. Is it, then, likely that the God of Israel would -leave his people without that which their hearts desire, and -his law declares to be necessary for salvation? Judaism says, -Yes. It affirms, by an act repeated every year, that sacrifice -is necessary, and yet confesses, in its solemn prayers, that they -have none. It asserts, therefore, that God has left them without -that which is indispensable to procure forgiveness. Christianity -presents a more merciful view of the Divine character. -It does, indeed, acknowledge the necessity of atonement, but -it presents a victim and a high-priest, whose one offering is -sufficient for the sins of the whole world. It says, that God -has left neither his own people nor the Gentiles without the -means of forgiveness, but sent his righteous servant, the -Messiah, to bear our sins in his own body upon the tree. The -Priest after the order of Melchisedek needed no atonement to -take away his own sins first, for he had none. Born in a -miraculous manner, by the power of God, his humanity inherited -nothing of the guilt of Adam, and as the Lord our -Righteousness, he could contract no taint of sin. He is, therefore, -<a id='Page_286'></a>every way qualified to make an atonement for us all. -Our Christian hope, therefore, is not in a cock, the sacrifice of -which God never commanded, but in that great atonement -which He appointed. Our faith, our hope, our trust, are all -built upon God’s promise, and cannot be better expressed than -in his most holy words:—</p> - -<p class='c005'>והוא מחולל מפשעינו מדכא מעונותינו מוסר -שלומנו עליו ובחברתו נרפא לנו ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was -bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace -was upon him, and with his stripes we are healed.”</p> - -<p class='c005'>It cannot, therefore, be said, that we Christians rest our -hope upon an invention of our own. Our hope rests, not -upon the dictates of our priests or rabbies, but upon the -words which God himself spake by the mouth of his prophet. -We can, therefore, confidently appeal to the Jews -themselves to decide, which of the two hopes is the most -reasonable. Both agreeing that an atonement, by the -shedding of blood, is necessary for the remission of sins, -Rabbinism tells its disciples to trust to a species of sacrifice -nowhere mentioned in the Word of God. Christianity tells -us to trust in the sacrifice of that great Redeemer, for whose -salvation Jacob waited, whose atonement the Mosaic rites -prefigured, and the Jewish prophets predicted. Their hope -rests upon the unwarranted words of men; ours is built -upon the Word of the living God, and is involuntarily confirmed -by the rabbies themselves in the very custom which -we have just considered. Even the nature of the victim is -pointed out in the selection of the animal. גבר (gever) -signifies both “a man” and “a cock,” and thereby signifies, -that a righteous man must be the sinful man’s substitute: -and so some of the rabbies say, that this animal, “a cock,” -was selected,—</p> - -<p class='c005'>כיון ששמו גבר תמורת גבר בגבר ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“Because, as its name signifies ‘a man,’ there is a substitution -of a man for man.” (Orach Chaiim, 605.) The -principles exactly agree, but Christianity is directed in their -application by the Word of God, to Him who is, indeed, -very man, but also <span class='sc'>The Lord our Righteousness</span>, יהוה. -צדקנו.</p> -<div class='chapter'> - <a id='Page_287'></a> - <h2 id='chap37' class='c003'>No. XXXVII. <br /> FEAST OF TABERNACLES.</h2> -</div> -<p class='c004'>The progress of the year brings with it again that season, -in which God commanded his people to observe <span class='sc'>The Feast -of Tabernacles</span>; and the constancy with which Israelites -in every part of the world still observe the rites and customs -handed down by their forefathers, necessarily commands -respect and admiration. When we remember the -many centuries during which their dispersion has continued, -the universal oppression which they have been compelled -to suffer, and the unmerited contempt with which they have -had to contend, we cannot but honour the strength of moral -courage which they have displayed, in thus observing and -handing down to their children a religion, which has been -the cause of their misfortunes. But this very constancy, and -the respect which it begets, naturally leads us to inquire -whether the religious system itself be true, and, therefore, -worthy of that fidelity with which it has been preserved; -and, above all, whether this constancy is such as at the last -great day to meet the approbation of Him who judgeth not as -man judgeth. The professors of this system think, of course, -that it is, and that by observing these rites and ceremonies, -they are keeping the commands of God, and thereby ensuring -his favour; and with regard to the observance of the Feast -of Tabernacles in particular, they are taught to believe that -they alone are so important, as at the day of judgment, to -prove Israel’s obedience, and the disobedience of the other -nations. We will first state the doctrines of modern Judaism -on this subject, and then examine whether they be well -founded. In the Synagogue Prayers for this feast we find -it stated, that the construction of a tabernacle according to -rabbinic prescription, is a work of merit:—</p> - -<p class='c005'>חשובה ארבע אמות על ארבע , פסולה פחותה -מארבע , כדי לזכות עם רובע ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“It must be four cubits long, and four cubits broad: but -if it be less, it is profane; that it may render the people of -Israel meritorious. (P. 116.) And a little lower down, -after describing the feast in Paradise on the salted Leviathan -and Behemoth, it adds, that this one precept will form -the last trial vouchsafed to the Gentiles, and that their unwillingness -to keep it will prove the cause of their final -condemnation:—</p> - -<p class='c005'>נכנסין כל האומות לדין , פני יושב על כסא דין , -<a id='Page_288'></a>ובצדק אותנו ידין , סדר מצוותיך תן לנו ונקימה , -ונזכה עם אלו בנחמה , שגיא כח שוכן רומה , עליון -השופט כל באמונה , ישמיע להם בתבונה , יש לי -מצוה קטנה , פירוש סוכה ושאליה , ארבע דפנות -וצל עליה , אל תרחקו מאליה , צללים לעשות בה -יעטו , וחמה קדחה עליהם ולוהטו , וברגליהם יבעטו , -קדוש ישפוך עליהם חימה , ויפילם בגיהנם בלי -רחימה , במדרגה התחתונה במהומה ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“All nations will come to be judged in the presence of Him -who sitteth upon the throne of judgment; in righteousness -will he judge us. <i>The nations will then say</i>, Give us the -order of thy precepts, and we will perform them, that we -may be equal with those in happiness, O Thou, who art -great in power, dwelling on high. The Most High, who -judgeth all in truth, will cause them to hear, and understand -his words, saying, I have one small precept; its name, -tabernacle, and its ordinations: four sides, and a shade over -it: fail ye not to observe it. They then will make the shadowy -booths to abide under, but the sun will shine so hot as -nearly to burn them, when they will spurn at it with their feet. -The Holy One will then pour out his wrath upon them, and -cast them into gehinnom [hell] without mercy, into the -lowest part with confusion.” (Ibid.) This extraordinary -account of the day of judgment, and the condemnation of -the Gentiles, has been adopted from the Talmud, where it is -given at great length, and all the particulars fully detailed. -To give the whole would occupy too much of our space; -but as parts of it are necessary to the full consideration of -this subject, we give the following extracts:—</p> - -<p class='c005'>לעתיד לבוא מביא הקב׳׳ה ספר תורה בחיקו ואומר -כל מי שעסק בה יבוא ויטול שכרו מיד מתקבצין -ובאין אומות הצולם בערבוביא שנאמר כל הגוים נקבצו -יחדו , אמר להם הקב׳׳ה אל תכנסו לפני בערבוביא -אלא תכנס כל אומה ואומה וסופריה ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“In the time to come, the Holy One, blessed be He, will -bring a roll of the law in his bosom, and say, Let every -one, who has occupied himself herein, come and receive his -reward. Immediately the nations of the world will gather -themselves together, and come in promiscuous crowds, as it -is said, ‘Let all the nations be gathered together.’ (Isaiah -xliii. 9.) The Holy One, blessed be He, will then say, Come -not before me promiscuously, but let each nation come by -itself along with its learned men.” Then follows an account -of the appearance of each nation, and of the vain attempts -<a id='Page_289'></a>which they make to justify their conduct. After which the -narrative thus proceeds:—</p> - -<p class='c005'>אומרים לפניו רבונו של עולם ישראל שקבלוה היכן -קיימוה אמר להם הקב׳׳ה אני מעיד בהם שקיימו את -התורה , אומרים לפניו רבונו של עולם כלום יש אב -שמעיד על בנו דכתיב בני בכורי ישראל אמר להם -הקב׳׳ה שמים וארץ יעידו בהם שקיימו את התורה -כולה , אומרים לפניו רבונו של עולם שמים וארץ -נוגעין בעדותן שנאמר אם לא בריתי יומם ולילה -חוקות שמים וארץ לא שמתי , ואמר ר׳ שמעון בן -לקיש מאי דכתיב ויהי ערב ויהי בוקר יום הששי , -מלמד שהתנה הקב׳׳ה במעשה בראשית ואמר אם -ישראל מקבלין את תורתי מוטב ואם לאו אחזיר -אתכם לתוהו ובוהו והיינו דאמר חזקיה מאי דכתיב -משמים השמעת דין ארץ יראה ושקטה אם יראה למה -שקטה ואם שקטה למה יראה אלא בתחלה יראה -ולבסוף שקטה , אמר להם הקב׳׳ה מכם יבואו ויעידו -בהן בישראל שקיימו את התורה כולה , יבוא נמרוד -ויעיד באברהם שלא עבד ע׳׳ז יבוא לבן ויעיד ביעקב -שלא נחשד על הגזל תבוא אשת פוטיפרע ותעיד -בחנניה מישאל ועזריה שלא השתחוו לצלם יבוא -דריוש ויעיד בדניאל שלא ביטל את התפלה יבוא -בלדד השוחי וצופר הנעמתי ואליפז התמני ואליהו -בן ברכאל הבוזי ויעידו בהן בישראל שקיימו את -התורה כולה שנאמר יתנו עדיהן ויצדקו , אמרו לפניו -רבונו של עולם תנו לנו מראש ונעשה אמר להם -הקב׳׳ה שוטים שבעולם מי שטרח בערב שבת יאכל -בשבת מי שלא טרח בערב שבת מהיכן יאכל בשבת -אלא אע׳׳פ כן מצוה קלה יש לי וסוכה שמה לכו -ועשו אותו , ומי מצית אמרת הכי והא אמר ר׳ יהושע -בן לוי מאי דכתיב אשר אנכי מצוך היום היום לעשותם -ולא למחר לעשותם היום לעשותם ולא היום ליטול -שכר אלא שאין הקב׳׳ה בא בטרוניא עם בריותיו ואמאי -קרי ליה מצוה קלה משום דלית ביה חסרון כיס -מיד כל אחד נוטל והולך ועושה סוכה בראש גגו -והקב׳׳ה מקדיח עליהם המה בתקופת תמוז וכל אחד -ואחד מבעט בסוכתו ויוצא וכו׳ ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“The Gentiles will then say before him, O Lord of the -world, the Israelites received the law, but how did they keep -<a id='Page_290'></a>it? The Holy One, blessed be He, will reply, I bear them -witness that they have kept the law. The Gentiles will say, -O Lord of the world, is it fair that a Father should be a -witness for his children? For it is written, ‘Israel is my son, -even my first-born.’ (Exod. iv. 22.) The Holy One, blessed -be He, will then say to them, Let the heaven and the earth -bear witness to them, that they have kept the whole law. The -Gentiles will answer, O Lord of the world, the heavens and -the earth are interested witnesses, for it is said, ‘If my covenant -be not with day and night, and if I have not appointed -the ordinances of heaven and the earth.’ (Jer. xxxiii. 25.) -R. Simon Ben Lakish says, What is the meaning of the words -‘And it was evening and it was morning, the sixth day?’ -They show us that the Holy and Blessed One, made a condition -with the creation, and said, If Israel will receive my law, -all is well; but if not, then I will turn you back into chaos. -Hezekiah also teaches this same truth, saying, What is the -meaning of the words, ‘Thou didst cause judgment to be heard -from heaven; the earth feared, and was still?’ (Ps. lxxvi. 9, -Eng. 8.) If it feared, how could it be still; and if it was still, -how could it fear? The answer is, at first it feared [that -Israel would not receive the law, and it should be turned into -chaos]; but afterwards it was still. God will then say to the -Gentiles, Then let some of yourselves come, and bear witness -to Israel that they have kept the whole law. Nimrod shall -then come forth and testify of Abraham that he did not -commit idolatry. Laban shall come forth and testify of Jacob -that he was not suspected of dishonesty. Potiphar’s wife shall -come forth and testify of Joseph that he was not suspected -of the transgression. Nebuchadnezzar shall come forth and -testify of Hannaniah, Mishael, and Azariah, that they would -not worship the image. Darius shall come and testify of -Daniel that he did not neglect prayer. Bildad the Shuhite, -and Zophar the Naamathite, and Eliphaz the Temanite, and -Elihu the son of Beracheel, shall come forth and testify of -Israel that they have kept the whole law, as it is said, ‘Let -them being forth their witnesses, that they may be justified.’ -(Isaiah xliii. 9.) The Gentiles will then say, O Lord of the -world, give us the law from the beginning, and we will do it. -To this the Holy One will reply, O fools, he that works on the -eve of the Sabbath shall eat on the Sabbath. He that will not -work on the Sabbath eve, from whence should he eat on the -Sabbath? Nevertheless, I have one easy commandment, -Tabernacle is its name, go, therefore, and do it. But how is it -possible, to affirm that God will do this, when R. Joshua, the -son of Levi, says, What is the meaning of the words, ‘Which -I command thee this day?’ And says, the meaning is, they -are to be observed to-day [i.e., in this world], and not tomorrow -<a id='Page_291'></a>[<i>i.e.</i>, in the world to come].<a id='r33' /><a href='#f33' class='c006'><sup>[33]</sup></a> To-day they are to be -observed; but the reward is not to be received to-day. The -answer is, that God does not deal with his creatures in a tyrannical -manner. But why is this called an easy commandment? -Because it is not attended with any pecuniary loss. -Immediately every one of the Gentiles will hasten away, and -make a tabernacle on the roof of his house. But the Holy -One, blessed be He, will cause the sun to pierce them with an -extraordinary heat at that season, and then every one of them -will kick down his tabernacle and go forth,” &c. (Avodah -Zarah, fol. 2, 3.) Such is the doctrine of the Talmud, adopted, -and therefore sealed with the most solemn sanction, by the -public worship of the synagogue. In the first place it is -perfectly false; it has not even the merit of plausibility. It is -only astonishing how an imagination so absurd should ever -have found its way into the prayers of Israel; and stranger -still that the Jews of England should suffer such a foul blot -still to remain on their public services. It certainly represents -Judaism in the most unfavourable point of view, as a religion -of the grossest and most inconsistent superstition; and proves, -beyond all controversy, first, that the synagogue receives, as of -divine authority, even the fables of the Talmud; and, secondly, -that the authors of the oral law, who could either invent or -believe so absurd a statement, cannot be depended upon as -faithful transmitters of the religion of the prophets.</p> - -<p class='c005'>Further, it totally misrepresents the character of God. It -describes Him, first, as bearing witness to the obedience of -Israel, whilst in His Word he bears constant testimony to their -disobedience. Here he is represented also as calling upon -heaven and earth to attest their innocence and righteousness, -whilst in His Word he calls upon them to be the witnesses of -their rebellion. “Hear, O heavens; and give ear, O earth; for -the Lord hath spoken: I have nourished and brought up children, -and they have rebelled against me.” (Isaiah i. 2.) And -again, “Be astonished, O ye heavens, at this, and be horribly -afraid, be ye very desolate, saith the Lord. For my people -have committed two evils; they have forsaken me, the fountain -of living waters, and hewed them out cisterns, broken cisterns, -that can hold no water.” (Jer. ii. 12.) These passages of the -word of God are directly opposed to the above statement of the -oral law. But farther, it misrepresents the Divine Being as -an unmerciful and unjust judge, who pretends to give the -guilty Gentiles another and easy trial by giving them the -commandment respecting the tabernacles, and then employs -his omnipotence so to plague them with the heat of the sun, as -to render it impossible for them to yield obedience. Such a -<a id='Page_292'></a>representation is altogether unworthy of the Judge of all the -earth, who will deal justly by the Gentiles as well as the -Jews.</p> - -<p class='c005'>But besides misrepresenting the divine character, it misleads -the unlearned and superstitious to believe that, at the day of -judgment, God will not render to every man according to his -deeds, but will pass by their sins and their impenitence, if -only they be Israelites. It therefore begets a false confidence, -and is eminently calculated to lull men asleep in their sins. -The man who believes this fable of the Gentiles bearing witness -to the righteousness of Abraham, Joseph, Daniel, &c., and -thinks that this is sufficient for his acquittal at the bar of judgment, -can have no motive for personal repentance or righteousness. -Neither does this fable tend to produce good will -and respect towards his Gentile fellow-sinners. Few men will -elevate themselves above their notions of the Deity. When, -then, the Rabbinists see that, according to the oral law, God -treats the Gentiles with injustice and cruelty, is it natural to -suppose that he will treat them differently? This and similar -passages well merit the serious consideration of all influential -Israelites. It is imperative upon all such to determine, whether -such passages of their prayers and their law are of divine -authority or not; and if they are convinced of their falsehood, -to use their unceasing exertions to expunge them from their -religious system. As long as they exist, and are publicly read -in the synagogue, men can only come to one conclusion, and -that is, that the characteristics of the Rabbinical religion are -superstition and uncharitableness. Nothing but a public protest -against the error, and an erasure from the prayer-book, will -satisfy the mind, or wipe away the reproach from Israel. The -private professions of individuals can be of no avail in this -matter. Men will go to the authorized books, especially to the -prayer-book of every class of religionist, in order to judge of -his principles; and no one will believe that any man can be so -careless or so presumptuous as to address the Divine Being in -the language of acknowledged falsehood. But above all, let -every Jew compare this account of the day of judgment with -that contained in our Christian books. Judaism teaches that -at that great day God will appear as a partial and cruel judge. -Christianity gives us the following account of the same -period:—“When the Son of man shall come in his glory -and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon -the throne of his glory; and before him shall be gathered -all nations and he shall separate them one from another, -as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats: and he -shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the -left. Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, -Come, ye blessed of my father, inherit the kingdom prepared for -<a id='Page_293'></a>you from the foundation of the world: for I was an hungred, -and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I -was a stranger, and ye took me in: naked, and ye clothed me: I -was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto -me. Then shall the righteous answer and say, Lord, when saw -we thee an hungred, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee -drink? when saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or -naked, and clothed thee? or when saw we thee sick, and in -prison, and came unto thee? And the King shall answer and -say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have -done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have -done it unto me. Then shall he say also unto them on the left -hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared -for the devil and his angels: for I was an hungred, and ye gave -me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink: I was -a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me -not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not. Then shall -they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an -hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in -prison, and did not minister unto thee? Then shall he answer -them, saving, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not -to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me. And these shall -go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into -life eternal.” (Matt. xxv. 31-46.) Such is the view which -Christianity sets before us of the day of judgment, and the -principles according to which that judgment shall be conducted. -You will observe that the whole account is essentially different -from that given by the Talmud. In the first place it represents -God as a just Judge, altogether overlooking nationality; taking -no notice of the temporary distinctions of Jew and Gentile: -but fixing his eyes on the eternal features of moral character, -and according to these fixing the eternal destinies of each -individual. In the second place it tends to promote good will -and charity between man and man, for it represents charity or -the want of charity as the main points of inquiry, and the -distinctions according to which the eternal portion of each is -assigned. We ask, then, every impartial and candid Jew to -tell us, which of these two accounts are most worthy of the -great God whom we worship? We Christians believe that the -synagogue-worshippers are in error, and they again think us in -error; but we have now before us the doctrines of the two -systems on the most important point in all theology—the -principle of final judgment; by their respective statements, -then, on this subject let each system be judged. Judaism says, -that one class of men is to be saved by the partiality of the -Judge, and the other class condemned simply because they are -Gentiles. Christianity says, that all men shall be tried impartially -by one rule, and that neither prepossession nor prejudice, -<a id='Page_294'></a>but justice alone, shall influence the decision. Which, then, -Judaism or Christianity, is most agreeable to the character of -Him of whom the Psalmist says, “He cometh to judge the -earth: with righteousness shall he judge the world, and the -nations with equity?”</p> - -<p class='c005'>We are sure that the good sense of the Jewish nation must -decide, that the impartial justice of the New Testament-representation -is most in accordance with the spirit of the law and -the prophets. Nay, we believe that every devout and thinking -Israelite will feel that the Talmudic picture of God’s judgment -misrepresents the God of Israel as much as any graven image -ever deified by heathen idolaters. To suppose that God would -make a mock overture of mercy, or offer a mock trial to any of -his creatures, is to strip him of the attributes of Deity, and -to exhibit a blind and senseless bigot as the object of Israel’s -worship. A statement so abhorrent even from human reason, -and so inconsistent with the Word of God, proves that its -authors were not moved by the Spirit, and that the religion of -which it forms a part cannot be divine. But here, as in many -cases which we have already pointed out, the New Testament -avoids the error of the Talmud, and teaches the doctrine -conformable to the law, and in accordance with right reason. -Let the advocates of the oral law explain the fact.</p> - -<p class='c005'>But this Talmudic representation of the day of judgment is -not only opposed to reason and Scripture, but also seems to -contradict other statements of the oral law. Here the Gentiles -appear to be marked out for destruction; whereas, we are told -elsewhere, that the pious of the nations of the world are to have -a part in the world to come: and that obedience to the seven -commandments of the sons of Noah, is all that is required from -a Gentile. If this be true, what need is there of giving them -the command to keep the Feast of Tabernacles? But, above -all, if they are to be cast down into the lowest hell, as the -Prayer-book says, how can they have a part of the blessings of -the world to come? It is at the very least, the duty of those -who advocate the oral law, to explain this matter to us Gentiles. -We cannot persuade ourselves that a religion, which makes so -little provision for the eternal welfare of the great bulk of the -human race, can possibly proceed from Him who is the God -of the spirits of all flesh, the Creator and Preserver of all mankind. -Living daily by his bounty, and receiving all we have -at his most gracious hands we believe that if he makes such -provision for our bodies, He has made still more for our immortal -spirits; and therefore, amongst other reasons, we believe -in Christianity; for if it be not true, there is no spiritual -provision for the Gentiles, and God has left the majority of his -rational creatures without any proof of his paternal affection.</p> - -<div class='chapter'> - <a id='Page_295'></a> - <h2 id='chap38' class='c003'>No. XXXVIII. <br /> PRAYERS FOR THE DEAD.</h2> -</div> -<p class='c004'>To the fool, who hath said in his heart, There is no God, it -is a matter of little consequence, whether the religion of his -forefathers afford a reasonable ground of hope or not. He may -therefore consistently neglect all inquiry into the nature and -evidences of that religion in which he happened to be born. -He does not believe in it, whatever it may be, and such an -inquiry could have no interest for him. Not so with the Jew -or the Christian, who honestly believes, as he has been taught, -that there is, in another world, an abode of bliss, and another -of woe. His earnest desire must be to know how he may attain -to the one and escape the other; and if his religion does not -afford him a hope, a reasonable, well-grounded hope of salvation, -it is not worth the having. We say a reasonable hope, for as it -has pleased God to endow us with reason and understanding, -and to give us his Word to guide our reason, no other hope -can or ought to satisfy us. In examining, then, the modern -Jewish religion, one great test of its value is, whether it affords -a hope on which a reasonable man can rely, and upon which he -can hazard his eternal welfare. We think not, and we have -already given some reasons for this opinion. The inconsistency -and contradictory nature of the rabbinic doctrines respecting -justification and atonement appear to us so glaring as to destroy -all confidence in the hope which they propose: and <i>the custom, -which prevails at this and other festivals, of praying for the -dead, proves, beyond a doubt, that the rabbinic hope is a -mere delusion</i>. Amongst the prayers of the Feast of Tabernacles, -we find the following declaration and prayer:—</p> - -<p class='c005'>נוהגים בתפוצות ישראל להזכיר נשמות אבותיו -ביום כפור ובשלש רגלים ביום מתנת יד לאחר -הפטורה , יזכור אלהים נשמת אבא מורי פלוני בר׳ -פלוני שהלך לעולמו בעבור שאני נודר צדקה בעדו -בשכר זה תהא נפשו צרורה בצרור החיים עם נשמת -אברהם יצחק ויעקב שרה רבקה רחל ולאה ועם שאר -צדיקם וצדקניות שבגן עדן ונאמר אמן ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>יזכור אלהים נשמת אמי וכו׳ ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“It is customary among the dispersions of Israel, to make -mention of the souls of their departed parents, &c., on the day -of atonement, and the ultimate days of the three festivals; and -to offer prayers for the repose of their souls.</p> - -<p class='c005'>“May God remember the soul of my honoured father, A. B. -<a id='Page_296'></a>who is gone to his repose; for that I now solemnly vow charity -for his sake; in reward of this, may his soul be bound up in -the bundle of life, with the souls of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob; -Sarah, Rebekah, Rachel, and Leah, with the rest of the righteous -males and females that are in Paradise; and let us say, -Amen.”</p> - -<p class='c005'>“May God remember the soul of my honoured mother,” &c. -(Prayer for the Feast of Tabernacles, p. 156.) Now this custom -and this prayer show that the Jews themselves do not believe -in their own doctrines, nor put any trust in the hopes held out -by the oral law; for if they did, they would never observe this -custom nor offer this prayer. If they believed that their departed -parents were already safe—that their merits, or the -merits of their ancestors, or the Day of Atonement, &c., had -procured for them pardon and eternal life, why should they -offer alms, and pray that God would accept the alms as a ransom -for the deceased? The fact of making such a vow and offering -such a prayer proves, that the Rabbinical Jew has no ground -for believing in the salvation of even his own father and mother; -that on the contrary his belief is, that they have not been bound -up in the bundle of life, and that they are not in paradise with -Abraham and the other saints; but that they are in some other -place, whence he hopes, by his prayer and his almsgiving, to -ransom them. Here, then, we see that the rabbinical hope is -a mere delusion. After all his fasting and ceremonial observances, -he has no hope after death of going to the mansions of -the blessed. His sad prospect is, that when he goes hence, he -must go to the place of punishment, and there abide until the -prayers and almsgiving of his children purchase his liberation. -According, then, to this doctrine, every Jew and Jewess dies -without pardon, for if they were pardoned, they would not go -to the place of punishment, and if they did not go to the place -of punishment, there would be no necessity to offer alms in -order to deliver their souls. So then, after all the pretensions -and promises of the rabbies, they here fairly confess that all the -hopes which they have held out are a mere lie and a delusion; -that none of their observances can deliver the soul, and that -even after the dread hour of death, the survivors have still to -undertake the work of saving the deceased.</p> - -<p class='c005'>This inference follows inevitably from the custom and the -prayer which we have just considered; but it does not rest -solely on these. The oral law furnishes other adequate proof, -that the Jewish survivors of a departed parent do not believe -that he is safe, and that therefore a dying Jew can have no hope -of his own salvation; for it requires the surviving son to repeat -a certain prayer for his departed parent, and that for many -months, in order to procure his release, as we read in the <i>Joreh -Deah</i>:—</p> - -<p class='c005'><a id='Page_297'></a>על כן נהגו לומר קדיש על אב ואם בתרא י׳׳ב -חודש , וכן נהגו להפטיר בנביא ולהתפלל ערבית -במוצאי שבת שהוא הזמן שחוזרין הנשמות לגיהנם , -וכשהבן מתפלל ומקרש ברבים פודה אביו ואמו -מגיהנם ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“Therefore the custom is for twelve months to repeat the -prayer called Kaddish, and also to read the lesson in the prophets, -and to pray the evening-prayer at the going out of the -Sabbath, for that is the hour when the souls return to hell; -but when the son prays and sanctifies in public, he redeems his -father and his mother from hell.” (376.) Now every child -who observes this custom, makes a public confession, that his -deceased parent is not enjoying the bliss of paradise, but -suffering the torments of hell. This is but a poor hope for a -child respecting his parent, the very utmost limit of which is, -that he is not one of the notoriously wicked, and that he may -perhaps, by his prayers, get him out of the place of torment. -But if he believes in the oral law, he must be convinced that -his father or mother, with all their exertions, and notwithstanding -the merits of their forefathers, and the benefits of the -Day of Atonement, died in sin, sunk into perdition, and that -he must now undertake the work of their salvation. The dying -Jew, therefore, has no hope when he dies of being admitted to -a state of happiness; he cannot die with the peace of one who -knows that his sins are forgiven, but must look forward with -horror to at least eleven dreary months of punishment in the -abodes of the damned. The doctrine of the Talmud is, that -those who die in communion with the synagogue, or who have -never been Jews, are punished for twelve months, but that -Jewish heretics and apostates are doomed to eternal punishment.</p> - -<p class='c005'>פושעי ישראל בגופו ופושעי אומות העולם בגופן -יורדין לגיהנם ונידונין בה שנים עשר חודש לאחר -שנים עשר חודש גופן כלה ונשמתן נשרפת ורוח -מפזרתן תחת כפות רגלי הצדיקים שנאמר ועסותם -רשעים כי יהיו אפר תחת כפות רגליכם אבל המינין -והמוסרין והאפיקורסין שכפרו בתורה ושכפרו בתחיית -המתים ושפירשו מדרכי צבור ושנתנו חתיתם בארץ -חיים ושחטאו והחטיאו את הרבים כגון ירבעם בן -נבט וחביריו יורדין לגיהנם ונידונין בה לדורי דורות ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“Israelites who sin with their body, and also Gentiles, descend -into hell, and are judged there for twelve months. After the -twelve months their body is consumed and their soul is burnt, -and the wind scatters them under the soles of the feet of the -righteous, as it is said, ‘Ye shall tread down the wicked, for -<a id='Page_298'></a>they shall be ashes under the soles of your feet.’ (Mal. iv. 3.) -But heretics, and informers, and Epicureans, who have denied -the law or the resurrection of the dead, or who have separated -from the customs of the congregation, or who have caused their -fear in the land of the living, who have sinned, or caused many -to sin, as Jeroboam, the son of Nebat, all such go down to hell -and are judged for ever.” (Rosh Hashanah, fol. 17. 1.) According -to this, the dying Israelite ought to expect twelve months -of torment, and his surviving son ought to repeat the prescribed -prayer for twelve months; but the rabbies have commanded -that the prayer should be repeated only for eleven months, to -intimate that the deceased was not so wicked as to be obliged -to remain all the time of torment:—</p> - -<p class='c005'>ונהגו שאין אומרים קדיש ותפלה רק י׳׳א חדשים -כדי שלא יעשו אביהם ואמם רשעים כי משפט רשע -י׳׳ב הודש ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“The custom is, not to say Kaddish more than eleven -months, so as not to cast a reproach on the character of the -deceased father and mother as if they were wicked, for twelve -months are the term appointed for the wicked.” (Joreh Deah, -376.) From this it is clear that a dying Jew’s expectation -must be to endure the torments of hell for at least eleven -months; and when he is dead, his son confesses, in the most -public manner, and the appointed prayers of the synagogue -confess, of every departed Jew, that he died in sin, and was -not worthy to enter into the bliss of paradise; and express, -moreover, their conviction that his portion is actually with the -damned. Thus it is evident that Judaism holds out no hope of -the forgiveness of sins, and that all its prescribed observances -are of no avail in the hour of need. A Jew’s sad contemplation -on his death is, then, that he is going down to hell, and his -hope of liberation is based upon the prayers of his son, or upon -the fact of his being an Israelite. But is this a reasonable -ground of hope? No hope of salvation can be reasonable -which is not built upon a plain promise of God. Our reason -can tell us nothing about either heaven or hell; and therefore -no speculations of our own can satisfy us respecting either one -or the other. The only satisfactory testimony can come from -God’s revealed will; but in the whole volume of the Old -Testament, there is not one promise declaring that an Israelite -shall be delivered from hell after twelve months’ punishment, -or that the son’s public prayers in the synagogue shall deliver -the father. This is all the mere invention of the rabbies, without -the least warrant from the Word of God. It is, therefore, -not a hope on which any reasonable man can rest in peace. -The sum of the whole matter is, that every Jew expects to go -<a id='Page_299'></a>to hell, and that he has no promise of God to assure him that -he shall be redeemed thence. Judaism is not, therefore, a -religion which affords a rational hope of salvation. In asserting -that every Israelite must go down to hell, it teaches that sin -is not forgiven by God, but must be atoned for by the personal -suffering of the offender; and that happiness cannot be enjoyed -until personal satisfaction has been yielded by twelve months’ -torments. Now if this principle were true, there could be no -salvation at all. Sin, as being an offence against an infinite -Being, is infinite in magnitude, and therefore, requires infinite -punishment. The justice of God is also infinite, and requires -an infinite satisfaction; so that if this satisfaction is to be -rendered by the personal suffering of the offender, that suffering -must be infinite, that is, it must endure for ever and ever, -and thus salvation is altogether out of the question. The Jewish -hope is, therefore, unwarranted by Scripture, and contrary -to reason, and, we may add, inconsistent with itself. In the -custom and doctrine which we have just considered, a dying -Jew is taught to hope that he shall be delivered from that -place of torment, whither he is going, either on account of his -son’s prayers, or on account of his Jewish origin. But on his -death-bed he is taught to believe that his death will be an -atonement for his sins, for in his dying confession, these words -are put into his mouth:—</p> - -<p class='c005'>ואם קרבה עת פקודתי למות , תהא מיתתי כפרה -לכל חטאותי ולכל עוונותי ולכל פשעי שחטאתי -ושעויתי ושפשעתי מיום היותי ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“But if the time of my visitation to death be near, O let my -death be an expiation for all my sins, iniquities, and transgressions, -wherein I have sinned, offended, and transgressed -against thee, from the day of my existence.” These two -doctrines are plainly contrary the one to the other. If death -be an atonement for all sins, then, when it is once suffered, all -these sins are forgiven, and there is no need of further punishment -in hell for twelve months. But if this further punishment -be inflicted, then the death of the individual is not an -atonement for his sins. The Jew may choose which of these -hopes he pleases; but whichever he may assert to be true, the -other is necessarily false; and if one be false, then the oral law -teaches falsehood, and cannot be depended upon with respect to -the other. There is, then, in these two statements, a glaring -inconsistency, which makes them both suspicious in themselves: -and the Word of God is as opposed to this last statement, as to -the former. The Bible represents death as a consequence and -punishment of Adam’s sin, not as an atonement: and hence it -is that infants die, who have never committed actual sin, and -<a id='Page_300'></a>do not need an atonement on that account. Death is, therefore, -a punishment, and that which is a punishment can never be -an atonement. The dying Jew, then, if he be a reasonable -man, has no hope that can yield him peace and consolation -in that solemn hour. He prays that his death may atone for -his sins, and yet believes the very contrary—that he is going -down to the place of the damned, and that his son will have to -undertake the work of his redemption. How any thoughtful -man, especially how any Israelite who has read the Law and -the Prophets, can be content with such a religion, we cannot -comprehend. The very essence of religion, the very consideration -that gives it any value, is the comfort which it affords to -the departing sinner. If it cannot soothe, support, and comfort -him in the hour of death, it is not worth the having. The -Christian faith is very different, and, in our opinion, far more -in accordance with the Old Testament. We believe, in the first -place, that there is a full and perfect pardon for all sins by the -atonement of the Messiah, so that the sinner who dies in -repentance and faith, is delivered from all punishment and -other consequences of sin, and enters at once into the abodes of -the blessed, there to await the morning of the resurrection. -The Old Testament promised that Messiah should bear our -sins. The New Testament tells us that He has borne them, -and that therefore we can “now be justified from all things -from which we could not be justified by the law of Moses.” -(Acts xiii. 38, 39.) It tells us that “God made Him to be sin -for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness -of God in him” (2 Cor. v. 21); and “that if any man sin, -we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus, the Messiah, the -Righteous; and he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for -ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.” (1 John ii. -1, 2.) We believe, therefore, that Messiah has borne all that -we ought to have borne, as the prophet says—</p> - -<p class='c005'>מוסר שלומנו עליו ובחבורתו נרפא לנו ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“The chastisement of our peace was upon him, and with -his stripes we are healed,” (Isaiah liii. 5,) and that now -we are delivered. There is no twelvemonth of torment -awaiting those whom Messiah has redeemed, neither do we -trust in our own death as a possible atonement. Our hope -is firmly fixed, and, therefore, though sinners, we can die -in peace, resting on the salvation which God himself has -wrought, in no fear of the torments of the damned, but -humbly expecting, for the Messiah’s sake, to be admitted -into the mansions of the blessed. Resting on this hope, the -Christian can say, “To me to live is Christ, and to die is -gain.” (Philip, i. 21.) He can look forward from death -to the glorious consummation, as St. Paul did, who, when -<a id='Page_301'></a>the hour of his martyrdom approached, was enabled to say, -“I am now ready to be offered, and the time of my departure -is at hand. I have fought a good fight; I have finished -my course; I have kept the faith: henceforth there is laid -up for me a crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the -righteous Judge, shall give me at that day; and not to me -only, but unto all them also that love his appearing.” The -Christian expects after death not to spend twelve dreary -months in hell, “For we know that if our earthly house -of this tabernacle were dissolved, we have a building of -God, an house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens. -For in this we groan, earnestly desiring to be clothed upon -with our house which is from heaven: if so be, that being -clothed, we shall not be found naked. For we that are in -this tabernacle do groan, being burdened: not for that we -would be unclothed, but clothed upon, that mortality might -be swallowed up of life.” (2 Cor. v. 1-4.) Such is the -hope which Christianity holds out, and it is hardly necessary -to prove that it is more satisfactory, and more calculated to -convey peace to the conscience of a dying believer, than the -dread prospect, of twelve months’ sojourn in the place of -torment. This in itself proves, that Christianity is greatly -superior to Judaism, and even affords a presumption that -Christianity is true. Reason tells us, that if God has given a -revelation at all, that revelation must contain the way of obtaining -pardon for sins, and be able to administer consolation -to the dying. In this respect Judaism fails. It promises forgiveness -and justification to a thousand ceremonial observances, -but in the hour of man’s extremity, it tells him that there is -no way of pardon, but that he must go down into torment, -and expiate his sins by actual suffering. This system cannot, -therefore, be of God. Christianity, on the contrary, has -the first great essential in religion; it informs man how he -can obtain forgiveness, and tells him how to die in peace; -and the system of pardon and consolation which it proposes, -is in exact accordance with the doctrine of Moses and the -prophets. Moses promises pardon to an atoning sacrifice. -Isaiah says, that Messiah is to be the true atonement; -and Christianity rests upon these two principles. The Jew -himself must admit, that our hope has at least a strong -appearance of truth, and that we have the letter of the Old -Testament in our favour. We have, therefore, more reason -to trust to Christianity, than he has for resting on Judaism, -which has not even a semblance of proof, and is as far -from the letter as from the spirit of the Old Testament. -We would earnestly request of every Jew to consider what -is his hope in death, and what is his prospect after it? Can -he be content with that which Judaism offers? Can he be -<a id='Page_302'></a>happy in the prospect of twelve months’ torment? Or, can -the repetition of Kaddish afford him any hope of liberation -from that place, whither his sins have brought him?</p> - -<p class='c005'>He cannot pretend to have any warrant from Scripture. -Where does Moses tell a Jewish child to say Kaddish for his -deceased parent, or that the saying of it will deliver the soul -from the grasp of Divine justice? And reason does not offer a -greater measure of consolation. Reason says plainly, either -that the deceased is guilty or not guilty; either, therefore, -justice demands that he should be punished or delivered. In -the one case the prayer is unavailing, in the other unnecessary. -Reason says that God either pardons or punishes; but that -there is no middle way. Judaism then offers a hope equally -unwarranted by reason and Scripture, and thus, forsaking a -poor sinner in the hour of his extremity, is not worthy of -the profession of any one who uses his reason, or reveres the -Word of God.</p> -<div class='chapter'> - <h2 id='chap39' class='c003'>No. XXXIX. <br /> ALMSGIVING.</h2> -</div> -<p class='c004'>The object of our late numbers has been to point out -the inconsistency and precariousness of the various hopes, -which the oral law holds out to its advocates, and the consequent -inadequacy of a religion which leaves its professors -without a reasonable hope of eternal happiness. In the -course of our observations, the subject of almsgiving twice -presented itself prominently to our notice; first, as a means -of compensating for the sins and omissions of the past year; -and secondly, as a means of promoting the repose of departed -souls; from which it appears that the oral law considers this -duty as most important and beneficial both to the living and -the dead. The object of the present paper shall therefore -be, to inquire into the rabbinic doctrine of almsgiving, and -to compare it with the law and the prophets. The duty -and extent of almsgiving are thus defined:—</p> - -<p class='c005'>מצות עשה ליתן צדקה לעניי ישראל כפי מה -שראוי לעני אם היתה יד הנותן משגת , שנאמר פתח -תפתח את ידך לו , ונאמר והחזקת בו גר ותושב -וחי עמך ונאמר וחי אחיך עמך , וכל הרואה עני -<a id='Page_303'></a>מבקש והעלים עיניו ממנו ולא נתן לו צדקה עבר -בלא תעשה שנאמר לא תאמץ את לבבך תקפוץ -את ידך מאחיך האביון ; לפי מה שיחסר העני אתה -מצווה ליתן לו , אם אין לו כסות מכסים אותו , אם -אין לו כלי בית קונין לו , אם אין לו אשה משיאין -אותו , ואם היתה אשה משיאין אותה לאיש , אפילו -היה דרכו של זה העני לרכוב על הסוס ועבד רץ -לפניו והעני ירד מנכסיו קונין לו סוס לרכוב עליו -ועבד לרוץ לפניו שנאמר די מחסורו אשר יחסר לו , -מצווה אתה להשלים חסרונו , ואין אתה מצווה -להצשירו . יתום שבא להשיאו אשה , שוכרין לו בית -ומציעים לו מטה וכל כלי תשמישו ואחר כך משיאין -לו אשה , בא העני ושאל די מחסורו ואין יד הנותן -משגת נותנין לו כפי השגת ידו וכמה עד חמישית -נכסיו מצוה מן המובחר ואחד מעשרה בנכסיו בינוני , -פחות מכ עין רעה ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“It is an affirmative precept to give alms to the poor of -Israel, according as the poor have need, if in the power of -the giver; for it is said, ‘Thou shalt open thine hand wide -to him’ (Deut. xv. 8); and again, ‘Thou shalt relieve him, -a proselyte<a id='r34' /><a href='#f34' class='c006'><sup>[34]</sup></a> or a sojourner, that he may live with thee;’ -and again, ‘That thy brother may live with thee.’ (Lev. -xxv. 35, 36.) Whosoever sees a poor man begging, and -shuts his eyes against him, and does not give him alms, -transgresses a negative precept: for it is said, ‘Thou shalt -not harden thine heart nor shut thine hand from thy poor -brother.’ (Deut. xv. 7.) According as the poor hath need, -thou art commanded to give. If he has no clothing, he is -to be clothed; if he has no furniture, it is to be bought for -him; if he has no wife, he is to be helped to marry one; -if a woman, she is to be assisted in getting a husband: yea, -if it had been the poor man’s custom to ride upon a horse, -and to have a servant running before him—but he is now -come down in the world,—it is a duty to buy him a horse -to ride, and a servant to run before him, for it is said, -‘Sufficient for his need, in that which he wanteth’ (Deut. -xv. 8); and thou art commanded perfectly to relieve his -want, but not to make him rich. If an orphan apply for -assistance in order to marry, it is a duty to hire a house -for him, and to provide all necessary furniture, and afterwards -to help him to marry. If a poor man come and ask -for relief, and the giver has not as much as he wants, he -<a id='Page_304'></a>ought to give what his means afford. How much? He -that gives a fifth of his property fulfils the commandment -well. He that gives one part in ten fulfils it in a middling -manner. He that gives less must be regarded as a person -with an evil eye.” (Hilchoth Matt’noth Aniim, cvii. 1-5.) -In this definition of the nature and extent of the duty of -almsgiving, there is much that is good and worthy of our -admiration, especially in this selfish and money-loving age, -when poverty is regarded, if not punished, as a crime, -and the poor are, by many, considered as unworthy of all -domestic comfort. Without binding ourselves to the approval -of all the details here specified, we must acknowledge, that -the spirit of this passage is agreeable to the idea of true -charity, and, if universally acted upon, would do more for the -happiness of mankind than some theories now afloat. But -though ready to admire and to acknowledge the general -beauty and excellence of this passage, we must also remark -that the main feature of charity is, by the rabbinical system, -excluded. God commands that this help should extend -beyond the narrow limits of selfishness and nationality, to -“the stranger and the sojourner,” but the oral law neutralizes -the mercifulness of God’s commandment by making the word -stranger signify a proselyte to Judaism. The original Hebrew -word גר (<i>Ger</i>) plainly means a stranger, as may be seen in the -words of Moses—</p> - -<p class='c005'>ואהבתם את הגר כי גרים הייתם בארץ מצרים ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“Love ye therefore the stranger; for ye were strangers in -the land of Egypt.” (Deut. x. 19.) It is certain that the -Israelites were not proselytes, but strangers; this word, <i>Ger</i>, -therefore, signifies stranger, not proselyte; and yet the oral -law says that no one can be a <i>Ger</i> without sacrifice, circumcision, -and baptism, or now, that there is no temple, without the -two last requisites:—</p> - -<p class='c005'>ובזמן הזה שאין שם קרבן צריך מילה וטבילה -וכשיבנה בית המקדש יביא קרבן , גר שמל טבל -או טבל ולא אינו גר עד שימול ויטבול ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“At the present time when there is no sacrifice, circumcision -and baptism are necessary, and when the temple is rebuilt, he -must bring a sacrifice. A <i>Ger</i> who is circumcised but not -baptized, or baptized but not circumcised, is not a <i>Ger</i>, until -he be both baptized and circumcised. (Hilchoth Issure Biah, -c. xiii. 5, 6.)” This rabbinical definition of what is meant by -<i>Ger</i>, restricts the exercise of charity within a much narrower -limit than that prescribed by God, and does, in fact, destroy -one of the most beautiful features of the Mosaic law, namely, -<a id='Page_305'></a>the merciful provision which it makes for the relief of the -stranger. The law of Moses has the spirit of its divine -Author. He calls himself “a jealous God,” and it may well be -called a jealous law, watching carefully over every departure -from truth, and punishing it rigorously: and yet, like God -himself, this just jealousy is tempered with mercy, and beams -with love. The oral law, on the contrary, is an envious and -vindictive code, and its zeal degenerates into narrow-hearted -bigotry. It would not only punish the idolater, but exclude -every stranger from the pale of charity, unless he be a proselyte; -and an Israelite too, if he had in any wise dared to -transgress the rabbinical commands. A remarkable instance -of this hatred, to those whom it considers apostates, occurs -in these laws respecting almsgiving. The oral law says, that -the most meritorious exercise of charity is, the ransoming of -captives:—</p> - -<p class='c005'>פדיון שבוים קרדם לפרנסת עניים ולכסותם , ואין -לך מצוה גדולה כפדיון שבוים ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“The ransoming of captives goes before the feeding and -clothing of the poor, and there is no commandment so great -as this.” (Hilchoth Matt’noth Aniim, c. 8.) And yet if a -brother Israelite should deviate from the rabbinical commands, -the oral law makes it unlawful to ransom him, at the same -time that it enjoins the ransom of a slave if he be a proselyte:</p> - -<p class='c005'>עבד שנשבה הואיל שטבל לשם עבדות וקבל עליו -מצוות פודין אותו כישראל שנשבה , ושבוי שהמיר -אפילו למצוה אחת כגון שהיה אוכל נבלה להכעיס -וכיוצא בזה אסור לפדותו ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“A slave who is in captivity because he has received the -baptism of slaves, and taken upon himself the commandments, -is to be redeemed. But as to a captive who has altered even -one commandment, if for instance he has eaten forbidden food -in order to vex, it is forbidden to ransom such an one.” (Ibid.) -Thus the oral law forbids all compassion even to an Israelite, -if he is not of the rabbinic religion. The conduct which it -prescribes towards poor Gentiles, “for the sake of the ways of -peace,” מפני דרכי שלום, we have considered long since; but -the prohibition to receive alms of the Gentiles, deserves notice -here, as it furnishes another proof of the contracted views of -the rabbies, and the falsehood of the oral law:—</p> - -<p class='c005'>אסור לישראל ליטול צדקה מן הגוים בפרהסיא -ואם אינו יכול לחיות בצדקה של ישראל ואינו יכול -ליטלה מן הגוים בצנעה הרי זה מותר , ומלך או שר -מן הגוים ששלח ממון לישראל לצדקה אין מחזיריו -<a id='Page_306'></a>אותו משום שלום מלכות אלא נוטלין ממנו וינתן -לעניי גוים בסתר כדי שלא ישמע המלך ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“It is unlawful for an Israelite to receive alms from the -Gentiles openly. But if he cannot live by the alms of Israel, -and cannot receive it from the Gentiles privately, then it is -lawful. If a king or prince of the Gentiles sends money to -Israel as alms, it is not to be returned, on account of the peace -of the kingdom. On the contrary, it is to be received, but it is -to be given to the poor of the Gentiles privately, so that the -king may not hear of it.” (Ibid.) Here the oral law endeavours -to pervert that kindly feeling which should exist -between all the families of man, and spurns a demonstration -even of love, because it comes from a man of a different -religion. At the same time its authors had not the moral -courage to do this openly and honestly, and if need be, suffer -for conscience sake. They command that the proffered alms -should be taken from the king, as if they intended to devote it -to the object for which he gave it, and then privately to apply -it to a totally different purpose. This want of good faith shows -abundantly that the oral law does not come from the God of -truth. The narrow bigotry of the system thus neutralizes all -the individual trials of excellence which the oral law contains. -They appear beautiful only when viewed apart from their context; -but the moment we view them in relation to the other -parts of Rabbinism, their beauty is gone. Thus the duty and -extent of almsgiving, as prescribed by the oral law, at first -sight appears admirable; but the narrow spirit of bigotry by -which it is circumscribed, totally destroys its moral value in -the sight of God and man. Almsgiving is lovely only when it -is the offspring of charity. God looks not at the mere outward -act of giving money, but at the heart, and if there be no love -there, almsgiving is valueless in his sight. And how can any -one pretend that there is a grain of true God-like charity in a -system which turns stranger into proselyte, prohibits to help a -brother because he is not of our own religious sentiments, and -refuses even to receive a kindness from one of a different -religion? Just contrast this with the Christian doctrine, -“Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to -them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use -you, and persecute you; that ye may be the children of your -Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on -the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and the -unjust. For if ye love them which love you, what reward -have ye? Do not even the publicans the same? And if ye -salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? Do -not even the publicans so? Be ye therefore perfect, even as -your Father which is in heaven is perfect.” (Matt. v. 44-48.)</p> - -<p class='c005'><a id='Page_307'></a>But the oral law not only perverts and falsifies the true -doctrine concerning charity, but also misleads its followers by -teaching them to think that almsgiving is a peculiarly meritorious -act, and will atone for other transgressions. Thus it is -said—</p> - -<p class='c005'>הייבין אנו להזהר במצות צדקה יותר מכל מצות -עשה , שהצדקה סימן לצדיק זרע אברהם אבינו שנאמר -כי ידעתיו למען אשר יצוה את בניו לעשות צדקה , -ואין כסא ישראל מתכונן ודת אמת עומדת אלא -בצדקה שנאמר בצדקה תכונני , קאין ישראל נגאלין -אלא בצדקה שנאמר ציון במשפט יפדה ושביה בצדקה ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“We are bound to be more careful respecting this commandment -of alms than about any other of all the affirmative precepts, -for almsgiving is a characteristic of the righteous seed of our -father Abraham, as it is said, ‘I know him that he will command -his children to do alms.’ (Gen. xviii. 19.) By almsgiving -alone it is that the throne of Israel is established, and that the -law of truth standeth, for it is said, ‘by alms (literally in righteousness) -thou shalt be established.’ (Isaiah liv. 14.) By -alms alone it is that Israel shall be delivered, for it is said ‘Zion -shall be redeemed with judgment, and her converts with alms -(righteousness).’” (Isaiah l. 27.) (Ibid. c. x. 1.) According -to this doctrine, the man who gives alms has the merit of upholding -truth in the world and helping to deliver Israel from -captivity. But the following passage tells us that it will deliver -from the punishment which he deserves, and which is already -impending over his head:—</p> - -<p class='c005'>הצדקה דוחה את הגזירות הקשות וברעב תציל -ממות כמו שאירע לצרפית ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“Almsgiving annuls the evil decrees, and in famine it delivers -from death, as happened to the widow of Sarepta.” (Joreh -Deah, 347.) And hence it is that, as we have seen, at the -approach of the New Year the Rabbinists practise almsgiving -abundantly, and also, that the survivors offer for the repose of -the souls of their debased relations. The tendency of this -doctrine is obviously pernicious, for it encourages men to persist -in sin, under the idea that almsgiving will compensate for all -other deficiencies. The doctrine itself is positively false. Where -does the law of Moses say that almsgiving can purchase forgiveness? -Moses requires obedience to all the commandments, -and he enjoins the practice of charity to the poor, but he -denounces wrath against all transgression. The doctrine of -Moses is not that obedience to one command will compensate for -disobedience to another, but that disobedience to one command -<a id='Page_308'></a>will make obedience to others of none effect. The doctrine that -the giving of money to the poor can change the course of God’s -judgment, or alter this sentence, is very little short of blasphemy: -for it represents him as an unjust judge who can be bribed, -whose severity can be bought off, and whose favour can be -purchased with money. A more degrading view of the Divine -character can scarcely be imagined. Such conduct in a human -judge would stamp him with infamy, and cannot possibly be -true of Him who is a God of truth and justice. This one feature -of rabbinic religion is sufficient to prove that it is the -invention of men, and of men too without any very exalted -notion of justice and equity.</p> - -<p class='c005'>Besides, this view or almsgiving takes away all the virtue of -obedience and love to God, and turns it into a mere mercenary -transaction. The great beauty of almsgiving is that it proceeds -from love to God and man, and that its motives be mercy and -obedience. But the man, who gives alms in order to atone for -other transgressions, or to avert the punishment which he deserves, -is not performing an act either of obedience or charity, -he is simply making a purchase and driving a bargain which -is much to his advantage. He has got money, and with that -money he can buy a house, or a horse, or deliverance from -punishment. It is, therefore, a simple question of interest. -He considers which will be the most profitable investment of -his money, and if he decide that deliverance from God’s wrath -is the most advantageous, he lays it out in almsgiving. Obedience, -or love to God or man, is here altogether out of the -question. Can any one, who has got the law and the prophets -in his hands, imagine that such a doctrine can come from God? -or can any reasonable being suppose, that escape from God’s -wrath, or the enjoyment of his favour depends not upon man’s -moral worth, but upon his ability to give alms: in a word, that -his salvation depends not upon the state of his heart, but the -laying out of his money? This one doctrine, if thoroughly -believed and acted upon, would overturn the whole law of -Moses, and offer life not to the obedient, but to the moneyed.</p> - -<p class='c005'>In this doctrine of almsgiving, however, the oral law errs at -the very foundation. It has chosen the Hebrew word צדקה -to stand for “almsgiving,” whereas its true signification is -“righteousness,” as may be easily proved by reference to passages -where it cannot possibly signify “almsgiving,” as for instance—</p> - -<p class='c005'>וצדקה תהיה לנו כי נשמור לעשות את כל המצוה -הזאת לפני ה׳ אלהינו כאשר צונו ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“And it shall be our <i>righteousness</i> (not our almsgiving), if -we observe to do all these commandments before the Lord our -<a id='Page_309'></a>God as he hath commanded us.” (Deut. vi. 25.) Here צדקה -cannot possibly signify almsgiving. And again,</p> - -<p class='c005'>והאמין בה׳ ויחשבה לו צדקה ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“And he believed in the Lord; and he counted it to him for -righteousness (not for almsgiving).” (Gen. xv. 6.) And again,</p> - -<p class='c005'>לך אדני הצדקה ולנו בושת הפנים ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“O Lord, righteousness belongeth unto thee, but unto us -confusion of face” (Dan. ix. 7), where it is impossible to say -that “Almsgiving belongeth unto the Lord.” The oral law is -therefore guilty of perverting the meaning of one of the plainest -and most commonly repeated words in the Bible, and of course -of thereby giving an erroneous sense to the passage where it -occurs. Thus it says, as we have seen above, “that by almsgiving -the throne of Israel is established and the law of truth -standeth,” and it proves this assertion by referring to a verse -of Isaiah, where the word צדקה occurs, and which signifies -“by righteousness shalt thou be established,” but which it -perverts to mean “by almsgiving thou shalt be established.” -Here then the oral law is plainly convicted of falsifying the -Word of God, and perverting its meaning in order to serve its -own purposes and favour its own false doctrine. To teach false -doctrine is bad enough, but to pervert the plain sense of Scripture -is a great deal worse. Either charge, if proved, would be -sufficient to prove that the oral law is a false religion, but here -both charges are proved together. The oral law here teaches -that almsgiving can do that which it cannot do, namely, bribe -God to have mercy; and it supports its false doctrine by interpreting -צדקה to signify “almsgiving,” whereas it plainly -signifies “righteousness.” A religion guilty of such error -cannot be from God. It is for the Jews, then, to consider -whether they will persist in upholding the truth of a system -which opposes the doctrines of Moses and the prophets, and -perverts the Word of God. The great boast of the Jews is, -that they are faithful to Moses and to the religion of Moses: -but this boast is vain so long as they profess Judaism. If Moses -were to rise from the dead, and get the oral law into his hands, -he would not be able to recognise it as the religion which he -left to Israel. And, as to the commands about almsgiving, he -would not be able even to translate them, for in his time צדקה -signified righteousness.</p> - -<p class='c005'>The prophet Isaiah would feel equal astonishment if he were -to return and learn, that the oral law quoted him as an -authority for the assertion, that Zion is to be redeemed, not -with righteousness, but with almsgiving. And we doubt not -that both Moses and Isaiah would protest as earnestly as we do -against a doctrine based upon perversion. But it is extraordinary, -<a id='Page_310'></a>if the Rabbinists really believe their own doctrine, that -Israel can be delivered from captivity by almsgiving, that they -should set any bounds to their liberality, or ever stop giving, -until the desired redemption be effected. If their doctrine be -true, then all that they so earnestly pray for, is entirely in -their own power. They know the means, and they possess the -means of terminating this long captivity. They need only to -give a sufficiency of alms, and, according to the oral law, even -Zion itself shall be delivered. How extraordinary then, that -they should have suffered so many centuries of misery to pass -over their heads, and left their brethren to endure such calamities, -when liberality in almsgiving could have put a period to -all their sorrows. We think too highly of Israel’s charity to -suppose for a moment that they would hesitate to make the -sacrifice, if they were persuaded of its efficacy. We must -therefore infer, that they do not believe in the doctrine, and ask -them, why do they profess a religion in which they do not -believe?</p> - -<div class='chapter'> - <h2 id='chap40' class='c003'>No. XL. <br /> PRIESTS AND LEVITES.</h2> -</div> -<p class='c004'>The great test of a man’s faith in, and love to, his religion -is his practice. If a man live in open and perpetual transgression -of its commands, no profession can satisfy us that he is -in earnest, or that he really believes what his creed confesses. -Now let the advocates of the oral law examine themselves by -this test. They profess to believe in, and to love the law of -Moses; and their great boast is, that Moses is their master, -and that they are his disciples, but do they prove the reality of -their faith by their obedience? They sometimes tax Christians -with inconsistency in professing to believe in Moses, and yet in -neglecting the observance of certain ceremonial observances; -but are they themselves more careful and less guilty in this -matter? We do not mean to allude to the weightier matters -of the law, love to God and man: that is a question for the -conscience, not a subject for controversy, but we refer to some -mere external matters, easy of observance, and open to the -cognisance of every man. Moses and the prophets have commanded -that the priests, the Levites, הכהנים הלוים, should -be the teachers of the law, and that from them the people -<a id='Page_311'></a>should learn. Moses does not say one word about rabbies or -wise men, חכמים, but restricts the office of teaching to the -priests, the Levites: now, do the modern Jews obey Moses in -this respect? Who are their teachers of religion, and from -whom do they learn? Are the priests and the Levites the -teachers of Israel, as Moses commanded, or are they taught by -their rabbies and Chachamim, of whom Moses does not say one -syllable?</p> - -<p class='c005'>We assert, that Moses has commanded that the priests, the -Levites, should be the religious teachers in Israel, and in proof -we refer to the words of Moses himself. In the tenth chapter -of ויקרא, Leviticus, he thus writes:—</p> - -<p class='c005'>וידבר ה׳ אל אחרן לאמר . יין ושכר אל תשת -אתה ובניך אתך בבאכם אל אהל מועד ולא תמותו -חקה עולם לדורותיכם . ולהבדיל בין הקודש ובין -ההול ובין הטמא ובין הטהור . ולהורות את בני -ושראל את כל החקים אשר דבר ה׳ אליהם ביד משה ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“And the Lord spake unto Aaron, saying, Do not drink wine -nor strong drink, thou nor thy sons with thee, when ye go into -the tabernacle of the congregation, lest ye die: it shall be a -statute for ever throughout your generations: and that ye may -put difference between holy and unholy, and between unclean -and clean; and that ye may teach the children of Israel all the -statutes which the Lord hath spoken unto them by the hand of -Moses.” Here the nature of the priest’s office is clearly defined. -It is, in the first place, to go into the tabernacle of the congregation, -and there to serve before the Lord: and secondly to -instruct the children of Israel in the difference between holy and -profane, clean and unclean, and especially to teach the children -of Israel “<span class='fss'>ALL THE STATUTES</span>,” which the Lord had given to -Moses. The commission is not only very comprehensive, but -very exclusive. If the priests were to teach “all the statutes,” -there is no room left for rabbies, or Chachamim, or any other -description of teacher, the priests are the only divinely-accredited -religious teachers in Israel.</p> - -<p class='c005'>If this passage stood alone, it would be quite sufficient to -establish the doctrine; but it does not. Moses was particularly -anxious to impress upon the Israelites the nature of the priestly -office, and therefore repeats the instruction again and again. -Thus in the law respecting a dead body found lying in a field, -after commanding that the elders and judges should come -forth, he adds—</p> - -<p class='c005'>ונגשו הכהנים בני לוי כי בם בחר ה׳ אלהיך -לשרתו ולברך בשם ה׳ ועל פיהם יהיה כל ריב וכל -ננע ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'><a id='Page_312'></a>“And the priests, the sons of Levi, shall come near: for them -the Lord thy God hath chosen to minister unto him, and to -bless in the name of the Lord: and by their word shall every -controversy and every stroke be tried.” (Deut. xxi. 5.) One -should have thought that the elders and judges were enough -in such a case. But not so. God had determined that the -priests were to teach Israel “all his statutes,” and therefore -commands that they should be present in this case, that they -should give the decision.</p> - -<p class='c005'>Again, when Moses was about to part from Israel, and to -leave them his dying benediction, he was directed by the spirit -of prophecy to impress upon them the same great truth, and in -the most solemn manner:—</p> - -<p class='c005'>וללוי אמר תמיך ואוריך לאיש חסידך אשר נסיתו -במסה תריבהו על מי מריבה , האומר לאביו ולאמו -לא ראיתיו ואת אחיו לא הכיו ואת בניו לא ידע כי -שמרו אמרתך ובריתך ינצרו . יורו משפטיך ליעקב -תורתך לישראל וגו׳ ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“And of Levi he said, Let thy Thummim and thy Urim be -with thy Holy One, whom thou didst prove at Massah, and -with whom thou didst strive at the waters of Meribah: who -said unto his father and mother, I have not seen him; neither -did he acknowledge his brethren, nor knew his own children: -for they have observed thy word, and kept thy covenant. -<i>They shall teach Jacob thy judgments, and Israel thy law.</i>” -(Deut. xxxiii. 8-10.) And as this doctrine forms a part of -Moses’ last words, so also it is found in the last prophetic -message which God vouchsafed to Israel. Malachi, the last of -the prophets, reminds Israel—</p> - -<p class='c005'>כי שפתי כהן ישמרו דעת ותורה יבקשו מפיהו -כי מלאך ה׳ צבאות הוא ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“That the priest’s lips should keep knowledge, and they -should seek the law at his mouth: for he is the messenger of -the Lord of hosts” (Mal. ii. 7): so that if there be any one -thing more plain than another in the Old Testament it is this, -that the sons of Levi are the divinely-appointed religious -teachers of Israel, and that it is the duty of all Israelites to -seek instruction from them.</p> - -<p class='c005'>It cannot be said that the priests are not now well known, -and that on this account these commands have lost their force; -for those who believe in the oral law, profess to know the -family of Levi, and in the synagogue, at the reading of the -law, the priest and the Levite are called up in a certain order:</p> - -<p class='c005'>בכל קריאה וקריאה מאלו כהן קורא ראשון ואחריו -<a id='Page_313'></a>לוי ואחריו ישראל , ומנהג פשוט הוא היום בישראל -שאפילו כהן עם הארץ קודם לקרות לפני חכם גדול -ישראל ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“At every time of reading the priest reads first, and after -him the Levite, and after him the Israelite. And the simple -custom of the present time is, that a priest, even though he be -an unlearned man (amhaaretz), takes precedence in reading -before the most learned, who is only an Israelite.” (Hilchoth -T’phillah, c. xii. 18.) And as the priests are thus supposed to -be known, so the oral law expressly maintains that they still -retain their priestly office, and are bound to discharge the -duties of it, so far as is possible, in the captivity: and therefore -requires them to bless the people as Moses commanded. Indeed -the firm conviction of the Talmudists on this subject is -strikingly exhibited in their assertion, that a priest, although -unlearned, or even notoriously wicked, is still not exempted -from his obligation to perform this duty:—</p> - -<p class='c005'>כהן שלא היה לו דבר מכל אלה המונעין נשיאת -כפים אע׳׳פ שאינו חכם ואינו מדקדק במצוות או שהיה -חבריו מרננים אחריו או שלא היה משאו ומתנו בצדק -הרי זה נושא את כפיו ואין מונאין אותו , לפי שזו -מצות עשה על כל כהן וכהן שראוי לנשיאת כפים -ואין אומרים לאדם רשע הוסף רשע והמנע מן המצוות , -ואל תתמה ותאמר מה תועיל ברכת הדיוט זה , שאין -קבול הברכה תלוי בכהנים אלא בהקב׳׳ה שנאמר ושמו -את שמי על בני ושראל ואני אברכם , הכהנים עושים -מצוה שנצטוו בה והקב׳׳ה ברחמיו מברך את ישראל -כחפצו ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“A priest who has none of these disqualifications for the -lifting up of hands, even though he be not learned, nor accurate -in the commandments; and although his companions -make a mock of him, or his dealings should not be righteous, -still he is to lift up his hands [to bless], and is not to be -prevented, for this is an affirmative precept binding upon -every priest, who is otherwise qualified; and we must not say -to a wicked man, Away, thou wicked man, be thou disqualified -from keeping the commandments. Do not ask, saying, What -profit can there be in the blessing of this simple fellow? for -the receiving of the blessing does not depend upon the priests, -but upon the Holy One, blessed be He, for it is said, ‘They shall -put my name upon the children of Israel, and I will bless -them.’ The priests perform the duty commanded them, and -God, in his mercy, blesses Israel according to his pleasure.” -<a id='Page_314'></a>(Ibid. c. xv. 6.) The existence, then, of the priests, and their -continued obligation to perform such official duties as are now -possible, are fully acknowledged, yea, it is even asserted that a -wicked priest is by no means to be prevented from doing his -duty: it has also been plainly proved, from the words of Moses -and the prophets, that it is the duty of the priests to teach, and -of the Israelites to be taught by them: and no man can deny -that the performance of this duty is possible. The destruction -of the temple has prevented the priest from sacrificing, but it -has made no difference with regard to the possibility of teaching: -it is, therefore, a fair question to propose, to those who -boast in their obedience to the law of Moses, <i>How is this -Mosaic command respecting the teaching of the law fulfilled?</i> -Are the priests, the Levites, the religious teachers in all -Jewish congregations? or have they been excluded from the -office assigned to them by Moses? and is it occupied by others -to whom Moses did not give it? Every Jew must answer that -this command of Moses is utterly disregarded—that the office -of the priesthood, as established by Moses, has now scarcely -the shadow of an existence amongst the Jews—that the rabbies, -Chachamim, and the Melamm’dim are universally the -religious teachers—and that hundreds, if not thousands, of -the priests are left in utter obscurity, and not a few in destitution. -Jeremiah complained of the heathen—</p> - -<p class='c005'>פני כהנים לא נשאו ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“They respected not the persons of the priests” (Lam. iv. -16); but it is equally applicable to the adherents of the oral -law. Here and there a son of Levi may be a rabbi, and then -he has the honour attached to the rabbinical office; but the -Mosaic institution of the priesthood, as the appointed order of -religious, teachers to Israel is utterly disregarded. Moses declares, -as we have seen above, that it is the priest’s office -“to distinguish between holy and unholy, and between clean -and unclean;” but if a Jew has got a שאלה, a question or -a difficulty, it is to the rabbi that he goes to get the decision. -Moses says that the priests are appointed by God “to -teach Israel all the statutes which the Lord hath spoken to -them;” but now men are made rabbies and Melamm’dim who -do not pretend to be of the family of Levi: and there are congregations -even where there is no Levite nor priest at all, and -where, therefore, this command is utterly despised. But the -worst feature in this disobedience is, that it is systematic. It -is not one of the casualties of the captivity, but it is the -deliberate aim of the oral law to degrade the priesthood, as -established by Moses, and to set up above it another office, -that of rabbi, of which Moses does not say one word. The -oral law, instead of deprecating the possibility of an Israelite -<a id='Page_315'></a>congregation existing without a priest a son of Levi, quietly -layeth down the law for doing without them. When prescribing -the order in which persons are to be called up to the -reading of the law, it says—</p> - -<p class='c005'>אין שם כהן עולה ישראל ולא יעלה אחריו לוי כלל ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“If there be no priest there, then an Israelite is to go up, but -no Levite is to follow him.” (Ibid., c. xii. 19.) And again,</p> - -<p class='c005'>ואם אין להם כהן כלל כשיגיע שליח צבור לשים -שלום וכו׳ ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“But if the congregation has no priest at all, when the -reader comes to that part of the prayers he is to say,” &c. -(Ibid., c. xv. 10.) Now if the oral law were anxious to maintain -the institution of Moses it could make no such supposition. -On the contrary it would urge upon every congregation the -indispensable necessity of having a priest or the family of Levi. -The supposition shows that its authors cared but little about -the commands of Moses, for where there is no priest it is -plainly impossible for the people to obey that often-repeated -precept to learn the law from the sons of Levi. And yet the -authors of the oral law, who care so little for this commandment -of Moses about the priests, command the appointment -of Melamm’dim, or schoolmasters, wider pain of utter destruction—</p> - -<p class='c005'>מושיבין מלמדי תינוקות בכל מדינה ומדינה ובכל -פלך ופלך ובכל עיר ועיר , וכל עיר שאין בה תינוקות -של בית רבן מחרימין את אנשי העיר יד שמושיבין -מלמדי תינוקות ואם עוד לא הושיבו מחרימין את -הציר ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“Teachers of children are to be established in every province -and district and city. And every city in which there -are not school children the men of that city are to be visited -with the Cherem, and if they still neglect, the city itself -is to be devoted.” (Hilch. Talm. Torah, c. ii.) When we -see them enforce this commandment of their own with such -zeal and severity, and yet appear so careless and negligent -about the commandment of Moses, we justly infer that this -neglect was intentional, and that the object was to exalt -themselves, and to depress that office which God himself -had ordained, And this inference is abundantly confirmed -by הלכות כבוד רבו, the numerous and minute laws respecting -the honour due to a rabbi, whilst the respect due -to the family of Levi is almost entirely disregarded, and his -office evidently depreciated below that of the former. As, -for instance, in establishing the order in which captives are -<a id='Page_316'></a>to be redeemed, the oral law says the priest is to be redeemed -before the Levite, and the Levite before the Israelite, -but then adds—</p> - -<p class='c005'>במה דברים אמורים כשהיו שניהם שוין בחכמה , -אבל אם היה כהן גדול עם הארץ וממזר תלמיד חכם -תלמיד חכם קודם ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“In what case does this hold good? In case that they -were both equal in wisdom. But if the high priest be an -unlearned man, and an illegitimate child be the disciple of -a wise man (chacham), the latter is to have the precedence.” -(Hilchoth Matt’noth Aniim, c. viii. 17.) Here the office of -the priesthood and even of the high priesthood itself is put -below that of the rabbi or chacham, and the intention of -the Rabbinists to exalt themselves, and their utter disregard -for the law of Moses and his commandments, is especially -apparent. The high priest was the chief person in the whole -Mosaic dispensation. Without him the blood of the offering -could not be carried into the holy of holies on the Day of -Atonement, and yet the oral law says, that if he and an -illegitimate child, that is, the least honoured person in Israel, -be both in captivity, and the latter be the disciple of a rabbi, -he is to be redeemed first. It is needless to add any further -proof of the fact that the command of Moses, respecting the -family of Levi, is systematically and intentionally transgressed -by the authors and adherents of the oral law. The priests, -the Levites, have been thrust out of that office which God -gave them, and others have been made the religious teachers -of Israel who have no right at all to this appointment. How -then can the modern Jews pretend to be zealous for the law -of Moses? They are living in plain and systematic violation -of one of his plainest commands. It will not do to say that -the office of rabbi is also of divine appointment. An assertion -which nullities a Mosaic institution must have the most unexceptionable -evidence. Its proof must be at least as clear -as the original appointment. To persuade any real lover of -the Mosaic law that the rabbies have a right to thrust out -the family of Levi from their office, and to take it upon -themselves, the express declaration of God is absolutely -necessary. And if the rabbies could prove, which they -cannot, that they are the lawful teachers of Israel, it would -necessarily follow that the Mosaic law has been changed, -and then one of the chief dogmas of modern Judaism, -the immutability of the Mosaic law, is entirely overthrown. -When Moses gave the law the priests were the religious -teachers of Israel. Since the dominion of the oral law, not the -priests, but the rabbies have been the teachers. Here then is -<a id='Page_317'></a>an important, yea, an organic change in the Mosaic constitution. -This change then is either unlawful or lawful. If it be -unlawful, then the rabbies have no right to be the teachers of -Israel. If it be lawful, then to change and alter the Mosaic -law is lawful, and then modern Judaism, which teaches that -there can be no change, is false. This is the only alternative -which modern Jews can adopt,—they must either -maintain the immutability of the law at the expense of the -rabbinic office, or they must assert the legitimacy of the -rabbinic office at the expense of the law. In either case -the oral law is convicted of teaching falsehood; and in -neither case can the modern Jews make a boast of loyalty -to the law of Moses. They charge Christians with disregarding -and transgressing the Mosaic law, but let them -point out, even in the practice of Gentile Christians, any -one apparent transgression more heinous than the expulsion -of the family of Levi from the office to which Moses appointed -them. The fact is notorious. This family is every -where neglected and in obscurity, struggling with the cares -and business of the world, instead of occupying the station -given to them by Moses. Let all the lovers of modern -Judaism consider this fact, and then ask themselves how -they can pretend to be keeping the law of Moses? Let -them remember that they have themselves made a change -in the law by appointing rabbies instead of the priests, and -that, if they defend this change, they teach the very same -doctrine which they blame in Gentile Christians, namely, the -mutability and abrogation of the Mosaic law. Of course we do -not mean to dictate to Israel in this matter. If they are conscientiously -persuaded that the institutions of Moses have been -abrogated, they can then consistently maintain the appointment -of rabbies, but let them give up their common, though -mistaken, argument against Christianity. But if they believe -what they so commonly profess, that the law of Moses is not, -and cannot be abrogated, then let them act consistently, renounce -the oral law, and restore the family of Levi to the -office from which modern Judaism has excluded them for so -many centuries. To follow the oral law, and at the same time -to obey the written law of Moses in this matter, is plainly -impossible. The oral law is for the rabbies and the Chachamim—the -words of Moses are for the family of Levi. The -Jews may, and of course will, choose as they think best; but, -if they determine upon maintaining the rabbinical system, let -them not pretend to be followers of Moses. Let them honestly -confess that they do not like Moses and his laws, and that they -prefer the new and modern religion of the rabbies. The -subject is important to all Israel, but especially so to the sons -of Levi themselves. God gave them the important charge of -<a id='Page_318'></a>instructing the house of Israel in his laws, are they then at -liberty to resign their sacred office into the hands of others? -Has God dispensed them from obedience to his command? If -so, what obligation rests upon them to bless the people? By -lifting up their hands and blessing the people, they confess -that their office still continues; and, if so, the obligation to -perform all its duties continues also. Either the law of Moses -is abrogated, or the priests are still the appointed religious -teachers of Israel.</p> - -<p class='c005'>The priests have the some alternative as the people, i.e., -either to assert the rights and perform the duties of their -priestly office, or honestly to acknowledge that they do not -believe in Moses, nor care for his religion, but that their -religion is that of the rabbies. The responsibility is however -much heavier on the family of Levi than on Israelites of another -tribe. To the sons of Levi, God committed the honourable -office of instructing Israel. They have been set as the watchmen -in Israel, and are therefore answerable, not only for their -own neglect, but for the error and destruction of the people. -It is then high time for them to remember their duty and the -zeal of their forefathers in extirpating error, and to show -themselves worthy of their high origin, and of their divine -appointment, by opposing the errors of the oral law.</p> -<div class='chapter'> - <a id='Page_319'></a> - <h2 id='chap41' class='c003'>No. XLI. <br /> RABBINIC IDEAS OF THE DEITY.</h2> -</div> -<p class='c004'>It is an indisputable fact, that the modern Jews have entirely -cast off the laws of Moses respecting the priests of the family -of Levi, and have chosen and appointed to themselves other -teachers, of whom Moses says nothing. What the cause was -of such extraordinary conduct in those who profess a great zeal -for the law of Moses, we do not now profess to inquire; but -we think that every Jew ought to have a very good reason for -thus wilfully, systematically, and continually transgressing the -commandments of God. He ought, at the very least, to be able -to show that the doctrines of these new teachers are far superior -to those of the religious teachers appointed by Moses; and that -the superabundant excellence and wisdom of rabbinic teaching -does, at least, justify the change which they have made in the -Mosaic law. We have had occasion in these papers to consider -the nature of the new doctrine chosen instead of the law of -Moses, and to us it certainly appears that “The Old Paths” -were better. To-day we propose to illustrate the rabbinic -notions of the Deity, and do not intend by any means to select -the most objectionable representations contained in the rabbinical -writings, but shall confine ourselves to a few well-known -passages, which are intended to explain to us the mode in which -God spends his time. Concerning the day, the rabbies say that -it is spent in the following manner:—</p> - -<p class='c005'>שתים עשרה שעות הוי היום , שלש הראשונות -הקב׳׳ה יושב ועוסק בתורה , שניות יושב ודן את כל -העולם כולו , כיון שרואה שנתחייב העולם כליה , -עומד מכסא הדין ויושב על כסא הרחמים , שלישיות -יושב וזן את כל העולם כולו , מקרני ראמים עד ביצי -כינים , רביעיות יושב ומשחק עם לויתן , שנאמר -לויתן זה יצרת לשחק בו וכו׳ ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“The day has twelve hours. The first three, the Holy One, -blessed be He, sits and occupies himself in the law. The second, -he sits and judges the whole world. When he perceives that -the world deserves utter destruction, He stands up from the -throne of judgment, and sits on the throne of mercy. The third, -he sits, and feeds all the world, from the horns of the unicorns -to the eggs of the vermin. In the fourth, he sits and plays -with Leviathan, for it is said (Psalm civ. 26) ‘The Leviathan -whom thou hast formed to play therewith.’” (Avodah Zarah, -fol. iii., col. 2.) In another place we have an account of the -manner in which the night is spent:—</p> - -<p class='c005'><a id='Page_320'></a>ר׳ אליעזר אומר שלש משמרות הוי הלילה ועל -כל משמר ומשמר יושב הקב׳׳ה ושואג כארי שנאמר -ה׳ ממרום ישאג ממעו קדשו יתן קולו שאוג ישאג -על נוהו ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“Rabbi Eliezer says, The night has three watches, and at -every watch, the Holy One, blessed be He, sits and roars like -a lion, for it is said, ‘The Lord shall roar from on high, and -utter his voice from his holy habitation: roaring he shall roar -upon his habitation.’” (Jer. xxv. 30.) And again, a little lower -down, the same assertion is made in the name of two other -rabbies, and the cause of God’s roaring assigned:—</p> - -<p class='c005'>אמר רב יצחק בר שמואל משמיה דרב שלש -משמרות הוי הלילה ועל כל משמר ומשמר יושב -הקב׳׳ה ושואג כארי ואומר אוי שחרבתי את ביתי -ושרפתי את היכלי והגליתי את בני לבין אומות -העולם ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“Rabbi Isaac, the son of Samuel, says, in the name of Rav, -The night has three watches, and at every watch, the Holy One, -blessed be He, sits and roars like a lion, and says, Woe is me -that I have laid desolate my house, and burned my sanctuary, -and sent my children into captivity amongst the nations of the -world.” (Berachoth, fol. iii., col. 1.) Now we ask every reasonable -man whether this is a representation worthy of the -Creator of heaven and earth? We are told here, first, that -God is like a man in observing day and night—that he has set -times for different employments, and a time for amusement. -We are told, secondly, that instead of comprehending all things -past, present, and to come, at all times, and instead of upholding -all things by the continual fiat of his omnipotent rule, -that he is obliged to consider each thing in succession; and that, -like a poor frail child of man, He can do only one thing at a -time. And thirdly, we are here informed, that the Divine Being -sits all night, and mourns like a child, over an act which he -rashly committed, but now wishes to have undone. Is this a -fit representation of Deity, or is it awful blasphemy? How -different is the description given by Moses—“Lord, thou hast -been our dwelling-place in all generations. Before the mountains -were brought forth, or ever thou hadst formed the earth -and the world, even from everlasting to everlasting, thou art -God. A thousand years in thy sight are but as yesterday -when it is past, and as a watch in the night” (Ps. xc. 1-4); -and again, that other beautiful passage of the Psalmist, “Of -old thou hast laid the foundations of the earth; and the heavens -are the work of thy hands. They shall perish, but thou shalt -endure; yea all of them shall wax old like a garment: and as -<a id='Page_321'></a>a vesture shalt thou change them, and they shall be changed; -but thou art the same, and thy years shall have no end.” (Ps. -cii. 25-27.) In both these passages, unchangeableness, entire -freedom from all vicissitude and succession, is presented to -our view as the prominent feature in the character of Deity. -Whereas, the God whom the rabbies describe, is a being subject -to the same alterations as ourselves, and liable to change, in its -worst form, that is, to that change of will which ensues on -disappointed expectations. They say, that their God destroyed -his temple and sent his children into captivity, and that now -he is very sorry for it, and vents the bitterness of his grief in -lamentations compared to the roaring of a lion. Such a deity -is no more like the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, than -Jeroboam’s calves. He may not be a graven image, but he is -nevertheless an idol, not indeed of gold or silver, but of the -imagination. Nothing can be more different than the Being -described by the rabbies, and that God declared in Moses and -the Prophets. And yet on this very point, where the oral law -errs so grievously, Christianity maintains the truth. The New -Testament declares unto us the same Being revealed in the Old. -It says, “Every good gift, and every perfect gift is from above, -and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no -variableness, neither shadow of turning.” (James i. 17.)</p> - -<p class='c005'>But the rabbies falsely ascribe to God not only variableness, -but imperfect knowledge also. They say, that He spends a -fourth part of the day in the study of the law. Now either God -knows the law, or he does not. If he does know the law, then -study is useless; and if he does not, then his knowledge is -imperfect, and either supposition is altogether unworthy of the -Deity. Indeed it is very difficult to argue against a doctrine -so monstrous, or to show the full absurdity where the subject -is so grave and sacred. But we put it to the good sense of -every Israelite, and ask him whether he can believe that the -God of knowledge studies in his own law? Is not such an -assertion a blasphemous falsehood, and does it not show that -those who made it were themselves utterly devoid of all true -knowledge of God? Some persons endeavour to excuse this -blasphemy by saying that the words are not to be taken -literally, and that the rabbies employed oriental figures. But -this will not save the credit of the oral law; for if we admit -the figure, we cannot excuse the blasphemy contained in the -assertion, that God studies the law one fourth of every day. -No man that has any reverence for his Creator would venture -to use such language, not even in the way of a parable. It -proves in every case that those rabbies were totally devoid of -that reverence which is due to God, and therefore most unfit -teachers of religion. But, further, if these passages be figurative, -what is the real sense? What is meant by studying in the law, -<a id='Page_322'></a>or playing with Leviathan, or uttering complaints at the -beginning of every watch in the night; or what is intended by -ascribing to God one sort of employment in the day and the -other in the night? It is not enough to say that these are all -figures conveying the most profound wisdom; this assertion -must be proved by showing what this wisdom is. Let the -Rabbinists explain these figures satisfactorily, and they will -then have some chance of being believed, though even that -would not amount to a proof, that the authors of these passages -intended that they should be understood mystically. It is a -certain fact that many of the rabbies have understood these -and similar passages literally. In the commentary on the assertion, -“That in the second three hours God sits and judges the -world,” we are told, that some believed this so firmly as to -think that on this very account the additional form of prayer, -called מוסף, was prescribed:—</p> - -<p class='c005'>יש אומרים כי לכך תקנו בקדושת מודף לומר -ממקומו הוא יפן כי סתם מוסף בשניות בא ואז הוא -יושב ודן ואנו מתפללין שיפנה מכסא דין לשבת -בכסא רחמים ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“Some say, that on this account the words ‘Let him turn -from his place,’ have been appointed in the sanctification of the -Musaph, for this part of the prayer generally occurs in the -second three hours, when he is sitting in judgment, and that -we pray that he may turn from the throne of judgment, and sit -on the throne of mercy.” Those who held this opinion plainly -thought, that the hours were literal hours, and that the distribution -of the day into four different employments was not -figurative, but real. These persons, therefore, believed that -God studies in the law, that he plays with Leviathan, and -observes the distinction of day and night. And it must be -confessed that, if they believed in the Talmud, they had good -reason for this literal interpretation, as the corresponding -passage, respecting God’s roaring like a lion at every watch of -the night, cannot be explained figuratively, if it be taken in -connexion with its context. The context contains a discussion -about real, not figurative night-watches. The question proposed -by the Mishna is, Until what hour of the night is it -lawful to perform the evening-reading of the Sh’mah Israel -(Hear, O Israel)? R. Eliezer says, It is lawful until the end -of the first watch. The Gemara then considers what the rabbi -could mean by this definition—</p> - -<p class='c005'>מה קסבר ר׳ אליעזר אי קסבר ג׳ משמרות הוי -הלילה לימא עד ארבע שעות ואי קסבר ארבע משמרות -הוי הלִלה לימא עד שלש שעות , לעולם קסבר -<a id='Page_323'></a>שלש משמרות הוי הלילה והא קא משמע לן איכא -משמרות ברקיעא ואיכא משמרות בארעא דתניא וכו׳ ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“What did R. Eliezer mean? If he meant that the night -had three watches, he ought to have said until the fourth hour: -but if he meant that the night has four watches, he ought to -have said until the third hour. There can be no doubt that -he meant that the night has three watches, and intended to -say, that there are watches in heaven and watches upon earth, -for the Bareitha says, &c.”——And then follows the passage, -saying, that in each watch God roars like a lion. It cannot, -then, be pretended that the night-watches here are figurative -or mystical. It is expressly said that there are the same -watches in heaven and earth, and the whole question is about -the real distribution of time. The following context is equally -unequivocal. R. Eliezer, immediately after saying that in each -watch God roars like a lion, goes on to give the signs whereby -each watch may be recognised even in the dark:—</p> - -<p class='c005'>קסימן לדבר משמרה ראשונה חמור נוער , שנייה -כלבים צועקים , שלישית תינוק יונק משדי אמו ואשה -מספרת עם בעלה ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“The sign of the thing is—In the first watch the ass brays; -in the second watch the dogs bark; in the third watch the -infant sucks at its mother’s breast, and the wife talks with -her husband.” This is plain matter-of-fact way of speaking, -and proves, beyond a doubt, that the whole passage is to -be taken literally. And if any doubt at all remained, it is -entirely removed, a little lower down on the page, by an -anecdote told by the veracious R. Jose. He says, that he -once went into one of the ruins of Jerusalem to pray, and that -whilst he was engaged in prayer, the prophet Elijah came to -the entrance of the ruin, and very civilly waited for him until -he had concluded, when they had some conversation together.</p> - -<p class='c005'>Amongst other particulars, R. Jose relates as follows:—</p> - -<p class='c005'>ואמר לי בני מה קול שמעת בחורבה זו לאמרתי -לו שמעתי בת קול שמנהמת כיונה ואומרת אוי -שחרבתי את ביתי ושרפתי את היכלי והגליתי את -בני לבין האומות ואמר לי חייך וחיי ראשך לא שעה -זר בלבד אורת כך , אלא בכל יום ויום שלש פעמים -אומרת כך , ולא זו בלבד , אלא בשעה שישראל -נכנסין לבתי כנסיות ולבתי מדרשות ועונין אמן יהא -שמא רבא מברך הקב׳׳ה מנענע ראשו ואומר אשרי -המלך שמקלסין אותו בביתו כך מה לו לאב שהגלה -את בניו ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'><a id='Page_324'></a>“And he (Elias) said to me, What sort of a voice didst thou -hear in the ruin? I said to him, I heard a Bath Kol cooing -like a dove, and saying, Woe is me that I have desolated my -house, and burnt my sanctuary, and sent my children into -captivity amongst the nations. And he said unto me, As thou -livest, and thy head liveth, it is not at this hour only, but -three times every day the voice says these words. And not -only so, but when the Israelites enter the synagogues, and the -houses of study, and say, ‘Amen, may his great name be -blessed,’ the Holy One, blessed be He, shakes his head, and -says, Blessed is the King who is praised in his house; but -what profit has the father who sends his children into captivity,” -&c. Here we have the testimony of R. Jose to the -truth of the fact, that God does thus complain in the manner -described above, and we have the Prophet Elijah swearing that -this happens three times every day. It is plain, therefore, that -the authors of the Talmud knew of no mystical interpretation -and intended none. It was their simple belief that God observed -the three watches of the night, and at the beginning of each -roared like a lion. And if this passage must be taken literally, -why should the other passage respecting the distribution and -employments of the day be taken figuratively? The literal -interpretation of the one furnishes a strong argument for the -literal interpretation of the other. And it is certainly of no -use to ascribe a mystical sense to the one, whilst the other is -interpreted literally. The advocates of the oral law gain -nothing by it, for the one is not more absurd nor more -unworthy of the Deity than the other. Nothing can exceed -the folly of representing God as observing the night-watches, -and roaring like a lion for grief, because he sent Israel into -captivity. Nothing can be more blasphemous than the assertion -that God does not foresee the results of his own actions, -and that he is afterwards obliged to sit down and mourn -over what he has done. This one passage, which cannot -be explained away, is quite sufficient to show that the rabbies -were utterly ignorant of the nature of God; and that, however -they might be acquainted with the letter of the Law -and the Prophets, they knew nothing of the real meaning of -their writings. This one excess of folly and absurdity entirely -overthrows all the claims and pretensions of the oral law in -which it is found.</p> - -<p class='c005'>But there is another feature in the passage which we cannot -pass without notice, and that is, the total disregard of truth -which it manifests. R. Jose’s story is evidently a barefaced and -wilful lie, unless we say, that when he went into the ruin to -pray, he fell asleep, and dreamed that he heard the Bath Kol -and had this conversation with Elijah; but either supposition -will equally destroy the credit of the Talmud. If it be a lie, it is -<a id='Page_325'></a>one of the most profane and wicked lies that can be imagined. -We have here a professed teacher of the law telling not only a -falsehood about his intercourse with Elijah, but daring falsely -to assert that he heard the voice of God mourning over the -ruins of the temple. The most profane and wicked lie that -can be devised is that which introduces God himself, and trifles -with the sacred character of the Deity. If this story be a lie, -it oversets the Talmud and the Talmudical religion at once. A -religion built upon falsehoods, must itself be necessarily false. -But if the other supposition be adopted, that R. Jose mistook -a dream for a reality, what shall we say of a religion whose -teachers tell their dreams as sacred truths? And what shall -we say of the compilers of the Talmud, who were unable to -detect the folly and profanity of this narrative, and actually -inserted it in their oral law as an undoubted fact? This -supposition may save R. Jose from the unhappy character of a -liar, but it will not do much towards proving the truth of the -oral law; for there it is not given as a dream, but as a fact. -R. Jose was silly enough to tell his dream as a reality; and -the rabbies to whom he told it were silly enough to believe; -and the most learned men of the Rabbinists at that time were -silly enough to embody it in their collection of holy and undoubted -traditions. We do not mean to ascribe any peculiar -degree of folly to the rabbies. Persons calling themselves -Christians have been just as foolish, have believed stories just -as absurd, and have handed them down as religious truths. -But then, we do not receive these legends as a part and parcel -of our religion. We are as free to say of them, as of the -Talmudic fables, that they are wicked falsehoods. But the -modern Jews tell us that the Talmud is a divine book—that it -contains their religion, and that without it Moses and the -Prophets are unintelligible; and therefore we point out these -fables as plain proofs of the falsehood of such an assertion. We -wish to direct the Jewish attention to that system which they -have called their religion for the last eighteen hundred years, -and which they have preferred to Christianity. We desire that -they should consider what they have gained, by expelling the -family of Levi from the teacher’s office and choosing the rabbies -as their religious guides. We ask every Israelite of common -sense, whether R. Jose and his companions are trustworthy -leaders in the way to salvation; and whether they are still -prepared to follow the religion of a man who can only be -acquitted of being a liar by admitting that he is a dreamer? -Or, whether they still choose to worship the Deity proclaimed -by the rabbies—a Deity subject to succession of time—imperfect -in knowledge so as to require daily study—requiring -amusement, and therefore playing for three hours every day -with Leviathan—and liable to disappointment, so as to be -<a id='Page_326'></a>obliged to spend the night, in mourning over one of his most -deliberate and solemn acts?</p> - -<p class='c005'>We are sure that every Israelite would be sadly offended at -being told, that he does not worship the God of his fathers, but -a strange god, invented by the imagination of the rabbles; and -yet, if he worship the god of the Talmud, it is nothing but the -truth. The god of the Talmud is certainly not the God of the -Bible. Israelites are often shocked at the folly and wickedness -of those whom they see falling down before stocks and stones; -and yet, if they receive the oral law, and believe an a Deity who -plays with Leviathan, &c., the object of their worship is not -a whit more rational. They are just as guilty of idolatry, -and the only way in which they can clear themselves from -the charge is, by rejecting the oral law, and forsaking that -superstition which the rabbies have palmed off upon them as -the religion of their fathers. It is a most deplorable and -melancholy sight to behold that nation, which once was the -sole depository of truth, enslaved by a system so senseless; but -it is more melancholy still to think, that there is not one among -her sons who has the moral courage to denounce its falsehood, -and to vindicate the truth as taught by Moses. The priests, -the sons of Levi, were once zealous for the honour of God, and -united with Moses in destroying the golden calf; but where -are they now, and where is their zeal? Alas! they too, are -found amongst the worshippers of the Talmudical deity, and -uphold the system which has expelled them from their holy -office.</p> -<div class='chapter'> - <h2 id='chap42' class='c003'>No. XLII. <br /> TITLE OF RABBI.</h2> -</div> -<p class='c004'>That the people, at present scattered over the whole world, -and known by the name of Jews, are descendants of the -chosen people of God, we freely admit. That the Old Testament -contains prophecies of their future return to the God and -the land of their fathers, and their subsequent happiness and -glory, we firmly believe: but, that the religion which they at -present profess is the religion of Moses, we confidently deny. -Modern Judaism has not retained the doctrines of Moses; no -not even with respect to the fundamental article of religion, -the nature of God. Our last number showed how widely the -<a id='Page_327'></a>rabbies have departed from the Scripture representation of the -divine character, and the number preceding proved that the -Jews haw not retained even the outward form of the Mosaic -edifice. Indeed we know not any problem more difficult of -solution than, to assign a reason, why the rabbinic Jews profess -any respect at all for Moses, when they have rejected both -the form and the substance of his teaching. If they boldly -denied his authority, or asserted that the Mosaic law was long -since abrogated, and the rabbinic precepts given in its stead, -we could, at least, give them credit for consistency; but at -present we cannot possibly divine their motives for professing -attachment to the lawgiver of their forefathers. Their conduct -for ages would appear to indicate a fixed determination to get -rid and keep clear of every thing Mosaic, and that for the -mere purpose of having something else; for no one can pretend, -that the new law and the new teachers, that they have -chosen, can lay any claim to superior excellence or antiquity. -Of the value of the rabbinic teaching we have given many -proofs; and now think of examining a little the <i>novelty</i> of the -rabbinic order. It is certain that the word, rabbi, does not -occur in the law of Moses nor the prophets; it is, therefore, -clearly not Mosaic. This one fact does in itself go far to shake -the authority of modern Judaism and the oral law. There we -cannot go a step without hearing of the rabbies—Rabbi Eliezer -said this, and Rabbi Bar Bar Chanah said that. The -whole oral law is made up of the sayings of the rabbies, and -yet neither their name nor their order was so much as known -to Moses our master. The other favourite appellation of the -Talmudic doctors חכם <i>Chacham</i>, or wise man, does indeed -occur, and it appears from the prophets, that there were some -even in their time who laid exclusive claim to that epithet, but -unfortunately the prophets bring against them the very same -charge, which we prefer against their successors, namely, that -they had forsaken the law of Moses:—</p> - -<p class='c005'>איכה תאמרו חכמים אנחנו ותורת ה׳ אתנו אכן -הנה לשקר עשה עט שקר סופרים , הובישו חכמים -חתו וילכדו הנה בדבר ה׳ מאסו וחכמת מה להם ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“How do ye say, We are wise (Chachamim) and the law of -the Lord is with us? Lo, certainly in vain made he it; the -pen of the scribes is in vain. The wise men (Chachamim) are -ashamed. They are dismayed and taken: lo, <i>they have rejected -the word of the Lord</i>: and what wisdom is in them?” -(Jer. viii. 8, 9.) The rabbies will scarcely acknowledge that -they have succeeded these persons in their office, and yet if -they give up such passages as these, they must abdicate all -claim to antiquity. Indeed some of them plainly acknowledge -<a id='Page_328'></a>that the rabbies are a new order of men, and that the -word rabbi was not heard of until less than a century before -the destruction of the second temple. Thus the Baal Aruch -says—</p> - -<p class='c005'>והדורות הראשונים שהיו גדולים מאוד לא היו -צריכין לרברבם לא ברבן ולא ברבי ולא ברב לא -לחכמי בבל ולא לחכמי ארץ ישראל שהרי הלל -עלה מבבל ולא נאמרה רבנות בשמו , ובנביאים היו -חשובים שאמר חגי הנביא , לא עלה עזרא מבבל , -ואין מרברבין אותן עם הזכרת שמותיהן ולא שמענו -כי התחילו זו אלא בנשיאים מרבן גמליאל הזקן ורבי -שמעון בנו שנהרג בחרבן בית שני ורבן יוחנו בן -זכעי כולן נשיאים ואף רבי התחיל מסמוכים מאותה -שעה צדוק ורבי אליעזר בן יעקב ופשט הדבר מתלמידי -ר׳ יוחנן בן זכאי ולהלן ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“The first generations, which were very great, did not require -the titles of Rabban, or Rabbi, or Rav, wherewith to -honour the wise men of Babylon, or the wise men of the land -of Israel; for behold Hillel went, up from Babylon, but the -title of Rabbi is not added to his name. There were honourable -persons amongst the prophets, for it is said, ‘Haggai the -prophet’—‘Ezra did not go up from Babylon’—and at the -mention of their names the title of Rabbi is not added: neither -have we heard that this was begun until the princes Rabban -Gamaliel the elder, and Rabban Simon his son, who was killed -at the destruction of the second temple, and Rabban Johannan -ben Zakkai, who were all princes. Rabbi also began with -those who were promoted at the same time, Zadok and R. -Eliezer, the son of Jacob, and the thing spread from the disciples -of Rabban Johannan ben Zakkai onwards.” (Aruch in -אביי) We need not wonder, then, that Moses knows nothing -of rabbies, for here is a plain confession, that the name was -never heard of until a few years before the last dispersion. It -may, however, be said, that the office itself existed, though -the name did not, and this is in fact asserted by Rambam, -when he says:—</p> - -<p class='c005'>ומשה רבנו סמך יהושע ביד שנאמר ויסמוך את ידיו -עליו ויצוהו , וכן השבעים זקנים משה רבנו סמכם -ושרתה עליהן שכינה ואותן הזקנים סמכו לאחרים , -ואחרים לאחרים , ונמצאו הסמוכין איש מפי איש עד -בית דינו של יהושע ועד בית דינו של משה רבינו ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“Moses our master promoted Joshua with his hands; for -it is said, ‘and he laid his hands upon him, and gave him a -<a id='Page_329'></a>charge.’ (Numb. xxvii. 23.) And in like manner with regard -to the seventy elders, Moses our master promoted them, and -the Shechinah rested upon them; and these elders promote -others, and they again others; and thus we have a succession -of promoted persons, until the council of Joshua, and until the -council of Moses our master.” (Hilchoth Sanhedrin, iv. 1.) -And so he tells us that—</p> - -<p class='c005'>ודוד המלך סמך שלשים אלף ביום אחד ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“King David promoted thirty thousand persons in one day.” -According to this statement, it would appear that there had -been always a class of persons qualified to be teachers and -judges, and a pretty numerous class too, from the time of -Moses; but it is very extraordinary that their office should -have continued fifteen hundred years without a name, and -that the nation should never have felt the inconvenience, nor -remedied it until the last few years of their existence; and it -is more extraordinary still that so large and important a body -should never once be mentioned in the law or the prophets. -The land must perfectly have swarmed with them. Thirty -thousand would have been a large proportion to the population -of the land of Israel; but David made this number in one -day; and we cannot suppose that he exerted his right only -once in his life, nor that all the other doctors neglected the -duty of raising up disciples; and the oral law tells us that -before the time of Hillel every one thus promoted had the -right of promoting others:—</p> - -<p class='c005'>בראשונה היה כל מי שנסמך סומך לתלמידיו , -וחכמים חלקו כבוד להלל הזקן והתקינו שלא יהא -אדם נסמך אלא ברשות הנשיא וכו׳ ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“At first every promoted person could promote his disciples; -but the wise men gave the honour to Hillel the elder, and -ordained that no man should promote except by permission of -the prince (the Nasi).” According to this, the number must -have been very great; and yet that they should have continued -so long without a name, and without any mention whatever by -any of the inspired writers, is perfectly incredible. But there -are in the account itself various particulars which excite -suspicion. David’s extensive work of promotion in one day -entirely exceeds the limits of probability, no matter how the -promotion took place, whether by laying on of hands, or by -command, or by letter: for if we grant that he devoted the -entire four-and-twenty hours of that day to the work, still, in -order to make up the number of thirty thousand, it will be -necessary to believe that he promoted at the rate of twelve -hundred and fifty an hour, or twenty in every minute. One -<a id='Page_330'></a>such notorious untruth discredits the whole account in which -it is found. But, farther, the admission that the right of conferring -the dignity of doctor was taken from those who had -possessed it, and restricted to those who obtained permission -from the prince, shows that the ordinance of promotion was -not derived from Moses, but was an invention of men. If it -had been of Moses, the wise men could have had no authority -to take it away, neither is it at all likely that the numerous -possessors of the right, and least of all, the disciples of Shammai, -would have quietly resigned it. We must suppose either -that the wise men altered an ordinance of Moses, and thereby -committed a great sin, or that the ordinance of promotion was -a mere human invention. By the latter supposition the whole -story of the continued existence of this class of doctors is given -up; and by the former supposition the charge of disregard for -the law of Moses is fixed upon the wise men, and the value of -their testimony taken away. Lastly, the account of the manner -of promotion is at variance with the above-quoted assertion -of the Baal Aruch. The oral law, says that the doctors were -promoted in the following manner:—</p> - -<p class='c005'>לא שיסמכו את ידיהם על ראש הזקן , אלא שקורין -לו רבי ואומרים לו הרי אתה סמוך ויש לך רשות -לדון אפילו דיני קנסות ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“They not only laid their hands upon the head of the elder, -but also saluted him with the title, Rabbi, and said to him, -Behold thou art prompted, and hast authority to judge, even in -cases of mulct.” Here the conferring the title of Rabbi is -made an integral part of the act of promotion, whereas the -Baal Aruch says that the title of Rabbi was not in use until -after the time of Hillel. The assertion, therefore, that the -office of Rabbi existed without the name, even from the time -of Moses, is not only unsupported by any proof from the -inspired writings, but is inconsistent with other assertions of -the rabbies themselves; and is, besides, found very close to a -palpable untruth, and is therefore unworthy of credit. Thus -the antiquity of the rabbinic office is destroyed, and appears to -be a comparatively new invention: so that those who profess -the religion of the rabbies cannot pretend to have the religion -of Moses or of their forefathers, but that of a new set of -teachers, who did not arise until a very few years before the -destruction of the second temple. One of the common objections -of modern Jews against Christianity is, its novelty. -They say that we have got a new religion, whereas they have -the ancient religion; that we follow a new teacher, but that -they follow Moses. The foregoing examination shows how -little ground they have for such a boast. If novelty be a valid -<a id='Page_331'></a>objection, they must confess that the religion of the rabbies is -false. If the distance of time that elapsed between Moses and -Jesus of Nazareth constitute a fair ground of objection, it is as -valid against the rabbies as against the Lord Jesus. Nay, if -supposed novelty be the reason why they reject Christianity, -they must now reject the religion of the rabbies, and embrace -that of Christ. We have proved that the religion of the -rabbies is a novelty, and every one knows that one peculiar -feature in the teaching of Jesus of Nazareth was, that he -opposed the rabbinic doctrines, that is, he opposed novelty: -this opposition, therefore, is presumptive evidence that the -Lord Jesus retained the ancient religion, and has on that very -account a claim upon all those who profess to venerate antiquity. -At all events the charge of novelty can be as fairly -urged against Rabbinism as against Christianity, and every -Jew who urges it, is, if he be in earnest about truth, bound to -compare Christianity with the law and the prophets, in order -to ascertain whether it be a new religion or not. One thing is -certain, that the ordinances of no religion can be farther from -the Mosaic appointment than those of Rabbinism. The Rabbinists -have rejected the religious teachers appointed by Moses, -and have chosen others, who cannot pretend even to any degree -of antiquity; and not only so, but even when the possibility -of having regularly appointed rabbies ceased, they preferred -those, who in fact have no authority at all, to those teachers -appointed in the law. The oral law makes promotion necessary -to the exercise of the rabbinical office, and limits the -ceremony of promotion by two conditions, first, that it be -conferred with the consent of the נשיא, as we have seen -above, and, secondly, that it be performed in the land of -Israel:—</p> - -<p class='c005'>אין סומכין זקנים בחוצה לארץ ואע׳׳פ שאלו הסומכין -נסמכו בארץ ישראל , אפילו היו הסומכין בארץ -והנסמך בחוץ לארץ אין סומכין ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“Elders are not promoted anywhere, except in the land of -Israel; even although the promoters should have been promoted -there themselves. Yea, though the persons conferring -the promotion be in the land, if the person to be promoted be -outside the land, the promotion is not to take place.” Now it -is plain that these conditions cannot be fulfilled. The great -majority of the present rabbies have never been in the land -of Israel; and even if they had been, there has not been a -נשיא prince for many a century. For centuries, therefore, -there has not been a rabbi promoted to the office as the oral -law requires; and yet the Jews, rather than have the priests, -the sons of Levi, still keep up the shadow of the rabbinical -<a id='Page_332'></a>office. A more determined opposition to the institutions of -Moses cannot be imagined. First, the Jewish people rejected -the ordinance of Moses, and devised an order of teachers of -their own, limited by certain conditions. Then God, in great -mercy, made the fulfilment of those conditions impossible. He -took away the prince, he drove them out of the land of Israel, -to give them, as it were, an opportunity, yea, to compel them -to return to his own appointment: but in vain. Although the -Jews cannot fulfil the conditions of their own devising, and -could fulfil God’s appointment, they refuse the latter, and have -invented something newer still, and that is, an order of religious -teachers, who have not even the qualifications required -by the oral law. Truly this is to transgress, for the mere sake -of transgressing. How, then, can the Jews pretend to be disciples -of Moses, or assert that the Mosaic law is unchangeable? -Now, for near two thousand years they have lived in disobedience -to one of Moses’ simplest commandments, and have -changed one of the essential institutions of the law. The -most superficial reader of the writings of Moses must see, that -a charge of prime importance was assigned to the family of -Levi, not only as respected the ministration in the temple, but -also with regard to the instruction of the people. God in His -providence has deprived them of the former. The Jews themselves, -by rejecting the commands of Moses, have taken away -the latter office, and thus have destroyed not only the interior, -but actually demolished the external form of the Mosaic edifice. -It is, therefore, as we have said, a most difficult problem to -account for the profession which modern Jews make of zeal for -the law of Moses, and one which well deserves the consideration -of the Jews themselves. Why should they profess to be -disciples of Moses, when they openly trample upon his commands, -and reject both the substance and the form of his -religion? If they really believe that obedience to the law of -Moses is necessary to salvation, they ought instantly to reinstate -the family of Levi in their office. But if they prefer the -new religion of the rabbies to the old religion of Moses, then -they ought honestly to say so; and not go on halting between -two opinions. And they ought to do this, not merely to avoid -the charge of inconsistency before men, but to satisfy their -own consciences before God. How can any man reasonably -hope to be saved by a religion whose commands he constantly -transgresses, and never intends to obey? And yet this is -exactly the case with the Rabbinists with regard to the law -of Moses. There have been attempts at reform amongst the -Jews, but we have never heard of any who intended to restore -the family of Levi to their office; and yet, without this, there -is no return to the Mosaic institutions.</p> - -<p class='c005'>A disciple of the rabbies may perhaps think, that he can -<a id='Page_333'></a>retort this argument upon the Christians, and say that Jesus of -Nazareth was not of the tribe of Levi. Certainly he was not; -but as the Messiah, the prophets foretold that he was to be -of the tribe of Judah: and as the Messiah, promised and -appointed of God, he has a right to the obedience of all, both -Jew and Gentile. If he had been only an ordinary prophet, -he would have had a divine right to teach the people and to -require their obedience; for, besides the priests, God also -appointed prophets, but to the prophetic office the rabbies do -not lay claim. The Lord Jesus, on the contrary, claimed not -only the prophetic character, but asserted that he was the -Messiah, and proved the truth of his claims by exhibiting -miraculous powers, and especially by his resurrection from the -dead. As a prophet, therefore, and above all, as the Messiah, -his teaching in no wise interfered with the office of the priests: -and his conduct, as recorded in the New Testament, shows -that, though in determined and constant opposition to the -Pharisees, the advocates of the oral law, he never lifted up -his voice against the office of the priesthood. On the contrary, -when occasion offered, he showed a scrupulous regard for the -commandments of Moses respecting the priests; as for instance -when he healed the leper, he “said onto him, See thou tell no -man; but go thy way, show thyself to the priests, and offer -the gift that Moses commanded, for a testimony unto them.” -(Matt. viii. 4.) And this conduct is perfectly conformable to -one professed object of the Lord Jesus, which was to vindicate -the authority of the law against the unauthorized additions of -men. He professed himself the defender of the Mosaic law, -and opposed the whole system of the Rabbinists, on the professed -ground that they made it void by their traditions. The -objections, therefore, which we have brought against the oral -law, as overturning the institutions of Moses, cannot be applied -to the doctrines or conduct of the Lord Jesus Christ. -He never opposed the priests, never interfered with their -office, never diminished aught from their authority. In these -most important respects, the doctrine of Jesus of Nazareth -is necessarily more agreeable to the law of Moses than the -traditions of the Pharisees, who have forcibly altered that -great institution of Moses, the Levitic priesthood, and have -themselves usurped the office and the rights of the priests. -Modern Judaism is directly in opposition to the Mosaic law, -and has at present no excuse for its opposition. The Jews of -the dispersion cannot possibly keep its requirements concerning -the promotion of rabbies; their adherence, therefore, to -that system has now the appearance of mere gratuitous and -wilful hatred to the law of Moses. They profess to know the -family of the priests, and could therefore restore them to their -office, if they pleased. What is there to prevent them? -<a id='Page_334'></a>Nothing but the want of love for Moses and his institutions. -We are convinced that many of the Jews have never considered -this matter, or they would not act as they do. The habits of -thought induced by early education, the customs of their nation -for two thousand years, have drawn a sort of veil over -their understandings, so that they have not been able to see -the palpable inconsistency of professing a zeal for Moses, whilst -they do homage to principles which cut up his institutions by -the roots. Until the priests be reinstated in their functions -and their rights, as the divinely appointed teachers of religion, -the Jews can have no ground whatever to pretend that they -are disciples of Moses. They are, at present, nothing but -partisans of the sect of the Rabbinists. And if they choose to -persevere in their attachment to this sect, they are bound, as -honest men, to renounce all profession of regard for the law of -Moses.</p> -<div class='chapter'> - <h2 id='chap43' class='c003'>No. XLIII. <br /> SANHEDRIN.</h2> -</div> -<p class='c004'>It is certain that the Jews cannot appeal to the law of -the prophets to defend their rejection of the old religion of -Moses, and their preference for the new religion of the -rabbies. Neither Moses nor the prophets knew anything -about the rabbies. They are quite a new order of men, -never heard of until the Jewish polity was tottering to its -destruction. There is, however, another argument to which -they might appeal, in order to justify the reception of new -religious teachers, and that is, the existence of the Sanhedrin. -It may be said, that when the rabbies arose and -taught, both they and their doctrines were approved by -this great council, and that this approval is sufficient to -establish the justice of their claims, and the truth of what -they taught. Indeed, the rabbinists do actually look upon -the Sanhedrin as the great foundation on which the oral -law rests:—</p> - -<p class='c005'>בית דין הגדול שבירושלים הם עיקר תורה שבע׳׳פ -והם עמודי ההוראת ומהם חוק ומשפט יוצא לכל -ישראל , ועליהי הבטיחה תורה שנאמר על פי התורה -<a id='Page_335'></a>אשר יורוך זו מצות עשה וכל המאמין במשה רבינו -יבתורתו חייב לסמוך מעשה הדת עליהן ולישען -עליהן ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“The Great Council in Jerusalem is the foundation-stone -of the oral law, and the pillars of the doctrine: and from -them the statute and the judgment goes forth to all Israel. -They have the warrant of the law, for it is said, ‘According -to the sentence of the law which they shall teach thee,’ &c. -(Deut. xvii. 11); which is an affirmative precept, and every -one who believes in Moses our master, and in his law, is -bound to rest the practice of the law on them, and to lean -on them.” (Hilchoth Mamrim, c. i. 1.) Here the indispensable -duty of every Israelite to follow the decisions of -the Sanhedrin is plainly asserted: it becomes, then, absolutely -necessary for us to examine into the nature of the -foundation on which claims so unlimited are based. One -would suppose that, at the very least, the Sanhedrin was -infallible, and could never say or do anything wrong; for -if this council was liable to error, and yet undeviating -obedience to its decisions required, whenever they went -wrong, all Israel must have gone wrong also. But yet, -strange to say, the infallibility of the Sanhedrin is not only -not asserted, but plainly denied—yea, the possibility of error -unequivocally intimated, and even provided for:—</p> - -<p class='c005'>בית דין גדול שדרשו באחת מן המדות כפי מה -שנראה בעיניהם שהדין כך ודנו דין , ועמד אחריהם -בית דין אחר לסתור אותו הרי זה סותר ודן כפי מה -שנראה בעיניו , שנאמר אל השופט אשר יהיה בימים -ההם אינך חייב ללכת אלא אחר בית דין שבדורך , -בית דין שגזרו גזרה או תקנו תקנה והנהיגו מנהג -ופשט הדבר בכל ישראל , ועמד אחריהם ב׳׳ד אחר -ובקש לבטל דברים הראשונים ולעקור אותה התקנה -ואותה הגזרה ואותו המנהג אינו יכול עד שיהיה -גדול מן הראשונים בחכמה ובמנין וכו׳ ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“When a great council has decided by one of the rules, -and according to the best of their judgment, that the judgment -is so and so, and has passed sentence; if there arise -after them another council of a contrary opinion, the latter -may reverse the sentence, and pass another according to the -best of their judgment, for it is said, ‘Unto the judge that -shall be in those days’ (Deut. xvii. 9); thou art, therefore, -not bound to follow any other but the existing council. -But if a council decree a decree, or ordain an ordinance, or -sanction a custom, and the thing has spread in all Israel; -<a id='Page_336'></a>and there arise after them another council, which wishes to -abrogate the former things, and to root out that ordinance, -decree, or custom, it is not permitted, unless they excel the -former in wisdom and in number.” (Ibid. c. ii. 1, 2.) According -to this doctrine the Sanhedrin in one generation -may teach one doctrine, and in the next generation another -Sanhedrin may abrogate all the legislative acts of the former, -and teach another doctrine, and yet, though one of the two -must necessarily be in the wrong, Israel is bound to obey -both; and thus the law is made to sanction disobedience to -itself. Nay, more, the will of God is made actually to depend -upon the wit and the will of man. Instead of being -eternal and unchangeable truth, it must vary with each -succeeding generation, so that what was truth to a father, -might be falsehood to his son; and every new Sanhedrin -would, in fact, have the power to make a new law. How, -then, can the Jews pretend that the Mosaic law is unchangeable? -Here it is asserted, that the Jews are to receive, as -the law of Moses, whatever the Sanhedrin may think right -to teach—and that every new Sanhedrin may overturn the -doctrines of their predecessors, and teach the very opposite; -so that instead of being eternal, the law would be one of -the most changeable things in the world, and might never -last the same for even two generations. But how can any -man possibly believe, that a command so preposterous should -come from God, or that he would deliver over his people -Israel, bound hand and foot, into the power of seventy-one -persons, and require unconditional obedience, no matter -whether these persons were in the right or in the wrong? -Pretensions so extravagant justly excite suspicion, and entirely -destroy the credit of those that make them. They betray an -inordinate lust of power, and savour far more strongly of -ambition than piety. It was no doubt very convenient -for the members of the Sanhedrin to be able to reverse the -decisions of their predecessors. On these terms, the law could -never stand in the way of their own schemes. No matter how -it had been explained or understood before, they had the -power of giving a new interpretation to suit their own -purpose. It is truly wonderful how the Jews can suffer themselves -to be deluded by an imposture so exceedingly coarse. -A child ought to be able to see, that God could never require a -man to renounce his understanding, and to receive two direct -contradictions as true.</p> - -<p class='c005'>The manifest absurdity of this doctrine is sufficient to prove -that the passage cited from Deut. xvii. is misinterpreted and -misapplied; and a little consideration will show that it does not -refer to the Sanhedrin at all. In the first place there is no -mention of that council, nor any thing that even implies a reference -<a id='Page_337'></a>to such a body. The command of God is, “Thou shalt -come unto the <i>priests</i>, <i>the Levites</i>, and unto the <i>judge</i> that shall -be in those days, and inquire.” It is not said to the judges, -but to the judge השופט. To these, and not to the Sanhedrin, -Moses requires absolute obedience, and that for a just and sufficient -reason, because, as we have shown in Number 2, they had -the means of obtaining an infallible answer by means of the -אורים ותומים Urim and Thummim. It was the privilege of -Israel to be able to ask counsel immediately of God; and it was -therefore only rational to expect unconditional obedience to -the command of the Almighty. Such decisions were absolutely -unchangeable as God himself, for “He is not a man that he -should lie, nor the son of man that He should repent;” and no -man in his senses would have thought of getting a sentence of -this kind reversed. These words can therefore by no means -apply to a tribunal fallible in judgment, and as changeable in -its opinions as in the persons of which it was composed: but if -this passage does not apply, there is no other in the Bible which -requires us to receive the decision of the Sanhedrin as of divine -authority, nor in the oral law either, for it supposes that this -council was capable of mistake. Consequently, the Sanhedrin’s -approval of the new order and new religion of the rabbies is of -no weight whatever. The Bible does not command us to believe -that they were always in the right; and they themselves -tell us that they might be in the wrong, and therefore might -be in the wrong in their approval of the rabbies.</p> - -<p class='c005'>But the truth is, that neither the Bible nor history gives us -any warrant whatever for regarding the Sanhedrin as a Mosaic -institution. In the first place, it is never once mentioned either -in the Law or in the Prophets. The word <i>Sanhedrin</i> is Greek, -and so far as it goes would lead us to suppose that this tribunal -was not instituted until some time after the building of the -second temple, and after the Greek occupation of the land, -when the Jews had become acquainted with the Greek language. -This Greek word would lead us even to suppose that the Sanhedrin -was instituted by the Greek rulers, and that they gave -the tribunal its name. If it had been an old Mosaic institution, -the Jews themselves, who hated the Greeks, and that with good -reason, would never have given it a Greek name: and even if -the Greeks had assigned this name to a Jewish tribunal, which -had previously existed, the Jews would not have adopted it. -It is true that there is also a Hebrew name for this tribunal, -בית דין הגדול, “The great house of judgment,” but if this -had been the original name, it is not at all likely that the Greek -name would have supplanted it; whereas if it was a Greek institution, -and therefore had a Greek name, it is not to be wondered -at that that name should have obtained general currency, or -that it should also be translated into Hebrew. The Hebrew -<a id='Page_338'></a>name will not do more than the Greek to prove the antiquity -of the tribunal, for it never once occurs in the Bible, and it -would be very strange, if this council had existed from the time -of Moses, that it should never once be mentioned. The High -Court of Parliament does not hold a more important place in -the history of this country, than the Sanhedrin must have done -in the history of Israel, if it had really existed: how then are -we to account for the fact, that neither the historians nor the -prophets of Israel ever make the most distant allusion to its -being? If the rabbies speak truth, the prophets, the high priests, -and the kings of Israel, were mere ciphers compared with the -Sanhedrin, for it had supreme power over them all, and could -try, condemn, and execute them, and yet they are mentioned -again and again, and the Sanhedrin passed by in mysterious -silence! There are two books of Kings, and two of Chronicles, -relating the history of the Royal rulers of Israel, but the Supreme -Council of the nation, the rulers of kings and priests, the -foundation-stone of the law, the pillar of religion, have never -obtained even a casual notice! Is this at all probable? Would -it be possible to write a history of the British Constitution -without ever once mentioning the existence of the Parliament? -And yet this is what has happened, according to the rabbies -to the essential feature of the Constitution of Israel. Neither -the lawgiver, nor the historians, nor the prophets, have said -one word about it.</p> - -<p class='c005'>The rabbies have felt the necessity of finding something or -other in the written law, that would look like the recognition -of the Sanhedrin, and have therefore fixed on two passages -which they think will serve their cause. One is that to which -we have already alluded, “Thou shalt come unto the priests the -Levites, and unto the judge that shall be in those days.” (Deut. -xvii. 9.) We have already said sufficient to show that this -passage is totally irrelevant, and now add one remark more, -which is in itself decisive, and that is, that the constitution of -the Sanhedrin, as described in the oral law, is altogether at -variance with the conditions laid down in this passage. The -oral law says—</p> - -<p class='c005'>ומצוה להיות בסנהדרין גדולה כהנים ולוים שנאמר -שנאמר ובאת אל הכהנים הלוים ואם לא מצאו אפילו -היו כולם ישראלים דרי זה מותר ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“The command is, that there should be in the great Sanhedrin, -priests and Levites, for it is said, ‘Thou shalt come to the priests, -the Levites.’ But if they find none, yea, though they be all -mere Israelites, this is lawful.” (Hilchoth Sanhedrin, c. ii. 2.) -According to this the Sanhedrin was to consist of three distinct -classes, priests, Levites, and Israelites; but Moses does not say -<a id='Page_339'></a>one word of the Levites, as distinguished from the priests. His -words are, “Thou shalt come to the priests, the Levites.” He -does not say, “The priests <i>and</i> the Levites;” but simply, “The -priests, the Levites;” from which it is plain that he was speaking -only of that one class of the sons of Levi, who had the office -of the priesthood; but not of that other class, whose only title -was “The Levites.” This is the first difference. The second -is like it, inasmuch as it is also an unauthorized addition, and -that is, that there should be Israelites members of this council, -of whom Moses does not say one word more than he does of -the Levites. Besides the priests, Moses mentions none but the -judge השופט, not the judges, so that if the judge was an Israelite, -there could at the very most be only one Israelite amongst -those whom Moses appoints as the highest court of appeal in -Israel. But if the judge השופט was himself a priest, then -there was not even one Israelite; but the court was composed -exclusively of priests. This court cannot, therefore, be the same -as the Sanhedrin, which was to be composed of all the three -classes. Thirdly, the oral law says, That though the Sanhedrin -should not reckon one priest amongst its members, but should -consist entirely of Israelites, that still it is lawful; this court can, -therefore, never be the same as that of which Moses says, “Thou -shalt come to the priests, the Levites, and to the judge.” The -court which the rabbies have appointed might not have even -one priest, and yet they ask us to believe that this is identical -with that, which, according to the appointment of Moses, could -never have more than one Israelite, but might, and in the days -of Eli actually did, consist exclusively of priests. Truly the -rabbies must have calculated upon disciples with a most inordinate -measure of credulity. The man that would believe this, -would believe that black is white; or as Rashi says, that his -right hand is the left, and his left hand the right. And this is -really what modern Judaism expects, and absolutely commands -in so many words. In Rashi’s commentary on the words “Thou -shalt not decline from the sentence which they shall show thee, -to the right nor to the left” (Deut. xvii. 11); which words, as -we have seen, the rabbies apply to the Sanhedrin, he says—</p> - -<p class='c005'>אפילו אומר לך על ימין שהוא שמאל ועל שמאל -שהוא ימין ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“Yea, though they should tell thee of the right hand, that -it is the left, and of the left hand, that it is the right.” Of -course men that expected from their followers this perfect renunciation -of reason, might say any thing they liked, and -might therefore ask them to believe that a court consisting -of all priests was identical with one from which priests were -altogether excluded. But as we are not willing to give up -that reason, which we consider a noble gift of God, we cannot -<a id='Page_340'></a>help thinking that these two courts are as different as day and -night, and that the appointment of Moses does not in the -remotest degree serve as a warrant for the appointment of -the Sanhedrin. Indeed, the sad perplexity of the rabbies to -find out some passage or other on which to father their own -inventions, and the desperate necessity which they felt of -appealing to this passage, proves to us most satisfactorily, -that the Sanhedrin is not a Mosaic institution at all. It is -as impossible that there could be two supreme courts, as that -a man can have two heads. Moses did appoint a supreme -court, from which there was no appeal, as is plain from the -words, “Thou shalt come to the priests, the Levites, and to -the judge,” and we have proved that this court is not identical -with the Sanhedrin. But according to the rabbies, the Sanhedrin -was a supreme court; if, therefore, it had existed, -there would have been two supreme courts, perfectly independent -of each other, which is plainly impossible. It never -entered into the head even of human lawgivers to be guilty of -such absurdity, and it would be an affront to the wisdom of -the Almighty to suppose that he had sanctioned it in his own -law. This one argument is in itself sufficient to overthrow the -doctrine of a Sanhedrin as taught in the oral law. It was not -only unknown to Moses, but is directly opposed to his own -institution.</p> - -<p class='c005'>This portion of the oral law is, however, most important for -proving the total disregard, or rather contempt, which the -rabbies had for the institutions of Moses, and the motives by -which they were actuated. Moses ordained a supreme court -of judicature, to consist exclusively of priests, together with -the chief civil governor for the time being. The rabbies not -only did not choose to obey the command of Moses, but actually -abrogated his institution, and set up another instead of it. -They were probably enabled to do this in the time of confusion -which followed the Greek conquest. The Greeks, who cared -nothing for Moses or his laws, naturally disregarded the -priests and the lawful civil governor; and therefore when -they conquered the land, set up a tribunal of their own, composed -not of those whom Moses had appointed, but of any -whom they could find. Indeed, to secure their own dominion, -their natural policy was to exclude those who had previously -held the reins of government. To this new tribunal they -of course gave a Greek name, and called it in their own language, -συνέδριον, or, as the Talmud pronounces it, Sanhedrin. -The Jews, whom they appointed members, liked the power -which it gave them, and therefore, when the Greeks were -gone, endeavoured to perpetuate it; and as they could not -find a warrant for it in the written law, declared that the -institution was a part of the oral law: and thus, to gratify -<a id='Page_341'></a>their own ambition, trampled upon the law of Moses. This is -the probable history of the rise of the Sanhedrin; but however -that be, it is certain that it is directly opposed to that supreme -court appointed by Moses, and that it was love of power which -induced the rabbies to sanction it. They thereby depressed the -authority of the priests and the civil governor, and in fact -became the dictators of the Jewish commonwealth. A tribunal -supported from such motives, and so directly subversive of the -commands of Moses, cannot prove to any lover of the old religion -the authority of the rabbies. Indeed, the approval of -such a body would go far to prove that the oral law and the -rabbies were Moses’s enemies. The Mosaic law was first pulled -down before the Sanhedrin could be built up, and it was -founded on the ruins of the Mosaic institutions.</p> - -<p class='c005'>We have not space at present to enter into the other passage -which the rabbies cite in proof of the authority of the Sanhedrin, -but hope to do so in our next number—not that it is necessary -to the argument, but simply because it is our earnest wish -that the people of Israel should see how the rabbies are in -difficulty to find even a semblance of proof for the foundation-stone -of their whole fabric. That one passage from Deuteronomy—“Thou -shalt come unto the priests, the Levites, and -unto the judge,” is quite sufficient to prove that Moses did -not institute the Sanhedrin but that, on the contrary, it must -have been established by some determined enemies of the -Mosaic law; and that it was perpetuated by those whose ambition -led them to usurp power, which Moses had committed -unto others. We have thus another proof that modern Judaism -has demolished even the external form of the Mosaic -constitution. The rabbies were not content with rejecting the -religion of Moses, and casting out the religious teachers whom -he had appointed, but have also revolutionized the national -polity. Moses ordained a supreme council, consisting of the -priests, the Levites, together with the judge, the chief civil -governor; but the rabbies have preferred a tribunal established -by idolatrous Greeks, because this Greek institution -gave the power into their own hands. No wonder that the -God of Moses destroyed their city, and put an end to that delusion -with which ambitious and wicked men deceived his -people Israel.</p> -<div class='chapter'> - <a id='Page_342'></a> - <h2 id='chap44' class='c003'>No. XLIV. <br /> SANHEDRIN CONTINUED.</h2> -</div> -<p class='c004'>The Sanhedrin is, as we said in our last number, the foundation-stone -on which the authority of the rabbies, and the whole -fabric of tradition rests. Take away this, and not the shadow -of an argument remains to justify the Jews in their rejection -of the Mosaic religion, and their demolition of the Mosaic -constitution. But this we have done. Enough has already -been said to make it probable that the Sanhedrin, with its -Greek name, was invented and established by the idolatrous -Greeks; and to make it certain that it is subversive of the -Supreme Council established by Moses, and that, for that -reason, it was not one of his institutions. We have already -disposed of one of the passages which the rabbies quote from -the Pentateuch, to prove the Divine authority of the Sanhedrin; -but, as they have, with much difficulty, found two, we -now proceed to consider the second. It is quoted in the -following manner:—</p> - -<p class='c005'>כמה בתי דינין קבועין יהיו בישראל וכמה יהיה -מנינן , קובעין בתחלה בית דין הגדול במקדש , והוא -הנקרא סנהדרי גדולה ומנינם ע׳׳א , שנאמר אספה לי -שבעים איש מזקני ישראל ומשה על גביהן , שנאמר -והתיצבו שם עמך הרי ע׳׳א ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“How many councils (or tribunals) ought to be established -in Israel, and of how many members ought they to consist? -<i>Ans.</i> The Great Council in the temple called the Great Sanhedrin, -ought to be established first, and the number of its -members ought to be seventy-one; for it is said, ‘Gather unto -me seventy men of the elders of Israel;’ and to them Moses is -to be added, and as it is said, ‘And they shall stand there with -thee.’ (Numb. xi. 16.) This makes seventy-one.” (Hilchoth -Sanhedrin, c. i. 2.) Here the rabbies have certainly found the -number seventy-one; but to prove that this was the Sanhedrin, -they ought first, to show, that these seventy-one persons were -not to be scattered through the tribes, but always to remain -together as one council; and, secondly, that this council was -to be permanent; and, thirdly, that this council did really -exist from the time of Moses to the destruction of Jerusalem; -and, fourthly, and most important of all, that this was the -<i>Supreme</i> Council; for even if the other three points could be -made out, they would be insufficient without this. The Sanhedrin -claims to be the Supreme Council, and, therefore, if it -cannot be shown, that the assembly of the seventy elders is -<a id='Page_343'></a>identical with the Supreme Council appointed by Moses, this -passage is of no more use than the former one. Now, respecting -the three first points, nothing whatever is said, either in the -Law or the Prophets. And respecting the fourth; even if we -grant the three first, we can shew that these seventy elders did -not constitute the Supreme Council of the nation. We have -proved in our last paper, that the supreme power was vested in -an exclusive council composed of the priests, together with the -judge השופט, but the seventy elders, here spoken of, were to -be chosen promiscuously from the tribes of Israel, and therefore -cannot be identical with that exclusive assembly; and therefore -did not compose the Supreme Council; and therefore had -nothing of the nature of the Sanhedrin, which pretended to be -supreme over all. Thus it appears on examination, that there -is not one text in the whole law of Moses, which authorizes -the establishment of such a council as the Sanhedrin; but that -on the contrary, it stands in direct opposition to that order of -things prescribed by Moses.</p> - -<p class='c005'>We can, however, go farther, and show that all the particulars -which the rabbies detail concerning it are manifest falsehoods; -and that, if the Jews choose to believe what the oral law says -concerning the Sanhedrin they most not only give up Moses, but -renounce all the other inspired writers of the Old Testament. -The particular and exclusive duties of the Sanhedrin are thus -detailed:—</p> - -<p class='c005'>אין מעמידין מלך אלא על פי בית דין של ע׳׳א , -ואין עושין סנהדרי קטנה לכל שבט ושבט ולכל עיר -ועיר אלא על פי בית דין של ע׳׳א , ואין דנין לא את -השבט שהודח כולו ולא את נביא השקר ולא את -כהן הגדול בדיני נפשות אלא בבית דין הגדול , אבל -דיני ממונות בשלשה , וכן אין עושין זקן ממרא ולא -עושין עיר הנדחת ולא משקין את הסוטה אלא בבית -דין הגדול , ואין מוסיפין על העיר ועל העזרות ולא -מוציאין למלחמת הרשות ולמדידת החלל אלא על פי -בית דין הגדול , שנאמר כל הדבר הגדול יביאו אליך ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“A king is not to be appointed except by the decision of the -Great Council of Seventy-one. The minor councils through -the tribes and towns are not to be established except by the -Council of Seventy-one. Judgment is not to be passed on a -tribe that has been entirely seduced, nor upon a false prophet, -nor upon a high priest in capital cases, except by the Great -Council, (In mere money matters the tribunal of three is -competent.) In like manner an elder is not declared rebellious, -nor a city dealt with as seduced,<a id='r35' /><a href='#f35' class='c006'><sup>[35]</sup></a> nor the bitter waters administered -<a id='Page_344'></a>to the suspected adulteress, except by the Great -Council. Neither is an addition made to the city nor to the -courts. Neither are armies led forth to the wars of permission; -nor the elders led forth to measure in the case of a slain person -(Deut. xxi. 1, &c.), except by command of the Great Council, for -it is said, ‘Every great matter they shall bring to thee.’ (Exod. -xviii. 22.)” (Hilchoth Sanhedrin, c. v. 1.) Such is the power -and jurisdiction attributed by the rabbies to the Sanhedrin, -and which we have now to consider. The mere reading over -of these details is sufficient to convince any reasonable man -that the whole affair is a waking dream of some man or men, -intoxicated with the love of dominion. No man in his senses -can believe that God could be the author of a despotism so -dreadful over the minds and bodies of men. In the first place, -here is an aristocracy of seventy persons, described as having -supreme jurisdiction over the King, the High Priest, the -Prophets, and the people—possessing the power not only to -judge individuals, but to pass sentence on whole cities and -tribes, and utterly to destroy them if they pleased—and this -without any other law or precedent to guide them than their -own will—and, inasmuch as they were self-elective, subject to -no control whatever, either of the king or the people. We -have heard much of corrupt corporations lately, but any thing -at all equal to the self-elective corporation of the Sanhedrin we -never heard of, excepting another college of seventy-one, the -grand council of another oral law of later date. It is vain to -say that this body was controlled by the law of Moses. When -the Sanhedrin existed there was no law of Moses, but their -own will. They expounded the law as they liked; and as we -saw in our last, were not bound even by the decisions of their -predecessors: and if any man dared to think for himself or to -dispute their interpretation, he was strangled:—</p> - -<p class='c005'>כל חכם שמורה על דבריהם מיתתו בחנק ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“Strangulation was the mode of execution for any learned -man, who rebelled against their words.” (Hilchoth Mamrim, -c. i 2.) They had thus the power to make the law say what -they liked: and there was no power on earth to control them. -If they had been appointed by the king, or elected by the -people, they would have been responsible for the abuse of -their power; but they elected their members, and could be -deposed by none but themselves. A despotism so complete -and so dreadful, so inimical to personal security, and so subversive -of all liberty of conscience, could never have been -created by God, but must necessarily be the offspring of the -distempered brain of man. We can hardly believe that many -Jews, except the Talmudistic zealots, who might hope to be -made members wish for the restoration of the Sanhedrin; and -<a id='Page_345'></a>yet, if they do not, they do not believe in the Jewish religion, -for the re-establishment of that Great Council is the consummation -of Judaism: and if they do not believe in this religion, -can they consider themselves honest men in professing it?</p> - -<p class='c005'>But we must proceed to consider on what authority the -rabbies make these claims to such extensive jurisdiction. One -would expect to find some distinct command of God, expressly -addressed to the council; but no, their only authority is the -words of Jethro to Moses, “Every great matter they shall -bring to thee;” a plain confession that there is in the whole -Bible nothing to warrant their pretensions, or they never -would have taken refuge in words so totally irrelevant. -Indeed, we are rather surprised that they appealed to the -Bible at all, for such an appeal is fatal to all their pretensions. -Just let us examine some of the particulars detailed above, by -the light of God’s word. The first pretension is, that “A king -is not to be appointed except by the decision of the Great -Council of Seventy-one.” Now is this true? Is it possible to -show that any one of the Kings of Israel was appointed by the -Sanhedrin? Not one; but it is possible to prove of many that -they were appointed without any reference whatever to any -such council. Take, for instance, Saul, the first king of -Israel; what had the Sanhedrin to do with his election to the -kingly office? Nothing at all. So far as man was concerned, -Samuel, and Samuel alone, was the instrument of his election. -When the people wished a king, they did not go to the -Sanhedrin, but to Samuel. He dissuaded them, “Nevertheless, -the people refused to obey the voice of Samuel.” Would they -have ventured to do so if he had been president of so dreadful -a council as the Sanhedrin? When Saul was anointed, it was -not by the Sanhedrin, nor by their command. No man was -present but the king elect and the prophet. “Then Samuel -took a vial of oil, and poured it upon his head, and kissed him, -and said, Is it not because the Lord hath anointed thee to be -captain over his inheritance?” (1 Sam. x. 1.) And when -Saul was solemnly confirmed before the people, Samuel was -still the sole agent. “Samuel called the people together unto -the Lord to Mizpeh, and said, Now therefore present yourselves -before the Lord by your tribes and by your thousands; and -Saul the son of Kish was taken.” (xi. 17-21.) It cannot be -pretended that the Sanhedrin had anything whatever to do -with the matter. But let us try another instance. Let us -look at the election of David; was he chosen by the voice of -the Sanhedrin? Just as little as Saul. Samuel was again -the sole agent. “The Lord said unto Samuel, How long wilt -thou mourn for Saul, seeing I have rejected him from reigning -over Israel? Fill thine horn with oil and go; I will send thee -to Jesse, the Bethlehemite; for I have provided me a king -<a id='Page_346'></a>among his sons.” And so Samuel went and anointed him, -without any intervention whatever of the Sanhedrin, or any -one else. These two cases are sufficient to prove the falsehood -of the rabbinic pretensions; but there is one more decisive -still, and that is the case of Solomon. Adonijah had made -himself king, and Bathsheba, by the advice of Nathan the -prophet, took measures to make her son Solomon king. But -to whom did Nathan advise her to go? Did he tell her to go -to the Sanhedrin and to seek justice? No, but to go to David -the king, and to him she accordingly went, and found him -not in council, or surrounded by the members of the Sanhedrin, -but with Abishag, the Shunammite, ministering to -him; and David, without asking any advice, sware unto her, -“Assuredly Solomon, thy Son, shall reign after me.” The -Sanhedrin had nothing whatever to do with the matter. The -assertion, then, that “Nothing was appointed except by the -authority of the Sanhedrin,” is a gross falsehood, and very -evidently made by ambitious men, grasping after power to -which they had no right.</p> - -<p class='c005'>In like manner, we might appeal to history to show, that -the tribe of Dan was judged, and that Saul, David, and the -other kings of Israel, waged wars without once consulting the -Sanhedrin; but there is one of these pretensions so directly -opposed to the plain letter of the Mosaic law, that we prefer -noticing it. The oral law says, that the waters of jealousy -were not administered except by the authority of the Sanhedrin. -But what says Moses? When the spirit of jealousy -comes upon a man, does he tell him to bring his wife to the -Sanhedrin? No, but to the priest. “Then shall the man -bring his wife unto the priest,” &c. (Numb. v. 15.) What -then is the priest to do? Is he to go first to the Sanhedrin, -and get its sanction? No; as soon as the man has brought -his wife, and the offering of jealousy, the priest’s business is to -bring her before the Lord—“And the priest shall bring her -near, and set her before the Lord,”—and is then to proceed -with all the prescribed rites; and the whole ends with these -plain words, “And the priest shall execute upon her all this -law.” There is not only no mention of the Sanhedrin, but -immediate power is unequivocally given to the priest, yea, he -is commanded to proceed without awaiting the decision of any -other tribunal. Here again, then, the pretenders of rabbinic -tradition are in direct opposition to the plain commands of -Moses, and are therefore unfounded. It is unnecessary to -enter into more of these particulars. The two which we have -examined are contrary to truth; and two falsehoods are quite -enough to shake the credit of any claims. The only possible -way of establishing the authority of the Sanhedrin, in answer -to this argument, is, to deny the authority of the Bible. There -<a id='Page_347'></a>is no other alternative—either the authors of the Pentateuch, -the books of Samuel and Kings, are mistaken, or the jurisdiction -of the Sanhedrin is a mere fiction. Moses commands a -very different institution, and the historical books represent a -very different form of government. He who receives these -books as inspired, must renounce the authority of the Sanhedrin, -whilst he who maintains it must give up the sacred -books.</p> - -<p class='c005'>There is, however, another tribunal mentioned in the above-quoted -passage of the oral law which it is necessary to notice, -and that is the minor Sanhedrin, or council of twenty-three. -It is said, “The minor councils through the tribes and towns -are not to be established except by the council of seventy-one;” -and elsewhere we read:—</p> - -<p class='c005'>ימעמידין בכל עיר ועיר בישראל שיש בה ק׳׳כ או -יותר סנהדרי קטנה , וכמה יהיה מנינם כ׳׳ג דיינים ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“In every city of Israel that contains one hundred and -twenty Israelites or more, a minor Sanhedrin ought to be -appointed, and of how many members ought it to consist? -Of twenty-three judges.” (Hilchoth Sanhedrin, i. 3.) Now -this is another innovation for which there is no warrant whatever -in the law of Moses. “Moses chose able men out of all -Israel, and made them heads over the people, rulers of thousands, -rulers of hundreds, rulers of fifties, and rulers of tens. -And they judged the people at all times.” (Exod. xviii. 25, 26.) -This is the provision which Moses made for the administration -of justice, but he says not a syllable about the appointment of -minor Sanhedrins of twenty-three, so that in this we have -another instance of the effort, which the rabbies made, to get -rid of all the Mosaic institutions, and to substitute their own. -And also another proof that the laws of the Sanhedrin were -not given by Moses, for they require this Council to appoint -minor courts, contrary to his ordinances. It appears, then, -from what has been said in these two papers, that the Sanhedrin -was altogether an unlawful tribunal, and that therefore -the oral law can receive no support from its approval: and it -appears, further, that modern Judaism has entirely subverted -that order of things established by Moses. He ordained the -priests, the Levites, as the teachers of Israel. Modern Judaism -has turned them out of their office, and substituted the rabbies. -Moses ordained a Supreme Council, consisting of the priests -and the judge. Modern Judaism has destroyed that Council, -and established the Sanhedrin in its place. Moses appointed -rulers over thousands, hundreds, fifties, and tens. Modern -Judaism has put an end to that order, and erected new tribunals -of twenty-three. In fact, if it were possible for the -<a id='Page_348'></a>Jews to realize all the commands of the oral law in their own -land, and Moses were to come amongst them again, he could -never recognize them as his disciples. He would not find one -of his institutions remaining as he left it. It is quite absurd, -and if the subject were not so grave, it would be ludicrous to -hear the Rabbinists exclaiming that the law of Moses is unchangeable, -when they themselves have changed all its main -provisions, and made an entirely new religion. But to the -Jews it ought to be a matter of very serious enquiry, whether -the Mosaic law is unchangeable or not. If the law be unchangeable, -then no rabbinical Jew can entertain a reasonable hope -of salvation, for he professes a religion which has effected the -most extensive changes. In his creed he denies the lawfulness -of change, and in his practice he changes without scruple. -If the law be unchangeable, it is the bounden duty of every -Jew to give up at once the new religion of the rabbies, and to -return with all haste to the institutions of Moses. But if he -believe that the law is changeable at pleasure, then he ought -to renounce that article of his creed which teaches its immutability. -In so serious a matter as religion, he ought to endeavour -to be consistent, and not halt between two opinions. If -Moses be his lawgiver, then let him serve him. But if he be -determined to continue in the new religion of the rabbies, he -ought to inquire into their character, and the authority and -motives which led them to overturn the religion of their forefathers. -Is the religion of Moses a bad religion, which it was -necessary to renounce? Or, was it only given for a certain -period, and when that period had expired, exchanged for a -new one? Had the rabbies Divine authority for the changes -which they made, or did they change it for their own convenience -and interest? The nature of the changes looks very -suspicious, they all added to their influence and power. As -long as the law of Moses was observed, the rabbies had no -power either in Church or State. But by the changes which -they made, they became absolute despots over the bodies and -souls of all Israel. They had, thus, every possible temptation -to reject the one and adopt the other. But is this a reason -why the Jewish people should also reject the law of Moses? -They gain nothing, and loose everything, both for time and -eternity, by the change. By adopting the new religion of the -rabbies, they give up the use of that most precious gift, their -reason, in all that regards the law and service of God. A Jew, -who receives the oral law, can have nothing but a blind faith. -He has lost the privilege of considering what God requires of -him, and must simply receive what the rabbies choose to prescribe -as his duty: and if they should even go so far as to tell -him that his left hand is his right, and his right hand his left, -he must believe in the decision, and reject the evidences of his -<a id='Page_349'></a>senses. Or, if he should dare to doubt, where Judaism reigns -triumphant, he must be strangled. There is certainly nothing -very inviting in this system, nothing that should tempt a man -to prefer it to the just, and equitable, and rational religion of -Moses. He gives the law of God into the hands of the Israelite, -and says, “Behold I have set life and death before you, -choose ye.” He deals with men as rational beings, and requires -implicit obedience, not to the word of man, but to -the oracles of God. He established a supreme council, but -did not permit that council to pass off their own opinions as -infallible, but commanded them to inquire of Him who alone -is free from error. It is truly astonishing that so large a -portion of the Jewish people should still prefer the religious -despotism of the oral law; and it is more astonishing still, that -they should be deluded to believe, that a system, which has -subverted all the institutions of Moses, is the Mosaic religion. -But the most astonishing circumstance of all is, that those -Jews who have detected the grossness of the delusion and have -themselves renounced the practice of the oral law, should feel -so indifferent about the welfare of their brethren, and so reckless -of the interests of truth, as to look on in silence; or even -appear to countenance error by joining in the rights and ceremonies -of tradition. Even the tribe of Levi itself has lost its -zeal, and abdicated the sacred office committed to it by God. -For eighteen hundred years there has not appeared in Israel -one single person zealous for the law of Moses. All have been -content with calling Moses their master, and there the matter -ends. The priests and the people all unite in violating his -laws, and trampling upon the ruins of his institutions, and -then expect other people to believe that they are the faithful -disciples of Moses.</p> - -<div class='chapter'> - <h2 id='chap45' class='c003'>No. XLV. <br /> SANHEDRIN CONTINUED.</h2> -</div> -<p class='c004'>How a nation, so acute and so fond of learning as the Jews, -should ever have been imposed upon by so clumsy an imposture -as that of the oral law, is truly astonishing. The exceeding -folly of some of its ordinances, the incredibility of the -legends with which it abounds, the extravagant pretensions of -its doctors, the grinding tyranny of its despotic tribunals, all -<a id='Page_350'></a>seem calculated to awaken doubt in the mind of the most -credulous, and the most ignorant. But the utter want of -evidence to support its claims ought to be sufficient to open -the eyes of even superstition itself. To establish the genuineness -of an oral tradition, an unbroken chain of witnesses, from -the rise of the tradition to the present time, is indispensably -necessary. The succession of persons who received it from -their predecessors, and transmitted it to their followers, must -be clearly and accurately made out; and the want of a single -link, or the existence of a single chasm in the chain of transmission -is quite sufficient to discredit the whole, and to invalidate -the claims to genuineness. To prove the genuineness of -the תורה שבעל פה, oral law, it is necessary not only to -point out a succession of persons, but a succession of Sanhedrins, -for, as we have seen, the Sanhedrin was regarded as the -foundation and pillar of tradition. If a single chasm in history -exists, where a Sanhedrin cannot be pointed out, or if the -assigned succession be inconsistent with the written and inspired -records of the people, the claims of the oral law are -invalidated, and the Jewish nation convicted as the abettors -of a pious fraud, or the unwitting dupes of an imposture. -Now we have already shown that the Sanhedrin was not -instituted by Moses, and was never heard of until after the -Greek conquest of the land of Israel; and hence it inevitably -follows, that the oral law is totally destitute of that chain of -testimony, by which alone its genuineness could be established. -From Moses to the Maccabees there is one continued chasm, -an immense and impassable abyss, which separates between -modern Judaism and truth. But as the rabbies have endeavoured -to fill up the yawning gulf or rather to build a -bridge in the air for the purpose of passing it, we think it -necessary to examine the success of their efforts. They say, -that a chain of testimony, such as is wanted, does actually -exist, and have endeavoured to point out the various links. -If this prove fallacious, then the last and only hope of modern -Judaism is gone; to prove the fallacy does not require much -argument. The chain of testimony as pointed out by the -rabbies themselves, is inconsistent with history, and wants -continuity even at the very commencement. The first part of -the succession is thus described:—</p> - -<p class='c005'>אף על פי שלש נכתבה תורה שבע׳׳פ למדה משה -רבינו כולה בבית דינו לשבעים זקנים ואלעזר ופנחס -ויהושע שלשתן קבלו ממשה , וליהושע שהוא תלמידו -של משה רבינו מסר תורה שבע׳׳פ וצוהו עליה , וכן -יהושע כל ימי חייו למד על פה , וזקנים רבים קבלו -מיהושע , וקבל עלי מן הזקנים ומפנחס ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'><a id='Page_351'></a>“Although the oral law was not written, Moses our master -taught it all in his Council to the seventy elders; Eleazar also, -and Phinehas, and Joshua, all three, received it from Moses. -But to Joshua, who was the disciple of Moses our master, he -delivered the oral law, and gave him a charge concerning it -In like manner Joshua taught it by word of mouth all the -days of his life; and many elders received it from Joshua, and -Eli received it from the elders, and from Phinehas.” (Preface -to the Yad Hachazakah.) Now here the want of continuity -begins, immediately after the third link in the chain. That -Joshua should inherit the oral law from Moses is very likely, -if there was any to be inherited, but who was Joshua’s successor -the rabbies cannot tell us. It is not enough to say that -the elders received it from Joshua; who were the elders, and -who was the next president of the Sanhedrin, and who was -the president after that? To make out a chain of witnesses, -we must at least have their names, but ought to know, besides, -their character, their piety, their probity, before we can depend -upon their testimony. The absence of this detail shows that -the rabbies had no information on the subject, and were merely -trying to make up a story to impose upon the credulous. It is -self-evident that if they had possessed an accurate detail, they -would have given it; but as they do not, we must infer that -they had it not; and as the Bible gives no information on the -subject, we must assert, that the chain of testimony terminates -at the second link. So far are the rabbies from being able to -prove a succession of Sanhedrins from the time of Joshua to -their own, that they are compelled to make a grand leap from -Joshua to Eli, and thus to leave a chasm of more than two -hundred years, which of itself is sufficient to overthrow the -claims of the oral law, and to stamp the Jews as the most -credulous of men if they believe without any evidence. It is -true that the rabbies endeavour to stop up this great cavity -with a great falsehood. They say that Eli received the oral -law from Joshua’s elders, and from Phinehas; which assertion -implies that all these persons lived to be about three hundred -years old! And yet, if it were true, it would not be sufficient -to make out the proof, for which the succession of Sanhedrins -is absolutely necessary, and especially for this period. From -the book of Judges, it appears, that in the interval between -Joshua and Eli, and even in the next generation after Joshua’s -death, the people forsook the law of Moses, even the written -law, and gave themselves up to idolatry. Thus we read, “And -Joshua the son of Nun, the servant of the Lord, died, being an -hundred and ten years old.... And also all that generation -were gathered unto their fathers: and there arose another generation -after them, which knew not the Lord, nor the works -which he had done for Israel. And the children of Israel did -<a id='Page_352'></a>evil in the sight of the Lord, and served Baalim.” (Judges ii. -8-11.) Now, here the inspired writer says that Joshua and -all that generation died, which expressly contradicts the rabbinic -assertion that Joshua’s elders lived to the time of Eli; -and, further, he says, that the Israelites turned aside to idols: -where was the Sanhedrin at that time? If it existed, why did -it not stop the torrent of corruption, and punish the transgressors? -And why was it necessary for God to raise up Judges -to do the Sanhedrin’s work? We do not once read of the -Sanhedrin, or any other council, helping Israel. In the book -of Judges, deliverance is ascribed solely to the judges whom -God raised up. “When the Lord raised them up judges, then -the Lord was with the judge, and delivered them out of the -hand of their enemies all the days of the judge.... And it -came to pass when the judge was dead, that they returned and -corrupted themselves more than their fathers.” (Ibid. 18, 19.) -Indeed, that saying so often repeated in the book of Judges, -“In those days there was no king in Israel, but every man did -that which was right in his own eyes,” shows that there was -no Sanhedrin either. If any council of the kind, armed with -such despotic power, had existed, the children of Israel could -not have done that which was right in their own eyes. -Whether, then, we look at the Bible or at the rabbinic -account, we have a period of more than two hundred years, -during which there is no evidence at all either for the existence -of the Sanhedrin or of the oral law. The chain of -testimony, therefore, offered by the rabbies, is not complete; -and is, moreover, unworthy of credit, as it contains a gross -falsehood concerning the age to which Joshua’s elders lived. -A little more examination will show us that it contains more -than one falsehood. After telling us that David received the -oral law from Samuel and his council, it thus proceeds:—</p> - -<p class='c005'>אחיה השילוני מיוצאי מצרים היה ולוי היה ושמע -ממשה והיה קטן בימי משה והוא קבל מדוד ובית -דינו , ואליהו קבל מאחיה השילוני ובית דינו ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“Ahijah the Shilonite was one of those who came out of -Egypt, and a Levite, and he heard the oral law from Moses: -but he was little in the days of Moses, and received the oral -law from David and his council. And Elijah received from -Ahijah the Shilonite and his council.” Now, in the first place, -this statement is very absurd. To suppose that one, who had -heard the law from Moses, should at last receive it from -David, is contrary to probability: but to assert that Ahijah -was a little boy in the time of Moses, and that he lived until -the reign of Solomon, that is, above five hundred years, is -manifestly a falsehood, and, whether wilful or not, completely -<a id='Page_353'></a>destroys the credibility of this attempt at a succession of -witnesses. If involuntary, and the result of error, it shows -that the rabbies who have transmitted this story were so weak -in intellect as to swallow any improbability; and that as they -transmitted one lie, they may have transmitted more. But if -voluntary, no one will argue that the testimony of wilful liars -is worth much. This last attempt, therefore, to prop up the -authority of the oral law is vain.</p> - -<p class='c005'>But this rabbinic chain of testimony goes on to tell us that, -amongst others, the oral law passed through Jeremiah the -prophet:—</p> - -<p class='c005'>וירמיהו קבל מצפניה ובית דינו , וברוך בן נריה -קבל מירמיה ובית דינו ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“Jeremiah received from Zephaniah and his council, and -Baruch the son of Neriah received from Jeremiah and his -council.” Now, if this means that Jeremiah was the נשיא, -or President of the Sanhedrin, it is plainly false. The whole -history of Jeremiah shows us that he was not the powerful -head of a despotic and irresistible council, but an unprotected -and persecuted man. Had he been president of a tribunal so -dreadful, and whose sentence of excommunication was in itself -sufficient to protect him, the people and the princes would -never have dared to reject his words as they did, much less to -make an attempt on his life. But if, on the other hand, it be -said that Jeremiah’s council does not mean the Sanhedrin, then -we have another chasm in the succession of Sanhedrins, and -consequently the proof fails again. But this chain of evidence -is not only contrary to fact, and to the inspired writings of the -prophets; it is also inconsistent with the oral law itself, for it -asserts that two proselytes form a part of the chain of transmission:—</p> - -<p class='c005'>שמעיה ואבטליון גרי הצדק ובית דינם קבלו מיהודה -ושמעון ובית דינם , הלל ושמאי ובית דינם קבלו -משמעיה ואבטליון ובית דינם ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“Shemaiah and Abtalion, proselytes of righteousness, and -their council, received from Judah and Simon and their -council. Hillel and Shammai and their council received from -Shemaiah and Abtalion and their council.” Now, according -to the oral law, it is unlawful for proselytes to be members -of any council or tribunal. Respecting the Supreme Council, -it is expressly said:—</p> - -<p class='c005'>אין מעמידין בסנהדרין אלא כהנים לויים וישראלים -המיוחסים הראויים להשיא לכהונה , שנאמר והתיצבו -שם עמך בדומין לך בחכמה וביראה וביחס ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'><a id='Page_354'></a>“None are to be made members of the Sanhedrin except -priests and Levites, and Israelites of so good a genealogy as to -be fit to intermarry with the priests; for it is said, ‘And they -shall stand there with thee,’ (Numb. xi. 16,) <i>i.e.</i> like unto thee -in wisdom, in piety, and in genealogy.” (Hilchoth Sanhedrin, -c. ii. 1.) And even of an inferior tribunal it is said:—</p> - -<p class='c005'>בית דין של שלשה שהיה אחד מהם גר הרי זה -פסול ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“A tribunal of three, one of whom is a proselyte, is unlawful.” -(Ibid. 9.) If then, it was unlawful for a proselyte to -be a member of the Sanhedrin, or any other tribunal, how is it -that we find two at the head of one of those councils through -which the oral law was transmitted? If the decisions of the -oral law be valid, that council was illegitimate, and therefore -totally incompetent to the transmission of tradition, and then -we have a break in the chain of testimony even at that end -which is nearest to the rabbies. But if that council be considered -competent, then the oral law which condemns it cannot -contain the true tradition. But in either case, the genuineness -of the law is overthrown.</p> - -<p class='c005'>The sum of what we have said is this:—That even if we -were to give up our other arguments against the authority of -the Sanhedrin and the oral law, and were willing to rest this -question on the testimony of the rabbies themselves, the defectiveness, -inconsistency, and falsehood manifested in that testimony, -would be sufficient to throw discredit on all their claims. -They have not only no proof from Scripture, but are not able -themselves to find in tradition an unbroken chain of testimony. -They fail at the very outset. After producing two links, they -leave a chasm of above two hundred years unaccounted for. -When they take it up again, they are convicted of gross falsehood -in asserting that men lived, after the deluge, to the age -of five hundred years: and are not able even to make out a -story that will agree with the oral law itself. The most -favourable ground, then, that can be taken for the defence -of the oral law proves untenable. But if to this we add the -arguments contained in the former papers, and remember that -the Sanhedrin is in direct opposition to the law of Moses, is -never mentioned in any of the sacred books, nor heard of until -the Greek language was spoken in the land of Israel, every -support is taken from the oral law, and it sinks down to the -level of a mere imposture, of which the Jewish people have -been the dupes and the victims. How long they will remain -so, it is for themselves to consider. The times of blind faith, -such as modern Judaism requires, are gone by; the Jews can -therefore no longer remain the blind followers of the superstitious -and ambitious rabbies. Either they must honestly -<a id='Page_355'></a>confess that they and their fathers have been deceived for the -last eighteen hundred years, and earnestly set about seeking -that truth which they lost; or they most be content to be -regarded either as interested upholders of error, or reckless -despisers of truth. No one, who at all knows the nation, will -ever believe that they are so weak in understanding as to be -unable, under present circumstances, to detect the clumsy pretensions -of the oral law. Some Jews may, indeed, still obstinately -refuse to investigate the evidences of their paternal -religion, and persist in professing Judaism simply because -their fathers did so before them: but such persons must be -content to acknowledge that their faith is not that of a rational -being, or that their religion will not stand the test of -reason. All who will take the trouble to investigate, must, if -they be honest men, make up their minds to renounce the -religion of the rabbies. There is not any one argument, either -of internal or external evidence, in its behalf, on which a man -of ordinary understanding can rest for a moment. The only -shadow of a basis on which to support the oral law is the -doctrine of the Sanhedrin, but this, as we have seen, disappears -so soon as we approach the illusion. Instead of giving authority -to the other parts of the oral law, the doctrine of a Sanhedrin -appears one of the most objectionable of its many -errors, for it bears upon its front the stamp of selfishness and -ambition. It was an invention of men, who aimed not only at -a spiritual dominion, but also at a secular despotism. The -Sanhedrin was merely the engine whereby the rabbies hoped -to get all the power, both of Church and State, into their own -hands, and thereby distinguishes the rabbinical religion in the -most striking manner from that of Jesus of Nazareth. Christianity -contains no apparatus for securing to its teachers the -dominion of the world; and therefore the professing followers -of Christ, when they aimed at worldly power, were first -obliged to invent an oral law of their own. Jesus of Nazareth -seeks nothing but the dominion of truth. “When he perceived -that they would come and take him by force, to make him -a king, he departed again into a mountain himself alone.” -(John vi. 15.) His doctrine was, “My kingdom is not of this -world.” And in like manner he taught his disciples not to -seek after worldly power. “Ye know that they which are -accounted to rule over the Gentiles exercise lordship over -them; and their great ones exercise authority upon them. -But so shall it not be among you: but whosoever will be great -among you, shall be your minister: and whosoever will be -chiefest, shall be servant of all. For even the Son of man -came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give -his life a ransom for many.” (Mark x. 42-45.) Jesus and -his apostles are perfectly free man the suspicion of making -<a id='Page_356'></a>religion subservient to the promotion of ambitious schemes. -The teachers of the oral law had, and even now have a temptation -to uphold its doctrines, because they make them the -absolute rulers of the Jewish people, and this tendency is a -strong ground of suspicion. When God sent Moses, he preserved -him from all similar imputation, for though he possessed -the supreme power during his life, his claims were attested by -miracles which could not be denied: and at his decease his -children were chief neither in Church nor State. The priesthood -remained in the family of Aaron, and the chief magistracy -fell to the lot of Joshua. Thus disinterestedness distinguished -the characters of Moses and Jesus from those of the -rabbies. The doctrine of the Sanhedrin reveals but too plainly -the motives by which the authors of the oral law were actuated. -Of course we do not mean to ascribe the same motives to -all the advocates of the oral law in the present day. Those -motives are necessarily confined to those times when Judaism -can be realized, and cannot, therefore, be called forth until -there is a prospect of restoring the rabbinic polity. Our object -is not to condemn the modern Jews, but to open their eyes to -a true view of that system by which they have been so long -deluded. And if they should ask us, Where, then, is the truth -to be found? we reply, in Moses and the prophets. For -though we are Christians, we firmly believe that true faith in -the Old Testament must terminate in Christianity. The only -real obstacle in the way of a Jew’s receiving Jesus as the -Messiah, is the prejudice, that his fathers, who rejected him, -must have been in the right; and this obstacle we are endeavouring -to remove. We have already made it appear that -they were in the wrong; and our late papers have removed -the strongest objection that they urge, namely, that the sentence -of the Sanhedrin was decisive against his claims. We -have shown that the Sanhedrin was altogether an unlawful -tribunal, not established by Moses, but, as its name intimates, -by the Greeks, and modelled by artful and ambitious men for -their own purposes: and as the tribunal was unlawful, so was -the sentence. Indeed the fact that the Lord Jesus Christ was -condemned by an unlawful tribunal is a testimony in his -favour. It shows that he disapproved of and opposed their -unlawful doings. Jesus was not condemned by the friends -of Moses, but by his enemies. The religion of Christ was -persecuted, not by those who conscientiously kept Moses’ commands, -but by those who had first defaced every feature of -Mosaism. The men who condemned the Lord Jesus were the -tyrannical usurpers of an authority which Moses had given to -others; and if Moses himself had appeared amongst them, -and asserted the rights of the priests and Levites against the -rabbies, they would just as readily have crucified him as the -<a id='Page_357'></a>Lord Jesus Christ. The Jews, therefore, of the present day, -who approve the condemnation of Jesus, unite with the enemies -of Moses; but those who are lovers of the Mosaic law must -approve the efforts of Jesus to deliver it from the corruptions -or wicked and ambitious men. An unlawful tribunal condemned -him for doing what every true Jew must acknowledge -to be right. Whether, then, they acknowledge him as the -Messiah, or not, they must confess that he died a martyr to -his zeal for the law of Moses, and are, therefore, bound to -re-consider his claims. Jesus was put to death, not because -he violated the Mosaic precepts, but because he reproved -others for their transgressions—not because he endeavoured -to overturn the religion of Moses, but because he resolutely -defended its truth against those who were introducing a new -religion upon its ruins.</p> -<div class='chapter'> - <h2 id='chap46' class='c003'>No. XLVI. <br /> CONTEMPT FOR THE FEMALE CHARACTER.</h2> -</div> -<p class='c004'>Modern Judaism, or the religion of the oral law, cannot -bear the slightest investigation. Its existence depends altogether -upon a blind faith. As long as a man is willing to -deliver up his understanding into the hands of the rabbies, -and at their bidding believe that his right hand is his left, as -they require; so long he may be a zealous professor of Judaism. -But, the moment that he begins to think and to reason, and to -compare his traditional faith with the doctrines of Moses and -the prophets, he must begin to doubt, and if he really has a -love for the law of God, he must ultimately renounce that -superstition which caused the destruction of the temple and -all the subsequent calamities of his people, and still enslaves -the greatest portion of his nation. It matters not at which -point he views it—its theoretic principles and its practical -effects equally condemn it, and prove that it is so far from -being a revelation from God, that it is not even the work of -good or wise men. The doctrine of the Sanhedrin, which we -lately considered, exhibits it as a spiritual despotism the most -intolerable; but the utter contempt with which it looks down -upon the female portion of mankind makes it to this hour -a positive curse to the daughters of Israel, and proves that it -does not proceed from Him who created male and female, and -<a id='Page_358'></a>pronounced a blessing upon the one as well as the other. One -of the prominent characteristics in every false religion is the -degradation of womankind. The Mahometan imposture debases -women to the level of the brute creation. Judaism -places them in the same category with slaves. In Mahometan -countries, women are deprived of all culture of head and heart. -Rabbinism, as we saw in <a href='#chap03'>No. 3</a>, pronounces that fathers are -exempt from all obligation to teach their daughters the law of -the lord: but we must proceed to consider fully <i>the estimate -which Rabbinism teaches the Jews to form of their daughters, -their sisters, their mothers, and even the wife of their bosom</i>: -and in doing this we shall not go to the opinions of the ignorant, -the vicious, or the superstitious, but to the standard -books of the nation. It is not possible to produce in English -much of the slanderous assertions contained in the Talmud; -many are too bad for translation, but still enough can be -brought forward to prove satisfactorily that the rabbies look -upon womankind with contempt. It is generally agreed that -Rambam, or Maimonides, was one of the most learned and -enlightened of the rabbies, and yet the contempt which he -felt for the female head and heart appears very plainly in the -following passage:—</p> - -<p class='c005'>אל יאמר אדם הריני עושה מצוות התורה ועוסק -בחכמתה כדי שאקבל כל הברכות הכתובות בה או -כדי שאזכה לחיי העולם הבא , ואפרוש םן העבירות -שהזהירה תורה מהן כדי שאנצל מן הקללות הכתובות -בתורה או כדי שלא אכרת מחיי העולם הבא , אין -ראוי לעבוד השם על הדרך הזה , שעובד על דרך -זה הוא עובד מיראה ואיננה מעלת הנביאים ולא -מעלת החכמים , ואין עובדין ה׳ על דרך זה אלא -עמי הארץ והנשים והקטנים שמחנכין אותן לעבוד -מיראה עד שתרבה דעתן ויעבדו מאהבה ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“Let not any man say, Behold I perform the commandments -of the law, and study in its wisdom, in order to obtain the -blessings written therein, or to be worthy of the life of the -world to come: and I abstain from the transgressions against -which it warns, in order to be delivered from the curses written -in the law, or that I may not be cut off from eternal life. It -is not right to serve God in this way, for he that serves thus, -serves from fear, and that is not the degree to which the -prophets and wise men attained. No one serves God in this -way, except unlearned men (Amharatzin), women, and children, -whom they accustom to serve from fear, until their -understanding increases, so that they may serve from love.” -(Hilchoth T’shuvah, c. x. 1.) Here Maimonides sinks women -<a id='Page_359'></a>down to the level of children, and even classes their moral and -intellectual faculties with those of the despised <i>Amharatzin</i>. -We saw in <a href='#chap01'>No. 1</a> that an <i>amhaaretz</i> is of so little value, that -his life is not considered more precious than that of a fish, and -such it appears was Rambam’s estimate of the value of a -woman. This most learned rabbi considered it impossible for -a woman to love God or to serve him aright; and when he -wished to warn the Jews against serving God in an erroneous -manner, he actually tells them not to serve Him as the women -do. A more debasing imputation cannot be cast upon a human -being than this, that he is physically incapable of loving God -or serving Him aright. If he had asserted that since the fall -of Adam, the whole human race is far gone from original -righteousness, and that therefore the love of God is not in -them, he would have said what is asserted in Scripture: but -the opinion that women, that is, one half of the human species, -have a physical incapacity to love and serve God; and that we -are to regard them as a sort of finger-post for pointing out -error, or a notorious example of that irreligion which we are -to avoid, is to blaspheme the Creator, and to hold up the whole -female sex to the universal scorn of their sons, their brothers, -and their husbands. It may be said, in palliation of so foul a -libel, that Rambam lived amongst Mahometans, and that he -insensibly imbibed the opinions of the followers of the false -prophet. Now it is most true that he could never have learned -this sentiment from Christians. The New Testament does not -teach us to look upon women as Amharatzin, but to regard -them as rational and responsible beings, capable of doing -God the same acceptable service as men, liable to the same -awful judgment, and partakers of the same blessed hope. -This apology, if true, would only serve to excuse Rambam: -it would not defend the sentiment itself, but on the contrary, -stamp it as Mahometan. It is not true, however, that Rambam -imbibed this notion from intercourse with Mahometans: he -learned it in the oral law, which has such a low opinion of -women as to pronounce their testimony invalid.</p> - -<p class='c005'>עשרה מיני פסלות הם , כל מי שנמצא בו אחד -מהן הרי הוא פסול לעדות , ואלו הן הנשים , -והעבדים , והקטנים , והשוטים , והחרשים , והסומים , -והרשעים , והבזויין , והקרותים והנוגעין בעדותן , -הרי אלו עשרה ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“There are ten sorts of disqualification, and every one in -whom any one of them is found, he is disqualified from giving -evidence; and these are they—women, slaves, children, idiots, -deaf persons, the blind, the wicked, the despised, relations, -and those interested in their testimony—behold these are ten.” -<a id='Page_360'></a>(Hilchoth Eduth., c. ix. 1.) Now, it will be observed that -these ten classes may be reduced to two—those who are disqualified -by physical or intellectual infirmity, as children, -idiots, deaf and blind persons; and secondly, those whose -moral integrity is exposed to suspicion, as slaves, wicked -and despised persons, relations, and those who have an interest -in the cause. To one of these two classes women must -belong: they are disqualified either because of incapacity, or -because their moral feeling may not be trusted, and in either -case are treated with a most unmerited contempt. It is true, -that the rabbies endeavour to prove that the law of Moses -excludes women from giving testimony, saying—</p> - -<p class='c005'>נשים פסולות לעדות מן התורה שנאמר על פי -שנים עדים לשון זכר ולא לשון נקבה ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“Women are disqualified by the law from giving testimony, -for it is said, ‘At the mouth of two witnesses,’ where the -word witness is of the masculine, not the feminine gender;” -but this proof is altogether inconclusive; on the same principle -it might be proved that women might break all the ten -commandments, for they are all given in the masculine gender. -Indeed it is self-evident that God could not have given a law -so absurd. There are thousands of cases, where, if women -could not give evidence, all the ends of justice would be defeated. -Take, for instance, the famous judgment of Solomon, -where the two women laid claim each to the living child. In -this case there could be no testimony but that of the women -themselves, and Solomon did not send them away because they -were women. Take also the case of Boaz and Ruth. When -Boaz wished to marry Ruth, it was necessary first to redeem -the inheritance, and for this it was absolutely necessary to -prove that Ruth was the wife of Naomi’s son. But there was -no testimony but that of the women themselves. Elimelech, -Chilion, and Mahlon, were all dead, and the marriage had -taken place in a foreign land, yet we do not read of any difficulties -being raised. Boaz himself, Naomi’s kinsman, and the -elders of Israel, appear all to have been perfectly satisfied. -The disqualification of women, therefore, was not ordained by -Moses, but is the invention of the rabbies, and shows that the -rabbies had so low an opinion of the intellect or the integrity -of women, as to think either that women are so half-witted as -not to be fit to give testimony, or so dishonest as not to be -trusted in the testimony which they may give.</p> - -<p class='c005'>But this degradation of the female character is not confined -to the rabbinic courts of law. They have dared to carry it -even into the house of God, and to make it prominent in the -public worship of the Creator. The oral law has ordained -that no public worship, nor indeed many religious solemnities, -<a id='Page_361'></a>can be performed, unless there be ten persons present, but -from this number it has carefully excluded the women, determining -that—</p> - -<p class='c005'>ואלו העשרה צריך שיהיו כולם בני חורין וגדולים -שהביאו ב׳ שערות ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“It is necessary that all these ten be free and adult men.” -(Orach Chaiim, 55.) So that if there should be ten thousand -women in the synagogue, they are counted as nobody, and -unless there be ten men there can be no service. Hence it is -that the daughters of Israel are never suffered to appear as -participators in the worship of God, but are compelled to look -on from a distance, as if they had neither part nor lot in the -matter. Now what reason is there why women should not be -regarded as worshippers? Are they not rational beings? are -they not creatures of God? are they not heirs of immortality -just as well as the men? Will they not join in the praises of -the redeemed in Paradise; or is the Mahometan doctrine true, -that women have no souls? Certainly, when one looks at the -Jewish synagogue, one would think so. Before marriage the -women never go there at all, and after marriage how seldom. -On the Barbary coast they hardly ever go, and in Poland how -common is it, whilst the men are in the synagogue at prayer, -to see their wives outside loitering and chatting, as if the -public worship of God was no concern of theirs. Even in this -country the attendance of females is not at all equal to that of -the men. How contrary is this state of things to the command -of God in the Psalms, “Both young men and maidens; -old men and children; let them praise the name of the Lord.” -(Psalm cxlviii. 12, 13.) And again, “Let every thing that -hath breath praise the Lord.” (Psalm cl. 6.) How different -is the condition of the Jewish females under the oral law, -from that described by Moses:—“When Miriam, the prophetess, -the sister of Aaron, took a timbrel in her hand; and -all the women went out after her, with timbrels and with -dances. And Miriam answered them, Sing ye to the Lord, -for he hath triumphed gloriously.” (Exod. xi. 21.) Then the -women were permitted to unite in the noblest work that can -engage the soul of human beings, the praises of our God. But -now they are shut out, according to the ordinance of the -rabbies—they are not reckoned amongst God’s worshippers, -and if ten thousand of them should go to the synagogue, -unless there should also be a sufficient number of men, a -disciple of the rabbies would count them as nobody, and not -think it worth his while to read prayers for them. A law -like this cannot possibly proceed from God, He makes no such -difference between male and female.</p> - -<p class='c005'><a id='Page_362'></a>לא בגבותת הסוס יחפץ לא בשוקי האיש ירצה ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“He delighteth not in the strength of the horse; he taketh -not pleasure in the legs of a man.” (Ps. cxlvii. 10.) “The -sacrifices of God are a broken spirit; a broken and contrite -heart, O God, thou wilt not despise” (Ps. li. 17); no matter -whether it be male or female.</p> - -<p class='c005'>But the oral law is not content with degrading women by -refusing to number them as a part of the congregation, it -actually prescribes a form of daily prayer expressive of their -contempt. Every day the men say—</p> - -<p class='c005'>ברוך אתה ה׳ אלהינו מלך העולם שלא עשני אשה ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“Blessed art thou, O Lord, our God! king of the universe, -who hath not made me a woman.” Whilst the women are -directed to say—</p> - -<p class='c005'>ברוך אתה ה׳ אלהינו מלך העולם שעשני כרצונו ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“Blessed art thou, O Lord our God! King of the universe, -who hath made me according to his will.” (Daily Prayers, -p. 6.) The proud benediction of the men is founded altogether -on the oral law, which promises rewards not to the -state of the heart, but to the external operation of keeping -God’s commands, and as many of them cannot be kept by the -women, intimates that the men will have a greater reward. -This prayer, or rather thanksgiving, refers especially to the -study of the law, from which they suppose the woman to be -dispensed, and for which they expect no small reward in the -world to come, and upon which they pride themselves, particularly -in this present life. The man who remembers the -day of judgment, when the secrets of all hearts shall be -revealed, or bears in mind that the distinction of sex, like -the difference of rank or office or nationality, is only for this -world, will find but little reason for offering up any such -thanksgiving. He knows that God will render to every -human being, not according to sex, but according to deeds; -and feeling that all, both male and female, are sinners, will -see that such arrogance is unbecoming at all times, and particularly -odious at the moment when he comes to ask pardon -of Him “who spieth out all our ways.” Instead of despising -others, under the pretence of thanking God, the truly devout -man will be much more ready to take up the language of -David, and say—“Enter not into judgment with thy servant, -O Lord; for in thy sight shall no man living be justified.”</p> - -<p class='c005'>It appears, from these quotations, that Maimonides did not -learn his contempt for womankind from the Mahometans, but -from the oral law and the prayers of the synagogue. Modern -Judaism disqualifies a woman from giving evidence, shuts her -<a id='Page_363'></a>out from the study of God’s Word, excludes her from the -number of his worshippers, and even in its prayers to God -pronounces her as nothing better than a heathen, or a slave: -for in the preceding benedictions, the man says first—“Blessed -art thou, O God, &c., who hath not made me a heathen;” -then, “Blessed art thou, &c., who hath not made me a slave;” -and, finally, “Blessed art thou, &c. who hath not made me a -woman.” Now we ask every Jew and Jewess, into whose -hands this book may fall, whether a religion which teaches -one-half of the human race to despise and degrade the other -half, can possibly come from God? or whether it is not the -invention of narrow-minded and vain-glorious men? Even -reason itself would tell us that God can never teach us to -despise the works of his own hands, and still less to hold up -the mother who bore us, or the companion who has shared all -our joys and sorrows, to the scorn of a privileged class of -human beings. And yet this is what the oral law does, and -thereby shows that it does not proceed from Him who inspired -Moses and the prophets. The writings of the Old Testament -furnish no warrant for female degradation. They commence -by telling us that the woman as well as the man was formed -in the image of God, and that though woman was first led into -transgression, yet that she should have the honour of giving -birth to him who should bruise the serpent’s head. (Gen. -iii. 15.) They tell us farther, that when God was pleased -to give the commandments from Sinai, that he exacted of all -children to honour the mother as well as the father—“Honour -thy father and thy mother.” But how is it possible for any -one to honour his mother who despises her as an inferior being, -does not look upon her as fit to give evidence in a court of law, -and even makes it a matter of public thanksgiving that he is -not like her? Surely such an one is much more like him of -whom it is said—</p> - -<p class='c005'>כסיל אדם בוזה ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“A foolish man despiseth his mother.” (Prov. xv. 20.) The -oral law is, in this respect, altogether inconsistent with the -law of God. The former tells fathers to leave their daughters -without any religious education, and the latter supposes that -they have been so well taught as to be able to teach their sons. -Thus Solomon says, more than once, “My son, keep thy -father’s commandment, and forsake not the law of thy mother,” -תורת אמך. (Prov. vi. 20.) But how is it possible for those -Jewish mothers, in Poland or Africa for instance, who cannot -even read themselves, to teach their sons? or, even suppose -they could read, how can a son believe in his mother’s instruction, -when the oral law tells him that she is not qualified to -give testimony? But the Bible does not teach us merely -<a id='Page_364'></a>to have a respect for our own mother, but shows as generally -that God is no respecter of persons, and that he bestows his -gifts upon all. It presents to our view many women, as Sarah, -Rebecca, Miriam, Deborah, and Hannah, as examples of piety, -and informs us that in the time of salvation, he will pour out -his Spirit upon all flesh, without any distinction of sex or -nation. “And it shall come to pass afterward, that I will pour -out my spirit upon all flesh; and your sons and your daughters -shall prophesy.” (Joel iii. 1. In the English Bible, ii. 28.) -Yea, as if to mock the rabbies and the oral law, God adds, that -it shall be given even to the male and female slaves.</p> - -<p class='c005'>וגם על הצבדים ואל השפחות בימים ההמה -אשפוך את רוחי ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“Yea, even upon the servants and handmaids, in those days, -will I pour out my spirit.” The two classes of human beings -whom, next to the <i>Amharatzin</i>, the oral law treats with the -most indignity, are women and slaves: but God’s thoughts are -not like the rabbies’ thoughts, and he, therefore, graciously -stands forth as the vindicator of the oppressed, and promises -even to these classes the gift of prophecy. Here again, then, -we see that “as far as the east is from the west,” so different -is God’s law from the present religion of the Jewish people. -The religion of the rabbies is a grinding tyranny, oppressive to -the Gentiles, to slaves, yea, and to all unlearned Jews, and -that does not even spare the wives, the mothers, and the -daughters of Israel. Wherever the oral law can have its full -sway, as in Mahometan countries, the women are left totally -destitute of learning and religion—they are not even taught to -read. In not one of those countries is a school for female -children to be found. It is only in Christian lands that the -daughters of Israel get any education, or ever attain to -anything like that station which God destined them to fill. -Wherever the light of Christianity shines, however feeble, it -ameliorates the condition of the female portion of the Jewish -nation, and compels even the disciples of Rabbinism to take a -little more care of their souls and their intellects. Jewish -females are therefore deeply indebted to the doctrines of Jesus -of Nazareth. If he had not risen up against the oral law, they -would be universally classed with slaves, idiots, and Amharatzin. -He has delivered them from this degradation. Let -them then consider the religion of Jesus, and the religion -which the rabbies have taught them, and then let them decide -which is most beneficial to their temporal and eternal welfare. -The religion that comes from God must be beneficial to all his -rational creatures. A religion that oppresses or disdains any -one class, and deprives them of religious instruction, cannot -come from him.</p> -<div class='chapter'> - <a id='Page_365'></a> - <h2 id='chap47' class='c003'>No. XLVII. <br /> POLYGAMY.</h2> -</div> -<p class='c004'>Great and striking is the difference of position which -womankind occupies in Europe and in the countries of the -East. In the latter they are men’s slaves: in the former his -companions. In the latter they are objects of contempt even -to their own sons. In the former they are the honoured -instruments to impart the first elements of learning and religion. -Here in Europe they appear as co-heirs, with man, of -reason, of intellect, of liberty and immortality; but there they -seem to be an inferior race of beings, at the very most a better -sort of domestic animal. That the European state of things is -more agreeable to God’s intention in the creation of male and -female is evident from the consideration, that there one half of -the human race is doomed to degradation and misery, whilst -here they enjoy a becoming respect, and a much larger portion -of happiness; and still more from observing the effects of the -two systems. Here the intellectual and moral powers of -mankind have far advanced towards perfection, but there the -human race is still debased and barbarous. Now that, which -makes happy and improves, must necessarily be more agreeable -to God’s purpose in creation, than that which degrades -and makes unhappy; and this argument will also go far to -prove that another striking feature of difference, which distinguishes -the West from the East, is also more in accordance -with the will of God; we mean the fact that here men have -only one wife, whilst there they have many. There can be no -doubt that this characteristic of European life conduces much -to the well-being and the peace of families, as well as to the -moral and intellectual improvement of individuals. In these -two great advantages and means of happiness the Jewesses of -Europe participate. They are not illiterate slaves like their -sisters in the east, neither do they divide their husbands’ affections -with many. Here the Jews, like the Christians, have -only one wife. It becomes, therefore, a most interesting -subject of inquiry to know to what the European Jewesses are -indebted for this superiority of respect and happiness. Is it to -their own religion, or to the religion of Christians, that is, is it -to Judaism or Christianity? We might answer at once, that -Judaism has certainly not produced this salutary difference, for -then it would have produced the same effect in Mahometan -countries, but we prefer referring to the oral law itself. We -have already shown that modern Judaism degrades women to -the level of slaves and <i>Amharatzin</i>: we shall now prove that -<i>the Jewesses are not indebted to it for the abolition of polygamy</i>. -<a id='Page_366'></a>When Napoleon assembled the famous Parisian Sanhedrin, he -proposed this question to the Jewish deputies, “<i>Is it lawful -for Jews to marry more than one wife?</i>” To which they -returned the following answer:—“It is not lawful for Jews to -marry more than one wife: in all European countries they -conform to the general practice of marrying only one. Moses -does not command expressly to take several; but he does not -forbid it. He seems even to adopt that custom as generally -prevailing, since he settles the rights of inheritance between -children of different wives. Although this practice still prevails -in the East, yet their ancient doctors have enjoined them -to restrain from taking more than one wife, except when the -man is enabled by his fortune to maintain several. The case -has been different in the West; the wish of adopting the -customs of the inhabitants of this part of the world has induced -the Jews to renounce polygamy. But as several individuals -still indulged in that practice, a synod was convened at -Worms in the eleventh century, composed of one hundred -rabbies, with Guerson (Gershom) at their head. This assembly -pronounced an anathema against every Israelite who should, -in future, take more than one wife. Although this prohibition -was not to last for ever, the influence of European manners has -universally prevailed.” (Transactions of the Sanhedrin, p. 150.) -A more evasive, false, and inconsistent answer has rarely been -given to a plain straightforward question. First they say -decidedly, that it is not lawful for Jews to marry more than -one wife: then they spend a page in contradicting themselves, -and at last acknowledge that the abolition of polygamy was -first owing to the anathema of a rabbi, and that it is now to -be attributed to the influence of European manners. But what -are European manners? What religion do Europeans profess? -Plainly the religion of Jesus of Nazareth, so that here the -Jewish deputies acknowledge that if Jewish wives have not -got three or four or more rivals shut up with them in the same -house, they owe this benefit to Christianity. But we must not -rest satisfied with this answer of the Parisian deputies; we -must ask the oral law itself, whether it is lawful for Jews -to marry more than one wife, and must hear the oral law’s -reply. It answers thus:—</p> - -<p class='c005'>נושא אדם כמה נשים אפילו מאה בין בבת אחת -בין בזו אחר זו ואין אשתו יכולה לעכב , והוא שיהיה -יכול ליתן שאר כסות ועונה כראוי לכל אחת ואחת ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“A man may marry many wives, even a hundred, either at -once, or one after the other, and his wife cannot prevent it, provided -that he is able to give to each suitable food, clothing, -and marriage-duty.” (Iad Hachasakah Hilchoth Ishuth., c. -<a id='Page_367'></a>xiv. 3.) This is rather different doctrine from that of the -Parisian Sanhedrin. Here it is plain that the oral law allows -a man to have more than one wife, and does not stint him at -all as to the number. The Arbah Turim teaches precisely the -same doctrine, except that it advises a man not to marry more -than four:—</p> - -<p class='c005'>נושא אדם כמה נשים דאמר רבא נושא אדם כמה -נשים , והוא דאפשר למיקם בסיפוקוהי , ומכל מקום -נתנו חכמים עצה טובה שלא ישא אדם יותר מד׳ -נשים ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“A man may marry many wives, for Rabba says it is lawful -to do so, if he can provide for them. Nevertheless, the wise -men have given good advice, that a man should not many more -than four wives.” (Even Haezer, 1.) So far then as Judaism -is concerned, polygamy is lawful; and a Jew that would even -restrict himself according to the advice of the rabbies, might -still have four wives. It is not his religion that teaches him to -be content with one: and therefore, we must, farther, inquire -how it is that the Jews, who consider polygamy lawful, do not -indulge in it. The Parisian deputies have already informed us -that it still prevails in the East, and that it prevailed in Europe -until the eleventh century, when R. Gershom anathematized it. -In the place just cited we find a similar statement:—</p> - -<p class='c005'>במקום שנהגו שלא לישא אלא אשה אחת אינו -רשאי לישא אשה אחרת על אשתו , ר׳ גרשון החרים -על הנושא על אשתו אבל ביבמה לא החרים וכן -בארוסה , ולא פשטה תקנתו בכל הארצות , ולא -החרים אלא עד סוף האלף החמישי ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“In a place where the custom is to marry only one wife, it -is not permitted to marry more than one woman. R. Gershom -anathematized any one that should many a second, whilst his -wife was alive; but this anathema does not extend to the case -of the widow of a brother, who has died without children, nor -to the case of a woman who is only betrothed. This ordinance, -however, does not obtain in all lands, and the anathema was -only to last until the end of the fifth thousand years.” Hence -it appears that before R. Gershom, polygamy was lawful and -practised by the Jews in Europe, but that he forbade it except in -particular cases; and further, that R. Gershom’s prohibition was -only temporary, it was to have full force until the end of the -fifth thousand years, that is, until the year 1240 of the Christian -era. This period is how long past, for the Jews reckon this year -5597, and Gershom’s anathema has therefore lost its force; -consequently, the only obstacle, which their religion opposed to -<a id='Page_368'></a>polygamy has been removed, and, so far as conscience is -concerned, every professor of Judaism must feel himself at -liberty to marry as many wives as he likes. He knows that -R. Gershom’s anathema has expired, and if he goes to the -codes of Jewish law, he finds that it is left doubtful. For instance, -the note on the passage just cited says—</p> - -<p class='c005'>ומכל מקום בכל מדינות אלו התקנה והמנהג -במקומו עומד ואין נושאין שתי נשים וכופין בחרמות -ומנדין מי שעובר ונושא ב׳ נשים לגרש אחת מהן -ויש אומרים דבזמן הזה אין לכוף מי שעבר חרם -דר׳ גרשון מאחר שכבר נשלם אלף החמישי , ואין -נוהגין כן ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“Nevertheless, in all these countries the ordinance and the -custom remain in force, and it is not lawful to marry two wives; -and he that transgresses and does so is to be compelled by -anathema and excommunication to divorce one of them. But -some say that in the present time he that transgresses the -anathema of R. Gershom is not to be compelled, for the five -thousand years have been completed long since; but the custom -is not according to this.” Here then are two opinions. The -most strict of the two is, that polygamy is now not lawful, and -that he who marries two wives must divorce one of them: but -even this cannot be very satisfactory to the woman whom he -first married, for it does not define which of the two is to be -divorced. It only requires that one of them should be divorced, -and leaves it to the man himself to divorce which he pleases. -The other opinion is, that polygamy is now lawful, and that he -is not to be compelled to divorce either. Hence it appears that -it is not Judaism which protects the rights and the happiness of -Jewish women, or the peace and comfort of Jewish families. -The influence and the laws of Christianity forbid polygamy. -To Christianity, then, Jewish females are indebted, not only for -the station which they hold in society, but for the peace which -they enjoy in their homes. Wherever Christianity has no -power, there the Jews may take as many wives as they please: -and if ever Judaism should obtain supreme power, Jewesses -must expect to be again degraded into the category of slaves -and <i>Amharatzin</i>, and to have their domestic peace annihilated -by the introduction of new wives and families. It may be replied, -that this objection applies with equal force to the written -law, for that Moses himself allows polygamy. But to this we -answer, that Moses only <i>tolerated</i> polygamy, but that he shows -clearly that it was not the purpose of God, that men should -have more wives than one. He found an evil custom existing -amongst a people debased by Egyptian slavery, and like -a wise reformer, he did not commence his improvements by -<a id='Page_369'></a>destroying all that existed, but endeavoured to restrain the -evil, to show that it was contrary to God’s original institution, -and to point out the consequences. He did not immediately -pronounce it unlawful, for that would have been attended with -serious inconveniences, but by the direction of God gave laws -to protect the wives and children. In the beginning of Genesis—he -showed that God’s will was, that a man should have only -one wife, for that he did not create several women, but only -one. He gives the words of God, saying, “It is not good that -the man should be alone: I will make him an help meet for -him” עזר כנגדו where “help” is in the singular number, to -show that man was not to have more than one help meet for -him. And again, those words, “Therefore shall a man leave his -father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife,” not unto -his wives, but to his wife; where it is also to be observed, that -God is laying down a law, not for Adam only, but for coming -generations. By exhibiting the original institution of marriage -in Paradise, whilst man was yet innocent, and stating the -original law and purpose of God, Moses plainly showed, that -God’s will was, that a man should have only one wife. He -then goes on to show, that the first who departed from this -original institution was Lamech, one of the wicked descendants -of wicked Cain. “And Lamech took unto him two wives,” -(Gen. iv. 19,) whom he held up as a warning, recording of him -only that he had two wives, and that he was a murderer. With -this he contrasts the conduct of Noah and his sons, who had -only one wife each. In the history of the patriarchs he shows -the evil consequences of polygamy. He shows that it was not -the will of Abraham to take a second wife, but that Sarah in -her eagerness to have children misled him, and that discord -and domestic trouble soon followed. And by all the troubles -which the sons of Ishmael have since inflicted upon the children -of Isaac, God has, in his providence, confirmed the moral to be -drawn from the Mosaic narrative. Moses then points out the -happiness of Isaac, who had only one wife; and the troubles -of Jacob, who, not by his own choice, but by the wickedness of -Laban and the folly of Laban’s daughters, had more than one; -and last of all, Moses gave in himself an example of the conduct -which he wished Israel to pursue by having only one wife -himself. A careful examination, therefore, of the law of Moses -will show that he only tolerated polygamy as an existing evil, -but that he intended to discourage it, by exhibiting the original -institution of marriage, and the many evils that result from a -departure from God’s purpose. When, therefore, we show that -the oral law permits men to have more wives than one, and -that consequently it is accountable for all the evil thence -resulting, we cannot be charged with reproaching the law of -Moses. The oral law says expressly, that a man may marry -<a id='Page_370'></a>many wives, even a hundred. The law of Moses nowhere says -any thing of the kind. It only legislates in case that such a -thing should happen. The oral law plainly advises a man not -to take more than four wives. The law of Moses holds up the -evil of having more than one. If men would carefully read the -law of Moses, they would see that the original intention was, -that a man should have only one wife. But if a man follow -the oral law, he will be encouraged to take as many as he can -support. It is evident, therefore, that if the Jews in Europe -do not practise polygamy, their conduct is not to be ascribed to -the influence of Judaism, but of Christianity.</p> - -<p class='c005'>It is, further, evident that this Christian practice of having -only one wife, cannot be objected to as an unauthorized alteration -of the law of Moses. If R. Gershom was allowed to forbid -polygamy, and the Jews considered themselves bound to obey -him, they cannot reasonably object to the Christian laws on the -same subject. Christianity has only effected by its influence -what R. Gershom endeavoured to accomplish by anathema. -The only difference is, that Christianity was first, and that R. -Gershom learnt the evil of polygamy from Christians. If it -was lawful for a rabbi, it was still more lawful for the Messiah -to restore the original constitution of marriage as established -in Paradise, and to deliver Jewish wives and families from all -that confusion and discord which results from polygamy. But -it is particularly deserving of notice that R. Gershom, by forbidding -the Jews to have more wives than one, made a great -and decided change in the oral law. That which the oral law -allows, R. Gershom forbids. We grant, indeed, that by thus -changing the oral law, he approximated to the mind and intention -of Moses: but he altered the oral law, and thereby shows -us that he himself did not believe that the oral law was to last -for ever, or that it is of eternal obligation. If he had considered -it unchangeable, he would not have dared to make the change; -but by making so important a change as this, to forbid what it -allows, he plainly shows it as his opinion, that where there is -a grave reason, the oral law may be changed or abolished; and -all the Jews who acquiesce in his ordinance, and think it is -unlawful to marry more wives than one; consent to the change. -But if it be lawful to change in one thing, it must also be lawful -to change in another, so that the rabbinical Jews have no -reason whatever for reproaching their brethren who renounce -the oral law totally. Such persons are only acting upon a principle -practically acknowledged by all the Jews of Europe. It -may be said that R. Gershom’s change was only temporary, -and that the present acquiescence of European Jews is only a -sort of homage to Christian principles. This is certainly true, -and this reply leads us to consider the dreary prospect presented -to Jewish females, if ever modern Judaism should obtain power. -<a id='Page_371'></a>The influence of Christian principle would then cease,—polygamy -would again be lawful, and the matrons of Israel, who -now appear as the participators in the family government and -the guides of their households, would again be degraded into -one of a herd of female slaves. They might have a hundred -competitors and rivals in their husbands’ affections, and even if -the husband should follow the advice of the rabbies, and take -only four wives, they would at least have three. Now, we ask -every matron in Israel whether she would wish such a change, -or whether she would prefer the present state of things, where -a man can have only one wife? If she prefers the present state, -then she prefers the Christian principle, and acknowledges that -Christianity is better than Judaism. If she does not wish for -the restoration of polygamy, then she confesses that the doctrines -of Judaism are injurious, and that she does not desire the -triumph of her own religion. Then why should she profess a -religion which she acknowledges to be prejudicial to her welfare—or -why should she reject a religion which protects her -peace and comfort? There can be no question, that Christianity -has prevented amongst the Jews that practice of having many -wives; it has, therefore, been a blessing to Jewish families for -centuries; why, then, should they despise or oppose a religion -which has been, and still is, a blessing? And we propose this -question, not only to Jewish wives, but to Jewish husbands. -Is it not a fact, that God’s original institution was that a man -should have only one wife—does not Moses show that the first -polygamist was a descendant of wicked Cain, and, that family -discord and unhappiness is the consequence of having more -wives than one? Does not reason, and the state of Mahometan -countries, show that where there are many wives, woman is -degraded, and the education of children necessarily neglected? -Is not the moral, the intellectual, and scientific progress of mankind -greatly superior in Christian countries, where men have -only one wife? Is not, then, the practice of having only one -wife a blessing? Has it not been a blessing to Jewish husbands, -wives, and children? Are not, then, the Jews deeply indebted -to Christianity for that measure of peace and moral improvement -which they have derived from this practice? And would -not an adherence to their own oral law in the same degree have -proved a disadvantage, if not a curse? How, then, can they -oppose a religion which has been to them a blessing?—or how -can they adhere to a religion which contains principles subversive -of their domestic peace, and destructive to the well-being, -and the moral and intellectual improvement of one-half the -human race? The rabbies say, that the oral law is eternal in -its obligation: if so, then polygamy is to be eternal in its continuance, -and then men are never to return to that state of -perfection which they enjoyed in Paradise. Who is there that -<a id='Page_372'></a>does not see that the race of men was most happy when sin was -unknown, and most perfect in intellect when he could hold converse -with the Deity and dwell in the garden of God? But if -Judaism be true, men are never again to enjoy that state, for -then polygamy was unknown. Adam had only one wife; and -until sin entered into the world, and ripened even into murder, -no man had two wives. Judaism is, therefore, opposed to the -pure and perfect state of things that existed in Paradise, and -favourable to that confusion introduced by the murderous Lamech, -the son of murderous Cain—and Christianity resembles, -in its principles of marriage, the happy state ordained by God -in Paradise. Here, then, we have another and a practical proof -that the oral law is not of God. Its authors totally misunderstood -the mind and purpose of Moses, the servant of God, and -misinterpreted his temporary toleration of an existing evil into -a positive permission and sanction for continuing it. We have -also another proof of the divine origin of Christianity.</p> -<div class='chapter'> - <h2 id='chap48' class='c003'>No. XLVIII. <br /> DIVORCE.</h2> -</div> -<p class='c004'>When God delivered the commandments at Sinai, he placed -those which related to himself first, to teach us that our first -duty is to love and serve him: and immediately after these he -gave the command “Honour thy father and thy mother,” to -show us that, next to himself, we are bound to reverence, to -love, and to obey those to whom we owe our existence. This -order of things was not an arbitrary choice, but founded in that -natural constitution of creation which God ordained as most -conducive to the intellectual and moral well-being as well as to -the happiness of his creatures. He does not command us to -love and serve Him, and Him only, merely because He has the -light on the one hand, and it is our bounden duty on the other; -but because a conformity to his will is an approximation both -to wisdom and happiness. Neither does he tell us to honour -father and mother, because we owe them all such reverence, as -from them we have derived our being, and to them are indebted -for all the care and affection with which they have tended and -watched over our infancy; but because He has himself constituted -the relation of parent and child, and ordained parental -affection and filial duty as the means of promoting our welfare -<a id='Page_373'></a>in time and in eternity. Any religion, therefore, whose tendency -is to render obedience to that command impossible, must -not only be contrary to the will of God, but to the happiness -of man; and this is one of the many reasons for which we think -that Judaism must be false. The religion of the oral law has -a direct tendency to diminish a son’s respect for his mother. -We do not mean to say that in this or any other Christian -country Jewish sons despise their mothers. The co-existence -of Christianity necessarily counteracts the development of rabbinical -principles. We intend only to exhibit the natural and -necessary consequences, if there were no counteracting force. -The contempt which the oral law pours upon women in general, -and the encouragement which it gives to polygamy have necessarily -the effect of lessening their respect both in the eyes of -their husbands and their sons, and this tendency is still more -increased by the <i>rabbinic doctrine of divorce</i>, which we now -propose to consider. The law of Moses permits divorce under -certain circumstances. It says, “When a man hath taken a -wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no -favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness, -רות דבר, in her; then let him write her a bill of divorcement, -and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house,” -&c. (Deut. xxiv. 1.) But this permission, founded on grave -and important considerations, the rabbies have perverted into -an unlimited licence to divorce on the most trifling pretext.</p> - -<p class='c005'>בית שמאי אומרים לא יגרש אדם את אשתו אלא -אם כן מצא בה ערות דבר דדרשי ליה לקרא כפשטיה -אם לא תמצא חן בעינו לפי שמצא בה ערות דבר , -ובית הלל סברי אפילו הקדיחה תכשילו דדרשי לקרא -הכי כי מצא בה ערות דבר או ערוה או דבר אחר -שפשעה כנגדו , ור׳ עקיבא סבר אפילו מצא אחרת -נאה הימנה דדריש ליה לקרא הכי והיה אם לא -תמצא חן בעיניו פי׳ חן של נוי או שמצא ערות דבר -והלכה כבית הלל שאם פשעה כנגדו יכול לגרשה ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“The school of Shamai says, A man is not to divorce his -wife unless he shall find some uncleanness in her, for they -interpret the verse according to its simple meaning, if she find -no favour in his eyes on account of his finding some uncleanness -in her. The school of Hillel thinks, that if a woman -let the broth burn it is sufficient for they interpret the words, -‘a matter of uncleanness,’ to mean, Either uncleanness, or any -other matter in which she has offended him. But R. Akiva -thinks, that a man may divorce his wife, if he only find -another handsomer than she is, for he interprets the verse -thus, ‘If she find no favour in his eyes,’ where he explains -<a id='Page_374'></a>favour to refer to the favour of beauty, or if he find a matter of -uncleanness. But the legal decision is according to the school -of Hillel, that is, if a wife sin against her husband, he may -divorce her.” (Arbah Turim, Hilchoth Gittin., 1.) This monstrous -passage is in itself sufficient to shake the authority -of the oral law, for in the first place we find three grave -authorities, Shamai, Hillel, and Akiva, all differing as to the -sense of a most important passage, bearing upon a subject that -most nearly affects the happiness and well-being of human -society. One of the gravest questions that can be propounded -is, When is a man justified in divorcing his wife? If there be -an oral law at all, it ought certainly to answer this question -clearly, unequivocally, and satisfactorily. The existence of disputation -shows that these three rabbies had no authoritative -tradition on the subject, but were merely giving their own -private opinions: and that therefore the assertion, that an oral -law exists, is a mere fiction invented to impose upon the credulous, -but insufficient to beget faith in any man or woman -that will make use of the reason given by God. The old fable, -that God caused a voice to be heard from heaven, saying, when -the rabbies differ, “That</p> - -<p class='c005'>אלו ואלו דברי אלהים חיים ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>both speak the words of the living God,” will not do now. -Every one can understand that God does not speak contradictions. -No one will believe that the profane sentiment of R. -Akiva, That a man may divorce his wife as soon as he finds -another who pleases him better, can proceed from the God of -holiness and justice. It is true that his opinion is not the -law; but the opinion of Hillel, which is the law, is not a whit -better. It pronounces that if a woman only spoil the broth -she may be divorced: now this interpretation or the words of -Moses is plainly contrary to the grammatical sense: עֶרְוַת is -in Regimen (סמיכה) and joined to דָּבָר by a munach, and -can therefore by no means be separated from it so as to signify -“Either uncleanness or some other matter.” The words of -Moses, the points, and the accents, all decide that there is -only one cause for which a man may put away his wife. Hillel -and his successors have wilfully passed by the plain sense of -the Hebrew words, in their eagerness to obtain a facility for -putting away their wives. They were not ignorant of the -right sense, for that was plainly asserted by Shamai, but were -determined to get rid of it; and such was the state of the Jews -at the time, that they had influence enough to turn their false -interpretation into law; and such has been the state of the -Jews ever since, that it continues law to this very hour. A -rabbinical Jew may, according to his religious tenets, turn -away his wife, the mother of his children, on a pretext that -<a id='Page_375'></a>would hardly justify the dismissal of a servant. He may -rudely tear asunder the sacred ties of conjugal affection, and -separate between mother and children, if the unhappy woman -should only make a mistake in her cookery. One of the worst -charges brought against the slave-dealers was, that they had -no respect either for maternal or filial affection; that they -separated between mother and children. The very same accusation -can be brought against modern Judaism, which legitimatizes -the very same disregard for the feelings of a mother. -Can, then, such a religion, which thus daringly snaps the ties -of nature, be from God? Is it possible that God should thus -expose one half of his rational creatures to the caprice and the -tyranny of those who ought to be their defenders and protectors -from every insult and every harm? If the same right -were given to women, though the laws would be most contrary -to the divine institution of marriage, it would at least have the -appearance of justice; but this is denied. The oral law says,—</p> - -<p class='c005'>אם לא תמצא חן בעיניו , מלמד שאינו מגרש אלא -ברצונו ואם נתגרשה שלא ברצונו אינה מגורשת , אבל -האשה מתגרשת ברצונה ושלא ברצונה ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“The words, ‘If she find no favour in his eyes,’ teach, that -the husband does not divorce except voluntarily; and if the -woman be divorced against his will, she is not divorced. But -the woman is divorced with or without her will.” (Jad -Hachazakah Hilchoth, Gerushin, c. 1, 2.) According to this -doctrine the happiness of the wife and the children is absolutely -vested in the power of the man; and in any paroxysm of -ill-humour, he may make them both unhappy for life; he may -turn the mother out of her home, drive her forth like a criminal -from the bosom of her family, and introduce a stranger. Who -does not see that this is a power unfit to be trusted to the -hands of any man or any people? We do not mean to impute -anything peculiar to the Jews; we believe that as to their -natural propensities, humours, and caprices, all men are much -alike, and that therefore none ought to have the power of thus -lightly breaking up the domestic constitution. It is no answer -to this to say, that in this country divorce is not so lightly -practised. Thanks to the power of Christian principle and the -existence of Christian laws, it cannot be. But every one, who -has had much opportunity of seeing rabbinical Jews, knows -that divorce is practised amongst them with a facility and -frequency that is astonishing. But this is not the question; -we are not examining Jewish manners, but the modern Jewish -religion; and if divorce had never been practised, we should -still pronounce of the oral law, which inculcates such principles, -that it cannot be from God; and of its authors that they -<a id='Page_376'></a>were bad men, or they would never have thus trifled with -God’s most holy institution. The truth is, that the rabbies -were altogether ignorant of the nature of marriage as God -established it. They not only allow divorce on the most -trifling pretext, but they sanction the practice of marrying for -a given length of time, and, when that time is expired, of -dissolving the marriage by divorce:—</p> - -<p class='c005'>לא ישא אדם אשה ודעתו לגרשה , ואם הודיעה -בתחלה שהוא נושא אותה לימים מותר ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“A man must not marry a woman with the intention of -divorcing her; but, if he previously inform her that he is -going to marry her for a season, it is lawful.” (Hilchoth -Gittin in Even Haezer, 1.) Now how contrary is such -doctrine to the express words of Scripture. “This is bone -of my bones, and flesh of my flesh. Therefore shall a man -leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his -wife; and they shall be one flesh.” (Gen. ii. 23.) Here -Adam, in his state of innocence, pronounces that the tie of -marriage is more sacred and more binding, than even that -which exists between parent and child. A man may, and -for his wife’s sake shall, forsake father and mother, but -should no more think of separating from his wife, than -from his own bones and flesh. Who would lightly think of -parting with a limb, or a portion of his body? Urgent, -indeed, must be the necessity that will induce a man to -permit the separation of a portion of himself, and equally -urgent should be the cause that should move a man to part -with her who is bone of his bones, and flesh of his flesh. -Such is the Mosaic doctrine of the marriage obligation; -but so little did the rabbies understand it, that they permit -a man to marry for a week, a month, or a year; and when -that season is expired, to tear asunder the sacred ties, and -that without any cause whatever. But the evident evil that -must result from the rabbinic doctrine of divorce is still -more apparent from the first sentence of the passage last -quoted—“A man must not marry a woman with the intention -of divorcing her.” These words show the direct -tendency of the doctrine. When power is given to a man -to turn out his wife when he likes, a temptation is at once -held out to the evil-disposed to marry with the express -intention of divorcing. The rabbies, therefore, find it -necessary to forbid it; but is it likely that this prohibition -will have much force in the eyes of a man who is wicked -enough to form the intention? And suppose a wicked man -does form the intention, and execute it, what remedy had -the poor injured woman? Thus the oral law leaves the -daughters of Israel completely at the mercy of the unprincipled, -<a id='Page_377'></a>and places them beyond this possibility of obtaining -justice.</p> - -<p class='c005'>But the cruelty and total want of feeling which the oral -law displays and teaches, with regard to women, appears -still more plainly from the following extract:—</p> - -<p class='c005'>מי שנתחרשה אשתו הרי זה מגרשה בגט ותהיה -מגורשת , אבל אם נשתטת אינו מוציאה עד שתבריא , -ודבר זה תקנת חכמים הוא , כדי שלא תהיה הפקר -לפרוצין שהרי אינה יכולה לשמור את עצמה ; לפיכך -מניחה ונושא אחרת ומאכילה ומשקה משלה ; ואין -מחייבין אותו בשאר כסות ועונה , שאין כח בבן דעת -לדור עם השוטים בבית אחד , ואינו חייב לרפאותה -ולא לפדותה , ואם גרשה הרי זו מגורשת ומוציאה -מביתו ואינו חייב לחזור ולהטפל בה ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“If a man’s wife should become deaf and dumb, he gives -her a bill of divorce, and she is divorced. But if she -become insane, he is not to send her forth until she is -recovered: and this thing is an ordinance of the wise men, -that she should not become a prey to the immodest, because -she is not able to take care of herself. The husband therefore, -leaves her where she is, and marries another, and gives -her meat and drink out of her own property. But he is not -to be compelled to give her food and raiment, and duty of -marriage, for it is not in the power of a sane person to -dwell in one house with the insane. Neither is he obligated -to have her cured, nor to ransom her. But if he should -divorce her, then she is divorced, and is to be put out of -his house: and he is not obligated to return and take any -trouble about her.” (Hilchoth Gerushin, x. 23.) Principles -more contrary to God’s Word, and to the common feelings -of humanity, were never inculcated under the name of religion. -We have been astonished at the cruelty with which -the oral law treats Gentiles—we have been horrified at the -coolness with which it speaks of splitting open an <i>Amhaaretz</i>—but -here it surpasses itself, and out-herods Herod. A man -accustomed to judge of his duty by the words of Moses and -the prophets, or even to follow toe dictates of unsophisticated -nature, would conclude that, as he is at all times bound to -love and cherish his wife, the obligation is doubly imperative -in case of sickness, but especially so when that sorest calamity -with which human frailty is visited, insanity, attacks the -partner of his life. Then it is that the man, who has one -spark of the fear of God or of the love of man, will show -all his tenderness, watch over the sufferer with all care and -anxiety, and if necessary, devote all his worldly goods to -<a id='Page_378'></a>minister to her recovery. No, says the oral law, when the -wife of your bosom most requires your attention, then marry -another: give her neither food nor raiment, and, if you -please, cast her out of your house, and leave her to her fate. -The most charitable conclusion would be, to suppose that -the men who uttered such sentiments under the mask of -religion, were themselves insane. But what are we to think -of Israel, that for eighteen hundred years they have been -unable to detect so manifest an imposture? And what are -we to think of Israel at present, that they sit still and -suffer their children to be deluded, by being taught that -this most atrocious system of inhumanity, is that pure and -holy religion which the God of Israel revealed to Moses? -Let not any Israelite mistake us. We do not mean to -charge such wickedness upon them. The Providence of -God has in a measure delivered them from such an odious -yoke. The influence of Christianity has successfully counteracted -the full development of these anti-human principles. -We only mean to direct their attention to the nature of -that religion to which they have adhered so long; and to -induce them to consider what would be the state of the -world, if Jesus of Nazareth had not arisen to protest against -such gross corruptions, and to assert the truth. Just suppose -that the traditions had triumphed. The universal law would -then be, that men might divorce their wives when they -please, and in the time of their calamity cast them forth -into the streets. All the bonds of natural affection would be -rent asunder. Conjugal affection would cease, filial duty be -unknown—no son would honour his mother, for how could -a son honour the unhappy being whom his religion pronounces -unworthy either of succour or compassion in the -time of her utmost need? If such principles had attained -dominion, mankind would have been turned into a race of -fiends, and this earth have become a hell. What, then, -has stopped all this misery? Christianity, and Christianity -alone. It teaches very different principles. When a Christian -man is married, the vow which he is required to make -is this—“Wilt thou have this woman to thy wedded wife, -to live together after God’s ordinance in the holy estate of -matrimony? Wilt thou love her, comfort her, honour, and -keep her in sickness and in health; and, forsaking all other, -keep thee only unto her, so long as ye both shall live?” This -is the doctrine of the New Testament. The Pharisees asked -the Lord Jesus, “Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife -for every cause? And he answered and said unto them, -Have ye not read, that He which made them at the beginning -made them male and female, and said, For this cause shall a -man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife; -<a id='Page_379'></a>and they twain shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no -more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, -let not man put asunder.” (Matt. xix. 3-7.) In like -manner, Paul teaches, “So ought men to love their wives as -their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself.” -(Ephes. v. 28.) And Peter teaches in the same spirit, “Likewise, -ye husbands, dwell with them according to knowledge, -giving honour unto the wife, as unto the weaker vessel, and -as being heirs together of the grace of life; that your prayers -be not hindered.” (1 Peter iii. 7.)</p> - -<p class='c005'>Let any unprejudiced, yea, or any prejudiced, man, if he -have only the use of his senses, compare these two doctrines, -and say which is most agreeable to the will and character of -God, as revealed in the Old Testament—and, which is most -calculated to promote the happiness of the human race. The -combination of mercy and justice forms a striking feature in -the revealed character of God, but is there either justice or -mercy in the laws which we have just considered? The -happiness of the human race depends, in a more than ordinary -measure, upon the right organization of the family relations: -but how can there be any such thing as domestic order or -peace, so long as the mother is looked upon as belonging to -an inferior caste, whom it is permitted at any moment, even -in the most afflictive of all visitations, to outlaw, and drive -forth from the family circle? The uncontrolled dominion of -the oral law would practically annihilate all the sympathies -and consolations of the domestic constitution. The husband -could not love the wife whom his religion teaches to despise, -and forbids to pity. The wife could not love the husband, -whom she must suspect not only of being destitute of affection, -but devoid of pity; and from whom she could only -expect divorce and expulsion in the hour of calamity. The -son would learn to despise his mother, whom his religion -marks out as a fit object for contempt, and a suitable victim -for the exercise of cruelty. The mother, cast out by her -own partner, would not even have the consolation of being -pitied by her own children. A false religion would have -taught them that this unnatural conduct was only obedience -to the Divine will. The principles of Christianity, on the -contrary, produce and protect all that domestic happiness -which distinguishes Christian countries from the rest of the -world; and in which Jews participate. The influence of -Christianity has prevented that misery of which we have given -but a faint outline. Can, then, the Jews deny that Christianity -has been, and is, to them a blessing? or that it is, in its -principles and effects, more agreeable to the character of God, -and more productive of human happiness, and therefore -more excellent and more true than modern Judaism.</p> -<div class='chapter'> - <a id='Page_380'></a> - <h2 id='chap49' class='c003'>No. XLIX. <br /> RABBINIC LAWS CONCERNING MEAT.</h2> -</div> -<p class='c004'>Conscientious adherence to the dictates of true religion is -one of the noblest traits that can adorn the human character, -and this trait has appeared in its most vivid light in not a few -of the Israelite nation. Elijah the prophet, for instance, is a -bright example of religious constancy. At a time when all Israel -had forsaken the true God, and zealously professed a false -religion, neither the allurements of self-interest, nor the power -of universal example, nor the natural desire of self-preservation, -could draw him aside from the paths of truth and righteousness. -Daniel and his three friends in Babylon exhibit the same unwavering -firmness in the assertion of truth. The Royal dainties -could not prevail upon them to partake of food offered to -idols. The fiery furnace could not terrify Hananiah, Mishael, -and Azariah, to commit idolatry; the lions’ den possessed no -terrors that could move Daniel to omit the worship of his God. -But as constancy for the truth ennobles and adorns, in the very -same degree an obstinate perseverance in error diminishes from -man’s moral or intellectual value. It shows either that his -moral perception is so blunted as to be unable to discern between -truth and error, or his moral taste so perverted as not -to care for the difference—or that there is some intellectual -deficiency which renders the moral powers inoperative. It -leads to the suspicion that there is something wrong either -with the head or the heart. There is, however, a class of -persons, who persevere in error, not because the head is weak, -or the heart sick, but because they have never fairly beheld the -light of truth. They have grown up in a mist of error, and -circumstances have prevented them from emerging into a purer -atmosphere. To this class, we would hope, the professors of -modern Judaism belong. That they have been for centuries -in error is certain. Many incontestable proofs of this have -been already advanced; <i>The rabbinic laws concerning</i> שחיטה, -<i>or the slaughtering of animals</i>, will add another link to the -chain of evidence. The Rabbinists have an idea that wherever -they may be wrong, in this doctrine they are infallibly in the -right; and yet, if the force of education did not afford some -aid, it would be impossible to imagine how they can be deceived -by a doctrine so manifestly false, and so entirely devoid of -Scriptural foundation. In the first place, the slaughtering of -beasts is, like eating, of every-day and universal concernment—a -matter that affects the poor and unlearned as much as the -studious; and yet the rabbinic rules are so many and so intricate -that either a man must be learned himself, or employ -<a id='Page_381'></a>a man of competent learning, to perform this business; or, he -must, in spite of himself, turn Pythagorean and renounce the -use of animal food. The oral law gives the following outline -of what is to be understood by the word שחיטה or <i>slaughtering</i>:—</p> - -<p class='c005'>זביחה זו האמורה בתורה סתם צרך לפרש אותה -ולידע באי זה מקום םן הבהמה שוחטין , וכמה שיעור -השחיטה , ובאיזה דבר שוחטין ומתי שוחטין והיכן -שוחטין וכיצד שוחטין , ומה הן הדברים המפסידין -את השחיטה ומי הוא השוחט , ועל כל הדברים -האלה צונו בתורה ואמר וזבחת מבקרך וכו׳ כאשר -צותיך ואכלת בשעריך וכו׳ ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“It is absolutely necessary to explain the killing (or slaughtering -mentioned in the law), and to know, in what part of the -beast one slaughters—what is the measure of the slaughtering—with -what implement one slaughters—when—where—and how -one slaughters—what things they are which invalidate the act -of slaughtering—and who is permitted to slaughter. Concerning -all these things, He has commanded us in the law -where it is said, ‘Then thou shalt kill of thy herd and of thy -flock, which the Lord hath given thee, as I have commanded -thee, and thou shalt eat in thy gates whatsoever thy soul -lusteth after!’ (Deut. xii. 21.)” (Jad Hachazakah, Hilchoth -Shechitah, c. i. 4.) Here we have at once a list of eight particulars, -which must first be known, but then most of these -again require a long and learned explanation; for instance the -first is thus defined:—</p> - -<p class='c005'>ואיזה הוא מקום שחיטה בקנה משפוי כובע ולמטה -עד ראש כנף הריאה כשתמשוך הבהמה צוארה לרעות -זה הוא מקום השחיטה בקנה , וכל שכנגד המקוא -הזה מבחוץ נקרא צואר , אנסה הבהמה עצמה ומשכה -צוארה הרבה או שאינס השוחט את הסימנין ומשכן -למעלה ושחט במקום שחיטה בצואר , ונמצאת -השחיטה בקנה או בושט שלא במקום שחיטה הרי -זה ספק נבלה ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“On what part of the animal is the slaughtering to be effected? -On the wind-pipe, from the edge of the uvula downwards -as far as the top or the extremity of the lungs, as these -parts are situated when the beast stretches out its neck to feed: -this is the place of the slaughtering in the wind-pipe; and all -the part outside which answers to this place, is called the neck. -If the beast forces itself and stretches out its neck much, or -if the slaughterer has forced the sinews, and drawn them -<a id='Page_382'></a>upwards, and he slaughters at the right part of the neck, -but afterwards it is found that the wind-pipe or the œsophagus -is not cut at the right place, then it is a doubtful case -of carrion.” (Ibid. 7.) In like manner, the <i>measure of the -slaughtering</i> is accurately defined, and must be as accurately -attended to, or else the slaughtering must be considered unlawful, -and then it becomes unlawful for the Rabbinists to -eat it. But the most care is required in examining the knife, -which may be of any material that will cut, on condition that -there be no gap in it:—</p> - -<p class='c005'>אבל אם היה כמו תלם בחודו של דבר ששוחטין -בו ואפילו היה התלם קטן ביותר שחיטתו פסולה ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“But if there be anything like a furrow in the edge of the -implement wherewith the slaughtering is effected, even though -the furrow be the least possible, the slaughtering is unlawful.” -The slaughterer is therefore required to examine the knife before -and after the act; for if a gap be found in it after the -slaughtering, it is doubtful whether the beast is not be considered -carrion:—</p> - -<p class='c005'>לפיכך השוחט בהמות רבות או עופות רבות צריך -לבדוק בין כל אחת ואחת שאם לא בדק ובדק אחרונה -ונמצאת סכין פגומה הרי הכל ספק נבלות ואפילו -הראשונה ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“Therefore he that has to slaughter many beasts or many -fowls, must examine the knife after each; for if he does not, -but examines at the end, and the knife is found to have a gap, -then all are to be considered as doubtful carrion, even the first.” -(Ibid. 24.) From these few particulars, it appears that great -care, and not a little study and practice, are required in order -to slaughter an animal for food according to the oral law, -and that it is very easy, by mistake or want of knowledge, to -make the meat unfit for rabbinic eating: but then, besides -all this, there are the five circumstances which invalidate the -slaughtering altogether:—</p> - -<p class='c005'>חמשה דברים מפסידים את השחיטה ועיקר הלכות -שחיטה להזהר בכל אחת מהן ואלו הן שהיית דרסה -חלדה הגרמה ועיקר ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“There are five things which invalidate the slaughtering: -and the most important thing respecting the constitutions of -slaughtering is, to attend to each one of them, and these are -they—1st, If the person makes a stop of a certain length before -the act is completed. 2d, If the throat be cut at a single blow, -as with a sword. 3d, If the knife enters too deep, and is hidden. -<a id='Page_383'></a>4th, When the knife slips up or down from the right -place. 5th, When the wind-pipe or œsophagus is torn and -comes out, before the act is completed.” (Ibid. c. iii.) These -five essentials of rabbinic slaughtering lead again to endless -questions and definitions; so that, putting all together, it is -much to be doubted whether a beast ever was, or ever will be, -rightly slaughtered according to the oral law. And yet these -things, of which there is not the slightest mention in the Mosaic -law, are tied like a heavy burden about the necks of the poor -and ignorant, and are most oppressive to their bodies and their -souls. The rich may not, perhaps, feel the oppression, but the -poor sigh and groan under the load; and no man considers their -sorrow, or stretches out a hand to help them. In the first place, -the intricacy of the act always makes rabbinic meat a great -deal dearer than other meat, so that the poor man and his -family, who can at any time, or under any circumstances, afford -to buy but little food, are compelled by the oral law to do with -still less, and in many cases to do without it altogether. Let -any one visit the haunts of the poor Jews in this city, or enter -their abodes, and he will find many a wretched family pining -away for want of proper food; and yet it is too dear to procure -a sufficiency; and if any benevolent Christian should wish to -assist them, offer them some of his own, or give them a ticket -to some of those institutions which distribute meat to the poor, -the starving family would not dare to accept it, even if their -conscience allowed them, or if they did, would inevitably draw -down upon themselves a storm of persecution, and be treated as -if they had committed the greatest crimes: yea, if the oral law -had power, the poor starving creatures, that had partaken of -Christian bounty, would be flogged for satisfying the wants -of nature:—</p> - -<p class='c005'>נכרי ששחט אע׳׳פ ששחט בפני ישראל בסכין יפה -ואפילו היה קטן שחיטתו נבלה ולוקה על אכילתה -מן התורה שנאמר , וקרא לך ואכלת מזבחו ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“If a Gentile slaughters, even though he does it in the -presence of an Israelite, with a proper knife, his slaughtering -is carrion; and he that eats of it is to be flogged according to -the written law, for it is said, ‘And one call thee, and thou -eat of his sacrifice.’ (Exod. xxxiv. 15.)” Yea, the oral law -goes so far as to extend this rule even to the case of a Gentile -who is not an idolater:—</p> - -<p class='c005'>וגדר גדול גדרו בדבר שאפילו גוי שאינו עובד ע׳׳ז -שחיטתו נבלה ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“A very strong fence has been made round this matter, so -that the slaughtering even of a Gentile, who is not on idolater, -<a id='Page_384'></a>is carrion.” (Ibid., c. iv. 11, 12.) It is hardly necessary to -say, that the above quotation from the oral law is now-a-days -altogether out of place. Moses was not speaking of Christians -nor of the inhabitants of these countries, but of the nations of -Canaan. He had been declaring the words of the Lord, “Behold, -I drive out before thee the Amorite, and the Canaanite, -and the Hittite, and the Perizzite, and the Jebusite.” And -then adds, “Take heed to thyself, lest thou make a covenant -with the inhabitants of the land, and they go a whoring after -their gods, and do sacrifice unto their gods, and one call thee, -and thou eat of his sacrifice.” (Exod. xxxiv. 11-15.) So then, -according to the oral law, because Moses forbade the Israelites -to partake of the idolatrous sacrifices of the Hivites and the -Jebusites, a poor famished creature here in London is not to -touch Christian meat, nor to partake of Christian bounty. A -more cruel or oppressive law could hardly have been devised. -It is all very well for the rich, but it is very little short of murder -to the poor. It binds their consciences with fetters of iron, -so that even when relief is offered, many turn from good and -wholesome food sent to them by a kind Providence; and if a -spark of light has visited the mind of some victim of poverty, -and he thinks it lawful to bring home the Christian bounty to -save the lives of his starving children, fear prevents him. Perhaps -his wife is still enveloped in all the darkness of superstition, -and would spurn the proffered relief as an unclean thing, or -perhaps his children might innocently betray him, and draw -down all the weight of rabbinic indignation. A grosser insult -has rarely been offered to the Majesty of heaven, than to call -good and proper food, the work of his hands, carrion. A mistake -in the slaughtering, an ignorance of the rabbinic art, a -Gentile hand, is to be sufficient to turn the bounty of Almighty -God into an unclean thing, and to deprive the poor of their -daily food. How can the Jews expect God’s blessing so long -as this state of things continues—how can they be surprised if -poverty and want, and wretchedness and scorn, tread close upon -their heels, when they themselves spurn God’s bounty from -them with disdain? As nations deal with God and his word, -so he deals with them, מדה כמדה, measure for measure; and -therefore, so long as the oral law teaches them to scorn his -bounty, and to deprive the poor of their food—so long as the -cries of the poor ascend and enter into the ears of the Lord of -Hosts, so long must they expect to feel the rod of his indignation. -The times of ignorance and superstition God winked at; but -those times have passed away. Good or bad, there is a stir in -the world—there is a shaking of all old opinions, true and false; -and from its effects the Jews have not escaped. There are many -who, for themselves and their families, have renounced Rabbinism—who -eat Gentile food, and know that in doing so they -<a id='Page_385'></a>commit no sin. These are the persons who are most guilty in -looking upon the misery of their poor brethren without pity or -concern and without an effort to deliver them. The rabbinic -zealot who would persecute his brother for eating meat not -slaughtered according to rabbinic precept is in comparison innocent. -He conscientiously thinks that he is doing right; but -for the man, who himself openly transgresses the oral law, and -yet sees the faces of his brethren ground by that system, without -a sentiment of pity, there is no excuse. If he had the common -feelings of humanity, he would rise up, fearless of all consequences, -and cry out with all his might against those principles -which have been and are the curse of his nation. He would -stand forth as the advocate and defender of the poor—yea, and -he would have God’s blessing. But so long as this class of anti-rabbinic -Jews remain silent, whether from fear or from interest, -or from indifference, let them not boast of their superior light. -Let them not look with self-complacency on the poor victims -of superstition. They are themselves less respectable and more -guilty. They are conniving at what they know to be falsehood. -They are with their eyes open consenting to oppression and -starvation. They are, by their silence, helping to strengthen -and confirm a system of anti-social intolerance, which has been -the source of all the calamities which their nation has endured -for eighteen centuries. What can be more pernicious than to -teach the ignorant that the food which their neighbours eat is -carrion, so unfit for the nourishment of a Rabbinist that he ought -to die, and suffer his family to die of want, rather than eat it? -Is it likely to produce kindly feeling on either side, considering -that the mass of mankind is not actuated by the dictates of -reason or the precepts of the Bible? On the one side it is -likely to produce proud contempt, and on the other a spirit -of retaliation. Every Jew that wishes well to his nation, and -knows that these rabbinic principles are false, is bound to protest -against them. He ought not to be a poor selfish thing, -insensible to the wants and the sufferings of others, but should -do what in him lies, to assert what he knows to be the truth. -And is it necessary to remind such of the misery which these -rabbinic principles are still working in every part of the world? -Here in London the poor are suffering. In the various towns -of England many Jews are suffering. In some places a single -Jewish family is found, generally poor, and the father ignorant -of the rabbinic art of slaughtering: such persons are compelled -to abstain altogether from animal food, or to do violence to their -conscience. The poor Jews who go out to the colonies to seek -employment are in the same case, and are precluded from taking -such situations as require them to partake of the food of their -employers. Even if they can buy an animal, they are not -allowed to kill it for themselves:—</p> - -<p class='c005'><a id='Page_386'></a>ישראל שאינו יודע חמשה דברים שמפסידין את -השחיטה וכיוצא בהן מהלכות שחיטה שביארנו ושחט -בינו לבין עצמו אסור לאכול משחיטתו לא הוא ולא -אחרים , והרי זו קרובה לספק נבלה והאוכל ממנה -כזית מכין אותו מכת מרדות ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“If an Israelite does not know the five things which invalidate -the act of slaughtering, as we have explained, and -slaughters by himself, it is unlawful to eat of his slaughtering, -both for himself and others; for this case is much the same as -that of doubtful carrion, and he that eats of it a quantity equal -to an olive, is to be flogged with the flogging of rebellion.” -(Ibid., c. iv.) Such is the mercy of the oral law, and such its -justice. It punishes the eating of what God has allowed, with -the same severity that it would visit a great crime. It makes -no provision for those numerous cases of distress which we -have mentioned. Whether one of its disciples has or has -not food, it never considers. Without reflection and without -mercy it sentences every one, who eats meat not rabbinically -slaughtered, to be flogged. But, besides the cruelty, what is -the effect upon the minds of its votaries? It teaches them -that to transgress this mere human observance is a sin of the -deepest die, more dreadful far than many which God has forgiven. -A Rabbinist would be more grieved to hear that his -son had transgressed the law of slaughtering, than to find -that he had been guilty of falsehood. Its tendency is directly -to draw off the mind from the weightier matters of the law, -judgment, justice, and mercy, and to flatter the ill-informed -that they are good Jews, if only they abstain from meat not -slaughtered according to rabbinic art.</p> - -<p class='c005'>Let not any Jew imagine that we wish him lightly to transgress -the law of Moses, or to eat of food which the law of -God has forbidden. We now speak of that which Moses has -allowed. If a Jew would see meat offered to idols, or be invited -to partake of an idolatrous feast, let him abstain—let -him refuse, and protest as strongly as he will and can against -the sinfulness of such conduct. But where does Moses forbid -the poor to partake of meat slaughtered by a Gentile worshipper -of the true God, or by an Israelite who has not learned -the rabbinic art? Certainly not in that passage to which the -oral law refers. Moses gives a general permission to every Israelite, -without exception, to kill and eat. “Notwithstanding -thou mayest kill and eat flesh in all thy gates, whatsoever thy -soul lusteth after, according to the blessing of the Lord thy -God which he hath given thee.” (Deut. xii. 15.) He makes no -mention of any mysteries, connected with the art of slaughtering, -the ignorance of which would disqualify. Why then -<a id='Page_387'></a>should a Jew be prevented from doing what Moses has -allowed—why should he be flogged with the flogging of rebellion, -or avow that that mode and measure of punishment -is impracticable—why should he be persecuted for satisfying -the cravings of nature, and endeavouring to supply the wants -of his family? There is not room now to show fully how -groundless the rabbinic commands are; but the one fact of -their cruelty and oppression of the poor is sufficient to show -that they are not from God. Is it possible that any man in -his senses can believe that God would sentence a poor -famishing creature to be flogged without mercy for doing -what the letter of the law allows him to do? or, that the All-wise -Being, who foresees and foreknows all things, would -give a system of laws respecting food, which must expose a -large portion of his chosen people to want and starvation? -The worshippers of some cruel heathen deity might possibly -be led to believe such things, but the disciples or Moses and -the Prophets know that God is a God of mercy. Let, then, -every one who has got the sacred books contrast their doctrines -with those of the rabbies. But, above all, let those Israelites, -who reject the rabbinic laws concerning the slaughtering of -meat, show that they have not done it from levity nor indifference, -but upon principle. Let them explain to their -brethren the reasons and the motives by which they are actuated, -and let them protest, by word and deed, against such -cruelty, oppression, and intolerance.</p> -<div class='chapter'> - <h2 id='chap50' class='c003'>No. L. <br /> THE BIRTH OF MESSIAH.</h2> -</div> -<p class='c004'>This season of the year naturally draws away our thoughts -from the subject last under consideration, and reminds us -of a remarkable difference between Jews and Christians. -The latter are now about to commemorate the birth of the -Messiah.<a id='r36' /><a href='#f36' class='c006'><sup>[36]</sup></a> In two days more the voice of praise and thanksgiving -will ascend to the Creator and Preserver of men from -every part of the world. On the frozen shores of Labrador, -and the glowing plains of Hindostan—in the isles of the sea, -and on the continents of the old and new worlds, millions -<a id='Page_388'></a>of Christians will lift up their hands and voices to thank the -God of heaven for his unspeakable gift, and this shall be -the burden of their song, “Unto us a child is born, unto us -a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: -and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, the -mighty God, the everlasting Father, the Prince of Peace.” -(Isaiah ix. 6.) But amongst the followers of the oral law -not a sound of sympathy will be heard. Not a single heart -will beat with joy, not a tongue offer up the tribute of -praise. Here is a great and sinking difference, that should -naturally lead both Jew and Christian to inquire, Who is in -the right: Those who believe that Messiah is born, and joy -in the remembrance of his nativity; or, those who refuse to -join in the general rejoicing, and deny that the Redeemer has -appeared? The question is whether there is reason to believe -that the Messiah was born eighteen hundred years ago? and -there are several ways in which it can be satisfactorily answered. -An appeal may be made to the predictions contained -in the Old Testament, or to the evidence for the truth of the -Christian Scriptures—or, it may be shown that the Jewish -rabbies have plainly confessed that the time for the birth and -appearance of the Messiah is long since past; and this is the -mode which we shall adopt at present. The Jews now deny -that Messiah is come, and consequently believe that Christians -are mistaken as to the time of his appearing. If they had -always said so—if they had always assigned a time for the -coming of Messiah different from that in which Christians -think the Messiah was born, their present assertion would -have at least the merit of consistency, and the Jews of the -present day might urge that their present belief has been inherited -from their fathers, and that Christians have adopted -a notion unknown to the nation at large. But, if it should -appear that the ancient Jews expected the coming of Messiah -at the very time, when, as Christians say, he did actually -come, then the ancient Jews testify that Christians are in the -right, and that modern Jews are in the wrong, and this is really -the state of the case. In the first place, the Talmud contains -a general declaration that the time is long since past:—</p> - -<p class='c005'>אמר רב כלו כל הקצין ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“Rav says, The appointed times are long since past” (Sanhedrin, -fol. 97, col. 2), where it is to be noted that the word -קץ is taken from Daniel, and literally signifies “End,” as it -is said:—</p> - -<p class='c005'>עד מתי קץ הפלאות ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“How long shall it be to the end of these wonders; and -again:—</p> - -<p class='c005'><a id='Page_389'></a>ואתה לך לקץ ותנוח ותעמוד לגורלך לקץ הימין ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“But go thou thy way till the end be, for thou shalt rest, -and stand in thy lot at the end of the days.” (Daniel xii. 6-13.) -Rav was therefore of opinion that the period appointed -by Daniel the prophet was past. But is it possible to believe -that the God of truth would suffer the time, which he had -appointed, to pass away without accomplishing what he had -promised? When the time which God had fixed for the deliverance -from Egypt had arrived, not a single day was lost. -“It came to pass at the end קץ of the four hundred and -thirty years, even the self-same day,</p> - -<p class='c005'>בעצם היום הזה ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>it came to pass, that all the hosts of the Lord went out from -the land of Egypt.” (Exod. xii. 41.) When the period fixed -for the return from Babylon was come, we read, “In the first -year of Cyrus, King of Persia (that the word of the Lord by -the mouth of Jeremiah might be accomplished), the Lord stirred -up the spirit of Cyrus king of Persia, that he made a proclamation -through all his kingdom.” (2 Chron. xxxvi. 22.) And -can we think that the Lord God, who so graciously fulfilled his -word on these occasions should break it with reference to the -coming of the Messiah? Rav is either right or wrong. If he -be right, then the time fixed by God is long since past, and as -God cannot break his word, the Messiah must have come long -since. But if, to get out of a difficulty, the Rabbinists say, that -Rav was wrong, then we have another proof that no reliance is -to be placed on the doctors of the oral law; indeed we have a -proof that the Rabbinists themselves do not believe it, except -when they like; and that therefore they are not thoroughly in -earnest about their religion.</p> - -<p class='c005'>But, secondly, the ancient Jews not only believed that the -time for the coming of the Messiah was past: they also fixed -the exact period:—</p> - -<p class='c005'>תנא דבי אליהו ששה אלפים שנה הוי עלמא שני -אלפים תוהו , שני אלפים תורה , שני אלפים ימות -המשיח ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“Tradition of the school of Elijah. The world is to stand -six thousand years. Two thousand, confusion. Two thousand, -the law. Two thousand, the days of Messiah.” (Sanhedrin, -fol. 97, col. 1.) Upon which Rashi remarks—</p> - -<p class='c005'>שלאחר שני אלפים תורה הוה דינו שיבוא משיח -ותכלה מלכות הרשעה ויבטל השיעבוד מישראל ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“After the two thousand years of the law, according to the -decree. Messiah ought to have come, and the wicked kingdom -<a id='Page_390'></a>should been destined, and Israel’s state of servitude -should have been ended.” Here, then, it is expressly stated, -that Messiah ought to have come at the end of the fourth -thousand years, that is, according to the Jewish reckoning, -fifteen hundred and ninety-seven years ago; or, according to -the Christian reckoning, about eighteen hundred and thirty-six -years ago—that is, at the very time when Jesus of Nazareth -did appear. We do not quote this tradition because we believe -that it is really a tradition of the school of Elijah, but to show -what was the opinion of the more ancient Jews, and this it -certainly does, if the general expectation of the Jews at that -time had not been that Messiah was to appear at the end of the -four thousand years, this tradition, whether genuine or forged, -could never have obtained currency nor belief. If it be a -genuine tradition from Elijah, then the Messiah is certainly -come. But if it be fictitious, then it shows the general belief of -the Jews at the time, and in every case proves that the modern -Jews do not hold the doctrines of their forefathers, but have -got a new doctrine of their own. And it further shows, that -Christians do not hold any new or peculiar opinion about the -time of Messiah’s coming, but that they believe, as the ancient -Jews believed, that the end of the fourth thousand years is the -right time of Messiah’s coming.</p> - -<p class='c005'>The only answer that the Jews have, is, that the promise of -Messiah’s coming was conditional upon their repentance, but -that evasion has been long since refuted in the Talmud as -contrary to Scripture:—</p> - -<p class='c005'>ר׳ אליעזר אומר אם ישראל עושין תשובה נגאלין -ואם לאו אינם נגאלין , אמר לו ר׳ יהושע אם אין -עושין תשובה אינם נגאלין אלא הקב׳׳ה מעמיד להן -מלך שגזרותיו קשות כהמן וישראל עושין תשובה -ומחזירן למוטב , תניא אידך ר׳ אליעזר אומר אם -ישראל עושין תשובה נגאלין , שנאמר שובו בנים -שובבים ארפא משובותיכם , אמר לו ר׳ יהושע והלא -כבר נאמר חנם נמכרתם ולא בכסף תגאלו חנם -נמכרתם בעבודה זרה ולא בכסף תגאלו לא בתשובה -ומעשים טובים , אמר לו ר׳ אליעזר לר׳ יהושע והלא -כבר נאמר שובה אלי ואשובה אליכם , אמר לו ר׳ -יהושע והלא כבר נאמר כי אנכי בעלתי אתכם ולקחתי -אתכם אחד מעיר ושנים ממשפחה והבאתי אתכם -ציו , אמר לו ר׳ אליעזר והלא כבר נאמר בשובה -ונחת תושעון אמר לו ר׳ יהושע לר׳ אליעזר והלא -כבר נאמר כה אמר ה׳ גואל ישראל וקדושו לבזה -נפש למתעב גוי לעבד מושלים מלכים יראו וקמו -<a id='Page_391'></a>שרים וישתחוו , אמר לו ר׳ אלֻיעזר והלא כבר נאמר -אם תשוב ישראל נאם ה׳ אלי תשוב אמר לו ר׳ יהושע -והלא כבר נאמר ואשמע את האיש לבוש הבדים אשר -ממעל למימי היאר וירם ימינו ושמאלו אל השמים -נפץ יד עם קודש תכלינה כל אלה וגו׳ ושתק ר׳ -אליעזר ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“R. Eliezer said, If Israel do repentance they will be redeemed, -but, if not, they will not be redeemed. R. Joshua -replied, If they do not repent they will not be redeemed: but -God will raise up to them a king whose decrees shall be as -dreadful as Haman, and then Israel will repent, and thus he -will bring them back to what is good. Another tradition. R. -Eliezer said, If Israel do repentance, they shall be redeemed, -for it is said, ‘Turn, O backsliding children; I will heal your -backsliding.’ R. Joshua replied, But was it not said long -since, ‘Ye have sold yourselves for nought; and ye shall be -redeemed without money,’ (Isaiah lii. 3.) Where the words -‘sold for nought’ mean, for idolatry; and the words ‘redeemed -without money,’ signify, not for money and good works. R. -Eliezer then said, to R. Joshua, But has it not been said -long since, ‘Return unto me, and I will return unto you.’ -(Mal. iii. 7.) R. Joshua replied, But has it not been said -long since, ‘I am married unto you, and I will take you one of -a city, and two of a family, and I will bring you to Zion.’ -(Jer. iii. 14.) R. Eliezer said, But has it not been written -long since, ‘In returning and rest ye shall be saved.’ (Isaiah -xxx. 15.) R. Joshua replied to R. Eliezer, But has it not -been said long since, ‘Thus saith the Lord, the Redeemer of -Israel, and his Holy One, to him whom man despiseth, to him -whom the nation abhorreth, to a servant of rulers, kings shall -see and arise, princes also shall worship.’ (Isaiah xlix. 7.) R. -Eliezer said to him again, But has it not been said long since, -‘If thou wilt return, O Israel, return unto me.’ (Jer. iv. 1.) -To which R. Joshua replied, But has it not been written long -since, ‘I heard the man clothed in linen, which was upon the -waters of the river, when he held up his right hand and his -left hand unto heaven, and swore by Him that liveth for ever, -that it shall be for a time and times and half a time; and -when he shall have accomplished to scatter the power of the -holy people, all these things shall be finished.’ Whereupon -R. Eliezer was silent.” Here then, on the showing of the -Talmud itself, the opinion that the coming of the Messiah is -dependent upon Israel’s repentance, is false; and consequently -it is true, that Messiah was to come unconditionally at the -time appointed; and therefore, as the time is long since past, -<a id='Page_392'></a>the Messiah must have come. But the ancient rabbies do not -leave us to reason upon their words; on the contrary, they tell -us expressly that Messiah was born about the time that the -temple was destroyed. In the Jerusalem Talmud, R. Judan -tells us a story of a Jew who actually went and saw him:—</p> - -<p class='c005'>עובדא הוה בחד יהודאי דהוה קאים רדי געת -תורתיה קומוי עבר חד ערביי ושמע קלה , אמר ליה -בר יודאי בר יודאי שרי תורך ושרי קנקנך דהא חרב -בית מקדשא , געת זמן תניינות , אמר ליה בר יודאי -בר יודאי קטור תורך וקטור קנקנך דהא יליד מלכא -משיחא , אמר ליה מה שמיה אמר ליה מנחם , אמר -ליה ומה שם דאבוי אמר ליה חזקיהו , אמר ליה םן -הן הוא , אמר ליה מן בירת מלכא דבית לחם יהודה ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“It happened once to a certain Jew, who was standing -ploughing, that his cow lowed before him. A certain Arab -was passing and heard its voice; he said, O Jew, O Jew! unyoke -thine ox, and loose thy plough-share, for the temple has -been laid waste. It lowed a second time, and he said, O Jew, -O Jew! yoke thine oxen, and bind on thy plough-shares, for -King Messiah is born. The Jew said, What is his name? -Menachem. He asked further, What is the name of his -father? The other replied, Hezekiah. He asked again, -Whence is he? The other said from the Royal residence of -Bethlehem of Judah.” (Berachoth, fol. 5, col. 1.) The story, -then, goes on to tell us how he went and saw the child, but -when he called the second time, the mother told him that the -winds had carried the child away. We are quite willing to -grant that this story is a fable. We do not quote it because we -give it the slightest degree of credit, but simply to show that -the more ancient Jews were so fully persuaded that the right -time of Messiah’s advent was past, that they readily believed -also that he was actually born. The Babylonian Talmud, also, -evidently takes for granted that Messiah is born, as appears -from the following legend:—</p> - -<p class='c005'>ר׳ יהושע בן לוי אשכחיה לאליהו דהוה קיים -אפיתחא דמערתא דר׳ שמעון בן יוחאי אמר ליה -אתינא לעלמא דאתי אמר ליה אם ירצה האדון הזה , -אמר ר׳ יהושע בן לוי שנים ראיתי וקול ג׳ שמעתי , -אמר ליה אימת אתי משיח אמר ליה זיל שייליה לדידיה -והיכא יתיב אפיתחא דרומי ומאי סימניה יתיב ביני -עניים סובלי חלאים וכולן שרו ואסירי בחד זמנא -איהו שרי חד ואסיר חד אמר דילמא מבעינא דלא -איעכב אזל לגביה אמר ליה שלים עליך רבי ומורי -<a id='Page_393'></a>אמו ליה שלום עליך בר ליואי אמר ליה לאימת אתי -מר אמר ליה היום ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“R. Joshua, the son of Levi, found Elijah standing at the -door of the cave of R. Simeon ben Jochai, and said to him, -Shall I arrive at the world to come? He replied, If this Lord -will. R. Joshua, the son of Levi, said, I see two, but I hear -the voice of three. He also asked, When will Messiah come? -Elijah replied, Go, and ask himself. R. Joshua then said, -Where does he sit? At the gate of Rome. And how is he to -be known? He is sitting amongst the poor and sick, -and they open their wounds and bind them up again all at -once: but he opens only one, and then he opens another, for -he thinks, perhaps I may be wanted, and then I must not -be delayed. R. Joshua went to him and said, Peace be upon -thee, my master and my Lord. He replied, Peace be upon -thee, son of Levi. The rabbi then asked him, When will my -Lord come? He replied, To-day (alluding to the words of the -Psalm, To-day, if ye will hear his voice).” (Sanhedrin, fol. 98, -col. 1.) This is evidently a fiction, and a proof how little -those doctors regarded truth; but it shows that he who invented -it, and those who received it, all equally believed that -Messiah was born, and ready waiting to come forth for the -redemption of Israel. It does, indeed, confirm the common -idea, that Messiah’s advent depends upon the repentance of -Israel, for it makes the Messiah say that he would come this -very day, if Israel would only hear his voice. But if the -Messiah may any day, when they repent, come and save -Israel, then it is plain that he must have been born long -since. The testimony of the ancient Jews, then, goes to establish -these points—First, That the time for Messiah’s advent -has been long past; Secondly, That the end of the fourth -thousand years was the time when he ought to have come: -and, Thirdly, That at that time he did really come; for about -that time, they say, he was born in Bethlehem of Judah. -Fourth, That he was taken into Paradise, as Rashi explains -the gate of Rome to mean the gate of Paradise opposite Rome; -and, Fifthly, That he is waiting to return to this earth for the -redemption of his people. Now who is there that does not see -at once, that this agrees in the main with the Christian doctrine? -We believe that, at the end of the fourth thousand -years, the Messiah was born, and at this season of the year we -rejoice at the remembrance of the Saviour’s birth. The Jews -refuse to join with us, but who has the greatest show of right? -Not now to speak of the prophecies, and of the historical -evidence which we have, we have the testimony even of our -opponents to show that we are in the right. The most ancient -rabbinical writings unanimously confess, that the time is past, -<a id='Page_394'></a>and that the Messiah has been long since born, and thus testify -the correctness of our faith respecting the time of Messiah’s -advent. Christians, however, go on consistently and believe -further, that God did not break his word, but performed his -promise, and therefore we rejoice. The Jews do not believe, -because they are so engrossed with the temporal deliverance -of the nation, that they cannot see that another and a greater -redemption was necessary. We do not, by any means, wish -to deny that Israel is to be restored to the land of promise, and -to inherit all the blessings promised in the prophets. On the -contrary, we fully believe that the Messiah, who visited this -earth, for a short season, will return and re-establish the Theocracy -which was once the glory of Israel, and that, in a much -more glorious form than Israel ever saw under any of their -kings. We heartily wish Israel the enjoyment of every blessing -promised; but we cannot help remembering that Messiah -has another and more important office than that of restoring -the kingdom to Israel, and that is the redemption of the human -race. The highest pitch of national glory and earthly prosperity -would be as nothing, and less than nothing unless the -children of men were delivered from the effects of Adam’s sin, -and made partakers of a good hope of everlasting life. Even -the gathering of Israel from all the ends of the earth would -appear but a very insignificant business, if it did not stand in -immediate connexion with the eternal welfare of all nations. -Many of the sons of men have appeared as conquerors and -heroes, and have raised their country to a high degree of -glory, and conferred upon them much temporal prosperity; -but if Messiah was to be nothing more, we confess we should -not think him worth the having. We think of the Messiah as -the Being, in whom all the families of the earth shall be -blessed, as the restorer indeed of Israel, but also God’s salvation -unto the end of the earth. This is the doctrine which -Christianity teaches, and which is confirmed by the law and -the prophets; and therefore we rejoice that this great Deliverer -has been born—that He came at first in great humility -to bruise the serpent’s head, and to lay down his life a ransom -for many. We remember that this blessed news, these glad -tidings of great joy, were brought to us by Jews; and, therefore, -feeling our deep obligations, we desire to show our -gratitude by inviting Israel to come and partake in our joy. -We feel assured that our joy is no illusion. Even the rabbies -themselves bear witness that the Messiah ought to have been -born, and was born at the very time in which we believe the -Messiah to have been born. But if he was born who was he? -What other person can make any claim to the Messiahship, -but He whom we acknowledge? Is it reasonable to believe, as -the rabbies do, that God actually sent the Great Deliverer -<a id='Page_395'></a>down into this wretched world, and then took him away -again, without permitting him to accomplish his work? No; -if ever he visited this earth—and that he did visit it, both -the ancient Jews and Christians assert—he could not have left -it again without bestowing upon its inhabitants a remedy -for their woes. The ancient rabbies and the Christians both -agree as to the time of Messiah’s birth, and the fact of his -birth in Bethlehem. Indeed the whole nation practically -showed their agreement with Christians, as to the time of -Messiah’s advent, by readily following every military adventurer, -who laid claim to the character of Redeemer. Even -before the destruction of the temple, multitudes had suffered -by their credulity; but immediately after the desolation, the -people and the rabbies with one accord followed Bar Chochba, -and thereby showed the reality of their belief, that that was -about the time when Messiah ought to appear. Judaism, -therefore, teaches this doctrine—that God promised the Messiah, -that God fixed a time, that that time is past, and yet -that God did not keep his promise. Christianity, on the contrary, -acknowledges the promise, recognises the time, believes -that Messiah was born, but believes further that God fulfilled -his word—that Messiah was not carried away into Paradise, -until he had accomplished the work that was to be done at -his first advent. Then, indeed, we acknowledge that He -ascended into heaven, and sitteth at God’s right hand, from -whence he will come again for the final redemption of his -people, and the establishment of the reign of righteousness. -The only real difference between us is, as to the <span class='fss'>VERACITY</span> of -God. We believe that God did not, and could not, break his -word. Modern Judaism teaches that God broke his promise. -It is for rational beings to decide which doctrine is most agreeable -to the Divine character. For our own parts, we will -rejoice in God’s unchangeableness, and say, in the remembrance, -that “His truth endureth for ever.”</p> - -<div class='chapter'> - <a id='Page_396'></a> - <h2 id='chap51' class='c003'>No. LI. <br /> SLAUGHTERING OF MEAT, CONTINUED.</h2> -</div> -<p class='c004'>According to the confessions of the rabbies themselves, the -time for the advent of Messiah is long since past, what is there -then that prevents the Jews from believing in him, who came -at the appointed time? The grand objection is, that the nation -is still in captivity; they say that Messiah ought to have given -them liberty. The answer to this objection is, that Messiah -was willing, and is willing to this hour, to give them liberty, -but that they will not have it. The very first condition of -national liberty and independence is moral and intellectual -emancipation. No nation was ever yet enslaved until the -hearts and intellects of the people had first become the slaves -of corruption or superstition—and no nation that hugs to its -heart the chains of moral slavery, can ever be made free, nor -could it retain its liberty if it got it. When Messiah came, -therefore, as he found the Jewish nation already under the -Roman yoke, the very first step was to endeavour to emancipate -their hearts and minds, and to deliver them from that moral -bondage, of which their national degradation was only a consequence. -This first step Messiah immediately took—he protested -against the superstitions of the oral law, and pointed them -to the perfect liberty of God’s written Word. But the nation -chose to retain the cause of their misfortunes, and to reject the -overtures of deliverance. If therefore they are still in a state of -national dependence, they must not cast the blame on God, and -say that He suffered the time to pass away without fulfilling -his promise; nor upon the Messiah, when they themselves -refused to receive that without which no national liberty can -possibly exist. They chose to give themselves, body and soul, -as bond-slaves to the oral law, there was, therefore, no possibility -of national redemption. It would require an act of omnipotent -coercion, such as God does not employ, to make a nation -free against its will. But perhaps the Jews of the present day -will deny that they are in a state of moral and intellectual -slavery. We refer them, in reply, to the numerous proofs -already given in these papers, and especially the laws of -שחיטה or <i>slaughtering</i>, upon which we have a few words to -add. Where in all the world can a more wretched slave be -found, than the man, who himself, together with his family, is -ready to perish of hunger, and yet dare not partake of wholesome -food, offered by the providence of God, because his rabbinical -task-masters say, No? But now take another instance:—</p> - -<p class='c005'>כל טבח שלא בדק הסכין שלו ששוחט בה לפני -<a id='Page_397'></a>חכם ושחט לעצמו בודקין אותה , אם נמצאת יפה -ובדוקה מנדין אותו לפי שיסמוך על עצמו פעם אחרת -ותהיה פגומה וישחוט בה , ואם נמצאת פגומה -מעבירין אותו ומנדין אותו ומכריזין אל כל בשר -ששחט שהוא טרפה ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“If a slaughterer, who has not had his slaughtering knife -examined before a wise man [a rabbi], slaughters by himself, -his knife must be examined. If it be found in good order and -examined, he is to be excommunicated, because he may depend -upon himself another time, when it has a gap in it and yet -slaughter therewith. But, if it be found to have a gap, he is to -be deposed from his office, and excommunicated, and proclamation -is to be made, that all the meat which he has slaughtered -is carrion.” (Jad Hachazakah, Hilchoth Sh’chitah, c. i. 26.) -Here we have the same slavery and the same cruel oppression. -In the first place we see the intention to make the Jews entirely -dependent upon the rabbies. The Jews are not to eat meat -unless it be slaughtered as the rabbies direct, and the slaughterer -himself is not even to do that, which he knows to be right -according to the oral law, without the express sanction of the -rabbies. All are to be in bondage, not merely to the oral law, -but to the rabbi for the time being. They are to have no mind -and no judgment of their own. In the simplest concerns of -life they are to be entirely dependent upon the will and judgment -of another. In the second place, we see the determination -to maintain this tyranny by the severest punishments. The -man who has slaughtered without showing his knife to the -rabbi, even though they have no fault to find with him, is to be -excommunicated—but if a rabbinic flaw in the knife should be -detected, then not only the man himself is to suffer, but those -who employed him, and also the Israelites themselves to be -deprived of food. All that he has slaughtered is to be declared -unfit for use. Who can deny that those who think their consciences -bound by such laws are in miserable bondage? Who, -that has his senses and God’s Word to guide them, can believe -that a small gap in a knife is sufficient to make meat unfit for -food? Who ever saw a knife, or even the finest razor that -ever was manufactured, without a series of such imperfections? -Let a rabbi, who has just pronounced, concerning a knife, -that it has no gap in it, apply a microscope, and he will soon -find out that a knife without gaps never existed. He will be -convinced that the oral law requires what is impossible, and -therefore cannot possibly be from God. Who then can -deny that those who are bound by it, are the slaves of superstition? -There never was, and never will be in the world, -such a thing as a knife without the least possible gap, and -<a id='Page_398'></a>consequently there never was, and never will be, any meat fit -for the food of a Rabbinist. The Jews must therefore either -give up the use of meat entirely, or they must give up the -oral law.</p> - -<p class='c005'>If the oral law were uniformly severe, and everywhere -required that its adherents should obtain the best possible -evidence that their meat was properly slaughtered: or in case -they could not obtain this evidence, that they should entirely -abstain from meat, the consistency of the doctrine would in -some measure justify, or at least excuse the credulity of the -Jews. But this is not the case, its authors felt the inconvenience -of their own doctrine, and therefore relaxed whenever it -suited themselves. For instance, they say:—</p> - -<p class='c005'>הרי שראינו ישראל מרחוק ששחט והלך לו ולא -ידענו אם יודע או אינו יודע הרי זו מותרת , וכן האומר -לשלוחו צא ושחוט לי ומצא הבהמה שחוטה , ואין -ידוע אם שלוחו שחטה אם אחר הרי זו מותרת , -שרוב הטצויין אצל שחיטה מומחין הן ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“If we were to see an Israelite at a distance who had -slaughtered a beast, and he was to go his way, and we were -ignorant of the fact whether he understood the art or not, -in that case the meat is lawful. And in like manner, if a man -should say to his messenger, Go and slaughter for me, and -should find the beast slaughtered, but it should not be certain -whether his messenger, or another person, had slaughtered it, -this also is lawful, for the majority of persons concerned in -slaughtering are skilful.” (Ibid., c. iv. 7.) This relaxation -shows how exceedingly inconvenient the doctrine was found, -and how unwilling the doctors were to bear inconvenience -themselves. No doubt cases often occurred in real life similar -to those supposed. An Israelite travelling might come to a -town in which lived a small congregation of Jews, and might -wish to have some dinner, and would of course wish to have it -of lawful meat. The only satisfactory way of obtaining it -would be to go to the person who had slaughtered it, and -examine him as to his competency, but he might be absent, if -therefore he should be scrupulous, he would have to go without -his dinner; and the same thing would happen to a rich man, -who might send a messenger to a neighbouring town to have a -beast killed for him. The messenger might send back the meat -by some one else, and thus the owner would not have satisfactory -evidence, that the rabbinic laws had been observed. Here -again the man who was rich enough to do this, might have to -go without his dinner, or to wait an inconvenient time. The -oral law has therefore provided in this case that the meat is -lawful for use without any further scruples. But this decision -<a id='Page_399'></a>shows of how little real importance all these precepts about -slaughtering are. If it be a sin to eat meat not properly killed, -then it is also a sin to eat meat, when there is no satisfactory -evidence of this fact. Whenever a man doubts about the right -or wrong of any particular action, he is certainly wrong if he -does it. But if it be certain that he may either do it or leave -it undone without guilt, then that action cannot be sinful. And -as the rabbies here affirm, that men may lawfully eat meat, -concerning which they have no satisfactory evidence that it -has been lawfully slaughtered, it follows that the rabbinic art -cannot be of much value. Why then should a poor man be -starved if he does not eat, or flogged if he does eat, meat -slaughtered by a Gentile, when, if he had money to send a -beast to be killed, he might eat what was sent back, even -though he had no proof that the laws were kept? Indeed how -are the poor and unlearned ever to know, that they eat lawful -meat? If they were even to stand by, and see the operation -performed, still, as being ignorant of the rabbinic laws, they -could not understand, and must therefore take the matter -entirely upon trust: and thus the mass of the nation, the -unlearned and the women, are made the blind slaves of laws -which they neither understand nor know; or rather of those -who expound those laws, for how can it be said that a man -transgresses that of which he does not know the right or -wrong?</p> - -<p class='c005'>If the rabbies were all unanimous in their statement of what -is and is not lawful, the unanimity might in some degree excuse -the Jews for submitting to a yoke so grievous, and holding -it that round the necks of their brethren. They might urge -the uniformity of the tradition as a proof of its genuineness. -But this cannot be pretended in the present case. To this very -hour the rabbies themselves are not agreed as to what is, or -what is not the oral law. We have just seen that if a man send -a messenger to have a beast slaughtered, and afterwards find it -slaughtered, that he may eat of it without asking any more -questions. This is the general principle, but as soon as it comes -to be applied in detail the rabbies differ. The Baal Turim thus -states the difference:—</p> - -<p class='c005'>וכתב הרמב׳׳ם דוקא שמצאה בבית אבל מצאה -בשוק או באשפה שבבית אסורה וכן כתב בעל העיטור -וא׳׳א ז׳׳ל התיר אפילו באשפה שבבית ולא אסר אלא -באשפה שבשוק וכן הרשב׳׳א ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“Rambam has written expressly, In case that it should be -found in the house; but, if he find it in the street, or on the -dunghill in the house, it is forbidden. The Baal Haittur has -given the same judgment: but my lord my father of blessed -<a id='Page_400'></a>memory says, the meat is lawful, even if it be found on the -dunghill in the house, and has not pronounced it unlawful, -except when found on the dunghill in the street; and Rashba -is of the same opinion.” (Joreh Deah., 1.) Here, then, we have -the most learned of the rabbies, disputing as to what is the law; -the one party pronouncing that to be unlawful which the other -party declares lawful. What, then, are the unlearned to do in -this case? Or how can it be said that there is an oral law -which gives the true meaning of the written law? Or, if there -be an oral law, what use is it, when it is itself a subject of dispute? -Every one who has looked into the oral law knows that -this difference of opinion is by no means a rare case; and that -it cannot be said that the difference of opinion is in matters of -minor importance. Let us, for example, consider the case of -an Israelite who is accustomed to eat unlawful meat, and does -so to vex Israel—is it lawful to eat the meat which he has killed?</p> - -<p class='c005'>כתב הרשב׳׳א שאין מוסרין לו בתחלה לשחוט -אפילו אם ישראל עומד על גביו , ואם שחט בדיעבד -כשר ע׳׳י בדיקת סכין תחילה או סוף וא׳׳א הרא׳׳ש -ז׳׳ל כתב שדינו כגוי ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“Rashba has written that it is not lawful to give him a beast -intentionally to slaughter, even if an Israelite should stand by. -But if he has slaughtered the beast, it may be declared lawful -by means of examining the knife, either at the beginning or at -the end; and my lord my father of blessed memory has written -that in the case of such a person the law is the same as in that -of a Gentile.” (Ibid. 2.) Now the difference here is very great -and very important. The one opinion says, that, under certain -circumstances, such meat is lawful. The other, that it is unlawful -as that killed by a Gentile—that is, what the one allows, -the other pronounces to be so unlawful as to deserve the flogging -of rebellion, as we saw in No. 49. Here, then, is a case -involving severe corporal punishment, and yet the rabbies are -not agreed as to which is the law. How, then, can men of -sense and reflection give themselves up to a system, the doctors -of which cannot agree upon a question so simple as this, What -sort of food is lawful, and what is unlawful? and who, nevertheless, -require unlimited obedience under the heaviest penalties -temporal and eternal? The oral law does not suffer a wise man -to be contradicted, and declares that all their sayings are “the -words of the living God;” and yet here they contradict one -another so widely, that if a man follow the one, he will be -sentenced to a flogging by the other—and if from fear of the -flogging he should agree with the latter, he will then be contradicting -the former, and thereby incur the sentence of excommunication, -and even run a risk of losing his soul. But -<a id='Page_401'></a>in every case he must give up his judgment and his reason, and -submit to be led by those, who are still disputing about the right -road: yea, and if he would obey the oral law, must confess that -they are both in the right. If this be not moral and intellectual -slavery of the worst kind, we have yet to learn the meaning of -these words. It will not be a pertinent reply to say that Christians -also differ in opinion on important points. We confess that -they do, and will continue to do so, as long as they continue to -be fallible men: but then these persons do not profess to have -an oral law given by God in order to preserve them from a wrong -interpretation. There is one Christian Church that has followed -the example of the rabbies in this particular, and has therefore -fallen into many of their absurdities. Difference of opinion -amongst those who make no such pretensions is no argument -against the truth of the original records, whence both professedly -draw their religion. Two men may differ as to the sense of a -verse in the law of Moses, and yet we know that the verse itself -contains the truth. But when each of these persons tells us that -his interpretation is an inspired tradition, and that both, though -contradicting each other, are equally true and correct, then it -is evident that they say not only what is false, but what is absurd, -and that they are labouring under a delusion. If it be a -mere speculative delusion it is to be deplored—but if it be a -practical delusion, involving the happiness and welfare of thousands, -it must be combated and exposed—and this is precisely -the case with the oral law. The particular part of it which we -have now been considering seriously affects the temporal comfort -of many thousands of the poor in every part of the world. -The general principles enslave the minds of the whole nation, -and thus prevent the state of happiness and glory which the -prophets have promised. The Jewish nation is in a state of -dispersion, and in some parts of the world victims of a cruel -oppression, simply because they are the willing slaves of superstition. -Until an intellectual and moral change is effected, they -never can appear as “the peculiar people, the kingdom of priests, -the holy nation.” High and holy is their destiny, and great is -the providential mercy of God in still preserving them, when -they refuse obstinately to fulfil it. But neither their destiny -nor God’s forbearance can be of any avail, until they reassert -the glorious liberty of the children of God. The chains of Rabbinism -must be broken, and the mild yoke of Messiah taken -upon their shoulders, before national independence and liberty -can return. How could a nation exist, whose moral and intellectual -energies are all crampt by the endless subtleties of the -rabbies? How could a people maintain national liberty whilst -they are such perfect slaves to superstition as to believe that -traditions, which are the curse of the poor, and many of which -flatly contradict others, all proceed from the God of mercy and -<a id='Page_402'></a>truth? The temple must first be cleansed of all defilement -before the glory of God can enter. It is therefore a matter of -the first and highest importance, to every Jew who wishes well -to his nation, to examine that system, whose constant companion -for so many centuries has been misery; and if they are convinced -of its falsehood, then to use every exertion to deliver their -brethren, from that which is mischievous as well as false. We -might urge its tendency to produce and perpetuate an unfriendly -separation between the Jews and their neighbours: not that -we are ignorant of God’s declaration,</p> - -<p class='c005'>הן עם לבדד ישכון ובגוים לא יתחשב ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“Lo, the people shall dwell alone, and shall not be reckoned -among the nations.” (Numb, xxiii. 9.) We know it and believe -it, and are therefore fully convinced, that all the wit and -power of man will never be able to effect what some so ardently -desire, an amalgamation with the nations where Israel is dispersed. -We have no desire to contravene the declared will of -God, and to degrade Israel from their position as a holy nation -to the rank of an inconsiderable religious sect. But still we -might urge against the oral law, that it goes beyond God’s intention -by producing an unfriendly separation and an estrangement -between man and man, which is injurious to the welfare -of both Jew and Gentile; we leave this, however, to the consideration -of those Israelites who feel, or profess to feel, a love -and affection for all men; and content ourselves at present with -the indubitable fact, that the laws concerning slaughtering are -most oppressive to the poor and enslaving to the minds of all. -It is not merely the bodily grievance of starvation to which we -now allude, though that is wicked and vexatious to the last -degree, and should therefore not be tolerated for a moment by -the humane and the merciful. There is something that is worse -than any bodily suffering, and that is, to be tempted to do violence -to conscience by professing what we do not believe, or by -congealing our real sentiments. And yet in many a Jewish -congregation this is frequently the case. It pleases God to give -to the poor the power of reasoning as well as to the rich, and -thus some of this class are occasionally led to see the absurdity -of the oral law, and to detest those inventions which doom them -and their families to starvation, but yet they would not dare -either to avow or to act upon their conviction. To eat any -ether than rabbinical food would at once cut them off from the -bounty of the synagogue, and from the sympathy of its worshippers. -To express their convictions would be sufficient to -have them numbered with the profane and ungodly, and therefore -they conceal their real sentiments, and pretend to be what -they are not, that they may not deprive their families of the -little assistance which an apparent conformity to rabbinic -<a id='Page_403'></a>usages may procure. Here then is another and more unequivocal -badge of slavery. The oral law deprives the poor entirely -of liberty of conscience. He not only must not eat, he must -not think, at least he must not express a thought, no, nor even -a doubt, about that system which is the cause of his misery. It -is true, that those who profess or suppress religious sentiments -merely to serve their temporal interests, are either very weak -or very guilty. But we must make some allowance for the infirmity -of human nature, and especially in the case of a poor -man, who has no bread for his children, and whose mind has -been debased from his youth by such bondage. It is to the -system that we are to impute these debasing effects. It not -only torments the body, but degrades the mind; and, therefore, -every Israelite who loves and respects liberty of conscience, -should endeavour to procure it for his brethren. According to -the law of the land they have it. They are free to worship and -serve God as they think most agreeable to his will; but the oral -law steps in between, and deprives them of the benefit. The -Jewish poor dare not serve God according to their conscience, -nor even express the convictions of their heart. All the legislators -in Christendom could not set them free. The duty as -well as the possibility of delivering them from this bondage rests -with their brethren. But they, alas! whatever the motive, -decline the glorious task.</p> -<div class='chapter'> - <h2 id='chap52' class='c003'>No. LII. <br /> LAWS CONCERNING MEAT WITH MILK.</h2> -</div> -<p class='c004'>It is recorded of the Cutheans and those other nations -whom the King of Assyria placed as colonists at Samaria, -that they endeavoured to combine the service of the true -God with the worship of idols. “So these nations feared -the Lord, and served their craven images, both their -children and their children’s children: as did their fathers, -so do they unto this day.” (2 Kings xvii. 41.) Every one -can see that this conduct was as foolish as it was wicked. -It was wicked to dishonour the true God by associating -him with them that were no gods; and it was foolish to -imagine that God could be pleased with a partial homage -and a divided heart. Total idolatry would have been more -reasonable and less offensive to the Divine Being, for he, -<a id='Page_404'></a>whom we acknowledge as God, must necessarily have the -whole of our fear, our love, and our obedience. And yet -there is perhaps a way of serving God more unreasonable -still, and that is by giving to sinful and fallible men the -honour that is due to God alone. The Cutheans falsely -thought that God was one amongst many; and if they -worshipped the many, it was under the impression that -they were really gods. But suppose a nation to acknowledge -the one true God, and then to fix upon a certain -number of men to be honoured and served with the same -degree of reverence and obedience; none can doubt that -this nation would be far more irrational than that of the -Cutheans, inasmuch as to pay Divine honours to a number -of our fellow-men is more extravagant still than to worship -a plurality of imaginary deities. Some may think that such -a degree of absurdity is impossible, but fact shows that it is -not only possible, but that it has actually occurred. When -men exalt the inventions of their teachers to a level with -the known and acknowledged laws of God, and make obedience -to these inventions an essential part of their religion, -they confer upon men the highest degree of honour and of -service that can be rendered to God. The unreserved submission -of the heart and conscience to the will of God is the -highest act of worship, and when it is given to the will of -men, in that degree men are made gods. Whether these -remarks apply to those who make the הלכות בשר בחלה , -<i>i.e.</i>, “The constitutions concerning meat in milk” a part -of their religion, it is for the adherents of the oral law to -inquire.</p> - -<p class='c005'>The general principle of these constitutions is thus expressed—</p> - -<p class='c005'>בשר בחלב אסור לבשלו ואסור לאכלו מן התורה -ואסור בהנאה וקוברין אותו ואפרו אסור כאפר כל -הנקברין , ומי שיבשל משניהם כזית כאחד לוקה -שנאמר לא תבשל גדי בחלב אמו , וכן האוכל כזית -משניהם מהבשר והחלב שנתבשלו כאחד לוקה ואע׳׳פ -שלא בשל ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“It is unlawful to boil meat in milk—according to the -law, it is also unlawful to eat it; it is likewise unlawful to -make any profit by it, and it is to be buried. Its ashes are -also unlawful, like the ashes of other things that are buried. -Whosoever boils together a quantity of these two things, -equal to an olive, is to be flogged, for it is said, ‘Thou shalt -not seethe a kid in its mothers milk.’ (Exod. xxiii. 19.) In -like manner, he that eats a quantity of the flesh and the milk, -which have been boiled together, amounting in value to an -<a id='Page_405'></a>olive, is to be flogged, even though be did not boil them.” -(Hilchoth Maakhaloth Asuroth, c. ix. i.) Here the oral -law determines generally, that it is unlawful to boil meat in -milk, or to make any use of meat so boiled, and sentences -the transgressor to a severe and degrading corporal punishment, -and yet this determination is altogether an invention -of men, for which there is not the slightest authority in the -Word of God. The prohibition of Moses is confined to one -single case, which is exactly defined: “Thou shalt not seethe -a kid in its mother’s milk,” but there the prohibition ends, -for the specification of one particular shows that that alone -is intended, and necessarily excludes all others. To give -some colour to the unwarranted extension, it is asserted that</p> - -<p class='c005'>וגדי הוא כולל ולד השור ולד השה ולד העז עד -שיפרוט ויאמר גדי עזים ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“Kid includes the young of kine, of sheep, and of goats, -so that to particularize, the word goat is added as ‘a kid of -the goats.’” And so Rashi also affirms in his commentary. -Aben Ezra, however, has saved us the trouble of giving a -refutation of our own, for he says—</p> - -<p class='c005'>ואיננו כן כי גדי לא יקרא רק שהוא מהעזים ובלשון -ערבי הוא גדי ולא יאמר על מין אחר , רק יש הפרש -בין גדי ובין גדי עזים כי גדי גדול מגדי עזים כי -עודנו צריך היותו עם העזים וככה שעיר ושעיר עזים -וחכמים קבלו שלא יאכלו ישראל בשר בחלב ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“This is not so, for nothing is called kid except the -young of the goats; and in Arabic the word has the same -signification, and is never applied to any other species. But -there is a difference between <i>kid</i> and <i>kid of the goats</i>, for -the former is larger, and it is necessary for the latter still -to be with the goats; and the same thing is true of שעיר, -which is used in the same way. It is by tradition that the -wise men received, that Israel should not eat meat in milk.” -(Comment. in Exod. xxiii. 19.) Thus Aben Ezra, himself -a most learned rabbi, confesses that the words of the written -law restrict the prohibition to one particular case, and that -the rest is mere matter of tradition. Of course if it could -be proved that this tradition came from God through Moses, -it would be equivalent to the written law, but there is no -attempt to prove anything of the kind. The authors of the -oral law calculated throughout upon the blind credulity of -their followers, and therefore here, as elsewhere, there is an -entire absence of proof. Indeed, the tradition itself bears -the plain mark of forgery. How can any one possibly believe -<a id='Page_406'></a>that, if God meant to forbid meat and milk entirely, -he should first express himself incorrectly, and then leave -the correction of the error to uncertain tradition? If the -command had only been once noticed, it would have been -hard to believe such a thing; but when we remember that -this command is thrice repeated, in Exod. xxiii. 19, xxxiv. -26, and Deut. xiv. 21, it is plainly incredible. Thrice is -the command written, and thrice it is restricted to one -particular case, and yet the rabbies have dared to make -unauthorized additions of their own, and their followers to -this day exalt them to a level with the laws of God. It -cannot be replied that the rabbies would not commit such -wickedness as this, for every one who knows anything of -the oral law, knows that a great proportion of it consists -merely of the <i>words of the Scribes</i>, acknowledged as such, -and distinguished by that name from the supposed traditions -from Sinai. Thus in the constitutions before us, it is plainly -confessed that the written law allows the flesh of wild animals -and of fowl in milk, and yet the rabbies forbid it:—</p> - -<p class='c005'>וכן בשר חיה ועוף בין בחלב חיה בין בחלב -בהמה אינו אסור באכילה מן התורה לפיכך מותר -לבשלו וםותר בהנאה , ואסור באכילה מדברי סופרים -כדי שלא יפשטו העם ויבואו לידי איסור בשר בחלב -של תורה ויאכלו בשר בהמה טהורה בחלב בהמה -טהורה שהרי אין משמעות הכתוב אלא גדי בחלב -אמו ממש לפיכך אסרו כל בשר בחלב ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“And thus the flesh of a wild animal or of fowl, whether in -the milk of a wild or tame animal, is not forbidden as food by -the written law, and therefore it is lawful to boil it, and to -profit by it. But according to the words of the scribes, it is -unlawful to eat it, lest the people should go farther, and be led -into a transgression of the written law, and eat the flesh of a -clean beast in the milk of a clean beast: for the letter of the -written law refers only to a kid in its mother’s milk in the -strictest sense; therefore the wise men have forbidden all meat -in milk.” In this there is no equivocation, but a simple confession -that the rabbies have taken upon themselves to forbid -what God has allowed; and have, without ceremony or -scruple, made great additions to his law. It matters little -what the motive was, the conduct itself is in the highest -degree presumptuous. The pretence, that these additions -were made only for the purpose of keeping the people far -removed from sin, will not serve as a ground of justification. -If God had desired such precautionary measures, as being -either necessary or beneficial, he would have prescribed them -<a id='Page_407'></a>himself. If he did not prescribe them, and the rabbies themselves -confess that he did not, but that they are the words of -the scribes, then they can be neither necessary nor beneficial, -unless we can believe what it would be blasphemy to assert, -that is, that God’s law was imperfect until it was mended -by the scribes. It is truly astonishing that men professing -respect for the law of Moses should treat it with such indignity, -and still more so that those who appear so anxious to -avoid transgression, should themselves systematically transgress -that plain command.</p> - -<p class='c005'>לא תוסיפו על הדבר אשר אנכי מצוה אתכם ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you.” -(Deut. iv. 2.) But the most extraordinary thing of all is, that -the modern Jews should pride themselves on the purity of -their faith, and think that they only of all the nations serve -the true God and him only, when they are in truth serving the -authors of the oral law, and dividing their religious obedience -between God and the rabbies. If the rabbinic additions were -specimens of profound wisdom in legislation, or had a tendency -to promote either the moral or temporal welfare of mankind, -there would be some excuse, but what shall we say of those -who transgress a plain command for the sake of such an addition -as the following:—</p> - -<p class='c005'>הבשר לבדו מותר והחלב לבדו מותר ובהתערב -שניהם ע׳׳י בישול יאסרו שניהם , במה דברים אמורים -שנתבשלו שניהם ביחד או שנפל חם לתוך חם או -צונן לתוך חם אבל אם נפל אחד משניהם והוא חם -לתוך השני והוא צונן קולף הבשר כולו שנגע בו -החלב ואוכל השאר ואם נפל צונן לתוך צונו מדיח -החתיכה ואוכלה ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“The flesh by itself is lawful, and the milk by itself is lawful, -but as soon they are mixed together by means of boiling -(or cooking) they both become unlawful. In what cases does -this hold? When both are boiled together, or when one being -hot falls into the other also being hot, or when one, cold, falls -into the other hot. But if one of them being hot falls upon -the second being cold, then all that part of the meat which -was touched by the milk is to be peeled off, and the remainder -may be eaten. But if one in a cold state falls upon the other -also cold, then that piece is to be washed, and after that may -be eaten.” (Hilchoth Maakhaloth Asuroth, c. ix. 17.) We -have, in the first place, an unwarranted extension of the divine -command. God has simply forbidden to seethe a kid in its -mother’s milk. The rabbies first extend this to the young of -kine, and sheep. Then they advance another step and forbid -<a id='Page_408'></a>the boiling or cooking of any sort of meat in milk, and now -we have seen another advance still, whereby even any mixture -of flesh and milk is strictly forbidden. Thus the rabbies aim -at universal dominion, and are satisfied with nothing short -of an entire subjugation of the heart and conscience. Other -tyrants must rest satisfied with the enslavement of the body, -but cannot touch the thought. The authors of the oral -law attack the liberty of thought, and intrude even into the -kitchens of their victims. They are determined that their followers -shall not eat excepting as they please, and boldly invade -the prerogative of God himself, by forbidding the food which -he provides for his people. But this extract presents, in the -second place, an outrage on common sense. If milk and meat -each be lawful by itself, how can the mixture make them unlawful? -Whatever God forbids is unlawful, no matter whether -we understand the reason or not. But here the rabbies themselves -acknowledge that God has not forbidden this mixture; -but that the prohibition is entirely their own invention. We are -therefore bound to use our senses, if God has given us any, and -to ask a reason why. Then, again, why should that which is -lawful when cold, be made unlawful by being hot? It may be -said, that this is a matter of little importance. In itself it is; -but as a burden on the consciences of men, it is of the very -highest importance, and as a cheat upon the ignorant it is -more important still. In many countries, these and similar -inventions constitute the whole religion of the ignorant, and -especially of the women. The oral law affirms that it is not -necessary to teach women the law of God, but it is almost a -matter of life and death that they should know these rabbinic -laws about meat and milk. If a woman is unable to read the -Word of God, and is as ignorant as a heathen, of God’s will, -the rabbies think that is a trifle. But if a woman were, -through ignorance to serve up meat with any admixture of -milk, the whole family would be in an uproar, and the rabbi -himself would have to be consulted about a remedy for so dreadful -a calamity. The consequence is, that with the mass of the -uneducated, accuracy in these observances passes for piety, and -these poor beings hope that they are going straight to heaven, -when they are utterly devoid or ignorant of that holiness, -truth, and purity, which are the first essentials for admission -into the presence of God. Thus the oral law destroys the souls -of multitudes, but others will have to answer for their blood. -All who uphold the system must share in the responsibility. -The rabbies who teach, the learned Jews who aid and abet, the -priests and Levites to whom God has committed the pastorship -of his people, but who neglect their sacred office, all will -have to answer for the souls of the lost. But most of all those -who know that these things are wrong, who themselves eat meat -<a id='Page_409'></a>and milk, and laugh at rabbinic superstition, and yet are insensible -to the miseries of their poor and ignorant brethren. Every -one practically acquainted with the working of these laws, -knows not only that they beget a false notion of religion, but -that they are also a torment in this life. In domestic and culinary -economy, accidents will happen. Meat may fall into milk, -or milk into a pot of meat. Misery and vexation are the consequence, -and if the unfortunate woman to whom the accident -has happened cannot get satisfaction at home, she must go to -the rabbi to inquire what is to be done. For instance—</p> - -<p class='c005'>בשר שנפל לתוך החלב , או חלב שנפל לתוך -הבשר ונתבשל עמו שיעורו בנותן טעם , כיצד חתיכה -של בשר שנפלה לקדירה רותחת של חלב , טועם -הגוי את הקדרה אם אמר שיש בה טעם בשר אסורה -ואם לאו מותרת ואותה חתיכה אסורה , בד׳׳א שקדם -והוציא את החתיכה קודם שתפלוט חלב שבלעה , -אבל אם לא סלק משערים אותה בששים מפני שהחלב -שנבלע בה ונאסר יצא ונתערב עם שאר החלב ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“With respect to meat which falls into milk, or milk -that falls into the midst of meat, the measure is, if it give a -taste? How so? If a peace of meat fall into a boiling pot of -milk, a Gentile is to taste the contents of the pot: and if -he says that it has a taste of meat, then it is unlawful. But -if it has not the taste of meat, then the milk is lawful, but that -piece of meat is unlawful. In what cases does this hold? In -case that the piece of meat has been taken out, before it has -emitted the milk which it has sucked in. But if it has not been -taken out, then a calculation must be made whether its proportion -to the whole is as one to sixty; because the milk that -was sucked in, and had become unlawful, has been emitted -and has mixed with the rest of the milk.” (Ibid.) Now, in -the most tolerable case, that is, if the owner of the milk can -afford to lose it and the meat too, there is, first, an unnecessary -inconvenience and vexation, which no man has a right -to inflict upon another. But there is, secondly, and what is of -far more consequence, a great sin in wasting good and wholesome, -and, according to the written law, lawful food. If the -milk tastes of meat, then the milk and the meat are rendered -not only unlawful but perfectly useless. How then can the -Jews expect peace and plenty, when their oral law teaches them -to despise and cast from them with disdain God’s blessings? -But suppose that the owner of the milk and the meat is a poor -man, and that he has laid out his hard and scanty earnings to -provide food for his family, an accident of this kind will leave -them destitute. Their last hope of support is taken away, and -<a id='Page_410'></a>they may die of hunger. If they go to the rabbies, and urge -the necessity of the case—plead that they have no more—reason -that if meat by itself is lawful, that milk is also -lawful—that the law of Moses no where forbids this food—the -teachers of the oral law will answer, that their traditions -cannot be broken; and the poor people must learn that to -eat food permitted and given by God is a sin, but to die of -starvation is lawful. How can men with any of the feelings -of humanity believe that such a law is from God?—how can -men of any common sense suffer the consciences and the bodies -of the poor and ignorant to be thus tormented? Above all, -how can a nation that prides itself on the purity of its faith -yield an idolatrous obedience to cruel and oppressive laws invented -by men? It is a vain boast for them to say that they -have no images—the oral law and its enactments constitute -a whole host of idols. It is an unfounded triumph which they -celebrate over the worshippers of Moloch. The oral law is -a deity as fierce and as bloody, and to it are daily immolated -the souls and bodies of the poor and ignorant. Any homage -rendered to falsehood, or to cruelty, is idolatrous; and every -thinking man must admit, that the worship of the oral law is -of this character. To the Rabbinists themselves we would -say, Just think whether it be possible that God would have -given a law so oppressive, or whether he can have any pleasure -in the obedience which is rendered at the expense of mercy? -To those who reject the oral law we would say, You have -a duty to perform from which nothing can exempt you—and -that is, to rest neither day nor night until Israel is delivered -from this idolatrous worship of men, and set free from a yoke -so oppressive to body and soul. We grant that Christians have -also a duty, and in these papers we endeavour to discharge our -share of it. But the duty incumbent upon Israelites is tenfold -more imperative. The ties of flesh and blood—their office as -a kingdom of priests—the mercy of God in giving them the -law as their inheritance—all increase their responsibility and -add to the weight of obligation. It would be a shame for Israel -to be silent when even the Gentiles cry out for the restoration -of the religion of Moses and the prophets. Israelites may have -peculiar difficulties. They may be united in commercial relations -or by family ties with those who are in bondage to the -oral law. They may fear the injury of their worldly prospects—they -may dread the frown of relatives and friends. This -was also the case of Abraham, when he determined to renounce -the false gods of his fathers, and to worship the true -God alone; and every one who determines by God’s help to follow -and assert the truth, must make up his mind to love it even -more than life itself. But can a son of Abraham hesitate? -Will he forfeit the smile of God to escape the frown of friends? -<a id='Page_411'></a>Nay, if his friends are still in error, is this not a double motive -to urge him forward in the overthrow of that error? Must he -not he doubly anxious to deliver his father, his mother, his -brothers and his sisters from such bondage? The first attempt -may be difficult—the immediate results may be unpleasant; but -if for God’s sake he asserts God’s truth, he shall have God’s -blessing, and at last find peace even amongst those who are now -offended. As long as the present state of things continues, -Israel can never be restored to their ancient position. God in -mercy keeps them in dispersion, to prevent the triumph of the -oral law. But when is this state of misery to cease? There -must be a beginning. Some one follower of Moses must be -zealous enough and bold enough to attack the strong holds -of superstition, and to rouse his brethren to a sense of their -condition—some one who not only professes to be a follower -of Moses, but who has imbibed his spirit, and whose trust is -in the God of his fathers.</p> -<div class='chapter'> - <h2 id='chap53' class='c003'>No. LIII. <br /> RABBINISM OPPRESSIVE TO THE POOR.</h2> -</div> -<p class='c004'>When God gave Israel the law, by the hand of Moses, he -also gave them several tests, whereby they might at all times -try themselves, and know to a certainty whether they were -really obedient or not—and whether the laws, to which they -yielded obedience, were really the laws given by Moses. One -of these tests is found in the following words:—“Behold, I -have taught you statutes and judgments, even as the Lord my -God commanded me, that ye should do so in the land whither -ye go to possess it. Keep, therefore, and do them; for this is -your wisdom and your understanding in the sight of the nations, -which shall hear all these statutes, and say, Surely this great -nation is a wise and understanding people.” (Deut. iv. 5.) By -the help of these words, Israel may know at any time whether -they are really keeping the laws of Moses. They have only to -consult their own experience, and determine whether they are -honoured by all nations on account of their wisdom. Moses -promises that a reputation for wisdom, and the honour that -accompanies it, shall be the reward of obedience. If therefore -the Jews at this present time are obedient, this promise must -be in daily fulfilment. But, if they are not honoured and -<a id='Page_412'></a>respected for their wisdom, then we must conclude, that they -are deficient in obedience, and further, that the laws to which -they are at present so devoted are not the laws of Moses. Now -it is a certain fact, that admiration for the wisdom of Israel -has not been the prevailing sentiment amongst the nations of -the world for the last two thousand years. The Jewish people -has been most deplorably underrated. Their genius and their -literature have been ignorantly undervalued, and the folly of -the authors of the oral law has been unjustly visited upon -each and every individual of the nation. We grant the injustice -and the impiety of such hasty judgments, but cannot -deny the fact, and the fact proves that the laws to which Israel -now yields obedience are not the laws of Moses. They now -obey the commands of the oral law, and the nations have heard -of the statutes thereof, but no one says, “Surely this great -nation is a wise and understanding people.” Some may, -perhaps, ascribe this to prejudice, and no doubt there are -cases where prejudice has much to do with the decision, but -this is not our case. Our prepossessions are all in favour of the -Jews, and yet we cannot help questioning the wisdom of those, -who make such laws as the following a part of their religion:—</p> - -<p class='c005'>אין לשין העיסה בחלב ואם לש כל הפת אסורה -מפני הרגל עבירה שמא יאכל בה בשר , ואין טשין -את התנור באליה ואם טש כל הפת אסורה עד שיסיק -את התנור שמא יאכל בה חלב , ואם שינה בצורת -הפת עד שתהיה נכרת כדי שלא יאכל בה לא בשר -ולא חלב הרי זה מותר ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“It is not lawful to knead the dough with milk, and if it be -done, all the bread is unlawful, lest this should lead to further -transgression, and it should be eaten with meat. It is also -unlawful to smear the oven with the tail of a sheep; and if it -be done, all the bread is unlawful, lest milk should be eaten -with it. But, if some change be made in the form of the bread -whereby it may be recognized, so as that neither meat nor milk -should be eaten with it, then it is lawful.” (Hilchoth Maakhaloth -Asuroth, c. ix. 22.) We do not wish to persuade the Jews -either to knead dough with milk, or to smear an oven with the -tail of a sheep, but when we remember all the poverty and -want that is in the world, we cannot help asking, What is -there so sinful in either of the above actions, as to make such -bread unlawful for the use of God’s people? Has God forbidden -it? or has he so strictly prohibited the use of meat and milk -together, as to make this excess of caution necessary? Neither -the one nor the other. The law of God as given by Moses, -allows the use of meat and milk together. It forbids only one -particular case, the boiling of a kid in its mother’s milk: and -<a id='Page_413'></a>to this the rabbies have, without any authority, added all these -other commands, and thus burdened the conscience, and made -religion an intricate and difficult science intelligible only to the -learned, and not always to them. What wisdom is there in -forbidding what God did not think necessary to forbid? What -wisdom is there in neglecting or disregarding the revealed will -of God, and giving up the conscience to the guidance of weak -and fallible men like ourselves? But above all, what wisdom -is there in oppressing and tormenting the poor? The oral -law says—</p> - -<p class='c005'>מי שאכל גבינה או חלב תחלה מותר לאכול -אחריו בשר מיד .</p> - -<p class='c005'>מי שאכל בשר בתחלה בין בשר בהמה בין בשר -עוף לא יאכל אחריו חלב עד שיהיה ביניהם כדי -שיעור סעודה אחרת והוא כמו שש שעות מפני הבשר -שבין השינים שאינו סר בקינוח ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“He that eats cheese or milk first, may eat meat immediately -after.</p> - -<p class='c005'>“He that eats meat first, whether it be the meat of a beast -or of a fowl, must not eat milk after it, until the regular time -between two meals, that is six hours, shall have elapsed; -because of the meat which remains between the teeth, and -which is not got out by wiping.” (Ibid., 26, 28.) Now in the -case of the rich or the affluent, who can procure a good and -sufficient meal of meat, and can therefore wait for six hours, -this may be no great hardship, though even in that case, we -must protest against the unauthorized burden imposed upon -the conscience; but when applied to the needy and the destitute, -this law becomes an intolerable yoke. Just suppose the -father of a starving family who goes forth to beg assistance -from the charitable. He receives a small portion of meat, and -hastens back to divide it with his wife and children. They -partake of the relief, but it is not sufficient to supply their -wants. He therefore goes forth again, and some friend of the -poor gives him some milk or cheese, he brings it home with -thankfulness, but dare not touch it himself nor give it to his -children—they have already fasted many an hour—they are -still weak with hunger—a little of the milk or the cheese -would recruit exhausted nature—the children cry and entreat -for six hours more, for though God allows this food, rabbies -have forbidden it. Is there wisdom in this? Is God honoured -by such a religion, which counts his permission as nothing, and -exalts the authority of the rabbies above that of God himself? -And may we not ask the some question of the following law?</p> - -<p class='c005'>האוכל גבינת הגוים או חלב שחלבו גוי ואין -<a id='Page_414'></a>הישראל רואהו מכין אותו מכת מרדות , והחמאה -מקצת הגאונים התירוה שהרי לא גזרו על חחמאה -וחלב טמא אינו עומד ומקצת הגאונים אסרוה מפני -צחצוח חלב שישאר בה ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“He that eats Gentile cheese, or milk which a Gentile has -milked, but the Israelite did not see him, is to be flogged with -the flogging of rebellion. But, as to the butter, some of the -Gaons have pronounced it lawful, because there is no express -decision about it, and because unclean milk will not set. -Others of the Gaons, on the contrary, have pronounced it -unlawful, on account of the small drops of milk which remain -in it.” (Joreh Deah, 115.) Here we have the same total want -of consideration for the poor, and the same fierce and cruel -spirit. Just suppose, again, the case of a destitute Jewish -family, where the father is laid on a bed of sickness, and unable -to earn daily bread for his children. The mother, weary with -tending the sick couch of her husband, and her heart half-broken -with the children’s cry for bread, goes to solicit help -from the almoners of the synagogue. She obtains eighteen -pence per month, but finds that on this small sum it is impossible -for a family to subsist; she then goes to individuals of -her nation, and gets what she can, but still not sufficient to -the wants of her children, and of her sick husband. -In her distress, she goes to some Christian neighbours, who -give her some milk and cheese. The pangs of hunger, and -the affections of a wife and mother overcome her superstition, -she carries this bounty home and partakes of it along with her -husband and children. Has, she thereby committed a sin; -has she violated any one precept of the Mosaic law; has she -blasphemed the name of her God? Let reason, let the Law and -the Prophets answer, and they will say, No: she has done her -duty. But what does the oral law say? It says, that she has -committed a dreadful sin. And what is to be her punishment, -and that of her husband and children? Flogging—the flogging -of rebellion. If the oral law had power, it would lead -them forth to the place of execution, and there inflict stripes -without number and without mercy. The bystanders, and -those attracted by the cries would ask, What dreadful crime -has this family committed? and the answer would be, To save -themselves from starvation they dared to eat Gentile cheese -and milk. Gentiles would ask again, What, is this the law? -Does Judaism teach that so innocent an action is to be punished -with such severity? and being answered in the affirmative, -would go away exclaiming, “What a merciful religion! -Surely this great nation is a wise and understanding people!” -No: they would retire in horror, thanking God that they are -not Jews, and that God has preserved them from so dreadful a -<a id='Page_415'></a>delusion, and from such iniquitous cruelty. What, then, do -our Jewish readers think of this law, and the religion of which -it is a part? It is certain that there are multitudes of Jews in -this city who live in the constant violation of this command; -who constantly use milk supplied by Gentiles, and yet pretend -to profess Judaism as their religion. Let all such ask themselves, -by what authority they transgress a command sanctioned by -so severe a punishment. Is it because they think it irrational, -or unwarranted by the law of Moses? if so, they attack at -once the authority of the whole system of Judaism. If the -oral low can be proved to be absurd, or unjust, or cruel, in any -one particular, its value as a divine tradition is utterly destroyed. -Let them, then, be consistent; if they reject Judaism, -let them say so, let them not pretend to have the Jewish -religion, when they have it not. Let them honestly confess -that their reason, directed by Scripture, has led them to reject -it; and let them fulfil the consequent duty of endeavouring to -deliver their poor brethren from a bondage so cruel. They -must know that these laws about milk and butter, and the art -of slaughtering, cut off many a poor Jew from the last refuge -of the destitute—the poor-house. Many a one who is now -starving with his family, would be glad to have the relief -which the parish provides, but he dare not accept of it. -Either his conscience, perverted by these rabbinical statutes, -will not permit him, or he is afraid of his brethren, who would -think that in going into such an asylum he had renounced his -God. Those who use Gentile milk without scruple, will have -much to answer for, if they suffer such oppression and such -superstition to continue. It is a vain excuse for any one to say, -“What can I do?” Any one individual, however weak and uninfluential, -has it in his power by God’s blessing, to deliver the -poor. Let him continually protest against such superstition, -let him reason with his brethren. Let him determine to take -no rest, until the yoke is torn from the necks of his nation. -He will ultimately prevail. He will be the instrument in -God’s hand, of offering a greater deliverance than that from -Egypt, inasmuch as the emancipation of the soul is of more -importance than that of the body. In this respect, amongst -others, Jesus of Nazareth has done more than Moses. If he -had not arisen, the oral law would have been universal, and the -world have continued either sunk in idolatry or slaves to a -cruel superstition. The cruelty of a religion, which commands -a man to be flogged for eating that which God permits, is not -to be disputed; the prohibition of Gentile bread furnishes -another instance of similar inhumanity.</p> - -<p class='c005'>יש דברים שאסרו חכמים אע׳׳פ שאין להם עיקר -מן התורה כמו פת של גוים אפילו אפאו לו ישראל -<a id='Page_416'></a>והשלקות שמבשלין הגוים ואסרו לשתות במסיבתן -אפילו שאר משקין שאין בהן משום חשש יין נסך -וכל אלו דברים אסרו משום חתנות וכו׳ ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“There are some things which the wise men have pronounced -unlawful, although they have no foundation for the prohibition -in the law, as bread of the Gentiles, even though an Israelite -should have baked it for him—and cooked victuals, which the -Gentiles have cooked. They have also pronounced it unlawful -to drink at a Gentile table, even those drinks of which there -can be no suspicion that wine of libation is mixed with them. -And they pronounced these things unlawful to prevent the -possibility of intermarriage,” &c. (Ibid. 112.) There are many -remarks suggested by this passage, but at present we limit -ourselves to the prohibition of Gentile bread. It is here confessed -that there is no foundation for it in the law of Moses, -and that therefore the rabbies have no authority for the prohibition; -and yet a very little consideration is sufficient to show -that great inconvenience may arise. For instance, if a poor -Jew is travelling in this country, exhausts his stock of money, -and goes to a farm-house to ask relief, he cannot accept any -meat—he is not to drink any milk on pain of a flogging. -Suppose, then, that the people offer him some home-baked -bread, even this is forbidden:—</p> - -<p class='c005'>פת של בעל הבית אסורה לעולם ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“Bread baked by a private house-keeper is eternally forbidden.” -The poor man, therefore, may starve. But the -inhumanity appears still more in the discussion of the question, -whether and when it is lawful to eat baker’s bread. The -rabbies are divided. Some allow it, because the rule is—</p> - -<p class='c005'>מי שהתענה ג׳ ימים מותר בפת של גוים משום -חיי נפש וברוב מקומות גליותנו אין פלטר ישראל -מצוי והוה כאלו התענה ג׳ ימים , ויש אוסרין אותו -אלא א׳׳כ התענה ג׳ ימים ממש ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“He that has fasted three days may lawfully eat Gentile -bread, and as in many places of our captivity there is no -Israelite baker, this case is considered parallel to that of him -who has fasted three days. But there are others who say that -it is unlawful, unless he has fasted three days, in the strictest -sense of the word.” (Ibid.) One would think that, in a case -of doubt, men that had the fear of God would naturally incline -to the side of mercy; but here we find teachers of religion -forbidding what God has allowed, unless the victim of poverty -has first endured the torment of starvation for three days; and -in one case actually determining that a fellow-creature shall die -<a id='Page_417'></a>of hunger, rather than suffer their unauthorized traditions to be -broken. If a Gentile Government should seize on a number of -unfortunate Israelites guilty of no crime, and shut them up in -a prison, and then leave them to die of starvation, what just -indignation would be excited! Every man would protest -against such wanton cruelty, and yet this is just what modern -Judaism has done. By forbidding Gentile meat, milk, cheese, -and bread, it has consigned hundreds to starvation. There are -at this moment numbers of individuals, if not families, pining -away in want, whose wants could be relieved, if the oral law -did not interpose its iron front, and pronounce starvation -lawful, and help from Gentiles unlawful; and yet their brethren, -who pride themselves upon their benevolence and humanity, -leave them to perish, and suffer the system to remain that it -may be a curse to coming generations. It is truly astonishing -to see the indifference of those who pride themselves upon their -emancipation from superstition, and who themselves eat Gentile -bread, and milk, and cheese, and perhaps meat, without any -scruple. It is more astonishing still, how the nation at large -suffers itself to be deluded by men who do not agree amongst -themselves as to what the law really is. We saw above, that -the greatest of the rabbies, even the Gaons themselves, differ as -to the lawfulness of Gentile butter;—here we see that they -cannot agree as to the lawfulness of Gentile bakers’ bread. -How is it, then, that the Jews cannot see that their present -religion of the oral law is altogether one of uncertainty and -that, therefore, there is no dependence upon it? Here they eat -freely, even the strictest, of Gentile bread; but yet, according -to some of their greatest men, they are thereby committing a -deadly sin. These wise men humanely say, that it is necessary -first to fast for three days. Now of what use is an oral law -that cannot even tell us certainly what sort of bread it is -unlawful to eat? The Rabbinist boast is, that the oral law -teaches them the true meaning of the written law, and thus -saves them from all doubtful disputation. But how can that be -true, when the oral law has not yet settled when it is lawful to -eat Gentile bread? If the rabbies cannot agree on so simple a -matter, what trust can be placed in them in difficult questions? -The Jews cannot even tell, by the help of their religion, -whether they are not committing a sin, and leading their -children to commit a sin, when they give them a piece of -bread and butter. How, then, can they be satisfied with a -religion where the simplest concerns of life are still a matter -of doubt and disputation; and especially where the poor are -made to suffer the greatest hardships, whilst, by keeping to -Moses and the prophets, they might find relief? But, above -all, how can they believe that a religion is divine, or its authors -good and pious men, when an innocent action, nay, the fulfilment -<a id='Page_418'></a>of a natural duty, is punished with flogging? There is -no punishment of which the oral law is so fond; and it would -be a curious and interesting employment to furnish a list of all -the offences to which it is annexed. Perhaps in nothing does -the Talmud differ more from the New Testament. The New -Testament has not, in any one case, prescribed so cruel a -punishment. The Talmud and all its compendiums prescribe it -on the most trifling occasion. The maxim of the New Testament -is that of the Old also, “I will have mercy, not sacrifice.” -Now, if the practice of mercy be more agreeable in the eyes of -God, than even those ceremonial rites which he himself ordained, -with what pleasure can he contemplate the religion of the oral -law, which punishes, even what God has allowed, with unmeasured -cruelty? Aben Ezra supposed that this command, -“Not to seethe a kid in its mother’s milk,” was given in order -to prevent cruelty even to the brute creation; if this be true, -how does God regard the perversion of his mercy, which -pretends to keep this command, to spare the brute creation, by -dooming hundreds of mankind to starvation, and by flogging -those who endeavour to escape from their misery by eating -what he has nowhere forbidden? If God has compassion upon -the beasts that perish, what can he think of those teachers of -religion who talk with such composure of a fellow-creature’s -fasting for three days before he may eat bread sold by a Gentile -baker, and who absolutely decide that it is his duty to die, -rather than partake of bread baked by a private individual who -is not a Jew? We appeal to the good sense of every Israelite -to answer these questions. Is it not evident that the God of -mercy must view with indignation, those teachers who thus -misrepresent the nature of revealed religion, and who cause his -holy name to be blasphemed amongst the ignorant? But if -those men are guilty, a portion of their guilt rests upon all those -who aid and abet in upholding the system. There can be but -little excuse for those who have the Law and the Prophets in -their hands, and who therefore ought to know, that the cruelty -of the oral law is as contrary to the character of God, as light -is to darkness. And there is no excuse at all for those Israelites -who themselves despise these Rabbinical laws, and yet by their -silence and indifference leave their brethren still in misery. -They are answerable for all the dishonour done to God; for -all the misery inflicted upon man; and for all the contempt -heaped upon the wisdom of Israel.</p> -<div class='chapter'> - <a id='Page_419'></a> - <h2 id='chap54' class='c003'>No. LIV. <br /> GENTILE WINE.</h2> -</div> -<p class='c004'>The Jews of the present day have got one religion—the -Christians have got another. It is much to be desired that all -the sons of men should have the one true religion, but, as this -is not likely to be the case for some little time longer, it becomes -those who differ to examine the nature and grounds of -their differences. Whatever Jews may think upon the subject, -Christians feel themselves bound to inquire whether they have -really erred so grievously as modern Judaism asserts. The -oral law brings no less a charge against them than this, That -they are guilty of idolatry, and therefore in a worse state than -even the Mahometans.</p> - -<p class='c005'>כל גוי שאינו עובד עכו׳׳ם כגון אלו הישמעאכים -יינן אסור בשתיה ומותר בהנאה , וכן הורו כל -הגאונים , אבל הנוצרים עובדי עכו׳׳ם הם וסתם יינם -אסור בהנאה ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“As to those Gentiles who, like the Ishmaelites, are not -idolaters, their wine is unlawful to drink, but is lawful for -purposes of profit, as is taught by all the Gaons; but Christians -are idolaters, and their wine, even such as has not been used -as wine of libation, is unlawful even for purposes of profit.” -(Hilchoth Maakhaloth Asuroth, c. xi. 7.) These words are -very plain, and are confirmed by the practice of Rabbinists in -every part of the world, who abstain as carefully from the wine -belonging to Christians, as their forefathers would have done -from the idolatrous libation of the Canaanites. Jews, therefore -cannot be astonished if we examine with care a religion -that brings against us so grave an accusation, and endeavour -to defend ourselves against the charge. We might ask them, -whether they behold in our churches any of the emblems of -idolatry. We might refer them to the ten commandments -written up in the most holy place of our sacred edifices. We -might quote from the New Testament many warnings against -idolatry as plain and as solemn as any to be found in the law -of Moses; but there is a previous question to be considered, -and that is, What is the character of that system, which witnesses -against us? Is it worthy of credit—can its testimony -be depended upon? If the oral law be really from God, and -if its teachers should appear as faithful depositories of Divine -truth, their testimony would have great weight. But if the -rabbies be detected as daring corrupters of Divine revelation, -and their religion be proved to be a perversion of the law of -<a id='Page_420'></a>Moses, then this charge must fall to the ground as unworthy of -all credit; and this is what we assert. We have already given -many reasons in support of this assertion, and now add some -more which we find in the laws about יין נסך, “wine of -libation,” which laws appear to us to be not only unwarranted -additions, but unmerciful, uncharitable, and irrational.</p> - -<p class='c005'>We do not mean to deny that it is utterly unlawful to -partake of wine that has been consecrated to idols; on the -contrary, we would assert this as zealously as any Israelite. -Concerning things offered to idols, the New Testament says, -“The things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to -devils, and not to God: and I would not that ye should have -fellowship with devils. Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord, -and the cup of devils.” (1 Cor. x. 20, 21.) Let not therefore -any Israelite think that we wish to defend what is contrary -both to the Old and New Testament. But though fully -convinced of the unlawfulness of drinking wine or anything else -consecrated to the service of idolatry, we confess that we cannot -see why it is unlawful to make use of wine not consecrated to -idolatry, simply because it belongs to, or has been touched by, -a Gentile; and yet this is the rabbinic law:—</p> - -<p class='c005'>יין הגוים שאין אנו יודעים אם נתנסך או לא -נתנסך והוא הנקרא סתם יינם אסור בהנאה כמו יין -שנתנסך ודבר זה מגזירת הסופרים הוא והשותה -מסתם יינם רביעית מכין אותו מכת מרדות , וכל יין -שיגע בו הגוי הרי זה אסור שמא נסך אותו שמחשבת -הגוי לעכו׳׳ם הא למדת שיין ישראל שנגע בו הגוי -דינו כסתם יינם שהוא אסור בהנאה ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“Wine belonging to Gentiles, of which we do not know -whether it has been consecrated or not, and what is called -<i>common Gentile wine</i>, is unlawful even to make a profit of, just -like wine that has been consecrated; and this is by the decree -of the scribes. Whosoever drinks so much as one quarter -measure of this common Gentile wine is to be flogged with -the flogging of rebellion. All wine also which a Gentile -touches is unlawful because he may have consecrated it, for the -thought of a Gentile is to idolatry. Hence thou hast learned, -that concerning wine belonging to an Israelite which a Gentile -has touched, the law is the same as in the case of common -Gentile wine, which is unlawful even to make a profit of.” -(Ibid., 3, 4.) Now in this law we have first the unauthorized -additions of the rabbies. We have already granted, that wine, -and everything else, consecrated to the service of idols is -unlawful, but with this the rabbies are not content. They -forbid wine that was made by, or ever in the possession of, a -<a id='Page_421'></a>Gentile, or even if a Gentile has touched it, and that not -only to drink it, but to make any use of it, or to sell it, or to -be in any way employed about it, so as to make any profit -by it.</p> - -<p class='c005'>והחמירו חכמים בסתם יינם להיות דמיו אסורין -כדמי יין שנתנסך לעכו׳׳ם לפיכך גוי ששכר את ישראל -לעשות עמו ביין שכרו אסור , וכן השוכר את החמור -להביא עליו יין או ששכר ספינה להביא בה יין שכרן -אסור , אם מעות נתנו לו ישליכון לים המלח , ואם -נתנו לו בשכרו כסות או כלים או פירות בו , שכר -לגוי חמור לרכוב עליו והניח עליו לוגין של יין -שכרו מותר ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“The wise men have been very strict with respect to the -common Gentile wine, and have pronounced its price to be unlawful, -as that of wine which has been consecrated to idolatry; -therefore, if a Gentile have an Israelite to labour with him, in -any thing concerning wine, his wages are unlawful. In like -manner, if he hire an ass, or a ship, to carry wine, the hire -thereof is unlawful: and if it be given to him in money, he is -to throw it into the salt sea. But if the hire be given him in -clothes, or vessels, or fruits, he is to burn them, and to bury their -ashes, that no profit may arise therefrom. But if an Israelite -has hired an ass to a Gentile to ride upon, and he lays upon it -bottles of wine, then the hire thereof is lawful.” (Ibid., c. xiii. -15, &c.) For all this there is no authority whatever in the law -of Moses,—it is a pure invention of the rabbies, who had but -little respect for the Divine law, and no consideration at all for -the necessities of man. It is evident that these additions must, -in many cases, become so many impediments in the way of earning -a subsistence. The proprietor of a ship, or the owner of -cattle, is cut off from one source of employment and profit. Now, -even in the case of the rich, though they may feel it less, this -is an unjustifiable severity; but in the case of the poor, it -becomes a most cruel oppression. In the wine-countries, for -example, a poor Jew might perchance find employment with -some of the growers of that article; but the rabbies have -declared that honest industry, in a matter which God has -nowhere forbidden, is unlawful, and the fruits of it so abominable, -as to be fit only for destruction. In this city, also, -many examples of the absurdity and cruelty of this law might -be found. Suppose that a Christian wine-merchant should -wish to employ some one or more of those numerous Israelites, -who are destitute of the means of earning a livelihood, and -should therefore offer him a situation, either in his cellar or -<a id='Page_422'></a>his counting-house, the rabbies say that he dare not accept of -it: and that it is more pleasing in the sight of God that the -man should go about idle, and that his family should starve, -than that he should labour honestly, and do what God has -permitted. Who is there, except the rabbies themselves, who -does not see that such a decision is irrational, oppressive, and -unmerciful, not now to speak of its injustice to Christian -nations, by classing them with the idolaters of Canaan? But -take another case, suppose that some Christian, finding a -Jewish family in deep distress, some of the members perhaps -recovering from sickness, to whom a little wine might be -beneficial, gives them a bottle of wine, What are they to do -with it? May they make use of it to strengthen their -exhausted frames? The rabbies answer, No. May they sell -it, and with the money purchase food, or some other necessary -of life? The rabbies answer, No. What then are they to do -with it? The rabbies answer, Destroy it; destroy what would -recruit your fainting bodies—what would purchase bread for -your starving children—destroy what might perhaps save your -life, simply because we have forbidden it; and it is more -important that our unauthorized laws should be preserved -inviolate, than that you should be comforted or strengthened -or relieved in your misery. This is the mercy of Judaism. -But we have not done yet. Suppose that the mother of the -family should begin to reason, and say, This wine would -preserve my poor child’s life; a little of it would strengthen -me, and enable me to tend the sick bed with more alacrity; -God has nowhere forbidden it. She accordingly administers -to her child, and partakes herself, when some rabbinic zealot -enters and perceives what she has done. Now suppose that -the ministers of the oral law had the liberty to follow out all -its enactments, what would be the consequence? The poor -woman would be summoned before a בית דין, a tribunal; the -oral law would be opened, and her sentence be, The flogging -of rebellion, as we have cited above. Is this merciful, is it -just, is it rational? Is there anything like it in the New -Testament, or in the religion of Jesus of Nazareth? The oral -law says that we are idolaters, but is it worthy of credit? -Can any reasonable man place confidence in the teaching of -those who are so senseless as to forbid a perishing fellow-creature -to make use of proffered relief, and so merciless as to flog -him with the flogging of rebellion, if he regards God’s permission -more than their prohibition? But it is not only absurdity -and cruelty, which here are to be noticed, there is also -a certain measure of that cleverness which we have remarked -on former occasions, which provides for the transgression of the -law and the retaining of the merit of keeping it. The above -extract says, “If an Israelite has hired an ass to a Gentile to -<a id='Page_423'></a>ride upon, and he lays upon it bottles of wine, then the hire -thereof is lawful;” and on this principle the owner of a ship -or a wagon may let either generally for the transport of -merchandize, and provided the word <i>wine</i> is not mentioned, the -Gentile may transport his wine, and the Jew lawfully receive -and use his money, though if the word <i>wine</i> had been mentioned, -the money would have been so unlawful, that it ought -not even be given to relieve the wants of the poor, but thrown -into the salt sea. Here the rabbies betray their own insincerity, -and their unbelief in their own enactments, by their determination -to evade their severity, whenever it interfered with -their own interests. But even if there were no cruelty, no -contempt for the law of God, and no evasion, the effect of -multiplying such observances is to lead away the mind from -the weightier matters of religion. The ignorant think, even -whilst they are violating the ten commandments, that, if they -abstain from Gentile wine, they are fulfilling a most meritorious -duty, and making compensation for their other transgressions. -Indeed the rabbies themselves are not free from -this effect, if we may judge by the following passage:—</p> - -<p class='c005'>זונה גויה במסיבה של ישראל היין מותר מפני -שאימתה עליה ולא תגע אבל זונה ישראלית במסיבת -גוים יינה שלפניה בכליה אסור מפני שהם נוגעין -שלא מדעתה ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“If a Gentile harlot be at an entertainment of Israelites, -the wine is lawful, for their fear is upon her, so that she -would not touch it. But if an Israelite harlot be at an -entertainment of Gentiles, her wine that is before her in -her own vessel is unlawful, because they may touch it -without her knowledge.” (Ibid., c. xii. 26.) Now if men -or women are so wicked as to be found in such circumstances, -in the open disregard of God’s law, is it not -deceiving them to tell them, or to lead them to suppose, -that there can be any merit in any mere ceremonial observance, -even though it should have been ordained by God -himself: and is it not straining at a gnat and swallowing -a camel, to forbid a poor perishing Jew to taste wine -touched by a Gentile, and to allow it to those who are -feasting with a harlot? Perhaps some one will reply that -it is on account of the idolatry of the Gentile; but we -have seen in the first extract given in this paper, that if -wine be touched even by a Gentile who is not an idolater, -it is unlawful for a Jew to drink it; so that to be a Gentile -at all is in the eyes of the rabbies a greater degradation -and of more contaminating influence, than to be guilty of -gross immorality. Now we appeal to the good sense of -<a id='Page_424'></a>every Israelite, whether this is not to exalt vice, and to -degrade humanity? God chose a people to himself, Israel -is that people; we honour them as such: but, is that any -reason why Israel should trample upon the ties of our -common humanity, and look upon the touch even of a -Gentile who fears God, as so defiling that it makes wine -unfit for the use of a Jew? How are peace and charity -ever to prevail between Jews and Gentiles, so long as this -is looked upon as religion? Yea, and how is true religion -and true fear of God ever to prevail amongst the mass of -the Jewish community, so long as they are taught that Israelites -guilty of immorality are more holy than a Gentile -who fears God, and that sin is not so dreadful as uncircumcision? -The object of such commands was plainly to prevent -all social and friendly intercourse between Jews and Gentiles -under any circumstances, and to build up an eternal wall -of separation between them. This is very different from -that national and official distinction instituted by God himself. -The object of God’s choice was not to put an end -to the practice of love and charity between the Jews and -all the other nations of the earth, but to cement the bonds -of affection. He made Israel the depository of his oracles, -that they might communicate the truth to other nations, -and that thus the nations should feel gratitude for the -benefit conferred, and the Israelites feel that affection for -the nations, which a teacher naturally feels for those who, -by his instrumentality, have forsaken error and embraced -the truth. The oral law prevents the fulfilment of the -Divine law, and cuts asunder also these ties of amity and -peace. It makes it impossible for Israel to communicate -any blessing, and for the Gentiles to receive any blessing -at their hands, and goes far towards throwing suspicion on -the Divine law. If there were no other medium of communication, -than the rabbies, between the Divine law and -the world, the worship of Jupiter and Bacchus and all the -other heathen deities would still prevail. How could the -nations ever have been converted by those who taught them, -in the first place, that God is such a respecter of persons, -as to think immorality in a Jew less contaminating than -the mere external touch of a pious Gentile? Reason revolts -at such profane absurdity, and therefore if God had -had no better messengers and representatives of his truth, -idolatry would still continue. Some may reply, idolatry -does still continue, such at least is the sentence of the oral -law, and, though grieved that any should be so blind as -to bring such a charge against Christianity, we are by no -means angry or offended at it. If the Jews still believe in -their own religion, and therefore think that Christians are -<a id='Page_425'></a>idolaters, it is their bounden duty to say so. But then we -ask in reply, if Christianity be idolatry, how is it that its -doctrine is more pure, more merciful, more charitable, and -more rational than that of the oral law? Christianity has -no ceremonial laws to be observed by those who feast together -with harlots—Christianity nowhere sentences the poor -to flogging, because they partake of what God allows—Christianity -nowhere represents God as an unjust and -impartial judge, who looks not at moral good and evil, but -at a man’s nation. Christianity teaches that true religion is -that of the heart—that at the day of judgment mercilessness -will obtain no mercy, and that God is the God of the -spirits of all flesh. Let then the lovers of the oral law -account for this fact, that Christianity, which they call -idolatry, teaches a doctrine that glorifies God and benefits -all men; whilst Judaism, which they say is the truth, -teaches a doctrine dishonouring to God, oppressive to the -Jews, and degrading to all other nations. Some Jews will -reply, that Christians are not idolaters; then we ask such -persons how they can pretend to profess Judaism, which has -asserted the contrary for so many centuries, and also acted -upon this principle, prohibiting all intercourse, as much as -Moses did in the land of Canaan? Either Christianity is -idolatry, or Judaism is false; there is no alternative. Every -Jew, therefore, who asserts that Christians are not idolaters, -pronounces of Judaism that it is false. Let all such persons -then deal honestly, let them renounce what they do not -believe; and let them denounce to their brethren what -they think it necessary to disavow before Christians. They -are bound to do this, not only to renounce the injustice with -which the oral law treats Christians, but to take away the -cruel and oppressive yoke which bows down their brethren -the Jews. If Christianity be not idolatry, then all the laws -concerning יין נסך, “wine of libation,” are utterly out of -place in this country. Then poor Jews may accept of -Christian bounty, and the offices of kindliness and charity -may be practised between Jew and Christian. Those Jews -therefore who profess to believe that Christians are not -idolaters, are bound, by their obligations both to Jews and -Christians, to protest against the oral law, and publicly to -disavow all belief in it. So long as they do not make such -a public disavowal, their professions of love and charity -and respect for the religion of Christians must be looked -upon as hollow and insincere. So long as they make -such professions, contrary to the oral law, and yet frequent -the worship of the synagogue, which asserts the divinity of -the oral law, they must be regarded either as persons who -have motives for professing what they do not feel, or who -<a id='Page_426'></a>want moral courage to renounce what they disapprove. -These remarks apply particularly to those Israelites who -have practically forsaken Judaism, who associate with Christians, -eat Gentile food, and drink Gentile wine, and some of -whom perhaps even deal in it as an article of merchandize. -Such persons, though Israelites by nation, are not Jews by -religion, at least according to that sense in which the word -Jew has been used both by Israel and Gentile nations for -the last two thousand years. Such persons cannot pretend -to be professors of the Jewish persuasion. Any one who -is in the habit of drinking Gentile wine has practically -forsaken Judaism, just as much as if he had assumed the -turban and professed himself a Mahometan. It becomes -such persons especially to make a stand against the oral -law, and to declare publicly what their religion is, and -whether they have any fixed principles at all. They -cannot be regarded as Christians, for they have not been -baptized; they cannot, say that they are Jews, for they -have forsaken Judaism; they cannot assert that they have -the religion of Moses, for unless that religion be found -amongst Christians, it does not exist. There is no body -of religionists to be found in this country who profess themselves -Mosaists. In the synagogue the oral law is professed; -in the Church Christianity is professed; but where is -the place of worship frequented by those who have forsaken -Judaism without embracing Christianity? Such persons -appear in a light that is not at all advantageous to -their principles. In private they profess to abhor the intolerance -of the oral law, they violate its precepts, and yet -on the occasion of the great Jewish fasts and festivals they -are to be seen in the synagogue joining in the worship, -and observing the rites of the oral law. What then are -we to believe concerning such persons? Are they indifferentists, -who have no religion at all? or are they secret -admirers of the oral law, who, for worldly purposes, deny it -when occasion suits, and conform to it when the conscience -is uneasy? We are far from pronouncing them either one -or the other, but simply propose these questions for their -own consideration, remind them of the equivocal light in -which they appear, and would give them advice similar to -that of Elijah to their forefathers. If the oral law be true -religion, profess and practise it. If the oral law be erroneous, -superstitious, and uncharitable, renounce it openly and -honestly.</p> -<div class='chapter'> - <a id='Page_427'></a> - <h2 id='chap55' class='c003'>No. LV. <br /> MOURNING FOR THE DEAD.</h2> -</div> -<p class='c004'>Modern Judaism, or the religion of the Jews, as it is -professed by the majority of the nation scattered through -the world, confessedly consists of two parts. The first is -composed of those laws which are מן התורה, <i>i.e.</i>, which -are either really found in the written law, or are supposed -to be based upon some passage of it. The second, of those -laws which are מדברי הסופרים “of the words of the -scribes,” and which are, therefore, mere human institutions. -Concerning those that were given by God, we readily grant -that they can be changed or abrogated only by God himself. -But respecting the latter, both reason and Scripture concur -in assuring us, that what human authority has ordained, a -similar human authority may also abrogate. We grant that -so long as the Jewish polity remained, and the scribes were -magistrates, their ordinances, so far as they were not contrary -to the Word of God, were binding upon the Jews: but even -then those ordinances were not immutable. They might have -been repealed by the scribes and magistrates who succeeded -them. And even then, whenever they stood in opposition -to the Word of God, it was the bounden duty of the Jews -to refuse obedience. For what reason, then do the Jews of -the present day still pay the same homage to the words of -the scribes that they do to the Word of God? The scribes -are not now the civil magistrates of the countries where the -Jews reside; their words, therefore, carry with them no -authority whatever. The Jews are now in different circumstances—are -subject to other magistrates and lawgivers. -The magisterial sanction, which the words of the scribes -had before the dispersion, has long since been lost; but God -nowhere commands the Jews in England to obey laws made -by the civil magistrates of Palestine two thousand years -ago. There is not a shadow of obligation remaining; and -therefore the Jews of the present day have a full right to -examine into their tendency and effects, and if they should -be found injurious or unsuitable to present circumstances, to -reject them. If the words of the scribes be not obligatory -by virtue of Divine authority, the only imaginable reason for -observing them is the supposition that they are conducive -to the welfare and happiness of Israel, but if it can be shown -that this supposition is false, then both reason and religion -would suggest the wisdom of rejecting them. We have -already shown of several such laws that they are alike -noxious to man and dishonouring to God, and think now -<a id='Page_428'></a>to exhibit a similar result with regard to the <i>laws concerning -mourners for the dead</i>. Of many of these it is confessed -that they are not of God, but simply ordinances of the -scribes: thus, of the command to mourn seven days, it is -acknowledged, that it is not to be found in the law:—</p> - -<p class='c005'>ואין אבלות מן התורה אלא ביום ראשון בלבד -שהוא יום המיתה ויום הקבורה אבל שאר השבעה -ימים אינו דין תורה ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“The only mourning commanded in the law is that on the -first day, which is the day of the death and of the burial. -But that of the rest of the seven days is not an ordinance -of the law.” (Hilchoth Avel., c. i. 1.) And thus with regard -to the various things from which the mourner is to -abstain during those seven days, it is acknowledged expressly -that the command is altogether an ordinance of -the scribes:—</p> - -<p class='c005'>אלו הדברים שהאבל אסור בהן ביום הראשון מן -התורה ובשאר ימים מדבריהם אסור לספר ולכבס -ולרחוץ ולסוך ולשמש מטתו ולנעול את הסנדל -ולעשות מלאכה ולקרות בדברי תורה ולזקוף את -המטה ולפרוע את ראשו ולשאול שלום הכל ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“These are the things which the mourner is prohibited from -doing, according to the law, on the first day, but according -to the words of the scribes on the remaining days—shaving, -washing the clothes, bathing, anointing, duty of marriage, -putting on shoes, working, reading in the words of the law, -elevating the chair, uncovering the head, asking after the -peace of any one.” (Ibid., c. v.) As therefore the rabbies -themselves do not pretend that abstinence from these things -during those days of mourning is required in the law; and it -is further a matter of fact, that this abstinence is not inculcated -by the laws of the land, it naturally becomes a question, Why -then do the Jews now observe these rites? Are they conducive -to the happiness and welfare of Israel? We might doubt respecting -several of them, but one is so obviously oppressive to -the poor as to be almost beyond controversy; we mean the -prohibition to work during the seven days’ mourning. We -do not mean to deny, that when death enters a family, it is a -providential call to humiliation and serious reflection, and that -therefore those who can should withdraw for a while from -their every-day occupation, and seek by prayer and penitence -to have the affliction turned into a blessing. But to require -of those who have not food for themselves or their families to -embitter their cup of sorrow by adding the pangs of hunger, is -<a id='Page_429'></a>to act the part of an inconsiderate and merciless tyrant, and -this is what the oral law does. It says—</p> - -<p class='c005'>כל שלשה ימים הראשונים אסור בעשיית מלאכה , -אפילו היה עני המתפרנס מן הצדקה , מכאן ואילך -אם היה עני עושה בצנעה בתוך ביתו ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“All the first three days it is unlawful to work, even though -the man should be so poor as to live on alms. But after that, -if he be poor, he may work privately in his own house.” Thus, -all those whose business lies out of doors, and who are obliged -to wander about in order to get a livelihood, are completely cut -off from the possibility of supplying the wants of their family. -The law was evidently made under very different circumstances -from those in which the Jewish people are now found. It -presupposes that every one has got some trade or occupation -whereby he can earn his bread at home, but this is not the -case at present. A large proportion of the people, in every -part of the world, now get a living by frequenting the public -resorts of men: to forbid these, then, from going forth to their -work, is equivalent to forbidding them to eat during seven -days. Why then should Israel be bound by these laws, which -even, according to the confession of the rabbies, have no Divine -authority, and are now only oppressive to the poor?</p> - -<p class='c005'>But it is not merely of inconsideration for the poor that the -oral law is guilty: we have more than once remarked the -proud contempt with which it treats the poor and the unlearned, -and are sorry to find it even in the laws concerning -the last sad offices to humanity:—</p> - -<p class='c005'>עיר שיש בה שני מתים כאחד מוציאין הראשין -ואחר כך מוציאין השני , חכם ותלמיד חכם מוציאין -החכם , תלמיד חכם ועם הארץ מוציאין תלמיד חכם ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“If there be two persons dead in a city at once, he that died -first, is first to be carried forth to burial, and then the second. -But if one of them be a wise man, and the other the disciple of -a wise man, the wise man is to have the precedency. If one -be the disciple of a wise man and the other an unlearned one -(amhaaretz), the disciple of the wise man is to be carried forth -first.” (Joreh Deah, 354.) We do not here object to the -practical result, but to the spirit of the law. God has ordained -different ranks and grades of society, and wills, therefore, that -honour should be given to whom honour is due, and the -common course of the world brings men and things to their -level. But the doctors of the oral law were determined not -to leave their posthumous honour to the natural course of -events, but whilst they lived, took the matter into their own -hands, and decreed that the honour paid them in life should -<a id='Page_430'></a>also be rendered to their poor bodies after death; and that no -plebeian or unlearned person should take precedency, even in -the last sad memento of human frailty. After death there is -but little difference between the learned and the unlearned, -and the real difference is made, not by their previous learning -or ignorance, but by their moral worth. An unlearned man -may be, and often is, far more beloved by man, and far more -pleasing in the sight of God, than the most learned, and therefore, -when death has destroyed the imaginary distinctions of -time, if religion makes any difference between the dead, it -surely ought to make it according to that estimate, which is -eternal. But the religion of the oral law cannot forget worldly -distinction, even in the solemn moment of death, and therefore -commands, that as the unlearned man, no matter what his -moral worth may have been, has been despised in his life, he -should still bear the marks of dishonour even in his death and -burial. But the homage which the oral law pays to wealth and -mere worldly distinction, is still more apparent in its commands -respecting the measure of lamentation to be dealt out -to the deceased. It says, on this subject—</p> - -<p class='c005'>בני עשירים כבני חכמים , בני חכמים כבני מלכים -לענין שבח מעשיהם ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“The sons of the rich are to be regarded as the sons of the -wise men; and the sons of the wise men as the sons of kings, -with regard to praising their deeds.” (Ibid., 344.) Here there -is no concealment. The learned makers of the oral law choose -to have their children honoured with the honours of royalty, -and show that, however highly they might prize their learning, -they had a due estimate of the value of wealth; and that however -they might despise the unlearned, their contempt might -be moderated, if the object of it was only rich. In the world -we are not astonished at the inordinate homage paid to wealth, -but when the teachers of religion bow down before the golden -idol, and assign to mere wealth an honour which they refuse to -the piety and moral worth of the poor, we cannot help doubting -the purity of their professed principles, and questioning the -truth of their religious system. The main object of religion -should be to raise men above the delusive appearances of this -present world—to teach men to look beyond the distinctions of -rank, and wealth, and learning, to that eternal distinction which -the righteous Judge will make according to man’s deeds. And -if there be one season more than another where religion ought -to disregard the principles and customs of the world, it is with -respect to the hour of death and burial. But here the oral law -still maintains its love for wealth and worldly distinction, and -its haughty contempt for ignorance, poverty, and humbleness -<a id='Page_431'></a>of station. If any additional proof is still necessary, it is found -in the forms prescribed on the death of slaves:—</p> - -<p class='c005'>העבדים והשפחות אין עומדין עליהן בשורה ואין -אומרים עליהן ברכת אבלים ולא תנחומי אבלים אלא -כשם שאומרין לאדם אל שורו וחמורו שמת המקום -ימלא תסרונך כך אומר על עבדו ושפחתו שמתו ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“In the case of male and female slaves, the people are not to -stand in a row, nor to say the benediction of the mourners, nor -the consolations of the mourners; but, as one says, to a man -whose ox or ass is dead, God replace your loss, so one is to say, -in the case of a male or female slave who has died.” (Ibid., 377.) -Volumes could not so clearly set forth the genius of Judaism, -and the spirit of its authors, as this one short law. It exhibits -the founders of Judaism, not only as void of all true religious -sentiment, but absolutely dead to all the natural feelings of -humanity. If mourners of any description require sympathy -and respect, surely they are the mourning family of a slave, for, -excepting crime, there is not anything that can aggravate the -bitterness of death more than slavery. Here religion should -pour in its oil and wine, and as it alleviated the miseries of life, -diminish from the pangs of death. At such an hour, religion -should assert the liberty of the soul, and remind the children -of pride, that in the life after death the distinction of master -and slave is unknown; that there eternal and spiritual liberty -awaits all the children of God, whatever their outward condition -here. At such an hour, religion should especially console -the survivors with the hope, that there is another and better -state of existence, where the slave and the freeman are equally -regarded, and dealt with according to one eternal rule of justice. -But the religion of the oral law, on the contrary, carries the degradation -of slavery even down to the grave, and helps it to -survive the period of bondage. It ordains that the usual religious -rites should not be observed, and places the slave on the -same level with the brute that perisheth. It prescribes no consolation -for the slave’s afflicted family, but ordains that his -master should receive the same words of comfort, as if he had -lost an ox or ass. The death of the slave is looked upon as -nothing; it is only for the slave-owner’s loss that the oral law -has any consideration. The fact of his having been a human -being, an inheritor of God’s image, and an heir of everlasting -life, is entirely overlooked by the rabbies. He was a slave, and -they think, therefore, that as he was treated like a beast whilst -he lived, he may be buried like a beast now that he is dead. -If these slaves had been Gentiles, it would not have been surprising -that the oral law should treat them with such little -ceremony. But we must remember that all such slaves were -<a id='Page_432'></a>compelled to become proselytes to Judaism. They were, therefore, -co-religionists with their masters; but even this could not -procure them the respect due to human beings. Because the -providence of God had made them slaves, the oral law endeavoured -to turn them into beasts. We are sure that many Jews -of the present day will revolt with horror from such a doctrine; -and acknowledge that it is a libel upon religion. They will be -ready to confess, that the poor slave is a fellow-creature, and an -expectant of life eternal; but let such persons stop to consider -whence they have derived these sentiments, so much more just, -more merciful, and more worthy of religion, than those expressed -in the oral law. That they have not derived them from -Judaism is clear. May they not, then, be indebted for them to -the influence and atmosphere of Christianity in which they -live? Certain it is, that the New Testament contains very -different principles, respecting the treatment of slaves, from -those which we have discovered in the oral law. But, further, -would it not be well for those who disapprove these rabbinic -principles, to ask themselves why they profess the rabbinic -religion? If it be true that a slave is something better than -an ox or an ass, Judaism, which classes them altogether, must -be false: and the men who made such laws, must be confessed -to be very unfit teachers of religion. Nay more, Judaism must -be acknowledged as a religion most unfit to promote the happiness -of the human race. If Judaism should prevail again, -and, as its advocates expect, prevail universally, slavery would -also prevail in the same degree: slaves would again be compelled -to become proselytes, and again be treated as beasts. -Such is the great consummation, the regeneration that Judaism -promises the world. We therefore ask every Jewish reader, -Whether he can pray for such a state of things, and whether he -wishes to be thus enabled to degrade and trample upon his -fellow-sinners? If he does not, there must be something wrong -in the religious system which he professes—and if he only detects -this one error, or acknowledges only this one falsehood -respecting the classification of slaves with oxen and asses, it is -sufficient to shake the whole rabbinic fabric: and if he has any -concern for the honour of the Jewish nation, he will endeavour -to deliver them from such a foul imputation upon their mercy -and their humanity.</p> - -<p class='c005'>But there is one point more in these laws respecting mourners, -which it is necessary to notice. The oral law forbids the -mourner, as we have seen above, to read in the words of the -law for seven days:—</p> - -<p class='c005'>אבל אסור לקרות בתורה ונביאים וכתובים , ואסור -לשנות במשנה תלמוד הלכות ואגדות ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'><a id='Page_433'></a>“The mourner is forbidden to read in the law, the prophets, -and the Hagiographa: it is also forbidden to study in the -Mishna, Talmud, Constitutions, and Agadoth.” That a mourner -would have no great loss in not being allowed to study in -the oral law, we can readily believe; but why should he be -prohibited from going to the great fountain of consolation—the -revealed Word of God? If there be one season of life more fit -than another for studying the Word of God, surely it is when -death has entered a family, and reminded all its inmates that -the wages of sin is death. If a husband or wife be left to -mourn over the bereavement of a beloved partner, what consolation -can be equal to that which they find in God’s promise of -a world where there is neither sorrow nor death, and where -those who meet shall never part again? If children be left to -mourn over the removal of their parents, whither should they -flee for consolation rather than to that Word which tells them -of him who is the father of the fatherless? Every reasonable -person will think also that, when the heart is softened by the -paternal chastisement, then is a peculiarly appropriate season -for learning his precepts and taking heed to his exhortations—and -yet the oral law, with a sort of most perverse ingenuity, -has just selected that period of human life, in which the consolations -of God’s Word are most necessary and its instruction -likely to be of most use, to forbid the reading of it altogether. -And here, the rabbies have not scrupled to set aside the plain -command of God. God says of his law, “Thou shalt meditate -therein day and night and makes no exception for the seven -days of mourning for the dead.” In describing the character of -the righteous he says, “His delight is in the law of the Lord, -and in his law doth he meditate day and night and pronounces -a blessing upon such a character.” But the rabbies, in contempt -both of the command and of the promised blessing, forbid the -already afflicted mourner to obey the command and to seek the -blessing. Even when the scribes and rabbies were in the plenitude -of their power as civil magistrates in the land of Israel, -obedience to such a command would have been unlawful, as -implying disobedience to the command of God. The law of God -and the law of man are here plainly in collision; the former -commanding Israel to study in his law day and night; the latter -prohibiting all study for the seven days of the mourning; but -whenever these two authorities are opposed, no rational being -can doubt that it is Israel’s duty to obey God rather than man. -But, in the present day, when the oral law is not the law of the -land, when, therefore, the ordinances of the scribes have no -authority whatever, it is impossible to conceive why Israel -should obey this prohibition, unless they wish, by some public -act, to exhibit their determination to transgress the laws or God. -Every one who abstains from the study of God’s Word for seven -<a id='Page_434'></a>days, plainly disobeys the Divine command as given by Moses -and the prophets; how then can the Jews of the present day -deceive themselves by supposing that they have the religion of -Moses? The main difference between Heathenism and the -religion of Moses is, that the latter gives a revelation of God’s -will to guide us in difficulty and to comfort us in affliction. -The main difference between a Heathen and a Jewish mourner -ought to be, that the Jew flees for consolation to God and his -Word, whilst the Heathen indulges in sorrow as those that -have no hope. The oral law, however, breaks down with this -distinction, and reduces the Jew to the level of the Heathen, by -robbing him in his hour of need of God’s promises, and commanding -him to abstain for seven days from all study of God’s -Word. These laws respecting mourning, then, as being oppressive -to the poor, insulting to the unlearned, degrading to humanity, -and contrary to the express precepts of the Divine -law, have no intrinsic merit to commend them to Israel, and -no claim upon their obedience.</p> -<div class='chapter'> - <h2 id='chap56' class='c003'>No. LVI. <br /> DISPENSATION FROM AN OATH.</h2> -</div> -<p class='c004'>A religion which is plainly contrary to any of the Divine -attributes, must necessarily be false. For instance, God is a -holy God: a religion, therefore, which would promote unholiness -could not have the Holy One of Israel for its author. -God is also a merciful and a just God: a religion, therefore, -which is characterized by cruelty or injustice, cannot proceed -from him; and for this reason, amongst others, we believe that -the religion of the oral law cannot be that true religion which -God gave to Moses and the prophets. The oral law is most -unjust in its laws respecting Gentiles, slaves, and unlearned -men, and most unmerciful in very many of its enactments. -But if there be one attribute more than another, which is -distinctive of the true God, it is truth. In the prophecies of -Jeremiah, He is even identified with truth, as it is said:—</p> - -<p class='c005'>וה׳ אלהים אמת ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“The Lord God is Truth.” (Jer. x. 10.) And in that prediction, -which he put into the mouth of Balaam, he says, that -it is by this attribute that he is distinguished from the sons of -<a id='Page_435'></a>men. “God is not a man that he should lie; neither the son -of man that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not -do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?” -(Numbers xxiii. 19.) Men may be wicked enough to promise -what they do not intend to perform, or after promising, may -change their mind, and refuse to fulfil their engagements; but -God is too holy to deceive wilfully, or to alter what has proceeded -out of his mouth. A religion, therefore, which in any -wise tends to lessen our reverence for truth, or encourages -men to alter a solemn engagement, or, what is still worse, -teaches how to absolve from oaths, cannot proceed from the -God of truth; and this is what the oral law does in certain -cases. We do not mean to accuse it of teaching, as the religion -of Rome does, that dispensation may be had from every -kind of oath. On the contrary, the rabbies assume the power -of dispensation only in the case of שבועות בטוי, “rash -oaths;” but we mean to assert, that even that assumption is -contrary to the Word of God, and injurious to the cause of -truth; and, therefore, sufficient to overthrow the credit of the -oral law as a religion given by God. The doctrine itself is as -follows:—</p> - -<p class='c005'>מי שנשבע שבועת בטוי ונחם על שבועתו וראה -שהוא מצטער אם קיים שבועה זו ונהפכה דעתו -לדעת אחרת , או שנולד לו דבר שלא היה בדעתו -בשעת השבועה וניחם בגללו הרי זה נשאל להכם -אחד או לשלשה הדיוטות במקים שאי שם חכם -ומתירין לו שבועתו , ויהיה מותר לעשות דבר שנשבע -שלא לעשותו או שלא לעשות דבר שנשבע לעשותו -וזה הוא הנקרא היתר שבועות , ודבר זה אין לו עיקר -כלל בתורה שבכתב , אלא כך למדו ממשה רבינו -מפי הקבלה שזה הכתוב לא יחל דברו שלא יחלל -הוא בעצמו דרך קלות ראש בשאט נפש כענין שנאמר -וחללת את שם אלהיך אבל אם נחם וחזר בו חכם -מתיר לו ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“If any man swear a rash oath, and afterwards repent of it, -because he sees that if he keep this oath it will cause him grief, -and therefore changes his mind; or if something should occur -to him which was not in his mind at the time when he swore, -and he repent on that account; behold, a person, in such -circumstances, is to ask one wise man (rabbi), or three common -men in any place where there is not a wise man, and they -absolve him from his oath; and then it will be lawful to do a -thing which he had sworn not to do, or to leave undone a -thing which he had sworn to do: and this is what is called -<a id='Page_436'></a>absolution from oaths. <i>This matter has no foundation whatever -in the written law</i>, but it has been learned from Moses, -our master, by oral tradition, that the Scripture, ‘He shall not -profane his word,’ (Numbers xxx. 3, in the English Bible 2,) -means, that a man shall not himself profane his word in a way -of levity and with a contemptuous mind, according as it is -written, ‘Neither shalt thou profane the name of thy God’ -(Levit. xix. 12); but if a man repent and change his mind, a -wise man is to absolve him.” (Hilchoth Sh’vuoth, c. vi. 1, 2.) -Here it is plainly taught, that if a man has reason to fear any -personal inconvenience, or even if he changes his mind, he -may escape from the most solemn obligation that can be laid -upon the consciences of men; and that, after appealing to God -in confirmation of his declaration to do or to leave undone -some particular action, one or more of his fellow-sinners can -remit his duty to his Creator, and give him a license to do the -very contrary of that which he had promised before and unto -God, that he would do. Now let every Israelite reader first -consult his own reason, and reflect whether this doctrine is -agreeable to the character of God, as set forth in the Scripture. -The God of the Bible is a God of eternal and immutable truth. -One of his peculiar characteristics, that he keepeth covenant and -mercy. A man, therefore, who breaks his word, and still more -so, a man who breaks an oath, is unlike God. Is it probable, -then, that God would give a religion with a special provision -for making men unlike himself? Again, God is a God of -knowledge, and therefore knows that the children of men are -in a great degree the children of habit; he knows also that -by habit the evil propensities are strengthened, and that there -is in men a strong propensity to shrink from their word, if it -cause any trouble or damage: is it likely, then, that God would -give a law directly tending to strengthen that evil propensity -by forming a habit of breaking one’s word, even under the -solemn circumstances of an oath? Reason decides that such a -law cannot proceed from the God of Israel. Has it then any -support in the written Word of God? It would be strange, -indeed, if the Word of God should contain anything contrary -to reason. As revealing the nature of Him who is incomprehensible, -it may contain things above our reason: but that in -giving laws for man it should give him license to do what his -reason tells him is directly opposed to the character of God, is -altogether incredible. The rabbies, themselves, however, do -not endeavour to justify the doctrine by a reference to Scripture. -They say in plain terms, “<i>This matter has no foundation -whatever in the written law</i>,” and thus acknowledge that -it is altogether a matter of tradition, the argument against it, -therefore, becomes doubly strong. Every one knows, that a -story loses nothing by passing through many mouths, but that -<a id='Page_437'></a>in the course of its progress it gets so many additions, and -undergoes so many changes as at last to be scarcely recognisable. -This circumstance makes all oral tradition uncertain -and unsatisfactory, but is particularly suspicious when it appears, -not only opposed to the Scripture character of God, but -also favourable to the evil propensities of man. If it had -exacted a more scrupulous regard to truth and a willing -submission to hardship and inconvenience for the sake of -truth, then, as opposing the principles of self-interest, it would -have been less suspicious; but when it actually tells men that -to do what may save them from worldly trouble or personal -disadvantage is a Divine institution, one cannot help suspecting -that it is an invention of men, who found it convenient -occasionally to escape from the obligation of an oath. But -after all, the great arbiter must be the written Word of God. -The rabbies say, That it has been learned from Moses by oral -tradition, that the words, “He shall not profane his word,” -mean that a man shall not himself profane his word in a way -of levity, but that he shall go to a wise man and get absolution; -let us then read the whole verse from which those words -are taken:—</p> - -<p class='c005'>איש כי ידור נדר לה׳ או השבע שבועה לאסר אסר -על נפשו לא יחל דברו ככל היוצא מפיו יעשה ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“If a man vow a vow unto the Lord, or swear an oath to -bind his soul with a bond, he shall not break his word, he -shall do according to all that proceedeth out of his mouth.” -Now let any man of common sense and honesty say, -whether if it had been God’s intention to forbid all absolution -from oaths, He could have employed words more to -the purpose than these; or whether the plain simple grammatical -meaning is not directly opposed to the rabbinic doctrine? -God says, If a man swear, he shall not profane his -word. The rabbies say, he may profane his word. To prevent -all mistake, God further adds, “He shall do according to all -that proceeds out of his mouth.” The rabbies say, he need -not do what proceeds out of his mouth; and yet they have -the face to tell us, that their doctrine is from Moses, and is -the traditional interpretation of words which signify the very -reverse of what they say. It is only wonderful that they -should have referred to this verse at all, and the fact can only -be accounted for by the supposition that this verse was too -plain to be got over, and therefore they thought it best to take -the bull by the horns, by selecting this very verse as the basis -of their interpretation. That this verse in its grammatical construction -is directly opposed to the oral law no one can doubt, -for it forbids what the rabbies allow, and commands what the -rabbies forbid. But the opposition is not found in this verse -<a id='Page_438'></a>only. The other verse to which the rabbies also allude is equally -plain against it. The words, “Ye shall not swear by my name -falsely, neither shalt thou profane the name of thy God. I am -the <span class='sc'>Lord</span>,” plainly forbid that absolution from oaths which the -rabbies teach not only as lawful, but as of Divine authority. -We know that the rabbies make a distinction between שבועת שקר -a false oath and a שבועת בטוי rash oath; but the distinction, -as made by them is unfounded. A rash oath, according -to their doctrine, is an oath concerning something which it is -possible and lawful for a man to do or to leave undone; for as -soon as it interferes with the fulfilment of a Divine command, -it belongs to that class of oaths which they call שבועות שוא -vain oaths. If, therefore, a man swears to do what is both lawful -and possible for him to do, and afterwards draws back and -does it not, what man in his senses can doubt, that that individual, -no matter what the pretext for not keeping the oath, is -guilty of having sworn falsely? What is it to swear falsely, if -voluntarily to refuse to do what a man had previously sworn to -do, constitute not that sin? A sinful falsehood is a wilful departure -from truth; here there is that wilful departure: who, then, -will dare to affirm, that such conduct is not contrary to the express -command of God? Rabbinists sometimes say, that though -the oral law sometimes commands more than is commanded in -the Scriptures, it never allows what God has forbidden; but -here we have a plain example of the contrary. Here the oral -law allows false swearing, which God has positively forbidden. -The doctrine of absolution from oaths teaches men to transgress -three מטות לא תעשה negative precepts. The man who -swears to do anything and then does it not, because he has got -absolution, violates, first, the negative precept, “He shall not profane -his word;” he violates, secondly, the negative precept, “Ye -shall not swear by my name falsely;” and, lastly, he violates a -negative precept more important than either of the others; and -that is, “Neither shalt thou profane the name of thy God.” -Any man, pretending to religion, who should act upon these -principles, first swear and then obtain absolution from his oath, -would expose his religion to the contempt and indignation of all -honest men, and thereby do all that in him lies to profane the -name of his God. Let, then, every Israelite who thinks that the -negative precepts are more important than the affirmative, remember, -that in this one instance the oral law teaches him to -violate three such precepts; and let him reflect further, that the -upholding such a law as this is to profane the name of the God -of Israel before those who are ignorant of the Scripture.</p> - -<p class='c005'>But the rabbinical doctrine does not stop at prospective -absolution, it goes so far as to absolve from the guilt of -perjury actually committed:—</p> - -<p class='c005'>מי שנשבע שבועת בטוי להבא ושקר בשבועתו , -<a id='Page_439'></a>כגון שנשבע שלא יאכל פת זו ואכלה , ואחר שאכלה -קודם שיביא קרבנו אם היה שוגג , או קודם שילקה -אם היה מזיד , נחם ונשאל לחכם והתירה לו הרי -זה פטור מן הקרבן או מן המלקות , ולא עוד אלא -אפילו כפתוהו ללקות ונשאל והתירו לו קודם שיתחילו -להלקותו הרי זה פגור ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“If a man swear a rash oath concerning the future, but -lies in that which he has sworn, as, if he should swear not -to eat this bread, and afterwards should eat it; and if, after -he has eaten it, before he brings his sacrifice, in case he did -it ignorantly, or before he is flogged, in case he did it presumptuously—he -repent and ask a wise man, and he absolve -him, behold such an one is exempt from the sacrifice or from -the flogging: and not only so, but if they had actually bound -him in order to flog him, and he ask a wise man, and he -absolve him before the flogging has commenced, he is exempt.” -(Ibid. 18.) In this rabbinic decision there are two -cases, and both contrary to the Word of God. First, we -have the case of the man who has broken his oath ignorantly, -and respecting whom God has decided in the following -words: “If a soul swear, pronouncing with his lips to do -evil, or to do good, whatsoever it be that a man shall pronounce -with an oath, and it be hid from him; when he -knoweth of it, then he shall be guilty in one of these. And -it shall be, when he shall be guilty in one of these things, -that he shall confess that he hath sinned in that thing: and -he shall bring his trespass-offering unto the Lord for his sin -which he hath sinned,” &c. (Levit. v. 4, &c.) Here God -positively commands, first, that he should confess his sin, -and secondly, that he should bring a sacrifice in order to -obtain forgiveness; and, by the above law, the rabbies as -positively declare that obedience to these commands is superfluous. -A man need only say that he has changed his mind, -and get a rabbi to absolve him, and then he can set the -Word of God at defiance, he need neither confess his sin, -nor bring the sacrifice. How can the men who profess such -a religion pretend to have any regard for the law of Moses, -or how can they with any consistency reproach Christians -with the non-observance of the ceremonial precepts, when -they themselves profess religious principles which unceremoniously -subvert such plain commands? The second case is, -however, far more flagrant. It supposes a man to have -sworn that he would not do a certain thing, but afterwards -wilfully to have done it—that is, it supposes a man to have -been guilty of wilful perjury, and yet declares that he may -be delivered both from the guilt and the punishment, by -<a id='Page_440'></a>going to a rabbi and getting absolution. This oral law, -which would flog a poor starving creature for eating Gentile -food, or meat and milk together, devises an expedient for -delivering him who is guilty of the grave crime of perjury—that -is, though cruel to the poor, it is merciful to the -criminal. If this be not to violate the laws of God with -a high hand, then we know not what sin is. Here both -classes of the precepts, negative and affirmative, are treated -with the same contempt; both equally trampled under foot. -The guilty are absolved, not only from doing what God -commands, but from the penalty of actual transgression. -The rabbies presume not only to absolve a man from doing -what he has sworn to do, but also to turn perjury actually -committed into innocence. They have assumed the high -prerogative of God, have abrogated his laws, and taught -the guilty to set his threatenings at defiance. We verily -believe that the mass of the Jewish people have been ignorant -of this gross contempt for the Mosaic law, or they -could never have continued so long in such a system, nor so -long have suffered the name of God to be profaned by the -attempt to pass off such a religion as proceeding from Him. -Now, then, we call on every reader of this paper to decide -whether the oral law can really be from God? Has this -doctrine of absolution from oaths anything resembling the -character of the Divine Being as a God of truth? Is it -possible that God should give an oral law directly subversive -of that which he has given in writing; or will any one -dare to say that the Almighty, when he wished to give a -law permitting absolution from oaths, knew so little of the -Hebrew language as to enunciate it in words which directly -forbid it? Let no one misunderstand us, as if we applied -the passages quoted from the oral law generally to the case -of all oaths, or as if we attributed this doctrine of the oral -law to all Israel. We do neither the one nor the other; in -a future number we hope to consider the case of an oath -between man and man, and at present our only intention -is to show that the oral law is dishonouring to God, subversive -of the commands given by Moses, and injurious to -the best interests of the Jewish people; nay, that it is -actually a libel on the children of Abraham; and that, -therefore, if they have any love to God, any reverence for -Moses, and any respect for themselves and their brethren, -they are bound publicly to renounce the principles which it -inculcates, and by which they have been deluded for so many -centuries. It is possible to do one of two things—either to -approve the doctrine of absolution from oaths, or to disapprove -of it. Those who approve of it will, of course, -endeavour to uphold it, and will thereby continue the profanation -<a id='Page_441'></a>of God’s name; and, so far as they can, stamp -dishonour upon the religion of Israel. Those, who disapprove -the idea of a rabbi’s absolving from a solemn oath, -and think that oaths are not to be tampered with, are -bound not only to protest against this particular abuse, but -to reject the whole oral law. The rabbies declare that -this doctrine is not an ordinance of the scribes, but an -oral tradition from Moses; if then it be false, the rabbies -are again convicted of passing off an invention of their own -as an ordinance of God, and are therefore wholly unworthy -of credit. The oral law depends altogether upon the validity -of the testimony, and if the witnesses can be proved, in any -one instance, to have spoken falsehood, the credit of the -whole is destroyed. Now this is eminently the case, for -not only have they said what is false, but have endeavoured -to establish a principle subversive of all reverence for truth. -It would be difficult for any man, who was known as one -in the habit of getting dispensation from oaths, to find -belief or credit in the world, and he would scarcely be -admitted as a valid witness in a court of justice; but the -man who propounds dispensation from oaths as a religious -doctrine, and teaches it systematically as agreeable to the -will of God, is a more suspicious person still, and such are -the authors of the oral law. The former might be regarded -as a deluded person, who only broke his oaths when he got -dispensation, but the latter would be considered an artful -underminer of principle, and a wilful despiser of truth; his -testimony would, therefore, have no weight. Now, it is -upon the testimony of such persons that the authority of the -oral law entirely depends. It is confessed, that until the -Mishna and Gemara were compiled, there was no written record -of its contents, but that it was propagated from mouth -to mouth. If, therefore, it appear that those who transmitted -it were men whose love for truth was equivocal, we cannot -be sure that they did not transmit a forgery. The doctrine, -which we have just considered, shows that they did not -love truth, and that they have actually libelled the memory -of Moses, the servant of God, by asserting that he taught -them how to get absolution from oaths. It is for the Jews -to consider whether they will still be deluded by such -incompetent witnesses, and still, even silently, uphold a -doctrine so dishonouring to their religion.</p> -<div class='chapter'> - <a id='Page_442'></a> - <h2 id='chap57' class='c003'>No. LVII. <br /> DOCTRINE OF OATHS, CONTINUED.</h2> -</div> -<p class='c004'>Every one naturally thinks that his own religion is the true -one. The Mussulman thinks thus of Mahometanism, the Christian -of Christianity, and the Jew of Judaism, and yet it is plain -that they cannot all be right—two out of the three must necessarily -be in error. What then is to be done? Are they all to -go on in listless and lazy indifference, and leave it to another -world to find out whether or not they have been in the right, -or are we to lay it down as a maxim that every one is to -continue in that religion in which he was born, whether -right or wrong, and that therefore the Turk is to remain a -Mahometan, and the Hindoo an idolater, to his life’s end? -There are very many in the world who seem to think so, -and who adhere to a religion simply because it was the -religion of their forefathers. Now we grant that no man should -carelessly or lightly abandon the religion of his childhood, and -have no scruple in saying that he who changes his religion as -he would his clothes must be a fool, or something worse. But -we must say, at the same time, that he who retains his religion, -merely as a matter of prejudice or interest, is not a great deal -better, and can hardly be considered as a rational being. Every -being, whom the Creator has endowed with reason, ought to -have a religion and to know why he prefers it to all others. -But perhaps some reader will say, I have a religion—I am a Jew, -and I prefer this religion to all others, because God himself -gave it to Moses on Mount Sinai. To this we reply, But how -do you know that you have got the religion of Moses? If you -really had Moses’ religion you could not be wrong, but how can -you prove that the religion which you now profess is really that -true religion? Your fathers in the times of old often forsook -Moses and the Prophets, and taught their children a false religion, -how, then, can you be sure that this is not the case with -what you have got at present? Certainty can be had only by examination -and comparison. The Judaism of the present day must -be compared with the Law and the Prophets. If it agrees with -them, then the Jews have reason to believe that they are in the -right; but if not, then they must be in the wrong. Our own -firm conviction is, that modern Judaism is altogether spurious, -and plainly opposed to that religion which God gave to your -fathers. The doctrine of dispensation from oaths is sufficient -to prove this, as was shown in the last number. But we have -more objections still to make against that doctrine, and all confirmatory -of the conclusion to which we have come. We saw -in our last, that if a man swear an oath to himself only, where -<a id='Page_443'></a>others are not concerned, he can have absolution, but we now -come to consider the case of an oath, made to another person, -respecting which the oral law teaches us as follows:—</p> - -<p class='c005'>ראובן שהשביע לשמעון וענה אמן או קבל השבועה -ונחם שמעון על שבועתו ונשאל עליה אין מתירן -לו אלא בפני ראובן שהשביעו , וכן אם נשבע ראובן -או נדר שלא יהנה בשמעון או שלא יהנה בו שמעון -ונחם ונשאל לחכם אין מתירין לו אלא בפני שמעון -שנדר ממנו הנאה ואפילו היה שידע הנידר שהתיר זה -נדרו או שבועתו ולפיכך יהנה ממנו או יהנה לו ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“If Reuben should adjure Simeon, and he answer Amen, or -accept the oath; and afterwards Simeon should repent of his -oath, and ask concerning it, he is not to be absolved except in -the presence of Reuben who adjured him. In like manner, if -Reuben should swear an oath not to receive any profit from -Simeon, or that Simeon should receive no profit from him, and -afterwards should repent and ask a wise man, he is not to be -absolved except in the presence of Simeon, concerning whose -profit he had vowed: yea, even though Simeon were an infant -or a Gentile, he is not to be absolved except in his presence, in -order that he, with respect to whom the vow was made, may -know that the other has got absolution from his oath or vow, and -that therefore he may receive from or confer profit upon him.” -(Hilchoth Sh’vuoth, c. vi. 7.) Now in considering this doctrine, -we must not withhold that measure of approbation which is -due to the rabbies. There is here a certain degree of honesty -and plain dealing. The rabbies have determined that where -one man swears to another, he is not to be absolved, except in -the presence of that other, and are in so far vastly superior in -morality to those who hold and teach, not only that all oaths -may be absolved, but that they may be absolved secretly, so -that he who is most affected by the dispensation, knows nothing -about it. Bad as the oral law is, it does not descend to such a -depth of hypocrisy and profaneness. Another trait which deserves -notice is, that it does not teach that no faith is to be kept -towards those who have got another religion, but expressly determines, -that if a Jew swear to a Gentile, he is not to be absolved -without that Gentile’s knowledge. We readily admit -that this is greatly superior to a doctrine of dispensation, taught -and practised by some who call themselves Christians; but, -having made this admission, and given the rabbies their due, -We must also say, that the doctrine of absolution here taught is -plainly contrary to reason and Scripture, and if extensively -practised, would destroy all confidential intercourse or dealings -<a id='Page_444'></a>between man and man. Just suppose that the law of this -country was, that any one who had entered into a solemn engagement -with another, could be enabled to break it, simply, by -calling up the person to whom he had mode the promise before -a magistrate, and by declaring, in his presence, that he repented -of what he had done, who would ever trust another, or -value even an oath? Not only would the commercial transactions -of the country be at an end, but the very bonds of society -would be rent asunder. The existence of human society depends -upon that measure of confidence which a man can place -in his brother, but if the rabbinical doctrine prevailed and -were acted upon, there could be no confidence more. A man’s -oath would be good for nothing, and if so, the value of his word -still less. But, besides this, the doctrine that a rabbi may absolve -Simeon from his sworn obligation to Reuben, is absurd. -If Simeon swear to Reuben a lawful oath, no one on earth but -Reuben can release him; but here we are told that a rabbi, -who has nothing at all to do with the matter, may remit the -obligation. He might, with as much reason and with less profanity, -undertake to absolve Simeon from his pecuniary debts. -That the dispensation must take place in the presence of the -party to whom Simeon swore, is but poor satisfaction, and -would not remove the inconvenience, nor diminish the guilt. -Suppose, for instance, that Simeon should promise Reuben -with an oath, that within a given time he would complete -certain business, or lend him a certain sum of money, or anything -else of the kind, and that Reuben should arrange his -affairs in dependence upon this oath, what satisfaction would it -be to Reuben to be present at the absolution! It would not -remove the inconvenience nor indemnify him for the loss to -which the non-fulfilment of the oath exposed him, nor abate the -vexation and sorrow which he must feel to see a teacher of religion -trampling upon the most solemn sanction with which religion -guards the intercourse between man and man. For, -after all, the main objection to the doctrine is, that it allows -what God forbids, as we showed in the last number, and under -the pretence of religion, makes perjury systematic.</p> - -<p class='c005'>But to estimate this doctrine fully, and also the character of -the men with whom it originated, we must look at the original -passage in the Talmud, on which the above-cited decision is -founded:—</p> - -<p class='c005'>המודר הנאה מחברו אין מתירין לו אלא בפניו -מנהני מילי אמר רב נחמן דכתיב ויאמר ה׳ אל משה -במדין לך שוב מצרימה כי מתו כל האנשים אמר לו -במדין נדרת לך והתר נדרך במדין דכתיב ויואל -משה אין אלה אלא שבועה דכתיב ויבא אותו באלה -<a id='Page_445'></a>וגם במלך נבוכדנצר מרד אשר השביעו באלהים חיים -מאי מרדותים אשכחיה צדקיהו לנבוכדנצר דהוה -קאכיל ארנבת חייא אמר ליה אישתבע לי דלא מגלית -עלוי ולא תיפוק מילתא אישתבע ליה לסוף הוה קא -מצטער צדקיהו בגופיה איתשיל אשבועתיה ואמר שמע -נבוכדנצר דקא מבזין ליה שלח ואייתי סנהדרין -וצדקיהו אמר להון חזיתין מאי קא עביד צדקיהו לאו -הכי אישתבע בשמא דשמיא דלא מגלינא אמר ליה -איתשלי אשבעתיה [ אמר ליה מתשלין אשבועתא ] -אמרי ליה אין אמר להו בפניו או שלא בפניו אמרי -בפניו וכו׳ ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“He that has a vow upon him, with respect to profit from -his neighbour, is not to be absolved, except in that neighbour’s -presence. How is this proved? Rav Nachman says, it is -proved by the words, ‘And the Lord said unto Moses, in -Midian, Go return into Egypt; for all the men are dead which -sought thy life;’ he said to him, In Midian thou hast vowed, -go and get absolution from thy vow in Midian, for it is written, -וַיּוֹאֶל משֶׁה , ‘And Moses was content.’ (Exodus ii. 21.) Now -this word means nothing else but swearing, as it is written, -‘And he took an oath of him.’ (Ezek. xvii. 13.) It is farther -proved by the words, ‘And he also rebelled against King -Nebuchadnezzar, who had made him swear by God.’ (2 Chron. -xxxvi. 13.) What was the nature of his rebellion? Zedekiah -found Nebuchadnezzar eating a live hare, whereupon Nebuchadnezzar -said to him, swear to me not to reveal this, nor to -report the matter. Zedekiah swore, but afterwards he was -grieved, and went and got his oath absolved and told. Nebuchadnezzar -heard that they despised him, and sent and fetched -the Sanhedrin and Zedekiah, and said to them, Ye see what -Zedekiah has done, although he swore by the name of God not -to reveal the matter. They said to him, He got a dispensation -from his oath. He said, Is it lawful, then, to get dispensation -from an oath? They said, Yes. He said again, Is this to be -done in the other’s presence or absence? They say, In his -presence,” &c. (Nedarim, fol. lxv. 1.) Now this passage not -only illustrates the doctrine of dispensation, but throws much -light upon the character and knowledge of the men from -whom the tradition is derived. In the first place, it shows a -strange confusion of mind to derive וַיּוֹאֶל, “he was willing,” -from אלה, “he sware;” but it is stranger still out of this -mistranslation, to invent a story of Moses having sworn and -got absolution; but the most strange of all is, that any one -should be found who can believe this a sufficient warrant for -<a id='Page_446'></a>the doctrine of dispensation from an oath made to a fellow-creature. -If even it were true, as the rabbies say, that Moses -had sworn to Jethro not to return into Egypt, still this is not -a case in point; for Moses did not get absolution from any -third person, but received express permission from Jethro himself -to return, as we find in the chapter referred to, where it is -said, “And Moses went and returned to Jethro, his father-in-law, -and said unto him, Let me go, I pray thee, and return -unto my brethren which are in Egypt, and see whether they -be yet alive. And Jethro said to Moses, Go in peace.” (Exod. -iv. 18.) If there was any oath, we see that it was dispensed -with, not by a wise man, nor by any third person or persons, -but by him to whom the oath was made. This passage is, -therefore, decidedly against the rabbinic doctrine, and therefore -the rabbinic doctrine cannot be true. The second case -cited by the Talmud is still stronger, as a testimony, both -against the system and the men. It tells us that Zedekiah -swore to Nebuchadnezzar not to betray him in a certain matter, -which no law, either of God or man, compelled him to divulge—that -he swore by the name of the God of Israel, and yet that, -after this most solemn transaction, he did what he had sworn -not to do. He betrayed a man from whom he had received -kindness, and equally disregarded the obligations of gratitude -and the sacred ties of an oath—in short, that he committed -perjury. This is in itself bad enough; but the Talmud proceeds -further to tell us, that this was not his own individual act, but -the solemn decision of the Supreme Council of the Sanhedrin. -Zedekiah did not perjure himself without having advice. He -went to the Sanhedrin, and they absolved him from the obligation -of the oath, and that contrary to their own maxim, -that an oath sworn to a neighbour cannot be absorbed, except -in his presence. Here, then, the Talmud plainly confesses -that the Sanhedrin did wrong, in fact, that they were aiders -and abettors in Zedekiah’s perjury; that, therefore, they were -men who had no regard to truth, and no fear of God; and, -consequently, that no man of any common sense would believe -a single word that came out of their mouths. What, then, -becomes of the whole fabric of Jewish tradition? It depends -altogether upon the unimpeachable character of the various -Sanhedrins through whose hands it passed. If, therefore, we -should, find that any one Sanhedrin consisted of notorious -liars, the genuineness of the oral law is at an end. But here -the Talmud itself tells us that even before the deportation of -Zedekiah, the Sanhedrin consisted, not of common liars, but of -false swearers, of men who had so little regard for the name -of the Lord, as to absolve a solemn oath of which that name -was the safeguard. If they had done this in accordance with -their traditions, there would be some appearance of consistency, -<a id='Page_447'></a>but they did it in the face of the tradition, which says, -that when an oath is sworn to another person absolution cannot -be given except in his presence. When Zedekiah demanded -absolution, they should have refused, and told him that it was -contrary to the oral law; but, whether from fear or from self-interest, -they acceded to the king’s wish, and helped hint to -commit perjury: and these are the men who have handed down -the oral law; what trust, then, can be placed in their word, -when they disregard an oath? The story is either true or false. -If true, then all the members of the Sanhedrin were guilty of -perjury,—if false, then the Talmud has handed down a falsehood -as truth, and in neither case is it worthy of credit. Surely -it is time for the chosen people of God to use the reason which -God has given, and to examine the grounds upon which they -profess Judaism. The ignorant and the thoughtless may retain -their profession as a mere matter of prejudice, but it would be -very strange if any, who think religion worth a thought, should -still adhere to a system for which there is not only no evidence, -but against which there is evidence so satisfactory. According -to the Talmud itself, and on its own showing, the persons whose -office it was to guard the traditions in the days of Zedekiah were -men who transgressed those traditions, and made themselves -guilty of perjury; what warrant, then, have the Jews for believing -that those men did not change the traditions, and hand -down mere inventions of their own? What was there to restrain -them from such conduct, if they could free themselves from the -obligation of an oath by the name of the God of Israel?</p> - -<p class='c005'>But as the men who handed down the traditions are described -by their own successors as wicked and ungodly persons, so the -traditions which they have handed down are of the same character, -and, as we have said, if generally acted upon, would rend -asunder all the ties of human society, and beget universal distrust -and suspicion. The oral law plainly and unequivocally -allows a man to swear to his neighbour that he will do or leave -undone something that his neighbour requires, and then to get -absolution from that oath and do the contrary. It is true that -it requires this to be done in the presence of the other person, -but that does not much alter the matter. Whether Zedekiah -divulged what he had sworn to Nebuchadnezzar to keep secret, -in his presence or behind his back, is a thing of very little consequence; -the oath is just as much and as really broken, and -the results might be just as pernicious and injurious. Take, for -example, the case of a manufacturer who communicates to his -servant some important secret in his trade, and for his own -security binds him by an oath not to divulge it. In a little time, -the servant, for some reason or other, finds it convenient or -profitable to make this secret known, and goes to a wise man, -summons the manufacturer to be present, gets absolution, and -<a id='Page_448'></a>then divulges what he had sworn to keep secret,—where is the -difference as to all practical purposes, or as to the actual guilt -of perjury? But again, suppose that the wise man was to act -as the Sanhedrin did, and absolve the man without summoning -the person to whom he swore, it is a question whether the servant -would then he bound. Zedekiah evidently thought not. -All he was concerned about was to have absolution, and if there -was any sin in giving it, he evidently thought that the onus -rested upon those who gave, and not upon him who received it. -According to the oral law, the Sanhedrin was wrong in giving -absolution under the circumstances: but, according to the same -oral law, Zedekiah was right in obeying their decision. Implicit -and universal obedience to the words of the Sanhedrin -and wise men is required by the Talmud; and, therefore, if a -wise man give absolution, even though he give it unlawfully, -it is still the duty of him who is absolved to obey his decision, -and act upon it. A Rabbinist is not allowed to reason; but as -we have seen on a former occasion, to believe that his right -hand is his left, and <i>vice versa</i>, if the rabbies say so—and, consequently, -if a wise man absolve him, he is not to trouble either -his conscience or his reason as to the right or the wrong; his -duty is not to dispute, but to receive the determination as the -words of the living God. The provision, therefore, that if -Simeon swear to Reuben he is not to be absolved, except in -Reuben’s presence, affords but little protection. If it was possible -for the Sanhedrin, a body consisting of seventy-one persons, -to disregard it, it is surely possible that any other wise man -might disregard it also, and absolve Simeon, even in Reuben’s -absence. Now the bare possibility of such occurrences would -make all promises, whether sanctioned by oaths or not, of no -value, and have the most pernicious effect as to the practice of -speaking truth. Men might reason from the greater to the less, -and say, If it be lawful, by means of absolution, to break an -oath, קל וחומר, <i>à fortiori</i>, it is lawful to break one’s word -without absolution; and, at all events, those to whom the promise -was given would be likely to reason thus, and say, If we -cannot depend upon this man’s oath, much less can we place -confidence in his word. But what is worse still, such a doctrine -is calculated to make men despise all religion, and to render -them a prey to infidelity. The thoughtless and the rash are -very likely to say, If this be religion, better far to be without -it; or, to conclude that as such doctrine cannot possibly be the -offspring of the Divine mind, all revealed religion is a mere imposture. -In every case it is a reproach to the good sense and -piety of Israel to profess such a doctrine; or, if they do not -believe it, to remain silent, and suffer mankind to suppose that -this is the religion of the children of Abraham. So long as they -profess that the oral law is the source of their religion, so long -<a id='Page_449'></a>are they responsible for the doctrines which it teaches; and so -long as they abstain from a public renunciation of the oral law, -they must be considered as believers in its authority. It will -not do to renounce one particular doctrine, whilst they profess -faith in the general system. The body of traditions is a whole -which cannot be parted. They have all come down, resting on -the same evidence; if, therefore, the evidence be invalid in any -one case, it is invalid in all; and if any one admits its validity -in some cases, he cannot, if a reasonable man, deny it in others. -He may dispute about the conflicting opinions of the rabbies, -but if he admit any one of those doctrines which are called traditions -from Sinai, he must admit them all, and, consequently, -this which professes to be one of them. It remains, therefore, -for the Israelites of the present day to choose, whether they will -still retain the system of the oral law, and thereby sanction the -dispensation from oaths, or whether they will repudiate this -doctrine, and thereby renounce the whole oral law.</p> -<div class='chapter'> - <h2 id='chap58' class='c003'>No. LVIII. <br /> MERITORIOUSNESS OF CIRCUMCISION.</h2> -</div> -<p class='c004'>Wherever there is an internal principle of religion, it will, -like all other principles, manifest itself in external acts, and in -an external form of rites and ceremonies. It is just as impossible -for a living man to continue without giving any signs of -life, as for the religious principle to exist without an outward -expression. It is the universal law of creation that every vital -principle should manifest itself and therefore, when the Creator -himself was pleased to give a religion, he ordained certain -rites and ceremonies to give notice of its existence, and to -serve as the body in which the soul should reside. Rites and -ceremonies, therefore, are not to be despised, even when devised -by man, for they are demonstrations of an internal life from -which they proceed; but when instituted by God, they are -doubly important, because besides being a sign, they have all -the authority of a Divine command. False religion, however, -is not satisfied with this acknowledgment, nor this measure of -reverence. It goes still further, and elevates the external sign -above the thing signified, by making the external rites the -great essentials of religion. Thus, in the time of the Prophet -Isaiah, the Israelites thought that the act of sacrifice, and the -external observation of the Sabbath and holidays, formed the -<a id='Page_450'></a>substance of religion, and therefore God told them, that even -these things, though ordained by himself, were not pleasing in -his sight, unless they proceeded from the living principle -within. “Bring no more vain oblations: incense is an abomination -unto me; the new moons and Sabbaths, the calling of -assemblies, I cannot away with; it is iniquity, even the solemn -meeting.” (Isaiah i. 13.) And again in a subsequent chapter -he says, “They seek me daily, and delight to know my ways, -as a nation that did righteousness and forsook not the ordinances -of their God: they ask of me the ordinances of justice; -they take delight in approaching to God.” (lviii. 2.) And yet -at the same time he shows that this was all mere outside work, -and displeasing in his sight. Wherever, therefore, we find a -religion, which places external observances above the moral -duties, we may be sure it is not of God; and for this reason, -amongst others, we believe that the oral law is the invention -of men. We had an instance in the subject last considered, -the dispensation from oaths. The rabbies disregard the moral -obligation, but make the mere form of going to a rabbi to get -absolution an essential requisite. Another proof is furnished -by their doctrine concerning <i>The meritoriousness of Circumcision</i>, -which is set forth as follows:—</p> - -<p class='c005'>מצות עשה לכל אדם מישראל שימול את בנו -וגדולה היא משאר מצוות עשה שיש בה צד כרת , -וגם נכרתו עליה שלש עשרה בריתות בפרשת מילה , -ולא נקרא אברהם שלם עד שנימול ובזכותה נכרתה -לו ברית על נתינת הארץ והיא מצלת מדינה של -גיהנם כמו שאמרו חכמים שאברהם אבינו יושב -שנימול , ומאוסה היא הערלה שנתגנו בה הגוים -שנאנר כי כל הגוים ערלים , וכל המפר בריתו של -אברהם או שמושך ערלתו אע׳׳פ שיש בידו תורה -ומעשים טובים אין לו חלק לעולם הבא ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“It is an affirmative precept, binding on every man of -Israel, to circumcise his son; and this is greater than any -of the other affirmative precepts, for there is a threat of excision -attached to it; and further, on account of it, thirteen -covenants were made, as is recorded in the chapter of circumcision. -Abraham was not called perfect until he was -circumcised, and by the merit of circumcision, a covenant -was made with him respecting the giving of the land. It -also delivers from the judgment of hell, for the wise men -have said, that Abraham our father sits at the door of hell, -and does not suffer any one that is circumcised to be cast -into it. Uncircumcision is despised, for the Gentiles are -<a id='Page_451'></a>reproached with it, as it is said, ‘All the nations are uncircumcised’ -(Jer. ix. 25); and every one who breaks the -covenant of Abraham our father, either by not being -circumcised or by becoming uncircumcised, has no part in -the world to come, even though he possess a knowledge of -the law and good works.” (Joreh Deah., 260.) Here we -have the very same misconception, which God reproved by -the mouth of Isaiah; an external act is preferred to holiness -of life, and a mere preparation of the body to purity -of heart. It is gravely and solemnly asserted that the -precept concerning circumcision is greater than all the -other affirmative precepts, that is, it is exalted above our -duty to God and our duty to our neighbour. The command</p> - -<p class='c005'>ואהבת לרעך כמוך</p> - -<p class='c005'>“Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself,” is an affirmative -precept, and is therefore one of those to which circumcision -is preferred. The command</p> - -<p class='c005'>כבד את אביך ואת אמך</p> - -<p class='c005'>“Honour thy father and thy mother,” is an affirmative -precept, and has a promise of long life in the land attached -to it. It concerns our duty to those, to whom, under God, -we owe our existence, and yet the oral law teaches that -obedience to it is not so important as to the precept concerning -circumcision. We do not mean to deny the scriptural -importance of circumcision, nor of any other of the -Divine institutions, but we do mean to appeal to every -Israelite of understanding to judge, which of these commandments -is of most importance. Can an Israelite, merely -because he is circumcised, though he has no love to his -fellow-men, and no reverence for his parents, be acceptable -in the sight of God, or can he be more acceptable than -a Gentile who obeys these commands? But the sweeping -declaration of the oral law, not only teaches men that circumcision -is more valuable than love to man, but exalts it -even above love to God. The commandment, “Thou shalt -love the Lord thy God, with all thy heart,” &c., is an affirmative -precept, and is consequently included amongst -those which are stated to be inferior to circumcision. This -conclusion seems so monstrous, that one is almost afraid of -having misunderstood the sense; but Rashi, who must be -acknowledged as an authority, goes still farther, and endeavours -to prove that circumcision is equal in importance -to all the other commandments put together.</p> - -<p class='c005'>שהיא שקולה כנגד כל המצוות שבתורה ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“It is equivalent to all the commandments which are in -<a id='Page_452'></a>the law.” (Nedarim, fol. 31, col. ii.) So that there can be -no doubt that this is the doctrine of the oral law. Now -just let the reader consider the nature of circumcision. It -is, in the first place, an external act,—it is, in the second -place, an act performed without the will of the infant, and -at a time when he can exercise no act of moral responsibility, -and yet the mere act is placed above the highest -perfection of a created being, love to God and his fellow-creatures. -But the oral law does not merely assert this -doctrine, but gives its proofs, and the first is, that to the -precept of circumcision the threat of excision is annexed. -Of course, we admit the fact, for it is plainly said, “The -uncircumcised man-child, whose flesh of his foreskin is not -circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he -hath broken my covenant” (Gen. xvii. 14.); but we deny -the consequence. There is nothing peculiar to circumcision -in the annexed threat of excision. God has pronounced the -same threat against every presumptuous sin, as it is written, -“But the soul that doeth ought presumptuously, whether he -be born in the land or a stranger, the same reproacheth -the Lord; and that soul shall be cut off from among his -people. Because he hath despised the word of the Lord, -and hath broken his commandment, that soul shall be -utterly cut off; his iniquity shall be upon him.” (Numb. -xv. 30, 31.) Here we see that presumptuous transgression -of any one of God’s commandments will be visited with the -same punishment denounced against the omission of circumcision, -so that the annexed threat is far from proving that -this precept is superior to all the other affirmative commandments. -On the contrary, it shows that God does not -judge by the external act, but by the state of the heart, -and that presumptuous disobedience of any commandment, -as demonstrating an utter want of love to him, will be -visited with the severity of his wrath. It is further -alleged, “That Abraham was not called perfect until he -was circumcised,”—and this is proved in the Talmud, by -the words, “Walk before me, and be thou perfect.” But -these words do not prove that, even after his circumcision, -Abraham was called perfect; they are a command to be -perfect, but not a declaration that he was so; and it -cannot be urged that by being circumcised he obeyed this -command, and thus became perfect, for this would open an -easy way of attaining perfection to the most abandoned -of mankind. Besides, it is easy to prove that this word -“perfect” is also given to the uncircumcision. Long -before circumcision was given, it was applied to Noah. -“Noah was a just man, and perfect in his generations, -and Noah walked with God” (Gen. vi. 9), where that which -<a id='Page_453'></a>is only commanded to Abraham, is asserted to have been -found in Noah. God commanded to Abraham to walk -with him, and to be perfect; but he declares of the uncircumcised -Noah, that he was perfect, and did walk with -him. In this respect, therefore, even if the rabbinic interpretation -of the words were correct, circumcision has no -superiority over uncircumcision. The next proof, namely, -“That by the merit of circumcision a covenant was made -with Abraham, respecting the giving of the land,” is -equally inconclusive. Long before the covenant of circumcision -God had promised the land to Abraham, and that -repeatedly; and not only had promised it, but had actually -made a covenant with him respecting the gift, as we read, -“In the same day, the Lord made a covenant with Abram, -saying, Unto thy seed have I given this land, from the river -of Egypt unto the great river, the river Euphrates.” (Gen. -xvi. 18.) This covenant was made before the birth of Ishmael; -and when Ishmael was born, Abraham was eighty-six years of -age; consequently, it was at least fourteen years before circumcision, -so that the assertion that the covenant respecting the -land was made on account of the merit of circumcision is -altogether false. God made the covenant, not because Abraham -deserved it, but according to his own grace and mercy, -when Abraham had no bodily mark to distinguish him from -the surrounding nations. Here again, then, the oral law -asserts what is false. But the rabbies were not contented with -Scripture proof; they felt that the letter of Scripture was -against them, and therefore had recourse to their own invention, -and have devised the fable that “Circumcision delivers -from the judgment of hell, for that Abraham sits at the door of -hell, and does not suffer any one that is circumcised to be cast -into it.” That this is a regular and wilful falsehood, no one -that has reason, and takes the Scripture to guide it, can -possibly doubt. It implies that many who are circumcised -deserve the punishment of hell, and are led to the very door, -but that Abraham interferes, and delivers them from their just -punishment. If they did not deserve it, and were not liable -to it, there could be no necessity for Abraham’s sitting in so -unpleasant a situation. The guilt of these persons is, therefore, -fully admitted, and yet the wise men say, that out of -regard to the mere external token of the covenant, God gives -up his attribute of justice, and acquits those who deserve -punishment. But it implies further, that God does not deal -thus to the Gentiles—that to them he exercises all justice, and -shows no mercy. Abraham looks on with unconcern when a -Gentile is brought to the place of the damned, feels no compassion -and exercises none, and the Divine Being himself is made -a party in this injustice, and want of compassion. Religion is -<a id='Page_454'></a>misrepresented as a mere system of favouritism, and the Judge -of all the earth as a doer of wrong. That this is the plain -drift of the story is plain from what follows: “Circumcision is -despised, for the Gentiles are reproached with it, as it is said, -‘All the nations are uncircumcised.’” Here the rabbies plainly -tell us, that God despises the works of his own hands, that he -disdains the overwhelming majority of his rational creatures, and -that not because of their wickedness, or their cruelty, or their -idolatry, or their profanity, but because they have not got a commandment -which He never gave them. The rabbies themselves -will admit that God never gave the Gentiles the commandment -of circumcision, how then is it possible that he should blame -them, or despise them, or treat them with unmitigated severity, -because they have not got what He never gave them? If it -had been offered to them, and they had refused, there would -have been some ground for such a representation, but at -present there is none. It is not true that God reproaches the -Gentiles in the words, “All the nations are uncircumcised;” on -the contrary, He is reproaching Israel. The context is, “Behold -the days come, saith the Lord, that I will punish all them -which are circumcised with the uncircumcised; Egypt, and -Judah, and Edom, and the children of Ammon and Moab, and -all that are in the utmost corners, that dwell in the wilderness; -for all the nations are uncircumcised, and all the house of -Israel are uncircumcised in the heart.” (Jer. ix. 25, 26.) -This is very different doctrine from that of the rabbies. God -declares that the mere outward sign of circumcision shall -not save from punishment; that he makes no difference whatever -between the uncircumcised and the circumcised, but that -he looks upon the heart, and deals out to all evenhanded -justice. He says, that he will punish the idolatrous nations, -whom he has enumerated, but declares that he will punish the -sinners of Israel along with them, and then to obviate the -very objection which the oral law urges, and to take away all -false confidence in circumcision, he adds, “The nations are -uncircumcised, and all the house of Israel are uncircumcised in -heart;” as if he would have said, Do not deceive yourselves, -thinking that your circumcision will save you: there is a worse -uncircumcision than that of the flesh, the uncircumcision of the -heart. This is doctrine worthy of the Divine Being, consistent -with his attributes of justice and holiness, and consolatory and -encouraging to all his rational creatures; whereas the rabbinic -doctrine is dishonouring to God, and contemptuous to all the -Gentile nations. If it were believed, no Gentile would have -any motive to serve or honour the true God, from whom he -could expect neither justice nor mercy. It is equally pernicious -and destructive to the moral and spiritual welfare of the -Israelites themselves. Any man who believes that his circumcision -<a id='Page_455'></a>will save him from hell, will feel himself at liberty to -violate other commands without fear. Why should he be -holy, or chaste, or honest, or true? His father Abraham is -sitting at the gate of hell waiting for him, and will deliver -him from the just reward of his delinquencies. We do not -mean to attribute such reasoning to all Israelites—far from it; -but it is certain that on the minds of the ignorant and -superstitious this doctrine must have this effect. Those who are -acquainted with the Word of God, or know how to reason, must -believe that it is false, but then it is their duty not only to -disbelieve it in their hearts, but to renounce it publicly, and -to teach the ignorant and uneducated that it is false. Israelites -often feel justly indignant at the want of due appreciation -which characterizes public opinion with regard to the nation, -but let them reflect on the causes, and they will cease to -wonder. Mankind in general does not distinguish between -the Jews and Judaism, but erroneously attribute, without any -discrimination, the errors of the system to the men; and how -can they do otherwise, so long as the oral law is still upheld -as a Divine code of law? Let Israel renounce the errors -publicly, and all the causes of misconception will be removed.</p> - -<p class='c005'>But we would ask our readers to go a little farther, and compare -the doctrines of Christianity on this subject with those of -the oral law. They will find that where the rabbies have erred, -the disciples of Jesus of Nazareth have taught the truth. -St. Paul admits the importance and the privileges of circumcision. -He asks, “What advantage then hath the Jew? or -what profit is there of circumcision?” And answers, “Much -every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the -oracles of God.” (Rom. iii. 1.) He does not undervalue God’s -mercy to Israel, but at the same time he honours God’s justice -and holiness, by declaring that “God will render to every man -according to his deeds: to them who by patient continuance in -well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, eternal -life: but unto them that are contentious, and do not obey the -truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath, tribulation -and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil, of -the Jew first, and also of the Gentile; but glory, honour, and -peace, to every man that worketh good, to the Jew first, and -also to the Gentile: for there is no respect of persons with God.” -(Romans ii. 6-11.) This exactly agrees with the words of -Jeremiah, and with the character of God, as set forth by Moses -and the Prophets, and must commend itself to the mind of -every reflecting person. Let then those who reject Christianity -account for the fact, that where the rabbies are wrong, the -preachers of Christianity are right. If all truth come from -God, and unassisted human reason must go wrong, how is it that -<a id='Page_456'></a>God should have helped Christians to the truth, and left the -Jews in deadly error for so many centuries?</p> - -<p class='c005'>Judaism teaches that the Gentiles are despised, simply because -they have not got an outward sign, which God never intended -they should have. Christianity proclaims that God is a just -Judge. It says, “Circumcision verily profiteth, if thou keep -the law; but if thou be a breaker of the law, thy circumcision -is made uncircumcision. Therefore if the uncircumcision keep -the righteousness of the law, shall not his uncircumcision be -counted for circumcision?” Judaism teaches that Abraham sits -at the gate of hell to deliver even the wicked, if they be only -circumcised. Christianity teaches that Abraham has no respect -to the outward sign, unless it be accompanied by purity -of heart. “There was a certain rich man, which was clothed -in purple and fine linen, and fared sumptuously every day: and -there was a certain beggar named Lazarus, which was laid at -his gate, full of sores. And it came to pass that the beggar -died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham’s bosom: the -rich man also died, and was buried; and in hell he lifted up -his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and -Lazarus in his bosom. And he cried and said, Father Abraham, -have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the -tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented -in this flame. But Abraham said, Son, remember that thou -in thy lifetime receivedst thy good things, and likewise Lazarus -evil things; but now he is comforted, and thou art tormented. -And beside all this, between us and you there is a great gulf -fixed: so that they which would pass from hence to you cannot; -neither can they pass to us, that would come from thence. Then -he said, I pray thee therefore, father, that thou wouldest Send -him to my father’s house: for I have five brethren; that he may -testify unto them, lest they also come into this place of torment. -Abraham said unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; -let them hear them. And he said, Nay, father Abraham: but -if one went to them from the dead, they will repent. And he -said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither -will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.” (Luke -xvi. 19-31.) Let the reader compare this with the rabbinic -doctrine, and then explain why it is that where the oral law -errs, God has given the truth in the New Testament.</p> -<div class='chapter'> - <a id='Page_457'></a> - <h2 id='chap59' class='c003'>No. LIX. <br /> CRUELTY TO THE UNLEARNED.</h2> -</div> -<p class='c004'>The great object of these papers has been to compare Judaism, -as it at present exists, with the religion of Moses and the Prophets, -and thus to ascertain whether the Jews of the present -day walk in the good old paths pointed out to their forefathers. -We have endeavoured to give our reasons for believing that the -Jews have been imposed upon by the inventors of the oral law, -and have now got a religion diametrically opposed to that -which was revealed to them by God. More than a year has -elapsed since the first of these papers was published, and yet -no answer has appeared. This silence may be attributed to -one of three causes. Either there has been a want of sufficient -zeal on the part of those who profess Judaism—or, prudence -has suggested that the system would not bear discussion—or, -these papers have been thought unworthy of notice. It is for -the Jewish people at large to consider, which of these three -reasons have influenced the champions of the oral law. The -Jews certainly have a right to some explanation from those, -whose learning and station point them out as the natural defenders -of Judaism. Every reflecting man must be staggered -by the fact, that a strong case has been made out against the -oral law—that, contemporaneously with the publication of -these papers, strong symptoms of dissatisfaction with certain -parts of Judaism have been manifested in one of the most -respectable synagogues in London—and yet, that nothing has -appeared, either in the shape of defence or explanation. That -this silence has not proceeded altogether from contempt is -made probable by another fact, and that is, That it is confidently -asserted that a public answer was given orally to the -first number, and that this answer was satisfactory to those -who heard it. It is much to be regretted that the answer -was not made known generally, so as to afford the same satisfaction -to others. For ourselves, we should have been most -happy, if convinced of error, to have retracted any erroneous -charge. We have, in the interval, frequently considered the -subject which is said to have been answered; and now consider -it our duty, before closing this series, to make known our -reasons for still believing, that that one topic is in itself sufficient -to prove that the religion of the oral law is a system of -error. Our arguments were simply these. A religion which -despises and insults the unlearned cannot be from God. The -oral law does despise and insult the unlearned, for it commands -its disciples not to marry the daughters of the unlearned -on the ground that they are no better than beasts. Therefore -<a id='Page_458'></a>the oral law cannot be from God. Secondly, a religion -which makes the murder of an unlearned man lawful, cannot -be from God. The oral law does make it lawful, for, as we -showed in No. 1, Rabbi Eleazer says, That it is lawful even on -the most solemn day of the Jewish year, to kill an unlearned -man without observing any of the technicalities of the rabbinic -art of slaughtering; or, as another says, to rend him asunder -like a fish. Therefore the oral law cannot be from God. We -now proceed to show why we still think that that line of -argument is valid.</p> - -<p class='c005'>The first step is, to establish the meaning of the expression -עם הארץ <i>Amhaaretz</i>, which we translated “an unlearned -man.” The literal English of this expression is, “People of -the land,” it might therefore signify the inhabitants of Canaan, -but in the Bible it is more commonly used of the mass of the -Israelitish people, as for instance:—</p> - -<p class='c005'>וכל עם הארץ שמח ותוקע בחצוצרות ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“And all the people of the land rejoiced, and blew with -trumpets.” (2 Kings xi. 14. See also verses 18-20.) Here -the expression is opposed to king and princes, and evidently -means the mass of the population, or, as some would say, “The -common people.” And, again, to give an example from the -Prophets:—</p> - -<p class='c005'>ועתה חזק זרבבל נאם ה׳ וחזק יהושע בן יהוצדק -הכהן הגדול וחזק כל עמי הארץ ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“Yet now be strong, O Zerubbabel, saith the Lord; and be -strong, O Joshua, son of Josedech, the high priest; and be -strong, all ye people of the land.” (Hag. ii. 4.) Here, also, -the expression is opposed to the governor of Judah and the high -priest, and plainly signifies the mass of the population. In -the oral law, it has much the same signification; it stands for -those who are not counted amongst the learned, nor the great -men of the time, nor the almoners, nor the schoolmasters, as -appears in the extract given in page 7, with this difference, -that in the oral law the want of learning is a prominent idea, -and the expression may therefore be applied to a high priest -if he be unlearned. In further proof we might appeal to the -common parlance of the Jews, even at this day, for they commonly -call an unlearned man an <i>Amhaaretz</i>. We prefer, -however, giving one or two extracts more from the laws, -where the expression <i>Amhaaretz</i> is put in opposition to “The -disciple of a wise man,” that is, to a learned man. We read, -for instance, that in a court of justice,</p> - -<p class='c005'>דין תלמיד חכם קודם לדין עם הארץ ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“The cause of the disciple of a wise man takes precedence of -<a id='Page_459'></a>the cause of an Amhaaretz.” (Hilchoth Sanhedrin, c. xxi. 6.) -Again,</p> - -<p class='c005'>וכן אסור לו לנהוג בהן קלות ראש אע׳׳פ שהן עמי -הארץ , ולא יפסיע על ראשי עם הקודש אע׳׳פ שהן -הדיוטות ושפלים בני אברהם יצחק ויעקב הם ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“In like manner, it is unlawful for an elder to behave with -levity to the congregation, even though they be Amharatzin. -Neither let him behave haughtily to the holy people, for -although they be common and humble persons, they are children -of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.” (Ibid., c. 25.) Again,</p> - -<p class='c005'>לפיכך כשמלמדין את הקטנים ואת הנשי וכל -עמי הארץ אין מלמדין אותן אלא לעבוד מיראה וכדי -לקבל שבר וכו׳ ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“Therefore, when children and women, and the whole genus -of Amharatzin, are instructed, they are to be taught to serve -God only from the motive of fear, and the desire to receive a -reward until,” &c. (Hilchoth T’shuvah, c. x. 5.) In these -passages, and many, many more may be added, <i>Amhaaretz</i> -plainly signifies an unlearned man, and it does not appear from -any one, that there is any crime to be laid to his charge. He -may appear as suitor in a court of law; he is considered as a -son or Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob; he is put on a level with -the children and the women of Israel. The only disparagement -is, that he has not been brought up at the feet of a learned -rabbi, and, therefore, cannot be reckoned amongst the disciples -of the wise men.</p> - -<p class='c005'>The next thing to be established is, that the oral law -despises and insults those whose misfortune it is to be unlearned; -and here, in addition to the complement paid to their -wives and daughters, noticed in No. 1, we bring, as a proof, -the general rule which is given respecting their treatment:—</p> - -<p class='c005'>תנו רבנן ששה דברים נאמרו בעמי הארץ אין -מוסרין להן עדות ואין מקבלין מהן עדות ואין מגלין -להן סוד ואין ממנין אותן אפוטרופוס על היתומים -ואין ממנין אותן אפוטרופוס על קופה של צדקה וא׳׳ן -מתלוין עמהן בדרך וי׳׳א אף אין מכריזין על אבדתן ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“Our rabbies have handed down as a tradition, that six -things are said with respect to Amharatzin. Testimony is not -to be given to them, nor received from them. A secret is not -to be revealed to them. They are not to be appointed as -guardians to orphans, nor to an alms-fund. One is not to bear -them company in the way. And some say, that if they have -lost any thing, and it is found, no public notice is to be given -<a id='Page_460'></a>respecting it.” (Pesachim, fol. 49, col. 2.) Here, then, the -unlearned are branded as liars, whose word is not to be depended -upon—as rogues, unfit to be trusted with property—as -murderers, with whom it is unsafe to walk by the way-side. -Can contempt or insult add more? Yes; rabbinic contempt -had one insult more galling than these, and that was to put -them on a level with Gentiles, and this it has done by forbidding -public notice to be given, if any thing which they had -lost should be found. Now, we fear not to assert, that this one -passage is fatal to the claims of the oral law. There is not a -particle of resemblance in it to the merciful and just religion -made known by Moses. It is the effusion of a mind intoxicated -with self-conceit and arrogance. The authors of the oral law -were determined, so far as they could, to lay it down as a -maxim, not only that no wisdom, but no truth, no honesty, and -no humanity, was to be found, except amongst themselves, and -their disciples; they wished to have the monopoly of all moral -virtue, as well as of all learning. We ask both the learned -and the unlearned, whether it be possible that such a law -could have emanated from the God of Israel? But there is -not only excessive arrogance, there is also gross injustice in -their law. It is ordained, first, that in a court of law, the -cause of the learned is to be heard before the cause of the unlearned; -this is in itself most unjust, but is not to be compared -with what follows. The oral law forbids the appointment of -an unlearned man as guardian to orphans; can any thing be -more oppressive? Suppose that an unlearned man, on his -death-bed, thinks of a guardian for his orphan children, and -looks to a brother, or an intimate friend, as unlearned as himself, -but whose worth, and honesty, and affection, he has long -known and valued; the oral law forbids him to make such an -appointment; and if he has no learned friend—and how, where -such a law exists, is it ever possible that the learned and the -unlearned should be friends?—he must die with the agonizing -thought, that his children must be left to the guardianship of -a perfect stranger. Is it possible to conceive anything more -oppressive, unjust, or cruel? But the oral law is not content -with this; it will not permit an unlearned man, even in his -lifetime, to recover property that has been lost. Whoever -finds it may keep it. The law for other people is, that if any -thing be found, the finder is to have proclamation made in the -city, or, if the majority of the inhabitants be Gentiles, in the -synagogue, that the loser may hear of it. But the poor -Amhaaretz is excluded from the benefit of this command. It -may, however, puzzle the reader, how the finder is to know -whether the thing which he has found belongs to a learned or -an unlearned man. One of the commentators has solved this -difficulty in the following manner:—</p> - -<p class='c005'><a id='Page_461'></a>וא׳׳ת מאין יודע שהוא של עם הארץ ואמר ר׳ -יצחק כגון ששיירא של עם הארץ עוברת וראינו -שנפל מהם ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“If you ask, How is the finder to know that the thing found -belongs to an Amhaaretz? R. Isaac says, it is in such a case -as when a crowd of Amharatzin is passing, and we see that it -fell from them.” (Ibid.) So that, according to this interpretation, -the disciples of the wise men are positively allowed to -retain what they know does not belong to them, if they only -see that it does belong to an unlearned man; and yet these are -the men who are so afraid of the dishonesty of the unlearned, -as to forbid their appointment to the office of guardian to -orphans, or treasurer to a charitable fund. Let any man of -common sense decide, whether this law is honest or dishonest, -and then let him decide, whether it can come from God, and -whether such a religion is fit for an honest man?</p> - -<p class='c005'>The most important point, however, remains, and that is, -the permission to kill an unlearned man, or to rend him like -a fish. We have been told that this is merely figurative -language, but the context is not such as to lead to this conclusion; -on the contrary, the passage itself, and all that precedes -and follows, leads us to believe that it was meant literally. -In the first place, it is said, that it is lawful to kill an Amhaaretz -without observing the rules of שחיטה slaughtering, and -when the disciples ask the reason, R. Eleazar replies, Because -these rules would require a benediction to be pronounced, -whereas he would not have an Amhaaretz treated with such -respect. Let any man explain the figurative meaning of all -this. Secondly, R. Samuel, to take away all ambiguity, says, -in the name of R. Johannan, that it is lawful to rend him as a -fish. Now it is known that, with regard to fish, the rules -of שחיטה or slaughtering, are not observed. All ambiguity, -therefore, as to R. Eleazar’s meaning, is here removed. Thirdly, -it is evident that the rabbies looked upon the unlearned as -nothing better than beasts. They say, that the daughters of -the unlearned are an abomination, and their wives vermin: -yea, that their daughters are beasts. Now, when men are so -wicked as to use such language concerning their fellow-creatures, -are we to be astonished that they would draw the -conclusion that necessarily follows from such premises, and -that they should allow these beasts and vermin to be killed? -When we see that these rabbies allow an unlearned man to be -robbed with impunity of that which he has lost, what principle -of conscience or justice is there left to prevent them from -killing him whom they have robbed? If all the other principles -of these rabbies were just, honest, upright, and merciful, -we might be tempted to suppose, that in these words they -<a id='Page_462'></a>enveloped some mystical sense. But when we see that the -principles which precede and follow are an outrage upon -humanity, justice, and mercy, no such supposition is necessary.</p> - -<p class='c005'>But, after all, how did the commentators understand the -passage? If we, as Gentiles, are accused of misrepresenting -the sense, what did the rabbies, who succeeded, make of this -passage? The commentary from which we have just quoted, -after saying, that if a crowd of Amharatzin let any thing fall, -it is lawful to keep it without giving public notice, adds, that -this is to be understood strictly of what is lost, but that it does -not warrant the learned to rob them by force; upon which the -following difficulty is started:—</p> - -<p class='c005'>אמאי ממונו אסור השתא נופו מותר שמותר לקרצו -כדג וכו׳ ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>“Why should it be unlawful to deal thus with his money, -when it is lawful to deal violently with his body, for it is -lawful to rend him as a fish.” (Ibid.) Now here this rabbi -evidently interpreted the permission to kill literally, and he -naturally asks, If it be lawful to take away a man’s life by -violence, why should it not be lawful to take away his money? -If the words had been taken figuratively, there would have -been no room for this question. We have, therefore, neither -misunderstood nor misrepresented the meaning. The oral law -allows the murder of an unlearned man, and that with as little -ceremony as it permits the killing of an unclean animal, or a -fish. We therefore repeat our assertion, that the oral law cannot -be from God. One such passage is quite sufficient to discredit -the whole, not only because of its intrinsic wickedness, -but because it displays the character of those men with whom -the oral law originated. Superabundant self-conceit, cold-blooded -cruelty, and unrelenting enmity, are the striking -characteristics of those men, who, by dint of force and fraud, -gradually enslaved the minds of the Jewish people. It appears -from these passages, and from the plain confessions of the rabbies -in the context, that the common people struggled hard before -they submitted to the yoke of the oral law. The attempt to -impose such a burden, evidently produced the most bitter animosity -between the rabbies and the people. The people were -ready, as one of the rabbies says, to kill all the wise men, and -these, in return laid down the principles of retaliation which we -have just considered, and which are a disgrace to the name of -religion. These principles, however, would not have triumphed -if the rabbies had not got the whole power of the State into -their own hands. By means of that unlawful and heathenish -tribunal, the Sanhedrin, they were able to coerce the people, -and to kill all who refused to submit. Judaism, therefore, as it -at present exist, is a religion which was originally forced upon -<a id='Page_463'></a>the Jewish people against their will, and therefore has no -claims upon their reverence or gratitude. By the dispersion, -God has removed the main difficulties in the way of their -moral and spiritual emancipation. Christianity is in the ascendant, -and will not permit any “wise men” to kill the unlearned -without ceremony. The people may, therefore, assert -their religious liberty in perfect security, and without any fear -of the Sanhedrin. We tell the Jews, even on the admissions of -the Talmud itself, that their present religion is not even the -object of their choice, and much less the religion given by God, -but that it was imposed upon the consciences of their fathers -by force; and, therefore, ask the Jews, Whether they still wish -to continue slaves to superstition and cruelty, when God has, -in his providence, arranged the means of their delivery? The -Jewish people have often had reason to complain of the injustice, -contempt, and cruelty of the nations amongst whom -they have been scattered; but we ask them, Have the most -barbarous nations ever treated them with more contempt, injustice, -and cruelty than that which we have just found authorized -by the oral law? Ignorant and superstitious Gentiles -have turned the holy name of Jew into a term of reproach, but -where was it ever known or heard of, that the most ignorant -and most superstitious called the Jews vermin, or compared -the wives and daughters of Israel to beasts? It is Judaism, -and Judaism only, that utters this foul and inhuman slander. -In seasons of popular tumult, mobs have risen and plundered -the Jews; but where is the nation, or the religion, which has -made a law that it is lawful to keep the lost property of a Jew? -Judaism, and Judaism alone, is guilty of this injustice. Prejudice -has unjustly assailed the character of the Jewish people, -but what sect or party of Christians ever thought of branding -them as liars, whose evidence is not to be received; as rogues, -unworthy to be appointed as guardians to orphans or property; -as murderers, with whom it is unsafe to walk by the -road-side? Yet this is the deliberate sentence of Judaism respecting -the unlearned; that is, respecting the great mass of -the Jewish people. Just suppose that the Parliament of -England was to pass a law, declaring that the Jews are to be -considered incompetent to give testimony, or to be guardians -of property, warning people to beware of walking with a Jew, -and permitting men to kill them, or to rend them like a fish; -would not the Jewish people perceive in a moment the injustice -and the cruelty of such legislation? Would they not have -just reason to complain of the blind prejudice which possessed -the minds of the legislators? And yet, this is only what the -rabbies have done. If Judaism be true, then the mass of -the Jewish people are liars, rogues, and murderers; for this -is what Judaism asserts; and if the Jewish people consent -<a id='Page_464'></a>to its truth, they are stamping themselves, their wives, -and their daughters with infamy. The truth or falsehood -of the oral law is not simply a speculative question, or a question -relating to their eternal interests in another world; it is a -question deeply affecting their characters and their welfare at -present. It simply comes to this, are all unlearned Jews, that -is, the overwhelming majority of the people, to be considered -as utterly destitute of truth, honesty, and humanity? If -Judaism be true, the answer is, Yes. Let, then, every Jew, -rich or poor, learned or unlearned, consider whether he will still -profess a religion that defames and insults the mass of his -countrymen. The character of the nation is foully attacked, -defamed, and vilified, but not by Gentiles, not by Turk, Infidel, -or Heretic, but by the Talmud and the Rabbies. The only -way in which this calumny can be met and wiped away, is, by -a renunciation of that system which has dared to utter it. If -there live a Jew who has the slightest regard for the honour -of the nation, he is bound to protest aloud against the falsehood -of the oral law. That it is false, requires no great stretch of -argument to prove. Every unlearned Jew, who is conscious -that he is not a liar, a rogue, and a murderer, has the proof in -his own breast, that Judaism is false. Every unlearned Jew, -who duly honours and respects his wife and daughters, and -believes that they are neither vermin nor beasts, is a witness -against the truth of the oral law. Every one who believes that -dishonesty is contrary to the will of God, and that the murder -of the unlearned is unlawful, has the proof that that system -which was imposed upon his fathers, is not from God.</p> -<div class='chapter'> - <h2 id='chap60' class='c003'>No. LX. <br /> RECAPITULATION.</h2> -</div> -<p class='c004'>Having, by the help and mercy of God, brought those -papers to the last number, we propose here to sum up their -contents, and to give a review of the arguments which have -been urged. The topics discussed have been very various, but -the object in all has been the same,—To show that Judaism, or -the religion of the oral law, is not the old religion of Moses -and the Prophets, but a new and totally different system, -devised by designing men, and unworthy of the Jewish people. -That Judaism is identical with the religion of the oral law -<a id='Page_465'></a>was proved in the first number by an appeal to the highest -possible authority, the Prayer-book of the synagogue, which is -not only formed in obedience to the directions of the oral law, -but declares expressly that the Talmud is of Divine authority. -So long, therefore, as that Prayer-book is the ritual of the -synagogue, the worshippers there must be considered as -Talmudists, believers in all the absurdities, and advocates of -all the intolerance of that mass of tradition. That this is no -misrepresentation and no unfounded conclusion of our own, -appears from the latest book published in this country by a -member of the Jewish persuasion. Joshua Van Oven, Esq., -has, in his “Introduction to the Principles of the Jewish -Faith,” a chapter, headed JUDAISM, which begins thus,—“The -Jewish religion, or Judaism, is founded solely on the -law of Moses, so called from its having been brought down by -him from Mount Sinai. With the particulars of these laws he -had been inspired by the Almighty during the forty days he -remained on the mount, after receiving the Ten Commandments; -these he afterwards embodied in the sacred volume, -known and accepted as the written law, and called the Pentateuch, -or the Five Books of Moses, contained in the volume -we term the Bible. <i>We also, from the same source, receive, as -sacred and authentic</i>, a large number of traditions not committed -to writing, but transmitted by word of mouth down to -later times; without which many enactments in the Holy Bible -could not have been understood and acted upon; these, termed -traditional or oral laws, were collected and formed into a -volume called the ‘Mishna,’ by Rabbi Jehudah Hakodesh, -<span class='fss'>A.M.</span> 4150. In addition to this, <i>we are guided</i> by the explications -of the later schools of pious and learned rabbies, -<i>constituting what is now known by the name of the Talmud, or -Gemara</i>.”<a id='r37' /><a href='#f37' class='c006'><sup>[37]</sup></a></p> - -<p class='c005'>Nothing can be more explicit than this avowal. A learned -and pious Jew of the nineteenth century honestly avows that -Judaism is the religion of the Talmud; and upon this principle -we have examined Judaism, and compared it with Moses and -the Prophets, and the result of this comparison is—</p> - -<p class='c005'>I. <span class='sc'>That Judaism is a false Religion.</span></p> - -<p class='c005'>The premises, from which we draw this conclusion, are—</p> - -<p class='c005'>1. <i>That the oral law is altogether destitute of external -evidence.</i> To establish the authority of the oral law, it is -absolutely necessary to prove a succession of Sanhedrins from -the time of Moses to that of Rabbi Jehudah, or at the least -an unbroken chain of tradition. But it has been proved, in -Nos. <a href='#chap43'>xliii.</a> and <a href='#chap44'>xliv.</a>, that there was no such thing as a -<a id='Page_466'></a>Sanhedrin until after the Greek conquest of Judea, and in -No. <a href='#chap45'>xlv.</a>, that there is no continuous chain of tradition. The -only evidence, therefore, which could beget faith in the mind -of a reasonable man is wanting.</p> - -<p class='c005'>2. <i>The oral law itself is full of manifest fables.</i> This has -been proved almost in every number, but particularly from -Nos. <a href='#chap17'>xvii.</a>-<a href='#chap21'>xxi.</a>, where the fables selected are such as are -particularly noticed in the prayers of the synagogue. No one -can doubt that the stories about Leviathan and Behemoth—of -Adam’s singing the 92d Psalm after a conversation with -Cain—of the river Sambation—of the experiment made by -Turnus Rufus to raise his father—of Mount Sinai having been -turned, like a tub, over the Israelites—of the descent of -600,000 angels to crown the Israelites—of the people’s travelling -240 miles backwards and forwards during the delivery of -the Ten Commandments, &c., &c.,—are all downright fables, -not a whit more authentic than similar stories contained in the -Koran, or the Arabian Nights’ Entertainments. Any one -fable would be sufficient to overturn the credit of the oral law, -but what are we to think of the host of downright falsehoods -here enumerated?</p> - -<p class='c005'>3. <i>It is directly subversive of the state of things established in -the written law.</i> Moses appointed the priests, the sons of Levi, -as the religious teachers of Israel. The oral law has ousted -them altogether from their office, as was shown in No. <a href='#chap41'>xli.</a></p> - -<p class='c005'>4. <i>The oral law encourages those Heathen superstitions expressly -forbidden by Moses and the Prophets</i>, such as magic, -astrology, amulets, and charms, as is shown from Nos. <a href='#chap22'>xxii.</a>-<a href='#chap26'>xxvi.</a></p> - -<p class='c005'>5. <i>The oral law loosens the moral obligations.</i> It teaches -men how to evade the Divine commandments, as was shown -in Nos. <a href='#chap11'>xi.</a>, <a href='#chap14'>xiv.</a>, and <a href='#chap15'>xv.</a> It allows dispensation from oaths, -as proved in Nos. <a href='#chap56'>lvi.</a> and <a href='#chap57'>lvii.</a> It allows men to retain what -they know does not belong to them, if it only belongs to a -Gentile (p. <a href='#Page_18'>18</a>), or to an unlearned Jew, as appears from No. -<a href='#chap59'>lix.</a> It sanctions the murder of the unlearned.</p> - -<p class='c005'>6. <i>It leads men to put trust in mere external acts as a compensation -for moral delinquencies.</i> The washing of hands -(No. <a href='#chap10'>x.</a>)—the external sanctification of the Sabbath (No. -<a href='#chap29'>xxix.</a>)—the blowing of the cornet at the new year (No. <a href='#chap34'>xxxiv.</a>)—the -rite of circumcision (No. <a href='#chap58'>lviii.</a>), &c., &c., are represented -as sufficient to save wicked men from the just punishment of -their misdeeds.</p> - -<p class='c005'>7. <i>Though called an oral law, because not written with ink, -it is really written in blood.</i> For the most trifling offences it -sentences the offender to be flogged (Nos. <a href='#chap13'>xiii.</a> and <a href='#chap53'>liii.</a>)—for -the transgression of the rabbinic commands respecting the -Sabbath, it awards the sentence of death (No. <a href='#chap27'>xxvii.</a>)—and, -<a id='Page_467'></a>by its laws respecting the killing and cooking meat (Nos. -<a href='#chap49'>xlix.</a>-<a href='#chap54'>liv.</a>), it prevents the poor from getting food for themselves -and their children.</p> - -<p class='c005'>8. <i>It degrades the female sex</i>, by permitting polygamy -(No. <a href='#chap47'>xlvii.</a>)—by permitting divorce on the most trifling pretext -(No. <a href='#chap48'>xlviii.</a>)—by declaring women incompetent to give -evidence—by excluding them from the public worship of God—and -by teaching that they are under no obligation to learn -the revealed will of their Creator (No. <a href='#chap03'>iii.</a>).</p> - -<p class='c005'>9. <i>It oppresses and insults slaves</i>, by forbidding them to be -instructed in the law (No. <a href='#chap03'>iii.</a>), and by placing them, when -dead, on a level with brutes (No. <a href='#chap55'>lv.</a>).</p> - -<p class='c005'>10. <i>It is a persecuting and intolerant system.</i> It gives -every rabbi the power of excommunicating the Jews (No. -<a href='#chap31'>xxxi.</a>), and it commands the conversion of all the Gentile -nations by the sword (No. <a href='#chap06'>vi.</a>).</p> - -<p class='c005'>11. <i>It forbids the exercise of the commonest feelings of -humanity to those whom it calls idolaters.</i> It will not permit -a drowning idolater to be helped, nor a perishing idolater to be -rescued, nor an idolatrous woman in travail to be delivered -(Nos. <a href='#chap04'>iv.</a> and <a href='#chap05'>v.</a>).</p> - -<p class='c005'>12. <i>It leaves those Gentiles who are not idolaters without -religion.</i> It teaches that they are not commanded to love -God, and breaks up all the happiness of domestic life, by -asserting that amongst Gentiles there is no such thing -as marriage (No. <a href='#chap08'>viii.</a>). For these and other reasons which -might be adduced, we believe that Judaism is contrary to -the religion of Moses and the Prophets—that it has not proceeded -from God, but is the mere invention of men, and therefore -false.</p> - -<p class='c005'>II. From these premises we have concluded, secondly, -<span class='sc'>That Judaism has for its authors wicked men, unworthy -of credit</span>. One of the most daring acts of wickedness, that -can be committed is to invent laws and principles, and pass -them off as the laws of God. Every degree of wilful falsehood -is sinful; but to forge Divine laws, and impose upon the -consciences of men, is the most daring of all wickedness, for it -not only deceives men, but it dishonours God. The Divine -Being is represented as the author of principles and practices -which are abhorred by the good even amongst men. Is it -possible that those men could be good, who invented the -fables of which we have spoken above—or who overturned the -Mosaic constitution for the purposes of personal aggrandisement—or -who teach that oaths may be broken with impunity—or -that men may keep what does not belong to them—or -that unlearned men may be murdered without ceremony—or -that it is lawful to look upon the agonies and pain of an -idolater without rendering him any assistance or feeling any -<a id='Page_468'></a>pity? If falsehood, perjury, dishonesty, cruelty, and inhumanity, -constitute men wicked, then the authors of the oral -law are wicked men, and altogether unworthy of credit. And -therefore we conclude—</p> - -<p class='c005'>III. <span class='sc'>That their testimony against christianity is of -no value.</span> Many Jews of the present day reject Christianity -simply because the rulers of the nation rejected the Lord Jesus -Christ. But the discoveries which we have made of the -principles and practices of these men show, that there is no -force whatever in this argument. Their testimony against -Jesus of Nazareth is not to be trusted any more than Mahomet’s -testimony against the fidelity of the Jewish nation in -preserving the Scriptures. This impostor says, that the Jews -have corrupted the Old Testament, but no one believes the -charge, because he has been convicted himself of forging -revelations and laws. The authors of the oral law have been -convicted of the same offence, and their testimony must be -rejected for the very same reason. They have passed off their -own inventions as Divine laws—they have taught their absurd -legends as undoubted matters of fact—they are plainly convicted -of falsehood, and the only alternative is to say that these -falsehoods are wilful, and then the men who witness against -Christianity are wilful liars, or to confess that the authors -were mad, and therefore incompetent to give any testimony. -In every case they must be regarded as propagaters of falsehood. -But falsehood is not the only trait in their character; -they were interested in their testimony against Jesus: they -were his personal enemies, because he opposed their pretensions -and condemned all their inventions. They had, therefore, -a strong motive for condemning him, and there is nothing in -their character to lead us to suppose that their love of justice -would prevail over their private feelings. When the general -tenour of a man’s conduct is evidently the result of upright -principle, it is possible to believe that he would be just even to -an enemy. When a man’s whole life has been distinguished -by tender compassion, it is possible to believe that he would -not be cruel even to a foe. But neither supposition holds good -with respect to the authors of the oral law. They do not even -profess integrity, for they teach that it is lawful to defraud an -unlearned man—they declare, by their permission to kill an -Amhaaretz, that they had no value for human life. If they -were capable of murdering in cold blood a man who had never -offended them, simply because he did not belong to their party, -is it to be wondered at that they should endeavour to destroy -one who who was a direct opposer? The condemnation of the -Lord Jesus Christ by such men is not only no argument -against his character or claims, but even an argument in his -favour. It is a decisive proof that he did not belong to their -<a id='Page_469'></a>party, and that, therefore, there are not the same objections to -his testimony as to theirs. The Jews of the present day, therefore, -must find some other reasons for rejecting Jesus of -Nazareth. The conduct of their great and learned men at the -time can supply no warrant for unbelief at present: it is, on -the contrary, a sort of presumptive evidence that He was a good -man. And this presumption is much strengthened by comparing -the oral law with the New Testament, whereby we -learn—</p> - -<p class='c005'>IV. <span class='sc'>That in all those points where the oral law is -weak, the New Testament is strong.</span> In the first place, it -is entirely free from all fabulous additions to the Old Testament -history. It recognises the authority, and frequently -cites the writings, of Moses and the Prophets, but it is never, -like the Talmud, guilty of forgeries. Neither Jesus nor his -disciples pretended to have an oral interpretation of the law, -unknown to the people at large, and therefore capable of being -twisted to their own purposes. They referred simply to the -written word, and by it desired to have all their doctrines -judged. In the second place, it is free from all superstitious -doctrines concerning magic, astrology, and other heathenish -arts. It does not allow absolution from oaths, nor mark out -any class of society as the lawful victims of fraud and violence. -It is merciful to the poor and to slaves. It teaches that the -souls of women are as precious in the sight of God as those of -men. It forbids polygamy, and allows divorce only in one -case where it is necessary, and thus protects the weaker sex, -and guards the sacredness and the happiness of domestic life. -It differs especially from the oral law in its estimation of external -rites, and thus gives the strongest evidence of its Divine -origin. If there be one sign of true religion more satisfactory -than another, it is the placing of holiness of heart and life as -the first great requisite, at the same time that it does not undervalue -any of God’s commands. Now this mark Christianity -has, and Judaism wants. The former teaches expressly, That -without holiness no man shall see the Lord, and that for the -want of it no external ceremonies can compensate. Further, -Christianity knows of no violent methods of propagating the -truth. It nowhere tells its followers, when they have the -power, to compel all men to embrace its doctrines, or to put -them to death if they refuse. It has not a criminal code -written in blood, and prescribing floggings of rebellion, or even -death, for a mere ceremonial offence. It does not allow each -individual teacher to torment the people by excommunication -and anathema at his pleasure. And lastly, it does not misrepresent -God as an unjust and partial judge, who confines the -benefits of revelation to one small nation, and sentences the -overwhelming majority of mankind to unholiness and unhappiness. -<a id='Page_470'></a>If ever Judaism should attain to universal dominion, -and the principles of Judaism be brought into action, the whole -Gentile world would be doomed to misery and ignorance. By -pronouncing that amongst Gentiles there is no marriage-tie, it -would rob them of all domestic peace. By sentencing every -Gentile reader of the Bible to death, it would deprive them of -all the consolations and instructions of the Word of God, and -by forbidding them to keep a Sabbath, it would, so far as it -could, annihilate every token of God’s care and loving-kindness. -The triumph of Christianity, on the contrary, and -the full development of all its principles, would fill the world -with peace, and joy, and happiness. The fundamental principles -of Christianity, namely, that the Messiah has died for -the sins of the whole world, sets forth God as the tender -father who cares for all his children, and therefore teaches all -men to regard one another as fellow-heirs of the same eternal -salvation. It does not deny that Israel has peculiar privileges -as a nation, but fully acknowledges that “they are still beloved -for the fathers’ sakes,” and that they are yet to be the benefactors -of the human race as they were of old. But it asserts, at -the same time, that God is not the God of the Jews only, -but of the Gentiles also, and thus makes it possible for Jew -and Gentile to love each other. The only foundation for the -peace and unity of all nations is the recognition of God as the -Father of all, and this foundation is the very corner-stone of -Christianity, whilst it neither does nor can form any part of -the fabric of Judaism. Christianity teaches that the first and -great commandment is, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God -with all thy heart; and the second is, Thou shalt love thy -neighbour as thyself; and teaches, at the same time, that all -men are our neighbours. Judaism teaches that circumcision is -the greatest of all the commandments, and that none but Jews -and proselytes are neighbours. Thus Judaism divides, whilst -Christianity tends to unite, all the children of men in the -bands of peace. It has only one principle of God’s dealings to -men, and that principle is love; and one principle for the guiding -of man’s conduct to men, and that is love also. Let not -the Jewish reader think that we Gentiles wish to ascribe any -merit to ourselves, as if by our own wit or wisdom we had -found out a religious system superior to anything that Israel -had been able to devise. Far from it; we acknowledge again, -as we did in the first number, that we are only disciples of one -part of the Jewish nation. From the Jews Christianity came -to us. It has been a light to lighten us Gentiles, but we -acknowledge its Divine Author as the glory of his people Israel. -All we mean by instituting the comparison is, to show those -who still adhere to the oral law, that there is another Jewish -religion infinitely superior, and more like that of Moses and -<a id='Page_471'></a>the Prophets. And we appeal confidently to every reader of -these papers to decide whether the New Testament or the -Talmud is the better book, and to say which is the most agreeable -to the will of God as revealed to their forefathers. We -earnestly call upon them to make the decision, and to deliver -themselves from that unmerited weight of odium which has -rested upon them for centuries; and from that still more -dreadful evil, the displeasure of Almighty God, which has -followed them ever since they forsook the Old Paths wherein -their fathers walked.</p> - -<p class='c005'>It is time for those, at least, who profess to abhor certain -parts of the Talmud and oral law, to justify their professions -by consistent conduct. If they wish people to believe them -when they profess love and charity towards all men, they must -begin by repudiating the authority of the oral law, and renouncing -the worship of the synagogue. How can we possibly -believe that those are sincere in their professions to men, who -declare that they are insincere in their worship of the heart-searching -God? Every man who uses the prayers of the synagogue, -there confesses himself to God as a believer in the oral -law, and consequently ready to execute all its decrees of cruelty, -fraud, and persecution—ready, when he has the power, to convert -all nations with the sword. That is his profession in the -synagogue; when, then, he comes forth from the solemn act of -Divine worship, and tells me that he is liberal and charitable, -and that he abhors persecution, how can I possibly believe -him? There is falsehood somewhere, and the only possible -mode of removing this appearance is by a public renunciation -of the oral law, and an erasure of those passages in the public -prayers which affirm its Divine authority. This all truly liberal-minded -Jews owe to themselves, to the Christian public, -to their brethren, and, above all, to their God. To themselves -they owe it, because so long as their words and their deeds -contradict each other, a mist hangs over them. To the Christian -public they owe it, for they must naturally desire to know -the principles of those with whom they are connected. To -their brethren they owe it, for this is the only way of delivering -the nation from the calamities of centuries. To their God -they owe it, for by the blasphemies of the oral law, His character -is misrepresented, and His name blasphemed.</p> - -<p class='c005'>THE END.</p> - -<div class='chapter'> - <h2 class='c003'>INDEX.</h2> -</div> -<ul class='index c007'> - <li class='c008'>Abarbanel, <a href='#Page_124'>124</a></li> - <li class='c008'>Aben Ezra, <a href='#Page_123'>123</a></li> - <li class='c008'>Abraham at the door of hell, <a href='#Page_450'>450</a></li> - <li class='c008'>Adam, <a href='#Page_136'>136</a></li> - <li class='c008'>Agadah, recognized in Jewish Prayer-book, <a href='#Page_3'>3</a></li> - <li class='c008'>Ahijah, the Shilonite, fable about, <a href='#Page_352'>352</a></li> - <li class='c008'>Almsgiving, Rabbinic, <a href='#Page_302'>302</a> - <ul> - <li>merit of, <a href='#Page_307'>307</a></li> - </ul> - </li> - <li class='c008'>Amhaaretz, meaning of the word, <a href='#Page_458'>458</a> - <ul> - <li>disqualifications of, <a href='#Page_459'>459</a></li> - <li>may be robbed and slain with impunity, <a href='#Page_461'>461</a></li> - <li>lawful to kill, <a href='#Page_6'>6</a></li> - </ul> - </li> - <li class='c008'>Amulets, virtues of, <a href='#Page_183'>183</a></li> - <li class='c008'>Angels carry up the sound of the horn at new year, <a href='#Page_267'>267</a></li> - <li class='c008'>Angels, of the waves, <a href='#Page_197'>197</a></li> - <li class='c008'>Angel, evil, <a href='#Page_229'>229</a></li> - <li class='c008'>Angels ministering, <a href='#Page_164'>164</a></li> - <li class='c008'>Apostates, to be killed, <a href='#Page_36'>36</a></li> - <li class='c008'>Arbah, Turim, <a href='#Page_112'>112</a></li> - <li class='c008'>Astrology, taught and practised, <a href='#Page_175'>175</a></li> - <li class='c008'>Atonement, day of, <a href='#Page_279'>279</a> - <ul> - <li>itself an atonement, <a href='#Page_279'>279</a></li> - <li>repentance an, <a href='#Page_279'>279</a></li> - <li>a cock killed as an, <a href='#Page_283'>283</a></li> - <li>death an, <a href='#Page_299'>299</a></li> - </ul> - </li> - <li class='c007'>Baptism necessary to a proselyte, <a href='#Page_304'>304</a></li> - <li class='c008'>Bar Kochav, <a href='#Page_222'>222</a></li> - <li class='c008'>Bechai, <a href='#Page_142'>142</a></li> - <li class='c008'>Behemoth, legend of, <a href='#Page_128'>128</a>, &c.</li> - <li class='c008'>Bither, the city of, <a href='#Page_216'>216</a></li> - <li class='c007'>Cain, <a href='#Page_138'>138</a></li> - <li class='c008'>Catechism, Bavarian Jewish, <a href='#Page_25'>25</a> - <ul> - <li>gives a false view of Judaism, <a href='#Page_26'>26</a></li> - </ul> - </li> - <li class='c008'>Charity, Rabbinic, <a href='#Page_112'>112</a></li> - <li class='c008'>Charm, Rabbinic, for a bleeding of the nose, <a href='#Page_192'>192</a> - <ul> - <li>for the bite of a mad dog, <a href='#Page_193'>193</a></li> - <li>for a storm at sea, <a href='#Page_196'>196</a></li> - <li>for the bite of a scorpion, <a href='#Page_200'>200</a></li> - </ul> - </li> - <li class='c008'>Charms allowed on the Sabbath-day, <a href='#Page_200'>200</a></li> - <li class='c008'>Charm for bed time, <a href='#Page_201'>201</a></li> - <li class='c008'>Christianity, a Jewish religion, <a href='#Page_1'>1</a></li> - <li class='c008'>Christianity, the religion of the New Testament, <a href='#Page_2'>2</a></li> - <li class='c008'>Christians considered as idolaters, <a href='#Page_419'>419</a> - <ul> - <li>not counted amongst the pious of the nations, <a href='#Page_4'>4</a></li> - <li>not in a state of salvation, <a href='#Page_4'>4</a></li> - </ul> - </li> - <li class='c008'>Circumcision equivalent to all the commandments, <a href='#Page_451'>451</a> - <ul> - <li>meritoriousness of, <a href='#Page_450'>450</a></li> - </ul> - </li> - <li class='c008'>Cock, killing a cock as atonement, <a href='#Page_283'>283</a></li> - <li class='c008'>Commandments, <a href='#Page_442'>442</a>; <a href='#Page_162'>162</a></li> - <li class='c008'>Cruelty, Rabbinic, <a href='#Page_8'>8</a>, <a href='#Page_99'>99</a>, <a href='#Page_209'>209</a> - <ul> - <li>to women, <a href='#Page_377'>377</a></li> - </ul> - </li> - <li class='c007'>Dead, Rabbinic mourning for, <a href='#Page_428'>428</a> - <ul> - <li>prayers for the, <a href='#Page_295'>295</a></li> - </ul> - </li> - <li class='c008'>Death, an atonement, <a href='#Page_299'>299</a></li> - <li class='c008'>Demons, asking counsel of, <a href='#Page_203'>203</a></li> - <li class='c008'>Deniers of the law, three classes of, <a href='#Page_4'>4</a></li> - <li class='c008'>Deputies, French Jewish, <a href='#Page_24'>24</a></li> - <li class='c008'>Deuteronomy xvii. 8, &c., explained, <a href='#Page_11'>11</a></li> - <li class='c008'>Dispensation, Rabbinic, from oaths, <a href='#Page_434'>434</a></li> - <li class='c008'>Divorce, Rabbinic, doctrine of, <a href='#Page_373'>373</a></li> - <li class='c008'>Drunkenness allowed on feast of Purim, <a href='#Page_47'>47</a></li> - <li class='c007'>Edomites, Christians called, <a href='#Page_123'>123</a></li> - <li class='c008'>Eleazar, Rabbi, <a href='#Page_6'>6</a></li> - <li class='c008'>Elijah, the Prophet, conversation of, with R. Jose, <a href='#Page_323'>323</a></li> - <li class='c008'>Epicureans, <a href='#Page_4'>4</a> - <ul> - <li>to be killed, <a href='#Page_36'>36</a></li> - </ul> - </li> - <li class='c008'>Epicurean, reader in synagogue suspected of being, <a href='#Page_127'>127</a></li> - <li class='c008'>Evasion, Rabbinic, <a href='#Page_80'>80</a>, <a href='#Page_83'>83</a>, <a href='#Page_107'>107</a>, <a href='#Page_225'>225</a>, <a href='#Page_235'>235</a></li> - <li class='c008'>Excommunication for not washing hands, <a href='#Page_75'>75</a> - <ul> - <li>Rabbinic, <a href='#Page_239'>239</a></li> - <li>laws concerning, with respect to the unlearned and learned, <a href='#Page_239'>239</a></li> - <li>injustice of, <a href='#Page_239'>239</a></li> - </ul> - </li> - <li class='c007'>Fast on the ninth of Av, <a href='#Page_216'>216</a></li> - <li class='c008'>Fasting, merit of, <a href='#Page_264'>264</a></li> - <li class='c008'>Fire, not to be extinguished, <a href='#Page_102'>102</a></li> - <li class='c008'>Flogging of rebellion, <a href='#Page_99'>99</a>, <a href='#Page_211'>211</a>, <a href='#Page_228'>228</a>, <a href='#Page_383'>383</a>, <a href='#Page_386'>386</a>, <a href='#Page_420'>420</a></li> - <li class='c008'>Friday, Good, <a href='#Page_87'>87</a></li> - <li class='c007'>Gentile, who studies the law, guilty of death, <a href='#Page_22'>22</a> - <ul> - <li>who keeps a Sabbath-day, guilty of death, <a href='#Page_22'>22</a></li> - <li>good advice not to be given to, <a href='#Page_33'>33</a></li> - <li>woman not to be helped in child-bed, <a href='#Page_33'>33</a></li> - <li>not neighbour, <a href='#Page_34'>34</a></li> - <li>lost property not to be restored to, <a href='#Page_35'>35</a></li> - <li>Daniel punished for giving good advice to, <a href='#Page_33'>33</a></li> - <li>who wishes to turn Jew, <a href='#Page_63'>63</a></li> - <li>a Jew not publicly to receive alms from, <a href='#Page_306'>306</a></li> - <li>Sabbath not to be profaned to save a Gentile’s life, <a href='#Page_212'>212</a>, <a href='#Page_214'>214</a></li> - <li>food regarded as carrion, <a href='#Page_383'>383</a></li> - <li>food not to be eaten, <a href='#Page_383'>383</a>, <a href='#Page_416'>416</a></li> - <li>wine unlawful, <a href='#Page_419'>419</a></li> - <li>he that steals from, only to pay the principal, <a href='#Page_34'>34</a></li> - <li>wine, to drink, worse than fornication, <a href='#Page_424'>424</a></li> - </ul> - </li> - <li class='c008'>Gentiles, idolatrous, to be exterminated, <a href='#Page_42'>42</a> - <ul> - <li>to be converted by force, <a href='#Page_42'>42</a></li> - <li>idolatrous, not to be suffered in the land of Israel, <a href='#Page_28'>28</a></li> - </ul> - </li> - <li class='c008'>Gentile, drowning, not to be delivered, <a href='#Page_30'>30</a></li> - <li class='c008'>Gentiles, duties towards, <a href='#Page_24'>24</a> - <ul> - <li>not brethren, <a href='#Page_26'>26</a></li> - <li>not neighbours, <a href='#Page_26'>26</a></li> - <li>not to be greeted except from fear, <a href='#Page_10'>10</a>, <a href='#Page_26'>26</a>, <a href='#Page_28'>28</a></li> - <li>condemned for transgressing the command about tabernacles, <a href='#Page_288'>288</a></li> - <li>still have the defilement of the serpent, <a href='#Page_156'>156</a></li> - <li>cursing the, on the feast of Passover, <a href='#Page_120'>120</a>, <a href='#Page_121'>121</a>, <a href='#Page_122'>122</a></li> - <li>no pious, now, <a href='#Page_67'>67</a></li> - <li>marriage of, not binding, <a href='#Page_58'>58</a></li> - <li>and dogs, <a href='#Page_107'>107</a></li> - </ul> - </li> - <li class='c008'>Gershom, R., anathema by, <a href='#Page_366'>366</a></li> - <li class='c007'>Hands, laying on of, <a href='#Page_328'>328</a> - <ul> - <li>washing of, <a href='#Page_71'>71</a></li> - </ul> - </li> - <li class='c008'>Heathen, who are not in a state of salvation, <a href='#Page_5'>5</a></li> - <li class='c008'>High Priest, an unlearned man, <a href='#Page_7'>7</a></li> - <li class='c008'>Hilchoth Accum, <a href='#Page_28'>28</a>, <a href='#Page_33'>33</a> - <ul> - <li>Avadim, <a href='#Page_21'>21</a></li> - <li>Avel, <a href='#Page_428'>428</a></li> - <li>Berachoth, <a href='#Page_71'>71</a>, <a href='#Page_73'>73</a></li> - <li>Deoth, <a href='#Page_113'>113</a></li> - <li>Genevah, <a href='#Page_34'>34</a></li> - <li>Gezelah, <a href='#Page_34'>34</a></li> - <li>Girushin, <a href='#Page_375'>375</a></li> - <li>Gittin, <a href='#Page_374'>374</a></li> - <li>Iom Tov, <a href='#Page_116'>116</a></li> - <li>Ishuth, <a href='#Page_366'>366</a></li> - <li>Issure Biah, <a href='#Page_64'>64</a></li> - <li>Kiddush Hachodesh, <a href='#Page_100'>100</a></li> - <li>Maakaloth Asuroth, <a href='#Page_419'>419</a></li> - <li>Mamrim, <a href='#Page_335'>335</a></li> - <li>Matt’noth Aniim, <a href='#Page_304'>304</a></li> - <li>Megillah, <a href='#Page_48'>48</a></li> - <li>Mikvaoth, <a href='#Page_72'>72</a></li> - <li>M’lachim, <a href='#Page_22'>22</a>, <a href='#Page_25'>25</a></li> - <li>P’riah u’r’viah, <a href='#Page_7'>7</a></li> - <li>Rotzeach, <a href='#Page_32'>32</a>, <a href='#Page_33'>33</a></li> - <li>Sanhedrin, <a href='#Page_172'>172</a>, <a href='#Page_342'>342</a></li> - <li>Sh’vuoth, <a href='#Page_436'>436</a></li> - <li>Taanith, <a href='#Page_216'>216</a></li> - <li>Talmud Torah, <a href='#Page_17'>17</a>, <a href='#Page_148'>148</a></li> - <li>T’phillah, <a href='#Page_2'>2</a>, <a href='#Page_128'>128</a></li> - <li>T’shuvah, <a href='#Page_4'>4</a>, <a href='#Page_247'>247</a></li> - </ul> - </li> - <li class='c008'>Hillel, the elder, <a href='#Page_187'>187</a></li> - <li class='c008'>Holyday, how to make fire on, <a href='#Page_106'>106</a></li> - <li class='c008'>Holydays, additional, prescribed by the rabbies, <a href='#Page_98'>98</a>, <a href='#Page_101'>101</a></li> - <li class='c007'>Jeremiah unjustly condemned, <a href='#Page_13'>13</a></li> - <li class='c008'>Jewish-German, <a href='#Page_283'>283</a></li> - <li class='c008'>Jews persecuted in Spain and Portugal, <a href='#Page_42'>42</a></li> - <li class='c008'>Illegitimate, a learned man takes precedence of High Priest, <a href='#Page_7'>7</a></li> - <li class='c008'>Intolerance, Talmudic, <a href='#Page_28'>28</a>-39</li> - <li class='c008'>Ioma, <a href='#Page_19'>19</a></li> - <li class='c008'>Jonathan, son of Uzziel, <a href='#Page_187'>187</a></li> - <li class='c008'>Jost’s history, <a href='#Page_125'>125</a></li> - <li class='c008'>Isaac, merit of offering, <a href='#Page_271'>271</a></li> - <li class='c008'>Jubilee, year of, <a href='#Page_66'>66</a></li> - <li class='c008'>Judaism the religion of the oral law, <a href='#Page_2'>2</a> - <ul> - <li>and of the Jewish Prayer-book, <a href='#Page_2'>2</a></li> - <li>and Christianity cannot both be true, <a href='#Page_3'>3</a></li> - <li>a false religion, <a href='#Page_465'>465</a></li> - <li>its authors wicked men, <a href='#Page_467'>467</a></li> - </ul> - </li> - <li class='c008'>Judgment, Rabbinic, idea of the final, <a href='#Page_287'>287</a></li> - <li class='c007'>Karo, R. Joseph, <a href='#Page_17'>17</a></li> - <li class='c008'>K’hillath Shlomoh, <a href='#Page_282'>282</a></li> - <li class='c008'>Kiddushin, <a href='#Page_19'>19</a></li> - <li class='c008'>Kimchi, <a href='#Page_93'>93</a></li> - <li class='c007'>Leaven, putting away of, <a href='#Page_80'>80</a></li> - <li class='c008'>Legends, <a href='#Page_127'>127</a>-167</li> - <li class='c008'>Levi, family of, still known, <a href='#Page_312'>312</a> - <ul> - <li>privileges of, in the synagogue, <a href='#Page_313'>313</a></li> - <li>David, <a href='#Page_134'>134</a></li> - </ul> - </li> - <li class='c008'>Leviathan, legend of, <a href='#Page_128'>128</a>, &c.</li> - <li class='c008'>Levites, scriptural privileges of, <a href='#Page_311'>311</a></li> - <li class='c008'>Liberty, religious, first taught by Jesus Christ, <a href='#Page_46'>46</a></li> - <li class='c008'>Luck, good, <a href='#Page_182'>182</a></li> - <li class='c007'>Magic allowed by Talmud, <a href='#Page_168'>168</a>-174</li> - <li class='c008'>Maimonides, <a href='#Page_25'>25</a>, et passim - <ul> - <li>intolerance, <a href='#Page_26'>26</a></li> - </ul> - </li> - <li class='c008'>Meat, lawful and unlawful, <a href='#Page_397'>397</a> - <ul> - <li>in milk, laws concerning, <a href='#Page_404'>404</a></li> - <li>contrary to Scripture, <a href='#Page_404'>404</a>, <a href='#Page_405'>405</a></li> - </ul> - </li> - <li class='c008'>Medrash Rabba, <a href='#Page_153'>153</a></li> - <li class='c008'>Merit of ancestors, <a href='#Page_285'>285</a></li> - <li class='c008'>Merit, doctrine of, <a href='#Page_247'>247</a>, &c.</li> - <li class='c008'>Messiah, already come, <a href='#Page_387'>387</a></li> - <li class='c008'>Miracles, Rabbinic, <a href='#Page_203'>203</a></li> - <li class='c008'>Mishna, recognised in Jewish Prayer-book, <a href='#Page_3'>3</a></li> - <li class='c008'>Mixture, Rabbinic, command of, <a href='#Page_116'>116</a></li> - <li class='c008'>Muktzeh, <a href='#Page_103'>103</a></li> - <li class='c007'>Napoleon, <a href='#Page_24'>24</a></li> - <li class='c008'>New Year, Jewish, <a href='#Page_247'>247</a></li> - <li class='c008'>New Year, judgment at, <a href='#Page_247'>247</a> - <ul> - <li>prayers for, <a href='#Page_264'>264</a></li> - <li>merit and advantage of blowing the horn on, <a href='#Page_266'>266</a></li> - </ul> - </li> - <li class='c008'>Noachidæ, <a href='#Page_25'>25</a>, <a href='#Page_41'>41</a> - <ul> - <li>who they are, <a href='#Page_55'>55</a></li> - <li>seven commandments of, <a href='#Page_56'>56</a></li> - <li>may transgress commandments, <a href='#Page_57'>57</a></li> - <li>murderer of, not to be put to death, <a href='#Page_62'>62</a></li> - <li>unintentionally killing a Jew, to be put to death, <a href='#Page_61'>61</a></li> - <li>when received, <a href='#Page_67'>67</a></li> - <li>how received, <a href='#Page_68'>68</a></li> - </ul> - </li> - <li class='c007'>Oral law opposed to the Word of God in duty to parents, <a href='#Page_9'>9</a>, <a href='#Page_10'>10</a> - <ul> - <li>a mixed system of good and evil, <a href='#Page_16'>16</a></li> - <li>how much time to be devoted to the study of, <a href='#Page_16'>16</a></li> - <li>women and children not to study, <a href='#Page_18'>18</a></li> - <li>perpetual and unchangeable, <a href='#Page_53'>53</a></li> - <li>precepts of, given to Moses, <a href='#Page_161'>161</a></li> - </ul> - </li> - <li class='c008'>Oaths, Rabbinic dispensation from, <a href='#Page_435'>435</a>, <a href='#Page_450'>450</a></li> - <li class='c007'>Parable of Good Samaritan illustrated, <a href='#Page_29'>29</a></li> - <li class='c008'>Parents, if in captivity, to be redeemed after the Rabbi, <a href='#Page_9'>9</a> - <ul> - <li>duty to, according to oral law, <a href='#Page_9'>9</a></li> - </ul> - </li> - <li class='c008'>Passover, rites of, <a href='#Page_79'>79</a> - <ul> - <li>Christ our, <a href='#Page_91'>91</a></li> - <li>four cups of, <a href='#Page_96'>96</a></li> - </ul> - </li> - <li class='c008'>Pentecost prayers, <a href='#Page_145'>145</a></li> - <li class='c008'>Pesachim, treatise, <a href='#Page_6'>6</a></li> - <li class='c008'>Pharisees, enemies of the Lord Jesus, <a href='#Page_9'>9</a> - <ul> - <li>bad men, <a href='#Page_8'>8</a></li> - </ul> - </li> - <li class='c008'>Physician, Jewish, not to cure idolaters, <a href='#Page_33'>33</a></li> - <li class='c008'>Pirke, Eleazer, <a href='#Page_137'>137</a></li> - <li class='c008'>Planets, <a href='#Page_175'>175</a></li> - <li class='c008'>Polygamy, allowed, <a href='#Page_366'>366</a></li> - <li class='c008'>Poor, Rabbinic, oppression of the, <a href='#Page_97'>97</a> - <ul> - <li>Rabbinic religion not for the, <a href='#Page_237'>237</a></li> - <li>Rabbinic cruelty to, <a href='#Page_414'>414</a>, <a href='#Page_429'>429</a></li> - </ul> - </li> - <li class='c008'>Power, Rabbinic, to excommunicate, <a href='#Page_239'>239</a></li> - <li class='c008'>Prayer-book, Jewish, acknowledges and teaches the authority of the Talmud, <a href='#Page_2'>2</a>, <a href='#Page_3'>3</a> - <ul> - <li>Jewish, full of legends, <a href='#Page_127'>127</a>-167</li> - </ul> - </li> - <li class='c008'>Priests, scriptural office of, <a href='#Page_310'>310</a></li> - <li class='c008'>Proselytes, sojourning, <a href='#Page_26'>26</a> - <ul> - <li>how to be instructed, <a href='#Page_63'>63</a></li> - <li>baptism of, <a href='#Page_304'>304</a></li> - </ul> - </li> - <li class='c008'>Purgatory, Rabbinic, <a href='#Page_296'>296</a></li> - <li class='c008'>Purim, feast of, <a href='#Page_47'>47</a></li> - <li class='c007'>Rabbi, duty to, goes before duty to parents, <a href='#Page_9'>9</a>, <a href='#Page_10'>10</a> - <ul> - <li>fear of, as the fear of God, <a href='#Page_11'>11</a></li> - <li>reverence due to, <a href='#Page_15'>15</a></li> - <li>whosoever despises a, to be excommunicated, <a href='#Page_15'>15</a></li> - <li>not to forgive a public affront, <a href='#Page_243'>243</a></li> - <li>method of creating a, <a href='#Page_328'>328</a></li> - </ul> - </li> - <li class='c008'>Rabbies not agreed, <a href='#Page_399'>399</a>, <a href='#Page_400'>400</a></li> - <li class='c008'>Rabbinic charity, <a href='#Page_112'>112</a> - <ul> - <li>evasion, <a href='#Page_107'>107</a>, <a href='#Page_110'>110</a></li> - <li>order, novelty of, <a href='#Page_328'>328</a></li> - <li>power to excommunicate, <a href='#Page_239'>239</a></li> - <li>acknowledgments that Messiah is born, <a href='#Page_389'>389</a>-393</li> - </ul> - </li> - <li class='c008'>Ramban, <a href='#Page_142'>142</a></li> - <li class='c008'>Rome called Edom, <a href='#Page_123'>123</a></li> - <li class='c008'>Rosh Hashanah, <a href='#Page_298'>298</a></li> - <li class='c007'>Saadiah Gaon, <a href='#Page_162'>162</a></li> - <li class='c008'>Sabbath, unlawful for a Gentile to keep a, <a href='#Page_22'>22</a> - <ul> - <li>laws of, <a href='#Page_104'>104</a>, <a href='#Page_114'>114</a>-119</li> - <li>spirits cannot be cited on, <a href='#Page_141'>141</a></li> - <li>damned have rest on, <a href='#Page_141'>141</a></li> - </ul> - </li> - <li class='c008'>Sabbath-day, amulets on, <a href='#Page_184'>184</a></li> - <li class='c008'>Sabbath, laws concerning, <a href='#Page_285'>285</a>-290 - <ul> - <li>lamp, reward for, <a href='#Page_229'>229</a></li> - <li>moving things on, <a href='#Page_232'>232</a></li> - <li>merit of keeping the, <a href='#Page_224'>224</a></li> - <li>jurisdictions, <a href='#Page_232'>232</a></li> - </ul> - </li> - <li class='c008'>Salvation, who are excluded from, by the oral law, <a href='#Page_4'>4</a></li> - <li class='c008'>Sambation, <a href='#Page_139'>139</a></li> - <li class='c008'>Sanhedrin, not infallible, <a href='#Page_8'>8</a> - <ul> - <li>great council of, <a href='#Page_168'>168</a></li> - <li>members of, magicians, <a href='#Page_168'>168</a></li> - <li>understood seventy languages, <a href='#Page_168'>168</a></li> - <li>all handsome men, <a href='#Page_171'>171</a></li> - <li>pillar of the oral law, <a href='#Page_335'>335</a></li> - <li>a later, may reverse the decision of a former, <a href='#Page_335'>335</a></li> - <li>not a Divine institution, <a href='#Page_337'>337</a></li> - <li>of Greek origin, <a href='#Page_341'>341</a></li> - <li>greater and lesser, <a href='#Page_343'>343</a></li> - <li>business of, <a href='#Page_345'>345</a></li> - <li>death to those who rebelled against, <a href='#Page_344'>344</a></li> - <li>contrary to Scripture, <a href='#Page_345'>345</a></li> - <li>Parisian, <a href='#Page_366'>366</a></li> - </ul> - </li> - <li class='c008'>Satan deceived by the blowing of the horn in the month of Elul, <a href='#Page_266'>266</a></li> - <li class='c008'>Scapegoat, <a href='#Page_280'>280</a></li> - <li class='c008'>Schoolmasters, Rabbinic, <a href='#Page_315'>315</a></li> - <li class='c008'>Scripture, women not bound to study, <a href='#Page_18'>18</a> - <ul> - <li>not to be studied so much as the Talmud, <a href='#Page_16'>16</a></li> - <li>when not to be studied at all, <a href='#Page_17'>17</a></li> - </ul> - </li> - <li class='c008'>Sepher Jetzirah, <a href='#Page_181'>181</a></li> - <li class='c008'>Schulchan Aruch, <a href='#Page_7'>7</a></li> - <li class='c008'>Sinai, <a href='#Page_163'>163</a></li> - <li class='c008'>Slaughtering, laws concerning, <a href='#Page_380'>380</a> - <ul> - <li>laws of, <a href='#Page_396'>396</a></li> - </ul> - </li> - <li class='c008'>Slaves exempt from the duty of studying the law of God, <a href='#Page_17'>17</a> - <ul> - <li>unlawful to teach, <a href='#Page_21'>21</a></li> - <li>regarded as beasts, <a href='#Page_431'>431</a></li> - </ul> - </li> - <li class='c008'>Souls of all Israel at Sinai, <a href='#Page_152'>152</a></li> - <li class='c008'>Sotah, <a href='#Page_76'>76</a></li> - <li class='c008'>Stars, influence of, <a href='#Page_175'>175</a></li> - <li class='c008'>Study of the law equivalent to all the commandments, <a href='#Page_51'>51</a></li> - <li class='c007'>Tabernacles, feast of, <a href='#Page_287'>287</a> - <ul> - <li>merit of, <a href='#Page_287'>287</a></li> - <li>prayers for the feast of, <a href='#Page_295'>295</a></li> - </ul> - </li> - <li class='c008'>Talmud, recognised in Jewish Prayer-book, <a href='#Page_3'>3</a> - <ul> - <li>legends of, <a href='#Page_128'>128</a>, <a href='#Page_167'>167</a></li> - </ul> - </li> - <li class='c008'>Tradition, Rabbinic argument for overthrow, <a href='#Page_11'>11</a> - <ul> - <li>no unbroken train of, <a href='#Page_350'>350</a></li> - </ul> - </li> - <li class='c008'>Treatise, Avodah Zarah, <a href='#Page_291'>291</a> - <ul> - <li>Bava Bathra, <a href='#Page_187'>187</a></li> - <li>Berachoth, <a href='#Page_161'>161</a></li> - <li>Gittin, <a href='#Page_192'>192</a></li> - <li>Moed Katon, <a href='#Page_175'>175</a></li> - <li>Shabbath, <a href='#Page_157'>157</a></li> - <li>Succah, <a href='#Page_180'>180</a></li> - <li>Z’vachin, <a href='#Page_150'>150</a></li> - </ul> - </li> - <li class='c008'>Turnus Rufus, <a href='#Page_140'>140</a>, <a href='#Page_216'>216</a></li> - <li class='c007'>Unlearned man, lawful to kill, <a href='#Page_6'>6</a> - <ul> - <li>the wives and daughters of, not to be taken as wives, <a href='#Page_6'>6</a></li> - <li>to be accounted as beasts, <a href='#Page_6'>6</a></li> - <li>man, unlawful for, to eat meat, <a href='#Page_7'>7</a></li> - </ul> - </li> - <li class='c007'>Van Oven, Joshua, Esq., Manual of Judaism, <a href='#Page_465'>465</a></li> - <li class='c008'>Venus planet, <a href='#Page_177'>177</a></li> - <li class='c008'>Washing of hands, <a href='#Page_71'>71</a> - <ul> - <li>to neglect, as bad as fornication, <a href='#Page_76'>76</a></li> - <li>who neglects, excommunicated, <a href='#Page_75'>75</a></li> - </ul> - </li> - <li class='c008'>Wine, Gentile, unlawful, <a href='#Page_419'>419</a></li> - <li class='c008'>Woman, insane, to be turned out, <a href='#Page_377'>377</a></li> - <li class='c008'>Women, exempt from the duty to study the law, <a href='#Page_17'>17</a> - <ul> - <li>do not receive the same reward as a man, <a href='#Page_18'>18</a></li> - <li>not to be taught the law, <a href='#Page_18'>18</a></li> - <li>minds of, not equal to the study of the law, <a href='#Page_18'>18</a></li> - <li>command of Moses, respecting, <a href='#Page_21'>21</a></li> - <li>duties of, prescribed in New Testament, <a href='#Page_22'>22</a></li> - <li>Rabbinic degradation of, <a href='#Page_359'>359</a></li> - <li>cannot give testimony, <a href='#Page_360'>360</a></li> - <li>not regarded as part of the congregation, <a href='#Page_361'>361</a></li> - </ul> - </li> - <li class='c008'>World to come, who are excluded from, <a href='#Page_4'>4</a> - <ul> - <li>all Israel has a share in, <a href='#Page_64'>64</a></li> - <li>Rabbinic opinions about, <a href='#Page_129'>129</a></li> - </ul> - </li> -</ul> - -<p class='c005'>Printed at the Operative Institution, Palestine Place, Bethnal Green, London.</p> - -<div class='nf-center-c1'> -<div class='nf-center c002'> - <div><span class='large'>Footnotes</span></div> - </div> -</div> - -<div class='footnote' id='f1'> -<p class='c005'><span class='label'><a href='#r1'>1</a>. </span>Published originally January 15, 1836.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f2'> -<p class='c005'><span class='label'><a href='#r2'>2</a>. </span>Joreh Deah, sec. 246.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f3'> -<p class='c005'><span class='label'><a href='#r3'>3</a>. </span>Literally, תיפלות. In the translation of this word we follow the interpretation of the -Joreh Deah, which renders it דבר עבירה. This is obviously not the place to -discuss the other opinions of the Rabbies.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f4'> -<p class='c005'><span class='label'><a href='#r4'>4</a>. </span>See Kiddushin, fol. 29, col. 2.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f5'> -<p class='c005'><span class='label'><a href='#r5'>5</a>. </span>Joma., fol. 66, col. 2.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f6'> -<p class='c005'><span class='label'><a href='#r6'>6</a>. </span>Fol. 59, col. 1.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f7'> -<p class='c005'><span class='label'><a href='#r7'>7</a>. </span>Transactions of Parisian Sanhedrin, p. 178.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f8'> -<p class='c005'><span class='label'><a href='#r8'>8</a>. </span>Lehrbuch der Mosaischen Religion. München, 1826, page 150.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f9'> -<p class='c005'><span class='label'><a href='#r9'>9</a>. </span>We quote the passage as we find it. Noachides is here taken for the seven -commandments of the children of Noah, contrary to the usual acceptation of the -word.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f10'> -<p class='c005'><span class='label'><a href='#r10'>10</a>. </span>Hilchoth Accum, c. x. 1.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f11'> -<p class='c005'><span class='label'><a href='#r11'>11</a>. </span>Hilchoth Rotzeach, c. xii. 15. See also Bava Bathra, fol. iv. col. 1., about -the middle of the page, where the punishment of Daniel is more fully discussed.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f12'> -<p class='c005'><span class='label'><a href='#r12'>12</a>. </span>Jost. volume vii. p. 91.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f13'> -<p class='c005'><span class='label'><a href='#r13'>13</a>. </span>Hilchoth Rotzeach, c. iv. 10.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f14'> -<p class='c005'><span class='label'><a href='#r14'>14</a>. </span>Dr. Jost’s Geschichte der Israeliten, vol. vii. p. 93.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f15'> -<p class='c005'><span class='label'><a href='#r15'>15</a>. </span>Instead of לנד <i>alone</i>, there is another reading, לנד׳׳, the tribunal.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f16'> -<p class='c005'><span class='label'><a href='#r16'>16</a>. </span>Jewish Prayer-book, p. 152.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f17'> -<p class='c005'><span class='label'><a href='#r17'>17</a>. </span>The British Jews of Burton-street Synagogue have expunged from their -prayers the intolerance here complained of.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f18'> -<p class='c005'><span class='label'><a href='#r18'>18</a>. </span>See Jost’s Geschichte, vol. i. 70 and 153.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f19'> -<p class='c005'><span class='label'><a href='#r19'>19</a>. </span>This alludes to בהמות. See Job xl. 15, &c. D. Levi.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f20'> -<p class='c005'><span class='label'><a href='#r20'>20</a>. </span>According to Rashi.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f21'> -<p class='c005'><span class='label'><a href='#r21'>21</a>. </span>According to Rashi, one who goes from house to house to get alms.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f22'> -<p class='c005'><span class='label'><a href='#r22'>22</a>. </span>Rashi says a man who is liberal in almsgiving.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f23'> -<p class='c005'><span class='label'><a href='#r23'>23</a>. </span>The only explanation which Rashi gives of these words is לחש הוא “It -is a charm.”</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f24'> -<p class='c005'><span class='label'><a href='#r24'>24</a>. </span>Literally, לחש הוא “It is a charm.”—Rashi.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f25'> -<p class='c005'><span class='label'><a href='#r25'>25</a>. </span>The Bareitha.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f26'> -<p class='c005'><span class='label'><a href='#r26'>26</a>. </span>Such as a key, a ring, or a knife.—Rashi.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f27'> -<p class='c005'><span class='label'><a href='#r27'>27</a>. </span>Hilchoth Shabbath and Hilchoth Eruvin extend from fol. 140 to fol. 226.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f28'> -<p class='c005'><span class='label'><a href='#r28'>28</a>. </span>That is, if the Sabbath commence before he can get to a resting place.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f29'> -<p class='c005'><span class='label'><a href='#r29'>29</a>. </span>דחמור אתה מצווה על שביתתו ולא דנכרי ׃</p> - -<p class='c005'>For thou art commanded respecting the resting of the ass, but not respecting -that of the Gentile.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f30'> -<p class='c005'><span class='label'><a href='#r30'>30</a>. </span>Isaac.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f31'> -<p class='c005'><span class='label'><a href='#r31'>31</a>. </span>“Alluding to Isaac’s being bound; and thus considered as if he had been -offered, and his body burnt to ashes on the altar.” (Levi’s note.)</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f32'> -<p class='c005'><span class='label'><a href='#r32'>32</a>. </span>See the Machsor for the Day of Atonement, in אז מלפני בראשית and for -the Passover, in ברה דודי.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f33'> -<p class='c005'><span class='label'><a href='#r33'>33</a>. </span>היים לעשותם בעולם הזה , ולא למהר דאינו יכול לעשותם לעולם הבא ׃</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f34'> -<p class='c005'><span class='label'><a href='#r34'>34</a>. </span>Literally, “a stranger.”</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f35'> -<p class='c005'><span class='label'><a href='#r35'>35</a>. </span>Compare Deut. xiii. 13, and Hilchoth Accum, c. iv.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f36'> -<p class='c005'><span class='label'><a href='#r36'>36</a>. </span>This number was originally published December 23, 1836.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f37'> -<p class='c005'><span class='label'><a href='#r37'>37</a>. </span>“A Manual of Judaism,” by Joshua Van Oven, Esq., M.R.C.S.L., -London, 1835. Page 22.</p> -</div> -<div> - - <ul class='ul_1 c002'> - <li>Transcriber’s Notes: - <ul class='ul_2'> - <li>Footnotes have been collected at the end of the text, and are linked for ease of - reference. - </li> - </ul> - </li> - </ul> - -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin-top:4em'>*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE OLD PATHS, OR THE TALMUD TESTED BY SCRIPTURE ***</div> -<div style='text-align:left'> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -Updated editions will replace the previous one—the old editions will -be renamed. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S. copyright -law means that no one owns a United States copyright in these works, -so the Foundation (and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United -States without permission and without paying copyright -royalties. Special rules, set forth in the General Terms of Use part -of this license, apply to copying and distributing Project -Gutenberg™ electronic works to protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG™ -concept and trademark. Project Gutenberg is a registered trademark, -and may not be used if you charge for an eBook, except by following -the terms of the trademark license, including paying royalties for use -of the Project Gutenberg trademark. If you do not charge anything for -copies of this eBook, complying with the trademark license is very -easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose such as creation -of derivative works, reports, performances and research. Project -Gutenberg eBooks may be modified and printed and given away—you may -do practically ANYTHING in the United States with eBooks not protected -by U.S. copyright law. Redistribution is subject to the trademark -license, especially commercial redistribution. -</div> - -<div style='margin-top:1em; font-size:1.1em; text-align:center'>START: FULL LICENSE</div> -<div style='text-align:center;font-size:0.9em'>THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE</div> -<div style='text-align:center;font-size:0.9em'>PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -To protect the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting the free -distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work -(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase “Project -Gutenberg”), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full -Project Gutenberg™ License available with this file or online at -www.gutenberg.org/license. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; font-size:1.1em; margin:1em 0; font-weight:bold'> -Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg™ -electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to -and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property -(trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all -the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or -destroy all copies of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works in your -possession. If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a -Project Gutenberg™ electronic work and you do not agree to be bound -by the terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person -or entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -1.B. “Project Gutenberg” is a registered trademark. It may only be -used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who -agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few -things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg™ electronic works -even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See -paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project -Gutenberg™ electronic works if you follow the terms of this -agreement and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg™ -electronic works. See paragraph 1.E below. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation (“the -Foundation” or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection -of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works. Nearly all the individual -works in the collection are in the public domain in the United -States. If an individual work is unprotected by copyright law in the -United States and you are located in the United States, we do not -claim a right to prevent you from copying, distributing, performing, -displaying or creating derivative works based on the work as long as -all references to Project Gutenberg are removed. Of course, we hope -that you will support the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting -free access to electronic works by freely sharing Project Gutenberg™ -works in compliance with the terms of this agreement for keeping the -Project Gutenberg™ name associated with the work. You can easily -comply with the terms of this agreement by keeping this work in the -same format with its attached full Project Gutenberg™ License when -you share it without charge with others. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern -what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are -in a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States, -check the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this -agreement before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, -distributing or creating derivative works based on this work or any -other Project Gutenberg™ work. The Foundation makes no -representations concerning the copyright status of any work in any -country other than the United States. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg: -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other -immediate access to, the full Project Gutenberg™ License must appear -prominently whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg™ work (any work -on which the phrase “Project Gutenberg” appears, or with which the -phrase “Project Gutenberg” is associated) is accessed, displayed, -performed, viewed, copied or distributed: -</div> - -<blockquote> - <div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> - This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and most - other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions - whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms - of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online - at <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org">www.gutenberg.org</a>. If you - are not located in the United States, you will have to check the laws - of the country where you are located before using this eBook. - </div> -</blockquote> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is -derived from texts not protected by U.S. copyright law (does not -contain a notice indicating that it is posted with permission of the -copyright holder), the work can be copied and distributed to anyone in -the United States without paying any fees or charges. If you are -redistributing or providing access to a work with the phrase “Project -Gutenberg” associated with or appearing on the work, you must comply -either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 or -obtain permission for the use of the work and the Project Gutenberg™ -trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is posted -with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution -must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any -additional terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms -will be linked to the Project Gutenberg™ License for all works -posted with the permission of the copyright holder found at the -beginning of this work. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg™ -License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this -work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg™. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this -electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without -prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with -active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project -Gutenberg™ License. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary, -compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including -any word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access -to or distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg™ work in a format -other than “Plain Vanilla ASCII” or other format used in the official -version posted on the official Project Gutenberg™ website -(www.gutenberg.org), you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense -to the user, provide a copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means -of obtaining a copy upon request, of the work in its original “Plain -Vanilla ASCII” or other form. Any alternate format must include the -full Project Gutenberg™ License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying, -performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg™ works -unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing -access to or distributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works -provided that: -</div> - -<div style='margin-left:0.7em;'> - <div style='text-indent:-0.7em'> - • You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from - the use of Project Gutenberg™ works calculated using the method - you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is owed - to the owner of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark, but he has - agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the Project - Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments must be paid - within 60 days following each date on which you prepare (or are - legally required to prepare) your periodic tax returns. Royalty - payments should be clearly marked as such and sent to the Project - Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the address specified in - Section 4, “Information about donations to the Project Gutenberg - Literary Archive Foundation.” - </div> - - <div style='text-indent:-0.7em'> - • You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies - you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he - does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg™ - License. You must require such a user to return or destroy all - copies of the works possessed in a physical medium and discontinue - all use of and all access to other copies of Project Gutenberg™ - works. - </div> - - <div style='text-indent:-0.7em'> - • You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of - any money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the - electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days of - receipt of the work. - </div> - - <div style='text-indent:-0.7em'> - • You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free - distribution of Project Gutenberg™ works. - </div> -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project -Gutenberg™ electronic work or group of works on different terms than -are set forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing -from the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the manager of -the Project Gutenberg™ trademark. Contact the Foundation as set -forth in Section 3 below. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -1.F. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable -effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread -works not protected by U.S. copyright law in creating the Project -Gutenberg™ collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg™ -electronic works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may -contain “Defects,” such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate -or corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other -intellectual property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or -other medium, a computer virus, or computer codes that damage or -cannot be read by your equipment. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the “Right -of Replacement or Refund” described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project -Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project -Gutenberg™ trademark, and any other party distributing a Project -Gutenberg™ electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all -liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal -fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT -LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE -PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE -TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE -LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR -INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH -DAMAGE. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a -defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can -receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a -written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you -received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium -with your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you -with the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in -lieu of a refund. If you received the work electronically, the person -or entity providing it to you may choose to give you a second -opportunity to receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If -the second copy is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing -without further opportunities to fix the problem. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth -in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you ‘AS-IS’, WITH NO -OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT -LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied -warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of -damages. If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement -violates the law of the state applicable to this agreement, the -agreement shall be interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or -limitation permitted by the applicable state law. The invalidity or -unenforceability of any provision of this agreement shall not void the -remaining provisions. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the -trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone -providing copies of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works in -accordance with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the -production, promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg™ -electronic works, harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, -including legal fees, that arise directly or indirectly from any of -the following which you do or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this -or any Project Gutenberg™ work, (b) alteration, modification, or -additions or deletions to any Project Gutenberg™ work, and (c) any -Defect you cause. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; font-size:1.1em; margin:1em 0; font-weight:bold'> -Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg™ -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -Project Gutenberg™ is synonymous with the free distribution of -electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of -computers including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It -exists because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations -from people in all walks of life. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the -assistance they need are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg™’s -goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg™ collection will -remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project -Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure -and permanent future for Project Gutenberg™ and future -generations. To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation and how your efforts and donations can help, see -Sections 3 and 4 and the Foundation information page at www.gutenberg.org. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; font-size:1.1em; margin:1em 0; font-weight:bold'> -Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non-profit -501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the -state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal -Revenue Service. The Foundation’s EIN or federal tax identification -number is 64-6221541. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent permitted by -U.S. federal laws and your state’s laws. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -The Foundation’s business office is located at 809 North 1500 West, -Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887. Email contact links and up -to date contact information can be found at the Foundation’s website -and official page at www.gutenberg.org/contact -</div> - -<div style='display:block; font-size:1.1em; margin:1em 0; font-weight:bold'> -Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -Project Gutenberg™ depends upon and cannot survive without widespread -public support and donations to carry out its mission of -increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be -freely distributed in machine-readable form accessible by the widest -array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations -($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt -status with the IRS. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating -charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United -States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a -considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up -with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations -where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To SEND -DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any particular state -visit <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/donate/">www.gutenberg.org/donate</a>. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we -have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition -against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who -approach us with offers to donate. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make -any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from -outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -Please check the Project Gutenberg web pages for current donation -methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other -ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations. To -donate, please visit: www.gutenberg.org/donate -</div> - -<div style='display:block; font-size:1.1em; margin:1em 0; font-weight:bold'> -Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg™ electronic works -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project -Gutenberg™ concept of a library of electronic works that could be -freely shared with anyone. For forty years, he produced and -distributed Project Gutenberg™ eBooks with only a loose network of -volunteer support. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -Project Gutenberg™ eBooks are often created from several printed -editions, all of which are confirmed as not protected by copyright in -the U.S. unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not -necessarily keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper -edition. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -Most people start at our website which has the main PG search -facility: <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org">www.gutenberg.org</a>. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -This website includes information about Project Gutenberg™, -including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to -subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks. -</div> - -</div> - </body> - <!-- created with ppgen.py 3.57c (with regex) on 2022-05-31 13:59:02 GMT --> -</html> diff --git a/old/68214-h/images/cover.jpg b/old/68214-h/images/cover.jpg Binary files differdeleted file mode 100644 index 1b12963..0000000 --- a/old/68214-h/images/cover.jpg +++ /dev/null |
