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.
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]
[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]
[XXVI. Charms, continued] [199]
[XXVIII. Fast for the Destruction of the Temple] [215]
[XXIX. Sabbatic Laws, continued] [223]
[XXX. Sabbatic Laws, continued] [231]
[XXXI. Rabbinic Excommunication] [239]
[XXXIII. New Year, continued] [255]
[XXXIV. New Year, continued] [262]
[XXXVI. Day of Atonement] [279]
[XXXVII. Feast of Tabernacles] [287]
[XXXVIII. Prayers for the Dead] [295]
[XL. Priests and Levites] [310]
[XLI. Rabbinic Ideas of the Deity] [319]
[XLIV. Sanhedrin, continued] [342]
[XLV. Sanhedrin, continued] [349]
[XLVI. Contempt for the Female Character] [357]
[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]
[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]
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.)
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.)
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.
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?
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?
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.
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 ׃