diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'old/68214-0.txt')
| -rw-r--r-- | old/68214-0.txt | 20563 |
1 files changed, 0 insertions, 20563 deletions
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. |