{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_68214/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_68214","id":"gutenberg_68214","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/68214","summary":null,"tags":["Category: Religion/Spirituality","Judaism -- Works to 1900"],"text":"THE OLD PATHS\n\n\n\n\n                             THE OLD PATHS,\n\n                                   OR\n\n                    THE TALMUD TESTED BY SCRIPTURE;\n\n                                 BEING\n\n              A COMPARISON OF THE PRINCIPLES AND DOCTRINES\n\n                                   OF\n\n                            MODERN JUDAISM,\n\n                                WITH THE\n\n                  RELIGION OF MOSES AND THE PROPHETS.\n\n                                 BY THE\n\n                      REV. ALEXANDER McCAUL, D.D.,\n\n          LATE PROFESSOR OF DIVINITY, KING\u2019S COLLEGE, LONDON;\n                   AND LATE PREBENDARY OF ST. PAUL\u2019S.\n\n                                LONDON:\n                        LONDON SOCIETY\u2019S HOUSE,\n                       16, Lincoln\u2019s Inn Fields.\n\n                                 1880.\n\n\n\n\n                                   TO\n\n                THE RIGHT HONOURABLE AND RIGHT REVEREND\n\n                 CHARLES JAMES, LORD BISHOP OF LONDON,\n\n                              ETC., ETC.,\n\n                    WHOSE APPROBATION OF HIS LABOURS\n\n                HAS BEEN AN ENCOURAGEMENT AND A REWARD,\n\n                          THE FOLLOWING PAGES\n\n                            ARE RESPECTFULLY\n\n                      AND GRATEFULLY INSCRIBED, BY\n\n                              THE AUTHOR.\n\n\n\n\n                  ADVERTISEMENT TO THE SECOND EDITION.\n\n\nNine years have now elapsed since \u201cThe Old Paths\u201d appeared as a volume.\nThey have been translated, in the meantime, into Hebrew, German, and\nFrench; and their merits discussed by the learned and unlearned of the\nJewish people, in all the countries of their dispersion. The reception\nhas in general been favourable, and the effect upon the Jewish mind\nperceptible. Since their first appearance, the West London Synagogue and\nthe Liturgies of the British Jews, both renouncing that which \u201cThe Old\nPaths\u201d pronounced objectionable, have started into existence. The\nassembled rabbies at Brunswick and Frankfort have discussed topics\nsimilar to some treated in \u201cThe Old Paths,\u201d and in some cases come to\nsimilar conclusions respecting the value of Rabbinic Traditions. The\nReform Societies of Germany have commenced a formidable attack upon the\nOral Law, and a free discussion is now carried on in the numerous Jewish\nperiodicals of that country, of which the results are easily foretold.\nThe promised German translation of the Talmud, if ever completed, must,\nwithout any discussion, overthrow Talmudism. Its exhibition in any\nEuropean language is the most fatal attack that can be made on its\nauthority. It needs only to be seen as it is, in order to be rejected.\nThe reader is again warned against mistaking this discussion of the\nmerits of Rabbinism for an attack upon the Jewish people, or the rabbies\nof the present day. The reproach attaches not to the victims, but to the\nauthors of tradition. The Jews are a great and a noble people, and the\nmajority ignorant of the details of the system, by which they have been\nbowed down and misrepresented for centuries; so ignorant, indeed, that\nsome zealously undertake a defence of the whole, maintain that Rabbinism\nis a perfect model of charity and wisdom, and regard \u201cThe Old Paths\u201d as\na mere emanation of common Anti-Jewish prejudice. Such persons are\nrequested to compare these papers with the articles in the Jewish\nperiodical, entitled, \u201cDer Israelit des Neunzehnten Jahrhunderts,\u201d\nwritten by Rabbi Dr. Holdheim, and other distinguished Jewish scholars.\nThey will there find that, had the author not been influenced by a\ndesire to avoid all occasion of unnecessary offence, truth might have\nbeen stated with more severity.\n\nA mistake in one number, not, however, affecting the argument, has been\ncorrected.\n\n\n\n\n                  ADVERTISEMENT TO THE FIRST EDITION.\n\n\nThe reader will perceive, by the date at the head of each number, that\nthe following papers were published weekly, and, from the contents, he\nwill readily infer that they were intended for distribution amongst\nthose Jews who still adhere to the rabbinic system. But in presenting\nthem to the public as a volume, it may be well to state that the great\nobject was to exhibit Judaism as it appears in its practical workings,\nand that, therefore, most references are made to the Jewish Prayer-book,\nand to the codes of law commonly in use amongst rabbinic Jews, and which\nare considered as authoritative. It was the Author\u2019s wish, not to\nridicule any man\u2019s superstition, but to instruct those, whom Moses and\nthe Prophets would have declared to be in error. He has therefore,\ncarefully avoided the tone in which Eisenmenger and others have treated\nthis subject, and, in treating the Jewish legends, has confined himself\nto those which are mentioned in the prayers of the Synagogue. The\nmaterials are the result of many years\u2019 study and practical observation.\nBuxtorf, Majus, Edzard, Eisenmenger, Wagenseil, &c., have been carefully\nconsulted, but the Jewish Liturgies, the Arbah Turim, the Shulchan\nAruch, the Yad Hachasakah, are the principal sources, whence this view\nof Judaism has been drawn. The Author has only to add a hope, that these\npapers may not be misunderstood, either by Jew or Christian, but that\nall who read them will carefully distinguish between Judaism and the\nJewish people\u2014and a wish, that they may contribute to the welfare of\nIsrael, and the promotion of truth.\n\n\n\n\n                               CONTENTS.\n\nI. Rabbinism not a Safe Way of Salvation 1\n\nII. Implicit Faith not due to the Rabbies 8\n\nIII. Rabbinic Injustice to Women, Slaves, and Gentiles 16\n\nIV. Rabbinic Intolerance towards other Nations 24\n\nV. Talmudic Intolerance contrasted with the Charity of the Bible 32\n\nVI. Compulsory Conversion of the Gentiles 39\n\nVII. The Feast of Purim 47\n\nVIII. Rabbinic Contempt for the Sons of Noah 55\n\nIX. Christians cannot be reckoned amongst the \u201cPious of the Nations of\nthe World\u201d 63\n\nX. Rabbinic Washing of Hands 70\n\nXI. Rabbinic Artifices respecting Leaven at the Passover 79\n\nXII. The Passover a Type of Future Deliverance 87\n\nXIII. Severity of the Rabbinic Ordinances 95\n\nXIV. Severity and Artifice 103\n\nXV. Sabbath Mixture 111\n\nXVI. Intolerance of Rabbinic Prayers 119\n\nXVII. Rabbinic Legends in the Synagogue Services 127\n\nXVIII. Rabbinic Legends, continued 136\n\nXIX. Legends in the Prayers for Pentecost 144\n\nXX. Legends in the Prayers for Pentecost 152\n\nXXI. Legends in the Prayers for Pentecost 160\n\nXXII. Rabbinic Magic 167\n\nXXIII. Astrology 175\n\nXXIV. Amulets 183\n\nXXV. Charms 191\n\nXXVI. Charms, continued 199\n\nXXVII. Sabbatic Laws 207\n\nXXVIII. Fast for the Destruction of the Temple 215\n\nXXIX. Sabbatic Laws, continued 223\n\nXXX. Sabbatic Laws, continued 231\n\nXXXI. Rabbinic Excommunication 239\n\nXXXII. New Year\u2019s Day 247\n\nXXXIII. New Year, continued 255\n\nXXXIV. New Year, continued 262\n\nXXXV. Justification 270\n\nXXXVI. Day of Atonement 279\n\nXXXVII. Feast of Tabernacles 287\n\nXXXVIII. Prayers for the Dead 295\n\nXXXIX. Almsgiving 302\n\nXL. Priests and Levites 310\n\nXLI. Rabbinic Ideas of the Deity 319\n\nXLII. Title of Rabbi 326\n\nXLIII. Sanhedrin 334\n\nXLIV. Sanhedrin, continued 342\n\nXLV. Sanhedrin, continued 349\n\nXLVI. Contempt for the Female Character 357\n\nXLVII. Polygamy 365\n\nXLVIII. Divorce 372\n\nXLIX. Rabbinic Laws concerning Meat 380\n\nL. The Birth of Messiah 387\n\nLI. Slaughtering of Meat, continued 396\n\nLII. Laws concerning Meat with Milk 403\n\nLIII. Rabbinism oppressive to the Poor 411\n\nLIV. Gentile Wine 419\n\nLV. Mourning for the Dead 427\n\nLVI. Dispensation from an Oath 434\n\nLVII. Doctrine of Oaths, continued 442\n\nLVIII. Meritoriousness of Circumcision 449\n\nLIX. Cruelty to the Unlearned 457\n\nLX. Recapitulation 464\n\n\n\n\n                               No. I.[1]\n                 RABBINISM NOT A SAFE WAY OF SALVATION.\n\n\nSALVATION IS OF THE JEWS. Amongst all the religions systems existing in\nthe world, there are but two deserving of attentive consideration, and\nthey are both of Jewish origin, and were once exclusively confined to\nthe Jewish nation. They are now known by the names of Judaism and\nChristianity; but it must never be forgotten that the latter is as\nentirely Jewish as the former. The Author of Christianity was a Jew. The\nfirst preachers of Christianity were Jews. The first Christians were all\nJews; so that, in discussing the truth of these respective systems, we\nare not opposing a Gentile religion to a Jewish religion, but comparing\none Jewish creed with another Jewish creed. Neither in defending\nChristianity, do we wish to diminish aught from the privileges of the\nJewish people; on the contrary, we candidly acknowledge that we are\ndisciples of the Jews, converts to Jewish doctrines, partakers of the\nJewish hope, and advocates of that truth which the Jews have taught us.\nWe are fully persuaded that the Jews whom we follow were in the\nright\u2014that they have pointed out to us \u201cthe old paths,\u201d \u201cthe good way,\u201d\nand \u201cwe have found rest to our souls.\u201d And we, therefore,\nconscientiously believe, that those Jews who follow the opposite system\nare as wrong as their forefathers, who, when God commanded them to walk\nin the good old way, replied, \u201cWe will not walk therein.\u201d Some modern\nJews think that it is impossible for a Jew to be in error, and that a\nJew, because he is a Jew, must of necessity be in the right. Such\npersons seem to have forgotten how the majority of the people erred in\nmaking the golden calf\u2014how the generation that came out of Egypt died in\nthe wilderness because of their unbelief\u2014how the nation at large\nactually opposed and persecuted the truth of God in the days of\nElijah\u2014how their love of error sent them into the Babylonish\ncaptivity\u2014and how there has been some grievous error of some kind or\nother, which delivered them into the hands of the Romans, and has kept\nthem in a state of dispersion for so many hundred years. But the passage\nfrom which our motto is taken sets forth most strikingly the possibility\nof fatal mistake on the part of the Jewish nation, and also the\npossibility, in such a case, of God\u2019s turning to the Gentiles. \u201cThus\nsaith the Lord, Stand ye in the ways, and see, and ask for the old\npaths, where is the good way, and walk therein, and ye shall find rest\nfor your souls. But they said, We will not walk therein. Also, I set\nwatchmen over you, saying, Hearken to the sound of the trumpet. But they\nsaid, We will not hearken. _Therefore hear, ye nations,_ \u05e9\u05de\u05e2\u05d5 \u05d4\u05d2\u05d5\u05d9\u05dd, and\nknow, O congregation, what is among them. Hear, O earth; behold, I will\nbring evil upon this people, even the fruit of their thoughts, because\n_they have not hearkened unto my words, nor to my law, but rejected\nit_.\u201d\u2014Jer. vi. 16-19. Who will dare to deny, after such a passage, the\npossibility of a Jew\u2019s being in error?\n\nBut some may ask, What is Judaism? what is Christianity? ANSWER.\u2014Judaism\nis that religious system contained and acknowledged in the prayers of\nthe Jewish synagogue, whether German or Portuguese, and professed by all\nwho use them as the ritual of their worship. Christianity is the\nreligious system taught in the New Testament; or, in other words,\nJudaism is the Old Testament explained according to the traditional law,\n\u05ea\u05d5\u05e8\u05d4 \u05e9\u05d1\u05e2\u05dc \u05e4\u05d4. Christianity is the Old Testament explained according to\nthe New. According to this explanation, the Jewish Prayer-book teaches\nthe divine authority of the oral law. Of this there can be no doubt,\nfor, in the first place, the whole ritual of the synagogue service, and\nthe existence and arrangement of the synagogue itself, is according to\nthe prescription of the oral law, as may be seen by comparing the Jewish\nprayers with the Hilchoth T\u2019phillah. If it be asked why the Jew uses\nthese prayers, and no other\u2014why he wears phylacteries (\u05ea\u05e4\u05d9\u05dc\u05d9\u05df) and the\nveil (\u05d8\u05dc\u05d9\u05ea)\u2014why he conforms to certain ceremonies at the New Year, and\nthe Day of Atonement, and the other feasts\u2014why he repeats a certain\nbenediction at the reading of the law\u2014why he reads out of a parchment\nroll, rather than out of a printed book\u2014why a roll of the law written in\none way is lawful, and in another way unlawful, the only answer is, the\noral law commands us thus to do. The whole synagogue worship, therefore,\nfrom the beginning to the end of the year, is a practical confession of\nthe authority of the oral law, and every Jew who joins in the synagogue\nworship does, in so far, conform to the prescriptions of Rabbinism. But,\nsecondly, the Jewish Prayer-book explicitly acknowledges the authority\nof the oral law. In the daily prayers, fol. 11, is found a long passage\nfrom the oral law, beginning,\n\n\u05d0\u05d9\u05d6\u05d4\u05d5 \u05de\u05e7\u05d5\u05de\u05df \u05e9\u05dc \u05d6\u05d1\u05d7\u05d9\u05dd,\n\n\u201cwhich are the places where the offerings were slaughtered,\u201d &c. On fol.\n12, we find the thirteen Rabbinical rules for expounding the law,\nbeginning,\n\n\u05e8\u05d1\u05d9 \u05d9\u05e9\u05de\u05e2\u05d0\u05dc \u05d0\u05d5\u05de\u05e8,\n\n\u201cRabbi Ishmael says,\u201d &c. At the end of the daily prayers we find a\nwhole treatise of the oral law, called, \u05e4\u05e8\u05e7\u05d9 \u05d0\u05d1\u05d5\u05ea, \u201cthe ethics of the\nfathers,\u201d the beginning of which treatise asserts the transmission of\nthe oral law. In the morning service for Pentecost, there is a most\ncomprehensive declaration of the authority and constituent parts of the\noral law. \u201cHe, the Omnipotent, whose reverence is purity, with his\nmighty word he instructed his chosen, and clearly explained the law,\nwith the word, speech, commandment, and admonition, in the Talmud, the\nAgadah, the Mishna, and the Testament, with the statutes, the\ncommandment, and the complete covenant,\u201d &c., p. 89. In this prayer, as\nused, translated, and published by the Jews themselves, the divine\nauthority of the oral law is explicitly asserted, and the Talmud,\nAgadah, and Mishna, are pointed out as the sources where it is to be\nfound. For these two reasons, then, we conclude that the Judaism of the\nJewish Prayer-book is identical with the Judaism of the oral law, and\nthat every Jew who publicly joins in those prayers does, with his lips\nat least, confess its divine authority.\n\nHaving explained what we mean by Judaism, we now go on to another\npreliminary topic. Some one may ask, what is the use of discussing these\ntwo systems? May they not both be safe ways of salvation for those that\nprofess them? To this we must, according to the plain declarations of\nthese systems themselves, reply in the negative. The New Testament\ndenounces the oral law as subversive of the law of God. \u201cThen the\nPharisees and scribes asked him, Why walk not thy disciples according to\nthe tradition of the elders, but eat bread with unwashen hands? He\nanswered and said unto them, Well hath Esaias prophesied of you\nhypocrites, as it is written, This people honoureth me with their lips,\nbut their heart is far from me. Howbeit in vain do they worship me,\nteaching for commandments the doctrines of men.\u201d (Mark vii. 5-7.) The\noral law is still more exclusive. It excludes from everlasting life all\nwho deny its authority, and explicitly informs us that Christians are\ncomprehended in anathema,\u2014\n\n\u05d5\u05d0\u05dc\u05d5 \u05d4\u05df \u05e9\u05d0\u05d9\u05df \u05dc\u05d4\u05dd \u05d4\u05dc\u05e7 \u05dc\u05e2\u05d5\u05dc\u05dd \u05d4\u05d1\u05d0 \u05d0\u05dc\u05d0 \u05e0\u05db\u05e8\u05ea\u05d9\u05df \u05d5\u05d0\u05d5\u05d1\u05d3\u05d9\u05df \u05d5\u05e0\u05d3\u05d5\u05e0\u05d9\u05df \u05e2\u05dc \u05d2\u05d5\u05d3\u05dc \u05e8\u05e9\u05e2\u05dd\n\u05d5\u05d7\u05d8\u05d0\u05ea\u05dd \u05dc\u05e2\u05d5\u05dc\u05dd \u05d5\u05dc\u05e2\u05d5\u05dc\u05de\u05d9 \u05e2\u05d5\u05dc\u05de\u05d9\u05dd \u05d4\u05de\u05d9\u05e0\u05d9\u05df \u05d5\u05d4\u05d0\u05e4\u05d9\u05e7\u05d5\u05e8\u05e1\u05d9\u05df \u05d5\u05d4\u05db\u05d5\u05e4\u05e8\u05d9\u05dd \u05d1\u05ea\u05d5\u05e8\u05d4 \u05d5\u05db\u05d5 \u05c3\n\n\u201c_These are they who have no part in the world to come, but who are cut\noff, and perish, and are condemned on account of the greatness of their\nwickedness and sin for ever, even for ever and ever, the heretics and\nthe Epicureans, and the deniers of the law_,\u201d &c. Here is the general\nstatement. But to prevent all mistake, a particular definition of each\nof these classes is added, from which we extract the following passage:\u2014\n\n\u05e9\u05dc\u05e9\u05d4 \u05d4\u05df \u05d4\u05db\u05d5\u05e4\u05e8\u05d9\u05dd \u05d1\u05ea\u05d5\u05e8\u05d4 \u05d4\u05d0\u05d5\u05de\u05e8 \u05e9\u05d0\u05d9\u05df \u05d4\u05ea\u05d5\u05e8\u05d4 \u05de\u05e2\u05dd \u05d4\u05f3 \u05d0\u05e4\u05d9\u05dc\u05d5 \u05e4\u05e1\u05d5\u05e7 \u05d0\u05d7\u05d3 \u05d0\u05e4\u05d9\u05dc\u05d5 \u05ea\u05d9\u05d1\u05d4\n\u05d0\u05d7\u05ea \u05d0\u05dd \u05d0\u05de\u05e8 \u05de\u05e9\u05d4 \u05d0\u05de\u05e8\u05d5 \u05de\u05e4\u05d9 \u05e2\u05e6\u05de\u05d5 \u05d4\u05e8\u05d9 \u05d6\u05d4 \u05db\u05d5\u05e4\u05e8 \u05d1\u05ea\u05d5\u05e8\u05d4 \u05d5\u05db\u05df \u05d4\u05db\u05d5\u05e4\u05e8 \u05d1\u05e4\u05d9\u05e8\u05d5\u05e9\u05d9\u05d4 \u05d5\u05d4\u05d9\u05d0\n\u05ea\u05d5\u05e8\u05d4 \u05e9\u05d1\u05e2\u05dc \u05e4\u05d4 \u05d5\u05d4\u05de\u05db\u05d7\u05d9\u05e9 \u05d1\u05de\u05d2\u05d9\u05d3\u05d9\u05d4 \u05db\u05e0\u05d5\u05df \u05e6\u05d3\u05d5\u05e7 \u05d5\u05d1\u05d9\u05ea\u05d5\u05dd \u05d5\u05d4\u05d0\u05d5\u05de\u05e8 \u05e9\u05d4\u05d1\u05d5\u05e8\u05d0 \u05d4\u05d7\u05dc\u05d9\u05e3 \u05de\u05e6\u05d5\u05d4\n\u05d6\u05d5 \u05d1\u05de\u05e6\u05d5\u05d4 \u05d0\u05d7\u05e8\u05ea \u05d5\u05db\u05d1\u05e8 \u05d1\u05d8\u05dc\u05d4 \u05ea\u05d5\u05e8\u05d4 \u05d6\u05d5 \u05d0\u05e3 \u05e2\u05dc \u05e4\u05d9 \u05e9\u05d4\u05d9\u05d0 \u05d4\u05d9\u05ea\u05d4 \u05de\u05e2\u05dd \u05d4\u05f3 \u05db\u05e0\u05d5\u05df \u05d4\u05e0\u05d5\u05e6\u05e8\u05d9\u05dd\n\u05d5\u05d4\u05d4\u05e0\u05e8\u05d9\u05dd \u05db\u05dc \u05d0\u05d7\u05d3 \u05de\u05e9\u05dc\u05e9\u05d4 \u05d0\u05dc\u05d4 \u05d4\u05d5\u05d0 \u05db\u05d5\u05e4\u05e8 \u05d1\u05ea\u05d5\u05e8\u05d4 \u05c3\n\n\u201c_There are three classes of the deniers of the law. He who says that\nthe law is not from God, yea, even one verse or one word: or if he says\nthat Moses gave it of his own authority. Such an one is a denier of the\nlaw. Thus, also, he who denies its interpretations: that is, the oral\nlaw, and rejects its Agadoth as Sadok and Baithos: and he who says that\nthe Creator has changed one commandment for another, and that the law\nhas long since lost its authority, although it was given by God, as the\nChristians and Mahometans, each of these three is a denier of the\nlaw._\u201d\u2014Hilchoth T\u2019shuvah, c. iii. 8.\n\nIn the first extract we see that those persons called \u201cdeniers of the\nlaw,\u201d are, according to the doctrine of modern Judaism, shut out from a\nhope of salvation. In the second extract we see that Christians are by\nname included in that class: from the two together it inevitably follows\nthat modern Judaism teaches that Christians cannot be saved. We do not\nfind any fault with modern Judaism for pronouncing this sentence; we do\nnot tax the Jews either with uncharitableness or intolerance because of\nthis opinion. On the contrary, we honour those who, conscientiously\nholding this opinion, have the honesty and the courage to declare it. If\nthey consider us as deniers of the law, they must, of course, believe\nthat our state is far from safe; and if this be their conviction, the\nbest proof which they can give of true charity, is to warn us of our\ndanger. But, at the same time, when a religious system condemns us by\nname, and pronounces sentence concerning our eternal state in so decided\na tone, and that simply because we dissent from some of its tenets, we\nnot only think that we have a right to defend ourselves and our\nreligion, but consider it our bounden duty to examine the grounds on\nwhich a system of such pretension rests, and honestly, though quietly,\nto avow our reasons for rejecting it. We know, indeed, that there are\nsome Rabbinical Jews, who think this sentence harsh, and consider\nthemselves justified in denying it, because there is another sentence in\nthis same oral law, which says, \u201cthat the pious amongst the nations of\nthe world have a part in the world to come.\u201d But can they prove, by any\ncitation from the oral law, that Christians are included \u201camongst the\npious of the nations of the world?\u201d If they can, then they will prove\nthat in one place the oral law denies, and in another place affirms the\nsalvability of Christians; that is, they will prove that the oral law\ncontains palpable contradictions, and therefore cannot be from God. If\nthey cannot produce any such citation, then the general declaration that\n\u201cthe pious of the nations of the world\u201d may be saved, is nothing to the\npurpose; for the same law which makes this general declaration, does\nalso explicitly lay down the particular exception in the case of\nChristians, and that after it has made the general declaration. In fact,\nthe exception follows close on the heels of the general rule. The\ngeneral rule is,\u2014\n\n\u05db\u05dc \u05d9\u05e9\u05e8\u05d0\u05dc \u05d9\u05e9 \u05dc\u05d4\u05dd \u05d7\u05dc\u05e7 \u05dc\u05e2\u05d5\u05dc\u05dd \u05d4\u05d1\u05d0 .... \u05d5\u05db\u05df \u05d7\u05e1\u05d9\u05d3\u05d9 \u05d0\u05d5\u05de\u05d5\u05ea \u05d4\u05e2\u05d5\u05dc\u05dd \u05d9\u05e9 \u05dc\u05d4\u05dd \u05d7\u05dc\u05e7\n\u05dc\u05e2\u05d5\u05dc\u05dd \u05d4\u05d1\u05d0 \u05c3\n\n\u201c_All Israel has a share in the world to come ... and also the pious of\nthe nations of the world have a share in the world to come._\u201d The words\nwhich immediately follow this declaration contain the exception,\u2014\n\n\u05d5\u05d0\u05dc\u05d5 \u05d4\u05df \u05e9\u05d0\u05d9\u05df \u05dc\u05d4\u05dd \u05d7\u05dc\u05e7 \u05dc\u05e2\u05d5\u05dc\u05dd \u05d4\u05d1\u05d0 \u05d5\u05db\u05d5\n\n\u201c_But these are they which have no part in the world to come_,\u201d &c. This\nexception is, therefore, plainly made in order to guard against any\nfalse inference from the general statement, and, therefore, according to\nthe oral law, Christians cannot be saved. We proceed, therefore, to\ninquire into the merits of this system, which makes so decided a\nstatement respecting our eternal state. We have a standard of comparison\nto which no Jew will object, even that Holy Book, which contains the\nwritings of Moses and the prophets. We reject the oral law, not because\nit seems in itself bad or good to our judgment, but because it is\nrepugnant to the plain words of the Old Testament. There is not space to\nenter at large into the proof at present, but we subjoin one passage,\nwhich is in itself amply sufficient to disprove the divine authority of\nany religious system where it occurs. In the Talmud, in the Treatise\nPesachim, fol. 49, col. 2, we read as follows:\u2014\n\n\u05d0\u05de\u05e8 \u05e8\u05d1\u05d9 \u05d0\u05dc\u05e2\u05d6\u05e8 \u05e2\u05dd \u05d4\u05d0\u05e8\u05e5 \u05de\u05d5\u05ea\u05e8 \u05dc\u05e0\u05d7\u05e8\u05d5 \u05d1\u05d9\u05d5\u05dd \u05d4\u05db\u05e4\u05d5\u05e8\u05d9\u05dd \u05e9\u05d7\u05dc \u05dc\u05d4\u05d9\u05d5\u05ea \u05d1\u05e9\u05d1\u05ea \u05d0\u05de\u05e8\u05d5 \u05dc\u05d5\n\u05ea\u05dc\u05de\u05d9\u05d3\u05d9\u05d5 \u05e8\u05d1\u05d9 \u05d0\u05de\u05d5\u05e8 \u05dc\u05e9\u05d7\u05d8\u05d5 \u05d0\u05de\u05e8 \u05dc\u05d4\u05df \u05d6\u05d4 \u05d8\u05e2\u05d5\u05df \u05d1\u05e8\u05db\u05d4 \u05d5\u05d6\u05d4 \u05d0\u05d9\u05e0\u05d5 \u05d8\u05e2\u05d5\u05df \u05d1\u05e8\u05db\u05d4 \u05c3\n\nRabbi Eleazar says, \u201cIt is lawful to split open the nostrils of an\namhaaretz (an unlearned man) on the Day of Atonement which falls on the\nSabbath. His disciples said to him, Rabbi, say rather that it is lawful\nto slaughter him. He replied, That would require a benediction, but here\nno benediction is needful.\u201d It is hardly needful to remind the reader\nthat the law of Moses says, \u05dc\u05d0 \u05ea\u05e8\u05e6\u05d7, \u201cThou shalt not kill.\u201d But there is\nin this passage a sneering contempt for the unlearned, which is utterly\nat variance with the character of Him \u201cwhose mercies are over all his\nworks,\u201d the unlearned and the poor, as well as the mighty and the\nlearned.\n\nIndeed the passage is so monstrous, that one is almost inclined to think\nthat it must have crept into the Talmud by mistake; or, at the least, to\nexpect that it would be followed by reprehension the most explicit and\nsevere. But no, a little lower down another of these \u201cwise men\u201d says,\u2014\n\n\u05e2\u05dd \u05d4\u05d0\u05e8\u05e5 \u05de\u05d5\u05ea\u05e8 \u05dc\u05e7\u05e8\u05e2\u05d5 \u05db\u05d3\u05d2,\n\n\u201cIt is lawful to rend an amhaaretz like a fish;\u201d and, a little above, an\nIsraelite is forbidden to marry the daughter of such a person, for that\nshe is no better than a beast. But the whole of the preceding passage is\nso characteristic of the spirit of Rabbinism, that it is worth\ninserting\u2014\n\n\u05ea\u05e0\u05d5 \u05e8\u05d1\u05e0\u05df \u05d5\u05db\u05d5\u05f3 ,\n\n\u201cOur Rabbies have taught. Let a man sell all that he has, and marry the\ndaughter of a learned man. If he cannot find the daughter of a learned\nman, let him take the daughter of the great men of the time. If he\ncannot find the daughter of a great man of the time, let him marry the\ndaughter of the head of a congregation. If he cannot find the daughter\nof the head of a congregation, let him marry the daughter of an almoner.\nIf he cannot find the daughter of an almoner, let him marry the daughter\nof a schoolmaster. But let him not marry the daughter of the unlearned,\nfor they are an abomination, and their wives are vermin; and of their\ndaughters it is said, \u2018Cursed is he that lieth with any beast.\u2019\u201d Here,\nagain, one is inclined to suppose that there is a mistake, or that these\nwords were spoken in jest, though such a jest would be intolerably\nprofane; but all ground for such supposition is removed on finding this\npassage transcribed into the digest of Jewish law, called the Schulchan\nAruch, part 2; in the Hilchoth P\u2019riah ur\u2019viah, by which transcription it\nis stamped, with all the authority of a law. Here, then, the reader is\nled to think, that an amhaaretz must mean something more and worse than\nan unlearned man\u2014that it ought, perhaps, to be taken in its literal\nsignification, \u201cpeople of the land,\u201d and that it may refer to the\nidolatrous and wicked Canaanites. But the common usage of the Talmud\nforbids a supposition. There is a well-known sentence which shows that\neven a High Priest might be an amhaaretz:\u2014\n\n\u05de\u05de\u05d6\u05e8 \u05ea\u05f3\u05f3\u05d7 \u05e7\u05d5\u05d3\u05dd \u05dc\u05db\u05d4\u05df \u05d2\u05d3\u05d5\u05dc \u05e2\u05dd \u05d4\u05d0\u05e8\u05e5 ,\n\n\u201cA learned man, though illegitimate, goes before a High Priest, who is\nan amhaaretz.\u201d Here the amhaaretz is plainly opposed to him that is\nlearned. And so, on the page of the Talmud from which we have quoted\nabove, we find the following words:\u2014\n\n\u05e2\u05dd \u05d4\u05d0\u05e8\u05e5 \u05d0\u05e1\u05d5\u05e8 \u05dc\u05d0\u05db\u05d5\u05dc \u05d1\u05e9\u05e8 \u05d1\u05d4\u05de\u05d4 \u05e9\u05e0\u05d0\u05de\u05e8 \u05d6\u05d0\u05ea \u05ea\u05d5\u05e8\u05ea \u05d4\u05d1\u05d4\u05de\u05d4 \u05d5\u05d4\u05e2\u05d5\u05e3 \u05db\u05dc \u05d4\u05e2\u05d5\u05e1\u05e7 \u05d1\u05ea\u05d5\u05e8\u05d4\n\u05de\u05d5\u05ea\u05e8 \u05dc\u05d0\u05db\u05d5\u05dc \u05d1\u05e9\u05e8 \u05d1\u05d4\u05de\u05d4 \u05d5\u05e2\u05d5\u05e3 \u05d5\u05db\u05dc \u05e9\u05d0\u05d9\u05e0\u05d5 \u05e2\u05d5\u05e1\u05e7 \u05d1\u05ea\u05d5\u05e8\u05d4 \u05d0\u05e1\u05d5\u05e8 \u05dc\u05d0\u05db\u05d5\u05dc \u05d1\u05e9\u05e8 \u05d1\u05d4\u05de\u05d4 \u05d5\u05e2\u05d5\u05e3 \u05c3\n\n\u201cAn amhaaretz is forbidden to eat the flesh of a beast, for it is said,\n\u2018This is the _law_ of the beast and the fowl.\u2019 (Levit. xi. 46.) Every\none that laboureth in the law, it is lawful for him to eat the flesh of\nthe beast and the fowl. But for him who does not labour in the law, it\nis forbidden to eat the flesh of the beast and the fowl.\u201d According to\nthis passage an amhaaretz is one who does not labour in the study of the\nlaw; and it being found on the very same page with the above most\nrevolting declarations, it plainly shows the proud and haughty spirit of\nthe authors of the Talmud, and their utter contempt for the poor, whose\ncircumstances preclude them from the advantages of study. But, in\nreading such passages, the question naturally suggests itself, to which\nof the two classes does the poor Jewish population of London belong?\nThere must be at the least hundreds, if not thousands of poor Jews in\nthis great city who cannot possibly devote themselves to study. Amongst\nwhom, then, are they to be classed? Amongst the learned \u05ea\u05dc\u05de\u05d9\u05d3\u05d9 \u05d7\u05db\u05de\u05d9\u05de? or\namongst the unlearned \u05e2\u05de\u05d9 \u05d4\u05d0\u05e8\u05e5? Are they, their wives, and daughters, as\nthe Talmud says, to be called an abomination, vermin, and compared to\nthe beasts? Or can a religion inculcating such sentiments proceed from\nthat Holy One who is no respecter of persons? See here, ye children of\nAbraham, whom the providence of God has placed amongst the children of\npoverty, and cut off from the advantage of a learned education. You are\nnot disciples of the wise, nor the great men of the time, nor heads of\nsynagogues, nor almoners, nor even schoolmasters. You are quite shut out\nfrom these classes whom your Talmudical doctors favour so highly. See,\nthen, in the above passages, what the Talmud says of yourselves, your\nwives, and daughters? Can you believe that this is the law of the God of\nIsrael? Can you think for one moment, that these doctors knew \u201cthe old\npaths,\u201d \u201cthe good way?\u201d If you do we must assure you that we cannot. We\nrather find it in that book, which says, \u201cBlessed is the man that\nconsidereth the poor and needy.\u201d (Psalm xli. 1.) And in that other book,\nwhich speaks in the same spirit, and says that \u201cGod hath chosen the\nfoolish things of this world to confound the wise; and the weak things\nof this world to confound the things which are mighty, and base things\nof the world, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that\nare; that no flesh should glory in his presence.\u201d (1 Cor. i. 27, 28.)\n\nFootnote 1:\n\n  Published originally January 15, 1836.\n\n\n\n\n                                No. II.\n                 IMPLICIT FAITH NOT DUE TO THE RABBIES.\n\n\nIt appears from the undisguised acknowledgments of the New Testament,\nthat the doctors and rabbies of the Jews, the Pharisees, and scribes,\nwere the implacable enemies of Jesus of Nazareth, and that they were the\nmain instruments in effecting his death. The modern Jews consider this\nfact as a sufficient apology for their rejection of his claims to the\nMessiahship. They take it for granted that the great and learned men of\nthat day were also good men, and that they had valid reasons for their\nconduct. They think if Jesus of Nazareth had been the true Messiah, that\nthe Sanhedrin, the great Jewish council of the time, would have\nacknowledged him, and conclude that, as they rejected him, he cannot be\nthe true Messiah. The New Testament, on the contrary, accounts for their\nunbelief by plainly telling us, that they were bad men; and that they\nwere enemies to the Lord Jesus, because he told them the truth, and\nexposed their hypocrisy. Now, which of these two representations accords\nwith the truth? Were the scribes and Pharisees, those great advocates of\nthe _oral law_, \u05ea\u05d5\u05e8\u05d4 \u05e9\u05d1\u05e2\u05dc \u05e4\u05d4, good men or bad men? The readers of our\nfirst number will be in some degree qualified to answer this question.\nCould those be good men who profanely talked of the lawfulness of\nkilling an unlearned man, and who contemptuously compared the wives and\ndaughters of the unlearned to \u201cvermin and beasts?\u201d If they could talk\nwith levity of \u201crending like a fish\u201d an unlearned man, one of their own\nbrethren who had never done them any harm, what were they likely to do\nwith one who exposed their wickedness, and boldly told them that they by\ntheir traditions made void the law of God? The very fact, that Jesus of\nNazareth was put to death by such men, is presumptive evidence, that he\nwas a good man, and that his claims were just. But, however that be, it\nis worth while to inquire into the charges, which the New Testament\nbrings against these learned men, and to see whether they are\nsubstantiated by the memorials of their character and spirit, which they\nthemselves have left us in their laws. One of the charges preferred\nagainst them is, that they were ambitious men, covetous of worldly\nhonour, and loving the pre-eminence. \u201cBut all their works they do to be\nseen of men; they make broad their phylacteries, and enlarge the borders\nof their garments. And love the uppermost rooms at feasts, and the chief\nseats in the synagogues, and greetings in the markets, and to be called\nof men, Rabbi, Rabbi.\u201d (Matt. xxiii. 5-7.) Now, is this charge true?\nDoes the oral law justify this assertion, or does it prove, on the\ncontrary, that the enemies of Jesus were humble, pious men, whose piety\nserves as a warrant for the uprightness of their conduct in their\ntreatment of the Lord Jesus? Let the reader judge from the following\nlaws which these men framed with respect to themselves. In the first\nplace they claim for themselves more honour and reverence than is due to\na man\u2019s own parents:\u2014\n\n\u05db\u05e9\u05dd \u05e9\u05d0\u05d3\u05dd \u05de\u05e6\u05d5\u05d5\u05d4 \u05d1\u05db\u05d1\u05d5\u05d3 \u05d0\u05d1\u05d9\u05d5 \u05d5\u05d1\u05d9\u05e8\u05d0\u05ea\u05d5 \u05db\u05d3 \u05d4\u05d5\u05d0 \u05d7\u05d9\u05d9\u05d1 \u05d1\u05db\u05d1\u05d5\u05d3 \u05e8\u05d1\u05d5 \u05d5\u05d1\u05d9\u05e8\u05d0\u05ea\u05d5 \u05d9\u05d5\u05ea\u05e8\n\u05de\u05d0\u05d1\u05d9\u05d5 \u05d5\u05db\u05d5\u05f3 \u05c3\n\n\u201cAs a man is commanded to honour and fear his father, so he is bound to\nhonour and fear his Rabbi more than his father; for his father has been\nthe means of bringing him into the life of this world, but his Rabbi,\nwho teaches him wisdom, brings him to the life of the world to come.\u201d\n(Hilchoth Talmud Torah, c. 5.) This general rule is bad enough, but the\nparticulars are still worse. \u201cIf a man should see something that his\nfather has lost, and something that his Rabbi has lost, he is first to\nreturn what his Rabbi has lost, and then to return that which belongs to\nhis father. If his father and his Rabbi be oppressed with a load, he is\nfirst to help down that of his Rabbi, and then that of his father. If\nhis father and his Rabbi be in captivity, he is first to ransom his\nRabbi and afterwards his father unless his father be the disciple of a\nwise man (_i.e._, learned), in which case he may ransom his father\nfirst.\u201d How fearful is this doctrine! A man is to see his father, the\nauthor of his existence, the guardian of his infancy, who has laboured\nfor his support, and watched over him in the hour of sickness, he is to\nsee this friend, to whom, under God, he owes everything, pining away in\nthe bitterness of captivity, and yet, when he has got the means of\nrestoring him to liberty and his family, he is to leave him still in all\nhis misery, and ransom the Rabbi; where is this written in the Old\nTestament? \u201cHonour thy father and thy mother,\u201d is there the first\ncommandment that follows after our duty to God, and the first movement\nof natural affection. But this Rabbinical doctrine silences the voice of\nnature, and makes void the law of God. What is the doctrine of the New\nTestament here? \u201cIf any provide not for his own, and specially for those\nof his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an\ninfidel.\u201d (1 Tim. v. 8.) The disciples of the Lord Jesus Christ never\nclaimed for themselves any honour like this. In the passage just cited,\nthey plainly declare that the first, in the circle of duties to men, is\nthe duty to our own flesh and blood. And the only case in which the New\nTestament permits a deviation from this rule, is that where the same\nexception is made in the law of Moses, when love to parents would\ninterfere with love to God. \u201cIf any man come to me and hate not his\nfather and mother, and wife and children, and brethren and sisters, yea,\nand _his own life also_, he cannot be my disciple.\u201d (Luke xiv. 26.) Here\nfather and mother, and kindred, are put in one category with a man\u2019s own\nlife, in order to show that there is but one case in which the natural\nties of blood may be overlooked, and this is when the service of God\nrequires it. As it is also written in the law of Moses, \u201cIf thy brother,\nthe son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy\nbosom, or thy friend who is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly,\nsaying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou\nnor thy fathers.... Thou shalt not consent unto him, nor hearken unto\nhim, neither shall thine eye pity him,\u201d &c. (Deut. xiii. 6-9.) And thus\nthe tribe of Levi is praised, because \u201cHe said unto his father and his\nmother, I have not known him; neither did he acknowledge his brethren,\nnor know his own children.\u201d (Deut. xxxiii. 9.) But this Talmudical law\nis widely different. It has no saving clause to show that the case\nspecified is an exception to the general rule. It does not pretend to\nsuppose that the father is a bad man, or an idolater, or an apostate. It\nspecifies but one exception, and that is, where the father is \u201cthe\ndisciple of a wise man;\u201d otherwise, though he be a good man, and a pious\nman, a loving and tender parent, still he is to be disregarded by his\nown son, and the Rabbi preferred before him. Is it possible to doubt\nthat the men who conceived, sanctioned, and promulgated a law like this,\nhad an eye to their own personal honour and interest? Is it reasonable\nto suppose that men who would sacrifice their own father to the honour\nof their Rabbi, would be very tender about the life of one who appeared,\nlike Jesus of Nazareth, as an opposer of their pretensions? Or can the\nJews, with the law and the prophets in their hands, suppose that these\nmen pointed to \u201cthe old paths,\u201d \u201cthe good way?\u201d This is certainly not\nthe doctrine of Moses. He says:\u2014\n\n\u05d0\u05e8\u05d5\u05e8 \u05de\u05e7\u05dc\u05d4 \u05d0\u05d1\u05d9\u05d5 \u05d5\u05d0\u05de\u05d5 \u05d5\u05d0\u05de\u05e8 \u05db\u05dc \u05d4\u05e2\u05dd \u05d0\u05de\u05df \u05c3\n\n\u201cCursed be he that setteth light by his father or his mother, and all\nthe people shall say, Amen.\u201d (Deut. xxvii. 16.)\n\nBut these men did not stop here. They were not content with being\nexalted above father and mother. They did not scruple to assert, that\ntheir honour was as sacred as that of God himself:\u2014\n\n\u05d5\u05d0\u05d9\u05df \u05dc\u05da \u05db\u05d1\u05d5\u05d3 \u05d2\u05d3\u05d5\u05dc \u05de\u05db\u05d1\u05d5\u05d3 \u05d4\u05e8\u05d1 \u05d5\u05dc\u05d0 \u05de\u05d5\u05e8\u05d0 \u05de\u05de\u05d5\u05e8\u05d0 \u05d4\u05e8\u05d1 \u05d0\u05de\u05e8\u05d5 \u05d7\u05db\u05de\u05d9\u05dd \u05de\u05d5\u05e8\u05d0 \u05e8\u05d1\u05da \u05db\u05de\u05d5\u05e8\u05d0\n\u05e9\u05de\u05d9\u05dd \u05c3\n\n\u201cThou must consider no honour greater than the honour of the Rabbi, and\nno fear greater than the fear of the Rabbi. The wise men have said, The\nfear of thy Rabbi is as the fear of God.\u201d\n\nThey endeavour to prove the validity of these extravagant claims by such\npassages as Exod. xvi. 8, \u201cYour murmurings are not against us, but\nagainst the Lord.\u201d But they have taken for granted what they can never\nprove, and that is, that every Rabbi is invested with the same office\nand authority as Moses. But where, in all the law of Moses, is there any\nwarrant for such an assumption? Moses could with all propriety say,\n\u201cYour murmurings are not against us, but against the Lord,\u201d for he held\na special commission from God, and had proved to the people the reality\nof his commission by a series of miracles. But this the Rabbies never\npretended to do. In this dearth of evidence the advocates of tradition\nflee for refuge to Deut. xvii. 8, &c. \u201cIf there arise a matter too hard\nfor thee in judgment, between blood and blood, between plea and plea,\nand between stroke and stroke, being matters of controversy within thy\ngates; then shalt thou arise, and get thee up into the place which the\nLord thy God shall choose; and thou shalt come unto the priests, the\nLevites, and unto the judge that shall be in those days, and inquire,\nand they shall show thee the sentence of judgment. And thou shalt do\naccording to the sentence, which they of that place which the Lord shall\nchoose shall shew thee; and thou shalt observe to do according to all\nthat they inform thee; according to the sentence of the law which they\nshall teach thee, and according to the judgment which they shall tell\nthee, thou shalt do; thou shalt not decline from the sentence which they\nshall show thee to the right hand nor to the left.\u201d Here, say the\ntraditionists, is a plain and unequivocal command. No doubt, God here\nplainly declares what is to be done in a difficult case. He commands the\nIsraelites to go to the place which the Lord God chose, that is, to the\nplace where was found the ark of the covenant; and to inquire, not of\nthe Rabbies, but of the priests, the Levites, and the judge \u05d4\u05e9\u05d5\u05e4\u05d8. But\nthis passage, instead of proving that \u201cthe fear of the Rabbi is as the\nfear of God,\u201d proves the contrary. It supposes first, that the Rabbies\nand learned men may differ in judgment, that there may be a controversy,\nand consequently, that one party may be in the wrong. It, therefore,\neffectually overthrows Rabbinical infallibility. It shows that these\nlearned men are, after all, only poor fallible creatures like ourselves,\nand that, therefore, we are not to fear them as we would fear God, nor\nreverence their dictates, as the Word of God. It shows secondly, that in\na case of difficulty, the Israelites were not to appeal to the Rabbies,\nbut to the priests \u05db\u05d4\u05e0\u05d9\u05dd, and to the judge \u05e9\u05d5\u05e4\u05d8, and even to them only\nin the place which the Lord should choose. There is not one word said\nabout the Rabbies or the wise men, and, therefore, this passage\ncompletely annihilates all their lofty pretensions. For centuries the\nplace which the Lord chose has been desolate, and there has been no\npriest standing to minister before the Lord. The Jews have thus lost all\npossibility of appeal. They have neither ministering priest nor judge,\nand the Mosaic law nowhere recognises the pretensions of the Rabbies.\nBut some Jew may say, that though this passage does not prove the\nauthority of the Rabbies, it does at least warrant the Jews in\npersisting to reject the claims of the Lord Jesus, for that he was\ncondemned by the priests, and in Jerusalem, the place which the Lord\nchose. We confess that this objection is plausible; but can easily prove\nthat it is nothing more. In order to this, we ask the Jews, whether the\nabove command to abide by the sentence of the priests is in every case,\nand without any exception, binding? To this question there are two\nanswers possible\u2014Yes and No. If they say No, then they admit that the\npriests might sometimes be in the wrong, and we would, of course, take\nadvantage of this admission to show that they erred in their judgment on\nJesus of Nazareth. They will then, most probably, say, Yes; the sentence\nof the priests, the Levites, and the judges, is in every case binding,\nand Israel is commanded not to deviate from it, either to the right hand\nor to the left, upon pain of capital punishment. We beg of them then to\nturn to the 26th chapter of the Prophet Jeremiah, and to consider the\ncase there set before them. We there find that Jeremiah had delivered a\nmessage from God, very similar to our Lord\u2019s prediction of the\ndestruction of Jerusalem. \u201cI will make this house like Shiloh, and will\nmake this city a curse to all the nations of the earth.\u201d We find,\nfurther, that for this message the priests condemned Jeremiah to death,\njust as their successors condemned Jesus of Nazareth. \u201cNow it came to\npass, when Jeremiah had made an end of speaking all that the Lord had\ncommanded him to speak unto all the people, that _the priests_, and the\nprophets, and all the people took him, saying, Thou shalt surely die.\u201d\nWe find, further, that this sentence was pronounced \u201cin the place which\nthe Lord had chosen,\u201d in the Temple itself. \u201cAnd all the people were\ngathered against Jeremiah in the house of the Lord.\u201d We find, further,\nthat the sentence against Jeremiah was no rash sudden act, but the\ndeliberate judgment of the priests. For when the princes of Judah came\nafterwards to inquire into the matter, \u201cThen spake _the priests_ and the\nprophets unto the princes and to all the people, saying, _This man is\nworthy to die_, for he hath prophesied against this city, as ye have\nheard with your ears.\u201d Now, then, we ask again, whether the people of\nIsrael was in duty bound to abide by this sentence, and not to decline\nfrom it, either to the right hand or to the left? We fearlessly reply,\nthat they were not bound by this sentence, and that, if they had\nexecuted it, they would have been guilty of murder, as Jeremiah himself\ndeclares: \u201cBut know ye for certain, that if ye put me to death, ye shall\nsurely bring innocent blood upon yourselves, and upon this city, and\nupon the inhabitants thereof: for of a truth the Lord hath sent me unto\nyou to speak all these words in your ears.\u201d We infer, therefore, that it\nwas possible for the priests, assembled in solemn deliberation in the\nhouse of the Lord, to err in judgment, and to pronounce on unrighteous\nsentence. We infer, further, that it was possible for the priests so far\nto err, as to condemn to death a true prophet of the Lord. We infer,\nfurther, that in such a case the people was not bound by this mistaken\njudgment; but that it was their duty to decline from it, both to the\nright hand and to the left. We infer, lastly, that as the priests might\nmistake, and unjustly condemn to death a true prophet, their sentence\nagainst Jesus of Nazareth forms no more argument against the Messiahship\nof Jesus, than the similar sentence just considered did against the true\nprophetic character of Jeremiah; and that it affords just as little\nwarrant for Jewish unbelief as the former sentence did for putting\nJeremiah to death.\n\nBut it may be asked, if the judgment of the priests was not infallible,\nand if men were sometimes justifiable in refusing it, what use was there\nin the above commandment to apply to them in cases of difficulty, and to\nabide by their sentence? The answer to this is very simple. The priest\nthat stood to minister before the Lord had it in his power, before the\ndestruction of the first Temple, to inquire of the Lord and to receive a\nmiraculous answer from God himself, which answer was, of course,\ninfallible, and universally obligatory, without the possibility of\nexception. We find in the Old Testament many instances in which the\nIsraelites availed themselves of this power, as in Judges xx. 27, \u201cAnd\nthe children of Israel inquired of the Lord (for the ark of the covenant\nof God was there in those days: and Phinehas, the son of Eleazar, the\nson of Aaron, stood before it in those days), saving, Shall I yet again\ngo out to battle against the children of Benjamin my brother, or shall I\ncease? And the Lord said, Go up; for to morrow I will deliver them into\nthine hand.\u201d And in the history of David\u2019s life, there are several\ninstances of his employment of this miraculous power, as 1 Sam. xxiii.\n4, \u201cThen David inquired of the Lord yet again. And the Lord answered him\nand said, Arise, go down to Keilah; for I will deliver the Philistines\ninto thine hand.\u201d In all such cases where the priest first inquired of\nthe Lord, his sentence was, of course, infallible, and the Israelites\nwere bound to abide by it. But where they did not inquire of the Lord,\ntheir sentence was only that of fallible men, and, therefore, not\nbinding upon the consciences of the people. Of this sort was their\nsentence upon Jeremiah. Being wicked men, they did not choose to ask\ncounsel of the Lord, but pronounced sentence according to the devices of\ntheir own hearts. In the case of the Lord Jesus Christ the priests could\nnot ask counsel of the Lord, for in the second Temple the Urim and\nThummim, and the ark of the covenant, were wanting; the miraculous\npower, therefore, did not exist, and for this very reason the sentence\nof the priests, during the whole period of the second Temple, was only\nfallible, like that of other men, and, therefore, not binding, and\nconsequently of no force as an argument against the Messiahship of the\nLord Jesus Christ. The above passage, therefore, from the 17th of\nDeuteronomy, is of no use to the Rabbinical Jews, it does not prove the\ninfallibility of the priests in the second Temple, and is still less\napplicable for sanctioning the traditions of the oral law, and the\nextravagant claims of the Rabbies. Having given this passage the\nconsideration it deserves, we now return to the laws which the Rabbies\nhave made in favour of themselves, and for their own honour. We consider\nthat the two passages of the oral law already quoted, prove that the New\nTestament gives a fair delineation of their character. When men, without\nany warrant from God\u2019s Word, claim for themselves the same degree of\nreverence which is due to God, it must be admitted that they are\nvainglorious and wicked in no ordinary degree. But it is possible to\ndescend to particulars:\u2014For instance, our Lord says, that these men\n\u201cloved greetings in the market-places, and to be called of men, Rabbi,\nRabbi.\u201d Now one of the laws, still extant, forbids a man, when speaking\nof his Rabbi, to call him by name:\u2014\n\n\u05d0\u05e1\u05d5\u05e8 \u05dc\u05d5 \u05dc\u05ea\u05dc\u05de\u05d9\u05d3 \u05dc\u05e7\u05e8\u05d5\u05ea \u05dc\u05e8\u05d1\u05d5 \u05d1\u05e9\u05de\u05d5 \u05d5\u05d0\u05e4\u05d9\u05dc\u05d5 \u05e9\u05dc\u05d0 \u05d1\u05e4\u05e0\u05d9\u05d5 ,\n\n\u201cIt is forbidden to a disciple to call his Rabbi by name, even when he\nis not in his presence.\u201d Another law, still extant, prescribes the\nformula of greeting or salutation:\u2014\n\n\u05d5\u05dc\u05d0 \u05d9\u05ea\u05df \u05e9\u05dc\u05d5\u05dd \u05dc\u05e8\u05d1\u05d5 \u05d0\u05d5 \u05d9\u05d7\u05d6\u05d9\u05e8 \u05dc\u05d5 \u05e9\u05dc\u05d5\u05dd \u05db\u05d3\u05e8\u05da \u05e9\u05e0\u05d5\u05ea\u05e0\u05d9\u05dd \u05dc\u05e8\u05d9\u05e2\u05d9\u05dd \u05d5\u05de\u05d7\u05d6\u05d9\u05e8\u05d9\u05dd \u05d6\u05d4 \u05dc\u05d6\u05d4\n\u05d0\u05dc\u05d0 \u05e9\u05d5\u05d7\u05d4 \u05dc\u05e4\u05e0\u05d9\u05d5 \u05d5\u05d0\u05d5\u05de\u05e8 \u05dc\u05d5 \u05d1\u05d9\u05e8\u05d0\u05d4 \u05d5\u05db\u05d1\u05d5\u05d3 \u05e9\u05dc\u05d5\u05dd \u05e2\u05dc\u05d9\u05da \u05e8\u05d1\u05d9 \u05c3\n\n\u201cNeither is he to salute his Rabbi, nor to return his salutation in the\nsame manner that salutations are given or returned amongst friends. On\nthe contrary, _he is to bow down before the Rabbi, and to say to him,\nwith reverence and honour, Peace be unto thee, Rabbi_.\u201d The Rabbinical\nJews, who see this, must not mistake us. We do not consider it in\nanywise sinful, but decorous, to treat a Rabbi with all due respect. We\nshould feel no objection ourselves to make a bow to a Rabbi, and to\nsalute him in the prescribed formula. But we cite these laws to show\nthat the New Testament gives a fair representation of the Pharisees: for\nmen, who could gravely sit down and enter into all these details of the\nmode in which they were to be honoured, and then give out these laws as\ndivine, and, besides all this, call in the civil power to enforce them,\nmust have had no mean idea of themselves and their own dignity. It must\nnever be forgotten that these laws are not the mere regulations of a\nreligious community. When the Rabbies had the power in their own hands,\nthey enforced them by civil sanctions. They were not satisfied with\nexcluding despisers of Rabbinical authority from eternal life, _they\nprosecuted such before the tribunals, and sentenced them to a pecuniary\nfine and excommunication_, as may be seen from the following law:\u2014\n\n\u05d5\u05db\u05dc \u05d4\u05de\u05d1\u05d6\u05d4 \u05d0\u05ea \u05d4\u05d7\u05db\u05de\u05d9\u05de \u05d0\u05d9\u05df \u05dc\u05d5 \u05d7\u05dc\u05e7 \u05dc\u05e2\u05d5\u05dc\u05dd \u05d4\u05d1\u05d0 \u05d5\u05d4\u05e8\u05d9 \u05d4\u05d5\u05d0 \u05d1\u05db\u05dc\u05dc \u05db\u05d9 \u05d3\u05d1\u05e8 \u05d9\u05d4\u05d5\u05d4 \u05d1\u05d6\u05d4 \u05c3\n\u05d0\u05e3 \u05e2\u05dc \u05e4\u05d9 \u05e9\u05d4\u05de\u05d1\u05d6\u05d4 \u05d0\u05ea \u05d4\u05d7\u05db\u05de\u05d9\u05dd \u05d0\u05df \u05dc\u05d5 \u05d7\u05dc\u05e7 \u05dc\u05e2\u05d5\u05dc\u05dd \u05d4\u05d1\u05d0 \u05d0\u05dd \u05d1\u05d0\u05d5 \u05e2\u05d3\u05d9\u05dd \u05e9\u05d1\u05d6\u05d4\u05d5 \u05d0\u05e4\u05d9\u05dc\u05d5\n\u05d1\u05d3\u05d1\u05e8\u05d9\u05dd \u05d7\u05d9\u05d9\u05d1 \u05e0\u05d3\u05d5\u05d9 , \u05d5\u05de\u05e0\u05d3\u05d9\u05df \u05d0\u05d5\u05ea\u05d5 \u05d1\u05d9\u05ea \u05d3\u05d9\u05df \u05d1\u05e8\u05d1\u05d9\u05dd \u05d5\u05e7\u05d5\u05e0\u05e1\u05d9\u05df \u05d0\u05d5\u05ea\u05d5 \u05dc\u05d9\u05d8\u05e8\u05d0 \u05d6\u05d4\u05d1 \u05d1\u05db\u05dc\n\u05de\u05e7\u05d5\u05dd \u05d5\u05e0\u05d5\u05ea\u05e0\u05d9\u05df \u05d0\u05d5\u05ea\u05d5 \u05dc\u05d7\u05db\u05dd \u05d5\u05d4\u05de\u05d1\u05d6\u05d4 \u05d0\u05ea \u05d4\u05d7\u05db\u05dd \u05d1\u05d3\u05d1\u05e8\u05d9\u05dd \u05d0\u05e4\u05d9\u05dc\u05d5 \u05dc\u05d0\u05d7\u05e8 \u05de\u05d9\u05ea\u05d4 \u05de\u05e0\u05d3\u05d9\u05df \u05d0\u05d5\u05ea\u05d5\n\u05d1\u05d9\u05ea \u05d3\u05d9\u05df \u05d5\u05db\u05d5\u05f3 ,\n\n\u201cWhosoever despises the wise men has no share in the world to come. But\nnotwithstanding this, if there come witnesses to prove that he has been\nguilty of contempt, even in words, his sentence is excommunication, and\nthe tribunal (house of judgment) excommunicates him publicly, and\neverywhere mulct him in a pound of gold, and give it to the wise man. He\nthat despiseth a wise man in words, even after his death, is to be\nexcommunicated by the tribunal,\u201d &c. We now ask the Jews of modern times\nwhat they think of those who made their own personal honour the subject\nof legislation, who required the same reverence for their words as the\nWord of God, and who dragged up him that refused it before a tribunal,\nhad him sentenced to pecuniary fine, and excommunication; and, besides\nall this, excluded him from the hope of everlasting life? Had such men\nany idea of liberty of conscience?\n\n\n\n\n                                No. III.\n           RABBINIC INJUSTICE TO WOMEN, SLAVES, AND GENTILES.\n\n\nIf any of our readers should think that the design of these papers is to\nrepresent the oral law as a system of unmixed evil, we beg to assure\nthem that they are mistaken. We are fully aware that a system based on\nthe law and the prophets, must and does contain much that is good and\nworthy of admiration. Of this nature is the general command to all\nIsraelites to study the law, which is as follows:\u2014\u201cEvery man of Israel\nis bound to study the law. Whether he be poor or rich, healthy or\nunhealthy, young or old, yea, though he live upon alms, and beg from\ndoor to door, and though he have a wife and children, he is bound to set\napart a fixed time for the study of the law, by day and by night, as it\nis written, \u2018Thou shalt meditate therein by day and by night,\u2019\u201d And\nagain, the maxim, \u201cEvery one that is bound to learn is also bound to\nteach;\u201d and that, \u201ctherefore, a man is bound to teach his son and his\nson\u2019s son,\u201d &c., is in accordance with the plain command of God, and is\ntherefore good. But the explanation and development of these good\nprinciples shows that the system itself is radically bad, and therefore\ncannot be from God. No one will deny that the Rabbies are right in\nasserting the obligation resting on every Israelite to study the law:\nbut they are wrong in their explanation of what the law is. Immediately\nafter the above good command, the oral law goes on to say, \u201cEvery one is\nbound to divide the time of his study into three parts: one-third to be\ndevoted to the written law; one-third to Mishna; and one-third to\nGemara:\u201d so that the written law of God is to have only half as much\nattention as the traditions of men. This is bad enough. But the Rabbies\ndo not stop here. They go on to say, that this third of attention is\nonly required when a man begins to study, but that when he has made\nprogress, he is to read the law of God only at times, and to devote\nhimself to Gemara.\n\n\u05d1\u05d3\u05f3\u05f3\u05d0 \u05d1\u05ea\u05d7\u05dc\u05ea \u05ea\u05dc\u05de\u05d5\u05d3\u05d5 \u05e9\u05dc \u05d0\u05d3\u05dd \u05d0\u05d1\u05dc \u05db\u05e9\u05d9\u05d2\u05d3\u05d9\u05dc \u05d1\u05d7\u05db\u05de\u05d4 \u05d5\u05dc\u05d0 \u05d9\u05d4\u05d0 \u05e6\u05e8\u05d9\u05da \u05dc\u05d5 \u05dc\u05dc\u05de\u05d5\u05d3 \u05ea\u05d5\u05e8\u05d4\n\u05e9\u05d1\u05db\u05ea\u05d1 \u05d5\u05dc\u05d0 \u05dc\u05e2\u05e1\u05d5\u05e7 \u05ea\u05de\u05d9\u05d3 \u05d1\u05ea\u05d5\u05e8\u05d4 \u05e9\u05d1\u05e2\u05dc \u05e4\u05d4 \u05d9\u05e7\u05e8\u05d0 \u05d1\u05e2\u05ea\u05d9\u05dd \u05de\u05d6\u05d5\u05de\u05e0\u05d9\u05dd \u05ea\u05d5\u05e8\u05d4 \u05e9\u05d1\u05db\u05ea\u05d1 \u05d5\u05d3\u05d1\u05e8\u05d9\n\u05d4\u05e9\u05de\u05d5\u05e2\u05d4 \u05db\u05d3\u05d9 \u05e9\u05dc\u05d0 \u05d9\u05e9\u05db\u05d7 \u05d3\u05d1\u05e8 \u05de\u05d3\u05d1\u05e8\u05d9 \u05d3\u05d9\u05e0\u05d9 \u05ea\u05d5\u05e8\u05d4 \u05d5\u05d9\u05e4\u05e0\u05d4 \u05db\u05dc \u05d9\u05de\u05d9\u05d5 \u05dc\u05d2\u05de\u05e8\u05d0 \u05c3\n\n\u201cWhat has been said refers only to the beginning of a man\u2019s learning,\nbut as soon as a man becomes great in wisdom, and has no need of\nlearning the written law, or of labouring constantly in the oral law,\nlet him at fixed times read them, that he may not forget any of the\njudgments of the law, _but let him devote all his days to Gemara_.\u201d It\nis to be observed that \u201coral law\u201d is here taken in a limited sense, as\nreferring to the expositions of the written law, or, as Rabbi Joseph\nKaro[2] explains it, the Mishna; and Gemara signifies the legal\ndecisions which are inferred by a process of reasoning, and to this\nthird topic of Jewish theology the Israelites are commanded to give the\nchief of their time and attention, rather than to the written Word of\nGod.\n\nThe apparent excellence of the above command to study the law is thus\nutterly destroyed by the Rabbinical exposition of what is to be studied.\nAnd if we go on to inquire upon whom this command is binding, the\nRabbinical answer will afford just as little satisfaction. When the\nRabbies say, that \u201cevery man of Israel is bound to study the law,\u201d they\nmean to limit the study to the men of Israel, and to exclude the women\nand slaves. The very first sentence of the Hilchoth Talmud Torah is\n\n\u05e0\u05e9\u05d9\u05dd \u05d5\u05e2\u05d1\u05d3\u05d9\u05dd \u05d5\u05e7\u05d8\u05e0\u05d9\u05dd \u05e4\u05d8\u05d5\u05e8\u05d9\u05dd \u05de\u05ea\u05dc\u05de\u05d5\u05d3 \u05ea\u05d5\u05e8\u05d4 ,\n\n\u201cWomen and slaves and children are exempt from the study of the law.\u201d\nAccording to this declaration, women are not obliged to learn. The\nfollowing extract will confirm this opinion, and at the same time show\nthat there is no obligation on fathers to have their daughters taught.\n\n\u05d0\u05e9\u05d4 \u05e9\u05dc\u05de\u05d3\u05d4 \u05ea\u05d5\u05e8\u05d4 \u05d9\u05e9 \u05dc\u05d4 \u05e9\u05db\u05e8 \u05d0\u05d1\u05dc \u05d0\u05d9\u05e0\u05d5 \u05db\u05e9\u05db\u05e8 \u05d4\u05d0\u05d9\u05e9 \u05de\u05e4\u05e0\u05d9 \u05e9\u05dc\u05d0 \u05e0\u05e6\u05d8\u05d5\u05d9\u05ea , \u05d5\u05db\u05dc \u05d4\u05e2\u05d5\u05e9\u05d4\n\u05d3\u05d1\u05e8 \u05e9\u05d0\u05d9\u05e0\u05d5 \u05de\u05e6\u05d5\u05d5\u05d4 \u05e2\u05dc\u05d9\u05d5 \u05dc\u05e2\u05e9\u05d5\u05ea\u05d5 \u05d0\u05d9\u05df \u05e9\u05db\u05e8\u05d5 \u05db\u05e9\u05db\u05e8 \u05d4\u05de\u05e6\u05d5\u05d5\u05d4 \u05d5\u05e2\u05d5\u05e9\u05d4 \u05d0\u05dc\u05d0 \u05e4\u05d7\u05d5\u05ea \u05de\u05de\u05e0\u05d5\n\u05d5\u05d0\u05e2\u05f3\u05f3\u05e4 \u05e9\u05d9\u05e9 \u05dc\u05d4 \u05e9\u05db\u05e8 \u05e6\u05d5\u05d5 \u05d7\u05db\u05de\u05d9\u05dd \u05e9\u05dc\u05d0 \u05d9\u05dc\u05de\u05d3 \u05d0\u05d3\u05dd \u05d0\u05ea \u05d1\u05ea\u05d5 \u05ea\u05d5\u05e8\u05d4 \u05de\u05e4\u05e0\u05d9 \u05e9\u05e8\u05d5\u05d1 \u05d4\u05e0\u05e9\u05d9\u05dd \u05d0\u05d9\u05df\n\u05d3\u05e2\u05ea\u05df \u05de\u05db\u05d5\u05d5\u05e0\u05ea \u05dc\u05d4\u05ea\u05dc\u05de\u05d3 \u05d0\u05dc\u05d0 \u05d4\u05df \u05de\u05d5\u05e6\u05d9\u05d0\u05d5\u05ea \u05d3\u05d1\u05e8\u05d9 \u05ea\u05d5\u05e8\u05d4 \u05dc\u05d3\u05d1\u05e8\u05b4\u05d9 \u05d4\u05d1\u05d0\u05d9 \u05de\u05e4\u05d9 \u05e2\u05e0\u05d9\u05d5\u05ea \u05d3\u05e2\u05ea\u05df ,\n\u05d0\u05de\u05e8\u05d5 \u05d7\u05db\u05de\u05d9\u05dd \u05db\u05dc \u05d4\u05de\u05dc\u05de\u05d3 \u05d0\u05ea \u05d1\u05ea\u05d5 \u05ea\u05d5\u05e8\u05d4 \u05db\u05d0\u05dc\u05d5 \u05dc\u05de\u05d3\u05d4 \u05ea\u05d9\u05e4\u05dc\u05d5\u05ea , \u05d1\u05d3\u05f3\u05f3\u05d0 \u05d1\u05ea\u05d5\u05e8\u05d4 \u05e9\u05d1\u05e2\u05dc \u05e4\u05d4\n\u05d0\u05d1\u05dc \u05ea\u05d5\u05e8\u05d4 \u05e9\u05d1\u05db\u05ea\u05d1 \u05dc\u05d0 \u05d9\u05dc\u05de\u05d3 \u05d0\u05d5\u05ea\u05d4 \u05dc\u05db\u05ea\u05d7\u05dc\u05d4 \u05d5\u05d0\u05dd \u05dc\u05de\u05d3\u05d4 \u05d0\u05d9\u05e0\u05d5 \u05db\u05de\u05dc\u05de\u05d3\u05d4 \u05ea\u05d9\u05e4\u05dc\u05d5\u05ea \u05c3\n\n\u201cA woman who learns the law has a reward, but it is not equal to the\nreward which the man has, _because she is not commanded to do so_: for\nno one who does anything which he is not commanded to do, receives the\nsame reward as he who is commanded to do it, but a less one. But though\nthe woman has a reward, the wise men have commanded that no man should\nteach his daughter the law, for this reason, that the majority of women\nhave not got a mind fitted for study, but pervert the words of the law\non account of the poverty of their mind. The wise men have said, Every\none that teacheth his daughter the law is considered as if he taught her\ntransgression.[3] _But this applies only to the oral law._ As to the\nwritten law, he is not to teach her systematically; but if he has taught\nher, he is not to be considered as having taught her transgression.\u201d\n\nAccording to this decision, it is absolutely forbidden to teach a woman\nthe oral law; and the teaching of it is looked upon as the teaching of\ntransgression \u05ea\u05d9\u05e4\u05dc\u05d5\u05ea. We cannot forbear asking the advocates of the oral\nlaw, whether it does not here testify against itself that it is bad. It\ndeclares of itself that it is unfit for the perusal and study of the\npure female mind, and that it is as corrupting as the teaching of\ntransgression. We ask, then, can such a law be divine? Can it proceed\nfrom the God of Israel, who hath said, \u201cBe ye holy, for I am holy?\u201d What\na noble testimony to the superiority of the written Word, and to the\njustice of the Lord Jesus Christ\u2019s opposition to the oral law! The oral\nlaw itself says, \u201cHe that teacheth his daughter the oral law, is to be\nconsidered as if he taught her transgression. He that teacheth her the\nwritten law, is not to be so considered.\u201d With such a confession, we\nfearlessly ask the sons and daughters of Israel, who then was in the\nright? Jesus of Nazareth, who opposed it, or the scribes and Pharisees\nwho defended it?\n\nBut \u201cthe wise men\u201d also forbid Israelites to teach women the written\nlaw, and declare that women are not bound to learn. For the prohibition\nthey assign two reasons. First, they say that God has commanded them to\nteach only their sons, in proof of which they refer to Deut. xi. 19,\n\u201cAnd ye shall teach them your children.\u201d In the Hebrew it is \u05d1\u05e0\u05d9\u05db\u05dd \u201cyour\nsons;\u201d and the rabbies infer \u05d5\u05dc\u05d0 \u05d0\u05ea \u05d1\u05e0\u05d5\u05ea\u05d9\u05db\u05dd, \u201cand not your\ndaughters.\u201d[4] Secondly, they say, as we have seen above, \u201cthat the\nmajority of women have not got minds fitted for study,\u201d and in the\nTalmud[5] this is attempted to be proved from Scripture. \u201cA wise woman\nonce asked R. Eliezer, How it was that after the sin of the golden calf,\nthose who were alike in transgressions did not all die the same death?\nHe replied, A woman\u2019s wisdom is only for the distaff, as it is written,\n\u2018All the women that were wise-hearted did spin with their hands.\u2019\u201d\n(Exod. xxxv. 25.) We hesitate not to say, that both these reasons are\ncontrary to Scripture. We do not deny that \u05d1\u05e0\u05d9\u05db\u05dd signifies sons, but we\nutterly deny the conclusion of the Rabbies, that because the masculine\nword is used, therefore the women are not included in the command. There\nis an abundance of instances in which the masculine word \u05d1\u05e0\u05d9\u05dd is used\nfor children generally, without any allusion to sex. Take for example\nExod. xxii. 23 (in the English 24), \u201cAnd my wrath shall wax hot, and I\nwill kill you with the sword; and your wives shall be widows, and your\nchildren \u05d1\u05e0\u05d9\u05db\u05dd (literally your sons) orphans.\u201d Here again the masculine\nword is used, so that if the Rabbinical argument be valid in the above\ncase, it will be valid here, and consequently the daughters are excluded\nfrom this denunciation, so that the sons were to be orphans, but not the\ndaughters, which is plainly impossible. In the same way we can prove\nthat the daughters of Israel did not wander in the wilderness forty\nyears, for in Numbers xiv. 33, it is said, \u201cAnd your children \u05d5\u05d1\u05e0\u05d9\u05db\u05dd\n(literally your sons, and, therefore, according to Talmudic logic, not\nyour daughters) shall wander in the wilderness forty years.\u201d The same\nlogic will also prove that during the three days of miraculous darkness\nin Egypt, the women of Israel were left in darkness as well as the\nEgyptians, for it is said all the children of Israel (\u05d5\u05dc\u05db\u05dc \u05d1\u05e0\u05d9 \u05d9\u05e9\u05e8\u05d0\u05dc,\nliterally the sons of Israel) had light in their dwellings. And thus\nalso it might be proved that not one of the ten commandments is binding\nupon the women, for the masculine gender is employed throughout. This\nlogic, therefore, is evidently false; and we conclude, on the contrary,\nthat as the women are included in all these passages\u2014as they wandered\nthrough the wilderness, and had light in their dwellings\u2014and are bound\nto keep the ten commandments as well as the men, so also they are\nincluded in the command, \u201cYe shall teach them your children,\u201d and that,\ntherefore, the command of the oral law not to teach women, is contrary\nto the Word of God. But we are not confined to argument, God has plainly\ncommanded that the women should learn as well as the men. \u201cAnd Moses\ncommanded them, saying, At the end of every seven years, in the\nsolemnity of the year of release in the Feast of Tabernacles, when all\nIsrael is come to appear before the Lord thy God in the place which he\nshall choose, thou shalt read this law before all Israel in their\nhearing. Gather the people together, men _and women_, and children, and\nthy stranger that is within thy gates, that they may hear, and _that\nthey may learn_ \u05d5\u05dc\u05de\u05e2\u05df \u05d9\u05dc\u05de\u05d3\u05d5, and fear the Lord your God, and observe to\ndo all the words of this law.\u201d (Deut. xxxi. 10-12.) Here a most\nbeautiful order is observed, and required of women as well as men;\nhearing\u2014learning\u2014fearing\u2014keeping the words of the law\u2014God wills that\nthat women should fear him and keep his commandments as well as the men;\nand therefore he wills that they should make use of the same means, that\nthey should hear, and learn all the words of the law. The traditionists\nhave, therefore, in this case plainly made void the law of God. God\ncommands women as well as men to learn the law; the Rabbies say they are\nexempt from this duty. God commands that the woman should be taught. It\nis plain, therefore, that the oral law, which contradicts the written\nlaw, cannot be from God. The command of God is so plain that it is\nunnecessary to enter deeply into the second Rabbinical reason for the\nprohibition to teach women the law. It is evident that God did not think\nthat the poverty of their understanding was any obstacle to their\nlearning his will. Indeed it has pleased Him to show that He is no\nrespecter of persons with regard to male or female, more than with\nregard to rich or poor. He has not only given them his law, but\nconferred on women as well as men the gift of prophecy, so that the\nnames of Deborah, Hannah, and Huldah, must ever be remembered amongst\nthe inspired messengers of God. The Rabbies seem to have forgotten that\n\u201cthe fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom,\u201d and that this fear\nmay be implanted by God just as easily in the heart of a woman as of a\nRabbi. But without inquiring further into their reasons or their\nmotives, suffice it to say, that the oral law in thus robbing women of\ntheir right and inheritance in the law of God, and in degrading them to\nthe same category with children and slaves, is opposed to the plain\ncommands of the written law. But not so the New Testament. It exactly\nagrees with the Old in considering woman as a rational and responsible\nbeing, and a candidate for everlasting life. It, therefore, gives one\ngeneral rule for the education of children, male and female. \u201cYe\nfathers, provoke not your children to wrath, but bring them up in the\nnurture and admonition of the Lord.\u201d (Ephes. vi. 4.) It does indeed\nprescribe modesty and subjection to the women in the mode or learning,\nbut in so doing it plainly points out their duty to become acquainted\nwith the will of God. \u201cLet the woman learn in silence with all\nsubjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach nor to usurp authority\nover the man, but to be in silence.\u201d (1 Tim. ii. 11, 12.)\n\nIn these and other passages the woman is placed in the position assigned\nher in the Old Testament, and not in the very subordinate rank imposed\nupon her by the oral law. \u201cWomen, and slaves (\u05e2\u05d1\u05d3\u05d9\u05dd), and children, are\nexempt from the study of the law.\u201d But we think that this rule is as\nfalse with regard to slaves as to women. Here the oral law says that\nslaves are not bound to learn. In Hilchoth Avadim, c. viii. 18, we find\nthat they are not to be taught.\n\n\u05d0\u05e1\u05d5\u05e8 \u05dc\u05d0\u05d3\u05dd \u05dc\u05dc\u05de\u05d3 \u05d0\u05ea \u05e2\u05d1\u05d3\u05d5 \u05ea\u05d5\u05e8\u05d4 \u05c3\n\n\u201cIt is forbidden to a man to teach his slave the law.\u201d But, alas, the\npassage of the Word of God which forbids it, is not referred to. It is\nonly an inference from the passage, \u201cYe shall teach your _sons_;\u201d but is\nevidently contrary to the whole tenour of the law of Moses. In the first\nplace, the Israelite who had been sold by the tribunal, or who, on\naccount of poverty, had sold himself, was still an Israelite, and did\nnot forfeit, finally, his right to his inheritance in the land; how,\nthen, could he forfeit his right to the law, which Moses gave as \u201cthe\ninheritance of the congregation of Jacob?\u201d The law of Moses expressly\nprovides a day of rest \u201cfor the man servant and the maid servant,\u201d that\nthey may not only have rest for their bodies, but may have time to learn\nthe will of God, and provide for that eternity to which they are\nhastening as well as their masters. Indeed, if meditation on the Word of\nGod was more necessary for one Israelite than another, it was for the\nHebrew servant. If he had been guilty of theft, and had been sold by the\ntribunal, he had special need of instruction in the law of God to lead\nhim to repentance, and to teach him his duty for the future. If he had\nbeen guilty of no crime, but had been compelled by poverty to sacrifice\nhis liberty, surely he needed the consolation which the Word of God can\nsupply, to enable him to bear his hard lot with patience, and to prevent\nhim from murmuring. But here the oral law steps in, and actually\nprohibits his master from teaching him; and instead of encouraging him\nin his leisure time to turn to the Word of God as his refuge and his\ncomfort, it tells him that he is not bound to study it. Here, again, the\nNew Testament is much more like the law of Moses, which breathes, all\nthrough, a spirit of the most tender compassion for those in servitude.\nMoses commands the Israelites to remember that they had themselves been\nbondmen in Egypt. The New Testament reminds Christian masters that they\nhave a master in heaven. \u201cYe masters, do the same things unto them,\nforbearing threatening: knowing that your master also is in heaven;\nneither is there respect of persons with him.\u201d (Ephes. vi. 9.) It also\nplainly teaches that the relation which exists between believing masters\nand servants is, before God, that of brethren. \u201cAnd they that have\nbelieving masters, let them not despise them, because they are brethren;\nbut rather do them service because they are faithful and beloved,\npartakers of the benefit.\u201d (1 Tim. vi. 2.) Yea, the New Testament lays\ndown a general principle, the very opposite of that, that \u201cwomen, and\nslaves, and children are exempt from the study of the law.\u201d It says,\n\u201cThere is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there\nis neither male nor female, for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.\u201d (Gal.\niii. 28.) It does not dispense men from their relative duties, nor\ndeprive any of their legitimate privileges, but teaches that for all,\nJew or Greek, bond or free, male or female, there is but one way of\nsalvation. Very different is the doctrine of the oral law. We have seen\nthat it makes a grand distinction between male and female, bond and\nfree, we need not, therefore, be surprised if it make the line of\ndemarcation broader still between Jew and Greek.\n\n\u05d2\u05d5\u05d9 \u05e9\u05e2\u05e1\u05e7 \u05d1\u05ea\u05d5\u05e8\u05d4 \u05d7\u05d9\u05d9\u05d1 \u05de\u05d9\u05ea\u05d4 , \u05dc\u05d0 \u05d9\u05e2\u05e1\u05d5\u05e7 \u05d0\u05dc\u05d0 \u05d1\u05e9\u05d1\u05e2 \u05de\u05e6\u05d5\u05d5\u05ea \u05e9\u05dc\u05d4\u05df \u05d1\u05dc\u05d1\u05d3 , \u05d5\u05db\u05df \u05d2\u05d5\u05d9\n\u05e9\u05e9\u05d1\u05ea \u05d0\u05e4\u05d9\u05dc\u05d5 \u05d1\u05d9\u05d5\u05dd \u05de\u05d9\u05de\u05d5\u05ea \u05d4\u05d7\u05d5\u05dc , \u05d0\u05dd \u05e2\u05e9\u05d4\u05d5 \u05dc\u05e2\u05e6\u05de\u05d5 \u05db\u05de\u05d5 \u05e9\u05d1\u05ea \u05d7\u05d9\u05d1 \u05de\u05d9\u05ea\u05d4 , \u05d5\u05d0\u05d9\u05df \u05e6\u05e8\u05d9\u05da\n\u05dc\u05d5\u05de\u05e8 \u05d0\u05dd \u05e2\u05e9\u05d4 \u05de\u05d5\u05e2\u05d3 \u05dc\u05e2\u05e6\u05de\u05d5 , \u05db\u05dc\u05dc\u05d5 \u05e9\u05dc \u05d3\u05d1\u05e8 \u05d0\u05d9\u05df \u05de\u05e0\u05d9\u05d7\u05d9\u05df \u05d0\u05d5\u05ea\u05df \u05dc\u05d7\u05d3\u05e9 \u05d3\u05ea \u05d5\u05dc\u05e2\u05e9\u05d5\u05ea\n\u05de\u05e6\u05d5\u05d5\u05ea \u05dc\u05e2\u05e6\u05de\u05df \u05de\u05d3\u05e2\u05ea\u05df , \u05d0\u05dc\u05d0 \u05d0\u05d5 \u05d9\u05d4\u05d5\u05d4 \u05d2\u05e8 \u05e6\u05d3\u05e7 \u05d5\u05d9\u05e7\u05d1\u05dc \u05db\u05dc \u05d4\u05de\u05e6\u05d5\u05d5\u05ea , \u05d0\u05dc \u05d9\u05e2\u05de\u05d5\u05d3 \u05d1\u05ea\u05d5\u05e8\u05ea\u05d5\n\u05d5\u05dc\u05d0 \u05d9\u05d5\u05e1\u05d9\u05e3 \u05d5\u05dc\u05d0 \u05d9\u05d2\u05e8\u05e2 , \u05d5\u05d0\u05dd \u05e2\u05e1\u05e7 \u05d1\u05ea\u05d5\u05e8\u05d4 \u05d0\u05d5 \u05e9\u05d1\u05ea , \u05d0\u05d5 \u05d7\u05d3\u05e9 \u05d3\u05d1\u05e8 , \u05de\u05db\u05d9\u05df \u05d0\u05d5\u05ea\u05d5\n\u05d5\u05e2\u05d5\u05e0\u05e9\u05d9\u05df \u05d0\u05d5\u05ea\u05d5 \u05d5\u05de\u05d5\u05d3\u05d9\u05e2\u05d9\u05df \u05d0\u05d5\u05ea\u05d5 \u05e9\u05d4\u05d5\u05d0 \u05d7\u05d9\u05d9\u05d1 \u05de\u05d9\u05ea\u05d4 \u05e2\u05dc \u05d6\u05d4 \u05d0\u05d1\u05dc \u05d0\u05d9\u05e0\u05d5 \u05e0\u05d4\u05e8\u05d2 \u05c3\n\n\u201cA Gentile who employs himself in the law is guilty of death. He is not\nto employ himself except in the seven commandments that belong to the\nGentiles. And thus a Gentile who keeps a Sabbath, though it be on one of\nthe week days\u2014if he make it to himself as a Sabbath, he is guilty of\ndeath. It is not necessary to add, if he appoint for himself a festival.\nThe general rule is that they are not permitted to innovate in religion,\nor to make commandments for themselves out of their own heads. Either\nlet a Gentile become a proselyte of righteousness, and take upon him the\nwhole law: or let him remain in his own law, and neither add nor\ndiminish. But if he employs himself in the law, or keeps a Sabbath, or\nmakes any innovation, he is to be beaten and punished, and informed that\nhe is for this guilty of death\u2014but he is not to be killed.\u201d (Hilchoth\nMelachim, c. x. 9.) This law is taken from the Talmudical treatise\nSanhedrin,[6] where it is followed by an apparently contradictory\nstatement, \u201cthat a Gentile who employs himself in the law is as good as\na high priest;\u201d but the contradiction is immediately removed by the\nexplanation which there follows, and says, that \u201claw\u201d is to be\nunderstood of the seven commandments of the Gentiles. Now we admit\nliberty of conscience was not understood at the time; and that it would\nbe unjust to expect that the compilers of the oral law (who were\nignorant of, or opposed to, the New Testament, where liberty of\nconscience was first plainly revealed) should be at all elevated above\nthe level of their own times. But making this admission and apology for\nthe men, we cannot help saying that the law itself is bad, and cannot be\nfrom God. Religion is a matter between God and man. The heart, the\nconscience, and the understanding are all alike concerned. Instruction\nout of God\u2019s Word is, therefore, the only means of producing conviction.\nEntertaining these sentiments, we endeavour to compare the oral law with\nthe Word of God, and to convince its advocates that they are in error.\nWe do not wish to have the modern Jews confounded with the authors of\nthe system. Very many Jews of the present day are ignorant of its\ndetails. Not having time to make the inquiry, they take it for granted,\nthat their forefathers were right in preferring their own system to\nChristianity, and that they are bound to do the same. But even those who\nare learned in the oral law, and know its details, are not to be viewed\nin the same light as the original compilers. They have received the\nsystem from their forefathers, and view it through the medium of filial\naffection and national prejudice. They remember that to the Jews the law\nwas given, and that the Jewish nation has been the original instrument\nin God\u2019s hand to diffuse light over the world; they have therefore\nhitherto taken it for granted that they must be right. The narrow\nprejudices of Christians for ages confirmed them in their views. But now\ncircumstances are different. Christians begin to understand the position\nin which God has placed the Jewish nation, and to look forward to their\nrestoration to the favour of God as the time of blessing for the whole\nworld. Christians can now honour and estimate the learning, the talent,\nand the constancy of those very Rabbies whose system they consider as\nerroneous. Now, then, is the time for the Jews themselves to inquire\ninto those religious opinions, which have been handed down to them, and\nto compare them with the law and the prophets. We trust that many will\nadmit, that the laws which we have been considering are bad, and\ntherefore cannot be from God. Let them then remember, that the\noriginators of these laws are the men who rejected the claims of the\nLord Jesus Christ. If then these men were in error in making these laws,\nthey were in condemning Jesus of Nazareth because he opposed them; and\nif the laws be bad, the Lord Jesus was right in opposing them. Yea, and\nwhere they taught error He and his disciples taught the truth. The\nRabbies have taught constraint. Jesus of Nazareth and his disciples have\ntaught that fire is not to be called down from heaven on those who\ndiffer from us; that \u201cthe servant of God must not strive; but be gentle\nto all men, apt to teach, patient, in meekness instructing those that\noppose themselves; if God will peradventure give them repentance to the\nacknowledging of the truth.\u201d (2 Tim. ii. 25.)\n\nFootnote 2:\n\n  Joreh Deah, sec. 246.\n\nFootnote 3:\n\n  Literally, \u05ea\u05d9\u05e4\u05dc\u05d5\u05ea. In the translation of this word we follow the\n  interpretation of the Joreh Deah, which renders it \u05d3\u05d1\u05e8 \u05e2\u05d1\u05d9\u05e8\u05d4. This is\n  obviously not the place to discuss the other opinions of the Rabbies.\n\nFootnote 4:\n\n  See Kiddushin, fol. 29, col. 2.\n\nFootnote 5:\n\n  Joma., fol. 66, col. 2.\n\nFootnote 6:\n\n  Fol. 59, col. 1.\n\n\n\n\n                                No. IV.\n              RABBINIC INTOLERANCE TOWARDS OTHER NATIONS.\n\n\nThe Jewish deputies, when asked by Napoleon whether they considered\nFrenchmen as their brethren, replied in the affirmative, and after\nquoting the Mosaic laws respecting the stranger said, \u201cTo these\nsentiments of benevolence towards the _stranger_, Moses has added the\nprecept of general love for mankind: \u2018_Love thy fellow-creature as\nthyself_.\u2019\u201d[7] And in the authorized Jewish Catechism used in Bavaria,\nafter the explanation of the moral duties, we find the following\nquestion:\u2014\u201cAre these laws and duties, affirmative and negative\ncommandments, binding with respect to a non-Israelite?\u201d ANSWER\u2014\u201cBy all\nmeans, for the fundamental law of all these duties, \u2018_Love thy neighbour\nas thyself_,\u2019 is expressly laid down by the Holy Scriptures in reference\nto the non-Israelite, yea, to the heathen, as it is written, \u2018And if a\nstranger sojourn with thee in your land, ye shall not vex him. But the\nstranger that dwelleth with you shall be unto you as one born amongst\nyou, _and thou shalt love him as thyself_: for ye were strangers in the\nland of Egypt: I am the Lord your God.\u2019\u201d (Levit. xix. 33-35.)[8] These\ndeclarations are very explicit, and, as forming part of public\ndocuments, highly satisfactory. The representatives of the Jewish people\nin France, and the teachers of the Jewish youth in Bavaria, declare,\nthat in the scriptural command, \u201cThou shalt love thy neighbour as\nthyself,\u201d neighbour means _fellow-man_, without distinction of nation or\nreligion. Where then did they learn this interpretation? From the Talmud\nor from the New-Testament? The Jewish deputies say, from the former. On\nthe page cited above they add, \u201cThis doctrine is also professed by the\nTalmud. We are bound, says a Talmudist, to love as brethren all those\nwho observe the _Noachides_,[9] whatever their religious opinions may\notherwise be. We are bound to visit their sick, to bury their dead, to\nassist their poor, like those of Israel. In short, there is no act of\nhumanity which a true Israelite is not bound to perform towards those\nwho observe the _Noachides_.\u201d The Bavarian Catechism is more cautious.\nIt makes no such bold assertion respecting the Talmud. It only intimates\nthat the oral law teaches this doctrine, by subjoining to the passage\nfrom Leviticus the same extract from Maimonides, alluded to by the\nJewish deputies. The Catechism gives the extract a little more at\nlength, and as follows:\u2014\u201cWe are bound in everything to treat the\nnon-Israelite, who sojourns with us, with justice and with love, as we\nwould treat an Israelite. Yea, we are even bound to maintain him, as the\nScripture teaches in the words, \u2018Thou shalt give it to the stranger that\nis in thy gates, that he may eat it.\u2019 (Deut. xiv. 21.) Our wise men have\ncommanded us for the good of society, even to visit the sick of the\nheathen, to bury their dead, and to deal out alms to them: for of our\nCreator it is said, \u2018The Lord is good to all; and his tender mercies are\nover all his works.\u2019 (Psalm cxlv. 9.) (Maimonid. Hilchoth Melachim, 10,\n12.)\u201d\n\nNo doubt the passage as here given, both by the French deputies and the\nBavarian Catechism, is very plausible; and if it could be found\nverbatim, either in the Talmud or any of its compendiums, would go far\nto justify the bold assertion of the former, and the cautious\ninsinuation of the latter. But unfortunately the original passage is\nvery different. In the above citations, it is mutilated in order to suit\nthe purpose of the citers. In the Jad Hachasakah it stands as follows:\u2014\n\n\u05d5\u05db\u05df \u05d9\u05e8\u05d0\u05d4 \u05dc\u05d9 \u05e9\u05e0\u05d5\u05d4\u05d2\u05d9\u05df \u05e2\u05dd \u05d2\u05e8\u05d9 \u05ea\u05d5\u05e9\u05d1 \u05d1\u05d3\u05e8\u05da \u05d0\u05e8\u05e5 \u05d5\u05d2\u05de\u05d9\u05dc\u05d5\u05ea \u05d7\u05e1\u05d3\u05d9\u05dd \u05db\u05d9\u05e9\u05e8\u05d0\u05dc , \u05e9\u05d4\u05e8\u05d9 \u05d0\u05e0\u05d5\n\u05de\u05e6\u05d5\u05d5\u05d9\u05df \u05dc\u05d4\u05d7\u05d9\u05d5\u05ea\u05df \u05e9\u05e0\u05d0\u05de\u05e8 \u05dc\u05d2\u05e8 \u05d0\u05e9\u05e8 \u05d1\u05e9\u05e2\u05e8\u05d9\u05da \u05ea\u05ea\u05e0\u05e0\u05d4 \u05d5\u05d0\u05db\u05dc\u05d4 , \u05d5\u05d6\u05d4 \u05e9\u05d0\u05de\u05e8\u05d5 \u05d7\u05db\u05de\u05d9\u05dd \u05d0\u05d9\u05df\n\u05db\u05d5\u05e4\u05dc\u05d9\u05df \u05dc\u05d4\u05dd \u05e9\u05dc\u05d5\u05dd , \u05d1\u05d2\u05d5\u05d9\u05dd \u05dc\u05d0 \u05d1\u05d2\u05e8 \u05ea\u05d5\u05e9\u05d1 , \u05d0\u05e4\u05d9\u05dc\u05d5 \u05d4\u05d2\u05d5\u05d9\u05dd \u05e6\u05d5\u05d5 \u05d7\u05db\u05de\u05d9\u05dd \u05dc\u05d1\u05e7\u05e8 \u05d7\u05d5\u05dc\u05d9\u05d4\u05dd\n, \u05d5\u05dc\u05e7\u05d1\u05d5\u05e8 \u05de\u05ea\u05d9\u05d4\u05dd \u05e2\u05dd \u05de\u05ea\u05d9 \u05d9\u05e9\u05e8\u05d0\u05dc , \u05d5\u05dc\u05e4\u05e8\u05e0\u05e1 \u05d0\u05ea \u05e2\u05e0\u05d9\u05d9\u05d4\u05dd \u05d1\u05db\u05dc\u05dc \u05e2\u05e0\u05d9\u05d9 \u05d9\u05e9\u05e8\u05d0\u05dc , \u05de\u05e4\u05e0\u05d9\n\u05d3\u05e8\u05db\u05d9 \u05e9\u05dc\u05d5\u05dd , \u05d4\u05e8\u05d9 \u05e0\u05d0\u05de\u05e8 \u05d8\u05d5\u05d1 \u05d4\u05f3 \u05dc\u05db\u05dc \u05d5\u05e8\u05d7\u05de\u05d9\u05d5 \u05e2\u05dc \u05db\u05dc \u05de\u05e2\u05e9\u05d9\u05d5 \u05d5\u05e0\u05d0\u05de\u05e8 \u05d3\u05e8\u05db\u05d9\u05d4 \u05d3\u05e8\u05db\u05d9 \u05e0\u05d5\u05e2\u05dd\n\u05d5\u05db\u05dc \u05e0\u05ea\u05d9\u05d1\u05d5\u05ea\u05d9\u05d4 \u05e9\u05dc\u05d5\u05dd \u05c3\n\n\u201cAnd thus it appears to me, that _the proselytes allowed to sojourn_ are\nto be treated with the same courtesy and benevolence as the Israelites;\nfor behold, we are commanded to maintain them, as it is written, \u2018Thou\nshalt give it to the stranger (proselyte) that is in thy gates, that he\nmay eat it.\u2019 _As to that saying of our wise men not to return their\nsalute, it refers to the Gentiles, not to the proselyte allowed to\nsojourn._ But even with regard to the heathen, the wise men have\ncommanded us to visit their sick, and to bury their dead with the dead\nof Israel, and to feed their poor along with the poor of Israel, FOR THE\nSAKE OF THE WAYS OF PEACE: for it is written, \u2018The Lord is good to all,\nand his mercies are over all his works;\u2019 and again, \u2018Her ways are ways\nof pleasantness, and all her paths are peace.\u2019\u201d (Prov. iii. 17.) The\nreader will observe that there are several striking differences between\nthis translation and that of the Bavarian Catechism; and these\ndifferences prove that, by the word \u201cneighbour,\u201d the oral law does not\nunderstand a fellow-man without any regard to his religious opinions.\nFirst, the Bavarian Catechism says, \u201cWe are bound in everything to treat\nthe non-Israelite who sojourns with us with justice and with love, and\nas we would treat an Israelite.\u201d The original says, \u201cAnd thus _it\nappears to me_, that _the proselytes allowed to sojourn_ are to be\ntreated with the same courtesy and benevolence as the Israelites.\u201d The\nBavarian Catechism translates this passage as it if were the undisputed\nlaw of Israel thus to act; whereas Maimonides only offers his own\nopinion. He says, \u201cIt appears to me.\u201d Here the French deputies represent\nthe matter more accurately, by saying, \u201cWe are bound, says _a\nTalmudist_.\u201d Not the Talmud, but a Talmudist. Then, again, the Bavarian\nCatechism speaks generally of \u201cnon-Israelites.\u201d Maimonides speaks of\nonly one particular class, the proselytes who had permission to sojourn\nin the land of Israel. That we do not misrepresent Maimonides\u2019 meaning,\nis plain from the words of the Jewish deputies, who also restrict the\nsense to that one particular class. \u201cWe are bound, says a Talmudist, to\nlove as brethren all those who observe the _Noachides_, whatever their\nreligious opinions may otherwise be.\u201d Here, then, on the showing of the\nJewish deputies themselves, the Talmud does not teach that all men are\nto be loved as brethren, but only those who keep the seven commandments\nof Noah. How, then, are we to regard the idolater and the heathen, who\nhave not embraced these seven commandments, and how are we to treat\nthem? This leads us to notice,\n\n2dly, The important _omission_ made by the Bavarian Catechism. In citing\nthe words of Maimonides, the compilers have omitted the whole sentence,\n\u201cAs to the saying of our wise men not to return their salute, it refers\nto the Gentiles, not to the proselytes allowed to sojourn.\u201d To this\nsentence, the French Jewish deputies have also made no allusion; and yet\nthis sentence is found in the very middle of the passage quoted. What\ngoes before and what follows is quoted by both, but both have with one\ncommon consent omitted this passage. Now this mere fact of omission is,\nin itself, sufficient to excite the suspicions of Israelites not\nacquainted with the oral law. The Jewish deputies in Paris, and the\ncompilers of the Jewish Catechism in Bavaria, had one common object\u2014they\nwished to prove, or to intimate, that the Talmud teaches us to love as\nourselves all our fellow-men, without any respect to religious\ndifferences. In order to prove this, they both refer to one and the same\npassage\u2014and from the middle of that passage they both omit one important\nsentence. What conclusion will be drawn by any man of common\nunderstanding? Just this, that as they both quote one and the same\npassage, there must be a great scarcity of proof from the Talmud: and\nthat; as they both make the same omission, the sentence omitted must be\nunfavourable to that proof; and that, therefore, this one passage does\nnot prove that the Talmud teaches any such doctrine. Such is the\nconclusion to which we are led by considering the facts of the case. An\nexamination of the omitted passage will show that this conclusion is\nmost just\u2014\u201cAs to the saying of our wise men, not to return their salute,\nit refers to the Gentiles, not to the proselytes allowed to sojourn.\u201d\nHad this passage been inserted in its place, the Bavarian Catechism\ncould not have been translated \u05d2\u05e8\u05d9 \u05ea\u05d5\u05e9\u05d1 (sojourning proselytes)\n\u201cnon-Israelites,\u201d for from this passage it appears that these\n_sojourners_ are different from the \u201cGentiles,\u201d whose salute is not to\nbe returned. In plain English, this passage restricts \u201cthe courtesy and\nbenevolence\u201d to those proselytes who, by taking upon them the seven\ncommandments of Noah, obtained the privilege of sojourning in the land\nof Israel; and consequently excludes \u201cthe Gentiles\u201d\u2014and consequently\ndisproves the assertion that the Talmud teaches us to love as ourselves\nall our fellow-men without any respect to religious differences. On the\ncontrary, this passage tells us that the salutation of the Gentiles is\nnot to be returned. It prescribes two different lines of conduct to be\npursued towards different religionists, and makes the difference of\nreligious persuasion the basis of the rule. But some readers may say,\nthat the difference is very small\u2014that the command \u201cnot to return the\nsalute of the Gentiles,\u201d is a mere matter of etiquette\u2014whereas the\ncommand to visit the sick of the Gentiles, to bury their dead, and to\nfeed their poor; is a substantial kindness. This we should admit, if the\nreason assigned for such conduct, \u201cfor the sake of the ways of peace,\u201d\ndid not utterly remove all the apparent kindness. And this brings us to:\n\nThe third misrepresentation of the Bavarian Catechism. It translates the\nwords \u05de\u05e4\u05e0\u05d9 \u05d3\u05e8\u05db\u05d9 \u05e9\u05dc\u05d5\u05dd (for the sake of the ways of peace) \u201cfor the good\nof society.\u201d Here, then, there is an evident difference between us. But\nwho is right? We do not ask the Israelite to believe us. Maimonides here\nrefers to another passage of the oral law, where this expression is\nfully explained, and where the command \u201cnot to return the salutation of\nthe Gentiles\u201d is also found. We will give this passage, and then the\nunlearned can judge for themselves:\u2014\n\n\u05de\u05e4\u05e8\u05e0\u05e1\u05d9\u05df \u05e2\u05e0\u05d9\u05d9 \u05e2\u05db\u05d5\u05f3\u05f3\u05dd \u05e2\u05dd \u05e2\u05e0\u05d9\u05d9 \u05d9\u05e9\u05e8\u05d0\u05dc \u05de\u05e4\u05e0\u05d9 \u05d3\u05e8\u05db\u05d9 \u05e9\u05dc\u05d5\u05dd . \u05d5\u05d0\u05d9\u05df \u05de\u05de\u05d7\u05d9\u05df \u05d1\u05d9\u05d3\u05d9 \u05e2\u05e0\u05d9\u05d9\n\u05e2\u05db\u05d5\u05f3\u05f3\u05dd \u05d1\u05dc\u05e7\u05d8 \u05e9\u05db\u05d7\u05d4 \u05d5\u05e4\u05d0\u05d4 \u05de\u05e4\u05e0\u05d9 \u05d3\u05e8\u05db\u05d9 \u05e9\u05dc\u05d5\u05dd . \u05d5\u05e9\u05d5\u05d0\u05dc\u05d9\u05df \u05d1\u05e9\u05dc\u05d5\u05de\u05dd \u05d0\u05e4\u05d9\u05f3 \u05d1\u05d9\u05d5\u05dd \u05d7\u05d2\u05dd \u05de\u05e4\u05e0\u05d9\n\u05d3\u05e8\u05db\u05d9 \u05e9\u05dc\u05d5\u05dd \u05d5\u05d0\u05d9\u05df \u05db\u05d5\u05e4\u05dc\u05d9\u05df \u05dc\u05d4\u05dd \u05e9\u05dc\u05d5\u05dd \u05dc\u05e2\u05d5\u05dc\u05dd , \u05d5\u05dc\u05d0 \u05d9\u05db\u05e0\u05e1 \u05dc\u05d1\u05d9\u05ea\u05d5 \u05e9\u05dc \u05e0\u05db\u05e8\u05d9 \u05e2\u05db\u05d5\u05f3\u05f3\u05dd\n\u05d1\u05d9\u05d5\u05dd \u05d7\u05d2\u05d5 \u05dc\u05ea\u05ea \u05dc\u05d5 \u05e9\u05dc\u05d5\u05dd , \u05de\u05e6\u05d0\u05d5 \u05d1\u05e9\u05d5\u05e7 \u05e0\u05d5\u05ea\u05df \u05dc\u05d5 \u05e9\u05dc\u05d5\u05dd \u05d1\u05e9\u05e4\u05d4 \u05e8\u05e4\u05d4 \u05d5\u05d1\u05db\u05d5\u05d1\u05d3 \u05e8\u05d0\u05e9 , \u05d0\u05d9\u05df\n\u05db\u05dc \u05d4\u05d3\u05d1\u05e8\u05d9\u05dd \u05d4\u05d0\u05dc\u05d5 \u05d0\u05de\u05d5\u05e8\u05d9\u05dd \u05d0\u05dc\u05d0 \u05d1\u05d6\u05de\u05df \u05e9\u05d2\u05dc\u05d5 \u05d9\u05e9\u05e8\u05d0\u05dc \u05dc\u05d1\u05d9\u05df \u05d4\u05d0\u05d5\u05de\u05d5\u05ea \u05d0\u05d5 \u05e9\u05d9\u05d3 \u05e2\u05db\u05d5\u05f3\u05f3\u05dd\n\u05ea\u05e7\u05d9\u05e4\u05d4 \u05e2\u05dc \u05d9\u05e9\u05e8\u05d0\u05dc \u05d0\u05d1\u05dc \u05d1\u05d6\u05de\u05df \u05e9\u05d9\u05d3 \u05d9D\u05e8\u05d0\u05dc \u05ea\u05e7\u05d9\u05e4\u05d4 \u05e2\u05dc\u05d9\u05d4\u05dd \u05d0\u05e1\u05d5\u05e8 \u05dc\u05e0\u05d5 \u05dc\u05d4\u05e0\u05d9\u05d7 \u05e2\u05db\u05d5\u05f3\u05f3\u05dd\n\u05d1\u05d9\u05e0\u05d9\u05e0\u05d5 , \u05d0\u05e4\u05d9\u05dc\u05d5 \u05d9\u05d5\u05e9\u05d1 \u05d9\u05e9\u05d9\u05d1\u05ea \u05d0\u05e8\u05e2\u05d9 \u05d0\u05d5 \u05e2\u05d5\u05d1\u05e8 \u05de\u05de\u05e7\u05d5\u05dd \u05dc\u05de\u05e7\u05d5\u05dd \u05d1\u05e1\u05d7\u05d5\u05e8\u05d4 \u05dc\u05d0 \u05d9\u05e2\u05d1\u05d5\u05e8\n\u05d1\u05d0\u05e8\u05e6\u05e0\u05d5 \u05d0\u05dc\u05d0 \u05e2\u05d3 \u05e9\u05d9\u05e7\u05d1\u05dc \u05e2\u05dc\u05d9\u05d5 \u05e9\u05d1\u05e2 \u05de\u05e6\u05d5\u05d5\u05ea \u05e9\u05e0\u05e6\u05d8\u05d5\u05d5 \u05d1\u05e0\u05d9 \u05e0\u05d7 , \u05e9\u05e0\u05d0\u05de\u05e8 \u05dc\u05d0 \u05d9\u05e9\u05d1\u05d5 \u05d1\u05d0\u05e8\u05e6\u05da\n\u05d0\u05e4\u05d9\u05dc\u05d5 \u05dc\u05e4\u05d9 \u05e9\u05e2\u05d4 \u05d5\u05d0\u05dd \u05e7\u05d1\u05dc \u05e2\u05dc\u05d9\u05d5 \u05d6\u05f3 \u05de\u05e6\u05d5\u05d5\u05ea \u05d4\u05e8\u05d9 \u05d6\u05d4 \u05d2\u05e8 \u05ea\u05d5\u05e9\u05d1 \u05d5\u05db\u05d5\u05f3 \u05c3\n\n\u201cThe poor of the idolaters are to be fed with the poor of Israel _for\nthe sake of the ways of peace_. They are also permitted to have part of\nthe gleaning, me forgotten sheaf, and the corner of the field, _for the\nsake of the ways of peace_. It is also lawful to ask after their health,\neven on their feast-day, _for the sake of the ways of peace_; but never\nto return (literally, reiterate) the salutation, nor to enter the house\nof an idolater on the day of his festival to salute him. If he be met in\nthe street, he is to be saluted in a low tone of voice, and with a heavy\nhead. _But all these things are said only of the time that Israel is in\ncaptivity among the nations, or that the hand of the idolaters is strong\nupon Israel. But when the hand of Israel is strong upon them, we are\nforbidden to suffer an idolater amongst us, even so much as to sojourn\nincidentally, or to pass from place to place with merchandize._ He is\nnot to pass through our land until he take upon him the seven\ncommandments given to the children of Noah, for it is said \u2018They shall\nnot dwell in thy land,\u2019 (Exod. xxiii. 33,) not even for an hour. But if\nhe take upon himself the seven commandments, then he is a proselyte\npermitted to sojourn (\u05d2\u05e8 \u05ea\u05d5\u05e9\u05d1).\u201d Hilchoth Accum, c. x. 5 &c. This is the\npassage alluded to, and the reader may now judge whether the words, \u201cFor\nthe sake of the ways of peace,\u201d can be interpreted as the Bavarian\nCatechism renders them, \u201cfor the good of society.\u201d If so, then \u201cthe good\nof society\u201d is to be consulted only whilst the Jews are in captivity,\nand the Gentiles have got the power: but as soon as the Jews get the the\npower, \u201cthe good of society\u201d may safely be disregarded. The meaning\nplainly is, that in the present position of affairs it is advisable to\nkeep the peace between Jews and Gentiles, inasmuch as the Gentiles are\nat present the strongest. Now, then, it is expedient to visit the sick,\nand feed the poor, and bury the dead of the Gentiles, for this will\npromote that object; but when the tables are turned, and the Gentiles\nare the weakest, there will be no necessity \u201cfor the ways of peace,\u201d or,\nas the Bavarian Catechism has it, \u201cfor the good of society.\u201d It is\nplain, therefore, that the passage cited by the French deputies and the\nBavarian Catechism, does not answer the purpose for which it is cited.\nIt does not prove that the Talmud teaches us to love our fellow-men as\nourselves, whatever be their religious opinions. On the contrary, it\nteaches that a wide distinction is to be made between one class of\nreligionists and another: and that if men be idolaters, we are to show\nthem no kindness, except for fear of the consequences that might result\nfrom betraying our real sentiments. When, therefore, the Jewish deputies\nand the compilers of the Bavarian Catechism asserted the true\nexplanation of the Mosaic command, \u201cThou shalt love thy neighbour as\nthyself,\u201d it is plain that they had not learned it from the Talmud, but\nsomewhere else. We hesitate not to say, that they learned it from the\nNew Testament, for there it is taught plainly, repeatedly, and without\nany reservation. A certain lawyer once asked Jesus of Nazareth, \u201cWho is\nmy neighbour? And Jesus answering, said, A certain man went down from\nJerusalem to Jericho, and fell among thieves, which stripped him of his\nraiment, and wounded him, and departed, leaving him half dead. And by\nchance there came down a certain priest that way; and when he saw him he\npassed by on the other side. And likewise a Levite, when he was at the\nplace, came and looked on him, and passed by on the other side. But a\ncertain Samaritan, as he journeyed, came where he was; and when he saw\nhim, he had compassion on him, and went to him, and bound up his wounds,\npouring in oil and wine, and set him on his own beast, and brought him\nto an inn, and took care of him. And on the morrow when he departed, he\ntook out two-pence, and gave them to the host, and said unto him, Take\ncare of him; and whatsoever thou spendest more, when I come again, I\nwill repay thee. Which now of these three, thinkest thou, was neighbour\nto him that fell among the thieves? And he said, He that showed mercy on\nhim. Then said Jesus unto him, Go thou and do likewise.\u201d (Luke x. 29,\n&c.) Here then the Lord Jesus Christ teaches us that we are to show\nkindness even to an idolater, for that even he is included in the class\nspecified by the word \u201cneighbour.\u201d Jesus of Nazareth makes no limitation\n\u201cfor the sake of the ways of peace,\u201d but gives a general command. And he\nappears to have selected this case of a man lying half dead, in order to\ncontrast it with a similar case supposed in the oral law.\n\n\u201cIf a Gentile, and idolater, be seen perishing, or drowning in a river,\nhe is not to be helped out. If he be seen near to death, he is not to be\ndelivered. But to destroy him by active means, or to push him into a\npit, or such-like things, is forbidden, as he is not at war with\nus.\u201d[10] The Lord Jesus does not say that the man who went down from\nJerusalem to Jericho was an idolater. He only says, \u201ca certain man.\u201d But\nhe evidently intimates that he was such, for if he had been a Jew, the\npriest and the Levite would not have passed him without rendering\nassistance. As he was only an idolater, according to the oral law, the\npriest and the Levite were not simply not to blame in leaving him to his\nfate, but were obeying a command. They saw him perishing\u2014near to death.\nThey did not use any violence to accelerate it. They only looked at him,\nand left him to perish. So far, then, the lawyer who asked the question\nthought that the priest and Levite were in the right. But then the Lord\nJesus introduces a Samaritan, whom the oral law also looks upon as an\nidolater, and showing how he acted, he appeals to the plain common sense\nof the questioner, \u201cWhich of these three was neighbour to him that fell\namong thieves?\u201d And the lawyer is compelled to acknowledge, \u201cHe that\nshowed mercy.\u201d We make a similar appeal to the advocates of the oral\nlaw. We ask, which is, the oral law or the New Testament, the most like\nthe law of God? The oral law forbids you to help a poor dying\nfellow-creature in his hour of need, because he is an idolater. It\ncommands you to stifle the natural instinct of the human heart, which is\nindeed the voice of the God of nature\u2014to behold the agonizing struggles,\nand hear the heartrending cries of a drowning fellow-sinner, and yet\nwhen you have it in your power to snatch him from the jaws of death, and\nfrom that everlasting destruction which awaits him, to leave him to his\nfate, without help and without pity. The New Testament, on the contrary,\ntells you, that though, by his idolatry, he has incurred the wrath of\nGod, yet he is your neighbour\u2014that it is your duty to help him, and by\nthat very help to endeavour to lead him to the truth. Which then agrees\nwith the law of God? We are quite sure that the language of your heart\nis, the New Testament is right. The oral law is wrong. Your brethren in\nFrance and Bavaria have already proclaimed that opinion to the world. In\nthe answer of the Jewish deputies to Napoleon and in the Bavarian\nCatechism, they have said, \u201cthat we are to love our fellow-creature as\nourselves,\u201d whatever be his religion. They have thus made an involuntary\nacknowledgment of the superiority of the New Testament, and of the\nbenefit which it has been to the world. Just suppose, for a moment, that\nthe scribes and Pharisees had succeeded in extirpating the doctrine of\nJesus of Nazareth, what would have been the consequence to you and to\nthe world? Had the doctrines of Jesus perished, the oral law would have\nhad an undisturbed and universal domination, for the Karaites have\nalways been few in number, and have never exerted any influence on\nmankind at large. The Jews in France, Bavaria, as well as in England and\nelsewhere, would all have known the law only according to the oral\ninterpretation, and consequently would not have understood the command,\n\u201cThou shalt love they neighbour as thyself.\u201d They would still have held\nthe fearful doctrine, that a perishing idolater was not to be helped.\nThey would, moreover, have had none but idolaters around them, for all\nthe knowledge of God that prevails amongst us Gentiles comes from Jesus\nof Nazareth. Jew and Gentile, then, would have lived \u201chateful and hating\neach other.\u201d You may think, perhaps, that some mighty spirit would have\nburst the chains of tradition, and reasserted, the simple truth of God.\nBut such an event is altogether beyond the limits of probability. One of\nthe mightiest intellects that ever dwelt in a tenement of clay was that\nof Moses, the son of Maimon; a man whose learning and industry were\nequal to his genius. If ever there was a Jew, who was likely to overcome\nthe prejudices of tradition, it was he. And yet with all his genius and\nall his opportunities, he never was able to arrive at the true sense of\nthe command which we have just considered. The atrocious passages, which\nwe have above discussed, are all taken from his compendium of the oral\nlaw. You are indebted, then, to Jesus of Nazareth for your deliverance\nfrom this foul error. With respect to your duty to your neighbour, your\nown brethren in France and Bavaria confess, that you are right if you\nfollow Jesus of Nazareth, and that you are wrong if you follow those who\nrejected him. Remember, then, that your duty to your neighbour is half\nof the whole law of God, and examine whether the Christians, who are\nconfessedly right in the second table of the law do not, also, possess\nthe truth respecting the first.\n\nFootnote 7:\n\n  Transactions of Parisian Sanhedrin, p. 178.\n\nFootnote 8:\n\n  Lehrbuch der Mosaischen Religion. M\u00fcnchen, 1826, page 150.\n\nFootnote 9:\n\n  We quote the passage as we find it. Noachides is here taken for the\n  seven commandments of the children of Noah, contrary to the usual\n  acceptation of the word.\n\nFootnote 10:\n\n  Hilchoth Accum, c. x. 1.\n\n\n\n\n                                 No. V.\n     TALMUDIC INTOLERANCE CONTRASTED WITH THE CHARITY OF THE BIBLE.\n\n\nAny one who considers the circumstances of the Jewish people after the\ndesolation of the first temple, will be inclined to make great\nallowances for the spirit of the Rabbinical laws against idolaters.\nIdolatry was not to them a mere system of religious error. It was the\nsource of all their misfortunes; and idolaters were the destroyers of\ntheir country\u2014the desolaters of their temple\u2014and their own most cruel\nand tyrannical oppressors. Scarcely had they emerged from the horrors of\nthe Babylonish captivity, when they were exposed to the insults and\noutrages as well as the persecutions of Antiochus; and hardly had they\nrecovered from the havoc of his fury, before they were overrun by the\nfierce and haughty Romans, who were at last the executioners of the\nwrath of the Almighty. They not only saw the abominations of idolatry,\nbut they felt the hard hand of the idolater; no wonder, then, if they\nhated the man as well as the system. In the Hilchoth Rotzeach there is a\nlaw which amply illustrates the misery of their situation, and the\nhabitual treatment which they received from idolaters. According to this\nlaw, \u201cIt is forbidden to a Jew to be alone with Gentiles, for they are\nsuspected of shedding blood; neither is a Jew to join company with them\nin the way; if he meet a Gentile, he is to cause him to pass on his\nright hand (that the Jew, as the commentary says, may be able to defend\nhimself, in case the Gentile should make an attempt on his life); if\nthey be ascending a height, or going down a descent, the Jew is not to\nbe below and the Gentile above him; but the Jew above and the Gentile\nbelow, lest he should fall upon him to kill him; neither is he to stoop\ndown before him, lest he should break his skull.\u201d What an affecting\npicture does this present of the Jews under heathen domination; and who\ncan wonder if such treatment called forth the natural feelings of the\nhuman heart, and dictated laws in the same fierce and merciless spirit?\nWe, for our part, are quite ready to admit and to deplore the mighty\nprovocations, which roused the spirit of retaliation in the Rabbies, and\nconsequently, to make all due allowance for the men. But that is not the\nquestion before us. We are inquiring whether their religious system, the\noral law, is or is not from God, and whether this religious system\nteaches Jews to love all their fellow-men as themselves? We have shown\nthat the evidence adduced on this point by the French and Bavarian Jews,\nproves the contrary; and is therefore, nothing to the purpose. But we do\nnot wish to rest the decision upon such limited proof, even though it be\nstrong; we are willing to look at the whole system, and to compare it\nwith the law and the prophets, which we all admit as divine authority.\nWe say, then, that the Talmud not only does not teach us to love all our\nfellow-men, but that it puts idolaters altogether without the pale of\nhumanity. We have seen already that it forbids its followers to save the\nlife of a perishing idolater. But it goes farther still, and extends\nthis precept even to an idolater\u2019s infant, which knows not its right\nhand from its left:\u2014\n\n\u05d1\u05ea \u05d9\u05e9\u05e8\u05d0\u05dc \u05dc\u05d0 \u05ea\u05d9\u05e0\u05d9\u05e7 \u05d0\u05ea \u05d1\u05e0\u05d4 \u05e9\u05dc \u05e0\u05db\u05e8\u05d9\u05ea \u05de\u05e4\u05e0\u05d9 \u05e9\u05de\u05d2\u05d3\u05dc\u05ea \u05d1\u05df \u05dc\u05e2\u05d1\u05d5\u05d3\u05d4 \u05d0\u05dc \u05db\u05d5\u05db\u05d1\u05d9\u05dd \u05d5\u05de\u05d6\u05dc\u05d5\u05ea\n\u05d5\u05dc\u05d0 \u05ea\u05d9\u05dc\u05d3 \u05d0\u05ea \u05d4\u05e0\u05db\u05e8\u05d9\u05ea \u05e2\u05db\u05d5\u05f3\u05f3\u05dd \u05d0\u05d1\u05dc \u05de\u05d9\u05dc\u05d3\u05ea \u05d4\u05d9\u05d0 \u05d1\u05e9\u05db\u05e8 \u05de\u05e9\u05d5\u05dd \u05d0\u05d9\u05d1\u05d4 \u05c3\n\n\u201cA daughter of Israel shall not suckle the son of a heathen woman,\nbecause that would be to bring up a son for idolatry; neither shall she\nact as midwife to a heathen idolatress. But if she should, it must be\nfor pay, on account of the enmity (that might otherwise be excited)\u201d.\n(Hilchoth Accum, c. ix. 16.) What is meant by \u201cpay, on account of the\nenmity,\u201d is fully explained in the following passage, which forbids a\nRabbinical physician to cure a sick idolater:\u2014\n\n\u05de\u05db\u05d0\u05df \u05d0\u05ea\u05d4 \u05dc\u05de\u05d3 \u05e9\u05d0\u05e1\u05d5\u05e8 \u05dc\u05e8\u05e4\u05d0\u05d5\u05ea \u05e2\u05d5\u05d1\u05d3\u05d9 \u05db\u05d5\u05db\u05d1\u05d9\u05dd \u05d5\u05de\u05d6\u05dc\u05d5\u05ea \u05d0\u05e4\u05d9\u05dc\u05d5 \u05d1\u05e9\u05db\u05e8 \u05d5\u05d0\u05dd \u05d4\u05d9\u05d4 \u05de\u05ea\u05d9\u05e8\u05d0\n\u05de\u05d4\u05df \u05d0\u05d5 \u05e9\u05d4\u05d9\u05d4 \u05d7\u05d5\u05e9\u05e9 \u05de\u05e9\u05d5\u05dd \u05d0\u05d9\u05d1\u05d4 \u05de\u05e8\u05e4\u05d0 \u05d1\u05e9\u05db\u05e8 \u05d0\u05d1\u05dc \u05d1\u05d7\u05e0\u05dd \u05d0\u05e1\u05d5\u05e8 \u05c3\n\n\u201cHence thou learnest, that it is forbidden to cure idolaters even for\npay. But if (an Israelite) is afraid of them, or is anxious on account\nof enmity, he may cure them for pay; but to do it gratuitously is\nforbidden.\u201d Hence the commonest offices of humanity are forbidden. But\nthe Talmud goes further still, and prohibits even the giving of good\nadvice to these outcasts.\n\n\u05d5\u05d0\u05e1\u05d5\u05e8 \u05dc\u05d4\u05e9\u05d9\u05d0 \u05e2\u05e6\u05d4 \u05d8\u05d5\u05d1\u05d4 \u05dc\u05d2\u05d5\u05d9 \u05d0\u05d5 \u05dc\u05e2\u05d1\u05d3 \u05e8\u05e9\u05e2 ... \u05d5\u05dc\u05d0 \u05e0\u05ea\u05e0\u05e1\u05d4 \u05d3\u05e0\u05d9\u05d0\u05dc \u05d0\u05dc\u05d0 \u05e2\u05dc \u05e9\u05d4\u05e9\u05d9\u05d0\n\u05e2\u05e6\u05d4 \u05d8\u05d5\u05d1\u05d4 \u05dc\u05e0\u05d1\u05d5\u05db\u05d3\u05e0\u05e6\u05e8 \u05dc\u05d9\u05ea\u05df \u05e6\u05d3\u05e7\u05d4 , \u05e9\u05e0\u05d0\u05de\u05e8 \u05dc\u05d4\u05df \u05de\u05dc\u05db\u05d0 \u05de\u05dc\u05db\u05d9 \u05d9\u05e9\u05e4\u05e8 \u05e2\u05dc\u05da \u05c3\n\n\u201cIt is forbidden to give good advice to a heathen or to a wicked\nslave.... Daniel was exposed to danger for no other reason than this,\nthat he advised Nebuchadnezzar to give alms, as it is written,\n\u2018Wherefore, O king, let my counsel be acceptable unto thee.\u2019 (Dan. iv.\n23, in English 27.)\u201d[11] A more striking instance of the spirit of the\nTalmud can hardly be found. Nebuchadnezzar was the benefactor of Daniel,\nand had elevated him from the situation of a captive to the first\ndignity of the empire; and Daniel had not refused, but voluntarily taken\nupon himself the duties and responsibilities of the king\u2019s chief\nadviser. Under such circumstances, an ordinary reader of the Bible would\nimagine that Daniel was bound by every tie of gratitude to his\nbenefactor, of duty and fidelity to his sovereign, to give him the best\nadvice in his power. No, says the Talmud. If the man be an idolater,\ngratitude, duty, and fidelity are out of the question; and because\nDaniel exercised those godlike graces, he was punished. It appears, at\nall events, on the Talmud\u2019s own showing, that Daniel was not a\nTalmudist. These extracts seem sufficient to prove, that the Talmud\naltogether excludes idolaters from all benefit of the command, \u201cThou\nshalt love thy neighbour as thyself.\u201d The system which makes it unlawful\nto save his life, to cure his sickness, to suckle his child, to help his\nwife in the hour of nature\u2019s trial, or even to give him good advice, can\nscarcely be said to teach us to love all our fellow-men, without any\nregard to religious differences. It may, however, be said, that the\npassages adduced lead to this conclusion only by inference, and that\nnone of them expressly declares that an idolater is not our neighbour.\nWe shall, therefore, add a few passages where this is plainly taught.\n\n\u05d4\u05d2\u05d5\u05e0\u05d1 \u05d0\u05ea \u05d4\u05d2\u05d5\u05d9 \u05d0\u05d5 \u05e9\u05d2\u05e0\u05d1 \u05e0\u05db\u05e1\u05d9 \u05d4\u05e7\u05d3\u05e9 \u05d0\u05d9\u05e0\u05d5 \u05de\u05e9\u05dc\u05dd \u05d0\u05dc\u05d0 \u05d4\u05e7\u05e8\u05df \u05d1\u05dc\u05d1\u05d3 \u05e9\u05e0\u05d0\u05de\u05e8 \u05d9\u05e9\u05dc\u05dd \u05e9\u05e0\u05d9\u05dd\n\u05dc\u05e8\u05e2\u05d4\u05d5 , \u05dc\u05e8\u05e2\u05d4\u05d5 \u05d5\u05dc\u05d0 \u05dc\u05d4\u05e7\u05d3\u05e9 , \u05dc\u05e8\u05e2\u05d4\u05d5 \u05d5\u05dc\u05d0 \u05dc\u05d2\u05d5\u05d9 \u05c3\n\n\u201cHe that steals from a Gentile, or he that steals property _devoted_ to\nsacred purposes, is only to pay the principal: for it is said, \u2018He shall\npay double unto _his neighbour_.\u2019 (Exod. xxii. 8, English 9.) To his\nneighbour, not to devoted property. To his neighbour, and _not to a\nGentile_.\u201d (Hilchoth Genevah, c. ii. 1.) The same decision is given with\nrespect to the law found, Levit. v. 20, in English vi. 1, \u201cIf a soul\nsin, and commit a trespass against the Lord, and _lie unto his\nneighbour_, ... all that about which he has sworn falsely; he shall even\nrestore it in the principal, and shall add the fifth part more thereto.\u201d\nThe oral law says\u2014\n\n\u05d4\u05e0\u05e9\u05d1\u05e2 \u05dc\u05d2\u05d5\u05d9 \u05de\u05e9\u05dc\u05dd \u05d0\u05ea \u05d4\u05e7\u05e8\u05d5 \u05d5\u05d0\u05d9\u05e0\u05d5 \u05d7\u05d9\u05d9\u05d1 \u05d1\u05d7\u05d5\u05de\u05e9 \u05e9\u05e0\u05d0\u05de\u05e8 \u05d5\u05db\u05d7\u05e9 \u05d1\u05e2\u05de\u05d9\u05ea\u05d5 \u05c3\n\n\u201cHe that sweareth to a Gentile must pay the principal, but is not bound\nto add the fifth part\u2014(why not?) because it is said, \u2018and lie unto his\nneighbour.\u2019\u201d (Hilchoth Gezelah, c. i. 7.) So that the reason here\nassigned why the Gentile is not to get the fifth part in addition, is,\nbecause he is not a neighbour. In like manner, in the 11th chapter of\nthis same treatise, which treats of the restoration of things found, it\nis expressly commanded to restore whatever belongs to a Jew, because he\nis a brother; but to keep whatever belongs to an idolater, because he is\nnot a brother.\n\n\u05d4\u05e9\u05d1\u05ea \u05d0\u05d1\u05d3\u05d4 \u05dc\u05d9\u05e9\u05e8\u05d0\u05dc \u05de\u05e6\u05d5\u05ea \u05e2\u05e9\u05d4 \u05e9\u05e0\u05d0\u05de\u05e8 \u05d4\u05e9\u05d1 \u05ea\u05e9\u05d9\u05d1\u05dd \u05c3\n\n\u201cTo restore to an Israelite anything that he has lost, is an affirmative\ncommandment, for it is said, \u2018Thou shalt in any case bring them again\nunto thy brother.\u2019\u201d (Deut. xxii. 1.)\n\n\u05d0\u05d1\u05d3\u05ea \u05d2\u05d5\u05d9 \u05e2\u05d5\u05d1\u05d3 \u05e2\u05f3\u05f3\u05d6 \u05de\u05d5\u05ea\u05e8\u05ea \u05e9\u05e0\u05d0\u05de\u05e8 \u05d0\u05d1\u05d3\u05ea \u05d0\u05d7\u05d9\u05da , \u05d5\u05d4\u05de\u05d7\u05d6\u05d9\u05e8\u05d4 \u05d4\u05e8\u05d9 \u05d6\u05d4 \u05e2\u05d5\u05d1\u05e8 \u05e2\u05d1\u05d9\u05e8\u05d4\n\u05de\u05e4\u05e0\u05d9 \u05e9\u05d4\u05d5\u05d0 \u05de\u05d7\u05d6\u05d9\u05e7 \u05d9\u05d3\u05d9 \u05e8\u05e9\u05e2\u05d9 \u05e2\u05d5\u05dc\u05dd , \u05d5\u05d0\u05dd \u05d4\u05d7\u05d6\u05d9\u05e8\u05d4 \u05db\u05d3\u05d9 \u05dc\u05e7\u05d3\u05e9 \u05d0\u05ea \u05d4\u05e9\u05dd \u05e9\u05d9\u05e4\u05d0\u05e8\u05d5 \u05d0\u05ea\n\u05d9\u05e9\u05e8\u05d0\u05dc \u05d5\u05d9\u05d3\u05e2\u05d5 \u05e9\u05d4\u05dd \u05d1\u05e2\u05dc\u05d9 \u05d0\u05de\u05d5\u05e0\u05d4 \u05d4\u05e8\u05d9 \u05d6\u05d4 \u05de\u05e9\u05d5\u05d1\u05d7 \u05c3\n\n\u201cAnything that a Gentile has lost is lawful, for it is said, \u2018With all\nlost things of _thy brother\u2019s_.\u2019 (Deut. xxii. 3.) And he that restores\nit transgresses a transgression, for he strengthens the hands of the\nwicked of the world. But if he restore it in order to sanctify the Name,\nthat they may think well of Israel, and know that they are honest\npeople, this is praiseworthy.\u201d In these passages (and many more might be\nadded if it were necessary) it is plainly taught that an idolatrous\nGentile is not to be regarded as \u201cour neighbour,\u201d or our brother. We\nthink, then, that we have fully proved that the Jewish deputies in\nFrance, and the compilers of the Jewish Catechism in Bavaria, did not\nlearn their exposition of the command, \u201cThou shalt love thy neighbour as\nthyself,\u201d from the Talmud; neither in the particular passage which they\nquote, nor from the general principles of the Talmudic system. We have\nalready stated our belief that they learned that exposition from the New\nTestament, for there it is taught plainly and repeatedly. We quoted, in\nproof, a parable spoken by the Lord Jesus Christ. We shall now add a few\nmore passages in confirmation.\n\nAs to _showing kindness_ to all our fellow-men, the New Testament\nteaches us to make no exception with regard to idolaters, or others who\nhave not the same creed, but gives the following general rules:\u2014\u201cAs we\nhave, therefore, opportunity, let us do good UNTO ALL MEN, especially\nunto them that are of the household of faith.\u201d (Gal. vi. 10.) \u201cSee that\nno man render evil for evil UNTO ANY MAN; but ever follow that which is\ngood both among yourselves, and TO ALL MEN.\u201d (1 Thess. v. 15.) \u201cThe Lord\nmake you to increase and abound IN LOVE one toward another, and TOWARD\nALL MEN.\u201d (1 Thess. iii. 12.) You observe that in these general rules\nthe New Testament makes no reservation with respect to idolaters, or\nepicureans, or heretics, or any other of those unfortunate beings whom\nthe Talmud outlaws from all the common charities of humanity. It\ncommands us to do good to _all_\u2014and that not to avoid enmity, nor for\nthe sake of the ways of peace, nor because we are afraid, nor because we\nwish them to speak well of us, and to be thought honest people, but\nbecause it is our duty. The New Testament requires of its followers, not\nonly to abstain \u201cfrom active violence\u201d in injuring them, but to do\nactive good in assisting them, and the examples, which it proposes for\nour imitation, are of the same character as the precepts which it\nimposes upon our obedience. It sets before us Jesus of Nazareth, whom\nthe traditionists crucified, praying for his murderers, and saying,\n\u201cFather, forgive them; for they know not what they do\u201d\u2014and Stephen, his\nfirst martyr, interceding for them that stoned him, \u201cLord, lay not this\nsin to their charge.\u201d And Paul, whose feelings to those who differed\nfrom him in religion are thus expressed, \u201cBrethren, my heart\u2019s desire\nand my prayer to God for Israel is, that they may be saved.\u201d It sets\nbefore us the disciples of the Lord Jesus healing the diseases of all\nwho applied, without reference to their religious opinions. (Acts xix.\n11.) We repeat our question, then, which system is according to the\ntruth and the will of God, the Talmud, or the New Testament? Your\nbrethren in France and Bavaria have declared, by adopting the New\nTestament exposition, that it is right; and by rejecting the intolerant\nprinciple which pervades the oral law, that the oral law is wrong. We\ntrust that your hearts respond to their declarations. But we do not rest\nthe decision on the natural feelings of the heart, we appeal to Moses\nand the prophets.\n\nThe question is, do the laws, which God gave respecting the idolatrous\nnations of Canaan, apply to all other idolaters, and under all\ncircumstances? The oral law answers this question in the affirmative,\nand hence the source of all those revolting laws which we have just\nconsidered. But the oral law is wrong: 1st, Because it draws a general\nconclusion from a particular case, which is contrary to all sound\nreasoning. That the command to destroy these nations was peculiar\nappears from the command itself\u2014God does not speak generally of all the\nheathen, but only of certain nations which he specifies\u2014\u201cWhen the Lord\nthy God shall bring thee into the land, whither thou goest to possess\nit, and hath cast out many nations before thee, the Hittites, and the\nGirgashites, and the Amorites, and the Canaanites, and the Perizzites,\nand the Hivites, and the Jebusites, seven nations greater and mightier\nthan thou; and when the Lord thy God shall deliver them before thee;\nthou shalt smite them, and utterly destroy them; thou shalt make no\ncovenant with, nor shew mercy unto them.\u201d (Deut. vii. 1, 2.) Here the\ncommand is precise, and is as much violated by extending it to those to\nwhom God has not extended it, as by refusing to execute it on those whom\nHe has here designated as the just victims of his wrath.\n\n2dly, The oral law is wrong in this general application, for it\ncontradicts the written law\u2014God expressly distinguishes between these\nand the other nations\u2014\u201cWhen thou comest nigh unto a city to fight\nagainst it, then proclaim peace unto it. And it shall be, if it make\nthee answer of peace, and open unto thee, then it shall be, that all the\npeople that is found therein shall be tributaries unto thee, and they\nshall serve thee.... Thus shalt thou do unto all the cities which are\nvery far from thee, which are not of the cities of these nations. But of\nthe cities of these people, which the Lord thy God doth give thee for an\ninheritance, thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth, but thou\nshalt utterly destroy them; the Hittites, and the Amorites, the\nCanaanites, and the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites; as the\nLord thy God hath commanded thee.\u201d (Deut. xx. 10, 18.) In the first case\nGod commands mercy\u2014in the second, extermination. And if, as in the first\ncase, he commands merciful dealing even to a nation at war with Israel,\nmuch more does he command it towards those, with whom Israel is not at\nwar.\n\n3dly, The written law not only gives a general rule, but lays down\nexceptions founded on certain principles. \u201cThou shalt not abhor an\nEdomite, for he is thy brother; thou shalt not abhor an Egyptian,\nbecause thou wast a stranger in his land.\u201d (Deut. xxiii. 7.) Now the\nEgyptians were idolaters, yet God commands the Israelites not to abhor\nthem, and gives a reason which will now apply to most nations of the\nearth\u2014\u201cBecause thou wast a stranger in his land.\u201d Suppose, then, that a\nRabbinist were to see an Egyptian drowning, is he to show him mercy? To\nsay, No, will contradict the written law; and to say, Yes, will\noverthrow the monstrous fabric of Rabbinic legislation respecting\nidolaters.\n\n4thly, The general practice of the Israelites, as described in the\nsubsequent books of the Old Testament, directly contradicts the oral\nlaw. We have seen already that the Prophet Daniel did not hold the\ndoctrine, that no mercy was to be shown to an idolater. When he knew of\nthe judgment that was about to descend on Nebuchadnezzar, he was deeply\ndistressed. \u201cHe was astonied for one hour, and his thoughts troubled\nhim;\u201d and instead of leaving the idolater to perish, he endeavoured to\nfind means to ward off the calamity. The prophet Elisha was of the same\nmind: when the idolatrous leper came to him for help, he administered\nit, and, contrary to the Talmudic command, he administered it\n_gratuitously_; and Gehazi, for acting in conformity to Talmudic\nordinance, and making the idolater pay, was smitten with the leprosy. (2\nKings v. 20.) In like manner, when the Syrian host was miraculously led\ninto Samaria, and the King of Israel proposed to act as a Talmudist and\nsmite them, the man of God answered, \u201cThou shalt not smite them;\nwouldest thou smite those whom thou hast taken with thy sword and bow?\nSet bread and water before them, that they may eat and drink and go to\ntheir master.\u201d (2 Kings vi. 21, 22.) This answer is important, as it not\nonly furnishes an example, but exhibits the principle, according to\nwhich idolatrous captives, not Canaanites, were to be treated. The\nprophet appeals to the general rule, \u201cWouldest thou smite those whom\nthou hast taken captive with thy sword and bow? Even then, as they are\nnot Canaanites, they ought not to be smitten: therefore, in this case\nmuch more, they ought to be treated with mercy.\u201d We have still another\ninstance of a prophet acting contrary to the oral law, and in conformity\nwith the New Testament interpretation. The prophet Jonah once saw\nidolaters \u201cnigh unto death,\u201d and ready to sink in the great deep, but he\nhad mercy on them, and pointed out the means of deliverance. When he\nfled from the presence of the Lord, the mariners in whose ship he sailed\nwere idolaters; for when the storm raged, it is said, \u201cThey cried every\nman unto his god.\u201d In their anguish they said unto him, \u201cWhat shall we\ndo unto thee, that the sea may be calm unto us?\u201d In other words, \u201cWhat\nshall we do to save our lives?\u201d Now if Jonah had been a Talmudist, it\nwould have been plainly not his duty to have told them, but to have\nallowed the sea to rage on until the ship went to pieces, and he had the\nsatisfaction of seeing the idolaters go to the bottom. This would have\nbeen an act of obedience to a precise command, and could have made no\ndifference to Jonah. For, as to himself, there are two suppositions\npossible, either he knew that the Lord had prepared a fish to swallow\nhim, or he knew it not. If he knew it, then he was secure of his own\nsafety, and would have known that the fish could find him out just as\nreadily if the ship went to pieces, as if the idolaters threw him into\nthe sea. It would, therefore, have been doubly his duty to conceal from\nthe idolaters the means of deliverance. On this supposition, Jonah\u2019s\ncounsel to them can only be accounted for on the principle that he was\nnot a Talmudist, but considered it his duty to save the lives of\nperishing idolaters, even when nothing was to be feared or to be gained.\nIf, on the other hand, he did not know of the fish, he must have\nexpected a watery grave, whether the idolaters threw him into the sea,\nor whether he waited until the ship went to pieces. In this case, also,\nif a Talmudist, it would have been his duly to have staged where he was,\nand if he perished, die in the fulfilment or the command, to show no\nmercy to idolaters. But he did not\u2014he had compassion on them, and, to\nsave their lives, relinquished his only chance of safety, by telling\nthem to throw him into the sea. It is plain, therefore, Jonah was not a\nTalmudist. We have here, then, three inspired prophets, Daniel, Elisha,\nand Jonah, all bearing a practical testimony against the Talmudic\nprinciple, which extends God\u2019s law against the Canaanites to all\nidolaters, and under all circumstances.\n\nLastly, We have the testimony of the God of Israel himself. He who gave\nthe command to destroy the Canaanites on account of their exceeding\nwickedness, shows by his own dealings with the world, that this case is\nan exception to the general rule, for \u201cThe Lord is good to all, and his\nmercies are over all his works.\u201d He provides food and clothing for the\nidolater, as well as for those who worship him in truth; or, as the New\nTestament says, \u201cHe maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good,\nand sendeth rain on the just and the unjust.\u201d (Matt. vi. 45.) He, then,\nwhose conduct most resembles that of his Creator, is, beyond all doubt,\nthe nearest to the truth. The Talmud, therefore, is wrong, and the New\nTestament explanation of the command, \u201cThou shalt love thy neighbour as\nthyself,\u201d is right. We ask the Jews, then, to account for this fact,\nthat Jesus of Nazareth was right, and those who condemned him wrong,\nrespecting one-half of the whole law. And we ask, moreover, those Jews\nwho abhor the above Talmudic principles, how they can conscientiously\njoin in the synagogue prayers, which ascribe to the Talmud Divine\nauthority? We ask them why, at the very least, they have never publicly\nprotested against these enormities; but allow their brethren through the\nworld to remain victims to a system, which not only contradicts the\nwritten law of God, but outrages all the better feelings of even fallen\nhumanity?\n\nFootnote 11:\n\n  Hilchoth Rotzeach, c. xii. 15. See also Bava Bathra, fol. iv. col. 1.,\n  about the middle of the page, where the punishment of Daniel is more\n  fully discussed.\n\n\n\n\n                                No. VI.\n                 COMPULSORY CONVERSION OF THE GENTILES.\n\n\nWhen, at the close of the fifteenth century, the Jews were driven out of\nSpain, some of the magnanimous exiles, who had preferred loss of all\nthings to a compulsory change of religion, arrived at the frontiers of\nPortugal, and there sought an asylum. A permanent abode was refused, and\na temporary sojourn was granted them on two conditions\u20141st, That each\nshould pay a certain quantity of gold for his admission; and 2dly, That\nif they were found in Portugal after a certain day, they should either\nconsent to be baptized, or be sold for slaves.[12] Now Jews of every\ndegree and shade of religious belief will agree with us, that these\nconditions were most disgraceful to those who imposed them. To refuse\ngratuitous assistance to the poor and needy, merely because they had\nbeen brought up in a different religious faith, was utterly unworthy of\nthose professing faith in Divine revelation. To compel the unfortunate\nto choose between loss of liberty or of conscience was the act of a\nfiend. But now suppose that the Portuguese had endeavoured to persuade\nthese poor exiles that their conduct, however base it might appear, was\ncommanded by God himself. Suppose, further, that when called upon to\nprove that this command was from God, they had confessed that no such\ncommand was to be found in the written books of their religion, that it\nwas only a tradition of their oral law, do you think that the Jewish\nexiles would have been satisfied with such proof, and submitted? Would\nthey not, in the first place, have questioned the authority of a command\nresting merely upon uncertain tradition? And would they not have argued,\nfrom the detestable nature of the command itself, that it could not\npossibly emanate from the God of truth and love? We ask you then to\napply these principles to \u05ea\u05d5\u05e8\u05d4 \u05e9\u05d1\u05e2\u05dc \u05e4\u05d4 the oral law. The Portuguese\nrefused to perform an act of humanity to the unfortunate Jewish exiles,\nunless they were paid for it. Your oral law, as we showed in our last\nnumber, forbids you to give medical advice to a sick idolater\ngratuitously. The Portuguese voluntarily undertook to convert the Jews\nby force. Your oral law teaches compulsory conversion as a Divine\ncommand. If the oral law could be enforced, liberty of conscience would\nbe at an end. Neither Jew nor Gentile would be permitted to exercise the\njudgment, which God has given him. His only alternative would be\nsubmission to Rabbinic authority, or death. The dreadful command to\nkill, by any means, those Israelites who have become epicureans, or\nidolaters, or apostates, is well known,[13] and sufficiently proves that\nthe oral law recognises no such thing as liberty of conscience in\nIsrael. It pronounces a man an apostate if he denies its Divine\nauthority, and demands his life as the penalty. The execution of this\none command would fill the world with blood and horror; and recall all\nthe worst features of inquisitorial tyranny. Not now to mention those\nIsraelites who have embraced Christianity, there are in England, and\nevery part of Europe, many high-minded and honourable Jews, who have\npractically renounced the authority of the oral law. The Rabbinical\nmillennium would commence by handing over all such to the executioner.\nTheir talents, their virtue, their learning, their moral excellence,\nwould avail nothing. Found guilty of epicureanism or apostasy, because\nthey dared to think for themselves, and to act according to their\nconvictions, they would have to undergo the epicurean\u2019s or the\napostate\u2019s fate.\n\nSuch is the toleration of the oral law towards native Israelites, but it\nis equally severe to converts. It allows no second thoughts. It\nlegislates for relapsed converts, as the Spanish Inquisition did for\nthose Jews who, after embracing Christianity, returned to their former\nfaith and sentences all such to death.\n\n\u05d1\u05df \u05e0\u05d7 \u05e9\u05e0\u05ea\u05d2\u05d9\u05d9\u05e8 \u05d5\u05de\u05dc \u05d5\u05d8\u05d1\u05dc , \u05d5\u05d0\u05d7\u05e8 \u05db\u05da \u05d5\u05e6\u05d4 \u05dc\u05d7\u05d6\u05d5\u05e8 \u05de\u05d0\u05d7\u05e8\u05d9 \u05d4\u05f3 \u05d5\u05dc\u05d4\u05d9\u05d5\u05ea \u05d2\u05e8 \u05ea\u05d5\u05e9\u05d1 \u05d1\u05dc\u05d1\u05d3\n\u05db\u05e9\u05d4\u05d9\u05d4 \u05de\u05e7\u05d5\u05d3\u05dd , \u05d0\u05d9\u05df \u05e9\u05d5\u05de\u05e2\u05d9\u05df \u05dc\u05d5 , \u05d0\u05dc\u05d0 \u05d9\u05d4\u05d9\u05d4 \u05db\u05d9\u05e9\u05e8\u05d0\u05dc \u05dc\u05db\u05dc \u05d3\u05d1\u05e8 \u05d0\u05d5 \u05d9\u05d4\u05e8\u05d2 \u05c3\n\n\u201cA Noahite who has become a proselyte, and been circumcised and\nbaptized, and afterwards wishes to return from after the Lord, and to be\nonly a sojourning proselyte, as he was before, is not to be listened\nto\u2014on the contrary, either let him be an Israelite in everything, or let\nhim be put to death.\u201d (Hilchoth Melachim, c. x. 3.) In this law there is\nan extraordinary severity. The oral law admits that a Noahite, that is,\na heathen who has taken upon himself the seven commandments of the\nchildren of Noah, may be saved. It cannot, therefore, be said that the\nseverity was dictated by a wish to deter men from error, and to restrain\nthem from rushing upon everlasting ruin, as the Inquisition pleads. The\noral law goes a little further, and not only will not permit a man to\nchange his creed, but will not even suffer him to change his ceremonial\nobservances. Though the man should commit no crime, and though he should\ncontinue to worship the one true God, in spirit and in truth, yet if he\nonly alter the outward forms of his religion, modern Judaism requires\nthat he should be put to death.\n\nBut the tender care of the oral law is not limited to the narrow\nconfines of Judaism, it extends also to the heathen, amongst whom it\ndirects the true faith to be propagated by the sword. First, it gives a\nparticular rule. In case of war with the Gentiles, it commands the Jews\nto offer peace on two conditions\u2014the one that they should become\ntributaries, the other that they should renounce idolatry and take upon\nthem the seven precepts of the Noahites, and then adds\u2014\n\n\u05d5\u05d0\u05dd \u05dc\u05d0 \u05d4\u05e9\u05dc\u05d9\u05de\u05d5 \u05d0\u05d5 \u05e9\u05d4\u05e9\u05dc\u05d9\u05de\u05d5 \u05d5\u05dc\u05d0 \u05e7\u05d1\u05dc\u05d5 \u05e9\u05d1\u05e2 \u05de\u05e6\u05d5\u05d5\u05ea \u05e2\u05d5\u05e9\u05d9\u05df \u05e2\u05de\u05d4\u05dd \u05de\u05dc\u05d7\u05de\u05d4 \u05d5\u05d4\u05d5\u05e8\u05d2\u05d9\u05df \u05db\u05dc\n\u05d4\u05d6\u05db\u05d9\u05dd \u05d4\u05d2\u05d3\u05d5\u05dc\u05d9\u05dd , \u05d5\u05d1\u05d5\u05d6\u05d6\u05d9\u05df \u05db\u05dc \u05de\u05de\u05d5\u05e0\u05dd \u05d5\u05d8\u05e4\u05dd \u05d5\u05d0\u05d9\u05df \u05d4\u05d5\u05e8\u05d2\u05d9\u05df \u05d0\u05e9\u05d4 \u05d5\u05dc\u05d0 \u05e7\u05d8\u05df \u05e9\u05e0\u05d0\u05de\u05e8\n\u05d5\u05d4\u05e0\u05e9\u05d9\u05dd \u05d5\u05d4\u05d8\u05e3 \u05d5\u05db\u05d5\u05f3 \u05c3\n\n\u201cBut if they will not make peace, or if they will make peace but will\nnot take upon them the seven commandments, the war is to be carried on\nagainst them, and all the adult males are to be put to death; and their\nproperty and their little ones are to be taken as plunder. But no woman\nor male infant is to be put to death, for it is said, \u2018The women and the\nlittle ones\u2019 (Deut. xx. 14.), and here little ones mean male infants.\u201d\n(Hilchoth Melachim, c. vi. 4.) Now what difference, we would ask, is\nthere between the conduct here prescribed, and that actually practised\nby the Portuguese, at the period above referred to, and thus described\nby a Jew:[14]\u2014\u201cAt the expiration of the appointed time, most of the Jews\nhad emigrated, but many still remained in the country. The King\ntherefore gave orders to take away from them all their children under\nfourteen years of age, to distribute them amongst Christians, to send\nthem to the newly-discovered islands, and thus to pluck up Judaism by\nthe roots. Dreadful was the cry of lamentation uttered by the parents,\nbut the unfortunates found no mercy.\u201d Do you condemn this conduct in the\nPortuguese? Be then consistent, and condemn it in the Talmud too. As for\nourselves, we abhor it as much, yea more, in those calling themselves\nChristians, We look upon the actors in that transaction as a disgrace to\nthe Christian name, and the deed itself as a foul blot upon the history\nof Christendom. But we cannot help thinking that, dreadful and\ndetestable as this mode of conversion is, it pleased God in his\nprovidence to suffer wicked men thus to persecute Israel, that the Jews\nmight have a practical experience of the wickedness of the oral law, and\nthus be led to reject such persecuting principles. The Jewish nation\nrejected the Lord Jesus Christ, and preferred the oral law. This law,\nnot dictated by a spirit of retaliation upon the Portuguese, but\ninvented by the Pharisees centuries before Portugal was a kingdom,\ncommanded the Jews to convert the heathen by force, to murder all who\nwould not consent to be thus converted, and to take away the children.\nAnd God suffered them to fall into the hands of men of similar\nprinciples, who took away their children, attempted to convert\nthemselves by force, and sold for slaves the Jews who refused to be thus\nconverted; so that the very misfortunes of the nation testify aloud\nagainst those traditions which they preferred to the Word of God. But\nperhaps some Jew will say that this is only a particular command,\nreferring to the nations in the vicinity of the land of Israel. We\nreply, that the command to convert the heathen by force, is not\nparticular, but general, referring to the whole world. If the Jews had\nthe power, this is the conduct which they are to pursue towards all the\nnations of the earth.\n\n\u05d5\u05db\u05df \u05e6\u05d5\u05d4 \u05de\u05e9\u05d4 \u05e8\u05d1\u05d9\u05e0\u05d5 \u05de\u05e4\u05d9 \u05d4\u05d2\u05d1\u05d5\u05e8\u05d4 \u05dc\u05db\u05d5\u05e3 \u05d0\u05ea \u05db\u05dc \u05d1\u05d0\u05d9 \u05d4\u05e2\u05d5\u05dc\u05dd \u05dc\u05e7\u05d1\u05dc \u05de\u05e6\u05d5\u05d5\u05ea \u05e9\u05e0\u05e6\u05d8\u05d5\u05d5 \u05d1\u05e0\u05d9\n\u05e0\u05d7 , \u05d5\u05db\u05dc \u05de\u05d9 \u05e9\u05dc\u05d0 \u05e7\u05d1\u05dc \u05d9\u05d4\u05e8\u05d2 \u05c3\n\n\u201cAnd thus Moses our master, has commanded us, by Divine tradition, to\ncompel all that come into the world to take upon themselves the\ncommandments imposed upon the sons of Noah, and whosoever will not\nreceive them is to be put to death.\u201d (Hilchoth Melachim, c. viii. 4.)\n\nSuch is the Talmudic system of toleration, and such the means which it\nprescribes for the conversion of the world. We acknowledge that persons\ncalling themselves Christians have had an oral law very similar in its\nprinciples and precepts, but we fearlessly challenge the whole world to\npoint out anything similar in the doctrines of Jesus Christ, or in the\nwritings of his apostles. The New Testament does, indeed, teach us to\nseek the conversion of the world, not by force of arms, but by teaching\nthe truth. \u201cGo ye, therefore, and make disciples of all nations,\nbaptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the\nHoly Ghost; teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have\ncommanded you.\u201d (Matt. xxviii. 19.) In the parable of the tares and\nwheat, Jesus of Nazareth hath expressly taught us that physical force is\nnot to be employed in order to remove moral error. The servants are\nrepresented as asking the master of the house, whether they should go\nand root out the tares that grew amongst the wheat, but the answer is,\n\u201cNay, lest while ye gather up the tares, ye root up also the wheat with\nthem. Let both grow together until the harvest; and in the time of\nharvest I will say to the reapers, Gather ye together first the tares,\nand bind them in bundles to burn them: but gather the wheat into my\nbarn.\u201d (Matt. xiii. 24-43.) He tells us expressly to have nothing to do\nwith the sword, \u201cFor all they that take the sword, shall perish with the\nsword.\u201d (Matt. xxvi. 52.) And therefore the apostle says, \u201cThe weapons\nof our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling\ndown of strong holds.\u201d (2 Cor. x. 4.) Here again, then, there is a great\ndifference between the oral law and the New Testament. The former\ncommands that the truth be maintained and propagated by the sword. The\nlatter tells us that \u201cfaith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the Word\nof God.\u201d Which, then, is most agreeable to the doctrine of Moses and the\nprophets? We answer fearlessly, the means prescribed by the New\nTestament, for\u2014\n\n1st, No instance can be adduced from the Old Testament, in which God\ncommanded the propagation of the truth by the power of the sword. The\nextirpation of the seven nations of Canaan is not in point, for the\nIsraelites were not commanded to make them any offer of mercy on\ncondition of conversion. The measure of their iniquity was full, and\ntherefore the command to destroy every soul absolute. Neither in the\ncommand referred to by Maimonides is there the least reference to\nconversion. It simply says, \u201cWhen thou comest nigh unto a city to fight\nagainst it, then proclaim peace unto it. And it shall be if it make thee\nanswer of peace, and open unto thee, then it shall be that all the\npeople that is found therein shall be tributaries unto thee, and they\nshall serve thee. And if it will make no peace with thee, but will make\nwar against thee, then thou shalt besiege it: and when the Lord thy God\nhath delivered it into thine hands, thou shalt smite every male thereof\nwith the edge of the sword. But the women and the little ones, and the\ncattle, and all that is in the city, even all the spoil thereof, shalt\nthou take unto thyself.\u201d (Deut. xx. 10-14.) Here is not one word said\nabout conversion, or about the seven commandments of the sons of Noah.\nThe command itself is hypothetical, \u201cWhen thou comest nigh unto a city;\u201d\nand therefore gives no colour nor pretext for setting out on a war of\nconversion, \u201cto compel all that come into the world.\u201d As it stands, it\nis a humane and merciful direction to restrain the horrors of the then\nprevailing system of warfare; and beautifully exemplifies the value\nwhich God sets upon the life of man, whatever his nation or his\nreligion. He will not suffer it to be destroyed unnecessarily; and even\nin case of extremity, he commands the lives of the women and the\nchildren, who never bore arms against Israel, to be spared. There is not\na syllable about forcing their consciences: that is all pure gratuitous\naddition of the oral law, which turns a merciful command into an\noccasion of bigotry and religious tyranny.\n\n2dly, As God has given no command to propagate religion by the sword, so\nneither has He given any countenance to such doctrine, by the\ninstrumentality which He has employed for the preservation of religion\nin the world. He did not choose a mighty nation of soldiers as the\ndepositories of his truth, nor any of the overturners of kingdoms for\nhis prophets. If it had been his intention to convert the world by force\nof arms, Nimrod would have been a more suitable instrument than Abraham,\nand the mighty kingdom of Egypt more fitted for the task than the family\nof Hebrew captives. But by the very choice He showed, that truth was to\nbe propagated by Divine power working conviction in the minds of men,\nand not by physical strength. It would have been just as easy for him to\nhave turned every Hebrew captive in Egypt into a Samson, as to turn the\nwaters into blood; and to have sent them into the world to overturn\nidolatry by brute force; but He preferred to enlighten the minds of men\nby exhibiting a series of miracles, calculated to convince them of his\neternal power and Godhead. When the ten tribes revolted, and fell away\ninto idolatry, He did not employ the sword of Judah, but the voice of\nhis prophets, to recall them to the truth. He did not compel them, as\nthe oral law would have done, to an outward profession, but dealt with\nthem as with rational beings, and left them to the choice of their\nhearts. Nineveh was not converted by Jewish soldiers, but by the\npreaching of Jonah. So far is God from commanding the propagation of\nreligion by the sword, that He would not even suffer a man of war to\nbuild a temple for his worship. When David thought of erecting a temple,\nthe Lord said unto him, \u201cThou hast shed blood abundantly, and hast made\ngreat wars; thou shalt not build an house unto my name, because thou\nhast shed much blood upon the earth.\u201d (1 Chron. xxii. 8.) Thus hath God\nshown his abhorrence of compulsory conversion, and in all his dealings\nconfirmed his Word, \u201cNot by might nor by power, but by my Spirit, saith\nthe Lord of hosts.\u201d (Zech. iv. 6.)\n\n3dly, God has in his Word promised the conversion of the world, but not\nby the means prescribed in the oral law. His promise to Abraham was, \u201cIn\nthy seed shall all the families of the earth be blessed.\u201d (Gen. xxii.\n18.) Now this can hardly mean that his descendants are to treat all\nnations, as the Portuguese treated the Jews. The 72nd Psalm gives rather\na different view of the fulfilment of this promise. It promises not a\nvictorious soldier like Mahomet, but one \u201cin whose days the righteous\nshall flourish, and abundance of peace so long as the moon endureth....\nAll nations shall call Him blessed.\u201d The prophet Isaiah tells us \u201cthat\nout of Zion shall go forth (not conquering armies to compel, but) the\nlaw, and the Word of the Lord from Jerusalem. And he shall judge among\nthe nations, and rebuke many people; and they shall beat their swords\ninto ploughshares, and their spears into pruning-hooks; nation shall not\nlift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more.\u201d\nZechariah says, \u201cHe shall speak peace to the heathen;\u201d and declares that\nthe conversion of the world will not be the reward of conquest, but the\nresult of conviction. \u201cIn those days it shall come to pass, that ten men\nshall take hold, out of all the languages of the nations, even shall\ntake hold of the skirt of him that is a Jew, saying, We will go with\nyou, _for we have heard_ that God is with you.\u201d (Zech. viii. 23.) Here\nagain, then, you see that whilst the oral law differs from Moses and the\nprophets, the New Testament agrees with them. Account, then, for this\nextraordinary fact, that whilst the whole Jewish nation lost the great\nand glorious doctrine of liberty of conscience, it has been preserved\nfor you and for all mankind by Jesus of Nazareth. Just suppose that the\nprinciples of the Talmud had triumphed, either amongst the Jews or the\nPortuguese, what would have been the consequence to the world? If the\nTalmudists had attained to supreme power, we should have had to choose\nbetween compulsory conversion and the sword. If the Portuguese had\nattained to universal dominion, both you and we should have had the\nalternative of compulsory conversion or the fires of the Inquisition. In\neither case, the noblest and most precious gift that the God of heaven\never sent down to earth, liberty of conscience, would have been extinct.\nBut, thank God, the doctrine of Jesus of Nazareth has triumphed over the\noral laws of both Jews and Portuguese, and the result is, that both you\nand we have the liberty of worshipping God according to the convictions\nof our understanding and the dictates of our conscience. Behold, then,\nhow you are indebted to Jesus of Nazareth. Without him you would not\nhave known religious liberty, either theoretically or practically. He is\nright on this all-important point, whilst those who condemned him to\ndeath and rejected his claims are wrong. If he was not the true Messiah,\nbut only a pretender, how is it that God has made him and his doctrine\nthe exclusive channel for preserving the truth of his Word, and\nconveying such blessings to you as well as to us Gentiles? If the\nPharisees were right in rejecting him, how is it that God has rewarded\ntheir piety by giving them over to such gross delusions, and making them\nthe transmitters of doctrines, which would fill the world with blood and\nhatred and discord, and make even the truth odious in the eyes of all\nmankind? For ourselves we cannot help coming to the conclusion, that He\nwho has taught us mercy and love to all men, and delivered both you and\nus from such horrors\u2014and who, in doing this, rose above all the\ndoctrines of his nation and his times, was taught of God, and is,\ntherefore, the true Messiah, the Saviour of the world.\n\nCertain it is, that this doctrine has already been a blessing to the\nworld; and that until your nation embrace its principles, at least on\nthis one point of love and toleration, it is impossible that the\npromised glory and pre-eminence of the Jewish nation should come. With\nsuch principles as are inculcated in the oral law, a restoration to the\nland of your forefathers would be no blessing. It would only realize all\nthe legislative and religious speculations of the Talmudists, and arm\nthem with the power to tyrannize over their more enlightened brethren.\nIt would be the triumph of tradition over the Word of God, and that the\nGod of truth will not permit. It would be to instal the spirit of\nintolerance and persecution on the throne of love and charity, and that\nGod will not suffer. The Talmud is, thus, a main obstacle in the way of\nGod\u2019s fulfilling his promises to the nation, because it incapacitates\nIsrael for the reception or the right employment of the promised\nblessings. Is it not, then, the duty of all Jews who desire and long for\nthe glory and the happiness which God has promised, to lift up their\nvoice with power, and to protest against that system which prevents the\nfulfilment of God\u2019s promises; and by all lawful means to endeavour to\ndeliver their brethren from the bondage of such intolerance?\n\nFootnote 12:\n\n  Jost. volume vii. p. 91.\n\nFootnote 13:\n\n  Hilchoth Rotzeach, c. iv. 10.\n\nFootnote 14:\n\n  Dr. Jost\u2019s Geschichte der Israeliten, vol. vii. p. 93.\n\n\n\n\n                                No. VII.\n                          THE FEAST OF PURIM.\n\n\nThe feast of Purim now at hand, recalls to the Jewish recollection one\nof those miraculous deliverances, with which the history of Israel\nabounds. The narrative of the institution, as contained in the Bible, is\na signal proof and illustration of the superintending providence of God,\ninstructive to all the world, but calling peculiarly for the gratitude\nand praise of the Jewish nation, whose forefathers were then delivered.\nAnd it is much to the honour of their posterity that they have not\nsuffered the lapse of more than twenty centuries to wear out the memory\nof this great event, but that to this day they observe its anniversary\nwith alacrity and zeal. If the oral law simply contented itself with\ncommanding the observance and prescribing the mode of worship for such\nan important season, we should have no fault to find; but the oral law\nclaims for itself Divine origin and authority, anathematizes any denial\nof these claims as heresy, and sentences the heretic to death. We are,\ntherefore, compelled to examine its pretensions, and to scrutinize its\nfeatures, in order to see whether they really bear the stamp of\ndivinity. We have already pointed out some, that savoured more of earth\nthan heaven: the constitutions for the feast of Purim may be traced to\nthe same source. The following law respecting the meal to be provided on\nthis occasion did certainly not come to man from heaven:\u2014\n\n\u05d7\u05d5\u05d1\u05ea \u05e1\u05e2\u05d5\u05d3\u05d4 \u05d6\u05d5 \u05e9\u05d9\u05d0\u05db\u05dc \u05d1\u05e9\u05e8 \u05d5\u05d9\u05ea\u05e7\u05df \u05e1\u05e2\u05d5\u05d3\u05d4 \u05e0\u05d0\u05d4 \u05db\u05e4\u05d9 \u05d0\u05e9\u05e8 \u05ea\u05de\u05e6\u05d0 \u05d9\u05d3\u05d5 , \u05d5\u05e9\u05d5\u05ea\u05d4 \u05d9\u05d9\u05df \u05e2\u05d3\n\u05e9\u05d9\u05e9\u05ea\u05db\u05e8 \u05d5\u05d9\u05e8\u05d3\u05dd \u05d1\u05e9\u05db\u05e8\u05d5\u05ea\u05d5 \u05c3\n\n\u201cA man\u2019s duty with regard to the feast is, that he should eat meat and\nprepare a suitable feast according to his means; and drink wine, until\nhe be drunk, and fell asleep in his drunkenness.\u201d (Hilchoth Megillah, c.\nii. 15.) The Talmud, however, is not satisfied with so indefinite a\ndirection, but lays down, with its usual precision, the exact measure of\nintoxication required.\n\n\u05d7\u05d9\u05d9\u05d1 \u05d0\u05d9\u05e0\u05d9\u05e9 \u05dc\u05d1\u05e1\u05d5\u05de\u05d9 \u05d1\u05e4\u05d5\u05e8\u05d9\u05d0 \u05e2\u05d3 \u05d3\u05dc\u05d0 \u05d9\u05d3\u05e2 \u05d1\u05d9\u05df \u05d0\u05e8\u05d5\u05e8 \u05d4\u05de\u05df \u05dc\u05d1\u05e8\u05d5\u05da \u05de\u05e8\u05d3\u05db\u05d9 \u05c3\n\n\u201cA man is bound to get so drunk with wine at Purim, as not to know the\ndifference between Cursed is Haman, and Blessed is Mordecai.\u201d (Megillah,\nfol. 7, col. 2.) But perhaps some learned champion of the Talmud will\nfly to that sort of refuge for destitute commentators, the parabolic\nlanguage of the orient, and tell us that this precept is not to be\nunderstood literally but figuratively; and that so far from recommending\nintoxication, it means to inculcate excess of sobriety or devotion, such\nabstraction of the senses, from all outward objects, as not to\ndistinguish between cursed is Haman and blessed is Mordecai. This sort\nof defence is neither imaginary nor novel. In this way Rabbi Eliezer\u2019s\npermission to split open an unlearned man like a fish has been made to\nsignify the spiritual opening of the understanding, and of course the\noverweening anxiety of the Rabbies to communicate instruction to the\nignorant. But however we dull Gentiles may be enlightened by such an\nexposition, we much doubt whether the greatest amhaaretz in Israel will\nbelieve the interpretation. The great and learned Rabbies Solomon Jarchi\nand Moses Maimonides have understood literal drunkenness, and have named\nwine as the legitimate liquor. R. Joseph Karo has simply given the\ncommand verbatim as it stands in the Talmud, but a note in the Orach\nChaiim shows, that some of the modern Rabbies were not able to swallow\nsuch a command, and, therefore, say that an Israelite does his duty, if\nhe only drink a little more than usual. The Talmud itself admits of no\nsuch softening down, nor explaining away, for immediately after the\nprecept it goes on to propose an example and to furnish an illustration\nof its meaning in the following history of the very Rabbi, on whose\nauthority this traditional command rests;\u2014\n\n\u05e8\u05d1\u05d4 \u05d5\u05e8\u05d1\u05d9 \u05d6\u05d9\u05e8\u05d0 \u05e2\u05d1\u05d3\u05d5 \u05e1\u05e2\u05d5\u05d3\u05ea \u05e4\u05d5\u05e8\u05d9\u05dd \u05d1\u05d4\u05d3\u05d9 \u05d4\u05d3\u05d3\u05d9 , \u05d0\u05d9\u05d1\u05e1\u05d5\u05dd \u05e7\u05dd \u05e8\u05d1\u05d4 \u05e9\u05d7\u05d8\u05d9\u05d4 \u05dc\u05e8\u05d1\u05d9 \u05d6\u05d9\u05e8\u05d0\n\u05dc\u05de\u05d7\u05e8 \u05d1\u05e2\u05d0 \u05e8\u05d7\u05de\u05d9 \u05d5\u05d0\u05d7\u05d9\u05d9\u05d4 , \u05dc\u05e9\u05e0\u05d4 \u05d0\u05de\u05e8 \u05dc\u05d9\u05d4 \u05e0\u05d9\u05ea\u05d9 \u05de\u05e8 \u05d5\u05e0\u05e2\u05d1\u05d9\u05d3 \u05e1\u05e2\u05d5\u05d3\u05ea \u05e4\u05d5\u05e8\u05d9\u05dd \u05d1\u05d4\u05d3\u05d9 \u05d4\u05d3\u05d3\u05d9\n\u05d0\u05de\u05e8 \u05dc\u05d9\u05d4 \u05dc\u05d0\u05d5 \u05d1\u05db\u05dc \u05e9\u05e2\u05ea\u05d0 \u05d5\u05e9\u05e2\u05ea\u05d0 \u05de\u05ea\u05e8\u05d7\u05d9\u05e9 \u05e0\u05d9\u05e1\u05d0 \u05c3\n\n\u201cRabba and Rabbi Zira made their Purim entertainment together. When\nRabba got drunk, he arose and killed Rabbi Zira. On the following day he\nprayed for mercy, and restored him to life. The following year Rabba\nproposed to him again to make their Purim entertainment together, but he\nanswered, \u2018Miracles don\u2019t happen every day.\u2019\u201d (Talmud, Tr. Megillah,\nfol. 7, col. 2.) This history of one of the men who are authorities for\nthe above Talmudic command to get drunk, plainly illustrates its\nmeaning, and shows that the Talmud meant and commanded its followers to\ndrink wine to excess on this occasion. It sets before them the example\nof one of the greatest Rabbies committing murder in his drunkenness, and\nso far from reprobating this sin, it gravely tells us that God\ninterposed by a miracle to prevent the ill-consequences; and that the\nRabbi, far from being cured of his propensity, or making any declaration\nof his intention to amend, continued in that state of mind, that his\ncolleague found it imprudent to trust himself at his table. Now every\nbody that is acquainted with the Jews, knows that they are a temperate\nand sober people; and because they are so, we ask them whether the above\ncommand can be from God? and whether they believe that the Talmud speaks\ntruth in giving the above narrative? It says not merely that men may get\ndrunk with impunity, but that to get drunk is an act of piety, and\nobedience to a command! Here, again, the Talmud is directly at issue\nwith the New Testament, which says, \u201cBe not drunk with wine, wherein is\nexcess.\u201d (Ephes. v. 18.) \u201cTake heed to yourselves, lest _at any time_\nyour hearts be overcharged with surfeiting, and _drunkenness_, and the\ncares of this life, and so that day come upon you unawares.\u201d (Luke xxi.\n34.) The New Testament holds out to us no hope, that if in our\ndrunkenness, we should commit murder, a miracle will be wrought in order\nto deliver us from the consequences; but tells us, that \u201cneither\nmurderers nor drunkards shall inherit the kingdom of God.\u201d (1 Cor. vi.\n9, 10.) Now which of these two doctrines is the most agreeable to the\nrevealed will of God? How would you desire to meet death, if death\nshould come upon the feast of Purim? Would you wish the angel of death\nto find you, in obedience to the oral law, insensible from overmuch\nwine? or in that state of sobriety and thoughtfulness prescribed by\nJesus of Nazareth? Does not the inward tribunal of the heart decide that\nJesus of Nazareth is right, and that the Talmud is wrong? And does not\nthe Old Testament confirm the sentence? Isaiah says, \u201cWoe unto them that\nrise up early in the morning, that they may follow strong drink; that\ncontinue until night, till wine inflame them! and the harp and the viol,\nthe tabret and pipe, and wine are in their feasts; but they regard not\nthe work of the Lord, neither consider the operation of his hands.\nTherefore my people are gone into captivity, because they have no\nknowledge; and their honourable men are famished, and their multitude\ndried up with thirst.\u201d (Isaiah v. 11-13.) And so Moses commands the\nparents that should they have a son \u201ca glutton and a drunkard,\u201d to bring\nhim to justice, and to have him stoned. (Deut. xxi. 20.) The Talmud,\nthen, manifestly contradicts the Old Testament; it therefore cannot\nspeak truth when it narrates that God wrought a miracle in order to save\na drunkard and a murderer from that punishment, which He had himself\ncommanded to be visited upon either of these crimes. The story of the\nmiracle is therefore a palpable falsehood, contradictory to the law of\nMoses, and derogatory to the honour of God. How, then, can the Talmud be\nof God? If you attempt to distinguish, as some do, between the Talmud\nand the oral law, and say that though the Talmud contains the oral law,\nyet it is not all inspired, then we ask, how can you rely upon the\ntestimony of a witness convicted of wilful, gross, and flagrant\nfalsehood? If you do not believe in the above miracle of the drunken\nRabba, you denounce it as a liar. If it lie, then, upon this solemn\noccasion in relating a miracle, in handing down the law of God, how can\nyou depend upon it at all? If it does not scruple to forge miracles,\nwhat warrant have you for believing that it does not forge laws also?\n\nBut suppose, which is far more probable, that Rabbi Zira, when killed by\nRabba, had not come to life again, would Rabba, in the eye of the modern\nJewish law, be considered as a murderer, and guilty of death, or as an\ninnocent person, who might safely be permitted to go at large, and\npursue his usual avocations? This is a question well deserving an answer\nfrom some of your learned men, and naturally suggested by some\nprinciples asserted and implied in the following decisions of the oral\nlaw:\u2014\n\n\u05e7\u05e8\u05d9\u05d0\u05ea \u05d4\u05de\u05d2\u05dc\u05d4 \u05d1\u05d6\u05e0\u05d4 \u05de\u05e6\u05d5\u05ea \u05e2\u05e9\u05d4 \u05de\u05d3\u05d1\u05e8\u05d9 \u05e1\u05d5\u05e4\u05e8\u05d9\u05dd , \u05d5\u05d4\u05d3\u05d1\u05e8\u05d9\u05dd \u05d9\u05d3\u05d5\u05e2\u05d9\u05dd \u05e9\u05d4\u05d9\u05d0 \u05ea\u05e7\u05e0\u05ea\n\u05d4\u05e0\u05d1\u05d9\u05d0\u05d9\u05dd , \u05d5\u05d4\u05db\u05dc \u05d7\u05d9\u05d9\u05d1\u05d9\u05dd \u05d1\u05e7\u05e8\u05d9\u05d0\u05ea\u05d4 , \u05d0\u05e0\u05e9\u05d9\u05dd \u05d5\u05e0\u05e9\u05d9\u05dd \u05d5\u05d2\u05e8\u05d9\u05dd \u05d5\u05e2\u05d1\u05d3\u05d9\u05dd \u05de\u05e9\u05d5\u05d7\u05e8\u05e8\u05d9\u05dd ,\n\u05d5\u05de\u05d7\u05e0\u05db\u05d9\u05df \u05d0\u05ea \u05d4\u05e7\u05d8\u05e0\u05d9\u05dd \u05dc\u05e7\u05e8\u05d9\u05d0\u05ea\u05d4 , \u05d5\u05d0\u05e4\u05d9\u05dc\u05d5 \u05db\u05d4\u05e0\u05d9\u05dd \u05d1\u05e2\u05d1\u05d5\u05d3\u05de\u05df \u05de\u05d1\u05d8\u05dc\u05d9\u05df \u05e2\u05d1\u05d5\u05d3\u05ea\u05df \u05d5\u05d1\u05d0\u05d9\u05df\n\u05dc\u05e9\u05de\u05d5\u05e2 \u05de\u05e7\u05e8\u05d0 \u05de\u05d2\u05dc\u05d4 , \u05d5\u05db\u05df \u05de\u05d1\u05d8\u05dc\u05d9\u05df \u05ea\u05dc\u05de\u05d5\u05d3 \u05ea\u05d5\u05e8\u05d4 \u05dc\u05e9\u05de\u05d5\u05e2 \u05de\u05e7\u05e8\u05d0 \u05de\u05d2\u05dc\u05d4 , \u05e7\u05dc \u05d5\u05d7\u05d5\u05de\u05e8 \u05dc\u05e9\u05d0\u05e8\n\u05de\u05e6\u05d5\u05d5\u05ea \u05e9\u05dc \u05ea\u05d5\u05e8\u05d4 \u05e9\u05db\u05d5\u05dc\u05df \u05e0\u05d3\u05d7\u05d9\u05df \u05de\u05e4\u05e0\u05d9 \u05de\u05e7\u05e8\u05d0 \u05de\u05d2\u05dc\u05d4 , \u05d5\u05d0\u05d9\u05df \u05dc\u05da \u05d3\u05d1\u05e8 \u05e9\u05e0\u05d3\u05d7\u05d4 \u05de\u05e7\u05e8\u05d0 \u05de\u05d2\u05dc\u05d4\n\u05de\u05e4\u05e0\u05d9\u05d5 \u05d7\u05d5\u05e5 \u05de\u05de\u05d4 \u05de\u05e6\u05d5\u05d4 \u05e9\u05d0\u05d9\u05df \u05dc\u05d5 \u05e7\u05d5\u05d1\u05e8\u05d9\u05dd \u05e9\u05d4\u05e4\u05d5\u05d2\u05e2 \u05d1\u05d5 \u05e7\u05d5\u05d1\u05e8\u05d5 \u05ea\u05d7\u05dc\u05d4 \u05d5\u05d0\u05d7\u05e8 \u05db\u05da \u05e7\u05d5\u05e8\u05d0 \u05c3\n\n\u201cThe reading of the Megillah (the book of Esther) in its time is an\naffirmative precept according to the words of the scribes, and it is\nknown that this is an ordinance of the Prophets. The obligation to read\nit rests upon all, men, women, and proselytes, and manumitted slaves.\nChildren also are to be accustomed to the reading of it. Even priests in\ntheir service are to neglect their service, and to come to hear the\nreading of the Megillah. In like manner the study of the law is to be\nomitted, in order to hear the reading of the Megillah, and _a fortiori_\nall the remaining commandments of the law, all of which give way to the\nreading of the Megillah: but there is nothing to which the reading of\nthe Megillah gives way, except that particular class of dead person\ncalled the dead of the commandment, who has none to bury him. He that\nhappens upon him is first to bury him, and afterwards to read.\u201d\n(Hilchoth Megillah, c. i. 1.) On this extract we have several remarks to\nmake, but at present we request the attention of our readers to the\nreason given why the reading of the Megillah is more important than any\nof the commandments. It is this. According to the oral law, \u201cthe study\nof the law is equivalent to all the commandments, and the other\ncommandments are to give way to this study.\u201d But according to the\npassage before us, the study of the law is to give way to the reading of\nthe Megillah. The reading of the Megillah, therefore, being greater than\nthe greatest of the commandments, is of course greater than all the\ninferior ones. Now apply this reasoning to the above command to get\ndrunk, and you will prove that getting drunk at Purim feast is the\ngreatest of all the commandments. In order to get drunk, it is plain\nthat the study of the law must give way. The man who cannot distinguish\nbetween \u201cCursed be Haman and blessed be Mordecai,\u201d certainly cannot\nstudy, neither can he bury the dead. The commandment, therefore, to\nwhich the study of the law and the burying of the dead give way, must be\nthe greatest of all the commandments; _i.e._, the getting drunk on Purim\nis the greatest of all the commandments. This conclusion, which\ninevitably follows upon Talmudic principles, necessarily shows that\nthose principles are false. But that is not the object for which I have\nexhibited this conclusion; it is with reference to the case of Rabba\nabove-mentioned. Having got drunk according as the oral law commanded,\nand having thereby obeyed the greatest of the commandments, and one to\nwhich all others are necessarily in abeyance, was he guilty or innocent\nin having murdered R. Zira? It certainly seems a very hard case to\ncondemn him to death for an act, which resulted from his obedience to\nthe greatest of all the commandments. He might urge that he had a great\ndislike to drunkenness\u2014that he had overcome his natural aversion simply\nto satisfy the Rabbinical requirements\u2014that by the time that he had\narrived at the prescribed incompetency to distinguish between Haman and\nMordecai, he had lost all power of distinguishing between right and\nwrong\u2014that, therefore, he had not done it with malice propense; what\nsentence, therefore, does the Talmud pronounce against a murderer of\nthis sort? If Rabba was allowed to go at large, as would appear from his\ninvitation to Rabbi Zira the following year, a repetition of the same\noffence was possible, a repetition of the miracle in R. Zira\u2019s opinion\nhighly improbable. Thus Rabba might go on from year to year killing one\nor more with impunity, and would be a far more dangerous neighbour than\n\u201cthe ox that was wont to push with his horn.\u201d If, on the other hand, he\nis to be punished capitally, then the oral law is plainly not from God;\nfor obedience to the greatest of its commandments makes it possible for\na man to commit the greatest of crimes, and to subject himself to the\nextremity of punishment. But we object, secondly, to _the exaltation of\na mere human ordinance above the Word of God_. The reading of the book\nof Esther at the feast of Purim, is no doubt a very appropriate, and may\nbe a very profitable exercise. But it is confessedly of human\nappointment. It is of the words of the scribes; the time and the mode\nare altogether Rabbinical ordinances. Why, then, \u201care all the remaining\ncommandments of the law to give way to the reading of the Megillah?\u201d The\npriest was to neglect the service to which God had appointed him, in\norder to obey a mere human institution. And the Israelites to neglect\nthe duties of love and charity, to fulfil a mere ceremonial commandment.\nHere is a plain token that the oral law is not from God, but is the\noffspring of human invention and superstition. The human mind exalts\nceremonies above moral duties. God declares that all outward observances\nare secondary. \u201cI desired mercy and not sacrifice, and the knowledge of\nGod more than burnt offerings.\u201d (Hos. vi. 6.) \u201cHe hath showed thee, O\nman, what is good; and what doth the Lord require of thee, but to do\njustly, and to love mercy, and to walk numbly with thy God?\u201d (Mic. vi.\n8.) And so the New Testament says in the very same spirit, \u201cThe first of\nall the commandments is, Hear O Israel: the Lord our God is one Lord,\nand thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, &c. This is the\nfirst commandment. And the second is like, namely this, Thou shalt love\nthy neighbour as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than\nthese.\u201d (Mark. xii. 29-31.) The oral law, on the contrary, tells us that\n\u201call the commandments, except the burying of the dead, are to give way\nto the reading of the Megillah,\u201d to a mere ceremony; and that not even\nof God\u2019s appointment. God prefers mercy before the sacrifices which He\nhimself has instituted. The Talmud prefers a human institution to all\nGod\u2019s commandments. A more striking instance of genuine superstition,\nand a stronger proof of the human origin of the oral law cannot be\nfound.\n\nThe book of Esther appears to have been a peculiar favourite of the\nRabbies. The reading of it takes precedence of all other duties but one,\nand is considered as obligatory, even upon the women, who are declared\nexempt from the study of the law. It is true that it contains a very\nnotable warning for disobedient wives, and a striking instance of the\ndeliverance of Israel by the instrumentality of a woman; but when we\nconsider that the name of God does not occur once in the whole book, and\nthat the law contains the account of man\u2019s creation and fall, the ten\ncommandments, the deliverance from Egypt, and all those events of\nprimary interest to women as well as men, it becomes of some importance\nto consider why the women, who are not bound to study the law of God,\nare bound to read the book of Esther. The authors of the oral law appear\nto have attached uncommon importance to this book, as appears from this\ncircumstance, and still more so from the following startling declaration\nof Maimonides:\u2014\n\n\u05db\u05dc \u05e1\u05e4\u05e8\u05d9 \u05d4\u05e0\u05d1\u05d9\u05d0\u05d9\u05dd \u05d5\u05db\u05dc \u05d4\u05db\u05ea\u05d5\u05d1\u05d9\u05dd \u05e2\u05ea\u05d9\u05d3\u05df \u05dc\u05d9\u05d1\u05d8\u05dc \u05dc\u05d9\u05de\u05d5\u05ea \u05d4\u05de\u05e9\u05d9\u05d7 \u05d7\u05d5\u05e5 \u05de\u05de\u05d2\u05dc\u05ea \u05d0\u05e1\u05ea\u05e8 ,\n\u05d5\u05d4\u05e8\u05d9 \u05d4\u05d9\u05d0 \u05e7\u05d9\u05d9\u05de\u05ea \u05db\u05d7\u05de\u05e9\u05d4 \u05d7\u05d5\u05de\u05e9\u05d9 \u05ea\u05d5\u05e8\u05d4 \u05d5\u05db\u05d4\u05dc\u05db\u05d5\u05ea \u05e9\u05dc \u05ea\u05d5\u05e8\u05d4 \u05e9\u05d1\u05e2\u05dc \u05e4\u05d4 \u05e9\u05d0\u05d9\u05e0\u05df \u05dc\u05e2\u05d5\u05dc\u05dd \u05c3\n\n\u201cAll the books of the prophets, and all the Hagiographa, except the roll\nof Esther, will cease in the days of Messiah. But it is perpetual as the\nfive books of the written law, and the constitutions of the oral law,\nwhich shall never cease.\u201d (Hilchoth Megillah.) Some of the Rabbies say\nthat this is to be taken conditionally, \u201calthough they were all to\ncease, yet this would not cease.\u201d But this still attributes a decided\nsuperiority to the book of Esther above all the other books. What then\nis there in it, that gives this book such a peculiar favour, and makes\nthe history of Esther more important than that of the conquest of\nCanaan, or of the glory of Solomon, or of the restoration of the house\nof the Lord? Is there more devotion and piety to be found in it than in\nthe Psalms of David? Does it contain more wisdom than the Proverbs of\nSolomon? Is there a sublimer flight of Divine poetry, a more heavenly\nafflatus than in the visions of Isaiah? A more open revelation of the\nmysteries of the Deity than is to be found in Job, or Daniel, or\nEzekiel? Why do the Rabbies pronounce it worthy of preservation, whilst\nthey contemplate without emotion the loss of all the other books? We\ncannot possibly discover, unless it be that it furnishes more\ngratification to the spirit of revenge so natural to all the children of\nAdam, whether they be Jew or Gentile. To forgive is to be like God\u2014and\nGod alone can teach forgiveness either speculatively or practically. But\nthe book of Esther contains an account of the revenge which the Jews\ntook upon their enemies, not like the destruction of the Canaanites,\nfulfilling the commands of God upon His enemies, but taking personal and\nindividual revenge on their own. And this very fact may be one reason\nwhy God did not permit his most holy name to occur in the whole\nbook\u2014just as he did not permit David to build him a temple, so he would\nnot have his name associated with deeds of personal revenge. But,\nhowever that be, we can discover no other reason for the decided\npreference which the oral law gives to the book of Esther. And we think\nthat after the specimens which we have already given of their spirit\ntowards idolaters we do them no injustice; especially as, in this\nparticular case, the oral law breathes this spirit aloud.\n\n\u05e6\u05e8\u05d9\u05da \u05e9\u05d9\u05d0\u05de\u05e8 \u05d0\u05e8\u05d5\u05e8 \u05d4\u05de\u05df \u05d1\u05e8\u05d5\u05da \u05de\u05e8\u05d3\u05db\u05d9 , \u05d0\u05e8\u05d5\u05e8\u05d4 \u05d6\u05e8\u05e9 \u05d1\u05e8\u05d5\u05db\u05d4 \u05d0\u05e1\u05ea\u05e8 , \u05d0\u05e8\u05d5\u05e8\u05d9\u05dd \u05db\u05dc \u05e2\u05db\u05d5\u05f3\u05f3\u05dd\n\u05d1\u05e8\u05d5\u05db\u05d9\u05dd \u05db\u05dc \u05d9\u05e9\u05e8\u05d0\u05dc \u05c3\n\n\u201cIt is necessary to say, Cursed be Haman, Blessed be Mordecai, Cursed be\nZeresh, Blessed be Esther, Cursed be all idolaters, Blessed be all\nIsrael.\u201d (Orach Chaiim, sec. 690.) Why this is necessary, is not told\nus. It appears not to bring glory to God, nor any blessing to man. Haman\nand Zeresh have long since passed into eternity, and received from the\njust Judge the reward of their deeds. Mordecai and Esther have in like\nmanner appeared before the God of Israel, and received according to\ntheir faith. To these, then, the voice of human praise or reproach is as\nnothing. But to curse a dead enemy, to pursue with unrelenting hatred\nthose who have already fallen into the hands of the living God, is\ncertainly not a Divine ordinance, and cannot be an acceptable act of\nworship in poor sinners, who themselves stand so much in need of\nforgiveness. To curse the dead is bad, but to curse the living is, in\none sense, still worse. \u201cCursed be all idolaters.\u201d According to our\ncalculation, there are 600 millions of idolaters\u2014according to the Jewish\naccount, there must be more. Why, then, should they be cursed? That will\nnot convert them from the error of their ways. It will not make them\nmore happy, either in this world or in the next. We are not aware, even\nif God were to hear this execration and curse the idolatrous world, that\nit would be productive of any blessing to Israel. Why make a day of\nthanksgiving for mercies received an opportunity of invoking curses upon\nthe majority of mankind? The Word of God teaches a very different\npetition for the heathen. \u201cGod, be merciful to us, and bless us, and\ncause his face to shine upon us. That thy way may be known upon earth,\nthy saving health among all nations. Let the people praise thee, O God;\nyea, let all the people praise thee.\u201d (Ps. lxvii.)\n\n\n\n\n                               No. VIII.\n                RABBINIC CONTEMPT FOR THE SONS OF NOAH.\n\n\nThe noblest inquiry, to which the mental powers can be directed, is,\nWhich religion comes from God? The most satisfactory mode of conducting\nsuch an inquiry, independently of the external evidence, is to compare\nthe principles of one system with those of the other, and both with an\nacknowledged standard, if such there be, and this is what we are\nendeavouring to do in these papers. We by no means wish to make the\nmodern Jews responsible for the inventions of their forefathers, but to\nshow them that their traditional argument for rejecting Christianity,\nand that is the example of the high priest and the Sanhedrin, is of no\nforce; inasmuch as these same persons, who originally rejected Jesus of\nNazareth, were in great and grievous error in the fundamental principles\nof religion, whilst He who was rejected taught the truth. To do this we\nmust appeal to the oral law, and discuss its merits. We have shown\nalready that those persons did not understand at least one half of the\nlaw; that their doctrines were in the highest degree uncharitable. It\nhas, however, been replied, that the Talmud is more tolerant than the\nNew Testament, for it allows \u201cthat the pious of the nations of the world\nmay be saved;\u201d whereas the latter asserts that \u201cwhosoever believeth not\nshall be damned.\u201d We must, therefore, inquire into the extent of\ntoleration and charity contained in that Talmudic sentence. The first\nstep in this inquiry, is to ascertain who are the persons intended in\nthe expression \u201cThe pious of the nations of the world.\u201d The oral law\ntells us, as quoted in No. 6, that the Israelites are commanded to\ncompel all that come into the world to receive the seven commandments of\nthe sons of Noah, and adds,\n\n\u05d5\u05d4\u05de\u05e7\u05d1\u05dc \u05d0\u05d5\u05ea\u05dd \u05d4\u05d5\u05d0 \u05d4\u05e0\u05e7\u05e8\u05d0 \u05d2\u05e8 \u05ea\u05d5\u05e9\u05d1 \u05d1\u05db\u05dc \u05de\u05e7\u05d5\u05dd \u05c3\n\n\u201cHe that receives them is called universally a sojourning proselyte.\u201d\nAnd a little lower down it says plainly\n\n\u05db\u05dc \u05d4\u05de\u05e7\u05db\u05dc \u05e9\u05d1\u05e2 \u05de\u05e6\u05d5\u05d5\u05ea \u05d5\u05e0\u05d6\u05d4\u05e8 \u05dc\u05e2\u05e9\u05d5\u05ea\u05df \u05d4\u05e8\u05d9 \u05d6\u05d4 \u05de\u05d7\u05e1\u05d9\u05d3\u05d9 \u05d0\u05d5\u05de\u05d5\u05ea \u05d4\u05e2\u05d5\u05dc\u05dd , \u05d5\u05d9\u05e9 \u05dc\u05d5 \u05d7\u05dc\u05e7\n\u05dc\u05e2\u05d5\u05dc\u05dd \u05d4\u05d1\u05d0 \u05c3\n\n\u201cWhosoever receives the seven commandments, and is careful to observe\nthem, he is one of the pious of the nations of the world, and has a\nshare in the world to come.\u201d (Hilchoth Melachim, c. viii. 10.) From\nthese two declarations, then, we learn that \u201cthe pious of the nations of\nthe world\u201d are the same, as \u201cthe sojourning proselytes,\u201d who were\nallowed to reside in the land of Israel, and that their piety consisted\nin receiving and practising the seven commandments. What these\ncommandments were, we are informed in the next chapter of the same\ntreatise.\n\n\u05e2\u05dc \u05e9\u05e9\u05d4 \u05d3\u05d1\u05e8\u05d9\u05dd \u05e0\u05e6\u05d8\u05d5\u05d4 \u05d0\u05d3\u05dd \u05d4\u05e8\u05d0\u05e9\u05d5\u05df , \u05e2\u05dc \u05e2\u05f3\u05f3\u05d6 , \u05d5\u05e2\u05dc \u05d1\u05e8\u05db\u05ea \u05d4\u05e9\u05dd , \u05d5\u05e2\u05dc \u05e9\u05e4\u05d9\u05db\u05ea \u05d3\u05de\u05d9\u05dd\n, \u05d5\u05e2\u05dc \u05d2\u05dc\u05d5\u05d9 \u05e2\u05e8\u05d9\u05d5\u05ea , \u05d5\u05e2\u05dc \u05d4\u05d2\u05d6\u05dc , \u05d5\u05e2\u05dc \u05d4\u05d3\u05d9\u05e0\u05d9\u05dd , \u05d0\u05e3 \u05e2\u05dc \u05e4\u05d9 \u05e9\u05db\u05d5\u05dc\u05df \u05d4\u05df \u05e7\u05d1\u05dc\u05d4 \u05d1\u05d9\u05d3\u05e0\u05d5\n\u05de\u05de\u05e9\u05d4 \u05e8\u05d1\u05d9\u05e0\u05d5 , \u05d5\u05d4\u05d3\u05e2\u05ea \u05e0\u05d5\u05d8\u05d4 \u05dc\u05d4\u05df , \u05de\u05db\u05dc\u05dc \u05d3\u05d1\u05e8\u05d9 \u05ea\u05d5\u05e8\u05d4 \u05d9\u05e8\u05d0\u05d4 \u05e9\u05e2\u05dc \u05d0\u05dc\u05d4 \u05e0\u05e6\u05d8\u05d5\u05d4 , \u05d4\u05d5\u05e1\u05d9\u05e3\n\u05dc\u05e0\u05d7 \u05d0\u05d1\u05e8 \u05de\u05df \u05d4\u05d7\u05d9 \u05e9\u05e0\u05d0\u05de\u05e8 \u05d0\u05da \u05d1\u05e9\u05e8 \u05d1\u05e0\u05e4\u05e9\u05d5 \u05d3\u05de\u05d5 \u05dc\u05d0 \u05ea\u05d0\u05db\u05dc\u05d5 , \u05e0\u05de\u05e6\u05d0\u05d5 \u05e9\u05d1\u05e2 \u05de\u05e6\u05d5\u05d5\u05ea , \u05d5\u05db\u05df\n\u05d4\u05d9\u05d4 \u05d4\u05d3\u05d1\u05e8 \u05d1\u05db\u05dc \u05d4\u05e2\u05d5\u05dc\u05dd \u05e2\u05d3 \u05d0\u05d1\u05e8\u05d4\u05dd \u05c3\n\n\u201cThe first Adam was commanded concerning six things\u2014idolatry, blasphemy,\nshedding of blood, incest, robbery, and administration of justice.\nAlthough we have all these things as a tradition from Moses, our master,\nand reason naturally inclines to them, yet, from the general tenour of\nthe words of the law, it appears that he was commanded concerning these\nthings. Noah received an additional command concerning the limb of a\nliving animal, as it is said, \u2018But flesh in the life thereof, which is\nthe blood thereof, ye shall not eat.\u2019 (Gen. ix. 4.) Here are the seven\ncommandments, and thus the matter was in all the world until Abraham.\u201d\n(Ibid. ix. 1.)\n\nNow, without stopping to dispute about the command given to Noah, we\ncannot help saying that the above tradition is very defective, and\ncertainly not derived from Moses, for it is opposed to the history which\nhe himself has given us. In the first place, that command, on which, the\noral law lays such stress, \u201cBe fruitful and multiply,\u201d was originally\ngiven to Adam (Gen. i. 28,), and was renewed to Noah, after the deluge.\nIf the Rabbies reckon this as a separate command in the case of the\nJews, as may be seen in the Hilchoth Priah Ureviah, it is only fair to\nreckon it as a separate command in the case of the Gentiles, and thus we\nget an eighth command. In the second place, God ordained marriage as a\nholy state. \u201cThe Lord God said, It is not good that man should be alone;\nI will make him an help meet for him.\u201d \u201cAnd the rib which the Lord God\nhad taken from man made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.\u201d Here\nis God\u2019s holy institution, and in the following verses we have the\nobligations of marriage distinctly acknowledged. \u201cAnd Adam said, This is\nnow bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman,\nbecause she was taken out of man. Therefore shall a man leave his father\nand his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife, and they shall be one\nflesh.\u201d Here, then, is a ninth commandment. We know, indeed, that the\noral law gives a different account, but its doctrine is false and\npernicious. In the face of the above plain narrative, it teaches as\nfollows:\u2014\n\n\u05e7\u05d5\u05d3\u05dd \u05de\u05ea\u05df \u05ea\u05d5\u05e8\u05d4 \u05d4\u05d9\u05d4 \u05d0\u05d3\u05dd \u05e4\u05d5\u05d2\u05e2 \u05d0\u05e9\u05d4 \u05d1\u05e9\u05d5\u05e7 \u05d0\u05dd \u05e8\u05e6\u05d4 \u05d4\u05d5\u05d0 \u05d5\u05d4\u05d9\u05d0 \u05dc\u05d9\u05e9\u05d0 \u05d0\u05d5\u05ea\u05d4 \u05de\u05db\u05e0\u05d9\u05e1\u05d4\n\u05dc\u05de\u05d5\u05da \u05d1\u05d9\u05ea\u05d5 \u05d5\u05d1\u05d5\u05e2\u05dc\u05d4 \u05d1\u05d9\u05e0\u05d5 \u05dc\u05d1\u05d9\u05df \u05e2\u05e6\u05de\u05d5 \u05d5\u05de\u05d4\u05d9\u05d4 \u05dc\u05d5 \u05dc\u05d0\u05e9\u05d4 \u05c3\n\n\u201cBefore the giving of the law, a man might happen to meet a woman in the\nstreet; if they both agreed on marriage, he took her to his house, and\ncohabited with her, and she became his wife.\u201d (Hilchoth Ishuth, c. i.\n1.) Now, not to speak of profane history, there is not in the law of\nMoses a single passage to give colour to this statement, unless it be\nthe following:\u2014\u201cAnd it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the\nface of the earth, and daughters were born unto them, that the sons of\nGod saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them\nwives of all which they chose.\u201d But, whatever is meant by \u201cSons of God,\u201d\nit is plain that this conduct is mentioned, not as having the sanction\nor approval of God, but as a proof of antediluvian wickedness, for it is\nimmediately added, \u201cAnd the Lord said, My Spirit shall not always strive\nwith man, for that he also is flesh.\u201d But it is not simply an error of\njudgment, it is most pernicious as it regards both Gentiles and Jews,\nfor it completely annuls the sanctity and obligation of the marriage\ntie. It teaches that as the marriage of Noahites is contracted without\nsolemn espousals, so it may be dissolved without the formality of a\ndivorce.\n\n\u05d5\u05de\u05d0\u05d9\u05de\u05ea\u05d9 \u05ea\u05d4\u05d9\u05d4 \u05d0\u05e9\u05ea \u05d7\u05d1\u05e8\u05d5 \u05db\u05d2\u05e8\u05d5\u05e9\u05d4 \u05e9\u05dc\u05e0\u05d5 ? \u05de\u05e9\u05d9\u05d5\u05e6\u05d9\u05d0\u05e0\u05d4 \u05de\u05d1\u05d9\u05ea\u05d5 \u05d5\u05d9\u05e9\u05dc\u05d7\u05e0\u05d4 \u05dc\u05e2\u05e6\u05de\u05d4 , \u05d0\u05d5\n\u05e9\u05ea\u05e6\u05d0 \u05d4\u05d9\u05d0 \u05de\u05ea\u05d7\u05ea \u05e8\u05e9\u05d5\u05ea\u05d5 \u05d5\u05ea\u05dc\u05da \u05dc\u05d4 , \u05e9\u05d0\u05d9\u05df \u05dc\u05d4\u05df \u05d2\u05d9\u05e8\u05d5\u05e9\u05d9\u05df \u05d1\u05db\u05ea\u05d1 , \u05d5\u05d0\u05d9\u05df \u05d4\u05d3\u05d1\u05e8 \u05ea\u05dc\u05d5\u05d9 \u05d1\u05d5\n\u05dc\u05d1\u05d3 , \u05d0\u05dc\u05d0 \u05db\u05dc \u05d6\u05de\u05df \u05e9\u05d9\u05e8\u05e6\u05d4 \u05d4\u05d5\u05d0 \u05d0\u05d5 \u05d4\u05d9\u05d0 \u05dc\u05e4\u05e8\u05d5\u05e9 \u05d6\u05d4 \u05de\u05d6\u05d4 \u05e4\u05d5\u05e8\u05e9\u05d9\u05df \u05c3\n\n\u201cWhen is his (the Noahite\u2019s) neighbour\u2019s wife to be considered in the\nsame light, as a divorced woman with us?\n\nFrom the time that he sends her forth from his house, and leaves her to\nherself. Or from the time that she goes forth from under his power, and\ngoes her way; for they have no divorces in writing, neither does the\nmatter depend upon that alone;[15] but whenever he or she please to\nseparate one from the other, they separate.\u201d (Hilchoth Melachim, c. ix.\n8.) We Gentiles have great reason to be thankful that Jesus of Nazareth\nhas taught us a different doctrine, according with the original\ninstitution of marriage. What would have been the state of the world, if\nthe oral law had attained supreme power, and the Gentiles had been\ninstructed in the above law as Divine? What would result from the\ndoctrine that every man may turn out his wife, and every woman leave her\nhusband, whenever they like? The peace and well-being of Gentile society\nwould be at an end. The frightful state of disorder and misery that\nwould ensue, as well as the words of the original institution, plainly\nshow that this doctrine is not from God. But the effect upon the\nbelievers in the oral law is still worse. With reference to them, the\nmarriage of Gentiles is no marriage at all. The oral law says\ndistinctly\u2014\n\n\u05d0\u05d9\u05df \u05d0\u05d9\u05e9\u05d5\u05ea \u05dc\u05d2\u05d5\u05d9\u05dd .\n\n\u201cThere is no matrimony to the Gentiles.\u201d (Hilchoth Melachim, viii. 3.)\nAnd again,\n\n\u05d0\u05d9\u05df \u05d0\u05d9\u05e9\u05d5\u05ea \u05d0\u05dc\u05d0 \u05dc\u05d9\u05e9\u05e8\u05d0\u05dc \u05d0\u05d5 \u05dc\u05d2\u05d5\u05d9\u05dd \u05e2\u05dc \u05d4\u05d2\u05d5\u05d9\u05dd \u05d0\u05d1\u05dc \u05dc\u05d0 \u05dc\u05e2\u05d1\u05d3\u05d9\u05dd \u05e2\u05dc \u05e2\u05d1\u05d3\u05d9\u05dd \u05d5\u05dc\u05d0 \u05dc\u05e2\u05d1\u05d3\u05d9\u05dd\n\u05e2\u05dc \u05d9\u05e9\u05e8\u05d0\u05dc \u05c3\n\n\u201cThere is no matrimony except to Israel, or to Gentiles with respect to\nGentiles; but not to slaves with respect to slaves, nor to slaves with\nrespect to Israel.\u201d (Hilchoth Issure Biah, c. xiv. 19.) Here, then, the\noral law directly makes void the law of God, and pronounces that a\ncommand given to Adam in Paradise, and therefore equally binding on all\nhis descendants, is in particular cases of no force at all. The oral\nlaw, therefore, is certainly not from God.\n\nWe have already made out nine commandments; in sacrifice we find a\ntenth. Cain and Abel brought sacrifices, and the only reason that can be\nassigned is, that they had received a command to that effect. Sacrifice\nwas either a Divine command or the dictate of their own reason. But it\nwas not the dictate of reason, for reason says, that the Creator of all\nthings has no need of gifts, and, least of all, such gifts as imply the\nslaughter of an innocent animal. It must, therefore, have been of Divine\ncommand. The reason why the Rabbies excluded this command is plain. They\ndid not choose that there should be acceptable sacrifices offered\nanywhere but amongst themselves. But that this doctrine is altogether of\na recent date is plain. It was not known to Job. He says not a word\nabout the seven commandments, and he was in the habit of offering\nsacrifices. \u201cAnd it was so when the day of their feasting was gone\nabout, that Job sent and sanctified them, and rose up early in the\nmorning, and offered burnt-offerings according to the number of them\nall.\u201d (Job i. 5.) And the Lord himself expressly commanded Job\u2019s friends\nto do so likewise. \u201cAnd it was so, that after the Lord had spoken these\nwords unto Job, the Lord said to Eliphaz the Temanite, My wrath is\nkindled against thee, and against thy two friends.... Therefore, take\nunto you now seven bullocks and seven rams, and go to my servant Job,\nand offer up for yourselves a burnt-offering, and my servant Job shall\npray for you, for him will I accept.\u201d (Job xlii. 7, 8.) It was not known\nto Elisha. When Naaman said, \u201cShall there not then, I pray thee, be\ngiven to thy servant two mules\u2019 burden of earth? For thy servant will\nhenceforth offer neither burnt-offering nor sacrifice unto other gods,\nbut unto the Lord.\u201d (2 Kings v. 17.) Elisha made no objection. He did\nnot tell him that he had only seven commandments to attend to. Neither\nhad Isaiah any idea that, when Judaism triumphed, the whole world was to\nbe compelled to adhere to the seven commandments, for he plainly\npredicts the contrary. \u201cAnd the Lord shall be known to Egypt, and the\nEgyptians shall know the Lord in that day, and shall do sacrifice and\noblation: yea, they shall vow a vow unto the Lord and perform it.\u201d\n(Isaiah xix. 21.) Here again, then, the oral law contradicts the Word of\nGod.\n\nBut the law of God points out to us an eleventh commandment, in the\ndistinction between clean and unclean animals. The Lord commanded Noah\nto take of the former by sevens and of the latter by pairs. (Gen. vii.\n2.) And when Noah came forth from the ark \u201che builded an altar unto the\nLord; and took of every clean beast, and of every clean fowl, and\noffered burnt-offerings on the altar.\u201d (Gen. viii. 2.) It is plain, from\nthe command, that a greater number of clean than unclean animals was\nrequired. Noah\u2019s conduct shows that the rite of sacrifice was the cause\nof the requirement. We have a twelfth commandment in the appointment of\na priesthood. \u201cMelchizedek was the priest of the Most High God,\u201d (Gen.\nxiv. 10,) which he most certainly could not have been, if he had not\nbeen Divinely appointed. From the law itself, then, we have made out\ntwelve distinct commandments. Eight would have been sufficient to\noverthrow the oral tradition. But we appeal to the common sense of every\nTalmudist. We ask him to look over the meagre list of the seven\ncommandments, in which neither love to God nor man is included, and to\ntell us whether it be at all probable that \u201cthe God of the spirits of\nall flesh\u201d would leave all mankind, excepting the small company of\nRabbinists, without any better rule for time, and any better guide to\neternity? Is it possible that the God of love and mercy should leave the\nminority of his reasonable creatures in doubt as to his love, and tell\nthem that he requires no love from them? Yet this is what the oral law\nsays. The Gentiles are, according to it, left without any direction as\nto the worship of God, and are pronounced guilty of death if they study\nthe law. Nay, they are expressly told that God does not require them to\nglorify him by their obedience.\n\n\u05d1\u05df \u05e0\u05d7 \u05e9\u05d0\u05e0\u05e1\u05d5 \u05d0\u05e0\u05e1 \u05dc\u05e2\u05d1\u05d5\u05e8 \u05e2\u05dc \u05d0\u05d7\u05ea \u05de\u05de\u05e6\u05d5\u05d5\u05ea\u05d9\u05d5 , \u05de\u05d5\u05ea\u05e8 \u05dc\u05d5 \u05dc\u05e2\u05d1\u05d5\u05e8 , \u05d0\u05e4\u05d9\u05dc\u05d5 \u05e0\u05d0\u05e0\u05e1 \u05dc\u05e2\u05d1\u05d5\u05d3\n\u05e2\u05f3\u05f3\u05d6 \u05e2\u05d5\u05d1\u05d3 , \u05dc\u05e4\u05d9 \u05e9\u05d0\u05d9\u05e0\u05df \u05de\u05e6\u05d5\u05d5\u05d9\u05df \u05e2\u05dc \u05e7\u05d3\u05d5\u05e9 \u05d4\u05e9\u05dd \u05c3\n\n\u201cA Noahite who is forced to transgress one of his commandments, it is\nlawful for him to do so. Even if he be compelled to commit idolatry he\nmay commit it, for they are not commanded to sanctify God.\u201d (Hilchoth\nMelachim, c. x. 2.) So that, according to the Rabbies, the Noahite who\nis compelled to commit murder, adultery, or even to deny his God, may do\nit with impunity; he still belongs \u201cto the pious of the nations of the\nworld,\u201d and may have a share in the world to come. We confess that we\ncannot see in this doctrine either charity or toleration. We can\ndiscover only that narrowness of heart which characterizes the oral law.\nIn order to magnify themselves, and depreciate the other nations, the\nRabbies first swell out their own commandments to 613, and reduce the\ncommandments of the nations to seven. But not content with that, they\nalso strive to confine the glories of martyrdom to themselves, and tell\nthe Gentiles that God does not require them to sanctify His name. Can\nsuch doctrine come from God? Is God the God of the Rabbinists only? We\ngrant that the Jews are his \u201cpeculiar people.\u201d We acknowledge that \u201cthey\nhave much advantage every way\u201d\u2014that \u201cthey are beloved for the fathers\u2019\nsakes\u201d\u2014that the time is coming when \u201call that see them shall acknowledge\nthem that they are the seed whom the Lord has blessed.\u201d But we still\nthink that God\u2019s heart is large enough to comprehend us Gentiles too in\nhis love. We know that we are the work of His hand, and we trust that,\nas He is our Father, he requires, and is pleased to see even in\nGentiles, the feelings of children, love and filial fear. And we found\nthis our faith on your Scriptures as well as ours. The Word of God tells\nus that, long before there were any Rabbies in the world, He had a\ngracious and tender care for all mankind. He promised to our first\nparents a Saviour who should \u201cbruise the serpent\u2019s head.\u201d He saved Noah\nand his family, not one of whom was a Rabbi, from the deluge; and when\nthey came forth from the ark, He made a gracious covenant not with one\nnation only, but \u201cwith all flesh,\u201d and hung up on high a lovely and\nglittering arch, from one end of the heavens to the other, that all the\nhabitants of earth might have a token of their Father\u2019s love and learn\nto look up to Him with humble confidence. When he chose Abraham and his\nseed, it was not an act of partiality, but that in his seed all the\nfamilies of the earth might be blessed. He did not leave himself without\nwitness to the nations. He manifested himself to Job, and taught him\n\u201cthat his Redeemer liveth,\u201d and moved even the prophets of Israel to\npredict again and again the happy times when, \u201cfrom the rising of the\nsun to the going down of the same, His name should be great among the\nGentiles, and in every place incense should be offered to his name, and\na pure offering; for my name shall be great among the heathen, saith the\nLord of hosts.\u201d (Mal. i. 11.) Having this word, we reject the oral law\nwhich contradicts it, and would make God the God of the Rabbinists only:\nand we believe in the New Testament, which exactly agrees with your\nwritten law, and asks, \u201cIs he the God of the Jews only? Is he not also\nof the Gentiles?\u201d\u2014and answers, \u201cYes, of the Gentiles also\u201d (Rom. iii.\n29)\u2014and which also declares that, in the sight of God, \u201cThere is no\ndifference between the Jew and the Greek; for the same Lord over all is\nrich unto all that call upon him, for whosoever shall call upon the name\nof the Lord shall be saved.\u201d (Rom. x. 12, 13.)\n\nIn the fixing of the commandments, then, for the sons of Noah, we have\ndetected an intolerant and uncharitable spirit very different from that\nof the Old and New Testament. But we have further to inquire, what was\nthe extent of toleration conceded to them? We do not stop to prove that\nthey were not allowed to possess land, nor to be judges, nor members of\nthe Sanhedrin, nor to hold any office, nor to intermarry with the Jews.\nFrom all that, they were excluded by the law of God himself. They were\nallowed to sojourn in the land, and hence their name \u201csojourning\nproselytes.\u201d Further, \u201cThey were to be treated with the same courtesy\nand benevolence as the Israelites.\u201d (See No. 4, p. 26.) But further than\nthis the toleration did not extend. The oral law, though it commands\n\u201ccourtesy and benevolence,\u201d does not administer even-handed justice to\nthe \u201cpious of the nations of the world,\u201d as may be seen from the\nfollowing specimens:\u2014\n\n\u05d9\u05e9\u05e8\u05d0\u05dc \u05e9\u05d4\u05e8\u05d2 \u05d1\u05e9\u05d2\u05d2\u05d4 \u05d0\u05ea \u05d4\u05e2\u05d1\u05d3 \u05d0\u05d5 \u05d0\u05ea \u05d2\u05e8 \u05ea\u05d5\u05e9\u05d1 \u05d2\u05d5\u05dc\u05d4 .\n\n\u05d5\u05db\u05df \u05d2\u05e8 \u05ea\u05d5\u05e9\u05d1 \u05e9\u05d4\u05e8\u05d2 \u05d0\u05ea \u05d2\u05e8 \u05ea\u05d5\u05e9\u05d1 \u05d0\u05d5 \u05d0\u05ea \u05d4\u05e2\u05d1\u05d3 \u05d1\u05e9\u05d2\u05d2\u05d4 \u05d2\u05d5\u05dc\u05d4 .\n\n\u05d2\u05e8 \u05ea\u05d5\u05e9\u05d1 \u05e9\u05d4\u05e8\u05d2 \u05d0\u05ea \u05d9\u05e9\u05e8\u05d0\u05dc \u05d1\u05e9\u05d2\u05d2\u05d4 \u05d0\u05e3 \u05e2\u05dc \u05e4\u05d9 \u05e9\u05d4\u05d9\u05d4 \u05e9\u05d5\u05d2\u05d2 \u05d4\u05e8\u05d9 \u05d6\u05d4 \u05e0\u05d4\u05e8\u05d2 .\n\n\u201cAn Israelite who unintentionally kills a slave, or a sojourning\nproselyte, is imprisoned (in one of the cities of refuge).\u201d\n\n\u201cAnd so a sojourning proselyte who unintentionally kills a sojourning\nproselyte, or a slave, is imprisoned.\u201d\n\n\u201cA sojourning proselyte who unintentionally kills an Israelite, although\nhe did it unintentionally, is to be put to death.\u201d (Hilchoth Rotzeach,\nc. v. 3.) The written law, on the contrary, says, \u201cThese six cities\nshall be a refuge, both for the children of Israel and for the stranger,\nand for the sojourner among them: that any one that killeth any person\nunawares may flee thither.\u201d (Numbers xxxv. 15.) Again, the oral law\nsays\u2014\n\n\u05d9\u05e9\u05e8\u05d0\u05dc \u05e9\u05d4\u05e8\u05d2 \u05d2\u05e8 \u05ea\u05d5\u05e9\u05d1 \u05d0\u05d9\u05e0\u05d5 \u05e0\u05d4\u05e8\u05d2 \u05e2\u05dc\u05d9\u05d5 \u05d1\u05d1\u05d9\u05ea \u05d3\u05d9\u05df , \u05e9\u05e0\u05d0\u05de\u05e8 \u05d5\u05db\u05d9 \u05d9\u05d6\u05d9\u05d3 \u05d0\u05d9\u05e9 \u05e2\u05dc \u05e8\u05e2\u05d4\u05d5\n\u05c3\n\n\u201cAn Israelite who kills a sojourning proselyte, is not put to death on\nhis account by the tribunal, for it is said, \u2018But if a man come\npresumptuously upon his neighbour.\u2019 (Exodus xxi. 14.)\u201d The law of God\nsays, \u201cWhoso sheddeth man\u2019s blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for\nin the image of God made he man.\u201d (Gen. ix. 6.) And to this law the New\nTestament commands us Christians to adhere, rejecting the oral\ntraditions; and in consequence the laws of Christian countries make no\ndifference between the murderer of a Jew, a Christian, Turk, Infidel, or\nHeretic. Short as all Christian nations confessedly come of the pure\nmorality of the New Testament, their laws direct the administration of\nimpartial justice, and are a terror to all evil doers of every creed and\nsect. The liberality of the Talmud then, in allowing a share of\nsalvation to the pious of the world is not so very great, nor its\ntoleration of a very comprehensive character. It not only withholds\njustice from the pious of the world, but gives as the reason, because\nthey are not considered as neighbours. Want of room prevents us from\npursuing this subject further at present. We therefore ask, Is this law\nfrom God? Can God, in an oral law, directly contradict his written law?\nCan you point out anything similar in the New Testament? Is this law\njust or unjust? You will grant that it is unjust and erroneous. Then\nyour fathers have been mistaken about one of the first principles of the\nadministration of justice, for many centuries. And your brethren who\nadhere to this system as Divine, as on the Barbary coast, for instance,\nare still mistaken. Why do you not protest aloud against such error? Why\nnot endeavour to convince your brethren that they are wrong? In England\nthere is nothing to prevent you. There is full liberty, free toleration.\nYou may lift up your voice like a trumpet against the errors of the\nTalmud. You may expunge all acknowledgment of its authority from your\nprayers\u2014you may return to Moses and the prophets, and no man will say\nnay.\n\nFootnote 15:\n\n  Instead of \u05dc\u05e0\u05d3 _alone_, there is another reading, \u05dc\u05e0\u05d3\u05f3\u05f3, the tribunal.\n\n\n\n\n                                No. IX.\n CHRISTIANS CANNOT BE RECKONED AMONGST THE \u201cPIOUS OF THE NATIONS OF THE\n                                WORLD.\u201d\n\n\nWe said, in our last number, that \u201cthe pious of the nations of the\nworld\u201d are, according to the oral law, those who have received the seven\ncommandments of the sons of Noah. We said that of the laws laid down for\ntheir own conduct, some, as for instance that respecting divorces, are\nsuch as would introduce confusion and misery into Gentile society\u2014and\nthat others, referring to the administration of justice by Rabbinical\ntribunals, are extremely unjust. But the advocates of the oral law\nthink, nevertheless, that it is very tolerant, more tolerant than the\nNew Testament, because it says that \u201cthe pious of the nations of the\nworld have a share in the world to come.\u201d Now we cannot help feeling a\ncuriosity to know how great or how small that share will be. And this\nour curiosity is excited by the following information, which the oral\nlaw commands to be communicated to a Gentile who wishes to turn Jew:\u2014\n\n\u05d5\u05db\u05e9\u05dd \u05e9\u05de\u05d5\u05d3\u05d9\u05e2\u05d9\u05df \u05d0\u05d5\u05ea\u05d5 \u05e2\u05d5\u05e0\u05e9\u05df \u05e9\u05dc \u05de\u05e6\u05d5\u05d5\u05ea \u05db\u05da \u05de\u05d5\u05d3\u05d9\u05e2\u05d9\u05df \u05d0\u05d5\u05ea\u05d5 \u05e9\u05db\u05e8\u05df \u05e9\u05dc \u05de\u05e6\u05d5\u05d5\u05ea ,\n\u05d5\u05de\u05d5\u05d3\u05d9\u05e2\u05d9\u05df \u05d0\u05d5\u05ea\u05d5 \u05e9\u05d1\u05e2\u05e9\u05d9\u05ea \u05de\u05e6\u05d5\u05d5\u05ea \u05d0\u05dc\u05d5 \u05d9\u05d6\u05db\u05d4 \u05dc\u05d7\u05d9\u05d9 \u05d4\u05e2\u05d5\u05dc\u05dd \u05d4\u05d1\u05d0 , \u05d5\u05e9\u05d0\u05d9\u05df \u05e9\u05d5\u05dd \u05e6\u05d3\u05d9\u05e7 \u05d2\u05de\u05d5\u05e8\n\u05d0\u05dc\u05d0 \u05d1\u05e2\u05dc \u05d4\u05d7\u05db\u05de\u05d4 \u05e9\u05e2\u05d5\u05e9\u05d4 \u05d5\u05d9\u05d5\u05d3\u05e2\u05df \u05c3 \u05d5\u05d0\u05d5\u05de\u05e8\u05d9\u05dd \u05dc\u05d5 \u05d4\u05d5\u05d9 \u05d9\u05d5\u05d3\u05e2 \u05e9\u05d4\u05e2\u05d5\u05dc\u05dd \u05d4\u05d1\u05d0 \u05d0\u05d9\u05e0\u05d5 \u05e6\u05e4\u05d5\u05df\n\u05d0\u05dc\u05d0 \u05dc\u05e6\u05d3\u05d9\u05e7\u05d9\u05dd \u05d5\u05d4\u05dd \u05d9\u05e9\u05e8\u05d0\u05dc , \u05d5\u05d6\u05d4 \u05e9\u05ea\u05e8\u05d0\u05d4 \u05d9\u05e9\u05e8\u05d0\u05dc \u05d1\u05e6\u05e2\u05e8 \u05d1\u05e2\u05d5\u05dc\u05dd \u05d4\u05d6\u05d4 \u05d8\u05d5\u05d1\u05d4 \u05d4\u05d9\u05d0 \u05e6\u05e4\u05d5\u05e0\u05d4\n\u05dc\u05d4\u05dd \u05e9\u05d0\u05d9\u05df \u05d9\u05db\u05d5\u05dc\u05d9\u05df \u05dc\u05e7\u05d1\u05dc \u05e8\u05d5\u05d1 \u05d8\u05d5\u05d1\u05d4 \u05d1\u05e2\u05d5\u05dc\u05dd \u05d4\u05d6\u05d4 \u05db\u05d0\u05d5\u05de\u05d5\u05ea , \u05e9\u05de\u05d0 \u05d9\u05e8\u05d5\u05dd \u05dc\u05d1\u05dd \u05d5\u05d9\u05ea\u05e2\u05d5\n\u05d5\u05d9\u05e4\u05e1\u05d9\u05d3\u05d5 \u05e9\u05db\u05e8 \u05d4\u05e2\u05d5\u05dc\u05dd \u05d4\u05d1\u05d0 \u05db\u05e2\u05e0\u05d9\u05df \u05e9\u05e0\u05d0\u05de\u05e8 \u05d5\u05d9\u05e9\u05de\u05df \u05d9\u05e9\u05d5\u05e8\u05d5\u05df \u05d5\u05d9\u05d1\u05e2\u05d8 \u05c3 \u05d5\u05d0\u05d9\u05df \u05d4\u05e7\u05d3\u05d5\u05e9 \u05d1\u05e8\u05d5\u05da\n\u05d4\u05d5\u05d0 \u05de\u05d1\u05d9\u05d0 \u05e2\u05dc\u05d9\u05d4\u05df \u05e8\u05d5\u05d1 \u05e4\u05d5\u05e8\u05e2\u05e0\u05d5\u05ea \u05db\u05d3\u05d9 \u05e9\u05dc\u05d0 \u05d9\u05d0\u05d1\u05d3\u05d5 \u05d0\u05dc\u05d0 \u05db\u05dc \u05d4\u05d0\u05d5\u05de\u05d5\u05ea \u05db\u05dc\u05d9\u05df \u05d5\u05d4\u05df \u05e2\u05d5\u05de\u05d3\u05d9\u05df\n\u05d5\u05db\u05d5\u05f3 \u05c3\n\n\u201cAs they are to make known to him the punishments attached to the\ncommandments, so they are also to inform him of the rewards for keeping\nthem. They should inform him, that, by the doing of these commandments,\nhe will be worthy of everlasting life; and that there is no perfectly\nrighteous man, except that possessor of wisdom who does and knows them.\nAnd they are to say to him, Be assured that _the world to come is laid\nup for none but the righteous, and they are Israel_; and as to this that\nthou seest Israel in trouble in this world, their good things are laid\nup for them, _for they cannot receive an abundance of good things in\nthis world, like the nations_. Their heart might, perchance, be lifted\nup, and they might go astray, and lose the reward of the world to come,\nas it is said, \u2018Jeshurun waxed fat and kicked.\u2019 The Holy One, blessed be\nhe, brings upon them the abundance of afflictions for no other reason\nthan this, that they may not be lost. _All the nations shall be utterly\ndestroyed_, but they shall abide.\u201d (Hilchoth Issure Biah., c. xiv. 3-5.)\nTo us this sounds very much like a flat contradiction to the above\ndeclaration, that \u201cthe pious of the nations of the world have a share in\nthe world to come.\u201d Here, on the contrary, it is stated that the\nblessings of that state are reserved \u201cfor none but the righteous, and\nthey are Israel;\u201d and again, \u201cAll the nations snail be utterly\ndestroyed.\u201d And it is even implied that the nations get their good\nthings in this world, and do not suffer affliction, as they are not to\nhave that blessedness, which is reserved for the righteous. How, then,\nare we to reconcile these two sayings? There are only two ways which\noccur to us, either by saying that this is not strictly true, but only a\nfair speech in order to catch proselytes; or, if it be strictly true,\nthat then \u201cthe pious of the world\u201d are to have a much smaller share in\nthe blessedness to come. In any case the spirit is far from charitable\nor tolerant. It represents God as an accepter of persons, saving\nIsraelites simply because they are Israelites, and destroying the other\nnations because they are not Israelites. The New Testament\nrepresentation is very different, and far more worthy of \u201cthe Judge of\nall the earth.\u201d It does indeed say, \u201cHe that believeth shall be saved,\nand he that believeth not shall be damned.\u201d But in this very\ndeclaration, we have an impartial rule applied to all mankind. \u201cHe that\nbelieveth,\u201d of whatsoever nation, kindred, or tongue\u2014Jew or Gentile,\nwhite or black\u2014\u201cshall be saved.\u201d \u201cHe that believeth not,\u201d whether he be\ncalled a Jew or a Christian, whether he be a son of Japhet, of Shem, or\nof Ham, \u201cshall be damned.\u201d The New Testament asserts no monopoly of\nsalvation for one favoured family. It excludes none because he had not\nthe happiness to be descended from a privileged stock. It lays down a\ngeneral and impartial rule to be applied to all the children of men. The\noral law says,\n\n\u05db\u05dc \u05d9\u05e9\u05e8\u05d0\u05dc \u05d9\u05e9 \u05dc\u05d4\u05dd \u05d7\u05dc\u05e7 \u05dc\u05e2\u05d5\u05dc\u05dd \u05d4\u05d1\u05d0 \u05c3\n\n\u201cAll Israel has a share in the world to come.\u201d The New Testament says,\n\u201cNot every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter the kingdom\nof heaven, but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.\u201d\n(Matt. vii. 21.) The oral law says, \u201cThe world to come is laid up for\nnone but the righteous, and they are Israel.\u201d The New Testament says,\n\u201cGod is no respecter of persons; but in every nation he that feareth\nhim, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him.\u201d (Acts x. 34, 35.)\nNow then we appeal to the good sense of every Jew, even of the\nTalmudists to tell us which of these two statements is most just,\nimpartial, and worthy of the Just Judge?\n\nBut the reasoning employed in the above extract from the oral law, is as\nfalse as the principles which it is intended to support, when it says,\n\u201cAs to this that thou seest Israel in trouble in this world, their good\nthings are laid up for them, for they cannot receive an abundance of\ngood things in this world like the nations,\u201d it directly contradicts the\nlaw of Moses, which everywhere promises an abundance of temporal\nblessings to Israel, if obedient. \u201cIt shall come to pass, if thou shalt\nhearken diligently unto the voice of the Lord thy God, to observe and to\ndo all the commandments which I command thee this day, that the Lord thy\nGod will set _thee on high above all nations_ of the earth, and all\nthese blessings shall come upon thee, and overtake thee, if thou shalt\nhearken unto the voice of the Lord thy God. Blessed shalt thou be in the\ncity, and blessed shalt thou be in the field. Blessed shall be the fruit\nof thy body, and the fruit of thy ground, and the fruit of thy cattle,\nthe increase of thy kine, and the flocks of thy sheep.... The Lord shall\ncause thine enemies that rise up against thee to be smitten before thy\nface; they shall come out against thee one way, and flee before thee\nseven ways. The Lord shall command the blessing upon thee in thy\nstore-houses, and in all that thou settest thine hand unto; and he shall\nbless thee in the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee.\u201d (Deut.\nxxviii. 1-8, &c.) Here, then, is temporal blessing in abundance,\npromised to obedience; and the afflictions which have come upon Israel\nare not because of their piety, but because of their disobedience. In\nthis case, then, the oral law speaks utter falsehood. God has not two\nways of dealing with nations, but one way. He gives every nation a fair\ntrial, and if they refuse to hearken to his voice, he pours out upon\nthem his wrath. The rise, and growth, and trial, of a nation is slower,\nand requires more time than the growth and trial of individual men. The\nlife of a nation is, so to speak, longer than the life of a man.\nCenturies are required as the time of a nation\u2019s trial, but all history,\nsacred and profane, testifies the truth of the general rule given in the\nOld Testament, \u201cRighteousness exalteth a nation, but sin is a reproach\nto any people.\u201d The only difference which God makes between Israel and\nthe other nations, is with regard to their national existence in this\nworld. He has crumbled the mighty empires of Assyria, Babylon, Greece,\nand Rome into dust, but he still preserves the independent existence of\nthe family of Abraham, according to his covenant; and when, as a nation,\nthey repent and return to him, He will remove the rod of his anger, and\ngive them the temporal prosperity which He has promised by the mouth of\nMoses his servant. But this promise of temporal blessing will not\njustify any impenitent Jew at the tribunal of God\u2019s judgment. The hopes\nheld out by the oral law are utterly fallacious, and dishonouring to\nGod, inasmuch as he is represented as unduly favouring one nation, and\nunjustly condemning all others.\n\nAn advocate of the oral law may, however, find out some other way of\nevading the evident intolerance of the above statement, and still insist\nupon it, that as the Talmud says, \u201cThe pious of the nations of the world\nhave a share in the world to come,\u201d it is a very tolerant book. We\ntherefore proceed to inquire what pains the Rabbies have taken to add to\nthe number of those who are to be saved. They believe, as we are told,\nthat every one, who receives and observes the seven commandments of the\nsons of Noah, will be saved; they believe that all others must be lost;\nhave they then taken any pains to make known this important information\nto the world? Or, if that was not to be expected during the captivity,\ndid they during the days of their power and dominion? Or, at least, did\nthey offer every facility to those Gentiles who might come to renounce\nidolatry, to receive the necessary instruction? Did they command all\ntheir disciples to be ready day and night to open their doors at the\nknock of the penitent idolater, and by receiving rescue him from\neverlasting destruction? Not one of all these things. They commanded\nthat, when there was no jubilee, such converts should be refused, and\nthat if they did not choose to be circumcised and observe the whole\nMosaic law, they should be left to perish.\n\n\u05d0\u05d9 \u05d6\u05d4 \u05d4\u05d5\u05d0 \u05d2\u05e8 \u05ea\u05d5\u05e9\u05d1 \u05d6\u05d4 \u05d2\u05d5\u05d9 \u05e9\u05e7\u05d1\u05dc \u05e2\u05dc\u05d9\u05d5 \u05e9\u05dc\u05d0 \u05d9\u05e2\u05d1\u05d5\u05d3 \u05e2\u05db\u05d5\u05f3\u05f3\u05dd \u05e2\u05dd \u05e9\u05d0\u05e8 \u05d4\u05de\u05e6\u05d5\u05d5\u05ea \u05e9\u05e0\u05e6\u05d8\u05d5\u05d5\n\u05d1\u05e0\u05d9 \u05e0\u05d7 \u05d5\u05dc\u05d0 \u05de\u05dc \u05d5\u05dc\u05d0 \u05d8\u05d1\u05dc \u05d4\u05e8\u05d9 \u05d6\u05d4 \u05de\u05e7\u05d1\u05dc\u05d9\u05d5 \u05d0\u05d5\u05ea\u05d9 \u05d5\u05d4\u05d5\u05d0 \u05de\u05d7\u05e1\u05d9\u05d3\u05d9 \u05d0\u05d5\u05de\u05d5\u05ea \u05d4\u05e2\u05d5\u05dc\u05dd , \u05d5\u05de\u05de\u05d4\n\u05e0\u05e7\u05e8\u05d0 \u05e9\u05de\u05d5 \u05ea\u05d5\u05e9\u05d1 \u05dc\u05e4\u05d9 \u05e9\u05de\u05d5\u05ea\u05e8 \u05dc\u05e0\u05d5 \u05dc\u05d4\u05d5\u05e9\u05d9\u05d1\u05d5 \u05d1\u05d9\u05e0\u05d9\u05e0\u05d5 \u05d1\u05d0\u05e8\u05e5 \u05d9\u05e9\u05e8\u05d0\u05dc \u05db\u05de\u05d5 \u05e9\u05d1\u05d0\u05e8\u05e0\u05d5 \u05d1\u05d7\u05dc\u05db\u05d5\u05ea\n\u05e2\u05db\u05d5\u05f3\u05f3\u05dd , \u05d5\u05d0\u05d9\u05df \u05de\u05e7\u05d1\u05dc\u05d9\u05df \u05d2\u05e8 \u05ea\u05d5\u05e9\u05d1 \u05d0\u05dc\u05d0 \u05d1\u05d6\u05de\u05df \u05e9\u05d4\u05d9\u05d5\u05d1\u05dc \u05e0\u05d5\u05d4\u05d2 \u05c3\n\n\u201cWhat is meant by a sojourning proselyte? Such an one is a Gentile, who\nhas taken upon himself not to commit idolatry, together with the\nremaining commandments given to the sons of Noah, but is not circumcised\nnor baptized. Such an one is received, and is of the pious of the\nnations of the world. And why is he called a _sojourner_? Because it is\nlawful for us to let him dwell amongst us in the land of Israel, as we\nhave explained in the laws concerning idolatry. _But a sojourning\nProselyte is not received_ WHEN THE JUBILEE CANNOT BE OBSERVED.\u201d\n(Hilchoth Issure Biah., c. xiv. 7, 8.) At all other times the\nunfortunate heathen might perish, if they did not choose to become Jews\naltogether. Now what will be thought of the charity of this law if we\nadd, that there has been no jubilee, and consequently no pious amongst\nthe nations for two thousand seven hundred years and more? Yet this is\nwhat the oral law tells us.\n\n\u05de\u05e9\u05d2\u05dc\u05d5 \u05e9\u05d1\u05d8 \u05e8\u05d0\u05d5\u05d1\u05df \u05d5\u05e9\u05d1\u05d8 \u05d2\u05d3 \u05d5\u05d7\u05e6\u05d9 \u05e9\u05d1\u05d8 \u05de\u05e0\u05e9\u05d4 \u05d1\u05d8\u05dc\u05d5 \u05d4\u05d9\u05d5\u05d1\u05dc\u05d5\u05ea \u05e9\u05e0\u05d0\u05de\u05e8 \u05d5\u05e7\u05e8\u05d0\u05ea\u05dd \u05d3\u05e8\u05d5\u05e8\n\u05d1\u05d0\u05e8\u05e5 \u05dc\u05db\u05dc \u05d9\u05d5\u05e9\u05d1\u05d9\u05d4 , \u05d1\u05d6\u05de\u05df \u05e9\u05db\u05dc \u05d9\u05d5\u05e9\u05d1\u05d9\u05d4 \u05e2\u05dc\u05d9\u05d4 , \u05d5\u05d4\u05d5\u05d0 \u05e9\u05dc\u05d0 \u05d9\u05d4\u05d9\u05d5 \u05de\u05e2\u05d5\u05e8\u05d1\u05d1\u05d9\u05df \u05e9\u05d1\u05d8 \u05d1\u05e9\u05d1\u05d8\n\u05d0\u05dc\u05d0 \u05db\u05d5\u05dc\u05df \u05d9\u05d5\u05e9\u05d1\u05d9\u05dd \u05db\u05ea\u05e7\u05d5\u05e0\u05df \u05c3\n\n\u201cSince the time that the tribe of Reuben, and the tribe of Gad and the\nhalf-tribe of Manasseh were led away captive, the jubilees have ceased,\nfor it is said, \u2018And ye shall proclaim liberty throughout the land unto\nall the inhabitants thereof\u2019 (Lev. xxv. 10); that means, when all its\ninhabitants are upon it, and, moreover, when the tribes are not mixed\none with another, but all dwelling according as they were appointed.\u201d\n(Hilchoth Shemitah, c. x. 8.) We have the account of this captivity in\nthe following words, \u201cIn those days the Lord began to cut Israel short:\nand Hazael smote them in all the coasts of Israel: from Jordan eastward,\nall the land of Gilead, the Gadites, and the Reubenites, and the\nManassites.\u201d (2 Kings x. 32, 33.) That was, according to the common\nchronology about 884 years before the Christian era. If to this we add\n1836, we have 2720 years since the time that there could be a jubilee,\nand consequently 2720 years since any Gentiles were converted from the\nerrors of idolatry to the religion of the sons of Noah. What is it then\nbut solemn mockery, in any one acquainted with the oral law, to tell us\nthat the Talmud is tolerant, and admits \u201cthat the pious of the nations\nof the world may be saved;\u201d when according to that same book\nseven-and-twenty centuries have elapsed, since any such converts were\nreceived? We believe that those who make this defence are unacquainted\nwith the principles of the system which they undertake to defend. The\ntruth is, that the authors of the oral law, finding that they could not\naltogether deny salvation to the pious of other nations, were determined\nnot to add to their number, and therefore limited the possibility of\nthis mode of conversion to times that had elapsed long before they were\nborn. But in their own times they would not receive any one who was not\nwilling to be circumcised and to receive the whole law. And hence we see\nhow exactly the New Testament represents the state of the case, when\nChristianity was first propagated amongst the Gentiles, and free\nsalvation was proclaimed to all who believed, without becoming Jewish\nproselytes. The Rabbinists opposed with all their might. \u201cAnd certain\nmen which came down from Judea taught the brethren and said, Except ye\nbe circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved.\u201d And\nagain, \u201cThere rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which\nbelieved, saying that it was needful to circumcise them, and to command\nthem to keep the law of Moses.\u201d (Acts xv. 1-5.) There was no year of\njubilee, and therefore renunciation of idolatry was not sufficient in\nthe eyes of these traditionists, who believed that at such a time there\nwas no salvation except for those who observed the whole law. But how is\nit now? If a Gentile should desire now to become one of the pious of the\nnations, could the Jews receive him? According to the above general\nprinciples, certainly not. The tribes are still scattered and mixed up\ntogether. The land has not got \u201call its inhabitants.\u201d There can be no\njubilee, and therefore those that wish to be saved, must, according to\nthe oral law, turn Jews, or take their chance of living to a year of\njubilee. But we are not necessitated to argue from the principles. The\nthing is expressly laid down in the oral law. After explaining, as we\nhave quoted above, who are the pious of the world, and that when the\njubilee is possible, is the only time for receiving them, it adds\u2014\n\n\u05d0\u05d1\u05dc \u05d1\u05d6\u05de\u05df \u05d4\u05d6\u05d4 \u05d0\u05e4\u05d9\u05dc\u05d5 \u05e7\u05d1\u05dc \u05e2\u05dc\u05d9\u05d5 \u05db\u05dc \u05d4\u05ea\u05d5\u05e8\u05d4 \u05db\u05d5\u05dc\u05d4 \u05d7\u05d5\u05e5 \u05de\u05d3\u05e7\u05d3\u05d5\u05e7 \u05d0\u05d7\u05d3 \u05d0\u05d9\u05df \u05de\u05e7\u05d1\u05dc\u05d9\u05df \u05d0\u05d5\u05ea\u05d5\n\u05c3\n\n\u201cBut in the present time, though a man should be willing to take upon\nhim the whole law, with the exception of only one of its least\nrequirements, he is not to be received.\u201d Now then what becomes of the\nboasted toleration of the Talmud? It says, that \u201cthe pious of the\nnations of the world may be saved.\u201d But it says, first, that such\nconverts can only be received when the jubilee can be celebrated. It\nsays, secondly, that this only opportunity has not occurred for the last\n2,700 years; and, lastly, it positively forbids the Jews in the present\ntime to give the Gentiles a chance of salvation, unless they are willing\nto receive the whole law. What use is it then to talk of the pious of\nthe world, or to say that people of other religions may be saved?\nAccording to the Talmud, there are no pious of the nations, unless\nperchance there may be some descendants of those who were received 2,700\nyears ago. But all history that we have ever seen is silent on the\nsubject. We do not know of a single congregation of Noahites in the\nwhole world. The forefathers of the Christians were not received during\nthe usage of jubilee. They were idolaters received against the wishes of\nthe Rabbinists. The Britons and the Saxons were converted to\nChristianity long after the final dispersion of the Jews, that is, at a\ntime when, according to the Talmud, it was unlawful to add to the pious\namongst the nations. Neither were they received according to the\nTalmudic condition, in the presence of three learned Jews.\n\n\u05d5\u05e6\u05e8\u05d9\u05da \u05dc\u05e7\u05d1\u05dc \u05e2\u05dc\u05d9\u05d5 \u05d1\u05e4\u05e0\u05d9 \u05e9\u05dc\u05e9\u05d4 \u05d7\u05d1\u05e8\u05d9\u05dd \u05c3\n\n\u201cAnd it is necessary for such an one to take the seven commandments on\nhim in the presence of three learned men, who are qualified to be\nRabbies.\u201d (Hilchoth Melachim, c. viii. 10.) According to the oral law,\nthen, there are no such persons now existing as \u201cthe pious of the\nnations of the world.\u201d It is, therefore, idle to talk of the liberality\nwith which they would be treated, were they forthcoming. Thus the only\nappearance of an argument in favour of the Talmud vanishes into thin\nair, and mocks our grasp, as soon as we endeavour to lay hold of it.\nThose who caught at this phantom of charity, no doubt meant it\nsincerely. They thought that the oral law was misrepresented. They were\ntold that it was charitable, and they therefore nobly came forward in\nits defence. If they had known its true principles, they would have\nrenounced them. Their advocacy went on a false supposition. But now that\nwe have set forth the true bearings of the case, and given them chapter\nand verse to which they may refer, and convince themselves, we call upon\nthem to do so: and then, as they hate intolerance, to join with us in\nprotesting against it, even though it should be found in that system,\nwhich hitherto they have believed, on the testimony of others, to be\nDivine. At the same time we would seriously ask of them to compare this\nsystem, which has been for more than 1,700 years the religion of the\nmajority of the Jewish nation, with the system laid down in the New\nTestament, and to decide which is most agreeable to the character of\nGod, as revealed in the law and the prophets, and most beneficial to the\nworld. The oral law says, that God has commanded the heathen to be left\nfor 2,700 years without the means of instruction, and that when the days\nof Israel\u2019s prosperity come, the nations are to be converted by force;\nbut that even then, they will not be raised to the rank of brethren, but\nonly be sojourning proselytes. The oral law looks forward to no reunion\nof all the sons of Adam into one happy family. The New Testament has, on\nthe contrary, commanded its disciples to afford the means of instruction\n\u201cto every creature.\u201d It speaks to us Gentiles, who were once regarded as\npoor outcasts, in the language of love, and says, \u201cNow, therefore, ye\nare no more strangers and foreigners, but fellow-citizens with the\nsaints, and of the household of God.\u201d (Ephes. ii. 19.) It takes nothing\nfrom you. It asserts your privileges as the peculiar people of God; but\nit reveals that great, and to us, most comfortable truth, \u201cThat the\nGentiles should be follow-heirs, and of the same body;\u201d and it promises\na happy time, when there shall be one fold and one Shepherd. It does,\nindeed, tell us not to forget what we once were, \u201caliens from the\ncommonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenant of promise,\nhaving no hope, and without God in the world.\u201d (Eph. ii. 12.) It reminds\nus that the olive-tree is Jewish, and that you are the natural branches,\nand warns us against all boasting. (Rom. xi. 16-24.) And we desire to\nremember these admonitions, and to acknowledge with thankfulness, that\nall that we have received, is derived from the Jewish nation. We ask you\nnot to compare the oral law with any Gentile speculations, or systems,\nor inventions, but with doctrines essentially and entirely Jewish.\nChristianity has effected great and glorious changes in the world, but\nwe take not the glory to ourselves. We give it to God, who is the author\nof all good, and under Him, to the people of Israel. We ask you, then,\nto compare these two Jewish systems, Rabbinism, which has done no good\nto the Gentiles, and perpetuated much error amongst the Jews; and\nChristianity, which has diffused over the world the knowledge of the one\ntrue God\u2014disseminated the writings of Moses and the prophets, and\nincreased the happiness of a large portion of mankind. The comparison\nmay require time, and ought to be conducted with calmness and\nseriousness. But we think that, even without instituting that\ncomparison, you must acknowledge that the principles of the oral law,\ndiscussed in this paper, are contrary to the law of Moses; and that,\ntherefore, a decided and solemn protest against these Rabbinical\nadditions, is an immediate and imperative duty.\n\n\n\n\n                                 No. X.\n                       RABBINIC WASHING OF HANDS.\n\n\nThere are various marks by which a religion of man\u2019s making may be\ndetected. It is usually intolerant, superstitious, and voluminous. It\nlimits the love of God to a particular class. It exalts ceremonial\nobservances above the worship of the heart; and so multiplies its laws\nand definitions, as to put the knowledge of it beyond the reach of any\nbut the learned. Any one of these marks would go far towards shaking the\nclaims of a religious system. Far instance, if it lay down as religious\nduties so many and such subtle laws, as it is impossible for the\nunlearned to attain a knowledge of, it is plainly the invention of the\nlearned, who have thought only of themselves, and have not that tender\nregard and consideration for the ignorant, which the Creator has. His\nreligion must be for all, the poor as well as the rich, and the ignorant\nas well as the wise of this world. We fear that the oral law of the\nRabbies will not stand any one of these tests: it is, at all events, a\nreligion for the learned, and the learned only. There is scarcely one of\nits commandments that is not so encumbered with distinctions and\ndefinitions, as to make the right interpretation of it the sole property\nof the educated. Take, for example, one of the first and most frequent\nof the commandments, in the Rabbinist\u2019s daily practice, \u05e0\u05d8\u05d9\u05dc\u05ea \u05d9\u05d3\u05d9\u05dd (the\nwashing of hands.) The command appears very simple. It says\u2014\n\n\u05d9\u05e8\u05d7\u05e5 \u05d9\u05d3\u05d9\u05d5 \u05d5\u05d9\u05d1\u05e8\u05da \u05e2\u05dc \u05e0\u05d8\u05d9\u05dc\u05ea \u05d9\u05d3\u05d9\u05dd \u05c3\n\n\u201cLet him wash his hands, and pronounce the benediction for the washing\nof hands.\u201d (Orach Chaiim., \u00a7 4.) But out of this short command arise\nendless distinctions, according to which the act performed is regarded\nas a valid or invalid fulfilment of the command.\n\n\u05db\u05dc \u05d4\u05e0\u05d5\u05d8\u05dc \u05d9\u05d3\u05d9\u05d5 \u05e6\u05e8\u05d9\u05da \u05dc\u05d4\u05d6\u05d4\u05e8 \u05d1\u05d0\u05e8\u05d1\u05e2\u05d4 \u05d3\u05d1\u05e8\u05d9\u05dd , \u05d1\u05de\u05d9\u05dd \u05e2\u05e6\u05de\u05df \u05e9\u05dc\u05d0 \u05d9\u05d4\u05d9\u05d5 \u05e4\u05e1\u05d5\u05dc\u05d9\u05df \u05dc\u05e0\u05d8\u05d9\u05dc\u05ea\n\u05d9\u05d3\u05d9\u05dd \u05d5\u05d1\u05e9\u05d9\u05e2\u05d5\u05e8 \u05e9\u05d9\u05d4\u05d9\u05d4 \u05d1\u05d4\u05df \u05e8\u05d1\u05d9\u05e2\u05d9\u05ea \u05dc\u05db\u05dc \u05e9\u05ea\u05d9 \u05d9\u05d3\u05d9\u05dd , \u05d5\u05d1\u05db\u05dc\u05d9 \u05e9\u05d9\u05d4\u05d9\u05d5 \u05d4\u05de\u05d9\u05dd \u05e9\u05e0\u05d5\u05d8\u05dc\u05d9\u05df\n\u05d1\u05d4\u05df \u05d1\u05db\u05dc\u05d9 , \u05d5\u05d1\u05db\u05d5\u05d8\u05dc \u05e9\u05d9\u05d4\u05d9\u05d5 \u05d4\u05de\u05d9\u05dd \u05d1\u05d0\u05d9\u05df \u05de\u05db\u05d7 \u05e0\u05d5\u05ea\u05df \u05c3\n\n\u201cEvery one who washes his hands must attend to four things. 1st, To the\nwater, that it be not unlawful for the washing of hands. 2d, To the\nmeasure, that there be a quartern for the two hands. 3d, To the vessel,\nthat the water, wherewith the washing is performed, be in a vessel. 4th,\nTo the washer, that the water come with force from him that pours.\u201d\n(Hilchoth Berachoth, vi. 6.) Each of these four limitations requires new\nexplanations and definitions of its own, as for example, there are four\nthings that make water unlawful for the washing of hands; one of these\nis, if any work be done with it. This necessarily requires fresh\ndefinitions of what is and is not work. Then come the directions as to\nhow for the washing is to reach, the position of the hands, whether they\nare to be held up or down, the drying of the hands. A perfect and\naccurate knowledge of all these conditions can be attained only by the\nlearned. And after all the care which these things require, the\nIsraelite may after all fall short of Talmudic requirement, for there is\nstill another condition, that involves another host of Rabbinic\ndefinitions, the non-observance of which will invalidate the merit of\nhis washing.\n\n\u05db\u05dc \u05d4\u05d7\u05d5\u05e6\u05e5 \u05d1\u05d8\u05d1\u05d9\u05dc\u05d4 \u05d7\u05d5\u05e6\u05e5 \u05d1\u05d9\u05d3\u05d9\u05dd \u05d5\u05db\u05d5\u05f3 \u05c3\n\n\u201cEvery thing that is an impediment in baptism is an impediment in\nwashing of hands.\u201d (Hilchoth Mikvaoth, xi. 2.) This, of course, leads to\na new inquiry, what constitutes an impediment.\n\n\u05d0\u05dc\u05d5 \u05d7\u05d5\u05e6\u05e6\u05d9\u05df \u05d1\u05d0\u05d3\u05dd , \u05dc\u05e4\u05dc\u05d5\u05e3 \u05e9\u05d7\u05d5\u05e5 \u05dc\u05e2\u05d9\u05df , \u05d5\u05d2\u05dc\u05d3 \u05e9\u05d7\u05d5\u05e5 \u05dc\u05de\u05db\u05d4 , \u05d5\u05d4\u05d3\u05dd \u05d4\u05d9\u05d1\u05e9 \u05e9\u05e2\u05dc \u05d2\u05d1\u05d9\n\u05d4\u05de\u05db\u05d4 , \u05d5\u05d4\u05e8\u05d8\u05d9\u05d4 \u05e9\u05e2\u05dc\u05d9\u05d4 , \u05d5\u05d2\u05dc\u05d3\u05d9 \u05e6\u05d5\u05d0\u05d4 \u05e9\u05e2\u05dc \u05d1\u05e9\u05e8\u05d5 , \u05d5\u05d1\u05e6\u05e7 \u05d0\u05d5 \u05d8\u05d9\u05d8 \u05e9\u05ea\u05d7\u05ea \u05d4\u05e6\u05e4\u05d5\u05e8\u05df ,\n\u05d5\u05d4\u05de\u05dc\u05de\u05d5\u05dc\u05d9\u05df \u05e9\u05e2\u05dc \u05d4\u05d2\u05d5\u05e3 \u05d4\u05d9\u05d5\u05df , \u05d5\u05d8\u05d9\u05d8 \u05d4\u05d9\u05d5\u05e6\u05e8\u05d9\u05dd \u05d5\u05db\u05d5\u05f3 \u05c3\n\n\u201cThese are the impediments in human beings. The film that is outside the\neye. The incrustation outside a wound. Dry blood that is on a wound. The\nplaster that is on it. Filth upon the flesh. The impurity or dirt under\nthe nails. Dirt upon the body, mud, potter\u2019s clay, &c.\u201d (Ibid., c. ii.\n1.) Every one of these can give rise to endless questions in casuistry,\nwhich are evidently beyond the powers of the unlearned, and must draw\nhim, if he be a conscientious man, to the Rabbi to solicit his advice.\nThus, one of the very first commandments with which the Jew begins the\nday, requires for its accurate fulfilment a degree of knowledge which is\nfar beyond the attainment of the multitude. This one commandment\ninvolves scores of others. Nay, we doubt not that an accurate Talmudist\nmight make 613 constitutions out of this one alone; and we appeal to the\nconscience of the great majority of Jews in London to decide whether\nthey possess the knowledge here required, and consequently whether it is\npossible for them to keep this one commandment. If they transgress any\none of these Rabbinic distinctions, their hands are not washed, and\nconsequently they are unfit for prayer. But this is not a command for\nthe morning only. It must be repeated through the day.\n\n\u05db\u05dc \u05d4\u05d0\u05d5\u05db\u05dc \u05d4\u05e4\u05ea \u05e9\u05de\u05d1\u05e8\u05db\u05d9\u05df \u05e2\u05dc\u05d9\u05d5 \u05d4\u05de\u05d5\u05e6\u05d9\u05d0 \u05e6\u05e8\u05d9\u05da \u05e0\u05d8\u05d9\u05dc\u05ea \u05d9\u05d3\u05d9\u05dd \u05ea\u05d7\u05dc\u05d4 \u05d5\u05e1\u05d5\u05e3 , \u05d5\u05d0\u05e3 \u05e2\u05dc \u05e4\u05d9\n\u05e9\u05d4\u05d5\u05d0 \u05e4\u05ea \u05d7\u05d5\u05dc\u05d9\u05df \u05d5\u05d0\u05e3 \u05e2\u05dc \u05e4\u05d9 \u05e9\u05d0\u05d9\u05df \u05d9\u05d3\u05d9\u05d5 \u05de\u05dc\u05d5\u05db\u05dc\u05db\u05d5\u05ea \u05d5\u05d0\u05d9\u05e0\u05d5 \u05d9\u05d5\u05d3\u05e2 \u05dc\u05d4\u05df \u05d8\u05d5\u05de\u05d0\u05d4 \u05dc\u05d0 \u05d9\u05d0\u05db\u05dc\n\u05e2\u05d3 \u05e9\u05d9\u05d8\u05d5\u05dc \u05e9\u05ea\u05d9 \u05d9\u05d3\u05d9\u05d5 , \u05d5\u05db\u05df \u05db\u05dc \u05d3\u05d1\u05e8 \u05e9\u05d8\u05d9\u05d1\u05d5\u05dc\u05d5 \u05d1\u05de\u05e9\u05e7\u05d4 \u05e6\u05e8\u05d9\u05da \u05e0\u05d8\u05d9\u05dc\u05ea \u05d9\u05d3\u05d9\u05dd \u05ea\u05d7\u05dc\u05d4 \u05c3\n\n\u201cEvery one who eats that sort of bread, for which the benediction is,\n\u2018Blessed art thou, O Lord our God, King of the universe! who bringeth\nforth bread from the earth,\u2019[16] is bound to wash his hands at the\nbeginning and end. And although the bread be common, and although his\nhands have not been defiled, and he is not aware of any uncleanness upon\nthem, he is not to eat until he wash both his hands. And thus, also,\nwith regard to anything that is dipped in fluid, the washing of hands is\nnecessary at the beginning.\u201d (Hilchoth Berachoth, vi. 1.) Here, again,\nit is necessary to know the different sorts of bread, and the compounds\nthat may be made with the different sorts of flour, and the various\nforms of benediction, and out of these again may arise as many doubts\nand questions as out of the former, for the solution of which learning,\nacuteness, and practice are required; and the want of these may lead to\ntransgression, and, according to the Rabbies, to most fatal\nconsequences. For instance, neglect of this command after the meal may\ncause blindness.\n\n\u05db\u05dc \u05e4\u05ea \u05e9\u05d4\u05de\u05dc\u05d7 \u05d1\u05d5 \u05e6\u05e8\u05d9\u05da \u05e0\u05d8\u05d9\u05dc\u05ea \u05d9\u05d3\u05d9\u05dd \u05d1\u05d0\u05d7\u05e8\u05d5\u05e0\u05d4 \u05e9\u05de\u05d0 \u05d9\u05e9 \u05d1\u05d5 \u05de\u05dc\u05d7 \u05e1\u05d3\u05d5\u05de\u05d9\u05ea \u05d0\u05d5 \u05de\u05dc\u05d7 \u05e9\u05d8\u05d1\u05e2\u05d5\n\u05db\u05de\u05dc\u05d7 \u05e1\u05d3\u05d5\u05de\u05d9\u05ea \u05d5\u05d9\u05e2\u05d1\u05d9\u05e8 \u05d9\u05d3\u05d9\u05d5 \u05e2\u05dc \u05e2\u05d9\u05e0\u05d9\u05d5 \u05d5\u05d9\u05e1\u05de\u05d0 . \u05de\u05e4\u05e0\u05d9 \u05d6\u05d4 \u05d7\u05d9\u05d9\u05d1\u05d9\u05df \u05dc\u05d9\u05d8\u05d5\u05dc \u05d9\u05d3\u05d9\u05dd \u05d1\u05e1\u05d9\u05e3\n\u05db\u05dc \u05e1\u05e2\u05d5\u05d3\u05d4 \u05de\u05e4\u05e0\u05d9 \u05d4\u05de\u05dc\u05d7 . \u05d5\u05e0\u05de\u05d7\u05e0\u05d4 \u05e4\u05d8\u05d5\u05e8\u05b4\u05dd \u05de\u05e0\u05d8\u05d9\u05dc\u05d4 \u05d9\u05d3\u05d9\u05dd \u05d1\u05ea\u05d7\u05dc\u05d4 . \u05de\u05e4\u05e0\u05d9 \u05e9\u05d4\u05dd \u05d8\u05e8\u05d5\u05d3\u05d9\u05dd\n\u05d1\u05de\u05dc\u05d7\u05de\u05d4 \u05d5\u05d7\u05d9\u05d9\u05d1\u05d9\u05df \u05d1\u05d0\u05d7\u05e8\u05d5\u05e0\u05d4 \u05de\u05e4\u05e0\u05d9 \u05d4\u05e1\u05db\u05e0\u05d4 \u05c3\n\n\u201cAll bread that has salt in it requires washing of hands after it; lest\nperhaps it might be the salt of Sodom, or salt of the same nature, and a\nman might pass his hand over his eyes and become blind. On this account\nall are bound to wash their hands at the end of every meal, because of\nthe salt. But in a camp they are exempt from washing at the beginning,\nbecause they are oppressed with the fatigues of war, and are bound to\nwash after meal on account of the danger.\u201d (Ibid., 3.) Suppose, then,\nthat a poor ignorant man, with the best intention in the world, set\nabout this washing, and made a mistake with regard to the water, or the\nvessel, or the pouring, or the position of his hands; or suppose that a\nsoldier, in the hurry of a camp, were to make this mistake, or omit the\nwashing altogether, and then have the ill luck to put his hands to his\neyes, according to the oral law, blindness would be the consequence. Any\nneglect or defect in the morning ablution would be more fatal still.\n\n\u05d9\u05d9\u05d3\u05e7\u05d3\u05e7 \u05dc\u05e2\u05e8\u05d5\u05ea \u05e2\u05dc\u05d9\u05d4\u05df \u05d2\u05f3 \u05e4\u05e2\u05de\u05d9\u05dd \u05de\u05e4\u05e0\u05d9 \u05e9\u05e8\u05d5\u05d7 \u05e8\u05e2\u05d4 \u05e9\u05d5\u05e8\u05d4 \u05e2\u05dc \u05d4\u05d9\u05d3\u05d9\u05dd \u05e7\u05d5\u05d3\u05dd \u05e0\u05d8\u05d9\u05dc\u05d4 \u05d5\u05d0\u05d9\u05e0\u05d4\n\u05e1\u05e8\u05d4 \u05d0\u05d3 \u05e9\u05d9\u05e2\u05e8\u05d4 \u05e2\u05dc\u05d9\u05d4\u05df \u05e9\u05dc\u05e9 \u05e4\u05e2\u05de\u05d9\u05dd . \u05d5\u05e2\u05dc \u05db\u05df \u05e6\u05e8\u05d9\u05da \u05dc\u05de\u05e0\u05d5\u05e2 \u05de\u05d4\u05d2\u05d9\u05e2 \u05d1\u05d9\u05d3\u05d5 \u05e7\u05d5\u05d3\u05dd \u05d4\u05e0\u05d8\u05d9\u05dc\u05d4\n\u05dc\u05e4\u05d4 , \u05d5\u05dc\u05d7\u05d5\u05d8\u05dd , \u05d5\u05dc\u05d0\u05d6\u05e0\u05b4\u05dd , \u05d5\u05dc\u05e2\u05d9\u05e0\u05d9\u05dd . \u05de\u05e4\u05e0\u05d9 \u05e9\u05e8\u05d5\u05d7 \u05e8\u05e2\u05d4 \u05e9\u05d5\u05e8\u05d4 \u05e2\u05dc\u05d9\u05d4\u05dd \u05c3\n\n\u201cA man must be very careful in pouring water on his hands three times\nfor an evil spirit rests upon the hands before washing, and does not\ndepart until water be poured on them three times. Therefore it is\nnecessary, before washing, to abstain from touching the hand to the\nmouth, and the nose, and the ears, and the eyes, because an evil spirit\nrests upon them.\u201d (Orach Chaiim., \u00a7 4.)\n\nNow, is this the religion of the God of love, and mercy, and justice? Is\nit at all like Him to give laws so subtle and multifarious in their\ndistinctions, that it is next to impossible for the unlearned man to\nobey them aright, and then to attach to this non-observance such\ncalamitous consequences? If it be replied that the punishment is visited\nonly on those who transgress wilfully, then there are thousands of Jews,\nperhaps in this very city, who live in the habitual and wilful omission\nof this precept, and who have the use of their eyes, just as well as the\nstrictest Rabbinist. This fact, which no one will dispute, proves beyond\ndoubt, that the oral law has spoken falsehood, and therefore throws\nutter discredit upon its testimony respecting the tradition of the\ncommandment itself. It is confessedly not a commandment from God, but\nfrom the scribes.\n\n\u05db\u05d1\u05e8 \u05d1\u05d9\u05d0\u05e8\u05e0\u05d5 \u05e9\u05e0\u05d8\u05d9\u05dc\u05ea \u05d9\u05d3\u05d9\u05dd \u05d5\u05d8\u05d1\u05d9\u05dc\u05ea\u05df \u05de\u05d3\u05d1\u05e8\u05d9 \u05e1\u05d5\u05e4\u05e8\u05d9\u05dd \u05c3\n\n\u201cWe have explained long ago, that the washing and bathing of the hands\nare derived from the words of the scribes.\u201d (Hilchoth Mikvaoth, xi. 1.)\nThat they had no Divine authority for the command is evident from the\nsubtilty and superstition of its ordinances; for we presume that few\nwill question the superstition of the threat of blindness to the\ndisobedient, or of the fable of the evil spirit resting upon the hands.\nOne such command, then, will go far to discredit the whole story of an\noral law, and to invalidate the character of its witnesses. They were\nevidently superstitious men, no way elevated above the vulgar prejudices\nor the times, not at all scrupulous in adding to the law of God, and\nevidently aiming at a complete domination over the consciences of their\nfollowers. It is hardly possible to believe that they were not aware of\nthe necessary result of the system, the complete subjugation of the\nconsciences of the multitude. The mass of mankind has no leisure for the\nstudy of juristic distinctions, they must, therefore, if they believe\nsuch to be Divine, cast themselves upon the mercy of the learned, and\nthere can be no doubt that those who have the keys of salvation, will\nalso possess no small degree of influence and power in this world. But,\nwhatever was the motive, there can be no doubt about the severity with\nwhich the Rabbies enforced this command. They exacted even from the poor\nunfortunate, whom circumstances left only enough water to slake his\nthirst, that he should sacrifice a port of it to this Rabbinical\npurification.\n\n\u05d0\u05e4\u05d9\u05dc\u05d5 \u05d0\u05d9\u05df \u05dc\u05d5 \u05de\u05d9\u05dd \u05d0\u05dc\u05d0 \u05db\u05d3\u05d9 \u05e9\u05ea\u05d9\u05d9\u05d4 \u05e0\u05d5\u05d8\u05dc \u05d9\u05d3\u05d9\u05d5 \u05d1\u05de\u05e7\u05e6\u05ea\u05df \u05d5\u05d0\u05d7\u05f3\u05f3\u05db \u05d0\u05d5\u05db\u05dc \u05d5\u05e9\u05d5\u05ea\u05d4 \u05de\u05e7\u05e6\u05ea\u05d5\n\u05f3\n\n\u201cThough he should only have enough water to drink, he is to wash his\nhands with a part of it, and then to eat, and to drink the remainder.\u201d\n(Hilchoth Berachoth, vi. 19.) And not content with this harsh\nrequirement, they sentence the despiser of their commands to\nexcommunication.\n\n\u05d5\u05e6\u05e8\u05d9\u05da \u05dc\u05d9\u05d6\u05d4\u05e8 \u05d1\u05e0\u05d8\u05d9\u05dc\u05ea \u05d9\u05d3\u05d9\u05dd \u05e9\u05db\u05dc \u05d4\u05de\u05d6\u05dc\u05d6\u05dc \u05d1\u05e0\u05d8\u05d9\u05dc\u05ea\u05dd \u05d7\u05d9\u05d9\u05d1 \u05e0\u05d3\u05d5\u05d9 \u05f3\n\n\u201cIt is necessary to be very careful in washing of hands, for every one\nwho despises the washing of hands is guilty of excommunication.\u201d (Orach\nChaiim., \u00a7 158.) And this same book confirms this decision by a case\nwhich actually occurred of a man thus excommunicated, and who dying in\nhis excommunication had the usual indignities offered to his corpse.\n\n\u05d0\u05ea \u05de\u05d9 \u05e0\u05d3\u05d5 \u05d0\u05ea \u05d0\u05dc\u05e2\u05d6\u05e8 \u05d1\u05df \u05d7\u05e6\u05e8 \u05e9\u05e4\u05e7\u05e4\u05e7 \u05d1\u05e0\u05d8\u05d9\u05dc\u05ea \u05d9\u05d3\u05d9\u05dd \u05d5\u05db\u05e9\u05de\u05ea \u05e9\u05dc\u05d7\u05d5 \u05d1\u05d9\u05ea \u05d3\u05d9\u05df \u05d5\u05d4\u05e0\u05d9\u05d7\u05d5\n\u05d0\u05d1\u05df \u05d2\u05d3\u05d5\u05dc\u05d4 \u05e2\u05dc \u05d0\u05e8\u05d5\u05e0\u05d5 \u05dc\u05dc\u05de\u05d3\u05da \u05e9\u05db\u05dc \u05d4\u05de\u05ea\u05e0\u05d3\u05d4 \u05d5\u05de\u05ea \u05d1\u05e0\u05d3\u05d5\u05d9\u05d5 \u05d1\u05d9\u05ea \u05d3\u05d9\u05d5 \u05e1\u05d5\u05e7\u05dc\u05d9\u05df \u05d0\u05ea \u05d0\u05e8\u05d5\u05e0\u05d5 \u05c3\n\n\u201cWhom did they excommunicate? Eleazar ben Chatzar, who despised the\nwashing of hands; and when he was dead, the tribunal sent, and had a\ngreat stone laid on his coffin, to teach thee that of every one who is\nexcommunicated and dies in his excommunication, the coffin is stoned by\nthe tribunal.\u201d (Talmud, Berachoth, fol. 19, col. 1.) When they had the\npower they employed it to the full, and now that they have it not, the\noral law still threatens poverty and extirpation to every transgressor.\n\n\u05db\u05dc \u05d4\u05de\u05d6\u05dc\u05d6\u05dc \u05d1\u05e0\u05d8\u05d9\u05dc\u05ea \u05d9\u05d3\u05d9\u05dd \u05d1\u05d0 \u05dc\u05d9\u05d3\u05d9 \u05e2\u05e0\u05d9\u05d5\u05ea \u05c3 \u05d5\u05d0\u05de\u05e8 \u05e8\u05f3 \u05d6\u05e8\u05d9\u05e7\u05d0 \u05d0\u05de\u05e8 \u05e8\u05f3 \u05d0\u05dc\u05e2\u05d6\u05e8 \u05db\u05dc\n\u05d4\u05de\u05d6\u05dc\u05d6\u05dc \u05d1\u05e0\u05d8\u05d9\u05dc\u05ea \u05d9\u05d3\u05d9\u05dd \u05e0\u05e2\u05e7\u05e8 \u05de\u05df \u05d4\u05e2\u05d5\u05dc\u05dd \u05c3\n\n\u201cEvery one who despises washing of hands sinks into poverty. R. Zerika\nsays, in the name of R. Eliezer, Every one that despises the washing of\nhands is rooted out of the world.\u201d (Orach Chaiim., ibid.) Such is the\ntoleration of the oral law towards Jews, accused of no breach of God\u2019s\ncommandment, convicted of no denial of God\u2019s Word, guilty of no crime.\nAnd yet these same men, who are strict even to persecution about one of\ntheir own institutions, allow that which they consider the Word of God\nto be transgressed with impunity, if it be expedient. They assert their\nbelief, that the law of Moses forbids the Jews to have clothing, like\nthat of the Gentiles, to shave or to wear their hair like the other\nnations, and yet they say the transgression of this Divine command is\nlawful under the following circumstances:\u2014\n\n\u05d9\u05e9\u05e8\u05d0\u05dc \u05e9\u05d4\u05d9\u05d4 \u05e7\u05e8\u05d5\u05d1 \u05dc\u05de\u05dc\u05db\u05d5\u05ea \u05d5\u05e6\u05e8\u05d9\u05da \u05dc\u05d9\u05e9\u05d1 \u05dc\u05e4\u05e0\u05d9 \u05de\u05dc\u05db\u05d9\u05d4\u05dd \u05d5\u05d4\u05d9\u05d4 \u05dc\u05d5 \u05d2\u05e0\u05d0\u05d9 \u05dc\u05e4\u05d9 \u05e9\u05dc\u05d0 \u05d9\u05d3\u05de\u05d4\n\u05dc\u05d4\u05dd \u05d4\u05e8\u05d9 \u05d6\u05d4 \u05de\u05d5\u05ea\u05e8 \u05dc\u05dc\u05d1\u05d5\u05e9 \u05d1\u05de\u05dc\u05d1\u05d5\u05e9\u05d9\u05d4\u05df \u05d5\u05dc\u05d2\u05dc\u05d7 \u05d1\u05e0\u05d2\u05e8 \u05e4\u05e0\u05d9\u05d5 \u05db\u05d3\u05e8\u05da \u05e9\u05d4\u05df \u05e2\u05d5\u05e9\u05d9\u05df \u05c3\n\n\u201cAn Israelite who is near to Royalty, and is obliged to sit before\nGentile kings, and for whom it would be disgraceful not to be like them,\nis allowed to dress and to shave as they do.\u201d (Hilchoth Accum., xi. 3.)\nBut it is not to be wondered at, that those should lightly esteem the\nWord of God, who are capable of confounding the guilt of transgressing a\nmere human ceremony with the guilt of transgressing a Divine command.\nThe Talmud makes the sin of neglecting this command as great as that of\ngross immorality.\n\n\u05db\u05dc \u05d4\u05d0\u05d5\u05db\u05dc \u05dc\u05d7\u05dd \u05d1\u05dc\u05d0 \u05e0\u05d8\u05d9\u05dc\u05ea \u05d9\u05d3\u05d9\u05dd \u05db\u05d0\u05dc\u05d5 \u05d1\u05d0 \u05e2\u05dc \u05d0\u05e9\u05d4 \u05d6\u05d5\u05e0\u05d4 \u05d5\u05db\u05d5\u05f3 \u05c3\n\n\u201cEvery one who eats bread without washing of hands, is as guilty as if\nhe had committed fornication.\u201d (Sotah, fol. iv., col. 2.)\n\nThe sum of all that has been said is, that the scribes and Pharisees\nadded a commandment not given by Moses, that they so refined upon the\nconditions of its fulfilment as to make it almost impossible for the\nunlearned not to transgress it, and yet denounced such heavy penalties\nupon the transgressor as to make it an intolerable burden to the\nconscientious; that when they had the power, they persecuted all that\nrefused obedience, and did not scruple to pronounce the guilt of\ntransgression as great as that of breaking one of the moral\ncommandments. They have presented as the religion of Moses a system\nwhich is voluminous, superstitious, and intolerant; difficult to the\ncomprehension of the unlearned, terrific to their consciences, and cruel\nto their persons. But when the poor were ground down and oppressed under\nthis weight of superstition and tyranny, God sent them a deliverer in\nJesus of Nazareth, who asserted the revealed truth of God, and protested\nagainst this mental bondage. \u201cThen come together unto him the Pharisees,\nand certain of the scribes which came from Jerusalem. And when they saw\nsome of his disciples eat bread with defiled (that is to say, with\nunwashen) hands they found fault.... He answered and said unto them,\nWell hath Esaias prophesied of you hypocrites, as it is written, This\npeople honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me.\nHowbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the\ncommandments of men.... And when he had called all the people unto him,\nhe said unto them, Hearken unto me every one of you and understand:\nthere is nothing from without a man that, entering into him, can defile\nhim: but the things which come out of him, those are they that defile\nhim.... For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts,\nadulteries, fornications, murders, thefts, covetousness, wickedness,\ndeceit, lasciviousness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness: all\nthese things come from within, and defile the man.\u201d (Mark vii. 1-23.)\nHere the Lord Jesus asserts what is alike the truth of God, and\nagreeable to the dictates of sound sense. So Samuel said in the Old\nTestament.\n\n\u05d4\u05d0\u05d3\u05dd \u05d9\u05e8\u05d0\u05d4 \u05dc\u05e2\u05d9\u05e0\u05d9\u05dd \u05d5\u05d9\u05d4\u05d5\u05d4 \u05d9\u05e8\u05d0\u05d4 \u05dc\u05dc\u05d1\u05d1 \u05c3\n\n\u201cMan looketh on the outward appearance, but God looketh on the heart.\u201d\n(1 Sam. xvi. 7.) But the scribes and Pharisees treated the Lord Jesus in\nthe spirit of the laws which we have adduced above. They persecuted him\nunto death, and to the death He willingly went a martyr for the truth,\nand a sacrifice for the sin of the world. The authors of the oral law\nhad but a short triumph. He rose from the dead, and his doctrine spread\nthrough the world, and everywhere announced freedom from the bondage of\nsuperstition as well as a hope of everlasting life. And the Jewish\nnation is at this hour enjoying the fruits of His death and doctrine in\ntheir liberty from Rabbinic domination. Many of you now hold some of\nthose principles, the assertion of which was the cause of His death. You\nbelieve that moral duties are far beyond ceremonial observances. You\nbelieve, many of you, that to eat with unwashen hands is no sin, and\nhave given up the practice. You transgress this commandment of the\nscribes, and yet you are not excommunicated nor persecuted. For all this\nyou are indebted to Jesus of Nazareth. If the oral law had triumphed,\nand the doctrine of Jesus been silenced, you would still be living the\nvictims of superstition or persecution. You would have been afraid of\nbeing struck with blindness, or haunted with an evil spirit, or even of\nbeing rooted out of the world. If a ray of Divine light had visited your\nunderstanding, and you had protested against these traditions, you would\nhave had to feel the weight of Rabbinical persecution, like Jesus of\nNazareth. You would have been excommunicated like Eleazar, and if God\nhad given you strength to remain faithful, would have died\nexcommunicated, and have had a stone upon your coffin. How is it that\nnow you are free, that you can think and act without any such fear? Is\nit because the Talmud has altered? No, it is just what it was. The\nconscientious believers in the Talmud are just the same as their\nfathers, and as conscientious men, if they had the power, they would\nthink it their bounden duty to treat you, as their predecessors treated\nEleazar. But the doctrine of Jesus of Nazareth delivers you; and the\nfollowers of Jesus of Nazareth are your protectors against the rigour of\nthe oral law, and the intolerance of your brethren. Should not this\nfact, then, lead you to examine into the claims of that same Nazarene?\nHow is it that if the principles of Jesus of Nazareth should ever become\nuniversal, the world will be universally happy; whereas if the\nprinciples of those who rejected him become universal, the whole world\nwill groan under superstition and cruelty? What stronger testimony can\nthere be to the justice of his claims, and the injustice of his\ncondemnation? Examine, then, into the other evidence, and in the\nmeanwhile protest against the principles of the Talmud, and endeavour to\ndeliver your brethren. There are multitudes of Jews who still groan\nunder the superstitious laws respecting the washing of hands. In the\nbook of daily prayer published here in London, the ordinance of washing\nof hands is acknowledged as Divine. On the 151st leaf, col. 2, you will\nfind the following blessing:\u2014\n\n\u05d1\u05e8\u05d5\u05da \u05d0\u05ea\u05d4 \u05d4\u05f3 \u05d0\u05dc\u05d4\u05d9\u05e0\u05d5 \u05de\u05dc\u05da \u05d4\u05e2\u05d5\u05dc\u05dd \u05d0\u05e9\u05e8 \u05e7\u05d3\u05e9\u05e0\u05d5 \u05d1\u05de\u05e6\u05d5\u05ea\u05d9\u05d5 \u05d5\u05e6\u05d5\u05e0\u05d5 \u05e2\u05dc \u05e0\u05d8\u05d9\u05dc\u05ea \u05d9\u05d3\u05d9\u05dd \u05c3\n\n\u201cBlessed art thou, O Lord our God! King of the universe! who hath\nsanctified us with his commandments, and commanded us to cleanse our\nhands.\u201d Now this is a positive untruth; God has not given the\ncommandment respecting the washing of hands. And yet here your\nprayer-book solemnly tells him that he has. And this prayer-book has\nalso put a rubric to this benediction, \u201cWhen the children wash their\nhands in the morning, they are taught to say the following blessing.\u201d\nFrom which it appears that the Jewish children in England are still\ntaught to acknowledge the Divine authority of the Talmud, for the only\nway in which that benediction can be defended, is by saying that the\noral law is Divine, and that its commandments were given by God. It is\ntherefore a holy and imperative duty on all those Israelites who reject\nTalmudic superstition and intolerance to have this benediction erased\nfrom their prayer-book, and to preserve the children from the infection\nof that law which persecutes the living and insults the dead.\n\nFootnote 16:\n\n  Jewish Prayer-book, p. 152.\n\n\n\n\n                                No. XI.\n         RABBINIC ARTIFICES RESPECTING LEAVEN AT THE PASSOVER.\n\n\nOne of the many bright features in the national character of Israel is\nthe devoted constancy, with which they have, in the most troublous times\nand under the most disastrous circumstances, celebrated the anniversary\nof their first great national deliverance. More than three thousand\nyears have now rolled away since Israel\u2019s God heard the cries of the\nfirst-born in Egypt, and by slaying the first-born of their enemies,\neffected their salvation with a mighty hand and on outstretched arm. And\nyet the memory of that great event is still fresh in the hearts of the\nnation, and the children of Israel, wherever scattered, in the wilds of\nPoland, the coasts of Africa, or the torrid regions of India, as well as\namongst ourselves, are now making consentaneous preparation for the\napproaching festival. Such constancy and such devotion bespeak minds of\nno ordinary mould, and naturally lead us to ask, how is it that the Lord\ndoes not now hear Israel\u2019s cries and prayers, which ascend from every\nregion under heaven, and restore them to that place in His dispensations\nand that rank amongst the sons of men, which his Word assigns to them? A\nChristian would give the answer suggested by the New Testament, but we\nwaive that at present. The oral law gives a reply the same in substance.\nIt tells us that the mass of the nation has obscured the light of Divine\nrevelation by the admixture of human inventions, that, therefore, a\nrestoration would only be the establishment of error, and is\nconsequently impossible. We have already given some proofs of this\nassertion, the Rabbinical laws relating to the Passover furnish us with\nmany more, and to these the season of the year now naturally refers us.\n\nAmongst the first directions relating to the Passover, the Word of God\ngives this plain command, \u201cEven the first day shall ye put away leaven\nout of your houses.\u201d (Exod. xii. 15.) This is intelligible to the most\nilliterate, and easy to be obeyed, but the Rabbles have superadded a\nmass of explanations and observances, which tend only to perplex and to\nburden the conscience. In the first place they are not satisfied with\nthe honest endeavour of an Israelite to obey the command of God, unless\nhe does it according to the form and manner which they prescribe.\n\n\u05d5\u05de\u05d4 \u05d4\u05d9\u05d0 \u05d4\u05e9\u05d1\u05ea\u05d4 \u05d6\u05d5 \u05d4\u05d0\u05de\u05d5\u05e8\u05d4 \u05d1\u05ea\u05d5\u05e8\u05d4 \u05d4\u05d9\u05d0 \u05e9\u05d9\u05d1\u05d8\u05dc\u05d5 \u05d1\u05dc\u05d1\u05d5 \u05d5\u05d9\u05d7\u05e9\u05d5\u05d1 \u05d0\u05d5\u05ea\u05d5 \u05db\u05e2\u05e4\u05e8 \u05d5\u05d9\u05e9\u05d9\u05dd\n\u05d1\u05dc\u05d1\u05d5 \u05e9\u05d0\u05d9\u05df \u05d1\u05e8\u05e9\u05d5\u05ea\u05d5 \u05d7\u05de\u05e5 , \u05d5\u05e9\u05db\u05dc \u05d7\u05de\u05e5 \u05e9\u05d1\u05e8\u05e9\u05d5\u05ea\u05d5 \u05d4\u05e8\u05d9 \u05d4\u05d5\u05d0 \u05db\u05e2\u05e4\u05e8 \u05d5\u05db\u05d3\u05d1\u05e8 \u05e9\u05d0\u05d9\u05df \u05d1\u05d5 \u05e6\u05d5\u05e8\u05da\n\u05db\u05dc\u05dc \u05c3\n\n\u201cWhat is meant by the putting away (of leaven) mentioned in the law? It\nis this, that a man annul it in his heart, and count it as dust, and\nintend in his heart to have no leaven whatever in his possession, and\nthat all the leaven in his possession shall be as dust, and of no\nnecessity whatever.\u201d (Hilchoth Chometz Umatzah, c. ii. 2.) Here, then,\nthey require a formal intention, but they have also prepared a form of\nwords in which to clothe it.\n\n\u05db\u05dc \u05d7\u05de\u05d9\u05e8\u05d0 \u05d5\u05d7\u05de\u05d9\u05e2\u05d0 \u05d3\u05d0\u05d9\u05db\u05d0 \u05d1\u05e8\u05e9\u05d5\u05ea\u05d9 \u05d3\u05d7\u05de\u05d9\u05ea\u05d9\u05d4 \u05d5\u05d3\u05dc\u05d0 \u05d7\u05de\u05d9\u05ea\u05d9\u05d4 \u05d3\u05d1\u05e2\u05e8\u05ea\u05d9\u05d4 \u05d5\u05d3\u05dc\u05d0 \u05d1\u05e2\u05e8\u05ea\u05d9\u05d4\n\u05dc\u05d1\u05d8\u05dc \u05d5\u05dc\u05d4\u05d5\u05d9 \u05db\u05e2\u05e4\u05e8\u05d0 \u05d3\u05d0\u05e8\u05e2\u05d0 \u05c3\n\n\u201cAll manner of leaven that is in my possession, which I have seen, and\nwhich I have not seen; which I have removed, and which I have not\nremoved, shall be null, and accounted as the dust of the earth.\u201d (Levi\u2019s\nPrayers for the Passover, fol. 2, col. 1.) And to this form a rubric is\nadded, \u201cIf the master is not at home, he annuls the leaven wherever he\nis.\u201d Now this may at first sight appear as a very innocent ceremony, but\nGod warns us against all additions to His Word and commandments. It is\nin itself presumptuous, and as connected with the Rabbinical doctrine of\nmerit, must have an injurious tendency upon the minds of the multitude.\nThey will argue that by observing this form, they have fulfilled a\ncommandment, and that consequently there is an additional sum of merit\nto be put to the credit side of their account, as a set off against\ntheir transgressions. And on the other hand, if they forget to go\nthrough this form at the right hour, and afterwards any leaven be found\nin their houses, the Rabbies bring them in guilty of transgressing two\nnegative commandments, which they say is a more heinous offence than\ndisobeying the affirmative precepts.\n\n\u05dc\u05e4\u05d9\u05db\u05da \u05d0\u05dd \u05dc\u05d0 \u05d1\u05d8\u05dc \u05e7\u05d5\u05d3\u05dd \u05e9\u05e9 \u05d5\u05de\u05e9\u05e9 \u05e9\u05e2\u05d5\u05ea \u05d5\u05dc\u05de\u05e2\u05dc\u05d4 \u05de\u05e6\u05d0 \u05d7\u05de\u05e5 \u05e9\u05d4\u05d9\u05d4 \u05d3\u05e2\u05ea\u05d5 \u05e2\u05dc\u05d9\u05d5 \u05d5\u05d4\u05d9\u05d4\n\u05d1\u05dc\u05d1\u05d5 \u05d5\u05e9\u05db\u05d7\u05d5 \u05d1\u05e9\u05e2\u05ea \u05d4\u05d1\u05d9\u05e2\u05d5\u05e8 \u05d5\u05dc\u05d0 \u05d1\u05e2\u05e8\u05d5 \u05d4\u05e8\u05d9 \u05d6\u05d4 \u05e2\u05d1\u05e8 \u05e2\u05dc \u05dc\u05d0 \u05d9\u05e8\u05d0\u05d4 \u05d5\u05dc\u05d0 \u05d9\u05de\u05e6\u05d0 \u05e9\u05d4\u05e8\u05d9 \u05dc\u05d0\n\u05d1\u05e2\u05e8 \u05d5\u05dc\u05d0 \u05d1\u05d8\u05dc \u05c3\n\n\u201cTherefore, if a man does not annul (the leaven) before the sixth hour,\nand afterwards from the sixth hour and onwards should find leaven, which\nwas on his mind and in his heart, but he forgot it at the hour of\nremoval, and did not remove it; Behold, such an one has transgressed the\ncommand, \u2018It shall not be seen with thee\u2019 (Exod. xiii. 7), and also the\ncommand, \u2018It shall not be found in your houses\u2019 (Exod. xii. 19), for he\nneither removed it nor annulled it.\u201d (Hilchoth Chometz, c. iii. 8.) Now,\ncan you believe that this decision is from God who searcheth the heart?\nCan you believe that a man who had it in his mind and heart to remove a\npiece of leaven according to God\u2019s commandment, but whilst removing the\nrest forgot this one piece, is to be brought in guilty, simply because\nhe did not observe a mere form, which God has nowhere commanded? Or that\nhe would not have been guilty, if he had repeated some half dozen words\nprescribed by men, sinners like himself? Very different is the\ndeclaration of God himself, \u05d9\u05e2\u05df \u05d0\u05e9\u05e8 \u05d4\u05d9\u05d4, \u05e2\u05dd \u05dc\u05d1\u05d1\u05da \u201cBecause it was in\nthine heart\u201d (1 Kings viii. 18): he accepted the intention, and gave it\nthe blessing of obedience. The Rabbinic decision is, therefore, not of\nGod, and goes far towards overthrowing the claims of the whole oral law.\nBut the Rabbies were not satisfied with this invention of \u05d1\u05d8\u05d5\u05dc \u05d7\u05de\u05e5\nannulling the leaven, they have imposed upon the consciences of their\nfollowers another observance, utterly unknown to Moses, and that is\n\u05d1\u05d3\u05d9\u05e7\u05ea \u05d7\u05de\u05e5, the searching for leaven.\n\n\u05d0\u05d5\u05e8 \u05dc\u05d0\u05e8\u05d1\u05e2\u05d4 \u05e2\u05e9\u05e8 \u05d1\u05e0\u05e1\u05df \u05e7\u05d5\u05d3\u05dd \u05e6\u05d0\u05ea \u05d4\u05db\u05d5\u05db\u05d1\u05d9\u05dd \u05d1\u05d5\u05d3\u05e7\u05d9\u05df \u05d0\u05ea \u05d4\u05d7\u05de\u05e5 \u05dc\u05d0\u05d5\u05e8 \u05d4\u05e0\u05e8 \u05e9\u05dc \u05e9\u05e2\u05d5\u05d4\n\u05d4\u05d9\u05d7\u05d9\u05d3\u05d9 , \u05d5\u05de\u05e9\u05d4\u05d2\u05d9\u05e2 \u05d6\u05de\u05e0\u05d5 \u05d0\u05e1\u05d5\u05e8 \u05dc\u05e2\u05e9\u05d5\u05ea \u05e9\u05d5\u05dd \u05de\u05dc\u05d0\u05db\u05d4 \u05d5\u05dc\u05d0 \u05dc\u05d0\u05db\u05d5\u05dc \u05d5\u05dc\u05d0 \u05dc\u05dc\u05de\u05d5\u05d3 \u05c3\n\n\u201cOn the evening before the 14th of Nisan, before the coming out of the\nstars, they are to search for the leaven by the light of a single wax\ntaper: and when the time draws near, it is unlawful to do any work, or\nto eat, or to study.\u201d (Passover Prayers, fol. 1, col. 2.) For this\ncommand there is evidently no foundation in the law of Moses. It is\nconfessedly \u05de\u05d3\u05d1\u05e8\u05d9 \u05e1\u05d5\u05e4\u05e8\u05d9\u05dd of the words of the Scribes, and yet the most\nminute directions are given, and the greatest attention required, as if\nit had been from God himself, and various cases supposed where a second\nsearch is necessary, as for instance:\u2014\n\n\u05d0\u05dd \u05e8\u05d0\u05d4 \u05e2\u05db\u05d1\u05e8 \u05e9\u05e0\u05db\u05e0\u05e1 \u05dc\u05d1\u05d9\u05ea \u05d5\u05d7\u05de\u05e5 \u05d1\u05e4\u05d9\u05d5 \u05d0\u05d7\u05e8 \u05d1\u05d3\u05d9\u05e7\u05d4 \u05e6\u05e8\u05d9\u05da \u05dc\u05d1\u05d3\u05d5\u05e7 \u05e4\u05e2\u05dd \u05e9\u05e0\u05d9\u05d4 \u05d0\u05e3 \u05e2\u05dc \u05e4\u05d9\n\u05e9\u05de\u05e6\u05d0 \u05e4\u05d9\u05e8\u05d5\u05e8\u05b4\u05df \u05d1\u05d0\u05de\u05e6\u05e2 \u05d4\u05d1\u05d9\u05ea \u05d0\u05d9\u05df \u05d0\u05d5\u05de\u05e8\u05d9\u05df \u05db\u05d1\u05e8 \u05d0\u05db\u05dc \u05d0\u05d5\u05ea\u05d4 \u05d4\u05e4\u05ea \u05d1\u05de\u05e7\u05d5\u05dd \u05d6\u05d4 \u05d5\u05d4\u05e8\u05d9\n\u05d4\u05e4\u05d9\u05e8\u05d5\u05e8\u05d9\u05df \u05d0\u05dc\u05d0 \u05d7\u05d5\u05e9\u05e9\u05d9\u05df \u05e9\u05de\u05d0 \u05d4\u05e0\u05d9\u05d7\u05d4 \u05d1\u05d7\u05d5\u05e8 \u05d0\u05d5 \u05d1\u05d7\u05dc\u05d5\u05df \u05d5\u05d0\u05dc\u05d5 \u05d4\u05e4\u05d9\u05e8\u05d5\u05e8\u05d9\u05df \u05e9\u05dd \u05d4\u05d9\u05d5 \u05d5\u05dc\u05e4\u05d9\u05db\u05da\n\u05d7\u05d5\u05d6\u05e8 \u05d5\u05d1\u05d5\u05d3\u05e7 , \u05d0\u05dd \u05dc\u05d0 \u05de\u05e6\u05d0 \u05db\u05dc\u05d5\u05dd \u05d4\u05e8\u05d9 \u05d6\u05d4 \u05d1\u05d5\u05d3\u05e7 \u05db\u05dc \u05d4\u05d1\u05d9\u05ea \u05d5\u05d0\u05dd \u05de\u05e6\u05d0 \u05d0\u05d5\u05ea\u05d4 \u05d4\u05e4\u05ea \u05e9\u05e0\u05d8\u05dc\n\u05d4\u05e2\u05db\u05d1\u05e8 \u05d5\u05e0\u05db\u05e0\u05e1 \u05d0\u05d9\u05df \u05e6\u05e8\u05d9\u05da \u05d1\u05d3\u05d9\u05e7\u05d4 \u05c3\n\n\u201cIf, after the search, he see a mouse come into the house with leaven in\nhis mouth, it is necessary to search a second time. And although he\nshould find the crumbs about the house, he is not to say, the mouse has\neaten the bread long since, and these are the crumbs, but, on the\ncontrary, he must fear lest it should have left the leaven in a hole or\na window, and these crumbs were there before; he must therefore search\nagain. If he find nothing, then he must search the whole house; but if\nhe find the bread with which the mouse went off, then no further search\nis necessary.\u201d Another case of equal importance, and more ingenuity, is\nthe following:\u2014\n\n\u05e0\u05db\u05e0\u05e1 \u05e2\u05db\u05d1\u05e8 \u05dc\u05d1\u05d9\u05ea \u05d5\u05db\u05db\u05e8 \u05d1\u05e4\u05d9\u05d5 \u05d5\u05d9\u05e6\u05d0 \u05e2\u05db\u05d1\u05e8 \u05de\u05e9\u05dd \u05d5\u05db\u05db\u05e8 \u05d1\u05e4\u05d9\u05d5 \u05d0\u05d5\u05de\u05e8\u05d9\u05dd \u05d4\u05d5\u05d0 \u05d4\u05e8\u05d0\u05e9\u05d5\u05df \u05e9\u05e0\u05db\u05e0\u05e1\n\u05d4\u05d5\u05d0 \u05d4\u05d0\u05d7\u05e8\u05d5\u05df \u05e9\u05d9\u05e6\u05d0 \u05d5\u05d0\u05d9\u05e0\u05d5 \u05e6\u05e8\u05d9\u05da \u05dc\u05d1\u05d3\u05d5\u05e7 . \u05d4\u05d9\u05d4 \u05d4\u05e8\u05d0\u05e9\u05d5\u05df \u05e9\u05d2\u05db\u05e0\u05e1 \u05e9\u05d7\u05d5\u05e8 \u05d5\u05d6\u05d4 \u05e9\u05d9\u05e6\u05d0 \u05dc\u05d1\u05df\n\u05e6\u05e8\u05d9\u05da \u05dc\u05d1\u05d3\u05d5\u05e7 . \u05e0\u05db\u05e0\u05e1 \u05e2\u05db\u05d1\u05e8 \u05d5\u05db\u05db\u05e8 \u05d1\u05e4\u05d9\u05d5 \u05d5\u05d9\u05e6\u05d0\u05d4 \u05de\u05e9\u05dd \u05d7\u05d5\u05dc\u05d3\u05d4 \u05d5\u05db\u05db\u05e8 \u05d1\u05e4\u05d9\u05d4 \u05e6\u05e8\u05d9\u05da \u05dc\u05d1\u05d3\u05d5\u05e7 .\n\u05d9\u05e6\u05d0\u05d4 \u05de\u05e9\u05dd \u05d7\u05d5\u05dc\u05d3\u05d4 \u05d5\u05e2\u05db\u05d1\u05e8 \u05d5\u05db\u05db\u05e8 \u05d1\u05e4\u05d9\u05d4 \u05d0\u05d9\u05e0\u05d5 \u05e6\u05e8\u05d9\u05da \u05dc\u05d1\u05d3\u05d5\u05e7 \u05e9\u05d6\u05d4 \u05d4\u05db\u05db\u05e8 \u05d4\u05d5\u05d0 \u05e9\u05d4\u05d9\u05d4 \u05d1\u05e4\u05d9\n\u05d4\u05e2\u05db\u05d1\u05e8 \u05c3\n\n\u201cIf a mouse enter a house with bread in his mouth, and a mouse also go\nout of the same house with bread in his mouth, one may conclude that\nthis is one and the self-same mouse, and it is not necessary to search.\nBut if the former that entered was black, and the latter that went out\nwhite, a search is necessary. If a mouse went in with bread in his\nmouth, and a weasel come out with bread in her mouth, it is necessary to\nsearch. If a mouse and a weasel both go out, and bread in the weasel\u2019s\nmouth, there is no search required, for this is the identical bread that\nhad been before in the mouse\u2019s mouth.\u201d (Hilchoth Chometz, c. ii.) We do\nnot mean to say that this sort of wisdom was never found in Christians.\nWe are well aware that the scholastic divines display much of the same\nperverse ingenuity, and the achievements of mice have figured in Gentile\ntheology too, but we have renounced that whole system as contrary to the\nWord of God. You still adhere to the theology of the Scribes, and are\nnow about to keep a solemn festival according to their ordinances. And\nyet you see how poor their view of true piety, and how perverse the\napplication of their time and their ingenuity. The most unlearned\nIsraelite who has read the law of Moses in its simple dignity, will know\nvery well that when God commanded the Israelites to remove leaven from\ntheir houses, he did not mean that they should go and rummage out the\nmouse-holes, or spend their time looking after mice and weasels. If,\ninstead of the oral law, you had read this in the New Testament, would\nyou not have taken it as complete evidence against the claims of that\nbook? and if St. Paul or St. Peter had given such commands to the\nGentile converts, would you not have said, these men were either fools\nor knaves? But in the New Testament nothing like it is to be found. The\nprecepts there given, and the instruction there conveyed, is all of a\nnoble and dignified character, whilst the trifling and the folly still\nexist in the oral law handed down by those who rejected Jesus of\nNazareth. If the testimony of men at all depends upon the wisdom of him\nwho gives it, the testimony of the Scribes is not worth much. But the\ntrifling is exceeded by the presumption. These men have said, as we have\nquoted above from your prayer-book, \u201cthat when the time for the search\ndraws near, it is unlawful to do any work, or to eat, or to study;\u201d so\nthat the poor man is to give up his lawful business, the hungry man to\nabstain from his lawful food, and all to neglect even the reading of\nGod\u2019s holy Word, in order to go and search into holes and corners, for\nthat which they know is not to be found, or to find that which was laid\nin their way intentionally and for that very purpose. We ask you can\nthis be from God, or, are the men who make the reading of God\u2019s Word\ngive way to this ceremony, to be depended upon as teachers of the true\nreligion?\n\nBut the oral law not only adds human inventions, but lays down\nprinciples which involve considerable difficulties, the solution of\nwhich requires no small share of ingenuity. For instance\u2014\n\n\u05d7\u05de\u05e5 \u05e9\u05e2\u05d1\u05e8 \u05e2\u05dc\u05d9\u05d5 \u05d4\u05e4\u05e1\u05d7 \u05d0\u05e1\u05d9\u05e8 \u05d1\u05d4\u05e0\u05d0\u05d4 \u05dc\u05e2\u05d5\u05dc\u05dd \u05c3\n\n\u201cIt is for ever unlawful to have any profit from leaven, that has\nexisted during the season of the Passover.\u201d This is understood of leaven\nbelonging to Israelites, and according to this all Israelites are\nobliged to sell, or give away, or lose all the leaven which they may\nhave at the commencement of Passover, and of course, if they have much,\nthe loss would be very serious. But the Rabbies who have made the\ndifficulty, have also found various ways of evading it. One is by\npledging the leaven with a certain form of words\u2014\n\n\u05d9\u05e9\u05e8\u05d0\u05dc \u05e9\u05d4\u05e8\u05d4\u05d9\u05df \u05d7\u05de\u05e6\u05d5 \u05d0\u05e6\u05dc \u05d4\u05d2\u05d5\u05d9 \u05d0\u05dd \u05d0\u05dd\u05e8 \u05dc\u05d5 \u05d0\u05dd \u05dc\u05d0 \u05d4\u05d1\u05d0\u05ea\u05d9 \u05dc\u05da \u05de\u05e2\u05d5\u05ea \u05de\u05db\u05d0\u05df \u05d5\u05e2\u05d3 \u05d9\u05d5\u05dd\n\u05e4\u05dc\u05d5\u05e0\u05d9 \u05e7\u05e0\u05d4 \u05d7\u05de\u05e5 \u05d6\u05d4 \u05de\u05e2\u05db\u05e9\u05d9\u05d5 \u05d4\u05e8\u05d9 \u05d6\u05d4 \u05d1\u05e8\u05e9\u05d5\u05ea \u05d4\u05d2\u05d5\u05d9 \u05d5\u05d0\u05d5\u05ea\u05d5 \u05d4\u05d7\u05de\u05e5 \u05de\u05d5\u05ea\u05e8 \u05dc\u05d0\u05d7\u05e8 \u05d4\u05e4\u05e1\u05d7 \u05c3\n\n\u201cAn Israelite who has pawned his leaven to a Gentile, if he says to him,\nin case I do not bring thee the money from this time to a certain day,\nyou have purchased this leaven from the present time; then this leaven\nis considered as in the possession of the Gentile, and it is lawful\nafter the Passover.\u201d (Hilchoth Chometz, c. iv.) If, therefore, an\nIsraelite, who has a large quantity of leaven, wishes to keep the\ncommandment of removing all leaven from his possession, and at the time\nto be able to resume the possession after the Passover; and to have the\nworldly gain too, as well the spiritual profit, he has nothing to do but\nto pawn it with this form of words. Now we ask every Jew of common\nsense, whether this be not a mere trick, an attempt to cheat one\u2019s own\nconscience, an unworthy artifice to serve God, and yet to avoid the loss\nwhich would result from a simple observance of the command? It is plain\nthat a man who acts thus has no real intention of renouncing the\npossession of the leaven. And this is not a single case; the oral law is\nrich in such cases, as it allows a mock pawning, so it allows a mock\nsale or gift.\n\n\u05d0\u05e2\u05e4\u05f3\u05f3\u05d9 \u05e9\u05d4\u05d9\u05e9\u05e8\u05d0\u05dc \u05de\u05db\u05d9\u05e8\u05d5 \u05dc\u05e2\u05db\u05d5\u05f3\u05f3\u05dd \u05d5\u05d9\u05d5\u05d3\u05e2 \u05d1\u05d5 \u05e9\u05dc\u05d0 \u05d9\u05d2\u05e2 \u05d1\u05d5 \u05db\u05dc\u05dc , \u05d0\u05dc\u05d0 \u05d9\u05e9\u05de\u05e8\u05e0\u05d5 \u05dc\u05d5 \u05e2\u05d3\n\u05dc\u05d0\u05d7\u05e8 \u05d4\u05e4\u05e1\u05d7 \u05d5\u05d9\u05d7\u05d6\u05d5\u05e8 \u05d5\u05d9\u05ea\u05e0\u05e0\u05d5 \u05dc\u05d5 \u05de\u05d5\u05ea\u05e8 \u05c3\n\n\u201cAlthough the Israelite knows that the Gentile will not touch the leaven\nat all, but keep it for him until after the Passover, and will then\nreturn it to him, it is lawful.\u201d Of course a learned Israelite,\nacquainted with this provision of the oral law, will select a Gentile of\nthis description to whom to sell or give his leaven, fully aware that\nafter Passover it will be his again, and he may enjoy the profit. But\nsuppose a Jew had lent money to a Gentile, and received the interest\nevery week in bread, what is he to do? It is evident that at Passover he\ncannot make use of the bread on account of the leaven, neither after the\nPassover can he receive that bread nor money for it, as according to the\noral law he must have no profit from leaven which has witnessed the\nPaschal week. This is a difficult case, but it is not of our making. The\noral law which has proposed the difficulty, has also provided a\nsolution.\n\n\u05d9\u05e9\u05e8\u05d0\u05dc \u05e9\u05de\u05e7\u05d1\u05dc \u05de\u05d2\u05d5\u05d9 \u05db\u05db\u05e8\u05d5\u05ea \u05d1\u05e8\u05d1\u05d9\u05ea \u05d1\u05db\u05dc \u05e9\u05d1\u05d5\u05e2 \u05db\u05ea\u05d1 \u05d0\u05d1\u05d9 \u05d4\u05e2\u05d6\u05e8\u05d9 \u05e9\u05d9\u05d0\u05de\u05e8 \u05dc\u05d5 \u05e7\u05d5\u05d3\u05dd \u05d4\u05e4\u05e1\u05d7\n\u05e9\u05d9\u05ea\u05df \u05dc\u05d5 \u05d1\u05e9\u05d1\u05d5\u05e2 \u05e9\u05dc \u05e4\u05e1\u05d7 \u05e7\u05de\u05d7 \u05d0\u05d5 \u05de\u05e2\u05d5\u05ea \u05d5\u05d0\u05d6 \u05d0\u05e4\u05d9\u05dc\u05d5 \u05d0\u05dd \u05d1\u05d0\u05d5 \u05d0\u05d7\u05e8 \u05db\u05da \u05dc\u05d7\u05e9\u05d1\u05d5\u05df \u05de\u05d5\u05ea\u05e8\n\u05dc\u05e7\u05d1\u05dc \u05de\u05de\u05e0\u05d5 \u05de\u05d4 \u05e9\u05dc\u05d0 \u05e7\u05d1\u05dc \u05d1\u05ea\u05d5\u05da \u05d4\u05e4\u05e1\u05d7 \u05c3\n\n\u201cAn Israelite who receives bread from a Gentile every week as interest,\nis, according to Avi Haezri, to tell him before the Passover, that in\nthe Passover week he must give him flour or money, and then when they\ncome to make up their accounts, he may receive from him that which he\ndid not receive during the Passover.\u201d (Arbah. Turim. Orach Chaiim, sec.\n450.) According to this simple device, merely by saying a few words, he\ncan make that lawful, which before would have been a great sin. It is\nnot needful even to intend to have money or flour, he may intend to have\nthe leaven after the Passover; the words have the transforming efficacy.\nThe same book gives Rashi\u2019s solution of another similar difficulty.\n\n\u05e9\u05d0\u05dc\u05d4 \u05dc\u05e8\u05e9\u05f3\u05f3\u05d9 , \u05d9\u05e9\u05e8\u05d0\u05dc \u05d5\u05d2\u05d5\u05d9 \u05e9\u05d9\u05e9 \u05dc\u05d4\u05dd \u05ea\u05e0\u05d5\u05e8 \u05d1\u05e9\u05d5\u05ea\u05e4\u05d5\u05ea \u05de\u05d4\u05d5 \u05dc\u05d5\u05de\u05e8 \u05dc\u05d2\u05d5\u05d9 \u05d8\u05d5\u05dc \u05d0\u05ea\u05d4 \u05e9\u05dc\n\u05e4\u05e1\u05d7 \u05d5\u05d0\u05e0\u05d9 \u05d0\u05d8\u05d5\u05dc \u05d0\u05d7\u05e8 \u05db\u05da \u05d5\u05d4\u05e9\u05d9\u05d1 \u05e9\u05d9\u05ea\u05e0\u05d4 \u05e7\u05d5\u05d3\u05dd \u05d4\u05e4\u05e1\u05d7 \u05d5\u05d9\u05d8\u05d5\u05dc \u05d3\u05de\u05d9\u05dd \u05de\u05d0\u05d5\u05ea \u05e9\u05d1\u05d5\u05e2 \u05c3\n\n\u201cA question proposed to Rashi\u2014Suppose that an Israelite and a Gentile\nhad an oven in partnership, shall he say to the Gentile, Take thou the\nprofit during the Passover, and I will take afterwards? He replied, Let\nhim make a bargain before the Passover, and take the price of that\nweek.\u201d (Ibid.) A man of common sense will see that here, as in the other\ncases, the Jew does really receive the profit from leaven in existence\nduring the Passover, and that whether he receive the money or the profit\nbefore or afterwards, there is no real difference in the circumstances\nof the transaction; one principle pervades all these decisions, and that\nis, evasion of what is considered a Divine command. The man who gives\naway the leaven with the full intention of resuming possession after the\nPassover, and the man who sells only for the week, in full persuasion\nthat his right and interest remain, does in reality neither give nor\nsell. There may be an outward appearance of the thing, but God does not\njudge according to the appearance; he looks on the intention of the\nheart. He is not satisfied with the form of giving or selling, but\nlooking at the inmost thoughts of the soul, He sees that the man does\nnot wish nor intend to do either one or the other, and marks him as a\ndeliberate, and wilful transgressor. But we appeal to every\nunsophisticated mind in Israel, would such a system of evasion be\nconsidered as honourable, even according to the maxims of this world? Or\ncan that conduct, which men would call dishonourable, be considered as\nan acceptable service before God? But, above all, can it be the law\ngiven to Moses by the God of truth? This it is which gives this\ndiscussion all its importance. If the Talmud and all its decisions were\nretained merely as a curious remnant of antiquity, as the effusions of a\nperverse ingenuity, or the waking dreams of scholastics, we might both\npass it by with a smile. But it is proposed as the law of God. It is the\nreligion of the great majority of the Jewish people, and no doubt at\nthis very time, many an Israelite in Poland and elsewhere, if not in\nEngland, is preparing a mock sale, or drawing up a contract for the\nimaginary disposal of the leaven in his possession, in obedience to the\nabove directions. They do it in simplicity, with a mistaken devotion.\nThey are misled; but does not a fearful load of responsibility rest upon\nthose Israelites who know better, and yet leave their brethren in this\ngrievous error, yea, and confirm them in it by joining in all the\nceremonies which that system prescribes? Because of this system, the\nnation is still exiled from the land of Israel. Because of this system,\nthe anger of the Lord is not turned away, but His arm is stretched out\nstill. If then you love your people\u2014if you desire their national\nexaltation, and their eternal welfare, lift up your voice and protest\nagainst the oral law. Condemn the Scribes and Pharisees as the inventors\nof the system, and the first authors of that moral captivity in which\nthe people has been held for so many centuries. Now when you remember\nthe mercies of the Lord in delivering you from the house of bondage,\nmake an effort to deliver your brethren from the more degrading chains\nof error and superstition. At the same time we would ask you to consider\nthe case of so many of your nation, who, when these chains were\nrivetting, gloriously maintained their freedom, and have left us a\ncollection of writings, entirely free from every trace of this mistaken\ningenuity. We mean the disciples of Jesus of Nazareth. They, too, were\nJews, children of Abraham, and of the stock of Israel. How is it then,\nthat they who were condemned by the Talmudists as heretics, and\npropagators of a false religion, have left us the principles of a\nhealthy, manly, and rational piety, whilst their judges and accusers\nhave fallen headlong into error and even absurdity? If Jesus and his\ndisciples were deceivers or fanatics, how is it that they were preserved\nfrom inculcating such false doctrines: and if the Scribes and Pharisees\nwere right in condemning and persecuting them\u2014were actually serving God\nin resisting false pretensions, how is it that they were given over to\nsuch delusions, and to such a system of trifling? That they were not\ninfallible, the above extracts from the oral law prove beyond all\ncontroversy. They have altogether erred in the first element of\nacceptable worship, simplicity of intention and uprightness of heart.\nThey have confounded the form with the reality of obedience to God\u2019s\ncommands. And in all these things where they have erred, Jesus and his\ndisciples have asserted and maintained the truth. Account for this fact.\nThe Talmud tells you to light a taper and search for leaven in a\nmousehole, and to get rid of all in your possession by a fictitious\ncontract. The New Testament says, \u201cPurge out the old leaven, that ye may\nbe a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our Passover is\nsacrificed for us: therefore let us keep the feast not with old leaven,\nneither with the leaven of malice and wickedness; but with the\nunleavened bread of sincerity and truth.\u201d (1 Cor. v. 7, 8.)\n\n\n\n\n                                No. XII.\n               THE PASSOVER A TYPE OF FUTURE DELIVERANCE.\n\n\nThis year, the Jewish and the Christian times for celebrating the Feast\nof the Passover nearly coincide; and the coincidence ought to remind us\nboth of that happy period, when all the children of man, so long\ndivided, shall again be united into one great, holy, and happy family;\nall rejoicing in the mercy and favour of their Heavenly Father, and all\nloving each other in sincerity and truth. To that period we look\nforward, and even now we use our humble endeavours to accelerate its\napproach. Yea, one of the reasons, why we endeavour to lead Israel to a\nrejection of the oral law, is because we firmly believe that it is one\nof the main hindrances in the way of their happiness and that of the\nnations of the world. We have no wish to rob you of any one blessing\npromised in the Word of God. We would not deprive you of one hope\nfounded upon God\u2019s promises. On the contrary, we rejoice to think that\nnotwithstanding all the vain traditions of the Scribes and Pharisees, it\nhas pleased God to keep alive in your hearts the memory of his past\nmercy, and the hope of his future goodness. To the consideration of\nthese two points, the law of Moses and your appointed prayers lead you\nat this season, and through the mercy of God, and the love of some of\nyour brethren, we of the Gentiles have been brought to rejoice in\nsimilar considerations. Let us then endeavour to anticipate the future,\nand rejoice together even now, omitting on this solemn occasion a\nspecial discussion of the oral law. If God\u2019s mercy were all past, and\nonly a matter of history, we might and ought to feel grateful for the\nbenefits bestowed upon our fathers: our joy would, however, suffer a\nconsiderable diminution. But this is not the case. In the midst of your\ngrateful acknowledgment for the wonders in Egypt, you can mingle a\nprayer for the future, and say,\n\n\u05dc\u05e9\u05e0\u05d4 \u05d4\u05d1\u05d0\u05d4 \u05d1\u05d9\u05e8\u05d5\u05e9\u05dc\u05d9\u05dd \u05c3\n\n\u201cNext year in Jerusalem.\u201d\n\n\u05e8\u05d7\u05dd \u05e0\u05d0 \u05d9\u05f3\u05f3\u05d9 \u05d0\u05dc\u05d4\u05d9\u05e0\u05d5 \u05e2\u05dc \u05d9\u05e9\u05e8\u05d0\u05dc \u05e2\u05de\u05da \u05d5\u05e2\u05dc \u05d9\u05e8\u05d9\u05e9\u05dc\u05d9\u05dd \u05e2\u05d9\u05e8\u05da \u05d5\u05e2\u05dc \u05de\u05d6\u05d1\u05d7\u05da \u05d5\u05e2\u05dc \u05d4\u05d9\u05db\u05dc\u05da ,\n\u05d5\u05d1\u05e0\u05d4 \u05d9\u05e8\u05d5\u05e9\u05dc\u05d9\u05dd \u05e2\u05d9\u05e8 \u05d4\u05e7\u05d5\u05d3\u05e9 \u05d1\u05de\u05d4\u05e8\u05d4 \u05d1\u05d9\u05de\u05d9\u05e0\u05d5 \u05d5\u05d4\u05e2\u05dc\u05e0\u05d5 \u05dc\u05ea\u05d5\u05db\u05d4 \u05d5\u05e9\u05de\u05d7\u05e0\u05d5 \u05d1\u05d4 \u05c3\n\n\u201cO Lord our God, have mercy, we beseech thee, upon Israel thy people,\nand upon Jerusalem thy city, and upon thine altar, and upon thy temple;\nand build Jerusalem, the holy city, speedily, in our days, and bring us\nup into the midst of it, and make us glad therein.\u201d (Haggadah Shel\nPesach.) And to this prayer we can say, \u201cAmen\u201d with all our hearts. The\nfuture restoration and blessedness of Israel is one of our fondest\nexpectations; and whilst we contemplate the circumstances and the glory\nof the first Exodus, the Word of the living God leads us to look forward\nto that which is to come.\n\n\u05db\u05d9\u05de\u05d9 \u05e6\u05d0\u05ea\u05da \u05de\u05d0\u05e8\u05e5 \u05de\u05e6\u05e8\u05d9\u05dd \u05d0\u05e8\u05d0\u05e0\u05d5 \u05e0\u05e4\u05dc\u05d0\u05d5\u05ea \u05c3\n\n\u201cAccording to the days of thy coming out of the land of Egypt will I\nshow unto him marvellous things,\u201d is the promise by the mouth of Micah\nthe prophet (c. vii. 10).\n\n\u05d5\u05d4\u05d7\u05e8\u05d9\u05dd \u05d9\u05d4\u05d5\u05d4 \u05d0\u05ea \u05dc\u05e9\u05d5\u05df \u05d9\u05dd \u05de\u05e6\u05e8\u05d9\u05dd \u05d5\u05d4\u05e0\u05d9\u05e3 \u05d9\u05d3\u05d5 \u05e2\u05dc \u05d4\u05e0\u05d4\u05e8 \u05d1\u05e2\u05d9\u05dd \u05e8\u05d5\u05d7\u05d5 \u05d5\u05d4\u05db\u05d4\u05d5 \u05dc\u05e9\u05d1\u05e2\u05d4\n\u05e0\u05d7\u05dc\u05d9\u05dd \u05d5\u05d4\u05d3\u05e8\u05d9\u05da \u05d1\u05e0\u05e2\u05dc\u05d9\u05dd , \u05d5\u05d4\u05d9\u05ea\u05d4 \u05de\u05e1\u05dc\u05d4 \u05dc\u05e9\u05d0\u05e8 \u05e2\u05de\u05d5 \u05d0\u05e9\u05e8 \u05d9\u05e9\u05d0\u05e8 \u05de\u05d0\u05e9\u05d5\u05e8 \u05db\u05d0\u05e9\u05e8 \u05d4\u05d9\u05ea\u05d4\n\u05dc\u05d9\u05e9\u05e8\u05d0\u05dc \u05d1\u05d9\u05d5\u05dd \u05e2\u05dc\u05d5\u05ea\u05d5 \u05de\u05d0\u05e8\u05e5 \u05de\u05e6\u05e8\u05d9\u05dd \u05c3\n\n\u201cAnd the Lord shall utterly destroy the tongue of the Egyptian sea, and\nwith his mighty wind shall he shake his hand over the river, and shall\nsmite it in the seven streams, and shall make men go over dry shod. And\nthere shall be a highway for the remnant of his people, which shall be\nleft from Assyria; like as it was to Israel in the day that he came up\nout of the land of Egypt,\u201d is the declaration of the Prophet Isaiah (xi.\n15, 16). Seeing that neither of these declarations was fulfilled at the\nreturn from Babylon, nor at any period since, we firmly believe that\nthey shall be fulfilled in the time to come, and that therefore the\ncompilers of the Haggadah were fully warranted in intermingling, with\ntheir Passover thanksgivings, a prayer for the fulfilment of the\npromised mercies; and we do not scruple to say that in this respect, the\nJewish Rabbies have been right, whilst many Christian interpreters have\nbeen wrong; though they might have known and given a true explanation of\nall similar passages, if they had only followed the plain words of their\nmaster, Jesus of Nazareth, \u201cThink not that I am come to destroy the law\nor the prophets.\u201d (Matt. v. 17.) We make this remark to show that we do\nnot condemn the Rabbies inconsiderately; but that we are willing to do\nthem all justice, where their opinions agree with the Word of God. Their\nexpectation of the future restoration of Israel is well founded, and\ntheir faith in the promises relating to it worthy of all imitation. Oh,\nthat the whole nation had more of it\u2014that their hearts were more\ndirected to the land of their forefathers\u2014that their thoughts were more\nfull of the Divine promises. Then they would cry more earnestly to God,\nand He would \u201chear their groaning, and remember his covenant with\nAbraham, Isaac, and Jacob,\u201d as he did at the deliverance from Egypt. The\ncareless and the ungodly deceive themselves with the idea, that when\nGod\u2019s time comes, the deliverance will take place without any endeavour\nof theirs. Let them read the law of Moses, and they will find that\nthough God had promised to bring their fathers out of Egypt, the\ndeliverance itself was preceded by a time of prayer and crying unto God.\nTo Abraham he had said,\n\n\u05d9\u05d3\u05d5\u05e2 \u05ea\u05d3\u05e2 \u05db\u05d9 \u05d2\u05e8 \u05d9\u05d4\u05d9\u05d4 \u05d6\u05e8\u05e2\u05da \u05d1\u05d0\u05e8\u05e5 \u05dc\u05d0 \u05dc\u05d4\u05dd \u05d5\u05e2\u05d1\u05d3\u05d5\u05dd \u05d5\u05e2\u05e0\u05d5 \u05d0\u05d5\u05ea\u05dd \u05d0\u05e8\u05d1\u05e2 \u05de\u05d0\u05d5\u05ea \u05e9\u05e0\u05d4 ...\n\u05d5\u05d3\u05d5\u05e8 \u05e8\u05d1\u05d9\u05e2\u05d9 \u05d9\u05e9\u05d5\u05d1\u05d5 \u05d4\u05e0\u05d4 \u05d5\u05d2\u05d5\u05f3 \u05c3\n\n\u201cKnow of a surety that thy seed shall be a stranger in a land that is\nnot theirs, and shall serve them; and they shall afflict them four\nhundred years.... But in the fourth generation they shall come hither\nagain,\u201d &c. (Gen. xv. 13, 16.) But this promise was no warrant for their\nremaining careless, and at ease; it was on the contrary a basis for\nearnest prayer and supplication, and a plea for mercy. And, therefore,\nwhen the time drew near, we read,\n\n\u05d9\u05d5\u05d0\u05e0\u05d7\u05d5 \u05d1\u05e0\u05d9 \u05d9\u05e9\u05e8\u05d0\u05dc \u05de\u05df \u05d4\u05e2\u05d1\u05d5\u05d3\u05d4 \u05d5\u05d9\u05d6\u05e2\u05e7\u05d5 \u05d5\u05ea\u05e2\u05dc \u05e9\u05d5\u05e2\u05ea\u05dd \u05d0\u05dc \u05d4\u05d0\u05dc\u05d4\u05d9\u05dd \u05de\u05df \u05d4\u05e2\u05d1\u05d5\u05d3\u05d4 \u05c3\n\n\u201cAnd the children of Israel sighed by reason of the bondage, and they\ncried, and their cry came up unto God, by reason of the bondage.\u201d And\nGod himself gives this as one reason why he came to deliver them.\n\n\u05d5\u05e2\u05ea\u05d4 \u05d4\u05e0\u05d4 \u05e6\u05e2\u05e7\u05ea \u05d1\u05e0\u05d9 \u05d9\u05e9\u05e8\u05d0\u05dc \u05d1\u05d0\u05d4 \u05d0\u05dc\u05d9 \u05c3\n\n\u201cNow, therefore, behold the cry of the children of Israel is come unto\nme.\u201d (Exod. iii. 9.) Here, then, all Israelites, who desire the\nfulfilment of God\u2019s promises should learn that state of mind, which is a\npre-requisite to the interposition of their great deliverer. Israel can\nno more be delivered now than of old, unless they earnestly desire\ndeliverance. To what purpose should He deliver and restore those, who\ncare nothing about the land of their forefathers, nor about the glory of\nthe nation\u2014who say, We are very comfortable and happy here, and all we\ndesire is to be like the other nations (\u05e0\u05d4\u05d9\u05d4 \u05db\u05d2\u05d5\u05d9\u05dd)\u2014what good would it\ndo to us to return to the land of Israel? God\u2019s promises are not to such\ngrovelling and unbelieving spirits. Along with his promise of mercy, he\ngives a command for continual supplication,\n\n\u05d4\u05de\u05d6\u05db\u05d9\u05e8\u05d9\u05dd \u05d0\u05ea \u05d9\u05d4\u05d5\u05d4 \u05d0\u05dc \u05d3\u05de\u05d9 \u05dc\u05db\u05dd , \u05d5\u05d0\u05dc \u05ea\u05d4\u05e0\u05d5 \u05d3\u05de\u05d9 \u05dc\u05d5 \u05e2\u05d3 \u05d9\u05db\u05d5\u05e0\u05df \u05d5\u05e2\u05d3 \u05d9\u05e9\u05d9\u05dd \u05d0\u05ea\n\u05d9\u05e8\u05d5\u05e9\u05dc\u05d9\u05dd \u05ea\u05d4\u05dc\u05d4 \u05d1\u05d0\u05e8\u05e5 \u05c3\n\n\u201cYe that make mention of the Lord, keep not silence, and give him no\nrest, till he establish, and till he make Jerusalem a praise in the\nearth.\u201d (Isaiah lxii. 6, 7.) And in Ezekiel, after the declaration,\n\u201cThis land that was desolate is become like the garden of Eden; and the\nwaste, and desolate and ruined cities, are become fenced, and are\ninhabited,\u201d &c., he adds\u2014\n\n\u05db\u05d4 \u05d0\u05de\u05e8 \u05d0\u05d3\u05e0\u05d9 \u05d9\u05d4\u05d5\u05d4 \u05e2\u05d5\u05d3 \u05d6\u05d0\u05ea \u05d0\u05d3\u05e8\u05e9 \u05dc\u05d1\u05d9\u05ea \u05d9\u05e9\u05e8\u05d0\u05dc \u05dc\u05e2\u05e9\u05d5\u05ea \u05dc\u05d4\u05dd \u05c3\n\n\u201cThus saith the Lord God, I will yet for this be inquired of by the\nhouse of Israel, to do it for them.\u201d (Ezek. xxxvi. 37.) Upon which Rashi\nremarks\u2014\n\n\u05d0\u05ea\u05e4\u05ea\u05d4 \u05dc\u05d4\u05dd \u05d1\u05ea\u05e4\u05dc\u05ea\u05dd \u05d1\u05d3\u05d5\u05e9\u05dd \u05d0\u05d5\u05ea\u05d9 \u05e2\u05dc \u05d6\u05d0\u05ea \u05c3\n\n\u201cI will be made favourable to them through their prayer, when they seek\nme with regard to this.\u201d Hence prayer is commanded; in Hosea we are\ntold, that without prayer deliverance is impossible.\n\n\u05d0\u05dc\u05da \u05d0\u05e9\u05d5\u05d1\u05d4 \u05d0\u05dc \u05de\u05e7\u05d5\u05de\u05d9 \u05e2\u05d3 \u05d0\u05e9\u05e8 \u05d9\u05d0\u05e9\u05de\u05d5 \u05d5\u05d1\u05e7\u05e9\u05d5 \u05e4\u05e0\u05d9 \u05c3\n\n\u201cI will go and return to my place, till they acknowledge their offence,\nand seek my face.\u201d (Hosea v. 15.) Let the children of Israel return\nthen, and seek the Lord their God, and David their King, then they shall\nfear the Lord and His goodness in the latter days. (Hosea iii. 5.)\n\nIn the consideration of the deliverance from Egypt there is, however,\none circumstance which should teach the Israelites to rejoice with\ntrembling, and that is, that the majority of those, who went forth from\nEgypt, never entered the land of Israel, but died in the wilderness on\naccount of their sin and unbelief. That which has happened, may happen\nagain. Israel might be delivered again from the lands of their\ndispersion, and be led forth with a mighty hand, and outstretched arm,\nand with great signs and wonders, and yet after all die in their sins.\nIndeed, it is not merely a legitimate deduction from the past, but an\nexpress prophecy of the future. \u201cAs I live, saith the Lord God, surely,\nwith a mighty hand, and with a stretched out arm, and with fury poured\nout, will I rule over you; and I will bring you out from the people, and\nwill gather you out of the countries wherein ye are scattered, and with\na mighty hand, and with a stretched out arm, and with fury poured out.\nAnd I will bring you into the wilderness of the people, and there will I\nplead with you face to face. Like as I pleaded with your fathers in the\nwilderness of the land of Egypt, so will I plead with you, saith the\nLord God. And I will cause you to pass under the rod, and I will bring\nyou into the bond of the covenant.\u201d\n\n\u05d5\u05d1\u05e8\u05d5\u05ea\u05d9 \u05de\u05db\u05dd \u05d4\u05de\u05d5\u05e8\u05d3\u05d9\u05dd \u05d5\u05d4\u05e4\u05d5\u05e9\u05e2\u05d9\u05dd \u05d1\u05d9 \u05de\u05d0\u05e8\u05e5 \u05de\u05d2\u05d5\u05e8\u05d9\u05d4\u05dd \u05d0\u05d5\u05e6\u05d9\u05d0 \u05d0\u05d5\u05ea\u05dd \u05d5\u05d0\u05dc \u05d0\u05d3\u05de\u05ea \u05d9\u05e9\u05e8\u05d0\u05dc \u05dc\u05d0\n\u05d9\u05d1\u05d5\u05d0 \u05c3\n\n\u201cAnd I will purge out from among you the rebels, and them that\ntransgress against me; I will bring them forth from the country where\nthey sojourn, and they shall not enter into the land of Israel.\u201d (Ezek.\nxx. 33-38.) Here then we see, whether we consider the past or the\nfuture, that a mere temporal deliverance is not sufficient\u2014that God\u2019s\ngreatest temporal blessings, and even his mighty signs and wonders, may\nlead us in the more dreadful and fatal captivity of sin. Surely if a\nmiraculous deliverance could deliver the soul, those that saw the\nmiracles in Egypt, and experienced the Lord\u2019s mercy in their\npreservation from the destroying angel, and in the passage through the\nRed Sea, ought to have been perfect in holiness. Yet we find, after all\nthat they saw and heard, that they were a disobedient and faithless\ngeneration, and that they perished in the wilderness. The history, then,\nof this great deliverance reminds us in the most forcible manner of the\nbondage of sin, and the necessity of a more noble and gracious\nemancipation. Israel was in bondage in Egypt, and the Lord had\ncompassion and delivered them. All mankind, Jews and Gentiles, are born\nslaves to sin, and dreadful is the misery which they have suffered, and\nhopeless the prospect for the future, unless God have provided a way of\nescape. Now is it likely that that God who had compassion on the\nIsraelites in their temporal affliction, should look, unmoved and\nunpitying, upon the temporal and spiritual wretchedness of the whole\nhuman race? Is it conceivable that those gracious ears, which heard the\ncries of Israel in Egypt, should be deaf to the groans and lamentations\nof all the sons of men? Is it consistent with the Bible-character of God\nto provide a remedy for temporal sorrow, and yet furnish no means of\ndeliverance from everlasting woe? Is it like our Heavenly Father to\nstretch out his hand to save a few of his children from Egypt, and yet\nleave the great majority to perish in ignorance and sin? Blessed be God,\nwho, in his great mercy, sent Jews to our forefathers to tell us of the\nblood of another and greater passover, which can preserve Gentiles as\nwell as Jews from the wrath to come.\n\n\u05de\u05e9\u05d9\u05d7 \u05e4\u05e1\u05d7\u05e0\u05d5 \u05e0\u05d6\u05d1\u05d7 \u05d1\u05e2\u05d3\u05e0\u05d5 \u05c3\n\n\u201cMessiah, our passover, is sacrificed for us;\u201d and therefore we too keep\nthe feast, and join in the hymn of thanksgiving, \u201cBlessed be the Lord\nGod of Israel, for He hath visited and redeemed his people.\u201d You\nremember the paschal lamb of Egypt. We can say\u2014\n\n\u05d4\u05e0\u05d4 \u05e9\u05d4 \u05d0\u05dc\u05d4\u05d9\u05dd \u05d4\u05e0\u05d5\u05e9\u05d0 \u05d0\u05ea \u05d7\u05d8\u05d0\u05d5\u05ea \u05db\u05dc \u05d4\u05e2\u05d5\u05dc\u05dd \u05c3\n\n\u201cBehold the Lamb of God, that taketh away the sin of the world.\u201d You\nremember the sprinkling of blood that delivered your fathers from\ntemporal death. We rejoice because,\n\n\u05d3\u05dd \u05d9\u05e9\u05bc\u05d5\u05e2 \u05d4\u05de\u05e9\u05d9\u05d7 \u05d9\u05d8\u05d4\u05e8\u05e0\u05d5 \u05de\u05db\u05dc \u05d7\u05d8\u05d0 \u05c3\n\n\u201cThe blood of Jesus, the Messiah, cleanseth us from all sin.\u201d You\nremember how, four days before the Passover, it was necessary to select\na lamb without spot and without blemish. We think of the true Paschal\nLamb, the Messiah, how, four days before the great sacrifice, he came up\nto Jerusalem, and was examined before the tribunals, and declared to be\nwithout sin. Pilate\u2019s testimony was, \u201cYe have brought this man unto me,\nas one that perverteth the people; and, behold, I, having examined him\nbefore you, have found no fault in this man touching those things\nwhereof ye accuse him: no, nor yet Herod: for I sent you to him; and lo,\nnothing worthy of death is done unto him.\u201d (Luke xxiii. 14, 15.) You\nremember how the destroying angel passed over the houses where the blood\nwas sprinkled: we look forward to that more dreadful time, when he shall\ncome as the Psalmist describes:\u2014\n\n\u05d9\u05d1\u05d0 \u05d0\u05dc\u05d4\u05d9\u05e0\u05d5 \u05d5\u05d0\u05dc \u05d9\u05d4\u05e8\u05e9 \u05d0\u05e9 \u05dc\u05e4\u05e0\u05d9\u05d5 \u05ea\u05d0\u05db\u05dc \u05d5\u05e1\u05d1\u05d9\u05d1\u05d9\u05d5 \u05e0\u05e9\u05e2\u05e8\u05d4 \u05de\u05d0\u05d5\u05d3 , \u05d9\u05e7\u05e8\u05d0 \u05d0\u05dc \u05d4\u05e9\u05de\u05d9\u05dd \u05de\u05e2\u05dc\n\u05d5\u05d0\u05dc \u05d4\u05d0\u05e8\u05e5 \u05dc\u05d3\u05d9\u05df \u05e2\u05de\u05d5 . \u05d0\u05e1\u05e4\u05d5 \u05dc\u05d9 \u05d7\u05e1\u05d9\u05d3\u05d9 \u05db\u05d5\u05e8\u05ea\u05d9 \u05d1\u05e8\u05d9\u05ea\u05d9 \u05e2\u05dc\u05d9 \u05d6\u05d1\u05d7 \u05c3\n\n\u201cOur God shall come, and shall not keep silence: a fire shall devour\nbefore him, and it shall be very tempestuous round about him. He shall\ncall to the heavens from above, and to the earth, that he may judge his\npeople. Gather my saints together unto me: those _that have made a\ncovenant with me by sacrifice_.\u201d (Ps. l. 3-5.) And we hope to be found\namongst that number, and that the blood of the true Sacrifice will then\ndeliver us. It is evident that the Psalmist here is not speaking of the\nsacrifices of the temple, for immediately after we read\u2014\n\n\u05e9\u05de\u05e2\u05d4 \u05e2\u05de\u05d9 \u05d5\u05d0\u05d3\u05d1\u05e8\u05d4 \u05d9\u05e9\u05e8\u05d0\u05dc \u05d5\u05d0\u05e2\u05d9\u05d3\u05d4 \u05d1\u05da \u05d0\u05dc\u05d4\u05d9\u05dd \u05d0\u05dc\u05d4\u05d9\u05da \u05d0\u05e0\u05db\u05d9 . \u05dc\u05d5 \u05d0\u05dc \u05d6\u05d1\u05d7\u05d9\u05da \u05d0\u05d5\u05db\u05d9\u05d7\u05da\n\u05d5\u05e2\u05d5\u05dc\u05d5\u05ea\u05d9\u05da \u05dc\u05e0\u05d2\u05d3\u05d9 \u05ea\u05de\u05d9\u05d3 . \u05dc\u05d5 \u05d0\u05e7\u05d7 \u05de\u05d1\u05d9\u05ea\u05da \u05e4\u05e8 \u05de\u05de\u05db\u05dc\u05d0\u05d5\u05ea\u05d9\u05da \u05e2\u05ea\u05d5\u05d3\u05d9\u05dd \u05c3\n\n\u201cHear, O my people, and I will speak; O Israel, and I will testify\nagainst thee: I am God, even thy God. I will not reprove thee for thy\nsacrifices or thy burnt offerings, to have been continually before me. I\nwill take no bullock out of thy house, nor he goats out of thy folds.\u201d\nHere God plainly excepts the offerings of bulls and goats, and thereby\noverthrows the exposition of Rashi and others, who say that the covenant\nand sacrifices here alluded to are the same as those described at the\ngiving of the law, when Moses said, \u201cBehold the blood of the covenant,\u201d\n&c. (Exod. xxiv. 8.) The sacrifices then offered were \u201cburnt-offerings\nand peace-offerings of oxen,\u201d which God here declares that he will not\naccept. Besides, God is not speaking of many sacrifices, but of one\nsacrifice \u05d0\u05dc\u05d9 \u05d6\u05d1\u05d7 . He is moreover speaking of one great sacrifice, by\nvirtue of which sinful men may stand before him as saints at the great\nday of judgment, and obtain mercy. This certainty cannot mean the\nsacrifices of the Mosaic covenant at Sinai, for by reason of that\nsacrifice, they will appear as guilty sinners who have broken God\u2019s\ncovenant, as he himself says\u2014\n\n\u05d0\u05e9\u05e8 \u05d4\u05de\u05d4 \u05d4\u05e4\u05e8\u05d5 \u05d0\u05ea \u05d1\u05e8\u05d9\u05ea \u05c3\n\n\u201cWhich my covenant they brake.\u201d (Jer. xxxi. 32.) At that solemn hour the\nMosaic covenant will only condemn, and therefore cannot be meant here.\nIndeed the rabbies appear to have felt the untenableness of this\nexposition, and therefore invented another figurative one\u2014\n\n\u05d5\u05d9\u05e9 \u05d3\u05e8\u05e9 \u05db\u05d9 \u05e2\u05dc \u05d1\u05e8\u05d9\u05ea \u05de\u05d9\u05dc\u05d4 \u05e9\u05d4\u05d7\u05d6\u05d9\u05e7\u05d5 \u05d1\u05d4 \u05d9\u05e9\u05e8\u05d0\u05dc \u05d1\u05d2\u05dc\u05d5\u05ea \u05c3\n\n\u201cThere is also an allegorical interpretation referring it to the\ncovenant of circumcision, which Israel has faithfully adhered to in the\ncaptivity.\u201d (Kimchi, in loc.) But this exposition is as unfounded as the\nformer. Circumcision is never called a sacrifice in Scripture. Neither\nwill it serve a man in the day of judgment. What then is the sacrifice\nwhich is here intended? We answer, the true Passover, the blood of the\nMessiah, whereby the new covenant is ratified. Some object that the\nshedding of blood is altogether unnecessary\u2014that if God will forgive at\nall, he can forgive without atonement or sacrifice. But this objection\nwill equally affect the sacrifice of the first Passover. On the very\nsame grounds, we may say, What necessity was there for killing a lamb,\nand sprinkling its blood upon the door-posts? The directions given by\nMoses are very striking\u2014\u201cKill the passover. And ye shall take a bunch of\nhyssop, and dip it in the blood that is in the bason, and strike the\nlintel and the two side posts with the blood that is in the bason; and\nnone of you shall go out at the door of his house until the morning. For\nthe Lord will pass through to smite the Egyptians; and when he seeth the\nblood upon the lintel, and on the two side posts, the Lord will pass\nover the door, and will not suffer the destroyer to come in unto your\nhouses to smite you.\u201d (Exod. xii. 21-23.) Surely the blood was not\nnecessary to make known to him which house belonged to an Israelite. He\ncould have saved them as well without the blood as with it. Why then\ndestroy the life of a lamb, and give them all this trouble? Suppose that\nan Israelite had thus argued at that time, had refused to kill the\npassover, or having killed it, had neglected to sprinkle the blood, or\nhaving done both, was not content to abide in his house, but had gone\nforth before the morning, what would have been the consequence? Certain\npunishment. God was indeed determined to save Israel, but only in a\ncertain way: and he that did not choose to submit to God\u2019s method, would\nnaturally lose the benefit of his appointment. Our business is not to\nargue with God, but having ascertained His will, to submit to it.\nInquire, then, what God means by \u201chis saints who have made a covenant\nwith Him by sacrifice;\u201d and endeavour to enter into that covenant, that\nwhen He appears to judgment, ye may be gathered unto Him. If the\nChristian view be not the true one, then since the destruction of the\ntemple there has been no sacrifice, and no way of entering into that\ncovenant with Him. You observe the season\u2014you abstain from leaven\u2014but\nthere is no sacrifice. The main, yea the essential, element of the\nPassover is wanting. The lamb cannot be slain. And even if it could be,\nif you had again a temple and a high-priest, and all the service of a\nsanctuary, still the sacrifice of the Passover would only be a memorial\nof mercies long since gone by. It would be no real atonement for your\nsins, and when you had slain it, and eaten of it, the question would\nstill remain, How am I, a sinner, to appear in the presence of the\nrighteous Judge?\n\nThe first part of this paper will have shown you, that we are firm\nbelievers in the future glory and blessedness of Israel; that we do not,\ntherefore, in offering you our hope for eternity, wish to deprive you of\nyour own hopes for time. No, we wish you every blessing which God has\npromised by the mouth of Moses and the prophets, and can affectionately\njoin in the words\u2014\n\n\u05dc\u05e9\u05e0\u05d4 \u05d4\u05d1\u05d0\u05d4 \u05d1\u05d9\u05e8\u05d5\u05e9\u05dc\u05b4\u05dd \u05c3\n\nIf it should please God to spare us all to see the re-union of all the\nfamilies of the earth, we should rejoice to unite with others in\nacknowledging \u201cthat ye are the seed whom the Lord has blessed.\u201d But we\nshould rejoice a thousandfold more to meet you in the heavenly\nJerusalem, and to mingle our voices with yours in singing,\n\n\u201cWorthy is the Lamb that was slain to receive power, and riches, and\nwisdom, and strength, and honour, and glory, and blessing.\u201d Amen.\n\n\n\n\n                               No. XIII.\n                  SEVERITY OF THE RABBINIC ORDINANCES.\n\n\nThe feast of the Passover, ordained as a memorial of past mercies, has\nat the same time served to remind us of another deliverance necessary\nboth for Jew and Gentile, and also of a happy time when \u201cthere shall be\none fold and one shepherd\u201d\u2014\u201cOne LORD and His name One.\u201d But the blessed\nanticipations of the future cannot, and ought not, withdraw our thoughts\nfrom the reality of the present. That happy time is not yet come. Jews\nand Christians are not yet agreed as to the articles of faith; and this\nfeast of the Passover especially directs our attention to the cause and\norigin of the difference. At this solemn season of the year, Jesus of\nNazareth was condemned by the Scribes and Pharisees, and by them\ndelivered to the Roman power to be executed as a malefactor. One portion\nof the Jewish nation, and that the majority, concurred in the judgment\nof the rulers. Another portion, at first small, but ultimately\nconsiderable in number and station, arraigned the justice of the\nsentence, and professed their faith in His Messiahship. The question\nbetween Jews and Christians at present is, which of these two portions\nof the Jewish nation was in the right. In these papers we have taken up\nthis simple position, that the religious system of those who rejected\nJesus of Nazareth is contrary to the law and the prophets, and is\ntherefore false; whilst the doctrines of Him, that was rejected, are in\nconformity with those writings, and must therefore be true. When we say\nthat the rabbinical system is false, we do not mean that the Pharisees\nheld no truth. On the contrary, we showed in our last number that some\nof their expectations were agreeable to the Word of God, and therefore\ntrue. All we intend is, that the peculiarities of Rabbinism of which the\nsystem is composed are erroneous. The laws relating to the present\nfestival furnish us with abundant proof of our assertion. The Divine\ncommands relating to it exhibit the care, consideration, and\ncondescension of God in providing an opportunity of instruction, a time\nof relaxation, and a season of joy for the poor as well as the rich. The\nrabbinical laws, on the other hand, are burdensome, oppressive, and\nhurtful, especially to the poor and unlearned.\n\nWe take our first proof from one of the laws relating to the \u05d0\u05e8\u05d1\u05e2 \u05db\u05d5\u05e1\u05d5\u05ea\n\u201cthe four cups\u201d\u2014God has given a simple command to Israel to make known\nto their children the reasons for the feast. \u05d5\u05d4\u05d2\u05d3\u05ea \u05dc\u05d1\u05e0\u05da \u05d5\u05d2\u05d5\u05f3 \u201cAnd thou\nshalt declare unto thy son in that day, saying, This is done because of\nthat which the Lord did unto me, when I came forth out of Egypt.\u201d (Exod.\nxiii. 8.) In order to fulfil this command, a sort of liturgy has been\ncomposed, much of which is solemn and beautiful: and a ceremonial\nappointed, of which one ordinance is, that there should be four cups or\nglasses of wine.\n\n\u05d5\u05db\u05dc \u05d0\u05d7\u05d3 \u05d5\u05d0\u05d7\u05d3 \u05d1\u05d9\u05df \u05d0\u05e0\u05e9\u05d9\u05dd \u05d1\u05d9\u05df \u05e0\u05e9\u05d9\u05dd \u05d7\u05d9\u05d9\u05d1 \u05dc\u05e9\u05ea\u05d5\u05ea \u05d1\u05dc\u05d9\u05dc\u05d4 \u05d4\u05d6\u05d4 \u05d0\u05e8\u05d1\u05e2 \u05db\u05d5\u05e1\u05d5\u05ea \u05d0\u05dc \u05d9\u05d9\u05df\n\u05d5\u05d0\u05d9\u05df \u05e4\u05d5\u05d7\u05ea\u05d9\u05df \u05dc\u05d5 \u05de\u05d4\u05df \u05c3\n\n\u201cAll persons, whether men or women, are obligated on this night to drink\nfour cups (or glasses) of wine, and this number is not to be\ndiminished.\u201d (Hilchoth Chometz, c. vii.) As to the ceremony of the four\ncups, the circumstances connected with them evidently show that they are\nnot for the purpose of revelry, but part of a solemn religious\nobservance.\n\n\u05db\u05dc \u05db\u05d5\u05e1 \u05d5\u05db\u05d5\u05e1 \u05de\u05d0\u05e8\u05d1\u05e2 \u05db\u05d5\u05e1\u05d5\u05ea \u05d4\u05dc\u05dc\u05d5 \u05de\u05d1\u05e8\u05da \u05e2\u05dc\u05d9\u05d5 \u05d1\u05e8\u05db\u05d4 \u05d1\u05e4\u05e0\u05d9 \u05e2\u05e6\u05de\u05d4 . \u05db\u05d5\u05e1 \u05e8\u05d0\u05e9\u05d5\u05df \u05d0\u05d5\u05de\u05e8\n\u05e2\u05dc\u05d9\u05d5 \u05e7\u05d9\u05d3\u05d5\u05e9 \u05d4\u05d9\u05d5\u05dd . \u05db\u05d5\u05e1 \u05e9\u05e0\u05d9 \u05e7\u05d5\u05e8\u05d0 \u05e2\u05dc\u05d9\u05d5 \u05d0\u05ea \u05d4\u05d4\u05d2\u05d3\u05d4 . \u05db\u05d5\u05e1 \u05e9\u05dc\u05d9\u05e9\u05d9 \u05de\u05d1\u05e8\u05da \u05e2\u05dc\u05d9\u05d5 \u05d1\u05e8\u05db\u05ea\n\u05d4\u05de\u05d6\u05d5\u05df . \u05db\u05d5\u05e1 \u05e8\u05d1\u05d9\u05e2\u05d9 \u05d2\u05d5\u05de\u05e8 \u05e2\u05dc\u05d9\u05d5 \u05d0\u05ea \u05d4\u05d4\u05dc\u05dc \u05d5\u05de\u05d1\u05e8\u05da \u05e2\u05dc\u05d9\u05d5 \u05d1\u05e8\u05db\u05ea \u05d4\u05e9\u05d9\u05e8 \u05c3\n\n\u201cOver each of these four cups a benediction is to be pronounced. Over\nthe first cup is said the consecration of the day. Over the second cup\nthe Haggadah is read. Over the third cup the benediction for food is\npronounced. And over the fourth the Hallel is completed, and the\nbenediction for the song pronounced.\u201d (Ibid.) With a solemn religious\nordinance it is not for us to find fault. On the contrary, in these and\ntheir other prayers, we earnestly wish the Jews the blessing of God, and\nthe spirit of grace and supplication. But when we find this human\ninstitution imposed as a burden upon the conscience, and the observance\nof it exacted from those who have not the means of gaining their daily\nbread, we must protest against it as harsh and oppressive. Now in the\noral law this requirement is made.\n\n\u05de\u05d9 \u05e9\u05d0\u05d9\u05df \u05dc\u05d5 \u05d9\u05d9\u05df \u05e2\u05d1\u05e8 \u05d0\u05d3\u05e8\u05d1\u05e0\u05df \u05d3\u05d0\u05de\u05e8\u05d9 \u05d5\u05dc\u05d0 \u05d9\u05e4\u05d7\u05ea\u05d5 \u05dc\u05d5 \u05de\u05d0\u05e8\u05d1\u05e2 \u05db\u05d5\u05e1\u05d5\u05ea , \u05d5\u05e6\u05e8\u05d9\u05da \u05dc\u05de\u05db\u05d5\u05e8\n\u05de\u05d4 \u05d0\u05d9\u05d0 \u05dc\u05d5 \u05dc\u05e7\u05d9\u05d9\u05dd \u05de\u05e6\u05d5\u05ea \u05d7\u05db\u05de\u05d9\u05dd \u05d5\u05dc\u05d0 \u05d9\u05e1\u05de\u05d5\u05da \u05e2\u05dc \u05d4\u05e4\u05ea \u05e9\u05d0\u05dd \u05e7\u05d9\u05d9\u05dd \u05db\u05d5\u05e1 \u05d0\u05d7\u05d3 \u05dc\u05d0 \u05e7\u05d9\u05d9\u05dd\n\u05d4\u05e9\u05dc\u05e9\u05d4 \u05dc\u05db\u05df \u05d9\u05de\u05db\u05d5\u05e8 \u05de\u05d4 \u05e9\u05d9\u05e9 \u05dc\u05d5 \u05d5\u05dc\u05d4\u05d5\u05e6\u05d9\u05d0 \u05d4\u05d5\u05e6\u05d0\u05d5\u05ea \u05e2\u05d3 \u05e9\u05d9\u05de\u05e6\u05d0 \u05d9\u05d9\u05df \u05d0\u05d5 \u05e6\u05de\u05d5\u05e7\u05d9\u05dd \u05c3\n\n\u201cWhosoever has not got wine transgresses a command of the Rabbies, for\nthey have said, that there is to be no diminution from the four cups.\nAnd it is necessary to sell what he has in order to keep the command of\nthe wise men. He is not to depend upon the bread, for if he fulfil the\ncommand concerning one cup, he has not fulfilled that respecting the\nthree. Therefore let him sell what he has, and furnish the expense,\nuntil he procure wine or raisins.\u201d (Arbah Tur. Orach Chaiim, 483.) It\nmay be replied, that the congregation furnishes those who have not the\nmeans. But what is to become of those who have displeased the dispensers\nof the congregation\u2019s bounty, or what is a Jew to do, who is living\nalone in the midst of Gentiles, as is frequently the case, particularly\nin this country? If he be a conscientious Rabbinist he must either\ngrieve his conscience by transgression, or sell what he may not be well\nable to spare. The same may also be said of the unleavened cakes. The\nRabbies have given so many directions about the lawful mode of preparing\nthem, as to make it almost impossible for a Jew, living at a distance\nfrom a congregation, to keep the command, and to keep the poor in a\nstate of perpetual bondage to the synagogue, if they wish to be supplied\nby the bounty of the congregation.\n\nBut if this utter want of consideration for the poor is more strikingly\ndisplayed in the institution and exaction of a second holy day, where\nGod has required the observance of only one, as the Rabbies themselves\nacknowledge in the following passage:\u2014\n\n\u05e9\u05e9\u05ea \u05d9\u05de\u05d9\u05dd \u05d4\u05d0\u05dc\u05d4 \u05e9\u05d0\u05e1\u05e8\u05df \u05d4\u05db\u05ea\u05d5\u05d1 \u05d1\u05e2\u05e9\u05d9\u05d9\u05ea \u05de\u05dc\u05d0\u05db\u05d4 \u05e9\u05d4\u05df \u05e8\u05d0\u05e9\u05d5\u05df \u05d5\u05e9\u05d1\u05d9\u05e2\u05d9 \u05e9\u05dc \u05e4\u05e1\u05d7 \u05d5\u05e8\u05d0\u05e9\u05d5\u05df\n\u05d5\u05d7\u05f3 \u05e9\u05dc \u05d7\u05d2 \u05d4\u05e1\u05d5\u05db\u05d5\u05ea \u05d5\u05d1\u05d9\u05d5\u05dd \u05d7\u05d2 \u05d4\u05e9\u05d1\u05d5\u05e2\u05d5\u05ea \u05d5\u05d1\u05d0\u05d7\u05d3 \u05dc\u05d7\u05d5\u05d3\u05e9 \u05d4\u05e9\u05d1\u05d9\u05e2\u05d9 \u05d4\u05df \u05d4\u05e0\u05e7\u05e8\u05d0\u05d9\u05dd \u05d9\u05de\u05d9\u05dd\n\u05d8\u05d5\u05d1\u05d9\u05dd . \u05d5\u05e9\u05d1\u05d9\u05ea\u05ea \u05db\u05d5\u05dc\u05df \u05e9\u05d5\u05d4 \u05e9\u05d4\u05df \u05d0\u05e1\u05d5\u05e8\u05d9\u05df \u05d1\u05db\u05dc \u05de\u05dc\u05d0\u05db\u05ea \u05e2\u05d1\u05d5\u05d3\u05d4 \u05d7\u05d5\u05e5 \u05de\u05de\u05dc\u05d0\u05db\u05d4 \u05e9\u05d4\u05d9\u05d0 \u05dc\u05e6\u05d5\u05e8\u05da\n\u05d0\u05db\u05d9\u05dc\u05d4 \u05e9\u05e0\u05d0\u05de\u05e8 \u05d0\u05da \u05d0\u05e9\u05e8 \u05d9\u05d0\u05db\u05dc \u05dc\u05db\u05dc \u05e0\u05e4\u05e9 \u05d5\u05db\u05d5\u05f3 \u05c3\n\n\u201cThese are the six days on which the Scripture has forbidden the doing\nof work. The first and seventh day of Passover: the first and eighth day\nof the Feast of Tabernacles: the day of the Feast of Weeks, and the\nfirst day of the seventh month; and these days are called holy days. The\nsabbatism of all is alike; it is unlawful on them to do any manner of\nwork, excepting that which is necessary for the preparation of food, as\nit is said, \u2018Save that which every man must eat.\u2019 (Exod. xii. 16.)\u201d\n(Hilchoth Jom. Tov., c. i. 1.) Here is an express recognition of what\nGod has commanded. And yet the Scribes were not content with this\nordinance of God, but have appointed the observance of a second day on\nall these occasions, and have annexed the sentence of excommunication to\nany transgression of their command.\n\n\u05d5\u05d0\u05e0\u05d5 \u05e9\u05e2\u05d5\u05e9\u05d9\u05dd \u05e9\u05e0\u05d9 \u05d9\u05de\u05d9\u05dd \u05d8\u05d5\u05d1\u05d9\u05dd \u05db\u05dc \u05de\u05d4 \u05e9\u05d0\u05e1\u05d5\u05e8 \u05d1\u05e8\u05d0\u05e9\u05d5\u05df \u05d0\u05e1\u05d5\u05e8 \u05d2\u05dd \u05d1\u05e9\u05e0\u05d9 , \u05d5\u05de\u05e0\u05d3\u05d9\u05df \u05e2\u05dc\u05d9\u05d5\n\u05dc\u05de\u05d9 \u05e9\u05de\u05d6\u05dc\u05d6\u05dc \u05d1\u05d5 , \u05d5\u05d0\u05dd \u05d4\u05d5\u05d0 \u05e6\u05d5\u05e8\u05d1\u05d0 \u05de\u05e8\u05d1\u05e0\u05df \u05d0\u05d9\u05df \u05de\u05d7\u05de\u05d9\u05e8\u05d9\u05d5 \u05dc\u05e0\u05d3\u05d5\u05ea\u05d5 \u05d0\u05dc\u05d0 \u05de\u05dc\u05e7\u05d9\u05df \u05d0\u05d5\u05ea\u05d5 \u05c3\n\n\u201cTo us, who observe two days, every thing that is forbidden on the first\nday, is also forbidden on the second day; and whosoever makes light of\nit, is to be excommunicated. But if he be an acute Talmudist the\nexcommunication is not to be severe, only he is to be beaten.\u201d (Orach\nChaiim, 496.) In the Yad Hachasakah we find the same severity, and the\nsame exception.\n\n\u05d9\u05d5\u05dd \u05d8\u05d5\u05d1 \u05e9\u05e0\u05d9 \u05d0\u05e3 \u05e2\u05dc \u05e4\u05d9 \u05e9\u05d4\u05d5\u05d0 \u05de\u05d3\u05d1\u05e8\u05d9 \u05e1\u05d5\u05e4\u05e8\u05d9\u05dd \u05db\u05dc \u05d3\u05d1\u05e8 \u05e9\u05d0\u05e1\u05d5\u05e8 \u05d1\u05e8\u05d0\u05e9\u05d5\u05df \u05d0\u05e1\u05d5\u05e8 \u05d1\u05e9\u05e0\u05d9 .\n\u05d5\u05db\u05dc \u05d4\u05de\u05d7\u05dc\u05dc \u05d9\u05d5\u05dd \u05d8\u05d5\u05d1 \u05e9\u05e0\u05d9 \u05d5\u05d0\u05e4\u05d9\u05dc\u05d5 \u05e9\u05dc \u05e8\u05d0\u05e9 \u05d4\u05e9\u05e0\u05d4 \u05d1\u05d9\u05df \u05d1\u05d3\u05d1\u05e8 \u05e9\u05d4\u05d5\u05d0 \u05de\u05e9\u05d5\u05dd \u05e9\u05d1\u05d5\u05ea \u05d5\u05d1\u05d9\u05df\n\u05d1\u05de\u05dc\u05d0\u05db\u05d4 \u05d1\u05d9\u05df \u05e9\u05d9\u05e6\u05d0 \u05d7\u05d5\u05e5 \u05dc\u05ea\u05d7\u05d5\u05dd \u05de\u05db\u05d9\u05df \u05d0\u05d5\u05ea\u05d5 \u05de\u05db\u05ea \u05de\u05e8\u05d3\u05d5\u05ea \u05d0\u05d5 \u05de\u05e0\u05d3\u05d9\u05df \u05d0\u05d5\u05ea\u05d5 \u05d0\u05dd \u05dc\u05d0 \u05d9\u05d4\u05d9\u05d4\n\u05de\u05df \u05d4\u05ea\u05dc\u05de\u05d9\u05d3\u05d9\u05dd \u05c3\n\n\u201cAlthough the second holy day is only of the words of the Scribes, every\nthing that is forbidden on the first day, is forbidden on it also. And\nevery one who professes the second holy day, even that of the new year,\nwhether it be in a matter relating to the sabbatism, or by work, or by\ngoing beyond the Sabbath limit, is to receive the beating denounced\nagainst rebellion, or to be excommunicated, unless he be a learned man.\u201d\n(Hilchoth Jom. Tov., c. i. 24.) The hardship, oppression, and severity\nof this ordinance are apparent at first sight, and are severely felt by\nmany a poor Jew in this city, who hardly knows how to get bread for\nhimself and his children. In every case it robs him in one week of two\ndays, on which God has allowed him to work, and to endeavour to gain a\nlivelihood. But if the first day of a festival happen on a Thursday,\nthen that day, Friday, and Saturday, he dare not do anything to earn the\nmeans of subsistence for his family. Sunday is the Christian Sabbath, so\nthat in one week four successive days are lost, and in the following\nweek four more. What, then, is the poor man to do? If he does not work,\nhis children may starve; if he makes use of the time allowed him by his\nmerciful God, and pursues his daily occupations, he transgresses a\ncommand of unmerciful men, and renders himself obnoxious to his more\nbigoted brethren. True that they cannot now beat him with the stripes\nawarded to the rebellious, and that they would hardly dare, in the\npresent state of things, to excommunicate him; yet there are other ways\nand means of persecution more secret, but equally sure. But whatever be\nthe present circumstances, the cruel and oppressive spirit of the oral\nlaw remains the same. If the Rabbinists had the power, they would soon\nproceed to excommunicate and flog all the profaners of the second holy\nday. We appeal, then, to the common sense of every Jew, and ask him,\nWhat right have men to rob the poor of that time which God hath given\nthem? or to sentence a man who only goes to get bread for his children,\nand in so doing transgresses none of God\u2019s commandments, to\nexcommunication or flogging, especially to that severe species of\nflogging here specified?\n\nThe flogging here spoken of is called \u05de\u05db\u05ea \u05de\u05e8\u05d3\u05d5\u05ea, \u201cthe flogging of\nrebellion,\u201d and is altogether different from that merciful punishment\nprescribed in the law. God says, \u201cAnd it shall be, if the wicked man be\nworthy to be beaten, that the judge shall cause him to lie down, and to\nbe beaten before his face, according to his fault by a certain number.\nForty stripes he may give him, and not exceed; lest, if he should\nexceed, and beat him above these with many stripes, then thy brother\nshould seem vile to thee.\u201d (Deut. xxv. 2, 3.) Here, as everywhere else,\nin the midst of judgment, God remembers mercy. The Rabbies, never\nsatisfied unless they can add to, or diminish from, God\u2019s commandments,\nhave reduced the number to thirty-nine, lest they should make any\nmistake. But to compensate for this diminution, they have invented \u201cthe\nflogging of rebellion,\u201d which is without number and without mercy, as\nmay be seen from the following explanation of the Baal Aruch:\u2014\n\n\u05de\u05d9 \u05e9\u05e2\u05d5\u05d1\u05e8 \u05e2\u05dc \u05de\u05e6\u05d5\u05ea \u05e2\u05e9\u05d4 \u05e9\u05d0\u05de\u05e8 \u05dc\u05d5 \u05e2\u05e9\u05d4 \u05e1\u05d5\u05db\u05d4 \u05e2\u05e9\u05bc\u05d4 \u05dc\u05d5\u05dc\u05d1 \u05d5\u05d0\u05d9\u05e0\u05d5 \u05e2\u05d5\u05e9\u05d4 \u05de\u05db\u05d9\u05df \u05d0\u05d5\u05ea\u05d5 \u05e2\u05d3\n\u05e9\u05ea\u05e6\u05d0 \u05e0\u05e9\u05de\u05ea\u05d5 \u05d1\u05dc\u05d0 \u05d0\u05d5\u05de\u05d3 \u05d5\u05d1\u05dc\u05d0 \u05de\u05db\u05d4 \u05de\u05e9\u05d5\u05dc\u05e9\u05d4 \u05d5\u05db\u05df \u05de\u05d9 \u05e9\u05e2\u05d5\u05d1\u05e8 \u05e2\u05dc \u05d3\u05d1\u05e8\u05d9 \u05d7\u05db\u05de\u05d9\u05dd \u05de\u05db\u05d9\u05df \u05d0\u05d5\u05ea\u05d5\n\u05d1\u05dc\u05d0 \u05de\u05e1\u05e4\u05e8 \u05d5\u05d1\u05dc\u05d0 \u05de\u05e0\u05d9\u05df \u05d5\u05d1\u05dc\u05d0 \u05d0\u05d5\u05de\u05d3 \u05d5\u05dc\u05de\u05d4 \u05e7\u05d5\u05e8\u05d5\u05df \u05d0\u05d5\u05ea\u05d5 \u05de\u05db\u05ea \u05de\u05e8\u05d3\u05d5\u05ea \u05e9\u05de\u05e8\u05d3 \u05d1\u05d3\u05d1\u05e8\u05d9 \u05ea\u05d5\u05e8\u05d4\n\u05d5\u05d1\u05d3\u05d1\u05e8\u05d9 \u05e1\u05d5\u05e4\u05e8\u05d9\u05dd \u05c3\n\n\u201cWhosoever transgresses an affirmative commandment, for instance, he was\ncommanded to make a tabernacle, or a lulav, and did not, he is to be\nbeaten until his soul go out, without any consideration of his strength,\nand without dividing the flogging into three. And, in like manner,\nwhosoever transgresses the words of the wise men, he is to be beaten\nwithout number, and without consideration. Why is this called the\nflogging of rebellion? Because he has rebelled against the words of the\nlaw and against the words of the Scribes.\u201d (Baal Aruch, in voc.) This,\nthen, is the punishment denounced against those who try to get bread for\ntheir children on the second holy day; a punishment invented by the\nRabbies themselves, not against the immoral or the irreligious, but\nagainst the transgressors of their own commandments. What could have\nbeen the spirit, the temper, the religious feeling of such men? Had they\nany perception of the merciful character of the law, or any resemblance\nto the compassionate nature of the God of Israel? Can you put any\nconfidence in the religious instruction of those who would excommunicate\nor flog a fellow-creature to death because he obeyed the instincts of\nnature, because he could not stay at home and listen to the cries of his\nfamishing children, but went forth, to procure them food in the manner,\nand on the day which God had permitted him to do so? These are the men\nwho condemned Jesus of Nazareth to death, and this is the religion of\nthe oral law, which you prefer to the mild and merciful doctrines of\nChristianity. If Rabbinism had continued in its power, you would have\nbeen exposed to all the severity of this intolerance. The triumph of\nChristianity has, in this respect, also been a blessing to the Jewish\nnation, and the power of the followers of Jesus of Nazareth protects you\nfrom excommunication and corporal chastisement.\n\nThe cruelty and hardship of the imposition of a second holy day, with\nsuch a punishment annexed appears not only from the circumstance of its\nbeing altogether a human institution, but further, that the original\nobject of its institution has long since ceased. The Scribes appointed\nthe observance of two days at a time, when the feast-days were fixed by\nthe appearance of the moon, lest those at a distance from Jerusalem\nshould keep a wrong day, but now that they are fixed by calculation,\nthis is altogether unnecessary.\n\n\u05d1\u05d6\u05de\u05df \u05d4\u05d6\u05d4 \u05e9\u05d0\u05d9\u05df \u05e9\u05dd \u05e1\u05e0\u05d4\u05d3\u05e8\u05d9\u05dd \u05d5\u05d1\u05d9\u05ea \u05d3\u05d9\u05df \u05e9\u05dc \u05d0\u05e8\u05e5 \u05d9\u05e9\u05e8\u05d0\u05dc \u05e7\u05d5\u05d1\u05e2\u05d9\u05df \u05e2\u05dc \u05d7\u05e9\u05d1\u05d5\u05df \u05d6\u05d4 \u05d4\u05d9\u05d4 \u05de\u05df\n\u05d4\u05d3\u05d9\u05df \u05e9\u05d9\u05d4\u05d9\u05d5 \u05d1\u05db\u05dc \u05d4\u05de\u05e7\u05d5\u05de\u05d5\u05ea \u05e2\u05d5\u05e9\u05d9\u05df \u05d9\u05d5\u05dd \u05d8\u05d5\u05d1 \u05d0\u05d7\u05d3 \u05d1\u05dc\u05d1\u05d3 \u05d0\u05e4\u05d9\u05dc\u05d5 \u05d4\u05de\u05e7\u05d5\u05de\u05d5\u05ea \u05d4\u05e8\u05d7\u05d5\u05e7\u05d5\u05ea\n\u05e9\u05d1\u05d7\u05d5\u05e5 \u05dc\u05d0\u05e8\u05e5 \u05db\u05de\u05d5 \u05d1\u05e0\u05d9 \u05d0\u05e8\u05e5 \u05d9\u05e9\u05e8\u05d0\u05dc \u05e9\u05d4\u05db\u05dc \u05e2\u05dc \u05d7\u05e9\u05d1\u05d5\u05df \u05d0\u05d7\u05d3 \u05e1\u05d5\u05de\u05db\u05d9\u05df \u05d5\u05e7\u05d5\u05d1\u05e2\u05d9\u05df \u05d0\u05d1\u05dc \u05ea\u05e7\u05e0\u05ea\n\u05d7\u05db\u05de\u05d9\u05dd \u05d4\u05d5\u05d0 \u05e9\u05d9\u05d6\u05d4\u05e8\u05d5 \u05d1\u05de\u05e0\u05d4\u05d2 \u05d0\u05d1\u05d5\u05ea\u05d9\u05d4\u05dd \u05e9\u05d1\u05d9\u05d3\u05dd \u05c3\n\n\u201cIn the present time, when there is no Sanhedrin, nor house of judgment\nin the land of Israel, the feasts are fixed by calculation, and\ntherefore all places, even those that are remote from the land of\nIsrael, ought properly to observe only one day as a holy day, as well as\nthe inhabitants of that country, for all depend on and fix the feast by\none and the same calculation; but it is an ordinance of the wise men to\nadhere diligently to the custom of their forefathers.\u201d (Hilchoth Kiddush\nHachodesh, c. v. 5.) There is, therefore, no excuse for this burden\nimposed upon the poor, and much less for the cruel punishments,\ndenounced against those who cease to observe what is confessedly an\nuseless custom. How different is the doctrine of Christianity with\nrespect to such days. No excommunication, no flogging, no imposing of\nburdens upon the consciences of our brethren. The New Testament condemns\neven all rash judgment in such matters. It says, \u201cWho art thou, that\njudgeth another man\u2019s servant? To his own master he standeth or falleth.\nYea he shall be holden up, for God is able to make him stand. One man\nesteemeth one day above another; another esteemeth every day alike. Let\nevery man be fully persuaded in his own mind. He that regardeth the day,\nregardeth it to the Lord; and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord\nhe doth not regard it. He that eateth, eateth to the Lord, for he giveth\nGod thanks; and he that eateth not, to the Lord he eateth not, and\ngiveth God thanks. For none of us liveth to himself, and no man dieth to\nhimself. For whether we live, we live onto the Lord, and whether we die,\nwe die unto the Lord; whether we live, therefore, or die, we are the\nLord\u2019s.\u201d (Rom. xiv. 2-8.) Here is the spirit of love and mercy, and\ntherefore the spirit of God. How is it, then, that Jesus and his\ndisciples were able to overcome the prejudices of their times, and to\nstem the torrent of authority and learning, which was altogether in\nfavour of the opposite opinions? How is it, if they were impostors and\ndeceivers that they have left a tolerant and merciful system, whilst the\nScribes and Pharisees, who, according to that supposition, were the true\nservants of God, have left a religion of oppression and cruelty? \u201cYe\nshall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs\nof thistles? Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit, and\nevery evil tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring\nforth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.\u201d\n(Matt. vii. 16-18.) This is certainly true in nature. Now the Pharisees\nhave brought forth evil fruit, Jesus of Nazareth and his disciples have\nbrought forth good fruit. What is the conclusion from such premises?\n\nBut we have hitherto spoken only generally of the Institution of a\nsecond holy day, we have yet to consider the details of the commandment,\nwhich will show still more clearly that \u201cThe Scribes and Pharisees bind\nheavy burdens, and grievous to be borne, and lay them on other men\u2019s\nshoulders.\u201d (Matt. xxiii. 4.) They are, as usual, most exact in defining\nwhat is and is not work. They say,\n\n\u05db\u05dc \u05e9\u05d0\u05e1\u05d5\u05e8 \u05d1\u05e9\u05d1\u05ea \u05d1\u05d9\u05df \u05de\u05e9\u05d5\u05dd \u05e9\u05d4\u05d5\u05d0 \u05d3\u05d5\u05de\u05d4 \u05dc\u05de\u05dc\u05d0\u05db\u05d4 \u05d0\u05d5 \u05de\u05e0\u05d9\u05d0 \u05dc\u05d9\u05d3\u05d9 \u05de\u05dc\u05d0\u05db\u05d4 \u05d1\u05d9\u05df \u05e9\u05d4\u05d5\u05d0 \u05de\u05e9\u05d5\u05dd\n\u05e9\u05d1\u05d5\u05ea \u05d4\u05e8\u05d9 \u05d4\u05d5\u05d0 \u05d0\u05e1\u05d5\u05e8 \u05d1\u05d9\u05d5\u05dd \u05d8\u05d5\u05d1 \u05d0\u05dc\u05d0 \u05d0\u05dd \u05db\u05df \u05d4\u05d9\u05d4 \u05e6\u05d5\u05e8\u05da \u05d0\u05db\u05d9\u05dc\u05d4 \u05d5\u05db\u05d9\u05d5\u05e6\u05d0 \u05d1\u05d4 . \u05d0\u05d5 \u05d3\u05d1\u05e8\u05d9\u05dd\n\u05e9\u05d4\u05dd \u05de\u05d5\u05ea\u05e8\u05d9\u05dd \u05d1\u05d9\u05d5\u05dd \u05d8\u05d5\u05d1 \u05db\u05de\u05d5 \u05e9\u05d9\u05ea\u05d1\u05d0\u05e8 \u05d1\u05d4\u05dc\u05db\u05d5\u05ea \u05d0\u05dc\u05d5 . \u05d5\u05db\u05dc \u05e9\u05d0\u05e1\u05d5\u05e8 \u05dc\u05d8\u05dc\u05d8\u05dc\u05d5 \u05d1\u05e9\u05d1\u05ea \u05d0\u05e1\u05d5\u05e8\n\u05dc\u05d8\u05dc\u05d8\u05dc\u05d5 \u05d1\u05d9\u05d5\u05dd \u05d8\u05d5\u05d1 \u05d0\u05dc\u05d0 \u05dc\u05e6\u05d5\u05e8\u05da \u05d0\u05db\u05d9\u05dc\u05d4 \u05d5\u05db\u05d9\u05d5\u05e6\u05d0 \u05d1\u05d4 \u05d5\u05db\u05dc \u05e9\u05de\u05d5\u05ea\u05e8 \u05d1\u05e9\u05d1\u05ea \u05de\u05d5\u05ea\u05e8 \u05d1\u05d9\u05d5\u05dd \u05d8\u05d5\u05d1 \u05c3\n\n\u201cEvery thing that is unlawful on the Sabbath, either because it has the\nappearance of work, or because it leads to work, or on account of\nsabbatising, is unlawful on a holy day, unless it be necessary for the\npreparation of food, and the like, or such things as are allowed on the\nholy day, as will be explained in these constitutions. And every thing\nthat it is unlawful to move on the Sabbath, is also unlawful to be moved\non the holy day, unless it be necessary for food: and every thing that\nis lawful on the Sabbath is lawful on a holy day.\u201d (Hilchoth Jom. Tov.,\nc. i. 17.) This law effectually ties up the hands of the poor Rabbinist.\nHe not only dare not pursue his trade, but he dare not make any domestic\narrangement, that might promote order in his house, or conduce to his\ncomfort. He must not write a letter to his friends, nor even extinguish\na fire, though it be to save his property.\n\n\u05d0\u05e3 \u05e2\u05dc \u05e4\u05d9 \u05e9\u05d4\u05d5\u05ea\u05e8\u05d4 \u05d4\u05d1\u05e2\u05e8\u05d4 \u05d1\u05d9\u05d5\u05dd \u05d8\u05d5\u05d1 \u05e9\u05dc\u05d0 \u05dc\u05e6\u05d5\u05e8\u05da \u05d0\u05e1\u05d5\u05e8 \u05dc\u05db\u05d1\u05d5\u05ea \u05d0\u05ea \u05d4\u05d0\u05e9 \u05d0\u05e4\u05d9\u05dc\u05d5 \u05d4\u05d5\u05d1\u05e2\u05e8\u05d4\n\u05dc\u05e6\u05d5\u05e8\u05da \u05d0\u05db\u05d9\u05dc\u05d4 , \u05d0\u05d4\u05db\u05d1\u05d5\u05d9 \u05de\u05dc\u05d0\u05db\u05d4 \u05d5\u05d0\u05d9\u05df \u05d1\u05d5 \u05e6\u05d5\u05e8\u05da \u05d0\u05db\u05d9\u05dc\u05d4 \u05db\u05dc\u05dc , \u05d5\u05db\u05e9\u05dd \u05e9\u05d0\u05d9\u05df \u05de\u05db\u05d1\u05d9\u05df \u05d0\u05ea\n\u05d4\u05d0\u05e9 \u05db\u05da \u05d0\u05d9\u05df \u05de\u05db\u05d1\u05d9\u05df \u05d0\u05ea \u05d4\u05de\u05e8 \u05d5\u05d0\u05dd \u05db\u05d1\u05d4 \u05dc\u05d5\u05e7\u05d4 \u05d1\u05de\u05d9 \u05e9\u05d0\u05e8\u05d2 \u05d0\u05d5 \u05d1\u05e0\u05d4 ... \u05d0\u05d9\u05df \u05de\u05db\u05d1\u05d9\u05df \u05d0\u05ea\n\u05d4\u05d3\u05dc\u05d9\u05e7\u05d4 \u05db\u05d3\u05d9 \u05dc\u05d4\u05e6\u05d9\u05dc \u05de\u05de\u05d5\u05df \u05d1\u05d9\u05d5\u05dd \u05d8\u05d5\u05d1 \u05db\u05d3\u05e8\u05da \u05e9\u05d0\u05d9\u05df \u05de\u05db\u05d1\u05d9\u05df \u05d1\u05e9\u05d1\u05ea \u05d0\u05dc\u05d0 \u05de\u05e0\u05d9\u05d7\u05d4 \u05d5\u05d9\u05d5\u05e6\u05d0 \u05c3\n\n\u201cAlthough it has been pronounced lawful to kindle fire on the holy day,\neven where not absolutely necessary, yet it is unlawful to extinguish\nfire, even though it had been kindled for the preparation of food; for\nthe extinguishing of fire is work, and is not at all necessary for the\ndressing of food. And as fire is not to be extinguished, so neither is a\ncandle to be extinguished and whosoever extinguishes is to be flogged,\njust as he that weaves or builds.... Fire is not to be extinguished, in\norder to save property on a holy day, no more than on the Sabbath. On\nthe contrary, one lets it burn and goes away.\u201d (Ibid., c. iv. 2, 4.) In\nthe Arbah Turim this law is laid down with still more precision.\n\n\u05d0\u05e1\u05d5\u05e8 \u05dc\u05db\u05d1\u05d5\u05ea \u05d0\u05ea \u05d4\u05d3\u05dc\u05d9\u05e7\u05d4 \u05d1\u05d9\u05d5\u05dd \u05d8\u05d5\u05d1 \u05d0\u05e4\u05d9\u05dc\u05d5 \u05e8\u05d5\u05d0\u05d4 \u05d0\u05ea \u05d1\u05d9\u05ea\u05d5 \u05e9\u05e0\u05e9\u05e8\u05e3 . \u05d0\u05e1\u05d5\u05e8 \u05dc\u05db\u05d1\u05d5\u05ea\n\u05d4\u05d1\u05e7\u05e2\u05ea \u05d1\u05d9\u05df \u05d0\u05dd \u05de\u05db\u05d1\u05d4 \u05de\u05e4\u05e0\u05d9 \u05e9\u05d7\u05e1 \u05e2\u05dc\u05d9\u05d4 \u05e9\u05dc\u05d0 \u05ea\u05e9\u05e8\u05e3 \u05d1\u05d9\u05df \u05d0\u05dd \u05de\u05db\u05d1\u05d4 \u05e9\u05dc\u05d0 \u05ea\u05ea\u05e2\u05e9\u05df \u05d4\u05e7\u05d3\u05e8\u05d4 .\n\u05d5\u05d3\u05d5\u05e7\u05d0 \u05db\u05e9\u05d0\u05e4\u05e9\u05e8 \u05dc\u05d5 \u05dc\u05d4\u05e6\u05d9\u05dc\u05d4 \u05de\u05e2\u05d9\u05e9\u05d5\u05df \u05d1\u05dc\u05d0 \u05db\u05d1\u05d5\u05d9 \u05db\u05d2\u05d5\u05df \u05e9\u05d9\u05e1\u05d9\u05e8\u05e0\u05d4 \u05de\u05d0\u05e9 \u05d6\u05d4 \u05d5\u05d9\u05ea\u05e0\u05e0\u05d4 \u05e2\u05dc \u05d0\u05e9\n\u05d0\u05d7\u05e8 \u05d0\u05d1\u05dc \u05d0\u05dd \u05d0\u05d9\u05df \u05dc\u05d5 \u05d0\u05e9 \u05d0\u05d7\u05e8 \u05d5\u05d0\u05dd \u05dc\u05d0 \u05d9\u05db\u05d1\u05e0\u05d4 \u05ea\u05ea\u05e2\u05e9\u05df \u05d4\u05e7\u05d3\u05e8\u05d4 \u05de\u05d5\u05ea\u05e8 \u05dc\u05db\u05d1\u05d5\u05ea\u05d4 \u05db\u05d3\u05d9 \u05e9\u05dc\u05d0\n\u05ea\u05ea\u05e2\u05e9\u05df \u05d4\u05e7\u05d3\u05e8\u05d4 \u05c3\n\n\u201cIt is unlawful to extinguish fire on a holy day, even though a man\nshould see his house burning. It is unlawful to extinguish split wood,\neither for the sake of saving it from being burned, or to keep a pot\nfrom being smoked, that is to say, if he can keep it from being smoked\nwithout extinguishing the fire, as by removing it from one fire to\nanother. But if he has not got another fire, and if the pot must be\nsmoked unless he extinguish it, then the extinguishing is lawful, that\nthe pot may not be smoked.\u201d (Orach Chaiim, 514.) Now we put it to the\ncommon sense of every Jew, whether in these laws there be justice,\nmercy, and religion; or hardship, inconsideration, and absurdity?\n\n\n\n\n                                No. XIV.\n                         SEVERITY AND ARTIFICE.\n\n\nThe oral law says, as we saw in our last, that, on a holy day, it is\nunlawful to extinguish a fire in order to save a man\u2019s house and\nproperty, but that it is lawful, on the same day, to do the very same\nthing to keep a pot of cookery from being smoked. This sentence may\nperhaps appear wise and pious to those who have got more houses than\none, or the means of procuring them; but with respect to the poor man,\nwho in such a case loses his all, and must see his family left without a\nroof over their heads or a bed to lie on, this decision is as cruel as\nit is senseless. There is, however, a tyranny more dreadful than that\nwhich affects only the temporal condition of men. The spiritual\ndespotism, which burdens and fetters the conscience and enslaves the\nsoul, is more intolerable still. Under temporal losses a man\u2019s mind may\nbe supported by a sense of religion; but when his religion, by the\nmultiplicity and rigour, and intricacy of its requirements, becomes his\ntormentor, man is bereft of his last consolation. The religion of the\noral law appears to us to be of this character, and its enactments with\nregard to the holy days will serve to justify this our opinion. We have\nseen already, that it requires two days\u2019 cessation from business, where\nGod requires only one, and that the general rule is, Whatsoever is\nunlawful on the Sabbath, is unlawful on the holy day, with one\nexception. The Scribes, however, were not content with this, they have\ncontrived to invent something, which, though lawful on the Sabbath, is\non these days unlawful. They say, that there is a certain class of\nthings, which, if not deliberately destined the day before for the use\nof the holy day, are unlawful. To this class they give the name of \u05de\u05d5\u05e7\u05e6\u05d4\n_Muktzeh_, which literally signifies \u201cseparated or cut off,\u201d but which,\nfor shortness\u2019 sake and for want of a better word in English, we shall\ncall \u201c_undestined_.\u201d\n\n\u05d5\u05d9\u05e9 \u05d1\u05d9\u05d5\u05dd \u05d8\u05d5\u05d1 \u05de\u05d4 \u05e9\u05d0\u05d9\u05df \u05d1\u05e9\u05d1\u05ea \u05d0\u05d9\u05e1\u05d5\u05e8 \u05de\u05d5\u05e7\u05e6\u05d4 \u05e9\u05d4\u05de\u05d5\u05e7\u05e6\u05d4 \u05d0\u05e1\u05d5\u05e8 \u05d1\u05d9\u05d5\u05dd \u05d8\u05d5\u05d1 \u05d5\u05de\u05d5\u05ea\u05e8 \u05d1\u05e9\u05d1\u05ea\n\u05de\u05e4\u05e0\u05d9 \u05e9\u05d9\u05d5\u05dd \u05d8\u05d5\u05d1 \u05e7\u05dc \u05de\u05e9\u05d1\u05ea \u05d0\u05e1\u05e8\u05d5 \u05d1\u05d5 \u05d4\u05de\u05d5\u05e7\u05e6\u05d4 \u05e9\u05de\u05d0 \u05d9\u05d1\u05d5\u05d0\u05d5 \u05dc\u05d6\u05dc\u05d6\u05dc \u05d1\u05d5 \u05c3\n\n\u201cThere is on the holy day one thing which is not found on the Sabbath,\nand that is, the forbidding of the _undestined_, for the _undestined is_\nunlawful on the holy day, and is lawful on the Sabbath. Because the holy\nday is less sacred than the Sabbath, they forbade the _undestined_ on\nthat day, lest persons should be led to make light of it.\u201d (Hilchoth\nJom. Tov. c. i. 17.)\n\n\u05db\u05d9\u05e6\u05d3 \u05ea\u05e8\u05e0\u05d2\u05d5\u05dc\u05ea \u05d4\u05e2\u05d5\u05de\u05d3\u05ea \u05dc\u05d2\u05d3\u05dc \u05d1\u05d9\u05e6\u05d9\u05dd \u05d5\u05e9\u05d5\u05e8 \u05d4\u05e6\u05d5\u05de\u05d3 \u05dc\u05d7\u05e8\u05d9\u05e9\u05d4 \u05d5\u05d9\u05d5\u05e0\u05d9 \u05e9\u05d5\u05d1\u05da \u05d5\u05e4\u05d9\u05e8\u05d5\u05ea\n\u05d4\u05e2\u05d5\u05de\u05d3\u05d9\u05df \u05dc\u05e1\u05d7\u05d5\u05e8\u05d4 \u05db\u05dc \u05d0\u05dc\u05d5 \u05d5\u05db\u05d9\u05d5\u05e6\u05d0 \u05d1\u05d4\u05df \u05de\u05d5\u05e7\u05e6\u05d4 \u05d4\u05df \u05d5\u05d0\u05e1\u05d5\u05e8 \u05dc\u05d0\u05db\u05d5\u05dc \u05de\u05d4\u05df \u05d1\u05d9\u05d5\u05dd \u05d8\u05d5\u05d1 \u05e2\u05d3\n\u05e9\u05d9\u05db\u05d9\u05df \u05d0\u05d5\u05ea\u05d4 \u05de\u05d1\u05e2\u05e8\u05d1 \u05d5\u05d9\u05d7\u05e9\u05d5\u05d1 \u05e2\u05dc\u05d9\u05d4\u05dd \u05dc\u05d0\u05db\u05d9\u05dc\u05d4 \u05c3\n\n\u201cFor instance, a hen that is kept for the purpose of hatching eggs, and\nan ox that is kept for ploughing, pigeons in a pigeon house, and fruits\nthat are kept for sale, all these and the like are _undestined_, and it\nis unlawful to eat of them on a holy day, unless a man destine them on\nthe eve preceding, and form an intention to eat them.\u201d (Ibid.) By this\nlaw a numerous class of things is forbidden, which God has no where\nforbidden, and fresh chains are forged for the conscience. An unlearned\nman can hardly tell what does or does not belong to the class, and if he\nbe in doubt must first go to the rabbi, before he can eat or make use of\nany thing doubtful; for this definition extends not only to eatables,\nbut to other things, as for instance, fuel. Suppose, for example, that a\nman or a family had eaten nuts or almonds on the eve of the holy day, is\nit lawful or unlawful to burn the shells on the holy day itself? The\nWord of God leaves the Jew at perfect liberty to do as he pleases, but\nthe oral law tells him that he may by doing either commit a great sin.\nIf he cannot resolve his scruples in this matter, he must be content to\ngo to the rabbi or some learned man, and submit to his decision, and\nthus every unlearned and devout Jew is brought into complete captivity\nto the decisions of the learned. Another very similar law, and tending\nto the same bondage, is that which makes any thing that is born or comes\ninto existence on the holy day, unlawful.\n\n\u05d5\u05db\u05e9\u05dd \u05e9\u05d4\u05de\u05d5\u05e7\u05e6\u05d4 \u05d0\u05e1\u05d5\u05e8 \u05d1\u05d9\u05d5\u05dd \u05d8\u05d5\u05d1 \u05db\u05da \u05d4\u05e0\u05d5\u05dc\u05d3 \u05d0\u05e1\u05d5\u05e8 . \u05d7\u05d5\u05dc \u05de\u05db\u05d9\u05df \u05dc\u05e9\u05d1\u05ea \u05d5\u05d7\u05d5\u05dc \u05de\u05db\u05d9\u05df \u05dc\u05d9\u05d5\u05dd\n\u05d8\u05d5\u05d1 \u05d0\u05d1\u05dc \u05d0\u05d9\u05df \u05d9\u05d5\u05dd \u05d8\u05d5\u05d1 \u05de\u05db\u05d9\u05df \u05dc\u05e9\u05d1\u05ea \u05d5\u05dc\u05d0 \u05e9\u05d1\u05ea \u05de\u05db\u05d9\u05e0\u05d4 \u05dc\u05d9\u05d5\u05dd \u05d8\u05d5\u05d1 . \u05dc\u05e4\u05d9\u05db\u05da \u05d1\u05d9\u05e6\u05d4 \u05e9\u05e0\u05d5\u05dc\u05d3\u05d4\n\u05d1\u05d9\u05d5\u05dd \u05d8\u05d5\u05d1 \u05d0\u05d7\u05e8 \u05d4\u05e9\u05d1\u05ea \u05d0\u05e1\u05d5\u05e8\u05d4 \u05c3\n\n\u201cAnd as the undestined is unlawful on the holy day, so also what is born\nis unlawful. On a common day a man may destine things for the Sabbath,\nand also for the holy day. But on a holy day things may not be destined\nfor the Sabbath, nor on the Sabbath for the holy day, therefore an egg\nthat is laid on the holy day after the Sabbath is unlawful.\u201d (Ibid.) Now\nnot to speak of the minute trifling of this law, there are cases where\nit may become very oppressive. Suppose that by some means an unlawful\negg should get amongst a number of lawful eggs, they would all become\nunlawful.\n\n\u05d5\u05d0\u05e4\u05d9\u05dc\u05d5 \u05e0\u05ea\u05e2\u05e8\u05d1\u05d4 \u05d1\u05d0\u05dc\u05e3 \u05db\u05d5\u05dc\u05df \u05d0\u05e1\u05d5\u05e8\u05d5\u05ea \u05c3\n\n\u201cYea, though it should be mixed up amongst a thousand, they are all\nunlawful.\u201d It is true that the rabbies endeavour to guard against such\non accident, by forbidding the removal of such an egg on the holy day;\nbut a Gentile or a child might, through inadvertently putting such an\negg amongst others, produce great inconvenience or even loss, and to\nthis the poor man must submit, or burden his conscience with a wilful\ntransgression. But this law forbidding to eat or move whatsoever comes\ninto existence on the holy day extends beyond the class of eatables.\nWood accidentally broken on this day belongs to this class, and it is\ntherefore unlawful to use it as fuel, or to move it. In like manner,\nashes of wood that has been burnt on the holy day, is considered as\nhaving come into existence, and it is a sin to move it, when once it has\ncooled. And again, if a fire should go out on the holy day, it is a\ngrave question whether the fuel that remains may be kindled again.\n\nThus the conscience is burdened with definitions of unlawful, but the\ndirections about things lawful are quite as numerous and perplexing. For\ninstance, it is lawful to make a fire on a holy day, and to put on the\npot for cooking, but an unlearned man or woman may commit a sin in the\nmode of doing it, and, therefore, the Baal Turim says,\n\n\u05db\u05e9\u05e2\u05d5\u05e9\u05d4 \u05d4\u05d0\u05e9 \u05d5\u05e0\u05d5\u05ea\u05df \u05e2\u05dc\u05d9\u05d4 \u05e7\u05d3\u05d9\u05e8\u05d4 \u05e6\u05e8\u05d9\u05da \u05dc\u05d9\u05d6\u05d4\u05e8 \u05d1\u05e1\u05d3\u05d5\u05e8 \u05d4\u05e2\u05e6\u05d9\u05dd \u05d5\u05d1\u05e0\u05ea\u05d9\u05e0\u05ea \u05d4\u05e7\u05d3\u05d9\u05e8\u05d4 \u05e2\u05dc\u05d9\u05d4\u05dd\n\u05e9\u05dc\u05d0 \u05d9\u05d4\u05d9\u05d4 \u05d3\u05d5\u05de\u05d4 \u05dc\u05d1\u05e0\u05d9\u05df \u05d3\u05d0\u05de\u05e8 \u05e8\u05d1 \u05d9\u05d4\u05d5\u05d3\u05d4 \u05de\u05d3\u05d5\u05e8\u05ea\u05d0 \u05de\u05dc\u05de\u05e2\u05dc\u05d4 \u05dc\u05de\u05d8\u05d4 \u05e9\u05e8\u05d9 , \u05de\u05de\u05d8\u05d4 \u05dc\u05de\u05e2\u05dc\u05d4\n\u05d0\u05e1\u05d5\u05e8 \u05c3\n\n\u201cWhen one makes a fire and puts on a pot, it is necessary to be very\ncareful in the arranging of the wood, and the mode of setting the pot\nupon it, so that there should be no resemblance to budding, for Rav\nJudah has said, every pile of wood begun from the top to the bottom is\nlawful, from the bottom to the top is unlawful.\u201d (Orach Chaiim, 502.)\nFor this reason very minute directions are given for the performance of\neach of these operations. The fire is to be made in the following\nmanner:\u2014\n\n\u05d4\u05e2\u05d5\u05e9\u05d4 \u05de\u05d3\u05d5\u05e8\u05d4 \u05d1\u05d9\u05d5\u05dd \u05d8\u05d5\u05d1 \u05db\u05e9\u05d4\u05d5\u05d0 \u05e2\u05d5\u05e8\u05da \u05d0\u05ea \u05d4\u05e2\u05e6\u05d9\u05dd \u05d0\u05d9\u05e0\u05d5 \u05de\u05e0\u05d9\u05d7 \u05d6\u05d4 \u05e2\u05dc \u05d6\u05d4 \u05e2\u05d3 \u05e9\u05d9\u05e1\u05d3\u05e8\n\u05d4\u05de\u05e2\u05e8\u05db\u05d4 \u05de\u05e4\u05e0\u05d9 \u05e9\u05e0\u05e8\u05d0\u05d4 \u05db\u05d1\u05d5\u05e0\u05d4 . \u05d5\u05d0\u05e3 \u05e2\u05dc \u05e4\u05d9 \u05e9\u05d4\u05d5\u05d0 \u05d1\u05e0\u05d9\u05df \u05e2\u05e8\u05d0\u05d9 \u05d0\u05e1\u05d5\u05e8 \u05d0\u05dc\u05d0 \u05d0\u05d5 \u05e9\u05d5\u05e4\u05da\n\u05d4\u05e2\u05e6\u05d9\u05dd \u05d1\u05e2\u05e8\u05d1\u05d5\u05d1 \u05d0\u05d5 \u05e2\u05d5\u05e8\u05da \u05d1\u05e9\u05e0\u05d5\u05d9 . \u05db\u05d9\u05e6\u05d3 \u05de\u05e0\u05d9\u05d7 \u05e2\u05e5 \u05dc\u05de\u05e2\u05dc\u05d4 \u05d5\u05de\u05e0\u05d9\u05d7 \u05d0\u05d7\u05e8 \u05ea\u05d7\u05ea\u05d9\u05d5 \u05d5\u05d0\u05d7\u05e8\n\u05ea\u05d7\u05ea\u05d9\u05d5 \u05e2\u05d3 \u05e9\u05d4\u05d5\u05d0 \u05de\u05d2\u05d9\u05e2 \u05dc\u05d0\u05e8\u05e5 \u05c3\n\n\u201cHe that makes a pile of fire on a holy day, when he is arranging the\nwood, is not to lay one piece upon another, so as to make an orderly\narrangement, for that looks as if he were building; and although it be\nan accidental building it is unlawful. But either he is to scatter the\nwood in confusion, or to arrange them with some variation. How so? He is\nto lay one piece at the top, and another piece under it, and another\nunder that, until it reaches the ground.\u201d (Hilchoth Jom. Tov. c. iv.\n14.) In like manner the pot is not to be placed upon stones, or whatever\nelse is to support it, but is to be held up, and the support placed\nunder it; and so with other things. The great principle is, that some\ndifference is to be made between the work done on the holy day and on a\ncommon day, and therefore in the carrying of wine, or wood, or other\nthings, they are not to be carried in a basket, nor as usual, but on the\nshoulder or in some extraordinary way. Now, as the speculations of men\nwho had not much to do, or who chose to devote the powers that God had\ngiven them to such minuti\u00e6, these things hardly appear as harmless; but\nwhen imposed as a burden upon the consciences of others, they are\nutterly unjustifiable, and if they were found in the New Testament, they\nwould furnish abundant matter for Jewish wit and ridicule. They would\nnaturally say, what, is this the religion that the Messiah came to\nteach? Had he nothing better to do than to look after the making of\nfires, and the putting on of pots? But this is not the religion of Jesus\nof Nazareth, nor of his apostles. There is nothing similar in the New\nTestament. This is the religion, and these the laws of those who reject\nhim.\n\nBut this system of minute legislation has another and a worse\nconsequence; it leads to difficulty, and the difficulty leads to\nartifice, and thus the mind, instead of being improved and benefited, is\nactually corrupted by the practice of this rabbinical religion. Thus the\noral law says, that it is unlawful on a holy day to cook food for the\nfollowing day, especially to a common day, but that if any of the food\nremain it is lawful. What is the consequence? Naturally that more food\nis prepared than is necessary for the holy day because they know that\nthis may be eaten the day after. And this is no imaginary deduction of\nours, it is a case propounded most fully, and allowed by the rabbies.\n\n\u05de\u05de\u05dc\u05d0\u05d4 \u05d0\u05e9\u05d4 \u05e7\u05d3\u05d9\u05e8\u05d4 \u05d1\u05e9\u05e8 \u05d0\u05e3 \u05e2\u05dc \u05e4\u05d9 \u05e9\u05d0\u05d9\u05e0\u05d4 \u05e6\u05e8\u05d9\u05db\u05d4 \u05d0\u05dc\u05d0 \u05dc\u05d7\u05ea\u05d9\u05db\u05d4 \u05d0\u05d7\u05ea . \u05de\u05de\u05dc\u05d0 \u05e0\u05d7\u05ea\u05d5\u05dd\n\u05d4\u05d1\u05d9\u05ea \u05e9\u05dc \u05de\u05d9\u05dd \u05d0\u05e3 \u05e2\u05dc \u05e4\u05d9 \u05e9\u05d0\u05d9\u05e0\u05d5 \u05e6\u05e8\u05d9\u05da \u05d0\u05dc\u05d0 \u05dc\u05e7\u05d9\u05ea\u05d5\u05df \u05d0\u05d7\u05d3 . \u05de\u05de\u05dc\u05d0\u05d4 \u05d0\u05e9\u05d4 \u05ea\u05e0\u05d5\u05e8 \u05e4\u05ea \u05d0\u05e3 \u05e2\u05dc\n\u05e4\u05d9 \u05e9\u05d0\u05d9\u05e0\u05d4 \u05e6\u05e8\u05d9\u05db\u05d4 \u05d0\u05dc\u05d0 \u05dc\u05db\u05db\u05e8 \u05d0\u05d7\u05d3 \u05e9\u05d1\u05d6\u05de\u05df \u05e9\u05d4\u05e4\u05ea \u05de\u05e8\u05d5\u05d1\u05d4 \u05d1\u05ea\u05e0\u05d5\u05e8 \u05d4\u05d9\u05d0 \u05e0\u05d0\u05e4\u05ea \u05d9\u05e4\u05d4 . \u05d5\u05de\u05d5\u05dc\u05d7\n\u05d0\u05d3\u05dd \u05db\u05de\u05d4 \u05d7\u05ea\u05d9\u05db\u05d5\u05ea \u05d1\u05e9\u05e8 \u05d1\u05d1\u05ea \u05d0\u05d7\u05ea \u05d0\u05e3 \u05e2\u05dc \u05e4\u05d9 \u05e9\u05d0\u05d9\u05e0\u05d5 \u05e6\u05e8\u05d9\u05da \u05d0\u05dc\u05d0 \u05dc\u05d7\u05ea\u05d9\u05db\u05d4 \u05d0\u05d7\u05ea \u05d5\u05db\u05df \u05db\u05dc\n\u05db\u05d9\u05d5\u05e6\u05d0 \u05d1\u05d6\u05d4 \u05c3\n\n\u201cA woman may fill a pot with meat, though she wants only one piece. A\ncook may fill a boiler with water, though he wants only the least\nquantity. A woman may fill an oven with bread, though she want only one\nloaf, for when the oven is full, the bread bakes better. A man may salt\na great many pieces of meat at once, although he require only one piece;\nand so with similar things.\u201d (Hilchoth Jom. Tov. c. i. 10.) Now this is\nplainly an evasion of what is considered a Divine command. In like\nmanner the oral law forbids the preparing of food for Gentiles.\n\n\u05d0\u05d9\u05df \u05d0\u05d5\u05e4\u05d9\u05df \u05d5\u05de\u05d1\u05e9\u05dc\u05d9\u05df \u05d1\u05d9\u05d5\u05dd \u05d8\u05d5\u05d1 \u05db\u05d3\u05d9 \u05dc\u05d4\u05d0\u05db\u05d9\u05dc \u05d2\u05d5\u05d9\u05dd \u05d0\u05d5 \u05db\u05dc\u05d1\u05d9\u05dd \u05e9\u05e0\u05d0\u05de\u05e8 \u05d4\u05d5\u05d0 \u05dc\u05d1\u05d3\u05d5 \u05d9\u05e2\u05d3\u05d5\n\u05d9\u05e2\u05e9\u05d4 \u05dc\u05db\u05dd \u05dc\u05db\u05dd \u05d5\u05dc \u05dc\u05d2\u05d5\u05d9\u05dd \u05dc\u05db\u05dd \u05d5\u05dc\u05d0 \u05dc\u05db\u05dc\u05d1\u05d9\u05dd \u05c3\n\n\u201cIt is unlawful to bake or to cook on a holy day, in order to feed\nGentiles or dogs; for it is said, \u2018That only may be done for you.\u2019 (Exod\nxii. 16.) \u2018For you,\u2019 and not for Gentiles. \u2018For you,\u2019 and not for dogs.\u201d\n(Ibid.) The principle of this decision may lead to several difficulties:\nfirst, a Jew may have Gentiles in his employ and service whom he boards,\nwhat is he to do then? This difficulty he may get over in the manner\njust mentioned, by having more cooked than he wants, then it is lawful\nfor the Gentile to eat of the surplus. But suppose a Gentile and a Jew\nhad a beast in partnership, and either wished to have it slaughtered on\nthe holy day, is it lawful for a Jew to slaughter it? According to the\nabove decision, it would appear not, for it is preparing food to feed a\nGentile; but the rabbies have found out a reason for evading the\ncommand.\n\n\u05d1\u05d4\u05de\u05d4 \u05e9\u05d7\u05e6\u05d9\u05d4 \u05e9\u05dc \u05d2\u05d5\u05d9 \u05d5\u05d7\u05e6\u05d9\u05d4 \u05e9\u05dc \u05d9\u05e9\u05e8\u05d0\u05dc \u05de\u05d5\u05ea\u05e8 \u05dc\u05e9\u05d7\u05d8\u05d5 \u05d1\u05d9\u05d5\u05dd \u05d8\u05d5\u05d1 \u05e9\u05d0\u05d9 \u05d0\u05e4\u05e9\u05e8 \u05dc\u05d0\u05db\u05d5\u05dc \u05de\u05de\u05e0\u05d4\n\u05db\u05d6\u05d9\u05ea \u05d1\u05e9\u05e8 \u05d1\u05dc\u05d0 \u05e9\u05d7\u05d9\u05d8\u05d4 \u05c3\n\n\u201cA beast which partly belongs to a Gentile and partly to an Israelite,\nmay lawfully be slaughtered on a holy day, for it is impossible to eat\nthe size of an olive of the meat, if it be not slaughtered by a Jew.\u201d\n(Ibid.) This, also, is nothing more nor less than an evasion. But now\nsuppose that a Jew finds on a holy day, and after he has eaten his\nmeals, that a beast belonging to him is likely to die, and that\ntherefore he is likely to lose it altogether, what is he to do? The oral\nlaw lays it down that it is unlawful to slaughter for the following day,\nand yet if it die without slaughtering, it must be totally unlawful to\neat. In this case there is a saving clause which removes the difficulty.\n\n\u05de\u05d9 \u05e9\u05d4\u05d9\u05ea\u05d4 \u05dc\u05d5 \u05d1\u05d4\u05de\u05d4 \u05de\u05e1\u05d5\u05db\u05e0\u05ea \u05dc\u05d0 \u05d9\u05e9\u05d7\u05d5\u05d8 \u05d0\u05d5\u05ea\u05d4 \u05d1\u05d9\u05d5\u05dd \u05d8\u05d5\u05d1 \u05d0\u05dc\u05d0 \u05d0\u05dd \u05db\u05df \u05d9\u05d5\u05d3\u05e2 \u05e9\u05d9\u05d5\u05db\u05dc\n\u05dc\u05d0\u05db\u05d5\u05dc \u05de\u05de\u05e0\u05d4 \u05db\u05d6\u05d9\u05ea \u05e6\u05dc\u05d9 \u05de\u05d1\u05e2\u05d5\u05d3 \u05d9\u05d5\u05dd , \u05db\u05d3\u05d9 \u05d0\u05dc\u05d0 \u05d9\u05e9\u05d7\u05d5\u05d8 \u05d1\u05d9\u05d5\u05dd \u05d8\u05d5\u05d1 \u05de\u05d4 \u05e9\u05d9\u05d0\u05db\u05dc \u05d1\u05d7\u05d5\u05dc \u05c3\n\n\u201cHe that has a beast near unto death must not slaughter it on a holy\nday, unless he knows that he can eat of its flesh the size of an olive,\nroasted, whilst it is still day, that he may not slaughter on a holy day\nwhat is to be eaten on a common day.\u201d (Ibid.) Here the evasion is\npalpable. The man has already eaten his meals, he knows that it is not\nfor the holy day, that it is simply to save himself from loss, and yet\nthe oral law obliges him to be guilty of deceit, and to eat a minute\nparticle of it, that the appearance may be kept up. If it were intended\nmercifully to save the poor from loss, why not make it lawful at once,\nwithout any such condition? Here the mercy of the enactment is quite\ndestroyed by the encouragement of deceit. In the same way the oral law\nforbids open, straightforward buying and selling on a holy day, and yet\nprescribes a method of evasion.\n\n\u05dc\u05d0 \u05d9\u05d0\u05de\u05e8 \u05d0\u05d3\u05dd \u05dc\u05d8\u05d1\u05d7 \u05ea\u05df \u05dc\u05d9 \u05d1\u05d3\u05d9\u05e0\u05e8 \u05d1\u05e9\u05e8 \u05d0\u05dc\u05d0 \u05ea\u05df \u05dc\u05d9 \u05d7\u05dc\u05e7 \u05d0\u05d5 \u05d7\u05e6\u05d9 \u05d7\u05dc\u05e7 \u05d5\u05dc\u05de\u05d7\u05e8 \u05e2\u05d5\u05e9\u05d9\u05df\n\u05d4\u05e9\u05d1\u05d5\u05df \u05d0\u05dc \u05e9\u05d5\u05d5\u05d9\u05d5 \u05c3\n\n\u201cA man must not say to a butcher, Give me meat for so much money, only,\nGive a portion, or half a portion, and on the morrow they settle the\naccount as to its value.\u201d (Ibid. c. iv. 20.)\n\n\u05d4\u05d5\u05dc\u05da \u05d0\u05d3\u05dd \u05d0\u05e6\u05dc \u05d7\u05e0\u05d5\u05e0\u05d9 \u05d0\u05d5 \u05e8\u05d5\u05e2\u05d4 \u05d4\u05e8\u05d2\u05d9\u05dc \u05d0\u05e6\u05dc\u05d5 \u05d0\u05d5 \u05d0\u05e6\u05dc \u05d4\u05e4\u05d8\u05dd \u05d4\u05e8\u05d2\u05d9\u05dc \u05d0\u05e6\u05dc\u05d5 \u05d5\u05dc\u05d5\u05e7\u05d7 \u05de\u05de\u05e0\u05d5\n\u05d1\u05d4\u05de\u05d5\u05ea \u05d5\u05e2\u05d5\u05e4\u05d5\u05ea \u05d5\u05db\u05dc \u05de\u05d4 \u05e9\u05d9\u05e8\u05e6\u05d4 \u05d5\u05d4\u05d5\u05d0 \u05e9\u05dc\u05d0 \u05d9\u05d6\u05db\u05d5\u05e8 \u05dc\u05d5 \u05e9\u05d5\u05dd \u05d3\u05de\u05d9\u05dd \u05d5\u05dc\u05d0 \u05e1\u05db\u05d5\u05dd \u05de\u05e0\u05d9\u05df \u05c3\n\n\u201cA man may go to his accustomed shopkeeper, or shepherd, or grazier, and\ntake from him cattle, fowls, and whatsoever he pleases; only he must not\nmention to him any money, nor any number.\u201d (Ibid.) To take any thing\nfrom a shopkeeper by weight or measure is also forbidden, if it be done\nopenly and honestly, but allowed if it be done cunningly and\ndeceitfully.\n\n\u05d5\u05db\u05df \u05dc\u05d0 \u05d9\u05e7\u05d7 \u05de\u05d1\u05e2\u05dc \u05d4\u05d7\u05e0\u05d5\u05ea \u05d1\u05de\u05d3\u05d4 \u05d0\u05d5 \u05d1\u05de\u05e9\u05e7\u05dc \u05d0\u05dc\u05d0 \u05db\u05d9\u05e6\u05d3 \u05d4\u05d5\u05d0 \u05e2\u05d5\u05e9\u05d4 \u05d0\u05d5\u05de\u05e8 \u05dc\u05d7\u05e0\u05d5\u05e0\u05d9 \u05de\u05dc\u05d0 \u05dc\u05d9\n\u05db\u05dc\u05d9 \u05d6\u05d4 \u05d5\u05dc\u05de\u05d7\u05e8 \u05e0\u05d5\u05ea\u05df \u05dc\u05d5 \u05e9\u05d5\u05d5\u05d9\u05d5 \u05d5\u05d0\u05e4\u05d9\u05dc\u05d5 \u05d4\u05d9\u05d4 \u05db\u05dc\u05d9 \u05d4\u05de\u05d9\u05d5\u05d7\u05d3 \u05dc\u05de\u05d3\u05d4 \u05d9\u05de\u05dc\u05d0\u05e0\u05d5 \u05d5\u05d4\u05d5\u05d0 \u05e9\u05dc\u05d0\n\u05d9\u05d6\u05db\u05d5\u05e8 \u05dc\u05d5 \u05e9\u05dd \u05de\u05d3\u05d4 \u05c3\n\n\u201cAnd thus a man must not take any thing from a shopkeeper by weight or\nmeasure, only let him say to the shopkeeper, Fill this vessel for me;\nand on the morrow he gives him the value. And even though the vessel\nshould be one set apart for the purpose of measuring, he may fill it,\nprovided that the name of a measure be not mentioned.\u201d (Ibid.) In all\nthese cases it is plain that a real transaction of buying and selling\ntakes place, and on the showing of the rabbies themselves, contrary to\nthe Word of God. Those men who would flog a fellow-creature for not\nkeeping their own commandment of a second holy day, make no scruple of\ndevising and prescribing a system of fraudulent evasion of God\u2019s\ncommands. Perhaps some may think that we use too strong language when we\napply the words cunning and deceit to those devices of the oral law, but\nthis language was suggested by the oral law itself, which does not\nscruple to use similar words, and to pronounce that, in similar cases,\ncunning or deceit is lawful.\n\n\u05d0\u05d5\u05ea\u05d5 \u05d5\u05d0\u05ea \u05d1\u05e0\u05d5 \u05e9\u05e0\u05e4\u05dc\u05d5 \u05dc\u05d1\u05d5\u05e8 \u05de\u05e2\u05dc\u05d4 \u05d0\u05ea \u05d4\u05e8\u05d0\u05e9\u05d5\u05df \u05e2\u05dc \u05de\u05e0\u05ea \u05dc\u05e9\u05d7\u05d8\u05d5 \u05d5\u05d0\u05d9\u05e0\u05d5 \u05e9\u05d5\u05d7\u05d8\u05d5 . \u05d5\u05de\u05e2\u05e8\u05d9\u05dd\n\u05d5\u05de\u05e2\u05dc\u05d4 \u05d0\u05ea \u05d4\u05e9\u05e0\u05d9 \u05e2\u05dc \u05de\u05e0\u05ea \u05dc\u05e9\u05d7\u05d8\u05d5 \u05d5\u05e9\u05d5\u05d7\u05d8 \u05d0\u05d9 \u05d6\u05d4 \u05de\u05d4\u05df \u05e9\u05d9\u05e8\u05e6\u05d4 \u05de\u05e9\u05d5\u05dd \u05e6\u05e2\u05e8 \u05d1\u05e2\u05dc\u05d9 \u05d7\u05d9\u05d9\u05dd\n\u05d4\u05ea\u05d9\u05e8\u05d5 \u05dc\u05d4\u05e2\u05e8\u05d9\u05dd \u05c3\n\n\u201cIf a first-born beast and its offspring fall into a pit, the first is\nto be helped out on condition of slaughtering it, but it is not\nslaughtered. Then guile is to be used, and the second also helped out on\ncondition of slaughtering it, and then they slaughter which of the two\nthey please. On account of the affliction of the animals, it has been\npronounced lawful to use guile.\u201d (Ibid. c. ii.) Here the oral law speaks\nplainly, it fairly says that guile may be used. It is no defence to say,\nthat this guile was suggested by compassion for the animals. If it be\nlawful to help the animals out of the pit at all, it is lawful to do it\nwithout any guile, openly and honestly. And if it be unlawful to help\nthem out, it is doubly unlawful to do so through guile and deceit, as if\nGod was ignorant of the thoughts and designs of their hearts, and could\nbe satisfied with false and fictitious conditions. But there is another\ncase, where this same word is also used, and where the excuse of\ncompassion is altogether out of the question.\n\n\u05d4\u05de\u05e4\u05e9\u05d9\u05d8 \u05e2\u05d5\u05e8 \u05d1\u05d4\u05de\u05d4 \u05d1\u05d9\u05d5\u05dd \u05d8\u05d5\u05d1 \u05dc\u05d0 \u05d9\u05de\u05dc\u05d7\u05e0\u05d5 \u05e9\u05d6\u05d4 \u05e2\u05d9\u05d5\u05d3 \u05d4\u05d5\u05d0 \u05d5\u05e0\u05de\u05e6\u05d0 \u05e2\u05d5\u05e9\u05d4 \u05de\u05dc\u05d0\u05db\u05d4 \u05e9\u05dc\u05d0\n\u05dc\u05e6\u05d5\u05e8\u05da \u05d0\u05db\u05d9\u05dc\u05d4 ... \u05d5\u05de\u05d5\u05ea\u05e8 \u05dc\u05de\u05dc\u05d5\u05d7 \u05d1\u05e9\u05e8 \u05dc\u05e6\u05dc\u05d9 \u05e2\u05dc \u05d2\u05d1\u05d9 \u05d4\u05e2\u05d5\u05e8 \u05d5\u05de\u05e2\u05e8\u05d9\u05de\u05d9\u05dd \u05d1\u05d3\u05d1\u05e8 \u05d6\u05d4 . \u05db\u05d9\u05e6\u05d3\n\u05de\u05d5\u05dc\u05d7 \u05de\u05e2\u05d8 \u05d1\u05e9\u05e8 \u05de\u05db\u05d0\u05df \u05d5\u05de\u05e2\u05d8 \u05de\u05db\u05d0\u05df \u05e2\u05d3 \u05e9\u05d9\u05de\u05dc\u05d7 \u05d4\u05e2\u05d5\u05e8 \u05db\u05d5\u05dc\u05d5 \u05c3\n\n\u201cHe that takes off the hide of a beast on a holy day, must not salt it,\nfor this is work, and he would be guilty of doing work that is not\nnecessary for the preparation of food.... But it is lawful to salt meat\nfor roasting on the top of the hide, and in this matter guile is\nemployed. How so? Thus. A little meat is salted on one part, and then a\nlittle on another part, until the whole hide be salted.\u201d (Ibid. c. iii.\n4.) Here no defence whatever can be offered. The oral law confesses that\nto salt a hide is unlawful, its compilers therefore set to work to find\nout a method of doing what was forbidden, and yet have the appearance of\nkeeping the law, and they sagaciously discovered the above solution of\nthe difficulty. Thus the law of God is made null by the traditions of\nmen. The commandments of the Scribes are enforced by flogging and\nexcommunication, but full permission given to violate God\u2019s commands, if\nonly an appearance of obedience can be preserved. No wonder that Jesus\nof Nazareth, whose characteristic is mildness and gentleness, used such\nharsh language to the authors of this system. His general address to\nthem was, \u201cWoe unto you, Scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites.\u201d They\nprofessed the utmost anxiety to have the law of God observed. This was\nthe professed object of their commandments. They were invented as a\nhedge to keep off every Israelite from even an approach to\ntransgression; and they enforced the observance of this defence by the\nseverest punishments. But where the law of God interfered with their\nworldly interest, their profit or their gain, they fearlessly made void\nthe law, and inculcated a system of guile and evasion. And this is\nperhaps the most deadly element in the Talmudic potion. The human heart\nis ever ready to imbibe what is bad, and the human mind most quick in\ngeneralizing the principles of evil. The only efficient remedy for this\ndisease of head and heart is the inculcation of those pure and holy\nprinciples, which God has graciously revealed. But when these principles\nare themselves adulterated, and a system of guileful evasion taught as\nthe religion of Moses and the prophets, what are the results to be\nexpected? The cruel oppression of the poor is bad enough. The enslaving\nthe consciences of the weak is worse; but the corrupting the minds of\nthe simple by such pernicious doctrines, is the worst of all. Yet this\nis the work of the Jewish religion, as taught in the oral law, and as\nrecognized in the prayers of the synagogue. We do not mean to say that\nthere is anything peculiar in the system. We know that the Provincial\nLetters develop a Gentile system as corrupt and corrupting. But that\nsystem has nothing to do with the Christianity of the New Testament. Our\nforefathers renounced it long ago. The Jews still adhere to the oral\nlaw, and in their prayers and observances still acknowledge its Divine\nauthority; and wherever Judaism exists in vigour, these are the\ndoctrines instilled into the minds of the young, and to which the flower\nof the Jewish nation devote the vigour of their manhood and the judgment\nof their old age. That there are Jews who abhor this system, and have\nadopted the purer principles of the New Testament, even though they do\nnot profess Christianity, we well know. But how is it that there are\nnone who have courage to protest against it? How is it that there is not\none who comes forward to emancipate his brethren from moral slavery and\nthe galling chain of superstition and error? \u201cThere is none to guide her\namong all the sons whom she hath brought forth: neither is there any\nthat taketh her by the hand of all the sons that she hath brought up.\u201d\n(Isaiah li. 18.)\n\n\n\n\n                                No. XV.\n                            SABBATH MIXTURE.\n\n\nIn discussing the substance and tendency of the oral law, the very\nnature of our design compels us to dwell upon its peculiarities, and to\nnotice those traits which appear as its essential characteristics. Our\nobject is not, primarily, to show its defects and fruits, but to prove\nthat it is not of Divine authority. In proving this, it is absolutely\nnecessary to show, by a comparison with the law and the prophets, as the\nunerring standard of right and wrong, that the system is bad. We know,\nand have more than once admitted, that as it is not a mere human\ninvention, but a corruption of a divinely revealed religion, it must\ncontain much that is good. But this admission no more justifies the\nsystem, than a small quantity of gold in a mixed metal would prove that\nthe whole mass is gold. And this comparison may be well illustrated by\nthe holy day constitutions, which have lately occupied our attention.\nThe concluding paragraph of these constitutions contains several\nbeautiful and pious precepts; as, for example, after the command to\nrejoice on such days, and to provide nuts and such-like things for the\nchildren, new clothes and ornaments for the women, and good eating and\ndrinking for the men, we read as follows:\u2014\n\n\u05d5\u05db\u05e9\u05d4\u05d5\u05d0 \u05d0\u05d5\u05db\u05dc \u05d5\u05e9\u05d5\u05ea\u05d4 \u05d7\u05d9\u05d9\u05d1 \u05dc\u05d4\u05d0\u05db\u05d9\u05dc \u05dc\u05d2\u05e8 \u05dc\u05d9\u05ea\u05d5\u05dd \u05d5\u05dc\u05d0\u05dc\u05de\u05e0\u05d4 \u05e2\u05dd \u05e9\u05d0\u05e8 \u05d4\u05e2\u05e0\u05d9\u05d9\u05dd \u05d0\u05d1\u05dc \u05de\u05d9\n\u05e9\u05e0\u05d5\u05e2\u05dc \u05d3\u05dc\u05ea\u05d9 \u05d1\u05d9\u05ea\u05d5 \u05d5\u05d0\u05d5\u05db\u05dc \u05d5\u05e9\u05d5\u05ea\u05d4 \u05e2\u05dd \u05d1\u05e0\u05d9\u05d5 \u05d5\u05d0\u05e9\u05ea\u05d5 \u05d5\u05d0\u05d9\u05e0\u05d5 \u05de\u05d0\u05db\u05d9\u05dc \u05d5\u05de\u05e9\u05e7\u05d4 \u05dc\u05e2\u05e0\u05d9\u05d9\u05dd \u05d5\u05dc\u05de\u05e8\u05d9\n\u05e0\u05e4\u05e9 \u05d0\u05d9\u05df \u05d6\u05d5 \u05de\u05e6\u05d5\u05d4 \u05d0\u05dc\u05d0 \u05e9\u05de\u05d7\u05ea \u05db\u05e8\u05e1\u05d5 \u05d5\u05e2\u05dc \u05d0\u05dc\u05d5 \u05e0\u05d0\u05de\u05e8 \u05d6\u05d1\u05d7\u05d9\u05d4\u05dd \u05db\u05dc\u05d7\u05dd \u05d0\u05d5\u05e0\u05d9\u05dd \u05dc\u05d4\u05dd \u05db\u05dc\n\u05d0\u05d5\u05db\u05dc\u05d9\u05d5 \u05d9\u05d8\u05de\u05d0\u05d5 \u05db\u05d9 \u05dc\u05d7\u05de\u05dd \u05dc\u05e0\u05e4\u05e9\u05dd \u05d5\u05d2\u05d5\u05f3 \u05c3\n\n\u201cAnd when he eats and drinks, he is bound to feed the stranger, the\norphan, and the widow, with the other poor. But he that bolts the doors\nof his house, and eats and drinks with his children and his wife, but\ndoes not furnish meat and drink to the poor and afflicted, is not to be\nregarded as having fulfilled the commandment; on the contrary, his joy\nis that of a glutton, and of such persons it is said, \u2018Their sacrifices\nshall be unto them as the bread of mourners; all that eat thereof shall\nbe polluted: for their bread for their soul shall not come into the\nhouse of the Lord.\u2019 (Hos. ix. 4.)\u201d (Arbah Turim, 529.) This makes a\nmerciful provision for the poor, and as teaching all who partake of the\ngood things of this world to remember their poorer brethren, is worthy\nof praise and imitation. We know also that this charity is practised by\nall devout Jews in every part of the world, and that they are on this\naccount entitled to the respect of all who can appreciate benevolence.\nBut the reason why every believer in revelation will approve this\ncommandment is, because it accords with the Word of God. Moses has made\nthis precept a part of his law: \u201cThe stranger, and the fatherless, and\nthe widow, which are within thy gates, shall come, and shall eat and be\nsatisfied; that the Lord thy God may bless thee in all the work of thine\nhand which thou doest.\u201d (Deut. xiv. 29.) And in the New Testament there\nis found a similar command: \u201cWhen thou makest a dinner or a supper, call\nnot thy friends, nor thy brethren, neither thy kinsmen nor thy rich\nneighbours; lest they also bid thee again, and a recompense be made\nthee. But when thou makest a feast, call the poor, the maimed, the lame,\nthe blind; and thou shalt be blessed; for they cannot recompense thee;\nfor thou shalt be recompensed at the resurrection of the just.\u201d (Luke\nxiv. 12-14). But excellent as this rabbinical commandment is in itself,\nit loses considerably when interpreted according to the system. A person\nacquainted only with the law of Moses, or the doctrine of Jesus of\nNazareth, would say, that one of the most lovely features in the command\nis the universal love inculcated towards the stranger as well as the\nIsraelites. But an acquaintance with the oral law would compel him to\nretract this commendation, for there universally the stranger is\ninterpreted to mean, \u201ca proselyte to Judaism,\u201d as for instance\u2014\n\n\u05d0\u05d4\u05d1\u05ea \u05d4\u05d2\u05e8 \u05e9\u05d1\u05d0 \u05d5\u05e0\u05db\u05e0\u05e1 \u05ea\u05d7\u05ea \u05db\u05e0\u05e4\u05d9 \u05d4\u05e9\u05db\u05d9\u05e0\u05d4 \u05e9\u05ea\u05d9 \u05de\u05e6\u05d5\u05d5\u05ea \u05e2\u05e9\u05d4 , \u05d0\u05d7\u05ea \u05de\u05e4\u05e0\u05d9 \u05e9\u05d4\u05d5\u05d0 \u05d1\u05db\u05dc\u05dc\n\u05e8\u05e2\u05d9\u05dd , \u05d5\u05d0\u05d7\u05ea \u05de\u05e4\u05e0\u05d9 \u05e9\u05d4\u05d5\u05d0 \u05d2\u05e8 \u05d5\u05d4\u05ea\u05d5\u05e8\u05d4 \u05d0\u05de\u05e8\u05d4 \u05d5\u05d0\u05d4\u05d1\u05ea\u05dd \u05d0\u05ea \u05d4\u05d2\u05e8 \u05c3\n\n\u201cTo love the stranger who comes, and is gathered under the wings of the\nShechinah, is to fulfil two affirmative precepts; one, because he is\nincluded in the number of those considered \u2018neighbours,\u2019 and a second,\nbecause the law says, \u2018Ye shall love the stranger.\u2019\u201d (Hilchoth Deoth, c.\nvi. 4.) Here, then, that comprehensive word \u201cstranger\u201d is narrowed down\nto the signification \u201creligious proselyte,\u201d and abundance of similar\npassages have already been given in Nos. 4 and 5. But even with this\ngreat drawback we admit that there is much to be commended in the above\ncommandment. We are quite willing to recognize all the good which we\ncan, and therefore add another passage or two which deserve notice.\n\n\u05de\u05d3\u05ea \u05d4\u05d7\u05e1\u05d9\u05d3\u05d9\u05dd \u05d0\u05e9\u05e8 \u05d4\u05e9\u05dd \u05dc\u05e0\u05d2\u05d3\u05dd \u05ea\u05de\u05d9\u05d3 \u05d5\u05d1\u05db\u05dc \u05d3\u05e8\u05db\u05d9\u05d4\u05dd \u05d9\u05d3\u05e2\u05d5\u05d4\u05d5 \u05d1\u05e2\u05ea \u05e9\u05de\u05d7\u05ea\u05dd \u05d0\u05d6 \u05d9\u05d5\u05ea\u05e8\n\u05d5\u05d9\u05d5\u05ea\u05e8 \u05de\u05d1\u05e8\u05db\u05d9\u05dd \u05d5\u05de\u05e9\u05d1\u05d7\u05d9\u05dd \u05dc\u05d4\u05e7\u05d1\u05f3\u05f3\u05d4 \u05d0\u05e9\u05e8 \u05e9\u05de\u05d7\u05dd . \u05d5\u05d9\u05d0\u05de\u05e8 \u05d4\u05d0\u05d3\u05dd \u05d1\u05dc\u05d1\u05d5 \u05d1\u05e2\u05ea \u05e9\u05de\u05d7\u05ea\u05d5 \u05d5\u05d4\u05e0\u05d0\u05ea\u05d5\n\u05d0\u05dd \u05db\u05da \u05d4\u05d9\u05d0 \u05e9\u05de\u05d7\u05ea \u05d4\u05e2\u05d5\u05dc\u05dd \u05d4\u05d6\u05d4 \u05d0\u05e9\u05e8 \u05d4\u05d5\u05d0 \u05d4\u05d1\u05dc \u05db\u05d9 \u05d9\u05e9 \u05d0\u05d7\u05e8\u05d9\u05dd \u05ea\u05d5\u05d2\u05d4 \u05d5\u05e6\u05e2\u05e8 \u05d0\u05dd \u05db\u05df \u05de\u05d4 \u05ea\u05d4\u05d9\u05d4\n\u05e9\u05de\u05d7\u05ea \u05d4\u05e2\u05d4\u05f3\u05f3\u05d1 \u05d4\u05ea\u05de\u05d9\u05d3\u05d4 \u05e9\u05d0\u05d9\u05df \u05d0\u05d7\u05e8\u05d9\u05d4 \u05ea\u05d5\u05d2\u05d4 \u05c3\n\n\u201cIt is a characteristic of the pious, who set the Lord always before\nthem, and in all their ways acknowledge him, that in the time of their\njoy they multiply still more the blessings and praises of the Holy One,\nblessed be He, who makes them to rejoice. At such a season, too, a man\nought to think, if such be the joy of this world, which is vanity, for\nit is followed by sorrow and trouble, what will be the joy of the world\nto come, which is everlasting, and to which no sorrow can succeed.\u201d\n(Arbah Turim, ibid.) This passage also, as resting upon the\nunsophisticated Word of God, must receive unqualified assent. The\ncharacter of the pious is here beautifully described by the union of two\npassages of Scripture. They are those \u201cwho set the Lord always before\nthem,\u201d (Ps. xvi. 8,) and who \u201cin all their ways acknowledge him.\u201d (Prov.\niii. 6.) God grant that all, both Jews and Christians, may earnestly\nendeavour to realize this character. The piety of this passage is\nequalled by the prudence of one of their police regulations for the\nthree great feasts.\n\n\u05d7\u05d9\u05d9\u05d1\u05d9\u05df \u05d1\u05f3\u05f3\u05d3 \u05dc\u05d4\u05e2\u05de\u05d9\u05d3 \u05e9\u05d5\u05d8\u05e8\u05d9\u05dd \u05d1\u05e8\u05d2\u05dc\u05d9\u05dd \u05e9\u05d9\u05d4\u05d9\u05d5 \u05e9\u05d5\u05d8\u05d8\u05d9\u05dd \u05d5\u05de\u05d7\u05e4\u05e9\u05d9\u05dd \u05d1\u05d2\u05e0\u05d5\u05ea \u05d5\u05e4\u05e8\u05d3\u05e1\u05d9\u05dd \u05d5\u05e2\u05dc\n\u05d4\u05e0\u05d4\u05e8\u05d5\u05ea \u05e9\u05dc\u05d0 \u05d9\u05ea\u05e7\u05d1\u05e6\u05d5 \u05e9\u05dd \u05dc\u05d0\u05db\u05d5\u05dc \u05d5\u05dc\u05e9\u05ea\u05d5\u05ea \u05d0\u05e0\u05e9\u05d9\u05dd \u05d5\u05e0\u05e9\u05d9\u05dd \u05d5\u05d9\u05d1\u05d5\u05d0\u05d5 \u05dc\u05d9\u05d3\u05d9 \u05e2\u05d1\u05d9\u05e8\u05d4 \u05c3\n\n\u201cThe tribunal is bound, at the three feasts, to appoint officers for the\npurpose of going about and inspecting gardens, and parks, and rivers,\nthat men and women may not congregate in such places to eat and drink,\nand be led to commit sin.\u201d If the authors of the oral law had confined\nthemselves to such commandments as these, there would be but little to\nblame. But unfortunately the good and useful precepts bear but a small\nproportion to the whole, and are often directly counteracted by the\npeculiar principles of the system. The above general description of\npiety is unexceptionable, but the detail of the requirements, even for\nthe holy day alone, is such as must effectually pervert and distort the\nfeatures there delineated. How can a man have a just idea of setting the\nLord always before him, who thinks that a cunning evasion of God\u2019s\ncommandments is permitted, as was shown in the last number? Or how can a\nman be said to acknowledge God, when his mind is filled and occupied\nwith the manifold and perplexing ceremonies of man\u2019s institution? Of\nthese inventions many have already been given, but more remain, and the\nJewish Prayer-book for the passover especially reminds us of one.\n\n\u05d3\u05d9\u05e0\u05d9 \u05e2\u05d9\u05e8\u05d5\u05d1 \u05ea\u05d1\u05e9\u05d9\u05dc\u05d9\u05df \u05c3\n\n\u201cThe laws of the mixture for the cooking of victuals.\u201d This oral law has\nmade it unlawful on the holy day to prepare food for the Sabbath.\n\n\u05d9\u05d5\u05dd \u05d8\u05d5\u05d1 \u05e9\u05d7\u05dc \u05dc\u05d4\u05d9\u05d5\u05ea \u05e2\u05e8\u05d1 \u05e9\u05d1\u05ea \u05d0\u05d9\u05df \u05d0\u05d5\u05e4\u05d9\u05df \u05d5\u05de\u05d1\u05e9\u05dc\u05d9\u05df \u05d1\u05d9\u05d5\u05dd \u05d8\u05d5\u05d1 \u05de\u05d4 \u05e9\u05d4\u05d5\u05d0 \u05d0\u05d5\u05db\u05dc \u05dc\u05de\u05d7\u05e8\n\u05d1\u05e9\u05d1\u05ea \u05c3\n\n\u201cWhen a holy day falls on the eve of the Sabbath, it is unlawful to bake\nor to cook on that day what is to be eaten on the morrow, _i.e._ on the\nSabbath.\u201d (Hilchoth Jom. Tov. c. vi. 1.) This law may of course create a\ngreat inconvenience, for if nothing remains after the meals of the holy\nday, there will be no food for the Sabbath, and on that day the law of\nMoses forbids all cooking. And, strange to say, the evasion which is\nallowed at other times is here forbidden. A man is not permitted to cook\na surplus of victuals under the pretence that it is for the holy day.\nAnother and more solemn mode of evasion has been invented, and is thus\nprescribed in the Jewish Prayer-book\u2014\n\n\u05d0\u05dd \u05d7\u05dc \u05e2\u05e8\u05d1 \u05e4\u05e1\u05d7 \u05d1\u05d9\u05d5\u05dd \u05d3\u05f3 \u05d0\u05d6 \u05e6\u05e8\u05d9\u05db\u05d9\u05df \u05dc\u05e2\u05e9\u05d5\u05ea \u05e2\u05e8\u05d5\u05d1 \u05ea\u05d1\u05e9\u05d9\u05dc\u05d9\u05df \u05e7\u05e8\u05d3\u05dd \u05d9\u05f3\u05f3\u05d8 . \u05d5\u05db\u05da \u05de\u05e2\u05e9\u05d4\u05d5\n. \u05dc\u05d5\u05e7\u05d7\u05d9\u05df \u05de\u05e6\u05d4 \u05e9\u05dc\u05d9\u05de\u05d4 \u05d5\u05db\u05d6\u05d9\u05ea \u05ea\u05d1\u05e9\u05d9\u05dc \u05d0\u05d5 \u05d1\u05e9\u05e8 \u05d0\u05d5 \u05d1\u05d9\u05e6\u05d4 \u05e6\u05dc\u05d5\u05d9\u05d4 \u05d5\u05de\u05e0\u05d9\u05d7\u05d9\u05df \u05d0\u05d5\u05ea\u05d4 \u05e2\u05dc \u05d4\u05de\u05e6\u05d4\n. \u05d5\u05d1\u05e2\u05dc \u05d4\u05d1\u05d9\u05ea \u05d5\u05db\u05d5\u05f3 \u05c3\n\nOf which D. Levi gives the following translation, which though not very\nliteral, is preferable to a new one, as occurring in an authorized\nedition of the Jewish prayers:\u2014\n\n\u201cIf the first day of the festival happens on the Thursday, the following\nceremony is observed. On the day preceding the festival, the master of\nevery family takes a whole cake and a piece of meat, fish, or a roasted\negg; and having delivered them to one standing by, to denote that all\nthe other Jews in the city that may have forgotten to make the mixture\nshall, nevertheless, have the benefit of the said mixture, so as to be\nable to prepare on the festival what is necessary for the Sabbath, he\nthen says the following:\u2014\n\n\u05d1\u05e8\u05d5\u05da \u05d0\u05ea\u05d4 \u05d9\u05d9 \u05d0\u05dc\u05d4\u05d9\u05e0\u05d5 \u05de\u05dc\u05da \u05d4\u05e2\u05d5\u05dc\u05dd \u05d0\u05e9\u05e8 \u05e7\u05d3\u05e9\u05e0\u05d5 \u05d1\u05de\u05e6\u05d5\u05ea\u05d9\u05d5 \u05d5\u05e6\u05d5\u05e0\u05d5 \u05e2\u05dc \u05de\u05e6\u05d5\u05ea \u05e2\u05e8\u05d5\u05d1 \u05c3\n\n\u05d1\u05d4\u05d3\u05d9\u05df \u05e2\u05e8\u05d5\u05d1\u05d0 \u05d9\u05d4\u05d0 \u05e9\u05e8\u05d9 \u05dc\u05e0\u05d0 \u05dc\u05de\u05d9\u05e4\u05d0 \u05d5\u05dc\u05d1\u05e9\u05dc\u05d0 \u05d5\u05dc\u05d0\u05d8\u05de\u05e0\u05d0 \u05d5\u05dc\u05d0\u05d3\u05dc\u05e7\u05d0 \u05e9\u05e8\u05d2\u05d0 \u05d5\u05dc\u05de\u05e2\u05d1\u05d3 \u05db\u05dc\n\u05e6\u05e8\u05db\u05e0\u05d0 \u05de\u05d9\u05d5\u05de\u05d0 \u05d8\u05d1\u05d0 \u05dc\u05e9\u05d1\u05ea\u05d0 . \u05dc\u05e0\u05d5 \u05d5\u05dc\u05db\u05dc \u05d9\u05e9\u05e8\u05d0\u05dc \u05d4\u05d3\u05e8\u05d9\u05dd \u05d1\u05e2\u05d9\u05e8 \u05d4\u05d6\u05d0\u05ea \u05c3\n\n\u201cBlessed art thou, O Lord, our God! King of the universe, who has\nsanctified us with thy commandments, and commanded us concerning the\nmixture.\u201d\n\n\u201cBy this mixture it shall be allowable for us to bake, boil, and to keep\nthe victuals warm: to light up lights, and to do, and prepare all things\nnecessary, on the festival for the Sabbath; we, and all Israel that\ndwell in this city.\u201d (Levi\u2019s Prayers, vol. v. pp. 4, 5.) Now, against\nthis ceremony several and serious objections may be made. First, if it\nbe absolutely unlawful on the holy day to cook for the Sabbath-day, how\nis the unlawfulness removed, by going through a trifling ceremony, and\nrepeating a few words? The cooking is, in the sight of God, either\nlawful or unlawful. If lawful, then this ceremony is utterly useless,\nand the solemn calling upon God is only a solemn profanation. If\nunlawful, then nothing but a dispensation from Israel\u2019s great lawgiver,\nGod himself, can make it lawful. Any thing short of this must, by every\nhonest man, be regarded either as an evasion, or a bold and wilful\ntransgression. Secondly, the unlawfulness on which this ceremony is\nfounded, is altogether of man\u2019s making\u2014God has nowhere forbidden the\nJews to prepare for Sabbath on the holy day. The Scribes have here as\nelsewhere dared to add to the law of God.\n\n\u05d5\u05d0\u05d9\u05e1\u05e8 \u05d6\u05d4 \u05de\u05d3\u05d1\u05e8\u05d9 \u05e1\u05d5\u05e4\u05e8\u05d9\u05dd \u05db\u05d3\u05d9 \u05e9\u05dc\u05d0 \u05d9\u05d1\u05d5\u05d0 \u05dc\u05d1\u05e9\u05dc \u05de\u05d9\u05d5\u05dd \u05d8\u05d5\u05d1 \u05dc\u05d7\u05d5\u05dc . \u05e9\u05e7\u05dc \u05d5\u05d7\u05d5\u05de\u05e8 \u05d4\u05d5\u05d0\n\u05dc\u05e9\u05d1\u05ea \u05d0\u05d9\u05e0\u05d5 \u05de\u05d1\u05e9\u05dc \u05db\u05dc \u05e9\u05db\u05df \u05dc\u05d7\u05d5\u05dc \u05c3\n\n\u201cThis prohibition is of the words of the Scribes, that a man may not be\nled to prepare on a holy day for a common day. For if he feel it\nunlawful to cook for Sabbath, still more will he feel this for a common\nday.\u201d (Hilchoth Jom. Tov. vi. 1.) Here it is plainly confessed that the\nprohibition is not from God but from man. A reason is assigned for this\naddition, which is unsatisfactory, and shows that the Scribes thought\nthe law imperfect, and themselves wiser than God. They were afraid, if\nmen got into a habit of cooking on the holy day for the following day,\nwhen that day was the Sabbath, they might get into the habit of cooking\ngenerally for the following day, and thus cook for common days. But did\nnot God foresee this possibility, and know the frailty of human nature\njust as well as the rabbies? why then did he not take this precaution\nhimself? If this precaution be absolutely necessary, as it was not given\nby God, it will necessarily follow that God did not give that which was\nnecessary, and therefore that the law of God was imperfect until it was\nmended by the rabbies. If the law, as given by God, be perfect, and who\ncan deny it without blasphemy, then this precaution of the rabbies is\nuseless, and they are proved guilty of making additions to the law of\nGod, and of imposing needless burdens on the consciences of their\nbrethren. If this ceremony were left to the free will of every\nindividual, it would be very different, but it is imposed as an\nindispensable duty, and a man pronounced a sinner if he does not comply.\n\n\u05de\u05d9 \u05e9\u05d0\u05d9\u05e4\u05e9\u05e8 \u05dc\u05d5 \u05dc\u05e2\u05e8\u05d1 \u05d5\u05d0\u05d9\u05e0\u05d5 \u05de\u05e2\u05e8\u05d1 \u05d0\u05dc\u05d0 \u05e9\u05e8\u05d5\u05e6\u05d4 \u05dc\u05e1\u05de\u05d5\u05da \u05e2\u05dc \u05e2\u05d9\u05e8\u05d5\u05d1\u05d5 \u05e9\u05dc \u05d2\u05d3\u05d5\u05dc \u05d4\u05e2\u05d9\u05e8 \u05e0\u05e7\u05e8\u05d0\n\u05e4\u05d5\u05e9\u05e2 \u05d5\u05d0\u05d9\u05e0\u05d5 \u05d9\u05d5\u05e6\u05d0 \u05d1\u05d5 \u05c3\n\n\u201cHe who can make the mixture, and does not, but chooses to depend on the\nmixture made by the great men of the city, is called a sinner, and has\nnot fulfilled his duty.\u201d (Arbah Turim, 527.) Here then his conscience is\nburdened, but further, he may be exposed to considerable inconvenience,\nto escape from which he is driven again to a prescribed exercise of\nartifice and guile.\n\n\u05de\u05d9 \u05e9\u05dc\u05d0 \u05d4\u05e0\u05d9\u05d7 \u05e2\u05d9\u05e8\u05d5\u05d1 \u05ea\u05d1\u05e9\u05d9\u05dc\u05d9\u05df \u05d5\u05dc\u05d0 \u05d4\u05e0\u05d9\u05d7\u05d5 \u05dc\u05d5 \u05d0\u05d7\u05e8\u05d9\u05dd \u05db\u05e9\u05dd \u05e9\u05d0\u05e1\u05d5\u05e8 \u05dc\u05d5 \u05dc\u05d1\u05e9\u05dc \u05d5\u05dc\u05d0\u05e4\u05d5\u05ea \u05db\u05da\n\u05e7\u05de\u05d7\u05d5 \u05d5\u05de\u05d0\u05db\u05dc\u05d5 \u05d0\u05e1\u05d5\u05e8 . \u05d5\u05d0\u05e1\u05d5\u05e8 \u05dc\u05d0\u05d7\u05e8 \u05e9\u05d4\u05e0\u05d9\u05d7 \u05dc\u05e2\u05e6\u05de\u05d5 \u05dc\u05d1\u05e9\u05dc \u05d5\u05dc\u05d0\u05e4\u05d5\u05ea \u05dc\u05d6\u05d4 \u05e9\u05dc\u05d0 \u05d4\u05e0\u05d9\u05d7 \u05e2\u05d3\n\u05e9\u05d9\u05e7\u05e0\u05d4 \u05dc\u05d5 . \u05e9\u05e0\u05de\u05e6\u05d0 \u05d6\u05d4 \u05de\u05d1\u05e9\u05dc \u05d5\u05d0\u05d5\u05e4\u05d4 \u05e9\u05dc\u05d5 \u05e9\u05d4\u05e8\u05d9 \u05e7\u05e0\u05d4\u05d5 \u05d5\u05d0\u05dd \u05e8\u05e6\u05d4 \u05d9\u05ea\u05df \u05d0\u05d7\u05e8 \u05db\u05da \u05dc\u05d6\u05d4 \u05e9\u05dc\u05d0\n\u05d4\u05e0\u05d9\u05d7 \u05d1\u05de\u05ea\u05e0\u05d4 \u05c3\n\n\u201cHe that has not performed the ceremony of the mixture for himself, and\nfor whom others have not done it, as it is unlawful for him to boil or\nto bake, so his flour and food are unlawful; and it is unlawful for\nanother, who has performed the ceremony for himself, to boil and bake\nfor such an one until he buy for himself. Then he may boil and bake of\nhis own, for he has bought it, and if he please may make a present of it\nto the other.\u201d Here of course the purchase is fictitious. In like manner\nit is unlawful for him to light the Sabbath candle. This would be a\ngreat misfortune, and a learned rabbi has accordingly found out a remedy\nof the same kind.\n\n\u05db\u05ea\u05d1 \u05d4\u05e8\u05f3 \u05de\u05d0\u05d9\u05e8 \u05de\u05e8\u05d5\u05d8\u05e0\u05d1\u05d5\u05e8\u05e7 \u05e9\u05d9\u05db\u05d5\u05dc \u05dc\u05d7\u05e4\u05e9 \u05d1\u05d7\u05d3\u05e8 \u05e9\u05d5\u05dd \u05d7\u05e4\u05e5 \u05d1\u05e0\u05e8 \u05d0\u05e4\u05d9\u05dc\u05d5 \u05de\u05d1\u05e2\u05d5\u05d3 \u05d9\u05d5\u05dd\n\u05d5\u05dc\u05d4\u05e0\u05d9\u05d7\u05e0\u05d5 \u05d3\u05d5\u05dc\u05e7 \u05e2\u05d3 \u05d4\u05dc\u05d9\u05dc\u05d4 \u05c3\n\n\u201cRabbi Meyer, of Rothenburg, has said in his writings, that a man may\nseek for something in the room by the light of a candle, yea though it\nbe still day, and then leave it lighting until night.\u201d (Arbah Turim,\n527.) We ask the Jews seriously to consider this specimen of rabbinical\nwisdom and conscientiousness. A man who has not performed the ceremony\nof the mixture dare not do what God has allowed him to do, he dare not\nlight the candle for Sabbath, that is, if he does it honestly and\nopenly, he would, according to the oral law, commit a sin. But then he\nmay do this same thing by using guile and deceit, which God has\nforbidden, and then according to these same teachers, the act is lawful.\nHe may light a candle under pretence of searching for something, even\nthough he has the daylight, and therefore evidently does not want it for\nthat purpose, and then he can leave it lighting. Thus the oral law\nteaches that the neglect of a mere human invention is a greater sin than\nguile and deceit. Is not this to strain at a gnat and to swallow a\ncamel? But some Rabbinist may say, if the oral law encourages guile and\ndeceit, why does it forbid the employment or guile in the preparation of\nfood for the Sabbath, as has been stated above? This is a curious point,\nand deserves attention. The oral law says, if food be left after the\nmeals of the holy day, it is lawful to eat it on the Sabbath, provided\nthat no guile be used; but if guile be used, it is unlawful. Whereas, if\na man wilfully neglect the ceremony of the mixture, and cook\nnotwithstanding for the Sabbath he may lawfully eat what he has\nprepared. This has at first sight, the appearance of wishing to\ndiscourage guile, but the reasons, given for this decision, show that\nthis is far from being the case.\n\n\u05d5\u05dc\u05de\u05d4 \u05d4\u05d7\u05de\u05d9\u05e8\u05d5 \u05d5\u05d0\u05e1\u05e8\u05d5 \u05e2\u05dc \u05d4\u05de\u05e2\u05e8\u05d9\u05dd \u05d5\u05dc\u05d0 \u05d0\u05e1\u05e8\u05d5 \u05e2\u05dc \u05d4\u05de\u05d6\u05d9\u05d3 \u05e9\u05d0\u05dd \u05d4\u05ea\u05d9\u05e8\u05d5 \u05dc\u05de\u05e2\u05e8\u05d9\u05dd \u05e0\u05de\u05e6\u05d0\u05d5 \u05d4\u05db\u05dc\n\u05de\u05e2\u05e8\u05d9\u05de\u05d9\u05d5 \u05d5\u05d9\u05e9\u05ea\u05e7\u05e2 \u05e9\u05dd \u05e2\u05e8\u05d5\u05d1\u05d9 \u05ea\u05d1\u05e9\u05d9\u05dc\u05d9\u05df . \u05d0\u05d1\u05dc \u05d4\u05de\u05d6\u05d9\u05d3 \u05d0\u05d9\u05e0\u05d5 \u05de\u05e6\u05d5\u05d9 \u05d5\u05d0\u05dd \u05e2\u05d1\u05e8 \u05d4\u05d9\u05d5\u05dd \u05dc\u05d0\n\u05d9\u05e2\u05d1\u05d5\u05e8 \u05e4\u05e2\u05dd \u05d0\u05d7\u05e8\u05ea \u05c3\n\n\u201cWhat is the reason that they were more severe upon him that used guile\nthan upon the wilful transgressor, and made it unlawful for the former,\nbut not for the latter? The reason is this, if they had pronounced it\nlawful for him that uses guile, all would use guile, and the very name\nof mixture for food would perish. On the other hand, a wilful\ntransgressor is rare, and if he transgresses to-day, he will not\ntransgress again.\u201d The employment of guile, then, is not forbidden\nbecause it is odious in the sight of God and man, but simply from the\nfear that it might operate prejudicially upon the observance of a\nrabbinic command. Such is and must be the effect of multiplying\nreligious ceremonies, and imposing them upon the conscience as necessary\nto salvation. The conscience becomes burdened, and beset with\ndifficulties, and is glad of any refuge or relief, even though it should\nbe derived from artifice and deceit. Artifice is at last made lawful, or\neven prescribed, as we have seen in many instances, and then religion,\nwhich God intended as a remedy for our moral disease, becomes itself a\nnew source of infection. But if any burdened conscience should awake and\nbecome sensible of the cheat that has been put upon it by the oral law,\nthe probability is that it will cast off religion altogether, and\nmistake Moses too for a companion or the Scribes and Pharisees; and thus\nmany a rabbinical Jew has been led to utter infidelity.\n\nBut there is still a third objection to be urged against this ceremony\nof the mixture, and that is, that it prescribes a form of thanksgiving\nto God for appointing that which he never appointed: \u201cBlessed art thou,\nO Lord our God! King of the universe! who has sanctified us with thy\ncommandments, and commanded us concerning the mixture.\u201d Where has God\ncommanded the mixture? Where, from one end of the law to the other, or\nin the prophets, is there one word about this ceremony? It is from first\nto last a pure invention of the Scribes. God never appointed it. This\nprayer, then, contains a positive untruth, and thus the ignorant and\nunlearned are deceived, and taught even in the solemn act of public\nworship to believe that God has commanded what he never commanded. The\nminds of children, too, are thus imbued with the commandments of men,\nand taught in the language of prayer to stamp the divine authority upon\nthe invention of the Scribes and Pharisees. And this is done not only in\nthe forests of Poland, or on the uncivilized coasts of Barbary, but here\nin England. This ceremony and this prayer are prescribed in the two\neditions of the Jewish prayer-book, published by Levi and Alexander. In\nthis country, where full liberty of conscience prevails, the language of\nthe synagogue is just the same as in the darkest and most oppressed\nregions of the habitable globe. The Jewish children are still taught to\nbless God for giving what he never gave, and the sacred voice of prayer\nstill consecrates the intolerance, the errors, and the absurdities of\nthe oral law. In other countries, where the circumstances were not so\nfavourable, the Jews have made more than one attempt to renounce and\nrepudiate the errors of the Talmud. But in England, whether from\nlistlessness or from a love to these Talmudic doctrines, we do not\npresume to say, nothing has been done either by the German or the\nPortuguese Jews. In England the Talmud still maintains its empire of\nerror and uncharitableness, and spiritual tyranny, and not one\nindividual has dared publicly to protest against it. We ask the Jews\nseriously to consider this matter, and to compare the extracts which we\ngive with Moses and the prophets; if the oral law agrees with that which\nis confessedly the Word of God, then we beg of them to explain the\nlawfulness of using guile, of inventing new commandments, and enforcing\nthem with the severest punishments. But if they decide that these things\nare altogether forbidden by God, then we call upon them to protest aloud\nagainst these adulterations of revealed truth.\n\n\n\n\n                              No. XVI.[17]\n                    INTOLERANCE OF RABBINIC PRAYERS.\n\n\nIn our last number we ventured to say, that in the English synagogues\n\u201cThe sacred voice of prayer still consecrates the intolerance, the\nerrors, and the absurdities of the oral law;\u201d and we gave an instance in\nproof of our assertion. But to some Israelites, who have overlooked the\ncontents of their Prayer-book, this assertion may require more proof; we\ntherefore, proceed to give it, and first of all with regard to\nintolerance. In the ceremonial for the first two evenings of the\nPassover, in the midst of the rejoicings and thanksgivings, which the\nmemory of their great deliverance naturally calls forth, we suddenly\nfind the following prayer:\u2014\n\n\u05e9\u05e4\u05d5\u05da \u05d7\u05de\u05ea\u05da \u05d0\u05dc \u05d4\u05d2\u05d5\u05d9\u05dd \u05d0\u05e9\u05e8 \u05dc\u05d0 \u05d9\u05d3\u05e2\u05d5\u05da \u05d5\u05d0\u05dc \u05de\u05de\u05dc\u05db\u05d5\u05ea \u05d0\u05e9\u05e8 \u05d1\u05e9\u05de\u05da \u05dc\u05d0 \u05e7\u05e8\u05d0\u05d5 . \u05db\u05d9 \u05d0\u05db\u05dc \u05d0\u05ea\n\u05d9\u05e2\u05e7\u05d1 \u05d5\u05d0\u05ea \u05e0\u05d5\u05d4\u05d5 \u05d4\u05e9\u05de\u05d5 . \u05e9\u05e4\u05d5\u05da \u05e2\u05dc\u05d9\u05d4\u05dd \u05d6\u05e2\u05de\u05da \u05d5\u05d7\u05e8\u05d5\u05df \u05d0\u05e4\u05da \u05d9\u05e9\u05d9\u05d2\u05dd . \u05ea\u05e8\u05d3\u05e3 \u05d1\u05d0\u05e3 \u05d5\u05ea\u05e9\u05de\u05d9\u05d3\u05dd\n\u05de\u05ea\u05d7\u05ea \u05e9\u05de\u05d9 \u05d4\u05f3 \u05c3\n\n\u201cPour out thy wrath upon the heathen that have not known thee, and upon\nthe kingdoms that have not called upon thy name. For they have devoured\nJacob, and laid waste his dwelling place. (Psalm lxxix. 6, 7.) Pour out\nthine indignation upon them, and let thy wrathful anger take hold of\nthem. (Psalm lxix. 24.) Persecute them in anger, and destroy them from\nunder the heavens of the Lord.\u201d (Lament. iii. 66.) Here are three\npassages of Scripture, taken from their context, and joined together to\nmake one prayer. In their context, and with reference to the times for\nwhich those portions of Scripture were given by God, they are\nintelligible. After the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans, whilst\nthe Jewish mind was still in a state of violent excitement against the\nauthors of that calamity, such on imprecation may appear natural. During\nthe persecutions of the Crusaders or the Inquisition it might be\nexcusable, but in the present time and circumstances it is indefensible.\nWho are the heathen and the kingdoms, whom the offerers of these\npetitions wish to be pursued with God\u2019s wrath, and to be destroyed from\nunder the heavens? Are they the Christians, or the heathen idolaters of\nAfrica and India? The Mahometans profess a faith in the Unity very\nsimilar to that of the later rabbies: they, therefore, cannot be\nintended. If it be said that the idolatrous heathen are here intended,\nwe must still protest against the intolerance of this imprecation; why\nshould the Jews wish for their destruction? What evil did these poor\nignorant people ever do to the Jews in England, that they should pray\nfor their destruction rather than their conversion? If it be said, that\nnobody at all is intended in the present day, why, we would ask, is it\nstill made a part of the Passover ceremonial? We have before us several\ncopies of the Haggadah, some printed very lately, and it occurs in them\nall.\n\nIf this were the only passage of the kind to be found in the liturgies\nof the synagogue, it might perhaps admit of palliation or excuse, but it\nis only one of a similar class, all breathing the same spirit. In the\nmorning service for the second day of the Passover, as translated by D.\nLevi, we find another more fearful still.\n\n\u05d1\u05e8\u05d7 \u05d3\u05d5\u05d3\u05d9 \u05d0\u05dc \u05dc\u05d1\u05da \u05d5\u05e2\u05d9\u05e0\u05d9\u05da \u05e9\u05dd , \u05d5\u05d0\u05dd \u05d6\u05e0\u05d7\u05e0\u05d5 \u05d8\u05d5\u05d1 \u05de\u05d3\u05e9\u05dd , \u05d0\u05e0\u05d0 \u05e9\u05de\u05e2 \u05e9\u05d0\u05e0\u05ea \u05e7\u05d5\u05dc \u05e6\u05d5\u05e8\u05e8\u05d9\u05da\n, \u05e8\u05d5\u05d4 \u05de\u05d3\u05dd \u05d2\u05d5\u05e9\u05dd , \u05d5\u05e2\u05e4\u05e8\u05dd \u05de\u05d7\u05dc\u05d1 \u05d9\u05d3\u05e9\u05dd , \u05d5\u05e4\u05d2\u05d9\u05d4\u05dd \u05d9\u05e2\u05dc\u05d4 \u05d1\u05d0\u05e9\u05dd \u05c3\n\n\u201cHasten, O my beloved, to where thy heart and eyes are; and though we\nhave cast off that that is good and pleasant, yet hear the roaring\nraging voice of those that oppress thy people; satiate the clods with\ntheir blood; manure the earth with their fat; and let the stench of\ntheir carcasses ascend.\u201d (Levi\u2019s Prayers, vol. 5, fol. 142.) The\ntranslation is D. Levi\u2019s, so that it cannot be said, that the sense has\nbeen misrepresented or distorted for polemical purposes. It is the\ntranslation of a Jew, and of a Jew in England, and the title-page tells\nus that it is the second edition \u201ccarefully revised and corrected, and\nillustrated by Isaac Levi.\u201d The title-page also says, \u201cAs read in their\nsynagogues and used in their families.\u201d Is not this prayer intolerant?\nIs there any thing like it in the New Testament, or in our Christian\nPrayer-books? And yet we are told that modern Judaism is more tolerant\nthan Christianity, and that it teaches charity to all men. Let not the\nJews think that we impute this spirit to the whole nation. No such\nthing. This passage is quoted as a specimen of the spirit of the oral\nlaw and its authors, who not only were possessed of this spirit of\nresentment, but so overwhelmed with it, as to transfuse it into their\naddresses to the God of mercy, and to prescribe it as a port of the\npublic worship of the congregation. Whenever introduced, there it still\nremains, as a testimony to the spirit of the first opposers of Jesus of\nNazareth, and as a portion of the liturgic service of the synagogue. In\nthese passages, however, it does not appear what nations are intended;\nno name or particular characteristic is given, though the allusion, in\nthe last quoted prayer, to Isaiah xxxiv., naturally leads the reader to\nthink of Edom; but in other places a more definite form is prescribed,\nfrom which we find that Edom is the great object of hatred.\n\n\u05dc\u05d9\u05dc \u05e9\u05de\u05d5\u05e8\u05d9\u05dd \u05d0\u05dc \u05d7\u05e6\u05d4 , \u05d1\u05d7\u05e6\u05d5\u05ea \u05dc\u05d9\u05dc\u05d4 \u05d1\u05ea\u05d5\u05da \u05de\u05e6\u05e8\u05d9\u05dd \u05db\u05d9\u05e6\u05d0 , \u05d2\u05d1\u05d5\u05e8 \u05e2\u05dc \u05d0\u05d3\u05d5\u05dd \u05d9\u05d7\u05e6\u05e0\u05d4 \u05db\u05d7\u05e6\u05d4\n\u05c3\n\n\u201cGod divideth the night of preservation, when in the midst of the night\nhe went forth through the _land_ of Egypt: may the mighty God also\ndivide it concerning Edom.\u201d (Levi, ibid. fol. 7.) This is a petition\nthat God would do to Edom as he did unto Egypt. Again, a little further\non we read,\n\n\u05e4\u05e1\u05d7 \u05d7\u05e8\u05d1 \u05d7\u05e8\u05d4 \u05e2\u05dc \u05d0\u05d3\u05d5\u05dd , \u05d1\u05d9\u05d3 \u05e6\u05d7 \u05d5\u05d0\u05d3\u05d5\u05dd , \u05db\u05d9\u05de\u05d9 \u05d7\u05d2 \u05e4\u05e1\u05d7 \u05c3\n\n\u201cOn the Passover, a sharp sword shall fall on Edom, by the hand of him\nwho is white and ruddy, as in the days of the feast of Passover.\u201d (Ibid.\nfol. 10.) And so throughout the prayers there are frequent allusions to\nthis subject, as for instance\u2014\n\n\u05e9\u05dd \u05d9\u05e7\u05e8\u05d0 \u05db\u05db\u05ea\u05d9\u05d1\u05ea\u05d5 , \u05de\u05d7\u05e6\u05d9\u05d5 \u05ea\u05ea\u05de\u05dc\u05d0 \u05ea\u05d9\u05d1\u05ea\u05d5 , \u05e2\u05d5\u05d3 \u05ea\u05ea\u05e0\u05e9\u05d0 \u05de\u05dc\u05db\u05d5\u05ea\u05d5 , \u05d5\u05db\u05e1\u05d0\u05d5 \u05ea\u05db\u05d5\u05df\n\u05d1\u05de\u05dc\u05d0\u05ea\u05d5 , \u05e0\u05db\u05d3\u05d9 \u05e9\u05e2\u05d9\u05e8 \u05d1\u05d4\u05db\u05d5\u05ea\u05d5 , \u05d1\u05d0\u05d5\u05d9\u05d1\u05d9\u05d5 \u05d9\u05ea\u05df \u05e0\u05e7\u05de\u05ea\u05d5 \u05c3\n\n\u201cThen will his name be pronounced as it is written: when the other half\nwill complete the word; his dominion also will be greatly exalted, and\nhis throne be completely established; when he shall smite the\ndescendants of Esau, and take vengeance on his enemies.\u201d (Ibid. fol.\n214.) But these are sufficient to show that Edom is the great object of\nantipathy, and of course the great question is, whom do the Jews\nunderstand by Edom? Let the most famous of their rabbies instruct us in\nthis matter, and first let us hear Maimonides:\u2014\n\n\u05d0\u05d3\u05d5\u05de\u05d9\u05dd \u05e2\u05d5\u05d1\u05d3\u05d9 \u05e2\u05db\u05d5\u05f3\u05f3\u05dd \u05d4\u05dd \u05d5\u05d9\u05d5\u05dd \u05e8\u05d0\u05e9\u05d5\u05df \u05d4\u05d5\u05d0 \u05d9\u05d5\u05dd \u05d0\u05d9\u05d3\u05dd \u05dc\u05e4\u05d9\u05db\u05da \u05d0\u05e1\u05d5\u05e8 \u05dc\u05e9\u05d0\u05ea \u05d5\u05dc\u05ea\u05ea \u05e2\u05de\u05d4\u05dd\n\u05d1\u05d0\u05f3\u05f3\u05d9 \u05d9\u05d5\u05dd \u05d7\u05de\u05d9\u05e9\u05d9 \u05d5\u05d9\u05d5\u05dd \u05e9\u05e9\u05d9 \u05e9\u05d1\u05db\u05dc \u05e9\u05d1\u05ea \u05d5\u05e9\u05d1\u05ea \u05d5\u05d0\u05e6\u05f3\u05f3\u05dc \u05d9\u05d5\u05dd \u05e8\u05d0\u05e9\u05d5\u05df \u05e2\u05e6\u05de\u05d5 \u05e9\u05d4\u05d5\u05d0 \u05d0\u05e1\u05d5\u05e8\n\u05d1\u05db\u05dc \u05de\u05e7\u05d5\u05dd \u05c3\n\n\u201cThe Edomites are idolaters, and the first day of the week is the day of\ntheir festival; therefore it is forbidden to have commerce with them in\nthe land of Israel, on the fifth and sixth day of every week. It is not\nnecessary to say that the first day itself is every where unlawful.\u201d\n(Hilchoth Accum. c. ix. 4.) There is but one class of religionists who\nobserve the first day of the week as sacred. Now let us hear Kimchi. In\nhis commentary on Joel iii. 19, \u201cEgypt shall be a desolation, and Edom\nshall be a desolate wilderness, for the violence against the children of\nJudah, because they have shed innocent blood in their land:\u201d he says,\n\n\u05d6\u05db\u05d3 \u05de\u05e6\u05e8\u05d9\u05dd \u05d1\u05e2\u05d1\u05d5\u05e8 \u05d9\u05e9\u05de\u05e2\u05d0\u05dc\u05d9\u05dd \u05d5\u05d0\u05d1\u05d5\u05e8 \u05de\u05dc\u05db\u05d5\u05ea \u05e8\u05d5\u05de\u05d9 , \u05d5\u05d0\u05dc\u05d4 \u05e9\u05ea\u05d9 \u05d4\u05d0\u05d5\u05de\u05d5\u05ea \u05d4\u05e0\u05d4 \u05d4\u05d2\u05d5\u05d1\u05e8\u05d5\u05ea\n\u05d6\u05d4 \u05d9\u05de\u05d9\u05dd \u05e8\u05d1\u05d9\u05dd \u05d5\u05ea\u05d4\u05d9\u05d9\u05e0\u05d4 \u05e2\u05d3 \u05e2\u05ea \u05d4\u05d2\u05d0\u05d5\u05dc\u05d4 \u05d5\u05d4\u05d9\u05d0 \u05d7\u05d9\u05d5\u05ea\u05d0 \u05e8\u05d1\u05d9\u05e2\u05d0\u05d4 \u05d1\u05de\u05e8\u05d0\u05d5\u05ea \u05d3\u05e0\u05d9\u05d0\u05dc ...\n\u05d5\u05d0\u05de\u05e8 \u05d6\u05d4 \u05d1\u05e2\u05d1\u05d5\u05e8 \u05db\u05d9 \u05de\u05dc\u05db\u05d5\u05ea \u05e8\u05d5\u05de\u05d9 \u05e8\u05d5\u05d1\u05dd \u05d0\u05d3\u05d5\u05de\u05d9\u05dd \u05d5\u05d0\u05e2\u05e4\u05f3\u05f3\u05d9 \u05e9\u05e0\u05ea\u05e2\u05e8\u05d1\u05d5 \u05d1\u05d4\u05dd \u05e2\u05de\u05d9\u05dd \u05e8\u05d1\u05d9\u05dd\n\u05db\u05de\u05d5 \u05e9\u05e0\u05ea\u05e2\u05e8\u05d1\u05d5 \u05d2\u05dd \u05db\u05df \u05d1\u05de\u05dc\u05db\u05d5\u05ea \u05d9\u05e9\u05de\u05e2\u05d0\u05dc\u05d9\u05dd \u05e0\u05e7\u05e8\u05d0\u05d9\u05dd \u05e2\u05dc \u05d4\u05e2\u05d9\u05e7\u05e8 \u05c3\n\n\u201cThe prophet mentions Egypt and Edom: Egypt, on account of the Turks,\nand Edom, on account of the Roman empire; and these two have now had\ndominion for a long time, and will continue until the redemption. This\nis the fourth beast in the visions of Daniel.... And this is said,\nbecause the majority of the Roman empire is composed of Edomites. For\nalthough many other nations are mixed among them, as is also the case\nwith the Turkish empire, they are called after the root.\u201d Kimchi then\nfixes Edom upon the Roman empire, in which he evidently includes the\nGreek empire, for he wrote in the 12th century, long before the\nConstantinopolitan dynasty was overturned. Aben Esra gives a similar\ninterpretation on the blessing of Esau.\n\n\u05d5\u05e8\u05d5\u05de\u05d9 \u05e9\u05d4\u05d2\u05dc\u05ea\u05e0\u05d5 \u05d4\u05d9\u05d0 \u05de\u05d6\u05e8\u05e2 \u05db\u05ea\u05d9\u05dd \u05d5\u05db\u05df \u05d0\u05d5\u05de\u05e8 \u05d4\u05de\u05ea\u05e8\u05d2\u05dd \u05d5\u05e6\u05d9\u05dd \u05de\u05d9\u05d3 \u05db\u05ea\u05d9\u05dd \u05d5\u05d4\u05d9\u05d0 \u05de\u05dc\u05db\u05d5\u05ea \u05d9\u05d5\u05df\n\u05d1\u05e2\u05e6\u05de\u05d5 \u05db\u05d0\u05e9\u05e8 \u05e4\u05d9\u05e8\u05e9\u05ea\u05d9 \u05d1\u05e1\u05e4\u05e8 \u05d3\u05e0\u05d9\u05d0\u05dc \u05d5\u05d4\u05d9\u05d5 \u05d0\u05e0\u05e9\u05d9\u05dd \u05de\u05ea\u05d9 \u05de\u05e1\u05e4\u05e8 \u05e9\u05d4\u05d0\u05de\u05d9\u05d5 \u05d1\u05d0\u05d9\u05e9 \u05e9\u05e9\u05de\u05d5\u05d4\u05d5 \u05d0\u05dc\u05d5\u05d4\n\u05d5\u05db\u05d0\u05e9\u05e8 \u05d4\u05d0\u05de\u05d9\u05e0\u05d4 \u05e8\u05d5\u05de\u05d9 \u05d1\u05d9\u05de\u05d9 \u05e7\u05d5\u05e0\u05e1\u05d8\u05d0\u05e0\u05d8\u05d9\u05df \u05e9\u05d7\u05d3\u05e9 \u05db\u05dc \u05d4\u05d3\u05ea \u05d5\u05e9\u05dd \u05e2\u05dc \u05d3\u05d2\u05dc\u05d5 \u05e6\u05d5\u05e8\u05ea \u05d4\u05d0\u05d9\u05e9 ,\n\u05d5\u05dc\u05d0 \u05d4\u05d9\u05d5 \u05d1\u05e2\u05d5\u05dc\u05dd \u05e9\u05d9\u05e9\u05de\u05e8\u05d5 \u05d4\u05ea\u05d5\u05e8\u05d4 \u05d4\u05d7\u05d3\u05e9\u05d4 \u05d7\u05d5\u05e5 \u05de\u05d0\u05d3\u05d5\u05de\u05d9\u05dd \u05de\u05e2\u05d8\u05d9\u05dd \u05e2\u05dc \u05db\u05df \u05e0\u05e7\u05e8\u05d0\u05d4 \u05e8\u05d5\u05de\u05d9\n\u05de\u05dc\u05db\u05d5\u05ea \u05d0\u05d3\u05d5\u05dd \u05c3\n\n\u201cRome, which led us away captive, is of the seed of Kittim, and so the\nTargumist has said, in Numbers xxiv. 24, \u2018And ships shall come from the\ncoast of Kittim.\u2019 And this is the same as the Greek monarchy, as I have\nexplained in the book of Daniel; and there were very few who believed on\nthe man of whom they made a god. But when Rome believed in the days of\nConstantine, who changed the whole religion, and put an image of that\nman upon his standard, there were none in the world who observed the new\nlaw except a few Edomites, therefore Rome is called the kingdom of\nEdom.\u201d (Comment. on Gen. xxix.) We do not now stop to refute the false\nstatements which Aben Ezra here makes. Every one that knows anything of\nhistory, knows that in less than a century after the time of Jesus of\nNazareth, the Christian religion had made great progress in the whole\nRoman empire, and that the propagation of the new law, as Aben Ezra\ncalls it, before the time of Constantine, was more rapid and more\nextensive than after his conversion. Our business at present is with his\ninterpretation of the word Edom; he says plainly that Edom and Edomites\nmean the Christians. Now let us hear Abarbanel:\u2014\n\n\u05d5\u05de\u05d6\u05d4 \u05ea\u05d3\u05e2 \u05e9\u05dc\u05d0 \u05dc\u05d1\u05d3 \u05e2\u05dc \u05d0\u05e8\u05e5 \u05d0\u05d3\u05d5\u05dd \u05d4\u05e1\u05de\u05d5\u05d1\u05d4 \u05dc\u05d0\u05f3\u05f3\u05d9 \u05e0\u05d1\u05d0 \u05d4\u05e0\u05d1\u05d9\u05d0 \u05db\u05f3\u05f3\u05d0 \u05d2\u05dd \u05e2\u05dc \u05d4\u05d0\u05d5\u05de\u05d4\n\u05e9\u05e0\u05e1\u05ea\u05e2\u05e4\u05d4 \u05de\u05e9\u05dd \u05d5\u05e0\u05ea\u05e4\u05e9\u05d8\u05d4 \u05d1\u05db\u05dc \u05d4\u05e2\u05d5\u05dc\u05dd \u05d5\u05d4\u05d9\u05d0 \u05d0\u05d5\u05de\u05ea \u05d4\u05e0\u05d5\u05e6\u05e8\u05d9\u05dd \u05d4\u05d9\u05d5\u05dd \u05d4\u05d6\u05d4 \u05e9\u05d4\u05dd \u05de\u05d1\u05e0\u05d9 \u05d0\u05d3\u05d5\u05dd \u05c3\n\n\u201cFrom this you may learn that the prophet (Obadiah) did not prophesy\nonly against the land of Edom, which is in the neighbourhood of the land\nof Israel, but also against that people which branches off from thence,\nand is spread through the whole world, and that is the people of the\nChristians in this our day, for they are of the children of Edom.\u201d\n(Comment. on Obadiah.) Here, then, we have Maimonides, Kimchi, Aben\nEzra, and Abarbanel, all giving the same interpretation, and all\nasserting that Edom means the Christians. According to this\ninterpretation, then, the above dreadful imprecations are for the\ndestruction of the Christians. Is this tolerant or charitable? Is this\nin accordance with Moses\u2019 account of the Divine character\u2014\u201cMerciful and\ngracious, long-suffering, and abundant in goodness and truth?\u201d Are these\nthe petitions that poor sinful creatures ought to offer when they\nassemble for the worship of the Creator of all flesh? Above all, are\nthey suitable in an English synagogue, and in the present day? You may\nsay that Kimchi and those other commentators, lived in the times of\nPopery, and that Edom only means the Roman Catholic Christians. But what\nwill those Jews say who live in Rome itself, and France, and Bavaria,\nand other Roman Catholic countries? You may think them in error, so do\nwe, but we cannot for that pray that God \u201cwould satiate the clods with\ntheir blood, manure the earth with their fat, and cause the stench of\ntheir carcases to ascend.\u201d We could not utter such an imprecation\nagainst the cannibals of New Zealand, nor the man-stealers of Africa.\nBut if you say that you do not offer up these petitions against the\nChristians, whether Protestant or Romanist, may we ask against whom then\nare they directed? And what are your thoughts when you hear these\npetitions read, and join in them in the synagogue? The literal Edom was\ndestroyed long since; the children of Edom have long since been utterly\nlost. Where are their posterity now to be found? The above-named rabbies\nsay the Romans were descended from Edom, but where is their proof,\neither from the Bible or from profane history? But suppose it was so,\nhow will that prove that the Greeks, the French, the Germans, or the\ninhabitants of the British isles are thus descended? The truth is, there\nis no historical evidence whatever to give even a colour to this\nassertion respecting Rome. The rabbies found dreadful denunciations of\nwrath against Edom in the prophets, particularly in Obadiah and the\nthirty-fourth of Isaiah, and they thought that Rome and the Christians\ndeserved such punishment more than any one else; they therefore applied\nthem to these objects of their antipathy. As far as authentic history\nwill carry us, the descendants of the Edomites are to be sought for\nrather amongst the Jews themselves, than amongst any other people; for\nthe last that we read of the Edomites is, that they were subdued by John\nHyrcanus, and converted to Judaism at the point of the sword.[18]\nAmongst the Jews, then, their descendants have ever since continued, and\nstrange enough some of them may now be offering in the synagogue these\nimprecations against themselves. But, however that be, the prophecies\nagainst Edom do certainly not apply to the Christian religion, which was\nnot Edomitical, but altogether Jewish in its origin. Jesus of Nazareth\nwas a Jew, and his apostles and first disciples from a province of Judea\nas remote as possible from Edom. And even if the rabbies could prove\nthat Rome is Edom, still this will have nothing to do with the other\nnations who are no wise descended from, or connected with that city or\npeople.\n\nWe are not ignorant of the many prophecies against Edom, but, however\nmany or severe, they form no justification of these prayers, even if the\nrabbies know who is intended. God is a merciful God, as well as a just\nJudge, and when he arises to judgment, or when he utters a denunciation\nof wrath, we may be sure that he does all in truth and righteousness.\nBut that furnishes no excuse for the sons of men who presumptuously take\nupon themselves to call down God\u2019s wrath by prayer, or to offer\nthemselves as the executioners of his anger. The Word of God contains\nmany denunciations of wrath against the Jews, but this does not justify\nthe nations who have persecuted and oppressed them. What would the Jews\nthink of us if we collected all the fearful passages in the twenty-sixth\nchapter of Leviticus, and the twenty-eight of Deuteronomy, and wove them\ninto a prayer to call down God\u2019s wrath upon the people of Israel? What\nwould they say if we appointed this form for the most solemn days, and\nfor the time of our festivity? Yet this is what the rabbies have done,\nand what the oral law prescribes, and therefore we say, that such\nteaching is not from God. And we say this, not simply because reason\nleads to this conclusion, but because such prayers are directly contrary\nto the express command of God. When he sent the Jews into captivity to\nBabylon, he did not tell them to pray that \u201che might pour out his wrath\u201d\nupon that city, and much less to \u201csatiate the clods with the blood\u201d of\nits inhabitants. On the contrary, he said\u2014\n\n\u201cAnd seek the peace of the city whither I have caused you to be carried\naway captives, and pray unto the Lord for it: for in the peace thereof\nshall ye have peace.\u201d (Jerem. xxix. 7.) Now how does this command agree\nwith the above prayers? Suppose even that the rabbies were right, and\nthat Edom does mean Rome, how can the Jews there pray for its peace and\nfor its utter destruction at the same time? Those prayers are utterly\nirreconcilable with this command of God, and therefore furnish another\nproof of the error as well as the intolerance of the oral law. This was\nthe object which we had peculiarly in view. We do not wish to burden\nevery Israelite in London with this intolerance. Many are perhaps\nignorant that such prayers are offered in the synagogue\u2014many overlook\nthem through inattention, and many others disapprove of them. But in\nthose who do know and disapprove, it is exceedingly inconsistent to join\nin them, or to remain silent. The spirit of these prayers is thus\ncountenanced, and the intolerance handed down from generation to\ngeneration. Children go to the synagogue, and hear these prayers\noffered; they think as it is the language of prayer, of public prayer,\nof the prayers of the people of Israel, it must be right. What other\nconclusion can they form? Thus they imbibe the same spirit, and thus the\npeople of Israel are kept in bondage to the intolerance of by-gone\ngenerations. But some will say, We acknowledge that these prayers are\ncontrary to the Bible. Remember, then, that in making this\nacknowledgment, you admit the synagogue\u2014yea, the whole nation of Jews,\nhas been in error for many centuries. And if the Jewish nation has been\nuniversally mistaken upon so simple, yet essential, a point of religion\nas true charity, it is highly probable that they are mistaken on other\npoints too, especially those that are more difficult and less obvious to\nhuman reason. But above all, remember that whilst the whole system of\nthe oral law, in its precepts and prayers, has taught you to curse your\nenemies, Jesus of Nazareth has taught us to bless. \u201cYe have heard that\nit hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy:\nbut I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do\ngood to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use\nyou, and persecute you.\u201d (Matt. v. 43, 44.) \u201cBless them which persecute\nyou: bless, and curse not.\u201d (Rom. xii. 14.) But some Israelites may\nstill think that it is unfair to judge the oral law by this one service\nto the Passover. Such an one we would remind of the blessing of the\nEpicureans, as it is called, which he is bound to say\u2014\n\n\u05d1\u05db\u05dc \u05ea\u05e4\u05dc\u05d4 \u05e9\u05d1\u05db\u05dc \u05d9\u05d5\u05dd \u05c3\n\n\u201cin every prayer, every day.\u201d (Hilchoth T\u2019phillah, c. ii. 2.)\n\n\u05d5\u05dc\u05de\u05dc\u05e9\u05d9\u05e0\u05d9\u05dd \u05d0\u05dc \u05ea\u05d4\u05d9 \u05ea\u05e7\u05d5\u05d4 \u05d5\u05db\u05dc \u05e2\u05d5\u05e9\u05d9 \u05e8\u05e9\u05e2\u05d4 \u05db\u05e8\u05d2\u05e2 \u05d9\u05d0\u05d1\u05d3\u05d5 \u05d5\u05d4\u05d6\u05d3\u05d9\u05dd \u05de\u05d4\u05e8\u05d4 \u05d9\u05db\u05e8\u05ea\u05d5 \u05d5\u05de\u05db\u05e0\u05d9\u05e2\u05dd\n\u05d1\u05de\u05d4\u05e8\u05d4 \u05d1\u05d9\u05de\u05d9\u05e0\u05d5 . \u05d1\u05e8\u05d5\u05da \u05d0\u05ea\u05d4 \u05d4\u05f3 \u05e9\u05d5\u05d1\u05e8 \u05d0\u05d5\u05d9\u05d1\u05d9\u05dd \u05d5\u05de\u05db\u05e0\u05d9\u05e2 \u05d6\u05d3\u05d9\u05dd \u05c3\n\n\u201cO let the slanderers have no hope: all the wicked be annihilated\nspeedily, and all the tyrants be cut off quickly; humble thou them\nquickly in our days. Blessed art thou, O Lord, who destroyed our\nenemies.\u201d (Daily Prayers, fol. 36.) Here is the same utter want of\nmercy. No desire for their amendment, no prayer for their conversion,\nbut an invocation of sudden wrath and destruction. And this the\nsynagogue prescribes, not on its feasts only, but every day; yea, and\nevery time of prayer is to be marked by the voice of malediction. There\nis also another command relating to this daily malediction, which\nillustrates still farther the spirit of the oral law.\n\n\u05e9\u05dc\u05d9\u05d7 \u05e6\u05d1\u05d5\u05e8 \u05e9\u05d8\u05e2\u05d4 \u05d5\u05e0\u05d1\u05d4\u05dc \u05d5\u05dc\u05d0 \u05d9\u05d3\u05e2 \u05de\u05d4\u05d9\u05db\u05df \u05d9\u05ea\u05d7\u05d9\u05dc \u05d5\u05e9\u05d4\u05d4 \u05e9\u05e2\u05d4 \u05d9\u05e2\u05de\u05d5\u05d3 \u05d0\u05d7\u05e8 \u05ea\u05d7\u05ea\u05d9\u05d5 . \u05d5\u05d0\u05dd\n\u05d8\u05e2\u05d4 \u05d1\u05d1\u05e8\u05db\u05ea \u05d4\u05d0\u05e4\u05d9\u05e7\u05d5\u05e8\u05e1\u05d9\u05df \u05d0\u05d9\u05df \u05de\u05de\u05ea\u05d9\u05e0\u05d9\u05df \u05dc\u05d5 \u05d0\u05dc\u05d0 \u05de\u05d9\u05d3 \u05d9\u05e2\u05de\u05d5\u05d3 \u05d0\u05d7\u05e8 \u05ea\u05d7\u05ea\u05d9\u05d5 \u05e9\u05de\u05d0\n\u05d0\u05e4\u05d9\u05e7\u05d5\u05e8\u05e1\u05d5\u05ea \u05e0\u05d6\u05e8\u05e7\u05d4 \u05d1\u05d5 \u05c3\n\n\u201cIf the reader in the synagogue should make a mistake, or be confused\nand not know where to begin, and delay for an hour, then let another\nrise up in his stead. But if he made the mistake with regard to the\nblessing of the Epicureans, he is not to be waited for, but let another\ninstantly rise up in his stead, for perhaps he is infected with\nEpicureanism.\u201d (Ibid. c. x. 3.) According to this law, if the reader go\nwrong in invoking a blessing, or offering up an intercessory prayer for\nmercy, such a petition may be delayed for a whole hour. But if this\nmalediction should be the place of his mistake, there is to be no delay\nand no postponement. If the reader cannot offer it in time, another is\nto rise up immediately, and cry to heaven for a curse.\n\nFootnote 17:\n\n  The British Jews of Burton-street Synagogue have expunged from their\n  prayers the intolerance here complained of.\n\nFootnote 18:\n\n  See Jost\u2019s Geschichte, vol. i. 70 and 153.\n\n\n\n\n                               No. XVII.\n              RABBINIC LEGENDS IN THE SYNAGOGUE SERVICES.\n\n\nWe have just considered the extraordinary command of the oral law, which\nprovides, that, if the reader in the synagogue should make a mistake in\nreading the prayers, the congregation shall wait for him for an hour:\nexcept the mistake occur in cursing the Epicureans, for then, \u201cHe is not\nbe waited for, but let another instantly rise up in his stead, for he\nis, perhaps, infected with Epicureanism.\u201d The special notice of this\ncase is as honourable to the Jews as it is condemnatory of the oral law.\nIt would appear from this that such mistakes had occurred. Readers in\nthe synagogues have sometimes stumbled and stammered when thy came to\nthis fearful malediction. And truly we are not surprised, if a man of\npiety, acquainted with God\u2019s Word, should be overwhelmed in publicly\ncursing his fellow-men, and be unable to bring the words of imprecation\nover his lips. The care which the Scribes took to legislate for such an\noccurrence, implies an honourable testimony to the good feeling of the\nnation, though it strongly marks their own intolerance, and forms a\nstriking contrast to the spirit inculcated in the teaching of Jesus of\nNazareth. When his disciples asked him to teach them to pray, he taught\nthem a short form; but short as it was, it contained the petition,\n\u201cForgive us our trespasses, as we forgive them that trespass against\nus,\u201d and was followed by this admonition, \u201cFor if ye forgive men their\ntrespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. But if ye\nforgive not men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your\ntrespasses.\u201d (Matt. vi. 14, 15.)\n\nThe intolerance which we have noticed, proves sufficiently that the\nreligious ideas of the oral law have not been drawn from Moses and the\nprophets; and this will appear still further from the absurd legends\nwhich are alluded to in the prayers of the synagogue, as if they were\nacknowledged verities. In the Liturgy for the feast of Pentecost, which\nis now approaching, we find more than one such allusion, to which we\nwould most earnestly call your attention. And first of all, those\nprayers recognise the legend of Leviathan and Behemoth. In the morning\nservice for that day the Jews repeat the following words:\u2014\n\n\u05de\u05e0\u05ea \u05d3\u05d9\u05dc\u05df \u05d3\u05de\u05dc\u05e7\u05d3\u05de\u05d9\u05df \u05e4\u05e8\u05e9 \u05d1\u05d0\u05e8\u05de\u05d5\u05ea\u05d0 . \u05d8\u05dc\u05d5\u05dc\u05d0 \u05d3\u05dc\u05d5\u05d9\u05ea\u05df \u05d5\u05ea\u05d5\u05e8 \u05d8\u05d5\u05e8 \u05e8\u05de\u05d5\u05ea\u05d0 , \u05d5\u05d7\u05d3 \u05d1\u05d7\u05d3 \u05db\u05d9\n\u05e1\u05d1\u05d9\u05da \u05d5\u05e2\u05d1\u05d9\u05d3 \u05e7\u05e8\u05d1\u05d5\u05ea\u05d0 . \u05d1\u05e7\u05e8\u05e0\u05d5\u05d4\u05d9 \u05de\u05e0\u05d2\u05d7 \u05d1\u05d4\u05de\u05d5\u05ea \u05d1\u05e8\u05d1\u05e8\u05d1\u05d5\u05ea\u05d0 . \u05d9\u05e7\u05e8\u05d8\u05e2 \u05e0\u05d5\u05df \u05dc\u05e7\u05d1\u05dc\u05d9\u05d4\n\u05d1\u05e6\u05d9\u05e6\u05d5\u05d9 \u05d5\u05d1\u05d2\u05d1\u05d5\u05e8\u05ea\u05d0 . \u05de\u05e7\u05e8\u05d1 \u05dc\u05d9\u05d4 \u05d1\u05e8\u05d9\u05d4 \u05d1\u05d7\u05e8\u05d1\u05d9\u05d4 \u05d1\u05e8\u05d1\u05e8\u05d1\u05d5\u05ea\u05d0 . \u05d0\u05e8\u05e1\u05d8\u05d5\u05df \u05dc\u05e6\u05d3\u05d9\u05e7\u05d9 \u05d9\u05ea\u05e7\u05df\n\u05d5\u05e9\u05e8\u05d5\u05ea\u05d0 , \u05de\u05e1\u05d7\u05e8\u05d9\u05df \u05e2\u05dc\u05d9 \u05ea\u05db\u05d9 \u05d3\u05db\u05d3\u05db\u05d5\u05d3 \u05d5\u05d2\u05d5\u05de\u05e8\u05ea\u05d0 , \u05e0\u05d2\u05d9\u05d9\u05df \u05e7\u05de\u05d9\u05d4\u05d5\u05df \u05d0\u05e4\u05e8\u05e1\u05de\u05d5\u05df \u05e0\u05d4\u05e8\u05ea\u05d0 ,\n\u05d5\u05de\u05ea\u05e4\u05e0\u05e7\u05d9\u05df \u05d5\u05e8\u05d5\u05d9 \u05d1\u05db\u05e1\u05d9 \u05e8\u05d5\u05d9\u05ea\u05d0 , \u05d7\u05de\u05e8 \u05de\u05e8\u05ea \u05d3\u05de\u05d1\u05e8\u05d0\u05e9\u05d9\u05ea \u05e0\u05d8\u05d9\u05e8 \u05d1\u05d9\u05d4 \u05e0\u05e2\u05d5\u05ea\u05d0 \u05c3\n\nWhich D. Levi thus translates:\u2014\u201cHe will certainly _bestow on_ us the\nportion which he hath promised us of old. The sporting of Leviathan with\nthe ox of the high mountains,[19] when they shall approach each other\nand engage in battle. With his horn he thrusts at the mightiest beasts,\nbut the Leviathan will leap towards him with his fins and great\nstrength. His Creator will then approach him with his great sword, and\nwill prepare him for an entertainment (or a banquet) for the righteous;\nwho will be seated at a table formed of jasper and carbuncle, with a\nriver of balm flowing before them. When they will delight themselves and\nbe satiated with the bowls of wine prepared at the creation, and\nreserved in the wine-press.\u201d In this portion of the Liturgy of the\nsynagogue, there is a very plain reference to the battle between\nBehemoth and Leviathan. The felicity of the righteous in the world to\ncome is also described, and a part of it is said to consist of the\nbanquet which God will prepare for them from the flesh of Leviathan,\nwhen he shall have killed him. It is true that D. Levi has the following\nnote on this banquet: \u201cAll this is to be understood in a figurative\nsense, and by no means literally, as several Christian commentators have\ndone, and thus cast undeserved reproach on the Rabbinical writers.\u201d But\nhe has neither given us his authority, nor his reasons for this\nassertion; nor has he explained the meaning of the figure. We should be\nglad to know what ninety-nine out of every hundred Jews understand when\nthey hear this read in the synagogue. What do they understand by the\nname Behemoth? What by Leviathan? What by God\u2019s killing him? What by\npreparing him as a banquet for the righteous? But however Jews in the\npresent day may explain it away, there can be little doubt how the\nauthors of this hymn and the Jews of old understood it. In the Talmud we\nhave the following account of these two great beasts:\u2014\n\n\u05d0\u05de\u05e8 \u05e8\u05d1 \u05d9\u05d4\u05d5\u05d3\u05d4 \u05d0\u05de\u05e8 \u05e8\u05d1 \u05db\u05dc \u05e9\u05d1\u05e8\u05d0 \u05d4\u05e7\u05d1\u05f3\u05f3\u05d4 \u05d1\u05e2\u05d5\u05dc\u05de\u05d5 \u05d6\u05db\u05e8 \u05d5\u05e0\u05e7\u05d1\u05d4 \u05d1\u05e8\u05d0\u05dd . \u05d0\u05e3 \u05dc\u05d5\u05d9\u05ea\u05df \u05e0\u05d7\u05e9\n\u05d1\u05e8\u05d9\u05d7 \u05d5\u05dc\u05d5\u05d9\u05ea\u05df \u05e0\u05d7\u05e9 \u05e2\u05e7\u05dc\u05ea\u05d5\u05df \u05d6\u05db\u05dc \u05d5\u05e0\u05e7\u05d1\u05d4 \u05d1\u05e8\u05d0\u05dd \u05d5\u05d0\u05dc\u05de\u05dc\u05d0 \u05e0\u05d6\u05e7\u05e7\u05d9\u05df \u05d6\u05d4 \u05dc\u05d6\u05d4 \u05de\u05d4\u05e8\u05d9\u05d1\u05df \u05db\u05dc\n\u05d4\u05e2\u05d5\u05dc\u05dd \u05db\u05d5\u05dc\u05d5 . \u05de\u05d4 \u05e2\u05e9\u05d4 \u05d4\u05e7\u05d1\u05f3\u05f3\u05d4 \u05e1\u05d9\u05e8\u05e1 \u05d0\u05ea \u05d4\u05d6\u05db\u05e8 \u05d5\u05d4\u05e8\u05d2 \u05d0\u05ea \u05d4\u05e0\u05e7\u05d1\u05d4 \u05d5\u05de\u05dc\u05d7\u05d4 \u05dc\u05e6\u05d3\u05d9\u05e7\u05d9\u05dd\n\u05dc\u05e2\u05ea\u05d9\u05d3 \u05dc\u05d1\u05d5\u05d0 \u05e9\u05e0\u05d0\u05de\u05e8 \u05d5\u05d4\u05e8\u05d2 \u05d0\u05ea \u05d4\u05ea\u05e0\u05d9\u05df \u05d0\u05e9\u05e8 \u05d1\u05d9\u05dd . \u05d5\u05d0\u05e3 \u05d1\u05d4\u05de\u05d5\u05ea \u05d1\u05d4\u05e8\u05e8\u05d9 \u05d0\u05dc\u05e3 \u05d6\u05db\u05e8 \u05d5\u05e0\u05e7\u05d1\u05d4\n\u05d1\u05e8\u05d0\u05dd \u05d5\u05d0\u05dc\u05de\u05dc\u05d0 \u05e0\u05d6\u05e7\u05e7\u05d9\u05df \u05d6\u05d4 \u05dc\u05d6\u05d4 \u05de\u05d7\u05e8\u05d9\u05d1\u05d9\u05df \u05db\u05dc \u05d4\u05e2\u05d5\u05dc\u05dd \u05db\u05d5\u05dc\u05d5 \u05de\u05d4 \u05e2\u05e9\u05d4 \u05d4\u05e7\u05d1\u05f3\u05f3\u05d4 \u05e1\u05d9\u05e8\u05e1 \u05d4\u05d6\u05db\u05e8\n\u05d5\u05e6\u05d9\u05e0\u05df \u05d4\u05e0\u05e7\u05d1\u05d4 \u05d5\u05e9\u05de\u05e8\u05d4 \u05dc\u05e6\u05d3\u05d9\u05e7\u05d9\u05dd \u05dc\u05e2\u05ea\u05d9\u05d3 \u05dc\u05d1\u05d5\u05d0 \u05c3\n\n\u201cR. Judah said, Rav said, Everything that God created in this world he\ncreated male and female. And thus he did with Leviathan the piercing\nserpent, and Leviathan the crooked serpent, he created them male and\nfemale. But if they had been united, they would have desolated the\nentire world. What, then, did the Holy One do? He took away the strength\nof the male Leviathan, and slew the female and salted her for the\nrighteous for the time to come, for it is said, \u2018And he shall slay the\nwhale (or dragon) that is in the sea.\u2019 (Isaiah xxvii. 1.) In like manner\nwith regard to Behemoth upon a thousand mountains, he created them male\nand female, but if they had been united they would have desolated the\nentire world. What then did the Holy One do? He took away the strength\nof the male Behemoth, and made the female barren, and preserved her for\nthe righteous for the time to come.\u201d\u2014(Bava Bathra, fol. 74, col. 2.) In\nthis narrative there are no marks of allegory. The creation of the world\nis not an allegory, but a fact. The creating of living creatures male\nand female is another fact. The weakening of the male and the salting of\nthe female to prevent the desolation of the world, does not look like a\nfigure. The Jewish commentators certainly take the matter very\nseriously, and speak of the creation of Leviathan, not as of an\nallegory, but as of a real occurrence. Thus R. Moses, the son of\nNachman, in his commentary on the words, \u201cAnd God made great whales,\u201d\nafter describing the great size, adds,\u2014\n\n\u05d5\u05e8\u05d1\u05d5\u05ea\u05d9\u05e0\u05d5 \u05d0\u05de\u05e8\u05d5 \u05db\u05d9 \u05d4\u05ea\u05e0\u05d9\u05e0\u05d9\u05dd \u05d4\u05d2\u05d3\u05d5\u05dc\u05d9\u05dd \u05d4\u05d5\u05d0 \u05dc\u05d5\u05d9\u05ea\u05df \u05d5\u05d1\u05ea \u05d6\u05d5\u05d2\u05d5 \u05e9\u05d1\u05e8\u05d0\u05dd \u05d6\u05db\u05e8 \u05d5\u05e0\u05e7\u05d1\u05d4 \u05d5\u05d4\u05e8\u05d2\n\u05d4\u05e0\u05e7\u05d1\u05d4 \u05d5\u05de\u05dc\u05d7\u05d3 \u05dc\u05e6\u05d3\u05d9\u05e7\u05d9\u05dd \u05dc\u05e2\u05ea\u05d9\u05d3 \u05dc\u05d1\u05d5\u05d0 . \u05d0\u05e4\u05e9\u05e8 \u05db\u05d9 \u05de\u05e4\u05e0\u05d9 \u05d6\u05d4 \u05dc\u05d0 \u05d4\u05d9\u05d4 \u05e8\u05d0\u05d5\u05d9 \u05e9\u05d9\u05d0\u05de\u05e8 \u05d1\u05d4\u05dd\n\u05d5\u05d9\u05d4\u05d9 \u05db\u05df \u05db\u05d9 \u05dc\u05d0 \u05e2\u05de\u05d3\u05d5 \u05e2\u05d5\u05d3 \u05c3\n\n\u201cAnd our rabbies have said that \u2018the great whales\u2019 mean Leviathan and\nhis mate, for God created them male and female, but slew the female, and\nsalted her for the righteous for the time to come: and perhaps this is\nthe reason why the words, \u2018And it was so,\u2019 are not added, for they (the\nrace of Leviathan) did not continue.\u201d (Com. in Gen. i. 21.) From this it\nis evident that the famous rabbi knew nothing of an allegory, for he\nmakes this legend the reason why certain words used after the other\nworks of creation are not here applied. In like manner Abarbanel speaks\nof this same pair of living creatures as real, and as possibly belonging\nto the class of great whales.\n\n\u05d5\u05d0\u05dd \u05db\u05dc\u05dc \u05d4\u05db\u05ea\u05d5\u05d1 \u05d4\u05e9\u05e8\u05e5 \u05d5\u05d4\u05d3\u05d2\u05d4 \u05db\u05d0\u05d7\u05d3 \u05d9\u05d0\u05de\u05e8 \u05d4\u05db\u05ea\u05d5\u05d1 \u05e9\u05d1\u05e8\u05d0 \u05d4\u05e9\u05dd \u05d1\u05d4\u05dd \u05de\u05d9\u05e0\u05d9\u05dd \u05de\u05ea\u05d7\u05dc\u05e4\u05d9\u05dd \u05db\u05d9\n\u05d9\u05e9 \u05de\u05d4\u05dd \u05ea\u05e0\u05d9\u05e0\u05d9\u05dd \u05d2\u05d3\u05d5\u05dc\u05d9\u05dd \u05d5\u05db\u05de\u05d5 \u05e9\u05d0\u05de\u05e8\u05d5 \u05d1\u05e4\u05e8\u05e7 \u05d4\u05e1\u05e4\u05d9\u05e0\u05d4 \u05d0\u05de\u05e8 \u05e8\u05d1\u05d4 \u05d1\u05e8 \u05d1\u05e8 \u05d7\u05e0\u05d0 \u05d6\u05de\u05e0\u05d0 \u05d7\u05d3\u05d0\n\u05d4\u05d5\u05d4 \u05e7\u05d0 \u05d0\u05d6\u05dc\u05d9\u05e0\u05d0 \u05d1\u05e1\u05e4\u05d9\u05e0\u05ea\u05d0 \u05d5\u05d7\u05d6\u05d9\u05e0\u05d0 \u05dc\u05d4\u05d4\u05d9\u05d0 \u05db\u05d5\u05d5\u05e8\u05d0 \u05d3\u05d9\u05ea\u05d1\u05d0 \u05dc\u05d9\u05d4 \u05d7\u05dc\u05ea\u05d0 \u05e2\u05dc \u05d2\u05d1\u05d9\u05d4 \u05d5\u05e7\u05e8\u05d7\n\u05d0\u05d2\u05de\u05d0 \u05e2\u05dc\u05d5\u05d9\u05d4 . \u05e1\u05d1\u05e8\u05d9\u05e0\u05d0 \u05d3\u05d9 \u05d9\u05d1\u05e9\u05ea\u05d0 \u05d4\u05d9\u05d0 \u05d5\u05e1\u05dc\u05e7\u05d9\u05e0\u05df \u05d5\u05d9\u05ea\u05d1\u05d9\u05e0\u05df \u05d5\u05d1\u05e9\u05dc\u05d9\u05e0\u05df \u05d4\u05dd \u05d2\u05d1\u05d9\u05d4 \u05d3\u05db\u05d5\u05d5\u05e8\u05d0\n\u05d5\u05d0\u05d9\u05ea\u05d4\u05e4\u05d9\u05da \u05d5\u05d0\u05d9 \u05dc\u05d0 \u05d3\u05d4\u05d5\u05d4 \u05e1\u05e4\u05d9\u05e0\u05ea\u05d0 \u05de\u05e7\u05e8\u05d1\u05d0 \u05dc\u05d5\u05df \u05d4\u05d5\u05d4 \u05de\u05d8\u05d1\u05e2 . \u05d5\u05db\u05d9\u05d5\u05e6\u05d0 \u05d1\u05d6\u05d4 \u05d9\u05e1\u05e4\u05e8\u05d5 \u05d2\u05dd\n\u05d4\u05d9\u05d5\u05dd \u05d9\u05d5\u05e8\u05d3\u05d9 \u05d4\u05d9\u05dd \u05d1\u05d0\u05e0\u05d9\u05d5\u05ea . \u05d5\u05d0\u05d5\u05dc\u05d9 \u05dc\u05d5\u05d9\u05ea\u05df \u05d5\u05d1\u05ea \u05d6\u05d5\u05d2\u05d5 \u05e9\u05d6\u05db\u05e8\u05d5 \u05e8\u05d1\u05d5\u05ea\u05d9\u05e0\u05d5 \u05de\u05d0\u05dc\u05d4 \u05d4\u05d9\u05d5 \u05e2\u05dd\n\u05d4\u05d9\u05d5\u05ea \u05e9\u05d4\u05e4\u05d9\u05dc\u05d5\u05e1\u05d5\u05e4\u05d9\u05dd \u05de\u05d1\u05e0\u05d9 \u05e2\u05de\u05e0\u05d5 \u05d9\u05d9\u05d7\u05e1\u05d5 \u05dc\u05d0\u05d5\u05ea\u05d4 \u05d4\u05d2\u05d3\u05d4 \u05e2\u05e0\u05d9\u05e0\u05d9\u05dd \u05e2\u05de\u05d5\u05e7\u05d9\u05dd \u05de\u05d4\u05d7\u05db\u05de\u05d4 \u05d5\u05d0\u05d9\u05df\n\u05e6\u05d5\u05e8\u05da \u05dc\u05d4\u05dd \u05d1\u05de\u05e7\u05d5\u05dd \u05d4\u05d6\u05d4 \u05c3\n\n\u201cBut if the Scripture class creeping things and fish together, then this\nverse tells us that God created various species, for some of them are\ngreat whales, as is said in the 5th chapter of Bava Bathra, \u2018Rabbah Bar\nBar Channa says, Once upon a time we were sailing in a ship, and we saw\nthat fish upon whose back the sand remains and rushes grow; we thought\nit was terra firma, and landed, and remained there and cooked. But when\nthe fish\u2019s back grew warm, he turned round, and if the ship had not been\nat hand we must have been drowned.\u2019 They that go down to the sea in\nships in the present time tell similar stories: and perhaps the\nLeviathan and his mate, mentioned by our rabbies, belonged to this\nspecies. However, the philosophers of the children of our people\nattribute to this chapter matter deeper than philosophy, but which we do\nnot want in this place.\u201d (Com. in Gen. i. 21.) It is true that Abarbanel\nhere distinctly admits the existence of mysteries in that chapter of the\nTalmud. But it is equally plain, that he considered the Leviathan,\nmentioned by the rabbies, not as an allegory, but a real creation; and\ntherefore assigned it to the same class as the wonderful fish seen by\nBar Bar Channa, unless we take his words as a sly insinuation, that the\nstory of Leviathan is about as true as that narrated by the veracious\nrabbi.\n\nThese two great rabbies, then, did not take the legend of Leviathan\nfiguratively; and we might add some other similar testimonies, but that\nBehemoth also claims a share of our attention, and an inquiry into his\nnature will contribute evidence to the same effect, that this legend was\nnot taken figuratively but literally. In the first place, D. Levi\nhimself refers us to Job xl. 15, and there we read, \u201cBehold now\nBehemoth, which I made with thee; he eateth grass like an ox.\u201d Here\nthere certainly is no allegory. The words speak of a living creature,\nand so they are interpreted by all the Jewish commentators, whom we have\nan opportunity of consulting. Ralbag says\u2014\n\n\u05d1\u05d4\u05de\u05d5\u05ea \u05d4\u05d5\u05d0 \u05d1\u05e2\u05dc \u05d7\u05d9\u05d9\u05dd \u05e9\u05de\u05d5 \u05db\u05df \u05c3\n\n\u201cBehemoth is an animal, that is his name.\u201d (Com. in loc.) Aben Esra, on\nthe words, \u201cBehold now Behemoth, which I made with thee,\u201d says\u2014\n\n\u05d1\u05d4\u05de\u05d5\u05ea \u05e9\u05dd \u05d1\u05d4\u05de\u05d4 \u05d2\u05d3\u05d5\u05dc\u05d4 \u05d0\u05d9\u05df \u05d1\u05d9\u05e9\u05d5\u05d1 \u05d2\u05d3\u05d5\u05dc\u05d4 \u05de\u05de\u05e0\u05d4 \u05d5\u05d8\u05e2\u05dd \u05e2\u05de\u05da \u05dc\u05e4\u05d9 \u05e9\u05d4\u05d9\u05ea\u05d4 \u05d1\u05d9\u05d1\u05e9\u05d4 \u05db\u05d9\n\u05d1\u05d0\u05d7\u05e8\u05d9\u05ea \u05d9\u05d6\u05db\u05d5\u05e8 \u05d4\u05dc\u05d5\u05d9\u05ea\u05df \u05e9\u05d4\u05d5\u05d0 \u05d1\u05d9\u05dd \u05d5\u05d9\u05e9 \u05d0\u05d5\u05de\u05e8\u05d9\u05dd \u05db\u05d9 \u05d8\u05e2\u05dd \u05e2\u05de\u05da \u05e9\u05d4\u05d1\u05d4\u05de\u05d5\u05ea \u05e0\u05d5\u05dc\u05d3\u05d5 \u05d1\u05d9\u05d5\u05dd\n\u05d0\u05d7\u05d3 \u05e2\u05dd \u05d0\u05d3\u05dd \u05d4\u05e8\u05d0\u05e9\u05d5\u05df \u05d5\u05d6\u05d4 \u05d3\u05e8\u05da \u05d3\u05e8\u05e9 \u05c3\n\n\u201c_Behemoth_ is the name of a great beast. In the habitable world there\nis not a greater than it. The reason why the words \u2018_with thee_\u2019 are\nadded, is, that it is a land animal, and at the end he mentions\nLeviathan, which is an animal of the sea. But some say the meaning of\n\u2018with thee\u2019 is, that the beasts were created on the same day with the\nfirst Adam; but this interpretation is after the manner of a drash.\u201d\n(Aben Esra in loc.) This passage not only gives Aben Esra\u2019s opinion as\nto the real existence of Behemoth, but shows that other commentators, to\nwhom he alludes, were of the same mind. Rashi not only asserts the\nexistence, but says plainly, \u05d1\u05d4\u05de\u05d5\u05ea \u05de\u05d5\u05db\u05df \u05dc\u05e2\u05ea\u05d9\u05d3, \u201cBehemoth, that is\nprepared for the time to come.\u201d And again, in his commentary on Psalm l.\n10, he takes the words \u05d1\u05d4\u05de\u05d5\u05ea \u05d1\u05d4\u05e8\u05e8\u05d9 \u05d0\u05dc\u05e3, which we translate, \u201cThe cattle\nupon a thousand hills,\u201d as referring to \u201cBehemoth upon a thousand\nhills,\u201d and says\u2014\n\n\u05d4\u05d5\u05d0 \u05d4\u05de\u05ea\u05d5\u05e7\u05df \u05dc\u05e1\u05e2\u05d5\u05d3\u05ea \u05d4\u05e2\u05ea\u05d9\u05d3 \u05e9\u05d4\u05d5\u05d0 \u05e8\u05d5\u05e2\u05d4 \u05d0\u05dc\u05e3 \u05d4\u05e8\u05d9\u05dd \u05dc\u05d9\u05d5\u05dd \u05d5\u05db\u05dc \u05d9\u05d5\u05dd \u05d5\u05d9\u05d5\u05dd \u05e6\u05d5\u05de\u05d7\u05d9\u05dd \u05c3\n\n\u201cThis is he that is prepared for the banquet of the time to come, for he\neats up the produce of a thousand hills in one day, and every day they\ngrow again.\u201d The context of these words evidently show that Rashi, the\nmost popular, and the most read of all the Jewish commentators, looked\nfor a real, not an allegorical, feast upon the flesh of the Leviathan\nand Behemoth. The preceding and following words speak not of\nallegorical, but of real cattle and fowls. According to Rashi, the whole\npassage would read thus:\u2014\u201cI will take no bullock out of thy house, nor\nhe-goats out of thy folds. For every beast of the forest is mine, and\nBehemoth upon a thousand hills. I know all the fowls of the mountain,\u201d\n&c. Here, then, Behemoth is introduced amongst real animals all fit for\nfood, so that it is impossible to take it figuratively. This animal is\nalso suitable in size for so great an entertainment; he consumes the\nproduce of a thousand mountains every day. This was also the opinion of\nJonathan, for in his Targum on the fiftieth Psalm he has paraphrased the\ntenth verse as follows:\u2014\n\n\u05d0\u05e8\u05d5\u05dd \u05d3\u05d9\u05dc\u05d9 \u05db\u05dc \u05d7\u05d9\u05d5\u05ea \u05d7\u05d5\u05e8\u05e9\u05d0 \u05d5\u05e2\u05ea\u05d3\u05ea \u05dc\u05e6\u05d3\u05d9\u05e7\u05d9\u05d0 \u05d1\u05d2\u05df \u05e2\u05d3\u05df \u05d1\u05e2\u05d9\u05e8\u05d9\u05d0 \u05d3\u05db\u05d9\u05df \u05d5\u05ea\u05d5\u05e8 \u05d1\u05e8 \u05d3\u05e8\u05e2\u05d9\n\u05d1\u05db\u05dc \u05d9\u05d5\u05de\u05d0 \u05d1\u05d8\u05d5\u05e8\u05d9\u05df \u05d0\u05dc\u05e4\u05d0 \u05c3\n\n\u201cFor every beast of the wood is mine, and I have prepared for the\nrighteous in Paradise pure cattle, and the wild ox, that feeds every day\nupon a thousand mountains.\u201d All these testimonies (and many more might\nbe added) plainly prove, that the Jews, in times past, looked for a real\nand substantial feast upon Leviathan and Behemoth; and when we remember\nthat the commentary of Rashi is the first that is put into the hands of\nthe Jewish youth all over the world, and that it is generally regarded\nas almost, if not altogether, inspired, it is easy to conclude what is\nthe opinion of the great majority of Jews, even in the present day, as\nto this entertainment. Maimonides, indeed, denies that there will be any\neating and drinking in the world to come. He says\u2014\n\n\u05d4\u05e2\u05d5\u05dc\u05dd \u05d4\u05d1\u05d0 \u05d0\u05d9\u05df \u05d1\u05d5 \u05d2\u05d5\u05e3 \u05d5\u05d2\u05d5\u05d9\u05d4 \u05d0\u05dc\u05d0 \u05e0\u05e4\u05e9\u05d5\u05ea \u05d4\u05e6\u05d3\u05d9\u05e7\u05d9\u05dd \u05d1\u05dc\u05d1\u05d3 \u05d1\u05dc\u05d0 \u05d2\u05d5\u05e3 \u05db\u05de\u05dc\u05d0\u05db\u05d9 \u05d4\u05e9\u05e8\u05ea .\n\u05d4\u05d5\u05d0\u05d9\u05dc \u05d5\u05d0\u05d9\u05df \u05d1\u05d5 \u05d2\u05d5\u05d9\u05d5\u05ea \u05d0\u05d9\u05df \u05d1\u05d5 \u05dc\u05d0 \u05d0\u05db\u05d9\u05dc\u05d4 \u05d5\u05dc\u05d0 \u05e9\u05ea\u05d9\u05d4 \u05c3\n\n\u201cIn the world to come there is neither body nor corporeality, but only\nthe souls of the righteous without a body, like the ministering angels.\nSo neither is there eating and drinking.\u201d (Hilchoth T\u2019shuvah, c. viii.\n2.) But this is a solitary opinion, as is evident from the note on the\npassage by Abraham ben Dior, who says\u2014\n\n\u05d3\u05d1\u05e8\u05d9 \u05d4\u05d0\u05d9\u05e9 \u05d4\u05d6\u05d4 \u05d1\u05e2\u05d9\u05e0\u05d9 \u05e7\u05e8\u05d5\u05d1\u05d9\u05dd \u05dc\u05de\u05d9 \u05e9\u05d0\u05d5\u05de\u05e8 \u05d0\u05d9\u05df \u05ea\u05d7\u05d9\u05d9\u05ea \u05d4\u05de\u05ea\u05d9\u05dd \u05dc\u05d2\u05d5\u05e4\u05d5\u05ea \u05d0\u05dc\u05d0 \u05e0\u05e9\u05de\u05d5\u05ea\n\u05d1\u05dc\u05d1\u05d3 \u05d5\u05d7\u05d9\u05d9 \u05e8\u05d0\u05e9\u05d9 \u05dc\u05d0 \u05d4\u05d9\u05d4 \u05d3\u05e2\u05ea \u05d7\u05d6\u05f3\u05f3\u05dc \u05e2\u05dc \u05d6\u05d4 \u05c3\n\n\u201cThe words of this man are, in my eyes, very near to those of him who\nsays, that there is no resurrection to the body, but only to the soul;\nand I sware by my life that this was not the opinion of our wise men of\nblessed memory.\u201d Indeed Maimonides himself acknowledges, in his\nCommentary upon the Mishna, that the majority of the Jews thought very\ndifferently of the world to come. He there enumerates five classes of\nopinions, amongst which one is, that at that time the earth will bring\nforth clothes ready made, and bread ready baked; but in every one of the\nfive, good eating and drinking is a main article. Of the fifth class he\nsays\u2014\n\n\u05d5\u05db\u05ea \u05d7\u05de\u05d9\u05e9\u05d9\u05ea \u05d5\u05d4\u05dd \u05d4\u05e8\u05d1\u05d4 \u05de\u05d7\u05d1\u05e8\u05d9\u05dd \u05d4\u05e2\u05e0\u05d9\u05e0\u05d9\u05dd \u05d4\u05d0\u05dc\u05d4 \u05db\u05d5\u05dc\u05dd \u05d5\u05d0\u05d5\u05de\u05e8\u05d9\u05dd \u05db\u05d9 \u05d4\u05ea\u05d5\u05d7\u05dc\u05ea \u05d4\u05d5\u05d0 \u05e9\u05d9\u05d1\u05d0\n\u05d4\u05de\u05e9\u05d9\u05d7 \u05d5\u05d9\u05d7\u05d9\u05d4 \u05d4\u05de\u05ea\u05d9\u05dd \u05d5\u05d9\u05db\u05e0\u05e1\u05d5 \u05dc\u05d2\u05df \u05e2\u05d3\u05df \u05d5\u05d9\u05d0\u05db\u05dc\u05d5 \u05e9\u05dd \u05d5\u05d9\u05e9\u05ea\u05d5 \u05d5\u05d9\u05d7\u05d9\u05d5 \u05d1\u05e8\u05d9\u05d0\u05d9\u05dd \u05db\u05dc \u05d9\u05de\u05d5\u05ea\n\u05e2\u05d5\u05dc\u05dd \u05c3\n\n\u201cAnd the fifth class (and they are numerous) include all these things,\nand say that the great hope is, that Messiah shall come and raise the\ndead, and they shall be gathered into Paradise, and there shall eat and\ndrink and be in good health to all eternity.\u201d (Sanhedrin, fol. 119, col.\n1.) This, then, Maimonides gives as the general expectation of the\nmajority, and this expectation exactly agrees with the above description\nof the feast to be prepared from Leviathan and Behemoth. We have,\ntherefore, not only the testimony of the most celebrated rabbies to\nprove that this feast is not allegorical but literal, but we have the\nstill stronger evidence of the general expectations of the nation as\nenumerated by Maimonides. D. Levi ought, therefore, to have said that\n_he_ understood it allegorically, but we have seen that this is not the\nopinion of the nation, nor of the most celebrated rabbies. We are\ntherefore warranted in saying that the prayers of the synagogue not only\nconsecrate the intolerance of the Talmud, but also stamp its absurd\nlegends with authority. It is surely not exceeding the bounds of\nsoberness and modesty to call this story of the battle between Leviathan\nand Behemoth, and the feast to be prepared of their flesh, and the salt\nmeat of the female Leviathan, an absurd legend. David Levi evidently\nthought it was such, and was therefore glad to betake himself to\nallegory. In the Bible there is not one word about the killing or\nsalting of the female Leviathan, nor about the capacious stomach of\nBehemoth, which requires a thousand mountains daily to satisfy it. This\nis all the pure invention of the rabbles, and we ask the Jews whether\nsuch legends form fit subjects for the prayers or praises of the\nsynagogue, or whether they can be acceptable in the eyes of the God of\nIsrael? We do not mean to conceal the fact, that Christian prayer-books\nmay be found with legends as fabulous, and as foolish. But they are the\nprayer-books of former generations, or of those who still adhere to\ntraditions of men. With them we have nothing to do. Three hundred years\nhave now elapsed since our forefathers cleared out all such follies. But\nthe Jewish prayer-books still remain unchanged, and unless the Jews make\nsome vigorous effort, the legend of Leviathan and Behemoth will be read\nwith all solemnity in the synagogues of England at the coming Feast of\nPentecost. It is grievous to think that that nation which once held up\nthe torch of Divine truth to enlighten the world, should still abide in\nthe darkness and superstitions of the Talmud. And yet this is, beyond\nall doubt, the condition of Israel, so long as the Divine authority of\nthe Talmud is recognised in their public prayers. Individuals may say,\nthat they do not believe in its follies, nor cherish its intolerance,\nbut this cannot be said of the majority. The synagogue, in its public\nworship, still pronounces the maledictions, and recites the legends of\nthe oral law, and thus declares, in the most solemn manner that can be\ndevised, that the religion of the Talmud is the religion of the\ncongregation. A mere confession of faith is nothing to such a\ndeclaration as this. A man may trifle with his fellow-men, but\nsentiments addressed to God in prayer or praise must justly be\nconsidered as the language of the heart.\n\nHow different is the doctrine of the New Testament. There all these\nmonstrous fables are utterly rejected; there is not even an allusion to\nthem. Mahomet, confessedly the author of a false religion, has\nincorporated not a few of the Talmudic legends into the Koran. But the\ndisciples of Jesus of Nazareth, though they lived at a time when the\npatronisers of these fables had power, were altogether preserved from\nsuch absurdity. They have transmitted no such distorted view of God\u2019s\ndealings in creation, nor of the joys which he has prepared for his\npeople in eternity. Their doctrine is, that, \u201cKnown unto God are all his\nworks from the beginning of the world.\u201d (Acts xv. 18.) He is \u201cThe Father\nof lights, with whom is no variableness nor shadow of turning.\u201d (James\ni. 17.) They also give us an account of the felicity of the blessed, but\na feast upon Leviathan or Behemoth is not one of its features. \u201cBehold,\nthe tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they\nshall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their\nGod. And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall\nbe no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying; neither shall there be any\nmore pain: for the former things are passed away.\u201d (Rev. xxi. 3, 4.)\n\u201cBeloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we\nshall be; but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him,\nfor we shall see him as he is.\u201d (1 John iii. 2.) These are the hopes and\nexpectations which that body of Jews, who rejected the oral law, have\ntaught us to entertain and to cherish. Yes, brethren of the house of\nIsrael, our hope is altogether Jewish. We do not mean to charge upon\n\u201cthe peculiar people of God\u201d the folly of the Talmud. Some of the nation\nforsook the pure Word of God, and adopted the doctrine of an oral law.\nThe natural consequence was, that they advanced gradually farther and\nfarther in the mazes of error; and there all their followers continue.\nBut we never forget that it was another portion of the Jewish nation\nwhich taught us to worship the true and living God. Our only wish is,\nthat you would forsake Jewish error, and embrace Jewish truth.\n\nFootnote 19:\n\n  This alludes to \u05d1\u05d4\u05de\u05d5\u05ea. See Job xl. 15, &c. D. Levi.\n\n\n\n\n                               No. XVIII.\n                      RABBINIC LEGENDS CONTINUED.\n\n\nThat the traditions of the Talmudists abound with the most absurd and\nincredible stories, is a matter of notoriety. But when a Talmudist is\npressed with any one of these, as a proof that the oral law is not from\nGod, he has a ready answer. It is an allegory, and contains the most\nprofound and mysterious wisdom. It would be very easy to show from the\nbooks printed in Jewish-German, for the edification of the women and the\nunlearned, and where the legends are related as undoubted matter of\nfact, that this is a mere evasion. But we have other evidence that is\nindisputable. The Liturgy of the synagogue alludes to many as to\nauthentic history, and we would not believe any one who should dare to\nassert, that the Rabbinists, in prayer, utter with their lips, what they\ndo not believe in their heart. In the Pentecost prayers, from which we\nhave already quoted, we find allusion to an anecdote recorded of Adam,\n\n\u05ea\u05db\u05dc\u05d9\u05ea \u05db\u05dc \u05e4\u05d5\u05e2\u05dc \u05e8\u05d5\u05dd \u05d5\u05ea\u05d7\u05ea\u05d5\u05e0\u05d9\u05dd , \u05e9\u05d1\u05d9\u05e2\u05d9 \u05dc\u05d9\u05de\u05d9\u05dd \u05d4\u05e0\u05de\u05e0\u05d9\u05dd , \u05e8\u05d0\u05e9\u05d5\u05df \u05dc\u05de\u05e7\u05e8\u05d0\u05d9 \u05d6\u05de\u05e0\u05d9\u05dd ,\n\u05e7\u05d3\u05d5\u05e9 \u05dc\u05d0\u05d3\u05d5\u05e0\u05d9 \u05d4\u05d0\u05d3\u05d5\u05e0\u05d9\u05dd , \u05e6\u05d1\u05d9 \u05e7\u05d5\u05d3\u05e9 \u05e9\u05d1\u05ea \u05e9\u05d0\u05e0\u05e0\u05d9\u05dd , \u05e4\u05d3\u05d4 \u05de\u05d3\u05d9\u05df \u05d9\u05e6\u05d9\u05e8 \u05de\u05dc\u05e4\u05e0\u05d9\u05dd , \u05e2\u05e0\u05ea\u05d4\n\u05e9\u05d9\u05e8\u05d4 \u05d5\u05db\u05e4\u05e8\u05d4 \u05e4\u05e0\u05d9\u05dd \u05c3\n\nWhich D. Levi thus translates, \u201cIt (the Sabbath-day) is the end of all\nwork above and beneath; it is accounted the seventh among the days; the\nfirst convocation of seasons; holy to the Lord of hosts; a glorious holy\nSabbath to those who rest thereon; it redeemed the first created man\nfrom judgment; he chanted a song, and appeased the wrath of God.\u201d (fol.\n81.) Here two important circumstances, not mentioned by Moses, are\nalluded to. First, that the Sabbath redeemed Adam from judgment, and\nsecondly, that his song appeased the wrath of God. They are found in the\ntraditions of the rabbies at full length, and are related as follows:\u2014\n\n\u05d1\u05e9\u05d1\u05e2 \u05e9\u05e2\u05d5\u05ea \u05d1\u05d9\u05d5\u05dd \u05d1\u05e2\u05e8\u05d1 \u05e9\u05d1\u05ea \u05e0\u05db\u05e0\u05e1 \u05d0\u05d3\u05dd \u05d4\u05e8\u05d0\u05e9\u05d5\u05df \u05d1\u05d2\u05df \u05e2\u05d3\u05df \u05d5\u05d4\u05d9\u05d5 \u05de\u05dc\u05d0\u05db\u05d9 \u05d4\u05e9\u05e8\u05ea \u05de\u05e7\u05dc\u05e1\u05d9\u05df\n\u05d0\u05d5\u05ea\u05d5 \u05d5\u05de\u05db\u05e0\u05d9\u05e1\u05d9\u05df \u05d0\u05d5\u05ea\u05d5 \u05dc\u05d2\u05df \u05e2\u05d3\u05df \u05d5\u05d1\u05d9\u05df \u05d4\u05e9\u05de\u05e9\u05d5\u05ea \u05d1\u05e2\u05e8\u05d1 \u05e9\u05d1\u05ea \u05d2\u05d5\u05e8\u05e9 \u05d5\u05d9\u05e6\u05d0 \u05d5\u05d4\u05d9\u05d5 \u05de\u05dc\u05d0\u05db\u05d9\n\u05d4\u05e9\u05e8\u05ea \u05e7\u05d5\u05e8\u05d0\u05d9\u05df \u05e2\u05dc\u05d9\u05d5 \u05d5\u05d0\u05d5\u05de\u05e8\u05d9\u05df \u05d0\u05d3\u05dd \u05d1\u05d9\u05e7\u05e8 \u05d1\u05dc \u05d9\u05dc\u05d9\u05df \u05e0\u05de\u05e9\u05dc \u05db\u05d1\u05d4\u05de\u05d5\u05ea \u05e0\u05d3\u05de\u05d5 . \u05db\u05d1\u05d4\u05de\u05d4 \u05e0\u05d3\u05de\u05d4\n\u05d0\u05d9\u05df \u05db\u05ea\u05d9\u05d1 \u05d0\u05dc\u05d0 \u05db\u05d1\u05d4\u05de\u05d5\u05ea \u05e0\u05d3\u05de\u05d5 \u05e9\u05e0\u05d9\u05d4\u05dd . \u05d1\u05d0 \u05d9\u05d5\u05dd \u05d4\u05e9\u05d1\u05ea \u05d5\u05e0\u05e2\u05e9\u05d4 \u05e1\u05e0\u05d9\u05d2\u05d5\u05e8 \u05dc\u05d0\u05d3\u05dd \u05d4\u05e8\u05d0\u05e9\u05d5\u05df\n\u05d0\u05de\u05e8 \u05dc\u05e4\u05e0\u05d9\u05d5 \u05e8\u05d1\u05d5\u05df \u05d4\u05e2\u05d5\u05dc\u05de\u05d9\u05dd \u05d1\u05e9\u05e9\u05ea \u05d9\u05de\u05d9 \u05d4\u05de\u05e2\u05e9\u05d4 \u05dc\u05d0 \u05e0\u05d4\u05e8\u05d2 \u05d4\u05e8\u05d2 \u05d1\u05e2\u05d5\u05dc\u05dd \u05d5\u05d1\u05d9 \u05d0\u05ea\u05d4 \u05de\u05ea\u05d7\u05d9\u05dc \u05d6\u05d5\n\u05d4\u05d9\u05d0 \u05e7\u05e8\u05d5\u05e9\u05ea\u05d9 \u05d5\u05d6\u05d5 \u05d4\u05d9\u05d0 \u05d1\u05e8\u05db\u05ea\u05d9 \u05e9\u05e0\u05d0\u05de\u05e8 \u05d5\u05d9\u05d1\u05e8\u05da \u05d0\u05dc\u05d4\u05d9\u05dd \u05d0\u05ea \u05d9\u05d5\u05dd \u05d4\u05e9\u05d1\u05d9\u05e2\u05d9 \u05d5\u05d9\u05e7\u05d3\u05e9 \u05d0\u05d5\u05ea\u05d5 .\n\u05d5\u05d1\u05d6\u05db\u05d5\u05ea \u05d9\u05d5\u05dd \u05d4\u05e9\u05d1\u05ea \u05e0\u05d9\u05e6\u05dc \u05d0\u05d3\u05dd \u05de\u05d3\u05d9\u05e0\u05d4 \u05e9\u05dc \u05d2\u05d9\u05d4\u05e0\u05dd \u05d5\u05e8\u05d0\u05d4 \u05d0\u05d3\u05dd \u05db\u05d7\u05d4 \u05e9\u05dc \u05e9\u05d1\u05ea \u05d0\u05de\u05e8 \u05dc\u05d0 \u05dc\u05d7\u05e0\u05dd\n\u05d1\u05e8\u05da \u05d4\u05e7\u05d1\u05f3\u05f3\u05d4 \u05d0\u05ea \u05d4\u05e9\u05d1\u05ea \u05d5\u05e7\u05e8\u05e9 \u05d0\u05d5\u05ea\u05d5 \u05d4\u05ea\u05d7\u05d9\u05dc \u05de\u05e9\u05d5\u05e8\u05e8 \u05d5\u05de\u05d6\u05de\u05e8 \u05dc\u05d9\u05d5\u05dd \u05d4\u05e9\u05d1\u05ea . \u05e9\u05e0\u05d0\u05de\u05e8 \u05de\u05d6\u05de\u05d5\u05e8\n\u05e9\u05d9\u05e8 \u05dc\u05d9\u05d5\u05dd \u05d4\u05e9\u05d1\u05ea . \u05e8\u05f3 \u05d9\u05e9\u05de\u05e2\u05d0\u05dc \u05d0\u05d5\u05de\u05e8 \u05d4\u05de\u05d6\u05de\u05d5\u05e8 \u05d4\u05d6\u05d4 \u05d0\u05d3\u05dd \u05d4\u05e8\u05d0\u05e9\u05d5\u05df \u05d0\u05de\u05e8\u05d5 \u05d5\u05e0\u05e9\u05db\u05d7 \u05d1\u05db\u05dc\n\u05d4\u05d3\u05d5\u05e8\u05d5\u05ea \u05e2\u05d3 \u05e9\u05d1\u05d0 \u05de\u05e9\u05d4 \u05d5\u05d7\u05d3\u05e9\u05d5 \u05d5\u05d2\u05d5\u05f3 \u05c3\n\n\u201cAt the seventh hour of the day, on the eve of the Sabbath, the first\nAdam was introduced into Paradise; and the ministering angels were\nengaged in lauding and introducing him. But between the suns, on the eve\nof the Sabbath, he was driven out, and went forth; and the ministering\nangels were calling to him, and saying, \u2018Adam being in honour abideth\nnot: he is like the beasts that perish.\u2019 It is not written, \u2018like a\nbeast that perishes,\u2019 but \u2018like the beasts that perish;\u2019 _i.e._, they\nboth. The Sabbath-day came, and became an advocate for the first Adam.\nIt said before God, Lord of the world, in the six days of the creation,\nnothing in the world was killed, and wilt thou begin with me? Is this my\nsanctification, and is this my blessing, as it is said, \u2018And God blessed\nthe seventh day, and sanctified it.\u2019 Therefore by the merit of the\nSabbath-day Adam was delivered from the judgment of hell; and when Adam\nsaw the power of the Sabbath, he said, It was not for nothing, that the\nHoly One, blessed be He, blessed and sanctified it, so he began singing\nand chanting to the Sabbath-day, as it is said, \u2018A psalm or song to or\nfor the Sabbath-day.\u2019 (Psalm xcii. 1.) Rabbi Ishmael says, This psalm\nwas said by the first Adam, but was forgotten in all the generations,\nuntil Moses came and restored it.\u201d (Pirke Eleazar, fol. 13, col. 3.) The\nYalkut Shimoni gives the story substantially the same, excepting that\nwhen Adam said, \u201cA psalm or song to the Sabbath-day,\u201d the Sabbath\nreproved him, and said, \u201cDost thou sing hymns to me? Come and let us\nboth sing hymns to the Holy One, blessed be He, \u2018It is a good thing to\ngive thanks unto the Lord.\u2019\u201d (Ps. xcii. 1.) This, then is the story\nwhich the prayer-book of the synagogue authenticates, by interweaving,\nin its addresses to the God of Israel, the above-quoted words concerning\nthe Sabbath, \u201cIt redeemed the first created man from judgment; he\nchanted a song, and appeased the wrath of God.\u201d From first to last it\nbears the plain marks of mendacity. It misrepresents the merciful\ncharacter of God, as if he would have destroyed Adam, had it not been\nthe Sabbath-day. It ascribes a certain degree of merit to Adam, who had\nbeen guilty of the most inexcusable ingratitude to his Divine\nBenefactor. And it directly contradicts the narrative of Moses, who\nascribes the mercy vouchsafed to the spontaneous over-flowings of the\ngrace of God. Besides all this, it is perfectly ludicrous to imagine\nthat Adam, just driven out of Paradise for his disobedience, with the\ncurse of the Almighty resting upon him, goaded by the pangs of a guilty\nconscience, and his whole frame undergoing the mighty transition from\nimmortality to corruption\u2014it is perfectly ludicrous to imagine that he\ncould be in a fit mood to sit down and compose a poem. Indeed the\nrabbies themselves have not left this story a fair appearance of\ncredibility, for on the very same page of the Yalkut, where this origin\nof the ninety-second Psalm is described, another equally veracious\nincident in the life of Adam, is assigned as the occasion of its\ncomposition.\n\n\u05d0\u05de\u05e8 \u05e8\u05f3 \u05d4\u05de\u05d6\u05de\u05d5\u05e8 \u05d4\u05d6\u05d4 \u05d0\u05d3\u05dd \u05d4\u05e8\u05d0\u05e9\u05d5\u05df \u05d0\u05de\u05e8\u05d5 \u05e4\u05d2\u05e2 \u05d0\u05d3\u05dd \u05d4\u05e8\u05d0\u05e9\u05d5\u05df \u05d1\u05e7\u05d9\u05df \u05d0\u05de\u05e8 \u05dc\u05d9\u05d4 \u05de\u05d4 \u05e0\u05e2\u05e9\u05d4\n\u05d1\u05d3\u05d9\u05e0\u05da \u05d0\u05de\u05e8 \u05dc\u05d9\u05d4 \u05e2\u05e9\u05d9\u05ea\u05d9 \u05ea\u05e9\u05d5\u05d1\u05d4 \u05d5\u05e0\u05ea\u05e4\u05e9\u05e8\u05ea\u05d9 \u05d4\u05ea\u05d7\u05d9\u05dc \u05d0\u05d3\u05dd \u05d4\u05e8\u05d0\u05e9\u05d5\u05df \u05de\u05d8\u05e4\u05d7 \u05e2\u05dc \u05e4\u05e0\u05d9\u05d5 \u05d0\u05de\u05e8 \u05db\u05da\n\u05d4\u05d5\u05d0 \u05d2\u05d3\u05d5\u05dc \u05db\u05d7\u05d4 \u05e9\u05dc \u05ea\u05e9\u05d5\u05d1\u05d4 \u05d5\u05dc\u05d0 \u05d4\u05d9\u05d9\u05ea\u05d9 \u05d9\u05d5\u05d3\u05e2 \u05de\u05d9\u05d3 \u05e2\u05de\u05d3 \u05d0\u05d3\u05dd \u05d4\u05e8\u05d0\u05e9\u05d5\u05df \u05d5\u05d0\u05de\u05e8 \u05de\u05d6\u05de\u05d5\u05e8 \u05c3\n\n\u201cRabbi Levi says, this hymn was said by the first Adam. Adam happened to\nmeet Cain, and said to him, What has been done in the matter of thy\njudgment? He replied, I have repented, and been reconciled. Adam began\nto strike his forehead with his hand, and said, So great is the power of\nrepentance, and I did not know it! Immediately the first Adam stood, and\nsaid this Psalm.\u201d Thus, on the showing of the traditions themselves,\nthis legend, formally adapted in the prayers of the synagogue, is a\nfalsehood. Can this be acceptable worship? Is it reasonable worship? Is\nthe legend itself, in any of its features, worthy of that great people,\nthat received the law of God at Sinai? This is the religion of the\nHigh-priests and Pharisees who rejected Jesus of Nazareth, this the\nwisdom of those who condemned Him, and that fully accounts for their\nconduct. Men, who had let loose their imaginations into the regions of\nromance and fiction, were not likely to love the sober truth inculcated\nby Jesus and his disciples. Their appetites were vitiated, and they were\nnot satisfied with the unadorned narrative of Moses. They had lost all\nrelish for the simple majesty of the \u201coracles of God.\u201d We appeal to the\nnative acuteness, and unsophisticated feeling of every right-minded Jew,\nand ask whether it is not a melancholy spectacle to behold the wise men\nof Israel thus trifling with the sin of Adam, that sad event, the source\nof all our woes? Very different is the tone in which the New Testament\nspeaks both of it, and of the mind of God in reference to it.\n\u201cWherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin;\nand so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned: for until\nthe law sin was in the world; but sin is not imputed when there is no\nlaw. Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that\nhad not sinned after the similitude of Adam\u2019s transgression, who is the\nfigure of Him that was to come. But not as the offence, so also is the\nfree gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the\ngrace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ,\nhath abounded unto many.\u201d (Romans v. 12-15.) But whatever the Jews may\nthink of the New Testament representation, we have have shown that their\nLiturgy contains an absurd legend, borrowed from tradition ages ago, and\nwhich remains there to this day. But, alas! the very next sentence of\nthe prayer, from whim we have quoted, contains two more.\n\n\u05e1\u05d5\u05d9\u05de\u05d4 \u05dc\u05d0\u05d5\u05ea \u05d5\u05dc\u05e2\u05d3 \u05d1\u05d9\u05df \u05d0\u05d1 \u05dc\u05d1\u05e0\u05d9\u05dd , \u05e0\u05e6\u05d5\u05e8 \u05d9\u05e6\u05d9\u05d0\u05d5\u05ea\u05d9\u05d4 \u05db\u05d4\u05d5\u05e8\u05d5 \u05e0\u05d1\u05d5\u05e0\u05d9\u05dd . \u05de\u05e9\u05d0 \u05d1\u05dc\u05d9\n\u05dc\u05d4\u05d5\u05e6\u05d9\u05d0 \u05de\u05d1\u05e4\u05e0\u05d9\u05dd . \u05dc\u05de\u05d7\u05dc\u05dc\u05d9\u05d4 \u05de\u05d9\u05ea\u05d5\u05ea \u05d3\u05e0\u05d9\u05dd . \u05db\u05e8\u05ea \u05d5\u05e8\u05d2\u05d9\u05de\u05ea \u05d0\u05d1\u05e0\u05d9\u05dd . \u05d9\u05d3\u05d5\u05e2\u05d4 \u05d4\u05d9\u05d0 \u05dc\u05da \u05d1\u05de\u05df\n\u05de\u05d9\u05de\u05d9\u05dd \u05e7\u05d3\u05de\u05d5\u05e0\u05d9\u05dd . \u05d8\u05e2\u05de\u05d5 \u05dc\u05d0 \u05e8\u05d3 \u05d1\u05d4 \u05de\u05de\u05e2\u05d5\u05e0\u05d9\u05dd . \u05d7\u05d5\u05d1\u05e8\u05d9 \u05d0\u05d5\u05d1 \u05d1\u05d4 \u05dc\u05d0 \u05e0\u05e2\u05e0\u05d9\u05dd . \u05d6\u05db\u05d5\u05e8 \u05db\u05d9\n\u05d1\u05d4 \u05d9\u05e9\u05d1\u05d5\u05ea \u05e0\u05d4\u05e8 \u05e6\u05e4\u05d5\u05e0\u05d9\u05dd \u05c3\n\n\u201cIt (the Sabbath) is noted as a sign and a witness between the heavenly\nFather and his children: observe its removals, as taught by the wise\nmen, not to bring out a load from within; death is pronounced against\nthose that profane it, either by excision or stoned with stones; by the\nmanna it was well known unto thee in ancient days, for on the Sabbath\nthat food did not descend; _the necromancers were not answered on it;\nremember that on it the incomprehensible river resteth_.\u201d Amongst the\nother honours of the Sabbath-day, and the other testimonies to its\nsacredness, this prayer recounts two miracles. The one, that\nnecromancers could not bring up the dead on that day; the other, the\nweekly Sabbatarian rest of the river Sambation. The first of these\nmiracles has been left by D. Levi without notice or explanation. He\nthought, perhaps, that it would not do in English. But to the second,\nthe resting \u201cof the incomprehensible river\u201d he has attached the\nfollowing note:\u2014\n\n\u201cThis denotes the river \u05e1\u05de\u05d1\u05d9\u05d5\u05df, said to rest on the Sabbath from\nthrowing up stones, &c., which it does all the week. See Sanhedrin, fol.\nlxv. 2; Yalkut on Isaiah, fol. lii. 1; Pesikta, Tanchuma, sect. \u05db\u05d9 \u05ea\u05e9\u05d0.\nSee also Shalsheleth Hakkabala, and Juchsin.\u201d\n\nD. Levi himself thus acknowledges, that no allegory is here intended,\nbut that the Rabbinists do really believe that there is a river that\nthrows up stones all the week, and rests on the Sabbath-day. Many and\nvarious are the accounts which the rabbies give of it, but we shall\nconfine ourselves to one or other of D. Levi\u2019s references, which also\nthrow light upon the subject of the necromancers.\n\n\u05d5\u05d0\u05e3 \u05e9\u05d0\u05dc\u05d4 \u05d6\u05d4 \u05e9\u05d0\u05dc \u05d8\u05d5\u05e8\u05e0\u05d5\u05e1 \u05e8\u05d5\u05e4\u05d5\u05e1 \u05d4\u05e8\u05e9\u05e2 \u05d0\u05ea \u05e8\u05f3\u05f3\u05e2 \u05d0\u05de\u05e8 \u05dc\u05d5 \u05d5\u05de\u05d4 \u05d9\u05d5\u05dd \u05de\u05d9\u05d5\u05de\u05d9\u05dd \u05d0\u05de\u05e8 \u05dc\u05d5\n\u05d5\u05de\u05d4 \u05d2\u05d1\u05e8 \u05de\u05d2\u05d5\u05d1\u05e8\u05d9\u05df \u05d0\u05f3\u05f3\u05dc \u05d3\u05de\u05e8\u05d9 \u05e6\u05d1\u05d9 \u05e9\u05d1\u05ea \u05e0\u05de\u05d9 \u05d3\u05de\u05e8\u05d9 \u05e6\u05d1\u05d9 . \u05d0\u05de\u05e8 \u05dc\u05d9\u05d4 \u05d4\u05db\u05d9 \u05e7\u05d0\u05de\u05d9\u05e0\u05d0 \u05dc\u05da\n\u05de\u05d9 \u05d9\u05d9\u05de\u05e8 \u05d3\u05d4\u05d0\u05d9\u05d3\u05e0\u05d0 \u05e9\u05d1\u05ea\u05d0 . \u05d0\u05de\u05e8 \u05dc\u05d5 \u05e0\u05d4\u05e8 \u05e1\u05de\u05d1\u05d8\u05d9\u05d5\u05df \u05d9\u05d5\u05db\u05d9\u05d7 \u05d1\u05e2\u05dc \u05d0\u05d5\u05d1 \u05d9\u05d5\u05db\u05d9\u05d7 \u05e7\u05d1\u05e8\u05d5 \u05e9\u05dc\n\u05d0\u05d1\u05d9\u05d5 \u05d9\u05d5\u05db\u05d9\u05d7 \u05e9\u05d0\u05d9\u05df \u05de\u05e2\u05dc\u05d4 \u05e2\u05e9\u05df \u05d1\u05e9\u05d1\u05ea \u05c3\n\n\u201cTurnus Rufus, the wicked, also proposed this question to R. Akiva,\nsaying, Why is the Sabbath-day better than other days? He replied, Why\nart thou greater than other men? He answered, So is the will of my\nMaster. The rabbi said, So is it with the Sabbath, such is the will of\nGod. Turnus Rufus said, But I mean to say, who will prove to me that\nthis day is the Sabbath-day? The rabbi answered, The river Sambation\nwill prove this;\u2014a necromancer will prove this;\u2014the grave of thy father\nwill prove this, for the smoke is not made to ascend from it on the\nSabbath.\u201d (Sanhed. fol. 65, col. 2.) In his commentary upon this\npassage, Rashi says of the Sambation,\n\n\u05e0\u05d4\u05e8 \u05d0\u05d7\u05d3 \u05e9\u05dc \u05d0\u05d1\u05e0\u05d9\u05dd \u05d5\u05d1\u05db\u05dc \u05d9\u05de\u05d5\u05ea \u05d4\u05e9\u05d1\u05ea \u05e9\u05d5\u05d8\u05e3 \u05d5\u05d4\u05d5\u05dc\u05da \u05d5\u05d1\u05d9\u05d5\u05dd \u05d4\u05e9\u05d1\u05ea \u05e9\u05d5\u05e7\u05d8 \u05d5\u05e0\u05d7 \u05c3\n\n\u201cThe Sambation is a certain river of stones, which rolls along all the\ndays of the week, but on the Sabbath-day it is perfectly still.\u201d He also\nexplains to us what is meant by the smoke not ascending from the grave\non the Sabbath-day, in the following note:\n\n\u05e7\u05d1\u05e8\u05d5 \u05e9\u05dc \u05d0\u05d1\u05d9\u05d5 \u05d3\u05d8\u05d5\u05e8\u05e0\u05d5\u05e1 \u05e8\u05d5\u05e4\u05d5\u05e1 \u05db\u05dc \u05d9\u05de\u05d5\u05ea \u05d4\u05e9\u05d1\u05ea \u05d4\u05d9\u05d4 \u05de\u05e2\u05dc\u05d4 \u05e2\u05e9\u05df \u05e9\u05d4\u05d9\u05d4 \u05e0\u05d3\u05d5\u05df \u05d5\u05e0\u05e9\u05e8\u05e3\n\u05d5\u05d1\u05e9\u05d1\u05ea \u05e4\u05d5\u05e9\u05e2\u05d9 \u05d2\u05d9\u05d4\u05e0\u05dd \u05e9\u05d5\u05d1\u05ea\u05d9\u05df \u05c3\n\n\u201cOn all the other days of the year a smoke was made to ascend from the\ngrave of the father of Turnus Rufus, for he was suffering the judgment\nof burning, but on the Sabbath-day, the sinners in hell have rest.\u201d\nWhether Turnus Rufus saw the smoke or not, the Talmud does not inform\nus, but the Bereshith Rabba, another work of equal credibility in such\nmatters of fact, tells the story a little more at length, and informs us\nthat he was not satisfied with the argument drawn from the river\nSambation. R. Akiva therefore advised him to cite his father from the\ndead on the Sabbath and the other days, and that this experiment would\nconvince him. To this Turnus Rufus consented, and the results are\ndescribed in the following words:\u2014\n\n\u05d5\u05e1\u05dc\u05e7 \u05db\u05dc \u05d9\u05d5\u05de\u05d9 \u05d3\u05e9\u05d1\u05ea\u05d0 \u05d5\u05d1\u05e9\u05d1\u05ea\u05d0 \u05dc\u05d0 \u05e1\u05dc\u05e7 \u05d1\u05d7\u05d3 \u05d1\u05e9\u05d1\u05d0 \u05d0\u05e1\u05e7\u05d9\u05d4 \u05d0\u05de\u05e8 \u05dc\u05d9\u05d4 \u05de\u05df \u05d3\u05de\u05d9\u05ea\u05ea\n\u05d0\u05d9\u05ea\u05e2\u05d1\u05d3\u05d9\u05ea \u05d9\u05d4\u05d5\u05d3\u05d9 \u05d0\u05ea\u05de\u05d4\u05d0 \u05de\u05e4\u05e0\u05d9 \u05de\u05d4 \u05e2\u05dc\u05d9\u05ea \u05db\u05dc \u05d9\u05de\u05d5\u05ea \u05d4\u05e9\u05d1\u05ea \u05d5\u05e9\u05d1\u05ea \u05dc\u05d0 \u05e2\u05dc\u05d9\u05ea \u05d0\u05de\u05e8 \u05dc\u05d9\u05d4 \u05db\u05dc\n\u05de\u05d9 \u05e9\u05d0\u05d9\u05e0\u05d5 \u05de\u05e9\u05de\u05e8 \u05d0\u05ea \u05d4\u05e9\u05d1\u05ea \u05d0\u05e6\u05dc\u05db\u05dd \u05d1\u05e8\u05e6\u05d5\u05e0\u05d5 \u05db\u05d0\u05df \u05d4\u05d5\u05d0 \u05de\u05e9\u05de\u05e8 \u05d0\u05d5\u05ea\u05d5 \u05d1\u05e2\u05dc \u05db\u05e8\u05d7\u05d5 . \u05d0\u05de\u05e8 \u05dc\u05d5\n\u05d5\u05db\u05d9 \u05e2\u05de\u05dc \u05d9\u05e9 \u05dc\u05db\u05dd \u05e9\u05d0\u05ea\u05dd \u05e2\u05de\u05dc\u05d9\u05dd \u05db\u05dc \u05d9\u05de\u05d5\u05ea \u05d4\u05e9\u05d1\u05ea \u05d5\u05d1\u05e9\u05d1\u05ea \u05d0\u05ea\u05dd \u05e0\u05d5\u05d7\u05d9\u05df \u05d0\u05de\u05e8 \u05dc\u05d5 \u05db\u05dc \u05d9\u05de\u05d5\u05ea\n\u05d4\u05e9\u05d1\u05ea \u05d0\u05e0\u05d5 \u05e0\u05d9\u05d3\u05d5\u05e0\u05d9\u05df \u05d5\u05d1\u05e9\u05d1\u05ea \u05d0\u05e0\u05d5 \u05e0\u05d5\u05d7\u05d9\u05df \u05c3\n\n\u201cHis father came up every day of the week, but on the Sabbath-day he did\nnot come up. On the first day of the week he brought him up again, and\nsaid to him, Father, hast thou been made a Jew since thy death; why is\nit that thou comest up on all the other days of the week, but not on\nSabbath? He replied, Whosoever will not keep the Sabbath voluntarily in\nyour world, must keep it here in spite of himself. He then said, Father,\nhave you then got work on the other days of the week, and rest on the\nSabbath? The father replied, On the other days of the week we are\njudged, but on the Sabbath we are at rest.\u201d (Bereshith Rabba, fol. 9,\ncol. 4.) Such are the legends which the Jewish Prayer-book, on the\nsolemn feast of Pentecost, stamps with all the authority of authentic\nhistory. Is it necessary to prove to the Jews of England that both these\nstories are utterly untrue? Is it necessary to say, that there is not,\nand never was, such a river as the Sambation? Within a century the world\nhas been explored in every direction. From Cooke to Kotzebue the globe\nhas been many times circumnavigated, but none has brought us any tidings\nof the Sambation. Since the times of Benjamin of Tudela, and Abraham\nPeritsol, there has been a host of adventurous travellers, but none had\nthe luck to behold the miraculous torrent of the Sambation. In this very\ncity Jews are occasionally found from every part of the world, but from\nthe banks of the Sambation no messenger has yet arrived. The whole\naccount is a fiction, and is unworthy of a place in the prayers of the\nJews of England. The same may be said of the necromancers, who obtain no\nanswer on the Sabbath-day. It is nothing more than a clever fiction. By\nthe law of Moses necromancy is forbidden to the Jews, and therefore the\ninventor well knew that no pious Jew would ever make the experiment,\neither on the Sabbath or the other days. The story of Turnus Rufus, and\nhis father, as told in the Bereshith Rabba, is plainly contrary, even to\nthe assertions of the oral law itself. The father is made to say,\n\u201cWhosoever will not keep the Sabbath voluntarily in your world, must\nkeep it here, in spite of himself;\u201d which implies that all, who do not\nkeep the Jewish Sabbath, must be punished in the flames of hell; whereas\nthe oral law says that the observance of the Sabbath is not required of\nthe sons of Noah. When this prayer was introduced into the Liturgy of\nthe synagogue we know not, but there it now stands, and in one short\nparagraph contains three downright falsehoods. David Levi himself points\nus to R. Akiva as the author of the last two; and accordingly the Talmud\nrecords the original reference to the business of the necromancers and\nthe river Sambation, as proceeding from the mouth of that great Rabbi.\nThis brings us back to the time immediately succeeding the rejection of\nJesus of Nazareth, and shows us the superstition and the falsehood of\nthose who rejected him. Either R. Akiva invented these things himself,\nand then he is guilty of deliberate falsehood, or he received these\naccounts from others who went before him, and then he was a\nsuperstitious man, and the guilt of inventing falsehood is thrown back\non the earlier rabbies. What is to be thought then of the wisdom of\nthose men who were weak enough to believe, or wicked enough to invent,\nsuch absurd fables? Yet these are the men who opposed Christianity, and\nthis is the system which a large portion of the Jewish nation has\npreferred for 1700 years. That the Rabbinical Jews have firmly believed\nthese legends is plain. They occur in the Talmud, whose authority is\nregarded as divine. They are repeated by Rashi, Ramban, Bechai, and a\nwhole host of the most esteemed Jewish writers. They have formed a part\nof the synagogue service for centuries, and are still found in the\nPrayer-books of the English Jews, to testify that they are not yet\nemancipated from the chains of superstition. If they had been, if any\nconsiderable number of Jews had been convinced of the falsehood of these\nstories, they would never have suffered them to remain in the worship of\nGod. It is utterly impossible to suppose that men would sanction the\nsolemn propagation of falsehood, and yet whenever the Pentecost prayers\nare read or printed, there the fables of Behemoth and Leviathan, Adam\nand the Sabbath, Turnus Rufus and the Sambation, are solemnly accredited\nto the world as worthy of all belief and honour. The fact that they\nconstitute a part of a solemn address to Almighty God, and that not from\nan individual, but from the congregation of Israel, gives them a\nsanction that nothing else could confer. The foreign Jew who comes to\nEngland from some country where there is not so much light, might, if he\nfound such fables struck out of the English synagogue service, obtain a\nlittle light, and go back to his countrymen with the news, that the\nenlightened English Jews have rejected all these absurdities; and thus\nthe moral emancipation of the nation might be prepared throughout the\nworld. But no; the superstitious Talmudist from Turkey, or from Barbary,\nor the North, arrives in England, goes to the synagogue, and finds the\nsame fables and the same superstitions that he had learned in his less\nfavoured native land, and returns as he came. Perhaps he takes with him\na copy of the synagogue prayers, printed in London, and exhibits to his\ncountrymen Behemoth and Leviathan, the necromancers and the Sambation,\nadorned with all the beauty of English printing, paper, and binding.\nThere is surely a great and solemn responsibility resting on those\nIsraelites who do not believe these fables, to protest against their\nadmission into the prayers of the synagogue. The honour of the nation,\nthe welfare of their brethren, and the glory of God, all call for such a\npublic protestation. The Jewish nation is a great and intellectual\npeople, highly gifted by God with those powers that adorn and dignify\nhumanity. But this is not the estimate formed by the world at large. Why\nnot? Because the world at large knows only the fables and absurdities of\nthe Talmud, but is ignorant of the real monuments of Jewish genius. What\ncan be said, then, by an advocate for the Jews, to one who holds the\nJewish mind cheap? All arguments will prove powerless as long as these\ninstances of superstition and folly are contained in the Jewish prayers.\nThe objector will still point to them, and say, If you want to know what\nmen really believe, do not look at their controversial works, or their\napologetic writings, but examine their Prayer-book. Consider not what\nthey say to man, but listen to what they say to God. There they are\nsincere. What can we answer to this argument? Can we say that all the\nfollies and intolerance of former generations are expunged? No; whether\nfrom love or from listlessness, there they abide to this day.\n\nBut the honour of the nation is but of small weight compared with its\nspiritual and temporal prosperity. The English Jews might, by erasing\nall such passages, and thoroughly reforming their Prayer-book, prove a\nblessing to their brethren scattered through the world. Do the\nintelligent and enlightened part of the nation really wish to raise\ntheir brethren in the moral scale? It must be done by purifying their\nreligious notions. There is an inseparable bond of union between\nreligion and moral virtue. Superstition degrades and enfeebles the mind;\nbut zeal for the glory of God calls still more loudly upon every devout\nIsraelite to vindicate the honour of that revelation which God consigned\nto their care, and which is obscured by these fabulous additions.\n\n\n\n\n                                No. XIX.\n                 LEGENDS IN THE PRAYERS FOR PENTECOST.\n\n\nOne of the most glorious circumstances in the national history of\nIsrael, as well as one of the most extraordinary facts in the records of\nmankind, is the descent of the Lord God upon Mount Sinai to proclaim the\nlaw. Glorious it is for Israel, for never did nation hear the voice of\nthe Lord, speaking out of the midst of the fire, as Israel heard. The\ndisplay of God\u2019s grace and favour is the glory of his people, and here\nthey were both displayed pre-eminently. The grandeur and awfulness of\nthe scene we cannot now enter upon, except to remark, that the grandeur\nof the reality is equalled by the dignity of the narrative, which Moses\nhas left us in the 19th and 20th chapters of Exodus. None but an\ninspired historian could have treated an event so honourable to his\nnation, with such majestic simplicity. The style and tone furnish an\nirresistible evidence to the truth of the relation. And perhaps this\nevidence is much strengthened by the contrast presented in the writings\nof the rabbies. There is no part of the Scripture history which they\nhave more amplified by additions of their own; as plainly stamped with\nfalsehood, as the other with truth. We have here a wide field before us,\nbut shall confine ourselves to those legends which are authenticated in\nthe synagogue prayers for the anniversary of that great event. In the\nmorning service for the second day is found an account of the giving of\nthe law, in which the following wonderful passage occurs:\u2014\n\n\u05e6\u05d1\u05d0\u05d5\u05ea \u05e7\u05d5\u05d3\u05e9 \u05d0\u05d7\u05d6\u05d5\u05dd \u05d1\u05e2\u05ea\u05d4 , \u05e6\u05dc\u05e2 \u05db\u05d2\u05d9\u05d2\u05d9\u05ea \u05e2\u05dc\u05d9\u05d4\u05dd \u05db\u05e4\u05e4\u05ea , \u05e6\u05e8\u05d5\u05e4\u05d4 \u05e7\u05d1\u05dc\u05d5 \u05d1\u05de\u05e0\u05d5\u05d3 \u05d5\u05d0\u05d9\u05de\u05ea\u05d4\n\u05c3\n\n\u201cDread seized the holy hosts, when thou didst turn the mountain over\nthem as a tub: they received the pure law with fear and tremor.\u201d (D.\nLevi\u2019s Pentecost Prayers, fol. 150.) Here is a circumstance in the\ngiving of the law, which few readers of the Pentateuch will remember.\nAll will grant that to see Mount Sinai hanging over them, like a tub or\nan extinguisher, was a very dreadful sight, if it really happened. But\nsurely every reasonable Israelite will inquire upon what evidence it\nrests? In all the previous history God appears as a merciful Father,\nvisiting his children in their affliction, redeeming them from bondage,\nand exhibiting miracle after miracle as their safety or their necessity\nrequired; how is it, then, that He appears so suddenly in the character\nof a tyrant or a destroyer, ready to drop the mighty mountain upon the\nheads of his people, and cover them up for ever under the rocky mass?\nMoses throws no light upon the subject. The oral law, the Talmud, must\nexplain the mystery.\n\n\u05d5\u05d9\u05ea\u05d9\u05e6\u05d1\u05d5 \u05d1\u05ea\u05d7\u05ea\u05d9\u05ea \u05d4\u05d4\u05e8 \u05d0\u05de\u05e8 \u05e8\u05f3 \u05d0\u05d1\u05d3\u05d9\u05de\u05d9 \u05d1\u05e8 \u05d7\u05de\u05d0 \u05d1\u05e8 \u05d7\u05e1\u05d0 \u05de\u05dc\u05de\u05d3 \u05e9\u05db\u05e4\u05d4 \u05e2\u05dc\u05d9\u05d4\u05dd \u05d4\u05e7\u05d1\u05f3\u05f3\u05d4 \u05d0\u05ea\n\u05d4\u05d4\u05e8 \u05db\u05d2\u05d9\u05d2\u05d9\u05ea \u05d5\u05d0\u05de\u05e8 \u05dc\u05d4\u05dd \u05d0\u05dd \u05ea\u05e7\u05d1\u05dc\u05d5 \u05d0\u05ea \u05d4\u05ea\u05d5\u05e8\u05d4 \u05de\u05d5\u05d8\u05d1 \u05d5\u05d0\u05dd \u05dc\u05d0\u05d5 \u05e9\u05dd \u05ea\u05d4\u05d0 \u05e7\u05d1\u05d5\u05e8\u05ea\u05db\u05dd , \u05d0\u05de\u05e8\n\u05e8\u05f3 \u05d0\u05d7\u05d0 \u05d1\u05e8 \u05d9\u05e2\u05e7\u05d1 \u05de\u05db\u05d0\u05df \u05de\u05d5\u05d3\u05e2\u05d0 \u05e8\u05d1\u05d4 \u05dc\u05d0\u05d5\u05e8\u05d9\u05d9\u05ea\u05d0 \u05d5\u05db\u05d5\u05f3 \u05c3\n\n\u201cAnd they stood at the nether part of the mountain (or beneath the\nmountain). (Exod. xix. 17.) R. Avdimi, the son of Chama, the son of\nChasa, says, These words teach us that the Holy One, blessed be He,\nturned the mountain over them like a tub, and said to them, If ye will\nreceive the law, well; but if not, there shall be your grave. R. Acha,\nthe son of R. Jacob, says, This is a great confession for the law.\u201d\n(Shabbath, fol. 88, 1.) From this extract it appears that the whole\nfoundation of the fable is a sort of pun upon the words \u05d1\u05ea\u05d7\u05ea\u05d9\u05ea \u05d4\u05d4\u05e8,\n\u201cbeneath the mountain,\u201d or as the English translators rightly have it,\n\u201cat the nether port of the mountain.\u201d R. Avdimi thought that these words\nmeant, as Rashi says, \u05ea\u05d7\u05ea \u05d4\u05d4\u05e8 \u05de\u05de\u05e9, \u201cunder the mountain in the strictest\nsense of the words.\u201d But then the puzzle was, how the Israelites got\ninto that situation. R. Abdimi\u2019s imagination supplied the rest. But in\nthe first place, the word \u05ea\u05d7\u05ea\u05d9\u05ea occurs often enough in both the singular\nand plural, but never has this signification. In the second place, this\nfable directly contradicts the Mosaic account. God had already sent\nnotice to inform the people of the giving of the law, and they had\nreplied, \u201cAll that the Lord hath spoken we will do.\u201d (Ver. 8.) In the\nthird place, if the mountain was turned over them like a tub, how did\nMoses get up to the top, and what necessity was there for the command,\n\u201cGo down, charge the people, lest they break through?\u201d &c. (Ver. 21.)\nAnd lastly, if the law was forced upon the Israelites contrary to their\nwish, cannot they make this an apology for disobedience? Is not this\nwhat R. Acha, the son of Jacob, actually does, when he says, \u201cThis is a\ngreat confession for the law?\u201d So at least Rashi explains his words.\n\n\u05de\u05d5\u05d3\u05e2\u05d0 \u05e8\u05d1\u05d4 \u05e9\u05d0\u05dd \u05d9\u05d6\u05de\u05d9\u05e0\u05dd \u05dc\u05d3\u05d9\u05df \u05dc\u05de\u05d4 \u05dc\u05d0 \u05e7\u05d9\u05d9\u05de\u05ea\u05d0 \u05de\u05d4 \u05e9\u05e7\u05d1\u05dc\u05ea\u05dd \u05e2\u05dc\u05d9\u05db\u05dd \u05d9\u05e9 \u05dc\u05d4\u05dd \u05ea\u05e9\u05d5\u05d1\u05d4\n\u05e9\u05e7\u05d1\u05dc\u05d5\u05d4 \u05d1\u05d0\u05d5\u05e1 \u05c3\n\n\u201cA great confession, for if he call them to judgment, saying, Why have\nye not kept that which ye took upon yourselves, they have an answer,\nthat they were forced to receive it.\u201d (Rashi Comment. in loc.) And this\nfable, contrary to the narrative of Moses, derogatory to the mercy of\nGod, and subversive to the principle of human responsibility, the\nrabbies have introduced into the prayers of the synagogue, and there it\nstill stands as an evidence of the absence of God\u2019s Spirit from those\nwho rejected Jesus of Nazareth, and imposed the oral law upon Israel.\nBut this want of wisdom appears not only in the nature of the additions\nwhich they have made to the Word of God, but also in the conflicting\nstatements which these additions contain. In the legend just given\nIsrael is represented as having been unwilling to receive the law, and\nyet in the morning service for the first day of Pentecost, we have an\nallusion to another legend, which describes the great reward bestowed\nupon them, because they received it with such a ready mind.\n\n\u05d4\u05dd \u05e7\u05d1\u05dc\u05d5 \u05e2\u05d5\u05dc \u05ea\u05d5\u05e8\u05d4 \u05e2\u05dc\u05d9\u05de\u05d5 , \u05d5\u05e0\u05e2\u05e9\u05d4 \u05dc\u05e0\u05e9\u05de\u05e2 \u05d4\u05e7\u05d3\u05d9\u05de\u05d5 , \u05de\u05e8\u05dd \u05e0\u05e9\u05de\u05e2 \u05e0\u05e2\u05e9\u05d4 \u05e0\u05de\u05d5 , \u05d5\u05e6\u05d3\u05e7\u05d4\n\u05d1\u05d4 \u05e0\u05d7\u05e9\u05d1\u05d4 \u05dc\u05de\u05d5 , \u05d5\u05dc\u05e9\u05e0\u05d9 \u05db\u05ea\u05e8\u05d9\u05dd \u05e1\u05d5\u05d9\u05de\u05d5 , \u05dc\u05de\u05dc\u05d5\u05db\u05d4 \u05d5\u05db\u05d4\u05d5\u05e0\u05d4 \u05d5\u05dc\u05dc\u05d5\u05d9\u05d4 \u05d0\u05d5\u05d9\u05de\u05d5 \u05c3\n\n\u201cThey willingly took the yoke of his law upon them, and caused the\nexpression, \u2018We will do,\u2019 to precede, \u2018We will hearken;\u2019 before they\nheard it they said, \u2018We will do,\u2019 and which was accounted for\nrighteousness to them; and they were dignified with two crowns; and\nrendered awful with the sovereignty of the priesthood, and the Levitical\ninstitution.\u201d (Pentecost Prayers, fol. 86.) At first sight it would\nappear as if this were a mere figurative expression to denote either the\npriesthood and the Levitical institution, or the monarchy and the\npriesthood. But then a difficulty occurs, why are only two crowns\nmentioned? Every one knows that in a figurative sense the oral law says\nthat Israel is crowned with three crowns, as it is said,\n\n\u05d1\u05e9\u05dc\u05e9 \u05db\u05ea\u05e8\u05d9\u05dd \u05e0\u05db\u05ea\u05e8\u05d5 \u05d9\u05e9\u05e8\u05d0\u05dc \u05db\u05ea\u05e8 \u05ea\u05d5\u05e8\u05d4 \u05d5\u05db\u05ea\u05e8 \u05db\u05d4\u05d5\u05e0\u05d4 \u05d5\u05db\u05ea\u05e8 \u05de\u05dc\u05db\u05d5\u05ea \u05c3\n\n\u201cIsrael is crowned with three crowns, the crown of the law, and the\ncrown of the priesthood, and the crown of the kingdom.\u201d (Hilchoth Talmud\nTorah, chap. iii. 1.) Why then does this prayer only mention two? It is\nbecause it refers to a totally different circumstance. The number of the\ncrowns, and the reason assigned for their bestowal, \u201cbecause they caused\nthe expression \u2018We will do,\u2019 to precede \u2018We will hearken,\u2019\u201d both\nidentify the allusion as being made to the following Talmudic legend:\u2014\n\n\u05d1\u05e9\u05e2\u05d4 \u05e9\u05d4\u05e7\u05d3\u05d9\u05de\u05d5 \u05d9\u05e9\u05e8\u05d0\u05dc \u05e0\u05e2\u05e9\u05d4 \u05dc\u05e0\u05e9\u05de\u05e2 \u05d1\u05d0\u05d5 \u05e9\u05e9\u05d9\u05dd \u05e8\u05d9\u05d1\u05d5\u05d0 \u05e9\u05dc \u05de\u05dc\u05d0\u05db\u05d9 \u05d4\u05e9\u05e8\u05ea \u05dc\u05db\u05dc \u05d0\u05d7\u05d3 \u05d5\u05d0\u05d7\u05d3\n\u05de\u05d9\u05e9\u05e8\u05d0\u05dc \u05e7\u05e9\u05e8\u05d5 \u05dc\u05d5 \u05e9\u05e0\u05d9 \u05db\u05ea\u05e8\u05d9\u05dd \u05d0\u05d7\u05d3 \u05db\u05e0\u05d2\u05d3 \u05e0\u05e2\u05e9\u05d4 \u05d5\u05d0\u05d7\u05d3 \u05db\u05e0\u05d2\u05d3 \u05e0\u05e9\u05de\u05e2 \u05d5\u05db\u05d9\u05d5\u05df \u05e9\u05d7\u05d8\u05d0\u05d5 \u05d9\u05e9\u05e8\u05d0\u05dc\n\u05d9\u05e8\u05d3\u05d5 \u05de\u05d0\u05d4 \u05d5\u05e2\u05e9\u05e8\u05d9\u05dd \u05e8\u05d1\u05d5\u05d0 \u05de\u05dc\u05d0\u05db\u05d9 \u05d7\u05d1\u05dc\u05d4 \u05d5\u05e4\u05e8\u05e7\u05d5\u05dd \u05e9\u05e0\u05d0\u05de\u05e8 \u05d5\u05d9\u05ea\u05e0\u05e6\u05dc\u05d5 \u05d1\u05e0\u05d9 \u05d9\u05e9\u05e8\u05d0\u05dc \u05d0\u05ea \u05e2\u05d3\u05d9\u05dd\n\u05de\u05d4\u05e8 \u05d7\u05d5\u05e8\u05d1 \u05c3\n\n\u201cIn the hour when Israel caused, \u2018We will do,\u2019 to precede \u2018We will\nhearken,\u2019 there came six hundred thousand ministering angels, one to\neach Israelite, and invested him with two crowns, one answering to \u2018We\nwill do;\u2019 and the second answering to \u2018We will hearken.\u2019 But when Israel\nsinned, there descended twelve hundred thousand evil angels, and took\nthem away: as it is said, \u2018The children of Israel stripped themselves\n(or were stripped) of their ornaments by the mount Horeb.\u2019\u201d (Ex. xxxiii.\n6.) (Shabbath, fol. 88, 1.) Here, then, is no allegory, no allusion to\nthe allegorical crowns of Israel, but a narrative of a supposed fact,\nwhich occurred in the history of each of the six hundred thousand\nIsraelites who went forth from Egypt. The commentary in the Talmud\nevidently treats this as a grave and authentic history, for it tells us\nthe material of which the crowns were composed.\n\n\u05e9\u05e0\u05d9 \u05db\u05ea\u05e8\u05d9\u05dd \u05e9\u05dc \u05d4\u05d5\u05d3 \u05d4\u05d9\u05d5 \u05dc\u05e4\u05d9\u05db\u05da \u05db\u05e9\u05e0\u05d8\u05dc\u05dd \u05de\u05e9\u05d4 \u05e7\u05e8\u05df \u05e2\u05d5\u05e8 \u05e4\u05e0\u05d9\u05d5 \u05c3\n\n\u201cThe two crowns were crowns of glory, therefore, when Moses wore them\nthe skin of his face shone.\u201d From this it is evident that the Rabbinists\nconsidered this legend to be as authentic as the fact recorded in the\nBible (Exod. xxxiv. 30), that the skin of Moses\u2019 face shone. They were\nnot satisfied with the honour conferred upon Moses, but were led, by a\nvainglorious feeling, to extend it to every individual Israelite, and to\nadd what is not said of Moses, but what increases the marvellousness of\nthe narrative, that six hundred thousand angels descended for the\npurpose of crowning Israel, and that twice that number was necessary for\nthe removal of the crowns once conferred. But how does this story agree\nwith the former? If the Israelites were compelled to receive the law\nagainst their will, by the terrors of the mountain hanging over their\nheads, what great merit was there to deserve these two crowns? If the\nIsraelites were so willing, and received such a glorious reward, what\nnecessity was there for turning the mountain over them like a tub? These\nstories are inconsistent in themselves, without foundation in the Word\nof God, and are therefore unworthy of a place in the prayers of Israel.\nBut this prayer has other particulars equally wonderful, to which we\nproceed. A sentence or two farther on, this prayer describes the effect\nwhich the delivery of the ten commandments produced upon Israel.\n\n\u05d5\u05d0\u05d7\u05ea \u05d1\u05d3\u05d1\u05e8\u05d5 \u05d4\u05d7\u05e8\u05d9\u05d3 \u05e2\u05d5\u05dc\u05de\u05d5 , \u05d5\u05e2\u05e9\u05e8\u05d9\u05dd \u05d5\u05d0\u05e8\u05d1\u05e2\u05d4 \u05de\u05d9\u05dc \u05de\u05d4\u05dc\u05da \u05e0\u05e2\u05d5 \u05e2\u05de\u05d5 , \u05e9\u05ea\u05d9\u05dd \u05d6\u05d5\n\u05db\u05d4\u05e9\u05de\u05d9\u05e2\u05d5 \u05e0\u05d5\u05d0\u05de\u05d5 \u05c3\n\n\u201cWhen he spoke the first word, his world was terrified, and when they\nheard two commandments, they moved backward the space of twenty-four \u05de\u05d9\u05dc\nmiles.\u201d (Pentecost Prayers, fol. 87.) To understand this, we must again\nrefer to the Talmud, which gives us the particulars.\n\n\u05d0\u05de\u05e8 \u05e8\u05f3 \u05d9\u05d4\u05d5\u05e9\u05e2 \u05d1\u05e8 \u05dc\u05d5\u05d9 \u05db\u05dc \u05d3\u05d1\u05d5\u05e8 \u05d5\u05d3\u05d1\u05d5\u05e8 \u05e9\u05d9\u05e6\u05d0 \u05de\u05e4\u05d9 \u05d4\u05e7\u05d1\u05f3\u05f3\u05d4 \u05d7\u05d6\u05e8\u05d5 \u05d9\u05e9\u05e8\u05d0\u05dc \u05dc\u05d0\u05d7\u05d5\u05e8\u05d9\u05d4\u05df\n\u05d9\u05f3\u05f3\u05d1 \u05de\u05d9\u05dc \u05d5\u05d4\u05d9\u05d5 \u05de\u05dc\u05d0\u05db\u05d9 \u05d4\u05e9\u05e8\u05ea \u05de\u05d3\u05d3\u05d9\u05df \u05d0\u05d5\u05ea\u05df \u05e9\u05e0\u05d0\u05de\u05e8 \u05de\u05dc\u05d0\u05db\u05d9 \u05e6\u05d1\u05d0\u05d5\u05ea \u05d9\u05d3\u05d5\u05d3\u05d5\u05df \u05d9\u05d3\u05d5\u05d3\u05d5\u05df \u05d0\u05dc\n\u05ea\u05e7\u05e8\u05d0 \u05d9\u05d3\u05d5\u05d3\u05d5\u05df \u05d0\u05dc\u05d0 \u05d9\u05d3\u05d3\u05d5\u05df \u05c3\n\n\u201cRabbi Joshua, the son of Levi, says, as each commandment proceeded from\nthe mouth of the Holy One, blessed be He, Israel retreated twelve miles,\nand the ministering angels led them back, as it is said, \u2018the angels of\nthe host did flee apace.\u2019 (Ps. lxviii. 13.) Do not read \u05d9\u05b0\u05d3\u05b7\u05b9\u05d3\u05bc\u05d5\u05bc\u05df \u2018they\nfled;\u2019 but \u05d9\u05b0\u05d3\u05b7\u05d3\u05bc\u05d5\u05bc\u05df, \u2018they led.\u2019\u201d (Shabbath, fol. 88, 2.) In this short\npassage we have two deliberate alterations of the Word of God, in order\nto square it with this absurd tradition. In the first place, \u05de\u05dc\u05db\u05d9 \u05e6\u05d1\u05d0\u05d5\u05ea\n\u201cKings of hosts\u201d is changed into \u05de\u05dc\u05d0\u05db\u05d9 \u05e6\u05d1\u05d0\u05d5\u05ea \u201cangels of hosts,\u201d and in\nthe second place, \u201cThey fled,\u201d is changed into \u201cthey led.\u201d These\nalterations do of themselves throw discredit upon the story which\nrequires them, and not only upon this story, but upon the whole oral\nlaw, which allows such trifling with the Word of God. But our business\nis at present with the legend, and as it is told a little more\ncircumstantially in the Jalkut, it will be well to give that version of\nit also.\n\n\u05d5\u05d9\u05e2\u05de\u05d3\u05d5 \u05de\u05e8\u05d7\u05d5\u05e7 \u05d7\u05d5\u05e5 \u05dc\u05e9\u05e0\u05d9\u05dd \u05e2\u05e9\u05e8 \u05de\u05d9\u05dc \u05de\u05d2\u05d9\u05d3 \u05e9\u05d4\u05d9\u05d5 \u05d9\u05e9\u05e8\u05d0\u05dc \u05e0\u05e8\u05ea\u05e2\u05d9\u05df \u05dc\u05d0\u05d7\u05d5\u05e8\u05d9\u05d4\u05df \u05e9\u05e0\u05d9\u05dd \u05e2\u05e9\u05e8\n\u05de\u05d9\u05dc \u05d5\u05d7\u05d5\u05d6\u05e8\u05d9\u05df \u05dc\u05e4\u05e0\u05d9\u05d4\u05dd \u05e9\u05e0\u05d9\u05dd \u05e2\u05e9\u05e8 \u05de\u05d9\u05dc \u05d4\u05e8\u05d9 \u05e2\u05e9\u05e8\u05d9\u05dd \u05d5\u05d0\u05e8\u05d1\u05e2\u05d4 \u05de\u05d9\u05dc \u05e2\u05dc \u05db\u05dc \u05d3\u05d1\u05d5\u05e8 \u05d5\u05d3\u05d1\u05d5\u05e8\n\u05e0\u05de\u05e6\u05d0\u05d5 \u05de\u05d4\u05dc\u05db\u05d9\u05df \u05d1\u05d0\u05d5\u05ea\u05d5 \u05d4\u05d9\u05d5\u05dd \u05de\u05d0\u05ea\u05d9\u05dd \u05d5\u05d0\u05e8\u05d1\u05e2\u05d9\u05dd \u05de\u05d9\u05dc \u05d1\u05d0\u05d5\u05ea\u05d4 \u05e9\u05e2\u05d4 \u05d0\u05de\u05e8 \u05d4\u05e7\u05d1\u05f3\u05f3\u05d4 \u05dc\u05de\u05dc\u05d0\u05db\u05d9\n\u05d4\u05e9\u05e8\u05ea \u05e8\u05d3\u05d5 \u05d5\u05e1\u05d9\u05d9\u05e2\u05d5 \u05d0\u05ea \u05d0\u05d4\u05d9\u05db\u05dd \u05e9\u05e0\u05d0\u05de\u05e8 \u05de\u05dc\u05db\u05d9 \u05e6\u05d1\u05d0\u05d5\u05ea \u05d9\u05d3\u05d5\u05d3\u05d5\u05df \u05d9\u05d3\u05d5\u05d3\u05d5\u05df \u05d9\u05d3\u05d5\u05d3\u05d5\u05df \u05d1\u05d4\u05dc\u05d9\u05db\u05d4\n\u05d9\u05d3\u05d5\u05d3\u05d5\u05df \u05d1\u05d7\u05d6\u05e8\u05d4 \u05c3\n\n\u201c\u2018They removed and stood afar off\u2019 (Exod. xx. 18)\u2014a distance of twelve\nmiles. This shows us that Israel retreated backwards twelve miles, and\nthen advanced forwards twelve miles, altogether twenty-four miles, as\neach commandment was delivered. Thus they travelled in that day two\nhundred and forty miles. At that time the Holy One, blessed be He, said\nto the ministering angels, Descend and help your brethren, for it is\nsaid, \u2018The Kings of hosts did lead, did lead.\u2019 (Ps. lxviii. 13.) That\nis, they led when they went, and they led them when they returned.\u201d\n(Jalkut Shimoni, part i. fol. 53, 1.) It is hardly needful to point out\nthe absurdity of this narration. Just think of the Israelites running\naway twelve miles, when they heard a commandment, and then brought back\nagain, and then running away again. How unlike the simple and dignified\nnarrative which Moses has left! We ask every intelligent Israelite what\nhe thinks? Is this story a falsehood? If so, why is it left in the\nprayers of the synagogue? If it stood alone, we might suppose that by\nsome oversight or other it had crept in, but we have already noticed\nmany like it, and the very next sentence of this same prayer contains\nanother.\n\n\u05d1\u05e8\u05d3\u05ea\u05d5 \u05dc\u05d3\u05d1\u05e8 \u05dc\u05d0\u05dd \u05e2\u05d5\u05dc\u05dd , \u05e8\u05e2\u05e9\u05d5 \u05d0\u05d5\u05de\u05d5\u05ea \u05d4\u05e2\u05d5\u05dc\u05dd , \u05e4\u05d7\u05d3 \u05e7\u05e8\u05d0\u05dd \u05d5\u05e8\u05e2\u05d3 \u05d4\u05d7\u05d9\u05dc\u05dd , \u05d7\u05d9\u05dc\n\u05db\u05d9\u05d5\u05dc\u05d3\u05d4 \u05d4\u05d1\u05d4\u05d9\u05dc\u05dd , \u05e1\u05e2\u05e8\u05d5 \u05d5\u05d7\u05e8\u05d3\u05d5 \u05d5\u05e1\u05e8 \u05e2\u05dc\u05dd , \u05d5\u05d0\u05e6\u05dc \u05e7\u05de\u05d5\u05d0\u05dc \u05d1\u05d0\u05d5 \u05db\u05dc\u05dd , \u05dc\u05e0\u05d7\u05e9 \u05d1\u05e7\u05e1\u05de\u05d9\n\u05e7\u05dc\u05e7\u05d5\u05dc\u05dd , \u05d5\u05e9\u05d0\u05dc\u05d5 \u05dc\u05d5 \u05de\u05d4 \u05d6\u05d4 \u05d1\u05d0 \u05dc\u05e2\u05d5\u05dc\u05dd , \u05e9\u05de\u05d0 \u05d4\u05d9\u05d5\u05dd \u05dc\u05de\u05d9\u05de\u05d9\u05d5 \u05d7\u05d5\u05d6\u05e8 \u05d4\u05e2\u05d5\u05dc\u05dd \u05c3\n\n\u201cWhen he came down to speak to the immortal people, the people of the\nworld were moved, dread seized them, and trembling laid hold on them;\npain troubled them as a woman in travail: they were shaken and\ndisturbed, and their shadow departed from them; they all came to Kemuel,\nto divine with their erroneous divinations, and asked him, What is this\nthat hath happened to the world? Perhaps the world is this day to return\nto its chaos.\u201d The preceding story told us what happened to Israel, the\nallusion in this sentence tells us of the terror which came upon the\nGentiles; but to understand the allusion, we must again refer to the\nTalmud.\n\n\u05d5\u05d9\u05e9\u05de\u05e2 \u05d9\u05ea\u05e8\u05d5 \u05db\u05d4\u05df \u05de\u05d3\u05d9\u05df \u05de\u05d4 \u05e9\u05de\u05d5\u05e2\u05d4 \u05e9\u05de\u05e2 \u05d5\u05d1\u05d0 \u05d5\u05e0\u05ea\u05d2\u05d9\u05d9\u05e8 \u05e8\u05f3 \u05d9\u05d4\u05d5\u05e9\u05d5\u05e2 \u05d0\u05d5\u05de\u05e8 \u05de\u05dc\u05d7\u05de\u05d4 \u05e2\u05de\u05dc\u05e7\n\u05e9\u05de\u05e2 \u05e9\u05d4\u05e8\u05d9 \u05db\u05ea\u05d5\u05d1 \u05d1\u05e6\u05d3\u05d5 \u05d5\u05d9\u05d7\u05dc\u05e9 \u05d9\u05d4\u05d5\u05e9\u05e2 \u05d0\u05ea \u05e2\u05de\u05dc\u05e7 \u05d5\u05d0\u05ea \u05e2\u05de\u05d5 \u05dc\u05e4\u05d9 \u05d4\u05e8\u05d1 , \u05e8\u05f3\u05f3\u05d0 \u05d4\u05de\u05d5\u05d3\u05e2\u05d9\n\u05d0\u05d5\u05de\u05e8 \u05de\u05ea\u05df \u05ea\u05d5\u05e8\u05d4 \u05e9\u05de\u05e2 \u05e9\u05db\u05e9\u05e0\u05ea\u05e0\u05d4 \u05ea\u05d5\u05e8\u05d4 \u05dc\u05d9\u05e9\u05e8\u05d0\u05dc \u05e7\u05d5\u05dc\u05d5 \u05d4\u05d5\u05dc\u05da \u05de\u05e1\u05d5\u05e3 \u05e2\u05d5\u05dc\u05dd \u05d5\u05e2\u05d3 \u05e1\u05d5\u05e4\u05d5 \u05d5\u05db\u05dc\n\u05d0\u05d5\u05de\u05d5\u05ea \u05d4\u05e2\u05d5\u05dc\u05dd \u05d0\u05d7\u05d6\u05ea\u05df \u05e8\u05e2\u05d3\u05d4 \u05d1\u05d4\u05d9\u05db\u05dc\u05d9\u05d4\u05df \u05d5\u05d0\u05de\u05e8\u05d5 \u05e9\u05d9\u05e8\u05d4 \u05e9\u05e0\u05d0\u05de\u05e8 \u05d5\u05d1\u05d4\u05d9\u05db\u05dc\u05d5 \u05db\u05d5\u05dc\u05d5 \u05d0\u05d5\u05de\u05e8 \u05db\u05d1\u05d5\u05d3\n\u05e0\u05ea\u05e7\u05d1\u05e6\u05d5 \u05db\u05d5\u05dc\u05dd \u05d0\u05e6\u05dc \u05d1\u05dc\u05e2\u05dd \u05d4\u05e8\u05e9\u05e2 \u05d5\u05d0\u05de\u05e8\u05d5 \u05dc\u05d5 \u05de\u05d4 \u05e7\u05d5\u05dc \u05d4\u05d4\u05de\u05d5\u05df \u05d4\u05d6\u05d4 \u05d0\u05e9\u05e8 \u05e9\u05de\u05e2\u05e0\u05d5 \u05e9\u05de\u05d0 \u05de\u05d1\u05d5\u05dc\n\u05d1\u05d0 \u05dc\u05e2\u05d5\u05dc\u05dd \u05d0\u05de\u05e8 \u05dc\u05d4\u05dd \u05d4\u05f3 \u05dc\u05de\u05d1\u05d5\u05dc \u05d9\u05e9\u05d1 \u05d5\u05d9\u05e9\u05d1 \u05d4\u05f3 \u05dc\u05de\u05da \u05dc\u05e2\u05d5\u05dc\u05dd , \u05db\u05d1\u05e8 \u05e0\u05e9\u05d1\u05e2 \u05d4\u05e7\u05d1\u05f3\u05f3\u05d4 \u05e9\u05d0\u05d9\u05e0\u05d5\n\u05de\u05d1\u05d9\u05d0 \u05de\u05d1\u05d5\u05dc \u05dc\u05e2\u05d5\u05dc\u05dd \u05d0\u05de\u05e8\u05d5 \u05dc\u05d5 \u05de\u05d1\u05d5\u05dc \u05e9\u05dc \u05de\u05d9\u05dd \u05d0\u05d9\u05e0\u05d5 \u05de\u05d1\u05d9\u05d0 \u05d0\u05d1\u05dc \u05de\u05d1\u05d5\u05dc \u05e9\u05dc \u05d0\u05e9 \u05de\u05d1\u05d9\u05d0 \u05e9\u05e0\u05d0\u05de\u05e8\n\u05db\u05d9 \u05d4\u05e0\u05d4 \u05d1\u05d0\u05e9 \u05d4\u05f3 \u05e0\u05e9\u05e4\u05d8 \u05d0\u05de\u05e8 \u05dc\u05d4\u05dd \u05db\u05d1\u05e8 \u05e0\u05e9\u05d1\u05e2 \u05e9\u05d0\u05d9\u05e0\u05d5 \u05de\u05e9\u05d7\u05d9\u05ea \u05db\u05dc \u05d1\u05e9\u05e8 , \u05d5\u05de\u05d4 \u05e7\u05d5\u05dc \u05d4\u05d4\u05de\u05d5\u05df\n\u05d4\u05d6\u05d4 \u05d0\u05e9\u05e8 \u05e9\u05de\u05e2\u05e0\u05d5 \u05d0\u05de\u05e8 \u05dc\u05d4\u05df \u05d7\u05de\u05d3\u05d4 \u05d8\u05d5\u05d1\u05d4 \u05d9\u05e9 \u05dc\u05d5 \u05d1\u05d1\u05d9\u05ea \u05d2\u05e0\u05d6\u05d9\u05df \u05e9\u05d4\u05d9\u05ea\u05d4 \u05d2\u05e0\u05d5\u05d6\u05d4 \u05d0\u05e6\u05dc\u05d5\n\u05ea\u05ea\u05e7\u05e2\u05f3\u05f3\u05d3 \u05d3\u05d5\u05e8\u05d5\u05ea \u05e7\u05d5\u05d3\u05dd \u05e9\u05e0\u05d1\u05e8\u05d0 \u05d4\u05e2\u05d5\u05dc\u05dd \u05d5\u05d1\u05e7\u05e9 \u05dc\u05d9\u05ea\u05e0\u05d4 \u05dc\u05d1\u05e0\u05d9\u05d5 \u05e9\u05e0\u05d0\u05de\u05e8 \u05d4\u05f3 \u05e2\u05d5\u05d6 \u05dc\u05e2\u05de\u05d5 \u05d9\u05ea\u05df\n\u05e4\u05ea\u05d7\u05d5 \u05db\u05d5\u05dc\u05dd \u05d5\u05d0\u05de\u05e8\u05d5 \u05d4\u05f3 \u05d9\u05d1\u05e8\u05da \u05d0\u05ea \u05e2\u05de\u05d5 \u05d1\u05e9\u05dc\u05d5\u05dd \u05c3\n\n\u201c\u2018And Jethro the priest of Midian heard.\u2019 (Exod. xviii. 1.) What was it\nthat he heard which induced him to come and be a proselyte? R. Joshua\nsays, he heard of the war with Amalek, for immediately before it is\nwritten, \u2018And Joshua discomfited Amalek and his people with the edge of\nhis sword.\u2019 (Exod. xvii. 13.) R. Eliezer, the Modite, says, he heard the\ngiving of the law, for when the law was given to Israel, his voice went\nfrom one end of the world to the other, and all the nations of the world\nwere seized with trembling in their temples, and they repeated a hymn,\nas it is said, \u2018In his temple doth every one speak of his glory.\u2019 (Psalm\nxxix. 9.) They gathered themselves together to Baalam the wicked, and\nsaid to him, What is the voice of the tumult which we have heard?\nPerhaps a flood is coming upon the world. He replied, \u2018The Lord sitteth\nupon the flood; yea, the Lord sitteth King for ever.\u2019 (Verse 10.) The\nHoly One, blessed be He, has sworn long since that He will not bring a\nflood upon the world. They replied, He will not bring a flood of waters,\nbut He will bring a flood of fire! for it is said, \u2018By fire will the\nLord plead.\u2019 (Isaiah lxvi. 16.) He answered them, He has sworn long\nsince that he will not destroy all flesh. What, then, is the voice of\nthe tumult which we have heard? He said to them, God has had a most\ndesirable good in the house of his treasures, which has been treasured\nup with him for nine hundred and seventy-four generations before the\ncreation of the world, and he now seeks to give it to his children, for\nit is said, \u2018The Lord will give strength to his people.\u2019 Then they all\nbegan and said, \u2018The Lord will bless his people with peace.\u2019\u201d (Ps. xxix.\n11.) (Zevachin, fol. 116, 1.) This is the fable to which your prayers\nrefer, and which all Israel throughout the world is taught to believe,\nand to commemorate in the solemn act of public worship. That it is a\nmere fable is very easy to prove. First, it contradicts the narrative\ngiven by Moses. This fable says that the tremendous noise made at the\ngiving of the law, brought Jethro to Moses\u2014that this was what he heard.\nBut if you will read the whole verse, from which the Talmud quotes a few\nwords, you will find that there was no occasion for asking what Jethro\nheard, for Moses himself expressly tells us what he heard, and why he\ncame. \u201cWhen Jethro, the priest of Midian, Moses\u2019 father-in-law, heard of\nall that God had done for Moses, and for Israel his people, and that the\nLord had brought Israel out of Egypt, then Jethro,\u201d &c. (Exodus xviii.\n1-5.) If you will read the whole chapter, you will find that Jethro was\ncome and gone before the law was given, and consequently before the\ntremendous noise was made; so that it is certainly false that this was\nthe cause of his coming. Secondly, that all the nations heard the voice\nof God is false, for it also contradicts the language of Moses, who\nmakes it the peculiar privilege of Israel, that they alone heard the\nvoice. \u201cDid ever people hear the voice of God speaking out of the midst\nof the fire, as thou hast heard, and live?\u201d (Deut. iv. 33.) Lastly, this\nstory is palpably absurd. The Talmud represents Balaam and his Gentile\ncontemporaries quoting Scripture like two rabbies, and that, hundreds of\nyears before the portions which they quote were written! They both quote\nthe 29th Psalm, a Psalm of David, about 500 years before he was born,\nand the Gentiles quote the 66th of Isaiah above 700 years before it was\nwritten! And your rabbies have not been content to keep this absurd and\nfoolish story in the Talmud, but have inserted it in the prayers for the\nsolemn festival of Pentecost. According to these prayers, you are taught\nto believe that, at the giving of the law, God turned Mount Sinai over\nthe people of Israel like a tub, and compelled them to receive the law\nagainst their will; and yet that, for their ready obedience, six hundred\nthousand angels were sent down to crown each man with two crowns. You\nare taught to believe that when the commandments were given, Israel\nwalked backwards and forwards two hundred and forty miles. And that the\nvoice of God was so loud that it was heard by all the nations of the\nworld, who all went to Balaam, and all knew and quoted the Psalms and\nthe prophets, centuries before they were written. This is what you have\ngot by following the oral law. It is in vain for you to say that you do\nnot believe these things\u2014there they stand in your Prayer-book. If you do\nnot believe them, why do you leave them there? But whatever individuals\nmay say, it is evident that the compilers of the Jewish Liturgy heartily\nbelieved every word of them, and therefore introduced them into their\nprayers. And it is equally certain that, wherever the Talmud maintains\nits authority, these fables form part of the faith of Israel. But some\nwill say, We do not believe them. Why not; Do you disbelieve them\nbecause they are true? No, but because they are false. Then you confess\nthat the oral law contains downright palpable falsehoods, and that in\nmany of its narrations it is not worthy of credence. Of what value,\nthen, is the oral law, and what credit can we give to the authors of it,\nwho did not scruple to invent these foolish stories?\n\n\n\n\n                                No. XX.\n                 LEGENDS IN THE PRAYERS FOR PENTECOST.\n\n\nNearly eighteen centuries have now elapsed since a large portion of the\nJewish nation deliberately chose Rabbinism in preference to\nChristianity. The great question between Jews and Christians is, whether\nthose persons made a right choice. The means of answering the question\nare within our reach. The oral law exists, diffused through the volumes\nof the Talmud, and compressed in the prayers of the synagogue. There we\ncan look for it, and judge of its spirit and its intrinsic excellence\nand evidence. The Rabbinists say, that the oral law was given to Moses\non Mount Sinai, and that the oral law which they now possess, is\nidentically the same as that then received; and they appeal in proof of\nthis assertion to the continuity of its transmission from father to son\ndown to the present day. The Christian objects that this oral law is\nfull of fables. The Talmudist replies by making a distinction between\nthe \u05d3\u05d9\u05e0\u05d9\u05dd the laws and the Agadah, or legendary part: and the Christian\nis satisfied or silenced until he opens the Jewish Prayer-book, and\nfinds that the most absurd and improbable of all the Talmudic legends\nare there recognised as undoubted verities, and integral parts of modern\nJudaism. Many of these, and sufficient to annihilate all claims which\nthe oral law can make to truth, have been examined, but as this part of\nthe subject is important, two more must be considered before we can at\npresent take leave of them. In the sentence immediately following our\nlast extract from the Jewish prayers we read as follows:\u2014\n\n\u05d5\u05db\u05dc \u05d3\u05d5\u05e8 \u05d5\u05d3\u05d5\u05e8 \u05d5\u05de\u05e0\u05d4\u05d9\u05d2\u05d9\u05d4\u05dd , \u05d0\u05e9\u05e8 \u05e2\u05de\u05d3\u05d5 \u05dc\u05e4\u05e0\u05d9\u05d4\u05dd , \u05d5\u05d4\u05e2\u05ea\u05d9\u05d3\u05d9\u05dd \u05dc\u05e2\u05de\u05d5\u05d3 \u05d0\u05d7\u05e8\u05d9\u05d4\u05dd , \u05db\u05d5\u05dc\u05dd\n\u05d4\u05e2\u05de\u05d9\u05d3\u05dd \u05d1\u05e1\u05d9\u05e0\u05d9 \u05e2\u05de\u05d4\u05dd , \u05dc\u05d4\u05d5\u05d3\u05d9\u05e2\u05dd \u05db\u05d9 \u05d3\u05d5\u05e8 \u05d3\u05e2 \u05e0\u05d7\u05e9\u05e7 \u05de\u05db\u05d5\u05dc\u05d4\u05dd , \u05d8\u05d5\u05d1 \u05d8\u05e2\u05dd \u05d5\u05d3\u05e2\u05ea\n\u05dc\u05d4\u05e9\u05db\u05d9\u05dc\u05d4\u05dd , \u05d5\u05db\u05dc \u05de\u05d5\u05dd \u05dc\u05d0 \u05d4\u05d9\u05d4 \u05d1\u05d4\u05dd , \u05db\u05d9 \u05e9\u05dc\u05de\u05d9\u05dd \u05d5\u05de\u05d5\u05e9\u05dc\u05de\u05d9\u05dd \u05d4\u05d9\u05d5 \u05db\u05d5\u05dc\u05d4\u05dd \u05c3\n\nWhich D. Levi thus translates, \u201cAnd every generation, and its governors\nthat existed before them, and those that rose after them, were all\nplaced at Mount Sinai with them, to let them know, that the intelligent\ngeneration was more acceptable than them; to make them understand good\njudgment and knowledge: there was no blemish in them, for they were\nentirely perfect.\u201d (Pentecost Prayers, p. 87.) The assembling of the\nliving nation of Israel, to hear the voice of the Creator, was not grand\nenough for the rabbies, they have therefore added that the souls of all\nthe unborn generations were present to hear and receive the law. The\ncomparison of this tradition with some already considered suggests\nseveral interesting topics for inquiry. For instance, whether these\nsouls were under the mountain or not when it was turned over\nthem\u2014whether they performed the journey of two hundred and forty miles\nbackwards and forwards at the giving of the ten commandments, &c.? But\nthe authority, which this tradition confers on the oral law, demands our\nmore immediate attention, and is particularly manifest in that version\nof the story, which is found in Medrash Rabba.\n\n\u05d5\u05d9\u05d3\u05d1\u05e8 \u05d0\u05dc\u05d4\u05d9\u05dd \u05d0\u05ea \u05db\u05dc \u05d4\u05d3\u05d1\u05e8\u05d9\u05dd \u05d4\u05d0\u05dc\u05d4 \u05dc\u05d0\u05de\u05e8 , \u05d0\u05de\u05e8 \u05e8\u05f3 \u05d9\u05e6\u05d7\u05e7 \u05de\u05d4 \u05e9\u05d4\u05e0\u05d1\u05d9\u05d0\u05d9\u05dd \u05e2\u05ea\u05d9\u05d3\u05d9\u05df\n\u05dc\u05d4\u05ea\u05e0\u05d1\u05d0\u05d5\u05ea \u05d1\u05db\u05dc \u05d3\u05d5\u05e8 \u05d5\u05d3\u05d5\u05e8 \u05e7\u05d1\u05dc\u05d5 \u05de\u05d4\u05e8 \u05e1\u05d9\u05e0\u05d9 \u05e9\u05db\u05df \u05de\u05e9\u05d4 \u05d0\u05d5\u05de\u05e8 \u05dc\u05d4\u05dd \u05dc\u05d9\u05e9\u05e8\u05d0\u05dc \u05db\u05d9 \u05d0\u05ea \u05d0\u05e9\u05e8\n\u05d9\u05e9\u05e0\u05d5 \u05e4\u05d4 \u05e2\u05de\u05e0\u05d5 \u05e2\u05d5\u05de\u05d3 \u05d4\u05d9\u05d5\u05dd \u05d5\u05d0\u05ea \u05d0\u05e9\u05e8 \u05d0\u05d9\u05e0\u05e0\u05d5 \u05e4\u05d4 \u05e2\u05de\u05e0\u05d5 \u05d4\u05d9\u05d5\u05dd , \u05e2\u05de\u05e0\u05d5 \u05e2\u05d5\u05de\u05d3 \u05d4\u05d9\u05d5\u05dd \u05d0\u05d9\u05df\n\u05db\u05ea\u05d9\u05d1 \u05db\u05d0\u05df \u05d0\u05dc\u05d0 \u05d0\u05d9\u05e0\u05e0\u05d5 \u05e2\u05de\u05e0\u05d5 \u05d4\u05d9\u05d5\u05dd \u05d0\u05dc\u05d5 \u05d4\u05e0\u05e9\u05de\u05d5\u05ea \u05d4\u05e2\u05ea\u05d9\u05d3\u05d5\u05ea \u05dc\u05d4\u05d1\u05e8\u05d0\u05d5\u05ea \u05e9\u05d0\u05d9\u05df \u05d1\u05d4\u05df \u05de\u05de\u05e9 \u05e9\u05dc\u05d0\n\u05e0\u05d0\u05de\u05e8\u05d4 \u05d1\u05d4\u05df \u05e2\u05de\u05d9\u05d3\u05d4 \u05e9\u05d0\u05e2\u05f3\u05f3\u05e4 \u05e9\u05dc\u05d0 \u05d4\u05d9\u05df \u05d1\u05d0\u05d5\u05ea\u05d4 \u05e9\u05e2\u05d4 \u05db\u05dc \u05d0\u05d7\u05d3 \u05d5\u05d0\u05d7\u05d3 \u05e7\u05d1\u05dc \u05d0\u05ea \u05e9\u05dc\u05d5 \u05d5\u05db\u05df \u05d4\u05d5\u05d0\n\u05d0\u05d5\u05de\u05e8 \u05de\u05e9\u05d0 \u05d3\u05d1\u05e8 \u05d4\u05f3 \u05d0\u05dc \u05d9\u05e9\u05e8\u05d0\u05dc \u05d1\u05d9\u05d3 \u05de\u05dc\u05d0\u05db\u05d9 , \u05d1\u05d9\u05de\u05d9 \u05de\u05dc\u05d0\u05db\u05d9 \u05dc\u05d0 \u05e0\u05d0\u05de\u05e8 \u05d0\u05dc\u05d0 \u05d1\u05d9\u05d3 \u05de\u05dc\u05d0\u05db\u05d9\n\u05e9\u05db\u05d1\u05e8 \u05d4\u05d9\u05ea\u05d4 \u05d4\u05e0\u05d1\u05d5\u05d0\u05d4 \u05d1\u05d9\u05d3\u05d5 \u05de\u05d4\u05e8 \u05e1\u05d9\u05e0\u05d9 \u05d5\u05e2\u05d3 \u05d0\u05d5\u05ea\u05d4 \u05e9\u05e2\u05d4 \u05dc\u05d0 \u05e0\u05ea\u05e0\u05d4 \u05dc\u05d5 \u05e8\u05e9\u05d5\u05ea \u05dc\u05d4\u05ea\u05e0\u05d1\u05d0\u05d5\u05ea ,\n\u05d5\u05db\u05df \u05d9\u05e9\u05e2\u05d9\u05d4 \u05d0\u05d5\u05de\u05e8 \u05de\u05e2\u05ea \u05d4\u05d9\u05d5\u05ea\u05d4 \u05e9\u05dd \u05d0\u05e0\u05d9 , \u05d0\u05de\u05e8 \u05d9\u05e9\u05e2\u05d9\u05d4 \u05de\u05d9\u05d5\u05dd \u05e9\u05e0\u05ea\u05e0\u05d4 \u05ea\u05d5\u05e8\u05d4 \u05d1\u05e1\u05d9\u05e0\u05d9 \u05e9\u05dd\n\u05d4\u05d9\u05d9\u05ea\u05d9 \u05d5\u05e7\u05d1\u05dc\u05ea\u05d9 \u05d0\u05ea \u05d4\u05e0\u05d1\u05d5\u05d0\u05d4 \u05d4\u05d6\u05d0\u05ea \u05d0\u05dc\u05d0 \u05d5\u05e2\u05ea\u05d4 \u05d4\u05f3 \u05d0\u05dc\u05d4\u05d9\u05dd \u05e9\u05dc\u05d7\u05e0\u05d9 \u05d5\u05e8\u05d5\u05d7\u05d5 \u05e2\u05d3 \u05e2\u05db\u05e9\u05d9\u05d5 \u05dc\u05d0\n\u05e0\u05ea\u05df \u05dc\u05d9 \u05e8\u05e9\u05d5\u05ea \u05dc\u05d4\u05ea\u05e0\u05d1\u05d0\u05d5\u05ea , \u05d5\u05dc\u05d0 \u05db\u05dc \u05d4\u05e0\u05d1\u05d9\u05d0\u05d9\u05dd \u05d1\u05dc\u05d1\u05d3 \u05e7\u05d1\u05dc\u05d5 \u05de\u05e1\u05d9\u05e0\u05d9 \u05e0\u05d1\u05d5\u05d0\u05ea\u05df \u05d0\u05dc\u05d0 \u05d0\u05e3\n\u05d4\u05d7\u05db\u05de\u05d9\u05dd \u05d4\u05e2\u05d5\u05de\u05d3\u05d9\u05dd \u05d1\u05db\u05dc \u05d3\u05d5\u05e8 \u05d5\u05d3\u05d5\u05e8 \u05db\u05dc \u05d0\u05d7\u05d3 \u05d5\u05d0\u05d7\u05d3 \u05e7\u05d1\u05dc \u05d0\u05ea \u05e9\u05dc\u05d5 \u05de\u05e1\u05d9\u05e0\u05d9 \u05d5\u05db\u05df \u05d4\u05d5\u05d0 \u05d0\u05d5\u05de\u05e8 \u05d0\u05ea\n\u05d4\u05d3\u05d1\u05e8\u05d9\u05dd \u05d4\u05d0\u05dc\u05d4 \u05d3\u05d1\u05e8 \u05d4\u05f3 \u05d0\u05dc \u05db\u05dc \u05e7\u05d4\u05dc\u05db\u05dd \u05c3\n\n\u201c\u2018And God spake all these words, saying.\u2019 (Exod. xx. 1.) R. Isaac says,\nthat all those things, which the prophets were to prophesy in every\ngeneration, they received from Mount Sinai, for so Moses says to Israel,\n\u2018But with him that standeth here with us this day, and also with him\nthat is not here with us this day.\u2019 (Deut. xxix. 15.) Here in the latter\nclause, it is not said, \u2018That _standeth_ with us this day,\u2019 but \u2018With\nhim that _is not_ here with us this day.\u2019 These are the souls that were\nto be created, who had no corporeal existence, and of whom therefore it\ncould not be said they _stood_ there. But although they did not exist in\nthat hour, every one of them received his own, and so it is written,\n\u2018The burden of the Word of the Lord to Israel in the hand of Malachi.\u2019\n(Mai. i. 1.) Here it is not said in the days of Malachi, but in the hand\nof Malachi, for this prophecy had been long since in his hand, even from\nMount Sinai: but up to that time permission had not been given him to\nprophesy. In like manner Isaiah says, \u2018From the time that it was, there\nam I.\u2019 (Isaiah xlviii. 16.) Isaiah means to say, From the day that the\nlaw was given there was I, and I received this prophecy, only \u2018Now the\nLord God and His Spirit hath sent me;\u2019 that is, until then permission\nhad not been given him to prophesy. But it was not the prophets only who\nreceived their prophecy from Sinai, but also the wise men in every\ngeneration, each one of them received his own from Sinai, and so it is\nsaid, \u2018These words the Lord spake unto all your congregation.\u2019 (Deut. v.\n22.)\u201d (Shemoth Rabba Parashah, 28.) The object of this fable is very\nplain, it is to clothe the rabbies with infallible authority. It is here\nasserted that the rabbies of every generation were all present at the\ngiving of the law, and each received immediately from Sinai those legal\ndecisions and doctrines which he was to communicate to the world, and\nconsequently every thing, that a rabbi teaches, is infallibly right and\ntrue, and as authoritative as the words of Moses and the prophets, for\n\u201cGod spake all these words,\u201d as this legend interprets this verse. The\nrabbies of every generation are included, so that, according to this\ntradition the wise men of Israel, even in this degenerate time, still\ndeliver infallible instructions which they received more than three\nthousand years ago from the mouth of God himself. But this fable avers\ntoo much. If all Israel was present at Sinai, and each individual,\nwhether prophet, or rabbi, or layman, received the law at that time,\nwhat use was there in the transmission from father to son, from the time\nof Moses down to us? Nay, more, what use is there in teaching at all,\nfor every man then received his own? Nay, further, what use is the\nwritten law, for if every man was taught at Sinai, there is no need for\nhim to read and learn now? But this is a matter which every Israelite\ncan decide for himself. Let him ask himself, how much he remembers of\nthis wonderful event in his existence, his presentation at Sinai, and\nhis reception of the law from the Lord himself. The Scripture proofs\nwhich are here given are evidently nothing to the purpose. The first\nproof is, \u201cGod spake all these words, saying.\u201d (Exod. xx. 1.) But every\none who will take the trouble of reading the chapter will see, that \u201call\nthese words\u201d cannot apply to the prophecies, nor to the decisions of the\nrabbies, but to the ten commandments and to them only. So far from\ndelivering all the decisions and comments since taught by the rabbies,\nGod spake only the ten commandments to the people, and when they heard\nthese, \u201cthey said unto Moses, Speak thou with us and we will hear; but\nlet not God speak with us, lest we die.\u201d (Verse 19.) To say, therefore,\nthat God\u2019s speaking \u201call these words\u201d includes the whole oral law and\nall the rabbinical comments, is gross perversion of the text, and direct\ncontradiction of Moses\u2019 account.\n\nThe next and most usual verse adduced to prove this fable is Deut. xxix.\n14, 15, where it is said, \u201cNeither with you only do I make this covenant\nand oath; but with him that standeth here with us this day, before the\nLord our God, and also with him that is not here with us this day.\u201d But\nthis verse plainly proves the contrary, that the other generations of\nIsrael were there in no sense whatever. The Hebrew words are as strong\nas they can be.\n\n\u05d5\u05d0\u05ea \u05d0\u05e9\u05e8 \u05d0\u05d9\u05e0\u05e0\u05d5 \u05e4\u05d4 \u05e2\u05de\u05e0\u05d5 \u05d4\u05d9\u05d5\u05dd \u05c3\n\nThose with whom the covenant is made are divided into two classes, \u201cHim\nthat standeth here,\u201d and \u201cHim that is not here.\u201d If the word standeth\nhad been repeated, if the verse said, \u201cWith him that standeth here, and\nwith him that standeth not here,\u201d there might have been some colour for\nthis fable: the rabbies might have urged that though the unborn\ngenerations did not stand there, they stood somewhere else; but the\npresent wording of the verse utterly excludes all possibility of\nexistence, either corporeal or incorporeal. \u201cWith him that is not here,\n\u05d0\u05d9\u05e0\u05e0\u05d5\u201d shows that they were there in no sense.\n\nThe proof taken from Malachi, \u201cThe burden of the word of the Lord to\nIsrael in the hand of Malachi,\u201d is nonsense. Every one, that knows\nanything of Hebrew, knows that \u05d1\u05d9\u05d3 signifies \u201cby,\u201d \u201cby means of.\u201d But\neven taken literally, it will not prove that Malachi was at Sinai; there\nis nothing in the words to inform us when Malachi received the prophecy.\nThe proof from Isaiah is more unhappy still. The whole context shows\nthat it is God who speaks in that verse, and not the prophet. Indeed we\nmight ask, if Isaiah had already received all his prophecies at Sinai,\nwhat was the use of the vision of the Lord sitting upon his throne, and\nthe commission which is there given? (Isai. vi.) And so we might ask\nconcerning most of the prophets. The case of Samuel is here particularly\nworthy of consideration. According to the above tradition cited in the\nJewish prayers, Samuel had been at Sinai, and there received all that he\nwas to deliver during his sublunary existence. And yet when the word of\nthe Lord came to him, he did not recognise the Divine call, and three\ntimes went to Eli, and it was Eli who at last told him that it was God.\nNow how is this written history to be reconciled with the above\ntradition? The tradition says that Samuel had heard the voice of God at\nSinai, that there all the prophetic words which he was ever to deliver\nwere made known to him, and yet the Bible says, \u201cNow Samuel did not yet\nknow the Lord, neither was the word of the Lord yet revealed unto him.\u201d\n(1 Sam. iii. 7.)\n\nThe last proof, taken from Deut. v. 22, if considered in its context,\nalso proves the contrary. The tradition quotes only a part of the verse,\n\u201cThese words the Lord spake unto all your congregations;\u201d but if you\nread on you will find, \u201cAnd he added no more,\u201d which words plainly limit\nthe first sentence to the ten commandments. This tradition, then, as\nbeing contrary to Scripture, to the law of Moses, is a falsehood, and is\ntherefore unworthy of a place in the prayers of that people, whom God\nselected from all the nations of the earth to be his witnesses, and the\ndepositories of his truth. But this tradition is objectionable not only\nas a fable, though that is a very strong objection to any thing proposed\nas an article of faith, but on account of the purpose which it was\nintended to serve. It was invented for the purpose of strengthening the\nspiritual tyranny of the Scribes and Pharisees over the minds of the\npeople. It is not therefore merely an erroneous interpretation of\nScripture, nor the dream of a fanatic imagination, but the deliberate\ninvention of men who knew what they were about, and had an object which\nthey were endeavouring to compass, and for the attainment of which they\ndid not stick at deliberate falsehood. They were, however, too wise to\nconfine all the advantages of this appearance at Sinai to themselves;\nthey asserted that the whole people of Israel obtained an advantage\nwhich makes them superior to all other nations. The prayer which we have\nquoted above alludes to this, when it says, \u201cThere was no blemish in\nthem, for they were all entirely perfect.\u201d This sentence rather puzzles\nan ordinary reader of the Bible, who thinks of the conduct and character\nof Israel as there described; the Talmud, however, helps us to\nunderstand this eulogy:\u2014\n\n\u05de\u05e4\u05e0\u05d9 \u05de\u05d4 \u05d2\u05d5\u05d9\u05dd \u05de\u05d6\u05d5\u05d4\u05de\u05d9\u05df \u05e9\u05dc\u05d0 \u05e2\u05de\u05d3\u05d5 \u05e2\u05dc \u05d4\u05e8 \u05e1\u05d9\u05e0\u05d9 \u05e9\u05d1\u05e9\u05e2\u05d4 \u05e9\u05d1\u05d0 \u05d4\u05e0\u05d7\u05e9 \u05e2\u05dc \u05d7\u05d5\u05d4 \u05d4\u05d8\u05d9\u05dc \u05d1\u05d4\n\u05d6\u05d5\u05d4\u05de\u05d0 , \u05d9\u05e9\u05e8\u05d0\u05dc \u05e9\u05e2\u05de\u05d3\u05d5 \u05e2\u05dc \u05d4\u05e8 \u05e1\u05d9\u05e0\u05d9 \u05e4\u05e1\u05e7\u05d4 \u05d6\u05d5\u05d4\u05de\u05ea\u05df \u05d2\u05d5\u05d9\u05dd \u05e9\u05dc\u05d0 \u05e2\u05de\u05d3\u05d5 \u05e2\u05dc \u05d4\u05e8 \u05e1\u05d9\u05e0\u05d9 \u05dc\u05d0\n\u05e4\u05e1\u05e7\u05d4 \u05d6\u05d5\u05d4\u05de\u05ea\u05df , \u05d0\u05de\u05e8 \u05dc\u05d9\u05d4 \u05e8\u05d1 \u05d0\u05d7\u05d0 \u05d1\u05e8\u05d9\u05d4 \u05d3\u05d5\u05d1\u05d0 \u05dc\u05e8\u05d1 \u05d0\u05e9\u05d9 \u05d2\u05e8\u05d9\u05dd \u05de\u05d0\u05d9 \u05d0\u05de\u05e8 \u05dc\u05d9\u05d4 \u05d0\u05e2\u05f3\u05f3\u05d2\n\u05d3\u05d0\u05d9\u05e0\u05d4\u05d5 \u05dc\u05d0 \u05d4\u05d5\u05d5 \u05de\u05d6\u05dc\u05d9\u05d4\u05d5 \u05d4\u05d5\u05d4 , \u05d3\u05db\u05ea\u05d9\u05d1 \u05d0\u05ea \u05d0\u05e9\u05e8 \u05d9\u05e9\u05e0\u05d5 \u05e4\u05d4 \u05e2\u05de\u05e0\u05d5 \u05e2\u05d5\u05de\u05d3 \u05d4\u05d9\u05d5\u05dd \u05dc\u05e4\u05e0\u05d9 \u05d4\u05f3\n\u05d0\u05dc\u05d4\u05d9\u05e0\u05d5 \u05d5\u05d0\u05ea \u05d0\u05e9\u05e8 \u05d0\u05d9\u05e0\u05e0\u05d5 \u05e4\u05d4 \u05d5\u05d2\u05d5\u05f3 \u05c3\n\n\u201cWhy are the Gentiles defiled? Because they did not stand upon Mount\nSinai, for in the hour that the serpent came to Eve, he communicated a\ndefilement, which was taken away from Israel when they stood on Mount\nSinai: but the defilement of the Gentiles was not removed, as they did\nnot stand on Sinai. Rav Acha, the son of Rabba, said to Rav Ashai, how,\nthen, does it fare with proselytes? He replied, although they went not\nthere, their good fortune (or star) was there, as it is written, \u2018With\nhim that standeth here with us this day, before the Lord our God, and\nalso with him that is not here with us this day.\u2019 (Deut. xxix. 15.)\u201d\n(Shabbath. fol. 145, col. 2, at the bottom of the page.) The commentary\non this passage quotes still further particulars from Siphri, and says\u2014\n\n\u05db\u05dc \u05e9\u05e2\u05de\u05d3\u05d5 \u05e2\u05dc \u05d4\u05e8 \u05e1\u05d9\u05e0\u05d9 \u05e0\u05ea\u05e7\u05d3\u05e9\u05d5 \u05d5\u05e0\u05d8\u05d4\u05e8\u05d5 , \u05d5\u05e0\u05ea\u05e8\u05e4\u05d0\u05d5 \u05de\u05db\u05dc \u05de\u05d5\u05dd \u05d5\u05d0\u05e3 \u05e2\u05d5\u05e8\u05d9\u05dd \u05d5\u05e4\u05e1\u05d7\u05d9\u05dd\n\u05e9\u05d4\u05d9\u05d5 \u05d1\u05d9\u05e9\u05e8\u05d0\u05dc \u05db\u05d3\u05ea\u05e0\u05d9\u05d0 \u05d1\u05e1\u05e4\u05e8\u05d9 \u05c3\n\n\u201cAll that stood on Mount Sinai were sanctified and purified, and were\nhealed from every blemish, even the blind and the lame that then\nhappened to be in Israel, as is taught in Siphri.\u201d In this part of the\nfable the inventors of the oral law endeavour to flatter the vanity of\nthe Israelites, and thus to engage their affections in behalf of that\ntradition which was to secure their own power. The Scribes understood\nwell the deceitfulness of the human heart, and knew that men love to\nhear and are ready to believe any thing that tends to their own\npersonal aggrandizement. But in thus flattering the people, they were\nturning their backs upon that example which Moses set them; and\ncontradicting the whole current of Scripture testimony. Moses and the\nprophets, as the servants of God, told the people of their sins and\ntheir evil deeds, that they might repent and be saved. Their object\nwas not to secure popular favour, nor to advance their own selfish\npurposes; they therefore could afford to be honest and to speak truth.\nThe inventors of the oral law, on the contrary, were endeavouring to\nerect a fabric of personal honour and power: they were therefore\nobliged to address themselves to the weak side of the human heart; and\nin doing so, were compelled to run counter to the plainest\ndeclarations of God\u2019s Word. All men and every nation like to be told\nthat they are superior to the rest of the world, and are distinguished\nby moral endowments from the mass of mankind. The inventors of the\noral law, therefore, told Israel that they were far elevated above all\nother nations, for they had been cleansed at Sinai from that innate\ndefilement which still contaminates all the rest of the children of\nmen. But is this true\u2014is this what Moses and the prophets say? Moses\nsays, \u201cUnderstand, therefore, that the Lord thy God giveth thee not\nthis good land to possess it for thy righteousness: for thou art a\nstiff-necked people.\u201d \u201cYe have been rebellious against the Lord from\nthe day that I knew you.\u201d (Deut. ix. 6, 24.) Isaiah says of Israel,\n\u201cFrom the sole of the foot even unto the head there is no soundness in\nit, but wounds, and bruises, and putrifying sores.\u201d \u201cAh! sinful\nnation!\u2014a people laden with iniquity; a seed of evil-doers\u2014children\nthat are corrupters.\u201d (Isaiah i. 4-6.) And again he says, \u201cWoe is me,\nfor I am undone: because I am a man of unclean lips, and I dwell in\nthe midst of a people of unclean lips.\u201d (Isaiah vi. 5.) Jeremiah says,\n\u201cCan the Ethiopian change his skin and the leopard his spots? Then may\nye also do good that are accustomed to do evil.\u201d (Jer. xiii. 23.) And\nagain, \u201cAll these nations are uncircumcised, and all the house of\nIsrael are uncircumcised in the heart.\u201d (Jer. ix. 26.) The Lord\nhimself says to Ezekiel, \u201cSon of man, I send thee to the children of\nIsrael, to a rebellious nation that hath rebelled against me: they and\ntheir fathers have transgressed against me to this very day. For they\nare impudent children and stiff-hearted.\u201d (Ezek. ii. 3, 4.) And again,\n\u201cThou art not sent to a people of a strange speech and of an hard\nlanguage, but to the house of Israel: not to many people of a strange\nspeech and of an hard language, whose words thou canst not understand;\nsurely had I sent thee to them, they would have hearkened unto thee.\nBut the house of Israel will not hearken unto thee: for they will not\nhearken unto me; for all the house of Israel are impudent and\nhard-hearted.\u201d (Ezek. iii. 4, 7, &c.) We do not quote these passages\nto show that the Gentiles have a more favoured constitution of moral\nnature. Far from it; in reading these accounts given by the prophets,\nwe recognise the features of our own picture. Far be it from us to\nglory; we cite these passages to show you how miserably your oral law\nendeavours to blind and delude you by flattering your vanity. It tells\nyou that you have been purged from every stain; Moses and the prophets\nteach you the truth\u2014that you are just like the other sons of men, and\nhave no moral superiority or advantage whatever. We wish to point out\nto you how the system of rabbinism is diametrically opposed to Moses\nand the prophets, and above all, to impress upon you that the authors\nof this oral law are not worthy or your confidence, for they have, for\ntheir own private interests, invented narratives and doctrines which\ncontradict that Word of God, which ought to be Israel\u2019s glory. We wish\nto show you how certain principles of evil pervade every part of that\nsystem, not even excepting those prayers which are offered up in the\npublic worship of God. There these fables also occur, and we ask every\nIsraelite who loves the law of Moses or hopes in the promises of God\nby the prophets, how he can conscientiously stand by in the synagogue\nand hear the words of Moses and the prophets openly contradicted? How\ncan he remain silent when the reader declares of Israel that there is\nno blemish in them, for they are all entirely perfect, when he knows\nand feels that he and all his brethren are just as frail, as sinful,\nand as imperfect as the other sons of men? How can they expect the\nreturn of God\u2019s favour to their nation so long as these fictions are\nmade a part of public worship? Moses teaches very different doctrine.\nHe says, \u201cIf they shall confess their iniquity, and the iniquity of\ntheir fathers, with their trespass which they have trespassed against\nme, and that also they have walked contrary unto me; and that I also\nhave walked contrary unto them, and have brought them into the land of\ntheir enemies: if then their uncircumcised hearts be humbled, and they\nthen accept of the punishment of their iniquity: then will I remember\nmy covenant with Jacob, and also my covenant with Isaac, and also my\ncovenant with Abraham will I remember: and I will remember the land.\u201d\n(Levit. xxvi. 40-42.) Here Moses makes a conviction and acknowledgment\nof guilt, an indispensable preliminary to the return of God\u2019s favour\nto the nation. Israel must feel that, so far from being cleansed from\nall impurity, their heart is uncircumcised, and this uncircumcised\nheart must be humbled; but how is this possible, so long as the oral\nlaw and the prayers of the synagogue teach that the Israelites are the\nmost righteous of mankind, because they received the law, which the\nother nations rejected\u2014and the most pure, or rather the only pure, of\nmankind, inasmuch as they were cleansed from every taint at Sinai?\nThese doctrines harden the heart against true humility, prevent true\nrepentance, and thereby retard the happiness and the glory of Israel.\n\n\n\n\n                                No. XXI.\n                 LEGENDS IN THE PRAYERS FOR PENTECOST.\n\n\nIf Moses or the prophets had any where recorded, that God had, along\nwith the written law also given an oral law, our duty would then be to\nfind out where it is: and to inquire whether that oral law, which now\nforms the keystone of modern Judaism, is the one which was given by God.\nBut neither Moses nor any other prophet has said one word on the\nsubject. The words \u05d4\u05d5\u05e8\u05d4 \u05e9\u05d1\u05e2\u05dc \u05e4\u05d4 \u201coral law\u201d are no where to be found in\nthe Bible, nor is there any mention of the thing itself. If the Bible\nhad plainly alluded to the existence of the thing, we should not quarrel\nabout the name, which might have been invented for the sake of brevity\nand convenience. But it is remarkable that when Moses commanded the law\nto be read publicly in the ears of all the people, he says not a\nsyllable about the oral explanation, which if it existed must at least\nhave been of equal importance; and still more so that the succeeding\nprophets should have observed such a profound silence about that, which\nnow constitutes the main substance of Israel\u2019s religion, and is the key\nto the observances and prayers of the synagogue. This silence is in\nitself suspicious, and compels us to examine the evidence of its\ntransmission. The first step here is to ascertain the character of the\nwitnesses, who say that they received the oral law from their fathers\nand transmitted it to their posterity. If it appear that, in their\ngeneral testimony, they were disinterested and truth-loving persons, who\nhave never been convicted of distorting truth for their private\nadvantage, nor of receiving and circulating fables as authentic history,\ntheir testimony in this particular matter will be of considerable value.\nBut if it can be proved that either from a deliberate desire to deceive,\nor from an incapacity to weigh evidence and to distinguish between fact\nand fiction, they have transmitted a huge mass of foolish fables as\nauthentic history, then their testimony is worth nothing, and the story\nof an oral law having no other evidence must be classed amongst the\nother fables which have come down to us on their authority. That the\naccount of the giving and transmission of the oral law rests solely and\nexclusively on the testimony of the rabbies is clear from the account\nitself, as it is found in the Jad Hachasaka.\n\n\u05db\u05dc \u05d4\u05de\u05e6\u05d5\u05d5\u05ea \u05e9\u05e0\u05ea\u05e0\u05d5 \u05dc\u05d5 \u05dc\u05de\u05e9\u05d4 \u05d1\u05e1\u05d9\u05e0\u05d9 \u05d1\u05e4\u05d9\u05e8\u05d5\u05e9\u05df \u05e0\u05ea\u05e0\u05d5 \u05e9\u05e0\u05d0\u05de\u05e8 \u05d5\u05d0\u05ea\u05e0\u05d4 \u05dc\u05da \u05d0\u05ea \u05dc\u05d5\u05d7\u05d5\u05ea \u05d4\u05d0\u05d1\u05df\n\u05d5\u05d4\u05ea\u05d5\u05e8\u05d4 \u05d5\u05d4\u05de\u05e6\u05d5\u05d4 , \u05ea\u05d5\u05e8\u05d4 \u05d6\u05d5 \u05ea\u05d5\u05e8\u05d4 \u05e9\u05d1\u05db\u05ea\u05d1 , \u05d5\u05d4\u05de\u05e6\u05d5\u05d4 \u05d6\u05d5 \u05e4\u05d9\u05e8\u05d5\u05e9\u05d4 , \u05d5\u05e6\u05d5\u05e0\u05d5 \u05dc\u05e2\u05e9\u05d5\u05ea\n\u05d4\u05ea\u05d5\u05e8\u05d4 \u05e2\u05dc \u05e4\u05d9 \u05d4\u05de\u05e6\u05d5\u05d4 . \u05d5\u05de\u05e6\u05d5\u05d4 \u05d6\u05d5 \u05d4\u05d9\u05d0 \u05d4\u05e0\u05e7\u05e8\u05d0\u05ea \u05ea\u05d5\u05e8\u05d4 \u05e9\u05d1\u05e2\u05f3\u05f3\u05e4 \u05c3\n\n\u201cAll the commandments which were given to Moses were given with their\nexplanation, for it is said, \u2018I will give thee the tables of stone and\nthe law and the commandment.\u2019 (Exod. xxiv. 12.) \u2018The law,\u2019 this is the\nwritten law, \u2018And the commandment,\u2019 this is the explanation thereof. And\nhe has commanded to fulfil \u2018the law\u2019 according to \u2018the commandment.\u2019 And\nthe commandment is that which is called _The oral law_.\u201d Truly the\nrabbies must have been hard set when they chose this passage to prove\nthe existence of an oral law. The keen and clear mind of the sagacious\nRambam evidently felt the difficulty; he, therefore, to give some\nplausibility to the proof, omitted the concluding part of the sentence\nwhich he quotes from the Bible. He says, \u201cAs it is written \u2018I will give\nthee tables of stone and the law and the commandment,\u2019\u201d and there he\nstops, but let every Israelite open his Pentateuch and read the\nremainder, and he will find the whole sentence to be this, \u201cI will give\nthee tables of stone, and the law and the commandment which _I have\nwritten_, to teach them.\u201d Not one word here about an oral law, but about\nthat which God had written. It is true that the passage of the Talmud\nfrom which Rambam derived this doctrine gives the whole passage, but it\nappears from the process of abbreviation which he has applied, as if he\nwere ashamed of the explanation there given and thought it more prudent\nto omit it. But as it is one of the main passages which support the\ndoctrine of an oral law, it must be considered.\n\n\u05d5\u05d0\u05de\u05e8 \u05e8\u05f3 \u05dc\u05d5\u05d9 \u05d1\u05e8 \u05d7\u05de\u05d0 \u05d0\u05de\u05e8 \u05e8\u05f3 \u05e9\u05de\u05e2\u05d5\u05df \u05d1\u05df \u05dc\u05e7\u05d9\u05e9 \u05de\u05d0\u05d9 \u05d3\u05db\u05ea\u05d9\u05d1 \u05d5\u05d0\u05ea\u05e0\u05d4 \u05dc\u05da \u05d0\u05ea \u05dc\u05d5\u05d7\u05d5\u05ea \u05d4\u05d0\u05d1\u05df\n\u05d5\u05d4\u05ea\u05d5\u05e8\u05d4 \u05d5\u05d4\u05de\u05e6\u05d5\u05d4 \u05d0\u05e9\u05e8 \u05db\u05ea\u05d1\u05ea\u05d9 \u05dc\u05d4\u05d5\u05e8\u05d5\u05ea\u05dd , \u05dc\u05d5\u05d7\u05d5\u05ea \u05d0\u05dc\u05d5 \u05e2\u05e9\u05e8\u05ea \u05d4\u05d3\u05d1\u05e8\u05d5\u05ea \u05ea\u05d5\u05e8\u05d4 \u05d6\u05d5 \u05de\u05e7\u05e8\u05d0\n\u05d5\u05d4\u05de\u05e6\u05d5\u05d4 \u05d6\u05e8 \u05de\u05e9\u05e0\u05d4 \u05d0\u05e9\u05e8 \u05db\u05ea\u05d1\u05ea\u05d9 \u05d0\u05dc\u05d5 \u05e0\u05d1\u05d9\u05d0\u05d9\u05dd \u05d5\u05db\u05ea\u05d5\u05d1\u05d9\u05dd \u05dc\u05d4\u05d5\u05e8\u05d5\u05ea\u05dd \u05d6\u05d5 \u05d2\u05de\u05e8\u05d0 \u05de\u05dc\u05de\u05d3 \u05e9\u05db\u05d5\u05dc\u05dd\n\u05e0\u05ea\u05e0\u05d5 \u05dc\u05de\u05e9\u05d4 \u05de\u05e1\u05d9\u05e0\u05d9 \u05c3\n\n\u201cR. Levi bar Chama says, R. Simon ben Lakish says, what is that that is\nwritten \u2018I will give thee tables of stone, and the law and the\ncommandment which I have written to teach them?\u2019 \u2018_The tables_\u2019 are the\nten commandments. \u2018_The law_\u2019 is the written law. \u2018The commandment\u2019 is\nthe Mishna. \u2018Which I have written\u2019 means the prophets and sacred\nwritings. \u2018To teach them\u2019 means the Gemara. It teaches us that they were\nall given to Moses from Sinai.\u201d (Berachoth, fol. 5, col. 1.) Can any man\nof common understanding receive this interpretation, which throws all\ngrammar and context to the winds, and gravely asserts that not only the\nlaw and its explanation, but the prophets and the whole Talmud, were\ngiven to Moses at Sinai? Will he give up his own reason and the word of\nthe living God to the authority of R. Simon ben Lakish? There cannot\npossibly be any argument which would prove the falsehood of the\nnarrative concerning the oral law so completely as this interpretation,\nwhich is regarded as one of its main foundations. The words of Moses\nwhich are here perverted plainly speak of that which God had written. \u201cI\nwill give thee tables of stone, and the law and the commandment which I\nhave written to teach them.\u201d Did God write the oral law, and give it to\nMoses? What became of it then? If it was written, how did it become\noral? These words \u201cWhich I have written,\u201d have sadly puzzled the\nrabbinical commentators, who know not how to reconcile the plain and\nobvious sense of the words, with that interpretation which had been\nalready put upon them in the Talmud. Rashi seemed to think that the\ndifficulty might be got over by saying\u2014\n\n\u05db\u05dc \u05e9\u05e9 \u05de\u05d0\u05d5\u05ea \u05d5\u05e9\u05dc\u05e9 \u05e2\u05e9\u05e8\u05d4 \u05de\u05e6\u05d5\u05d5\u05ea \u05d1\u05db\u05dc\u05dc \u05e2\u05e9\u05e8\u05ea \u05d4\u05d3\u05d1\u05e8\u05d9\u05ea \u05d4\u05df \u05c3\n\n\u201cAll the six hundred and thirteen commandments are comprehended in the\nten commandments.\u201d (Com. in Exod. xxiv. 12.) But this, though true in\none sense, will not obviate the difficulty. God promises to give Moses\nthe law and the commandment which he had written. If the oral law had\nnot been written, it was not included. Saadiah Gaon, as quoted by Aben\nEzra, proposes another solution:\u2014\n\n\u05d0\u05de\u05e8 \u05d4\u05d2\u05d0\u05d5\u05df \u05db\u05d9 \u05d0\u05e9\u05e8 \u05db\u05ea\u05d1\u05ea\u05d9 \u05d3\u05d1\u05d5\u05e7 \u05e2\u05dd \u05dc\u05d5\u05d7\u05d5\u05ea \u05d4\u05d0\u05d1\u05df \u05dc\u05d0 \u05e2\u05dd \u05d4\u05ea\u05d5\u05e8\u05d4 \u05d5\u05d4\u05de\u05e6\u05d5\u05d4 \u05db\u05d9 \u05d4\u05e9\u05dd \u05dc\u05d0\n\u05db\u05ea\u05d1 \u05e8\u05e7 \u05e2\u05e9\u05e8\u05d4 \u05d4\u05d3\u05d1\u05e8\u05d9\u05dd \u05c3\n\n\u201cThe Gaon says that the words, \u2018_Which I have written_,\u2019 are to be\nconnected with \u2018_The tables of stone_,\u2019 and not with \u2018_The law and the\ncommandment_,\u2019 for God wrote only the ten words.\u201d But unfortunately\nMoses has so connected them, and we have no warrant for reversing his\norder. Aben Ezra himself, after giving the Talmudic exposition, gives it\nas his own opinion, that these words refer to the ten commandments. He\nsays\u2014\n\n\u05d5\u05dc\u05e4\u05d9 \u05d3\u05e2\u05ea\u05d9 \u05db\u05d9 \u05d4\u05ea\u05d5\u05e8\u05d4 \u05d4\u05d3\u05d1\u05d5\u05e8 \u05d4\u05e8\u05d0\u05e9\u05d5\u05df \u05d5\u05d4\u05d7\u05de\u05d9\u05e9\u05d9 \u05d5\u05d4\u05de\u05e6\u05d5\u05d4 \u05d4\u05e9\u05de\u05d5\u05e0\u05d4 \u05d4\u05d3\u05d1\u05e8\u05d9\u05dd \u05c3\n\n\u201cBut in my opinion, \u2018_The law_\u2019 refers to the first and fifth\ncommandment; and \u2018_The commandment_\u2019 to the other eight.\u201d (Aben Ezra,\nCom. in loc.) This is about the truth. God gave Moses the law and the\ncommandment which he had written; but as Saadiah admits, God wrote only\nthe ten words, therefore the ten words are the same as \u201cthe law and the\ncommandments.\u201d Some will say there is tautology here, that when God\nsays, \u201cI will give thee tables of stone,\u201d he means the ten commandments,\nand that therefore the additional promise \u201cof the law and the\ncommandment\u201d is only an unnecessary repetition. But this is not true. By\n\u201ctables of stone,\u201d God meant tables of stone. He might have given to\nMoses the ten commandments without giving him stone tables, or he might\nhave given him the tables of stone without giving him the ten words; but\nas he intended to give him both, He says, \u201cI will give thee tables of\nstone, and the law, and the commandment.\u201d Neither is there any\ndifficulty in the circumstance that these ten words are called both \u201claw\nand commandment.\u201d Inasmuch as they were a revelation of God\u2019s will, they\nare justly denominated \u201claw,\u201d \u05ea\u05d5\u05e8\u05d4; and as they were proposed as a rule\nof life, obedience to which was required, they are entitled, \u05d4\u05de\u05e6\u05d5\u05d4 \u201cThe\ncommandment.\u201d The simple meaning, therefore, is, that God promises to\ngive the ten commandments which he had written. Every thing else, and\ntherefore the oral law, is excluded. This passage, therefore, gives no\nsupport to the doctrine that Moses received an oral as well as a written\nlaw on Mount Sinai. Indeed, the desperate perversion to which this text\nhas been subjected, throws discredit upon the whole; and the necessity\nfor such perversion shows that there was no plain text in the writings\nof Moses, to which the inventors of the oral law could appeal.\n\nThe authority, then of the oral law must rest altogether upon the\ncharacter of those witnesses who handed it down. But this is a very\nsandy foundation, for we have already seen that these men were guilty of\ninventing or propagating the most absurd fables; their testimony,\ntherefore, is of no value. This has been proved abundantly already; but\nthere is one story for which we had not room in our last number, and\nwhich, as being immediately connected with the giving of the law, must\nnow be considered. Like the others, it comes before us authenticated by\nits introduction into the prayers of the synagogue, in which the\nfollowing plain allusion is made:\u2014\n\n\u05d5\u05d9\u05e7\u05e8\u05d0 \u05dc\u05e6\u05d9\u05e8 \u05d5\u05dc\u05de\u05e8\u05d5\u05de\u05d5 \u05d4\u05e2\u05dc\u05d5 , \u05d5\u05d1\u05d9\u05e0\u05d5 \u05dc\u05d1\u05d9\u05df \u05e2\u05dd \u05e9\u05dc\u05d9\u05e9\u05d9 \u05e2\u05dc\u05d5 , \u05d5\u05d4\u05e2\u05de\u05d9\u05d3\u05d5 \u05d5\u05e0\u05d2\u05e9 \u05d0\u05dc\n\u05e2\u05e8\u05e4\u05dc\u05d5 , \u05d5\u05e4\u05e0\u05d9\u05dd \u05d1\u05e4\u05e0\u05d9\u05dd \u05d3\u05d1\u05e8 \u05dc\u05d5 , \u05d5\u05e7\u05e8\u05e0\u05d9\u05dd \u05de\u05d9\u05d3\u05d5 \u05dc\u05d5 , \u05d9\u05d3\u05d5\u05d3\u05d5\u05df \u05d9\u05d3\u05d5\u05d3\u05d5\u05df \u05e8\u05e2\u05e9\u05d5 \u05dc\u05de\u05d5\u05dc\u05d5 ,\n\u05d5\u05d3\u05d1\u05e8\u05d5 \u05dc\u05e4\u05e0\u05d9 \u05e6\u05d5\u05e8 \u05d5\u05d0\u05de\u05e8\u05d5 \u05dc\u05d5 , \u05de\u05d4 \u05d0\u05e0\u05d5\u05e9 \u05db\u05d9 \u05ea\u05d2\u05d3\u05dc\u05d5 , \u05d5\u05de\u05d4 \u05ea\u05d7\u05e9\u05d1\u05d4\u05d5 \u05dc\u05de\u05e7\u05d5\u05de\u05e0\u05d5 \u05dc\u05d4\u05e2\u05dc\u05d5 ,\n\u05e7\u05e0\u05d9\u05df \u05e9\u05e2\u05e9\u05d5\u05e2\u05d9\u05dd \u05dc\u05d4\u05e0\u05d7\u05d9\u05dc \u05dc\u05d5 \u05c3\n\n\u201cWhen he called the messenger (Moses) and made him ascend to heaven, and\nappointed him as the third person between him and his people, and caused\nhim to approach and stand in the thick darkness, and spake to him face\nto face, and rays streamed from his hand to him, the angels were moved,\nand rushed towards him; and in the presence of the Creator they spake,\nsaying thus to him, What is man that thou shouldest exalt him? and\nwherefore make such an account of him as to bring him up to our place\nand cause him to inherit the delightful possession (the law)?\u201d\n(Pentecost Prayers, fol. 88.) Here it is plainly said, that the angels\nremonstrated with God at the favour shown to Moses. This circumstance is\nnot to be found in the writings of Moses, but it is recorded in the\nTalmud, and the particulars are thus given:\u2014\n\n\u05d1\u05e9\u05e2\u05d4 \u05e9\u05e2\u05dc\u05d4 \u05de\u05e9\u05d4 \u05dc\u05de\u05e8\u05d5\u05dd \u05d0\u05de\u05e8\u05d5 \u05de\u05dc\u05d0\u05db\u05d9 \u05d4\u05e9\u05e8\u05ea \u05dc\u05e4\u05e0\u05d9 \u05d4\u05e7\u05d1\u05f3\u05f3\u05d4 \u05e8\u05d1\u05d5\u05e0\u05d5 \u05e9\u05dc \u05e2\u05d5\u05dc\u05dd \u05de\u05d4 \u05dc\u05d9\u05dc\u05d5\u05d3\n\u05d0\u05e9\u05d4 \u05d1\u05d9\u05e0\u05d9\u05e0\u05d5 , \u05d0\u05de\u05e8 \u05dc\u05d4\u05dd \u05dc\u05e7\u05d1\u05dc \u05ea\u05d5\u05e8\u05d4 \u05d1\u05d0 , \u05d0\u05de\u05e8\u05d5 \u05dc\u05e4\u05e0\u05d9\u05d5 \u05d7\u05de\u05d3\u05d4 \u05d2\u05e0\u05d5\u05d6\u05d4 \u05e9\u05d2\u05e0\u05d5\u05d6\u05d4 \u05dc\u05da \u05de\u05e9\u05e9\u05ea\n\u05d9\u05de\u05d9 \u05d1\u05e8\u05d0\u05e9\u05d9\u05ea \u05ea\u05e9\u05e2 \u05de\u05d0\u05d5\u05ea \u05d5\u05e9\u05d1\u05e2\u05d9\u05dd \u05d5\u05d0\u05e8\u05d1\u05e2\u05d4 \u05d3\u05d5\u05e8\u05d5\u05ea \u05e7\u05d5\u05d3\u05dd \u05e9\u05e0\u05d1\u05e8\u05d0 \u05d4\u05e2\u05d5\u05dc\u05dd \u05d0\u05ea\u05d4 \u05de\u05d1\u05e7\u05e9 \u05dc\u05d9\u05ea\u05e0\u05d4\n\u05dc\u05d1\u05e9\u05e8 \u05d5\u05d3\u05dd , \u05de\u05d4 \u05d0\u05e0\u05d5\u05e9 \u05db\u05d9 \u05ea\u05d6\u05db\u05e8\u05e0\u05d5 \u05d5\u05d1\u05df \u05d0\u05d3\u05dd \u05db\u05d9 \u05ea\u05e4\u05e7\u05d3\u05e0\u05d5 \u05d4\u05f3 \u05d0\u05d3\u05d5\u05e0\u05d9\u05e0\u05d5 \u05de\u05d4 \u05d0\u05d3\u05d9\u05e8 \u05e9\u05de\u05da\n\u05d1\u05db\u05dc \u05d4\u05d0\u05e8\u05e5 \u05d0\u05e9\u05e8 \u05ea\u05e0\u05d4 \u05d4\u05d5\u05d3\u05da \u05e2\u05dc \u05d4\u05e9\u05de\u05d9\u05dd , \u05d0\u05de\u05e8 \u05dc\u05d5 \u05d4\u05e7\u05d1\u05f3\u05f3\u05d4 \u05dc\u05de\u05e9\u05d4 \u05d7\u05d6\u05d5\u05e8 \u05dc\u05d4\u05df \u05ea\u05e9\u05d5\u05d1\u05d4 \u05d0\u05de\u05e8\n\u05dc\u05e4\u05e0\u05d9\u05d5 \u05e8\u05d1\u05d5\u05e0\u05d5 \u05e9\u05dc \u05e2\u05d5\u05dc\u05dd \u05de\u05ea\u05d9\u05d9\u05e8\u05d0 \u05d0\u05e0\u05d9 \u05e9\u05de\u05d0 \u05d9\u05e9\u05e8\u05e4\u05d5\u05e0\u05d9 \u05d1\u05d4\u05d1\u05dc \u05e9\u05d1\u05e4\u05d9\u05d4\u05dd , \u05d0\u05de\u05e8 \u05dc\u05d5 \u05d0\u05d7\u05d5\u05d6\n\u05d1\u05db\u05e1\u05d0 \u05db\u05d1\u05d5\u05d3\u05d9 \u05d5\u05d7\u05d6\u05d5\u05e8 \u05dc\u05d4\u05df \u05ea\u05e9\u05d5\u05d1\u05d4 \u05e9\u05e0\u05d0\u05de\u05e8 \u05de\u05d0\u05d7\u05d6 \u05e4\u05e0\u05d9 \u05db\u05e1\u05d0 \u05e4\u05e8\u05e9\u05d6 \u05e2\u05dc\u05d9\u05d5 \u05e2\u05e0\u05e0\u05d5 \u05d5\u05d0\u05de\u05e8 \u05e8\u05f3\n\u05e0\u05d7\u05d5\u05dd \u05de\u05dc\u05de\u05d3 \u05e9\u05e4\u05d9\u05e8\u05e9 \u05e9\u05d3\u05d9 \u05de\u05d6\u05d9\u05d5 \u05e9\u05db\u05d9\u05e0\u05ea\u05d5 \u05d5\u05e2\u05e0\u05e0\u05d5 \u05e2\u05dc\u05d9\u05d5 \u05d0\u05de\u05e8 \u05dc\u05e4\u05e0\u05d9\u05d5 \u05e8\u05d1\u05d5\u05e0\u05d5 \u05e9\u05dc \u05e2\u05d5\u05dc\u05dd \u05ea\u05d5\u05e8\u05d4\n\u05e9\u05d0\u05ea\u05d4 \u05e0\u05d5\u05ea\u05df \u05dc\u05d9 \u05de\u05d4 \u05db\u05ea\u05d9\u05d1 \u05d1\u05d4 \u05d0\u05e0\u05db\u05d9 \u05d4\u05f3 \u05d0\u05dc\u05d4\u05d9\u05da \u05d0\u05e9\u05e8 \u05d4\u05d5\u05e6\u05d0\u05ea\u05d9\u05da \u05de\u05d0\u05e8\u05e5 \u05de\u05e6\u05e8\u05d9\u05dd \u05d0\u05de\u05e8 \u05dc\u05d4\u05dd\n\u05dc\u05de\u05e6\u05e8\u05d9\u05dd \u05d9\u05e8\u05d3\u05ea\u05dd \u05dc\u05e4\u05e8\u05e2\u05d4 \u05d4\u05e9\u05ea\u05e2\u05d1\u05d3\u05ea\u05dd \u05ea\u05d5\u05e8\u05d4 \u05dc\u05de\u05d4 \u05ea\u05d4\u05d0 \u05dc\u05db\u05dd , \u05e9\u05d5\u05d1 \u05de\u05d4 \u05db\u05ea\u05d9\u05d1 \u05d1\u05d4 \u05dc\u05d0 \u05d9\u05d4\u05d9\u05d4 \u05dc\u05da\n\u05d0\u05dc\u05d4\u05d9\u05dd \u05d0\u05d7\u05e8\u05d9\u05dd \u05d1\u05d9\u05df \u05e2\u05e8\u05dc\u05d9\u05dd \u05d0\u05dc\u05dd \u05e9\u05e8\u05d5\u05d9\u05d9\u05df \u05e9\u05e2\u05d5\u05d1\u05d3\u05d9\u05df \u05e2\u05f3\u05f3\u05d6 \u05e9\u05d5\u05d1 \u05de\u05d4 \u05db\u05ea\u05d9\u05d1 \u05d1\u05d4 \u05d6\u05db\u05d5\u05e8 \u05d0\u05ea \u05d9\u05d5\u05dd\n\u05d4\u05e9\u05d1\u05ea \u05dc\u05e7\u05d3\u05e9\u05d5 \u05db\u05dc\u05d5\u05dd \u05d0\u05ea\u05dd \u05e2\u05d5\u05e9\u05d9\u05df \u05de\u05dc\u05d0\u05db\u05d4 \u05e9\u05d0\u05ea\u05dd \u05e6\u05e8\u05d9\u05db\u05d9\u05df \u05e9\u05d1\u05d5\u05ea , \u05e9\u05d5\u05d1 \u05de\u05d4 \u05db\u05ea\u05d9\u05d1 \u05d1\u05d4 \u05dc\u05d0 \u05ea\u05e9\u05d0\n\u05de\u05e9\u05d0 \u05d5\u05de\u05ea\u05df \u05d9\u05e9 \u05d1\u05d9\u05e0\u05d9\u05db\u05dd \u05e9\u05d5\u05d1 \u05de\u05d4 \u05db\u05ea\u05d9\u05d1 \u05d1\u05d4 \u05db\u05d1\u05d3 \u05d0\u05ea \u05d0\u05d1\u05d9\u05da \u05d5\u05d0\u05ea \u05d0\u05de\u05da \u05d0\u05d1 \u05d5\u05d0\u05dd \u05d9\u05e9 \u05dc\u05db\u05dd \u05e9\u05d5\u05d1\n\u05de\u05d4 \u05db\u05ea\u05d9\u05d1 \u05d1\u05d4 \u05dc\u05d0 \u05ea\u05e8\u05e6\u05d7 \u05dc\u05d0 \u05ea\u05e0\u05d0\u05e3 \u05dc\u05d0 \u05ea\u05d2\u05e0\u05d5\u05d1 \u05e7\u05e0\u05d0\u05d4 \u05d9\u05e9 \u05d1\u05d9\u05e0\u05d9\u05db\u05dd \u05d9\u05e6\u05e8 \u05d4\u05e8\u05e2 \u05d9\u05e9 \u05d1\u05d9\u05e0\u05d9\u05db\u05dd \u05de\u05d9\u05d3\n\u05d4\u05d5\u05d3\u05d5 \u05dc\u05d5 \u05dc\u05d4\u05e7\u05d1\u05f3\u05f3\u05d4 \u05c3\n\n\u201cIn the hour when Moses ascended up on high, the ministering angels said\nbefore God, O Lord of the world, what business has he that is born of a\nwoman amongst us? He replied, He is come to receive the law. They\nanswered, This most desirable treasure, which has been treasured up from\nthe six days of creation, six hundred and seventy-four generations\nbefore the world was created, dost thou now wish to give it to flesh and\nblood\u2014what is man that thou art mindful of him, and the son of man that\nthou visitest him? O Lord, our Lord, how excellent is thy name in all\nthe earth, who hast set thy glory above the heavens. The Holy One said\nto Moses, Give them an answer. He replied, O Lord of the world, I am\nafraid, lest they burn me with the breath of their mouth. He said, Lay\nhold on the throne of my glory and give them an answer, for it is said,\n\u2018He that holdeth the face of his throne, he spreadeth his cloud over\nhim.\u2019 (Job xxvi. 8, 9.) Rabbi Nahum says, This teaches us that the\nAlmighty spread some of the glory of the Shechinah and his cloud over\nhim. He then said, Lord of the world, what is written in the law that\nthou art about to give me? \u2018I am the Lord thy God that brought thee out\nof Egypt.\u2019 He then said, Did ye ever go down into Egypt and serve\nPharaoh\u2014why, then, should ye have the law? Again, what is written\ntherein? \u2018Thou shalt have none other God.\u2019 He then asked them, Do ye\nthen dwell amongst the uncircumcised, that ye should commit idolatry?\nAgain, what is written? \u2018Remember the Sabbath-day to sanctify it.\u2019 Do\nye, then, do any work, so as to need rest? Again, what is written? \u2018Thou\nshalt not take the name of the Lord,\u2019 &c. Have ye, then, any business\nthat would lead to this sin? Again, what is written? \u2018Honour thy father\nand mother.\u2019 Have ye, then, got any father and mother? Again, what is\nwritten? \u2018Thou shalt not kill, thou shalt not commit adultery, thou\nshalt not steal.\u2019 Have ye, then, got envy or the leading principle that\nwould lead to these sins? Immediately they praised the Holy One, blessed\nbe He,\u201d &c. (Shabbath, fol. 88, col. 2, &c.) It is not necessary to\nprove that this account is a fiction. The absurdity of the whole scene\nis too palpable. To what purpose should the angels wish for the law of\nMoses, or be envious of men to whom it was given? Is it possible that\nthe spirits that minister before the throne of God, were not able to see\nthe unsuitableness of the law for them, until Moses pointed it out to\ntheir consideration? We think that if this scene had ever taken place,\nMoses might have given them other passages of the law much more to the\npurpose; but it is plainly a fable invented by the designing, and\npropagated by the credulous. These two stories then, that Moses received\nthe oral law, and that he disputed with the angels in heaven, come to us\nupon one authority; they are both circumstances in one event; and the\nfabulousness of the one takes away all credit from the other. The oral\nlaw rests solely upon the testimony of its transmitters, but here these\npersons are convicted of transmitting palpable falsehood: their\ntestimony to the oral law is therefore useless, and the whole fabric of\ntradition falls. This one fable is sufficient, but the readers will\nremember that this is only one of a considerable number selected from\nthe Jewish Prayer-book. To extract all similar stories from the Talmud\nwould be to make some folio volumes. The Prayer-book, however, gives\nenough to invalidate the testimony of the Scribes and Pharisees, and to\nincapacitate them for ever from appearing as witnesses. Perhaps some one\nwill say, But they are also the witnesses for the written law, and\ntherefore, if we reject their testimony, we must give up the written law\nalso. But this is not so. For _that_ we have other testimony\u2014we have\nthat of the Jewish nation, of which the Scribes and Pharisees were at\nfirst only an inconsiderable portion. We have the testimony of Jesus and\nhis disciples, the great opposers of the oral law. We have the testimony\nof the predictions, which we behold still accomplishing. We have the\nwhole internal evidence, so that if there never had been Pharisees, the\nevidence for the written law would be just as valid. As it is, the\ncontrast which the written law presents, when compared with the oral\nlaw, furnishes in itself a strong evidence of its truth and\nauthenticity. The written law is simple, sober, dignified. The oral law\nis multifarious, extravagant, absurd. The oral law is poison\u2014the written\nlaw is the antidote. The oral law is a counterfeit, which proves the\nexistence of the genuine coin. Men who receive both on the sole\nauthority of the rabbies may, when they find the falsehood of the one,\nreject the other also, but this can never be the case with those who\ncalmly compare and weigh the two in the balance of right reason.\n\nWe now dismiss these Talmudic fables for the present. We have proved by\ninstances that the oral law abounds with such. We have proved by\nextracts from the Prayers of the synagogue, that these fables form a\npart of the faith of all rabbinical Jews. We have, therefore, proved\nthat the inventors of these fables attained their object. They have\nsucceeded in deceiving the great majority of their countrymen. It is for\nthe Jews of the present day to consider whether these extravagant\nfictions are still to be handed down to unborn generations\u2014still to\nappear as a reproach upon Israel\u2019s understanding\u2014still to disfigure and\ndishonour the public worship of the chosen people. Former generations\nmay have handed them down in ignorance, and be therefore partly\nexcusable. But in the present day there is a large body of Jews here in\nEngland who are fully convinced that these legends are false: it is the\nduty, the sacred duly, of all such to protest against their further\npropagation. If they do not, they make themselves accomplices in the\nguilt of those who invented them, and responsible for all the injury,\ntemporal and spiritual, which the propagation of such error may inflict\nupon their brethren and their posterity. But whatever course they may\npursue, the existence of these fables shows that the oral law itself is\naltogether an invention of men, and proves that Jesus of Nazareth\nconferred a great and substantial benefit on the nation and on mankind,\nby vindicating and preserving for us the unadulterated truth of God\u2019s\nwritten Word.\n\nThese fables prove further, that there is neither weight nor value in\nthe sentence which these men pronounce against the Lord Jesus Christ. It\nis the sentence of those who did not scruple to falsify and pervert the\nlaw of God; it is the testimony given by the notorious inventors and\npropagators of fables, and cannot be received by any one competent to\nweigh evidence. Fables of any kind will invalidate testimony, but\nreligious fables utterly incapacitate their inventors and propagators\nfrom being admitted as witnesses at all. The man who will venture to\ntamper with sacred history, either by adding to, or diminishing from,\nits records, clearly shows that he has lost all reverence for truth, and\nall sense of the divine character, as a vindicator of truth and a\npunisher of falsehood. The man who trifles with sacred facts, cannot be\nregarded as a witness at all in those which he considers profane or\ncommon. When, therefore, the Talmudists, or the wise men of his time,\nbear witness against Jesus of Nazareth, whom they hated, we must\nremember that they have been convicted of false witness again and again\nin the case of Moses, whom they professed to love. Their testimony is\ntherefore a nullity, and if we wish to examine the claims of Jesus of\nNazareth, we must look elsewhere for the data which are to form the\nbasis of our judgment.\n\n\n\n\n                               No. XXII.\n                            RABBINIC MAGIC.\n\n\nModern Judaism is the religion of the oral law. The dogmas, rites,\nceremonies, and prayers, all rest upon its authority. If, therefore, the\noral law can be proved to be an invention of men, the whole fabric of\nmodern Judaism crumbles into dust. It then follows that the Jews have\nbeen more than eighteen centuries the disciples of error, and that, if\nthey now desire to believe and profess the true religion, revealed by\nGod to their forefathers, they must renounce their present Talmudic\nsystem, and return to the law and the prophets. But the oral law is a\nhuman invention. It has been proved, on the authority of the Jewish\nPrayer-book, that it abounds with the most absurd fables, which cannot\nbe the Word of God, but are evidently and obviously the invention of\nman. It appears, therefore, that the Jewish nation has been for\ncenturies deluded by the traditions of the Scribes and Pharisees\u2014that\nthey have been utterly mistaken in their faith, taking the fictions of\nmen for the truth of God\u2014and have thereby sunk from the honourable\nposition, in which God placed them as depositories of the truth, to the\nunenviable situation of the credulous and superstitious. Such is the\nresult of an inquiry into the contents of prayers of the synagogue. An\nexamination of the traditional commandments will show in like manner,\nthat the oral law is every where inseparably mingled with fables, which\nthrow discredit upon the whole. One of the most important parts of the\noral law is that which relates to the constitution of the great tribunal\nthe Sanhedrin, for, as is asserted, that council fixed the authority of\nall traditions, and even examined into the claims, and decided upon the\ndivine mission of the prophets. If it appear, therefore, that the oral\nlaw teaches what is manifestly fabulous with respect to that tribunal,\nthe main pillar of tradition is taken away. Now without entering into\nthe whole subject at present, the following specimen will show what\ndegree of credit can be given to the traditional accounts respecting\nit:\u2014\n\n\u05d0\u05de\u05e8 \u05e8\u05f3 \u05d9\u05d5\u05d7\u05e0\u05df \u05d0\u05d9\u05df \u05de\u05d5\u05e9\u05d9\u05d1\u05d9\u05df \u05d1\u05e1\u05e0\u05d4\u05d3\u05e8\u05d9\u05df \u05d0\u05dc\u05d0 \u05d1\u05e2\u05dc\u05d9 \u05e7\u05d5\u05de\u05d4 \u05d5\u05d1\u05e2\u05dc\u05d9 \u05d7\u05db\u05de\u05d4 \u05d5\u05d1\u05e2\u05dc\u05d9 \u05de\u05e8\u05d0\u05d4\n\u05d5\u05d1\u05e2\u05dc\u05d9 \u05d6\u05e7\u05e0\u05d4 \u05d5\u05d1\u05e2\u05dc\u05d9 \u05db\u05e9\u05e4\u05d9\u05dd \u05d5\u05d9\u05d5\u05d3\u05e2\u05d9\u05dd \u05d1\u05e9\u05d1\u05e2\u05d9\u05dd \u05dc\u05e9\u05d5\u05df \u05e9\u05dc\u05d0 \u05ea\u05d4\u05d0 \u05e1\u05e0\u05d4\u05d3\u05e8\u05d9\u05df \u05e9\u05d5\u05de\u05e2\u05ea \u05de\u05e4\u05d9\n\u05d4\u05ea\u05d5\u05e8\u05d2\u05de\u05df \u05c3\n\n\u201cRabbi Johannan says, none were allowed to sit in the Sanhedrin, who\nwere not men of stature, men of wisdom, men of good appearance, aged,\nskilled in magic, and acquainted with the seventy languages, so that the\nSanhedrin might not be obliged to hear through an interpreter.\u201d\n(Sanhedrin, fol. 17, col. 1.) In this short extract there are several\nfables\u2014first, that all the members of the Sanhedrin should be skilled in\nmagic, or magicians, is plainly contrary to the express command of God,\nwho says, \u201cThere shall not be found among you any one that maketh his\nson or his daughter to pass through the fire, or that useth divination,\nor an observer of times, or an enchanter, or a witch \u05de\u05db\u05e9\u05e3\u2014for all that\ndo these things are an abomination unto the Lord: and because of these\nabominations the Lord thy God doth drive them out from before thee.\u201d\n(Deut. xviii. 10-12.) This command of God makes no exception in favour\nof the members of the Sanhedrin. It absolutely forbids any such in\nIsrael for any purpose. The commentary indeed tells us, that this\nmagical skill was required in self-defence.\n\n\u05dc\u05d4\u05de\u05d9\u05ea \u05de\u05db\u05e9\u05e4\u05d9\u05dd \u05d4\u05d1\u05d5\u05d8\u05d7\u05d9\u05dd \u05d1\u05db\u05e9\u05e4\u05d9\u05d4\u05dd \u05dc\u05d4\u05e0\u05e6\u05dc \u05de\u05d9\u05d3\u05d9 \u05d1\u05d9\u05ea \u05d3\u05d9\u05df \u05c3\n\n\u201cIn order to kill the magicians who trusted in their magical arts to\ndeliver them out of the hands of the tribunal.\u201d But this explanation\ndoes not mend the matter. Magic is a thing absolutely unlawful and\nexpressly forbidden by God. It was therefore unlawful either to learn or\nto practise it, even for the purpose of killing a magician. If the plea\nof self-defence or necessity made it lawful for the Sanhedrin to learn\nmagic, the same argument would justify it doubly in the case of the\npeople, who were more likely to be the objects of the magician\u2019s\nattacks; for surely these persons would be careful to avoid all contact\nwith the members of the Sanhedrin, whom they knew to be more than a\nmatch for them in the black art. According to this method of arguing all\nIsrael might have been skilled in magic, though the law requires that\nnot one such person should be found among them. Either then this account\nis absolutely false, or the members of the Sanhedrin were bad men, who\nlearned what was expressly forbidden by the law of God; and in either\ncase, the Talmudic accounts of this tribunal are unworthy of credit.\n\nBut it may well be doubted whether the members of this great council\nconfined their magical exercitations to the killing of magicians. We\nfind elsewhere, if the Talmud speak truth, that the rabbies at least\nmade other magical experiments, and have even recorded the means which\nthey employed, for the benefit of posterity.\n\n\u05d0\u05d1\u05d0 \u05d1\u05e0\u05d9\u05de\u05df \u05d0\u05d5\u05de\u05e8 \u05d0\u05dc\u05de\u05dc\u05d0 \u05e0\u05ea\u05e0\u05d4 \u05e8\u05e9\u05d5\u05ea \u05dc\u05e2\u05d9\u05df \u05dc\u05e8\u05d0\u05d5\u05ea \u05d0\u05d9\u05df \u05db\u05dc \u05d1\u05e8\u05d9\u05ea \u05d9\u05db\u05d5\u05dc\u05d4 \u05dc\u05e2\u05de\u05d5\u05d3 \u05de\u05e4\u05e0\u05d9\n\u05d4\u05de\u05d6\u05d9\u05e7\u05d9\u05df \u05d0\u05de\u05e8 \u05d0\u05d1\u05d9\u05d9 \u05d0\u05d9\u05e0\u05d4\u05d5 \u05e0\u05e4\u05d9\u05e9\u05d9 \u05de\u05d9\u05e0\u05df \u05d5\u05e7\u05d9\u05de\u05d9 \u05e2\u05dc\u05df \u05db\u05d9 \u05db\u05e1\u05dc\u05d0 \u05dc\u05d0\u05d5\u05d2\u05d9\u05d0 , \u05d0\u05de\u05e8 \u05e8\u05d1 \u05d4\u05d5\u05e0\u05d0\n\u05db\u05dc \u05d7\u05d3 \u05d5\u05d7\u05d3 \u05de\u05d9\u05e0\u05df \u05d0\u05dc\u05e4\u05d9 \u05de\u05e9\u05de\u05d0\u05dc\u05d9\u05d4 \u05d5\u05e8\u05d1\u05d1\u05ea\u05d0 \u05de\u05d9\u05de\u05d9\u05e0\u05d9\u05d4 \u05d0\u05de\u05e8 \u05e8\u05d1\u05d0 \u05d4\u05d0\u05d9 \u05d3\u05d5\u05d7\u05e7\u05d0 \u05d3\u05d4\u05d5\u05d4 \u05d1\u05db\u05dc\u05d4\n\u05de\u05d9\u05e0\u05d9\u05d4\u05d5 \u05d4\u05d5\u05d9 \u05d4\u05e0\u05d9 \u05d1\u05e8\u05db\u05d9 \u05d3\u05e9\u05dc\u05d4\u05d9 \u05de\u05d9\u05e0\u05d9\u05d4\u05d5 , \u05d4\u05e0\u05d9 \u05de\u05d0\u05e0\u05d9 \u05d3\u05e8\u05d1\u05e0\u05df \u05d3\u05d1\u05dc\u05d9 \u05de\u05d7\u05d5\u05e4\u05d9\u05d4 \u05d3\u05d9\u05d3\u05d4\u05d5 \u05d4\u05e0\u05d9\n\u05db\u05e8\u05e2\u05d9 \u05d3\u05de\u05e0\u05e7\u05e4\u05d0 \u05de\u05d9\u05e0\u05d9\u05d4\u05d5 \u05d4\u05d0\u05d9 \u05de\u05d0\u05df \u05d3\u05d1\u05e2\u05d9 \u05dc\u05de\u05d3\u05e2 \u05dc\u05d4\u05d5 \u05dc\u05d9\u05ea\u05d9 \u05e7\u05d9\u05d8\u05de\u05d0 \u05e0\u05d4\u05d9\u05dc\u05d0 \u05d5\u05e0\u05d4\u05d3\u05e8 \u05d0\u05e4\u05d5\u05e8\u05d9\u05d9\u05d4\n\u05d5\u05d1\u05e6\u05e4\u05e8\u05d0 \u05d7\u05d6\u05d9 \u05db\u05d9 \u05db\u05e8\u05e2\u05d9 \u05d3\u05ea\u05e8\u05e0\u05d2\u05d5\u05dc\u05d0 \u05d4\u05d0\u05d9 \u05de\u05d0\u05df \u05d3\u05d1\u05e2\u05d9 \u05dc\u05de\u05d7\u05d6\u05d9\u05e0\u05d4\u05d5 \u05dc\u05d9\u05ea\u05d9 \u05e9\u05dc\u05d9\u05ea\u05d0 \u05d3\u05e9\u05d5\u05e0\u05e8\u05d0\n\u05d0\u05d5\u05db\u05de\u05ea\u05d0 \u05d1\u05e8 \u05d0\u05d5\u05db\u05de\u05ea\u05d0 \u05d1\u05d5\u05db\u05e8\u05ea\u05d0 \u05d1\u05ea \u05d1\u05d5\u05db\u05e8\u05ea\u05d0 \u05d5\u05dc\u05e7\u05dc\u05d9\u05d4 \u05d1\u05e0\u05d5\u05e8\u05d0 \u05d5\u05dc\u05e9\u05d7\u05e7\u05d9\u05d4 \u05d5\u05dc\u05d9\u05de\u05dc\u05d9\u05d4 \u05e2\u05d9\u05e0\u05d9\u05d4\n\u05de\u05d9\u05e0\u05d9\u05d4 \u05d5\u05d7\u05d6\u05d9 \u05dc\u05d4\u05d5 \u05d5\u05dc\u05e9\u05d3\u05d9\u05d9\u05d4 \u05d1\u05d2\u05d5\u05d1\u05ea\u05d0 \u05d3\u05e4\u05e8\u05d6\u05dc\u05d0 \u05d5\u05dc\u05d7\u05ea\u05de\u05d9\u05d4 \u05d1\u05d2\u05d5\u05e9\u05e4\u05e0\u05e7\u05d0 \u05d3\u05e4\u05e8\u05d6\u05dc\u05d0 \u05d3\u05d9\u05dc\u05de\u05d0 \u05d2\u05e0\u05d1\u05d9\n\u05de\u05d9\u05e0\u05d9\u05d4 \u05d5\u05dc\u05d7\u05ea\u05d5\u05dd \u05e4\u05d5\u05de\u05d9\u05d4 \u05db\u05d9 \u05d4\u05d9\u05db\u05d9 \u05d3\u05dc\u05d0 \u05dc\u05d9\u05ea\u05d6\u05e7 \u05e8\u05d1 \u05d1\u05d9\u05d1\u05d9 \u05d1\u05e8 \u05d0\u05d1\u05d9\u05d9 \u05e2\u05d1\u05d3 \u05d4\u05db\u05d9 \u05d5\u05d0\u05ea\u05d6\u05e7 \u05d1\u05e2\u05d9\n\u05e8\u05d1\u05e0\u05df \u05e8\u05d7\u05de\u05d9 \u05e2\u05dc\u05d9\u05d4 \u05d5\u05d0\u05ea\u05e1\u05d9 \u05c3\n\n\u201cAbba Benjamin says, if permission had been given to see them, no\ncreature could stand before the hurtful demons. Abbai says, They are\nmore than we, and stand against us like the trench round the garden-bed.\nRav Huna says, Every one of us has a thousand on his left hand, and ten\nthousand on his right hand. Rabba says, The want of room at the sermon\nis caused by them\u2014the wearing out of the rabbies\u2019 clothes is caused by\ntheir rubbing against them\u2014the bruised legs are caused by them.\nWhosoever wishes to ascertain their existence, let him take ashes that\nhave been passed through a sieve, and let him strew his bed, and in the\nmorning he will see the marks of a cock\u2019s claws. Whosoever wishes to see\nthem, let him take the interior covering of a black cat, the daughter of\na first-born black cat, which is also the daughter of a first-born, and\nlet him burn it in the fire, and pulverise it, and let him then fill his\neyes with it, and he will see them. But let him pour the powder into an\niron tube, and seal it with an iron signet, lest they should steal any\nof it, and let him also seal up the mouth thereof, that no injury may\narise. Rav Bibi bar Abbai did thus, and received an injury. But the\nrabbies prayed for mercy upon him, and he was cured.\u201d (Berachoth, fol.\n6, col. 1.) Here, then, is magic for the people, and all Israel is\ninstructed in the means to see demons. It is not for us to decide\nwhether those, who might use these means, would ever see men again, but\nthis is certain, that the oral law here gives a magical recipe to those\nwho are not members of the Sanhedrin, sets before us one of the Talmudic\ndoctors as an example, and moreover encourages to do as he did, by\nholding out the possibility of a miraculous cure, if any injury should\narise. If, then, this story be true, the oral law permits magic, which\nthe law of God forbids; if it be false, then the oral law is convicted\nof another monstrous falsehood, and is altogether unworthy of credit.\nHow long will the people of Israel suffer themselves to be deluded by a\nsystem, of which the striking characteristic is, that it has no regard\nfor truth? The Jews object against Jesus of Nazareth, that he leads them\naway from the law of Moses, but where does he, or his disciples,\ninculcate the study of magic, or prescribe rules for facilitating\nintercourse with demons, contrary to the express command of God? Just\nsuppose that this whole extract, instead of being found in the Talmud,\nhad formed a portion of the New Testament, how would the Jews have\nlaughed at this prescription for its folly, and argued against its\nwickedness, how triumphantly would they have shown that a law that\nteaches and encourages magic could not have been given by God? The\nexistence of one such passage would have been sufficient, in their eyes,\nto condemn the whole Christian system. Let, then, the Jews deal with the\noral law in the same way. Let them judge it and its fables by an appeal\nto Moses and the prophets. But let them remember that in this, as in\nmany other instances, the New Testament agrees with the law of Moses,\nwhilst the oral law differs from both. The New Testament classes\nwitchcraft along with idolatry, and other sins which exclude from the\njoys of eternal life. \u201cThe works of the flesh are manifest, which are\nthese: adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, _witchcraft_,\nhatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies,\nenvyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like; of the which\nI tell you before, as I have also told you in times past, that they\nwhich do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.\u201d (Galat. v.\n19-21.) In this case, then, where the oral law leads you away from the\ndoctrine of Moses, the religion of Jesus of Nazareth brings you back\nagain.\n\nThis is, however, not the only fable contained in that short law\nconcerning the members of the Sanhedrin. We are told, besides, that no\none was allowed to sit in that council \u201cunless he understood the seventy\ntongues.\u201d Now we would ask every disciple of the oral law calmly to\nconsider this statement, and then say what he thinks of its veracity.\nDid he ever hear or know of scholars in the present times acquainted\nwith seventy languages, and that so perfectly as to be able to converse\nwith and examine witnesses, and form a judgment upon their evidence,\nwithout the aid of an interpreter? Surely, the study of languages is as\nmuch cultivated in the present day as it was then, and there are at\nleast as many facilities for their acquisition. The system of grammar is\nnow fully developed. The art of printing has made it easy to obtain\nforeign books. Lexicons and other apparatus may be procured, and yet,\nwith all these facilities, we much doubt whether there be, in the whole\nworld, one single person possessing that knowledge of languages here\nascribed to every individual member of the Sanhedrin. According to the\noral law, there always had been, in Israel, seventy-one such persons at\nleast, but probably more; for as a member died, or became superannuated,\nanother was found ready to succeed him. But the wonder is here made\nstill more wonderful, for there were not only seventy-one persons\nacquainted with seventy languages, but those persons were also\nacquainted, as Rambam tells us, with medicine, astronomy, and all the\nexisting systems of idolatry, and moreover skilled in magic. And,\nbesides all this, all these persons were fine handsome fellows, \u201cMen of\nstature, men of good appearance.\u201d Is this credible\u2014can all Israel, or\nall the world, furnish one such person at present, handsome or ugly,\ntall or short? or can there be found amongst that intelligent people the\nJews, one man, woman, or child, so silly as to believe so manifest a\nfalsehood? We can tell them that their great rabbi, Rambam, did not\nbelieve it, and therefore in his Compendium took the liberty of altering\nthis Talmudic statement. Instead of seventy languages, he says simply\u2014\n\n\u05d5\u05e9\u05d9\u05d3\u05e2\u05d5 \u05d1\u05e8\u05d5\u05d1 \u05d4\u05dc\u05e9\u05d5\u05e0\u05d5\u05ea \u05c3\n\n\u201cAnd that they should be acquainted with most languages.\u201d It was too\nmuch for him. Being a learned man himself, he knew the impossibility of\nsuch universal knowledge; and he therefore softened down the Talmudic\nhyperbole to the limits of what he considered possibility. This is not\nmerely our conclusion from Rambam\u2019s alteration, the commentator has\nexpressly said the same:\u2014\n\n\u05d5\u05db\u05ea\u05d1 \u05e8\u05d1\u05d9\u05e0\u05d5 \u05d9\u05d5\u05d3\u05e2\u05d9\u05df \u05d1\u05e8\u05d5\u05d1 \u05d4\u05dc\u05e9\u05d5\u05e0\u05d5\u05ea \u05de\u05e9\u05d5\u05dd \u05d3\u05d3\u05d1\u05e8 \u05d6\u05e8 \u05dc\u05d4\u05de\u05e6\u05d0 \u05de\u05d9 \u05e9\u05d9\u05d3\u05e2 \u05d1\u05db\u05dc \u05e2\u05f3 \u05dc\u05e9\u05d5\u05df \u05c3\n\n\u201cOur rabbi has written, \u2018Acquainted with most languages,\u2019 because it is\na rarity to find a person acquainted with all the seventy languages.\u201d\n(Hilchoth Sanhedrin, c. 2.) Rambam himself, then, is here a witness\nagainst the fabulous exaggerations of the Talmud.\n\nBut perhaps some one will say, that seventy is only a round number to\nsignify many, that we must not, therefore, be too strict in its\nexposition. This subterfuge, however, will not serve here. The authors\nof the Talmud said seventy, because they believed that, by giving this\nnumber, they included all the languages in the world. They believed that\nthere were seventy nations, and therefore they said seventy languages.\nThis article of Jewish faith is found everywhere in the Talmud, and in\nthe commentaries, as for instance\u2014\n\n\u05d0\u05de\u05e8 \u05e8\u05f3 \u05d9\u05d5\u05d7\u05e0\u05df \u05de\u05d0\u05d9 \u05d3\u05db\u05ea\u05d9\u05d1 \u05d9\u05ea\u05df \u05d0\u05d5\u05de\u05e8 \u05d4\u05de\u05d1\u05e9\u05e8\u05d5\u05ea \u05e6\u05d1\u05d0 \u05e8\u05d1 \u05db\u05dc \u05d3\u05d1\u05d5\u05e8 \u05d5\u05d3\u05d1\u05d5\u05e8 \u05e9\u05d9\u05e6\u05d0 \u05de\u05e4\u05d9\n\u05d4\u05d2\u05d1\u05d5\u05e8\u05d4 \u05e0\u05d7\u05dc\u05e7 \u05dc\u05e9\u05d1\u05e2\u05d9\u05dd \u05dc\u05e9\u05d5\u05e0\u05d5\u05ea \u05c3\n\n\u201cR. Johannan says, What is the meaning of that Scripture, \u2018The Lord gave\nthe Word: great was the company of those that published it?\u2019 It teaches,\nthat as each commandment proceeded from the mouth of God, it was divided\ninto seventy languages.\u201d (Shabbath, fol. 88, col. 2.) The foundation of\nthis opinion is an arbitrary interpretation or a verse in the song of\nMoses. \u201cWhen the Most High divided to the nations their inheritance,\nwhen he separated the sons of Adam, he set the bounds of the people\naccording to the number of the children of Israel.\u201d (Deut. xxxii. 8.)\nUpon which Rashi thus comments:\u2014\n\n\u05d1\u05e9\u05d1\u05d9\u05dc \u05de\u05e1\u05e4\u05e8 \u05d1\u05e0\u05d9 \u05d9\u05e9\u05e8\u05d0\u05dc \u05e9\u05e2\u05ea\u05d9\u05d3\u05d9\u05df \u05dc\u05e6\u05d0\u05ea \u05de\u05d1\u05e0\u05d9 \u05e9\u05dd \u05d9\u05dc\u05de\u05e1\u05e4\u05e8 \u05e9\u05d1\u05e2\u05d9\u05dd \u05e0\u05e4\u05e9 \u05e9\u05dc \u05d1\u05e0\u05d9 \u05d9\u05e9\u05e8\u05d0\u05dc\n\u05e9\u05d9\u05e8\u05d3\u05d5 \u05dc\u05de\u05e6\u05e8\u05d9\u05dd \u05d4\u05e6\u05d9\u05d1 \u05d2\u05d1\u05d5\u05dc\u05d5\u05ea \u05e2\u05de\u05d9\u05dd \u05e9\u05d1\u05e2\u05d9\u05dd \u05dc\u05e9\u05d5\u05df \u05c3\n\n\u201cOn account of the number of the children of Israel who were to proceed\nfrom the sons of Shem, and according to the number of the seventy souls\nof the children of Israel who descended into Egypt, he set the bounds of\nthe people, that is, the seventy languages.\u201d That this latter clause is\naltogether arbitrary, and a mere gratuitous addition, is plain from an\ninspection of the text, where not one syllable is said about the seventy\nsouls, nor about the number of the nations, but about the fixing the\nbounds of their habitations. Rashi himself did not trust in this\nexposition, and he has therefore given another:\u2014\u201cOn account of the\nnumber of the children of Israel who were to proceed from the children\nof Shem.\u201d Aben Esra also passes by the seventy nations altogether, and\nsays that, \u201cAccording to the number of the children of Israel,\u201d means,\nthat the bounds of the nations were so set as to leave sufficient room\nfor the Israelites. His words are\u2014\n\n\u05d0\u05de\u05e8\u05d5 \u05d4\u05de\u05e4\u05e8\u05e9\u05d9\u05dd \u05e2\u05dc \u05d3\u05d5\u05e8 \u05d4\u05e4\u05dc\u05d2\u05d4 \u05e9\u05e0\u05e4\u05d7\u05d4 \u05db\u05dc \u05d4\u05d0\u05e8\u05e5 \u05db\u05d9 \u05d0\u05d6 \u05d2\u05d6\u05e8 \u05d4\u05e9\u05dd \u05dc\u05d4\u05d9\u05d5\u05ea \u05d0\u05e8\u05e5 \u05d6\u05f3 \u05d2\u05d5\u05d9\u05dd\n\u05dc\u05d9\u05e9\u05e8\u05d0\u05dc \u05d5\u05d4\u05d9\u05d0 \u05e9\u05ea\u05e1\u05e4\u05d9\u05e7 \u05dc\u05de\u05e1\u05e4\u05e8\u05dd \u05d5\u05e2\u05dc \u05db\u05df \u05dc\u05de\u05e1\u05e4\u05e8 \u05d1\u05e0\u05d9 \u05d9\u05e9\u05e8\u05d0\u05dc \u05c3\n\n\u201cThe commentators have interpreted this of the generation of the\ndispersion, when all the earth was scattered, for then God decreed that\nIsrael should have the land of the seven nations, which would be\nsufficient for them, therefore it is said, \u2018according to the number of\nthe children of Israel.\u2019\u201d This verse, then, gives no colour to the\nopinion that there are only seventy nations and seventy languages. Fact\nproves that the number is much greater, for the Bible exists already in\ntwice that number of languages, and the work of translation is not yet\naccomplished. The oral law, therefore, fails altogether in attaining the\nobject which it had in view in telling this extraordinary story. It\nwished to say, that in the Sanhedrin there never was need of an\ninterpreter, for that every member understood every language in the\nworld, and believing that there were only seventy languages, it stated\nthis number. But now we know that even if each member understood seventy\nlanguages, yet to be able to decide cases for all the nations of the\nearth, they would have required to know as many more. The oral law then,\nbetrays here an utter ignorance of the state of the world, which shows\nthat it is not from that God who confounded the languages of the earth,\nand therefore knows how many there are; but from men who desired to\nmagnify the acquirements of the nation far beyond the sober truth. The\nmen who could deliberately say, that the Sanhedrin was composed of\nseventy-one persons, all handsome, all men of stature, all skilled in\nmagic, and all so perfectly acquainted with seventy languages, as to\nneed no interpreter, would have said seven hundred, or seven thousand,\nor any thing else that suited their purpose. They are evidently wilful\nexaggeraters, whose word is therefore not to be trusted. The motive here\nis vain glory. The object is simply to give all the honour to men, to\nthe Rabbies whose learning and genius were so marvellous. There is no\nintimation that God gave the members of the Sanhedrin this knowledge,\nwhich far exceeds the power or the life of man to attain by ordinary\nmeans. No, all the glory of these marvellous acquirements is ascribed to\nman alone. This forms a striking contrast to a narrative recorded in the\nNew Testament. We are there told that on a certain occasion the\ndisciples of Jesus of Nazareth addressed in their own language,\n\u201cParthians, and Medes, and Elamites, and the dwellers in Mesopotamia,\nand in Judea and Cappadocia, in Pontus and Asia, Phrygia, and Pamphylia,\nin Egypt, and in the ports of Lybia about Cyrene, and strangers of Rome,\nJews and proselytes, Cretes and Arabians,\u201d that is, the inhabitants of\nsixteen countries. Now, the small number here stated is a presumptive\nevidence of the truth of the fact. If an impostor, a Rabbinist who\nwished to make a good story, had written this account, he would, beyond\nall doubt, instead of sixteen, have specified all the seventy languages.\nTo his countrymen, who believed in the acquirements of the Sanhedrin,\nthis would have appeared no wise incredible. Indeed, if a man of that\ntime had wished to invent a miracle, the number seventy would have been\nabsolutely necessary for his purpose. For if every member of the\nSanhedrin could speak seventy languages, to say that other men spoke\nsixteen would have been no miracle at all. The small number, therefore,\nhere given, shows that the authors of the narrative had no wish to\ninvent a miracle, but to state the sober truth. But then consider the\nentire absence of vain-glory. The praise and the power of speaking even\nthis small number of languages is given altogether to God. The men were\nGalileans, and had not acquired this by their own labour and genius.\n\u201cThey were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other\ntongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.\u201d (Acts ii. 1-11.) Here then\nis a striking difference between the narratives of the Talmud and those\nof the New Testament. The former exalts men. The latter gives glory to\nGod.\n\n\n\n\n                               No. XXIII.\n                               ASTROLOGY.\n\n\nThe favourite Jewish objection to the claims of Jesus of Nazareth is\nthat passage at the beginning of the thirteenth chapter of Deuteronomy:\n\u201cIf there arise among you a prophet, or a dreamer of dreams, and giveth\nthee a sign or a wonder, and the sign or the wonder come to pass,\nwhereof he spake unto thee, saying, Let us go after other gods, which\nthou hast not known, and let us serve them, thou shalt not hearken unto\nthe words of that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams.\u201d In citing this\npassage, the Jews take for granted that the religion of Jesus is\nessentially different from that of Moses; that it leads to the worship\nof strange gods: and that it is in fact a species of heathenism, whilst\nthe religion of the oral law, which they now profess, is utterly free\nfrom all heathen elements, and identical with the religion of their\nprophets. All this they take for granted; but the subject is capable of\nbeing inquired into. The oral law and the New Testament are both extant,\nand a little examination will enable us to decide, on rational grounds,\nwhether Judaism or Christianity savour most of heathenism. In our last\nnumber, we saw that Judaism contains magic for the Sanhedrin and magic\nfor the people, whilst the New Testament utterly forbids it: in this\nrespect then Judaism resembles the heathen religion. Our business in\nthis number shall be to point out, in astrology, another feature of\nresemblance. The Talmud and its doctors all agree in asserting the\ninfluence of the stars over the fates and fortunes of men. In the first\nplace, the Talmud lays down these general maxims:\u2014\n\n\u05d4\u05d9\u05d9 \u05d1\u05e0\u05d9 \u05d5\u05de\u05d6\u05d5\u05e0\u05d9 \u05dc\u05d0\u05d5 \u05d1\u05d6\u05db\u05d5\u05ea\u05d0 \u05ea\u05dc\u05d9\u05d0 \u05de\u05dc\u05ea\u05d0 \u05d0\u05dc\u05d0 \u05d1\u05de\u05d6\u05dc\u05d0 \u05ea\u05dc\u05d9\u05d0 \u05de\u05dc\u05ea\u05d0 \u05c3\n\n\u201cLife, children, and a livelihood depend not on merit, but on the\ninfluence of the stars.\u201d (Moed Katon, fol. 28, col. 1.)\n\n\u05de\u05d6\u05dc \u05de\u05d7\u05db\u05d9\u05dd \u05d5\u05de\u05d6\u05dc \u05de\u05e2\u05e9\u05d9\u05e8 \u05c3\n\n\u201cThe influence of the stars makes wise, the influence of the stars makes\nrich.\u201d (Shabbath, fol. 156, col. 1.) But it also tells us the following\nparticulars:\u2014\n\n\u05d4\u05d0\u05d9 \u05de\u05d0\u05df \u05d3\u05d1\u05d7\u05d3 \u05d1\u05e9\u05d1\u05d0 \u05d9\u05d4\u05d9 \u05d2\u05d1\u05e8 \u05d5\u05dc\u05d0 \u05d7\u05d3\u05d0 \u05d1\u05d9\u05d4 ... \u05d4\u05d0\u05d9 \u05de\u05d0\u05df \u05d3\u05d1\u05ea\u05e8\u05d9 \u05d1\u05e9\u05d1\u05d0 \u05d9\u05d4\u05d9 \u05d2\u05d1\u05e8\n\u05e8\u05d2\u05d6\u05df \u05de\u05f3\u05f3\u05d8 \u05de\u05e9\u05d5\u05dd \u05d3\u05d0\u05d9\u05e4\u05dc\u05d9\u05d2\u05d5 \u05d1\u05d9\u05d4 \u05de\u05d9\u05d0 , \u05d4\u05d0\u05d9 \u05de\u05d0\u05d5 \u05d3\u05d1\u05ea\u05dc\u05ea\u05d0 \u05d1\u05e9\u05d1\u05d0 \u05d9\u05d4\u05d9 \u05d2\u05d1\u05e8 \u05e2\u05ea\u05d9\u05e8 \u05d5\u05d6\u05e0\u05d0\u05d9\n\u05de\u05f3\u05f3\u05d8 \u05de\u05e9\u05d5\u05dd \u05d3\u05d0\u05d9\u05d1\u05e8\u05d5 \u05d1\u05d9\u05d4 \u05e2\u05e9\u05d1\u05d9\u05dd , \u05d4\u05d0\u05d9 \u05de\u05d0\u05df \u05d3\u05d1\u05d0\u05e8\u05d1\u05e2\u05d4 \u05d1\u05e9\u05d1\u05d0 \u05d9\u05d4\u05d9 \u05d2\u05d1\u05e8 \u05d7\u05db\u05dd \u05d5\u05e0\u05d4\u05d9\u05e8 \u05de\u05f3\u05f3\u05d8\n\u05de\u05e9\u05d5\u05dd \u05d3\u05d0\u05d9\u05ea\u05dc\u05d5 \u05d1\u05d9\u05d4 \u05de\u05d0\u05d5\u05e8\u05d5\u05ea . \u05d4\u05d0\u05d9 \u05de\u05d0\u05df \u05d3\u05d1\u05d7\u05de\u05e9\u05d0 \u05d1\u05e9\u05d1\u05d0 \u05d9\u05d4\u05d9 \u05d2\u05d1\u05e8 \u05d2\u05d5\u05de\u05dc \u05d7\u05e1\u05d3\u05d9\u05dd \u05de\u05f3\u05f3\u05d8\n\u05de\u05e9\u05d5\u05dd \u05d3\u05d0\u05d9\u05d1\u05e8\u05d5 \u05d1\u05d9\u05d4 \u05d3\u05d2\u05d9\u05dd \u05d5\u05e2\u05d5\u05e4\u05d5\u05ea , \u05d4\u05d0\u05d9 \u05de\u05d0\u05df \u05d3\u05d1\u05de\u05e2\u05dc\u05d0 \u05e9\u05d1\u05ea\u05d0 \u05d9\u05d4\u05d9 \u05d2\u05d1\u05e8 \u05d7\u05d6\u05e8\u05df \u05d0\u05de\u05e8 \u05e8\u05f3\n\u05e0\u05d7\u05de\u05df \u05d1\u05e8 \u05d9\u05e6\u05d7\u05e7 \u05d7\u05d6\u05e8\u05df \u05d1\u05de\u05e6\u05d5\u05d5\u05ea , \u05d4\u05d0\u05d9 \u05de\u05d0\u05df \u05d3\u05d1\u05e9\u05d1\u05ea\u05d0 \u05d9\u05d4\u05d9 \u05d1\u05e9\u05d1\u05ea\u05d0 \u05d9\u05de\u05d5\u05ea \u05e2\u05dc\u05d9 \u05d3\u05d0\u05d7\u05d9\u05dc\u05d5\n\u05e2\u05dc\u05d5\u05d4\u05d9 \u05d9\u05d5\u05de\u05d0 \u05e8\u05d1\u05d0 \u05d3\u05e9\u05d1\u05ea\u05d0 \u05d0\u05de\u05e8 \u05e8\u05d1\u05d0 \u05d1\u05e8 \u05e8\u05d1 \u05e9\u05d9\u05dc\u05d0 \u05d5\u05e7\u05d3\u05d9\u05e9\u05d0 \u05e8\u05d1\u05d4 \u05ea\u05e7\u05e8\u05d9 \u05c3\n\n\u201cHe that is born on the first day of the week, will be a man excelling,\nbut in one quality only.[20]... He that is born on the second day of the\nweek will be an angry man. What is the reason? Because on it the waters\nwere divided. He that is born on the third day of the week will be a\nrich and profligate man. What is the reason? Because on it the herbs\nwere created. He that is born on the fourth day of the week will be a\nwise man and have a powerful memory. What is the reason? Because on that\nday the lights were hung up in the heavens. He that is born on the fifth\nday of the week will be a benevolent man. What is the reason? Because on\nit were created the fishes and the fowls. He that is born on the eve of\nthe Sabbath will be a man who makes a circuit. Rav Nachman bar Isaac\nsays, who makes the circuit in the commandments.[21] He that is born on\nthe Sabbath, on the Sabbath also he shall die, because on his account\nthey profaned the great day of the Sabbath. Rabba bar Rav Shila says, he\nshall possess an eminent degree of holiness.\u201d (Shabbath, fol. 156, col.\n1.) Here is completely the heathen doctrine of fate. Not only the\nexternal circumstances of fortune, but the moral qualities of the soul\nare made to depend upon the day of a man\u2019s nativity. Whether a man be\nprofligate or holy, according to this doctrine, does in no wise depend\nupon himself, his own choice, or conscience, but simply on the\ncircumstance of his birth happening on a Tuesday or a Saturday. There is\nindeed a difference of opinion amongst the Talmudic doctors, as to the\nnature of the sidereal influence, but all agree in the fact, as may be\nseen further from the opinion of R. Huna:\u2014\n\n\u05dc\u05d0 \u05de\u05d6\u05dc \u05d9\u05d5\u05dd \u05d2\u05d5\u05e8\u05dd \u05d0\u05dc\u05d0 \u05de\u05d6\u05dc \u05e9\u05e2\u05d4 \u05d2\u05d5\u05e8\u05dd \u05d4\u05d0\u05d9 \u05de\u05d0\u05df \u05d3\u05d1\u05d7\u05de\u05d4 \u05d9\u05d4\u05d9 \u05d2\u05d1\u05e8 \u05d6\u05d9\u05d5\u05ea\u05df \u05d9\u05d4\u05d9 \u05d0\u05db\u05dc\n\u05de\u05d3\u05dc\u05d9\u05d4 \u05d5\u05e9\u05ea\u05d9 \u05de\u05d3\u05dc\u05d9\u05d4 \u05d5\u05e8\u05d6\u05d5\u05d4\u05d9 \u05d2\u05dc\u05df \u05d0\u05dd \u05d2\u05e0\u05d9\u05d1 \u05dc\u05d0 \u05de\u05e6\u05dc\u05d7 . \u05d4\u05d0\u05d9 \u05de\u05d0\u05df \u05d3\u05d1\u05db\u05d5\u05db\u05d1 \u05e0\u05d5\u05d2\u05d4 \u05d9\u05d4\u05d9\n\u05d2\u05d1\u05e8 \u05e2\u05ea\u05d9\u05e8 \u05d5\u05d6\u05e0\u05d0\u05d9 \u05d9\u05d4\u05d9 \u05de\u05d0\u05d9 \u05d8\u05e2\u05de\u05d0 \u05de\u05e9\u05d5\u05dd \u05d3\u05d0\u05d9\u05ea\u05d9\u05dc\u05d9\u05d3 \u05d1\u05d9\u05d4 \u05e0\u05d5\u05e8\u05d0 , \u05d4\u05d0\u05d9 \u05de\u05d0\u05df \u05d3\u05d1\u05db\u05d5\u05db\u05d1 \u05d9\u05d4\u05d9\n\u05d2\u05d1\u05e8 \u05e0\u05d4\u05d9\u05e8 \u05d5\u05d7\u05db\u05d9\u05dd \u05de\u05e9\u05d5\u05dd \u05d3\u05e1\u05e4\u05e8\u05d0 \u05d3\u05d7\u05de\u05d0 \u05d4\u05d5\u05d0 , \u05d4\u05d0\u05d9 \u05de\u05d0\u05df \u05d3\u05d1\u05dc\u05d1\u05e0\u05d4 \u05d9\u05d4\u05d9 \u05d2\u05d1\u05e8 \u05e1\u05d1\u05d9\u05dc \u05de\u05e8\u05e2\u05d9\u05df\n\u05d1\u05db\u05d0\u05d9 \u05d5\u05e1\u05ea\u05d9\u05e8 \u05e1\u05ea\u05d9\u05e8 \u05d5\u05d1\u05e0\u05d0\u05d9 \u05d0\u05db\u05dc \u05d3\u05dc\u05d0 \u05d3\u05d9\u05dc\u05d9\u05d4 \u05d5\u05e9\u05ea\u05d9 \u05d3\u05dc\u05d0 \u05d3\u05d9\u05dc\u05d9\u05d4 \u05d5\u05e8\u05d6\u05d5\u05d4\u05d9 \u05db\u05e1\u05df \u05d0\u05dd \u05d2\u05e0\u05d1\n\u05de\u05e6\u05dc\u05d7 , \u05d4\u05d0\u05d9 \u05de\u05d0\u05df \u05d3\u05d1\u05e9\u05d1\u05ea\u05d9 \u05d9\u05d4\u05d9 \u05d2\u05d1\u05e8 \u05de\u05d7\u05e9\u05d1\u05ea\u05d9\u05d4 \u05d1\u05d8\u05dc\u05d9\u05df \u05d5\u05d0\u05d9\u05ea \u05d3\u05d0\u05de\u05e8 \u05db\u05dc \u05d3\u05de\u05d7\u05e9\u05d1\u05d9\u05df \u05e2\u05dc\u05d9\u05d4\u05d9\n\u05d1\u05d8\u05dc\u05d9\u05df , \u05d4\u05d0\u05d9 \u05de\u05d0\u05df \u05d3\u05d1\u05e6\u05d3\u05e7 \u05d9\u05d4\u05d9 \u05d2\u05d1\u05e8 \u05e6\u05d3\u05e7\u05df \u05d0\u05de\u05e8 \u05e8\u05d1 \u05e0\u05d7\u05de\u05df \u05d1\u05e8 \u05d9\u05e6\u05d7\u05e7 \u05d5\u05e6\u05d3\u05e7\u05df \u05d1\u05de\u05e6\u05d5\u05d5\u05ea ,\n\u05d4\u05d0\u05d9 \u05de\u05d0\u05df \u05d3\u05d1\u05de\u05d0\u05d3\u05d9\u05dd \u05d9\u05d4\u05d9 \u05d2\u05d1\u05e8 \u05d0\u05e9\u05d9\u05d3 \u05d3\u05de\u05d0 \u05d0\u05de\u05e8 \u05e8\u05d1 \u05d0\u05e9\u05d9 \u05d0\u05d9 \u05d0\u05d5\u05de\u05e0\u05d0 \u05d0\u05d9 \u05d2\u05e0\u05d1\u05d0 \u05d0\u05d9 \u05de\u05d4\u05d5\u05dc\u05d0\n\u05d0\u05de\u05e8 \u05e8\u05d1\u05d4 \u05d0\u05e0\u05d0 \u05d1\u05de\u05d0\u05d3\u05d9\u05dd \u05d4\u05d5\u05d0\u05d9 \u05d0\u05de\u05e8 \u05d0\u05d1\u05d9\u05d9 \u05de\u05e8 \u05e0\u05de\u05d9 \u05e2\u05e0\u05d9\u05e9 \u05d5\u05e7\u05d8\u05d9\u05dc \u05d5\u05db\u05d5\u05f3 \u05c3\n\n\u201cThese things do not depend upon the sidereal influence of the day, but\non the sidereal influence of the hour. He that is born under the\ninfluence of the sun will be a splendid man, eating and drinking of that\nwhich belongs to himself, and will reveal his secrets: if he be a thief\nhe will not prosper. He that is born under Nogah (Venus) will be a rich\nand profligate man. What is the reason? Because on it the fire was\ncreated. He that is born under Kochav (Mercury) will be a man of strong\nmemory, and wise, for Mercury is secretary to the sun. He that is born\nunder the influence of the moon, will suffer much, building and\ndestroying, destroying and building: eating and drinking what does not\nbelong to him, and a keeper of his own secrets. If a thief he will\nprosper. He that is born under Shabthai (Saturn) will be a man whose\nthoughts come to nought, but some say those, that think against him,\nshall come to nought. He that is born under Tsedek (Jupiter) will be a\nrighteous man. Rav Nachman bar Isaac says, righteous in the\ncommandments.[22] He that is born under Maadim (Mars) will be a shedder\nof blood. Rav Achai says, either a letter of blood, or a thief, or a\ncircumciser. Rabbah said, I was born under Mars. Abbai answered,\nTherefore, you are fond of punishing and killing.\u201d (Shabbath, ibid.) In\nthis passage the heathenism is still more apparent. It is notorious that\nthe ancient Greek and Roman idolaters considered Venus as the patroness\nof profligacy, Mercury as the god of eloquence and learning, Mars as the\ngod of war, and behold! here in the oral law you have the very same\ndoctrine. \u201cIf a man be born under Venus, he will be a rich and\nprofligate man; if under Mercury, a man of strong memory and wise; if\nunder Mars, a shedder of blood.\u201d The habits of the mind are here also\nexpressly attributed to the influence of the planets, and a thief has\ngot the promise of success, if his nativity happened under the influence\nof the moon. What then becomes of human responsibility, and how does\nthis doctrine agree with the words of Moses, \u201cBehold I have set before\nyou life and death, blessing and cursing, therefore choose life, that\nboth thou and thy seed may live?\u201d (Deut. xxx. 19.) It will be replied by\nTalmudists, that the oral law also says:\u2014\n\n\u05d0\u05d9\u05df \u05de\u05d6\u05dc \u05dc\u05d9\u05e9\u05e8\u05d0\u05dc \u05c3\n\n\u201cIsrael is not under the influence of the stars.\u201d We shall, therefore,\nconsider that passage in its context which immediately follows:\u2014\n\n\u05e8\u05f3 \u05d7\u05e0\u05d9\u05e0\u05d0 \u05d0\u05d5\u05de\u05e8 \u05de\u05d6\u05dc \u05de\u05d7\u05db\u05d9\u05dd \u05de\u05d6\u05dc \u05de\u05e2\u05e9\u05d9\u05e8 \u05d5\u05d9\u05e9 \u05de\u05d6\u05dc \u05dc\u05d9\u05e9\u05e8\u05d0\u05dc \u05e8\u05f3 \u05d9\u05d5\u05d7\u05e0\u05df \u05d0\u05de\u05e8 \u05d0\u05d9\u05df \u05de\u05d6\u05dc\n\u05dc\u05d9\u05e9\u05e8\u05d0\u05dc \u05d5\u05d0\u05d6\u05d3\u05d0 \u05e8\u05f3 \u05d9\u05d5\u05d7\u05e0\u05df \u05dc\u05d8\u05e2\u05de\u05d9\u05d4 \u05d3\u05d0\u05de\u05e8 \u05e8\u05f3 \u05d9\u05d5\u05d7\u05e0\u05df \u05de\u05e0\u05d9\u05d9\u05df \u05e9\u05d0\u05d9\u05df \u05de\u05d6\u05dc \u05dc\u05d9\u05e9\u05e8\u05d0\u05dc \u05e9\u05e0\u05d0\u05de\u05e8\n\u05db\u05d4 \u05d0\u05de\u05e8 \u05d4\u05f3 \u05d0\u05dc \u05d3\u05e8\u05da \u05d4\u05d2\u05d5\u05d9\u05dd \u05d0\u05dc \u05ea\u05dc\u05de\u05d3\u05d5 \u05d5\u05de\u05d0\u05d5\u05ea\u05d5\u05ea \u05d4\u05e9\u05de\u05d9\u05dd \u05d0\u05dc \u05ea\u05d7\u05ea\u05d5 \u05db\u05d9 \u05e8\u05d7\u05ea\u05d5 \u05d4\u05d2\u05d5\u05d9\u05dd \u05de\u05d4\u05de\u05d4\n\u05d9\u05d7\u05ea\u05d5 \u05d4\u05d2\u05d5\u05d9\u05dd \u05d5\u05dc\u05d0 \u05d9\u05e9\u05e8\u05d0\u05dc \u05d0\u05de\u05e8 \u05e8\u05d1 \u05d0\u05d9\u05df \u05de\u05d6\u05dc \u05dc\u05d9\u05e9\u05e8\u05d0\u05dc \u05d3\u05d0\u05de\u05e8 \u05e8\u05d1 \u05d9\u05d4\u05d5\u05d3\u05d4 \u05d0\u05de\u05e8 \u05e8\u05d1 \u05de\u05e0\u05d9\u05d9\u05df\n\u05e9\u05d0\u05d9\u05df \u05de\u05d6\u05dc \u05dc\u05d9\u05e9\u05e8\u05d0\u05dc \u05e9\u05e0\u05d0\u05de\u05e8 \u05d5\u05d9\u05d5\u05e6\u05d0 \u05d0\u05d5\u05ea\u05d5 \u05d4\u05d7\u05d5\u05e6\u05d4 \u05d0\u05de\u05e8 \u05d0\u05d1\u05e8\u05d4\u05dd \u05dc\u05e4\u05e0\u05d9 \u05d4\u05e7\u05d1\u05f3\u05f3\u05d4 \u05e8\u05d1\u05d5\u05e0\u05d5 \u05e9\u05dc\n\u05e2\u05d5\u05dc\u05dd \u05d1\u05df \u05d1\u05d9\u05ea\u05d9 \u05d9\u05d5\u05e8\u05e9 \u05d0\u05d5\u05ea\u05d9 \u05d0\u05de\u05e8 \u05dc\u05d5 \u05dc\u05d0\u05d5 \u05db\u05d9 \u05d0\u05dd \u05d0\u05e9\u05e8 \u05d9\u05e6\u05d0 \u05de\u05de\u05e2\u05d9\u05da \u05d0\u05de\u05e8 \u05dc\u05e4\u05e0\u05d9\u05d5 \u05e8\u05d1\u05d5\u05e0\u05d5 \u05e9\u05dc\n\u05e2\u05d5\u05dc\u05dd \u05e0\u05e1\u05ea\u05db\u05dc\u05ea\u05d9 \u05d1\u05d0\u05d9\u05e6\u05d8\u05d2\u05e0\u05d9\u05e0\u05d5\u05ea \u05e9\u05dc\u05d9 \u05d5\u05d0\u05d9\u05e0\u05d9 \u05e8\u05d0\u05d5\u05d9 \u05dc\u05d4\u05d5\u05dc\u05d9\u05d3 \u05d1\u05df \u05d0\u05de\u05e8 \u05dc\u05d5 \u05e6\u05d0 \u05de\u05d0\u05d9\u05e6\u05d8\u05d2\u05e0\u05d9\u05e0\u05d5\u05ea\n\u05e9\u05dc\u05da \u05e9\u05d0\u05d9\u05df \u05de\u05d6\u05dc \u05dc\u05d9\u05e9\u05e8\u05d0\u05dc \u05c3\n\n\u201cRabbi Chanina says, the influence of the stars makes wise, the\ninfluence of the stars makes rich, and Israel is under that influence.\nRabbi Jochanan says, Israel is not under the influence of the stars, and\nRabbi Jochanan helped his argument, for Rabbi Jochanan says, From whence\nis it proved that Israel is not under the influence of the stars?\nBecause it is said, \u2018Thus saith the Lord, Learn not the way of the\nheathen, and be not dismayed at the signs of heaven; for the heathen are\ndismayed at them.\u2019 (Jer. x. 2.) The heathen but not Israel. Rav says,\nIsrael is not under the influence of the stars, for Rabbi Judah says,\nRav says, From whence is it proved that Israel is not under the\ninfluence of the stars? From that which is said, \u2018And he brought him\nforth abroad.\u2019 (Gen. xv. 5.) Abraham said before God, \u2018Lord of the\nworld, One born in my house is my heir.\u2019 God replied not so, but \u2018He\nthat shall come forth out of thine own bowels.\u2019 Abraham replied, I have\nconsulted my astrology, and am not fit to beget a son. God said, Go\nforth from thy astrology, for Israel is not under the influence of the\nstars.\u201d (Shabbath, ibid.) Now this passage, if taken in the most\nfavourable point of view, proves only that Israel is not under the\ninfluence of the stars; but this exception proves to demonstration that\nthe oral law teaches, that all other nations are under that influence.\nAccording to this doctrine, all the Gentiles, and of course Christians\namong the number, are given up to unchanging and unchangeable fate. They\nare good and bad, rich and poor, happy and unhappy, according to the\nsidereal influence at their nativity, and consequently are utterly\nirresponsible for their actions. A Gentile thief, or murderer, or\nadulterer, is not so, because he yielded to temptation, or to evil\ndispositions, but because he happened to be born under the influence of\nthe Moon, or of Mars, or of Venus. This is the religion of the oral law,\non the most favourable view of the case, and consequently God is\nrepresented first as a partial governor, who gives constitutional\nadvantages to one favourite nation, which He withholds from all others;\nand then, secondly, as an unjust judge, who punishes the Gentiles for\ndoing what the irresistible influence of the stars compelled them to do.\nThis doctrine is of itself sufficient to prove that the oral law is not\nof God, and that as a religion it stands upon a line with the heathen\nand Mahometan systems of fate, and is consequently infinitely below\nChristianity. The New Testament recognises no system of favouritism, but\nrepresents God as a just judge, \u201cwho will render to every man according\nto his deeds\u201d (Rom. ii. 6); and all men as responsible for the evil\nwhich they commit. \u201cThere is no respect of persons with God. For as many\nas have sinned without law, shall also perish without law; and as many\nas have sinned in the law, shall be judged by the law.\u201d (Ibid., 11, 12.)\nThis is a view worthy of the Divine character, whereas the astrological\nsystem of the oral law, which represents God as giving up all nations to\nthe influence of the stars, and then punishing them for following that\ninfluence which He himself ordained, is nothing short of blasphemy, and\nis much more akin to heathenism than to the doctrine of Moses and the\nprophets. But, secondly, this passage of the Talmud contains two\nstatements directly contradicting each other. Rabbi Chanina says, Israel\nis under the influence of the stars\u2014the others say, Israel is not under\nthe influence of the stars; whichever statement we receive as true, the\nother is necessarily false, and therefore the oral law contains\nfalsehood, and therefore is unworthy of credit. Thirdly, the story which\nis here given of Abraham has falsehood on the face of it, and after all\ndoes not disprove, but rather confirms the doctrine that Israel, as well\nas the other nations, is under the influence of the stars; for as Rashi\ntells us, Abraham and Sarah escaped from their sidereal destiny only by\nchanging their names. Rashi\u2019s words are\u2014\n\n\u05d0\u05de\u05e8 \u05dc\u05d5 \u05e6\u05d0 \u05de\u05d0\u05d9\u05e6\u05d2\u05d8\u05e0\u05d9\u05e0\u05d5\u05ea \u05e9\u05dc\u05da \u05e9\u05e8\u05d0\u05d9\u05ea \u05d1\u05de\u05d6\u05dc\u05d5\u05ea \u05e9\u05d0\u05d9\u05e0\u05da \u05e2\u05ea\u05d9\u05d3 \u05dc\u05d4\u05e2\u05de\u05d9\u05d3 \u05d1\u05df \u05d0\u05d1\u05e8\u05dd \u05d0\u05d9\u05df \u05dc\u05d5\n\u05d1\u05df \u05d0\u05d1\u05dc \u05d0\u05d1\u05e8\u05d4\u05dd \u05d9\u05e9 \u05dc\u05d5 \u05d1\u05df \u05e9\u05e8\u05d9 \u05dc\u05d0 \u05ea\u05dc\u05d3 \u05d0\u05d1\u05dc \u05e9\u05e8\u05d4 \u05ea\u05dc\u05d3 \u05d0\u05e0\u05d9 \u05e7\u05d5\u05e8\u05d0 \u05dc\u05db\u05dd \u05e9\u05dd \u05d0\u05d7\u05e8 \u05d5\u05d9\u05e9\u05ea\u05e0\u05d4\n\u05d4\u05de\u05d6\u05dc \u05c3\n\n\u201cGod said to Abraham, Go forth from thy astrology, for thou hast seen in\nthe stars that thou art not to have a son. _Abram_ is not to have a son,\nbut _Abraham_ is to have a son. _Sarai_ is not to bear a child, but\n_Sarah_ shall bear a child. I call you by another name, and thus the\ninfluence of the stars will be changed.\u201d (Com. in Gen. xv. 5.) Here it\nis plainly intimated, and that in the name of God himself, that Abraham\nand Sarah were both under the influence of the stars, and that if they\nhad not changed their names, they never could have had a child. This was\nevidently Rashi\u2019s opinion; and when we remember that the majority of the\nJews in the world implicitly follow Rashi\u2019s interpretation, we may\nconclude that this is the prevailing doctrine. And perhaps some of the\nreaders of this paper may even know instances of Jews who, led by this\ninterpretation, have actually changed their name, in the hope of\nbettering their luck, or even of escaping from death. But however that\nbe, it is easy to show that the Talmud and the rabbies generally believe\nin the astrological influence of the heavenly bodies. In addition to the\npassages already cited, the Talmud says expressly\u2014\n\n\u05d1\u05d6\u05de\u05df \u05e9\u05d4\u05d7\u05de\u05d4 \u05dc\u05d5\u05e7\u05d4 \u05e1\u05d9\u05de\u05df \u05e8\u05e2 \u05dc\u05d0\u05d5\u05de\u05d5\u05ea \u05e2\u05d5\u05dc\u05dd \u05dc\u05d1\u05e0\u05d4 \u05dc\u05d5\u05e7\u05d4 \u05e1\u05d9\u05de\u05df \u05e8\u05e2 \u05dc\u05e9\u05d5\u05e0\u05d0\u05d9\u05d4\u05dd \u05e9\u05dc \u05d9\u05e9\u05e8\u05d0\u05dc\n\u05de\u05e4\u05e0\u05d9 \u05e9\u05d9\u05e9\u05e8\u05d0\u05dc \u05de\u05d5\u05e0\u05d9\u05df \u05dc\u05dc\u05d1\u05e0\u05d4 \u05d5\u05d0\u05d5\u05de\u05d5\u05ea \u05d4\u05e2\u05d5\u05dc\u05dd \u05dc\u05d7\u05de\u05d4 \u05dc\u05d5\u05e7\u05d4 \u05d1\u05de\u05d6\u05e8\u05d7 \u05e1\u05d9\u05de\u05df \u05e8\u05e2 \u05dc\u05d9\u05d5\u05e9\u05d1\u05d9 \u05de\u05e2\u05e8\u05d1\n\u05d5\u05db\u05d5\u05f3 \u05c3\n\n\u201cAn eclipse of the sun is an evil sign to the nations of the world. An\neclipse of the moon is an evil sign to Israel; for Israel reckons by the\nmoon, the nations of the world by the sun. When the eclipse happens in\nthe east, it is an evil sign to the inhabitants of the east. When it\nhappens in the west, it is an evil sign to the inhabitants of the west,\u201d\n&c., &c. (Succah, fol. 29. col. 1.) The rabbies who have lived since,\nteach the same doctrine. For instance, Saadiah Gaon, speaking of the\nmanner in which the influence of the stars is modified by the signs of\nthe zodiac, says\u2014\n\n\u05d5\u05e4\u05e2\u05de\u05d9\u05dd \u05e9\u05de\u05e7\u05e6\u05ea \u05db\u05d5\u05db\u05d1 \u05ea\u05d4\u05dc\u05d5\u05db\u05d5 \u05d1\u05de\u05d6\u05dc \u05d8\u05d5\u05d1 \u05d5\u05de\u05e7\u05e6\u05ea\u05d5 \u05d4\u05d0\u05d7\u05e8 \u05d1\u05de\u05d6\u05dc \u05e8\u05e2 , \u05d5\u05dc\u05d0\u05d3\u05dd \u05e9\u05d9\u05d4\u05d9\u05d4 \u05dc\u05d5\n\u05d0\u05d5\u05ea\u05d5 \u05de\u05d6\u05dc \u05d9\u05d4\u05d9\u05d4 \u05dc\u05d5 \u05d1\u05e8\u05d0\u05e9\u05d5\u05e0\u05d4 \u05d8\u05d5\u05d1 \u05d5\u05dc\u05d0\u05d7\u05e8\u05d9\u05ea\u05d5 \u05e8\u05e2 \u05c3\n\n\u201cSometimes the course of a star is partly in a good sign and partly in a\nbad sign. The man born under this will first prosper and then suffer\nadversity. (Comment. in Sepher Jetsirah, fol. 98, col. 1.) He also\nexplains, there, how it is possible for astrologers to foretell sickness\nand death; but this is enough to shew his opinion, and what he had\nlearned from the Talmud. The writings of Aben Esra bear the same\ntestimony. For instance, in his commentary on the ten commandments, he\nsays\u2014\n\n\u05d5\u05d4\u05d3\u05d1\u05d5\u05e8 \u05d4\u05e8\u05d1\u05d9\u05e2\u05d9 \u05d3\u05d1\u05d5\u05e8 \u05d4\u05e9\u05d1\u05ea \u05db\u05e0\u05d2\u05d3 \u05d2\u05dc\u05d2\u05dc \u05e9\u05d1\u05ea\u05d9 \u05db\u05d9 \u05d7\u05db\u05de\u05d9 \u05d4\u05e0\u05e1\u05d9\u05d5\u05df \u05d0\u05d5\u05de\u05e8\u05d9\u05dd \u05db\u05d9 \u05dc\u05db\u05dc \u05d0\u05d7\u05d3\n\u05de\u05df \u05d4\u05de\u05e9\u05e8\u05ea\u05d9\u05dd \u05d9\u05e9 \u05d9\u05d5\u05dd \u05d9\u05d3\u05d5\u05e2 \u05d1\u05e9\u05d1\u05d5\u05e2 \u05e9\u05d1\u05d5 \u05d9\u05e8\u05d0\u05d4 \u05db\u05d7\u05d5 \u05d5\u05d4\u05d5\u05d0 \u05d1\u05e2\u05dc \u05d4\u05e9\u05e2\u05d4 \u05d4\u05e8\u05d0\u05e9\u05d5\u05e0\u05d4 \u05d1\u05d9\u05d5\u05dd \u05d5\u05db\u05df\n\u05de\u05d9 \u05e9\u05d4\u05d5\u05d0 \u05d1\u05e2\u05dc \u05d4\u05e9\u05e2\u05d4 \u05d4\u05e8\u05d0\u05e9\u05d5\u05e0\u05d4 \u05d1\u05dc\u05d9\u05dc\u05d4 \u05d5\u05d0\u05d5\u05de\u05e8\u05d9\u05dd \u05db\u05d9 \u05e9\u05d1\u05ea\u05d9 \u05d5\u05de\u05d0\u05d3\u05d9\u05dd \u05d4\u05dd \u05db\u05d5\u05db\u05d1\u05d9\u05dd \u05d4\u05de\u05d6\u05d9\u05e7\u05d9\u05dd\n\u05d5\u05de\u05d9 \u05e9\u05d9\u05d7\u05dc \u05de\u05dc\u05d0\u05db\u05d4 \u05d0\u05d5 \u05dc\u05dc\u05db\u05ea \u05d1\u05d3\u05e8\u05da \u05d1\u05d0\u05d7\u05d3 \u05de\u05e9\u05e0\u05d9\u05d4\u05dd \u05db\u05e9\u05d4\u05dd \u05de\u05d5\u05e9\u05dc\u05d9\u05dd \u05d9\u05d1\u05d5\u05d0 \u05dc\u05d9\u05d3\u05d9 \u05e0\u05d6\u05e7 \u05e2\u05dc \u05db\u05df\n\u05d0\u05de\u05e8\u05d5 \u05e7\u05d3\u05de\u05d5\u05e0\u05d9\u05e0\u05d5 \u05e9\u05e0\u05ea\u05df \u05e8\u05e9\u05d5\u05ea \u05dc\u05d7\u05d1\u05dc \u05d1\u05dc\u05d9\u05dc\u05d9 \u05e8\u05d1\u05d9\u05e2\u05d9\u05d5\u05ea \u05d5\u05d1\u05dc\u05d9\u05dc\u05d9 \u05e9\u05d1\u05ea\u05d5\u05ea \u05d5\u05d4\u05e0\u05d4 \u05dc\u05d0 \u05ea\u05de\u05e6\u05d0 \u05d1\u05db\u05dc\n\u05d9\u05de\u05d9 \u05d4\u05e9\u05d1\u05d5\u05e2 \u05dc\u05d9\u05dc\u05d4 \u05d5\u05d9\u05d5\u05dd \u05d6\u05d4 \u05d0\u05d7\u05e8 \u05d6\u05d4 \u05e9\u05d9\u05de\u05e9\u05dc\u05d5 \u05d0\u05dc\u05d5 \u05e9\u05e0\u05d9 \u05d4\u05de\u05d6\u05d9\u05e7\u05d9\u05dd \u05d1\u05d4\u05dd \u05e8\u05e7 \u05d1\u05d9\u05d5\u05dd \u05d4\u05d6\u05d4 \u05e2\u05dc\n\u05db\u05df \u05d0\u05d9\u05df \u05e8\u05d0\u05d5\u05d9 \u05dc\u05d4\u05ea\u05e2\u05e1\u05e7 \u05d1\u05d5 \u05d1\u05d3\u05d1\u05e8\u05d9 \u05d4\u05e2\u05d5\u05dc\u05dd \u05e8\u05e7 \u05d1\u05d9\u05e8\u05d0\u05ea \u05d4\u05e9\u05dd \u05dc\u05d1\u05d3\u05d5 \u05c3\n\n\u201cThe fourth commandment is that respecting the Sabbath, and answers to\nthe orb of Saturn; for the experimental philosophers say, that each one\nof the ministering servants has a certain day of the week in which he\nexhibits his strength, and he is master of the first hour in the day,\nand thus it is also with him who is master of the first hour in the\nnight. They say, also, that Saturn and Mars are the two hurtful stars,\nand whosoever begins a work, or to walk in the way, when either of these\ntwo is in the ascendant, is sure to fall into harm. Therefore our\nancients have said, that permission is given to do injury on the nights\nof the fourth and seventh days of the week. And behold, thou wilt not\nfind, in all the days of the week, a night and a day, one after the\nother, on which these two hurtful stars rule except on this day;\ntherefore it is not suitable on it to engage in worldly affairs, but to\ndevote it entirely to the fear of God.\u201d This exposition shows that Aben\nEsra believed in astrology, and that the power of the stars extended to\nIsrael as well as to the other nations, nay the power of the stars to do\nharm is here made the foundation of the command respecting the\nSabbath-day. A man, whose mind was not thoroughly imbued with faith in\nastrology, could never have been led even to entertain such an opinion,\nwhen God himself has assigned another and entirely different reason for\nthe institution of the Sabbath. But indeed it is not necessary to go to\nthe rabbies to prove that modern Judaism teaches astrology. That common\nwish which one so often hears amongst the Jews, even at the present day,\n\u05de\u05d6\u05dc \u05d8\u05d5\u05d1 _mazzal tov_, or good luck, has its origin in the doctrine of\nthe Talmud, and shows how universally it has been received. And thus we\nsee the influence which the oral law has had in leading away both\nlearned and unlearned from the Word of God, and of spreading amongst\nthem, as a tradition from Moses, what is merely one of the numerous\nerrors of heathen idolatry. The heathen worshipped the host of heaven.\nThe sun, and the moon, and other heavenly bodies, they considered as\ndeities; it was, therefore, natural for them to suppose that they\nexercised an influence over the affairs of men. The Chaldeans were\nespecially devoted to this doctrine, and had almost exalted it to the\nrank of a science. From them, probably during the Babylonish captivity,\nthe Jaws learned this system; and though altogether idolatrous in its\norigin, and learned from idolaters, it was congenial to the minds of the\nsuperstitious rabbies, and was, therefore, introduced into the oral law,\nwhere it has ever since continued. The oral law has, therefore, in this\nrespect, adopted heathen doctrine, and teaches heathenism. Every Jew who\nwishes his neighbour \u05de\u05d6\u05dc \u05d8\u05d5\u05d1, _mazzal tov_, uses a heathen idolatrous\nexpression\u2014sanctioned, indeed, by the Talmud, but utterly repugnant to\nthe doctrine of Moses. But where will he find in the New Testament any\nwarrant either for such a doctrine or such a wish? The New Testament is\nentirely free from all shadow and tincture of this heathenism. Your oral\nlaw has taught you that the course of events depends upon the stars.\nJesus of Nazareth has taught us, that the ordering of all events, even\nthe minutest, proceeds from our Heavenly Father. He says, \u201cAre not two\nsparrows sold for a farthing? and one of them shall not fall on the\nground without your Father. But the very hairs of your are all\nnumbered.\u201d (Matt. x. 29, 30.) Jesus of Nazareth, therefore, whom you are\nafraid to follow, lest he should lead you after other gods, directs all\nhis followers to the one living and true God, the Creator, Preserver,\nand Redeemer of all things. Those men, on the contrary, who crucified\nJesus of Nazareth, and that oral law, which you prefer to Christianity,\nhave led you away from the doctrines of Moses and the prophets to the\nprinciples of heathenism. The general doctrine, that the moral nature,\nthe weal and wo of men, are altogether dependent upon the stars, is not\nMosaic, it is heathen; and the particular details concerning the\ninfluence of Venus, Mars, and Mercury, are plainly the offspring of the\nworst part of heathen mythology. If, then, Jews believe in this Talmudic\nastrology, they approach very nearly to heathenism, and such has been\nthe case with the majority and the most learned of the nation for the\nlast eighteen hundred years. If from the unavoidable influence of\nChristian knowledge, they now reject this portion of the oral law, they\ndeclare that all their most learned rabbies have been in gross error,\nand that the oral law, which led them astray, is not from God, but, on\nthe contrary, in one of its most important features, a mere copy of\nidolatrous heathenism.\n\nFootnote 20:\n\n  According to Rashi.\n\nFootnote 21:\n\n  According to Rashi, one who goes from house to house to get alms.\n\nFootnote 22:\n\n  Rashi says a man who is liberal in almsgiving.\n\n\n\n\n                               No. XXIV.\n                                AMULETS.\n\n\nIn magic and astrology we have discovered two features common to\nidolatrous heathenism, and to the religion of the oral law. We have seen\nthat it pervades the Talmud and the writings of the subsequent rabbies,\nand that it has tinctured the language of every-day life. It occurs,\ntherefore, as might be expected, incidentally, when the oral law treats\nof other things; and we are induced to notice one passage of this kind,\nnot only because it proves that faith in astrology is an essential\nelement in the religion of the oral law, but because it sets before us\nanother feature of resemblance to heathenism. In treating of the virtues\nof amulets, and of the tests, whereby to try them and those that write,\nthe following passage occurs\u2014\n\n\u05d0\u05de\u05e8 \u05e8\u05d1 \u05e4\u05e4\u05d0 \u05e4\u05e9\u05d9\u05d8\u05d0 \u05dc\u05d9 \u05ea\u05dc\u05ea \u05e7\u05de\u05d9\u05e2\u05d0 \u05dc\u05ea\u05dc\u05ea \u05d2\u05d1\u05e8\u05d9 \u05ea\u05dc\u05ea\u05d0 \u05ea\u05dc\u05ea\u05d0 \u05d6\u05d9\u05de\u05e0\u05d9 \u05d0\u05ea\u05de\u05d7\u05d9 \u05d2\u05d1\u05e8\u05d0\n\u05d5\u05d0\u05ea\u05de\u05d7\u05d9 \u05e7\u05de\u05d9\u05e2\u05d0 \u05ea\u05dc\u05ea\u05d0 \u05e7\u05de\u05d9\u05e2\u05d9 \u05dc\u05ea\u05dc\u05ea\u05d0 \u05d2\u05d1\u05e8\u05d9 \u05d7\u05d3 \u05d7\u05d3 \u05d6\u05d9\u05de\u05e0\u05d9 \u05d2\u05d1\u05e8\u05d0 \u05d0\u05ea\u05de\u05d7\u05d9 \u05e7\u05de\u05d9\u05e2\u05d0 \u05dc\u05d0 \u05d0\u05ea\u05de\u05d7\u05d9\n\u05d7\u05d3 \u05e7\u05de\u05d9\u05e2\u05d0 \u05dc\u05ea\u05dc\u05ea\u05d0 \u05d2\u05d1\u05e8\u05d9 \u05e7\u05de\u05d9\u05e2\u05d0 \u05d0\u05ea\u05de\u05d7\u05d9 \u05d2\u05d1\u05e8\u05d0 \u05dc\u05d0 \u05d0\u05ea\u05de\u05d7\u05d9 \u05d1\u05e2\u05d9 \u05e8\u05d1 \u05e4\u05e4\u05d0 \u05ea\u05dc\u05ea\u05d0 \u05e7\u05de\u05d9\u05e2\u05d9 \u05dc\u05d7\u05d3\n\u05d2\u05d1\u05e8\u05d0 \u05de\u05d0\u05d9 \u05e7\u05de\u05d9\u05e2\u05d0 \u05d5\u05d3\u05d0\u05d9 \u05dc\u05d0 \u05d0\u05ea\u05de\u05d7\u05d9 \u05d2\u05d1\u05e8\u05d0 \u05d0\u05ea\u05de\u05d7\u05d9 \u05d0\u05d5 \u05dc\u05d0 \u05d0\u05ea\u05de\u05d7\u05d9 \u05de\u05d9 \u05d0\u05de\u05e8\u05d9\u05e0\u05df \u05d4\u05d0 \u05d0\u05e1\u05d9 \u05dc\u05d9\u05d4\n\u05d0\u05d5 \u05d3\u05d9\u05dc\u05de\u05d0 \u05de\u05d6\u05dc\u05d0 \u05d2\u05d1\u05e8\u05d0 \u05d4\u05d5\u05d0 \u05d3\u05e7\u05d0 \u05de\u05e7\u05d1\u05dc \u05db\u05ea\u05d1\u05d0 \u05ea\u05d9\u05e7\u05d5 \u05d5\u05db\u05d5\u05f3 \u05c3\n\n\u201cRav Papa says, I am certain in the case of three amulets for three men;\nwhere three copies of one amulet have cured three times, then both the\nwriter and the amulet are approved. In the case of three amulets for\nthree men, where each performs only one cure, then the writer is\napproved, the amulet is not approved. In the case of one amulet for\nthree men, then the amulet is approved, the writer is not approved. But\nRav Papa asks, What is to be the decision when there are three amulets\nfor one man? The amulet is certainly not approved, the writer may or may\nnot be. Shall we say that he cured him? Or was it perhaps the influence\nof the stars, belonging to that man, that had an affinity for that which\nwas written? That must remain undecided.\u201d (Shabbath, fol. 61, col. 2.)\nHere we have the influence of the stars again, and that not in the case\nof the heathen, but in the case of Israelites. The whole passage refers\nto none but Israelites. The question, from which this digression about\namulets arose, was whether it is lawful to wear amulets on the\nSabbath-day, a question concerning the Jews, and them only. In this\nquestion, then, we find the doctrine of sidereal influence mixed up, or\nrather so certainly pre-supposed as to prevent the solution of a doubt.\nA case is supposed where a man has been cured by the help of three\namulets, and thence arises a doubt as to whether the maker may be\nconsidered as an approved writer of amulets; and upon this case R. Papa\ndoes not venture to decide, because it is possible that the cure may be\nowing to the influence of the stars. How can there be a stronger proof\nof faith in the power of the stars over Israelites as well as over other\npersons?\n\nThis passage proves incontrovertibly that the heathen notion of\nastrology is inseparably interwoven with the religious system of the\noral law, but it also presents to our consideration another circumstance\nequally startling, and that is, that the oral law sanctions the use of\namulets or charms, as a cure for, or defence against, sickness and other\nevils. What, is it possible, that the Jews who think that their religion\nis the true religion revealed by God to Moses, and whose chief objection\nto Christianity is the fear lest it should lead them to strange gods, is\nit possible that this people should still entertain the old heathen\nnotion concerning amulets? Yes, whilst the followers of Jesus of\nNazareth have learned from him to renounce this superstitious and wicked\npractice, the Jews, taught by those who rejected and crucified him,\nstill believe in the oral law which teaches the manner of making and\nusing charms. But perhaps some one will say, it occurs only in the\nGemara, but not in the Mishna. This is at all times but a poor apology\nfor the oral law, or rather an open confession that the greatest part of\nthat law is indefensible, but it will not serve here. The doctrine of\namulets proceeds from the Mishna, which says,\u2014\n\n\u05d5\u05dc\u05d0 \u05d1\u05e7\u05de\u05d9\u05e2 \u05d1\u05d6\u05de\u05df \u05e9\u05d0\u05d9\u05e0\u05d5 \u05de\u05df \u05d4\u05de\u05d5\u05de\u05d7\u05d4 \u05c3\n\n\u201cIt is not lawful to go forth on the Sabbath-day with an amulet, unless\nit be from an approved person.\u201d The Gemara then takes up this\ncommandment, and comments thus upon it,\u2014\n\n\u05d0\u05de\u05e8 \u05e8\u05f3 \u05e4\u05e4\u05d0 \u05dc\u05d0 \u05ea\u05d9\u05de\u05d0 \u05e2\u05d3 \u05d3\u05de\u05d5\u05de\u05d7\u05d0 \u05d2\u05d1\u05e8\u05d0 \u05d5\u05de\u05d5\u05de\u05d7\u05d0 \u05e7\u05de\u05d9\u05e2 \u05d0\u05dc\u05d0 \u05db\u05d9\u05d5\u05df \u05d3\u05de\u05d5\u05de\u05d7\u05d0 \u05d2\u05d1\u05e8\u05d0 \u05d0\u05e2\u05f3\u05f3\u05d2\n\u05d3\u05dc\u05d0 \u05de\u05d5\u05de\u05d7\u05d0 \u05e7\u05de\u05d9\u05e2 \u05d3\u05d9\u05e7\u05d0 \u05e0\u05de\u05d9 \u05d3\u05e7\u05ea\u05e0\u05d9 \u05d5\u05dc\u05d0 \u05d1\u05e7\u05de\u05d9\u05e2 \u05d1\u05d6\u05de\u05df \u05e9\u05d0\u05d9\u05e0\u05d5 \u05de\u05df \u05d4\u05de\u05d5\u05de\u05d7\u05d4 , \u05d5\u05dc\u05d0 \u05e7\u05ea\u05e0\u05d9\n\u05d1\u05d6\u05de\u05df \u05e9\u05d0\u05d9\u05e0\u05d5 \u05de\u05d5\u05de\u05d7\u05d4 \u05e9\u05f3\u05f3\u05de , \u05ea\u05f3\u05f3\u05e8 \u05d0\u05d9\u05d6\u05d4 \u05d5\u05e7\u05de\u05d9\u05e2 \u05de\u05d5\u05de\u05d7\u05d4 \u05db\u05dc \u05e9\u05e8\u05d9\u05e4\u05d0 \u05d5\u05e9\u05e0\u05d4 \u05d5\u05e9\u05dc\u05e9 \u05d0\u05d7\u05d3\n\u05e7\u05de\u05d9\u05e2 \u05e9\u05dc \u05db\u05ea\u05d1 \u05d5\u05d0\u05d4\u05d3 \u05e7\u05de\u05d9\u05e2 \u05e9\u05dc \u05e2\u05e7\u05e8\u05d9\u05df \u05d0\u05d7\u05d3 \u05d7\u05d5\u05dc\u05d4 \u05e9\u05d9\u05e9 \u05d1\u05d5 \u05e1\u05db\u05e0\u05d4 \u05d5\u05d0\u05d7\u05d3 \u05d7\u05d5\u05dc\u05d4 \u05e9\u05d0\u05d9\u05df \u05d1\u05d5\n\u05e1\u05db\u05e0\u05d4 \u05dc\u05d0 \u05e9\u05e0\u05d1\u05e4\u05d4 \u05d0\u05dc\u05d0 \u05e9\u05dc\u05d0 \u05d9\u05db\u05e4\u05d4 \u05e8\u05db\u05e8\u05f3 \u05c3\n\n\u201cRav Papa says, do not think that it is necessary that both the man and\nthe amulet must be approved; it is enough if the man be approved, even\nthough the amulet be not approved. The proof is, that the Mishna says,\n\u2018Unless the amulet be from an approved person,\u2019 but does not say,\n\u2018Unless the amulet be approved,\u2019 from which it is plain. Our rabbies\nhave taught thus, What is an approved amulet? Any amulet that has\neffected a cure, and done so twice or thrice. The doctrine holds good,\nwhether the amulet be a written one, or made of roots\u2014whether the man be\ndangerously ill or not\u2014not only if he be epileptic, but that he may not\nbecome epileptic.\u201d (Shabbath, fol. 61, col. 1.) From this it appears\nthat there are two sorts of amulets, one containing some written words,\nthe other made of roots of various kinds, and it is equally plain that\nthe object of wearing them was either to prevent sickness or to effect a\ncure. On the Sabbath those only are lawful, which have been manufactured\nby a man, who has already established his character for making\nefficacious amulets, or which have been already tried and proved to be\nso. This is the doctrine of the Talmud, and let every Jew remember that\nthis doctrine is not extracted from the legendary part, but from those\nlaws which are binding upon the consciences of all who acknowledge an\noral law. And this is not any private opinion of our own, as may be seen\nby referring to any compilation where the laws are collected, as for\ninstance the Jad Hachazakah, where this law is thus expressed:\u2014\n\n\u05d5\u05d9\u05d5\u05e6\u05d0\u05d9\u05df \u05d1\u05e7\u05de\u05d9\u05e2 \u05de\u05d5\u05de\u05d7\u05d4 \u05d5\u05d0\u05d9 \u05d6\u05d4 \u05d4\u05d5\u05d0 \u05e7\u05de\u05d9\u05e2 \u05de\u05d5\u05de\u05d7\u05d4 \u05d6\u05d4 \u05e9\u05e8\u05d9\u05e4\u05d0 \u05dc\u05e9\u05dc\u05e9\u05d4 \u05d1\u05e0\u05d9 \u05d0\u05d3\u05dd \u05d0\u05d5\n\u05e9\u05e2\u05e9\u05d4\u05d5 \u05d0\u05d3\u05dd \u05e9\u05e8\u05d9\u05e4\u05d0 \u05e9\u05dc\u05e9\u05d4 \u05d1\u05e0\u05d9 \u05d0\u05d3\u05dd \u05d1\u05e7\u05de\u05d9\u05e2\u05d9\u05df \u05d0\u05d7\u05e8\u05d9\u05dd \u05c3\n\n\u201cIt is lawful to go out with an approved amulet. What is an approved\namulet? One that has cured three persons, or has been made by a man who\nhas cured three persons with other amulets.\u201d (Hilchoth Shabbath, c. xix.\n14.) The Arbah Turim enters more at length into the subject, thus\u2014\n\n\u05d0\u05d9\u05df \u05d9\u05e6\u05d0\u05d9\u05df \u05d1\u05e7\u05de\u05d9\u05e2 \u05e9\u05d0\u05d9\u05e0\u05d5 \u05de\u05d5\u05de\u05d7\u05d4 \u05d5\u05d0\u05dd \u05d4\u05d5\u05d0 \u05de\u05d5\u05de\u05d7\u05d4 \u05d9\u05d5\u05e6\u05d0\u05d9\u05df \u05d1\u05d5 \u05dc\u05d0 \u05e9\u05e0\u05d0 \u05d0\u05ea\u05de\u05d7\u05d9 \u05d2\u05d1\u05e8\u05d0\n\u05d5\u05dc\u05d0 \u05e7\u05de\u05d9\u05e2 \u05db\u05d2\u05d5\u05df \u05e9\u05db\u05ea\u05d1 \u05dc\u05d7\u05e9 \u05d0\u05d7\u05d3 \u05d1\u05d2\u05f3 \u05d0\u05d2\u05e8\u05d5\u05ea \u05d5\u05e8\u05e4\u05d0\u05d5 \u05e9\u05dc\u05e9\u05ea\u05df \u05d3\u05d0\u05ea\u05de\u05d7\u05d9 \u05d2\u05d1\u05e8\u05d0 \u05dc\u05d0\u05d5\u05ea\u05d5 \u05dc\u05d7\u05e9\n\u05d1\u05db\u05dc \u05e4\u05e2\u05dd \u05e9\u05d9\u05db\u05ea\u05d1\u05e0\u05d5 \u05d0\u05d1\u05dc \u05dc\u05d0 \u05e9\u05d0\u05e8 \u05dc\u05d7\u05e9\u05d9\u05de \u05d5\u05d2\u05dd \u05d0\u05d9\u05df \u05d4\u05e7\u05de\u05d9\u05e2 \u05de\u05d5\u05de\u05d7\u05d4 \u05d0\u05dd \u05d9\u05db\u05ea\u05d1\u05e0\u05d5 \u05d0\u05d7\u05e8 , \u05d5\u05dc\u05d0\n\u05e9\u05e0\u05d0 \u05d0\u05ea\u05de\u05d7\u05d9 \u05e7\u05de\u05d9\u05e2 \u05d5\u05dc\u05d0 \u05d2\u05d1\u05e8\u05d0 \u05db\u05d2\u05d5\u05df \u05e9\u05db\u05ea\u05d1 \u05dc\u05d7\u05e9 \u05e9\u05d7\u05d3 \u05d1\u05d0\u05d2\u05e8\u05ea \u05d0\u05d7\u05ea \u05d5\u05e8\u05d9\u05e4\u05d0 \u05d1\u05d5 \u05e9\u05dc\u05e9\u05d4 \u05e4\u05e2\u05de\u05d9\u05dd\n\u05e9\u05d0\u05d5\u05ea\u05d4 \u05d0\u05d2\u05e8\u05ea \u05de\u05d5\u05de\u05d7\u05d4 \u05dc\u05db\u05dc \u05d0\u05d3\u05dd \u05d5\u05db\u05f3\u05f3\u05e9 \u05d0\u05ea\u05de\u05d7\u05d9 \u05d2\u05d1\u05e8\u05d0 \u05d5\u05e7\u05de\u05d9\u05e2 \u05db\u05d2\u05d5\u05df \u05e9\u05db\u05ea\u05d1 \u05dc\u05d7\u05e9 \u05d0\u05d7\u05d3 \u05d1\u05d2\u05f3\n\u05d0\u05d2\u05e8\u05d5\u05ea \u05d5\u05db\u05dc \u05d0\u05d7\u05d3 \u05d4\u05d5\u05e2\u05d9\u05dc\u05d4 \u05dc\u05d2\u05f3 \u05d0\u05e0\u05e9\u05d9\u05dd \u05d0\u05d5 \u05dc\u05d0\u05d3\u05dd \u05d0\u05d7\u05d3 \u05e9\u05dc\u05e9\u05d4 \u05e4\u05e2\u05de\u05d9\u05dd \u05d0\u05ea\u05de\u05d7\u05d9 \u05d2\u05d1\u05e8\u05d0 \u05dc\u05dc\u05d7\u05e9 \u05d6\u05d4\n\u05d1\u05db\u05dc \u05d0\u05d2\u05e8\u05d5\u05ea \u05e9\u05d9\u05db\u05ea\u05d5\u05d1 \u05d5\u05d0\u05ea\u05de\u05d7\u05d5 \u05d0\u05d2\u05e8\u05d5\u05ea \u05d4\u05dc\u05dc\u05d5 \u05dc\u05db\u05dc \u05d0\u05d3\u05dd , \u05d0\u05d1\u05dc \u05d0\u05dd \u05db\u05ea\u05d1 \u05d2\u05f3 \u05e7\u05de\u05d9\u05e2\u05d9\u05dd \u05dc\u05d0\u05d3\u05dd\n\u05d0\u05d7\u05d3 \u05d5\u05e8\u05e4\u05d0\u05d5 \u05d2\u05f3 \u05e4\u05e2\u05de\u05d9\u05dd \u05dc\u05d0 \u05d0\u05ea\u05de\u05d7\u05d9 \u05d2\u05d1\u05e8\u05d0 \u05d5\u05dc\u05d0 \u05e7\u05de\u05d9\u05e2 , \u05d5\u05de\u05d5\u05ea\u05e8 \u05dc\u05e6\u05d0\u05ea \u05d1\u05e7\u05de\u05d9\u05e2 \u05de\u05d5\u05de\u05d7\u05d4 \u05dc\u05d0\n\u05e9\u05e0\u05d0 \u05d4\u05d5\u05d0 \u05e9\u05dc \u05db\u05ea\u05d1 \u05d0\u05d5 \u05e9\u05dc \u05e2\u05e7\u05e8\u05d9\u05df \u05d1\u05d9\u05df \u05d1\u05d7\u05d5\u05dc\u05d4 \u05e9\u05d9\u05e9 \u05d1\u05d5 \u05e1\u05db\u05e0\u05d4 \u05d1\u05d9\u05df \u05e9\u05d0\u05d9\u05df \u05d1\u05d5 \u05e1\u05db\u05e0\u05d4 , \u05d5\u05dc\u05d0\n\u05e9\u05e0\u05db\u05e4\u05d4 \u05db\u05d1\u05e8 \u05d5\u05ea\u05d5\u05dc\u05d4\u05d5 \u05dc\u05e8\u05e4\u05d5\u05d0\u05d4 \u05d0\u05dc\u05d0 \u05d0\u05e4\u05d9\u05dc\u05d9 \u05dc\u05d0 \u05d0\u05d7\u05d6\u05e8 \u05d7\u05d7\u05d5\u05dc\u05d9 \u05d0\u05dc\u05d0 \u05e9\u05d4\u05d5\u05d0 \u05de\u05de\u05e9\u05e4\u05d7\u05ea \u05e0\u05db\u05e4\u05d9\u05df\n\u05d5\u05ea\u05d5\u05dc\u05d4\u05d5 \u05e9\u05dc\u05d0 \u05d9\u05d0\u05d7\u05d6\u05e0\u05d5 \u05e9\u05e8\u05d9 \u05c3\n\n\u201cIt is not lawful to go out in an amulet, which is not approved, but if\nit be approved, it is lawful. Whether it be the man or the amulet, which\nis approved, makes no difference; for instance, if a man have written\none and the same charm in three copies, and all three have affected a\ncure, the man is approved with respect to that charm every time that he\nwrites it, but not with respect to other charms; neither is the amulet\napproved if written by another. There is also no difference in the case,\nwhen the amulet is approved but the man not so; for instance, if a man\nwrite one charm, and only one copy, and has with it effected a cure\nthree times, then that copy is approved for every man. A third case is,\nwhen both the man and the amulet are approved; for instance, if a man\nwrite one charm in three copies, and each has been of use to three men\nor to one man three times, then the man is approved with respect to this\ncharm in every copy which he may write, and these copies are considered\nas approved for the use of all men. But if he have written three\ndifferent amulets for one man, and have cured him three times, then\nneither the man nor the amulet is approved. Further, it is lawful to go\nout with an approved amulet, whether it be a writing or one made of\nroots, and whether the man be dangerously ill or not. Neither is it\nnecessary that he should have been already epileptic, and now makes use\nof it for a cure. On the contrary, if he be of an epileptic family, and\nwear it as a preventive, it is lawful.\u201d (Orach Chaiim. sec. 301.) There\ncan be no mistake here. This is Jewish law binding upon all who\nacknowledge tradition. Neither is it a doubtful or passing notice; on\nthe contrary, the different cases are all enumerated, and every\nparticular specified. The oral law here gives the most unqualified\nsanction to the use of amulets or charms, and that even on the\nSabbath-day. That such charms are near akin to magic or witchcraft is\nplain from the nature and purpose of the manufacture, and from the\nundisguised use of the word \u05dc\u05d7\u05e9 \u201ccharms;\u201d but there is a passage in\nRashi\u2019s commentary on another Talmudic treatise, which puts this beyond\nall doubt; we therefore give both the text and the commentary\u2014\n\n\u05ea\u05e0\u05d5 \u05e8\u05d1\u05e0\u05df \u05e9\u05de\u05d5\u05e0\u05d9\u05dd \u05ea\u05dc\u05de\u05d9\u05d3\u05d9\u05dd \u05d4\u05d9\u05d5 \u05dc\u05d4\u05dc\u05dc \u05d4\u05d6\u05e7\u05df \u05e9\u05dc\u05e9\u05d9\u05dd \u05de\u05d4\u05df \u05e8\u05d0\u05d5\u05d9\u05dd \u05e9\u05ea\u05e9\u05e8\u05d4 \u05e2\u05dc\u05d9\u05d4\u05dd \u05e9\u05db\u05d9\u05e0\u05d4\n\u05db\u05de\u05e9\u05d4 \u05e8\u05d1\u05d9\u05e0\u05d5 \u05e9\u05dc\u05e9\u05d9\u05dd \u05de\u05d4\u05dd \u05e8\u05d0\u05d5\u05d9\u05dd \u05e9\u05ea\u05e2\u05de\u05d5\u05d3 \u05dc\u05d4\u05dd \u05d7\u05de\u05d4 \u05db\u05d9\u05d4\u05d5\u05e9\u05e2 \u05d1\u05df \u05e0\u05d5\u05df \u05e2\u05e9\u05e8\u05d9\u05dd \u05d1\u05d9\u05e0\u05d5\u05e0\u05d9\u05d9\u05dd\n\u05d1\u05d3\u05d5\u05dc \u05e9\u05d1\u05db\u05d5\u05dc\u05df \u05d9\u05d5\u05e0\u05ea\u05df \u05d1\u05df \u05e2\u05d5\u05d6\u05d9\u05d0\u05dc \u05e7\u05d8\u05df \u05e9\u05d1\u05db\u05d5\u05dc\u05df \u05e8\u05f3 \u05d9\u05d5\u05d7\u05e0\u05df \u05d1\u05df \u05d6\u05db\u05d0\u05d9 \u05d0\u05de\u05e8\u05d5 \u05e2\u05dc\u05d9\u05d5 \u05e2\u05dc \u05e8\u05f3\n\u05d9\u05d5\u05d7\u05e0\u05df \u05d1\u05df \u05d6\u05db\u05d0\u05d9 \u05e9\u05dc\u05d0 \u05d4\u05e0\u05d9\u05d7 \u05de\u05e7\u05e8\u05d0 \u05de\u05e9\u05e0\u05d4 \u05d2\u05de\u05e8\u05d0 \u05d4\u05dc\u05db\u05d5\u05ea \u05d5\u05d4\u05d2\u05d3\u05d5\u05ea \u05d3\u05e7\u05d3\u05d5\u05e7\u05d9 \u05ea\u05d5\u05e8\u05d4 \u05d5\u05d3\u05e7\u05d3\u05d5\u05d3\u05d9\n\u05e1\u05d5\u05e4\u05e8\u05d9\u05dd \u05d5\u05e7\u05dc\u05d9\u05df \u05d5\u05d7\u05de\u05d5\u05e8\u05d9\u05df \u05d5\u05d2\u05d6\u05e8\u05d5\u05ea \u05e9\u05d5\u05d5\u05ea \u05d5\u05ea\u05e7\u05d5\u05e4\u05d5\u05ea \u05d5\u05d2\u05de\u05d8\u05e8\u05d9\u05d0\u05d5\u05ea \u05d5\u05de\u05e9\u05dc\u05d5\u05ea \u05db\u05d5\u05d1\u05e1\u05d9\u05dd \u05d5\u05de\u05e9\u05dc\u05d5\u05ea\n\u05e9\u05d5\u05e2\u05dc\u05d9\u05dd \u05e9\u05d9\u05d7\u05ea \u05e9\u05d3\u05d9\u05dd \u05d5\u05e9\u05d9\u05d7\u05ea \u05d3\u05e7\u05dc\u05d9\u05dd \u05de\u05dc\u05d0\u05db\u05d9 \u05e9\u05e8\u05ea \u05d5\u05db\u05d5\u05f3 \u05c3\n\n\u201cOur rabbies have handed down the tradition that Hillel the elder had\neighty disciples, of whom thirty were as worthy as Moses our master to\nhave the Shechinah resting upon them. Thirty others were as worthy as\nJoshua the son of Nun that for them the sun should stand still. Twenty\nwere in the middle rank, of whom the greatest was Jonathan the son of\nUziel; and the least of all was Rabbi Johanan ben Zachai. Of this\nlast-named rabbi it is said, that he did not leave unstudied the Bible\nor the Mishna, Gemara, the constitutions, the Agadoth, the niceties of\nthe law and the Scribes, the argument, _a fortiori_, and from similar\npremises, the theory of the change of the moon, Gematria, the parables\ntaken from grapes and from foxes, the language of demons, the language\nof palm-trees, and the language of the ministering angels,\u201d &c. (Bava\nBathra, fol. 134, col. 1.) This was pretty well, considering that he was\nthe least of the eighty; what then must have been the knowledge of the\nothers? This tradition alone, from its gross exaggeration, would be\nsufficient to mark the character of the rabbies as false witnesses. It\nis plainly a fable, such as one might expect in the \u201cArabian Nights\u2019\nEntertainments,\u201d but not in a law that professes to have come from God.\nIt is another proof that the account of the oral law is a mere fiction.\nBut our object in quoting the passage here, is to point out its\nconnexion with charms and amulets. It tells us, that this rabbi\nunderstood the language of the ministering angels? Now what use was\nthis? Rashi tells us in his commentary, \u05dc\u05d4\u05e9\u05d1\u05d9\u05e2\u05dd to conjure or to adjure\nthem: that is, to compel them to serve him, when he adjured them; that\nis, by their means to act the part of a conjuror. It may perhaps be\nsaid, these were the good angels, with whom a holy man might hold\nconverse, but we are also told that he understood \u201cthe language of\ndemons.\u201d What was the object of this? Rashi answers again\u2014\n\n\u05dc\u05d4\u05e9\u05d1\u05d9\u05e2\u05dd \u05d5\u05e0\u05e4\u05e7\u05d0 \u05de\u05d9\u05e0\u05d9\u05d4 \u05dc\u05e2\u05e9\u05d5\u05ea \u05e7\u05de\u05d9\u05e2 \u05dc\u05e8\u05e4\u05d5\u05d0\u05d4 \u05c3\n\n\u201cFor the purpose of adjuring them: and hence it follows that amulets may\nbe made in order to effect cures.\u201d From this it appears that the Talmud\nallows a man to have converse with evil spirits, and that this precedent\nestablishes the lawfulness of amulets. And this is the religion of the\noral law, these the doctrines and practices of the men who rejected\nJesus of Nazareth! Here is real heathenism, not one shade of which\nappears in the New Testament. Oh! how different is this from the\ndoctrine of Moses and the prophets. The oral law sends sick men to seek\nhelp in amulets and charms, but not to the God of Israel. Now what\ndifference is there between this and the conduct of Ahaziah, when he\nfell down through the lattice in his upper chamber in Samaria, and was\nsick? \u201cHe sent messengers, and said unto them, Go inquire of Beelzebub\nthe god of Ekron, whether I shall recover of this disease. But the angel\nof the Lord said to Elijah the Tishbite, Arise, go up to meet the\nmessengers of the King of Samaria, and say unto them, Is it not because\nthere is not a God in Israel, that ye go to inquire of Beelzebub, the\ngod of Ekron?\u201d (2 Kings i. 2, 3.) And so it may still be said to Israel,\nIs it not because there is not a God in Israel, that ye go to amulets\nand charms in order to get cured of your diseases? Moses points to God\nas the great physician; he says, \u201cWherefore it shall come to pass, if ye\nhearken to these judgments, and keep and do them, that the Lord thy God\nshall keep unto thee the covenant and the mercy which he sware unto thy\nfathers. And the Lord will take away from thee all sickness.\u201d (Deut. vi.\n12-15.) God himself says\u2014\n\n\u05d0\u05e0\u05d9 \u05d4\u05f3 \u05e8\u05d5\u05e4\u05d0\u05da \u05c3\n\n\u201cI am the Lord that healeth thee.\u201d (Exod. xv. 26.) But the oral law\nleads men away from God, and tells them to go to an approved man and to\nget an approved amulet, and for this allows to learn the language of\ndemons, and to compel them by adjuration to be subservient. Where, in\nall the Old Testament, is there any thing like this? When the widow\u2019s\nson was sick, Elijah did not give her an amulet to make him well, and\nyet, if there were such things, it might be supposed that he knew of\nthem, and knew how to make them; in short, that he was an approved man\nand could make an approved amulet; but Elijah\u2019s trust was not in such\nheathen nonsense, but in the God of Israel. Before Him he prostrated\nhimself and said, \u201cO Lord my God, I pray thee, let this child\u2019s soul\ncome into him again.\u201d (1 Kings xvii. 22.) When Hezekiah was sick, we\nread not that he sent for an approved amulet, but that \u201cHe turned his\nface towards the wall, and prayed unto the Lord.\u201d Not charms, but faith\nand prayer, are the amulets of the Old Testament, and also of the New.\nThe Lord Jesus Christ wrought many miracles of healing, and multitudes\nof sick people applied to him for relief, but he never directed them to\namulets in order to attain it. His direction is, \u201cBe not afraid, only\nbelieve.\u201d (Mark v. 36.) His disciples also wrought great miracles on the\nsick, but not by amulets. Their confession is \u201cHis name, through faith\nin his name, hath given him this perfect soundness in the presence of\nyou all.\u201d (Acts iii. 16.) And their command is, not to wear amulets, but\nto pray. \u201cIs any sick among you? Let him call for the elders of the\nChurch; and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name\nof the Lord; and the prayer of faith shall save the sick, and the Lord\nshall raise him up; and if he have committed sins they shall be forgiven\nhim. The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much.\nElias was a man subject to like passions as we are, and he prayed\nearnestly that it might not rain, and it rained not on the earth by the\nspace of three years and six months. And he prayed again, and the heaven\ngave rain, and the earth brought forth her fruit.\u201d (James v. 13-18.)\nThis is the doctrine of the New Testament, exactly agreeing with that of\nMoses and the prophets, so that you need not fear that Christianity will\nlead you to heathenism: on the contrary, it will lead you back from the\nheathenism of magic and astrology, and amulets, to the God of Israel.\n\nBut there is another feature in this doctrine concerning amulets, which\nmust not be overlooked, and that is that the manufacture of amulets may\nbe made a mere trade for collecting the money of the credulous. If a man\nget a reputation as an approved manufacturer, the believers in the oral\nlaw will naturally apply to him in case of sickness, or other\ncircumstances, where amulets are of service, and of course the remedy is\nnot to be had for nothing. We have known and heard of such things both\nin the west and in the east. And thus the poor Israelites are led away\nfrom the God of Israel, and induced, as the prophet says, \u201cTo spend\ntheir money for that which is not bread, and their labour for that which\nsatisfieth not.\u201d But what a testimony does this whole doctrine furnish\nto the conduct and the doctrine of Jesus of Nazareth? His great\nendeavour was to show the apostacy of the oral law, and to lead the\npeople back from tradition to the Holy Scriptures. Was he right or was\nhe wrong? Which is the religion, of the oral law or of the New\nTestament, most agreeable to the religion revealed to Moses and the\nprophets. Is the practice of magic a Mosaic doctrine? Is permission to\nhold converse with evil demons a Mosaic doctrine? Is astrology a Mosaic\ndoctrine? Is the manufacture of amulets and charms a Mosaic doctrine?\nNo; they are all directly opposed to the doctrine and commandments of\nMoses, and the practice of all the holy men of old. Are these things\ndoctrines of the oral law? Yes. Are they the doctrines of the New\nTestament? No. Christians are taught to abstain from all such things.\nThen in this, at least, Christianity is more like Mosaism. How long will\nthe Jews suffer themselves to be thus deluded and imposed upon? Many are\nperhaps ignorant of the details of that system which they profess, but\nsuch ignorance is highly culpable. If men profess a religion they ought\nto know what it is, and what are its doctrines, and what the practices\nwhich it prescribes. Modern Judaism teaches, as the truth of God, all\nthese heathenish notions and practices; it is time, then, for the Jews\nto inquire whether this be the true religion in which they have\ncontinued for so many centuries, and if not, to stand in the ways and\nask for the old paths. It is a vain thing for a few individuals of the\nnation to attempt to deny that these superstitions are an essential\nportion of modern Judaism. As long as the oral law is acknowledged to be\nof Divine authority, that oral law must itself be taken as the witness\nfor its own doctrines, and the standard of the modern Jewish religion.\nThere is no possible middle course: either Jews must altogether and\npublicly renounce the Talmud as false, superstitions, and heathenish, or\nthey must be content to be regarded in one of two characters, either as\nits faithful disciples, who believe all it says, or as timid\nmen-pleasers, who are afraid to confess the truth of God, or to protest\nagainst the errors of man, lest they should suffer some worldly loss or\ninconvenience. But is it possible that cowards, in the cause of God,\nshould be found amongst the people of Gideon, who stood boldly against\nthe idolatry of a whole city, and overthrew the altar of Baal, or\namongst the offspring of Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah, who dared a\nfiery furnace, or amidst the countrymen of Daniel who trembled not at\nthe view of the lion\u2019s den? No, we will rather believe that all the Jews\nare still bigoted Talmudists, and that when they cease to be, they will\ncome forward with the spirit of their fathers and the strength of their\nGod to vindicate the truth.\n\n\n\n\n                                No. XXV.\n                                CHARMS.\n\n\nBoth Jew and Gentile will agree that true religion is the fear of the\nLord, but the difficulty is how are we to know it, and what are the\nmarks that will help us to distinguish the true from the false? The Word\nof God gives many, of which at present we select this one:\u2014\n\n\u05e8\u05d0\u05e9\u05d9\u05ea \u05d7\u05db\u05de\u05d4 \u05d9\u05e8\u05d0\u05ea \u05d4\u05f3 \u05c3\n\n\u201cThe fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom.\u201d (Psalm cxi. 10.) True\nreligion, as the Bible teaches, does not only better the heart, but also\nimproves the understanding; whereas false religion not only corrupts,\nbut also makes its votaries foolish. This is the uniform representation\nof the Bible, and thus we read of true religion, \u201cThe law of the Lord is\nperfect, converting the soul: the testimony of the Lord is sure, making\nwise the simple.\u201d (Psalm xix. 7.) And again, the wisest of men says,\n\u201cThen shalt thou understand righteousness, judgment, and equity; yea,\nevery good path. When wisdom entereth into thine heart, and knowledge is\npleasant to thy soul, discretion shall preserve thee, understanding\nshall keep thee.\u201d (Prov. ii. 9-11.) The votaries of false religion are,\non the contrary, described as devoid of all wisdom. \u201cThey are altogether\nbrutish and foolish; the stock is a doctrine of vanities.\u201d (Jer. x. 8.)\nAnd again, \u201cNone considereth in his heart, neither is there knowledge\nnor understanding to say, I have burned part of it in the fire; yea,\nalso, I have baked bread on the coals thereof; I have roasted flesh and\neaten it; and shall I make the residue thereof an abomination? Shall I\nfall down to the stock of a tree? He feedeth on ashes; a deceived heart\nhath turned him aside, that he cannot deliver his soul, nor say, Is\nthere not a lie in my right hand?\u201d (Isaiah xliv. 19, 20.) According to\nthese passages of Scripture, wisdom is a test of true religion, and\nfolly of a false one, let us then apply this test to the religion of the\noral law, does it commend itself to the understanding by its wisdom, and\nthe wisdom of its teachers? It is true, that it speaks well of itself,\nand calls all its doctors \u05d7\u05db\u05de\u05d9\u05dd \u201cWise men,\u201d but the chapter on amulets,\nquite fresh in the memory of our readers, excites some doubts upon the\nsubject, though of these we consider only the theory. The histories,\nwhich the Talmud gives of the Rabbinical practice with regard to such\ncharms, lead to the inevitable conclusion that wisdom is not one of the\ncharacteristics of the oral law. Take for example the following\ndirection to stop a bleeding at the nose:\u2014\n\n\u05dc\u05d3\u05de\u05d0 \u05d3\u05d0\u05ea\u05d9 \u05de\u05e0\u05d7\u05d9\u05e8\u05d0 \u05dc\u05d9\u05ea\u05d9 \u05d2\u05d1\u05e8\u05d0 \u05db\u05d4\u05df \u05d3\u05e9\u05de\u05d9\u05d4 \u05dc\u05d5\u05d9 \u05d5\u05dc\u05db\u05ea\u05d5\u05d1 \u05dc\u05d9\u05d4 \u05dc\u05d5\u05d9 \u05dc\u05de\u05e4\u05e8\u05e2 \u05d5\u05d0\u05d9 \u05dc\u05d0\n\u05dc\u05d9\u05ea\u05d9 \u05d0\u05d9\u05e0\u05e9 \u05de\u05e2\u05dc\u05de\u05d0 \u05d5\u05e0\u05db\u05ea\u05d5\u05d1 \u05dc\u05d9\u05d4 \u05d0\u05e0\u05d0 \u05e4\u05e4\u05d9 \u05e9\u05d9\u05dc\u05d0 \u05d1\u05e8 \u05e1\u05d5\u05de\u05e7\u05d9 \u05dc\u05de\u05e4\u05e8\u05e2 \u05d5\u05d0\u05d9 \u05dc\u05d0 \u05e0\u05d9\u05db\u05ea\u05d5\u05d1 \u05dc\u05d9\u05d4\n\u05d4\u05db\u05d9 \u05d8\u05e2\u05dd \u05d3\u05dc\u05d9 \u05d1\u05de\u05d9 \u05db\u05e1\u05e3 \u05d8\u05e2\u05dd \u05d3\u05dc\u05d9 \u05d1\u05de\u05d9 \u05e4\u05d2\u05dd \u05d5\u05d0\u05d9 \u05dc\u05d0 \u05dc\u05d9\u05ea\u05d9\u05d4 \u05e2\u05e7\u05e8\u05d0 \u05d3\u05d0\u05e1\u05e4\u05e1\u05ea\u05d0 \u05d5\u05d0\u05e9\u05dc\u05d0\n\u05d3\u05e4\u05d5\u05e8\u05d9\u05d9\u05d0 \u05e2\u05ea\u05d9\u05e7\u05d0 \u05d5\u05e7\u05d5\u05e8\u05d8\u05e1\u05d0 \u05d5\u05de\u05d5\u05e8\u05d9\u05e7\u05d0 \u05d5\u05e1\u05d5\u05de\u05e7\u05d0 \u05d3\u05dc\u05d5\u05dc\u05d9\u05d1\u05d0 \u05d5\u05e0\u05e7\u05dc\u05d9\u05e0\u05d4\u05d5 \u05d1\u05d4\u05d3\u05d9 \u05d4\u05d3\u05d3\u05d9 \u05d5\u05dc\u05d9\u05ea\u05d9\n\u05d2\u05d1\u05d1\u05d0 \u05d3\u05e2\u05de\u05e8\u05d0 \u05d5\u05e0\u05d9\u05d2\u05d3\u05d5\u05dc \u05ea\u05e8\u05ea\u05d9 \u05e4\u05ea\u05d9\u05dc\u05ea\u05d0 \u05d5\u05dc\u05d8\u05de\u05d9\u05e9 \u05d1\u05d7\u05dc\u05d0 \u05d5\u05e0\u05d9\u05d2\u05d3\u05d1\u05dc \u05d1\u05e7\u05d9\u05d8\u05de\u05d0 \u05d4\u05d3\u05d9\u05df \u05d5\u05e0\u05d9\u05ea\u05d9\u05d1\n\u05d1\u05e0\u05d7\u05d9\u05e8\u05d0 \u05d5\u05d0\u05d9 \u05dc\u05d0 \u05dc\u05d9\u05d7\u05d6\u05d9 \u05d0\u05de\u05ea \u05d4\u05de\u05d9\u05dd \u05d3\u05d0\u05d6\u05dc\u05d0 \u05de\u05de\u05d6\u05e8\u05d7 \u05db\u05dc\u05e4\u05d9 \u05de\u05e2\u05e8\u05d1 \u05d5\u05e0\u05d9\u05e4\u05e1\u05e2 \u05d5\u05e0\u05d9\u05e7\u05d5\u05dd \u05d7\u05d3 \u05db\u05e8\u05e2\u05d0\n\u05dc\u05d4\u05d0\u05d9 \u05d2\u05d9\u05e1\u05d0 \u05d5\u05d7\u05d3 \u05db\u05e8\u05e2\u05d0 \u05dc\u05d4\u05d0\u05d9 \u05d2\u05d9\u05e1\u05d0 \u05d5\u05e0\u05d9\u05e9\u05e7\u05dc \u05d8\u05d9\u05e0\u05d0 \u05d1\u05d9\u05d3\u05d9\u05d4 \u05d3\u05d9\u05de\u05d9\u05e0\u05d0 \u05de\u05ea\u05d5\u05ea\u05d9 \u05db\u05e8\u05e2\u05d0 \u05d3\u05e9\u05de\u05d0\u05dc\u05d9\u05d4\n\u05d5\u05d1\u05d9\u05d3\u05d9\u05d4 \u05d3\u05e9\u05de\u05d0\u05dc\u05d0 \u05de\u05ea\u05d5\u05ea\u05d9 \u05db\u05e8\u05e2\u05d0 \u05d3\u05d9\u05de\u05d9\u05e0\u05d9\u05d4 \u05d5\u05e0\u05d2\u05d3\u05d5\u05dc \u05ea\u05e8\u05ea\u05d9 \u05e4\u05ea\u05d9\u05dc\u05ea\u05d0 \u05d3\u05e2\u05de\u05e8\u05d0 \u05d5\u05e0\u05d9\u05d8\u05de\u05d9\u05e9 \u05d1\u05d8\u05d9\u05e0\u05d0\n\u05d5\u05e0\u05d9\u05ea\u05d1 \u05d1\u05e0\u05d7\u05d9\u05e8\u05d9\u05d4 \u05d5\u05d0\u05d9 \u05dc\u05d0 \u05dc\u05d9\u05ea\u05d9\u05d4 \u05ea\u05d5\u05ea\u05d0 \u05de\u05e8\u05d6\u05d1\u05d0 \u05d5\u05e0\u05d9\u05d9\u05ea\u05d9 \u05de\u05d9\u05d0 \u05d5\u05dc\u05d9\u05e9\u05d3\u05d9 \u05e2\u05dc\u05d9\u05d4 \u05d5\u05dc\u05d9\u05de\u05e8\u05d5 \u05db\u05d9\n\u05d4\u05d9\u05db\u05d9 \u05d3\u05e4\u05e1\u05e7\u05d9 \u05d4\u05e0\u05d9 \u05de\u05d9\u05d0 \u05dc\u05d9\u05e4\u05e1\u05e7 \u05d3\u05de\u05d9\u05d4 \u05d3\u05e4\u05dc\u05e0\u05d9\u05d0 \u05d1\u05e8 \u05e4\u05dc\u05e0\u05d9\u05e8\u05d0 \u05c3\n\n\u201cFor a bleeding at the nose, let a man be brought who is a priest, and\nwhose name is Levi, and let him write the word Levi backwards. If this\ncannot be done, get a layman, and let him write the following words\nbackwards:\u2014\u2018Ana pipi Shila bar Sumki;\u2019[23] or let him write these words,\n\u2018Taam dli bemi keseph, taam li bemi paggan;\u2019[24] or let him take a root\nof grass, and the cord of an old bed, and paper and saffron, and the red\npart of the inside of a palm tree, and let him burn them together, and\nlet him take some wool, and twist two threads, and let him dip them in\nvinegar, and then roll them in the ashes, and put them into his nose. Or\nlet him look out for a small stream of water that flows from east to\nwest, and let him go and stand with one leg on each side of it, and let\nhim take with his right hand some mud from under his left foot, and with\nhis left hand from under his right foot, and let him twist two threads\nof wool, and dip them in the mud, and put them into his nostrils. Or let\nhim be placed under a spout, and let water be brought and poured upon\nhim, and let them say, \u2018As this water ceases to flow, so let the blood\nof M., the son of the woman N., also cease.\u2019\u201d (Gittin, fol. 69, col. 1.)\nNow we ask any Jew of common sense, whether this passage savours most of\nwisdom or folly? Vinegar and water may be very useful in such a case, or\neven mud, if used in sufficient quantity, might stop up the nose, and\ntherefore stop the bleeding too, but what manner of benefit can proceed\nfrom the word Levi written backwards, or from those words which Rashi\npronounces to be magical? Why is the mud of water flowing from east to\nwest more efficacious, and why is it to be taken with the right hand\nfrom under the left foot, and with the left hand from under the right\nfoot? Plainly because the authors of this passage thought there was some\ncharm or magic power, and their minds were so overpowered by\nsuperstition, as to lead them to disregard the plain words of Moses\nforbidding all magic. It cannot be pretended that this is a rare case,\nthe Talmud abounds in such remedies, all equally wise. For instance,\ntake the following mode of treatment for the scratch or bite of a mad\ndog:\u2014\n\n\u05ea\u05e0\u05d5 \u05e8\u05d1\u05e0\u05df \u05d7\u05de\u05e9\u05d4 \u05d3\u05d1\u05e8\u05d9\u05dd \u05e0\u05d0\u05de\u05e8\u05d5 \u05d1\u05db\u05dc\u05d1 \u05e9\u05d5\u05d8\u05d4 \u05e4\u05d9\u05d5 \u05e4\u05ea\u05d5\u05d7 \u05d5\u05e8\u05d9\u05e8\u05d5 \u05e0\u05d5\u05d8\u05e3 \u05d5\u05d0\u05d6\u05e0\u05d9\u05d5 \u05e1\u05e8\u05d5\u05d7\u05d5\u05ea\n\u05d5\u05d6\u05e0\u05d1\u05d5 \u05de\u05d5\u05e0\u05d7 \u05dc\u05d5 \u05e2\u05dc \u05d9\u05e8\u05db\u05d5\u05ea\u05d9\u05d5 \u05d5\u05de\u05d4\u05dc\u05da \u05d1\u05e6\u05d3\u05d9 \u05d3\u05e8\u05db\u05d9\u05dd \u05d5\u05d9\u05e9 \u05d0\u05d5\u05de\u05e8\u05d9\u05dd \u05d0\u05e3 \u05e0\u05d5\u05d1\u05d7 \u05d5\u05d0\u05d9\u05df \u05e7\u05d5\u05dc\u05d5\n\u05e0\u05e9\u05de\u05e2 , \u05de\u05de\u05d0\u05d9 \u05d4\u05d5\u05d9 \u05e8\u05d1 \u05d0\u05de\u05e8 \u05e0\u05e9\u05d9\u05dd \u05db\u05e9\u05e4\u05e0\u05d9\u05d5\u05ea \u05de\u05e9\u05d7\u05e7\u05d5\u05ea \u05d1\u05d5 , \u05d5\u05e9\u05de\u05d5\u05d0\u05dc \u05d0\u05de\u05e8 \u05e8\u05d5\u05d7 \u05e8\u05e2\u05d4 \u05e9\u05d5\u05e8\u05d4\n\u05e2\u05dc\u05d9\u05d5 , \u05de\u05d0\u05d9 \u05d1\u05d9\u05e0\u05d9\u05d9\u05d4\u05d5 \u05d0\u05d9\u05db\u05d0 \u05d1\u05d9\u05e0\u05d9\u05d9\u05d4\u05d5 \u05dc\u05de\u05e7\u05d8\u05dc\u05d9\u05d4 \u05d1\u05d3\u05d1\u05e8 \u05d4\u05e0\u05d6\u05e8\u05e7 \u05ea\u05e0\u05d9\u05d0 \u05db\u05d5\u05ea\u05d9\u05d4 \u05d3\u05e9\u05de\u05d5\u05d0\u05dc\n\u05db\u05e9\u05d4\u05d5\u05e8\u05d2\u05d9\u05df \u05d0\u05d5\u05ea\u05d5 \u05d0\u05d9\u05df \u05d4\u05d5\u05e8\u05d2\u05d9\u05df \u05d0\u05d5\u05ea\u05d5 \u05d0\u05dc\u05d0 \u05d1\u05d3\u05d1\u05e8 \u05d4\u05e0\u05d6\u05e8\u05e7 \u05d3\u05d7\u05d9\u05d9\u05e3 \u05d1\u05d9\u05d4 \u05de\u05e1\u05ea\u05db\u05df \u05d3\u05e0\u05db\u05d9\u05ea \u05dc\u05d9\u05d4\n\u05de\u05d9\u05d9\u05ea \u05d3\u05d7\u05d9\u05d9\u05e3 \u05d1\u05d9\u05d4 \u05de\u05e1\u05ea\u05db\u05df \u05de\u05d0\u05d9 \u05ea\u05e7\u05e0\u05ea\u05d9\u05d4 \u05e0\u05d9\u05e9\u05dc\u05d7 \u05de\u05d0\u05e0\u05d9\u05d4 \u05d5\u05e0\u05d9\u05e8\u05d4\u05d5\u05d8 \u05ea\u05d1 \u05d4\u05d5\u05e0\u05d0 \u05d1\u05e8\u05d9\u05d4 \u05d3\u05e8\u05d1\n\u05d9\u05d4\u05d5\u05e9\u05e2 \u05d7\u05e3 \u05d1\u05d9\u05d4 \u05d7\u05d3 \u05de\u05d9\u05e0\u05d9\u05d9\u05d4\u05d5 \u05d1\u05e9\u05d5\u05e7\u05d0 \u05e9\u05dc\u05d7\u05d9\u05e0\u05d4\u05d5 \u05dc\u05de\u05d0\u05e0\u05d9\u05d4 \u05d5\u05e8\u05d4\u05d9\u05d8 \u05d0\u05de\u05e8 \u05e7\u05d9\u05d9\u05de\u05ea\u05d9 \u05d1\u05e2\u05e6\u05de\u05d9\n\u05d5\u05d4\u05d7\u05db\u05de\u05d4 \u05ea\u05d7\u05d9\u05d4 \u05d1\u05e2\u05dc\u05d9\u05d4 \u05d3\u05e0\u05db\u05d9\u05ea \u05dc\u05d9\u05d4 \u05de\u05d0\u05d9\u05ea \u05de\u05d0\u05d9 \u05ea\u05e7\u05e0\u05ea\u05d9\u05d4 \u05d0\u05de\u05e8 \u05d0\u05d1\u05d9\u05d9 \u05e0\u05d9\u05ea\u05d9 \u05de\u05e9\u05db\u05d0 \u05d3\u05d0\u05e4\u05d0\n\u05d3\u05d3\u05d9\u05db\u05e8\u05d0 \u05d5\u05e0\u05d9\u05db\u05ea\u05d5\u05d1 \u05e2\u05dc\u05d9\u05d4 \u05d0\u05e0\u05d0 \u05e4\u05dc\u05e0\u05d9\u05d0 \u05d1\u05e8 \u05e4\u05dc\u05e0\u05d9\u05ea\u05d0 \u05d0\u05de\u05e9\u05db\u05d0 \u05d3\u05d0\u05e4\u05d0 \u05d3\u05d3\u05d9\u05db\u05e8\u05d0 \u05db\u05ea\u05d9\u05d1\u05e0\u05d0 \u05e2\u05dc\u05da\n\u05db\u05e0\u05ea\u05d9 \u05db\u05e0\u05ea\u05d9 \u05e7\u05dc\u05d9\u05e8\u05d5\u05e1 \u05d5\u05d0\u05de\u05e8\u05d5 \u05dc\u05d4 \u05e7\u05e0\u05d3\u05d9 \u05e7\u05e0\u05d3\u05d9 \u05e7\u05dc\u05d5\u05e8\u05d5\u05e1 \u05d9\u05d4 \u05d9\u05d4 \u05d4\u05f3 \u05e6\u05d1\u05d0\u05d5\u05ea \u05d0\u05de\u05df \u05d0\u05de\u05df \u05e1\u05dc\u05d4\n\u05d5\u05e0\u05e9\u05dc\u05d7\u05d9\u05e0\u05d4\u05d5 \u05dc\u05de\u05d0\u05e0\u05d9\u05d0 \u05d5\u05dc\u05e7\u05d1\u05e8\u05d9\u05e0\u05d4\u05d5 \u05d1\u05d9 \u05e7\u05d1\u05e8\u05d9 \u05e2\u05d3 \u05ea\u05e8\u05d9\u05e1\u05e8 \u05d9\u05e8\u05d7\u05d9 \u05e9\u05ea\u05d0 \u05d5\u05e0\u05e4\u05e7\u05d9\u05e0\u05d4\u05d5 \u05d5\u05e0\u05e7\u05dc\u05d9\u05e0\u05d4\u05d5\n\u05d1\u05ea\u05e0\u05d5\u05e8\u05d0 \u05d5\u05e0\u05d1\u05d3\u05e8\u05d9\u05e0\u05d4\u05d5 \u05dc\u05e7\u05d8\u05de\u05d9\u05d4 \u05d0\u05e4\u05e8\u05e9\u05ea \u05d3\u05e8\u05db\u05d9\u05dd \u05d5\u05d4\u05e0\u05da \u05ea\u05e8\u05d9\u05e1\u05e8 \u05d9\u05e8\u05d7\u05d9 \u05e9\u05ea\u05d0 \u05db\u05d9 \u05e9\u05ea\u05d9 \u05de\u05d9\u05d0 \u05dc\u05d0\n\u05dc\u05e9\u05ea\u05d9 \u05d0\u05dc\u05d0 \u05d1\u05d2\u05d5\u05d1\u05ea\u05d0 \u05d3\u05e0\u05d7\u05e9\u05d0 \u05d3\u05dc\u05de\u05d0 \u05d7\u05d6\u05d9 \u05d1\u05d1\u05d5\u05d0\u05d9\u05d4 \u05d3\u05e9\u05d9\u05d3\u05d0 \u05d5\u05dc\u05d9\u05e1\u05ea\u05db\u05df \u05db\u05d9 \u05d4\u05d0 \u05d3\u05d0\u05d1\u05d0 \u05d1\u05e8 \u05de\u05e8\u05ea\u05d0\n\u05d4\u05d5\u05d0 \u05d0\u05d1\u05d0 \u05d1\u05e8 \u05de\u05e0\u05d9\u05d5\u05de\u05d9 \u05e2\u05d1\u05d3\u05d9 \u05dc\u05d9\u05d4 \u05d0\u05d9\u05de\u05d9\u05d4 \u05d2\u05d5\u05d1\u05ea\u05d0 \u05d3\u05d3\u05d4\u05d1\u05d0 \u05c3\n\n\u201cThe rabbies have handed down the tradition, that there are five things\nto be observed of a mad dog: his mouth is open, his saliva flows, his\nears hang down, his tail is between his legs, and he goes by the sides\nof the ways. Some say also, that he barks, but his voice is not heard.\nWhat is the cause of his madness? Rav says, it proceeds from this, that\nthe witches are making their sport with him. Samuel says, it is an evil\nspirit that rests upon him. What is the difference? The difference is\nthis, that in the latter case he is to be killed by some missile weapon.\nThe tradition[25] agrees with Samuel, for it says, In killing him no\nother mode is to be used but the casting of some missile weapon. If a\nmad dog scratch any one, he is in danger; but if he bite him he will\ndie. In case of a scratch there is danger; what then is the remedy? Let\nthe man cast off his clothes and run away. Rav Huna, the son of Rav\nJoshua, was once scratched in the street by one of them; he immediately\ncast off his clothes and ran away. He also says, I fulfilled in myself\nthose words, \u2018Wisdom giveth life to them that have it.\u2019 (Eccles. vii.\n12.) In case of a bite, the man will die; what then is the remedy? Abai\nsays, He must take the skin of a male adder, and write upon it these\nwords, \u2018I, M., the son of the woman N., upon the skin of a male adder, I\nwrite against thee, Kanti, Kanti, Klirus.\u2019 Some say, \u2018Kandi, Kandi,\nKlurus, Jah, Jah, Lord of Hosts, Amen, Amen, Selah.\u2019 Let him also cast\noff his clothes, and bury them in the grave-yard for twelve months of\nthe year; then let him take them up and burn them in an oven, and let\nhim scatter the ashes at the parting of the roads. But during these\ntwelve months of the year, when he drinks water, let him drink out of\nnothing but a brass tube, lest he should see the phantom-form of the\ndemon and be endangered. This was tried by Abba, the son of Martha, who\nis the same as Abba, the son of Manjumi. His mother made a golden tube\nfor him.\u201d (Joma, fol. 83, col. 1.) This is a very plain case of the use\nof an amulet and of magic, but whether it be a proof of profound wisdom\nwe leave to the judgment of the reader. What good can the poor man get\nfrom certain words written on the skin of a male adder? or from first\nburying and then burning his clothes, and scattering the ashes on the\ncross-roads? It cannot be pretended that this is medical treatment, and\nstill less that it is the treatment commanded by the Word of God. If it\nhad pleased God to command all this, we should not only submit, but\ngladly recommend this recipe in every similar case. To God Almighty no\nman can prescribe. He chooses what means he pleases, and may do so\nbecause his omnipotence can render them effectual. He healed the\nIsraelites bitten by the fiery serpents by the sight of the brazen\nimage, and he cured Naaman\u2019s leprosy by bathing in the waters of Jordan.\nWhatever then be the means which He prescribes, our highest wisdom is to\nmake use of them. But as he has not prescribed the means recommended by\nthe Talmud, but forbidden them in his general prohibition of magic, we\nmust say that the man who uses them has bid adieu to all true wisdom. No\nwonder, then, if his own inventions are stamped with folly. But what\nwill our readers think of the cause of the canine madness here assigned?\n\u201cRav says, It proceeds from the witches who are making their sport with\nhim. Samuel says, It is an evil spirit that rests upon him.\u201d Rav\nbelieved, then, that God, whose mercies are over all his works, allows\nwicked women to torment his creatures, and to inflict upon them a\ndreadful malady to make sport for themselves. Is this wise, is it\naccording to Scripture? This is the doctrine of the oral law; and if\nJesus of Nazareth had not protested against it, and taught a true\ndoctrine by asserting the truth of Scripture, this would be the\nuniversal doctrine and practice of the Jews. Whoever believes the\nTalmud, must believe in this and all the other follies which it\ncontains. Whoever rejects these things, confesses that the Talmud\ncontains what is false and foolish, and thereby shakes or rather\noverthrows its authority. Some person will perhaps say that similar\nsuperstitions and follies have been found amongst Christians. We grant\nthat this has been the case wherever Christians have departed from the\nwritten Word of God, but can anything similar be found in the New\nTestament? That book is our standard of Christianity. As you say that\nthe oral law is of divine authority, we say that the New Testament is of\ndivine authority. We point out to you these follies, not in individual\nJews, but in your book of authority. If you would make out a parallel\ncase, you must do the same. But you cannot. The New Testament has\nnothing of the kind; and it is for you to explain how this happens that\nthe New Testament, which you believe to be false, is entirely free from\nevery thing of the kind.\n\nFurther, we ask every right-minded Israelite, whether he is not shocked\nat that profanation of the reverend and holy names of God which is here\nnot only countenanced but prescribed. What can a devout Jew think either\nof the man or the book that tells us to write the names,\n\n\u05d9\u05d4 \u05d9\u05d4 \u05d9\u05d4\u05d5\u05d4 \u05e6\u05d1\u05d0\u05d5\u05ea \u05c3\n\n\u201cJah, Jah, the Lord of Hosts,\u201d by the side of such nonsense as Kanti,\nKanti, Klurus? Would he say that this is consistent with true religion?\nAnd yet this profane use of the name of God for magical purposes, is not\nrare in the Talmud. The following is another instance:\u2014\n\n\u05d0\u05de\u05e8 \u05e8\u05d1\u05d4 \u05d0\u05e9\u05ea\u05e2\u05d5 \u05dc\u05d9 \u05e0\u05d7\u05d5\u05ea\u05d9 \u05d9\u05de\u05d0 , \u05d4\u05d0\u05d9 \u05d2\u05dc\u05d0 \u05d3\u05de\u05d8\u05d1\u05e2 \u05dc\u05e1\u05e4\u05d9\u05e0\u05d4 \u05de\u05d9\u05ea\u05d7\u05d6\u05d9 \u05db\u05d9 \u05e6\u05d5\u05e6\u05d9\u05ea\u05d0 \u05d3\u05e0\u05d5\u05e8\u05d0\n\u05d7\u05d9\u05d5\u05d5\u05e8\u05ea\u05d0 \u05d1\u05e8\u05d9\u05e9\u05d0 \u05d5\u05de\u05d7\u05d9\u05e0\u05df \u05dc\u05d9\u05d4 \u05d1\u05d0\u05dc\u05d5\u05d5\u05ea\u05d0 \u05d3\u05d7\u05e7\u05d9\u05e7 \u05e2\u05dc\u05d9\u05d4 \u05d0\u05d4\u05d9\u05d4 \u05d0\u05e9\u05e8 \u05d0\u05d4\u05d9\u05d4 \u05d9\u05d4 \u05d4\u05f3 \u05e6\u05d1\u05d0\u05d5\u05ea\n\u05d0\u05de\u05df \u05d0\u05de\u05df \u05e1\u05dc\u05d4 \u05d5\u05e0\u05d9\u05d9\u05d7 \u05d0\u05de\u05e8 \u05e8\u05d1\u05d4 \u05d0\u05e9\u05ea\u05e2\u05d5 \u05dc\u05d9 \u05e0\u05d7\u05d5\u05ea\u05d9 \u05d9\u05de\u05d0 \u05d1\u05d9\u05df \u05d2\u05dc\u05d0 \u05dc\u05d2\u05dc\u05d0 \u05ea\u05dc\u05ea \u05de\u05d0\u05d4 \u05e4\u05e8\u05e1\u05d9\n\u05d6\u05de\u05e0\u05d0 \u05d7\u05d3\u05d0 \u05d4\u05d5\u05d4 \u05d0\u05d6\u05dc\u05d9\u05e0\u05df \u05d1\u05d0\u05d5\u05e8\u05d7\u05d0 \u05d5\u05d3\u05dc\u05d9\u05e0\u05df \u05d2\u05dc\u05d0 \u05e2\u05d3 \u05d3\u05d7\u05d6\u05d9\u05e0\u05df \u05d1\u05d9 \u05de\u05e8\u05d1\u05e2\u05ea\u05d0 \u05d3\u05db\u05d5\u05db\u05d1\u05d0 \u05d6\u05d5\u05d8\u05d0\n\u05d5\u05d4\u05d5\u05d9\u05d0 \u05d1\u05d9 \u05de\u05d1\u05d6\u05e8 \u05d0\u05e8\u05d1\u05e2\u05d9\u05df \u05d2\u05e8\u05d9\u05d5\u05d9 \u05d1\u05d6\u05e8\u05d0 \u05d3\u05d7\u05e8\u05d3\u05dc\u05d0 , \u05d5\u05d0\u05d9 \u05d3\u05dc\u05d9\u05e0\u05df \u05d8\u05e4\u05d9 \u05de\u05e7\u05dc\u05d9\u05e0\u05df \u05de\u05d4\u05d1\u05dc\u05d9 ,\n\u05d5\u05e8\u05de\u05d9 \u05dc\u05d9\u05d4 \u05d2\u05dc\u05d0 \u05e7\u05dc\u05d0 \u05dc\u05d7\u05d1\u05e8\u05ea\u05d4 \u05d7\u05d1\u05e8\u05ea\u05d9 \u05e9\u05d1\u05e7\u05ea \u05de\u05d9\u05d3\u05d9 \u05d1\u05e2\u05dc\u05de\u05d0 \u05d3\u05dc\u05d0 \u05e9\u05d8\u05e4\u05ea\u05d9\u05d4 \u05d3\u05e0\u05d9\u05ea\u05d9 \u05d0\u05e0\u05d0\n\u05d5\u05e0\u05d0\u05d1\u05d3\u05d9\u05d4 \u05d0\u05f3\u05f3\u05dc \u05d4\u05d6\u05d9 \u05d2\u05d1\u05d5\u05e8\u05ea\u05d0 \u05d3\u05de\u05e8\u05d9\u05da \u05de\u05dc\u05d0 \u05d7\u05d5\u05d8\u05d0 \u05d7\u05dc\u05d0 \u05d5\u05dc\u05d0 \u05e2\u05d1\u05e8\u05d9 \u05e9\u05e0\u05d0\u05de\u05e8 \u05d4\u05d0\u05d5\u05ea\u05d9 \u05dc\u05d0 \u05ea\u05d9\u05e8\u05d0\u05d5\n\u05e0\u05d0\u05d5\u05dd \u05d4\u05f3 \u05d0\u05dd \u05de\u05e4\u05e0\u05d9 \u05dc\u05d0 \u05ea\u05d7\u05d9\u05dc\u05d5 \u05d0\u05e9\u05e8 \u05e9\u05de\u05ea\u05d9 \u05d7\u05d5\u05dc \u05d2\u05d1\u05d5\u05dc \u05dc\u05d9\u05dd \u05d7\u05e7 \u05e2\u05d5\u05dc\u05dd \u05d5\u05dc\u05d0 \u05d9\u05e2\u05d1\u05e8\u05e0\u05d4\u05d5 \u05c3\n\n\u201cRabbah says, They that go down to the sea have told me, that when a\nwave is going to overwhelm a ship, sparks of white light are seen on its\nhead. But if we strike it with a staff on which are graved the words, \u2018I\nam that I am, Jah, Lord of Hosts, Amen, Amen, Selah,\u2019 it subsides. They\nthat go down to the sea have told me, that the distance between one wave\nand another, is three hundred miles. It happened once that we were\nmaking a voyage, and we raised a wave until we saw the resting-place of\nthe least of all the stars. It was large enough to sow forty bushels of\nmustard seed, and if we had raised it more we should have been burned by\nthe vapour of the star. One wave raised its voice and called to its\ncompanion, O, companion, hast thou left anything in the world that thou\nhast not overflowed? Come, and let us destroy it. It replied, Come and\nsee the power of thy Lord. I could not overpass the sand even a\nhair\u2019s-breadth, for it is written, \u2018Fear ye not me? saith the Lord: will\nye not tremble at my presence, which have placed the sand for the bound\nof the sea, by a perpetual decree that it cannot pass it?\u2019 (Jer. v.\n22.)\u201d (Bava Bathra, fol. 73, col. 1.) Here is the same profanation of\nthe peculiar and holy names of God: it is to be engraved on a staff\neither to lay or to raise the waves. But besides the profanity, just\nconsider the folly of this whole story. In the first place, it ascribes\nto men, no matter whether they are good or wicked, absolute power over\nthe waves of the sea. Anybody can engrave those names of God upon a\nstaff, anybody can use the staff to strike the sea, and thus a wicked\nman, without either faith, fear, or love of God, may make and use an\ninstrument which almost invests him with omnipotence. Is it possible\nthat any son of Israel can be so credulous as to believe such manifest\nabsurdity? But this story reminds us again of the utter disregard of\ntruth which characterises the Talmud. Here we are told that, by power of\nthis magic staff, a wave was raised so high as to enable those\ntravellers to see the resting-place of the smallest of all the stars,\nand that so distinctly, too, as to be able to make a good guess at its\nmeasure. The slightest knowledge of modern astronomy is sufficient to\nshow not only the improbability, but the utter impossibility of anything\nof the kind. The least of the stars visible to the naked eye is at an\nalmost immeasurable distance from the earth, so as to make it perfectly\nludicrous to talk of a wave being raised to such a height. All the water\non the face of the globe would be far from sufficient for the formation\nof one such wave. But the Talmud intimates that they had the power of\nraising it still higher, and were prevented only by the fear of being\nscorched. But the Talmud is not satisfied with these wonders, it goes on\nto describe a conversation between two waves. The commentator, who\nevidently believed every word of the story, suggest that this\nconversation was carried on by the angels presiding over the waves.\n\n\u05d5\u05e8\u05de\u05d9 \u05dc\u05d9\u05d4 \u05d2\u05dc\u05d0 \u05e0\u05ea\u05df \u05e7\u05d5\u05dc\u05d5 \u05db\u05dc\u05d5\u05de\u05e8 \u05e6\u05e2\u05e7 \u05db\u05d3\u05d5\u05d2\u05de\u05d0 \u05ea\u05d4\u05d5\u05dd \u05d0\u05dc \u05ea\u05d4\u05d5\u05dd \u05e7\u05d5\u05e8\u05d0 , \u05d5\u05e9\u05de\u05d0 \u05de\u05dc\u05d0\u05db\u05d9\u05dd\n\u05d4\u05de\u05de\u05d5\u05e0\u05d9\u05dd \u05e2\u05dc\u05d9\u05d4\u05dd \u05d4\u05dd \u05c3\n\n\u201cThe wave lifted up his voice, that is, it cried, and so we find, \u2018Deep\ncalleth unto deep.\u2019 And perhaps this means the angels who were set over\nthem.\u201d The commentator, it appears, had no doubt of the truth of the\nstory, and how should he have, if he believed in the Divine authority of\nthe Talmud? But we ask our readers do they believe this story\u2014and if\nthey do not, why not? Because it is too absurd, and too far beyond the\nbounds of possibility. Can, then, a book that swarms with similar\naccounts be from God? By what means did all these things about magic,\nastrology, amulets, magical cures, and staves, get into the Talmud? No\ndoubt they were put in by the authors. Either, then, the authors\nbelieved in all these things, or they did not. If they did not believe\nin them, then they were evidently bad men, who deliberately wrote\nfalsehood. But if they did believe these things, then, though not guilty\nof wilful falsehood, they were credulous, superstitious persons, who had\nno clear idea of the religion of Moses and the prophets; and in either\ncase they are most unsafe guides in religion. It is for the Jews of the\npresent day to consider whether they will still adhere to a system that\ninvolves the belief of so many incredibilities and sanctions the\nprofanation of the names of God for the purposes of magic. Eighteen\ncenturies are surely long enough to have remained in such thick\ndarkness. Those who have been brought up in such a system ought now, at\nleast, to arise and ask what have they and their forefathers been about\nall this while? And how it is that the New Testament, which they have\nrejected, is entirely free from such deformities? Something has been\ndecidedly wrong, or the chosen people of God could not have remained so\nlong in captivity, unheeded and unhelped by the Holy One of Israel. An\nexhibition of the doctrines of the oral law explains the cause. Israel\nhas departed from the religion of Moses, and pertinaciously adhered to a\nsystem compounded of human inventions, and idolatrous heathenism. They\ncall Moses their master, and say that the oral law is derived from him,\nbut if we may from the work, form a conjecture about the author, it is\nmuch more probably a tradition from the magicians of Egypt or the witch\nof Endor. And if it had been handed down as such\u2014if the Israelites had\npresented the Talmud to the world and their posterity as part of the\nheavy yoke of Egypt, we should not have been astonished at the\nuniversality of its reception. But that Israel should ever have been so\nfar imposed upon, as to believe that Moses or the prophets ever had\nanything to do with the oral law appears almost inexplicable. However\nunwilling one may be to apply to fellow-sinners any prophecy that\ncontains a denunciation of God\u2019s wrath, one cannot help asking, was it\nof this that the prophet said, \u201cThe Lord hath poured out upon you the\nspirit of deep sleep, and hath closed your eyes; the prophets and your\nrulers the seers hath he covered. And the vision of all is become unto\nyou as the words of a book that is sealed, which men deliver to one that\nis learned, saying, read this, I pray thee; and he saith, I cannot, for\nit is sealed: and the book is delivered to him that is not learned,\nsaying, Read this, I pray thee, and he saith, I am not learned.\u201d (Isaiah\nxxix. 10-12.) This question is, however, far more important to Israel\nthan to us, and to them we leave the answer. Some will still persist in\nthe assertion that this heathenish compound is the highest wisdom. The\ngreat majority of the nation is devoted to the Talmud, which is still\nthe cistern whence the synagogues endeavour to draw the waters of life.\nThe multitude does it in ignorance, they are, therefore, not so\nculpable. But there are many that know better, what then is the reason\nthat they do not strain every nerve to deliver their brethren? These few\ndo not suffer the oral law to interfere either with their business or\ntheir convenience. They profane the Sabbath, eat Gentile food, carry on\ntheir business on feasts and festivals. If they do all this on\nprinciple, why not protest against error? Is it because they are\nindifferent to the welfare of their brethren? If indifference be the\nonly fruit of this intellectual progress, instead of rising above, they\nhave sunk below superstition itself.\n\nFootnote 23:\n\n  The only explanation which Rashi gives of these words is \u05dc\u05d7\u05e9 \u05d4\u05d5\u05d0 \u201cIt\n  is a charm.\u201d\n\nFootnote 24:\n\n  Literally, \u05dc\u05d7\u05e9 \u05d4\u05d5\u05d0 \u201cIt is a charm.\u201d\u2014Rashi.\n\nFootnote 25:\n\n  The Bareitha.\n\n\n\n\n                               No. XXVI.\n                           CHARMS CONTINUED.\n\n\nIf men would only employ in religion a little of that common sense and\nearnestness, which they find so necessary for the affairs of this life,\nthey would by God\u2019s blessing soon arrive at the truth. For example, if\nthe father of a family should find, that by following the advice of a\nphysician, sickness and death were constant guests, he would soon look\nout for another; and he would be much quickened in his measures, if this\nphysician\u2019s counsel had produced the same results in the house of his\nfather and his grandfather. He would not think it any shame, under such\ncircumstances, to change his father\u2019s physician for another; on the\ncontrary, he would think, and most men would agree with him, that it\nwould be both a sin and a shame to retain him. Now let Israel make the\napplication to their spiritual physicians, the Scribes, Pharisees, and\nRabbies. For many centuries they have punctually followed their advice,\nand the consequence has been one misfortune after another, and centuries\nof exile from the land which God gave to their fathers; the very\ncontrary of that which God has promised. God has said, if the Jews will\nobey the religion of Moses, that they shall be restored to their land.\n\u201cIt shall come to pass ... if thou shalt return unto the Lord thy God,\nand shalt obey his voice according to all that I command thee this day,\nthou and thy children, with all thy heart and with all thy soul; that\nthen the Lord thy God will turn thy captivity, and have compassion upon\nthee, and will return and gather thee from all nations,\u201d &c. (Deut. xxx.\n2, 3.) The Jews have obeyed the commands of the rabbies, and have not\nbeen gathered; what is the conclusion? Either that God\u2019s promise has\nfailed, which is impossible, or that the religion of the rabbies is not\nthe religion of Moses. Such is the inevitable conclusion from the words\nof Moses and the facts of the case; let it then lead the sufferers to\nexamine the religion which they have hitherto professed. A very little\nexamination will convince any reasonable man, that it is a fearful\ncorruption of divine truth, a compilation made by men who professed to\nbe astrologers and magicians. Let not the Jews think that our opinion is\nthe result of prejudice. It has been deliberately formed on evidence\nfurnished by the oral law itself. If we are wrong, let the rabbies prove\nthe contrary. Let them, for example, explain the following law of modern\nJudaism.\n\n\u05de\u05d9 \u05e9\u05e0\u05e9\u05db\u05d5 \u05e2\u05e7\u05e8\u05d1 \u05d0\u05d5 \u05e0\u05d7\u05e9 \u05de\u05d5\u05ea\u05e8 \u05dc\u05dc\u05d7\u05d5\u05e9 \u05d0\u05dc \u05de\u05e7\u05d5\u05dd \u05d4\u05e0\u05e9\u05d9\u05db\u05d4 \u05d5\u05d0\u05e4\u05d9\u05dc\u05d5 \u05d1\u05e9\u05d1\u05ea \u05db\u05d3\u05d9 \u05dc\u05d9\u05e9\u05d1 \u05d3\u05e2\u05ea\u05d5\n\u05d5\u05dc\u05d7\u05d6\u05e7 \u05dc\u05d1\u05d5 \u05d0\u05e3 \u05e2\u05dc \u05e4\u05d9 \u05e9\u05d0\u05d9\u05df \u05d4\u05d3\u05d1\u05e8 \u05de\u05d5\u05e2\u05d9\u05dc \u05db\u05dc\u05d5\u05dd \u05d4\u05d5\u05d0\u05d9\u05dc \u05d5\u05de\u05e1\u05d5\u05db\u05df \u05d4\u05d5\u05d0 \u05d4\u05ea\u05d9\u05e8\u05d5 \u05dc\u05d5 \u05db\u05d3\u05d9\n\u05e9\u05dc\u05d0 \u05ea\u05d8\u05e8\u05e3 \u05d3\u05e2\u05ea\u05d5 \u05e2\u05dc\u05d9\u05d5 \u05c3\n\n\u201cIf any person be bitten by a scorpion or a serpent, it is lawful to\ncharm the place of the bite, even on the Sabbath-day, in order to quiet\nhis mind, and to encourage his heart, although it is a thing utterly\nprofitless. Because the man is in danger, they have pronounced this\nlawful for him that his mind may not be distracted.\u201d (Hilchoth Accum. c.\nxi. 11.) Here the rabbies have allowed what God has absolutely\nforbidden. The men who profess such reverence for the Sabbath allow it\nto be profaned by magic, which is one of the works of the devil. Rambam,\nwhose words we have just quoted, felt that it was both wicked and\nfoolish, and has therefore endeavoured to furnish an excuse, saying that\nit is of no use, and is only allowed to quiet the mind of the sufferer.\nBut that does not alter the unlawfulness. Besides, what sort of opinion\ncould Rambam and the rabbies have had of the Jews, when they say that\nmagic is permitted in order to quiet their minds? They evidently\nsupposed that the Jews were a weak and superstitious people, who\nbelieved so firmly in charms, that the use of them would quiet the mind;\nand so ignorant or careless about God\u2019s commandments, that they could be\ncomforted by their transgressions. The excuse, therefore, only makes the\ncase worse. It takes for granted that the professors of the oral law are\nignorant and superstitious; and then to quiet their minds allows the\ntransgression of the law of Moses, and that on the Sabbath-day. But this\nexcuse is altogether Rambam\u2019s invention. The original passage in the\nTalmud says nothing about quieting the man\u2019s mind, it simply says\u2014\n\n\u05d5\u05dc\u05d5\u05d7\u05e9\u05d9\u05df \u05dc\u05d7\u05d9\u05e9\u05ea \u05e0\u05d7\u05e9\u05d9\u05dd \u05d5\u05e2\u05e7\u05e8\u05d1\u05d9\u05dd \u05d1\u05e9\u05d1\u05ea \u05c3\n\n\u201cIt is lawful to charm serpents and scorpions on the Sabbath-day.\u201d\n(Sanhedrin, fol. 101, col. 1.) And Rashi\u2019s commentary on the passage\u2014\n\n\u05d1\u05e9\u05d1\u05d9\u05dc \u05e9\u05dc\u05d0 \u05d9\u05d6\u05d9\u05e7\u05d5 \u05c3\n\n\u201cThat they may not do injury.\u201d This man, then, who spent his life in the\nstudy of the Talmud, knew nothing of Rambam\u2019s apology. He plainly\nbelieved that by charming serpents on the Sabbath, they might be\nprevented from doing harm, and that on this account, and not for the\npurpose of quieting the mind, they were permitted so to do. This was\nalso the opinion of that famous expounder of Jewish law, the Baal Turim,\nfor after quoting Rambam\u2019s words, he adds:\u2014\n\n\u05de\u05d9 \u05e9\u05e8\u05d5\u05d3\u05e4\u05d9\u05dd \u05d0\u05d7\u05e8\u05d9\u05d5 \u05e0\u05d7\u05e9 \u05d0\u05d5 \u05e2\u05e7\u05e8\u05d1 \u05de\u05d5\u05ea\u05e8 \u05dc\u05d4\u05d1\u05e8 \u05dc\u05dc\u05d7\u05e9 \u05db\u05d3\u05d9 \u05e9\u05dc\u05d0 \u05d9\u05d6\u05d9\u05e7\u05d5\u05d4\u05d5 \u05db\u05ea\u05d1 \u05d4\u05e8\u05de\u05d1\u05f3\u05f3\u05dd\n\u05d4\u05dc\u05d5\u05d7\u05e9 \u05e2\u05dc \u05d4\u05de\u05db\u05d4 \u05d5\u05d4\u05e7\u05d5\u05e8\u05d0 \u05e4\u05e1\u05d5\u05e7 \u05de\u05df \u05d4\u05ea\u05d5\u05e8\u05d4 \u05d5\u05db\u05df \u05d4\u05e7\u05d5\u05e8\u05d0 \u05e2\u05dc \u05d4\u05ea\u05d9\u05e0\u05d5\u05e7 \u05e9\u05dc\u05d0 \u05d9\u05d1\u05e2\u05ea \u05d0\u05d5 \u05de\u05e0\u05d9\u05d7\n\u05e1\u05f3\u05f3\u05ea \u05d0\u05d5 \u05ea\u05e4\u05d9\u05dc\u05d9\u05df \u05e2\u05dc \u05d4\u05e7\u05d8\u05df \u05dc\u05d0 \u05d3\u05d9 \u05dc\u05d4\u05dd \u05e9\u05d4\u05dd \u05d1\u05db\u05dc\u05dc \u05d7\u05d1\u05e8\u05d9\u05dd \u05d5\u05de\u05e0\u05d7\u05e9\u05d9\u05dd \u05d0\u05dc\u05d0 \u05e9\u05d4\u05dd \u05d1\u05db\u05dc\u05dc\n\u05d4\u05db\u05d5\u05e4\u05e8\u05d9\u05dd \u05d1\u05ea\u05d5\u05e8\u05d4 \u05e9\u05e2\u05d5\u05e9\u05d9\u05df \u05d3\u05d1\u05e8\u05d9 \u05ea\u05d5\u05e8\u05d4 \u05e8\u05e4\u05d5\u05d0\u05ea \u05d4\u05d2\u05d5\u05e3 \u05d5\u05d0\u05d9\u05e0\u05df \u05d0\u05dc\u05d0 \u05e8\u05e4\u05d5\u05d0\u05ea \u05d4\u05e0\u05e4\u05e9 \u05d5\u05e8\u05f3\u05f3\u05d9\n\u05e4\u05d9\u05e8\u05e9 \u05d3\u05d5\u05e7\u05d0 \u05d1\u05dc\u05d5\u05d7\u05e9 \u05e2\u05dc \u05d4\u05de\u05db\u05d4 \u05d5\u05de\u05d6\u05db\u05d9\u05e8 \u05e9\u05dd \u05e9\u05de\u05d9\u05dd \u05d5\u05e8\u05d5\u05e7\u05e7 \u05d0\u05d5\u05ea\u05d5 \u05d4\u05d5\u05d0 \u05e9\u05d0\u05d9\u05df \u05dc\u05d5 \u05d7\u05dc\u05e7 \u05dc\u05e2\u05d5\u05dc\u05dd\n\u05d4\u05d1\u05d0 \u05d0\u05d1\u05dc \u05d0\u05dd \u05d0\u05d9\u05e0\u05d5 \u05e8\u05d5\u05e7\u05e7 \u05dc\u05d0 \u05d7\u05de\u05d9\u05e8 \u05db\u05d5\u05dc\u05d9 \u05d4\u05d0\u05d9 \u05d5\u05de\u05d9\u05d4\u05d5 \u05d0\u05d9\u05e1\u05d5\u05e8\u05d0 \u05d0\u05d9\u05db\u05d0 \u05d1\u05dc\u05d5\u05d7\u05e9 \u05e4\u05e1\u05d5\u05e7 \u05e2\u05dc\n\u05d4\u05de\u05db\u05d4 \u05d0\u05e4\u05d9\u05dc\u05d5 \u05d1\u05dc\u05d0 \u05e8\u05e7\u05d9\u05e7\u05d4 \u05d5\u05d1\u05dc\u05d0 \u05d4\u05d6\u05db\u05e8\u05ea \u05e9\u05dd \u05e9\u05de\u05d9\u05dd , \u05d5\u05d0\u05dd \u05d9\u05e9 \u05db\u05d5 \u05e1\u05db\u05e0\u05ea \u05e0\u05e4\u05e9\u05d5\u05ea \u05d4\u05db\u05dc \u05de\u05d5\u05ea\u05e8\n\u05d5\u05de\u05d5\u05ea\u05e8 \u05dc\u05e7\u05e8\u05d5\u05d0 \u05e4\u05e1\u05d5\u05e7 \u05e4\u05d4\u05d2\u05df \u05db\u05d2\u05d5\u05df \u05d1\u05dc\u05d9\u05dc\u05d4 \u05e2\u05dc \u05de\u05d8\u05ea\u05d5 \u05c3\n\n\u201cIf any person be pursued by a serpent or a scorpion, it is lawful to\ncharm it to prevent it from doing injury. Rambam has written, He that\ncharms a wound, or reads a verse from the law (as a charm), and also he\nthat reads over an infant that it may not be afraid, or who lays a roll\nof the law or phylacteries upon a child, are not only to be accounted as\none of the charmers and magicians, but as of the deniers of the law, for\nthey use the words of the law as medicine for the body, whereas it is\nonly a medicine for the soul. R. Isaac says absolutely, that he who\ncharms a wound, mentioning at the same time the name of God and\nspitting, is the charmer of whom it is said that he has no share in the\nworld to come: but if he does not spit, the matter is not so grave. It\nis, however, forbidden to use a verse as a charm over a wound, even\nthough there will be no spitting nor mentioning the name of God. _But if\nlife be in danger, every thing is lawful_; and it is lawful to read a\nverse as a defence, for instance at night in bed.\u201d (Joreh Deah. \u00a7 179.)\nFrom this it is pretty plain that the charming of serpents was allowed,\nnot as Rambam says to quiet the mind of him that had been bitten, but to\nprevent injury, for it is allowed before the man is bitten at all, if he\nbe only pursued by a serpent or a scorpion. But what a picture does this\nwhole passage give us of the religious state of the Rabbinic Jews, both\nrabbies and people. Here you have the people described, not by\nChristians, but by the rabbies themselves, as sunk in the depths of\nsuperstition, using a sepher torah, a roll of the law, or phylacteries\nas a sort of charm for the benefit of children, and you have the rabbies\nforbidding this at one time, but allowing what is equally forbidden by\nGod, to charm serpents: and, in case of danger, declaring that \u201cEvery\nthing is lawful,\u201d that is, allowing them to do what will make them,\naccording to Rambam\u2019s opinion, charmers, magicians, and deniers of the\nlaw. And this is the Jewish religion, and this is what the Jews have\ngained by rejecting Christianity. We, poor Gentiles, who cannot trace\nour pedigree to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, should be ashamed of such\nfollies. And if such wicked heathenish practices were to be found in our\nreligious books, we would not let an hour pass over until we had lifted\nup our voice and protested against them, and should use every lawful\nmeans to deliver our children from such ungodliness and error.\n\nWe have now given quotations from the two great digests of Jewish law on\nthe subject of using charms, but it is worth while to consider the\ncontext of the original passage, upon which these laws are based, as\nthat will prove that the Talmud has not been misrepresented by its\ncompilers.\n\n\u05ea\u05e0\u05d5 \u05e8\u05d1\u05e0\u05df \u05e1\u05db\u05d9\u05df \u05d5\u05de\u05de\u05e9\u05de\u05e9\u05d9\u05df \u05d1\u05d1\u05e0\u05d9 \u05de\u05e2\u05d9\u05d9\u05df \u05d1\u05e9\u05d1\u05ea \u05d5\u05dc\u05d5\u05d7\u05e9\u05d9\u05df \u05dc\u05d7\u05d9\u05e9\u05ea \u05e0\u05d7\u05e9\u05d9\u05dd \u05d5\u05e2\u05e7\u05e8\u05d1\u05d9\u05dd \u05d1\u05e9\u05d1\u05ea\n\u05d5\u05de\u05e2\u05d1\u05d9\u05e8\u05d9\u05df \u05db\u05dc\u05d9 \u05e2\u05dc \u05d2\u05d1 \u05d4\u05e2\u05d9\u05df \u05d1\u05e9\u05d1\u05ea \u05d0\u05de\u05e8 \u05e8\u05d1\u05df \u05e9\u05de\u05e2\u05d5\u05df \u05d1\u05df \u05d2\u05de\u05dc\u05d9\u05d0\u05dc \u05d1\u05de\u05d4 \u05d3\u05d1\u05e8\u05d9\u05dd \u05d0\u05de\u05d5\u05e8\u05d9\u05dd\n\u05d1\u05db\u05dc\u05d9 \u05d4\u05e0\u05d9\u05d8\u05dc \u05d0\u05d1\u05dc \u05d1\u05db\u05dc\u05d9 \u05e9\u05d0\u05d9\u05e0\u05d5 \u05e0\u05d9\u05d8\u05dc \u05d0\u05e1\u05d5\u05e8 \u05d5\u05d0\u05d9\u05df \u05e9\u05d5\u05d0\u05dc\u05d9\u05df \u05d1\u05d3\u05d1\u05e8 \u05e9\u05d3\u05d9\u05dd \u05d1\u05e9\u05d1\u05ea \u05e8\u05f3 \u05d9\u05d5\u05e1\u05d9\n\u05d0\u05d5\u05de\u05e8 \u05d0\u05e3 \u05d1\u05d7\u05d5\u05dc \u05d0\u05e1\u05d5\u05e8 \u05d0\u05de\u05e8 \u05e8\u05d1 \u05d4\u05d5\u05e0\u05d0 \u05d0\u05d9\u05df \u05d4\u05dc\u05db\u05d4 \u05db\u05e8\u05f3 \u05d9\u05d5\u05e1\u05d9 \u05d5\u05d0\u05e3 \u05e8\u05f3 \u05d9\u05d5\u05e1\u05d9 \u05dc\u05d0 \u05d0\u05de\u05e8\u05d4 \u05d0\u05dc\u05d0\n\u05de\u05e9\u05d5\u05dd \u05e1\u05db\u05e0\u05d4 \u05db\u05d9 \u05d4\u05d0 \u05d3\u05e8\u05d1 \u05d9\u05e6\u05d7\u05e7 \u05d1\u05e8 \u05d9\u05d5\u05e1\u05e3 \u05d3\u05d0\u05d9\u05d1\u05dc\u05e2 \u05d1\u05d0\u05e8\u05d6\u05d0 \u05d5\u05d0\u05ea\u05e2\u05d1\u05d9\u05d3 \u05dc\u05d9\u05d4 \u05e0\u05d9\u05e1\u05d0 \u05e4\u05e7\u05e2 \u05d0\u05e8\u05d6\u05d0\n\u05d5\u05e4\u05dc\u05d8\u05d9\u05d4 \u05c3\n\n\u201cOur rabbies have handed down the tradition that it is lawful to anoint\nand rub the stomach (of a sick man) on the Sabbath, also to charm\nserpents and scorpions on the Sabbath: also to pass an instrument across\nthe eye on the Sabbath. R. Simeon, the son of Gamaliel, says, that this\nonly applies to an instrument which may be moved,[26] but with one that\nmay not be moved, it is unlawful. But it is unlawful on the Sabbath to\nmake inquiry of demons. R. Jose says, this is also unlawful on\nweek-days. Rav Huna says, the decision is not according to R. Jose: and\nR. Jose himself said this only on account of danger, for that is what\noccurred in the case of R. Isaac, the son of Joseph, who was swallowed\nup in a cedar tree, but a miracle was wrought for him\u2014the cedar opened\nand cast him out.\u201d (Sanhedrin, fol. 101, col. 1.) We have here, first,\nthe charming of serpents; we ask, then, could the Talmudic doctors\nreally believe in such folly or allow such wickedness on the Sabbath? Is\nthere any misunderstanding, or does the context show, that they were men\nof that superstitious turn of mind to justify this idea? The context is\nall of a piece, for after permitting the charming of serpents, it goes\non to discuss the lawfulness of asking counsel of demons, and here Rashi\nshall explain what this means:\u2014\n\n\u05d1\u05d3\u05d1\u05e8 \u05e9\u05d3\u05d9\u05dd \u05e9\u05db\u05df \u05e2\u05d5\u05e9\u05d9\u05df \u05db\u05e9\u05d0\u05d5\u05d1\u05d3\u05d9\u05df \u05e9\u05d5\u05dd \u05d3\u05d1\u05e8 \u05e9\u05d5\u05d0\u05dc\u05d9\u05df \u05d1\u05de\u05e2\u05e9\u05d4 \u05e9\u05d3\u05d9\u05dd \u05d5\u05d4\u05dd \u05de\u05d2\u05bc\u05d9\u05d3\u05d9\u05dd \u05dc\u05d4\u05dd\n\u05d5\u05d0\u05e1\u05d5\u05e8 \u05dc\u05e2\u05e9\u05d5\u05ea \u05d1\u05e9\u05d1\u05ea \u05de\u05e9\u05d5\u05dd \u05de\u05de\u05e6\u05d5\u05d0 \u05d7\u05e4\u05e6\u05d9\u05da \u05c3\n\n\u201cTo make inquiry of demons, is what they do when any thing is lost. They\nmake inquiry by the work of demons, and they tell them, and this is\nforbidden on the Sabbath, on account of the words, \u2018Not finding thine\nown pleasure.\u2019 (Isaiah lviii. 13.)\u201d This is plainly a magical operation,\nbut yet the rabbies do not say that it is unlawful because it is\nmagical, but because it would be attending to one\u2019s own concerns. In\nlike manner, they say, it is unlawful on week-days, only on account of\nthe danger. And an instance is given in Rabbi Isaac of what might\nhappen; and here, again, we ask counsel of Rashi, in order to understand\nwhat Rabbi Isaac was about. This commentator tells us:\u2014\n\n\u05d4\u05d9\u05d4 \u05e9\u05d5\u05d0\u05dc \u05d1\u05de\u05e2\u05e9\u05d4 \u05e9\u05d3\u05d9\u05dd \u05d5\u05d1\u05e7\u05e9 \u05d4\u05e9\u05d3 \u05dc\u05d4\u05d6\u05d9\u05e7\u05d5 \u05d5\u05e0\u05e2\u05e9\u05d4 \u05dc\u05d5 \u05e0\u05e1 \u05d5\u05d1\u05dc\u05e2\u05d5 \u05d4\u05d0\u05e8\u05d6 \u05c3\n\n\u201cHe was asking counsel, by means of a demoniacal operation, and the\ndemon sought to do him an injury, but a miracle was wrought for him, and\na cedar tree swallowed him.\u201d Such, then, is the context, those men who\npermit the charming of serpents, also teach the doctrine of asking\nadvice of demons, and give us a practical example in one of their\nfriends. There can, therefore, be no mistake; the one feature of their\nreligious system exactly agrees with the other: and the authors of the\noral law represent themselves as patrons and practisers of charms and\nmagic, and therefore to every lover of the Mosaic law, as unwise and\nungodly men. It is, however, curious to see how they endeavoured to\nquiet their own conscience, and that of the people, in a matter so\nevidently repugnant to the plain words of Scripture. They pretended,\nthat there was a holy sort of magic in the practical Cabbala, which men\nmight learn, and then perform the greatest miracles.\n\n\u05d0\u05d9 \u05d1\u05e2\u05d5 \u05e6\u05d3\u05d9\u05e7\u05d9 \u05d1\u05e8\u05d5 \u05e2\u05dc\u05de\u05d0 \u05e9\u05e0\u05d0\u05de\u05e8 \u05db\u05d9 \u05e2\u05d5\u05e0\u05d5\u05ea\u05d9\u05db\u05dd \u05d4\u05d9\u05d5 \u05de\u05d1\u05d3\u05d9\u05dc\u05d9\u05dd \u05d5\u05d2\u05d5\u05f3 \u05e8\u05d1\u05d0 \u05d1\u05e8\u05d0 \u05d2\u05d1\u05e8\u05d0\n\u05e9\u05d3\u05e8\u05d9\u05d4 \u05dc\u05e7\u05de\u05d9\u05d4 \u05d3\u05e8\u05f3 \u05d6\u05d9\u05e8\u05d0 \u05d4\u05d5\u05d4 \u05e7\u05d0 \u05de\u05e9\u05ea\u05e2\u05d9 \u05d1\u05d4\u05d3\u05d9\u05d4 \u05d5\u05dc\u05d0 \u05d4\u05d5\u05d4 \u05e7\u05d0 \u05de\u05d4\u05d3\u05e8 \u05dc\u05d9\u05d4 \u05d0\u05de\u05e8 \u05dc\u05d9\u05d4 \u05de\u05df\n\u05d7\u05d1\u05e8\u05d9\u05d0 \u05d0\u05ea \u05d4\u05d3\u05e8 \u05dc\u05e2\u05e4\u05e8\u05d9\u05da \u05e8\u05d1 \u05d7\u05e0\u05d9\u05e0\u05d0 \u05d5\u05e8\u05d1 \u05d0\u05d5\u05e9\u05e2\u05d9\u05d0 \u05d4\u05d5\u05d5 \u05d9\u05ea\u05d1\u05d9 \u05db\u05dc \u05de\u05e2\u05dc\u05d9 \u05e9\u05d1\u05ea\u05d0 \u05d5\u05e2\u05e1\u05e7\u05d5 \u05d1\u05e1\u05e4\u05e8\n\u05d9\u05e6\u05d9\u05e8\u05d4 \u05d5\u05de\u05d9\u05d1\u05e8\u05d5 \u05dc\u05d4\u05d5 \u05e2\u05d9\u05d2\u05dc\u05d0 \u05ea\u05d9\u05dc\u05ea\u05d0 \u05d5\u05d0\u05db\u05dc\u05d9 \u05dc\u05d9\u05d4 \u05c3\n\n\u201cIf the righteous wished, they might create the world, for it is\nwritten, \u2018But your sins separate, &c.\u2019 Rabba created a man, and sent him\nto Rabbi Zira. He spoke with him, but when the other did not answer him,\nhe said, Thou art from the magicians, return to thy dust. Rav Chanina\nand Rav Oshaia used to sit every Sabbath eve and study the book of\nJetzirah, and then created for themselves a three-years-old calf, and\nate it.\u201d (Sanhedrin, fol. 65, col. 2.) The second miracle is here\nascribed to the study of a certain book. In Rashi the first miracle\nperformed by Rabba is ascribed to the same source.\n\n\u05d1\u05e8\u05d0 \u05d2\u05d1\u05e8\u05d0 \u05e2\u05f3\u05f3\u05d9 \u05e1\u05e4\u05e8 \u05d9\u05e6\u05d9\u05e8\u05d4 \u05e9\u05de\u05dc\u05de\u05d3\u05d5 \u05e6\u05e8\u05d5\u05e3 \u05d0\u05d5\u05ea\u05d9\u05d5\u05ea \u05e9\u05dc \u05e9\u05dd \u05c3\n\n\u201cHe created the man by means of the book of Jetzirah, for it taught him\nthe combination of the letters of the name of God.\u201d According to this\naccount, these rabbies were much greater men than Moses or any of the\nprophets, for in the whole Old Testament there is not one such miracle\nrecorded. Moses never created any thing, neither did he perform any of\nhis miracles without the help of God. Either the Lord immediately\ncommanded him, or he sought the Lord\u2019s help. But these rabbies acquired\nthe power of omnipotence by studying a particular book, and exercised it\neither for their amusement or their profit. Rabba created a man, and\nsent him to Rabbi Zira, not as it appears to do any good, or to glorify\nGod, but simply to show his power, or to act a little bit of waggery;\nand the other two created a fat calf for themselves every Sabbath eve,\nthat they might have a good dinner. The difference between these\nmiracles and those recorded in Scripture is obvious. The Scripture\nmiracles are either for the glory of God, or the good of man. The\nrabbinical miracles are altogether for the glory of man, and the\ngratification of self. Moses smote the rock, and supplied all Israel\nwith water. The rabbies create a calf, and eat it themselves. No doubt\nthere were many poor people in Israel at the time of Rabbies Oshaia and\nChanina, who would have been very glad of a calf for their Sabbath\ndinner, why did they not create a calf or two for them? This selfish\nfalsehood betrays itself, and bears on its front its own condemnation.\nThe whole doctrine of the combination of the letters in the name of God\nis a pure invention of men, whose minds have been debased by\nsuperstition. There is not a word about it in the whole Bible, and it is\nderogatory to the honour of God, who is the only Creator.\n\nThe whole Talmudic doctrine of magic does, however, explain the reason\nwhy the Scribes and Pharisees were so little moved by the real miracles\nof Jesus of Nazareth and his disciples. Their minds were fully possessed\nwith faith in the power of cabalistic magic, they therefore were\ninsensible to the real displays of divine power. They were in the same\nstate of mind as Pharaoh and his magicians, who looked on the miracles\nof Moses as a mere proof of magical skill, and hardened their hearts.\nEven when they confessed \u201cThis is the finger of God,\u201d they were not\nconverted. Pharaoh still persisted in his resistance. And so it was with\nthe Scribes and Pharisees. When the Lord had raised Lazarus from the\ndead, \u201cthen gathered the chief priests and the Pharisees in council, and\nsaid, What do we? for this man doeth many miracles.\u201d They acknowledged\nthe fact of the miracles, but did not receive their evidence, for they\nbelieved that the study of the book of Jetzirah would enable them to do\ngreater. No miracle, therefore, could convince them. But besides this,\ntheir hearts were corrupt, and they had apostatized from the law of\nMoses; they therefore did not love the truth. They had turned aside to\ncharms and magic, and asking counsel of demons; and when men do this,\nthe understanding becomes darkened, so that it is rendered impervious to\nthe light. Their unbelief, therefore, becomes an evidence to the truth\nof Christianity. If such transgressors of the law of Moses, and such\nunblushing relaters of falsehood had believed, it would have cast a\nshade of suspicion over the whole Gospel history. If the men, who say\nthat Rabba created a man, and the two other worthies created a calf\nevery week, had appeared as witnesses for the truth of Christianity, the\nmiracles of the Gospel would have appeared in one category with these\nmost absurd fictions. But when such men appear as the enemies and\npersecutors of Jesus, it testifies that He was not one of them, and that\nas they were bad men, and loved a false system, his doctrine must\nnecessarily have had something good in it, or they would not have\nopposed it.\n\nBut this doctrine explains still more clearly the cause of God\u2019s wrath\nagainst Israel. The Jews boast that since the Babylonian captivity, they\nhave been free from idolatry, but this is not true. They have not made\nimages, that is, they have avoided the form, but they have retained all\nthe substance of idolatrous heathenism. The man who charms a serpent is\nan idolater, and the religion which permits it is idolatrous and\nheathenish. The man who asks counsel of demons is an idolater of the\nworst class, for he does homage to unclean spirits. He turns his back\nupon the allwise God, who ought to be the counsellor of all his\nchildren, and by making demons his advisers, makes them his gods, and\nyet this is also allowed in the religion of the rabbies if it can be\ndone without danger. Those Jews, therefore, who believe in the oral\nlaw\u2014that is, all Jews who make use of the synagogue prayers, have\ndeparted from the law and the God of Moses, and have chosen for\nthemselves the doctrines and the gods of the rabbies. How then can God\nhave compassion upon them and gather them? The thing is impossible,\nuntil they utterly renounce all these delusions, confess their sin in\nhaving followed them so long, and \u201creturn and seek the Lord their God\nand David their king.\u201d A long trial has been made of the rabbinical\nmedicine, and it has altogether failed. Wherever the religion of the\noral law has been or is predominant, its sway has been marked by the\nmisery of the people. And the first dawn of a happier day has appeared\nonly since the time that a part of the nation burst the fetters of\nrabbinic superstition. Compare the state of the German Jews with that of\ntheir brethren in Turkey or on the coast of Morocco. Some of the former\nhave abandoned the oral law, and the latter still cling to it with a\nbigoted devotion; and yet the former have had a blessing in the\nimprovement of their temporal and intellectual condition, and the latter\nstill remain in mental and corporeal slavery. The mere renunciation of\nRabbinism has produced these beneficial effects, and if the Jews of\nEurope go on from the renunciation of error to the attainment of truth,\nthat is, if they return to the religion of Moses and the prophets, the\npromises of God will be fulfilled, and the nation will be restored to\nthe land of their fathers.\n\nThe Rabbinic Jews comfort themselves with the idea, that they cannot\nhave this world and the world to come too; but they confound two things\nwhich are perfectly distinct, God\u2019s mode of dealing with individuals,\nand his mode of dealing with nations. Individuals have not only an\nexistence in time, but for eternity. Worldly misfortune to an individual\nis, therefore, no proof of God\u2019s displeasure, because the world is only\na part, and that the smallest part, of his existence. But the case of\nnations is different. They exist only in time, and therefore the rewards\nand punishments must be temporal, and so God has uniformly promised to\nthe Jewish people temporal prosperity, in case of national obedience,\nand temporal calamity in the former case. Whenever, therefore, we see\nIsrael exiled from their land and scattered among the nations, we must\ninfer, if Moses has spoken the truth, that it is because they have\ndeparted from the God of their fathers.\n\nFootnote 26:\n\n  Such as a key, a ring, or a knife.\u2014Rashi.\n\n\n\n\n                               No. XXVII.\n                             SABBATIC LAWS.\n\n\nHow little the oral law has hitherto done to promote the peace and\nhappiness of Israel, we considered in our last number. It may, however,\nbe replied, that it has not had a fair trial, and that the failure is to\nbe attributed rather to the people than to the law. This possible reply\nnaturally leads us to think, what then would be the state of Israel and\nof the world at large, if the oral law were universally and exactly\nobserved, and its disciples had supreme dominion in the world? Suppose\nthat all the kingdoms of the world were melted into one vast and\nuniversal monarchy, and the sceptre swayed by a devout and learned\nrabbi, and all the magisterial offices filled by able and zealous\nTalmudists, would the world be happy? This is a fair question, and well\ndeserves consideration, for there can be no doubt that true religion was\nintended by its Divine Author to promote the happiness of his\ncreatures:\u2014\n\n\u05d3\u05d5\u05db\u05d9\u05d4 \u05d3\u05e8\u05db\u05d9 \u05e0\u05d5\u05e2\u05dd \u05d5\u05db\u05dc \u05e0\u05ea\u05d9\u05d1\u05d5\u05d1\u05d9\u05d4 \u05e9\u05dc\u05d5\u05dd \u05c3\n\n\u201cHer ways are ways of pleasantness, and all her paths are peace.\u201d (Prov.\niii. 17.) And that not of a few, but of all without exception.\n\n\u05d4\u05dc\u05d0 \u05d0\u05d1 \u05d0\u05d7\u05d3 \u05dc\u05db\u05dc\u05e0\u05d5 , \u05d4\u05dc\u05d0 \u05d0\u05dc \u05d0\u05d7\u05d3 \u05d1\u05e8\u05d0\u05e0\u05d5 \u05c3\n\n\u201cHave we not all one father? Hath not one God created us?\u201d (Mal. ii.\n10.) That religion, therefore, cannot be of God, which would make the\ngreatest portion of his creatures miserable, and confer happiness on a\nvery limited number. The religion that came from heaven, wherever it\nexists, must contain the elements of happiness for all nations, and\ninclude all the families of man. It must exclude none but the wilfully\nand obstinately wicked, who carry the torments of hell in their own\nbosom, and would be necessarily unhappy even in heaven itself. A\nreligion, whose principles, if triumphant, would effect so desirable a\nconsummation, must be true. The question is, whether modern Judaism, if\nit had full and free scope for the realization of all its principles,\nwould bear such blessed fruit? Our late inquiries about amulets and\nmagic led us to consider some of the laws about the Sabbath-day, and as\nwhen true religion prevails, this ought to be the happiest day of the\nweek, the laws respecting it shall furnish materials for our answer.\nThat a rabbinical Sabbath would be the happiest day in the week we much\ndoubt, for, in the first place, to keep the rabbinical Sabbath aright,\nit is necessary to be perfectly acquainted with all the laws relating to\nit, which are very many and very intricate, occupying even in Rambam\u2019s\ncompendium, including the notes, above one hundred and seventy folio\npages.[27] That any conscientious man can be happy with such a load of\nlaw about his neck appears impossible. He must be in continual fear and\ntrembling lest he should through forgetfulness or inadvertence be guilty\nof transgression, and the continued watchfulness and anxiety would be\nmore intolerable than the hardest labour. But if Rabbinism wielded the\nsupreme power, he would have to dread the most severe and immediate\npunishment:\u2014\n\n\u05e9\u05d1\u05d9\u05ea\u05d4 \u05d1\u05e9\u05d1\u05d9\u05e2\u05d9 \u05de\u05de\u05dc\u05d0\u05db\u05d4 \u05de\u05e6\u05d5\u05ea \u05e2\u05e9\u05d4 \u05e9\u05e0\u05d0\u05de\u05e8 \u05d5\u05d1\u05d9\u05d5\u05dd \u05d4\u05e9\u05d1\u05d9\u05e2\u05d9 \u05ea\u05e9\u05d1\u05d5\u05ea , \u05d5\u05db\u05dc \u05d4\u05e2\u05d5\u05e9\u05d4 \u05d1\u05d5\n\u05de\u05dc\u05d0\u05db\u05d4 \u05d1\u05d9\u05d8\u05dc \u05de\u05e6\u05d5\u05ea \u05e2\u05e9\u05d4 \u05d5\u05e2\u05d1\u05e8 \u05e2\u05dc \u05dc\u05d0 \u05ea\u05e2\u05e9\u05d4 \u05e9\u05e0\u05d0\u05de\u05e8 \u05dc\u05d0 \u05ea\u05e2\u05e9\u05d4 \u05db\u05dc \u05de\u05dc\u05d0\u05db\u05d4 , \u05d5\u05de\u05d4\u05d5 \u05d7\u05d9\u05d9\u05d1\n\u05e2\u05dc \u05e2\u05e9\u05d9\u05d9\u05ea \u05de\u05dc\u05d0\u05db\u05d4 \u05d0\u05dd \u05e2\u05e9\u05d4 \u05d1\u05e8\u05e6\u05d5\u05e0\u05d5 \u05d1\u05d6\u05d3\u05d5\u05df \u05d7\u05d9\u05d9\u05d1 \u05db\u05e8\u05ea \u05d5\u05d0\u05dd \u05d4\u05d9\u05d4 \u05e9\u05dd \u05e2\u05d3\u05d9\u05dd \u05d5\u05d4\u05ea\u05e8\u05d0\u05d4 \u05e0\u05e1\u05e7\u05dc\n\u05d5\u05d0\u05dd \u05e2\u05e9\u05d4 \u05d1\u05e9\u05d2\u05d2\u05d4 \u05d7\u05d9\u05d9\u05d1 \u05e7\u05e8\u05d1\u05df \u05d4\u05d8\u05d0\u05ea \u05e7\u05d1\u05d5\u05e2\u05d4 \u05c3\n\n\u201cTo rest on the seventh day from work is an affirmative precept, for it\nis said, \u2018On the seventh day thou shalt rest.\u2019 Whosoever, therefore,\ndoes any work, annuls an affirmative, and transgresses a negative\nprecept, for it is said, \u2018Thou shalt do no manner of work.\u2019 What is\nmeant by being guilty on account of doing work? If it be done\nvoluntarily and presumptuously, the meaning is, that he is liable to\nexcision, and if there were witnesses and a warning, he is to be stoned.\nIf he did it in error, he must bring a certain sin-offering.\u201d (Hilchoth\nShabbath, c. i. 1.) This sounds something like the law of Moses, but is\nin reality far more severe. The whole force depends upon the meaning of\nthe word \u201cwork,\u201d and the rabbinical sense would entirely destroy the\npeace of society. If, for instance, a poor man could not afford to have\nhis Sabbath lamp burn all day, and should extinguish it to save the oil;\nor if a humane man should see burning coals in some place likely to do\ninjury to others, and should extinguish them, they would both be guilty,\nand if some zealous Talmudists happened to be present, and first\nremonstrated with them on the unlawfulness of the act, they would both\nbe tried, found guilty, and stoned to death:\u2014\n\n\u05db\u05dc \u05d4\u05e2\u05d5\u05e9\u05d4 \u05de\u05dc\u05d0\u05db\u05d4 \u05d1\u05e9\u05d1\u05ea \u05d0\u05e2\u05f3\u05f3\u05e4 \u05e9\u05d0\u05d9\u05e0\u05d5 \u05e6\u05e8\u05d9\u05da \u05dc\u05d2\u05d5\u05e4\u05d4 \u05e9\u05dc \u05de\u05dc\u05d0\u05db\u05d4 \u05d7\u05d9\u05d9\u05d1 \u05e2\u05dc\u05d9\u05d4 , \u05db\u05d9\u05e6\u05d3 \u05d4\u05e8\u05d9\n\u05e9\u05db\u05d1\u05d4 \u05d0\u05ea \u05d4\u05e0\u05e8 \u05de\u05e4\u05e0\u05d9 \u05e9\u05d4\u05d5\u05d0 \u05e6\u05e8\u05d9\u05da \u05dc\u05e9\u05de\u05df \u05d0\u05d5 \u05dc\u05e4\u05ea\u05d9\u05dc\u05d4 \u05db\u05d3\u05d9 \u05e9\u05dc\u05d0 \u05d9\u05d0\u05d1\u05d3 \u05d0\u05d5 \u05db\u05d3\u05d9 \u05e9\u05dc\u05d0 \u05d9\u05e9\u05e8\u05e3\n\u05d0\u05d5 \u05db\u05d3\u05d9 \u05e9\u05dc\u05d0 \u05d9\u05d1\u05e7\u05e2 \u05d7\u05e8\u05e1 \u05e9\u05dc \u05e0\u05e8 \u05de\u05e4\u05e0\u05d9 \u05e9\u05d4\u05db\u05d1\u05d5\u05d9 \u05de\u05dc\u05d0\u05db\u05d4 \u05d5\u05d4\u05e8\u05d9 \u05e0\u05ea\u05db\u05d5\u05d5\u05df \u05dc\u05db\u05d1\u05d5\u05ea \u05d5\u05d0\u05e2\u05f3\u05f3\u05e4\n\u05e9\u05d0\u05d9\u05df \u05e6\u05e8\u05d9\u05da \u05dc\u05d2\u05d5\u05e3 \u05d4\u05db\u05d1\u05d5\u05d9 \u05d5\u05dc\u05d0 \u05db\u05d1\u05d4 \u05d0\u05dc\u05d0 \u05de\u05e4\u05e0\u05d9 \u05d4\u05e9\u05de\u05df \u05d0\u05d5 \u05de\u05e4\u05e0\u05d9 \u05d4\u05d7\u05e8\u05e1 \u05d0\u05d5 \u05de\u05e4\u05e0\u05d9 \u05d4\u05e4\u05ea\u05d9\u05dc\u05d4\n\u05d4\u05e8\u05d9 \u05d6\u05d4 \u05d7\u05d9\u05d9\u05d1 , \u05d5\u05db\u05df \u05d4\u05de\u05e2\u05d1\u05d9\u05e8 \u05d0\u05ea \u05d4\u05e7\u05d5\u05e5 \u05d3\u05f3 \u05d0\u05de\u05d5\u05ea \u05d1\u05e8\u05d4\u05f3\u05f3\u05e8 \u05d0\u05d5 \u05d4\u05de\u05db\u05d1\u05d4 \u05d0\u05ea \u05d4\u05d2\u05d7\u05dc\u05ea \u05db\u05d3\u05d9\n\u05e9\u05dc\u05d0 \u05d9\u05d6\u05d5\u05e7\u05d5 \u05d1\u05d5 \u05e8\u05d1\u05d9\u05dd \u05d7\u05d9\u05d9\u05d1 \u05d5\u05d0\u05e2\u05f3\u05f3\u05e4 \u05e9\u05d0\u05d9\u05e0\u05d5 \u05e6\u05e8\u05d9\u05da \u05dc\u05d2\u05d5\u05e3 \u05d4\u05db\u05d1\u05d5\u05d9 \u05d0\u05d5 \u05dc\u05d2\u05d5\u05e3 \u05d7\u05d4\u05e2\u05d1\u05e8\u05d4 \u05d0\u05dc\u05d0\n\u05dc\u05d4\u05e8\u05d7\u05d9\u05e7 \u05d4\u05d4\u05d9\u05d6\u05e7 \u05d4\u05e8\u05d9 \u05d6\u05d4 \u05d7\u05d9\u05d9\u05d1 \u05d5\u05db\u05df \u05db\u05dc \u05db\u05d9\u05d5\u05e6\u05d0 \u05d1\u05d6\u05d4 \u05c3\n\n\u201cWhosoever does any work on the Sabbath, even though he does not do it\nfor the sake of the work itself, is nevertheless guilty. How so? If, for\ninstance, a man extinguishes a lamp, because he wants the oil or the\nwick, and wishes that it should not waste, nor be burned, or that the\nearthenware part of the lamp should not be cracked; inasmuch as the\nextinguishing is work, and his intention was to extinguish it: although\nthe mere act of extinguishing it was not the ultimate object, but on the\ncontrary, the saving of the oil or the wick, or the earthen lamp, he is,\nnevertheless, guilty. And in like manner, whosoever, removes thorns a\ndistance of four ells in a public place, or whosoever extinguishes coals\nto prevent the public from being injured, is guilty: although the\nultimate object was not the extinguishing nor the moving, but he simply\nintended to prevent the injury, he is guilty, and so in all similar\ncases.\u201d (Ibid.) If this were the law of the land, and the executive were\nin the hands of Talmudistic zealots, the peace of the world would be at\nan end. The poor man could not be happy, when he saw his little property\nwasting; and the humane man would either be made miserable at the\nthought of being able to prevent much injury, and yet not doing it, or\nwould have to expose himself to the danger of a cruel and ignominious\ndeath. We know enough of the general character of the Jewish nation to\nbelieve that there are amongst them those who would brave the danger,\nwhose generous hearts would rise above personal considerations, but how\ndreadful would be the consequences! A man of a tender heart, the father\nof a family, would be induced, by the best of feelings, to save his\nfellow-men from injury. He would return to his family, and tell them how\nGod had given him an opportunity of doing good. The family worthy of\nsuch a father would rejoice to hear the information, but the sequel of\nhis story would turn their joy into mourning. He would have to tell them\nthat ignominious death would be the consequence, and that because he\ndared to do an act of charity, and to love his brother as himself, the\nmorrow would see his wife a widow and his children orphans. But suppose,\nthat when he performed the act, he had been attended by two of his sons,\nnow grown up, and zealots for the oral law\u2014that they had warned him, and\nthen became his accusers, as they must, if firm believers in Talmudic\nreligion, he would have the additional pangs of seeing his own flesh and\nblood as the foremost of his executioners. This one law would clothe the\nworld with mourning, and make the light of the Sabbath sun the curse of\nmankind. Though men might be found at first to brave the danger, the\ncourse of time and the inflexible severity of the law would soon\nannihilate all generous feeling. Children would be trained up with the\nidea that humanity is not a Sabbath virtue, and the constant resistance\nof the tender feelings would harden the heart, and mankind in time\nbecome totally insensible on week-days as well as Sabbath-days; and thus\nthe enforcement of this one law would produce universal selfishness, and\nthis would certainly not promote the happiness of the world. But take\nanother case of a man, who leaves his home on the Friday morning to go a\nshort distance into the country, intending to return before the\ncommencement of the Sabbath; he meets with an accident, and breaks a\nlimb; on the Sabbath he is sufficiently restored to think of the anxiety\nof his family, and writes a short note to inform them of his state, this\nact of common love and kindness would cost him his life; nay, if he had\nonly begun the letter, and then overcome by fear or weakness, had left\nit unfinished, a rabbinic tribunal would condemn him to be stoned.\n\n\u05db\u05dc \u05d4\u05de\u05ea\u05db\u05d5\u05d5\u05df \u05dc\u05e2\u05e9\u05d5\u05ea \u05de\u05dc\u05d0\u05db\u05d4 \u05d1\u05e9\u05d1\u05ea \u05d5\u05d4\u05ea\u05d7\u05d9\u05dc \u05d1\u05d4 \u05d5\u05e2\u05e9\u05d4 \u05db\u05e9\u05d9\u05e2\u05d5\u05e8 \u05d7\u05d9\u05d9\u05d1 \u05d0\u05e2\u05f3\u05f3\u05e4 \u05e9\u05dc\u05d0 \u05d4\u05e9\u05dc\u05d9\u05dd\n\u05db\u05dc \u05d4\u05de\u05dc\u05d0\u05db\u05d4 \u05e9\u05e0\u05ea\u05db\u05d5\u05d5\u05df \u05dc\u05d4\u05e9\u05dc\u05d9\u05de\u05d4 , \u05db\u05d9\u05e6\u05d3 \u05d4\u05e8\u05d9 \u05e9\u05e0\u05ea\u05db\u05d5\u05d5\u05df \u05dc\u05db\u05ea\u05d5\u05d1 \u05d0\u05d2\u05e8\u05ea \u05d0\u05d5 \u05e9\u05d8\u05e8 \u05d1\u05e9\u05d1\u05ea \u05d0\u05d9\u05df\n\u05d0\u05d5\u05de\u05e8\u05d9\u05dd \u05dc\u05d0 \u05d9\u05ea\u05d7\u05d9\u05d9\u05d1 \u05d6\u05d4 \u05e2\u05d3 \u05e9\u05d9\u05e9\u05dc\u05d9\u05dd \u05d7\u05e4\u05e6\u05d5 \u05d5\u05d9\u05db\u05ea\u05d5\u05ea \u05db\u05dc \u05d4\u05e9\u05d8\u05e8 \u05d0\u05d5 \u05db\u05dc \u05d4\u05d0\u05d2\u05e8\u05ea \u05d0\u05dc\u05d0\n\u05de\u05e9\u05d9\u05db\u05ea\u05d5\u05d1 \u05e9\u05ea\u05d9 \u05d0\u05d5\u05ea\u05d9\u05d5\u05ea \u05d7\u05d9\u05d9\u05d1 \u05c3\n\n\u201cWhosoever intends to do any work on the Sabbath, and begins it, and\ndoes a certain measure, is guilty, although he does not finish all that\nhe intended. How so? Suppose he intended to write a letter, or a\ncontract on the Sabbath, it is not to be thought that he will not be\nguilty until he finish his business, and write the whole contract or the\nwhole letter. On the contrary, as soon as he shall have written two\nletters (of the alphabet) he is guilty.\u201d (Ibid.) And consequently, if it\ncan be proved, must be stoned. Every one\u2019s daily experience will tell\nthem of the many similar cases where a letter may be necessary for the\npeace or well-being of an individual or a family, and where the delay of\na day would be a serious injury. If rabbinism held the reins of power,\nthe anxiety, the sorrow, the injury must all be endured; the Sabbath-day\nmust be made a burden and a curse, instead of a blessing, or life itself\nmust be exposed to danger. But this would not be the only misery. These\nsanguinary laws would, as religious laws, bind the consciences of the\nweak and superstitious. A man\u2019s domestics, or his children, or even his\nwife, would become spies over all his Sabbath doings, and the denouncers\nof every transgression; and thus domestic confidence, without which not\neven the shadow of happiness can exist, would be destroyed, and a man\u2019s\nfoes would be those of his own household. Much has lately been thought\nand said about the sanguinary nature of the laws of England, but the\nlaws of Draco himself were merciful when compared with the religious\nenactments of the rabbies. Draco only sentenced to death men convicted\nof a crime. The oral law condemns to stoning the man, woman, or child\nwho will venture to write two letters of the alphabet, or even who will\nextinguish fire to prevent a public injury. Nay, in some cases, where it\nactually pronounces a man innocent, it nevertheless commands him to be\nflogged.\n\n\u05e0\u05ea\u05db\u05d5\u05d5\u05df \u05dc\u05dc\u05e7\u05d5\u05d8 \u05ea\u05d0\u05e0\u05d9\u05dd \u05e9\u05d7\u05d5\u05e8\u05d5\u05ea \u05d5\u05dc\u05d9\u05e7\u05d8 \u05dc\u05d1\u05e0\u05d5\u05ea \u05d0\u05d5 \u05e9\u05e0\u05ea\u05db\u05d5\u05d5\u05df \u05dc\u05dc\u05e7\u05d5\u05d8 \u05ea\u05d0\u05e0\u05d9\u05dd \u05d5\u05d0\u05d7\u05e8 \u05db\u05da\n\u05e2\u05e0\u05d1\u05d9\u05dd \u05d5\u05e0\u05d4\u05e4\u05da \u05d4\u05d3\u05d1\u05e8 \u05d5\u05dc\u05d9\u05e7\u05d8 \u05d4\u05e2\u05e0\u05d1\u05d9\u05dd \u05d1\u05ea\u05d7\u05dc\u05d4 \u05d5\u05d0\u05d7\u05f3\u05f3\u05db \u05ea\u05d0\u05e0\u05d9\u05dd \u05e4\u05d8\u05d5\u05e8 \u05d0\u05e2\u05f3\u05f3\u05e4 \u05e9\u05dc\u05d9\u05e7\u05d8 \u05db\u05dc \u05de\u05d4\n\u05e9\u05d7\u05e9\u05d1 \u05d4\u05d5\u05d0\u05d9\u05dc \u05d5\u05dc\u05d0 \u05dc\u05d9\u05e7\u05d8 \u05db\u05e1\u05d3\u05e8 \u05e9\u05d7\u05e9\u05d1 \u05e4\u05d8\u05d5\u05e8 \u05e9\u05d1\u05dc\u05d0 \u05db\u05d5\u05d5\u05e0\u05d4 \u05e2\u05e9\u05d4 \u05e9\u05dc\u05d0 \u05d0\u05e1\u05e8\u05d4 \u05d4\u05ea\u05d5\u05e8\u05d4 \u05d0\u05dc\u05d0\n\u05de\u05dc\u05d0\u05db\u05ea \u05de\u05d7\u05e9\u05d1\u05ea \u05c3\n\n\u201cIf a man intended to gather black figs, but gathered white figs, or if\nhe intended to gather figs and afterwards grapes, but the matter has\nbeen inverted, and he gathered the grapes first, and afterwards the\nfigs, he is not guilty. Although he have gathered all that he thought of\ngathering, yet, because he did not gather them in the intended order, he\nis not guilty, for he did what was unintentional, and the law forbids\nonly intentional work.\u201d (Ibid.) We pass by the manifest absurdity of\nthis decision, which is, however, sufficient to prove that this law is\nnot of God, because it is more important to consider what is to be done\nwith a man not guilty. The law of England, or any other civilized\ncountry, would say, of course, that he is to go free; but not so the\noral law, it commands that the man should be flogged.\n\n\u05d5\u05db\u05dc \u05de\u05e7\u05d5\u05dd \u05e9\u05e0\u05d0\u05de\u05e8 \u05e9\u05d4\u05e2\u05d5\u05e9\u05d4 \u05d3\u05d1\u05e8 \u05d6\u05d4 \u05e4\u05d8\u05d5\u05e8 , \u05d4\u05e8\u05d9 \u05d6\u05d4 \u05e4\u05d8\u05d5\u05e8 \u05de\u05df \u05d4\u05db\u05e8\u05ea \u05d5\u05de\u05df \u05d4\u05e1\u05e7\u05d9\u05dc\u05d4 \u05d5\u05de\u05df\n\u05d4\u05e7\u05e8\u05d1\u05df \u05d0\u05d1\u05dc \u05d0\u05e1\u05d5\u05e8 \u05dc\u05e2\u05e9\u05d5\u05ea \u05d0\u05d5\u05ea\u05d5 \u05d3\u05d1\u05e8 \u05d1\u05e9\u05d1\u05ea \u05d5\u05d0\u05d9\u05e1\u05d5\u05e8\u05d5 \u05de\u05d3\u05d1\u05e8\u05d9 \u05e1\u05d5\u05e4\u05e8\u05d9\u05dd \u05d5\u05d4\u05d5\u05d0 \u05d4\u05e8\u05d7\u05e7\u05d4 \u05de\u05df\n\u05d4\u05de\u05dc\u05d0\u05db\u05d4 \u05d5\u05d4\u05e2\u05d5\u05e9\u05d4 \u05d0\u05d5\u05ea\u05d5 \u05d1\u05d6\u05d3\u05d5\u05df \u05de\u05db\u05d9\u05df \u05d0\u05d5\u05ea\u05d5 \u05de\u05db\u05d5\u05ea \u05de\u05e8\u05d3\u05d5\u05ea \u05c3\n\n\u201cWherever it is said, he that doeth anything is not guilty, the meaning\nis, that he is not liable to excision, nor stoning, nor a sacrifice, but\nthat thing is unlawful to be done, and the prohibition is of the words\nof the Scribes, and is intended as a removal from the possibility of\nwork: and he that does it presumptuously, is to be flogged with the\nflogging of rebellion.\u201d (Ibid.) Here, then, we have a whole class of\ncrimes which the oral law itself allows are no crimes according to the\nlaw of Moses, but which it thinks fit to punish with that dreadful and\ndegrading infliction. Are the professors of this traditional religion\nreally acquainted with its ordinances? or can any man believe that a\nreligion which, if it had full scope and power, would become the torment\nof the human race, can emanate from God?\n\nIf ever this religion attains supreme power, its adherents will be\nreduced to a state of the most deplorable bondage, but what would be its\neffect upon the other nations of the world? It would, in the first\nplace, deprive all other nations of a Sabbath; for we have already\nquoted the law (No. 3, p. 22), which decides, \u201cThat a Gentile who keeps\na Sabbath, though it be on one of the week-days is guilty of death,\u201d and\nthough not to be executed, is yet to be flogged. This would be a very\nserious diminution from the happiness of millions of human beings. The\nGentile\u2014who, like the Jew, must earn his bread by the sweat of his brow,\nand devote six days to the concerns of the world\u2014requires a day of rest\nfrom secular labours, and cares, and thoughts, to relieve his body and\nto refresh his soul, and hold communion with his God. Of this the oral\nlaw would deprive him, or, if his conscience compelled him to sanctify\none day in seven, he would have to purchase his spiritual enjoyment by\ncorporeal suffering. Many would, no doubt, be terrified at the thought\nof the punishment, and all trace of a Sabbath would in time cease\namongst the Gentiles. The multitude would soon be left destitute of\nreligious instruction, and general vice and misery be the consequence.\nThis religion, then, of the oral law, would certainly not promote the\nhappiness of the Gentiles, and they are the overwhelming majority of\nmankind: it therefore cannot be of God. But the violent deprivation of a\nholy day of rest would be far from producing kindly feelings towards the\nJews. Mankind would rebel against such oppression; and the religion\nwhich commanded it instead of obtaining their reverence, as it ought to\ndo if true, would become their detestation. This unhappy feeling would\nbe increased by other similar laws, equally wanting in charity. For\ninstance\u2014\n\n\u05d0\u05d9\u05df \u05de\u05d9\u05dc\u05d3\u05d9\u05df \u05d0\u05ea \u05d4\u05d2\u05d5\u05d9\u05d4 \u05d1\u05e9\u05d1\u05ea \u05d5\u05d0\u05e4\u05d9\u05dc\u05d5 \u05d1\u05e9\u05db\u05e8 \u05d5\u05d0\u05d9\u05df \u05d7\u05d5\u05e9\u05e9\u05d9\u05df \u05dc\u05d0\u05d9\u05d1\u05d4 \u05d5\u05d0\u05e2\u05f3\u05f3\u05e4 \u05e9\u05d0\u05d9\u05df \u05e9\u05dd\n\u05d7\u05d9\u05dc\u05d5\u05dc \u05d4\u05e9\u05dd \u05d0\u05d1\u05dc \u05de\u05d9\u05dc\u05d3\u05d9\u05df \u05d0\u05ea \u05d1\u05ea \u05d2\u05e8 \u05ea\u05d5\u05e9\u05d1 \u05de\u05e4\u05e0\u05d9 \u05e9\u05d0\u05e0\u05d5 \u05de\u05e6\u05d5\u05d5\u05d9\u05df \u05dc\u05d4\u05d7\u05d9\u05d5\u05ea\u05d5 \u05d5\u05d0\u05d9\u05df \u05de\u05d7\u05dc\u05dc\u05d9\u05df\n\u05e2\u05dc\u05d9\u05d4 \u05d0\u05ea \u05d4\u05e9\u05d1\u05ea \u05c3\n\n\u201cA Gentile woman is not to be delivered upon the Sabbath, not even for\npayment, neither is the enmity to be regarded. It is not to be done,\neven though no profanation of the Sabbath should be implied. But the\ndaughter of a sojourning proselyte may be delivered, for we are\ncommanded to preserve the life of such, but the Sabbath is not to be\nprofaned on her account.\u201d (Ibid. chap. ii. 12.) We ask every Jew who has\ngot the heart of a man, whether such a law can be from God? or whether\nthe religion of which it forms a part can be true? A poor woman, in the\nhour of her extremity, is to be left to her fate, simply because she is\nan idolatress. The mother and the child are both to be left to perish,\nbecause, either through her own fault, or through the circumstances of\nher birth, she has remained ignorant of the true God. But grant, for the\nsake of argument, that the mother is so hardened a sinner as to be\nbeyond the mercies of sinful men, what has the child done, that its life\nis to be given as a sport to chance? Is that the way to convert a sinner\nfrom the error of her ways, or to recommend the true religion? The most\nbesotted of idolaters, who believes at all in a Divine and merciful\nbeing, would pronounce such religion false. A few such cases would soon\nspread through the world, and Judaism become the aversion of every heart\nthat can sympathize with suffering. And thus, if true, it would confirm\nall mankind in error. But it cannot be: the religion that comes from God\nbears the impress of its author, and teaches such love and kindness that\nthe practice of it softens, where it does not convert. Its bitterest\nenemies must confess that its practical principles are worthy of all\nadmiration. But there is here a second case, the daughter of a\nsojourning proselyte, towards whom the oral law is a little more\nlenient, it allows such an one to be delivered, but does not permit the\nSabbath to be profaned on her account. Suppose then that such an one\nfound herself in the midst of Jews, and after her delivery required the\ncomfort of a fire or warm food for herself or her infant, or any other\nassistance that would imply a breach of the Sabbath, it could not be\ndone, but for an Israelitess it may be done; can this proceed from Him\nwho seeks the happiness of all his creatures? It cannot be said that\nthis is a rare case, for it is easy to show that this is the general\nspirit of the oral law:\u2014\n\n\u05d4\u05d9\u05ea\u05d4 \u05d7\u05e6\u05e8 \u05e9\u05d9\u05e9 \u05d1\u05d4 \u05d2\u05d5\u05d9\u05dd \u05d5\u05d9\u05e9\u05e8\u05d0\u05dc\u05d9\u05dd \u05d0\u05e4\u05d9\u05dc\u05d5 \u05d9\u05e9\u05e8\u05d0\u05dc \u05d0\u05d7\u05d3 \u05d5\u05d0\u05dc\u05e3 \u05d2\u05d5\u05d9\u05dd \u05d5\u05e0\u05e4\u05dc\u05d4 \u05e2\u05dc\u05d9\u05d4\u05dd\n\u05de\u05e4\u05d5\u05dc\u05ea \u05de\u05e4\u05e7\u05d7\u05d9\u05df \u05e2\u05dc \u05d4\u05db\u05dc \u05de\u05e4\u05e0\u05d9 \u05d9\u05e9\u05e8\u05d0\u05dc , \u05e4\u05d9\u05e8\u05e9 \u05d0\u05d7\u05d3 \u05de\u05d4\u05dd \u05dc\u05d7\u05e6\u05e8 \u05d0\u05d7\u05e8\u05ea \u05d5\u05e0\u05e4\u05dc\u05d4 \u05d0\u05dc\u05d9\u05d5 \u05d0\u05d5\u05ea\u05d5\n\u05d7\u05e6\u05e8 \u05de\u05e4\u05e7\u05d4\u05d9\u05df \u05e2\u05dc\u05d9\u05d5 \u05e9\u05de\u05d0 \u05d6\u05d4 \u05e9\u05e4\u05d9\u05e8\u05e9 \u05d4\u05d9\u05d4 \u05d9\u05e9\u05e8\u05d0\u05dc \u05d5\u05d4\u05e0\u05e9\u05d0\u05e8\u05d9\u05dd \u05d2\u05d5\u05d9\u05dd , \u05e0\u05e2\u05e7\u05e8\u05d5 \u05db\u05d5\u05dc\u05df \u05de\u05d7\u05e6\u05e8\n\u05d6\u05d5 \u05dc\u05d9\u05dc\u05da \u05dc\u05d7\u05e6\u05e8 \u05d0\u05d7\u05e8\u05ea \u05d5\u05d1\u05e2\u05ea \u05e2\u05e7\u05d9\u05e8\u05ea\u05df \u05e4\u05d9\u05e8\u05e9 \u05d0\u05d7\u05d3 \u05de\u05d4\u05dd \u05d5\u05e0\u05db\u05e0\u05e1 \u05dc\u05d7\u05e6\u05e8 \u05d0\u05d7\u05e8\u05ea \u05d5\u05e0\u05e4\u05dc\u05d4 \u05e2\u05dc\u05d9\u05d5\n\u05de\u05e4\u05d5\u05dc\u05ea \u05d5\u05d0\u05d9\u05df \u05d9\u05d3\u05d5\u05e2 \u05de\u05d9 \u05d4\u05d5\u05d0 \u05d0\u05d9\u05df \u05de\u05e4\u05e7\u05d7\u05d9\u05df \u05e2\u05dc\u05d9\u05d5 , \u05e9\u05db\u05d9\u05d5\u05df \u05e9\u05e0\u05e2\u05e7\u05e8\u05d5 \u05db\u05d5\u05dc\u05dd \u05d0\u05d9\u05df \u05db\u05d0\u05df \u05d9\u05e9\u05e8\u05d0\u05dc\n, \u05d5\u05db\u05dc \u05d4\u05e4\u05d5\u05e8\u05e9 \u05de\u05d4\u05df \u05db\u05e9\u05d4\u05df \u05de\u05d4\u05dc\u05db\u05d9\u05df \u05d4\u05e8\u05d9 \u05d4\u05d5\u05d0 \u05d1\u05d7\u05d6\u05e7\u05ea \u05e9\u05e4\u05d9\u05e8\u05e9 \u05de\u05df \u05d4\u05e8\u05d5\u05d1 \u05c3\n\n\u201cIf Gentiles and Israelites live together in one court, even if there be\nonly one Israelite and a thousand Gentiles, and a ruin fall on one of\nthem, the rubbish is to be cleared away, on account of the Israelite. If\none of them had gone by himself to another court, and that court fell\nupon him, the rubbish is also to be cleared away, for perhaps this one\nwas the Israelite, and the rest were Gentiles. But if they all set out\nto go from this court to another court, and during the time of their\nmoving, one of them separated and went to another court, and a ruin fell\nupon him, and it is not known who he is, the rubbish is not to be\ncleared away. For as they all moved together, it is certain that the\nIsraelite was not amongst them; and every one who separated from them,\nwhilst going, is to be reckoned as belonging to the majority.\u201d (Ibid.\n20, 21.) Here the same utter recklessness of Gentile life or comfort is\ndisplayed, and no one will pretend that such laws, if carried into\neffect, would promote the happiness of mankind. Accidents, like births,\nhappen on the Jewish Sabbath as well as on the other days, but if the\noral law had power, the Gentiles to whom any accident happened, might\nwait until the Sabbath was over, and must thus lose the only comfort\nwhich is possible on such an occasion. When a man is suffering from\nsevere bodily injury, there are but two sources of consolation; the one\nis the kind and benevolent attentions of man, the other the remembrance\nof God\u2019s mercy and goodness, but the oral law cuts off both from the\nsuffering Gentile. It forbids its disciples to help him, and says at the\nsame time that this is the law of God. But could the Jews themselves be\nhappy on that Sabbath, where such an accident occurred, and where they\nhad left a poor Gentile buried under the ruins of a building? Could they\nenjoy peace in the bosom of their family, or could they find holy\npleasure in the prayers of the synagogue when they had left one of God\u2019s\ncreatures, a fellow-man, to perish in his misery? But this law would\naffect more than the individual sufferer, and the few surrounding\nspectators. It would prevent all brotherly love between Jews and\nGentiles, and until all men learn the reality of charity, the world\ncannot be happy. If it be true that the religion given by God, wherever\nit is carried into practice, makes men happy, then the religion of the\noral law cannot be true, for, if practised, it would make, all men\nmiserable.\n\nFootnote 27:\n\n  Hilchoth Shabbath and Hilchoth Eruvin extend from fol. 140 to fol.\n  226.\n\n\n\n\n                              No. XXVIII.\n                FAST FOR THE DESTRUCTION OF THE TEMPLE.\n\n\nAll who believe the Bible look forward, in full assurance of hope, to\nthat happy period, when Israel shall be gathered from the four corners\nof the earth, and restored to the land of their forefathers and the\nfavour of their God. The days of their mourning shall then be ended, and\ntheir fasts, now observed on account of the misfortunes of the nation,\nshall be turned into joy and gladness:\u2014\n\n\u05db\u05d4 \u05d0\u05de\u05e8 \u05d4\u05f3 \u05e6\u05d1\u05d0\u05d5\u05ea \u05e6\u05d5\u05dd \u05d4\u05e8\u05d1\u05d9\u05e2\u05d9 \u05d5\u05e6\u05d5\u05dd \u05d4\u05d7\u05de\u05d9\u05e9 \u05d5\u05e6\u05d5\u05dd \u05d4\u05e9\u05d1\u05d9\u05e2\u05d9 \u05d5\u05e6\u05d5\u05dd \u05d4\u05e2\u05e9\u05d9\u05e8\u05d9 \u05e8\u05d4\u05e8\u05d4 \u05dc\u05d1\u05d9\u05ea\n\u05d9\u05d4\u05d5\u05d3\u05d4 \u05dc\u05e9\u05e9\u05d5 \u05d5\u05dc\u05e9\u05de\u05d7\u05d4 \u05d5\u05dc\u05de\u05d5\u05e2\u05d3\u05d9\u05dd \u05d8\u05d5\u05d1\u05d9\u05dd \u05d5\u05d4\u05d0\u05de\u05ea \u05d5\u05d4\u05e9\u05dc\u05d5\u05dd \u05d0\u05d4\u05d1\u05d5 \u05c3\n\n\u201cThus saith the Lord of hosts, the fast of the fourth month, and the\nfast of the fifth, and the fast of the seventh, and the fast of the\ntenth, shall be to the house of Judah joy and gladness, and cheerful\nfeasts: therefore love the truth and peace.\u201d (Zech. viii. 19.) At that\ntime, the prophet goes on to tell us, Jerusalem shall be the metropolis\nof the world, and the common centre to which all the nations of the\nearth shall flow \u201cto seek the Lord of hosts and to pray before him.\u201d We\nChristians believe this as fully, and long for the happy accomplishment\nas ardently as the Jews. It would give us unspeakable pleasure to behold\nthe Jews on that height of moral dignity and glory for which God\ndestined them, from the first hour that he chose their father Abraham to\nbe His friend. We desire the arrival of this happy period, for the sake\nof the Jews themselves, but surely no Jew will feel offended with us if\nwe say that we desire it also for our own sakes and for the sake of all\nthe families of men. We should wish to see Divine truth triumphant, sin\nand misery banished, and brotherly love universal, but we see all these\nthings connected with the restoration of Israel, and the establishment\nof the kingdom of God upon earth, and therefore we join with all our\nheart in the the most ardent aspirations of the Jewish people, and say,\n\u201cAmen\u201d to every prayer that God \u201cwould remember his covenant with\nAbraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and that he would also remember the land.\u201d\nBut, alas! these prayers and wishes and anticipations all remind us that\nthat happy day is still future. Israel is still scattered among the\nnations, and instead of having days of joy and gladness, is about to\nobserve another solemn day of mourning in remembrance of the desolation\nof their city and temple. The ninth of the month of Av is still a fast,\nand Rambam thus describes the causes of mourning on that day:\u2014\n\n\u05d5\u05d8\u05f3 \u05d1\u05d0\u05d1 \u05d4\u05f3 \u05d3\u05d1\u05e8\u05d9\u05dd \u05d0\u05d9\u05e8\u05e2\u05d5\u05bc \u05d1\u05d5 , \u05e0\u05d2\u05d6\u05e8 \u05e2\u05dc \u05d9\u05e9\u05e8\u05d0\u05dc \u05d1\u05de\u05d3\u05d1\u05e8 \u05e9\u05dc\u05d0 \u05d9\u05db\u05e0\u05e1\u05d5 \u05dc\u05d0\u05e8\u05e5 , \u05d5\u05d7\u05e8\u05d1\n\u05d4\u05d1\u05d9\u05ea \u05d1\u05e8\u05d0\u05e9\u05d5\u05e0\u05d4 \u05d5\u05d1\u05e9\u05e0\u05d9\u05d4 , \u05d5\u05e0\u05dc\u05db\u05d3\u05d4 \u05e2\u05d9\u05e8 \u05d2\u05d3\u05d5\u05dc\u05d4 \u05d5\u05d1\u05d9\u05ea\u05e8 \u05e9\u05de\u05d4 , \u05d5\u05d4\u05d9\u05d5 \u05d1\u05d4 \u05d0\u05dc\u05e4\u05d9\u05dd \u05d5\u05e8\u05d1\u05d1\u05d5\u05ea\n\u05de\u05d9\u05e9\u05e8\u05d0\u05dc , \u05d5\u05d4\u05d9\u05d4 \u05dc\u05d4\u05dd \u05de\u05dc\u05da \u05d2\u05d3\u05d5\u05dc \u05e8\u05d3\u05de\u05d5 \u05db\u05dc \u05d9\u05e9\u05e8\u05d0\u05dc \u05d5\u05d2\u05d3\u05d5\u05dc\u05d9 \u05d4\u05d7\u05db\u05de\u05d9\u05dd \u05e9\u05d4\u05d5\u05d0 \u05de\u05dc\u05da \u05d4\u05de\u05e9\u05d9\u05d7 ,\n\u05d5\u05e0\u05e4\u05dc \u05d1\u05d9\u05d3 \u05d4\u05d2\u05d5\u05d9\u05dd \u05d5\u05e0\u05d4\u05e8\u05d2\u05d5 \u05db\u05d5\u05dc\u05dd \u05d5\u05d4\u05d9\u05ea\u05d4 \u05e6\u05e8\u05d4 \u05d2\u05d3\u05d5\u05dc\u05d4 \u05db\u05de\u05d5 \u05d7\u05d5\u05e8\u05d1\u05df \u05d1\u05d9\u05ea \u05d4\u05de\u05e7\u05d3\u05e9 \u05d0\u05ea \u05d4\u05d4\u05d9\u05db\u05dc\n\u05d5\u05d0\u05ea \u05e1\u05d1\u05d9\u05d1\u05d9\u05d5 \u05dc\u05e7\u05d9\u05d9\u05dd \u05de\u05d4 \u05e9\u05e0\u05d0\u05de\u05e8 \u05e6\u05d9\u05d5\u05df \u05e9\u05d3\u05d4 \u05ea\u05d7\u05e8\u05e9 \u05c3\n\n\u201cOn the ninth of Av five things happened. It was decreed in the\nwilderness that Israel should not enter into the land. The temple was\ndestroyed, both the first and second time. The great city named Bither\nwas taken, and there were in it thousands and tens of thousands of\nIsrael, and they had a great king, whom all Israel and the greatest of\nthe wise men imagined to be the King Messiah. But he fell into the hands\nof the Gentiles, and the Israelites were all slain, and there was a\ngreat affliction similar to the desolation of the temple. On this same\nday, destined for punishment, the wicked Turnus Rufus ploughed up the\nsanctuary and the adjacent parts, to fulfil that which is said, \u2018Zion\nshall be ploughed as a field.\u2019 (Mich. iii. 12.)\u201d (Hilchoth Taanioth, c.\nv.) The mere enumeration of all these dreadful inflictions of the\nAlmighty suggest many and grave topics for reflection, but the most\nimportant of all is, the cause of the last desolation of the temple, and\nthe present long captivity. To mourn over past misfortunes and to humble\nourselves for past sins, is indeed good and wholesome; but if it does\nnot teach us how to remedy the one and to avoid the other, it can only\nterminate in despair. Every Israelite, therefore, who weeps for the\ndesolation of the holy and beautiful house where his fathers worshipped,\nshould also set himself earnestly to inquire into the cause and remedy\nof this great calamity. Why was it that the God of mercy desolated his\nown house, the only temple that He had in the world built by his own\nexpress command? The idolatry of the nation was the cause of the\ndestruction of the first temple.\n\n\u05d2\u05dd \u05db\u05dc \u05e9\u05e8\u05d9 \u05d4\u05db\u05d4\u05e0\u05d9\u05dd \u05d5\u05d4\u05e6\u05dd \u05d4\u05e8\u05d1\u05d5 \u05dc\u05de\u05e2\u05d5\u05dc \u05de\u05e2\u05dc \u05db\u05db\u05dc \u05ea\u05d5\u05e2\u05d1\u05d5\u05ea \u05d4\u05d2\u05d5\u05d9\u05dd \u05d5\u05d9\u05d8\u05de\u05d0\u05d5 \u05d0\u05ea \u05d4\u05f3 \u05d0\u05e9\u05e8\n\u05d4\u05e7\u05d3\u05d9\u05e9 \u05d1\u05d9\u05e8\u05d5\u05e9\u05dc\u05d9\u05dd , \u05d5\u05d9\u05e9\u05dc\u05d7 \u05d4\u05f3 \u05d0\u05dc\u05d4\u05d9 \u05d0\u05d1\u05d5\u05ea\u05d9\u05d4\u05dd \u05e2\u05dc\u05d9\u05d4\u05dd \u05d1\u05d9\u05d3 \u05de\u05dc\u05d0\u05db\u05d9\u05d5 \u05d4\u05e9\u05db\u05dd \u05d5\u05e9\u05dc\u05d5\u05d7 \u05db\u05d9\n\u05d7\u05de\u05dc \u05e2\u05dc \u05e2\u05de\u05d5 \u05d5\u05e2\u05dc \u05de\u05e2\u05d5\u05e0\u05d5 , \u05d5\u05d9\u05d4\u05d9\u05d5 \u05de\u05dc\u05e2\u05d9\u05d1\u05d9\u05dd \u05d1\u05de\u05dc\u05d0\u05db\u05d9 \u05d4\u05d0\u05dc\u05d4\u05dd \u05d5\u05d1\u05d5\u05d6\u05d9\u05dd \u05d3\u05d1\u05e8\u05d9\u05d5 \u05d5\u05de\u05ea\u05e2\u05ea\u05e2\u05d9\u05dd\n\u05d1\u05e0\u05d1\u05d9\u05d0\u05d9\u05d5 \u05e2\u05d3 \u05e2\u05dc\u05d5\u05ea \u05d7\u05de\u05ea \u05d4\u05f3 \u05d1\u05e2\u05de\u05d5 \u05e2\u05d3 \u05dc\u05d0\u05d9\u05df \u05de\u05e8\u05e4\u05d0 , \u05d5\u05d9\u05e2\u05dc \u05e2\u05dc\u05d9\u05d4\u05dd \u05d0\u05ea \u05de\u05dc\u05da \u05db\u05e9\u05d3\u05d9\u05dd\n\u05d5\u05d9\u05d4\u05e8\u05d5\u05d2 \u05d1\u05d7\u05d5\u05e8\u05d9\u05d4\u05dd \u05d1\u05d7\u05e8\u05d1 \u05d1\u05d1\u05d9\u05ea \u05de\u05e7\u05e8\u05e9\u05dd , \u05d5\u05dc\u05d0 \u05d7\u05de\u05dc \u05e2\u05dc \u05d1\u05d7\u05d5\u05e8 \u05d5\u05d1\u05ea\u05d5\u05dc\u05d4 \u05d6\u05e7\u05df \u05d5\u05d9\u05e9\u05e9 \u05d4\u05db\u05dc \u05e0\u05ea\u05df\n\u05d1\u05d9\u05d3\u05d5 ... \u05d5\u05d9\u05e9\u05e8\u05e4\u05d5 \u05d0\u05ea \u05d1\u05d9\u05ea \u05d4\u05d0\u05dc\u05d4\u05d9\u05dd \u05d5\u05d9\u05e0\u05ea\u05e6\u05d5 \u05d0\u05ea \u05d7\u05d5\u05de\u05ea \u05d9\u05e8\u05d5\u05e9\u05dc\u05d9\u05dd \u05d5\u05db\u05dc \u05d0\u05e8\u05de\u05e0\u05d5\u05ea\u05d9\u05d4 \u05e9\u05e8\u05e4\u05d5\n\u05d1\u05d0\u05e9 \u05d5\u05db\u05dc \u05db\u05dc\u05d9 \u05de\u05d7\u05de\u05d3\u05d9\u05dd \u05dc\u05d4\u05e9\u05d7\u05d9\u05dd \u05c3\n\n\u201cMoreover, all the chief of the priests, and the people, transgressed\nvery much, after _all the abominations of the heathen_, and polluted the\nhouse of the Lord which he had hallowed in Jerusalem. And the Lord God\nof their fathers sent to them by his messengers, rising up betimes and\nsending; because he had compassion on his people, and on his\ndwelling-place: but they mocked the messengers of God, and despised his\nwords, and misused his prophets, until the wrath of the Lord arose\nagainst his people, till there was no remedy. Therefore he brought upon\nthem the King of the Chaldeans, who slew their young men with the sword\nin the house of their sanctuary, and had no compassion upon young man or\nmaiden, old man or him that stooped for age: he gave them all into his\nhand\u2014and they burned the house of God and broke down the wall of\nJerusalem, and burned all the palaces thereof with fire, and destroyed\nall the goodly vessels thereof.\u201d (2 Chron. XXXVI. 14-19.) Here, then,\nobstinate idolatry is represented as the cause of the first desolation.\nIsrael learned and practised the abominations of the heathen, and thus\npolluted the temple, and therefore God destroyed the temple and sent\nthem into captivity. There were no doubt many and other great sins in\nIsrael, but they are not mentioned, as if to show that nothing short of\nwilful and obstinate departure from God could have led him to adopt so\nsevere a measure. As long as they retained their allegiance to God and\nrejected the abominations of the heathen, there was a hope and a\npossibility that they might repent of other sins, but when men\nobstinately turn away from God, and will not hearken to his warnings,\nall hope of repentance is at an end, and there is no alternative but\njust judgment. But was this the case in the second temple? Were the Jews\nthen obstinate idolaters? Had they images amongst them, and did they\npollute the second temple with such abominations of the heathen? No,\nrather than bow down to images, they willingly endured every torture,\nand offered up even their lives as a sacrifice to the truth, and when\nthe second temple was destroyed, there was not amongst Israel a single\nvestige of idolatry. Never, in the whole course of their history, from\nthe going forth out of Egypt to that day, was there such an apparently\nscrupulous observation of the letter of the law, and never had Israel\nhad so many learned men devoted to the study of the commandments. What\nthen could be the cause of the second desolation? It was not idolatry,\nbut it must have been something equally odious in the sight of God, and\nit must have been a sin committed equally by the priests and the people.\nYou observe that in the above description of the first destruction, it\nis said, \u201cAll the chief of the priests, and the people transgressed very\nmuch.\u201d If the priests had remained faithful to their God, He would not\nhave destroyed their temple, for there would have been hope, that, by\ntheir exertions and teaching, the people might be brought to a better\nmind. Or, if the people had remained faithful, God would not have\npunished the people for the sins of the priests; he would have cut off\nthe wicked priests and raised up others according to his own heart.\nNothing short of the unanimous wickedness of priests and people could\nhave brought on so great a calamity. In like manner we infer that the\ncause of the second destruction was not any partial wickedness, but some\nsin, of which both priests and people were guilty, that drew down that\ncalamity. And, further, it must have been a sin against which they were\nwarned by special messengers of God. When the priests and the people\nfell into idolatry, God did not immediately destroy the first temple. He\nfirst tried whether they would listen to his warnings and repent, and\ntherefore \u201che sent to them by his messengers, rising up betimes, and\nsending; because he had compassion on his people, and on his\ndwelling-place.\u201d Now, surely, when we see that God showed such\ncompassion, when He was about to send so small a calamity as the seventy\nyears\u2019 captivity, we may safely infer that he would not bring the more\ntremendous judgment of eighteen hundred years\u2019 desolation, without\nexhibiting a compassion proportionate to the coming infliction. In the\nformer case he sent special messengers and prophets to warn them, he\nmust also have acted similarly before the second destruction. Who, then,\nwere the messengers and the prophets that warned the Jews of their sin?\nThe Jews say, that during the second temple there was no prophecy; but\nis it possible to imagine that the God of Israel would shut up his\nbowels of compassion, and pity neither his people nor his\ndwelling-place, but give them both over to the most dreadful visitation\nthat ever descended on a nation without one word of warning? When he was\nabout to destroy Nineveh he first sent Jonah to call them to repentance,\nand when his judgments were about to descend upon Babylon, the words of\nwarning were miraculously written on the wall; can we suppose, then,\nthat God would not have as much mercy on Jerusalem and the Jews as on\nBabylon and Nineveh? The supposition is utterly inconsistent with God\u2019s\ncharacter and dealings. There must have been prophets who announced the\ncoming judgment and warned the people of their sin. Who were they, then,\nand what was that sin equal to idolatry which priests and people\ncommitted and obstinately persevered in, despite of all warning, and in\nwhich their descendants still persevere? Idolatry is a departure from\nthe true God, and the setting up a false system of religious worship.\nNow it is granted that the Jews did not make images, but did they set up\na false system of worship and religion contrary to the religion of Moses\nand the prophets? Let the oral law and the Jewish Prayer-books answer\nthat question. We have shown in these papers that the oral law,\nsanctioned by the Jewish Prayer-books, is directly at variance with the\nwritten Word of God. It teaches the Jews to put trust in amulets,\ncharms, and magic, which are mere heathenism. It teaches a cruel and\nunmerciful system for the Jews, gives false ideas of the character of\nGod, and actually forbids the Jews to love their Gentile brethren as\nthemselves. The setting up of this system was the great sin which\npriests and people all joined in committing, and in which their\nposterity still continue. They were warned against this sin: God sent\nthem extraordinary messengers, He sent them Jesus of Nazareth, the\nprophet like unto Moses, and the Messiah. The great burden of his\npreaching was against this false religion, the oral law, but they would\nnot hearken to his words. Priests and people conspired together to\nreject and crucify him. Here, then, was the result of the false system\nwhich they adopted. The oral law was the tree, the rejection of the\nMessiah the fruits. But still the Lord had compassion upon his people,\nand upon his dwelling-place, he spared them yet for forty years, and in\nthe meanwhile sent his apostles to warn them and testify against their\niniquity; \u201cbut they mocked the messengers of God, and despised his\nwords, and misused his prophets, until the wrath of the Lord arose\nagainst his people, till there was no remedy,\u201d and he gave them into the\nhands of the Romans. Because they rejected Jesus of Nazareth and his\ndisciples, the temple and city were desolated. The Jews have been taught\nto think that Jesus and his disciples were deceivers, but let them\nconsider this fact, that, if they were, God himself has sealed the truth\nof their assertions by the acts of His Providence. The preservation of\nthe temple and city to this day would have been incontestable evidence\nthat they were deceivers. Had no judgments followed upon the crucifixion\nof Jesus, it would have been evident to all mankind, that he was not\nwhat he pretended to be. But if he was indeed the Messiah, the strongest\npossible attestation that God could give, was the exemplary punishment\nof those who crucified him, and this God has given. They crucified\nJesus, and God destroyed the temple and scattered the people. Without\nthis, the religion of Jesus never could have triumphed as it has done.\nIf the temple were still standing, and the Jews in their land, they\ncould point to the temple and say, \u201cSee that temple, the monument of\nGod\u2019s favour and presence, it is still amongst us, and shows that Jesus\ncould not have been the Messiah. If he had been the Messiah, God would\nnot have left us this unequivocal testimony of his favour.\u201d But this\nproof of their righteousness God has taken away, and that within forty\nyears after the crucifixion of Jesus; so that God himself has given the\nstrongest possible attestation to the truth of his claims. Let any\nreflective Israelite calmly consider this, that, if Jesus was not what\nhe claimed to be, his crucifixion was the most meritorious act that the\nJews ever performed. They thereby did what they could to stay the\nprogress of a false religion that was to overrun the world, and to\nuphold the truth; can they, then, suppose that God would punish them for\ndoing that which was right, and give the sacred sanction of His\nprovidence to him that was doing wrong? When Phinehas, the son of\nEleazar, slew the Israelite and the Midianitish woman with his spear,\nthe plague was stayed from Israel, and can we imagine that the high\npriests who condemned Jesus would have had a less reward if his claims\nhad been false? If Christianity be not true, then God himself has\ninterposed to crush the truth, and to build up falsehood. If\nChristianity be true, then God could do nothing more to attest its truth\nthan he has done by the destruction of the temple. There was but one\nunanswerable argument against Christianity, and that was the existence\nof the temple; but God himself has answered that argument by taking away\nthe temple, and therefore we infer that as God has done all that he\ncould to establish the truth of Christianity, it must be true.\n\nThe Jews think that if Jesus had been the Messiah, it is impossible that\nthe priests and learned men of his time could have rejected him. But the\nevents which they commemorate on the ninth of Av show the untenableness\nof this argument. On this day the Jews commemorate, first of all, the\ndecree that the Israelites should die in the wilderness. And why did\nthey die in the wilderness? Because they would not believe in Moses.\n\u201cAnd all the children of Israel murmured against Moses and against\nAaron: and the whole congregation said unto them, Would God that we had\ndied in the land of Egypt! or would God that we had died in this\nwilderness! And they said one to another, Let us make a captain, and let\nus return into Egypt.\u201d (Numbers XIV. 2.) Yet they had seen the plagues\nof Egypt, and they had passed through the Red Sea, and were at that\nmoment supplied miraculously with food, but for all that they did not\nbelieve, and that \u201cThe whole congregation.\u201d Will any Jew say, that this\nunbelief proves that Moses was a false prophet? If not, why not? Every\nargument, that will prove that the unbelief of that generation is no\nargument against the claims of Moses, will equally demonstrate that the\nunbelief of the Jews in the time of Jesus is no argument against his\nMessiahship. If it was possible for them to disbelieve the word of\nMoses, after all that they had seen, it is equally possible that they\nshould have rejected Christ.\n\nBut remark here, it was only the old generation that God sentenced to\ndie in the wilderness. The children who did not participate in the\nunbelief of their fathers entered into the land. Now if anything similar\nhad happened to the Jews since the destruction of the second temple,\nthat is, if after a few years\u2019 captivity they had returned to their land\n_without becoming Christians_, they might then argue that the rejection\nof Jesus was not the sin for which they were exiled. They might say, we\nhave not become Christians, and yet God has restored us; it is plain\ntherefore that this was not the cause of the second desolation. But\nGod\u2019s dealings have been just the reverse. The Jewish nation have gone\non from century to century, fasting and humbling themselves before the\nGod of their fathers, and yet he does not restore them, a plain token\nthat they still participate in the sin of their fathers. And a plainer\nproof still of the truth of Christianity, for God still continues the\nprovidential act, whereby he originally proved that Christianity was\ntrue. Israel still rejects Christianity, and therefore Israel still\ncontinues in dispersion. The only argument, that could even appear to\nprove that the rejection of Jesus was not the cause of the second\ndesolation, would be the restoration of the Jews in an unconverted\nstate. But that argument God refuses to grant, and has refused it to his\nbeloved people for many centuries. If Judaism be true, why should he\nthus continue to declare against it? If Christianity be false, why\nshould he from century to century stamp it with the seal of truth?\n\nBut, in the next place, the Jews commemorate the destruction of the\nfirst temple, that is, they commemorate the idolatry of the chief\npriests and the people. They remember that the learned and the unlearned\nof the nation rejected the true God and turned to dumb idols. How then\ncan the Jews say that it is impossible for a nation, that openly\nrejected the God of their fathers, to reject the Messiah? There can be\nno greater proof of folly and wickedness than to reject God and worship\na stock or a stone; but of this Israel has been guilty, and because of\nthis sin the first temple was destroyed. The man who rejects the true\nGod will also reject his messenger. But Israel has done the one, why\nthen should it be denied that they could do the other? The only possible\nanswer that can be given is, that the priests and the people were a\ngreat deal wiser and better in the days of Jesus than in those of the\nfirst temple. But if this be true, why was the temple destroyed? why\nwere those who were so much wiser and better, punished with a more\ndreadful punishment than those who were so much more foolish and wicked?\nIf we are to judge of the comparative wisdom and piety of the two by the\nmeasure of punishment, then we must say, that the idolatrous priests and\npeople of the first temple were a great deal wiser and better than the\npriests and people of the second temple, for the former escaped, after a\ncaptivity of seventy years, the latter have been exiled for seventeen\ncenturies. The tremendous nature of the punishment would show, that the\npriests and people, who rejected Jesus, were more wicked than their\nidolatrous forefathers, and if so, their testimony against Jesus is of\nno value.\n\nBut the Jews also commemorate on this day the destruction of the city of\nBither, that is, they commemorate the folly of all their greatest\nrabbies in following an impostor, and believing in him as their Messiah.\nThere Bar Kochav took refuge with those whom he deluded. Rambam says,\n\u201cAll Israel, and the greatest of their wise men, imagined him to be the\nMessiah,\u201d and we know that the famous Rabbi Akiva was amongst the\nnumber. Here, then, we have practical proof that the judgment of those\nrabbies, who rejected Jesus, was not to be depended upon. If they had\nsucceeded in their efforts, they would have taught all Israel to believe\nin an impostor; but the providence of God gave them all over to\ndestruction in the very act of following a false prophet. And yet these\nare the men who have handed down the oral law, and compiled the precepts\nof rabbinic religion; men, whom the Jews themselves tell us, were the\nfollowers of a false prophet and the dupes of an impostor. How can they\npossibly believe in a system which has such men for its authors; men who\nseduced thousands and tens of thousands of Israel to plunge themselves\ninto ruin? If Rabbi Akiva, and his colleagues, had not espoused the\ncause of Bar Kochav, he could never have succeeded in deluding such\nnumbers of Israelites; they, therefore, are answerable for that dreadful\ncalamity. But when the Jews of the present day commemorate the sore\naffliction, should they not remember also that it is high time to give\nup that religious system that was the cause of it, and of all the evils\nthat have since followed; or at least seriously and carefully\ninvestigate a religion, fidelity to which is compatible with the\ndeparture of God\u2019s favour, the destruction of the temple, and a long and\nawful captivity?\n\n\n\n\n                               No. XXIX.\n                        SABBATIC LAWS CONTINUED.\n\n\nIn our last number but one the Bible-doctrine, that true religion must\nnecessarily promote the happiness of man, was laid down as the basis of\nour reasonings. The truth of the principle is admitted by every thinking\nman, whether Jew or Christian; but plain as it is, it is frequently\noverlooked, and a large portion of mankind is accustomed to look on\nreligion and its ordinances, not as blessings in themselves, nor as a\ncourse of moral discipline devised by the wisdom of God for the good of\nman, but as a system of arbitrary enactments instituted to give men an\nopportunity of treasuring up a store of merit, and of earning an eternal\nreward. Hence in all the superstitions, which man has invented, we\nperceive an undue regard for the mere external act; and an expectation\nthat the performance of the act will ensure the Divine favour. Thus the\nmodern Hindoo stands on a sharp spike, or suspends his poor body by an\niron hook, or offers it to be crushed under the wheels of the idol\u2019s\nchariot, and thinks thereby to purchase eternal felicity. And thus also\nthe more ancient idolaters, the worshippers of Baal, in the time of\ntheir need, wounded themselves with knives and lances, and expected that\nfor such meritorious religious observances their prayers should be heard\nand that they should have a blessing. But it is possible, without\nprofessing a totally false religion, to view God\u2019s true commandments in\nthe same light, and overlooking the spirit and the object of his\ninstitution, to fix the whole attention upon the letter or outward act,\nand the quantum of reward which it may purchase. This the rabbies have\ndone, particularly, in reference to the institution of the Sabbath-day.\nThey appear to have forgotten altogether that the Sabbath was made for\nman as a blessing and means of grace, and have therefore in their\nattempts to promote the observance of the day, entirely sacrificed the\npeace, comfort, and happiness of man to the mere appearance of\npreserving the letter of the command inviolate. Their fundamental idea\nof keeping the Sabbath-day is, that it is an act of obedience whereby\nsomething may be purchased.\n\n\u05d2\u05e8\u05e1\u05d9\u05e0\u05d5 \u05d1\u05e4\u05f3 \u05db\u05dc \u05db\u05ea\u05d1\u05d9 \u05d0\u05de\u05e8 \u05e8\u05f3 \u05d9\u05d5\u05d7\u05e0\u05df \u05de\u05e9\u05d5\u05dd \u05e8\u05f3 \u05d9\u05d5\u05e1\u05d9 \u05db\u05dc \u05d4\u05de\u05e2\u05e0\u05d2 \u05d0\u05ea \u05d4\u05e9\u05d1\u05ea \u05e0\u05d5\u05ea\u05e0\u05d9\u05df \u05dc\u05d5\n\u05e0\u05d7\u05dc\u05d4 \u05d1\u05dc\u05d9 \u05de\u05e6\u05e8\u05d9\u05dd , \u05e8\u05d1 \u05e0\u05d7\u05de\u05df \u05d1\u05e8 \u05d9\u05e6\u05d7\u05e7 \u05d0\u05d5\u05de\u05e8 \u05d0\u05e3 \u05e0\u05d9\u05e6\u05d5\u05dc \u05de\u05e9\u05d9\u05e2\u05d1\u05d5\u05d3 \u05de\u05dc\u05db\u05d9\u05d5\u05ea , \u05d0\u05de\u05e8 \u05e8\u05d1\n\u05d9\u05d4\u05d5\u05d3\u05d4 \u05d0\u05de\u05e8 \u05e8\u05d1 \u05db\u05dc \u05d4\u05de\u05e2\u05e0\u05d2 \u05d0\u05ea \u05d4\u05e9\u05d1\u05ea \u05e0\u05d5\u05ea\u05e0\u05d9\u05df \u05dc\u05d5 \u05de\u05e9\u05d0\u05dc\u05d5\u05ea \u05dc\u05d1\u05d5 , \u05d5\u05d0\u05de\u05e8 \u05e8\u05f3 \u05d7\u05d9\u05d9\u05d0 \u05d1\u05e8 \u05d0\u05d1\u05d0\n\u05d0\u05de\u05e8 \u05e8\u05f3 \u05d9\u05d5\u05d7\u05e0\u05df , \u05db\u05dc \u05d4\u05de\u05e9\u05de\u05e8 \u05e9\u05d1\u05ea \u05db\u05d4\u05dc\u05db\u05ea\u05d4 \u05d0\u05e4\u05d9\u05dc\u05d5 \u05e2\u05d5\u05d1\u05d3 \u05e2\u05f3\u05f3\u05d6 \u05db\u05d0\u05e0\u05d5\u05e9 \u05de\u05d5\u05d7\u05dc\u05d9\u05df \u05dc\u05d5 , \u05d0\u05de\u05e8\n\u05e8\u05d1 \u05d9\u05d4\u05d5\u05d3\u05d4 \u05d0\u05de\u05e8 \u05e8\u05d1 \u05d0\u05dc\u05de\u05dc\u05d0 \u05e9\u05de\u05e8\u05d5 \u05d9\u05e9\u05e8\u05d0\u05dc \u05e9\u05d1\u05ea \u05e8\u05d0\u05e9\u05d5\u05e0\u05d4 \u05db\u05d4\u05dc\u05db\u05ea\u05d4 \u05dc\u05d0 \u05e9\u05dc\u05d8\u05d4 \u05d1\u05d4\u05dd \u05d0\u05d5\u05de\u05d4\n\u05d5\u05dc\u05e9\u05d5\u05df \u05d0\u05de\u05e8 \u05e8\u05f3 \u05e9\u05de\u05e2\u05d5\u05df \u05d1\u05e8 \u05d9\u05d5\u05d7\u05d9 \u05d0\u05dc\u05de\u05dc\u05d0 \u05de\u05e9\u05de\u05e8\u05d9\u05dd \u05d9\u05e9\u05e8\u05d0\u05dc \u05e9\u05ea\u05d9 \u05e9\u05d1\u05ea\u05d5\u05ea \u05de\u05d9\u05d3 \u05e0\u05d2\u05d0\u05dc\u05d9\u05df \u05c3\n\n\u201cWe read in the sixteenth chapter of the treatise Shabbath, R. Johanan\nsays, in the name or R. Jose, that to every one who makes the Sabbath a\ndelight, an infinite inheritance is given. Rav Nachman, the son of Isaac\nsays, He shall, besides, be delivered from serving the monarchies. R.\nJudah says, Rav says, To every one who makes the Sabbath a delight, the\ndesires of his heart are given. R. Chiia, the son of Abba, says, in the\nname of Rabbi Johanan, whosoever keeps the Sabbath according to its\nconstitutions, even though he were an idolater like Enosh, he shall be\nforgiven. R. Judah says, Rav says, If Israel would keep the first\nSabbath according to its constitutions, no nation nor tongue should rule\nover them. R. Simeon, the son of Jochai, says, If Israel would keep two\nSabbaths, they should be immediately delivered.\u201d (Arbah Turim. Orach\nChaim, \u00a7 242.) Thus the rabbles sanction the false and superstitious\nnotion, that an external act can purchase the favour of God, and even\natone for the most atrocious violation of the divine law. The Israelites\nare taught to believe that if they would only observe the Sabbath\naccording to the rabbinic constitution, all their other transgressions\nwould immediately be forgiven, and they themselves restored to the land\nof their fathers, and in the meanwhile the individual sinner is told not\nto be uneasy, for that if he had committed idolatry, the most heinous\noffence against God, the observation of the rabbinical precepts\nrespecting the Sabbath will wipe away the score. What then will he\nthink, who has ever kept himself outwardly from this capital offence,\nand only been guilty, as he thinks, of sinning against his neighbour? He\nwill make sure that the Sabbath observance will wipe out the week\u2019s\nreckoning, and commence his sinful career again the following week with\nthe assurance that if he only live until the Sabbath-day, he can make\nall good again. And thus the Sabbath-day, ordained by God for the\npurpose of nurturing true religious feeling, is by the oral law turned\ninto the means of eradicating all religious principle out of the heart.\nThe end for which the external observance was instituted, is not only\nforgotten, but misrepresented. The holy affections which it was meant to\nproduce and nourish as a preparation for eternity are overlooked, and\nthe mere outward form held up as the price which men are to pay for\neternal felicity.\n\nThat the rabbinical laws are almost altogether occupied with the merest\nexternal observances will be plain to any one who will take the trouble\nto read them through. Take, for instance, some of the laws which refer\nto the keeping food warm on the Sabbath-day:\u2014\n\n\u05de\u05e0\u05d9\u05d7\u05d9\u05df \u05e7\u05d3\u05e8\u05d4 \u05e2\u05dc \u05d2\u05d1\u05d9 \u05d4\u05d0\u05e9 \u05d0\u05d5 \u05d1\u05e9\u05e8 \u05d1\u05ea\u05e0\u05d5\u05e8 \u05d0\u05d5 \u05e2\u05dc \u05d2\u05d1\u05d9 \u05d2\u05d7\u05dc\u05d9\u05dd \u05d5\u05d4\u05dd \u05de\u05ea\u05d1\u05e9\u05dc\u05d9\u05dd \u05d5\u05d4\u05d5\u05dc\u05db\u05d9\u05df\n\u05db\u05dc \u05d4\u05e9\u05d1\u05ea \u05d5\u05d0\u05d5\u05db\u05dc\u05d9\u05df \u05d0\u05d5\u05ea\u05d5 \u05d1\u05e9\u05d1\u05ea \u05d5\u05d9\u05e9 \u05d1\u05d3\u05d1\u05e8 \u05d6\u05d4 \u05d3\u05d1\u05e8\u05d9\u05dd \u05e9\u05d4\u05dd \u05d0\u05e1\u05d5\u05e8\u05d9\u05dd \u05d2\u05d6\u05d9\u05e8\u05d4 \u05e9\u05de\u05d0 \u05d9\u05d7\u05ea\u05d4\n\u05d1\u05d2\u05d7\u05dc\u05d9\u05dd \u05d1\u05e9\u05d1\u05ea , \u05db\u05d9\u05e6\u05d3 \u05ea\u05d1\u05e9\u05d9\u05dc \u05e9\u05dc\u05d0 \u05d1\u05e9\u05dc \u05db\u05dc \u05e6\u05e8\u05db\u05d5 \u05d5\u05d7\u05de\u05d9\u05df \u05e9\u05dc\u05d0 \u05d4\u05d5\u05d7\u05de\u05d5 \u05db\u05dc \u05e6\u05e8\u05db\u05df \u05d0\u05d5\n\u05ea\u05d1\u05e9\u05d9\u05dc \u05e9\u05d1\u05d9\u05e9\u05dc \u05db\u05dc \u05e6\u05e8\u05db\u05d5 \u05d5\u05db\u05dc \u05d6\u05de\u05df \u05e9\u05de\u05e6\u05d8\u05de\u05e7 \u05d4\u05d5\u05d0 \u05d9\u05e4\u05d4 \u05dc\u05d5 \u05d0\u05d9\u05df \u05de\u05e9\u05d4\u05d9\u05df \u05d0\u05d5\u05ea\u05d5 \u05e2\u05dc \u05d2\u05d1\u05d9 \u05d4\u05d0\u05e9\n\u05d1\u05e9\u05d1\u05ea \u05d0\u05e2\u05f3\u05f3\u05e4 \u05e9\u05d4\u05d5\u05e0\u05d7 \u05de\u05d1\u05e2\u05d5\u05d3 \u05d9\u05d5\u05dd , \u05d2\u05d6\u05d9\u05e8\u05d4 \u05e9\u05de\u05d0 \u05d9\u05d7\u05ea\u05d4 \u05d1\u05d2\u05d7\u05dc\u05d9\u05dd \u05db\u05d3\u05d9 \u05dc\u05d4\u05e9\u05dc\u05d9\u05dd \u05d1\u05e9\u05d5\u05dc\u05d5 \u05d0\u05d5\n\u05db\u05d3\u05d9 \u05dc\u05e6\u05de\u05e7\u05d5 , \u05dc\u05e4\u05d9\u05db\u05da \u05d0\u05dd \u05d2\u05e8\u05e3 \u05d4\u05d0\u05e9 \u05d0\u05d5 \u05e9\u05db\u05e1\u05d4 \u05d0\u05e9 \u05d4\u05db\u05d9\u05e8\u05d4 \u05d1\u05d0\u05e4\u05e8 \u05d0\u05d5 \u05d1\u05e0\u05e2\u05d5\u05e8\u05ea \u05d4\u05e4\u05e9\u05ea\u05df \u05d4\u05d3\u05e7\u05d4\n\u05d0\u05d5 \u05e9\u05e2\u05de\u05de\u05d5 \u05d4\u05d2\u05d7\u05dc\u05d9\u05dd \u05e9\u05d4\u05e8\u05d9 \u05d4\u05df \u05db\u05de\u05db\u05d5\u05e1\u05d9\u05df \u05d1\u05d0\u05e4\u05e8 \u05d0\u05d5 \u05e9\u05d4\u05e1\u05d9\u05e7\u05d5\u05d4 \u05d1\u05e7\u05e9 \u05d0\u05d5 \u05d1\u05d2\u05d1\u05d1\u05d4 \u05d0\u05d5 \u05d1\u05d2\u05dc\u05dc\u05d9\n\u05d1\u05d4\u05de\u05d4 \u05d3\u05e7\u05d4 \u05e9\u05d4\u05e8\u05d9 \u05d0\u05d9\u05df \u05e9\u05dd \u05d2\u05d7\u05dc\u05d9\u05dd \u05d1\u05d5\u05e2\u05e8\u05d5\u05ea \u05d4\u05e8\u05d9 \u05d6\u05d4 \u05de\u05d5\u05ea\u05e8 \u05dc\u05e9\u05d4\u05d5\u05ea \u05e2\u05dc\u05d9\u05d4 \u05e9\u05d4\u05e8\u05d9 \u05d4\u05e1\u05d9\u05d7 \u05d3\u05e2\u05ea\u05d5\n\u05de\u05d6\u05d4 \u05d5\u05d0\u05d9\u05df \u05d2\u05d5\u05d6\u05e8\u05d9\u05df \u05e9\u05de\u05d0 \u05d9\u05d7\u05ea\u05d4 \u05d1\u05d0\u05e9 \u05c3\n\n\u201cIt is lawful to leave a pot on the fire, or meat in the oven or upon\nthe coals, and although the cooking thus continues, it is lawful to eat\nthem on the Sabbath. But in this matter there are some things forbidden,\nand the cause of the prohibition is lest any man should stir the fire on\nthe Sabbath. For example, food that has not been cooked as much as it\nrequires, or hot water that has not been sufficiently heated, or food\nwhich has had the requisite cooking, but which improves all the time\nthat it is left to stew, must not be left on the fire on the Sabbath,\neven though it may have been placed there, whilst it was yet day on the\nFriday. This has been decreed, lest one should stir the coals in order\nto finish the cooking thereof, or to stew it. Therefore, if the fire be\nswept up, or covered with ashes, or with the coarse part of flax, or if\nthe coals have ceased to glow, for then they are looked upon as covered\nwith ashes, or if the fire had been made with straw or stubble, or with\nthe dung of small cattle, then, as there are no burning coals, it is\nlawful to leave the food there on the Sabbath, for in this case the\nman\u2019s mind will be turned away from the cooking, and the only object of\nthe decree is, lest the fire should be stirred.\u201d (Hilchoth Shabbath, c.\niii. 3.) No one can deny that this passage prescribes the merest outward\nobservances. The general principle is that it is not lawful to stir the\nfire on the Sabbath, for that would be doing work, and from this follow\nthose other prohibitions of all things which might tempt a man to be\nguilty of this grave offence. But they all refer to outward acts, from\nwhich it is easy for any one, without any great exertion of self-denial,\nor any advance in moral discipline, to abstain, and yet he has all the\nmerit and satisfaction of the most self-denying piety, and thinks that\nhe is thereby paying a part of the price of his salvation, and making\natonement for the gravest moral transgressions of which he may have been\nguilty during the week. Take, again, the following precepts, and say\nwhether they be not of the very same character:\u2014\n\n\u05de\u05d9 \u05e9\u05d4\u05d7\u05e9\u05d9\u05da \u05dc\u05d5 \u05d1\u05d3\u05e8\u05da \u05d1\u05e2\u05e8\u05d1 \u05e9\u05d1\u05ea \u05d5\u05e2\u05de\u05d5 \u05db\u05d9\u05e1 \u05d0\u05dd \u05d9\u05e9 \u05e2\u05de\u05d5 \u05e0\u05d1\u05e8\u05d9 \u05d5\u05d7\u05de\u05d5\u05e8 \u05d9\u05ea\u05df \u05db\u05d9\u05e1\u05d5 \u05dc\u05e0\u05db\u05e8\u05d9\n\u05d0\u05e3 \u05dc\u05d0\u05d7\u05e8 \u05e9\u05ea\u05d7\u05e9\u05da \u05d5\u05dc\u05d0 \u05d9\u05e0\u05d9\u05d7\u05e0\u05d5 \u05e2\u05dc \u05d4\u05d7\u05de\u05d5\u05e8 , \u05d0\u05d1\u05dc \u05d0\u05dd \u05de\u05e6\u05d0 \u05de\u05e6\u05d9\u05d0\u05d4 \u05d0\u05d9\u05e0\u05d5 \u05d9\u05db\u05d5\u05dc \u05dc\u05d9\u05ea\u05e0\u05d4\n\u05dc\u05e0\u05db\u05e8\u05d9 \u05d0\u05dc\u05d0 \u05d0\u05dd \u05db\u05df \u05d1\u05d0\u05d4 \u05dc\u05d9\u05d3\u05d5 \u05de\u05d1\u05e2\u05d5\u05d3 \u05d9\u05d5\u05dd \u05d3\u05d4\u05e9\u05ea\u05d0 \u05d4\u05d5\u05d9\u05d0 \u05db\u05db\u05d9\u05e1\u05d5 , \u05d0\u05d9\u05df \u05e2\u05de\u05d5 \u05e0\u05db\u05e8\u05d9\n\u05d9\u05e0\u05d9\u05d7\u05e0\u05d4 \u05e2\u05dc \u05d4\u05d7\u05de\u05d5\u05e8 \u05db\u05e9\u05d4\u05d5\u05d0 \u05d4\u05d5\u05dc\u05da \u05d5\u05d9\u05d6\u05d4\u05e8 \u05dc\u05d9\u05d8\u05d5\u05dc \u05de\u05de\u05e0\u05d5 \u05d1\u05db\u05dc \u05e9\u05e2\u05d4 \u05e9\u05d9\u05e2\u05de\u05d5\u05d3 , \u05d5\u05db\u05e9\u05d9\u05d7\u05d6\u05d5\u05e8\n\u05d5\u05d9\u05dc\u05da \u05d9\u05e0\u05d9\u05d7\u05e0\u05d5 \u05e2\u05dc\u05d9\u05d5 , \u05d4\u05d9\u05d4 \u05e2\u05de\u05d5 \u05d7\u05de\u05d5\u05e8 \u05d5\u05d7\u05e8\u05e9 \u05e9\u05d5\u05d8\u05d4 \u05d5\u05e7\u05d8\u05df \u05d9\u05e0\u05d9\u05d7\u05e0\u05d5 \u05e2\u05dc \u05d4\u05d7\u05de\u05d5\u05e8 \u05d5\u05dc\u05d0 \u05d9\u05ea\u05e0\u05e0\u05d4\n\u05dc\u05d0\u05d7\u05d3 \u05de\u05d0\u05dc\u05d4 \u05db\u05d9\u05d5\u05df \u05e9\u05d4\u05dd \u05d0\u05d3\u05dd \u05db\u05de\u05d5\u05ea\u05d5 , \u05d4\u05d9\u05d4 \u05e2\u05de\u05d5 \u05d7\u05e8\u05e9 \u05d5\u05e9\u05d5\u05d8\u05d4 \u05d9\u05ea\u05e0\u05e0\u05d5 \u05dc\u05e9\u05d5\u05d8\u05d4 \u05dc\u05e4\u05d9 \u05e9\u05d0\u05d9\u05df \u05dc\u05d5\n\u05d3\u05e2\u05ea \u05db\u05dc\u05dc , \u05e9\u05d5\u05d8\u05d4 \u05d5\u05e7\u05d8\u05df \u05d9\u05ea\u05e0\u05e0\u05d5 \u05dc\u05e9\u05d5\u05d8\u05d4 \u05e9\u05d4\u05e7\u05d8\u05df \u05d9\u05d1\u05d5\u05d0 \u05dc\u05db\u05dc\u05dc \u05d3\u05e2\u05ea , \u05d7\u05e8\u05e9 \u05d5\u05e7\u05d8\u05df \u05d9\u05ea\u05e0\u05e0\u05d4 \u05dc\u05de\u05d9\n\u05e9\u05d9\u05e8\u05e6\u05d4 , \u05d0\u05d9\u05df \u05e2\u05de\u05d5 \u05dc\u05d0 \u05d6\u05d4 \u05d5\u05dc\u05d0 \u05d6\u05d4 \u05d9\u05d8\u05dc\u05d8\u05dc\u05e0\u05d5 \u05e4\u05d7\u05e8\u05ea \u05e4\u05d7\u05d5\u05ea \u05de\u05d0\u05e8\u05d1\u05e2 \u05d0\u05de\u05d5\u05ea \u05c3\n\n\u201cIf a man travelling on the Sabbath-eve be overtaken by night,[28] and\nhas with him a purse, and there be also with him a Gentile and an ass,\nlet him give his purse to the Gentile, even after it be dark, but let\nhim not lay it on the ass.[29] But if he find anything, he may not give\nit to the Gentile, unless it came into his hand whilst it was yet day,\nfor then it is a similar case to that of his purse. If there be no\nGentile with him, then let him lay it on the ass, whilst he is moving,\nbut let him take great care to take it off every time he stands still.\nBut when he begins to move again, then let him lay it on. If there be\nwith him an ass, and a deaf and dumb person, an idiot and a child, then\nlet him lay it on the ass, but let him not give it to one of these, for\nthey are human beings like himself. If there be with him a deaf and dumb\nperson and an idiot, let him give it to the idiot, as he has no\nunderstanding at all. If an idiot and a child, let him give it to the\nidiot, for the child will be reckoned amongst those that have\nunderstanding. If a deaf and dumb person and a child, let him give it to\nwhichever he pleases. If there be with him neither one nor the other,\nlet him move it along gradually, each time less than four ells.\u201d (Orach\nChaim, sec. 266.) Here again the great concern is to observe the form\nand letter of the rabbinical command, which represents the carrying of a\npurse on the Sabbath-day as work, and therefore unlawful. The law of\nMoses says nothing either one way or the other, but leaves it to every\nman\u2019s conscience. The rabbies who made it unlawful soon found that\nserious inconvenience might arise, as in the case of a man on a journey\novertaken by the Sabbath, before he could get to a resting-place. What\nis he to do, is he to leave his purse behind rather than profane the\nSabbath? That alternative the Pharisees did not like, and therefore set\ntheir wits to work to devise some plan, whereby the outward form might\nbe observed, and yet the purse be safely conveyed along with its\nproprietor. In the first place, they allow it to be given to a Gentile,\nbut every man of common sense will see that this only saves the outward\nappearance, for it be unlawful to carry the purse, it must be equally\nunlawful to cause it to be carried, for he who commands or causes work\nto be done is really and in the sight of God the doer, just as he who\nhires a man to murder a third person is in reality the murderer. If,\ntherefore, the Jew dare not carry the purse himself, neither may he give\nit to a Gentile, nor an idiot, nor a child, nor even lay it upon his\nass. This case only shows the insincerity of the Scribes and Pharisees,\nand their love of money rather than of God\u2019s commandment. In other cases\nthey lay it down as a law that no Jew is to ask a Gentile to do work for\nhim on the Sabbath:\u2014\n\n\u05d0\u05e1\u05d5\u05e8 \u05dc\u05d5\u05de\u05e8 \u05dc\u05d2\u05d5\u05d9 \u05dc\u05e2\u05e9\u05d5\u05ea \u05dc\u05e0\u05d5 \u05de\u05dc\u05d0\u05db\u05d4 \u05d1\u05e9\u05d1\u05ea \u05d0\u05e2\u05f3\u05f3\u05e4 \u05e9\u05d0\u05d9\u05e0\u05d5 \u05de\u05e6\u05d5\u05d5\u05d4 \u05e2\u05dc \u05d4\u05e9\u05d1\u05ea \u05d5\u05d0\u05e2\u05f3\u05f3\u05e4\n\u05e9\u05d0\u05de\u05e8 \u05dc\u05d5 \u05de\u05e7\u05d5\u05d3\u05dd \u05d4\u05e9\u05d1\u05ea \u05d5\u05d0\u05e2\u05f3\u05f3\u05e4 \u05e9\u05d0\u05d9\u05e0\u05d5 \u05e6\u05e8\u05d9\u05da \u05dc\u05d0\u05d5\u05ea\u05d4 \u05de\u05dc\u05d0\u05db\u05d4 \u05d0\u05dc\u05d0 \u05dc\u05d0\u05d7\u05e8 \u05d4\u05e9\u05d1\u05ea \u05d5\u05d3\u05d1\u05e8 \u05d6\u05d4\n\u05d0\u05e1\u05d5\u05e8 \u05de\u05d3\u05d1\u05e8\u05d9 \u05e1\u05d5\u05e4\u05e8\u05d9\u05dd \u05db\u05d3\u05d9 \u05e9\u05dc\u05d0 \u05ea\u05d4\u05d9\u05d4 \u05e9\u05d1\u05ea \u05e7\u05dc\u05d4 \u05d1\u05e2\u05d9\u05e0\u05d9\u05d4\u05df \u05d5\u05d9\u05d1\u05d5\u05d0\u05d5 \u05dc\u05e2\u05e9\u05d5\u05ea \u05d1\u05e2\u05e6\u05de\u05df \u05c3\n\n\u201cIt is unlawful to tell a Gentile to do work for us on the Sabbath,\nalthough the Sabbath command is not binding upon him, and although he\ntold him before the Sabbath, and even though he should not require that\nwork until after the Sabbath. This prohibition is of the words of the\nScribes, and was made to prevent Israelites from thinking lightly of the\nSabbath, and thus coming at last to do the work themselves.\u201d (Hilchoth\nShabbath, c. vi. 1.) Here, then, the very thing which is allowed above,\nis expressly forbidden on the authority of the Scribes, and consequently\na transgression would make a man liable to be flogged, as is expressly\nstated in this chapter:\u2014\n\n\u05d9\u05e9\u05e8\u05d0\u05dc \u05e9\u05d0\u05de\u05e8 \u05dc\u05d2\u05d5\u05d9 \u05dc\u05e2\u05e9\u05d5\u05ea \u05dc\u05d5 \u05de\u05dc\u05d0\u05db\u05d4 \u05d6\u05d5 \u05d1\u05e9\u05d1\u05ea \u05d0\u05e2\u05f3\u05f3\u05e4 \u05e9\u05e2\u05d1\u05e8 \u05d5\u05de\u05db\u05d9\u05df \u05d0\u05d5\u05ea\u05d5 \u05de\u05db\u05ea \u05de\u05e8\u05d3\u05d5\u05ea ,\n\u05de\u05d5\u05ea\u05e8 \u05dc\u05d5 \u05dc\u05d9\u05d4\u05e0\u05d5\u05ea \u05d1\u05d0\u05d5\u05ea\u05d4 \u05de\u05dc\u05d0\u05db\u05d4 \u05dc\u05e2\u05e8\u05d1 \u05d0\u05d7\u05e8 \u05e9\u05d9\u05de\u05ea\u05d9\u05df \u05d1\u05db\u05d3\u05d9 \u05e9\u05ea\u05e2\u05e9\u05d4 \u05c3\n\n\u201cAn Israelite who tells a Gentile to do a certain work for him on the\nSabbath, although he has transgressed, and is to be flogged with the\nflogging of rebellion, yet he may lawfully make use of that work when\nthe Sabbath is over, if he wait as long as it would take to accomplish\nthe work.\u201d (Ibid. 8.) These two passages, then, plainly contradict each\nother. The one says it is unlawful to tell a Gentile to do work on the\nSabbath, and that he who does so is to be flogged. The other permits a\nJew to give a Gentile his purse to carry, and this is work, or else the\nJew might carry it himself. Now if the latter case be lawful, then the\nformer is also lawful; and it is most cruel and tyrannical to flog a man\nfor doing what is lawful. On the other hand, if, according to the\ngeneral rule, it be unlawful, then it is plainly unlawful in this\nparticular case; and it is plain that the Scribes, with all their\npretensions, thought it better to transgress what they considered a\nDivine command, then to lose their money. But if the traveller has got\nneither an ass, nor an idiot, nor a Gentile with him, then there is\napparently no way of escape, for it is unlawful, according to the oral\nlaw, to carry any burden more than a distance of four ells on the\nSabbath-day; and one would naturally expect, that those who punish a\nprofanation of the Sabbath with stoning or flogging\u2014that is, who spare\nneither human blood nor life\u2014would tell him to leave his purse, rather\nthan transgress the Divine command. But no, they tell him to carry it\nless than four ells, then to lay it down, take it up and carry it again\na distance of less than four ells, and thus, bit by bit, carry it to the\nfirst inn. Here, again, there is an appearance of preserving the letter\nof the rabbinical command; but no man in his senses can see that there\nis any real difference between carrying it at one turn, or at five\nhundred short turns of less than four ells, the whole distance is just\nthe same, and the work just the same in the sight of God. Either it is\naltogether lawful, and then the rabbinical precepts appear as folly and\ntyranny, or it is altogether unlawful, and then these precepts appear as\na mere evasion and a trick. But, in every case, a cheap way is presented\nfor purchasing salvation, and atoning for past sin. There is no great\nexertion of moral principle necessary to make the traveller let another\nperson, or an ass carry his purse to an inn.\n\nAnother part of the rabbinical mode of observing the Sabbath, the\npreparation of the Sabbath table, has just the same tendency to direct\nthe mind to the mere external act:\u2014\n\n\u05d5\u05d9\u05e1\u05d3\u05e8 \u05e9\u05dc\u05d7\u05e0\u05d5 \u05d5\u05d9\u05e6\u05d9\u05e2 \u05d4\u05de\u05d8\u05d5\u05ea \u05d5\u05d9\u05ea\u05e7\u05df \u05db\u05dc \u05e2\u05e0\u05d9\u05e0\u05d9 \u05d4\u05d1\u05d9\u05ea \u05db\u05d3\u05d9\u05e0 \u05e9\u05d9\u05de\u05e6\u05d0\u05e0\u05d5 \u05e2\u05e8\u05d5\u05da \u05d5\u05de\u05e1\u05d5\u05d3\u05e8\n\u05d1\u05d1\u05d5\u05d0\u05d5 \u05de\u05d1\u05d9\u05ea \u05d4\u05db\u05e0\u05e1\u05ea , \u05d3\u05d0\u05de\u05e8 \u05e8\u05f3 \u05d9\u05d5\u05e1\u05d9 \u05d1\u05e8 \u05d7\u05e0\u05d9\u05e0\u05d0 \u05e9\u05e0\u05d9 \u05de\u05dc\u05d0\u05db\u05d9 \u05d4\u05e9\u05e8\u05ea \u05de\u05dc\u05d5\u05d9\u05df \u05dc\u05d5 \u05dc\u05d0\u05d3\u05dd\n\u05d1\u05e2\u05e8\u05d1 \u05e9\u05d1\u05ea \u05de\u05d1\u05d9\u05ea \u05d4\u05db\u05e0\u05e1\u05ea \u05dc\u05d1\u05d9\u05ea\u05d5 \u05d0\u05d7\u05d3 \u05d8\u05d5\u05d1 \u05d5\u05d0\u05d7\u05d3 \u05e8\u05e2 \u05db\u05e9\u05d1\u05d0 \u05dc\u05d1\u05d9\u05ea\u05d5 \u05de\u05e6\u05d0 \u05e0\u05e8 \u05d3\u05dc\u05d5\u05e7 \u05d5\u05e9\u05dc\u05d7\u05df\n\u05e2\u05e8\u05d5\u05da \u05d5\u05de\u05d8\u05d4 \u05de\u05d5\u05e6\u05e2\u05ea \u05de\u05dc\u05d0\u05da \u05d8\u05d5\u05d1 \u05d0\u05d5\u05de\u05e8 \u05d9\u05d4\u05d9 \u05e8\u05e6\u05d5\u05df \u05e9\u05d9\u05d4\u05d0 \u05db\u05d5 \u05dc\u05e9\u05d1\u05ea \u05d4\u05d1\u05d0\u05d4 \u05d5\u05de\u05dc\u05d0\u05da \u05e8\u05e2 \u05e2\u05d5\u05e0\u05d4\n\u05d0\u05de\u05df \u05d1\u05e2\u05dc \u05db\u05e8\u05d7\u05d5 \u05d5\u05d0\u05dd \u05dc\u05d0\u05d5 \u05de\u05dc\u05d0\u05da \u05e8\u05e2 \u05d0\u05d5\u05de\u05e8 \u05d9\u05d4\u05d9 \u05e8\u05e6\u05d5\u05df \u05e9\u05d9\u05d4\u05d0 \u05db\u05df \u05dc\u05e9\u05d1\u05ea \u05d4\u05d1\u05d0\u05d4 \u05d5\u05de\u05dc\u05d0\u05da \u05d8\u05d5\u05d1\n\u05e2\u05d5\u05e0\u05d4 \u05d0\u05de\u05df \u05d1\u05e2\u05dc \u05db\u05e8\u05d7\u05d5 \u05c3\n\n\u201cLet a man arrange his table and spread the couches, and order all the\naffairs of his house, that he may find it ready and ordered when he\nreturns from the synagogue; for Rabbi Jose says, in the name of Rabbi\nChanina, That two angels accompany a man on the Sabbath eve, on his\nreturn from the synagogue, the one good, the other evil. When he comes\nto his house, if the Sabbath lamp be found lighted, and the table\nprepared, and the couch spread, the good angel says, God grant that it\nmay be so the next Sabbath; and the evil angel must say Amen, in spite\nof himself. But if this be not the case, then the evil angel says, God\ngrant that it may be so on the next Sabbath, and then the good spirit\nmust say Amen, in spite of himself.\u201d (Orach Chaiim, \u00a7 262.) Let not the\nIsraelite think that we object to the decent and reverential preparation\nof the house for the Sabbath, that is all right and proper; but to exalt\nthis into a command, and represent obedience to it as a meritorious act,\nis to turn the mind to trivial outward performances, and to teach men to\nrest on them as on the great duties of religion. And here the mere\nputting of the house into order is represented as so grave a matter,\nthat two angels are sent home with every Israelite on the Sabbath eve,\nto take cognizance of the matter. The story of the angels is evidently a\nfable, and is another proof of the fictitious character of the oral law;\nbut it shows how the rabbies wandered from the substance of religion to\nthe mere shadow of external observances. The Sabbath lamp here mentioned\nis another instance of the same kind:\u2014\n\n\u05d5\u05d9\u05d4\u05d0 \u05d6\u05d4\u05d9\u05e8 \u05dc\u05e2\u05e9\u05d5\u05ea \u05e0\u05e8 \u05d9\u05e4\u05d4 \u05d3\u05d0\u05de\u05e8 \u05e8\u05d1 \u05d4\u05d5\u05e0\u05d0 \u05d4\u05e8\u05d2\u05d9\u05dc \u05d1\u05e0\u05e8 \u05e9\u05d1\u05ea \u05dc\u05d4\u05e9\u05ea\u05d3\u05dc \u05d1\u05d5 \u05dc\u05e2\u05e9\u05d5\u05ea\u05d5 \u05d9\u05e4\u05d4\n\u05d4\u05d5\u05d9\u05df \u05dc\u05d9\u05d4 \u05d1\u05e0\u05d9\u05dd \u05ea\u05dc\u05de\u05d9\u05d3\u05d9 \u05d7\u05db\u05de\u05d9\u05dd \u05c3\n\n\u201cLet a man be careful to have a handsome lamp, for Rav Huna says, He\nthat is accustomed to take great care in trimming his Sabbath lamp well,\nwill have children who shall be disciples of the wise, _i.e._ learned\nmen.\u201d No one can deny that this is a mere external act, but yet it is\nrepresented as meritorious, and payment is promised: but the mode in\nwhich the performance is required is still more calculated to promote\nthe idea, that this external act is of great importance:\u2014\n\n\u05d5\u05d0\u05d7\u05d3 \u05d0\u05e0\u05e9\u05d9\u05dd \u05d5\u05d0\u05d7\u05d3 \u05e0\u05e9\u05d9\u05dd \u05d7\u05d9\u05d9\u05d1\u05d9\u05df \u05dc\u05d4\u05d9\u05d5\u05ea \u05d1\u05d1\u05ea\u05d9\u05d4\u05df \u05e0\u05e8 \u05d3\u05dc\u05d5\u05e7 \u05d1\u05e9\u05d1\u05ea \u05d0\u05e4\u05d9\u05dc\u05d5 \u05d0\u05d9\u05df \u05dc\u05d5 \u05de\u05d4\n\u05d9\u05d0\u05db\u05dc \u05e9\u05d5\u05d0\u05dc \u05e2\u05dc \u05d4\u05e4\u05ea\u05d7\u05d9\u05dd \u05d5\u05dc\u05d5\u05e7\u05d7 \u05e9\u05de\u05df \u05d5\u05de\u05d3\u05dc\u05d9\u05e7 \u05d0\u05ea \u05d4\u05e0\u05e8 \u05e9\u05d6\u05d4 \u05d1\u05db\u05dc\u05dc \u05e2\u05d5\u05e0\u05d2 \u05e9\u05d1\u05ea \u05d5\u05d7\u05d9\u05d9\u05d1 \u05dc\u05d1\u05e8\u05da\n\u05e7\u05d5\u05d3\u05dd \u05d4\u05d3\u05dc\u05e7\u05d4 \u05d1\u05e8\u05d5\u05da \u05d0\u05ea\u05d4 \u05d9\u05d9 \u05d0\u05dc\u05d4\u05d9\u05e0\u05d5 \u05de\u05dc\u05da \u05d4\u05e2\u05d5\u05dc\u05dd \u05d0\u05e9\u05e8 \u05e7\u05d3\u05e9\u05e0\u05d5 \u05d1\u05de\u05e6\u05d5\u05d5\u05ea\u05d9\u05d5 \u05d5\u05e6\u05d5\u05e0\u05d5 \u05dc\u05d4\u05d3\u05dc\u05d9\u05e7\n\u05e0\u05e8 \u05e9\u05dc \u05e9\u05d1\u05ea \u05c3\n\n\u201cMen and women are equally obligated to have a lighted lamp in their\nhouse on the Sabbath. Yea, though a man have nothing to eat, he must beg\nfrom door to door, and get oil, and light the lamp, for this is an\nessential part of the Sabbath delight. He is also bound to pronounce the\nbenediction, Blessed art thou, O Lord, King of the world! who has\nsanctified us by his commandments, and commanded us to light the Sabbath\nlamp.\u201d (Hilchoth Shabbath, c. v. 1.) Of course every Jew, who thinks\nthat a Sabbath lamp is as necessary as food, and that God requires it\neven from him that has no food, must think that it is of great value,\nand that obedience to this command is a most meritorious act. And yet\nall must confess that it is a mere outward performance, which may be\nobserved by him who has neither the fear nor the love of God. The\ntendency of all these laws is the same, that is, to draw the mind away\nfrom the solemn duties of religion, and to persuade the impenitent\nsinner that these observances will atone for his transgressions. When\nconscience reminds him of sins, not those which he has committed long\nsince, of which he has repented, and which, he has forsaken, but of\nthose which he has been committing the past week, and intends to commit\nagain, as soon as the Sabbath is over, it is silenced by an enumeration\nof the various acts of obedience, which are to be set down at the other\nside of the account. He remembers that he has never left a pot of\nvictuals on a forbidden fire, nor carried his purse on the Sabbath-day a\ndistance of more than four ells, nor asked a Gentile to do work for him.\nThat, on the contrary, he has always prepared his table, and lighted his\nSabbath lamp, and pronounced the benediction; or, in other words, that\nhe has kept the Sabbath according to its constitution, and that,\ntherefore, though he had been guilty of idolatry, he shall obtain\nforgiveness. Thus these rabbinic precepts have a direct tendency to\nmislead the multitude, to harden them in sin, and thus to make and keep\nthem unfit for that great Sabbath, which yet remains for the people of\nGod.\n\nFootnote 28:\n\n  That is, if the Sabbath commence before he can get to a resting place.\n\nFootnote 29:\n\n  \u05d3\u05d7\u05de\u05d5\u05e8 \u05d0\u05ea\u05d4 \u05de\u05e6\u05d5\u05d5\u05d4 \u05e2\u05dc \u05e9\u05d1\u05d9\u05ea\u05ea\u05d5 \u05d5\u05dc\u05d0 \u05d3\u05e0\u05db\u05e8\u05d9 \u05c3\n\n  For thou art commanded respecting the resting of the ass, but not\n  respecting that of the Gentile.\n\n\n\n\n                                No. XXX.\n                        SABBATIC LAWS CONTINUED.\n\n\nThat religion, which is true, and has God for its author, is, like the\nlight of the sun, the common property of all who will only open their\neyes, and gaze upon the gift of God. It is not a religion for the rich\nor the studious only, but is equally open to the understanding and the\nhearts of the poor and unlearned. And therefore the Bible describes the\nheavenly wisdom thus\u2014\u201cShe standeth in the top of high places, by the way\nin the places of the paths; she crieth at the gates at the entry of the\ncity, at the coming in at the doors: Unto you, O men, I call; and my\nvoice is to the sons of man. O ye simple, understand wisdom; and, ye\nfools, be of an understanding heart.\u201d (Prov. viii. 2-5.) And so God\ninvites men of every class by the mouth of the prophet\u2014\u201cHo, every one\nthat thirsteth, come ye to the waters, and he that hath no money; come\nye, buy and eat; yea, come, buy wine and milk without money and without\nprice.\u201d (Isa. lv. 1.) Every religion of man\u2019s making, presents, on the\ncontrary, peculiar advantages to the rich and the learned. It offers\nsalvation either as the purchase of almsgiving, or as the reward of\nreligious study, or it makes religion so difficult and intricate as to\nput it out of the poor labouring man\u2019s power to acquire any competent\nknowledge of its requirements. And any system that does so must\nnecessarily be false. Religion is as necessary to the soul as daylight\nis to the corporeal eye, and it would be a hard case, indeed, if the\npoor, who want it most, should be excluded from the possibility of\nacquiring its consolations; or if, in the day of judgment, the man who\ndevotes his life to books should have a better chance, than he who\nlabours hard to get an honest living for himself and his family; yet\nthis is the case with the labouring classes of the Jews. The religion of\nthe oral law has so perplexed even the simplest commandments, that an\nunlearned man has no chance of being able to keep them. If nothing more\nwere required for salvation than the rabbinic sanctification of the\nSabbath-day the majority of the Jewish people must despair of attaining\nit; for the accurate knowledge of the innumerable precepts and\ndistinctions, which is indispensable to obedience, requires time and\nstudy, which no labouring man can bestow. And we are convinced that a\nconsiderable portion of the Jewish population of this city live in\ncontinual profanation of the Sabbath-day, if the rabbinic explanations\nbe true. Either they move something which they ought not to move, or\nthey carry something which they ought not to carry; and, if they do it\nwilfully, render themselves liable to the utmost severity of the law.\nFor instance, the rabbies have determined that in one place it is lawful\nto move or carry certain things on the Sabbath-day, but in another place\nthe very some act is unlawful, and calls down extreme punishment. They\ndistinguish between these places thus\u2014\n\n\u05d0\u05e8\u05d1\u05e2 \u05e8\u05e9\u05d5\u05d9\u05d5\u05ea \u05dc\u05e9\u05d1\u05ea , \u05e8\u05e9\u05d5\u05ea \u05d4\u05d9\u05d7\u05d9\u05d3 \u05d5\u05e8\u05e9\u05d5\u05ea \u05d4\u05e8\u05d1\u05d9\u05dd \u05db\u05e8\u05de\u05dc\u05d9\u05ea \u05d5\u05de\u05e7\u05d5\u05dd \u05e4\u05d8\u05d5\u05e8 , \u05e8\u05e9\u05d5\u05ea \u05d4\u05d9\u05d7\u05d9\u05d3\n\u05d4\u05d5\u05d0 \u05d4\u05de\u05e7\u05d5\u05dd \u05d4\u05de\u05d5\u05e7\u05e3 \u05de\u05d7\u05d9\u05e6\u05d5\u05ea \u05d2\u05d1\u05d5\u05d4\u05d5\u05ea \u05e2\u05e9\u05e8\u05d4 \u05d5\u05d9\u05e9 \u05d1\u05d5 \u05d0\u05e8\u05d1\u05e2\u05d4 \u05d8\u05e4\u05d7\u05d9\u05dd \u05e2\u05dc \u05d0\u05e8\u05d1\u05e2\u05d4 \u05d5\u05d0\u05e4\u05d9\u05dc\u05d5 \u05d0\u05dd\n\u05d9\u05e9 \u05d1\u05d5 \u05db\u05de\u05d4 \u05de\u05d9\u05dc\u05d9\u05df \u05d0\u05dd \u05de\u05d5\u05e7\u05e3 \u05dc\u05d3\u05d9\u05e8\u05d4 \u05d5\u05d3\u05dc\u05ea\u05d5\u05ea\u05d9\u05d5 \u05e0\u05e2\u05d5\u05dc\u05d5\u05ea \u05d1\u05dc\u05d9\u05dc\u05d4 \u05d4\u05d5\u05d9 \u05e8\u05e9\u05d5\u05ea \u05d4\u05d9\u05d7\u05d9\u05d3 ,\n\u05d5\u05d3\u05d9\u05e8 \u05d5\u05e1\u05d4\u05e8 \u05d5\u05d7\u05e6\u05e8 . \u05d5\u05db\u05df \u05d7\u05e8\u05d9\u05e5 \u05e2\u05de\u05d5\u05e7 \u05e2\u05e9\u05e8\u05d4 \u05d5\u05e8\u05d7\u05d1 \u05d3\u05f3 \u05e2\u05dc \u05d3\u05f3 \u05d0\u05d5 \u05d9\u05d5\u05ea\u05e8 \u05d5\u05db\u05df \u05ea\u05dc \u05d2\u05d1\u05d5\u05d4 \u05d9\u05f3\n\u05d5\u05e8\u05d7\u05d1 \u05d0\u05e8\u05d1\u05e2\u05d4 \u05e2\u05dc \u05d0\u05e8\u05d1\u05e2\u05d4 , \u05d5\u05db\u05d5\u05ea\u05dc\u05d9\u05dd \u05d4\u05de\u05e7\u05d9\u05e4\u05d9\u05df \u05e8\u05e9\u05d5\u05ea \u05d4\u05d9\u05d7\u05d9\u05d3 \u05e2\u05dc \u05d2\u05d1\u05d9\u05d4\u05df \u05d5\u05d7\u05d5\u05e8\u05d9\u05d4\u05df \u05e8\u05e9\u05d5\u05ea\n\u05d4\u05d9\u05d7\u05d9\u05d3 , \u05d5\u05d0\u05d5\u05d9\u05e8 \u05e8\u05e9\u05d5\u05ea \u05d4\u05d9\u05d7\u05d9\u05d3 \u05d4\u05d5\u05d0 \u05e8\u05e9\u05d5\u05ea \u05d4\u05d9\u05d7\u05d9\u05d3 \u05e2\u05d3 \u05dc\u05e8\u05e7\u05d9\u05e2 \u05d5\u05d0\u05e4\u05d9\u05dc\u05d5 \u05db\u05dc\u05d9 \u05d0\u05dd \u05d2\u05d1\u05d5\u05d4 \u05d9\u05f3\n\u05d5\u05e8\u05d7\u05d1 \u05d3\u05f3 \u05e2\u05dc \u05d3\u05f3 \u05db\u05d2\u05d5\u05df \u05ea\u05d9\u05d1\u05d4 \u05d0\u05d5 \u05db\u05d5\u05d5\u05e8\u05ea \u05d0\u05d5 \u05de\u05d2\u05d3\u05dc \u05d4\u05d5\u05d9 \u05e8\u05e9\u05d5\u05ea \u05d4\u05d9\u05d7\u05d9\u05d3 , \u05d5\u05e8\u05e9\u05d5\u05ea \u05d4\u05d9\u05d7\u05d9\u05d3\n\u05d4\u05d5\u05d0 \u05e8\u05d7\u05d5\u05d1\u05d5\u05ea \u05d5\u05e9\u05d5\u05d5\u05e7\u05d9\u05dd \u05d4\u05e8\u05d7\u05d1\u05d9\u05dd \u05d9\u05f3 \u05d0\u05de\u05d4 \u05e2\u05dc \u05d9\u05f3 \u05d0\u05de\u05d4 \u05d5\u05de\u05e4\u05d5\u05dc\u05e9\u05d9\u05dd \u05de\u05e9\u05e2\u05e8 \u05dc\u05e9\u05e2\u05e8 \u05d5\u05e9\u05e9\u05d9\u05dd \u05e8\u05d1\u05d5\u05d0\n\u05e2\u05d5\u05d1\u05e8\u05d9\u05df \u05d1\u05d5 , \u05d5\u05db\u05dc \u05d3\u05d1\u05e8 \u05e9\u05d4\u05d5\u05d0 \u05d1\u05e8\u05e9\u05d5\u05ea \u05d4\u05e8\u05d1\u05d9\u05dd \u05d5\u05d0\u05d9\u05e0\u05d5 \u05d2\u05d1\u05d5\u05d4 \u05d2\u05f3 \u05d8\u05e4\u05d7\u05d9\u05dd \u05d7\u05e9\u05d5\u05d1 \u05db\u05e7\u05e8\u05e7\u05e2 \u05d5\u05d4\u05d5\u05d0\n\u05e8\u05e9\u05d5\u05ea \u05d4\u05e8\u05d1\u05d9\u05dd \u05d0\u05e4\u05d9\u05dc\u05d5 \u05e7\u05d5\u05e6\u05d9\u05dd \u05d0\u05d5 \u05e6\u05d5\u05d0\u05d4 \u05e9\u05d0\u05d9\u05df \u05e8\u05d1\u05d9\u05dd \u05d3\u05d5\u05e8\u05e1\u05d9\u05df \u05e2\u05dc\u05d9\u05d4\u05dd , \u05d5\u05d0\u05dd \u05d4\u05d5\u05d0 \u05d2\u05d1\u05d5\u05d4 \u05d2\u05f3\n\u05d5\u05de\u05d2\u05f3 \u05e2\u05d3 \u05d8\u05f3 \u05d5\u05dc\u05d0 \u05d8\u05f3 \u05d1\u05db\u05dc\u05dc \u05d0\u05dd \u05d4\u05d5\u05d0 \u05e8\u05d7\u05d1 \u05d3\u05f3 \u05e2\u05dc \u05d3\u05f3 \u05d4\u05d5\u05d9 \u05db\u05e8\u05de\u05dc\u05d9\u05ea \u05e4\u05d7\u05d5\u05ea \u05de\u05db\u05d0\u05df \u05d4\u05d5\u05d9 \u05de\u05e7\u05d5\u05dd\n\u05e4\u05d8\u05d5\u05e8 \u05c3\n\nIn reference to the Sabbath, places are distinguished into four sorts of\njurisdiction. 1st, the private jurisdiction; 2d, the public\njurisdiction; 3d, the place called Karmelith; 4th, the place which is\nfree.\n\nBy a _private jurisdiction_ is meant a place surrounded by walls, ten\nhandbreadths high, and in which there is a space of four handbreadths by\nfour. But even though it should contain many miles, if it be inclosed\nfor habitation, and its gates be bolted at night, it is a private\njurisdiction. A lodging-place, an inclosed space, and a court, are\nconsidered as in the same class. And thus, also, a pit which is ten\nhandbreadths deep, and whose breadth is four by four, or more; and a\nraised place which is ten handbreadths high, and whose breadth is four\nby four. The top of the walls, also, by which a private jurisdiction is\nsurrounded, and the openings in them, are considered as private\njurisdiction. The air of a private jurisdiction, up to the firmament, is\nalso considered; and even a vessel like a chest, if it be ten\nhandbreadths high, and in breadth four by four. A hollow vessel, or a\ntower, is also considered as a private jurisdiction.\n\nThe term _public jurisdiction_ includes roads and streets, if their\nbreadth be sixteen ells by sixteen, and they be open from gate to gate,\nand six hundred thousand persons pass thereon. And everything in a\npublic jurisdiction, which is not three handbreadths high, is reckoned\nas the ground, and is public jurisdiction: even thorns and filth upon\nwhich the public does not tread.\n\nBut if it be from three to nine handbreadths high, but not nine\nentirely, and its breadth be four by four, it is called a _Karmelith_.\n\n\u201cIf it be less, it is called a _free place_.\u201d (Orach Chaiim, 344.)\n\nNow it may well be doubted, concerning many Jews in this city, whether\nthey are acquainted with even this portion of the Sabbath laws, but it\nis quite certain that they are ignorant of the innumerable modes of\npossible transgression which arise from these distinctions; for the oral\nlaw then goes on to define what is lawful concerning each. In a public\njurisdiction he may move anything four ells:\u2014\n\n\u05db\u05dc \u05d0\u05d3\u05dd \u05d9\u05e9 \u05dc\u05d5 \u05d3\u05f3 \u05d0\u05de\u05d5\u05ea \u05d1\u05e8\u05e9\u05d5\u05ea \u05d4\u05e8\u05d1\u05d9\u05dd \u05e9\u05d9\u05db\u05d5\u05dc \u05dc\u05d8\u05dc\u05d8\u05dc \u05d1\u05d4\u05dd \u05c3\n\n\u201cEvery man has got four ells within which he may move things.\u201d Or, as\nRambam expresses it\u2014\n\n\u05e8\u05e9\u05d5\u05ea \u05d4\u05d9\u05d7\u05d9\u05d3 \u05d5\u05de\u05e7\u05d9\u05dd \u05e4\u05d8\u05d5\u05e8 \u05de\u05d5\u05ea\u05e8 \u05dc\u05d8\u05dc\u05d8\u05dc \u05d1\u05db\u05d5\u05dc\u05df \u05d0\u05e4\u05d9\u05dc\u05d5 \u05d4\u05d9\u05d4 \u05d0\u05d5\u05e8\u05da \u05db\u05dc \u05d0\u05d7\u05ea \u05de\u05e9\u05ea\u05d9\u05d4\u05df \u05db\u05de\u05d4\n\u05de\u05d9\u05dc\u05d9\u05df \u05de\u05d8\u05dc\u05d8\u05dc \u05d1\u05db\u05d5\u05dc\u05d4 , \u05d0\u05d1\u05dc \u05e8\u05e9\u05d5\u05ea \u05d4\u05e8\u05d1\u05d9\u05dd \u05d5\u05d4\u05db\u05e8\u05de\u05dc\u05d9\u05ea \u05d0\u05d9\u05df \u05de\u05d8\u05dc\u05d8\u05dc\u05d9\u05df \u05d1\u05d4\u05df \u05d0\u05dc\u05d0 \u05d1\u05d0\u05e8\u05d1\u05e2\n\u05d0\u05de\u05d5\u05ea \u05c3\n\n\u201cIn a private jurisdiction, and in a free place it is lawful to move\nthings the whole length of the place, even though the length of each\nshould be many miles. But in a public jurisdiction or a Karmelith things\nmay not be moved more than four ells.\u201d (Hilchoth Shabbath, c. xxiv. 11.)\nNow, it may well be asked, upon what passage of the law of Moses these\ndistinctions are grounded, and what there is in a public jurisdiction\nwhich converts an act lawful in a private jurisdiction, into a sin to be\nexpiated only by stoning the offender? For instance, in a private\njurisdiction a man may carry certain matters for miles without violating\nthe Sabbath commands, but if he venture out into a public jurisdiction\nwith a pocket-handkerchief or a snuff-box, or a half-crown in his\npocket, and carry it only five ells, he is guilty of death; and if the\nTalmudists held the reigns of power, would be led out as soon as the\nSabbath was over, and stoned. Reason revolts against such doctrine, the\nact is the very same in both cases, and is therefore in both cases a\nsin, or in both cases lawful. Humanity shudders at the thought of\nstoning a man for carrying a pocket-handkerchief, and the Bible teaches\nus that a religion, teaching such inexorable and wanton cruelty, cannot\nbe from God. It is true that at present the power of Christianity\nprotects Israelites from such harsh treatment; but wherever the Talmud\nhas any degree of influence, Israel groans under its bondage. Many a\ntime have we seen Jews with their pocket-handkerchief tied round their\nknee like a garter, for this is lawful, though to carry it in his pocket\nwould be a grave and capital offence. And we once knew an Israelite who\nwas taking a walk on the Sabbath-day, and being addressed by a Gentile\nbeggar, put his hand into his pocket and gave the poor man a small coin.\nHe was observed by some Talmudists, who immediately attacked him for his\nprofanation of the Sabbath. Afraid of losing his character, and being at\nthat time more anxious for the praise of man than that which cometh of\nGod, he defended himself by saying, that he had unintentionally taken\nout the money in his pocket, but had remembered it when addressed by the\nbeggar, and therefore took the opportunity of getting rid of that which\nit was not lawful to carry. The Talmudists were satisfied, and their\nwrath changed into profound admiration for his piety. These cases\nexemplify the practical working of the rabbinic system. It burdens the\nconsciences of the sincere, and makes the unscrupulous hypocrites. It\nmay be replied that such things could not happen in England, and that\nhere the Jews are too enlightened to observe such distinctions. But\nevery one who makes this reply condemns modern Judaism as a religion\nunfit for the observation of the enlightened, and if he be a\nconscientious man, should protest against doctrines which he believes to\nbe false, and laws which he abhors as cruel. These Sabbatic laws are a\npart, an essential part, of modern Judaism. There is not any part of the\noral law upon which Talmudists lay more stress. The man, therefore, who\ndoes not observe them has changed his religion. He has got a new faith,\nas really, as if he had been baptized and professed Christianity. Every\nIsraelite who carries a pocket-handkerchief in his pocket through the\nstreets of London on the Sabbath-day, has apostatized from that Jewish\nreligion, which has been professed for near two thousand years, and\npractically declares that the religion of the synagogue is false. How\nthen can he, without hypocrisy, profess to believe in the religion of\nthe Jews? or how can he, as an honest man, uphold a system which he\nregards as false, and which would have him executed as a criminal if it\nhad the power? If such persons, who live in the habitual transgression\nof all the Sabbatic laws, have any regard for truth and for Divine\nrevelation, they should openly declare their sentiments, announce to the\nworld that they have forsaken the religion of their fathers, and assert\nthat religion which they regard as true. The blindest and most bigoted\nTalmudist is a far more respectable man, and more acceptable in the\nsight of God, than he who pretends to profess a religion in which he\ndoes not believe, and whose precepts he regards as fanatical and\nsuperstitious.\n\nBut to return. From the above laws it appears that it is a sin to carry\nanything in a public jurisdiction a distance of more than four ells. But\nsuppose, then, that there was something which the Talmudists might find\nit convenient or desirable to move to a greater distance, is there no\nprovision to effect its conveyance? Yes. These scrupulous persons, who\nwould stone a man to death for carrying anything five ells, have an\nexpedient for conveying it a hundred miles if necessary:\u2014\n\n\u05dc\u05d2\u05d9\u05db\u05da \u05de\u05d5\u05ea\u05e8 \u05dc\u05d0\u05d3\u05dd \u05dc\u05e2\u05e7\u05d5\u05e8 \u05d4\u05d7\u05e4\u05e5 \u05de\u05e8\u05e9\u05d5\u05ea \u05d4\u05e8\u05d1\u05d9\u05dd \u05d5\u05dc\u05ea\u05e0\u05d5 \u05dc\u05d7\u05d1\u05e8\u05d5 \u05e9\u05d0\u05e6\u05dc\u05d5 \u05d1\u05ea\u05d5\u05da \u05d3\u05f3 \u05d0\u05de\u05d5\u05ea\u05d9\u05d5\n\u05d5\u05d7\u05d1\u05e8\u05d5 \u05dc\u05d7\u05d1\u05e8\u05d5 \u05e9\u05d0\u05e6\u05dc\u05d5 \u05d0\u05e4\u05d9\u05dc\u05d5 \u05e7\u05f3 \u05de\u05d9\u05dc\u05d9\u05df \u05d0\u05e2\u05f3\u05f3\u05e4 \u05e9\u05d4\u05d7\u05e4\u05e5 \u05d4\u05d5\u05dc\u05da \u05db\u05de\u05d4 \u05de\u05d9\u05dc\u05d9\u05df \u05d1\u05e8\u05e9\u05d5\u05ea \u05d4\u05e8\u05d1\u05d9\u05dd\n\u05e9\u05db\u05dc \u05d0\u05d7\u05d3 \u05dc\u05d0 \u05d9\u05d8\u05dc\u05d8\u05dc\u05e0\u05d5 \u05d0\u05dc\u05d0 \u05d1\u05ea\u05d5\u05da \u05d3\u05f3 \u05d0\u05de\u05d5\u05ea\u05d9\u05d5 \u05c3\n\n\u201cTherefore it is lawful for a man to move a matter from the public\njurisdiction, and to give it to his neighbour, who is within a distance\nof four ells; and his neighbour to his neighbour again, and so on, even\nfor a hundred miles. For although the thing itself go many miles, each\nperson has only moved it his four ells.\u201d (Orach Chaiim, 348.) We have\noften heard of the wonderful effects of division of labour, but never\nknew before that it could convert a capital offence into an innocent\nemployment. Surely it is not necessary to prove that if it be unlawful\nfor one person to do a particular act, it is equally unlawful for a\nhundred persons to combine for its performance. This law really has more\nthe appearance of a caricature devised by some enemy of the oral law,\nthan the grave decision of religious men in a matter of life and death.\nBut if we examine a little further, we shall find that it is unlawful to\nmove this same thing, whatever it be, from one jurisdiction to another,\nthough that other be close at hand:\u2014\n\n\u05db\u05e9\u05dd \u05e9\u05d0\u05e1\u05d5\u05e8 \u05dc\u05d8\u05dc\u05d8\u05dc \u05d1\u05db\u05dc \u05d4\u05db\u05e8\u05de\u05dc\u05d9\u05ea \u05d0\u05e1\u05d5\u05e8 \u05dc\u05d4\u05d5\u05e6\u05d9\u05d0 \u05de\u05de\u05e0\u05d4 \u05dc\u05e8\u05e9\u05d5\u05ea \u05d4\u05d9\u05d7\u05d9\u05d3 \u05d0\u05d5 \u05dc\u05e8\u05e9\u05d5\u05ea \u05d4\u05e8\u05d1\u05d9\u05dd\n\u05d0\u05d5 \u05dc\u05d4\u05db\u05e0\u05d9\u05e1 \u05dc\u05db\u05e8\u05de\u05dc\u05d9\u05ea \u05de\u05e8\u05e9\u05d5\u05ea \u05d4\u05d9\u05d7\u05d9\u05d3 \u05d0\u05d5 \u05de\u05e8\u05e9\u05d5\u05ea \u05d4\u05e8\u05d1\u05d9\u05dd , \u05d5\u05d0\u05dd \u05d4\u05d5\u05e6\u05d9\u05d0 \u05d0\u05d5 \u05d4\u05db\u05e0\u05d9\u05e1 \u05e4\u05d8\u05d5\u05e8 \u05c3\n\n\u201cAs it is unlawful to move anything in the place called Karmelith, so it\nis unlawful to carry anything out of it into a public or private\njurisdiction, or, _vice versa_, to introduce anything from either of\nthese into the Karmelith. But if any one does either he is not guilty,\u201d\nthat is, he is only to get a flogging, but not to be stoned. An\nunlearned man who had already seen something conveyed by the above\nexpedient, might easily be led to commit an offence of this kind. His\nuntutored mind might not perceive why the one should be sinful, if the\nother was lawful; but such an assertion of common sense would draw down\ncertain chastisement. At all events, he might be tempted to put his head\nfrom one jurisdiction into another, especially if he was standing in the\nstreet, and was offered a drink by a friend in a house, he might put his\nhead into the window and take what was offered, but would soon find, to\nhis cost, that he had broken one of the Sabbatic laws:\u2014\n\n\u05dc\u05d0 \u05d9\u05e2\u05de\u05d5\u05d3 \u05d0\u05d3\u05dd \u05d1\u05e8\u05e9\u05d5\u05ea \u05d4\u05d9\u05d7\u05d9\u05d3 \u05d5\u05d9\u05d5\u05e6\u05d9\u05d0 \u05e8\u05d0\u05e9\u05d5 \u05dc\u05e8\u05e9\u05d5\u05ea \u05d4\u05e8\u05d1\u05d9\u05dd \u05d5\u05d9\u05e9\u05ea\u05d4 \u05e9\u05dd \u05d0\u05d5 \u05d0\u05d9\u05e4\u05db\u05d0 \u05d0\u05dc\u05d0\n\u05d0\u05dd \u05db\u05df \u05d9\u05db\u05e0\u05d9\u05e1 \u05e8\u05d0\u05e9\u05d5 \u05d5\u05e8\u05d5\u05d1\u05d5 \u05dc\u05de\u05e7\u05d9\u05dd \u05e9\u05d4\u05d5\u05d0 \u05e9\u05d5\u05ea\u05d4 \u05d3\u05db\u05d9\u05d5\u05df \u05e9\u05d4\u05d5\u05d0 \u05e6\u05e8\u05d9\u05da \u05dc\u05d0\u05dc\u05d5 \u05d4\u05de\u05d9\u05dd \u05d0\u05e0\u05d5\n\u05d7\u05d5\u05e9\u05e9\u05d9\u05df \u05e9\u05de\u05d0 \u05d9\u05d1\u05d9\u05d0\u05dd \u05d0\u05dc\u05d9\u05d5 \u05d0\u05d1\u05dc \u05de\u05d5\u05ea\u05e8 \u05dc\u05e2\u05de\u05d5\u05d3 \u05d1\u05e8\u05e9\u05d5\u05ea \u05d4\u05d9\u05d7\u05d9\u05d3 \u05d0\u05d5 \u05d1\u05e8\u05e9\u05d5\u05ea \u05d4\u05e8\u05d1\u05d9\u05dd \u05d5\u05dc\u05e9\u05ea\u05d5\u05ea\n\u05d1\u05db\u05e8\u05de\u05dc\u05d9\u05ea \u05c3\n\n\u201cA man may not stand in a private jurisdiction, and put forth his head\ninto a public jurisdiction, and then drink, or vice versa. But if he\ndoes so, let him introduce his head and most of his body into the place\nin which he drinks, for as he wants the water, we fear lest he should\ntake it to himself (into the place where he is standing). But it is\nlawful to stand in a private or public jurisdiction and drink in that\nwhich is called Karmelith. (Orach Chaiim, 349.) It is evident that no\nunlearned man can stand a fair chance with laws like these. He could not\nhope even to escape corporal punishment. But if the accurate observance\nof such laws was the condition of salvation, he would have reason to\ndespair. The most honest desire to yield obedience and the utmost\nexertion of his understanding will not help him, nor compensate for his\nignorance. If, for instance, he should conclude, because it is unlawful\nfor himself to have his head in one jurisdiction and his body in another\nwhilst he is drinking, that it would be equally unlawful for cattle in\nthe same predicament to get food, he would be mistaken:\u2014\n\n\u05d1\u05d4\u05de\u05d4 \u05e9\u05d4\u05d9\u05ea\u05d4 \u05e8\u05d5\u05d1\u05d4 \u05d1\u05d7\u05d5\u05e5 \u05d5\u05e8\u05d0\u05e9\u05d4 \u05d1\u05e4\u05e0\u05d9\u05dd \u05d0\u05d5\u05d1\u05e1\u05d9\u05df \u05d0\u05d5\u05ea\u05d4 \u05c3\n\n\u201cA beast that has got most of its body outside, and its head inside, may\nbe fed.\u201d And if he should take this as the general rule of his conduct,\nhe would be mistaken again, for long-necked animals form an exception:\u2014\n\n\u05d5\u05d1\u05d2\u05de\u05dc \u05e2\u05d3 \u05e9\u05d9\u05d4\u05d0 \u05e8\u05d0\u05e9\u05d5 \u05d5\u05e8\u05d5\u05d1\u05d5 \u05d1\u05e4\u05e0\u05d9\u05dd \u05d4\u05d5\u05d0\u05d9\u05dc \u05d5\u05e6\u05d5\u05d0\u05e8\u05d5 \u05d0\u05e8\u05d5\u05da \u05c3\n\n\u201cBut in the ease of the camel, he must have his head and most of his\nbody inside, because his neck is long.\u201d (Hilchoth Shabbath, c. xxv. 1.)\nAnd so with endless cases which arise from this one distinction of\nplaces into four classes. Judaism is in all its parts a religion for the\nstudious, and for them only. For an unlearned man to keep the Sabbath,\nas the oral law requirers, is absolutely impossible. And after all, what\ngood does it bestow upon those who spend their life in the study? Does\nit improve the heart, or open more abundant views of the Divine mercy,\nor fill the soul with love to man? That it sharpens the wit and\nsubtlety, we do not doubt, but that is but small profit to man in\ngeneral. The criminal law of any country will do the same, and in truth\nthe oral law is very little more than the rabbinical criminal code. Its\ngreat subject is guilty and not guilty. And even in this it does not\naddress itself to the conscience, and lead a man to consider the\nworkings of the heart and the wanderings of the thought, and shew him\nsin at its fountain-head. It is a mere dry detail of external\nobservances, as may be seen from the numerous specimens adduced in these\npapers, and as might be shown more fully by translating the whole. If\nreal devout feeling and improvement of the heart in the fear of God and\nthe love of man be true religion, we might expect it, if anywhere, in\nthe Sabbath laws. The Sabbath is that holy day which God has set apart\nto raise men\u2019s thoughts from earth to heaven. It is that period of\nearned relaxation on which even the poor and the unlearned may lay aside\ntheir worldly cares and occupations, and meditate upon the love and will\nof God, and that eternity to which he is hastening. In the laws, then,\nrespecting the observance of this day, we might naturally expect the\nspirit of devotion to be manifested; but in the oral law we look in vain\nfor anything of the kind. Its directions about the Sabbath are one\ncontinued dry detail of external observances, which to a conscientious\nman acquainted with them, must constitute a load upon his conscience,\nsufficient to make the Sabbath the most unhappy day of all the seven.\nBut as to the poor and labouring classes, who have no time for study, it\nis impossible that they should know, and much more that they should\nkeep, all that is necessary for the right observation of the rabbinic\nSabbath. If, therefore, the oral law were true, the poor must lose a\nlarge portion of the blessings, and even be in danger of perdition. Nay,\nif it be true, then we must believe that God has given a religion\nimpossible to be observed by the poor, and offering great advantages to\nthe rich and learned, that is that He is a respecter of persons, though\nMoses and the prophets teach the contrary. But we would ask our readers,\nwhat use is it to them to profess a religion of which they can never\nattain a competent knowledge? We venture to affirm that the majority of\nIsraelites do not know enough of the oral law to help them to keep the\nSabbath, much less to observe the six hundred and thirteen commandments;\ncan it be said, then, that they possess a religion with which they are\nnot even acquainted? If the knowledge and practice of the oral law be\nnecessary to constitute a true Jew, ninety-nine out of every hundred\nmust give up their claims to the Jewish name. But then what is to become\nof the Jewesses, who are not even obligated to learn? Every rabbi will\nbe willing to confess that the women at least are ignorant of the oral\nlaw. Can they then have a portion in the world to come? If the knowledge\nand practice of the oral law be necessary to salvation, they cannot. But\nif they can be saved without it, then it follows that God has given a\nlaw, the knowledge of which is not necessary to salvation. Let every Jew\nask himself this question, Am I acquainted with all the precepts of the\noral law? If not, can I be saved without this knowledge? If I cannot,\nthen the Jewish religion is one which makes it impossible for the poor\nto be saved. If I can, then the Jewish religion is of no real use, for I\ncan be saved even without knowing it. Such a religion cannot be from\nGod. His religion is necessary to be known by every man, woman, and\nchild in the world, and the knowledge of it is just as easy to be\nacquired by the poor and unlearned as by the rich and studious. Let then\nthe poor and the unlearned consider the folly of professing a religion,\nwith which they can never hope to become acquainted, and let them return\nto the religion of Moses and the prophets, which, by the help of the God\nof Israel, every one can understand, at least so far as is necessary to\nsalvation. The Bible, like everything that has God for its author, has\nbeauties discoverable by the eye of the poor, at the same time that it\nhas perfections to exercise the observation and skill of the most\nlearned. And this holy book is the heritage of Israel, which the oral\nlaw can never be. The oral law may be the heritage and religion of the\nrabbies who know it, but it has no more to do with the religion of those\nwho know it not, than the laws of the Chinese. The great majority of the\nJewish people might just as well call themselves followers of Confucius.\nNo man can be said to believe in doctrines which he does not know, and\ncan never hope to know: and this is the case with nine-tenths of the\noral law.\n\n\n\n\n                               No. XXXI.\n                       RABBINIC EXCOMMUNICATION.\n\n\nIt is a fact, that the religion of the oral law has hitherto done but\nlittle to promote the temporal welfare of the Jewish people, and it is\nequally certain that, if supreme, it would destroy the happiness both of\nJews add Gentiles. Its endless definitions would necessarily produce\ntransgression. Its severity and readiness in excommunication would be\nthe source of constant trouble to individuals and families, and the\nsanguinary spirit of its criminal code would make the Jews a nation of\nmourners. Indeed, we seriously doubt, whether any, but a few fanatics,\nwish to see the oral law vested with supreme power, and ruling over the\nlives and properties of the Jewish nation. Every reflecting Israelite\nmust know that the Sanhedrin, wielding the absolute power ascribed to it\nin the rabbinic traditions, would be the most oppressive tribunal that\never lorded it over the consciences of men. But we must remember that it\nwould not be with the Sanhedrin and other tribunals alone, that the\nIsraelites would have to do. Every rabbi, and every disciple of a wise\nman, would have the right of excommunicating any one who offended them.\nAfter determining that the tribunals can and ought in certain cases to\nexcommunicate, the oral law adds\u2014\n\n\u05d5\u05db\u05df \u05d4\u05d7\u05db\u05dd \u05e2\u05e6\u05de\u05d5 \u05de\u05e0\u05d3\u05d4 \u05dc\u05db\u05d1\u05d5\u05d3\u05d5 \u05dc\u05e2\u05dd \u05d4\u05d0\u05e8\u05e5 \u05e9\u05d4\u05e7\u05e4\u05d9\u05d3 \u05d1\u05d5 \u05d5\u05d0\u05d9\u05df \u05e6\u05e8\u05d9\u05da \u05dc\u05d0 \u05e2\u05d3\u05d9\u05dd \u05d5\u05dc\u05d0 \u05d4\u05ea\u05e8\u05d0\u05d4\n, \u05d5\u05d0\u05d9\u05df \u05de\u05ea\u05d9\u05e8\u05d9\u05df \u05dc\u05d5 \u05e2\u05d3 \u05e9\u05d9\u05e8\u05e6\u05d4 \u05d0\u05ea \u05d4\u05d7\u05db\u05dd , \u05d5\u05d0\u05dd \u05de\u05ea \u05d4\u05d7\u05db\u05dd \u05d1\u05d0\u05d9\u05df \u05e9\u05dc\u05e9\u05d4 \u05d5\u05de\u05ea\u05d9\u05e8\u05d9\u05df \u05dc\u05d5 .\n\u05d5\u05d0\u05dd \u05e8\u05e6\u05d4 \u05d4\u05d7\u05db\u05dd \u05dc\u05de\u05d7\u05d5\u05dc \u05dc\u05d5 \u05d5\u05dc\u05d0 \u05dc\u05e0\u05d3\u05d4\u05d5 \u05d4\u05e8\u05e9\u05d5\u05ea \u05d1\u05d9\u05d3\u05d5 \u05c3\n\n\u201cAnd in like manner the wise man himself may, on account of his honour,\nexcommunicate an unlearned man who has treated him with contumely, and\nthere is no need of witnesses nor admonition. And the excommunicate\nperson is not to be absolved until he appease the wise man. But if the\nwise man die, three persons come and absolve him. If, however, the wise\nman wish to pardon, and not excommunicate him, the power is in his own\nhand.\u201d (Hilchoth Talmud Torah, c. vi. 12.) From this law we see that the\nrestoration of rabbinic power would be the most oppressive system of\ngovernment ever devised. Every learned man would be a petty tyrant,\nconstituting both judge and jury in his own person, and able, at his own\ncaprice, to inflict a severe punishment. The most absolute aristocracy\nof the feudal times never dared to assume or exercise a power so\nmonstrous and so oppressive. No priesthood, even in the darkest times,\never claimed such personal authority as is here given to every\nindividual rabbi. It is true that he may, if he please, forgive the\nunfortunate offender, but it is much to be feared that such absolute\npower would in most cases be too strong a temptation to the frail sons\nof men. And at all events the principle is utterly inconsistent with\nwise legislation, and most dangerous to the liberty of the poor and\nunlearned; for the reader will observe that it is only an unlearned man,\nan \u201cam-haaretz,\u201d who may be dealt with in this summary manner. And this\nis another proof that the religion of the oral law is a religion devised\nfor the advantage of the rich and learned, but regardless of the\nspiritual and temporal welfare of the lower classes. For the learned and\nthe great the law is very different:\u2014\n\n\u05d7\u05db\u05dd \u05d6\u05e7\u05df \u05d1\u05d7\u05db\u05de\u05d4 \u05d5\u05db\u05df \u05e0\u05e9\u05d9\u05d0 \u05d0\u05d5 \u05d0\u05d1 \u05d1\u05f3\u05f3\u05d3 \u05e9\u05e1\u05e8\u05d7 \u05d0\u05d9\u05df \u05de\u05e0\u05d3\u05d9\u05df \u05d0\u05d5\u05ea\u05d5 \u05d1\u05e4\u05e8\u05d4\u05e1\u05d9\u05d0 \u05dc\u05e2\u05e7\u05dc\u05dd \u05d0\u05dc\u05d0\n\u05d0\u05dd \u05db\u05df \u05e2\u05e9\u05d4 \u05db\u05d9\u05e8\u05d1\u05e2\u05dd \u05d1\u05df \u05e0\u05d1\u05d8 \u05d5\u05d7\u05d1\u05d9\u05e8\u05d9\u05d5 \u05d0\u05d1\u05dc \u05db\u05e9\u05d7\u05d8\u05d0 \u05e9\u05d0\u05e8 \u05d7\u05d8\u05d0\u05d5\u05ea \u05de\u05dc\u05e7\u05d9\u05df \u05d0\u05d5\u05ea\u05d5 \u05d1\u05e6\u05e0\u05e2\u05d4\n\u05e9\u05e0\u05d0\u05de\u05e8 \u05d5\u05db\u05e9\u05dc\u05ea \u05d4\u05d9\u05d5\u05dd \u05d5\u05db\u05e9\u05dc \u05d2\u05dd \u05e0\u05d1\u05d9\u05d0 \u05e2\u05de\u05da \u05dc\u05d9\u05dc\u05d4 \u05d0\u05e2\u05f3\u05f3\u05e4 \u05e9\u05db\u05e9\u05dc \u05db\u05e1\u05d4\u05d5 \u05d1\u05dc\u05d9\u05dc\u05d4 , \u05d5\u05d0\u05d5\u05de\u05e8\u05d9\u05dd\n\u05dc\u05d5 \u05d4\u05db\u05d1\u05d3 \u05d5\u05e9\u05d1 \u05d1\u05d1\u05d9\u05ea\u05da \u05d5\u05db\u05df \u05db\u05dc \u05ea\u05f3\u05f3\u05d7 \u05e9\u05e0\u05ea\u05d7\u05d9\u05d9\u05d1 \u05e0\u05d9\u05d3\u05d5\u05d9 \u05d0\u05e1\u05d5\u05e8 \u05dc\u05d1\u05f3\u05f3\u05d3 \u05dc\u05e7\u05e4\u05d5\u05e5 \u05d5\u05dc\u05e0\u05d3\u05d5\u05ea\u05d5\n\u05d1\u05de\u05d4\u05e8\u05d4 \u05c3\n\n\u201cA wise man, old in wisdom, or a prince, or a president of a tribunal,\nwho has sinned, is never to be excommunicated publicly, unless he have\ndone as Jeroboam, the son of Nebat, and his companions. But when he\ncommits other sins, he is to be flogged in private. For it is said,\n\u2018Therefore shalt thou fall in the day, and the prophet also shall fall\nwith thee in the night,\u2019 (Hos. iv. 5,) _i.e._, although he fall, cover\nhim as it were with the night. And they say to him, \u2018Honour thyself, and\nabide in thy house.\u2019 (2 Kings xiv. 10.) In like manner, when a disciple\nof a wise man makes himself guilty of excommunication, it is unlawful\nfor the tribunal to be too quick, and to excommunicate him hastily.\u201d\n(Ibid. c. vii. 1.) The rabbies have endeavoured to justify this\ndifferent legislation for the learned and unlearned by a verse of the\nBible, but their interpretation of that verse is quite erroneous. When\nGod says, \u201cTherefore shalt thou fall in the day, and the prophet shall\nalso fall with thee in the night,\u201d he is not speaking of the learned and\nunlearned, nor of the different way in which their sins were to be\npunished, but of the destruction which was coming upon Israel, as may be\nseen in Kimchi\u2019s Commentary. He interprets the verse thus\u2014\n\n\u05d5\u05db\u05e9\u05dc\u05ea \u05d4\u05d9\u05d5\u05dd \u05d0\u05de\u05e8 \u05db\u05e0\u05d2\u05d3 \u05d9\u05e9\u05e8\u05d0\u05dc \u05d1\u05e2\u05d1\u05d5\u05e8 \u05de\u05e2\u05e9\u05d9\u05da \u05ea\u05db\u05e9\u05dc \u05d5\u05ea\u05e4\u05d5\u05dc , \u05d4\u05d9\u05d5\u05dd \u05e8\u05f3\u05f3\u05dc \u05d7\u05d6\u05de\u05df \u05d4\u05d6\u05d4\n\u05d1\u05e7\u05e8\u05d5\u05d1 \u05ea\u05d1\u05d5\u05d0 \u05de\u05e4\u05dc\u05ea\u05da , \u05d5\u05db\u05df \u05d5\u05d7\u05e8\u05d4 \u05d0\u05e4\u05d9 \u05d1\u05d5 \u05d1\u05d9\u05d5\u05dd \u05d4\u05d4\u05d5\u05d0 , \u05d1\u05d9\u05d5\u05dd \u05d4\u05d4\u05d5\u05d0 \u05e9\u05d5\u05e8\u05e9 \u05d9\u05e9\u05d9\n\u05d5\u05d4\u05d3\u05d5\u05de\u05d9\u05dd \u05dc\u05d4\u05dd , \u05e2\u05e0\u05d9\u05e0\u05dd \u05e2\u05ea \u05d5\u05d6\u05de\u05df , \u05d5\u05db\u05e9\u05dc \u05d2\u05dd \u05e0\u05d1\u05d9\u05d0 \u05e2\u05de\u05da \u05dc\u05d9\u05dc\u05d4 \u05e0\u05d1\u05d9\u05d0 \u05e9\u05e7\u05e8 \u05d4\u05de\u05ea\u05e2\u05d4 \u05d0\u05d5\u05ea\u05da\n\u05d9\u05db\u05e9\u05dc \u05e2\u05de\u05da \u05db\u05de\u05d5 \u05d4\u05d0\u05d3\u05dd \u05e0\u05db\u05e9\u05dc \u05d1\u05dc\u05d9\u05dc\u05d4 \u05d1\u05d7\u05e9\u05db\u05d4 \u05d5\u05db\u05df \u05ea\u05e8\u05d2\u05dd \u05d9\u05d5\u05e0\u05ea\u05df \u05c3\n\n\u201c_Therefore shalt thou stumble in the day._\u201d This refers to Israel, and\nmeans on account of thy deeds thou shalt stumble and fall. _This day_;\nthat is, in this time; thy fall shall soon come. And so we read, \u201cThen\nmy anger shall be kindled against them in that day.\u201d (Deut. xxxi. 17.)\nAnd again, \u201cIn that day there shall be a root of Jesse,\u201d (Isaiah xi.\n10,) where day means time and period. _And the prophet also shall fall\nwith thee in the night_, that is, the false prophet who deceiveth thee\nshall stumble with thee, as men stumble in the night in darkness; and so\nthe Targum of Jonathan has it. (Kimchi, Comment. in Hos. iv. 2.) Kimchi\nand Jonathan, then, both testify that the oral law gives a false\ninterpretation of this verse. This is in itself rather awkward for a law\nthat professes to have been given by God, but still more so when it is\nmade the basis of most unjust and partial legislation, to save the\nlearned from the punishment which an unlearned man would have in similar\ncircumstances to suffer. No one can deny that the learned and unlearned\nare here placed on very unequal terms. If an unlearned man provoke a\nrabbi, he may be excommunicated by that individual without either judge\nor jury, or even the form of a trial. But if a learned man makes himself\nliable to the same punishment, even a court of justice has not the power\nto pronounce the sentence. Who can doubt that the rabbies made these\nlaws for their own convenience? Can any one believe that God has given\nthis law, which makes the learned a privileged class of persons, who,\nthough guilty of the same offence as the working classes, is to be\nspared, whilst they are to be punished? God is no respecter of persons,\nand therefore no such law can be from him.\n\nThe extreme injustice of this mode of legislation will appear still more\nfrom considering the nature of the punishment:\u2014\n\n\u05de\u05d4\u05d5 \u05d4\u05de\u05e0\u05d4\u05d2 \u05e9\u05d9\u05e0\u05d4\u05d2 \u05d4\u05de\u05e0\u05d5\u05d3\u05d4 \u05d1\u05e2\u05e6\u05de\u05d5 \u05d5\u05e9\u05e0\u05d5\u05d4\u05d2\u05d9\u05df \u05e2\u05de\u05d5 , \u05de\u05e0\u05d5\u05d3\u05d4 \u05d0\u05e1\u05d5\u05e8 \u05dc\u05e1\u05e4\u05e8 \u05d5\u05dc\u05db\u05d1\u05e1 \u05db\u05d0\u05d1\u05dc\n\u05db\u05dc \u05d9\u05de\u05d9 \u05e0\u05d9\u05d3\u05d5\u05d9\u05d5 , \u05d5\u05d0\u05d9\u05df \u05de\u05d6\u05de\u05e0\u05d9\u05df \u05e2\u05dc\u05d9\u05d5 , \u05d5\u05dc\u05d0 \u05db\u05d5\u05dc\u05dc\u05d9\u05df \u05d0\u05d5\u05ea\u05d5 \u05d1\u05e2\u05e9\u05e8\u05d4 \u05dc\u05db\u05dc \u05d3\u05d1\u05e8 \u05e9\u05e6\u05e8\u05d9\u05da\n\u05e2\u05e9\u05e8\u05d4 , \u05d5\u05dc\u05d0 \u05d9\u05d5\u05e9\u05d1\u05d9\u05df \u05e2\u05de\u05d5 \u05d1\u05d0\u05e8\u05d1\u05e2 \u05d0\u05de\u05d5\u05ea , \u05d0\u05d1\u05dc \u05e9\u05d5\u05e0\u05d4 \u05d4\u05d5\u05d0 \u05dc\u05d0\u05d7\u05e8\u05d9\u05dd \u05d5\u05e9\u05d5\u05e0\u05d9\u05df \u05dc\u05d5 , \u05d5\u05e0\u05e9\u05db\u05e8\n\u05d5\u05e9\u05d5\u05db\u05e8 , \u05d5\u05d0\u05dd \u05de\u05ea \u05d1\u05e0\u05d3\u05d5\u05d9\u05d5 \u05d1\u05d9\u05ea \u05d3\u05d9\u05df \u05e9\u05d5\u05dc\u05d7\u05d9\u05df \u05d5\u05de\u05e0\u05d9\u05d7\u05d9\u05df \u05d0\u05d1\u05df \u05e2\u05dc \u05d0\u05e8\u05d5\u05e0\u05d5 , \u05db\u05dc\u05d5\u05de\u05e8 \u05e9\u05d7\u05df\n\u05e8\u05d5\u05d2\u05de\u05d9\u05df \u05d0\u05d5\u05ea\u05d5 , \u05dc\u05e4\u05d9 \u05e9\u05d4\u05d5\u05d0 \u05de\u05d5\u05d1\u05d3\u05dc \u05de\u05df \u05d4\u05e6\u05d9\u05d1\u05d5\u05e8 \u05d5\u05d0\u05d9\u05df \u05e6\u05e8\u05d9\u05da \u05dc\u05d5\u05de\u05e8 \u05e9\u05d0\u05d9\u05df \u05de\u05e1\u05e4\u05d9\u05d3\u05d9\u05df \u05d0\u05d5\u05ea\u05d5\n\u05d5\u05d0\u05d9\u05df \u05de\u05dc\u05d5\u05d9\u05df \u05d0\u05ea \u05de\u05d8\u05ea\u05d5 ... \u05de\u05d9 \u05e9\u05d9\u05e9\u05d1 \u05d1\u05e0\u05d9\u05d3\u05d5\u05d9\u05d5 \u05e9\u05dc\u05e9\u05d9\u05dd \u05d9\u05d5\u05dd \u05d5\u05dc\u05d0 \u05d1\u05e7\u05e9 \u05dc\u05d4\u05ea\u05d9\u05e8\u05d5 \u05de\u05e0\u05d3\u05d9\u05df\n\u05d0\u05d5\u05ea\u05d5 \u05e9\u05e0\u05d9\u05d9\u05d4 \u05d9\u05e9\u05d1 \u05e9\u05dc\u05e9\u05d9\u05dd \u05d9\u05d5\u05dd \u05d0\u05d7\u05e8\u05d9\u05dd \u05d5\u05dc\u05d0 \u05d1\u05e7\u05e9 \u05dc\u05d4\u05ea\u05d9\u05e8\u05d5 \u05de\u05d7\u05e8\u05d9\u05de\u05d9\u05df \u05d0\u05d5\u05ea\u05d5 \u05c3\n\n\u201cHow is an excommunicate person to conduct himself, and how are others\nto conduct themselves towards him? It is unlawful for an excommunicate\nperson, as for a mourner, to trim his heard or hair, or to wash all the\ndays of his excommunication; neither is he to be associated in\npronouncing the benedictions; neither is he to be reckoned as one of\nten, wherever ten persons are required; neither may any one sit within\nfour ells of him. He may however teach others and be taught. He may hire\nand be hired. But if he die in his excommunication, the tribunal send\nand lay a stone upon his coffin to signify that they stone him because\nhe is separated from the congregation. And it is unnecessary to say that\nhe is not to be mourned for, and that his funeral is not to be\nattended.... Whosoever remains thirty days in his excommunication\nwithout seeking to be absolved, is to be excommunicated a second time.\nIf he abide thirty days more without seeking absolution, he is then to\nbe anathematized.\u201d (Hilchoth Talmud Torah, ibid.) This, then, is the\npunishment which a learned man has it in his power to inflict at will.\nHe may deprive him of the comforts of cleanliness and perhaps injure his\nhealth. He may hold him up to the public scorn by separating him by four\nells from all decent people. He may heap obloquy upon his death and\ndeprive him of a respectful burial, or if the man survive under the\npublic contempt, and refuse to give the rabbi satisfaction, he will be\nanathematized, and his prospects for this world, at least, irretrievably\nruined. The law respecting the anathematized person is this:\u2014\n\n\u05d0\u05d9\u05e0\u05d5 \u05e9\u05d5\u05e0\u05d4 \u05dc\u05d0\u05d7\u05e8\u05d9\u05dd \u05d5\u05d0\u05d9\u05df \u05e9\u05d5\u05e0\u05d9\u05df \u05dc\u05d5 \u05d0\u05d1\u05dc \u05e9\u05d5\u05e0\u05d4 \u05d4\u05d5\u05d0 \u05dc\u05e2\u05e6\u05de\u05d5 \u05e9\u05dc\u05d0 \u05d9\u05e9\u05db\u05d7 \u05ea\u05dc\u05de\u05d5\u05d3\u05d5 \u05d5\u05d0\u05d9\u05e0\u05d5\n\u05e0\u05e9\u05db\u05e8 \u05d5\u05d0\u05d9\u05df \u05e0\u05e9\u05db\u05e8\u05d9\u05df \u05dc\u05d5 , \u05d5\u05d0\u05d9\u05df \u05e0\u05d5\u05e9\u05d0\u05d9\u05df \u05d5\u05e0\u05d5\u05ea\u05e0\u05d9\u05df \u05e2\u05de\u05d5 , \u05d5\u05d0\u05d9\u05df \u05de\u05ea\u05e2\u05e1\u05e7\u05d9\u05df \u05e2\u05de\u05d5 \u05d0\u05dc\u05d0 \u05de\u05e2\u05d8\n\u05e2\u05e1\u05e7 \u05db\u05d3\u05d9 \u05e4\u05e8\u05e0\u05e1\u05ea\u05d5 \u05c3\n\n\u201cHe is not to teach others nor to be taught, but may learn by himself\nthat he may not forget the learning. He is not to be hired, nor to hire.\nMen may have no dealings with him, nor any business except a little that\nhe may get a livelihood.\u201d Now then suppose that an unlearned man does or\nsays something, which a rabbi interprets as contempt, he is first\nexcommunicated. If, in the consciousness of innocence, he refuses to ask\nfor the rabbi\u2019s forgiveness, he is at last anathematized, and all his\nbusiness stopped, and all this is done to him because he is an unlearned\nman. He is himself to be dishonoured, his business ruined, and he\nhimself to die of a broken heart, not because he has committed some\ngrievous crime, but because he has been wanting in respect either to the\nrabbi\u2019s person or his words. The most absolute autocrat never made a law\nmore despotic.\n\nBut some one will say, that the rabbi has the power of forgiving if he\nplease, and that the oral law recommends him to do so. It is true that\nif the affront be given in private, he has this power, and is told to\nforgive, but not so if it be offered in public, he has then no choice.\nHe is bound to excommunicate the offender. That we may not appear to act\nunfairly, we will give the whole passage:\u2014\n\n\u05d0\u05e3 \u05e2\u05dc \u05e4\u05d9 \u05e9\u05d9\u05e9 \u05e8\u05e9\u05d5\u05ea \u05dc\u05d7\u05db\u05dd \u05dc\u05e0\u05d3\u05d5\u05ea \u05dc\u05db\u05d1\u05d5\u05d3\u05d5 \u05d0\u05d9\u05e0\u05d5 \u05e9\u05d1\u05d7 \u05dc\u05ea\u05dc\u05de\u05d9\u05d3 \u05d7\u05db\u05dd \u05dc\u05d4\u05e0\u05d4\u05d9\u05d2 \u05e2\u05e6\u05de\u05d5 \u05d1\u05d3\u05d1\u05e8\n\u05d6\u05d4 \u05d0\u05dc\u05d0 \u05de\u05e2\u05dc\u05d9\u05dd \u05d0\u05d6\u05e0\u05d9\u05d5 \u05de\u05d3\u05d1\u05e8\u05d9 \u05e2\u05dd \u05d4\u05d0\u05e8\u05e5 \u05d5\u05dc\u05d0 \u05d9\u05e9\u05d9\u05ea \u05dc\u05d1\u05d5 \u05dc\u05d4\u05df \u05db\u05e2\u05e0\u05d9\u05df \u05e9\u05d0\u05de\u05e8 \u05e9\u05dc\u05de\u05d4 \u05d1\u05d7\u05db\u05de\u05ea\u05d5\n\u05d2\u05dd \u05dc\u05db\u05dc \u05d4\u05d3\u05d1\u05e8\u05d9\u05dd \u05d0\u05e9\u05e8 \u05d9\u05d3\u05d1\u05e8\u05d5 \u05d0\u05dc \u05ea\u05ea\u05df \u05dc\u05d1\u05da , \u05d5\u05db\u05df \u05d4\u05d9\u05d4 \u05d3\u05e8\u05da \u05d7\u05e1\u05d9\u05d3\u05d9\u05dd \u05d4\u05e8\u05d0\u05e9\u05d5\u05e0\u05d9\u05dd \u05e9\u05d5\u05de\u05e2\u05d9\u05dd\n\u05d7\u05e8\u05e4\u05ea\u05dd \u05d5\u05d0\u05d9\u05e0\u05df \u05de\u05e9\u05d9\u05d1\u05d9\u05df \u05d5\u05dc\u05d0 \u05e2\u05d5\u05d3 \u05d0\u05dc\u05d0 \u05e9\u05de\u05d5\u05d7\u05dc\u05d9\u05dd \u05dc\u05de\u05d7\u05e8\u05e3 \u05d5\u05e1\u05d5\u05dc\u05d7\u05d9\u05dd \u05dc\u05d5 , \u05d5\u05d7\u05db\u05de\u05d9\u05dd \u05d2\u05d3\u05d5\u05dc\u05d9\u05dd\n\u05d4\u05d9\u05d5 \u05de\u05e9\u05ea\u05d1\u05d7\u05d9\u05dd \u05d1\u05de\u05e2\u05e9\u05d9\u05d4\u05dd \u05d4\u05e0\u05d0\u05d9\u05dd \u05d5\u05d0\u05d5\u05de\u05e8\u05d9\u05dd \u05e9\u05de\u05e2\u05d5\u05dc\u05dd \u05dc\u05d0 \u05e0\u05d9\u05d3\u05d5 \u05d0\u05d3\u05dd \u05d5\u05dc\u05d0 \u05d4\u05d7\u05e8\u05d9\u05de\u05d5\u05d4\u05d5 \u05dc\u05db\u05d1\u05d5\u05d3\u05df\n, \u05d5\u05d6\u05d5 \u05d4\u05d9\u05d0 \u05d3\u05e8\u05db\u05dd \u05e9\u05dc \u05ea\u05dc\u05de\u05d9\u05d3\u05d9 \u05d7\u05db\u05de\u05d9\u05dd \u05e9\u05e8\u05d0\u05d5\u05d9 \u05dc\u05d9\u05dc\u05da \u05d1\u05d4 , \u05d1\u05de\u05d4 \u05d3\u05d1\u05e8\u05d9\u05dd \u05d0\u05de\u05d5\u05e8\u05d9\u05dd \u05db\u05e9\u05d1\u05d6\u05d5\u05d4\u05d5\n\u05d0\u05d5 \u05d7\u05e8\u05e4\u05d5\u05d4\u05d5 \u05d1\u05e1\u05ea\u05e8 \u05d0\u05d1\u05dc \u05ea\u05dc\u05de\u05d9\u05d3 \u05d7\u05db\u05dd \u05e9\u05d1\u05d6\u05d4\u05d5 \u05d0\u05d5 \u05d7\u05e8\u05e4\u05d5 \u05d0\u05d3\u05dd \u05d1\u05e4\u05e8\u05d4\u05e1\u05d9\u05d0 \u05d0\u05e1\u05d5\u05e8 \u05dc\u05d5 \u05dc\u05de\u05d7\u05d5\u05dc \u05e2\u05dc\n\u05db\u05d1\u05d5\u05d3\u05d5 \u05d5\u05d0\u05dd \u05de\u05d7\u05dc \u05e0\u05e2\u05e0\u05e9 \u05e9\u05d6\u05d4 \u05d1\u05d6\u05d9\u05d5\u05df \u05e9\u05dc \u05ea\u05d5\u05e8\u05d4 \u05d0\u05dc\u05d0 \u05e0\u05d5\u05e7\u05dd \u05d5\u05e0\u05d5\u05d8\u05e8 \u05d4\u05d3\u05d1\u05e8 \u05db\u05e0\u05d7\u05e9 \u05e2\u05d3 \u05e9\u05d9\u05d1\u05e7\u05e9\n\u05de\u05de\u05e0\u05d5 \u05de\u05d7\u05d9\u05dc\u05d4 \u05c3\n\n\u201cAlthough a wise man has the power to excommunicate on account of his\nhonour, yet it is not to be praised in the disciple of a wise man who\ndoes so. On the contrary he ought to shut his ears against the words of\nan unlearned man (am-haaretz), and not to attend to them, according as\nSolomon has said in his wisdom, \u2018Take no heed to all the things that are\nspoken.\u2019 (Eccles. vii. 21.) And such was the custom of the saints of\nold, who heard their reviling, but did not answer; and not only so, but\nthey pardoned the reviler, and forgave him. The greatest of the wise men\nused to glory in their good deeds, and say, that they had never\nexcommunicated nor anathematized any man on account of their honour, and\nthis is the way in which the disciples of the wise men ought to walk. In\nwhat case is this to be applied? When they have been despised or reviled\nin secret. _But if the disciple of a wise man be despised or reviled by\nany man publicly, it is unlawful for him to forgive any affront to his\nhonour, and if he forgive he is to be punished, for this is a contempt\nof the law. He is on the contrary, to avenge and keep the thing in mind,\nlike a serpent, until the offender entreat to be forgiven._\u201d (Ibid. c.\nvii. 13.) The great object of these laws is plainly to uphold the power\nand dignity of the rabbies, and to make it impossible for the people to\nshake off their yoke. The care which is taken to punish every offence\nagainst the wise men betrays a lurking consciousness of error, and a\nfear lest the common people should compare their precepts with\nScripture, assert the plain unsophisticated truth, and thus shake off\nthe galling chains of rabbinism. To prevent this, the very first\nsemblance of disobedience is to be punished with excommunication. But\nfor the poor and unlearned, if insulted by a learned man, there is no\nsatisfaction. He cannot thunder out an excommunication or an anathema in\nreturn. For him the oral law makes no provision, except for his\npunishment. If Judaism, therefore, should ever attain the supreme power,\nthe working and unlearned classes will be placed in the power and at the\nmercy of the learned, and every disciple of a wise man will wield the\nabsolute power of an autocrat.\n\nBut some one may say, that if the disciple of a wise man should\nexcommunicate any one hastily that the people would not regard his\nexcommunication. But if they did not, they would do it at their peril,\nfor the oral law expressly declares that they are bound to observe the\nexcommunication not only of a rabbi, but of one of his disciples:\u2014\n\n\u05d4\u05e8\u05d1 \u05e9\u05e0\u05d9\u05d3\u05d4 \u05dc\u05db\u05d1\u05d5\u05d3\u05d5 \u05db\u05dc \u05ea\u05dc\u05de\u05d9\u05d3\u05d9\u05d5 \u05d7\u05d9\u05d9\u05d1\u05d9\u05df \u05dc\u05e0\u05d4\u05d5\u05d2 \u05d1\u05d5 \u05e0\u05d3\u05d5\u05d9 \u05d1\u05de\u05e0\u05d5\u05d3\u05d4 \u05d0\u05d1\u05dc \u05ea\u05dc\u05de\u05d9\u05d3 \u05e9\u05e0\u05d9\u05d3\u05d4\n\u05dc\u05db\u05d1\u05d5\u05d3 \u05e2\u05e6\u05de\u05d5 \u05d0\u05d9\u05df \u05d4\u05e8\u05d1 \u05d7\u05d9\u05d9\u05d1 \u05dc\u05e0\u05d4\u05d5\u05d2 \u05d1\u05d5 \u05e0\u05d3\u05d5\u05d9 \u05d0\u05d1\u05dc \u05db\u05dc \u05d4\u05e2\u05dd \u05d7\u05d9\u05d9\u05d1\u05d9\u05df \u05dc\u05e0\u05d4\u05d5\u05d2 \u05d1\u05d5 \u05e0\u05d3\u05d5\u05d9 \u05c3\n\n\u201cWhen a rabbi excommunicates on account of his honour, all his disciples\nare bound to treat the excommunicate person as such. But when a disciple\nexcommunicates on account of his own honour, the rabbi is not bound to\ntreat that person as excommunicate, but all the people are bound.\u201d\n(Ibid. c. vi. 13.) Nothing can more clearly prove the injustice of such\nexcommunication. If the rabbi be not bound to regard the disciples\u2019\nexcommunication, why should all the people be bound? If the offence\ncommitted against the disciple be a sin before God, and such it ought to\nbe to require such severe punishment, the excommunication ought to be as\nbinding upon the rabbi as upon the people. But if it be not binding upon\nthe rabbi, then the offence for which it was inflicted cannot be a sin\nin the sight of God, it is therefore an arbitrary and unjust punishment,\nand it is both wicked and cruel to require the people to obey it. But\nthe principle itself is monstrous, that the disciple of a rabbi should\nbe constituted both judge and jury in his own case, and have the power\nof lording it over those, whose circumstances do not permit them to\ndevote their time to study, and who, therefore, cannot be enrolled in\nthe privileged class. Just suppose that the clergy of this land, or the\nprofessors and students at our Universities, were to claim such power,\nand to excommunicate and anathematize all who treated them with\ndisrespect, and that without any trial or conviction before a legal\ntribunal, and that the unfortunate victims were to be separated from\nsociety, ruined, and then their dead bodies treated with dishonour,\nwould not this be regarded as a monstrous and insupportable tyranny? Yet\nthis is what the oral law claims for the rabbies and their disciples,\nand what they would possess and exercise if Judaism ever attains to\nsupreme power. Would the Jews wish such a power established? Do they\ndesire to live under such a government? If they do not, if they prefer\nthe personal liberty and the even-handed justice secured to them by\nChristian laws, then they confess that the Christian principles are\nbetter than those of their own religion, and they must be charged with\ninconsistency in professing and asserting the truth of a religion, which\nthey hope may never triumph. Every man who believes his religious\nprinciples to be Divine, must wish that they should triumph, and that\nthey should have free scope for their development. Any man who dreads\nthe triumph of his religion must have secret misgivings that it is\nfalse. We therefore ask every Jew whether he desires that the oral law\nshould attain that absolute power which it claims, and that every rabbi\nand his disciples should have the power of excommunicating and\nanathematizing all who affront them? One of the most perfect tests of a\nreligion, is to consider what would be its effects if supreme. At\npresent there are various systems of religion in the world, some of\nwhich, as directly contradicting others, must be decidedly false. The\nhope of all reflecting men is, that the truth will ultimately triumph,\nthat God himself will at last interpose, and establish the dominion of\ntruth and eradicate all error. Each hopes that his own system will then\nprevail, but let him follow out that system, and see how it will work,\nwhen all resistance shall be vain. Let the Jews calmly consider the\nstate of things, when the rabbies and their disciples shall be masters\nof the world, as they must one day be, if Judaism be true. The unlearned\nwill then be completely at their mercy, their servants and their\nbondmen. Will this be a happy condition, or is this state of things\ndesirable? In the first place, there will be no personal liberty. Any\nman who may chance to differ from a rabbi, and treat him with disrespect\nwill immediately be excommunicated. In the second place, there will be\nno liberty of conscience or of thought. Every man must then let the\nrabbies think for him, and he must be content to receive their decisions\nwithout any appeal. The body will scarcely have the appearance of being\nfree, and the intellect will be bound in fetters of adamant. It will no\ndoubt be a glorious period for the wise men and their disciples, but\nthey will always form a small minority, compared with the bulk of\nmankind. The majority of Israel, not now to speak of the Gentiles, will\nthen be degraded into poor, crouching, submissive servants of the\nlearned, afraid to use their reason, and always having the fear and\ndread of excommunication before their eyes. Do they then honestly wish\nfor such a state of things, to be tied hand and foot, and given into the\nhands of their learned men? If they do not, if they see the horror and\nthe injustice and degradation of such a state of things, why do they\nprofess a religion which will inevitably lead to it, if it be true? If\nsuch laws be unjust, and such a consummation dreadful, instead of\ndesirable, the religion of the oral law must necessarily be false; and\nit is the duty of every Israelite to consider what he is doing in\nupholding it. The present state of things will not continue always. The\nJewish nation cannot always wish to be wanderers in foreign lands. They\nlook forward to a restoration to the land of their fathers, and they\nwish in that land to be happy and prosperous. But happiness and\nprosperity will be unknown words, if they are then to be governed\naccording to the principles of the oral law. That law gives the learned\na monopoly of power and happiness, but leaves the mass of the nation in\nbondage. Do they then, in contemplating the re-establishment of the\nkingdom of Israel, expect another than the oral law, and other\nprinciples of religion and justice? If they do, they confess that the\noral law is false, and if it would be false and hurtful, and destructive\nof all happiness, if supreme, it is equally false and hurtful now. The\nIsraelite, therefore, who upholds it, is upholding a false system. He\nmay do it in ignorance, and we believe that this is the case with the\nmajority; but it is most unbecoming in any reasonable man to profess a\nreligion of which he is ignorant. He may answer, I have no time to\nacquire an accurate knowledge of my religion. The books in which it is\ncontained are too voluminous to admit of my acquiring an acquaintance\nwith them. I must work for my bread. We grant that this is the fact, but\nthen this brings us back to our original position, that Judaism is only\na religion for those who have leisure, that is, for the rich and the\nlearned, and we conclude, on that very account, that it cannot be from\nGod, who looks neither at riches nor learning, but considereth the\nwelfare, and above all, the religious welfare of the poorest of his\ncreatures. The especial character of the Messiah is, that he will care\nfor the poor. \u201cHe shall judge the poor of the people, he shall save the\nchildren of the needy.\u201d (Psalm lxxii. 4.) He, therefore, cannot have the\nreligion of the oral law. He will not be a rabbi, nor a rabbi\u2019s\ndisciple.\n\n\n\n\n                               No. XXXII.\n                            NEW YEAR\u2019S DAY.\n\n\nThe season of the Jewish year, which we are now approaching, naturally\nleads us to the consideration of some subjects more important than those\nwhich we have lately discussed, the oral law teaches that the festival\nof the new year is nothing less than a day of judgment, on which God\npronounces sentence respecting the state of every individual:\n\n\u05d5\u05db\u05e9\u05dd \u05e9\u05e9\u05d5\u05e7\u05dc\u05d9\u05df \u05d6\u05db\u05d9\u05d5\u05ea \u05d0\u05d3\u05dd \u05d5\u05e2\u05d5\u05d5\u05e0\u05d5\u05ea\u05d9\u05d5 \u05d1\u05e9\u05e2\u05ea \u05de\u05d9\u05ea\u05ea\u05d5 \u05db\u05da \u05d1\u05db\u05dc \u05e9\u05e0\u05d4 \u05d5\u05e9\u05e0\u05d4 \u05e9\u05d5\u05e7\u05dc\u05d9\u05df\n\u05e2\u05d5\u05d5\u05e0\u05d5\u05ea \u05db\u05dc \u05d0\u05d7\u05d3 \u05d5\u05d0\u05d7\u05d3 \u05de\u05d1\u05d0\u05d9 \u05e2\u05d5\u05dc\u05dd \u05e2\u05dd \u05d6\u05db\u05d9\u05d5\u05ea\u05d9\u05d5 \u05d1\u05d9\u05d5\u05dd \u05e9\u05dc \u05e8\u05d0\u05e9 \u05d4\u05e9\u05e0\u05d4 , \u05de\u05d9 \u05e9\u05e0\u05de\u05e6\u05d0 \u05e6\u05d3\u05d9\u05e7\n\u05e0\u05d7\u05ea\u05dd \u05dc\u05d7\u05d9\u05d9\u05dd \u05d5\u05de\u05d9 \u05e9\u05e0\u05de\u05e6\u05d0 \u05e8\u05e9\u05e2 \u05e0\u05d7\u05ea\u05dd \u05dc\u05de\u05d9\u05ea\u05d4 , \u05d5\u05d4\u05d1\u05d9\u05e0\u05d5\u05e0\u05d9\u05dd \u05ea\u05d5\u05dc\u05d9\u05df \u05d0\u05d5\u05ea\u05d5 \u05e2\u05d3 \u05d9\u05d5\u05dd\n\u05d4\u05db\u05e4\u05d5\u05e8\u05d9\u05dd \u05d0\u05dd \u05e2\u05e9\u05d4 \u05ea\u05e9\u05d5\u05d1\u05d4 \u05e0\u05d7\u05ea\u05dd \u05dc\u05d7\u05d9\u05d9\u05dd \u05d5\u05d0\u05dd \u05dc\u05d0\u05d5 \u05e0\u05d7\u05ea\u05dd \u05dc\u05de\u05d9\u05ea\u05d4 \u05c3\n\n\u201cAs the merits and the sins of a man are weighed at the hour of his\ndeath, so likewise every year, on the festival of New Year\u2019s Day, the\nsins of every one that cometh into the world are weighed against his\nmerits. Every one who is found righteous is sealed to life. Every one\nwho is found wicked is sealed to death. But the judgment of the\nintermediate class is suspended until the Day of Atonement. If they\nrepent, they are sealed to life, but if not, they are sealed to death.\u201d\n(Hilchoth T\u2019shuvah, c. iii. 3.) This naturally leads us to consider the\nrabbinic doctrine of justification, and to inquire how far it agrees\nwith Moses and the prophets. And here our first business must be to\nstate the doctrine as it is found in the oral law.\n\nThis law teaches, first, that he whose merits are more than his sins is\naccounted a righteous man:\u2014\n\n\u05db\u05dc \u05d0\u05d7\u05d3 \u05d5\u05d0\u05d7\u05d3 \u05de\u05d1\u05e0\u05d9 \u05d0\u05d3\u05dd \u05d9\u05e9 \u05dc\u05d5 \u05d6\u05db\u05d9\u05d5\u05ea \u05d5\u05e2\u05d5\u05d5\u05e0\u05d5\u05ea , \u05de\u05d9 \u05e9\u05d6\u05db\u05d9\u05d5\u05ea\u05d9\u05d5 \u05d9\u05ea\u05e8\u05d5\u05ea \u05e2\u05dc \u05e2\u05d5\u05d5\u05e0\u05d5\u05ea\u05d9\u05d5\n\u05e6\u05d3\u05d9\u05e7 , \u05d5\u05de\u05d9 \u05e9\u05e2\u05d5\u05d5\u05e0\u05d5\u05ea\u05d9\u05d5 \u05d9\u05ea\u05e8\u05d5\u05ea \u05e2\u05dc \u05d6\u05db\u05d9\u05d5\u05ea\u05d9\u05d5 \u05e8\u05e9\u05e2 , \u05de\u05d7\u05e6\u05d4 \u05dc\u05de\u05d7\u05e6\u05d4 \u05d1\u05d9\u05e0\u05d5\u05e0\u05d9 \u05c3\n\n\u201cEvery one of the children of many has merits and sins. If his merits\nexceed his sins, he is righteous. If his sins exceed his merits, he is\nwicked. If they be half and half, he is a middling or intermediate\nperson.\u201d (Ibid. 1.)\n\nIt teaches, secondly, that in estimating the comparative state, respect\nis had not only to the number but to the quality of the actions:\u2014\n\n\u05d5\u05e9\u05e7\u05d5\u05dc \u05d6\u05d4 \u05d0\u05d9\u05e0\u05d5 \u05dc\u05e4\u05d9 \u05de\u05e0\u05d9\u05df \u05d4\u05d6\u05db\u05d9\u05d5\u05ea \u05d5\u05d4\u05e2\u05d5\u05d5\u05e0\u05d5\u05ea \u05d0\u05dc\u05d0 \u05dc\u05e4\u05d9 \u05d2\u05d3\u05dc\u05dd , \u05d9\u05e9 \u05d6\u05db\u05d5\u05ea \u05e9\u05d4\u05d9\u05d0 \u05db\u05e0\u05d2\u05d3\n\u05db\u05de\u05d4 \u05e2\u05d5\u05d5\u05e0\u05d5\u05ea \u05e9\u05e0\u05d0\u05de\u05e8 \u05d9\u05e2\u05df \u05e0\u05de\u05e6\u05d0 \u05d1\u05d5 \u05d3\u05d1\u05e8 \u05d8\u05d5\u05d1 , \u05d5\u05d9\u05e9 \u05e2\u05d5\u05d5\u05df \u05e9\u05d4\u05d5\u05d0 \u05db\u05e0\u05d2\u05d3 \u05db\u05de\u05d4 \u05d6\u05db\u05d9\u05d5\u05ea ,\n\u05e9\u05e0\u05d0\u05de\u05e8 \u05d5\u05d7\u05d5\u05d8\u05d0 \u05d0\u05d7\u05d3 \u05d9\u05d0\u05d1\u05d3 \u05d8\u05d5\u05d1\u05d4 \u05d4\u05e8\u05d1\u05d4 \u05c3\n\n\u201cAnd this weighing is made, not with respect to the number of the merits\nand the sins, but according to their greatness. There is a merit which\nmay outweigh many sins, as it is said, \u2018Because in him there is found\nsome good thing.\u2019 (1 Kings xiv. 13.) And there are sins which may\noutweigh many merits, for it is said, \u2018One sinner destroyeth much\ngood.\u2019\u201d (Ecclesiast. ix. 18.)\n\nIt teaches, thirdly, that it is possible by transgression or obedience\nto turn the scale:\u2014\n\n\u05d7\u05d8\u05d0 \u05d7\u05d8\u05d0 \u05d0\u05d7\u05d3 \u05d4\u05e8\u05d9 \u05d4\u05db\u05e8\u05d9\u05e2 \u05d0\u05ea \u05e2\u05e6\u05de\u05d5 \u05d5\u05d0\u05ea \u05db\u05dc \u05d4\u05e2\u05d5\u05dc\u05dd \u05db\u05d5\u05dc\u05d5 \u05dc\u05db\u05e3 \u05d7\u05d5\u05d1\u05d4 \u05d5\u05d2\u05e8\u05dd \u05dc\u05d5 \u05d4\u05e9\u05d7\u05ea\u05d4 ,\n\u05e2\u05e9\u05d4 \u05de\u05e6\u05d5\u05d4 \u05d0\u05d7\u05ea \u05d4\u05e8\u05d9 \u05d4\u05db\u05e8\u05d9\u05e2 \u05d0\u05ea \u05e2\u05e6\u05de\u05d5 \u05d5\u05d0\u05ea \u05db\u05dc \u05d4\u05e2\u05d5\u05dc\u05dd \u05db\u05d5\u05dc\u05d5 \u05dc\u05db\u05e3 \u05d6\u05db\u05d5\u05ea \u05d5\u05d2\u05e8\u05dd \u05dc\u05d5 \u05d5\u05dc\u05d4\u05dd\n\u05ea\u05e9\u05d5\u05e2\u05d4 \u05d5\u05d4\u05e6\u05dc\u05d4 \u05e9\u05e0\u05d0\u05de\u05e8 \u05d5\u05e6\u05d3\u05d9\u05e7 \u05d9\u05e1\u05d5\u05d3 \u05e2\u05d5\u05dc\u05dd \u05d6\u05d4 \u05e9\u05e6\u05d3\u05e7 \u05d4\u05db\u05e8\u05d9\u05e2 \u05d0\u05ea \u05db\u05dc \u05d4\u05e2\u05d5\u05dc\u05dd \u05dc\u05d6\u05db\u05d5\u05ea \u05d5\u05d4\u05e6\u05d9\u05dc\u05d5\n, \u05de\u05e4\u05e0\u05d9 \u05e2\u05e0\u05d9\u05df \u05d6\u05d4 \u05e0\u05d4\u05d2\u05d5 \u05db\u05dc \u05d1\u05d9\u05ea \u05d9\u05e9\u05e8\u05d0\u05dc \u05dc\u05d4\u05e8\u05d1\u05d5\u05ea \u05d1\u05e6\u05d3\u05e7\u05d4 \u05d5\u05d1\u05de\u05e2\u05e9\u05d9\u05dd \u05d8\u05d5\u05d1\u05d9\u05dd \u05d5\u05dc\u05e2\u05e1\u05d5\u05e7\n\u05d1\u05de\u05e6\u05d5\u05d5\u05ea \u05de\u05e8\u05d0\u05e9 \u05d4\u05e9\u05e0\u05d4 \u05d5\u05e2\u05d3 \u05d9\u05d5\u05dd \u05d4\u05db\u05e4\u05d5\u05e8\u05d9\u05dd \u05d9\u05ea\u05e8 \u05de\u05db\u05dc \u05d4\u05e9\u05e0\u05d4 \u05c3\n\n\u201cIf a man sin one sin, he gives the preponderance for himself and for\nall the world to the scale of guilt, and causes destruction. But if he\nperform one commandment, he gives the preponderance both for himself and\nall the world to the scale of merit, and causes salvation and\ndeliverance to himself and them, as it is said, \u2018The righteous is the\nfoundation of the world\u2019 (Prov. x. 25), which means that righteousness\ngives the world a preponderance in the scale of merit and delivers it.\nAnd on this account all the house of Israel are accustomed to abound in\nalmsgiving, and in good deeds, and to be diligent in the commandments in\nthe interval between New Years Day and the Day of Atonement more than in\nall the year besides.\u201d (Ibid. 4.) This then is the doctrine which we\nhave to consider.\n\nThe first great principle is that \u201cEvery one of the children of men has\nmerits and has sins.\u201d That every man has sins we readily admit; but that\nany man, or any angel, or any of God\u2019s creatures, has any merit in the\nsight of God we deny. First, because the idea of merit is utterly\ninconsistent with the idea of the relation in which the creature stands\nto the Creator. Every created being is bound by the very fact of his\ncreation to love God with all his heart and soul, and mind and strength,\nand to do all his will. Whatsoever, therefore, he does, he can never\nexceed the limit of his bounden duty, and can therefore never lay any\nclaim to merit. If created beings were free from all obligation to love\nGod or to do his will\u2014if they were independent and masters of\nthemselves, then by loving God or doing his will they might have merit,\nfor they would be doing him a service which He has no right to require.\nJust as a man that is free may hire himself to do work for another man,\nwhich he is not bound to do, and thereby earn wages. But not so the\nslave, who is his maker\u2019s property. He can only do his duty, and if he\ntoil all the day and be diligent and faithful in his master\u2019s service,\nhe still can lay no claim to wages or to merit; he has only done what he\nis bound to do. To lay any claim to merit, we must stand on equal terms,\nand confer what the other has no right to expect. But this no created\nbeing can ever do. He is a debtor overwhelmed with such an amount of\ndebt, that all that he has or can raise only goes in part payment, and\nwho therefore will never be able to confer anything which is not already\ndue. And therefore it is said, \u201cCan a man be profitable unto God?\u201d and\nagain, \u201cIs it gain to him, that thou makest thy ways perfect?\u201d (Job\nxxii. 2, 3.) The unfallen angels themselves have no merit before God,\nand much less fallen and rebellious man.\n\nBut, secondly, the assertion that man has merits is contradicted by the\nplain testimonies of Scripture. If man have merits, however few, then so\nfar as those merits are concerned, his nature must be good and holy, but\nGod declares the contrary: \u201cBehold, he putteth no trust in his saints;\nyea the heavens are not clean in his sight: how much more abominable and\nfilthy is man, which drinketh iniquity like water.\u201d (Job xv. 15, 16.)\nSuch language cannot be applied to any creature capable of meriting\nanything in the sight of God. Again, if man have merits, his merits must\nproceed from the good things which he has done. He that does nothing\ngood cannot be meritorious, but yet God says, \u201cThere is none that doeth\ngood, no, not one. They are all gone aside, they are all together become\nfilthy; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.\u201d (Ps. xiv. 1-3.) If\nthis be true, then no man has merits. If man have merits, they must\nproceed from an inherent good principle in his nature, but God says even\nof Israel that were is no such principle of good: on the contrary, he\ndeclares that \u201cthe whole head is sick, and the whole heart faint. From\nthe sole of the foot, even unto the head, there is no soundness in it:\nbut wounds, and bruises, and putrefying sores.\u201d (Isaiah i. 5, 6.) Here\nGod describes Israel, and the description is generally true of mankind,\nas totally corrupt. There is no soundness in it. The intellect is\ncorrupt, for \u201cthe whole head is sick.\u201d The affections are corrupt, for\n\u201cthe whole heart is faint.\u201d How, then, can he that has a perverted\nintellect and a corrupt heart have merits? Again, if man have merits,\nhis good deeds, whatever they be, must be such as to deserve the\napprobation of God; but the confession of the prophet is\u2014\n\n\u05d5\u05e0\u05d4\u05d9 \u05db\u05d8\u05de\u05d0 \u05db\u05dc\u05e0\u05d5 \u05d5\u05db\u05d1\u05d2\u05d3 \u05e2\u05d3\u05d9\u05dd \u05db\u05dc \u05e6\u05d3\u05e7\u05d5\u05ea\u05d9\u05e0\u05d5 \u05c3\n\n\u201cBut we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousness as filthy\nrags.\u201d (Isa. lxiv. 6.) Either, then, the oral law or the Bible says what\nis false. The Bible says that the very best of man\u2019s deeds, \u201call his\nrighteousnesses,\u201d are no better in the sight of God than filthy rags: if\nthis be true, then man has no merit whatsoever.\n\nBut again, the assertion that every man has merits and sins, is based\nupon a false principle. It takes for granted that God judges men by\ntheir individual acts, and not by the state of their hearts; that is,\nthat he judges as we do. When we consider a man\u2019s conduct, we can only\nlook at his acts, and to us some of them appear good and others bad. In\nour sight, therefore, he may have some merits and some demerits. But God\nlooks at the heart, and sees whether a man loves him or not, and by the\nwhole habit of his mind and affections judges the man\u2019s state and all\nhis actions. We short-sighted creatures judge a man\u2019s heart by his\nactions; but God judges his actions by his heart, and where the heart is\nwrong, he is so far from counting any actions as meritorious, that he\nlooks upon the whole conduct as one mass of abominable sin.\n\nThe next assertion of the oral law is, that \u201cIf a man\u2019s merits exceed\nhis sins, he is righteous.\u201d This pre-supposes, first, that a man\u2019s\nmerits may exceed his sins; and asserts, secondly, that in this case he\nis accounted righteous. But where is the man whose \u201cmerits exceed his\nsins?\u201d Where is the man who keeps any one of God\u2019s commandments\nperfectly? In all our best deeds and efforts there is sin of admixture\nor of imperfection. Often, when by the help of God, a good thought or an\nhonest intention is conceived in the heart, before it can be realized in\naction, some selfish and unworthy motive associates itself with it, and\nspoils the whole. And in every case the obedience is imperfect, so that\nall our best acts become occasions of committing sins either of\ninfirmity or imperfection, and thus our sins are certainly as many as\nour good deeds, for each one of them has a sin as its associate. But how\nmany are our sins of thought, word, and deed, which are mere sins\nwithout any admixture of good, and which in themselves are \u201cmore than\nthe hairs of our head?\u201d And even if we should admit that the final\nresult depends not upon number, but upon magnitude, then there is one\nsin that extends from the moment of our birth to the latest hour of our\nexistence, and that is, want of perfect love to God. This he requires at\nevery moment, but yet how many hours of every day do we pursue our\nbusiness or our pleasures without a single remembrance of him? And how\nfew, how hasty, and how interrupted are our grateful recollections of\nthe love and mercy of God! Here then is a sin which in magnitude far\nexceeds the aggregate of all our gratitude and all our services, and\nwhich in itself would sink the scale of guilt down to the lowest hell.\nBut by the side of it there is another equally immense, and that is our\ncontinued transgression of the commandment, \u201cThou shalt love thy\nneighbour as thyself.\u201d The very best of all God\u2019s saints makes, at the\nmost, but a feeble struggle against the love of self. He admits the\nextent of his duty to his neighbour, he knows it\u2014he desires to fulfil\nit. He watches against himself, and yet with all his care, self-love\ncreeps in again and again, and asserts the mastery over his thoughts and\nactions. These two sins would outweigh a thousand times all the six\nhundred and eleven remaining commandments of which Israel boasts, even\nif they kept them all without a single transgression or a shade of\nimperfection. With these two sins on our consciences, it is perfectly\nabsurd to talk of our merits exceeding our sins. There is not, and never\nwas in the world, a mere child of Adam, whose sins did not for exceed\nhis good deeds. If, therefore, it be necessary, in order to be accounted\njust, that our merits should exceed our sins, we must give up all hope\nof being justified before God.\n\nBut let us suppose for a moment that such a thing were possible, that\nthere was a man whose merits exceeded his sins, would such an one be\naccounted just before God? First let us ask Moses, let us hear what he\nsays. Does he promise that if your merits exceed your sins, ye shall be\nconsidered just? and does he promise life, as the oral law does, to\nimperfect obedience? Hear the words of Moses himself:\u2014\n\n\u05d5\u05e9\u05de\u05e8\u05ea\u05dd \u05dc\u05e2\u05e9\u05d5\u05ea \u05db\u05d0\u05e9\u05e8 \u05e6\u05d5\u05d4 \u05d4\u05f3 \u05d0\u05dc\u05d4\u05d9\u05db\u05dd \u05d0\u05ea\u05db\u05dd \u05dc\u05d0 \u05ea\u05e1\u05d5\u05e8\u05d5 \u05d9\u05de\u05d9\u05df \u05d5\u05e9\u05de\u05d0\u05dc , \u05d1\u05db\u05dc \u05d4\u05d3\u05e8\u05da \u05d0\u05e9\u05e8\n\u05e6\u05d5\u05d4 \u05d4\u05f3 \u05d0\u05dc\u05d4\u05d9\u05db\u05dd \u05d0\u05ea\u05db\u05dd \u05ea\u05dc\u05db\u05d5 \u05dc\u05de\u05e2\u05df \u05ea\u05d7\u05d9\u05d5\u05df \u05d5\u05d8\u05d5\u05d1 \u05dc\u05db\u05dd \u05d5\u05d4\u05d0\u05e8\u05db\u05ea\u05dd \u05d9\u05de\u05d9\u05dd \u05d1\u05d0\u05e8\u05e5 \u05d0\u05e9\u05e8 \u05ea\u05d9\u05e8\u05e9\u05d5\u05df\n\u05c3\n\n\u201cYe shall observe to do therefore as the Lord your God hath commanded\nyou: ye shall not turn aside to the right hand or to the left. Ye shall\nwalk in ALL the ways which the Lord your God hath commanded you, that ye\nmay live, and that it may be well with you, and that ye may prolong your\ndays in the land which ye shall possess.\u201d (Deut. v. 32, 33.) Here Moses\nrequires perfect obedience as the condition of life, and does not allow\na single deviation either to the right hand or to the left. It is not a\nsingle declaration, nor a sentiment wrested from its context. Moses\nrepeats the same again and again. In the very next verses to those just\nquoted, he says\u2014\n\n\u05d5\u05d6\u05d0\u05ea \u05d4\u05de\u05e6\u05d5\u05d4 \u05d4\u05d7\u05e7\u05d9\u05dd \u05d5\u05d4\u05de\u05e9\u05e4\u05d8\u05d9\u05dd \u05d0\u05e9\u05e8 \u05e6\u05d5\u05d4 \u05d4\u05f3\u05f3 \u05d0\u05dc\u05d4\u05d9\u05db\u05dd \u05dc\u05dc\u05de\u05d3 \u05d0\u05ea\u05db\u05dd \u05dc\u05e2\u05e9\u05d5\u05ea \u05d1\u05d0\u05e8\u05e5 \u05d0\u05e9\u05e8\n\u05d0\u05ea\u05dd \u05e2\u05d5\u05d1\u05e8\u05d9\u05dd \u05e9\u05de\u05d4 \u05dc\u05e8\u05e9\u05ea\u05d4 , \u05dc\u05de\u05e2\u05df \u05ea\u05d9\u05e8\u05d0 \u05d0\u05ea \u05d4\u05f3 \u05d0\u05dc\u05d4\u05d9\u05da \u05dc\u05e9\u05de\u05d5\u05e8 \u05d0\u05ea \u05db\u05dc \u05d7\u05e7\u05d5\u05ea\u05d9\u05d5 \u05d5\u05de\u05e6\u05d5\u05ea\u05d9\u05d5\n\u05d0\u05e9\u05e8 \u05d0\u05e0\u05db\u05d9 \u05de\u05e6\u05d5\u05da \u05d0\u05ea\u05d4 \u05d5\u05d1\u05e0\u05da \u05d5\u05d1\u05df \u05d1\u05e0\u05da \u05db\u05dc \u05d9\u05de\u05d9 \u05d7\u05d9\u05d9\u05da \u05d5\u05dc\u05de\u05e2\u05df \u05d9\u05d0\u05e8\u05d9\u05db\u05d5\u05df \u05d9\u05de\u05d9\u05da \u05c3\n\n\u201cNow these are the commandments, the statutes, and the judgments, which\nthe Lord your God commanded to teach you, that ye might do them in the\nland whither ye go to possess it; that thou mightest fear the Lord they\nGod, to keep ALL his statutes and his commandments, which I command\nthee; thou and thy son, and thy son\u2019s son, all the days of thy life: and\nthat thy days may be prolonged.\u201d (vi. 1, 2.) Here again Moses requires\nperfect obedience to the whole law. He requires it of every individual\nof Israel. \u201cThou and thy son, and thy son\u2019s son;\u201d and this universal\nobedience he exacts not at some stated period of the year, but every day\nof a man\u2019s whole life. \u201cAll the days of thy life.\u201d Moses leaves no room\nfor some merits and some sins. If a man does what Moses requires, he can\nhave no sins. If a man have any sins whatever, he does not fulfil what\nMoses requires as the condition of life. We might quote several other\nsimilar passages, but content ourselves with one, where Moses expressly\ndeclares that universal obedience is necessary to righteousness:\u2014\n\n\u05d5\u05d9\u05e6\u05d9\u05e0\u05d5 \u05d4\u05f3 \u05dc\u05e2\u05e9\u05d5\u05ea \u05d0\u05ea \u05db\u05dc \u05d4\u05d7\u05e7\u05d9\u05dd \u05d4\u05d0\u05dc\u05d4 \u05dc\u05d9\u05e8\u05d0\u05d4 \u05d0\u05ea \u05d4\u05f3 \u05d0\u05dc\u05d4\u05d9\u05e0\u05d5 \u05dc\u05d8\u05d5\u05d1 \u05dc\u05e0\u05d5 \u05db\u05dc \u05d4\u05d9\u05de\u05d9\u05dd\n\u05dc\u05d7\u05d9\u05d5\u05ea\u05e0\u05d5 \u05db\u05d9\u05d5\u05dd \u05d4\u05d6\u05d4 , \u05d5\u05e6\u05d3\u05e7\u05d4 \u05ea\u05d4\u05d9\u05d4 \u05dc\u05e0\u05d5 \u05db\u05d9 \u05e0\u05e9\u05de\u05e8 \u05dc\u05e2\u05e9\u05d5\u05ea \u05d0\u05ea \u05db\u05dc \u05d4\u05de\u05e6\u05d5\u05d4 \u05d4\u05d6\u05d0\u05ea \u05dc\u05e4\u05e0\u05d9 \u05d4\u05f3\n\u05d0\u05dc\u05d4\u05d9\u05e0\u05d5 \u05db\u05d0\u05e9\u05e8 \u05e6\u05d5\u05e0\u05d5 \u05c3\n\n\u201cAnd the Lord commanded us to do ALL these statutes, to fear the Lord\nour God always, that he might preserve us alive, as it is at this day.\n_And it shall be our righteousness_, if we observe to do ALL these\ncommandments before the Lord our God, as he hath commanded us.\u201d (Deut.\nvi. 24, 25.) This is Moses\u2019 idea of righteousness, and if Moses be right\nthe oral law is wrong. It says, \u201cIf a man\u2019s merits exceed his sins, he\nis righteous.\u201d Moses says, If a man keep all the commandments all the\ndays of his life he is righteous. The oral law promises life to him who\nconfessedly has sins. Moses requires perfect and universal obedience as\nthe condition of life. It becomes, therefore, an important, an awfully\nimportant, consideration for every Israelite, whether he will rest his\nsoul\u2019s salvation on the word of Moses, or on that of the oral law. If he\nrests upon the oral law, than he will be satisfied that a partial\nobedience is sufficient to secure everlasting salvation, and in this\nhope he will die. But if he is to be judged according to the law of\nMoses, he will, at the hour of God\u2019s judgment, find himself awfully\nmistaken. Moses knows of no righteousness, but that of universal\nobedience every day of a man\u2019s life, and promises life to none but those\nwho have this righteousness. He that has it not, therefore, must be\ncondemned. And let every Israelite mark well that Moses has not left us\nto draw this just conclusion from the premises which he has laid down,\nbut has himself stated, in the distinctest and plainest terms, That he\nwho does not yield this universal obedience is accursed. And that no man\nmay mistake his meaning, he sums up all that he has said upon this\nsubject, and repeats, that he who keeps ALL God\u2019s commandments shall be\nblessed, and that he who does not keep ALL God\u2019s commandments shall be\naccursed:\u2014\n\n\u05d5\u05e0\u05d9\u05e0 \u05d0\u05dd \u05e9\u05de\u05d5\u05e2 \u05ea\u05e9\u05de\u05e2 \u05d1\u05e7\u05d5\u05dc \u05d4\u05f3 \u05d0\u05dc\u05d4\u05d9\u05da \u05dc\u05e9\u05de\u05d5\u05e8 \u05dc\u05e2\u05e9\u05d5\u05ea \u05d0\u05ea \u05db\u05dc \u05de\u05e6\u05d5\u05ea\u05d9\u05d5 \u05d0\u05e9\u05e8 \u05d0\u05e0\u05db\u05d9 \u05de\u05e6\u05d5\u05da\n\u05d4\u05d9\u05d5\u05dd \u05d5\u05e0\u05ea\u05e0\u05da \u05d4\u05f3 \u05d0\u05dc\u05d4\u05d9\u05da \u05e2\u05dc\u05d9\u05d5\u05df \u05e2\u05dc \u05db\u05dc \u05d2\u05d5\u05d9\u05d9 \u05d4\u05d0\u05e8\u05e5 , \u05d5\u05d1\u05d0\u05d5 \u05e2\u05dc\u05d9\u05da \u05db\u05dc \u05d4\u05d1\u05e8\u05db\u05d5\u05ea \u05d4\u05d0\u05dc\u05d4\n\u05d5\u05d2\u05d5\u05f3 \u05c3\n\n\u201cAnd it shalt come to pass, if thou shalt hearken diligently unto the\nvoice of the Lord thy God, to observe and to do ALL his commandments\nwhich I command thee this day, that the Lord thy God will set thee high\nabove all nations of the earth; and all these blessings shall come on\nthee,\u201d &c. And then, after enumerating the blessings, he adds\u2014\n\n\u05d5\u05d4\u05d9\u05d4 \u05d0\u05dd \u05dc\u05d0 \u05ea\u05e9\u05de\u05e2 \u05d1\u05e7\u05d5\u05dc \u05d4\u05f3 \u05d0\u05dc\u05d4\u05d9\u05da \u05dc\u05e9\u05de\u05d5\u05e8 \u05dc\u05e2\u05e9\u05d5\u05ea \u05d0\u05ea \u05db\u05dc \u05de\u05e6\u05d5\u05ea\u05d9\u05d5 \u05d5\u05d7\u05e7\u05d5\u05ea\u05d9\u05d5 \u05d0\u05e9\u05e8 \u05d0\u05e0\u05db\u05d9\n\u05de\u05e6\u05d5\u05da \u05d4\u05d9\u05d5\u05dd \u05d5\u05d1\u05d0\u05d5 \u05e2\u05dc\u05d9\u05da \u05db\u05dc \u05d4\u05e7\u05dc\u05dc\u05d5\u05ea \u05d4\u05d0\u05dc\u05d4 \u05d5\u05d4\u05e9\u05d9\u05d2\u05d5\u05da , \u05d0\u05e8\u05d5\u05e8 \u05d0\u05ea\u05d4 \u05d1\u05e2\u05d9\u05e8 \u05d5\u05d0\u05e8\u05d5\u05e8 \u05d0\u05ea\u05d4\n\u05d1\u05e9\u05d3\u05d4 \u05d5\u05d2\u05d5\u05f3 \u05c3\n\n\u201cBut it shall come to pass, if thou wilt not hearken unto the voice of\nthe Lord thy God, to observe to do ALL his commandments and his statutes\nwhich I command thee this day, that all these curses shall come upon\nthee, and overtake thee. Cursed shalt thou be in the city, and cursed\nshalt thou be in the field,\u201d &c. (Deut. xxviii. 1-15.) Here Moses\nplainly says, that he who is perfectly obedient is blessed, and that he\nwho is not perfectly obedient is cursed. And it is to be noted that\nMoses knows nothing of an intermediate state of man, the \u05d1\u05d9\u05e0\u05d5\u05e0\u05d9\u05d9\u05dd who\nare neither righteous nor wicked. He divides all Israel into two\nclasses, the blessed and the cursed. He who keeps ALL God\u2019s commandments\nbelongs to the former; he who does not keep ALL God\u2019s commandments to\nthe latter. In this matter, than, the most important that can employ the\nmind of man, the oral law contradicts the plain words of Moses. One of\nthe two is certainly in error. It is for the Israelites to choose\nwhether they will believe Moses, or that oral law which contradicts his\nwords. If they believe in Moses, then no one is accounted just before\nGod, but that man who has all the days of his life kept all God\u2019s\ncommandments without one deviation. Every other person is so far from\nbeing just, that he is accursed. If there were a human being who had all\nhis life kept all the commandments, and only once been guilty of\ntransgression, that one transgression makes him unjust and accursed. But\nthere is no such person. Every man\u2019s conscience tells him that his sins\nfar exceed his obedience, and therefore if Moses speak truth he is\naccursed. Oh, let no one endanger his salvation by trusting to the oral\nlaw. Let him take up the law of Moses, let him investigate the\nconditions which Moses lays down. We ask not now, that the Israelites\nshould read the New Testament, or that they should listen to our\narguments or any reasoning of man. We simply point out to them the words\nof Moses, and we show other passages of the oral law which teaches an\nentirely different doctrine. We ask, then, whether the man who rebels\nagainst the law of Moses can hope for salvation? Yet this is what every\none who follows the oral law is doing. If his temporal welfare only were\nconcerned, it would not be of such moment. But here his eternal\ninterests are at stake. If the oral law be mistaken, and mistaken it is\nif Moses spoke truth, their eternal salvation is forfeited by every one\nwho follows it. We therefore entreat every reader of this paper to take\nup the law of Moses, and to investigate this question:\u2014\u201cWhat are the\nconditions of blessing and cursing, of life and death, according to the\ndeclarations of Moses? Does he promise life to that man whose merits\nexceed his sins, or does he require universal obedience?\u201d To Moses\nhimself we appeal, and him we constitute the arbiter of our differences.\n\n\n\n\n                              No. XXXIII.\n                          NEW YEAR, CONTINUED.\n\n\nWe showed in our last number that the first axiom of the. oral law\nrespecting the mode of justification is false. Moses requires perfect\nand universal obedience to all the commandments as the condition of\njustification and life, whereas the oral law says it is sufficient if a\nman\u2019s merits exceed his sins. One of the two, then, has spoken\nfalsehood. It is for the Jews to consider which of them they will brand\nwith the character of liar. As for ourselves, we believe that Moses\nspoke the truth, and by his standard of right and wrong we proceed to\nexamine the second and third principles of Rabbinic justification. The\noral law tells us, further, that when God weighs the merits and the\noffences, \u201cThis weighing is made not with respect to the number of the\nmerits and the sins, but according to their greatness. There is a merit\nwhich may outweigh many sins, as it is said, \u2018Because in him there is\nfound some good thing.\u2019 (1 Kings xiv. 13.) And there are sins which may\noutweigh many merits, for it is said, \u2018One sinner destroyeth much good.\u2019\n(Ecclesiast. ix. 18.)\u201d And for this reason we are told that \u201cIn the ten\ndays between the New Year and the Day of Atonement, Israel abounds in\nalmsgiving and good works more than in all the year besides.\u201d Such is\nthe hope which the oral law holds out to Israel. It first tells a man,\nthat if his merits exceed his sins, he is safe. Then feeling that none\nbut a fool or madman can dream of his merits exceeding his sins, it\ntries to quiet the conscience by assuring the guilty, that the quality\nof the deeds is regarded more than their number, and that there may be\none meritorious act which will outweigh many sins. It endeavours to\nprove this by a citation from the Book of Kings. This is in itself\nsuspicious. Why did it not bring one or more plain passages from the\nBooks of Moses? They contain the law of God, and the great principles of\nGod\u2019s judgment. In determining a case like this, an appeal to the letter\nof the law is absolutely necessary. Let every Israelite, then, before he\ntrusts his salvation to the oral law, find out one passage in the law of\nMoses, where Moses himself declares that \u201cone merit may outweigh many\nsins.\u201d We know not of one similar declaration, and therefore hesitate\nnot to say, that whosoever rests his salvation on this hope, has\napostatized from the religion of Moses.\n\nBut the passage itself, which the oral law cites, proves nothing in\nsupport of the above principle. The words were spoken of the son of\nJeroboam. \u201cHe only of Jeroboam shall come to the grave, because in him\nthere is found some good thing towards the Lord God of Israel in the\nhouse of Jeroboam.\u201d (1 Kings xiv. 13.) There is not one word said here\nabout his being justified by that one good thing, whatever it was. It\ndid not save the child from his sickness. It did not change the sentence\nof death into life. All it did was to procure him a peaceable burial.\nHow, then, can any reasonable man argue, because the son of Jeroboam had\na peaceable burial, that therefore some meritorious act will save him\nfrom the punishment due to his offences? To warrant such a conclusion,\nhe ought first to show that the son of Jeroboam had been a grievous\nsinner like his father, which the Bible does not say; and, secondly,\nthat this one meritorious act had obtained pardon of his sins, and\nrestored him to life; and moreover it ought to be expressly said, that\nGod considered him as just. The very circumstance that the rabbies were\nobliged to have recourse to such a passage, and that they could find\nnothing better in the law or the prophets, shows that they were hard\npushed to find anything that would even bear a faint resemblance to\ntheir doctrine.\n\nThe law of Moses gives no countenance to this doctrine, and can give\nnone, because it is directly subversive of all the principles of law and\njustice. The stern principle of justice is, that every transgression of\nthe law should be followed by punishment without any reference whatever\nto the good deeds or merits of the transgressor. Even before an earthly\ntribunal, there is no deviation from this principle. If a murderer or a\nrobber be convicted, no degree of previous or subsequent merit can be\nlistened to as a plea against the just sentence of the law. He may in\nall other respects be an unexceptionable character, he may feed the poor\nand clothe the naked, and give all his goods in alms, but none of these\nthings can change the sentence of guilty into not guilty, or cause him\nto be considered as a just or innocent person. And shall we suppose that\nGod is less just than man? The law of Moses gives us no reason for such\na supposition. It says distinctly\u2014\n\n\u05d5\u05dc\u05d0 \u05ea\u05e7\u05d7\u05d5 \u05db\u05d5\u05e4\u05e8 \u05dc\u05e0\u05e4\u05e9 \u05e8\u05d5\u05e6\u05d7 \u05d0\u05e9\u05e8 \u05d4\u05d5\u05d0 \u05e8\u05e9\u05e2 \u05dc\u05de\u05d5\u05ea \u05db\u05d9 \u05de\u05d5\u05ea \u05d9\u05d5\u05de\u05ea \u05c3\n\n\u201cMoreover, ye shall take no satisfaction for the life of a murderer,\nwhich is guilty of death; but he shall surely be put to death.\u201d (Num.\nxxxv. 31.) According to this declaration, the good deeds or merits of a\nmurderer are not to be regarded, and there is nothing which he can do\nwhich can avert the sentence of the law. And shall we suppose that God\nhimself will do what he forbids men to do? If so, why did he forbid it\nto be done? The plain reason of this prohibition is, because it is\ncontrary to the eternal principles of right and wrong, which God himself\ncannot violate without detracting from his holiness. But it is not with\nrespect to murder only that God has laid down these stern principles of\njustice. He says generally\u2014\n\n\u05d5\u05d4\u05e0\u05e4\u05e9 \u05d0\u05e9\u05e8 \u05ea\u05e2\u05e9\u05d4 \u05d1\u05d9\u05d3 \u05e8\u05de\u05d4 \u05de\u05df \u05d4\u05d0\u05d6\u05e8\u05d7 \u05d5\u05de\u05df \u05d4\u05d2\u05e8 \u05d0\u05ea \u05d4\u05f3 \u05d4\u05d5\u05d0 \u05de\u05d2\u05d3\u05e3 \u05d5\u05e0\u05db\u05e8\u05ea\u05d4 \u05d4\u05e0\u05e4\u05e9 \u05d4\u05d4\u05d9\u05d0\n\u05de\u05e7\u05e8\u05d1 \u05e2\u05de\u05d4 , \u05db\u05d9 \u05d3\u05d1\u05e8 \u05d4\u05f3 \u05d1\u05d6\u05d4 \u05d5\u05d0\u05ea \u05de\u05e6\u05d5\u05ea\u05d5 \u05d4\u05e4\u05e8 \u05d4\u05db\u05e8\u05ea \u05ea\u05db\u05e8\u05ea \u05d4\u05e0\u05e4\u05e9 \u05d4\u05d4\u05d9\u05d0 \u05e2\u05d5\u05e0\u05d4 \u05d1\u05d4 \u05c3\n\n\u201cBut the soul that doeth ought presumptuously, whether he be born in the\nland, or a stranger, the same reproacheth the Lord, and that soul shall\nbe cut off from among his people. Because he hath despised the Lord, and\nhath broken his commandment, that soul shall utterly be cut off; his\niniquity shall be upon him.\u201d (Numb. xv. 30, 31.) There is here no\npromise that his merits shall be weighed against his offences. One\npresumptuous sin will outweigh all his supposed merits, and for that one\nhe shall die in his iniquity. The doctrine of the prophets is just the\nsame:\u2014\n\n\u05d4\u05e0\u05e4\u05e9 \u05d4\u05d7\u05d5\u05d8\u05d0\u05ea \u05d4\u05d9\u05d0 \u05ea\u05de\u05d5\u05ea \u05c3\n\n\u201cThe soul that sinneth it shall die.\u201d\n\n\u05d5\u05d1\u05e9\u05d5\u05d1 \u05e6\u05d3\u05d9\u05e7 \u05de\u05e6\u05d3\u05e7\u05ea\u05d5 \u05d5\u05e2\u05e9\u05d4 \u05e2\u05d5\u05dc \u05db\u05db\u05dc \u05d4\u05ea\u05d5\u05e2\u05d1\u05d5\u05ea \u05d0\u05e9\u05e8 \u05e2\u05e9\u05d4 \u05d4\u05e8\u05e9\u05e2 \u05d9\u05e2\u05e9\u05d4 \u05d5\u05d7\u05d9 \u05db\u05dc \u05e6\u05d3\u05e7\u05ea\u05d9\u05d5\n\u05d0\u05e9\u05e8 \u05e2\u05e9\u05d4 \u05dc\u05d0 \u05ea\u05d6\u05db\u05e8\u05e0\u05d4 \u05d1\u05de\u05e2\u05dc\u05d5 \u05d0\u05e9\u05e8 \u05de\u05e2\u05dc \u05d5\u05d1\u05d7\u05d8\u05d0\u05ea\u05d5 \u05d0\u05e9\u05e8 \u05d7\u05d8\u05d0 \u05d1\u05dd \u05d9\u05de\u05d5\u05ea \u05c3\n\n\u201cBut when the righteous turneth away from this righteousness, and\ncommitteth iniquity, and doeth according to all the abominations that\nthe wicked man doeth, shall he live? _All his righteousness that he hath\ndone shall not be mentioned_: in his trespass that he hath trespassed,\nand in his sin that he hath sinned, in them shall he die.\u201d (Ezek. xviii.\n20-25.) When one reads this passage, it appears as if God had dictated\nit on purpose to contradict the doctrine of the oral law. There is here\nno mention of weighing merits against sins, and no promise that some few\nextraordinary merits may outweigh many sins. On the contrary, it is\ndistinctly stated, that when the righteous man turneth away from his\nrighteousness, \u201cAll his righteousness that he hath done shall not be\nmentioned.\u201d If this be true, the doctrine of the oral law is necessarily\nand totally false. But some one may object that there is a similar\ndeclaration made respecting the wicked:\u2014\n\n\u05d5\u05d4\u05e8\u05e9\u05e2 \u05db\u05d9 \u05d9\u05e9\u05d5\u05d1 \u05de\u05db\u05dc \u05d7\u05d8\u05d0\u05ea\u05d9\u05d5 \u05d0\u05e9\u05e8 \u05e2\u05e9\u05d4 \u05d5\u05e9\u05de\u05e8 \u05d0\u05ea \u05db\u05dc \u05d7\u05e7\u05d5\u05ea\u05d9 \u05d5\u05e2\u05e9\u05d4 \u05de\u05e9\u05e4\u05d8 \u05d5\u05e6\u05d3\u05e7\u05d4 \u05d7\u05d9\u05d4\n\u05d9\u05d7\u05d9\u05d4 \u05dc\u05d0 \u05d9\u05de\u05d5\u05ea , \u05db\u05dc \u05e4\u05e9\u05e2\u05d9\u05d5 \u05d0\u05e9\u05e8 \u05e2\u05e9\u05d4 \u05dc\u05d0 \u05d9\u05d6\u05db\u05e8\u05d5 \u05dc\u05d5 \u05d1\u05e6\u05d3\u05e7\u05ea\u05d5 \u05d0\u05e9\u05e8 \u05e2\u05e9\u05d4 \u05d9\u05d7\u05d9\u05d4 \u05c3\n\n\u201cBut if the wicked man will turn from all his sins that he hath\ncommitted, and keep all my statutes, and do that which is lawful and\nright, he shall surely live, he shall not die. All transgressions that\nhe hath committed, they shall not be mentioned to him, in his\nrighteousness that he hath done he shall live.\u201d But this verse is as\nstrongly against the doctrine of the oral law as the others already\ncited. In the first place, it does not say, that he whose sins exceed\nhis merits is wicked, but that he who commits sin is wicked. In the\nsecond place, it does not say that, by causing his merits to exceed his\nsins, he can become righteous, but by turning away, \u201cfrom ALL his sins\nthat he hath committed,\u201d and by keeping \u201cALL my statutes.\u201d It confirms\nthe doctrine laid down already from the law of Moses, that to be\nrighteous in the sight of God, a man must commit no sin, and keep all\nGod\u2019s commandments. It therefore directly contradicts the oral law, and\noverturns the doctrine that some merits may outweigh many sins.\n\nIf more proof be needful, we have it in the case of Moses himself. Very\nfew, if any, even of the most devoted friends of the oral law, can\nimagine that he has so many merits as Moses his master; and yet the\nmerits of Moses did not outweigh one apparently trifling transgression.\nBecause of one sin, he was sentenced to die with the disobedient\ngeneration in the wilderness, and not permitted to enter into the land\nof Israel. If Moses\u2019 merits, then, could do nothing for him, how vain\nmust be the hope of others, who think that, by abounding in almsgiving\nand good works for ten days, they can turn the scale of God\u2019s righteous\njudgment? Neither the law nor the prophets know of any intermediate\nclass between the righteous and the wicked. They specify only the two\nclasses, the righteous and the wicked. Those who fulfil all God\u2019s\ncommandments belong to the one, and those who transgress any of God\u2019s\ncommandments belong to the other. Let every man, then, examine his own\nheart and life, and it will not require much time nor trouble to\nascertain to which class he belongs. A very little reflection will\nconvince him that he has been, and is, a transgressor of God\u2019s\ncommandments; that he has no merits and no righteousness; and therefore\nbelongs to that class of whom Moses says, that they are accursed. Such a\nconclusion may appear dreadful, and so it ought to be; but the grand\nquestion is, Is it true? Let every man ask himself, \u201cHave I kept, or do\nI keep, ALL God\u2019s commandments?\u201d If he can say, Yes: then, according to\nthe law of Moses, he is righteous, and has the promise of life. But if\nhe must say, No: then he is unrighteous, and the curse of God is hanging\nover him, ready to descend and destroy him:\u2014\n\n\u05d0\u05e8\u05d5\u05e8 \u05d0\u05e9\u05e8 \u05dc\u05d0 \u05d9\u05e7\u05d9\u05dd \u05d0\u05ea \u05d3\u05d1\u05e8\u05d9 \u05d4\u05ea\u05d5\u05e8\u05d4 \u05d4\u05d6\u05d0\u05ea \u05dc\u05e2\u05e9\u05d5\u05ea \u05d0\u05d5\u05ea\u05dd \u05d5\u05d0\u05de\u05e8 \u05db\u05dc \u05d4\u05e2\u05dd \u05d0\u05de\u05df \u05c3\n\n\u201cCursed be he that confirmeth not all the words of this law to do them.\nAnd all the people shall say, Amen.\u201d (Deut. xxvii. 26.) Moses holds out\nno nope, except to those who yield a perfect and universal obedience.\n\nBut some one will reply, if this be true, then no man can be accounted\nrighteous, on account of his deeds:\u2014\n\n\u05db\u05d9 \u05d0\u05d3\u05dd \u05d0\u05d9\u05df \u05e6\u05d3\u05d9\u05e7 \u05d1\u05d0\u05e8\u05e5 \u05d0\u05e9\u05e8 \u05d9\u05e2\u05e9\u05d4 \u05d8\u05d5\u05d1 \u05d5\u05dc\u05d0 \u05d9\u05d7\u05d8\u05d0 \u05c3\n\n\u201cFor there is not a just man upon earth, that doeth good, and sinneth\nnot.\u201d (Eccles. vii. 20.) And this is the truth, no man can be justified\nbecause of his good works. We must renounce all our pride, and appear at\nthe bar of God as miserable sinners, looking only for mercy, and not for\npayment. We must come to the same conclusion as Job did\u2014\n\n\u05d0\u05de\u05e0\u05dd \u05d9\u05d3\u05e2\u05ea \u05db\u05d9 \u05db\u05df \u05d5\u05de\u05d4 \u05d9\u05e6\u05d3\u05e7 \u05d0\u05e0\u05d5\u05e9 \u05e2\u05dd \u05d0\u05dc , \u05d0\u05dd \u05d9\u05d7\u05e4\u05d5\u05e5 \u05dc\u05e8\u05d9\u05d1 \u05e2\u05de\u05d5 \u05dc\u05d0 \u05d9\u05e2\u05e0\u05e0\u05d5 \u05d0\u05d7\u05ea \u05de\u05e0\u05d9\n\u05d0\u05dc\u05e3 \u05c3\n\n\u201cI know it is so of a truth: but how should man be just with God? If he\nwill contend with him, he cannot answer him one of a thousand.\u201d (Job ix.\n2, 3.) Job had no idea that his merits exceeded his sins, but knew well\nthat if God entered into judgment with him, he could not answer\nrespecting even the thousandth part of his transgressions. David, the\nman after God\u2019s own heart, had the same conviction, and had therefore,\nno wish that his merits should be weighed with his sins. His prayer was\u2014\n\n\u05d0\u05dc \u05ea\u05d1\u05d5\u05d0 \u05d1\u05de\u05e9\u05e4\u05d8 \u05d0\u05ea \u05e2\u05d1\u05d3\u05da \u05db\u05d9 \u05dc\u05d0 \u05d9\u05e6\u05d3\u05e7 \u05dc\u05e4\u05e0\u05d9\u05da \u05db\u05dc \u05d7\u05d9 \u05c3\n\n\u201cEnter not into judgment with thy servant: for in thy sight shall no man\nliving be justified.\u201d (Ps. cxliii. 2.) And when Daniel prayed, he did\nnot venture to prefer his petitions on the score of merits, or to expect\nan answer as the reward of righteousness, but cast himself simply on the\nmercy of God:\n\n\u05db\u05d9 \u05dc\u05d0 \u05e2\u05dc \u05e6\u05d3\u05e7\u05d5\u05ea\u05d9\u05e0\u05d5 \u05d0\u05e0\u05d7\u05e0\u05d5 \u05de\u05e4\u05d9\u05dc\u05d9\u05dd \u05ea\u05d7\u05e0\u05d5\u05e0\u05d9\u05e0\u05d5 \u05dc\u05e4\u05e0\u05d9\u05da \u05db\u05d9 \u05e2\u05dc \u05e8\u05d7\u05de\u05d9\u05da \u05d4\u05e8\u05d1\u05d9\u05dd \u05c3\n\n\u201cFor we do not present our supplications before thee for our\nrighteousnesses, but for thy great mercies.\u201d (Dan. ix. 18.) How, then,\ncan the modern Jews hope to stand at the tribunal of a heart-searching\nGod, and not only escape condemnation, but obtain a reward because their\nmerits exceed their sins? Are they more pure than Job, more holy than\nDavid, more righteous than Daniel? or were those three most holy men\nmistaken, or ignorant of the way of salvation? Certain it is that there\nmust be some mistake somewhere. Either the rabbies were right, and then\nJob, David, and Daniel were mistaken, or these three men were right, and\nthen the rabbies are fearfully and awfully mistaken. If the law requires\nperfect obedience, and denounces a curse against all disobedience, then\nthe former were right in deprecating God\u2019s judgment, and casting\nthemselves upon his mercy. But if the law requires only that a man\u2019s\nmerits should exceed his sins, and says that all deficiencies can be\nmade up by almsgiving and good works in the ten days between the New\nYear and the Day of Atonement, then they were wrong. Job was utterly\nmistaken when he said, \u201cHow should man be just with God?\u201d for the\nrabbies say, Only be careful for the first ten days of the year, and you\nwill be just and sealed unto life. David was utterly mistaken when he\nsaid, \u201cIn thy sight shall no man living be justified;\u201d for the rabbies\nsay that a man\u2019s merits may exceed his sins, and that such an one is\njust before God. Daniel was mistaken in not offering his prayers on the\nscore of righteousness, but on the plea of mercy. But still,\nnotwithstanding the certainty with which the rabbies speak, we would\nrather trust our own salvation to the word of Moses, of Ezekiel, of Job,\nDavid, and Daniel, than to that of the rabbies. We would rather kneel as\nsupplicants, than claim the reward of our deeds with the rabbies.\n\nBut we cannot pass this subject without observing here also how the\nreligion of the rabbies exhibits itself at every turn as a religion for\nthe rich and the learned, rather than for the poor and laborious class\nof mankind. It teaches that almsgiving and good works, at a certain\nseason of the year, will turn the wicked into righteous men, and\ntransform the sinner into the saint. So the rich sinner puts his hand\ninto his pocket, and lavishes his gold to the poor and needy, and buys\nwhat is wanting to make up his deficit of merit. The learned man sets to\nwork at his books; for the oral law says:\u2014\n\n\u05d0\u05d9\u05df \u05dc\u05da \u05de\u05e6\u05d5\u05d4 \u05d1\u05db\u05dc \u05d4\u05de\u05e6\u05d5\u05d5\u05ea \u05db\u05d5\u05dc\u05df \u05e9\u05d4\u05d9\u05d0 \u05e9\u05e7\u05d5\u05dc\u05d4 \u05db\u05e0\u05d2\u05d3 \u05ea\u05dc\u05de\u05d5\u05d3 \u05ea\u05d5\u05e8\u05d4 , \u05d0\u05dc\u05d0 \u05ea\u05dc\u05de\u05d5\u05d3 \u05ea\u05d5\u05e8\u05d4\n\u05db\u05e0\u05d2\u05d3 \u05db\u05dc \u05d4\u05de\u05e6\u05d5\u05d5\u05ea \u05db\u05d5\u05dc\u05df \u05e9\u05d4\u05ea\u05dc\u05de\u05d5\u05d3 \u05de\u05d1\u05d9\u05d0 \u05dc\u05d9\u05d3\u05d9 \u05de\u05e2\u05e9\u05d4 \u05dc\u05e4\u05d9\u05db\u05da \u05d4\u05ea\u05dc\u05de\u05d5\u05d3 \u05e7\u05d5\u05d3\u05dd \u05dc\u05de\u05e2\u05e9\u05d4 \u05d1\u05db\u05dc\n\u05de\u05e7\u05d5\u05dd \u05c3\n\n\u201cAmongst all the commandments, there is not one that is equivalent to\nthe study of the law. Whereas the study of the law is equivalent to all\nthe commandments: for study leads to practice. Therefore, study always\ngoes before good deeds.\u201d (Hilchoth Talmud Torah.) The one with his\nmoney, therefore, and the other with his books, can effect a balance in\nhis favour; but what is to become of the poor labouring classes, who\nhave no money to buy righteousness, and no time for study, which is\nequivalent to all the other commandments? For them to turn the balance\nis impossible\u2014they have not the means; and therefore, according to the\noral law, they stand but a poor chance when the final account comes to\nbe made up. This of itself would prove that the doctrine of the oral law\ncannot be true. God is a righteous judge, and he accepts no man\u2019s money\nand no man\u2019s learning. He takes no bribes, and will not wrest the\njudgment of the poor. The true mode, therefore, of appearing just before\nGod, is some other than that pointed out by the oral law, and one\naccording to which the poor sinner will stand on equal terms with his\nrich brother.\n\nThere is, however, another point to which we wish to direct attention.\nThe oral law says, if a man\u2019s merits exceed his sins, he is just and\nsealed unto life; but if his sins exceed his merits, then he is sealed\nunto death: what then are we to think of all who die in each succeeding\nyear? It is plain that they have not been sealed unto life, for then\nthey could not have died. Then they were sealed unto death; then we must\nconclude that their sins exceed their merits; and as all die, then we\nmust conclude, further, that all die in their sins\u2014that their sins are\nmore than their merits; and so, after all, this rabbinical doctrine\ncomes to nothing. It tells a man that by having his merits greater than\nhis sins, he is righteous, and will be sealed unto life; and yet, after\nall his almsgiving and good works, he dies like other men, and it turns\nout that he is not a just man, nor even one of the intermediate class,\nbut one of the wicked. How can any rational man put his faith in such a\nsystem, which promises a great deal, but does not keep its promise?\nAbove all, how can he trust his soul\u2019s everlasting welfare upon a\npromise which each successive year proves to be false? Many an one has\npassed into eternity already before the New Year, and of all such the\noral law says they have died in their sins. Many more may pass into\neternity between the New Year and the Day of Atonement. If the oral law\nbe true, all such belong to the decidedly wicked who did not deserve the\nten days\u2019 grace. Their friends and relations must, therefore, stamp\ntheir memory with the brand of the impenitently wicked, or if they\nentertain a hope that such persons have not died in their sins, they\nmust declare of the oral law that it is false. If they would have a\npromise that will not and cannot deceive, let them take up the law and\nthe prophets. The reader of this paper is still alive, but who can tell\nhow soon his turn must come, and come it will, and that soon in every\ncase. What consolation, then, will he have on his dying bed? Will he\nbegin to balance his account of merit and sin? Alas! there is no use in\nthat. If the oral law be true, it was balanced on the last Day of\nAtonement, and the sins were found to outweigh the merits, as his\napproaching death testifies. Where then will he flee for refuge or for\nconsolation? In the agony and feebleness of a death-bed hour there is no\ntime for doing good works, and poverty may cut off the rabbinic hope of\npurchasing salvation. In the oral law there is no hope. Can he find it,\nthen, in the law of Moses? That law requires perfect and universal\nobedience, and pronounces the sinner accursed. As an accursed sinner,\nthen, he must stand at the bar of God, unless there be some other way\nand some other hope. When Jacob was on his death-bed he had another\nhope. He could say\u2014\n\n\u05dc\u05d9\u05e9\u05d5\u05e2\u05ea\u05da \u05e7\u05d5\u05d9\u05ea\u05d9 \u05d4\u05f3 \u05c3\n\n\u201cI have waited for thy salvation, O Lord.\u201d (Gen. xlix. 18.) Oh! let the\nreader seek this salvation in time, that when his last hour comes, he\nmay be as calm, as happy, and as full of hope as his pious forefather.\nHe died in a foreign land, but he died happy, trusting not in his own\nrighteousness, but in the salvation of God. He had learned by experience\nthat man cannot deliver himself from mere temporal trouble, but that\neven there God is his only refuge and his hope, and still more so in the\nhour of death and the day of judgment. But he had learned also to\nbelieve in \u05d4\u05de\u05dc\u05d0\u05da \u05d4\u05d2\u05d5\u05d0\u05dc the Angel who had redeemed him from all evil, and\nwas persuaded that He would not forsake him in the great transition from\ntime to eternity. He had not put off the consideration of salvation to\nthe last. He could say, \u201cI _have_ waited for thy salvation, O Lord,\u201d and\ntherefore when the awful moment arrived, he could in perfect\ntranquillity gather his children about him, and tell them of Shiloh who\nwas to come, and of the salvation which he had expected.\n\n\n\n\n                               No. XXXIV.\n                          NEW YEAR, CONTINUED.\n\n\nAll who believe in Divine Revelation look forward to a great day, when\nthe secrets of all hearts shall be revealed, and a righteous sentence\npronounced upon all the sons of men. The most important thing in the\nworld, then, for us to know is, the way of acceptance with God, at that\nsolemn hour. And if men are bound as rational beings to examine the\ngrounds of their opinions and belief on other subjects, they must be\nconsidered as altogether devoid of reason, who do not thoroughly examine\nand weigh the doctrines which have been taught them with regard to\njustification at the bar of God. A mistake on other subjects may be\nendured, but a mistake here is fatal and irreparable. What will be the\nhorror of those who find that they have through their own want of\nconsideration been trusting in a delusive hope, and have rejected,\nwilfully rejected, that way of acceptance which God has appointed. If\nthere be any one point of difference between Jews and Christians, which\nrequires profound and attentive consideration, it is this. We Christians\nbelieve that, on this all-important point, the oral law is utterly\nmistaken, and that all who trust their salvation to the hope which it\nholds out, will find themselves awfully mistaken if Moses and the\nprophets speak truth. We have endeavoured to show that the hope of\njustification by merits is contrary to the Word of God. But we shall now\nproceed to show that the oral law by this doctrine contradicts itself,\nand that therefore it is most unsafe to rest our salvation upon any of\nits assertions. In that law, which teaches that if a man\u2019s merits exceed\nhis sins, he is justified, we also find the following parable, intended\nto explain God\u2019s dealings in the judgment of the New Year:\u2014\n\n\u05de\u05e9\u05dc \u05dc\u05de\u05d3\u05d9\u05e0\u05d4 \u05e9\u05d7\u05d9\u05d9\u05d1\u05ea \u05de\u05e1 \u05dc\u05de\u05dc\u05da \u05d5\u05dc\u05d0 \u05e0\u05ea\u05e0\u05d4 \u05dc\u05d5 \u05d1\u05d0 \u05d0\u05dc\u05d9\u05d4 \u05d1\u05d7\u05d9\u05dc \u05dc\u05d2\u05d1\u05d5\u05ea\u05d5 , \u05db\u05e9\u05e0\u05ea\u05e7\u05e8\u05d1 \u05d0\u05dc\u05d9\u05d4\n\u05d1\u05d9\u05f3 \u05e4\u05e8\u05e1\u05d0\u05d5\u05ea \u05d9\u05e6\u05d0\u05d5 \u05d2\u05d3\u05d5\u05dc\u05d9 \u05d4\u05de\u05d3\u05d9\u05e0\u05d4 \u05dc\u05e7\u05e8\u05d0\u05ea\u05d5 \u05d5\u05d0\u05de\u05e8\u05d5 \u05dc\u05d5 \u05d0\u05d9\u05df \u05dc\u05e0\u05d5 \u05de\u05d4 \u05dc\u05d9\u05ea\u05df \u05dc\u05da \u05d4\u05e0\u05d9\u05d7 \u05dc\u05d4\u05dd\n\u05e9\u05dc\u05d9\u05e9 , \u05db\u05d9\u05d5\u05df \u05e9\u05e0\u05ea\u05e7\u05e8\u05d1 \u05d9\u05d5\u05ea\u05e8 \u05d9\u05e6\u05d0\u05d5 \u05d1\u05d9\u05e0\u05d5\u05e0\u05d9 \u05d4\u05e2\u05d9\u05e8 \u05dc\u05e7\u05e8\u05d0\u05ea\u05d5 \u05d4\u05e0\u05d9\u05d7 \u05dc\u05d4\u05dd \u05e9\u05dc\u05d9\u05e9 \u05d4\u05e9\u05e0\u05d9 ,\n\u05db\u05e9\u05e0\u05ea\u05e7\u05e8\u05d1 \u05d9\u05d5\u05ea\u05e8 \u05d9\u05e6\u05d0\u05d5 \u05db\u05dc \u05d1\u05e0\u05d9 \u05d4\u05e2\u05d9\u05e8 \u05dc\u05e7\u05e8\u05d0\u05ea\u05d5 \u05d4\u05e0\u05d9\u05d7 \u05dc\u05d7\u05dd \u05d4\u05db\u05dc , \u05db\u05da \u05d4\u05de\u05dc\u05da \u05d6\u05d4 \u05d4\u05e7\u05d1\u05f3\u05f3\u05d4 ,\n\u05d1\u05e0\u05d9 \u05d4\u05de\u05d3\u05d9\u05e0\u05d4 \u05d0\u05dc\u05d5 \u05d9\u05e9\u05e8\u05d0\u05dc \u05e9\u05de\u05e1\u05d2\u05dc\u05d9\u05df \u05e2\u05d5\u05d5\u05e0\u05d5\u05ea \u05db\u05dc \u05d4\u05e9\u05e0\u05d4 \u05e2\u05e8\u05d1 \u05e8\u05d0\u05e9 \u05d4\u05e9\u05e0\u05d4 \u05d4\u05d2\u05d3\u05d5\u05dc\u05d9\u05dd \u05de\u05ea\u05e2\u05e0\u05d9\u05df\n\u05d5\u05de\u05d5\u05d5\u05ea\u05e8 \u05dc\u05d4\u05dd \u05e9\u05dc\u05d9\u05e9 \u05e2\u05d5\u05d5\u05e0\u05d5\u05ea\u05d9\u05d4\u05dd , \u05d1\u05d9\u05f3 \u05d9\u05de\u05d9\u05dd \u05d1\u05d9\u05e0\u05d5\u05e0\u05d9\u05dd \u05de\u05ea\u05e2\u05e0\u05d9\u05df \u05d5\u05de\u05d5\u05d5\u05ea\u05e8 \u05dc\u05d4\u05dd \u05e9\u05e0\u05d9\n\u05e9\u05dc\u05d9\u05e9\u05d9\u05dd , \u05d1\u05d9\u05d5\u05dd \u05d4\u05db\u05e4\u05d5\u05e8\u05d9\u05dd \u05d4\u05db\u05dc \u05de\u05ea\u05e2\u05e0\u05d9\u05df \u05d5\u05de\u05d5\u05d5\u05ea\u05e8 \u05dc\u05d4\u05dd \u05d4\u05db\u05dc \u05c3\n\n\u201cA parable. There was a certain city, which owed tribute to the king,\nbut did not pay it, whereupon he came upon it with an army to collect\nit. When he came within ten leagues of it, the great men of the city\nwent forth to meet him, and said to him, We have nothing wherewith to\npay thee, so he forgave them one-third. When he approached nearer still,\nthe middle classes of the city went forth to meet him, and he forgave\nthem a second-third. When he approached still nearer, all the population\nof the city went forth to meet him, and he forgave them all. The King\nhere is the Holy One, blessed be He. The inhabitants of the city are\nIsrael, who accumulate sins all the year. On the eve of the New Year,\nthe great men fast, and one-third of their sins is remitted to them. In\nthe ten days, the intermediate class fast, and two-thirds are remitted.\nOn the Day of Atonement all fast, and all is remitted to them.\u201d (Orach\nChaiim, 581.) Now this representation is quite at variance with the\ndoctrine that those are justified whose merits exceed their sins. This\nparable, in the first place, represents all as in debt, and secondly,\nthat they have nothing to pay, and thirdly, that the King forgives them\nfreely and for nothing. Now this statement is directly contrary to the\nnotion of merit. If a man has more merits than sins, and is on that\nscore accounted just, he cannot be said to be in debt, and he needs no\nremission. But if it be true of the great men as well as the middle\nclass, that they are in debt and have nothing wherewith to pay, then it\nis certain that they have no merits, and cannot be considered as just,\nbut as sinners. Merit and forgiveness are as essentially opposed as\npayment and debt. The man who has paid his creditor all his demands can\nhave no debt, and so the man who has kept God\u2019s commands so as to have\nmerit, needs not forgiveness. But he who has nothing to pay, that is, he\nwho has no merits, must either be condemned, or he must have a free\nforgiveness of all; and this the parable says is the case of Israel.\nThey have nothing to pay, and God forgives them all. Merit is therefore\naltogether out of the question, and if this statement be true, then the\ndoctrine of justification by merits is false, and therefore the oral law\ncontradicts itself. How then can the Israelite trust his everlasting\nwelfare to a system at variance with itself?\n\nThe prayers for the New Year are equally decisive against the doctrine\nof justification by merits. Out of many passages which deny the\nexistence of merit, and asserts the necessity of a free forgiveness, we\ncite the following:\u2014\n\n\u05e7\u05d4\u05dc\u05d5\u05ea \u05d5\u05e8\u05d1\u05d1\u05d5\u05ea \u05d5\u05d0\u05dc\u05e4\u05d9\u05dd , \u05d0\u05e9\u05e8 \u05dc\u05e4\u05e0\u05d9\u05e0\u05d5 \u05e2\u05d1\u05e8\u05d5 \u05d7\u05dc\u05d5\u05e4\u05d9\u05dd , \u05d5\u05dc\u05d0 \u05d9\u05db\u05dc\u05d5 \u05dc\u05d4\u05e6\u05d8\u05d3\u05e7 \u05d4\u05d9\u05d5\u05ea \u05d7\u05e4\u05d9\u05dd\n, \u05d4\u05df \u05e9\u05de\u05d9\u05dd \u05d1\u05e2\u05d9\u05e0\u05d5 \u05dc\u05d0 \u05d6\u05db\u05d5 , \u05d5\u05db\u05dc \u05dc\u05d2\u05d9\u05d5\u05e0\u05d9 \u05e9\u05d7\u05e7 \u05db\u05e4\u05e9\u05ea\u05d4 \u05d3\u05d5\u05e2\u05db\u05d5 , \u05d5\u05e0\u05ea\u05e2\u05d1 \u05d5\u05e0\u05d0\u05dc\u05d7 \u05de\u05d4\n\u05d9\u05d6\u05db\u05d5 , \u05e7\u05d5\u05d1\u05e5 \u05de\u05e8\u05de\u05d4 \u05d5\u05de\u05e1\u05ea\u05ea\u05e8 \u05d1\u05e2\u05d9\u05e0\u05d9\u05d5 , \u05d0\u05dd \u05d9\u05d0\u05de\u05e8 \u05d1\u05dc\u05d1\u05d5 \u05de\u05d9 \u05d9\u05e2\u05d9\u05d3\u05e0\u05d9 \u05dc\u05e4\u05e0\u05d9\u05d5 , \u05e7\u05d5\u05e8\u05d5\u05ea\u05d9\u05d5\n\u05d5\u05e8\u05d4\u05d9\u05d8\u05d9\u05d5 \u05d5\u05e2\u05e6\u05d9\u05d5 \u05d5\u05d0\u05d1\u05e0\u05d9\u05d5 , \u05d8\u05d4\u05d5\u05e8 \u05e2\u05d9\u05e0\u05d9\u05dd \u05d1\u05e8\u05e2 \u05de\u05e8\u05d0\u05d5\u05ea , \u05d4\u05e6\u05dc\u05dc \u05d7\u05d8\u05d0\u05d9\u05e0\u05d5 \u05d1\u05e2\u05de\u05e7\u05d9 \u05de\u05d7\u05d1\u05d5\u05d0\u05d5\u05ea\n, \u05d5\u05e2\u05e9\u05d4 \u05e2\u05de\u05e0\u05d5 \u05dc\u05d8\u05d5\u05d1\u05d4 \u05d0\u05d5\u05ea \u05c3\n\n\u201cThousands and ten thousands of congregations, which have persecuted us\nand are vanished, were not able to justify themselves in purity. Lo! the\nheavens are not pure in his sight, and all the heavenly angels are as\nbeaten flax: how then can he that is filthy and abominable be pure? He\ngathereth riches by deceit; and working in secret, he says in his heart,\nWho can bear witness against me before him? Even the beams, rafters,\nplanks, and stones of his house. O Thou who art too pure of sight to\nview evil, sink our sins in the deepest recesses, and work the good sign\nfor us.\u201d (Prayers for the New Year, p. 149.) Here is an express\nacknowledgment that the congregations of old could not justify\nthemselves by merit, an assertion in the words of the Psalm, that all\nmen are filthy and abominable, and a prayer, not for payment of deserts,\nbut for forgiveness of sins. If this prayer contain the sentiments of\ntruth, and be offered in sincerity, then Israel has no merits, and the\ndoctrine, that any man is justified by the superabundance of his merits,\nis a mere fiction. The man who will venture to offer this prayer, and\nyet hope to be saved by his good deeds, is a hypocrite, or is not right\nin his mind. Here again, then, the oral law is inconsistent with itself:\nfor here it places the hope of salvation not in merit, but in the free\nand undeserved mercy of God. It is the duty of every Israelite,\ntherefore, to ascertain which of the two ways is in accordance with the\ndeclaration of Moses and the prophets. It is impossible that they should\nboth be true. The fact appears to be, that the authors of the oral law,\nlike all other men, loved the honour and glory of personal\nrighteousness, and hoped that all those deeds, and fasts, and\nalmsgiving, which were so lovely in their own eyes, and gained them so\nmuch credit amongst men, would also be duly acknowledged at the bar of\nGod\u2019s judgment. At the same time their conscience was continually\nawakened and terrified by the plain declarations of the Word of God, and\ntherefore, to quiet their conscience, they were driven even against\ntheir wills to acknowledge their guilt, and to seek for a quietus. This\nthey partly found in the hope of free mercy, but partly in inventions of\ntheir own. They placed no small dependence upon fasting and almsgiving,\nbut their troubled conscience was not satisfied with these, and they\nhave therefore fled for refuge to observances the most trivial, and\nhopes the most childish. By blowing the horn the whole month of Elul,\nthey hope to deceive Satan, so that he may not know which is the first\nday of the new year, and may not be able to accuse them:\u2014\n\n\u05dc\u05db\u05df \u05d4\u05ea\u05e7\u05d9\u05e0\u05d5 \u05d7\u05d6\u05f3\u05f3\u05dc \u05e9\u05d9\u05d4\u05d9\u05d5 \u05d4\u05d5\u05e7\u05e2\u05d9\u05df \u05d1\u05e8\u05f3\u05f3\u05d7 \u05d0\u05dc\u05d5\u05dc \u05d1\u05db\u05dc \u05e9\u05e0\u05d4 \u05d5\u05e9\u05e0\u05d4 \u05d5\u05db\u05dc \u05d4\u05d7\u05d5\u05d3\u05e9 \u05db\u05d3\u05d9\n\u05dc\u05d4\u05d6\u05d4\u05d9\u05e8 \u05d0\u05ea \u05d9\u05e9\u05e8\u05d0\u05dc \u05e9\u05d9\u05e2\u05e9\u05d5 \u05ea\u05e9\u05d5\u05d1\u05d4 \u05e9\u05e0\u05d0\u05de\u05e8 \u05d0\u05dd \u05d9\u05ea\u05e7\u05e2 \u05d1\u05e9\u05d5\u05e4\u05e8 \u05d5\u05d2\u05d5\u05f3 \u05d5\u05db\u05d3\u05d9 \u05dc\u05e2\u05e8\u05d1\u05d1 \u05d4\u05e9\u05d8\u05df \u05c3\n\n\u201cTherefore our wise men of blessed memory have ordained that the horn\nshould be blown on the first day of the month of Elul every year, and\nduring the whole month, to warn Israel to repent, as it is said, \u2018Shall\na trumpet be blown in the city, and the people not be afraid?\u2019 (Amos\niii. 6), and also to confuse Satan.\u201d How can any man of understanding\nbelieve that a law teaching such absurdity is from God? We are told in\nZechariah and Job, that Satan does accuse the people of God: but how can\nany one, who has been taught by the Word of God, imagine that Satan is\nto be deceived by blowing the horn at a wrong time, or that even if he\ndid not accuse at all, that God is ignorant of man\u2019s sins, or that he\nwill judge unjustly unless he is reminded by Satan? In accusing sinners,\nSatan gratifies his own malignity, but his accusation is not wanted at\nthe bar of God to convict man of sin. When men appear there they will be\nseen as they are. All their transgressions will be as visible as is now\ntheir bodily presence. The eye of God will penetrate every secret recess\nof the soul, and the conscience itself will testify and condemn the\nimpenitent. It is therefore most absurd and irrational to hope to escape\nby confounding the accuser; and it is to us serious matter of\nastonishment how such an absurdity could have been tolerated for so many\ncenturies, and how a people of such intellect as the Jews confessedly\nare, should remain the disciples of such senseless superstition.\n\nBut the rabbies expect not only to confound Satan by blowing the horn at\nthe wrong time, but to obtain God\u2019s mercy by blowing it at the right\ntime. Thus we are told in Vaijikra Rabbah\u2014\n\n\u05d1\u05e9\u05e2\u05d4 \u05e9\u05d9\u05e9\u05e8\u05d0\u05dc \u05e0\u05d5\u05d8\u05dc\u05d9\u05df \u05d0\u05ea \u05e9\u05d5\u05e4\u05e8\u05d9\u05d4\u05df \u05d5\u05ea\u05d5\u05e7\u05e2\u05d9\u05df \u05dc\u05e4\u05e0\u05d9 \u05d4\u05e7\u05d1\u05f3\u05f3\u05d4 \u05e2\u05d5\u05de\u05d3 \u05de\u05db\u05e1\u05d0 \u05d4\u05d3\u05d9\u05df \u05d5\u05d9\u05d5\u05e9\u05d1\n\u05d1\u05db\u05e1\u05d0 \u05e8\u05d7\u05de\u05d9\u05dd \u05d3\u05db\u05ea\u05d9\u05d1 \u05d4\u05f3 \u05d1\u05e7\u05d5\u05dc \u05e9\u05d5\u05e4\u05e8 \u05d5\u05de\u05ea\u05de\u05dc\u05d0 \u05e2\u05dc\u05d9\u05d4\u05dd \u05e8\u05d7\u05de\u05d9\u05dd \u05d5\u05de\u05e8\u05d7\u05dd \u05e2\u05dc\u05d9\u05d4\u05dd \u05d5\u05d4\u05d5\u05e4\u05da \u05e2\u05dc\u05d9\u05d4\u05dd\n\u05de\u05d3\u05ea \u05d4\u05d3\u05d9\u05df \u05dc\u05e8\u05d7\u05de\u05d9\u05dd \u05d0\u05d9\u05de\u05ea\u05d9 \u05d1\u05d7\u05d5\u05d3\u05e9 \u05d4\u05e9\u05d1\u05d9\u05e2\u05d9 \u05c3\n\n\u201cAt the hour in which Israel take their horns, and sound before the Holy\nOne, blessed be He, He rises from the throne of judgment and sits on the\nthrone of mercy, as it is written, \u2018The Lord, with the sound of the\ntrumpet\u2019 (Ps. xlvii. 5); and he is filled with mercy towards them, and\nhas pity upon them, and changes the attribute of judgment which was\nagainst them into mercy. When does this happen? In the seventh month.\u201d\n(Vaijikra Rabbah, sect. 29.) This then is one of the means whereby the\nrabbies try to quiet a guilty conscience. If true, it would no doubt be\nvery convenient for a man who has spent the year in iniquity, and who\nhas not repented, and does not intend to repent, to get rid of all his\nsins by blowing a horn on the new year, and thus turning God\u2019s wrath\ninto mercy. But it is a statement altogether opposed to the Word of God,\nand derogatory to his character for mercy and for justice. No mere\nceremonial act can atone for sin, neither does God need the blowing of a\nhorn to remind him of mercy. To suppose, that such a miserable ceremony\ncan stop God in his course of justice, and make him reverse his\ndeterminations, is to deprive him of all the attributes of Deity, and to\nrepresent him as exceeding in imbecility the weakest of all the sons of\nmen that ever occupied the judgment-seat. And yet this most absurd and\nunscriptural hope is not merely a rabbinic legend, or an allegory, but\nis in the prayers of the synagogue gravely inserted as a devout\npetition:\u2014\n\n\u05ea\u05d7\u05e0\u05d4 \u05dc\u05ea\u05d5\u05e7\u05e2 \u05dc\u05e4\u05e0\u05d9 \u05d4\u05ea\u05e7\u05d9\u05e2\u05d4 , \u05d9\u05d4\u05d9 \u05e8\u05e6\u05d5\u05df \u05de\u05dc\u05e4\u05e0\u05d9\u05da \u05d9\u05d9 \u05d0\u05dc\u05d4\u05d9 \u05d5\u05d0\u05dc\u05d4\u05d9 \u05d0\u05d1\u05d5\u05ea\u05d9 \u05d0\u05dc\u05d4\u05d9 \u05d4\u05e9\u05de\u05d9\u05dd\n\u05d5\u05d0\u05dc\u05d4\u05d9 \u05d4\u05d0\u05e8\u05e5 \u05d0\u05dc\u05d4\u05d9 \u05d0\u05d1\u05e8\u05d4\u05dd \u05d0\u05dc\u05d4\u05d9 \u05d9\u05e6\u05d7\u05e7 \u05d5\u05d0\u05dc\u05d4\u05d9 \u05d9\u05e2\u05e7\u05d1 \u05d4\u05d0\u05dc \u05d4\u05d2\u05d3\u05d5\u05dc \u05d4\u05d2\u05d1\u05d5\u05e8 \u05d5\u05d4\u05e0\u05d5\u05e8\u05d0 \u05e9\u05ea\u05e9\u05dc\u05d7\n\u05dc\u05d9 \u05d4\u05de\u05dc\u05d0\u05db\u05d9\u05dd \u05d4\u05e7\u05d3\u05d5\u05e9\u05d9\u05dd \u05d5\u05d4\u05d8\u05d4\u05d5\u05e8\u05d9\u05dd \u05e0\u05d0\u05de\u05e0\u05d9\u05dd \u05de\u05e9\u05e8\u05ea\u05d9\u05dd \u05d5\u05e0\u05d0\u05de\u05e0\u05d9\u05dd \u05d1\u05e9\u05dc\u05d9\u05d7\u05d5\u05ea\u05dd \u05d7\u05e4\u05e6\u05d9\u05dd \u05d5\u05e8\u05d5\u05e6\u05d9\u05dd\n\u05dc\u05d6\u05db\u05d5\u05ea \u05d0\u05ea \u05d9\u05e9\u05e8\u05d0\u05dc \u05d5\u05d0\u05ea \u05d4\u05de\u05dc\u05d0\u05da \u05d4\u05d2\u05d3\u05d5\u05dc \u05e4\u05e6\u05e4\u05e6\u05d9\u05d4 \u05d4\u05de\u05de\u05d5\u05e0\u05d4 \u05dc\u05d4\u05d5\u05e6\u05d9\u05d0 \u05d6\u05db\u05d9\u05d5\u05ea\u05d9\u05d4\u05df \u05e9\u05dc \u05d9\u05e9\u05e8\u05d0\u05dc\n\u05d1\u05e2\u05ea \u05e9\u05d4\u05dd \u05ea\u05d5\u05e7\u05e2\u05d9\u05df \u05d1\u05e9\u05d5\u05e4\u05e8 \u05d5\u05d0\u05ea \u05d4\u05de\u05dc\u05d0\u05da \u05d4\u05d2\u05d3\u05d5\u05dc \u05ea\u05e9\u05d1\u05e9 \u05d4\u05de\u05de\u05d5\u05e0\u05d4 \u05dc\u05d4\u05e9\u05de\u05d9\u05e2 \u05d6\u05db\u05d9\u05d5\u05ea\u05d9\u05d4\u05df \u05e9\u05dc\n\u05d9\u05e9\u05e8\u05d0\u05dc \u05d5\u05dc\u05d4\u05d1\u05e2\u05d9\u05ea \u05d4\u05e9\u05d8\u05df \u05d1\u05ea\u05e7\u05d9\u05e2\u05ea\u05dd \u05d5\u05d0\u05ea \u05d4\u05e9\u05e8\u05d9\u05dd \u05d4\u05d2\u05d3\u05d5\u05dc\u05d9\u05dd \u05d4\u05de\u05de\u05d5\u05e0\u05d9\u05dd \u05e2\u05dc \u05d4\u05e9\u05d5\u05e4\u05e8 \u05d0\u05e0\u05e7\u05ea\u05dd \u05e4\u05e1\u05ea\u05dd\n\u05d5\u05de\u05dc\u05d0\u05db\u05d9\u05dd \u05d4\u05d2\u05d3\u05d5\u05dc\u05d9\u05dd \u05d4\u05d3\u05e8\u05e0\u05d9\u05d0\u05dc \u05d5\u05e1\u05e0\u05d3\u05dc\u05e4\u05d5\u05df \u05d4\u05de\u05de\u05d5\u05e0\u05d9\u05dd \u05e2\u05dc \u05ea\u05e7\u05d9\u05e2\u05ea\u05e0\u05d5 \u05d4\u05de\u05e2\u05dc\u05d9\u05dd \u05ea\u05e7\u05d9\u05e2\u05ea\u05e0\u05d5 \u05dc\u05e4\u05e0\u05d9\n\u05db\u05e1\u05d0 \u05db\u05d1\u05d5\u05d3\u05da \u05d5\u05d0\u05ea \u05d4\u05de\u05dc\u05d0\u05da \u05e9\u05de\u05e9\u05d9\u05d0\u05dc \u05d4\u05de\u05de\u05d5\u05e0\u05d4 \u05e2\u05dc \u05d4\u05ea\u05e8\u05d5\u05e2\u05d4 \u05d5\u05d0\u05ea \u05d4\u05de\u05dc\u05d0\u05da \u05e4\u05e8\u05e1\u05d8\u05d0 \u05d4\u05de\u05de\u05d5\u05e0\u05d4 \u05e2\u05dc\n\u05e7\u05e9\u05e8\u05f3\u05f3\u05e7 \u05dc\u05d4\u05d9\u05d5\u05ea\u05dd \u05de\u05d6\u05d5\u05de\u05e0\u05d9\u05dd \u05d1\u05e9\u05dc\u05d9\u05d7\u05d5\u05ea\u05dd \u05dc\u05d4\u05e2\u05dc\u05d5\u05ea \u05ea\u05e7\u05d9\u05e2\u05ea\u05e0\u05d5 \u05dc\u05e4\u05e0\u05d9 \u05d4\u05e4\u05e8\u05d5\u05db\u05ea \u05d5\u05dc\u05e4\u05e0\u05d9 \u05db\u05e1\u05d0\n\u05db\u05d1\u05d5\u05d3\u05da \u05d5\u05d4\u05de\u05dc\u05d0 \u05e2\u05dc \u05e2\u05de\u05da \u05d9\u05e9\u05e8\u05d0\u05dc \u05d1\u05e8\u05d7\u05de\u05d9\u05dd \u05d5\u05ea\u05db\u05e0\u05e1 \u05dc\u05d4\u05dd \u05dc\u05e4\u05e0\u05d9\u05dd \u05de\u05e9\u05d5\u05e8\u05ea \u05d4\u05d3\u05d9\u05df \u05d5\u05ea\u05ea\u05e0\u05d4\u05d2 \u05e2\u05dd\n\u05d1\u05e0\u05d9\u05da \u05d1\u05de\u05d3\u05ea \u05e8\u05d7\u05de\u05d9\u05dd \u05d5\u05ea\u05e2\u05dc\u05d4 \u05ea\u05e7\u05d9\u05e2\u05ea\u05e0\u05bc\u05d5 \u05dc\u05e4\u05e0\u05d9 \u05db\u05e1\u05d0 \u05db\u05d1\u05d5\u05d3\u05da \u05d5\u05db\u05d5\u05f3 \u05c3\n\nThe following prayer is said by the person who sounds the cornet, before\nhe begins:\u2014\u201cMay it be acceptable in thy presence, O Lord, my God, and\nthe God of my fathers, the God of heaven, and the God of the earth; the\nGod of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob; the great God,\nmighty and tremendous; to send me the holy and pure angels, who are\nfaithful ministers, and faithful in their message; and who are desirous\nand willing to justify Israel; and also the great angel Patzpatziah, who\nis appointed to present the merits of Israel, when they sound the cornet\nthis day; and likewise the great angel Tashbach, who is appointed to\ndeclare the merits of Israel, and confound Satan with their sound of the\ncornet; and the great princes, who are appointed over the cornet,\nEnkatham and Pastam, and the great angels, Hadarniel and Sandalphon, who\nare appointed over our sounding, who introduce our sounding before the\nthrone of thy glory; and also the angel Shamshiel, who is appointed over\nthe joyful sound; and the angel Prasta, who is appointed to superintend\n\u05e7\u05e9\u05f3\u05f3\u05e8\u05e7 that they may all be expeditious in their errand; to introduce\nour soundings before the veil, and before the throne of thy glory; and\nmayest thou be filed with mercy over thy people Israel; and lead us\nwithin the temperate line of strict justice; and conduct thyself towards\nthy children, with the attribute of mercy, and suffer our soundings to\nascend before the throne of thy glory.\u201d (Prayers for the New Year, p.\n81.) Here, then, we have, in the language of solemn prayer, the very\nsame monstrous doctrine, that the sounding of the cornet on the new year\ncan change God\u2019s determinations; and we have it in even a more\nobjectionable form, for it is connected with other most unscriptural\nsuperstitions. This prayer asserts what is nowhere found in Holy\nScripture, that there is a certain number of angels whose express office\nit is to superintend the blowing of the horn, and to bear the soundings\nthereof before the throne of God, and at the same time to advocate their\nmerits. In the first place, this is a pure invention, and a fond\nsuperstition. In the Word of God, not one word is mentioned of anything\nof the kind. We should be sorry to treat any religious tenet of any\npeople, but especially of the Jews, with ridicule, but we cannot help\nasking the good sense of every reader, whether the representation here\ngiven is not in the highest degree ridiculous? The angels are to be sent\ndown from heaven. For what purpose? Is it to warn men of the impending\nwrath of God, or to announce the coming redemption of Israel, or to\nexecute God\u2019s judgments? No, but to attend to the blowing of a ram\u2019s\nhorn, and to carry up the sounds before the throne of God, that they may\nturn his attribute of judgment into that of mercy. Is it necessary,\nthen, for the angels to interfere in this matter? cannot God hear the\nsounding of the cornet, unless it be conveyed to him by angels? or do\nthe movings of his compassion depend upon the blowing of a cornet? What\nwould Elijah have said to such doctrine as this? When the priests of\nBaal only cried aloud, he mocked them, and said, \u201cCry aloud, for he is a\nGod; either he is talking, or he is pursuing, or he is on a journey, or\nperadventure he sleepeth, and must be awaked.\u201d (1 Kings xviii. 27.) And\nyet the priests of Baal were not sounding a cornet, that they might\nrouse their pretended Deity to compassion. If we had not read this\nprayer with our own eyes, we could scarcely have believed that even\nRabbinism itself could have fallen into such manifest absurdity. But the\nsubject is far too grave to be treated with levity. Upon this absurdity,\nthe rabbies teach Israel to rest their hope of salvation. Conscious that\nthe hope of justification by merit is fallacious, and yet unwilling to\ngive up what is so palatable to the pride of man, they seek about to\nfind something that will compensate for the deficiency, and in the\neagerness of desperation grasp at any thing. The trivial ceremony of\nblowing the cornet was therefore turned into a mystery, and a suitable\napparatus of angels invented to meet the apprehensions of the\nsuperstitious and unenlightened, and in some degree to take off the\napparent irrationality of believing that an act so insignificant should\neffect a change so great in the purposes of the Almighty. But whatever\nwas the motive or the origin of this fable, there it now stands in the\nprayers of the synagogue, to lead the ignorant away from the true means\nof justification, and the true ideas of God\u2019s justice and God\u2019s\njudgment. Let no man say it is an innocent error. No error is innocent.\nError in every form is pernicious; in religion it is deadly. And the\nmost mischievous of all religious errors are those which confirm men in\nthe idea, that external ceremonies will atone for moral delinquencies;\nand this is precisely the tendency of the fable here noticed. An\nignorant and superstitious man, and there are many such in every\nreligion, finds in his Prayer-book that the blowing of the cornet can\nchange the attribute of judgment into the attribute of mercy: he\nbelieves it to be true, not only because of the book where he finds it,\nbut because every man is glad to hear of a way of acceptance, which will\nsave the trouble of repentance and thorough change of heart and life. He\ntherefore perseveres through the year in the practice of those things\nwhich his heart condemns, trusting that the blowing of the cornet will\nset all straight, and thus he goes on from year to year until death\novertakes him hardened and impenitent, and he finds too late at the bar\nof God, that he has been in fatal error. Upon whom then will the guilt\nof such person\u2019s destruction be charged? Not only upon those who\ninvented the falsehood, but on those also who sanction it, who leave it\nin the Prayer-book, and thus practically teach the people superstition.\nEvery Jew who attends the worship of the synagogue is responsible in his\nstation and calling, for the error and falsehood which its prayers\npropagate amongst the people. But at all events every person who\ndisbelieves this story of the angels carrying up the sounding of the\ncornet, must grant that a system teaching such a method of salvation is\nvery unsafe; and that, as it grossly errs in this one article it is\nsuspicious in all. But besides the absurdity of this doctrine, we must\nnotice its inconsistency. The Prayer-book states that the blowing of the\ncornet is necessary to the procuring of pardon; it therefore implies\nthat pardon is necessary, and therefore that Israel is guilty; what,\nthen, becomes of merits? If Israel can be justified by merits, the\nblowing of the cornet is superfluous; for, in that case, all they want\nis justice. Where a man can claim salvation because of all his good\ndeeds, he need not fear the attribute of righteousness, \u05de\u05d3\u05ea \u05d4\u05d3\u05d9\u05df, and\ndoes not want the attribute of mercy. But the moment that he\nacknowledges his need of forgiveness, he confesses that he has no\nmerits. If, therefore, the Prayer-book be right in acknowledging sin and\npraying for pardon, the oral law is wrong in teaching justification by\nmerits. One contradicts the other, and therefore they cannot both be\nfrom God; and the man who believes both is guilty of renouncing his\nreason. But the man who trusts his salvation to a system so inconsistent\nwith itself, is utterly devoid of wisdom. He is hazarding his eternal\nwelfare on the testimony of a witness who contradicts himself; who says\nat one time, that a man can be saved by his merits, and at another time\nthat he has no merits that can stand the scrutiny of God\u2019s righteous\njudgment.\n\n\n\n\n                               No. XXXV.\n                             JUSTIFICATION.\n\n\nThe doctrine of justification by merits is agreeable, and seems very\nreasonable, so long as a man can theorize, that is, so long as he is not\nin earnest. But so soon as the prospect of death, or any other similar\ncircumstance, compels him to realize the act of Divine judgment upon\nhimself, it loses all its beauty and plausibility; the conscience is\nunsatisfied by its consolations, and reason pronounces that the hope\nbuilt on merits is insecure. A solemn and earnest review of our past\nyears soon convinces, that our good deeds are but few, that our best\ndeeds are defiled by mixed motives; and, above all, that the love of God\nhas not been the heart\u2019s dominant principle, and that, therefore, some\nother mode of justification is absolutely necessary. The truth of this\nstatement is confirmed by the inconsistency of the oral law with itself.\nThe great principle of the oral law is, that the observance of any one\nof its commands, purchases a certain quantity of merit, and that an\naccumulation of these merits will, at last, constitute a sufficiency;\nbut when the solemn season of the New Year and the Day of Atonement\narrives, this sufficiency is found to be insufficient, and the alarmed\nconscience eagerly looks round to find something, that may compensate\nfor the deficiency of merit. We have already noticed some of the\nrabbinic inventions for this purpose, and now proceed to consider\nanother, and that is, _the merit of their progenitors_. One of the main\nprops of rabbinic hope is the righteousness of their forefathers, as may\nbe seen almost on every page of the Jewish Prayer-book, and as is\napparent in the following extracts:\u2014\n\n\u05e7\u05e9\u05ea \u05e8\u05d5\u05d7 \u05d0\u05e9\u05e8 \u05d4\u05d5\u05e2\u05e7\u05e8\u05d4 , \u05e8\u05d5\u05e4\u05d0\u05d4 \u05dc\u05e7\u05e5 \u05ea\u05e9\u05e2\u05d9\u05dd \u05db\u05e0\u05ea\u05d1\u05e7\u05e8\u05d4 , \u05e9\u05dc\u05d7\u05d4 \u05e4\u05d0\u05d5\u05e8\u05d5\u05ea \u05d5\u05dc\u05d0 \u05e9\u05e7\u05e8\u05d4 ,\n\u05ea\u05e4\u05df \u05d1\u05e0\u05e6\u05e8\u05d9\u05dd \u05d0\u05e9\u05e8 \u05d7\u05d5\u05dc\u05dc\u05d5 \u05db\u05d4\u05d9\u05d5\u05dd , \u05d5\u05e9\u05dc\u05e9 \u05e2\u05e7\u05e8\u05d5\u05ea \u05e9\u05d4\u05e4\u05e7\u05d3\u05d5 \u05d1\u05d6\u05d4 \u05d9\u05d5\u05dd , \u05ea\u05e6\u05d3\u05d9\u05e7 \u05d1\u05e6\u05d3\u05e7\u05ea\u05dd\n\u05de\u05d9\u05d7\u05dc\u05d9\u05da \u05d0\u05d9\u05d5\u05dd \u05c3\n\n\u201cShe who was sorrowful when barren, was made to rejoice with good\ntidings when ninety years of age; she then sent forth shoots that failed\nnot. Regard the merit of your ancestors who were born on this day, and\nthe three barren ones, who were visited on this day: justify, through\ntheir righteousness, those who hope in thee, O Thou, who art\ntremendous.\u201d (Levi\u2019s Prayer for the New Year, p. 61.)\n\nAnd again\u2014\n\n\u05d0\u05ea \u05d7\u05d9\u05dc \u05d9\u05d5\u05dd \u05e4\u05e7\u05d5\u05d3\u05d4 , \u05d1\u05d0\u05d9\u05de\u05d9\u05d5 \u05db\u05dc \u05dc\u05d7\u05d5\u05dd \u05dc\u05e9\u05e7\u05d3\u05d4 , \u05d2\u05e9\u05d9\u05dd \u05d1\u05d5 \u05d1\u05e8\u05da \u05dc\u05d9\u05e7\u05d5\u05d3\u05d4 , \u05d3\u05e2\u05dd \u05dc\u05d9\u05e9\u05e8\n\u05db\u05e2\u05dc \u05de\u05d5\u05e7\u05d3\u05d4 , \u05d4\u05d9\u05d5\u05e6\u05e8 \u05d9\u05d7\u05d3 \u05db\u05e1\u05dc \u05e0\u05e9\u05e4\u05d8 , \u05d5\u05e9\u05d5\u05e2 \u05d5\u05d3\u05dc \u05d1\u05e4\u05dc\u05d5\u05e1 \u05d9\u05d5\u05e9\u05e4\u05d8 , \u05d6\u05db\u05e8 \u05dc\u05d0 \u05d9\u05e2\u05e9\u05d4 \u05de\u05e9\u05e4\u05d8\n, \u05d7\u05d9\u05df \u05e2\u05e8\u05db\u05d5 \u05d9\u05d6\u05db\u05e8 \u05d1\u05de\u05e9\u05e4\u05d8 , \u05d8\u05e8\u05dd \u05db\u05dc \u05de\u05e4\u05e2\u05dc \u05d7\u05e6\u05d1 , \u05d9\u05d6\u05dd \u05d1\u05de\u05d7\u05e9\u05d1\u05ea \u05e6\u05d5\u05e8 \u05d7\u05d5\u05e6\u05d1 , \u05db\u05d0\u05d7\u05d5\u05e8\n\u05d5\u05e7\u05d3\u05dd \u05d1\u05ea\u05d5\u05da \u05e0\u05d7\u05e6\u05d1 , \u05dc\u05d9\u05d4\u05d1 \u05e2\u05dc\u05d9\u05d5 \u05db\u05dc \u05d4\u05de\u05d7\u05e6\u05d1 , \u05de\u05e0\u05ea\u05d5 \u05db\u05d4\u05d9\u05d5\u05dd \u05db\u05d7 \u05d3\u05d5\u05e9\u05e0\u05d4 , \u05e0\u05e6\u05e8 \u05dc\u05d4\u05d7\u05e0\u05d9\u05d8\n\u05dc\u05ea\u05e9\u05e2\u05d9\u05dd \u05e9\u05e0\u05d4 , \u05e1\u05d5\u05d9\u05de\u05d4 \u05d0\u05d5\u05ea \u05d4\u05d9\u05d5\u05ea \u05dc\u05e9\u05d5\u05e9\u05e0\u05d4 , \u05e2\u05d1\u05d5\u05e8 \u05dc\u05e4\u05e0\u05d9\u05d5 \u05d1\u05d6\u05d4 \u05e8\u05d0\u05e9 \u05d4\u05e9\u05e0\u05d4 , \u05e4\u05d5\u05dc\u05e6\u05d5\n\u05e4\u05e8\u05d7\u05d9\u05d4 \u05d1\u05d6\u05d4 \u05d9\u05d5\u05dd , \u05e6\u05d2\u05ea\u05dd \u05e4\u05e0\u05d9 \u05db\u05e1 \u05d0\u05d9\u05d5\u05dd , \u05e7\u05d5\u05dc \u05d3\u05d1\u05d5\u05d1\u05dd \u05d9\u05e8\u05d7\u05d9\u05e9\u05d5 \u05db\u05d4\u05d9\u05d5\u05dd , \u05e8\u05d5\u05d2\u05e9\u05d9\u05dd \u05dc\u05d4\u05e8\u05d9\u05e2\n\u05dc\u05de\u05e6\u05d5\u05d0 \u05e4\u05d3\u05d9\u05d5\u05dd , \u05e9\u05e2\u05d5\u05e0\u05d9\u05dd \u05e2\u05dc\u05d9\u05d4 \u05d1\u05d4 \u05dc\u05d4\u05e4\u05e7\u05d3\u05d4 , \u05e9\u05d5\u05d0\u05d2\u05d9\u05dd \u05d1\u05dc\u05d4\u05e7 \u05d3\u05dc\u05ea\u05d5\u05ea \u05dc\u05e9\u05e7\u05d3\u05d4 , \u05ea\u05de\u05d5\u05db\u05d9\u05dd\n\u05d1\u05d3\u05e9\u05df \u05e9\u05d4 \u05e2\u05e7\u05d9\u05d3\u05d4 , \u05ea\u05e9\u05e8 \u05d0\u05e9\u05e8 \u05d1\u05d5 \u05e0\u05e4\u05e7\u05d3\u05d4 \u05c3\n\n\u201cThe fearful day of visitation is come, its dread goads all flesh; they\npresent themselves with bended knees; O may their repentance be\naccounted as a burnt-offering. Thou who hast formed them judgest all\ntheir thoughts: the rich and poor are all weighed in the balance;\n_remember the merit of_ him who said, \u2018Shall he not do justice?\u2019 O,\nremember the tenor of his prayer in judgment. Ere ought was created\ndidst thou purpose to ordain him the rock from whence the nation was to\nspring; he was as the centre, the support of all creatures. His wife was\non this day endued with youth, to cause the branch to put forth at\nninety years of age; she was appointed as a sign to those who are\nlikened to the rose, who are to pass before thee in judgment on this New\nYear\u2019s-day. Her posterity tremble this day; when they stand before thy\nterrible throne; they utter the voice of prayer this day; they assemble\nto sound the cornet, that they may obtain redemption. _They depend on\nher merit_ to be visited like her; their assemblies cry aloud and hasten\nto enter into thy doors. They depend on the ashes of him who was bound\nas a lamb,[30] with whom she was visited in the month Tishri.\u201d (Ibid.,\np. 57.) The offering of Isaac is regarded as particularly meritorious,\nand constantly urged as a plea for merit. Thus\u2014\n\n\u05d5\u05d4\u05e1\u05ea\u05db\u05dc \u05d1\u05d0\u05e4\u05e8\u05d5 \u05e9\u05dc \u05d9\u05e6\u05d7\u05e7 \u05d4\u05e6\u05d1\u05d5\u05e8 \u05e2\u05dc \u05d2\u05d1\u05d9 \u05d4\u05de\u05d6\u05d1\u05d7 \u05d5\u05d6\u05db\u05d5\u05e8 \u05dc\u05e0\u05d5 \u05e2\u05e7\u05d3\u05ea\u05d5 \u05d4\u05d9\u05d5\u05dd \u05dc\u05d6\u05e8\u05e2\u05d5 \u05e9\u05dc\n\u05d9\u05e6\u05d7\u05e7 \u05c3\n\n\u201cAttentively view the ashes of Isaac, heaped upon the altar;[31] and\nremember this day unto his seed, his being bound on the altar.\u201d (Ibid.,\np. 81.) And again\u2014\n\n\u05e1\u05de\u05d5\u05db\u05d9\u05dd \u05d1\u05e6\u05d3\u05e7\u05ea \u05d0\u05d1 \u05d4\u05d9\u05d4 \u05d0\u05d7\u05d3 , \u05e0\u05e9\u05e2\u05e0\u05d9\u05dd \u05d1\u05e1\u05d1\u05da \u05d9\u05d7\u05d9\u05d3 \u05d5\u05de\u05d9\u05d5\u05d7\u05d3 , \u05de\u05d5\u05d1\u05d8\u05d7\u05d9\u05dd \u05d1\u05ea\u05dd \u05d5\u05d1\u05d9\u05d5\u05e9\u05e8\n\u05d0\u05d1 \u05d0\u05d7\u05d3 \u05c3\n\n\u201cThey depend on the righteousness of the first patriarch, and rest on\nthe merit of the only peculiar Son, and are secure in the perfection and\nrectitude of the father of the nation.\u201d (Ibid., p. 105.)\n\nThese passages show plainly that, after all, the rabbies felt their own\ndoctrine of justification by merits very unsafe ground on which to build\ntheir hope of salvation; and that they were glad to flee to merits more\nadequate, which they hoped to find in the righteousness of their\nancestors. The modern Jews, who still adopt these prayers, profess to\nentertain the same hope, and we therefore proceed to inquire, whether it\nbe built on a better foundation than that which they are compelled to\nrelinquish. We think that it is not; for, in the first place, the saints\nof old, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, though we revere them as pious and\nholy men, were after all only sinful men like ourselves. They did not,\nand could not, save themselves by their own righteousness, and if they\ndid not save themselves, it is folly to think that they can save us.\nAbraham, though by the grace of God, the father of the faithful, was yet\nin himself so weak in faith, and so distrustful in the goodness and\nmercy of God, as to endeavour to save himself from the Egyptians by\nmeans of a deliberate falsehood. Sarah had so little faith as to laugh\nwithin herself at the promise of God, and then to defend herself by a\nlie. Isaac was guilty of similar conduct, and Jacob\u2019s sin in deceiving\nhis brother plainly shows, that he also was a poor sinful creature.\nWhere then are their superabundant merits, whereby they are to justify\nall their posterity? The Word of God says expressly,\u2014\n\n\u05d0\u05d7 \u05dc\u05d0 \u05e4\u05d3\u05d4 \u05d9\u05e4\u05d3\u05d4 \u05d0\u05d9\u05e9 \u05dc\u05d0 \u05d9\u05ea\u05df \u05dc\u05d0\u05dc\u05d4\u05d9\u05dd \u05db\u05e4\u05e8\u05d5 \u05c3\n\n\u201cNo man can by any means redeem his brother, nor give to God a ransom\nfor him.\u201d (Ps. xlix. 8.) How then are these three men to redeem all\ntheir posterity? If they have got merits sufficient to compensate for\nthe unrighteousness of their children, then they have a ransom; and then\nthe Word of God, which says that no man has a ransom, is not true. But\nif the words of the Psalm be true,\u2014and he is no Jew who thinks them\nfalse,\u2014then the patriarchs have no superabundant merits, and no ransom\nto offer for their children, and then the hope built on their\nrighteousness is deceitful, and those that lean on it will find\nthemselves mistaken in the hour of judgment. Nay, more, they will find\nthemselves accursed for departing from the Lord. He that trusts in the\nrighteousness of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, to deliver him from the\nwrath to come, is evidently trusting in man, and making flesh his arm.\nIf the merits of the patriarchs can save their children from the wrath\nof God, then God is not the Saviour of Israel, but the patriarchs are\nIsrael\u2019s redeemers, and poor mortal men are their hope and their trust:\nbut the Prophet says,\u2014\n\n\u05d0\u05e8\u05d5\u05e8 \u05d4\u05d2\u05d1\u05e8 \u05d0\u05e9\u05e8 \u05d9\u05d1\u05d8\u05d7 \u05d1\u05d0\u05d3\u05dd \u05d5\u05e9\u05dd \u05d1\u05e9\u05e8 \u05d6\u05e8\u05d5\u05e2\u05d5 \u05d5\u05de\u05df \u05d4\u05f3 \u05d9\u05e1\u05d5\u05e8 \u05dc\u05d1\u05d5 \u05c3\n\n\u201cCursed be the man that trusteth in man, and maketh flesh his arm, and\nwhose heart departeth from the Lord.\u201d (Jer. xvii. 5.) So far, then, from\nbeing secure by trusting in the righteousness of Abraham, Isaac, and\nJacob, this trust increases the sinner\u2019s guilt, and draws down upon him\na double curse. But it has pleased God himself to argue this question at\nlarge with the Jews, to suppose the case of a righteous father who has\nan unrighteous son, and to declare that the son cannot be saved by the\nrighteousness of the father. In the Prophet Ezekiel, God says, \u201cIf a man\nbe just, and do that which is lawful and right\u2014he is just, he shall\nsurely live, saith the Lord God. If he beget a son that is a robber, a\nshedder of blood, and that doeth the like to any of these things, and\nthat doeth not any of those duties, but even hath eaten upon the\nmountains, and defileth his neighbour\u2019s wife, hath oppressed the poor\nand needy, hath spoiled by violence, hath not restored the pledge, and\nhath lifted up his eyes to the idols, hath committed abomination, hath\ngiven forth upon usury, and hath taken increase: shall he then live? he\nshall not live: he hath done all these abominations: he shall surely\ndie; his blood shall be upon him.\u201d (Ezek. xviii. 5-13.) Here God sets\nthe matter at rest, and decides that the righteousness of a father is of\nno use to an unrighteous son, and cannot deliver him from the punishment\ndue to his evil deeds. The doctrine, then, of justification by the\nmerits of ancestors, is directly opposed to the plain declaration of God\nhimself, and, therefore, in this case also the Jewish prayers and the\noral law teach error, and seduce the Jews to their everlasting\ndestruction, by teaching them to trust in that which can do them no\ngood. It is an awful and melancholy spectacle to see God\u2019s ancient\npeople thus misled. At this season of the year, the devout amongst them\nendeavour to turn to God, fast and pray, and yet neither the one nor the\nother is accepted, because they put their trust in the merits of men,\nand their heart is turned away from God their Saviour. The prayers of\nthe synagogue, instead of drawing down a blessing, only help to\naccumulate wrath, by seducing them from the Redeemer of Israel to\nrefuges of lies. And hence it happens that all the fasts and the prayers\nof Israel for these seventeen centuries have been disregarded by God,\nand that Israel still continues in captivity. But as every lie and every\nerror is built upon some truth as its foundation, it will be well to\ninquire what truth it was that gave rise to this error of justification\nby the merits of ancestors? The principle is _that the guilty may be\nsaved by the merits of another person, who is righteous_: how, then, did\nthis principle become current among the Jews? It was certainly not the\ninvention of human reason, for reason can discover no necessary\nconnexion between the merits of one righteous man and the pardon of\nanother who is guilty. The principle does not hold in the ordinary\njudicial proceedings of this world: a robber or a murderer is not and\ncannot be pardoned because another member of the community, or of his\nfamily, is a good and righteous man. We must therefore look elsewhere\nfor the origin of the principle, and we find it in the revealed will of\nGod. We see it in the appointment of sacrifice and atonement, according\nto which a guilty man was pardoned by the suffering of an innocent\nanimal. Here is at once the principle of substitution of the innocent\nfor the guilty; and human reason, when it once has the substratum, can\neasily proceed to erect the superstructure. In the present case it\nnaturally argued, if the death of one of the brute creation could effect\nso much, how much more would the merits of a righteous man avail, if\nsuch an one could be found? The error, then, is not in the principle,\nbut in its application. According to the Scripture, it is true that the\ninnocent may be substituted for the guilty; but the rabbies were wrong\nin applying this truth to the case of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and other\nmen, who were only sinners as themselves. The Word of God, which gave\nthe principle, also directs us to the right application. It tells us of\none for whose righteousness\u2019 sake the Lord will forgive sin:\u2014\n\n\u05d4\u05f3 \u05d7\u05e4\u05e5 \u05dc\u05de\u05e2\u05df \u05e6\u05d3\u05e7\u05d5 \u05d9\u05d2\u05d3\u05d9\u05dc \u05ea\u05d5\u05e8\u05d4 \u05d5\u05d9\u05d0\u05d3\u05d9\u05e8 \u05c3\n\n\u201cThe Lord is well pleased for his righteousness\u2019 sake; he will magnify\nthe law and make it honourable.\u201d (Isa. xlii. 21.) Who, then, is this\nperson? The preceding verses tell us that it is the servant of the Lord.\nWho, then, is the servant of the Lord? Kimchi says, on this verse, that\nthe servant of the Lord is the prophet; but this cannot possibly be\ntrue, for the prophet was not righteous, but a sinner, as he himself\ntells us in the sixth chapter\u2014\u201cI am a man of unclean lips.\u201d The servant\nmentioned in the nineteenth verse is the same person as he who is called\n\u201cMy servant,\u201d in the first verse of the chapter\u2014\u201cBehold my servant, whom\nI uphold, mine elect, in whom my soul delighteth: I have put my spirit\nupon him: he shall bring forth judgment to the Gentiles.\u201d But here\nKimchi says,\u2014\n\n\u05d6\u05d4 \u05d4\u05d5\u05d0 \u05de\u05dc\u05da \u05d4\u05de\u05e9\u05d9\u05d7 \u05db\u05de\u05d5 \u05e9\u05e4\u05d9\u05e8\u05e9\u05e0\u05d5 \u05c3\n\n\u201cThis is the King Messiah, as we have interpreted.\u201d If then, in the\nfirst verse, \u201cThe servant of the Lord\u201d means the Messiah, it must mean\nthe same through the chapter, and the Messiah is the person for whose\nrighteousness\u2019 sake the Lord is well pleased.\n\nThis same prophet tells us again, concerning this servant,\u2014\n\n\u05d1\u05d3\u05e2\u05ea\u05d5 \u05d9\u05e6\u05d3\u05d9\u05e7 \u05e6\u05d3\u05d9\u05e7 \u05e2\u05d1\u05d3\u05d9 \u05dc\u05e8\u05d1\u05d9\u05dd \u05d5\u05e2\u05d5\u05e0\u05d5\u05ea\u05dd \u05d4\u05d5\u05d0 \u05d9\u05e1\u05d1\u05d5\u05dc \u05c3\n\n\u201cBy his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall\nbear their iniquities.\u201d (Isa. liii. 11.) That the Messiah is here\nintended no Jew can doubt, who uses the Synagogue Prayers; for on the\nDay of Atonement and at the Passover, this chapter is applied to\nhim.[32] Here, then, it is expressly stated, that the Messiah, by his\nrighteousness, shall justify the guilty. And, therefore, the prophet\ncalls the Messiah \u05d9\u05d4\u05d5\u05d4 \u05e6\u05d3\u05e7\u05e0\u05d5 \u201cTHE LORD OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS.\u201d (Jer. xxiii.\n6.) That the Messiah is here intended there can be no doubt, for he is\ndescribed as \u201cthe righteous branch\u201d of David, and thus all the\ncommentators explain it. In these three passages, then, of the Word of\nGod, sinners are pointed to the Messiah as their hope and their\nrighteousness. He is God\u2019s righteous servant, and his sufferings and his\nmerits are all-sufficient to do that which Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob\ncannot do. The great mistake of the oral law is to point to wrong\npersons, who have no righteousness, and almost totally to pass by Him\nwhom God hath set forth as the hope of sinners. But it may here be\nasked, if Messiah be a man, how can he have merits more than Abraham, or\nany other of the children of Adam? The answer is, that though very man,\nhe is not a sinful man as we are, neither is he a mere man. If he were a\nman like us, he could have no merits, and therefore could not justify us\nany more than we could justify him. The declaration, therefore, that he\nis the Lord\u2019s righteous servant, and that he is appointed for the\njustification of sinners, necessarily implies that he is more than a\nman, and the title given him by the Prophet Jeremiah puts this beyond\ndoubt. Jeremiah calls him by the incommunicable name of God \u05d9\u05d4\u05d5\u05d4 ,\nconcerning which God himself says:\u2014\n\n\u05d0\u05e0\u05d9 \u05d9\u05d4\u05d5\u05d4 \u05d4\u05d5\u05d0 \u05e9\u05de\u05d9 \u05d5\u05db\u05d1\u05d5\u05d3\u05d9 \u05dc\u05d0\u05d7\u05e8 \u05dc\u05d0 \u05d0\u05ea\u05df \u05c3\n\n\u201cI am the LORD: that is my name, and my glory will I not give to\nanother.\u201d (Isa. xlii. 8.) If then \u05d9\u05d4\u05d5\u05d4 be the name of God, then that\nBeing who is called by that holy name must be God. Some of the modern\nrabbies reply, that this holy name is also given to the city of\nJerusalem, both by Jeremiah and Ezekiel. But even if we admit this,\nstill this is no answer to our argument. There is no fear that a city\nwhich, however great or noble, is only a mass of stones and mortar,\nshould be mistaken for the living God, the Creator of the Universe.\nWhen, therefore, the name of God is attributed to the city, God\u2019s honour\nis not given to it. But when we are told of the Messiah, first that he\nis righteous, secondly that his righteousness is so great as to justify\nthe guilty, and lastly that his name is \u05d9\u05d4\u05d5\u05d4, \u201cTHE LORD our\nRighteousness;\u201d that is when we see that the attributes and the name of\nGod are attributed to him, then we must conclude either that he is God,\nor that God has done what he has declared that he would not do, and\ngiven his honour to another. Righteousness is the attribute of God\nalone, and so Daniel says:\u2014\n\n\u05dc\u05da \u05d4\u05f3 \u05d4\u05e6\u05d3\u05e7\u05d4 \u05d5\u05dc\u05e0\u05d5 \u05d1\u05d5\u05e9\u05ea \u05d4\u05e4\u05e0\u05d9\u05dd \u05db\u05d9\u05d5\u05dd \u05d4\u05d6\u05d4 \u05c3\n\n\u201cO Lord, righteousness belongeth unto thee, but unto us confusion of\nfaces, as at this day.\u201d (Dan. ix. 7.) But, in the above passages,\nrighteousness is said to belong to the Messiah, and that in such an\nimmeasurable degree as to be sufficient to justify the guilty sons of\nmen; if then he have this attribute of God, he must also have the nature\nof God. Again, another prophet says, that of God men will say that they\nhave righteousness in him:\u2014\n\n\u05d0\u05da \u05d1\u05d4\u05f3 \u05dc\u05d9 \u05d0\u05de\u05e8 \u05e6\u05d3\u05e7\u05d5\u05ea \u05d5\u05e2\u05d5\u05d6 \u05c3\n\n\u201cSurely shall one say, in the Lord have I righteousness and strength.\n(Isa. xlv. 24.) And again:\u2014\n\n\u05d1\u05d4\u05f3 \u05d9\u05e6\u05d3\u05e7\u05d5 \u05d5\u05d9\u05ea\u05d4\u05dc\u05dc\u05d5 \u05db\u05dc \u05d6\u05e8\u05e2 \u05d9\u05e9\u05e8\u05d0\u05dc \u05c3\n\n\u201cIn the Lord shall all the seed of Israel be justified, and shall\nglory.\u201d Here it is said that God is our righteousness, and that in Him\nwe shall be justified; but in the passages quoted above, it is said that\nthe Messiah is our Righteousness, and that in Him we shall be justified;\nthe person then intended in these different passages must be one and\nidentical. Thus the difficulties are all removed, and we have one in\nwhose righteousness we may safely trust, without making ourselves liable\nto the curse denounced against those who put their trust in sinful men.\nThis is the Christian\u2019s hope. Many Jews think, and speak, and argue too,\nas if Christians had departed from the living God and put their trust in\na man; but that of which they accuse us, they have done themselves. We\nhave not departed from the living God. Our hope and trust and confidence\nis in \u05d9\u05d4\u05d5\u05d4 \u05e6\u05d3\u05e7\u05e0\u05d5, The LORD our Righteousness. You have departed from the\nLord, for in your prayers you say that your hope and trust is in the\nmerits of sinful men. Our confidence is based upon the Word of God, and\nyour hope is taught you by the rabbies, who are fallible men. Your\ndoctrine is the doctrine of men, and your hope is in the merits of men.\nYou have, therefore, doubly departed from God, both from his word and\nhis righteousness. Our desire is that you would return to Him, not to\nus,\u2014to his word, and not to ours. You have no merits more than we have.\nYour forefathers have no more than either of us, and the blowing of a\nram\u2019s horn is but a poor foundation on which to build our hope of\nsalvation; and yet these are the things on which your rabbies have\ntaught you to depend. Examine your prayers, and compare them with the\nWord of God, and you will find, that as long as the Jewish nation\ncontinues to offer such petitions, their cry cannot be heard; and that\nif they wish for salvation, they must forsake their arm of flesh, and\nreturn to Him who was the hope of their fathers.\n\nIt was not by his own merits, nor the merits of his forefathers, nor by\nany ceremonial observance, that Abraham was justified, but by faith in\nthe LORD, \u05d9\u05d4\u05d5\u05d4, as it is written:\u2014\n\n\u05d5\u05d4\u05d0\u05de\u05d9\u05df \u05d1\u05d4\u05f3 \u05d5\u05d9\u05d7\u05e9\u05d1\u05d4 \u05dc\u05d5 \u05e6\u05d3\u05e7\u05d4 \u05c3\n\n\u201cAnd he believed in the LORD, and it was counted to him for\nrighteousness.\u201d (Gen. xv. 6.) David the King did not expect to be\nforgiven and justified on account of Abraham\u2019s or his other ancestors\u2019\nmerits; neither did he say, Blessed is the man who puts his trust in the\nrighteousness of the patriarchs, but\u2014\n\n\u05d0\u05e9\u05e8\u05d9 \u05e0\u05e9\u05d5\u05d9 \u05e4\u05e9\u05e2 \u05db\u05e1\u05d5\u05d9 \u05d7\u05d8\u05d0\u05d4 , \u05d0\u05e9\u05e8\u05d9 \u05d0\u05d3\u05dd \u05dc\u05d0 \u05d9\u05d7\u05e9\u05d1 \u05d4\u05f3 \u05dc\u05d5 \u05e2\u05d5\u05df \u05d5\u05d0\u05d9\u05df \u05d1\u05e8\u05d5\u05d7\u05d5 \u05e8\u05de\u05d9\u05d4 \u05c3\n\n\u201cBlessed is he whose transgression is forgiven, whose sin is covered.\nBlessed is the man unto whom the LORD imputeth not iniquity, and in\nwhose spirit there is no guile.\u201d (Ps. xxxii. 1.) Every one, then, who\ndesires to have this blessing, must renounce all pretensions to merit,\nand acknowledge himself a sinner needing forgiveness; and for this\nforgiveness he must look not to anything that man had done, or can do,\nbut to the mercy of God in passing by transgression and sin. And\ntherefore the Prophet Habakkuk lays it down as a general rule\u2014\n\n\u05d5\u05e6\u05d3\u05d9\u05e7 \u05d1\u05d0\u05de\u05d5\u05e0\u05ea\u05d5 \u05d9\u05d4\u05d9\u05d4 \u05c3\n\n\u201cThe just shall live by his faith.\u201d (Habak. ii. 4.) This is the\nScriptural mode of justification, and this the hope of Abraham, David,\nand Habakkuk. Will the Jews, then, cast in their lot with their father\nAbraham, and trust to that way of justification in which he walked? or\nwill they refuse to be justified as he was, and still persist in\nfollowing the inventions of men, which are not even consistent with\nthemselves? If the oral law pointed out one way of justification, and\nthen consistently adhered to it, there would at least be an appearance\nof reason in following its directions. But it points out two ways as\nopposite as east and west. It says a man may be justified by his own\nmerits, and then it tells him he is to be justified by the merits of\nanother. Both cannot possibly be true. It is the duty, then, of every\nman earnestly to inquire which is the true way of Salvation, and to\ndecide, whether he is to be saved by his own merits, or the merits of\nhis forefathers, or the merits of \u201cTHE LORD OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS.\u201d\n\nFootnote 30:\n\n  Isaac.\n\nFootnote 31:\n\n  \u201cAlluding to Isaac\u2019s being bound; and thus considered as if he had\n  been offered, and his body burnt to ashes on the altar.\u201d (Levi\u2019s\n  note.)\n\nFootnote 32:\n\n  See the Machsor for the Day of Atonement, in \u05d0\u05d6 \u05de\u05dc\u05e4\u05e0\u05d9 \u05d1\u05e8\u05d0\u05e9\u05d9\u05ea and for\n  the Passover, in \u05d1\u05e8\u05d4 \u05d3\u05d5\u05d3\u05d9.\n\n\n\n\n                               No. XXXVI.\n                           DAY OF ATONEMENT.\n\n\nThe law and the prophets both abound with plain declarations entirely\nsubversive of the rabbinic doctrine of human merit. But it has pleased\nGod, besides these plain and repeated declarations, to ordain a public\nand solemn act to instruct even the most ignorant, and to convince the\nmost obstinate, that by human merit there is no salvation. He commanded\nthat, once every year, an atonement should be made by the high-priest,\nfor himself, and for all the people of every class and degree.\n\n\u05d5\u05db\u05e4\u05e8 \u05d0\u05ea \u05de\u05e7\u05d3\u05e9 \u05d4\u05e7\u05d5\u05d3\u05e9 \u05d5\u05d0\u05ea \u05d0\u05d4\u05dc \u05de\u05d5\u05e2\u05d3 \u05d5\u05d0\u05ea \u05d4\u05de\u05d6\u05d1\u05d7 \u05d9\u05db\u05e4\u05e8 \u05d5\u05e2\u05dc \u05d4\u05db\u05d4\u05e0\u05d9\u05dd \u05d5\u05e2\u05dc \u05db\u05dc \u05e2\u05dd \u05d4\u05e7\u05d4\u05dc\n\u05d9\u05db\u05e4\u05e8 \u05c3\n\n\u201cAnd he shall make an atonement for the holy sanctuary, and he shall\nmake an atonement for the tabernacle of the congregation, and for the\naltar; and he shall make an atonement for the priests and for all the\npeople of the congregation.\u201d (Levit. xvi. 33.) Now this ordinance\nimplies, that all Israel, the high-priest, the priests, and the people,\nare all sinners, all need an atonement; and, therefore, utterly\nannihilates all idea of justification by merits. If Israel could have\nbeen justified either by their own merits, or by the merits of their\nforefathers, the solemn act of annual atonement would have been\nsuperfluous. But if this atonement be necessary,\u2014and if it were not, why\ndid God appoint it\u2014then there is no room for the assertion of human\nmerits. But the truth is, as we have already seen, that the rabbies felt\nthat their doctrine was insufficient to quiet the awakened conscience,\nand gladly fled to any refuge that they could discover; it is no wonder\nthen that they have clung with uncommon tenacity to the shadow of that\nhope that was held out in the law of Moses. In spite of their doctrine\nof merit, they are glad to have even the appearance of a day of\natonement to reconcile them to the Almighty. It is true they have no\nhigh-priest and no sacrifice, yet so convinced are they of the need of\nan atonement, that rather than confess that they have absolutely none,\nthey teach that repentance and the day itself will atone for all sin:\u2014\n\n\u05d1\u05d6\u05de\u05df \u05d4\u05d6\u05d4 \u05e9\u05d0\u05d9\u05df \u05d1\u05d9\u05ea \u05d4\u05de\u05e7\u05d3\u05e9 \u05e7\u05d9\u05d9\u05dd \u05d5\u05d0\u05d9\u05df \u05dc\u05e0\u05d5 \u05de\u05d6\u05d1\u05d7 \u05db\u05e4\u05e8\u05d4 \u05d0\u05d9\u05df \u05e9\u05dd \u05d0\u05dc\u05d0 \u05ea\u05e9\u05d5\u05d1\u05d4 ,\n\u05d4\u05ea\u05e9\u05d5\u05d1\u05d4 \u05de\u05db\u05e4\u05e8\u05ea \u05e2\u05dc \u05db\u05dc \u05d4\u05e2\u05d1\u05d9\u05e8\u05d5\u05ea \u05d0\u05e4\u05d9\u05dc\u05d5 \u05e8\u05e9\u05e2 \u05db\u05dc \u05d9\u05de\u05d9\u05d5 \u05d5\u05e2\u05e9\u05d4 \u05ea\u05e9\u05d5\u05d1\u05d4 \u05d1\u05d0\u05d7\u05e8\u05d5\u05e0\u05d4 \u05d0\u05d9\u05df\n\u05de\u05d6\u05db\u05d9\u05e8\u05d9\u05df \u05dc\u05d5 \u05e9\u05d5\u05dd \u05d3\u05d1\u05e8 \u05de\u05e8\u05e9\u05e2\u05d5 , \u05e9\u05e0\u05d0\u05de\u05e8 \u05e8\u05e9\u05e2\u05ea \u05d4\u05e8\u05e9\u05e2 \u05dc\u05d0 \u05d9\u05db\u05e9\u05dc \u05d1\u05d4 \u05d1\u05d9\u05d5\u05dd \u05e9\u05d5\u05d1\u05d5 \u05de\u05e8\u05e9\u05e2\u05d5 ,\n\u05d5\u05e2\u05e6\u05de\u05d5 \u05e9\u05dc \u05d9\u05d5\u05dd \u05d4\u05db\u05e4\u05d5\u05e8\u05d9\u05dd \u05de\u05db\u05e4\u05e8 \u05dc\u05e9\u05d1\u05d9\u05dd \u05e9\u05e0\u05d0\u05de\u05e8 \u05db\u05d9 \u05d1\u05d9\u05d5\u05dd \u05d4\u05d6\u05d4 \u05d9\u05db\u05e4\u05e8 \u05e2\u05dc\u05d9\u05db\u05dd \u05c3\n\n\u201cAt this time, when there is no temple, and we have no altar, there is\nno atonement but repentance. Repentance atones for all transgressions,\nyea, though a man be wicked all his days, and repent at last, none of\nhis wickedness is mentioned to him, for it is said, \u2018As for the\nwickedness of the wicked, he shall not fall thereby, in the day that he\nturneth from his wickedness.\u2019 (Ezek. xxxiii. 12.) The Day of Atonement\nitself also atones for them that repent, for it is said, \u2018For on that\nday he shall make an atonement for you.\u2019 Lev. xvi. 30.\u201d (Hilchoth\nT\u2019shuvah, c. i. 2.) This is the last refuge of Jewish hope, and we,\ntherefore, propose to consider, whether it is a refuge on which a\nreasonable man may hazard his hope of salvation? No man of sense would\nhazard his life or his property upon a statement, of which one part\ncontradicted the other; and such is the statement which we have just\nread. It first tells us, that in this present time \u201cThere is no\natonement but repentance,\u201d and that \u201cRepentance atones for all\ntransgressions;\u201d and yet, immediately after, it adds, that \u201cThe Day of\nAtonement itself atones for them that repent.\u201d Now the latter assertion\ncontradicts the former. If the Day of Atonement, as is here asserted, be\nnecessary to atone for the penitent, then it is not true, that\nrepentance atones for all sins. But if repentance atones for all sins,\nthen when a man repents, his sins are forgiven, and then the Day of\nAtonement is not necessary. There is here, therefore, a palpable\ncontradiction, and it cannot be safe to trust to a hope at variance with\nitself. But, secondly, as the two parts of which this statement is\ncomposed, contradict each other, so each of them is contrary to the law\nof Moses. The first of them is, that \u201cRepentance atones for all\ntransgressions;\u201d but if so, then the atonement prescribed by Moses is\nuseless, in fact, it is no atonement at all. Moses says, that the two\ngoats were appointed by God for the atonement, but here it is said, that\nrepentance is, in itself, sufficient. If this be true, if repentance can\nnow atone for sins, without any sacrifice, why did Moses appoint such an\nuseless, and even cruel rite, as the taking away the lives of poor\ninnocent animals? If repentance be sufficient now, it was sufficient\nalways, and then it follows, that God commanded what was useless. But if\nthe appointment, the slaying of one goat, and the sending the other,\nladen with the sins of the people, into the wilderness, was necessary\nformerly to procure forgiveness of sins, it must be equally necessary\nnow: unless the rabbies will take upon them to assert, that God is an\narbitrary and changeable master, who, to forgive sins, at one time,\nrequires what at another time he does not require. That the slaying of\none goat, and the sending away of the other was once absolutely\nnecessary, no man can deny. Moses prescribes it so plainly, that if\nthere be one thing more plain than another, it is this, that when the\nJews were in their own land, repentance was not a sufficient atonement\nfor sins. Indeed, Rambam himself says:\u2014\n\n\u05e9\u05e2\u05d9\u05e8 \u05d4\u05de\u05e9\u05ea\u05dc\u05d7 \u05de\u05db\u05e4\u05e8 \u05e2\u05dc \u05db\u05dc \u05e2\u05d1\u05d9\u05e8\u05d5\u05ea \u05e9\u05d1\u05ea\u05d5\u05e8\u05d4 \u05d4\u05e7\u05dc\u05d5\u05ea \u05d5\u05d4\u05d7\u05de\u05d5\u05e8\u05d5\u05ea \u05d1\u05d9\u05df \u05e9\u05e2\u05d1\u05e8 \u05d1\u05d6\u05d3\u05d5\u05df \u05d1\u05d9\u05df\n\u05e9\u05e2\u05d1\u05e8 \u05d1\u05e9\u05d2\u05d2\u05d4 \u05d1\u05d9\u05df \u05e9\u05d4\u05d5\u05d3\u05e2 \u05dc\u05d5 \u05d1\u05d9\u05df \u05e9\u05dc\u05d0 \u05d4\u05d5\u05d3\u05e2 \u05dc\u05d5 \u05d4\u05db\u05dc \u05de\u05ea\u05db\u05e4\u05e8 \u05d1\u05e9\u05e2\u05d9\u05e8 \u05d4\u05de\u05e9\u05ea\u05dc\u05d7 \u05d5\u05d4\u05d5\u05d0 \u05e9\u05e2\u05e9\u05d4\n\u05ea\u05e9\u05d5\u05d1\u05d4 \u05d0\u05d1\u05dc \u05d0\u05dd \u05dc\u05d0 \u05e2\u05e9\u05d4 \u05ea\u05e9\u05d5\u05d1\u05d4 \u05e2\u05d9\u05df \u05d4\u05e9\u05e2\u05d9\u05e8 \u05de\u05db\u05e4\u05e8 \u05dc\u05d5 \u05d0\u05dc\u05d0 \u05e2\u05dc \u05d4\u05e7\u05dc\u05d5\u05ea \u05c3\n\n\u201cThe goat that was sent away atoned for all the transgressions mentioned\nin the law, whether light or grave. Whether a man transgressed\npresumptuously or ignorantly, consciously or inconsciously, all was\natoned for by the goat that was sent away, if a man repented. But if a\nman did not repent, then the goat atoned only for the light offences.\u201d\n(Hilchoth T\u2019shuvah, ibid.) We do not agree with the whole of this\ndoctrine, but we cite it to show, that formerly repentance was not a\nsufficient atonement for sins, but that besides repentance, the goat, as\nappointed by God, was also necessary. And we infer, that as an\natonement, besides repentance, was once necessary, it is necessary\nstill, unless the rabbies will affirm that God has changed his mind, and\nabrogated the law of Moses. If repentance without any atonement be now\nsufficient to procure forgiveness of sins, then, beyond all doubt, the\nlaw of Moses is abrogated or changed. If the law of Moses be not\nabrogated and not changed, then repentance alone cannot atone for sins;\nand, therefore, this assertion of the oral law is false.\n\nBut the oral law endeavours to prove its assertion, by a citation from\nEzekiel, \u201cAs for the wickedness of the wicked, he shall not fall thereby\nin the day that he turneth from his wickedness.\u201d And it might be further\nurged, that Ezekiel here mentions repentance only, and omits all notice\nof sacrifice and the Day of Atonement. But the answer is easy. Either\nEzekiel meant, in this declaration, to repeal the law of Moses, or he\ndid not. If he meant to repeal the law of Moses, then the law is\nrepealed, and a new way of obtaining forgiveness, not taught by Moses,\nhas been introduced, and then the whole Jewish nation is, on their own\nshowing, palpably in the wrong in adhering to that which is repealed.\nBut if he did not mean to repeal the law of Moses, then he made this\nassertion with that implied restriction which the law of Moses required;\nthat is, he implied the necessity of sacrifice: and then this passage\ndoes not prove what the oral law asserts. But in every case, this first\nassertion is contrary to the law of Moses.\n\nIt is, however, evident, that the rabbies themselves were dissatisfied\nwith their own assertion, for they immediately add to it a second, \u201cThat\nthe Day of Atonement itself atones for them that repent, as it is said,\n\u2018For on that day he shall make an atonement for you.\u2019\u201d Notwithstanding\nthe confidence of their assertion about repentance, they did not feel\neasy without some appearance of an atonement, and as they had no priest\nand no victim, they say, that the day itself atones, and endeavour to\nprove this assertion by a citation from Moses. But, unfortunately, this\ncitation entirely overthrows their assertion. Moses does not say:\u2014\n\n\u05d4\u05d9\u05d5\u05dd \u05d4\u05d6\u05d4 \u05d9\u05db\u05e4\u05e8 \u05e2\u05dc\u05d9\u05db\u05dd \u05c3\n\n\u201cThis day will atone for you,\u201d but he says:\u2014\n\n\u05d1\u05d9\u05d5\u05dd \u05d4\u05d6\u05d4 \u05d9\u05db\u05e4\u05e8 \u05e2\u05dc\u05d9\u05db\u05dd \u05c3\n\n\u201cOn that day he (the priest) shall atone for you.\u201d Moses ascribes no\nvirtue whatever to the day itself, but only to the rites on that day to\nbe observed, and the person by whom they were performed. Moses\nprescribes, first, a high-priest; Secondly, a goat, whose blood was\nbrought into the Holy of holies; and thirdly, a goat to be sent away: so\nthat where these three are wanting, nay, where any one of the three is\nwanting, the conditions prescribed by Moses are not fulfilled, and there\nis, therefore, no atonement. Without these three things the day itself\nhas no virtue, and is nothing different from the commonest day in the\nyear; and now, therefore, as they are all wanting, Israel has no\natonement. The assertion about the day itself, is a mere invention of\nthe rabbies, the only value of which is to show how deeply they felt the\ninsufficiency of repentance, and the necessity of a real atonement, in\norder to procure remission of sins.\n\nBut the rabbies always betray themselves by adding something to make up\nfor the deficiency, of which they are sensible. We have seen this in\ntheir assertion about merits, and so we find it here in their assertion\nabout atonement. They assert, that \u201cThe Day of Atonement itself atones\nfor the penitent,\u201d but in spite of this, they have felt the need of\nsomething more, which would a little better resemble real sacrificial\natonement; and hence has arisen the custom of sacrificing a cock on the\neve of that solemn day. The following account of this custom is given in\nthe \u05e7\u05d4\u05dc\u05ea \u05e9\u05dc\u05de\u05d4, of which we have before us an edition published at\nBreslau, so late as the year 1830; and it is selected, partly on account\nof its recent publication, and partly because the directions how to act\nare given in Jewish-German, which shows that they are intended even for\nthe most illiterate, and that the custom is not confined to a few\nspeculators, but is general amongst the people:\u2014\n\n\u05e1\u05d3\u05e8 \u05db\u05e4\u05e8\u05d5\u05ea \u05c3\n\n\u05d1\u05e0\u05d9 \u05d0\u05d3\u05dd \u05d9\u05d5\u05e9\u05d1\u05d9 \u05d7\u05d5\u05e9\u05da \u05d5\u05e6\u05dc\u05de\u05d5\u05ea \u05d0\u05e1\u05d9\u05e8\u05d9 \u05e2\u05e0\u05d9 \u05d5\u05d1\u05e8\u05d6\u05dc , \u05d9\u05d5\u05e6\u05d9\u05d0\u05dd \u05de\u05d7\u05d5\u05e9\u05da \u05d5\u05e6\u05dc\u05de\u05d5\u05ea\n\u05d5\u05de\u05d5\u05e1\u05e8\u05d5\u05ea\u05d9\u05d4\u05dd \u05d9\u05e0\u05ea\u05e7 , \u05d0\u05d5\u05d9\u05dc\u05d9\u05dd \u05de\u05d3\u05e8\u05da \u05e4\u05e9\u05e2\u05dd \u05d5\u05de\u05e2\u05d5\u05e0\u05d9\u05e0\u05d5\u05ea\u05d9\u05d4\u05dd \u05d9\u05ea\u05e2\u05e0\u05d5 , \u05db\u05dc \u05d0\u05d5\u05db\u05dc \u05ea\u05ea\u05e2\u05d1\n\u05e0\u05e4\u05e9\u05dd \u05d5\u05d9\u05d2\u05d9\u05e2\u05d5 \u05e2\u05d3 \u05e9\u05e2\u05e8\u05d9 \u05de\u05d5\u05ea , \u05d5\u05d9\u05d6\u05e2\u05e7\u05d5 \u05d0\u05dc \u05d9\u05d9 \u05d1\u05e6\u05e8 \u05dc\u05d4\u05dd \u05de\u05de\u05e6\u05d5\u05e7\u05d5\u05ea\u05d9\u05d4\u05dd \u05d9\u05d5\u05e9\u05d9\u05e2\u05dd , \u05d9\u05e9\u05dc\u05d7\n\u05d3\u05d1\u05e8\u05d5 \u05d5\u05d9\u05e8\u05e4\u05d0\u05dd \u05d5\u05d9\u05de\u05dc\u05d8 \u05de\u05e9\u05d7\u05d9\u05ea\u05d5\u05ea\u05dd , \u05d9\u05d5\u05d3\u05d5 \u05dc\u05d9\u05d9 \u05d7\u05e1\u05d3\u05d5 \u05d5\u05e0\u05e4\u05dc\u05d0\u05d5\u05ea\u05d9\u05d5 \u05dc\u05d1\u05e0\u05d9 \u05d0\u05d3\u05dd , \u05d0\u05dd \u05d9\u05e9\n\u05e2\u05dc\u05d9\u05d5 \u05de\u05dc\u05d0\u05da \u05de\u05dc\u05d9\u05e5 \u05d0\u05d7\u05d3 \u05de\u05e0\u05d9 \u05d0\u05dc\u05e3 \u05dc\u05d4\u05d2\u05d9\u05d3 \u05dc\u05d0\u05d3 \u05d9\u05e9\u05e8\u05d5 , \u05d5\u05d9\u05d7\u05e0\u05e0\u05d5 \u05d5\u05d9\u05d0\u05de\u05e8 \u05e4\u05d3\u05e2\u05d4\u05d5 \u05de\u05e8\u05d3\u05ea \u05e9\u05d7\u05ea\n\u05de\u05e6\u05d0\u05ea\u05d9 \u05db\u05d5\u05e4\u05e8 \u05c3\n\n\u05d6\u05d4 \u05d7\u05dc\u05d9\u05e4\u05ea\u05d9 , \u05d6\u05d4 \u05ea\u05de\u05d5\u05e8\u05ea\u05d9 , \u05d6\u05d4 \u05db\u05e4\u05e8\u05ea\u05d9 , \u05d6\u05d4 \u05d4\u05ea\u05e8\u05e0\u05d2\u05d5\u05dc \u05d9\u05dc\u05da \u05dc\u05de\u05d9\u05ea\u05d4 \u05d5\u05d0\u05e0\u05d9 \u05e2\u05db\u05e0\u05e1 \u05d5\u05d0\u05dc\u05da\n\u05dc\u05d7\u05d9\u05d9\u05dd \u05d8\u05d5\u05d1\u05d9\u05dd \u05d0\u05e8\u05d5\u05db\u05d9\u05dd \u05d5\u05dc\u05e9\u05dc\u05d5\u05dd \u05c3\n\n\u201cORDER OF THE ATONEMENTS.\u2014On the eve of the Day of Atonement, the custom\nis to make atonements. A cock is taken for a man, and a hen for a woman;\nand for a pregnant woman a hen and also a cock, on account of the child.\nThe father of the family first makes the atonement for himself, for the\nhigh-priest first atoned for himself, then for his family, and\nafterwards for all Israel.\u201d The order is as follows:\n\n_He takes the cock in his hand and says these verses_:\n\n\u201cThe children of men that sit in darkness and the shadow of death, being\nbound in affliction and iron; he brought them out of darkness and the\nshadow of death, and brake their bands in sunder. Fools, because of\ntheir transgression, and because of their iniquities, are afflicted.\nTheir soul abhorreth all manner of meat; and they draw near unto the\ngates of death. Then they cry unto the Lord in their trouble; and he\nsaveth them out of their distresses. He sendeth his word, and healeth\nthem, and delivereth them from their destructions. O, that men would\npraise the Lord for his goodness, and for his wonderful works, to the\nchildren of men? (Psalm cvii.) If there be for him an angel, an\nintercessor, one among a thousand, to show unto man his uprightness,\nthen he is gracious unto him, and saith, Deliver him from going down to\nthe pit; I have found a ransom.\u201d (Job xxxiii. 23.)\n\n_Whilst moving the atonement round his head, he says_,\n\n\u201cThis is my substitute. This is my commutation. This cock goeth to\ndeath, but may I be gathered and enter into a long and happy life, and\ninto peace.\u201d\n\nHe then begins again at the words, \u201cThe children of men,\u201d and so he does\nthree times.\n\nThen follow the various alterations that are to be made, when the\natonement is made for a woman or another person, &c., and is added:\u2014\n\n\u201cAs soon as one has performed the order of the atonement, he should lay\nhis hands on it, as the hands used to be laid on the sacrifices, and\nimmediately after give it to be slaughtered.\u201d This custom, extensively\nprevalent amongst the Jews, proves abundantly the internal\ndissatisfaction of the Jewish mind with their own doctrines, and the\ndeeply-rooted conviction of their heart, that without shedding of blood\nthere is no remission of sin. If they really believed that repentance,\nor the Day of Atonement itself, or almsgiving, or merits, either their\nown or their forefathers\u2019, atoned for sin, they would never have devised\nsuch a custom as this. But the spirit of the Mosaic law has taken too\ndeep a hold on the nation to suffer them to rest satisfied with anything\nshort of actual sacrifice; and as they have no high-priest and no altar\nnow, they make a sad and desperate attempt to tranquillize the mind with\nthis invention. The custom then, proves, that the rabbinical doctrine\nrespecting the atoning power of repentance is not believed nor heartily\nreceived, even by the Rabbinists themselves, how, then, can a Jew hazard\nhis salvation on a doctrine which is contrary to the law of Moses, and\nwhich its professors do not consider satisfactory? Will he rest upon the\nself-devised sacrifice of a cock? God nowhere promises pardon to this\nobservance; and how can any man of sense be satisfied without a sure\npromise of the unchanging and unchangeable Creator? This trust is as\nunsatisfactory as any of those that we have already considered. Every\none of the rabbinic hopes has proved unsafe on examination. Personal\nmerit, the merit of ancestors, the blowing of the ram\u2019s horn,\nrepentance, the present observance of the Day of Atonement, the\nsacrifice of a cock, all are either directly opposed to, or unwarranted\nby, the Word of God. How, then, is a Jew to obtain pardon for his sins?\nThe custom which we have just considered, speaks the sense of the Jewish\nnation upon this subject, and plainly declares, that an atoning\nsacrifice is the only real hope. It expresses, in the first place, the\nheartfelt conviction, that every human being is guilty and needs an\natonement. It prescribes a victim for man, woman, and child, yea, even\nfor the unborn babe, thereby teaching that the nature of man is corrupt,\nand that the hereditary guilt, even where there is no actual\ntransgression, must be washed away by the blood of atonement. It\nexpresses, further, the Jewish opinion as to the nature of sacrifice,\nthat the sins are laid upon the victim, and that the victim is\nsubstituted for the guilty. Nothing can be plainer than the prescribed\nformulary, \u201cThis is my substitute. This is my commutation. This is my\natonement.\u201d It declares, further, that he who offers an atonement for\nanother, must himself be free from guilt, for it requires the father of\nthe family first to atone for himself, and then for those of his house.\nThese are the recorded sentiments of the Jewish nation, expressed not\nonly in words, but embodied in a solemn religious observance on the eve\nof their most sacred season. By this act the Jews declare that an\natonement by blood is absolutely necessary. The law of Moses makes the\nsame declaration, by the appointment of all the rites for the Day of\nAtonement. Is it, then, likely that the God of Israel would leave his\npeople without that which their hearts desire, and his law declares to\nbe necessary for salvation? Judaism says, Yes. It affirms, by an act\nrepeated every year, that sacrifice is necessary, and yet confesses, in\nits solemn prayers, that they have none. It asserts, therefore, that God\nhas left them without that which is indispensable to procure\nforgiveness. Christianity presents a more merciful view of the Divine\ncharacter. It does, indeed, acknowledge the necessity of atonement, but\nit presents a victim and a high-priest, whose one offering is sufficient\nfor the sins of the whole world. It says, that God has left neither his\nown people nor the Gentiles without the means of forgiveness, but sent\nhis righteous servant, the Messiah, to bear our sins in his own body\nupon the tree. The Priest after the order of Melchisedek needed no\natonement to take away his own sins first, for he had none. Born in a\nmiraculous manner, by the power of God, his humanity inherited nothing\nof the guilt of Adam, and as the Lord our Righteousness, he could\ncontract no taint of sin. He is, therefore, every way qualified to make\nan atonement for us all. Our Christian hope, therefore, is not in a\ncock, the sacrifice of which God never commanded, but in that great\natonement which He appointed. Our faith, our hope, our trust, are all\nbuilt upon God\u2019s promise, and cannot be better expressed than in his\nmost holy words:\u2014\n\n\u05d5\u05d4\u05d5\u05d0 \u05de\u05d7\u05d5\u05dc\u05dc \u05de\u05e4\u05e9\u05e2\u05d9\u05e0\u05d5 \u05de\u05d3\u05db\u05d0 \u05de\u05e2\u05d5\u05e0\u05d5\u05ea\u05d9\u05e0\u05d5 \u05de\u05d5\u05e1\u05e8 \u05e9\u05dc\u05d5\u05de\u05e0\u05d5 \u05e2\u05dc\u05d9\u05d5 \u05d5\u05d1\u05d7\u05d1\u05e8\u05ea\u05d5 \u05e0\u05e8\u05e4\u05d0 \u05dc\u05e0\u05d5 \u05c3\n\n\u201cBut he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our\niniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him, and with his\nstripes we are healed.\u201d\n\nIt cannot, therefore, be said, that we Christians rest our hope upon an\ninvention of our own. Our hope rests, not upon the dictates of our\npriests or rabbies, but upon the words which God himself spake by the\nmouth of his prophet. We can, therefore, confidently appeal to the Jews\nthemselves to decide, which of the two hopes is the most reasonable.\nBoth agreeing that an atonement, by the shedding of blood, is necessary\nfor the remission of sins, Rabbinism tells its disciples to trust to a\nspecies of sacrifice nowhere mentioned in the Word of God. Christianity\ntells us to trust in the sacrifice of that great Redeemer, for whose\nsalvation Jacob waited, whose atonement the Mosaic rites prefigured, and\nthe Jewish prophets predicted. Their hope rests upon the unwarranted\nwords of men; ours is built upon the Word of the living God, and is\ninvoluntarily confirmed by the rabbies themselves in the very custom\nwhich we have just considered. Even the nature of the victim is pointed\nout in the selection of the animal. \u05d2\u05d1\u05e8 (gever) signifies both \u201ca man\u201d\nand \u201ca cock,\u201d and thereby signifies, that a righteous man must be the\nsinful man\u2019s substitute: and so some of the rabbies say, that this\nanimal, \u201ca cock,\u201d was selected,\u2014\n\n\u05db\u05d9\u05d5\u05df \u05e9\u05e9\u05de\u05d5 \u05d2\u05d1\u05e8 \u05ea\u05de\u05d5\u05e8\u05ea \u05d2\u05d1\u05e8 \u05d1\u05d2\u05d1\u05e8 \u05c3\n\n\u201cBecause, as its name signifies \u2018a man,\u2019 there is a substitution of a\nman for man.\u201d (Orach Chaiim, 605.) The principles exactly agree, but\nChristianity is directed in their application by the Word of God, to Him\nwho is, indeed, very man, but also THE LORD OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS, \u05d9\u05d4\u05d5\u05d4.\n\u05e6\u05d3\u05e7\u05e0\u05d5.\n\n\n\n\n                              No. XXXVII.\n                         FEAST OF TABERNACLES.\n\n\nThe progress of the year brings with it again that season, in which God\ncommanded his people to observe THE FEAST OF TABERNACLES; and the\nconstancy with which Israelites in every part of the world still observe\nthe rites and customs handed down by their forefathers, necessarily\ncommands respect and admiration. When we remember the many centuries\nduring which their dispersion has continued, the universal oppression\nwhich they have been compelled to suffer, and the unmerited contempt\nwith which they have had to contend, we cannot but honour the strength\nof moral courage which they have displayed, in thus observing and\nhanding down to their children a religion, which has been the cause of\ntheir misfortunes. But this very constancy, and the respect which it\nbegets, naturally leads us to inquire whether the religious system\nitself be true, and, therefore, worthy of that fidelity with which it\nhas been preserved; and, above all, whether this constancy is such as at\nthe last great day to meet the approbation of Him who judgeth not as man\njudgeth. The professors of this system think, of course, that it is, and\nthat by observing these rites and ceremonies, they are keeping the\ncommands of God, and thereby ensuring his favour; and with regard to the\nobservance of the Feast of Tabernacles in particular, they are taught to\nbelieve that they alone are so important, as at the day of judgment, to\nprove Israel\u2019s obedience, and the disobedience of the other nations. We\nwill first state the doctrines of modern Judaism on this subject, and\nthen examine whether they be well founded. In the Synagogue Prayers for\nthis feast we find it stated, that the construction of a tabernacle\naccording to rabbinic prescription, is a work of merit:\u2014\n\n\u05d7\u05e9\u05d5\u05d1\u05d4 \u05d0\u05e8\u05d1\u05e2 \u05d0\u05de\u05d5\u05ea \u05e2\u05dc \u05d0\u05e8\u05d1\u05e2 , \u05e4\u05e1\u05d5\u05dc\u05d4 \u05e4\u05d7\u05d5\u05ea\u05d4 \u05de\u05d0\u05e8\u05d1\u05e2 , \u05db\u05d3\u05d9 \u05dc\u05d6\u05db\u05d5\u05ea \u05e2\u05dd \u05e8\u05d5\u05d1\u05e2 \u05c3\n\n\u201cIt must be four cubits long, and four cubits broad: but if it be less,\nit is profane; that it may render the people of Israel meritorious. (P.\n116.) And a little lower down, after describing the feast in Paradise on\nthe salted Leviathan and Behemoth, it adds, that this one precept will\nform the last trial vouchsafed to the Gentiles, and that their\nunwillingness to keep it will prove the cause of their final\ncondemnation:\u2014\n\n\u05e0\u05db\u05e0\u05e1\u05d9\u05df \u05db\u05dc \u05d4\u05d0\u05d5\u05de\u05d5\u05ea \u05dc\u05d3\u05d9\u05df , \u05e4\u05e0\u05d9 \u05d9\u05d5\u05e9\u05d1 \u05e2\u05dc \u05db\u05e1\u05d0 \u05d3\u05d9\u05df , \u05d5\u05d1\u05e6\u05d3\u05e7 \u05d0\u05d5\u05ea\u05e0\u05d5 \u05d9\u05d3\u05d9\u05df , \u05e1\u05d3\u05e8\n\u05de\u05e6\u05d5\u05d5\u05ea\u05d9\u05da \u05ea\u05df \u05dc\u05e0\u05d5 \u05d5\u05e0\u05e7\u05d9\u05de\u05d4 , \u05d5\u05e0\u05d6\u05db\u05d4 \u05e2\u05dd \u05d0\u05dc\u05d5 \u05d1\u05e0\u05d7\u05de\u05d4 , \u05e9\u05d2\u05d9\u05d0 \u05db\u05d7 \u05e9\u05d5\u05db\u05df \u05e8\u05d5\u05de\u05d4 , \u05e2\u05dc\u05d9\u05d5\u05df\n\u05d4\u05e9\u05d5\u05e4\u05d8 \u05db\u05dc \u05d1\u05d0\u05de\u05d5\u05e0\u05d4 , \u05d9\u05e9\u05de\u05d9\u05e2 \u05dc\u05d4\u05dd \u05d1\u05ea\u05d1\u05d5\u05e0\u05d4 , \u05d9\u05e9 \u05dc\u05d9 \u05de\u05e6\u05d5\u05d4 \u05e7\u05d8\u05e0\u05d4 , \u05e4\u05d9\u05e8\u05d5\u05e9 \u05e1\u05d5\u05db\u05d4 \u05d5\u05e9\u05d0\u05dc\u05d9\u05d4\n, \u05d0\u05e8\u05d1\u05e2 \u05d3\u05e4\u05e0\u05d5\u05ea \u05d5\u05e6\u05dc \u05e2\u05dc\u05d9\u05d4 , \u05d0\u05dc \u05ea\u05e8\u05d7\u05e7\u05d5 \u05de\u05d0\u05dc\u05d9\u05d4 , \u05e6\u05dc\u05dc\u05d9\u05dd \u05dc\u05e2\u05e9\u05d5\u05ea \u05d1\u05d4 \u05d9\u05e2\u05d8\u05d5 , \u05d5\u05d7\u05de\u05d4 \u05e7\u05d3\u05d7\u05d4\n\u05e2\u05dc\u05d9\u05d4\u05dd \u05d5\u05dc\u05d5\u05d4\u05d8\u05d5 , \u05d5\u05d1\u05e8\u05d2\u05dc\u05d9\u05d4\u05dd \u05d9\u05d1\u05e2\u05d8\u05d5 , \u05e7\u05d3\u05d5\u05e9 \u05d9\u05e9\u05e4\u05d5\u05da \u05e2\u05dc\u05d9\u05d4\u05dd \u05d7\u05d9\u05de\u05d4 , \u05d5\u05d9\u05e4\u05d9\u05dc\u05dd \u05d1\u05d2\u05d9\u05d4\u05e0\u05dd\n\u05d1\u05dc\u05d9 \u05e8\u05d7\u05d9\u05de\u05d4 , \u05d1\u05de\u05d3\u05e8\u05d2\u05d4 \u05d4\u05ea\u05d7\u05ea\u05d5\u05e0\u05d4 \u05d1\u05de\u05d4\u05d5\u05de\u05d4 \u05c3\n\n\u201cAll nations will come to be judged in the presence of Him who sitteth\nupon the throne of judgment; in righteousness will he judge us. _The\nnations will then say_, Give us the order of thy precepts, and we will\nperform them, that we may be equal with those in happiness, O Thou, who\nart great in power, dwelling on high. The Most High, who judgeth all in\ntruth, will cause them to hear, and understand his words, saying, I have\none small precept; its name, tabernacle, and its ordinations: four\nsides, and a shade over it: fail ye not to observe it. They then will\nmake the shadowy booths to abide under, but the sun will shine so hot as\nnearly to burn them, when they will spurn at it with their feet. The\nHoly One will then pour out his wrath upon them, and cast them into\ngehinnom [hell] without mercy, into the lowest part with confusion.\u201d\n(Ibid.) This extraordinary account of the day of judgment, and the\ncondemnation of the Gentiles, has been adopted from the Talmud, where it\nis given at great length, and all the particulars fully detailed. To\ngive the whole would occupy too much of our space; but as parts of it\nare necessary to the full consideration of this subject, we give the\nfollowing extracts:\u2014\n\n\u05dc\u05e2\u05ea\u05d9\u05d3 \u05dc\u05d1\u05d5\u05d0 \u05de\u05d1\u05d9\u05d0 \u05d4\u05e7\u05d1\u05f3\u05f3\u05d4 \u05e1\u05e4\u05e8 \u05ea\u05d5\u05e8\u05d4 \u05d1\u05d7\u05d9\u05e7\u05d5 \u05d5\u05d0\u05d5\u05de\u05e8 \u05db\u05dc \u05de\u05d9 \u05e9\u05e2\u05e1\u05e7 \u05d1\u05d4 \u05d9\u05d1\u05d5\u05d0 \u05d5\u05d9\u05d8\u05d5\u05dc\n\u05e9\u05db\u05e8\u05d5 \u05de\u05d9\u05d3 \u05de\u05ea\u05e7\u05d1\u05e6\u05d9\u05df \u05d5\u05d1\u05d0\u05d9\u05df \u05d0\u05d5\u05de\u05d5\u05ea \u05d4\u05e6\u05d5\u05dc\u05dd \u05d1\u05e2\u05e8\u05d1\u05d5\u05d1\u05d9\u05d0 \u05e9\u05e0\u05d0\u05de\u05e8 \u05db\u05dc \u05d4\u05d2\u05d5\u05d9\u05dd \u05e0\u05e7\u05d1\u05e6\u05d5 \u05d9\u05d7\u05d3\u05d5 ,\n\u05d0\u05de\u05e8 \u05dc\u05d4\u05dd \u05d4\u05e7\u05d1\u05f3\u05f3\u05d4 \u05d0\u05dc \u05ea\u05db\u05e0\u05e1\u05d5 \u05dc\u05e4\u05e0\u05d9 \u05d1\u05e2\u05e8\u05d1\u05d5\u05d1\u05d9\u05d0 \u05d0\u05dc\u05d0 \u05ea\u05db\u05e0\u05e1 \u05db\u05dc \u05d0\u05d5\u05de\u05d4 \u05d5\u05d0\u05d5\u05de\u05d4 \u05d5\u05e1\u05d5\u05e4\u05e8\u05d9\u05d4 \u05c3\n\n\u201cIn the time to come, the Holy One, blessed be He, will bring a roll of\nthe law in his bosom, and say, Let every one, who has occupied himself\nherein, come and receive his reward. Immediately the nations of the\nworld will gather themselves together, and come in promiscuous crowds,\nas it is said, \u2018Let all the nations be gathered together.\u2019 (Isaiah\nxliii. 9.) The Holy One, blessed be He, will then say, Come not before\nme promiscuously, but let each nation come by itself along with its\nlearned men.\u201d Then follows an account of the appearance of each nation,\nand of the vain attempts which they make to justify their conduct. After\nwhich the narrative thus proceeds:\u2014\n\n\u05d0\u05d5\u05de\u05e8\u05d9\u05dd \u05dc\u05e4\u05e0\u05d9\u05d5 \u05e8\u05d1\u05d5\u05e0\u05d5 \u05e9\u05dc \u05e2\u05d5\u05dc\u05dd \u05d9\u05e9\u05e8\u05d0\u05dc \u05e9\u05e7\u05d1\u05dc\u05d5\u05d4 \u05d4\u05d9\u05db\u05df \u05e7\u05d9\u05d9\u05de\u05d5\u05d4 \u05d0\u05de\u05e8 \u05dc\u05d4\u05dd \u05d4\u05e7\u05d1\u05f3\u05f3\u05d4 \u05d0\u05e0\u05d9\n\u05de\u05e2\u05d9\u05d3 \u05d1\u05d4\u05dd \u05e9\u05e7\u05d9\u05d9\u05de\u05d5 \u05d0\u05ea \u05d4\u05ea\u05d5\u05e8\u05d4 , \u05d0\u05d5\u05de\u05e8\u05d9\u05dd \u05dc\u05e4\u05e0\u05d9\u05d5 \u05e8\u05d1\u05d5\u05e0\u05d5 \u05e9\u05dc \u05e2\u05d5\u05dc\u05dd \u05db\u05dc\u05d5\u05dd \u05d9\u05e9 \u05d0\u05d1 \u05e9\u05de\u05e2\u05d9\u05d3\n\u05e2\u05dc \u05d1\u05e0\u05d5 \u05d3\u05db\u05ea\u05d9\u05d1 \u05d1\u05e0\u05d9 \u05d1\u05db\u05d5\u05e8\u05d9 \u05d9\u05e9\u05e8\u05d0\u05dc \u05d0\u05de\u05e8 \u05dc\u05d4\u05dd \u05d4\u05e7\u05d1\u05f3\u05f3\u05d4 \u05e9\u05de\u05d9\u05dd \u05d5\u05d0\u05e8\u05e5 \u05d9\u05e2\u05d9\u05d3\u05d5 \u05d1\u05d4\u05dd \u05e9\u05e7\u05d9\u05d9\u05de\u05d5\n\u05d0\u05ea \u05d4\u05ea\u05d5\u05e8\u05d4 \u05db\u05d5\u05dc\u05d4 , \u05d0\u05d5\u05de\u05e8\u05d9\u05dd \u05dc\u05e4\u05e0\u05d9\u05d5 \u05e8\u05d1\u05d5\u05e0\u05d5 \u05e9\u05dc \u05e2\u05d5\u05dc\u05dd \u05e9\u05de\u05d9\u05dd \u05d5\u05d0\u05e8\u05e5 \u05e0\u05d5\u05d2\u05e2\u05d9\u05df \u05d1\u05e2\u05d3\u05d5\u05ea\u05df \u05e9\u05e0\u05d0\u05de\u05e8\n\u05d0\u05dd \u05dc\u05d0 \u05d1\u05e8\u05d9\u05ea\u05d9 \u05d9\u05d5\u05de\u05dd \u05d5\u05dc\u05d9\u05dc\u05d4 \u05d7\u05d5\u05e7\u05d5\u05ea \u05e9\u05de\u05d9\u05dd \u05d5\u05d0\u05e8\u05e5 \u05dc\u05d0 \u05e9\u05de\u05ea\u05d9 , \u05d5\u05d0\u05de\u05e8 \u05e8\u05f3 \u05e9\u05de\u05e2\u05d5\u05df \u05d1\u05df \u05dc\u05e7\u05d9\u05e9\n\u05de\u05d0\u05d9 \u05d3\u05db\u05ea\u05d9\u05d1 \u05d5\u05d9\u05d4\u05d9 \u05e2\u05e8\u05d1 \u05d5\u05d9\u05d4\u05d9 \u05d1\u05d5\u05e7\u05e8 \u05d9\u05d5\u05dd \u05d4\u05e9\u05e9\u05d9 , \u05de\u05dc\u05de\u05d3 \u05e9\u05d4\u05ea\u05e0\u05d4 \u05d4\u05e7\u05d1\u05f3\u05f3\u05d4 \u05d1\u05de\u05e2\u05e9\u05d4 \u05d1\u05e8\u05d0\u05e9\u05d9\u05ea\n\u05d5\u05d0\u05de\u05e8 \u05d0\u05dd \u05d9\u05e9\u05e8\u05d0\u05dc \u05de\u05e7\u05d1\u05dc\u05d9\u05df \u05d0\u05ea \u05ea\u05d5\u05e8\u05ea\u05d9 \u05de\u05d5\u05d8\u05d1 \u05d5\u05d0\u05dd \u05dc\u05d0\u05d5 \u05d0\u05d7\u05d6\u05d9\u05e8 \u05d0\u05ea\u05db\u05dd \u05dc\u05ea\u05d5\u05d4\u05d5 \u05d5\u05d1\u05d5\u05d4\u05d5 \u05d5\u05d4\u05d9\u05d9\u05e0\u05d5\n\u05d3\u05d0\u05de\u05e8 \u05d7\u05d6\u05e7\u05d9\u05d4 \u05de\u05d0\u05d9 \u05d3\u05db\u05ea\u05d9\u05d1 \u05de\u05e9\u05de\u05d9\u05dd \u05d4\u05e9\u05de\u05e2\u05ea \u05d3\u05d9\u05df \u05d0\u05e8\u05e5 \u05d9\u05e8\u05d0\u05d4 \u05d5\u05e9\u05e7\u05d8\u05d4 \u05d0\u05dd \u05d9\u05e8\u05d0\u05d4 \u05dc\u05de\u05d4 \u05e9\u05e7\u05d8\u05d4 \u05d5\u05d0\u05dd\n\u05e9\u05e7\u05d8\u05d4 \u05dc\u05de\u05d4 \u05d9\u05e8\u05d0\u05d4 \u05d0\u05dc\u05d0 \u05d1\u05ea\u05d7\u05dc\u05d4 \u05d9\u05e8\u05d0\u05d4 \u05d5\u05dc\u05d1\u05e1\u05d5\u05e3 \u05e9\u05e7\u05d8\u05d4 , \u05d0\u05de\u05e8 \u05dc\u05d4\u05dd \u05d4\u05e7\u05d1\u05f3\u05f3\u05d4 \u05de\u05db\u05dd \u05d9\u05d1\u05d5\u05d0\u05d5\n\u05d5\u05d9\u05e2\u05d9\u05d3\u05d5 \u05d1\u05d4\u05df \u05d1\u05d9\u05e9\u05e8\u05d0\u05dc \u05e9\u05e7\u05d9\u05d9\u05de\u05d5 \u05d0\u05ea \u05d4\u05ea\u05d5\u05e8\u05d4 \u05db\u05d5\u05dc\u05d4 , \u05d9\u05d1\u05d5\u05d0 \u05e0\u05de\u05e8\u05d5\u05d3 \u05d5\u05d9\u05e2\u05d9\u05d3 \u05d1\u05d0\u05d1\u05e8\u05d4\u05dd \u05e9\u05dc\u05d0 \u05e2\u05d1\u05d3\n\u05e2\u05f3\u05f3\u05d6 \u05d9\u05d1\u05d5\u05d0 \u05dc\u05d1\u05df \u05d5\u05d9\u05e2\u05d9\u05d3 \u05d1\u05d9\u05e2\u05e7\u05d1 \u05e9\u05dc\u05d0 \u05e0\u05d7\u05e9\u05d3 \u05e2\u05dc \u05d4\u05d2\u05d6\u05dc \u05ea\u05d1\u05d5\u05d0 \u05d0\u05e9\u05ea \u05e4\u05d5\u05d8\u05d9\u05e4\u05e8\u05e2 \u05d5\u05ea\u05e2\u05d9\u05d3 \u05d1\u05d7\u05e0\u05e0\u05d9\u05d4\n\u05de\u05d9\u05e9\u05d0\u05dc \u05d5\u05e2\u05d6\u05e8\u05d9\u05d4 \u05e9\u05dc\u05d0 \u05d4\u05e9\u05ea\u05d7\u05d5\u05d5 \u05dc\u05e6\u05dc\u05dd \u05d9\u05d1\u05d5\u05d0 \u05d3\u05e8\u05d9\u05d5\u05e9 \u05d5\u05d9\u05e2\u05d9\u05d3 \u05d1\u05d3\u05e0\u05d9\u05d0\u05dc \u05e9\u05dc\u05d0 \u05d1\u05d9\u05d8\u05dc \u05d0\u05ea \u05d4\u05ea\u05e4\u05dc\u05d4\n\u05d9\u05d1\u05d5\u05d0 \u05d1\u05dc\u05d3\u05d3 \u05d4\u05e9\u05d5\u05d7\u05d9 \u05d5\u05e6\u05d5\u05e4\u05e8 \u05d4\u05e0\u05e2\u05de\u05ea\u05d9 \u05d5\u05d0\u05dc\u05d9\u05e4\u05d6 \u05d4\u05ea\u05de\u05e0\u05d9 \u05d5\u05d0\u05dc\u05d9\u05d4\u05d5 \u05d1\u05df \u05d1\u05e8\u05db\u05d0\u05dc \u05d4\u05d1\u05d5\u05d6\u05d9 \u05d5\u05d9\u05e2\u05d9\u05d3\u05d5\n\u05d1\u05d4\u05df \u05d1\u05d9\u05e9\u05e8\u05d0\u05dc \u05e9\u05e7\u05d9\u05d9\u05de\u05d5 \u05d0\u05ea \u05d4\u05ea\u05d5\u05e8\u05d4 \u05db\u05d5\u05dc\u05d4 \u05e9\u05e0\u05d0\u05de\u05e8 \u05d9\u05ea\u05e0\u05d5 \u05e2\u05d3\u05d9\u05d4\u05df \u05d5\u05d9\u05e6\u05d3\u05e7\u05d5 , \u05d0\u05de\u05e8\u05d5 \u05dc\u05e4\u05e0\u05d9\u05d5\n\u05e8\u05d1\u05d5\u05e0\u05d5 \u05e9\u05dc \u05e2\u05d5\u05dc\u05dd \u05ea\u05e0\u05d5 \u05dc\u05e0\u05d5 \u05de\u05e8\u05d0\u05e9 \u05d5\u05e0\u05e2\u05e9\u05d4 \u05d0\u05de\u05e8 \u05dc\u05d4\u05dd \u05d4\u05e7\u05d1\u05f3\u05f3\u05d4 \u05e9\u05d5\u05d8\u05d9\u05dd \u05e9\u05d1\u05e2\u05d5\u05dc\u05dd \u05de\u05d9 \u05e9\u05d8\u05e8\u05d7\n\u05d1\u05e2\u05e8\u05d1 \u05e9\u05d1\u05ea \u05d9\u05d0\u05db\u05dc \u05d1\u05e9\u05d1\u05ea \u05de\u05d9 \u05e9\u05dc\u05d0 \u05d8\u05e8\u05d7 \u05d1\u05e2\u05e8\u05d1 \u05e9\u05d1\u05ea \u05de\u05d4\u05d9\u05db\u05df \u05d9\u05d0\u05db\u05dc \u05d1\u05e9\u05d1\u05ea \u05d0\u05dc\u05d0 \u05d0\u05e2\u05f3\u05f3\u05e4 \u05db\u05df \u05de\u05e6\u05d5\u05d4\n\u05e7\u05dc\u05d4 \u05d9\u05e9 \u05dc\u05d9 \u05d5\u05e1\u05d5\u05db\u05d4 \u05e9\u05de\u05d4 \u05dc\u05db\u05d5 \u05d5\u05e2\u05e9\u05d5 \u05d0\u05d5\u05ea\u05d5 , \u05d5\u05de\u05d9 \u05de\u05e6\u05d9\u05ea \u05d0\u05de\u05e8\u05ea \u05d4\u05db\u05d9 \u05d5\u05d4\u05d0 \u05d0\u05de\u05e8 \u05e8\u05f3 \u05d9\u05d4\u05d5\u05e9\u05e2\n\u05d1\u05df \u05dc\u05d5\u05d9 \u05de\u05d0\u05d9 \u05d3\u05db\u05ea\u05d9\u05d1 \u05d0\u05e9\u05e8 \u05d0\u05e0\u05db\u05d9 \u05de\u05e6\u05d5\u05da \u05d4\u05d9\u05d5\u05dd \u05d4\u05d9\u05d5\u05dd \u05dc\u05e2\u05e9\u05d5\u05ea\u05dd \u05d5\u05dc\u05d0 \u05dc\u05de\u05d7\u05e8 \u05dc\u05e2\u05e9\u05d5\u05ea\u05dd \u05d4\u05d9\u05d5\u05dd\n\u05dc\u05e2\u05e9\u05d5\u05ea\u05dd \u05d5\u05dc\u05d0 \u05d4\u05d9\u05d5\u05dd \u05dc\u05d9\u05d8\u05d5\u05dc \u05e9\u05db\u05e8 \u05d0\u05dc\u05d0 \u05e9\u05d0\u05d9\u05df \u05d4\u05e7\u05d1\u05f3\u05f3\u05d4 \u05d1\u05d0 \u05d1\u05d8\u05e8\u05d5\u05e0\u05d9\u05d0 \u05e2\u05dd \u05d1\u05e8\u05d9\u05d5\u05ea\u05d9\u05d5 \u05d5\u05d0\u05de\u05d0\u05d9\n\u05e7\u05e8\u05d9 \u05dc\u05d9\u05d4 \u05de\u05e6\u05d5\u05d4 \u05e7\u05dc\u05d4 \u05de\u05e9\u05d5\u05dd \u05d3\u05dc\u05d9\u05ea \u05d1\u05d9\u05d4 \u05d7\u05e1\u05e8\u05d5\u05df \u05db\u05d9\u05e1 \u05de\u05d9\u05d3 \u05db\u05dc \u05d0\u05d7\u05d3 \u05e0\u05d5\u05d8\u05dc \u05d5\u05d4\u05d5\u05dc\u05da \u05d5\u05e2\u05d5\u05e9\u05d4\n\u05e1\u05d5\u05db\u05d4 \u05d1\u05e8\u05d0\u05e9 \u05d2\u05d2\u05d5 \u05d5\u05d4\u05e7\u05d1\u05f3\u05f3\u05d4 \u05de\u05e7\u05d3\u05d9\u05d7 \u05e2\u05dc\u05d9\u05d4\u05dd \u05d4\u05de\u05d4 \u05d1\u05ea\u05e7\u05d5\u05e4\u05ea \u05ea\u05de\u05d5\u05d6 \u05d5\u05db\u05dc \u05d0\u05d7\u05d3 \u05d5\u05d0\u05d7\u05d3 \u05de\u05d1\u05e2\u05d8\n\u05d1\u05e1\u05d5\u05db\u05ea\u05d5 \u05d5\u05d9\u05d5\u05e6\u05d0 \u05d5\u05db\u05d5\u05f3 \u05c3\n\n\u201cThe Gentiles will then say before him, O Lord of the world, the\nIsraelites received the law, but how did they keep it? The Holy One,\nblessed be He, will reply, I bear them witness that they have kept the\nlaw. The Gentiles will say, O Lord of the world, is it fair that a\nFather should be a witness for his children? For it is written, \u2018Israel\nis my son, even my first-born.\u2019 (Exod. iv. 22.) The Holy One, blessed be\nHe, will then say to them, Let the heaven and the earth bear witness to\nthem, that they have kept the whole law. The Gentiles will answer, O\nLord of the world, the heavens and the earth are interested witnesses,\nfor it is said, \u2018If my covenant be not with day and night, and if I have\nnot appointed the ordinances of heaven and the earth.\u2019 (Jer. xxxiii.\n25.) R. Simon Ben Lakish says, What is the meaning of the words \u2018And it\nwas evening and it was morning, the sixth day?\u2019 They show us that the\nHoly and Blessed One, made a condition with the creation, and said, If\nIsrael will receive my law, all is well; but if not, then I will turn\nyou back into chaos. Hezekiah also teaches this same truth, saying, What\nis the meaning of the words, \u2018Thou didst cause judgment to be heard from\nheaven; the earth feared, and was still?\u2019 (Ps. lxxvi. 9, Eng. 8.) If it\nfeared, how could it be still; and if it was still, how could it fear?\nThe answer is, at first it feared [that Israel would not receive the\nlaw, and it should be turned into chaos]; but afterwards it was still.\nGod will then say to the Gentiles, Then let some of yourselves come, and\nbear witness to Israel that they have kept the whole law. Nimrod shall\nthen come forth and testify of Abraham that he did not commit idolatry.\nLaban shall come forth and testify of Jacob that he was not suspected of\ndishonesty. Potiphar\u2019s wife shall come forth and testify of Joseph that\nhe was not suspected of the transgression. Nebuchadnezzar shall come\nforth and testify of Hannaniah, Mishael, and Azariah, that they would\nnot worship the image. Darius shall come and testify of Daniel that he\ndid not neglect prayer. Bildad the Shuhite, and Zophar the Naamathite,\nand Eliphaz the Temanite, and Elihu the son of Beracheel, shall come\nforth and testify of Israel that they have kept the whole law, as it is\nsaid, \u2018Let them being forth their witnesses, that they may be\njustified.\u2019 (Isaiah xliii. 9.) The Gentiles will then say, O Lord of the\nworld, give us the law from the beginning, and we will do it. To this\nthe Holy One will reply, O fools, he that works on the eve of the\nSabbath shall eat on the Sabbath. He that will not work on the Sabbath\neve, from whence should he eat on the Sabbath? Nevertheless, I have one\neasy commandment, Tabernacle is its name, go, therefore, and do it. But\nhow is it possible, to affirm that God will do this, when R. Joshua, the\nson of Levi, says, What is the meaning of the words, \u2018Which I command\nthee this day?\u2019 And says, the meaning is, they are to be observed to-day\n[i.e., in this world], and not tomorrow [_i.e._, in the world to\ncome].[33] To-day they are to be observed; but the reward is not to be\nreceived to-day. The answer is, that God does not deal with his\ncreatures in a tyrannical manner. But why is this called an easy\ncommandment? Because it is not attended with any pecuniary loss.\nImmediately every one of the Gentiles will hasten away, and make a\ntabernacle on the roof of his house. But the Holy One, blessed be He,\nwill cause the sun to pierce them with an extraordinary heat at that\nseason, and then every one of them will kick down his tabernacle and go\nforth,\u201d &c. (Avodah Zarah, fol. 2, 3.) Such is the doctrine of the\nTalmud, adopted, and therefore sealed with the most solemn sanction, by\nthe public worship of the synagogue. In the first place it is perfectly\nfalse; it has not even the merit of plausibility. It is only astonishing\nhow an imagination so absurd should ever have found its way into the\nprayers of Israel; and stranger still that the Jews of England should\nsuffer such a foul blot still to remain on their public services. It\ncertainly represents Judaism in the most unfavourable point of view, as\na religion of the grossest and most inconsistent superstition; and\nproves, beyond all controversy, first, that the synagogue receives, as\nof divine authority, even the fables of the Talmud; and, secondly, that\nthe authors of the oral law, who could either invent or believe so\nabsurd a statement, cannot be depended upon as faithful transmitters of\nthe religion of the prophets.\n\nFurther, it totally misrepresents the character of God. It describes\nHim, first, as bearing witness to the obedience of Israel, whilst in His\nWord he bears constant testimony to their disobedience. Here he is\nrepresented also as calling upon heaven and earth to attest their\ninnocence and righteousness, whilst in His Word he calls upon them to be\nthe witnesses of their rebellion. \u201cHear, O heavens; and give ear, O\nearth; for the Lord hath spoken: I have nourished and brought up\nchildren, and they have rebelled against me.\u201d (Isaiah i. 2.) And again,\n\u201cBe astonished, O ye heavens, at this, and be horribly afraid, be ye\nvery desolate, saith the Lord. For my people have committed two evils;\nthey have forsaken me, the fountain of living waters, and hewed them out\ncisterns, broken cisterns, that can hold no water.\u201d (Jer. ii. 12.) These\npassages of the word of God are directly opposed to the above statement\nof the oral law. But farther, it misrepresents the Divine Being as an\nunmerciful and unjust judge, who pretends to give the guilty Gentiles\nanother and easy trial by giving them the commandment respecting the\ntabernacles, and then employs his omnipotence so to plague them with the\nheat of the sun, as to render it impossible for them to yield obedience.\nSuch a representation is altogether unworthy of the Judge of all the\nearth, who will deal justly by the Gentiles as well as the Jews.\n\nBut besides misrepresenting the divine character, it misleads the\nunlearned and superstitious to believe that, at the day of judgment,\nGod will not render to every man according to his deeds, but will pass\nby their sins and their impenitence, if only they be Israelites. It\ntherefore begets a false confidence, and is eminently calculated to\nlull men asleep in their sins. The man who believes this fable of the\nGentiles bearing witness to the righteousness of Abraham, Joseph,\nDaniel, &c., and thinks that this is sufficient for his acquittal at\nthe bar of judgment, can have no motive for personal repentance or\nrighteousness. Neither does this fable tend to produce good will and\nrespect towards his Gentile fellow-sinners. Few men will elevate\nthemselves above their notions of the Deity. When, then, the\nRabbinists see that, according to the oral law, God treats the\nGentiles with injustice and cruelty, is it natural to suppose that he\nwill treat them differently? This and similar passages well merit the\nserious consideration of all influential Israelites. It is imperative\nupon all such to determine, whether such passages of their prayers and\ntheir law are of divine authority or not; and if they are convinced of\ntheir falsehood, to use their unceasing exertions to expunge them from\ntheir religious system. As long as they exist, and are publicly read\nin the synagogue, men can only come to one conclusion, and that is,\nthat the characteristics of the Rabbinical religion are superstition\nand uncharitableness. Nothing but a public protest against the error,\nand an erasure from the prayer-book, will satisfy the mind, or wipe\naway the reproach from Israel. The private professions of individuals\ncan be of no avail in this matter. Men will go to the authorized\nbooks, especially to the prayer-book of every class of religionist, in\norder to judge of his principles; and no one will believe that any man\ncan be so careless or so presumptuous as to address the Divine Being\nin the language of acknowledged falsehood. But above all, let every\nJew compare this account of the day of judgment with that contained in\nour Christian books. Judaism teaches that at that great day God will\nappear as a partial and cruel judge. Christianity gives us the\nfollowing account of the same period:\u2014\u201cWhen the Son of man shall come\nin his glory and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon\nthe throne of his glory; and before him shall be gathered all nations\nand he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth\nhis sheep from the goats: and he shall set the sheep on his right\nhand, but the goats on the left. Then shall the King say unto them on\nhis right hand, Come, ye blessed of my father, inherit the kingdom\nprepared for you from the foundation of the world: for I was an\nhungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I\nwas a stranger, and ye took me in: naked, and ye clothed me: I was\nsick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me. Then\nshall the righteous answer and say, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred,\nand fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink? when saw we thee a\nstranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee? or when saw we\nthee sick, and in prison, and came unto thee? And the King shall\nanswer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have\ndone it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it\nunto me. Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart\nfrom me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and\nhis angels: for I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was\nthirsty, and ye gave me no drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me not\nin: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited\nme not. Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we\nthee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in\nprison, and did not minister unto thee? Then shall he answer them,\nsaving, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the\nleast of these, ye did it not to me. And these shall go away into\neverlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.\u201d (Matt.\nxxv. 31-46.) Such is the view which Christianity sets before us of the\nday of judgment, and the principles according to which that judgment\nshall be conducted. You will observe that the whole account is\nessentially different from that given by the Talmud. In the first\nplace it represents God as a just Judge, altogether overlooking\nnationality; taking no notice of the temporary distinctions of Jew and\nGentile: but fixing his eyes on the eternal features of moral\ncharacter, and according to these fixing the eternal destinies of each\nindividual. In the second place it tends to promote good will and\ncharity between man and man, for it represents charity or the want of\ncharity as the main points of inquiry, and the distinctions according\nto which the eternal portion of each is assigned. We ask, then, every\nimpartial and candid Jew to tell us, which of these two accounts are\nmost worthy of the great God whom we worship? We Christians believe\nthat the synagogue-worshippers are in error, and they again think us\nin error; but we have now before us the doctrines of the two systems\non the most important point in all theology\u2014the principle of final\njudgment; by their respective statements, then, on this subject let\neach system be judged. Judaism says, that one class of men is to be\nsaved by the partiality of the Judge, and the other class condemned\nsimply because they are Gentiles. Christianity says, that all men\nshall be tried impartially by one rule, and that neither prepossession\nnor prejudice, but justice alone, shall influence the decision. Which,\nthen, Judaism or Christianity, is most agreeable to the character of\nHim of whom the Psalmist says, \u201cHe cometh to judge the earth: with\nrighteousness shall he judge the world, and the nations with equity?\u201d\n\nWe are sure that the good sense of the Jewish nation must decide, that\nthe impartial justice of the New Testament-representation is most in\naccordance with the spirit of the law and the prophets. Nay, we believe\nthat every devout and thinking Israelite will feel that the Talmudic\npicture of God\u2019s judgment misrepresents the God of Israel as much as any\ngraven image ever deified by heathen idolaters. To suppose that God\nwould make a mock overture of mercy, or offer a mock trial to any of his\ncreatures, is to strip him of the attributes of Deity, and to exhibit a\nblind and senseless bigot as the object of Israel\u2019s worship. A statement\nso abhorrent even from human reason, and so inconsistent with the Word\nof God, proves that its authors were not moved by the Spirit, and that\nthe religion of which it forms a part cannot be divine. But here, as in\nmany cases which we have already pointed out, the New Testament avoids\nthe error of the Talmud, and teaches the doctrine conformable to the\nlaw, and in accordance with right reason. Let the advocates of the oral\nlaw explain the fact.\n\nBut this Talmudic representation of the day of judgment is not only\nopposed to reason and Scripture, but also seems to contradict other\nstatements of the oral law. Here the Gentiles appear to be marked out\nfor destruction; whereas, we are told elsewhere, that the pious of the\nnations of the world are to have a part in the world to come: and that\nobedience to the seven commandments of the sons of Noah, is all that is\nrequired from a Gentile. If this be true, what need is there of giving\nthem the command to keep the Feast of Tabernacles? But, above all, if\nthey are to be cast down into the lowest hell, as the Prayer-book says,\nhow can they have a part of the blessings of the world to come? It is at\nthe very least, the duty of those who advocate the oral law, to explain\nthis matter to us Gentiles. We cannot persuade ourselves that a\nreligion, which makes so little provision for the eternal welfare of the\ngreat bulk of the human race, can possibly proceed from Him who is the\nGod of the spirits of all flesh, the Creator and Preserver of all\nmankind. Living daily by his bounty, and receiving all we have at his\nmost gracious hands we believe that if he makes such provision for our\nbodies, He has made still more for our immortal spirits; and therefore,\namongst other reasons, we believe in Christianity; for if it be not\ntrue, there is no spiritual provision for the Gentiles, and God has left\nthe majority of his rational creatures without any proof of his paternal\naffection.\n\nFootnote 33:\n\n  \u05d4\u05d9\u05d9\u05dd \u05dc\u05e2\u05e9\u05d5\u05ea\u05dd \u05d1\u05e2\u05d5\u05dc\u05dd \u05d4\u05d6\u05d4 , \u05d5\u05dc\u05d0 \u05dc\u05de\u05d4\u05e8 \u05d3\u05d0\u05d9\u05e0\u05d5 \u05d9\u05db\u05d5\u05dc \u05dc\u05e2\u05e9\u05d5\u05ea\u05dd \u05dc\u05e2\u05d5\u05dc\u05dd \u05d4\u05d1\u05d0 \u05c3\n\n\n\n\n                              No. XXXVIII.\n                         PRAYERS FOR THE DEAD.\n\n\nTo the fool, who hath said in his heart, There is no God, it is a matter\nof little consequence, whether the religion of his forefathers afford a\nreasonable ground of hope or not. He may therefore consistently neglect\nall inquiry into the nature and evidences of that religion in which he\nhappened to be born. He does not believe in it, whatever it may be, and\nsuch an inquiry could have no interest for him. Not so with the Jew or\nthe Christian, who honestly believes, as he has been taught, that there\nis, in another world, an abode of bliss, and another of woe. His earnest\ndesire must be to know how he may attain to the one and escape the\nother; and if his religion does not afford him a hope, a reasonable,\nwell-grounded hope of salvation, it is not worth the having. We say a\nreasonable hope, for as it has pleased God to endow us with reason and\nunderstanding, and to give us his Word to guide our reason, no other\nhope can or ought to satisfy us. In examining, then, the modern Jewish\nreligion, one great test of its value is, whether it affords a hope on\nwhich a reasonable man can rely, and upon which he can hazard his\neternal welfare. We think not, and we have already given some reasons\nfor this opinion. The inconsistency and contradictory nature of the\nrabbinic doctrines respecting justification and atonement appear to us\nso glaring as to destroy all confidence in the hope which they propose:\nand _the custom, which prevails at this and other festivals, of praying\nfor the dead, proves, beyond a doubt, that the rabbinic hope is a mere\ndelusion_. Amongst the prayers of the Feast of Tabernacles, we find the\nfollowing declaration and prayer:\u2014\n\n\u05e0\u05d5\u05d4\u05d2\u05d9\u05dd \u05d1\u05ea\u05e4\u05d5\u05e6\u05d5\u05ea \u05d9\u05e9\u05e8\u05d0\u05dc \u05dc\u05d4\u05d6\u05db\u05d9\u05e8 \u05e0\u05e9\u05de\u05d5\u05ea \u05d0\u05d1\u05d5\u05ea\u05d9\u05d5 \u05d1\u05d9\u05d5\u05dd \u05db\u05e4\u05d5\u05e8 \u05d5\u05d1\u05e9\u05dc\u05e9 \u05e8\u05d2\u05dc\u05d9\u05dd \u05d1\u05d9\u05d5\u05dd \u05de\u05ea\u05e0\u05ea\n\u05d9\u05d3 \u05dc\u05d0\u05d7\u05e8 \u05d4\u05e4\u05d8\u05d5\u05e8\u05d4 , \u05d9\u05d6\u05db\u05d5\u05e8 \u05d0\u05dc\u05d4\u05d9\u05dd \u05e0\u05e9\u05de\u05ea \u05d0\u05d1\u05d0 \u05de\u05d5\u05e8\u05d9 \u05e4\u05dc\u05d5\u05e0\u05d9 \u05d1\u05e8\u05f3 \u05e4\u05dc\u05d5\u05e0\u05d9 \u05e9\u05d4\u05dc\u05da \u05dc\u05e2\u05d5\u05dc\u05de\u05d5\n\u05d1\u05e2\u05d1\u05d5\u05e8 \u05e9\u05d0\u05e0\u05d9 \u05e0\u05d5\u05d3\u05e8 \u05e6\u05d3\u05e7\u05d4 \u05d1\u05e2\u05d3\u05d5 \u05d1\u05e9\u05db\u05e8 \u05d6\u05d4 \u05ea\u05d4\u05d0 \u05e0\u05e4\u05e9\u05d5 \u05e6\u05e8\u05d5\u05e8\u05d4 \u05d1\u05e6\u05e8\u05d5\u05e8 \u05d4\u05d7\u05d9\u05d9\u05dd \u05e2\u05dd \u05e0\u05e9\u05de\u05ea\n\u05d0\u05d1\u05e8\u05d4\u05dd \u05d9\u05e6\u05d7\u05e7 \u05d5\u05d9\u05e2\u05e7\u05d1 \u05e9\u05e8\u05d4 \u05e8\u05d1\u05e7\u05d4 \u05e8\u05d7\u05dc \u05d5\u05dc\u05d0\u05d4 \u05d5\u05e2\u05dd \u05e9\u05d0\u05e8 \u05e6\u05d3\u05d9\u05e7\u05dd \u05d5\u05e6\u05d3\u05e7\u05e0\u05d9\u05d5\u05ea \u05e9\u05d1\u05d2\u05df \u05e2\u05d3\u05df \u05d5\u05e0\u05d0\u05de\u05e8\n\u05d0\u05de\u05df \u05c3\n\n\u05d9\u05d6\u05db\u05d5\u05e8 \u05d0\u05dc\u05d4\u05d9\u05dd \u05e0\u05e9\u05de\u05ea \u05d0\u05de\u05d9 \u05d5\u05db\u05d5\u05f3 \u05c3\n\n\u201cIt is customary among the dispersions of Israel, to make mention of the\nsouls of their departed parents, &c., on the day of atonement, and the\nultimate days of the three festivals; and to offer prayers for the\nrepose of their souls.\n\n\u201cMay God remember the soul of my honoured father, A. B. who is gone to\nhis repose; for that I now solemnly vow charity for his sake; in reward\nof this, may his soul be bound up in the bundle of life, with the souls\nof Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob; Sarah, Rebekah, Rachel, and Leah, with the\nrest of the righteous males and females that are in Paradise; and let us\nsay, Amen.\u201d\n\n\u201cMay God remember the soul of my honoured mother,\u201d &c. (Prayer for the\nFeast of Tabernacles, p. 156.) Now this custom and this prayer show that\nthe Jews themselves do not believe in their own doctrines, nor put any\ntrust in the hopes held out by the oral law; for if they did, they would\nnever observe this custom nor offer this prayer. If they believed that\ntheir departed parents were already safe\u2014that their merits, or the\nmerits of their ancestors, or the Day of Atonement, &c., had procured\nfor them pardon and eternal life, why should they offer alms, and pray\nthat God would accept the alms as a ransom for the deceased? The fact of\nmaking such a vow and offering such a prayer proves, that the Rabbinical\nJew has no ground for believing in the salvation of even his own father\nand mother; that on the contrary his belief is, that they have not been\nbound up in the bundle of life, and that they are not in paradise with\nAbraham and the other saints; but that they are in some other place,\nwhence he hopes, by his prayer and his almsgiving, to ransom them. Here,\nthen, we see that the rabbinical hope is a mere delusion. After all his\nfasting and ceremonial observances, he has no hope after death of going\nto the mansions of the blessed. His sad prospect is, that when he goes\nhence, he must go to the place of punishment, and there abide until the\nprayers and almsgiving of his children purchase his liberation.\nAccording, then, to this doctrine, every Jew and Jewess dies without\npardon, for if they were pardoned, they would not go to the place of\npunishment, and if they did not go to the place of punishment, there\nwould be no necessity to offer alms in order to deliver their souls. So\nthen, after all the pretensions and promises of the rabbies, they here\nfairly confess that all the hopes which they have held out are a mere\nlie and a delusion; that none of their observances can deliver the soul,\nand that even after the dread hour of death, the survivors have still to\nundertake the work of saving the deceased.\n\nThis inference follows inevitably from the custom and the prayer which\nwe have just considered; but it does not rest solely on these. The oral\nlaw furnishes other adequate proof, that the Jewish survivors of a\ndeparted parent do not believe that he is safe, and that therefore a\ndying Jew can have no hope of his own salvation; for it requires the\nsurviving son to repeat a certain prayer for his departed parent, and\nthat for many months, in order to procure his release, as we read in the\n_Joreh Deah_:\u2014\n\n\u05e2\u05dc \u05db\u05df \u05e0\u05d4\u05d2\u05d5 \u05dc\u05d5\u05de\u05e8 \u05e7\u05d3\u05d9\u05e9 \u05e2\u05dc \u05d0\u05d1 \u05d5\u05d0\u05dd \u05d1\u05ea\u05e8\u05d0 \u05d9\u05f3\u05f3\u05d1 \u05d7\u05d5\u05d3\u05e9 , \u05d5\u05db\u05df \u05e0\u05d4\u05d2\u05d5 \u05dc\u05d4\u05e4\u05d8\u05d9\u05e8 \u05d1\u05e0\u05d1\u05d9\u05d0\n\u05d5\u05dc\u05d4\u05ea\u05e4\u05dc\u05dc \u05e2\u05e8\u05d1\u05d9\u05ea \u05d1\u05de\u05d5\u05e6\u05d0\u05d9 \u05e9\u05d1\u05ea \u05e9\u05d4\u05d5\u05d0 \u05d4\u05d6\u05de\u05df \u05e9\u05d7\u05d5\u05d6\u05e8\u05d9\u05df \u05d4\u05e0\u05e9\u05de\u05d5\u05ea \u05dc\u05d2\u05d9\u05d4\u05e0\u05dd , \u05d5\u05db\u05e9\u05d4\u05d1\u05df \u05de\u05ea\u05e4\u05dc\u05dc\n\u05d5\u05de\u05e7\u05e8\u05e9 \u05d1\u05e8\u05d1\u05d9\u05dd \u05e4\u05d5\u05d3\u05d4 \u05d0\u05d1\u05d9\u05d5 \u05d5\u05d0\u05de\u05d5 \u05de\u05d2\u05d9\u05d4\u05e0\u05dd \u05c3\n\n\u201cTherefore the custom is for twelve months to repeat the prayer called\nKaddish, and also to read the lesson in the prophets, and to pray the\nevening-prayer at the going out of the Sabbath, for that is the hour\nwhen the souls return to hell; but when the son prays and sanctifies in\npublic, he redeems his father and his mother from hell.\u201d (376.) Now\nevery child who observes this custom, makes a public confession, that\nhis deceased parent is not enjoying the bliss of paradise, but suffering\nthe torments of hell. This is but a poor hope for a child respecting his\nparent, the very utmost limit of which is, that he is not one of the\nnotoriously wicked, and that he may perhaps, by his prayers, get him out\nof the place of torment. But if he believes in the oral law, he must be\nconvinced that his father or mother, with all their exertions, and\nnotwithstanding the merits of their forefathers, and the benefits of the\nDay of Atonement, died in sin, sunk into perdition, and that he must now\nundertake the work of their salvation. The dying Jew, therefore, has no\nhope when he dies of being admitted to a state of happiness; he cannot\ndie with the peace of one who knows that his sins are forgiven, but must\nlook forward with horror to at least eleven dreary months of punishment\nin the abodes of the damned. The doctrine of the Talmud is, that those\nwho die in communion with the synagogue, or who have never been Jews,\nare punished for twelve months, but that Jewish heretics and apostates\nare doomed to eternal punishment.\n\n\u05e4\u05d5\u05e9\u05e2\u05d9 \u05d9\u05e9\u05e8\u05d0\u05dc \u05d1\u05d2\u05d5\u05e4\u05d5 \u05d5\u05e4\u05d5\u05e9\u05e2\u05d9 \u05d0\u05d5\u05de\u05d5\u05ea \u05d4\u05e2\u05d5\u05dc\u05dd \u05d1\u05d2\u05d5\u05e4\u05df \u05d9\u05d5\u05e8\u05d3\u05d9\u05df \u05dc\u05d2\u05d9\u05d4\u05e0\u05dd \u05d5\u05e0\u05d9\u05d3\u05d5\u05e0\u05d9\u05df \u05d1\u05d4\n\u05e9\u05e0\u05d9\u05dd \u05e2\u05e9\u05e8 \u05d7\u05d5\u05d3\u05e9 \u05dc\u05d0\u05d7\u05e8 \u05e9\u05e0\u05d9\u05dd \u05e2\u05e9\u05e8 \u05d7\u05d5\u05d3\u05e9 \u05d2\u05d5\u05e4\u05df \u05db\u05dc\u05d4 \u05d5\u05e0\u05e9\u05de\u05ea\u05df \u05e0\u05e9\u05e8\u05e4\u05ea \u05d5\u05e8\u05d5\u05d7 \u05de\u05e4\u05d6\u05e8\u05ea\u05df \u05ea\u05d7\u05ea\n\u05db\u05e4\u05d5\u05ea \u05e8\u05d2\u05dc\u05d9 \u05d4\u05e6\u05d3\u05d9\u05e7\u05d9\u05dd \u05e9\u05e0\u05d0\u05de\u05e8 \u05d5\u05e2\u05e1\u05d5\u05ea\u05dd \u05e8\u05e9\u05e2\u05d9\u05dd \u05db\u05d9 \u05d9\u05d4\u05d9\u05d5 \u05d0\u05e4\u05e8 \u05ea\u05d7\u05ea \u05db\u05e4\u05d5\u05ea \u05e8\u05d2\u05dc\u05d9\u05db\u05dd \u05d0\u05d1\u05dc\n\u05d4\u05de\u05d9\u05e0\u05d9\u05df \u05d5\u05d4\u05de\u05d5\u05e1\u05e8\u05d9\u05df \u05d5\u05d4\u05d0\u05e4\u05d9\u05e7\u05d5\u05e8\u05e1\u05d9\u05df \u05e9\u05db\u05e4\u05e8\u05d5 \u05d1\u05ea\u05d5\u05e8\u05d4 \u05d5\u05e9\u05db\u05e4\u05e8\u05d5 \u05d1\u05ea\u05d7\u05d9\u05d9\u05ea \u05d4\u05de\u05ea\u05d9\u05dd \u05d5\u05e9\u05e4\u05d9\u05e8\u05e9\u05d5\n\u05de\u05d3\u05e8\u05db\u05d9 \u05e6\u05d1\u05d5\u05e8 \u05d5\u05e9\u05e0\u05ea\u05e0\u05d5 \u05d7\u05ea\u05d9\u05ea\u05dd \u05d1\u05d0\u05e8\u05e5 \u05d7\u05d9\u05d9\u05dd \u05d5\u05e9\u05d7\u05d8\u05d0\u05d5 \u05d5\u05d4\u05d7\u05d8\u05d9\u05d0\u05d5 \u05d0\u05ea \u05d4\u05e8\u05d1\u05d9\u05dd \u05db\u05d2\u05d5\u05df \u05d9\u05e8\u05d1\u05e2\u05dd \u05d1\u05df\n\u05e0\u05d1\u05d8 \u05d5\u05d7\u05d1\u05d9\u05e8\u05d9\u05d5 \u05d9\u05d5\u05e8\u05d3\u05d9\u05df \u05dc\u05d2\u05d9\u05d4\u05e0\u05dd \u05d5\u05e0\u05d9\u05d3\u05d5\u05e0\u05d9\u05df \u05d1\u05d4 \u05dc\u05d3\u05d5\u05e8\u05d9 \u05d3\u05d5\u05e8\u05d5\u05ea \u05c3\n\n\u201cIsraelites who sin with their body, and also Gentiles, descend into\nhell, and are judged there for twelve months. After the twelve months\ntheir body is consumed and their soul is burnt, and the wind scatters\nthem under the soles of the feet of the righteous, as it is said, \u2018Ye\nshall tread down the wicked, for they shall be ashes under the soles of\nyour feet.\u2019 (Mal. iv. 3.) But heretics, and informers, and Epicureans,\nwho have denied the law or the resurrection of the dead, or who have\nseparated from the customs of the congregation, or who have caused their\nfear in the land of the living, who have sinned, or caused many to sin,\nas Jeroboam, the son of Nebat, all such go down to hell and are judged\nfor ever.\u201d (Rosh Hashanah, fol. 17. 1.) According to this, the dying\nIsraelite ought to expect twelve months of torment, and his surviving\nson ought to repeat the prescribed prayer for twelve months; but the\nrabbies have commanded that the prayer should be repeated only for\neleven months, to intimate that the deceased was not so wicked as to be\nobliged to remain all the time of torment:\u2014\n\n\u05d5\u05e0\u05d4\u05d2\u05d5 \u05e9\u05d0\u05d9\u05df \u05d0\u05d5\u05de\u05e8\u05d9\u05dd \u05e7\u05d3\u05d9\u05e9 \u05d5\u05ea\u05e4\u05dc\u05d4 \u05e8\u05e7 \u05d9\u05f3\u05f3\u05d0 \u05d7\u05d3\u05e9\u05d9\u05dd \u05db\u05d3\u05d9 \u05e9\u05dc\u05d0 \u05d9\u05e2\u05e9\u05d5 \u05d0\u05d1\u05d9\u05d4\u05dd \u05d5\u05d0\u05de\u05dd \u05e8\u05e9\u05e2\u05d9\u05dd\n\u05db\u05d9 \u05de\u05e9\u05e4\u05d8 \u05e8\u05e9\u05e2 \u05d9\u05f3\u05f3\u05d1 \u05d4\u05d5\u05d3\u05e9 \u05c3\n\n\u201cThe custom is, not to say Kaddish more than eleven months, so as not to\ncast a reproach on the character of the deceased father and mother as if\nthey were wicked, for twelve months are the term appointed for the\nwicked.\u201d (Joreh Deah, 376.) From this it is clear that a dying Jew\u2019s\nexpectation must be to endure the torments of hell for at least eleven\nmonths; and when he is dead, his son confesses, in the most public\nmanner, and the appointed prayers of the synagogue confess, of every\ndeparted Jew, that he died in sin, and was not worthy to enter into the\nbliss of paradise; and express, moreover, their conviction that his\nportion is actually with the damned. Thus it is evident that Judaism\nholds out no hope of the forgiveness of sins, and that all its\nprescribed observances are of no avail in the hour of need. A Jew\u2019s sad\ncontemplation on his death is, then, that he is going down to hell, and\nhis hope of liberation is based upon the prayers of his son, or upon the\nfact of his being an Israelite. But is this a reasonable ground of hope?\nNo hope of salvation can be reasonable which is not built upon a plain\npromise of God. Our reason can tell us nothing about either heaven or\nhell; and therefore no speculations of our own can satisfy us respecting\neither one or the other. The only satisfactory testimony can come from\nGod\u2019s revealed will; but in the whole volume of the Old Testament, there\nis not one promise declaring that an Israelite shall be delivered from\nhell after twelve months\u2019 punishment, or that the son\u2019s public prayers\nin the synagogue shall deliver the father. This is all the mere\ninvention of the rabbies, without the least warrant from the Word of\nGod. It is, therefore, not a hope on which any reasonable man can rest\nin peace. The sum of the whole matter is, that every Jew expects to go\nto hell, and that he has no promise of God to assure him that he shall\nbe redeemed thence. Judaism is not, therefore, a religion which affords\na rational hope of salvation. In asserting that every Israelite must go\ndown to hell, it teaches that sin is not forgiven by God, but must be\natoned for by the personal suffering of the offender; and that happiness\ncannot be enjoyed until personal satisfaction has been yielded by twelve\nmonths\u2019 torments. Now if this principle were true, there could be no\nsalvation at all. Sin, as being an offence against an infinite Being, is\ninfinite in magnitude, and therefore, requires infinite punishment. The\njustice of God is also infinite, and requires an infinite satisfaction;\nso that if this satisfaction is to be rendered by the personal suffering\nof the offender, that suffering must be infinite, that is, it must\nendure for ever and ever, and thus salvation is altogether out of the\nquestion. The Jewish hope is, therefore, unwarranted by Scripture, and\ncontrary to reason, and, we may add, inconsistent with itself. In the\ncustom and doctrine which we have just considered, a dying Jew is taught\nto hope that he shall be delivered from that place of torment, whither\nhe is going, either on account of his son\u2019s prayers, or on account of\nhis Jewish origin. But on his death-bed he is taught to believe that his\ndeath will be an atonement for his sins, for in his dying confession,\nthese words are put into his mouth:\u2014\n\n\u05d5\u05d0\u05dd \u05e7\u05e8\u05d1\u05d4 \u05e2\u05ea \u05e4\u05e7\u05d5\u05d3\u05ea\u05d9 \u05dc\u05de\u05d5\u05ea , \u05ea\u05d4\u05d0 \u05de\u05d9\u05ea\u05ea\u05d9 \u05db\u05e4\u05e8\u05d4 \u05dc\u05db\u05dc \u05d7\u05d8\u05d0\u05d5\u05ea\u05d9 \u05d5\u05dc\u05db\u05dc \u05e2\u05d5\u05d5\u05e0\u05d5\u05ea\u05d9 \u05d5\u05dc\u05db\u05dc\n\u05e4\u05e9\u05e2\u05d9 \u05e9\u05d7\u05d8\u05d0\u05ea\u05d9 \u05d5\u05e9\u05e2\u05d5\u05d9\u05ea\u05d9 \u05d5\u05e9\u05e4\u05e9\u05e2\u05ea\u05d9 \u05de\u05d9\u05d5\u05dd \u05d4\u05d9\u05d5\u05ea\u05d9 \u05c3\n\n\u201cBut if the time of my visitation to death be near, O let my death be an\nexpiation for all my sins, iniquities, and transgressions, wherein I\nhave sinned, offended, and transgressed against thee, from the day of my\nexistence.\u201d These two doctrines are plainly contrary the one to the\nother. If death be an atonement for all sins, then, when it is once\nsuffered, all these sins are forgiven, and there is no need of further\npunishment in hell for twelve months. But if this further punishment be\ninflicted, then the death of the individual is not an atonement for his\nsins. The Jew may choose which of these hopes he pleases; but whichever\nhe may assert to be true, the other is necessarily false; and if one be\nfalse, then the oral law teaches falsehood, and cannot be depended upon\nwith respect to the other. There is, then, in these two statements, a\nglaring inconsistency, which makes them both suspicious in themselves:\nand the Word of God is as opposed to this last statement, as to the\nformer. The Bible represents death as a consequence and punishment of\nAdam\u2019s sin, not as an atonement: and hence it is that infants die, who\nhave never committed actual sin, and do not need an atonement on that\naccount. Death is, therefore, a punishment, and that which is a\npunishment can never be an atonement. The dying Jew, then, if he be a\nreasonable man, has no hope that can yield him peace and consolation in\nthat solemn hour. He prays that his death may atone for his sins, and\nyet believes the very contrary\u2014that he is going down to the place of the\ndamned, and that his son will have to undertake the work of his\nredemption. How any thoughtful man, especially how any Israelite who has\nread the Law and the Prophets, can be content with such a religion, we\ncannot comprehend. The very essence of religion, the very consideration\nthat gives it any value, is the comfort which it affords to the\ndeparting sinner. If it cannot soothe, support, and comfort him in the\nhour of death, it is not worth the having. The Christian faith is very\ndifferent, and, in our opinion, far more in accordance with the Old\nTestament. We believe, in the first place, that there is a full and\nperfect pardon for all sins by the atonement of the Messiah, so that the\nsinner who dies in repentance and faith, is delivered from all\npunishment and other consequences of sin, and enters at once into the\nabodes of the blessed, there to await the morning of the resurrection.\nThe Old Testament promised that Messiah should bear our sins. The New\nTestament tells us that He has borne them, and that therefore we can\n\u201cnow be justified from all things from which we could not be justified\nby the law of Moses.\u201d (Acts xiii. 38, 39.) It tells us that \u201cGod made\nHim to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the\nrighteousness of God in him\u201d (2 Cor. v. 21); and \u201cthat if any man sin,\nwe have an advocate with the Father, Jesus, the Messiah, the Righteous;\nand he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also\nfor the sins of the whole world.\u201d (1 John ii. 1, 2.) We believe,\ntherefore, that Messiah has borne all that we ought to have borne, as\nthe prophet says\u2014\n\n\u05de\u05d5\u05e1\u05e8 \u05e9\u05dc\u05d5\u05de\u05e0\u05d5 \u05e2\u05dc\u05d9\u05d5 \u05d5\u05d1\u05d7\u05d1\u05d5\u05e8\u05ea\u05d5 \u05e0\u05e8\u05e4\u05d0 \u05dc\u05e0\u05d5 \u05c3\n\n\u201cThe chastisement of our peace was upon him, and with his stripes we are\nhealed,\u201d (Isaiah liii. 5,) and that now we are delivered. There is no\ntwelvemonth of torment awaiting those whom Messiah has redeemed, neither\ndo we trust in our own death as a possible atonement. Our hope is firmly\nfixed, and, therefore, though sinners, we can die in peace, resting on\nthe salvation which God himself has wrought, in no fear of the torments\nof the damned, but humbly expecting, for the Messiah\u2019s sake, to be\nadmitted into the mansions of the blessed. Resting on this hope, the\nChristian can say, \u201cTo me to live is Christ, and to die is gain.\u201d\n(Philip, i. 21.) He can look forward from death to the glorious\nconsummation, as St. Paul did, who, when the hour of his martyrdom\napproached, was enabled to say, \u201cI am now ready to be offered, and the\ntime of my departure is at hand. I have fought a good fight; I have\nfinished my course; I have kept the faith: henceforth there is laid up\nfor me a crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous Judge,\nshall give me at that day; and not to me only, but unto all them also\nthat love his appearing.\u201d The Christian expects after death not to spend\ntwelve dreary months in hell, \u201cFor we know that if our earthly house of\nthis tabernacle were dissolved, we have a building of God, an house not\nmade with hands, eternal in the heavens. For in this we groan, earnestly\ndesiring to be clothed upon with our house which is from heaven: if so\nbe, that being clothed, we shall not be found naked. For we that are in\nthis tabernacle do groan, being burdened: not for that we would be\nunclothed, but clothed upon, that mortality might be swallowed up of\nlife.\u201d (2 Cor. v. 1-4.) Such is the hope which Christianity holds out,\nand it is hardly necessary to prove that it is more satisfactory, and\nmore calculated to convey peace to the conscience of a dying believer,\nthan the dread prospect, of twelve months\u2019 sojourn in the place of\ntorment. This in itself proves, that Christianity is greatly superior to\nJudaism, and even affords a presumption that Christianity is true.\nReason tells us, that if God has given a revelation at all, that\nrevelation must contain the way of obtaining pardon for sins, and be\nable to administer consolation to the dying. In this respect Judaism\nfails. It promises forgiveness and justification to a thousand\nceremonial observances, but in the hour of man\u2019s extremity, it tells him\nthat there is no way of pardon, but that he must go down into torment,\nand expiate his sins by actual suffering. This system cannot, therefore,\nbe of God. Christianity, on the contrary, has the first great essential\nin religion; it informs man how he can obtain forgiveness, and tells him\nhow to die in peace; and the system of pardon and consolation which it\nproposes, is in exact accordance with the doctrine of Moses and the\nprophets. Moses promises pardon to an atoning sacrifice. Isaiah says,\nthat Messiah is to be the true atonement; and Christianity rests upon\nthese two principles. The Jew himself must admit, that our hope has at\nleast a strong appearance of truth, and that we have the letter of the\nOld Testament in our favour. We have, therefore, more reason to trust to\nChristianity, than he has for resting on Judaism, which has not even a\nsemblance of proof, and is as far from the letter as from the spirit of\nthe Old Testament. We would earnestly request of every Jew to consider\nwhat is his hope in death, and what is his prospect after it? Can he be\ncontent with that which Judaism offers? Can he be happy in the prospect\nof twelve months\u2019 torment? Or, can the repetition of Kaddish afford him\nany hope of liberation from that place, whither his sins have brought\nhim?\n\nHe cannot pretend to have any warrant from Scripture. Where does Moses\ntell a Jewish child to say Kaddish for his deceased parent, or that the\nsaying of it will deliver the soul from the grasp of Divine justice? And\nreason does not offer a greater measure of consolation. Reason says\nplainly, either that the deceased is guilty or not guilty; either,\ntherefore, justice demands that he should be punished or delivered. In\nthe one case the prayer is unavailing, in the other unnecessary. Reason\nsays that God either pardons or punishes; but that there is no middle\nway. Judaism then offers a hope equally unwarranted by reason and\nScripture, and thus, forsaking a poor sinner in the hour of his\nextremity, is not worthy of the profession of any one who uses his\nreason, or reveres the Word of God.\n\n\n\n\n                               No. XXXIX.\n                              ALMSGIVING.\n\n\nThe object of our late numbers has been to point out the inconsistency\nand precariousness of the various hopes, which the oral law holds out to\nits advocates, and the consequent inadequacy of a religion which leaves\nits professors without a reasonable hope of eternal happiness. In the\ncourse of our observations, the subject of almsgiving twice presented\nitself prominently to our notice; first, as a means of compensating for\nthe sins and omissions of the past year; and secondly, as a means of\npromoting the repose of departed souls; from which it appears that the\noral law considers this duty as most important and beneficial both to\nthe living and the dead. The object of the present paper shall therefore\nbe, to inquire into the rabbinic doctrine of almsgiving, and to compare\nit with the law and the prophets. The duty and extent of almsgiving are\nthus defined:\u2014\n\n\u05de\u05e6\u05d5\u05ea \u05e2\u05e9\u05d4 \u05dc\u05d9\u05ea\u05df \u05e6\u05d3\u05e7\u05d4 \u05dc\u05e2\u05e0\u05d9\u05d9 \u05d9\u05e9\u05e8\u05d0\u05dc \u05db\u05e4\u05d9 \u05de\u05d4 \u05e9\u05e8\u05d0\u05d5\u05d9 \u05dc\u05e2\u05e0\u05d9 \u05d0\u05dd \u05d4\u05d9\u05ea\u05d4 \u05d9\u05d3 \u05d4\u05e0\u05d5\u05ea\u05df \u05de\u05e9\u05d2\u05ea ,\n\u05e9\u05e0\u05d0\u05de\u05e8 \u05e4\u05ea\u05d7 \u05ea\u05e4\u05ea\u05d7 \u05d0\u05ea \u05d9\u05d3\u05da \u05dc\u05d5 , \u05d5\u05e0\u05d0\u05de\u05e8 \u05d5\u05d4\u05d7\u05d6\u05e7\u05ea \u05d1\u05d5 \u05d2\u05e8 \u05d5\u05ea\u05d5\u05e9\u05d1 \u05d5\u05d7\u05d9 \u05e2\u05de\u05da \u05d5\u05e0\u05d0\u05de\u05e8 \u05d5\u05d7\u05d9\n\u05d0\u05d7\u05d9\u05da \u05e2\u05de\u05da , \u05d5\u05db\u05dc \u05d4\u05e8\u05d5\u05d0\u05d4 \u05e2\u05e0\u05d9 \u05de\u05d1\u05e7\u05e9 \u05d5\u05d4\u05e2\u05dc\u05d9\u05dd \u05e2\u05d9\u05e0\u05d9\u05d5 \u05de\u05de\u05e0\u05d5 \u05d5\u05dc\u05d0 \u05e0\u05ea\u05df \u05dc\u05d5 \u05e6\u05d3\u05e7\u05d4 \u05e2\u05d1\u05e8 \u05d1\u05dc\u05d0\n\u05ea\u05e2\u05e9\u05d4 \u05e9\u05e0\u05d0\u05de\u05e8 \u05dc\u05d0 \u05ea\u05d0\u05de\u05e5 \u05d0\u05ea \u05dc\u05d1\u05d1\u05da \u05ea\u05e7\u05e4\u05d5\u05e5 \u05d0\u05ea \u05d9\u05d3\u05da \u05de\u05d0\u05d7\u05d9\u05da \u05d4\u05d0\u05d1\u05d9\u05d5\u05df ; \u05dc\u05e4\u05d9 \u05de\u05d4 \u05e9\u05d9\u05d7\u05e1\u05e8 \u05d4\u05e2\u05e0\u05d9\n\u05d0\u05ea\u05d4 \u05de\u05e6\u05d5\u05d5\u05d4 \u05dc\u05d9\u05ea\u05df \u05dc\u05d5 , \u05d0\u05dd \u05d0\u05d9\u05df \u05dc\u05d5 \u05db\u05e1\u05d5\u05ea \u05de\u05db\u05e1\u05d9\u05dd \u05d0\u05d5\u05ea\u05d5 , \u05d0\u05dd \u05d0\u05d9\u05df \u05dc\u05d5 \u05db\u05dc\u05d9 \u05d1\u05d9\u05ea \u05e7\u05d5\u05e0\u05d9\u05df\n\u05dc\u05d5 , \u05d0\u05dd \u05d0\u05d9\u05df \u05dc\u05d5 \u05d0\u05e9\u05d4 \u05de\u05e9\u05d9\u05d0\u05d9\u05df \u05d0\u05d5\u05ea\u05d5 , \u05d5\u05d0\u05dd \u05d4\u05d9\u05ea\u05d4 \u05d0\u05e9\u05d4 \u05de\u05e9\u05d9\u05d0\u05d9\u05df \u05d0\u05d5\u05ea\u05d4 \u05dc\u05d0\u05d9\u05e9 , \u05d0\u05e4\u05d9\u05dc\u05d5\n\u05d4\u05d9\u05d4 \u05d3\u05e8\u05db\u05d5 \u05e9\u05dc \u05d6\u05d4 \u05d4\u05e2\u05e0\u05d9 \u05dc\u05e8\u05db\u05d5\u05d1 \u05e2\u05dc \u05d4\u05e1\u05d5\u05e1 \u05d5\u05e2\u05d1\u05d3 \u05e8\u05e5 \u05dc\u05e4\u05e0\u05d9\u05d5 \u05d5\u05d4\u05e2\u05e0\u05d9 \u05d9\u05e8\u05d3 \u05de\u05e0\u05db\u05e1\u05d9\u05d5 \u05e7\u05d5\u05e0\u05d9\u05df\n\u05dc\u05d5 \u05e1\u05d5\u05e1 \u05dc\u05e8\u05db\u05d5\u05d1 \u05e2\u05dc\u05d9\u05d5 \u05d5\u05e2\u05d1\u05d3 \u05dc\u05e8\u05d5\u05e5 \u05dc\u05e4\u05e0\u05d9\u05d5 \u05e9\u05e0\u05d0\u05de\u05e8 \u05d3\u05d9 \u05de\u05d7\u05e1\u05d5\u05e8\u05d5 \u05d0\u05e9\u05e8 \u05d9\u05d7\u05e1\u05e8 \u05dc\u05d5 , \u05de\u05e6\u05d5\u05d5\u05d4\n\u05d0\u05ea\u05d4 \u05dc\u05d4\u05e9\u05dc\u05d9\u05dd \u05d7\u05e1\u05e8\u05d5\u05e0\u05d5 , \u05d5\u05d0\u05d9\u05df \u05d0\u05ea\u05d4 \u05de\u05e6\u05d5\u05d5\u05d4 \u05dc\u05d4\u05e6\u05e9\u05d9\u05e8\u05d5 . \u05d9\u05ea\u05d5\u05dd \u05e9\u05d1\u05d0 \u05dc\u05d4\u05e9\u05d9\u05d0\u05d5 \u05d0\u05e9\u05d4 ,\n\u05e9\u05d5\u05db\u05e8\u05d9\u05df \u05dc\u05d5 \u05d1\u05d9\u05ea \u05d5\u05de\u05e6\u05d9\u05e2\u05d9\u05dd \u05dc\u05d5 \u05de\u05d8\u05d4 \u05d5\u05db\u05dc \u05db\u05dc\u05d9 \u05ea\u05e9\u05de\u05d9\u05e9\u05d5 \u05d5\u05d0\u05d7\u05e8 \u05db\u05da \u05de\u05e9\u05d9\u05d0\u05d9\u05df \u05dc\u05d5 \u05d0\u05e9\u05d4 , \u05d1\u05d0\n\u05d4\u05e2\u05e0\u05d9 \u05d5\u05e9\u05d0\u05dc \u05d3\u05d9 \u05de\u05d7\u05e1\u05d5\u05e8\u05d5 \u05d5\u05d0\u05d9\u05df \u05d9\u05d3 \u05d4\u05e0\u05d5\u05ea\u05df \u05de\u05e9\u05d2\u05ea \u05e0\u05d5\u05ea\u05e0\u05d9\u05df \u05dc\u05d5 \u05db\u05e4\u05d9 \u05d4\u05e9\u05d2\u05ea \u05d9\u05d3\u05d5 \u05d5\u05db\u05de\u05d4 \u05e2\u05d3\n\u05d7\u05de\u05d9\u05e9\u05d9\u05ea \u05e0\u05db\u05e1\u05d9\u05d5 \u05de\u05e6\u05d5\u05d4 \u05de\u05df \u05d4\u05de\u05d5\u05d1\u05d7\u05e8 \u05d5\u05d0\u05d7\u05d3 \u05de\u05e2\u05e9\u05e8\u05d4 \u05d1\u05e0\u05db\u05e1\u05d9\u05d5 \u05d1\u05d9\u05e0\u05d5\u05e0\u05d9 , \u05e4\u05d7\u05d5\u05ea \u05de\u05db \u05e2\u05d9\u05df \u05e8\u05e2\u05d4 \u05c3\n\n\u201cIt is an affirmative precept to give alms to the poor of Israel,\naccording as the poor have need, if in the power of the giver; for it is\nsaid, \u2018Thou shalt open thine hand wide to him\u2019 (Deut. xv. 8); and again,\n\u2018Thou shalt relieve him, a proselyte[34] or a sojourner, that he may\nlive with thee;\u2019 and again, \u2018That thy brother may live with thee.\u2019 (Lev.\nxxv. 35, 36.) Whosoever sees a poor man begging, and shuts his eyes\nagainst him, and does not give him alms, transgresses a negative\nprecept: for it is said, \u2018Thou shalt not harden thine heart nor shut\nthine hand from thy poor brother.\u2019 (Deut. xv. 7.) According as the poor\nhath need, thou art commanded to give. If he has no clothing, he is to\nbe clothed; if he has no furniture, it is to be bought for him; if he\nhas no wife, he is to be helped to marry one; if a woman, she is to be\nassisted in getting a husband: yea, if it had been the poor man\u2019s custom\nto ride upon a horse, and to have a servant running before him\u2014but he is\nnow come down in the world,\u2014it is a duty to buy him a horse to ride, and\na servant to run before him, for it is said, \u2018Sufficient for his need,\nin that which he wanteth\u2019 (Deut. xv. 8); and thou art commanded\nperfectly to relieve his want, but not to make him rich. If an orphan\napply for assistance in order to marry, it is a duty to hire a house for\nhim, and to provide all necessary furniture, and afterwards to help him\nto marry. If a poor man come and ask for relief, and the giver has not\nas much as he wants, he ought to give what his means afford. How much?\nHe that gives a fifth of his property fulfils the commandment well. He\nthat gives one part in ten fulfils it in a middling manner. He that\ngives less must be regarded as a person with an evil eye.\u201d (Hilchoth\nMatt\u2019noth Aniim, cvii. 1-5.) In this definition of the nature and extent\nof the duty of almsgiving, there is much that is good and worthy of our\nadmiration, especially in this selfish and money-loving age, when\npoverty is regarded, if not punished, as a crime, and the poor are, by\nmany, considered as unworthy of all domestic comfort. Without binding\nourselves to the approval of all the details here specified, we must\nacknowledge, that the spirit of this passage is agreeable to the idea of\ntrue charity, and, if universally acted upon, would do more for the\nhappiness of mankind than some theories now afloat. But though ready to\nadmire and to acknowledge the general beauty and excellence of this\npassage, we must also remark that the main feature of charity is, by the\nrabbinical system, excluded. God commands that this help should extend\nbeyond the narrow limits of selfishness and nationality, to \u201cthe\nstranger and the sojourner,\u201d but the oral law neutralizes the\nmercifulness of God\u2019s commandment by making the word stranger signify a\nproselyte to Judaism. The original Hebrew word \u05d2\u05e8 (_Ger_) plainly means\na stranger, as may be seen in the words of Moses\u2014\n\n\u05d5\u05d0\u05d4\u05d1\u05ea\u05dd \u05d0\u05ea \u05d4\u05d2\u05e8 \u05db\u05d9 \u05d2\u05e8\u05d9\u05dd \u05d4\u05d9\u05d9\u05ea\u05dd \u05d1\u05d0\u05e8\u05e5 \u05de\u05e6\u05e8\u05d9\u05dd \u05c3\n\n\u201cLove ye therefore the stranger; for ye were strangers in the land of\nEgypt.\u201d (Deut. x. 19.) It is certain that the Israelites were not\nproselytes, but strangers; this word, _Ger_, therefore, signifies\nstranger, not proselyte; and yet the oral law says that no one can be a\n_Ger_ without sacrifice, circumcision, and baptism, or now, that there\nis no temple, without the two last requisites:\u2014\n\n\u05d5\u05d1\u05d6\u05de\u05df \u05d4\u05d6\u05d4 \u05e9\u05d0\u05d9\u05df \u05e9\u05dd \u05e7\u05e8\u05d1\u05df \u05e6\u05e8\u05d9\u05da \u05de\u05d9\u05dc\u05d4 \u05d5\u05d8\u05d1\u05d9\u05dc\u05d4 \u05d5\u05db\u05e9\u05d9\u05d1\u05e0\u05d4 \u05d1\u05d9\u05ea \u05d4\u05de\u05e7\u05d3\u05e9 \u05d9\u05d1\u05d9\u05d0 \u05e7\u05e8\u05d1\u05df , \u05d2\u05e8\n\u05e9\u05de\u05dc \u05d8\u05d1\u05dc \u05d0\u05d5 \u05d8\u05d1\u05dc \u05d5\u05dc\u05d0 \u05d0\u05d9\u05e0\u05d5 \u05d2\u05e8 \u05e2\u05d3 \u05e9\u05d9\u05de\u05d5\u05dc \u05d5\u05d9\u05d8\u05d1\u05d5\u05dc \u05c3\n\n\u201cAt the present time when there is no sacrifice, circumcision and\nbaptism are necessary, and when the temple is rebuilt, he must bring a\nsacrifice. A _Ger_ who is circumcised but not baptized, or baptized but\nnot circumcised, is not a _Ger_, until he be both baptized and\ncircumcised. (Hilchoth Issure Biah, c. xiii. 5, 6.)\u201d This rabbinical\ndefinition of what is meant by _Ger_, restricts the exercise of charity\nwithin a much narrower limit than that prescribed by God, and does, in\nfact, destroy one of the most beautiful features of the Mosaic law,\nnamely, the merciful provision which it makes for the relief of the\nstranger. The law of Moses has the spirit of its divine Author. He calls\nhimself \u201ca jealous God,\u201d and it may well be called a jealous law,\nwatching carefully over every departure from truth, and punishing it\nrigorously: and yet, like God himself, this just jealousy is tempered\nwith mercy, and beams with love. The oral law, on the contrary, is an\nenvious and vindictive code, and its zeal degenerates into\nnarrow-hearted bigotry. It would not only punish the idolater, but\nexclude every stranger from the pale of charity, unless he be a\nproselyte; and an Israelite too, if he had in any wise dared to\ntransgress the rabbinical commands. A remarkable instance of this\nhatred, to those whom it considers apostates, occurs in these laws\nrespecting almsgiving. The oral law says, that the most meritorious\nexercise of charity is, the ransoming of captives:\u2014\n\n\u05e4\u05d3\u05d9\u05d5\u05df \u05e9\u05d1\u05d5\u05d9\u05dd \u05e7\u05e8\u05d3\u05dd \u05dc\u05e4\u05e8\u05e0\u05e1\u05ea \u05e2\u05e0\u05d9\u05d9\u05dd \u05d5\u05dc\u05db\u05e1\u05d5\u05ea\u05dd , \u05d5\u05d0\u05d9\u05df \u05dc\u05da \u05de\u05e6\u05d5\u05d4 \u05d2\u05d3\u05d5\u05dc\u05d4 \u05db\u05e4\u05d3\u05d9\u05d5\u05df \u05e9\u05d1\u05d5\u05d9\u05dd\n\u05c3\n\n\u201cThe ransoming of captives goes before the feeding and clothing of the\npoor, and there is no commandment so great as this.\u201d (Hilchoth Matt\u2019noth\nAniim, c. 8.) And yet if a brother Israelite should deviate from the\nrabbinical commands, the oral law makes it unlawful to ransom him, at\nthe same time that it enjoins the ransom of a slave if he be a\nproselyte:\n\n\u05e2\u05d1\u05d3 \u05e9\u05e0\u05e9\u05d1\u05d4 \u05d4\u05d5\u05d0\u05d9\u05dc \u05e9\u05d8\u05d1\u05dc \u05dc\u05e9\u05dd \u05e2\u05d1\u05d3\u05d5\u05ea \u05d5\u05e7\u05d1\u05dc \u05e2\u05dc\u05d9\u05d5 \u05de\u05e6\u05d5\u05d5\u05ea \u05e4\u05d5\u05d3\u05d9\u05df \u05d0\u05d5\u05ea\u05d5 \u05db\u05d9\u05e9\u05e8\u05d0\u05dc \u05e9\u05e0\u05e9\u05d1\u05d4 ,\n\u05d5\u05e9\u05d1\u05d5\u05d9 \u05e9\u05d4\u05de\u05d9\u05e8 \u05d0\u05e4\u05d9\u05dc\u05d5 \u05dc\u05de\u05e6\u05d5\u05d4 \u05d0\u05d7\u05ea \u05db\u05d2\u05d5\u05df \u05e9\u05d4\u05d9\u05d4 \u05d0\u05d5\u05db\u05dc \u05e0\u05d1\u05dc\u05d4 \u05dc\u05d4\u05db\u05e2\u05d9\u05e1 \u05d5\u05db\u05d9\u05d5\u05e6\u05d0 \u05d1\u05d6\u05d4 \u05d0\u05e1\u05d5\u05e8\n\u05dc\u05e4\u05d3\u05d5\u05ea\u05d5 \u05c3\n\n\u201cA slave who is in captivity because he has received the baptism of\nslaves, and taken upon himself the commandments, is to be redeemed. But\nas to a captive who has altered even one commandment, if for instance he\nhas eaten forbidden food in order to vex, it is forbidden to ransom such\nan one.\u201d (Ibid.) Thus the oral law forbids all compassion even to an\nIsraelite, if he is not of the rabbinic religion. The conduct which it\nprescribes towards poor Gentiles, \u201cfor the sake of the ways of peace,\u201d\n\u05de\u05e4\u05e0\u05d9 \u05d3\u05e8\u05db\u05d9 \u05e9\u05dc\u05d5\u05dd, we have considered long since; but the prohibition to\nreceive alms of the Gentiles, deserves notice here, as it furnishes\nanother proof of the contracted views of the rabbies, and the falsehood\nof the oral law:\u2014\n\n\u05d0\u05e1\u05d5\u05e8 \u05dc\u05d9\u05e9\u05e8\u05d0\u05dc \u05dc\u05d9\u05d8\u05d5\u05dc \u05e6\u05d3\u05e7\u05d4 \u05de\u05df \u05d4\u05d2\u05d5\u05d9\u05dd \u05d1\u05e4\u05e8\u05d4\u05e1\u05d9\u05d0 \u05d5\u05d0\u05dd \u05d0\u05d9\u05e0\u05d5 \u05d9\u05db\u05d5\u05dc \u05dc\u05d7\u05d9\u05d5\u05ea \u05d1\u05e6\u05d3\u05e7\u05d4 \u05e9\u05dc\n\u05d9\u05e9\u05e8\u05d0\u05dc \u05d5\u05d0\u05d9\u05e0\u05d5 \u05d9\u05db\u05d5\u05dc \u05dc\u05d9\u05d8\u05dc\u05d4 \u05de\u05df \u05d4\u05d2\u05d5\u05d9\u05dd \u05d1\u05e6\u05e0\u05e2\u05d4 \u05d4\u05e8\u05d9 \u05d6\u05d4 \u05de\u05d5\u05ea\u05e8 , \u05d5\u05de\u05dc\u05da \u05d0\u05d5 \u05e9\u05e8 \u05de\u05df \u05d4\u05d2\u05d5\u05d9\u05dd\n\u05e9\u05e9\u05dc\u05d7 \u05de\u05de\u05d5\u05df \u05dc\u05d9\u05e9\u05e8\u05d0\u05dc \u05dc\u05e6\u05d3\u05e7\u05d4 \u05d0\u05d9\u05df \u05de\u05d7\u05d6\u05d9\u05e8\u05d9\u05d5 \u05d0\u05d5\u05ea\u05d5 \u05de\u05e9\u05d5\u05dd \u05e9\u05dc\u05d5\u05dd \u05de\u05dc\u05db\u05d5\u05ea \u05d0\u05dc\u05d0 \u05e0\u05d5\u05d8\u05dc\u05d9\u05df \u05de\u05de\u05e0\u05d5\n\u05d5\u05d9\u05e0\u05ea\u05df \u05dc\u05e2\u05e0\u05d9\u05d9 \u05d2\u05d5\u05d9\u05dd \u05d1\u05e1\u05ea\u05e8 \u05db\u05d3\u05d9 \u05e9\u05dc\u05d0 \u05d9\u05e9\u05de\u05e2 \u05d4\u05de\u05dc\u05da \u05c3\n\n\u201cIt is unlawful for an Israelite to receive alms from the Gentiles\nopenly. But if he cannot live by the alms of Israel, and cannot receive\nit from the Gentiles privately, then it is lawful. If a king or prince\nof the Gentiles sends money to Israel as alms, it is not to be returned,\non account of the peace of the kingdom. On the contrary, it is to be\nreceived, but it is to be given to the poor of the Gentiles privately,\nso that the king may not hear of it.\u201d (Ibid.) Here the oral law\nendeavours to pervert that kindly feeling which should exist between all\nthe families of man, and spurns a demonstration even of love, because it\ncomes from a man of a different religion. At the same time its authors\nhad not the moral courage to do this openly and honestly, and if need\nbe, suffer for conscience sake. They command that the proffered alms\nshould be taken from the king, as if they intended to devote it to the\nobject for which he gave it, and then privately to apply it to a totally\ndifferent purpose. This want of good faith shows abundantly that the\noral law does not come from the God of truth. The narrow bigotry of the\nsystem thus neutralizes all the individual trials of excellence which\nthe oral law contains. They appear beautiful only when viewed apart from\ntheir context; but the moment we view them in relation to the other\nparts of Rabbinism, their beauty is gone. Thus the duty and extent of\nalmsgiving, as prescribed by the oral law, at first sight appears\nadmirable; but the narrow spirit of bigotry by which it is\ncircumscribed, totally destroys its moral value in the sight of God and\nman. Almsgiving is lovely only when it is the offspring of charity. God\nlooks not at the mere outward act of giving money, but at the heart, and\nif there be no love there, almsgiving is valueless in his sight. And how\ncan any one pretend that there is a grain of true God-like charity in a\nsystem which turns stranger into proselyte, prohibits to help a brother\nbecause he is not of our own religious sentiments, and refuses even to\nreceive a kindness from one of a different religion? Just contrast this\nwith the Christian doctrine, \u201cLove your enemies, bless them that curse\nyou, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully\nuse you, and persecute you; that ye may be the children of your Father\nwhich is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the\ngood, and sendeth rain on the just and the unjust. For if ye love them\nwhich love you, what reward have ye? Do not even the publicans the same?\nAnd if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? Do not\neven the publicans so? Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father\nwhich is in heaven is perfect.\u201d (Matt. v. 44-48.)\n\nBut the oral law not only perverts and falsifies the true doctrine\nconcerning charity, but also misleads its followers by teaching them to\nthink that almsgiving is a peculiarly meritorious act, and will atone\nfor other transgressions. Thus it is said\u2014\n\n\u05d4\u05d9\u05d9\u05d1\u05d9\u05df \u05d0\u05e0\u05d5 \u05dc\u05d4\u05d6\u05d4\u05e8 \u05d1\u05de\u05e6\u05d5\u05ea \u05e6\u05d3\u05e7\u05d4 \u05d9\u05d5\u05ea\u05e8 \u05de\u05db\u05dc \u05de\u05e6\u05d5\u05ea \u05e2\u05e9\u05d4 , \u05e9\u05d4\u05e6\u05d3\u05e7\u05d4 \u05e1\u05d9\u05de\u05df \u05dc\u05e6\u05d3\u05d9\u05e7 \u05d6\u05e8\u05e2\n\u05d0\u05d1\u05e8\u05d4\u05dd \u05d0\u05d1\u05d9\u05e0\u05d5 \u05e9\u05e0\u05d0\u05de\u05e8 \u05db\u05d9 \u05d9\u05d3\u05e2\u05ea\u05d9\u05d5 \u05dc\u05de\u05e2\u05df \u05d0\u05e9\u05e8 \u05d9\u05e6\u05d5\u05d4 \u05d0\u05ea \u05d1\u05e0\u05d9\u05d5 \u05dc\u05e2\u05e9\u05d5\u05ea \u05e6\u05d3\u05e7\u05d4 , \u05d5\u05d0\u05d9\u05df \u05db\u05e1\u05d0\n\u05d9\u05e9\u05e8\u05d0\u05dc \u05de\u05ea\u05db\u05d5\u05e0\u05df \u05d5\u05d3\u05ea \u05d0\u05de\u05ea \u05e2\u05d5\u05de\u05d3\u05ea \u05d0\u05dc\u05d0 \u05d1\u05e6\u05d3\u05e7\u05d4 \u05e9\u05e0\u05d0\u05de\u05e8 \u05d1\u05e6\u05d3\u05e7\u05d4 \u05ea\u05db\u05d5\u05e0\u05e0\u05d9 , \u05e7\u05d0\u05d9\u05df \u05d9\u05e9\u05e8\u05d0\u05dc\n\u05e0\u05d2\u05d0\u05dc\u05d9\u05df \u05d0\u05dc\u05d0 \u05d1\u05e6\u05d3\u05e7\u05d4 \u05e9\u05e0\u05d0\u05de\u05e8 \u05e6\u05d9\u05d5\u05df \u05d1\u05de\u05e9\u05e4\u05d8 \u05d9\u05e4\u05d3\u05d4 \u05d5\u05e9\u05d1\u05d9\u05d4 \u05d1\u05e6\u05d3\u05e7\u05d4 \u05c3\n\n\u201cWe are bound to be more careful respecting this commandment of alms\nthan about any other of all the affirmative precepts, for almsgiving is\na characteristic of the righteous seed of our father Abraham, as it is\nsaid, \u2018I know him that he will command his children to do alms.\u2019 (Gen.\nxviii. 19.) By almsgiving alone it is that the throne of Israel is\nestablished, and that the law of truth standeth, for it is said, \u2018by\nalms (literally in righteousness) thou shalt be established.\u2019 (Isaiah\nliv. 14.) By alms alone it is that Israel shall be delivered, for it is\nsaid \u2018Zion shall be redeemed with judgment, and her converts with alms\n(righteousness).\u2019\u201d (Isaiah l. 27.) (Ibid. c. x. 1.) According to this\ndoctrine, the man who gives alms has the merit of upholding truth in the\nworld and helping to deliver Israel from captivity. But the following\npassage tells us that it will deliver from the punishment which he\ndeserves, and which is already impending over his head:\u2014\n\n\u05d4\u05e6\u05d3\u05e7\u05d4 \u05d3\u05d5\u05d7\u05d4 \u05d0\u05ea \u05d4\u05d2\u05d6\u05d9\u05e8\u05d5\u05ea \u05d4\u05e7\u05e9\u05d5\u05ea \u05d5\u05d1\u05e8\u05e2\u05d1 \u05ea\u05e6\u05d9\u05dc \u05de\u05de\u05d5\u05ea \u05db\u05de\u05d5 \u05e9\u05d0\u05d9\u05e8\u05e2 \u05dc\u05e6\u05e8\u05e4\u05d9\u05ea \u05c3\n\n\u201cAlmsgiving annuls the evil decrees, and in famine it delivers from\ndeath, as happened to the widow of Sarepta.\u201d (Joreh Deah, 347.) And\nhence it is that, as we have seen, at the approach of the New Year the\nRabbinists practise almsgiving abundantly, and also, that the survivors\noffer for the repose of the souls of their debased relations. The\ntendency of this doctrine is obviously pernicious, for it encourages men\nto persist in sin, under the idea that almsgiving will compensate for\nall other deficiencies. The doctrine itself is positively false. Where\ndoes the law of Moses say that almsgiving can purchase forgiveness?\nMoses requires obedience to all the commandments, and he enjoins the\npractice of charity to the poor, but he denounces wrath against all\ntransgression. The doctrine of Moses is not that obedience to one\ncommand will compensate for disobedience to another, but that\ndisobedience to one command will make obedience to others of none\neffect. The doctrine that the giving of money to the poor can change the\ncourse of God\u2019s judgment, or alter this sentence, is very little short\nof blasphemy: for it represents him as an unjust judge who can be\nbribed, whose severity can be bought off, and whose favour can be\npurchased with money. A more degrading view of the Divine character can\nscarcely be imagined. Such conduct in a human judge would stamp him with\ninfamy, and cannot possibly be true of Him who is a God of truth and\njustice. This one feature of rabbinic religion is sufficient to prove\nthat it is the invention of men, and of men too without any very exalted\nnotion of justice and equity.\n\nBesides, this view or almsgiving takes away all the virtue of obedience\nand love to God, and turns it into a mere mercenary transaction. The\ngreat beauty of almsgiving is that it proceeds from love to God and man,\nand that its motives be mercy and obedience. But the man, who gives alms\nin order to atone for other transgressions, or to avert the punishment\nwhich he deserves, is not performing an act either of obedience or\ncharity, he is simply making a purchase and driving a bargain which is\nmuch to his advantage. He has got money, and with that money he can buy\na house, or a horse, or deliverance from punishment. It is, therefore, a\nsimple question of interest. He considers which will be the most\nprofitable investment of his money, and if he decide that deliverance\nfrom God\u2019s wrath is the most advantageous, he lays it out in almsgiving.\nObedience, or love to God or man, is here altogether out of the\nquestion. Can any one, who has got the law and the prophets in his\nhands, imagine that such a doctrine can come from God? or can any\nreasonable being suppose, that escape from God\u2019s wrath, or the enjoyment\nof his favour depends not upon man\u2019s moral worth, but upon his ability\nto give alms: in a word, that his salvation depends not upon the state\nof his heart, but the laying out of his money? This one doctrine, if\nthoroughly believed and acted upon, would overturn the whole law of\nMoses, and offer life not to the obedient, but to the moneyed.\n\nIn this doctrine of almsgiving, however, the oral law errs at the very\nfoundation. It has chosen the Hebrew word \u05e6\u05d3\u05e7\u05d4 to stand for\n\u201calmsgiving,\u201d whereas its true signification is \u201crighteousness,\u201d as may\nbe easily proved by reference to passages where it cannot possibly\nsignify \u201calmsgiving,\u201d as for instance\u2014\n\n\u05d5\u05e6\u05d3\u05e7\u05d4 \u05ea\u05d4\u05d9\u05d4 \u05dc\u05e0\u05d5 \u05db\u05d9 \u05e0\u05e9\u05de\u05d5\u05e8 \u05dc\u05e2\u05e9\u05d5\u05ea \u05d0\u05ea \u05db\u05dc \u05d4\u05de\u05e6\u05d5\u05d4 \u05d4\u05d6\u05d0\u05ea \u05dc\u05e4\u05e0\u05d9 \u05d4\u05f3 \u05d0\u05dc\u05d4\u05d9\u05e0\u05d5 \u05db\u05d0\u05e9\u05e8 \u05e6\u05d5\u05e0\u05d5\n\u05c3\n\n\u201cAnd it shall be our _righteousness_ (not our almsgiving), if we observe\nto do all these commandments before the Lord our God as he hath\ncommanded us.\u201d (Deut. vi. 25.) Here \u05e6\u05d3\u05e7\u05d4 cannot possibly signify\nalmsgiving. And again,\n\n\u05d5\u05d4\u05d0\u05de\u05d9\u05df \u05d1\u05d4\u05f3 \u05d5\u05d9\u05d7\u05e9\u05d1\u05d4 \u05dc\u05d5 \u05e6\u05d3\u05e7\u05d4 \u05c3\n\n\u201cAnd he believed in the Lord; and he counted it to him for righteousness\n(not for almsgiving).\u201d (Gen. xv. 6.) And again,\n\n\u05dc\u05da \u05d0\u05d3\u05e0\u05d9 \u05d4\u05e6\u05d3\u05e7\u05d4 \u05d5\u05dc\u05e0\u05d5 \u05d1\u05d5\u05e9\u05ea \u05d4\u05e4\u05e0\u05d9\u05dd \u05c3\n\n\u201cO Lord, righteousness belongeth unto thee, but unto us confusion of\nface\u201d (Dan. ix. 7), where it is impossible to say that \u201cAlmsgiving\nbelongeth unto the Lord.\u201d The oral law is therefore guilty of perverting\nthe meaning of one of the plainest and most commonly repeated words in\nthe Bible, and of course of thereby giving an erroneous sense to the\npassage where it occurs. Thus it says, as we have seen above, \u201cthat by\nalmsgiving the throne of Israel is established and the law of truth\nstandeth,\u201d and it proves this assertion by referring to a verse of\nIsaiah, where the word \u05e6\u05d3\u05e7\u05d4 occurs, and which signifies \u201cby\nrighteousness shalt thou be established,\u201d but which it perverts to mean\n\u201cby almsgiving thou shalt be established.\u201d Here then the oral law is\nplainly convicted of falsifying the Word of God, and perverting its\nmeaning in order to serve its own purposes and favour its own false\ndoctrine. To teach false doctrine is bad enough, but to pervert the\nplain sense of Scripture is a great deal worse. Either charge, if\nproved, would be sufficient to prove that the oral law is a false\nreligion, but here both charges are proved together. The oral law here\nteaches that almsgiving can do that which it cannot do, namely, bribe\nGod to have mercy; and it supports its false doctrine by interpreting\n\u05e6\u05d3\u05e7\u05d4 to signify \u201calmsgiving,\u201d whereas it plainly signifies\n\u201crighteousness.\u201d A religion guilty of such error cannot be from God. It\nis for the Jews, then, to consider whether they will persist in\nupholding the truth of a system which opposes the doctrines of Moses and\nthe prophets, and perverts the Word of God. The great boast of the Jews\nis, that they are faithful to Moses and to the religion of Moses: but\nthis boast is vain so long as they profess Judaism. If Moses were to\nrise from the dead, and get the oral law into his hands, he would not be\nable to recognise it as the religion which he left to Israel. And, as to\nthe commands about almsgiving, he would not be able even to translate\nthem, for in his time \u05e6\u05d3\u05e7\u05d4 signified righteousness.\n\nThe prophet Isaiah would feel equal astonishment if he were to return\nand learn, that the oral law quoted him as an authority for the\nassertion, that Zion is to be redeemed, not with righteousness, but with\nalmsgiving. And we doubt not that both Moses and Isaiah would protest as\nearnestly as we do against a doctrine based upon perversion. But it is\nextraordinary, if the Rabbinists really believe their own doctrine, that\nIsrael can be delivered from captivity by almsgiving, that they should\nset any bounds to their liberality, or ever stop giving, until the\ndesired redemption be effected. If their doctrine be true, then all that\nthey so earnestly pray for, is entirely in their own power. They know\nthe means, and they possess the means of terminating this long\ncaptivity. They need only to give a sufficiency of alms, and, according\nto the oral law, even Zion itself shall be delivered. How extraordinary\nthen, that they should have suffered so many centuries of misery to pass\nover their heads, and left their brethren to endure such calamities,\nwhen liberality in almsgiving could have put a period to all their\nsorrows. We think too highly of Israel\u2019s charity to suppose for a moment\nthat they would hesitate to make the sacrifice, if they were persuaded\nof its efficacy. We must therefore infer, that they do not believe in\nthe doctrine, and ask them, why do they profess a religion in which they\ndo not believe?\n\nFootnote 34:\n\n  Literally, \u201ca stranger.\u201d\n\n\n\n\n                                No. XL.\n                          PRIESTS AND LEVITES.\n\n\nThe great test of a man\u2019s faith in, and love to, his religion is his\npractice. If a man live in open and perpetual transgression of its\ncommands, no profession can satisfy us that he is in earnest, or that he\nreally believes what his creed confesses. Now let the advocates of the\noral law examine themselves by this test. They profess to believe in,\nand to love the law of Moses; and their great boast is, that Moses is\ntheir master, and that they are his disciples, but do they prove the\nreality of their faith by their obedience? They sometimes tax Christians\nwith inconsistency in professing to believe in Moses, and yet in\nneglecting the observance of certain ceremonial observances; but are\nthey themselves more careful and less guilty in this matter? We do not\nmean to allude to the weightier matters of the law, love to God and man:\nthat is a question for the conscience, not a subject for controversy,\nbut we refer to some mere external matters, easy of observance, and open\nto the cognisance of every man. Moses and the prophets have commanded\nthat the priests, the Levites, \u05d4\u05db\u05d4\u05e0\u05d9\u05dd \u05d4\u05dc\u05d5\u05d9\u05dd, should be the teachers of\nthe law, and that from them the people should learn. Moses does not say\none word about rabbies or wise men, \u05d7\u05db\u05de\u05d9\u05dd, but restricts the office of\nteaching to the priests, the Levites: now, do the modern Jews obey Moses\nin this respect? Who are their teachers of religion, and from whom do\nthey learn? Are the priests and the Levites the teachers of Israel, as\nMoses commanded, or are they taught by their rabbies and Chachamim, of\nwhom Moses does not say one syllable?\n\nWe assert, that Moses has commanded that the priests, the Levites,\nshould be the religious teachers in Israel, and in proof we refer to the\nwords of Moses himself. In the tenth chapter of \u05d5\u05d9\u05e7\u05e8\u05d0, Leviticus, he\nthus writes:\u2014\n\n\u05d5\u05d9\u05d3\u05d1\u05e8 \u05d4\u05f3 \u05d0\u05dc \u05d0\u05d7\u05e8\u05df \u05dc\u05d0\u05de\u05e8 . \u05d9\u05d9\u05df \u05d5\u05e9\u05db\u05e8 \u05d0\u05dc \u05ea\u05e9\u05ea \u05d0\u05ea\u05d4 \u05d5\u05d1\u05e0\u05d9\u05da \u05d0\u05ea\u05da \u05d1\u05d1\u05d0\u05db\u05dd \u05d0\u05dc \u05d0\u05d4\u05dc \u05de\u05d5\u05e2\u05d3\n\u05d5\u05dc\u05d0 \u05ea\u05de\u05d5\u05ea\u05d5 \u05d7\u05e7\u05d4 \u05e2\u05d5\u05dc\u05dd \u05dc\u05d3\u05d5\u05e8\u05d5\u05ea\u05d9\u05db\u05dd . \u05d5\u05dc\u05d4\u05d1\u05d3\u05d9\u05dc \u05d1\u05d9\u05df \u05d4\u05e7\u05d5\u05d3\u05e9 \u05d5\u05d1\u05d9\u05df \u05d4\u05d4\u05d5\u05dc \u05d5\u05d1\u05d9\u05df \u05d4\u05d8\u05de\u05d0\n\u05d5\u05d1\u05d9\u05df \u05d4\u05d8\u05d4\u05d5\u05e8 . \u05d5\u05dc\u05d4\u05d5\u05e8\u05d5\u05ea \u05d0\u05ea \u05d1\u05e0\u05d9 \u05d5\u05e9\u05e8\u05d0\u05dc \u05d0\u05ea \u05db\u05dc \u05d4\u05d7\u05e7\u05d9\u05dd \u05d0\u05e9\u05e8 \u05d3\u05d1\u05e8 \u05d4\u05f3 \u05d0\u05dc\u05d9\u05d4\u05dd \u05d1\u05d9\u05d3 \u05de\u05e9\u05d4 \u05c3\n\n\u201cAnd the Lord spake unto Aaron, saying, Do not drink wine nor strong\ndrink, thou nor thy sons with thee, when ye go into the tabernacle of\nthe congregation, lest ye die: it shall be a statute for ever throughout\nyour generations: and that ye may put difference between holy and\nunholy, and between unclean and clean; and that ye may teach the\nchildren of Israel all the statutes which the Lord hath spoken unto them\nby the hand of Moses.\u201d Here the nature of the priest\u2019s office is clearly\ndefined. It is, in the first place, to go into the tabernacle of the\ncongregation, and there to serve before the Lord: and secondly to\ninstruct the children of Israel in the difference between holy and\nprofane, clean and unclean, and especially to teach the children of\nIsrael \u201cALL THE STATUTES,\u201d which the Lord had given to Moses. The\ncommission is not only very comprehensive, but very exclusive. If the\npriests were to teach \u201call the statutes,\u201d there is no room left for\nrabbies, or Chachamim, or any other description of teacher, the priests\nare the only divinely-accredited religious teachers in Israel.\n\nIf this passage stood alone, it would be quite sufficient to establish\nthe doctrine; but it does not. Moses was particularly anxious to impress\nupon the Israelites the nature of the priestly office, and therefore\nrepeats the instruction again and again. Thus in the law respecting a\ndead body found lying in a field, after commanding that the elders and\njudges should come forth, he adds\u2014\n\n\u05d5\u05e0\u05d2\u05e9\u05d5 \u05d4\u05db\u05d4\u05e0\u05d9\u05dd \u05d1\u05e0\u05d9 \u05dc\u05d5\u05d9 \u05db\u05d9 \u05d1\u05dd \u05d1\u05d7\u05e8 \u05d4\u05f3 \u05d0\u05dc\u05d4\u05d9\u05da \u05dc\u05e9\u05e8\u05ea\u05d5 \u05d5\u05dc\u05d1\u05e8\u05da \u05d1\u05e9\u05dd \u05d4\u05f3 \u05d5\u05e2\u05dc \u05e4\u05d9\u05d4\u05dd \u05d9\u05d4\u05d9\u05d4\n\u05db\u05dc \u05e8\u05d9\u05d1 \u05d5\u05db\u05dc \u05e0\u05e0\u05e2 \u05c3\n\n\u201cAnd the priests, the sons of Levi, shall come near: for them the Lord\nthy God hath chosen to minister unto him, and to bless in the name of\nthe Lord: and by their word shall every controversy and every stroke be\ntried.\u201d (Deut. xxi. 5.) One should have thought that the elders and\njudges were enough in such a case. But not so. God had determined that\nthe priests were to teach Israel \u201call his statutes,\u201d and therefore\ncommands that they should be present in this case, that they should give\nthe decision.\n\nAgain, when Moses was about to part from Israel, and to leave them his\ndying benediction, he was directed by the spirit of prophecy to impress\nupon them the same great truth, and in the most solemn manner:\u2014\n\n\u05d5\u05dc\u05dc\u05d5\u05d9 \u05d0\u05de\u05e8 \u05ea\u05de\u05d9\u05da \u05d5\u05d0\u05d5\u05e8\u05d9\u05da \u05dc\u05d0\u05d9\u05e9 \u05d7\u05e1\u05d9\u05d3\u05da \u05d0\u05e9\u05e8 \u05e0\u05e1\u05d9\u05ea\u05d5 \u05d1\u05de\u05e1\u05d4 \u05ea\u05e8\u05d9\u05d1\u05d4\u05d5 \u05e2\u05dc \u05de\u05d9 \u05de\u05e8\u05d9\u05d1\u05d4 ,\n\u05d4\u05d0\u05d5\u05de\u05e8 \u05dc\u05d0\u05d1\u05d9\u05d5 \u05d5\u05dc\u05d0\u05de\u05d5 \u05dc\u05d0 \u05e8\u05d0\u05d9\u05ea\u05d9\u05d5 \u05d5\u05d0\u05ea \u05d0\u05d7\u05d9\u05d5 \u05dc\u05d0 \u05d4\u05db\u05d9\u05d5 \u05d5\u05d0\u05ea \u05d1\u05e0\u05d9\u05d5 \u05dc\u05d0 \u05d9\u05d3\u05e2 \u05db\u05d9 \u05e9\u05de\u05e8\u05d5\n\u05d0\u05de\u05e8\u05ea\u05da \u05d5\u05d1\u05e8\u05d9\u05ea\u05da \u05d9\u05e0\u05e6\u05e8\u05d5 . \u05d9\u05d5\u05e8\u05d5 \u05de\u05e9\u05e4\u05d8\u05d9\u05da \u05dc\u05d9\u05e2\u05e7\u05d1 \u05ea\u05d5\u05e8\u05ea\u05da \u05dc\u05d9\u05e9\u05e8\u05d0\u05dc \u05d5\u05d2\u05d5\u05f3 \u05c3\n\n\u201cAnd of Levi he said, Let thy Thummim and thy Urim be with thy Holy One,\nwhom thou didst prove at Massah, and with whom thou didst strive at the\nwaters of Meribah: who said unto his father and mother, I have not seen\nhim; neither did he acknowledge his brethren, nor knew his own children:\nfor they have observed thy word, and kept thy covenant. _They shall\nteach Jacob thy judgments, and Israel thy law._\u201d (Deut. xxxiii. 8-10.)\nAnd as this doctrine forms a part of Moses\u2019 last words, so also it is\nfound in the last prophetic message which God vouchsafed to Israel.\nMalachi, the last of the prophets, reminds Israel\u2014\n\n\u05db\u05d9 \u05e9\u05e4\u05ea\u05d9 \u05db\u05d4\u05df \u05d9\u05e9\u05de\u05e8\u05d5 \u05d3\u05e2\u05ea \u05d5\u05ea\u05d5\u05e8\u05d4 \u05d9\u05d1\u05e7\u05e9\u05d5 \u05de\u05e4\u05d9\u05d4\u05d5 \u05db\u05d9 \u05de\u05dc\u05d0\u05da \u05d4\u05f3 \u05e6\u05d1\u05d0\u05d5\u05ea \u05d4\u05d5\u05d0 \u05c3\n\n\u201cThat the priest\u2019s lips should keep knowledge, and they should seek the\nlaw at his mouth: for he is the messenger of the Lord of hosts\u201d (Mal.\nii. 7): so that if there be any one thing more plain than another in the\nOld Testament it is this, that the sons of Levi are the\ndivinely-appointed religious teachers of Israel, and that it is the duty\nof all Israelites to seek instruction from them.\n\nIt cannot be said that the priests are not now well known, and that on\nthis account these commands have lost their force; for those who believe\nin the oral law, profess to know the family of Levi, and in the\nsynagogue, at the reading of the law, the priest and the Levite are\ncalled up in a certain order:\n\n\u05d1\u05db\u05dc \u05e7\u05e8\u05d9\u05d0\u05d4 \u05d5\u05e7\u05e8\u05d9\u05d0\u05d4 \u05de\u05d0\u05dc\u05d5 \u05db\u05d4\u05df \u05e7\u05d5\u05e8\u05d0 \u05e8\u05d0\u05e9\u05d5\u05df \u05d5\u05d0\u05d7\u05e8\u05d9\u05d5 \u05dc\u05d5\u05d9 \u05d5\u05d0\u05d7\u05e8\u05d9\u05d5 \u05d9\u05e9\u05e8\u05d0\u05dc , \u05d5\u05de\u05e0\u05d4\u05d2\n\u05e4\u05e9\u05d5\u05d8 \u05d4\u05d5\u05d0 \u05d4\u05d9\u05d5\u05dd \u05d1\u05d9\u05e9\u05e8\u05d0\u05dc \u05e9\u05d0\u05e4\u05d9\u05dc\u05d5 \u05db\u05d4\u05df \u05e2\u05dd \u05d4\u05d0\u05e8\u05e5 \u05e7\u05d5\u05d3\u05dd \u05dc\u05e7\u05e8\u05d5\u05ea \u05dc\u05e4\u05e0\u05d9 \u05d7\u05db\u05dd \u05d2\u05d3\u05d5\u05dc \u05d9\u05e9\u05e8\u05d0\u05dc \u05c3\n\n\u201cAt every time of reading the priest reads first, and after him the\nLevite, and after him the Israelite. And the simple custom of the\npresent time is, that a priest, even though he be an unlearned man\n(amhaaretz), takes precedence in reading before the most learned, who is\nonly an Israelite.\u201d (Hilchoth T\u2019phillah, c. xii. 18.) And as the priests\nare thus supposed to be known, so the oral law expressly maintains that\nthey still retain their priestly office, and are bound to discharge the\nduties of it, so far as is possible, in the captivity: and therefore\nrequires them to bless the people as Moses commanded. Indeed the firm\nconviction of the Talmudists on this subject is strikingly exhibited in\ntheir assertion, that a priest, although unlearned, or even notoriously\nwicked, is still not exempted from his obligation to perform this duty:\u2014\n\n\u05db\u05d4\u05df \u05e9\u05dc\u05d0 \u05d4\u05d9\u05d4 \u05dc\u05d5 \u05d3\u05d1\u05e8 \u05de\u05db\u05dc \u05d0\u05dc\u05d4 \u05d4\u05de\u05d5\u05e0\u05e2\u05d9\u05df \u05e0\u05e9\u05d9\u05d0\u05ea \u05db\u05e4\u05d9\u05dd \u05d0\u05e2\u05f3\u05f3\u05e4 \u05e9\u05d0\u05d9\u05e0\u05d5 \u05d7\u05db\u05dd \u05d5\u05d0\u05d9\u05e0\u05d5\n\u05de\u05d3\u05e7\u05d3\u05e7 \u05d1\u05de\u05e6\u05d5\u05d5\u05ea \u05d0\u05d5 \u05e9\u05d4\u05d9\u05d4 \u05d7\u05d1\u05e8\u05d9\u05d5 \u05de\u05e8\u05e0\u05e0\u05d9\u05dd \u05d0\u05d7\u05e8\u05d9\u05d5 \u05d0\u05d5 \u05e9\u05dc\u05d0 \u05d4\u05d9\u05d4 \u05de\u05e9\u05d0\u05d5 \u05d5\u05de\u05ea\u05e0\u05d5 \u05d1\u05e6\u05d3\u05e7 \u05d4\u05e8\u05d9\n\u05d6\u05d4 \u05e0\u05d5\u05e9\u05d0 \u05d0\u05ea \u05db\u05e4\u05d9\u05d5 \u05d5\u05d0\u05d9\u05df \u05de\u05d5\u05e0\u05d0\u05d9\u05df \u05d0\u05d5\u05ea\u05d5 , \u05dc\u05e4\u05d9 \u05e9\u05d6\u05d5 \u05de\u05e6\u05d5\u05ea \u05e2\u05e9\u05d4 \u05e2\u05dc \u05db\u05dc \u05db\u05d4\u05df \u05d5\u05db\u05d4\u05df \u05e9\u05e8\u05d0\u05d5\u05d9\n\u05dc\u05e0\u05e9\u05d9\u05d0\u05ea \u05db\u05e4\u05d9\u05dd \u05d5\u05d0\u05d9\u05df \u05d0\u05d5\u05de\u05e8\u05d9\u05dd \u05dc\u05d0\u05d3\u05dd \u05e8\u05e9\u05e2 \u05d4\u05d5\u05e1\u05e3 \u05e8\u05e9\u05e2 \u05d5\u05d4\u05de\u05e0\u05e2 \u05de\u05df \u05d4\u05de\u05e6\u05d5\u05d5\u05ea , \u05d5\u05d0\u05dc \u05ea\u05ea\u05de\u05d4\n\u05d5\u05ea\u05d0\u05de\u05e8 \u05de\u05d4 \u05ea\u05d5\u05e2\u05d9\u05dc \u05d1\u05e8\u05db\u05ea \u05d4\u05d3\u05d9\u05d5\u05d8 \u05d6\u05d4 , \u05e9\u05d0\u05d9\u05df \u05e7\u05d1\u05d5\u05dc \u05d4\u05d1\u05e8\u05db\u05d4 \u05ea\u05dc\u05d5\u05d9 \u05d1\u05db\u05d4\u05e0\u05d9\u05dd \u05d0\u05dc\u05d0 \u05d1\u05d4\u05e7\u05d1\u05f3\u05f3\u05d4\n\u05e9\u05e0\u05d0\u05de\u05e8 \u05d5\u05e9\u05de\u05d5 \u05d0\u05ea \u05e9\u05de\u05d9 \u05e2\u05dc \u05d1\u05e0\u05d9 \u05d5\u05e9\u05e8\u05d0\u05dc \u05d5\u05d0\u05e0\u05d9 \u05d0\u05d1\u05e8\u05db\u05dd , \u05d4\u05db\u05d4\u05e0\u05d9\u05dd \u05e2\u05d5\u05e9\u05d9\u05dd \u05de\u05e6\u05d5\u05d4 \u05e9\u05e0\u05e6\u05d8\u05d5\u05d5 \u05d1\u05d4\n\u05d5\u05d4\u05e7\u05d1\u05f3\u05f3\u05d4 \u05d1\u05e8\u05d7\u05de\u05d9\u05d5 \u05de\u05d1\u05e8\u05da \u05d0\u05ea \u05d9\u05e9\u05e8\u05d0\u05dc \u05db\u05d7\u05e4\u05e6\u05d5 \u05c3\n\n\u201cA priest who has none of these disqualifications for the lifting up of\nhands, even though he be not learned, nor accurate in the commandments;\nand although his companions make a mock of him, or his dealings should\nnot be righteous, still he is to lift up his hands [to bless], and is\nnot to be prevented, for this is an affirmative precept binding upon\nevery priest, who is otherwise qualified; and we must not say to a\nwicked man, Away, thou wicked man, be thou disqualified from keeping the\ncommandments. Do not ask, saying, What profit can there be in the\nblessing of this simple fellow? for the receiving of the blessing does\nnot depend upon the priests, but upon the Holy One, blessed be He, for\nit is said, \u2018They shall put my name upon the children of Israel, and I\nwill bless them.\u2019 The priests perform the duty commanded them, and God,\nin his mercy, blesses Israel according to his pleasure.\u201d (Ibid. c. xv.\n6.) The existence, then, of the priests, and their continued obligation\nto perform such official duties as are now possible, are fully\nacknowledged, yea, it is even asserted that a wicked priest is by no\nmeans to be prevented from doing his duty: it has also been plainly\nproved, from the words of Moses and the prophets, that it is the duty of\nthe priests to teach, and of the Israelites to be taught by them: and no\nman can deny that the performance of this duty is possible. The\ndestruction of the temple has prevented the priest from sacrificing, but\nit has made no difference with regard to the possibility of teaching: it\nis, therefore, a fair question to propose, to those who boast in their\nobedience to the law of Moses, _How is this Mosaic command respecting\nthe teaching of the law fulfilled?_ Are the priests, the Levites, the\nreligious teachers in all Jewish congregations? or have they been\nexcluded from the office assigned to them by Moses? and is it occupied\nby others to whom Moses did not give it? Every Jew must answer that this\ncommand of Moses is utterly disregarded\u2014that the office of the\npriesthood, as established by Moses, has now scarcely the shadow of an\nexistence amongst the Jews\u2014that the rabbies, Chachamim, and the\nMelamm\u2019dim are universally the religious teachers\u2014and that hundreds, if\nnot thousands, of the priests are left in utter obscurity, and not a few\nin destitution. Jeremiah complained of the heathen\u2014\n\n\u05e4\u05e0\u05d9 \u05db\u05d4\u05e0\u05d9\u05dd \u05dc\u05d0 \u05e0\u05e9\u05d0\u05d5 \u05c3\n\n\u201cThey respected not the persons of the priests\u201d (Lam. iv. 16); but it is\nequally applicable to the adherents of the oral law. Here and there a\nson of Levi may be a rabbi, and then he has the honour attached to the\nrabbinical office; but the Mosaic institution of the priesthood, as the\nappointed order of religious, teachers to Israel is utterly disregarded.\nMoses declares, as we have seen above, that it is the priest\u2019s office\n\u201cto distinguish between holy and unholy, and between clean and unclean;\u201d\nbut if a Jew has got a \u05e9\u05d0\u05dc\u05d4, a question or a difficulty, it is to the\nrabbi that he goes to get the decision. Moses says that the priests are\nappointed by God \u201cto teach Israel all the statutes which the Lord hath\nspoken to them;\u201d but now men are made rabbies and Melamm\u2019dim who do not\npretend to be of the family of Levi: and there are congregations even\nwhere there is no Levite nor priest at all, and where, therefore, this\ncommand is utterly despised. But the worst feature in this disobedience\nis, that it is systematic. It is not one of the casualties of the\ncaptivity, but it is the deliberate aim of the oral law to degrade the\npriesthood, as established by Moses, and to set up above it another\noffice, that of rabbi, of which Moses does not say one word. The oral\nlaw, instead of deprecating the possibility of an Israelite congregation\nexisting without a priest a son of Levi, quietly layeth down the law for\ndoing without them. When prescribing the order in which persons are to\nbe called up to the reading of the law, it says\u2014\n\n\u05d0\u05d9\u05df \u05e9\u05dd \u05db\u05d4\u05df \u05e2\u05d5\u05dc\u05d4 \u05d9\u05e9\u05e8\u05d0\u05dc \u05d5\u05dc\u05d0 \u05d9\u05e2\u05dc\u05d4 \u05d0\u05d7\u05e8\u05d9\u05d5 \u05dc\u05d5\u05d9 \u05db\u05dc\u05dc \u05c3\n\n\u201cIf there be no priest there, then an Israelite is to go up, but no\nLevite is to follow him.\u201d (Ibid., c. xii. 19.) And again,\n\n\u05d5\u05d0\u05dd \u05d0\u05d9\u05df \u05dc\u05d4\u05dd \u05db\u05d4\u05df \u05db\u05dc\u05dc \u05db\u05e9\u05d9\u05d2\u05d9\u05e2 \u05e9\u05dc\u05d9\u05d7 \u05e6\u05d1\u05d5\u05e8 \u05dc\u05e9\u05d9\u05dd \u05e9\u05dc\u05d5\u05dd \u05d5\u05db\u05d5\u05f3 \u05c3\n\n\u201cBut if the congregation has no priest at all, when the reader comes to\nthat part of the prayers he is to say,\u201d &c. (Ibid., c. xv. 10.) Now if\nthe oral law were anxious to maintain the institution of Moses it could\nmake no such supposition. On the contrary it would urge upon every\ncongregation the indispensable necessity of having a priest or the\nfamily of Levi. The supposition shows that its authors cared but little\nabout the commands of Moses, for where there is no priest it is plainly\nimpossible for the people to obey that often-repeated precept to learn\nthe law from the sons of Levi. And yet the authors of the oral law, who\ncare so little for this commandment of Moses about the priests, command\nthe appointment of Melamm\u2019dim, or schoolmasters, wider pain of utter\ndestruction\u2014\n\n\u05de\u05d5\u05e9\u05d9\u05d1\u05d9\u05df \u05de\u05dc\u05de\u05d3\u05d9 \u05ea\u05d9\u05e0\u05d5\u05e7\u05d5\u05ea \u05d1\u05db\u05dc \u05de\u05d3\u05d9\u05e0\u05d4 \u05d5\u05de\u05d3\u05d9\u05e0\u05d4 \u05d5\u05d1\u05db\u05dc \u05e4\u05dc\u05da \u05d5\u05e4\u05dc\u05da \u05d5\u05d1\u05db\u05dc \u05e2\u05d9\u05e8 \u05d5\u05e2\u05d9\u05e8 , \u05d5\u05db\u05dc\n\u05e2\u05d9\u05e8 \u05e9\u05d0\u05d9\u05df \u05d1\u05d4 \u05ea\u05d9\u05e0\u05d5\u05e7\u05d5\u05ea \u05e9\u05dc \u05d1\u05d9\u05ea \u05e8\u05d1\u05df \u05de\u05d7\u05e8\u05d9\u05de\u05d9\u05df \u05d0\u05ea \u05d0\u05e0\u05e9\u05d9 \u05d4\u05e2\u05d9\u05e8 \u05d9\u05d3 \u05e9\u05de\u05d5\u05e9\u05d9\u05d1\u05d9\u05df \u05de\u05dc\u05de\u05d3\u05d9\n\u05ea\u05d9\u05e0\u05d5\u05e7\u05d5\u05ea \u05d5\u05d0\u05dd \u05e2\u05d5\u05d3 \u05dc\u05d0 \u05d4\u05d5\u05e9\u05d9\u05d1\u05d5 \u05de\u05d7\u05e8\u05d9\u05de\u05d9\u05df \u05d0\u05ea \u05d4\u05e6\u05d9\u05e8 \u05c3\n\n\u201cTeachers of children are to be established in every province and\ndistrict and city. And every city in which there are not school children\nthe men of that city are to be visited with the Cherem, and if they\nstill neglect, the city itself is to be devoted.\u201d (Hilch. Talm. Torah,\nc. ii.) When we see them enforce this commandment of their own with such\nzeal and severity, and yet appear so careless and negligent about the\ncommandment of Moses, we justly infer that this neglect was intentional,\nand that the object was to exalt themselves, and to depress that office\nwhich God himself had ordained, And this inference is abundantly\nconfirmed by \u05d4\u05dc\u05db\u05d5\u05ea \u05db\u05d1\u05d5\u05d3 \u05e8\u05d1\u05d5, the numerous and minute laws respecting the\nhonour due to a rabbi, whilst the respect due to the family of Levi is\nalmost entirely disregarded, and his office evidently depreciated below\nthat of the former. As, for instance, in establishing the order in which\ncaptives are to be redeemed, the oral law says the priest is to be\nredeemed before the Levite, and the Levite before the Israelite, but\nthen adds\u2014\n\n\u05d1\u05de\u05d4 \u05d3\u05d1\u05e8\u05d9\u05dd \u05d0\u05de\u05d5\u05e8\u05d9\u05dd \u05db\u05e9\u05d4\u05d9\u05d5 \u05e9\u05e0\u05d9\u05d4\u05dd \u05e9\u05d5\u05d9\u05df \u05d1\u05d7\u05db\u05de\u05d4 , \u05d0\u05d1\u05dc \u05d0\u05dd \u05d4\u05d9\u05d4 \u05db\u05d4\u05df \u05d2\u05d3\u05d5\u05dc \u05e2\u05dd \u05d4\u05d0\u05e8\u05e5\n\u05d5\u05de\u05de\u05d6\u05e8 \u05ea\u05dc\u05de\u05d9\u05d3 \u05d7\u05db\u05dd \u05ea\u05dc\u05de\u05d9\u05d3 \u05d7\u05db\u05dd \u05e7\u05d5\u05d3\u05dd \u05c3\n\n\u201cIn what case does this hold good? In case that they were both equal in\nwisdom. But if the high priest be an unlearned man, and an illegitimate\nchild be the disciple of a wise man (chacham), the latter is to have the\nprecedence.\u201d (Hilchoth Matt\u2019noth Aniim, c. viii. 17.) Here the office of\nthe priesthood and even of the high priesthood itself is put below that\nof the rabbi or chacham, and the intention of the Rabbinists to exalt\nthemselves, and their utter disregard for the law of Moses and his\ncommandments, is especially apparent. The high priest was the chief\nperson in the whole Mosaic dispensation. Without him the blood of the\noffering could not be carried into the holy of holies on the Day of\nAtonement, and yet the oral law says, that if he and an illegitimate\nchild, that is, the least honoured person in Israel, be both in\ncaptivity, and the latter be the disciple of a rabbi, he is to be\nredeemed first. It is needless to add any further proof of the fact that\nthe command of Moses, respecting the family of Levi, is systematically\nand intentionally transgressed by the authors and adherents of the oral\nlaw. The priests, the Levites, have been thrust out of that office which\nGod gave them, and others have been made the religious teachers of\nIsrael who have no right at all to this appointment. How then can the\nmodern Jews pretend to be zealous for the law of Moses? They are living\nin plain and systematic violation of one of his plainest commands. It\nwill not do to say that the office of rabbi is also of divine\nappointment. An assertion which nullities a Mosaic institution must have\nthe most unexceptionable evidence. Its proof must be at least as clear\nas the original appointment. To persuade any real lover of the Mosaic\nlaw that the rabbies have a right to thrust out the family of Levi from\ntheir office, and to take it upon themselves, the express declaration of\nGod is absolutely necessary. And if the rabbies could prove, which they\ncannot, that they are the lawful teachers of Israel, it would\nnecessarily follow that the Mosaic law has been changed, and then one of\nthe chief dogmas of modern Judaism, the immutability of the Mosaic law,\nis entirely overthrown. When Moses gave the law the priests were the\nreligious teachers of Israel. Since the dominion of the oral law, not\nthe priests, but the rabbies have been the teachers. Here then is an\nimportant, yea, an organic change in the Mosaic constitution. This\nchange then is either unlawful or lawful. If it be unlawful, then the\nrabbies have no right to be the teachers of Israel. If it be lawful,\nthen to change and alter the Mosaic law is lawful, and then modern\nJudaism, which teaches that there can be no change, is false. This is\nthe only alternative which modern Jews can adopt,\u2014they must either\nmaintain the immutability of the law at the expense of the rabbinic\noffice, or they must assert the legitimacy of the rabbinic office at the\nexpense of the law. In either case the oral law is convicted of teaching\nfalsehood; and in neither case can the modern Jews make a boast of\nloyalty to the law of Moses. They charge Christians with disregarding\nand transgressing the Mosaic law, but let them point out, even in the\npractice of Gentile Christians, any one apparent transgression more\nheinous than the expulsion of the family of Levi from the office to\nwhich Moses appointed them. The fact is notorious. This family is every\nwhere neglected and in obscurity, struggling with the cares and business\nof the world, instead of occupying the station given to them by Moses.\nLet all the lovers of modern Judaism consider this fact, and then ask\nthemselves how they can pretend to be keeping the law of Moses? Let them\nremember that they have themselves made a change in the law by\nappointing rabbies instead of the priests, and that, if they defend this\nchange, they teach the very same doctrine which they blame in Gentile\nChristians, namely, the mutability and abrogation of the Mosaic law. Of\ncourse we do not mean to dictate to Israel in this matter. If they are\nconscientiously persuaded that the institutions of Moses have been\nabrogated, they can then consistently maintain the appointment of\nrabbies, but let them give up their common, though mistaken, argument\nagainst Christianity. But if they believe what they so commonly profess,\nthat the law of Moses is not, and cannot be abrogated, then let them act\nconsistently, renounce the oral law, and restore the family of Levi to\nthe office from which modern Judaism has excluded them for so many\ncenturies. To follow the oral law, and at the same time to obey the\nwritten law of Moses in this matter, is plainly impossible. The oral law\nis for the rabbies and the Chachamim\u2014the words of Moses are for the\nfamily of Levi. The Jews may, and of course will, choose as they think\nbest; but, if they determine upon maintaining the rabbinical system, let\nthem not pretend to be followers of Moses. Let them honestly confess\nthat they do not like Moses and his laws, and that they prefer the new\nand modern religion of the rabbies. The subject is important to all\nIsrael, but especially so to the sons of Levi themselves. God gave them\nthe important charge of instructing the house of Israel in his laws, are\nthey then at liberty to resign their sacred office into the hands of\nothers? Has God dispensed them from obedience to his command? If so,\nwhat obligation rests upon them to bless the people? By lifting up their\nhands and blessing the people, they confess that their office still\ncontinues; and, if so, the obligation to perform all its duties\ncontinues also. Either the law of Moses is abrogated, or the priests are\nstill the appointed religious teachers of Israel.\n\nThe priests have the some alternative as the people, i.e., either to\nassert the rights and perform the duties of their priestly office, or\nhonestly to acknowledge that they do not believe in Moses, nor care for\nhis religion, but that their religion is that of the rabbies. The\nresponsibility is however much heavier on the family of Levi than on\nIsraelites of another tribe. To the sons of Levi, God committed the\nhonourable office of instructing Israel. They have been set as the\nwatchmen in Israel, and are therefore answerable, not only for their own\nneglect, but for the error and destruction of the people. It is then\nhigh time for them to remember their duty and the zeal of their\nforefathers in extirpating error, and to show themselves worthy of their\nhigh origin, and of their divine appointment, by opposing the errors of\nthe oral law.\n\n\n\n\n                                No. XLI.\n                      RABBINIC IDEAS OF THE DEITY.\n\n\nIt is an indisputable fact, that the modern Jews have entirely cast off\nthe laws of Moses respecting the priests of the family of Levi, and have\nchosen and appointed to themselves other teachers, of whom Moses says\nnothing. What the cause was of such extraordinary conduct in those who\nprofess a great zeal for the law of Moses, we do not now profess to\ninquire; but we think that every Jew ought to have a very good reason\nfor thus wilfully, systematically, and continually transgressing the\ncommandments of God. He ought, at the very least, to be able to show\nthat the doctrines of these new teachers are far superior to those of\nthe religious teachers appointed by Moses; and that the superabundant\nexcellence and wisdom of rabbinic teaching does, at least, justify the\nchange which they have made in the Mosaic law. We have had occasion in\nthese papers to consider the nature of the new doctrine chosen instead\nof the law of Moses, and to us it certainly appears that \u201cThe Old Paths\u201d\nwere better. To-day we propose to illustrate the rabbinic notions of the\nDeity, and do not intend by any means to select the most objectionable\nrepresentations contained in the rabbinical writings, but shall confine\nourselves to a few well-known passages, which are intended to explain to\nus the mode in which God spends his time. Concerning the day, the\nrabbies say that it is spent in the following manner:\u2014\n\n\u05e9\u05ea\u05d9\u05dd \u05e2\u05e9\u05e8\u05d4 \u05e9\u05e2\u05d5\u05ea \u05d4\u05d5\u05d9 \u05d4\u05d9\u05d5\u05dd , \u05e9\u05dc\u05e9 \u05d4\u05e8\u05d0\u05e9\u05d5\u05e0\u05d5\u05ea \u05d4\u05e7\u05d1\u05f3\u05f3\u05d4 \u05d9\u05d5\u05e9\u05d1 \u05d5\u05e2\u05d5\u05e1\u05e7 \u05d1\u05ea\u05d5\u05e8\u05d4 , \u05e9\u05e0\u05d9\u05d5\u05ea\n\u05d9\u05d5\u05e9\u05d1 \u05d5\u05d3\u05df \u05d0\u05ea \u05db\u05dc \u05d4\u05e2\u05d5\u05dc\u05dd \u05db\u05d5\u05dc\u05d5 , \u05db\u05d9\u05d5\u05df \u05e9\u05e8\u05d5\u05d0\u05d4 \u05e9\u05e0\u05ea\u05d7\u05d9\u05d9\u05d1 \u05d4\u05e2\u05d5\u05dc\u05dd \u05db\u05dc\u05d9\u05d4 , \u05e2\u05d5\u05de\u05d3 \u05de\u05db\u05e1\u05d0\n\u05d4\u05d3\u05d9\u05df \u05d5\u05d9\u05d5\u05e9\u05d1 \u05e2\u05dc \u05db\u05e1\u05d0 \u05d4\u05e8\u05d7\u05de\u05d9\u05dd , \u05e9\u05dc\u05d9\u05e9\u05d9\u05d5\u05ea \u05d9\u05d5\u05e9\u05d1 \u05d5\u05d6\u05df \u05d0\u05ea \u05db\u05dc \u05d4\u05e2\u05d5\u05dc\u05dd \u05db\u05d5\u05dc\u05d5 , \u05de\u05e7\u05e8\u05e0\u05d9\n\u05e8\u05d0\u05de\u05d9\u05dd \u05e2\u05d3 \u05d1\u05d9\u05e6\u05d9 \u05db\u05d9\u05e0\u05d9\u05dd , \u05e8\u05d1\u05d9\u05e2\u05d9\u05d5\u05ea \u05d9\u05d5\u05e9\u05d1 \u05d5\u05de\u05e9\u05d7\u05e7 \u05e2\u05dd \u05dc\u05d5\u05d9\u05ea\u05df , \u05e9\u05e0\u05d0\u05de\u05e8 \u05dc\u05d5\u05d9\u05ea\u05df \u05d6\u05d4 \u05d9\u05e6\u05e8\u05ea\n\u05dc\u05e9\u05d7\u05e7 \u05d1\u05d5 \u05d5\u05db\u05d5\u05f3 \u05c3\n\n\u201cThe day has twelve hours. The first three, the Holy One, blessed be He,\nsits and occupies himself in the law. The second, he sits and judges the\nwhole world. When he perceives that the world deserves utter\ndestruction, He stands up from the throne of judgment, and sits on the\nthrone of mercy. The third, he sits, and feeds all the world, from the\nhorns of the unicorns to the eggs of the vermin. In the fourth, he sits\nand plays with Leviathan, for it is said (Psalm civ. 26) \u2018The Leviathan\nwhom thou hast formed to play therewith.\u2019\u201d (Avodah Zarah, fol. iii.,\ncol. 2.) In another place we have an account of the manner in which the\nnight is spent:\u2014\n\n\u05e8\u05f3 \u05d0\u05dc\u05d9\u05e2\u05d6\u05e8 \u05d0\u05d5\u05de\u05e8 \u05e9\u05dc\u05e9 \u05de\u05e9\u05de\u05e8\u05d5\u05ea \u05d4\u05d5\u05d9 \u05d4\u05dc\u05d9\u05dc\u05d4 \u05d5\u05e2\u05dc \u05db\u05dc \u05de\u05e9\u05de\u05e8 \u05d5\u05de\u05e9\u05de\u05e8 \u05d9\u05d5\u05e9\u05d1 \u05d4\u05e7\u05d1\u05f3\u05f3\u05d4 \u05d5\u05e9\u05d5\u05d0\u05d2\n\u05db\u05d0\u05e8\u05d9 \u05e9\u05e0\u05d0\u05de\u05e8 \u05d4\u05f3 \u05de\u05de\u05e8\u05d5\u05dd \u05d9\u05e9\u05d0\u05d2 \u05de\u05de\u05e2\u05d5 \u05e7\u05d3\u05e9\u05d5 \u05d9\u05ea\u05df \u05e7\u05d5\u05dc\u05d5 \u05e9\u05d0\u05d5\u05d2 \u05d9\u05e9\u05d0\u05d2 \u05e2\u05dc \u05e0\u05d5\u05d4\u05d5 \u05c3\n\n\u201cRabbi Eliezer says, The night has three watches, and at every watch,\nthe Holy One, blessed be He, sits and roars like a lion, for it is said,\n\u2018The Lord shall roar from on high, and utter his voice from his holy\nhabitation: roaring he shall roar upon his habitation.\u2019\u201d (Jer. xxv. 30.)\nAnd again, a little lower down, the same assertion is made in the name\nof two other rabbies, and the cause of God\u2019s roaring assigned:\u2014\n\n\u05d0\u05de\u05e8 \u05e8\u05d1 \u05d9\u05e6\u05d7\u05e7 \u05d1\u05e8 \u05e9\u05de\u05d5\u05d0\u05dc \u05de\u05e9\u05de\u05d9\u05d4 \u05d3\u05e8\u05d1 \u05e9\u05dc\u05e9 \u05de\u05e9\u05de\u05e8\u05d5\u05ea \u05d4\u05d5\u05d9 \u05d4\u05dc\u05d9\u05dc\u05d4 \u05d5\u05e2\u05dc \u05db\u05dc \u05de\u05e9\u05de\u05e8 \u05d5\u05de\u05e9\u05de\u05e8\n\u05d9\u05d5\u05e9\u05d1 \u05d4\u05e7\u05d1\u05f3\u05f3\u05d4 \u05d5\u05e9\u05d5\u05d0\u05d2 \u05db\u05d0\u05e8\u05d9 \u05d5\u05d0\u05d5\u05de\u05e8 \u05d0\u05d5\u05d9 \u05e9\u05d7\u05e8\u05d1\u05ea\u05d9 \u05d0\u05ea \u05d1\u05d9\u05ea\u05d9 \u05d5\u05e9\u05e8\u05e4\u05ea\u05d9 \u05d0\u05ea \u05d4\u05d9\u05db\u05dc\u05d9 \u05d5\u05d4\u05d2\u05dc\u05d9\u05ea\u05d9\n\u05d0\u05ea \u05d1\u05e0\u05d9 \u05dc\u05d1\u05d9\u05df \u05d0\u05d5\u05de\u05d5\u05ea \u05d4\u05e2\u05d5\u05dc\u05dd \u05c3\n\n\u201cRabbi Isaac, the son of Samuel, says, in the name of Rav, The night has\nthree watches, and at every watch, the Holy One, blessed be He, sits and\nroars like a lion, and says, Woe is me that I have laid desolate my\nhouse, and burned my sanctuary, and sent my children into captivity\namongst the nations of the world.\u201d (Berachoth, fol. iii., col. 1.) Now\nwe ask every reasonable man whether this is a representation worthy of\nthe Creator of heaven and earth? We are told here, first, that God is\nlike a man in observing day and night\u2014that he has set times for\ndifferent employments, and a time for amusement. We are told, secondly,\nthat instead of comprehending all things past, present, and to come, at\nall times, and instead of upholding all things by the continual fiat of\nhis omnipotent rule, that he is obliged to consider each thing in\nsuccession; and that, like a poor frail child of man, He can do only one\nthing at a time. And thirdly, we are here informed, that the Divine\nBeing sits all night, and mourns like a child, over an act which he\nrashly committed, but now wishes to have undone. Is this a fit\nrepresentation of Deity, or is it awful blasphemy? How different is the\ndescription given by Moses\u2014\u201cLord, thou hast been our dwelling-place in\nall generations. Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever thou\nhadst formed the earth and the world, even from everlasting to\neverlasting, thou art God. A thousand years in thy sight are but as\nyesterday when it is past, and as a watch in the night\u201d (Ps. xc. 1-4);\nand again, that other beautiful passage of the Psalmist, \u201cOf old thou\nhast laid the foundations of the earth; and the heavens are the work of\nthy hands. They shall perish, but thou shalt endure; yea all of them\nshall wax old like a garment: and as a vesture shalt thou change them,\nand they shall be changed; but thou art the same, and thy years shall\nhave no end.\u201d (Ps. cii. 25-27.) In both these passages,\nunchangeableness, entire freedom from all vicissitude and succession, is\npresented to our view as the prominent feature in the character of\nDeity. Whereas, the God whom the rabbies describe, is a being subject to\nthe same alterations as ourselves, and liable to change, in its worst\nform, that is, to that change of will which ensues on disappointed\nexpectations. They say, that their God destroyed his temple and sent his\nchildren into captivity, and that now he is very sorry for it, and vents\nthe bitterness of his grief in lamentations compared to the roaring of a\nlion. Such a deity is no more like the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob,\nthan Jeroboam\u2019s calves. He may not be a graven image, but he is\nnevertheless an idol, not indeed of gold or silver, but of the\nimagination. Nothing can be more different than the Being described by\nthe rabbies, and that God declared in Moses and the Prophets. And yet on\nthis very point, where the oral law errs so grievously, Christianity\nmaintains the truth. The New Testament declares unto us the same Being\nrevealed in the Old. It says, \u201cEvery good gift, and every perfect gift\nis from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is\nno variableness, neither shadow of turning.\u201d (James i. 17.)\n\nBut the rabbies falsely ascribe to God not only variableness, but\nimperfect knowledge also. They say, that He spends a fourth part of the\nday in the study of the law. Now either God knows the law, or he does\nnot. If he does know the law, then study is useless; and if he does not,\nthen his knowledge is imperfect, and either supposition is altogether\nunworthy of the Deity. Indeed it is very difficult to argue against a\ndoctrine so monstrous, or to show the full absurdity where the subject\nis so grave and sacred. But we put it to the good sense of every\nIsraelite, and ask him whether he can believe that the God of knowledge\nstudies in his own law? Is not such an assertion a blasphemous\nfalsehood, and does it not show that those who made it were themselves\nutterly devoid of all true knowledge of God? Some persons endeavour to\nexcuse this blasphemy by saying that the words are not to be taken\nliterally, and that the rabbies employed oriental figures. But this will\nnot save the credit of the oral law; for if we admit the figure, we\ncannot excuse the blasphemy contained in the assertion, that God studies\nthe law one fourth of every day. No man that has any reverence for his\nCreator would venture to use such language, not even in the way of a\nparable. It proves in every case that those rabbies were totally devoid\nof that reverence which is due to God, and therefore most unfit teachers\nof religion. But, further, if these passages be figurative, what is the\nreal sense? What is meant by studying in the law, or playing with\nLeviathan, or uttering complaints at the beginning of every watch in the\nnight; or what is intended by ascribing to God one sort of employment in\nthe day and the other in the night? It is not enough to say that these\nare all figures conveying the most profound wisdom; this assertion must\nbe proved by showing what this wisdom is. Let the Rabbinists explain\nthese figures satisfactorily, and they will then have some chance of\nbeing believed, though even that would not amount to a proof, that the\nauthors of these passages intended that they should be understood\nmystically. It is a certain fact that many of the rabbies have\nunderstood these and similar passages literally. In the commentary on\nthe assertion, \u201cThat in the second three hours God sits and judges the\nworld,\u201d we are told, that some believed this so firmly as to think that\non this very account the additional form of prayer, called \u05de\u05d5\u05e1\u05e3, was\nprescribed:\u2014\n\n\u05d9\u05e9 \u05d0\u05d5\u05de\u05e8\u05d9\u05dd \u05db\u05d9 \u05dc\u05db\u05da \u05ea\u05e7\u05e0\u05d5 \u05d1\u05e7\u05d3\u05d5\u05e9\u05ea \u05de\u05d5\u05d3\u05e3 \u05dc\u05d5\u05de\u05e8 \u05de\u05de\u05e7\u05d5\u05de\u05d5 \u05d4\u05d5\u05d0 \u05d9\u05e4\u05df \u05db\u05d9 \u05e1\u05ea\u05dd \u05de\u05d5\u05e1\u05e3 \u05d1\u05e9\u05e0\u05d9\u05d5\u05ea\n\u05d1\u05d0 \u05d5\u05d0\u05d6 \u05d4\u05d5\u05d0 \u05d9\u05d5\u05e9\u05d1 \u05d5\u05d3\u05df \u05d5\u05d0\u05e0\u05d5 \u05de\u05ea\u05e4\u05dc\u05dc\u05d9\u05df \u05e9\u05d9\u05e4\u05e0\u05d4 \u05de\u05db\u05e1\u05d0 \u05d3\u05d9\u05df \u05dc\u05e9\u05d1\u05ea \u05d1\u05db\u05e1\u05d0 \u05e8\u05d7\u05de\u05d9\u05dd \u05c3\n\n\u201cSome say, that on this account the words \u2018Let him turn from his place,\u2019\nhave been appointed in the sanctification of the Musaph, for this part\nof the prayer generally occurs in the second three hours, when he is\nsitting in judgment, and that we pray that he may turn from the throne\nof judgment, and sit on the throne of mercy.\u201d Those who held this\nopinion plainly thought, that the hours were literal hours, and that the\ndistribution of the day into four different employments was not\nfigurative, but real. These persons, therefore, believed that God\nstudies in the law, that he plays with Leviathan, and observes the\ndistinction of day and night. And it must be confessed that, if they\nbelieved in the Talmud, they had good reason for this literal\ninterpretation, as the corresponding passage, respecting God\u2019s roaring\nlike a lion at every watch of the night, cannot be explained\nfiguratively, if it be taken in connexion with its context. The context\ncontains a discussion about real, not figurative night-watches. The\nquestion proposed by the Mishna is, Until what hour of the night is it\nlawful to perform the evening-reading of the Sh\u2019mah Israel (Hear, O\nIsrael)? R. Eliezer says, It is lawful until the end of the first watch.\nThe Gemara then considers what the rabbi could mean by this definition\u2014\n\n\u05de\u05d4 \u05e7\u05e1\u05d1\u05e8 \u05e8\u05f3 \u05d0\u05dc\u05d9\u05e2\u05d6\u05e8 \u05d0\u05d9 \u05e7\u05e1\u05d1\u05e8 \u05d2\u05f3 \u05de\u05e9\u05de\u05e8\u05d5\u05ea \u05d4\u05d5\u05d9 \u05d4\u05dc\u05d9\u05dc\u05d4 \u05dc\u05d9\u05de\u05d0 \u05e2\u05d3 \u05d0\u05e8\u05d1\u05e2 \u05e9\u05e2\u05d5\u05ea \u05d5\u05d0\u05d9 \u05e7\u05e1\u05d1\u05e8\n\u05d0\u05e8\u05d1\u05e2 \u05de\u05e9\u05de\u05e8\u05d5\u05ea \u05d4\u05d5\u05d9 \u05d4\u05dc\u05b4\u05dc\u05d4 \u05dc\u05d9\u05de\u05d0 \u05e2\u05d3 \u05e9\u05dc\u05e9 \u05e9\u05e2\u05d5\u05ea , \u05dc\u05e2\u05d5\u05dc\u05dd \u05e7\u05e1\u05d1\u05e8 \u05e9\u05dc\u05e9 \u05de\u05e9\u05de\u05e8\u05d5\u05ea \u05d4\u05d5\u05d9 \u05d4\u05dc\u05d9\u05dc\u05d4\n\u05d5\u05d4\u05d0 \u05e7\u05d0 \u05de\u05e9\u05de\u05e2 \u05dc\u05df \u05d0\u05d9\u05db\u05d0 \u05de\u05e9\u05de\u05e8\u05d5\u05ea \u05d1\u05e8\u05e7\u05d9\u05e2\u05d0 \u05d5\u05d0\u05d9\u05db\u05d0 \u05de\u05e9\u05de\u05e8\u05d5\u05ea \u05d1\u05d0\u05e8\u05e2\u05d0 \u05d3\u05ea\u05e0\u05d9\u05d0 \u05d5\u05db\u05d5\u05f3 \u05c3\n\n\u201cWhat did R. Eliezer mean? If he meant that the night had three watches,\nhe ought to have said until the fourth hour: but if he meant that the\nnight has four watches, he ought to have said until the third hour.\nThere can be no doubt that he meant that the night has three watches,\nand intended to say, that there are watches in heaven and watches upon\nearth, for the Bareitha says, &c.\u201d\u2014\u2014And then follows the passage,\nsaying, that in each watch God roars like a lion. It cannot, then, be\npretended that the night-watches here are figurative or mystical. It is\nexpressly said that there are the same watches in heaven and earth, and\nthe whole question is about the real distribution of time. The following\ncontext is equally unequivocal. R. Eliezer, immediately after saying\nthat in each watch God roars like a lion, goes on to give the signs\nwhereby each watch may be recognised even in the dark:\u2014\n\n\u05e7\u05e1\u05d9\u05de\u05df \u05dc\u05d3\u05d1\u05e8 \u05de\u05e9\u05de\u05e8\u05d4 \u05e8\u05d0\u05e9\u05d5\u05e0\u05d4 \u05d7\u05de\u05d5\u05e8 \u05e0\u05d5\u05e2\u05e8 , \u05e9\u05e0\u05d9\u05d9\u05d4 \u05db\u05dc\u05d1\u05d9\u05dd \u05e6\u05d5\u05e2\u05e7\u05d9\u05dd , \u05e9\u05dc\u05d9\u05e9\u05d9\u05ea \u05ea\u05d9\u05e0\u05d5\u05e7\n\u05d9\u05d5\u05e0\u05e7 \u05de\u05e9\u05d3\u05d9 \u05d0\u05de\u05d5 \u05d5\u05d0\u05e9\u05d4 \u05de\u05e1\u05e4\u05e8\u05ea \u05e2\u05dd \u05d1\u05e2\u05dc\u05d4 \u05c3\n\n\u201cThe sign of the thing is\u2014In the first watch the ass brays; in the\nsecond watch the dogs bark; in the third watch the infant sucks at its\nmother\u2019s breast, and the wife talks with her husband.\u201d This is plain\nmatter-of-fact way of speaking, and proves, beyond a doubt, that the\nwhole passage is to be taken literally. And if any doubt at all\nremained, it is entirely removed, a little lower down on the page, by an\nanecdote told by the veracious R. Jose. He says, that he once went into\none of the ruins of Jerusalem to pray, and that whilst he was engaged in\nprayer, the prophet Elijah came to the entrance of the ruin, and very\ncivilly waited for him until he had concluded, when they had some\nconversation together.\n\nAmongst other particulars, R. Jose relates as follows:\u2014\n\n\u05d5\u05d0\u05de\u05e8 \u05dc\u05d9 \u05d1\u05e0\u05d9 \u05de\u05d4 \u05e7\u05d5\u05dc \u05e9\u05de\u05e2\u05ea \u05d1\u05d7\u05d5\u05e8\u05d1\u05d4 \u05d6\u05d5 \u05dc\u05d0\u05de\u05e8\u05ea\u05d9 \u05dc\u05d5 \u05e9\u05de\u05e2\u05ea\u05d9 \u05d1\u05ea \u05e7\u05d5\u05dc \u05e9\u05de\u05e0\u05d4\u05de\u05ea \u05db\u05d9\u05d5\u05e0\u05d4\n\u05d5\u05d0\u05d5\u05de\u05e8\u05ea \u05d0\u05d5\u05d9 \u05e9\u05d7\u05e8\u05d1\u05ea\u05d9 \u05d0\u05ea \u05d1\u05d9\u05ea\u05d9 \u05d5\u05e9\u05e8\u05e4\u05ea\u05d9 \u05d0\u05ea \u05d4\u05d9\u05db\u05dc\u05d9 \u05d5\u05d4\u05d2\u05dc\u05d9\u05ea\u05d9 \u05d0\u05ea \u05d1\u05e0\u05d9 \u05dc\u05d1\u05d9\u05df \u05d4\u05d0\u05d5\u05de\u05d5\u05ea\n\u05d5\u05d0\u05de\u05e8 \u05dc\u05d9 \u05d7\u05d9\u05d9\u05da \u05d5\u05d7\u05d9\u05d9 \u05e8\u05d0\u05e9\u05da \u05dc\u05d0 \u05e9\u05e2\u05d4 \u05d6\u05e8 \u05d1\u05dc\u05d1\u05d3 \u05d0\u05d5\u05e8\u05ea \u05db\u05da , \u05d0\u05dc\u05d0 \u05d1\u05db\u05dc \u05d9\u05d5\u05dd \u05d5\u05d9\u05d5\u05dd \u05e9\u05dc\u05e9\n\u05e4\u05e2\u05de\u05d9\u05dd \u05d0\u05d5\u05de\u05e8\u05ea \u05db\u05da , \u05d5\u05dc\u05d0 \u05d6\u05d5 \u05d1\u05dc\u05d1\u05d3 , \u05d0\u05dc\u05d0 \u05d1\u05e9\u05e2\u05d4 \u05e9\u05d9\u05e9\u05e8\u05d0\u05dc \u05e0\u05db\u05e0\u05e1\u05d9\u05df \u05dc\u05d1\u05ea\u05d9 \u05db\u05e0\u05e1\u05d9\u05d5\u05ea \u05d5\u05dc\u05d1\u05ea\u05d9\n\u05de\u05d3\u05e8\u05e9\u05d5\u05ea \u05d5\u05e2\u05d5\u05e0\u05d9\u05df \u05d0\u05de\u05df \u05d9\u05d4\u05d0 \u05e9\u05de\u05d0 \u05e8\u05d1\u05d0 \u05de\u05d1\u05e8\u05da \u05d4\u05e7\u05d1\u05f3\u05f3\u05d4 \u05de\u05e0\u05e2\u05e0\u05e2 \u05e8\u05d0\u05e9\u05d5 \u05d5\u05d0\u05d5\u05de\u05e8 \u05d0\u05e9\u05e8\u05d9 \u05d4\u05de\u05dc\u05da\n\u05e9\u05de\u05e7\u05dc\u05e1\u05d9\u05df \u05d0\u05d5\u05ea\u05d5 \u05d1\u05d1\u05d9\u05ea\u05d5 \u05db\u05da \u05de\u05d4 \u05dc\u05d5 \u05dc\u05d0\u05d1 \u05e9\u05d4\u05d2\u05dc\u05d4 \u05d0\u05ea \u05d1\u05e0\u05d9\u05d5 \u05c3\n\n\u201cAnd he (Elias) said to me, What sort of a voice didst thou hear in the\nruin? I said to him, I heard a Bath Kol cooing like a dove, and saying,\nWoe is me that I have desolated my house, and burnt my sanctuary, and\nsent my children into captivity amongst the nations. And he said unto\nme, As thou livest, and thy head liveth, it is not at this hour only,\nbut three times every day the voice says these words. And not only so,\nbut when the Israelites enter the synagogues, and the houses of study,\nand say, \u2018Amen, may his great name be blessed,\u2019 the Holy One, blessed be\nHe, shakes his head, and says, Blessed is the King who is praised in his\nhouse; but what profit has the father who sends his children into\ncaptivity,\u201d &c. Here we have the testimony of R. Jose to the truth of\nthe fact, that God does thus complain in the manner described above, and\nwe have the Prophet Elijah swearing that this happens three times every\nday. It is plain, therefore, that the authors of the Talmud knew of no\nmystical interpretation and intended none. It was their simple belief\nthat God observed the three watches of the night, and at the beginning\nof each roared like a lion. And if this passage must be taken literally,\nwhy should the other passage respecting the distribution and employments\nof the day be taken figuratively? The literal interpretation of the one\nfurnishes a strong argument for the literal interpretation of the other.\nAnd it is certainly of no use to ascribe a mystical sense to the one,\nwhilst the other is interpreted literally. The advocates of the oral law\ngain nothing by it, for the one is not more absurd nor more unworthy of\nthe Deity than the other. Nothing can exceed the folly of representing\nGod as observing the night-watches, and roaring like a lion for grief,\nbecause he sent Israel into captivity. Nothing can be more blasphemous\nthan the assertion that God does not foresee the results of his own\nactions, and that he is afterwards obliged to sit down and mourn over\nwhat he has done. This one passage, which cannot be explained away, is\nquite sufficient to show that the rabbies were utterly ignorant of the\nnature of God; and that, however they might be acquainted with the\nletter of the Law and the Prophets, they knew nothing of the real\nmeaning of their writings. This one excess of folly and absurdity\nentirely overthrows all the claims and pretensions of the oral law in\nwhich it is found.\n\nBut there is another feature in the passage which we cannot pass without\nnotice, and that is, the total disregard of truth which it manifests. R.\nJose\u2019s story is evidently a barefaced and wilful lie, unless we say,\nthat when he went into the ruin to pray, he fell asleep, and dreamed\nthat he heard the Bath Kol and had this conversation with Elijah; but\neither supposition will equally destroy the credit of the Talmud. If it\nbe a lie, it is one of the most profane and wicked lies that can be\nimagined. We have here a professed teacher of the law telling not only a\nfalsehood about his intercourse with Elijah, but daring falsely to\nassert that he heard the voice of God mourning over the ruins of the\ntemple. The most profane and wicked lie that can be devised is that\nwhich introduces God himself, and trifles with the sacred character of\nthe Deity. If this story be a lie, it oversets the Talmud and the\nTalmudical religion at once. A religion built upon falsehoods, must\nitself be necessarily false. But if the other supposition be adopted,\nthat R. Jose mistook a dream for a reality, what shall we say of a\nreligion whose teachers tell their dreams as sacred truths? And what\nshall we say of the compilers of the Talmud, who were unable to detect\nthe folly and profanity of this narrative, and actually inserted it in\ntheir oral law as an undoubted fact? This supposition may save R. Jose\nfrom the unhappy character of a liar, but it will not do much towards\nproving the truth of the oral law; for there it is not given as a dream,\nbut as a fact. R. Jose was silly enough to tell his dream as a reality;\nand the rabbies to whom he told it were silly enough to believe; and the\nmost learned men of the Rabbinists at that time were silly enough to\nembody it in their collection of holy and undoubted traditions. We do\nnot mean to ascribe any peculiar degree of folly to the rabbies. Persons\ncalling themselves Christians have been just as foolish, have believed\nstories just as absurd, and have handed them down as religious truths.\nBut then, we do not receive these legends as a part and parcel of our\nreligion. We are as free to say of them, as of the Talmudic fables, that\nthey are wicked falsehoods. But the modern Jews tell us that the Talmud\nis a divine book\u2014that it contains their religion, and that without it\nMoses and the Prophets are unintelligible; and therefore we point out\nthese fables as plain proofs of the falsehood of such an assertion. We\nwish to direct the Jewish attention to that system which they have\ncalled their religion for the last eighteen hundred years, and which\nthey have preferred to Christianity. We desire that they should consider\nwhat they have gained, by expelling the family of Levi from the\nteacher\u2019s office and choosing the rabbies as their religious guides. We\nask every Israelite of common sense, whether R. Jose and his companions\nare trustworthy leaders in the way to salvation; and whether they are\nstill prepared to follow the religion of a man who can only be acquitted\nof being a liar by admitting that he is a dreamer? Or, whether they\nstill choose to worship the Deity proclaimed by the rabbies\u2014a Deity\nsubject to succession of time\u2014imperfect in knowledge so as to require\ndaily study\u2014requiring amusement, and therefore playing for three hours\nevery day with Leviathan\u2014and liable to disappointment, so as to be\nobliged to spend the night, in mourning over one of his most deliberate\nand solemn acts?\n\nWe are sure that every Israelite would be sadly offended at being told,\nthat he does not worship the God of his fathers, but a strange god,\ninvented by the imagination of the rabbles; and yet, if he worship the\ngod of the Talmud, it is nothing but the truth. The god of the Talmud is\ncertainly not the God of the Bible. Israelites are often shocked at the\nfolly and wickedness of those whom they see falling down before stocks\nand stones; and yet, if they receive the oral law, and believe an a\nDeity who plays with Leviathan, &c., the object of their worship is not\na whit more rational. They are just as guilty of idolatry, and the only\nway in which they can clear themselves from the charge is, by rejecting\nthe oral law, and forsaking that superstition which the rabbies have\npalmed off upon them as the religion of their fathers. It is a most\ndeplorable and melancholy sight to behold that nation, which once was\nthe sole depository of truth, enslaved by a system so senseless; but it\nis more melancholy still to think, that there is not one among her sons\nwho has the moral courage to denounce its falsehood, and to vindicate\nthe truth as taught by Moses. The priests, the sons of Levi, were once\nzealous for the honour of God, and united with Moses in destroying the\ngolden calf; but where are they now, and where is their zeal? Alas! they\ntoo, are found amongst the worshippers of the Talmudical deity, and\nuphold the system which has expelled them from their holy office.\n\n\n\n\n                               No. XLII.\n                            TITLE OF RABBI.\n\n\nThat the people, at present scattered over the whole world, and known by\nthe name of Jews, are descendants of the chosen people of God, we freely\nadmit. That the Old Testament contains prophecies of their future return\nto the God and the land of their fathers, and their subsequent happiness\nand glory, we firmly believe: but, that the religion which they at\npresent profess is the religion of Moses, we confidently deny. Modern\nJudaism has not retained the doctrines of Moses; no not even with\nrespect to the fundamental article of religion, the nature of God. Our\nlast number showed how widely the rabbies have departed from the\nScripture representation of the divine character, and the number\npreceding proved that the Jews haw not retained even the outward form of\nthe Mosaic edifice. Indeed we know not any problem more difficult of\nsolution than, to assign a reason, why the rabbinic Jews profess any\nrespect at all for Moses, when they have rejected both the form and the\nsubstance of his teaching. If they boldly denied his authority, or\nasserted that the Mosaic law was long since abrogated, and the rabbinic\nprecepts given in its stead, we could, at least, give them credit for\nconsistency; but at present we cannot possibly divine their motives for\nprofessing attachment to the lawgiver of their forefathers. Their\nconduct for ages would appear to indicate a fixed determination to get\nrid and keep clear of every thing Mosaic, and that for the mere purpose\nof having something else; for no one can pretend, that the new law and\nthe new teachers, that they have chosen, can lay any claim to superior\nexcellence or antiquity. Of the value of the rabbinic teaching we have\ngiven many proofs; and now think of examining a little the _novelty_ of\nthe rabbinic order. It is certain that the word, rabbi, does not occur\nin the law of Moses nor the prophets; it is, therefore, clearly not\nMosaic. This one fact does in itself go far to shake the authority of\nmodern Judaism and the oral law. There we cannot go a step without\nhearing of the rabbies\u2014Rabbi Eliezer said this, and Rabbi Bar Bar Chanah\nsaid that. The whole oral law is made up of the sayings of the rabbies,\nand yet neither their name nor their order was so much as known to Moses\nour master. The other favourite appellation of the Talmudic doctors \u05d7\u05db\u05dd\n_Chacham_, or wise man, does indeed occur, and it appears from the\nprophets, that there were some even in their time who laid exclusive\nclaim to that epithet, but unfortunately the prophets bring against them\nthe very same charge, which we prefer against their successors, namely,\nthat they had forsaken the law of Moses:\u2014\n\n\u05d0\u05d9\u05db\u05d4 \u05ea\u05d0\u05de\u05e8\u05d5 \u05d7\u05db\u05de\u05d9\u05dd \u05d0\u05e0\u05d7\u05e0\u05d5 \u05d5\u05ea\u05d5\u05e8\u05ea \u05d4\u05f3 \u05d0\u05ea\u05e0\u05d5 \u05d0\u05db\u05df \u05d4\u05e0\u05d4 \u05dc\u05e9\u05e7\u05e8 \u05e2\u05e9\u05d4 \u05e2\u05d8 \u05e9\u05e7\u05e8 \u05e1\u05d5\u05e4\u05e8\u05d9\u05dd ,\n\u05d4\u05d5\u05d1\u05d9\u05e9\u05d5 \u05d7\u05db\u05de\u05d9\u05dd \u05d7\u05ea\u05d5 \u05d5\u05d9\u05dc\u05db\u05d3\u05d5 \u05d4\u05e0\u05d4 \u05d1\u05d3\u05d1\u05e8 \u05d4\u05f3 \u05de\u05d0\u05e1\u05d5 \u05d5\u05d7\u05db\u05de\u05ea \u05de\u05d4 \u05dc\u05d4\u05dd \u05c3\n\n\u201cHow do ye say, We are wise (Chachamim) and the law of the Lord is with\nus? Lo, certainly in vain made he it; the pen of the scribes is in vain.\nThe wise men (Chachamim) are ashamed. They are dismayed and taken: lo,\n_they have rejected the word of the Lord_: and what wisdom is in them?\u201d\n(Jer. viii. 8, 9.) The rabbies will scarcely acknowledge that they have\nsucceeded these persons in their office, and yet if they give up such\npassages as these, they must abdicate all claim to antiquity. Indeed\nsome of them plainly acknowledge that the rabbies are a new order of\nmen, and that the word rabbi was not heard of until less than a century\nbefore the destruction of the second temple. Thus the Baal Aruch says\u2014\n\n\u05d5\u05d4\u05d3\u05d5\u05e8\u05d5\u05ea \u05d4\u05e8\u05d0\u05e9\u05d5\u05e0\u05d9\u05dd \u05e9\u05d4\u05d9\u05d5 \u05d2\u05d3\u05d5\u05dc\u05d9\u05dd \u05de\u05d0\u05d5\u05d3 \u05dc\u05d0 \u05d4\u05d9\u05d5 \u05e6\u05e8\u05d9\u05db\u05d9\u05df \u05dc\u05e8\u05d1\u05e8\u05d1\u05dd \u05dc\u05d0 \u05d1\u05e8\u05d1\u05df \u05d5\u05dc\u05d0 \u05d1\u05e8\u05d1\u05d9\n\u05d5\u05dc\u05d0 \u05d1\u05e8\u05d1 \u05dc\u05d0 \u05dc\u05d7\u05db\u05de\u05d9 \u05d1\u05d1\u05dc \u05d5\u05dc\u05d0 \u05dc\u05d7\u05db\u05de\u05d9 \u05d0\u05e8\u05e5 \u05d9\u05e9\u05e8\u05d0\u05dc \u05e9\u05d4\u05e8\u05d9 \u05d4\u05dc\u05dc \u05e2\u05dc\u05d4 \u05de\u05d1\u05d1\u05dc \u05d5\u05dc\u05d0 \u05e0\u05d0\u05de\u05e8\u05d4\n\u05e8\u05d1\u05e0\u05d5\u05ea \u05d1\u05e9\u05de\u05d5 , \u05d5\u05d1\u05e0\u05d1\u05d9\u05d0\u05d9\u05dd \u05d4\u05d9\u05d5 \u05d7\u05e9\u05d5\u05d1\u05d9\u05dd \u05e9\u05d0\u05de\u05e8 \u05d7\u05d2\u05d9 \u05d4\u05e0\u05d1\u05d9\u05d0 , \u05dc\u05d0 \u05e2\u05dc\u05d4 \u05e2\u05d6\u05e8\u05d0 \u05de\u05d1\u05d1\u05dc ,\n\u05d5\u05d0\u05d9\u05df \u05de\u05e8\u05d1\u05e8\u05d1\u05d9\u05df \u05d0\u05d5\u05ea\u05df \u05e2\u05dd \u05d4\u05d6\u05db\u05e8\u05ea \u05e9\u05de\u05d5\u05ea\u05d9\u05d4\u05df \u05d5\u05dc\u05d0 \u05e9\u05de\u05e2\u05e0\u05d5 \u05db\u05d9 \u05d4\u05ea\u05d7\u05d9\u05dc\u05d5 \u05d6\u05d5 \u05d0\u05dc\u05d0 \u05d1\u05e0\u05e9\u05d9\u05d0\u05d9\u05dd\n\u05de\u05e8\u05d1\u05df \u05d2\u05de\u05dc\u05d9\u05d0\u05dc \u05d4\u05d6\u05e7\u05df \u05d5\u05e8\u05d1\u05d9 \u05e9\u05de\u05e2\u05d5\u05df \u05d1\u05e0\u05d5 \u05e9\u05e0\u05d4\u05e8\u05d2 \u05d1\u05d7\u05e8\u05d1\u05df \u05d1\u05d9\u05ea \u05e9\u05e0\u05d9 \u05d5\u05e8\u05d1\u05df \u05d9\u05d5\u05d7\u05e0\u05d5 \u05d1\u05df \u05d6\u05db\u05e2\u05d9\n\u05db\u05d5\u05dc\u05df \u05e0\u05e9\u05d9\u05d0\u05d9\u05dd \u05d5\u05d0\u05e3 \u05e8\u05d1\u05d9 \u05d4\u05ea\u05d7\u05d9\u05dc \u05de\u05e1\u05de\u05d5\u05db\u05d9\u05dd \u05de\u05d0\u05d5\u05ea\u05d4 \u05e9\u05e2\u05d4 \u05e6\u05d3\u05d5\u05e7 \u05d5\u05e8\u05d1\u05d9 \u05d0\u05dc\u05d9\u05e2\u05d6\u05e8 \u05d1\u05df \u05d9\u05e2\u05e7\u05d1\n\u05d5\u05e4\u05e9\u05d8 \u05d4\u05d3\u05d1\u05e8 \u05de\u05ea\u05dc\u05de\u05d9\u05d3\u05d9 \u05e8\u05f3 \u05d9\u05d5\u05d7\u05e0\u05df \u05d1\u05df \u05d6\u05db\u05d0\u05d9 \u05d5\u05dc\u05d4\u05dc\u05df \u05c3\n\n\u201cThe first generations, which were very great, did not require the\ntitles of Rabban, or Rabbi, or Rav, wherewith to honour the wise men of\nBabylon, or the wise men of the land of Israel; for behold Hillel went,\nup from Babylon, but the title of Rabbi is not added to his name. There\nwere honourable persons amongst the prophets, for it is said, \u2018Haggai\nthe prophet\u2019\u2014\u2018Ezra did not go up from Babylon\u2019\u2014and at the mention of\ntheir names the title of Rabbi is not added: neither have we heard that\nthis was begun until the princes Rabban Gamaliel the elder, and Rabban\nSimon his son, who was killed at the destruction of the second temple,\nand Rabban Johannan ben Zakkai, who were all princes. Rabbi also began\nwith those who were promoted at the same time, Zadok and R. Eliezer, the\nson of Jacob, and the thing spread from the disciples of Rabban Johannan\nben Zakkai onwards.\u201d (Aruch in \u05d0\u05d1\u05d9\u05d9) We need not wonder, then, that\nMoses knows nothing of rabbies, for here is a plain confession, that the\nname was never heard of until a few years before the last dispersion. It\nmay, however, be said, that the office itself existed, though the name\ndid not, and this is in fact asserted by Rambam, when he says:\u2014\n\n\u05d5\u05de\u05e9\u05d4 \u05e8\u05d1\u05e0\u05d5 \u05e1\u05de\u05da \u05d9\u05d4\u05d5\u05e9\u05e2 \u05d1\u05d9\u05d3 \u05e9\u05e0\u05d0\u05de\u05e8 \u05d5\u05d9\u05e1\u05de\u05d5\u05da \u05d0\u05ea \u05d9\u05d3\u05d9\u05d5 \u05e2\u05dc\u05d9\u05d5 \u05d5\u05d9\u05e6\u05d5\u05d4\u05d5 , \u05d5\u05db\u05df \u05d4\u05e9\u05d1\u05e2\u05d9\u05dd\n\u05d6\u05e7\u05e0\u05d9\u05dd \u05de\u05e9\u05d4 \u05e8\u05d1\u05e0\u05d5 \u05e1\u05de\u05db\u05dd \u05d5\u05e9\u05e8\u05ea\u05d4 \u05e2\u05dc\u05d9\u05d4\u05df \u05e9\u05db\u05d9\u05e0\u05d4 \u05d5\u05d0\u05d5\u05ea\u05df \u05d4\u05d6\u05e7\u05e0\u05d9\u05dd \u05e1\u05de\u05db\u05d5 \u05dc\u05d0\u05d7\u05e8\u05d9\u05dd , \u05d5\u05d0\u05d7\u05e8\u05d9\u05dd\n\u05dc\u05d0\u05d7\u05e8\u05d9\u05dd , \u05d5\u05e0\u05de\u05e6\u05d0\u05d5 \u05d4\u05e1\u05de\u05d5\u05db\u05d9\u05df \u05d0\u05d9\u05e9 \u05de\u05e4\u05d9 \u05d0\u05d9\u05e9 \u05e2\u05d3 \u05d1\u05d9\u05ea \u05d3\u05d9\u05e0\u05d5 \u05e9\u05dc \u05d9\u05d4\u05d5\u05e9\u05e2 \u05d5\u05e2\u05d3 \u05d1\u05d9\u05ea \u05d3\u05d9\u05e0\u05d5 \u05e9\u05dc\n\u05de\u05e9\u05d4 \u05e8\u05d1\u05d9\u05e0\u05d5 \u05c3\n\n\u201cMoses our master promoted Joshua with his hands; for it is said, \u2018and\nhe laid his hands upon him, and gave him a charge.\u2019 (Numb. xxvii. 23.)\nAnd in like manner with regard to the seventy elders, Moses our master\npromoted them, and the Shechinah rested upon them; and these elders\npromote others, and they again others; and thus we have a succession of\npromoted persons, until the council of Joshua, and until the council of\nMoses our master.\u201d (Hilchoth Sanhedrin, iv. 1.) And so he tells us that\u2014\n\n\u05d5\u05d3\u05d5\u05d3 \u05d4\u05de\u05dc\u05da \u05e1\u05de\u05da \u05e9\u05dc\u05e9\u05d9\u05dd \u05d0\u05dc\u05e3 \u05d1\u05d9\u05d5\u05dd \u05d0\u05d7\u05d3 \u05c3\n\n\u201cKing David promoted thirty thousand persons in one day.\u201d According to\nthis statement, it would appear that there had been always a class of\npersons qualified to be teachers and judges, and a pretty numerous class\ntoo, from the time of Moses; but it is very extraordinary that their\noffice should have continued fifteen hundred years without a name, and\nthat the nation should never have felt the inconvenience, nor remedied\nit until the last few years of their existence; and it is more\nextraordinary still that so large and important a body should never once\nbe mentioned in the law or the prophets. The land must perfectly have\nswarmed with them. Thirty thousand would have been a large proportion to\nthe population of the land of Israel; but David made this number in one\nday; and we cannot suppose that he exerted his right only once in his\nlife, nor that all the other doctors neglected the duty of raising up\ndisciples; and the oral law tells us that before the time of Hillel\nevery one thus promoted had the right of promoting others:\u2014\n\n\u05d1\u05e8\u05d0\u05e9\u05d5\u05e0\u05d4 \u05d4\u05d9\u05d4 \u05db\u05dc \u05de\u05d9 \u05e9\u05e0\u05e1\u05de\u05da \u05e1\u05d5\u05de\u05da \u05dc\u05ea\u05dc\u05de\u05d9\u05d3\u05d9\u05d5 , \u05d5\u05d7\u05db\u05de\u05d9\u05dd \u05d7\u05dc\u05e7\u05d5 \u05db\u05d1\u05d5\u05d3 \u05dc\u05d4\u05dc\u05dc \u05d4\u05d6\u05e7\u05df\n\u05d5\u05d4\u05ea\u05e7\u05d9\u05e0\u05d5 \u05e9\u05dc\u05d0 \u05d9\u05d4\u05d0 \u05d0\u05d3\u05dd \u05e0\u05e1\u05de\u05da \u05d0\u05dc\u05d0 \u05d1\u05e8\u05e9\u05d5\u05ea \u05d4\u05e0\u05e9\u05d9\u05d0 \u05d5\u05db\u05d5\u05f3 \u05c3\n\n\u201cAt first every promoted person could promote his disciples; but the\nwise men gave the honour to Hillel the elder, and ordained that no man\nshould promote except by permission of the prince (the Nasi).\u201d According\nto this, the number must have been very great; and yet that they should\nhave continued so long without a name, and without any mention whatever\nby any of the inspired writers, is perfectly incredible. But there are\nin the account itself various particulars which excite suspicion.\nDavid\u2019s extensive work of promotion in one day entirely exceeds the\nlimits of probability, no matter how the promotion took place, whether\nby laying on of hands, or by command, or by letter: for if we grant that\nhe devoted the entire four-and-twenty hours of that day to the work,\nstill, in order to make up the number of thirty thousand, it will be\nnecessary to believe that he promoted at the rate of twelve hundred and\nfifty an hour, or twenty in every minute. One such notorious untruth\ndiscredits the whole account in which it is found. But, farther, the\nadmission that the right of conferring the dignity of doctor was taken\nfrom those who had possessed it, and restricted to those who obtained\npermission from the prince, shows that the ordinance of promotion was\nnot derived from Moses, but was an invention of men. If it had been of\nMoses, the wise men could have had no authority to take it away, neither\nis it at all likely that the numerous possessors of the right, and least\nof all, the disciples of Shammai, would have quietly resigned it. We\nmust suppose either that the wise men altered an ordinance of Moses, and\nthereby committed a great sin, or that the ordinance of promotion was a\nmere human invention. By the latter supposition the whole story of the\ncontinued existence of this class of doctors is given up; and by the\nformer supposition the charge of disregard for the law of Moses is fixed\nupon the wise men, and the value of their testimony taken away. Lastly,\nthe account of the manner of promotion is at variance with the\nabove-quoted assertion of the Baal Aruch. The oral law, says that the\ndoctors were promoted in the following manner:\u2014\n\n\u05dc\u05d0 \u05e9\u05d9\u05e1\u05de\u05db\u05d5 \u05d0\u05ea \u05d9\u05d3\u05d9\u05d4\u05dd \u05e2\u05dc \u05e8\u05d0\u05e9 \u05d4\u05d6\u05e7\u05df , \u05d0\u05dc\u05d0 \u05e9\u05e7\u05d5\u05e8\u05d9\u05df \u05dc\u05d5 \u05e8\u05d1\u05d9 \u05d5\u05d0\u05d5\u05de\u05e8\u05d9\u05dd \u05dc\u05d5 \u05d4\u05e8\u05d9 \u05d0\u05ea\u05d4\n\u05e1\u05de\u05d5\u05da \u05d5\u05d9\u05e9 \u05dc\u05da \u05e8\u05e9\u05d5\u05ea \u05dc\u05d3\u05d5\u05df \u05d0\u05e4\u05d9\u05dc\u05d5 \u05d3\u05d9\u05e0\u05d9 \u05e7\u05e0\u05e1\u05d5\u05ea \u05c3\n\n\u201cThey not only laid their hands upon the head of the elder, but also\nsaluted him with the title, Rabbi, and said to him, Behold thou art\nprompted, and hast authority to judge, even in cases of mulct.\u201d Here the\nconferring the title of Rabbi is made an integral part of the act of\npromotion, whereas the Baal Aruch says that the title of Rabbi was not\nin use until after the time of Hillel. The assertion, therefore, that\nthe office of Rabbi existed without the name, even from the time of\nMoses, is not only unsupported by any proof from the inspired writings,\nbut is inconsistent with other assertions of the rabbies themselves; and\nis, besides, found very close to a palpable untruth, and is therefore\nunworthy of credit. Thus the antiquity of the rabbinic office is\ndestroyed, and appears to be a comparatively new invention: so that\nthose who profess the religion of the rabbies cannot pretend to have the\nreligion of Moses or of their forefathers, but that of a new set of\nteachers, who did not arise until a very few years before the\ndestruction of the second temple. One of the common objections of modern\nJews against Christianity is, its novelty. They say that we have got a\nnew religion, whereas they have the ancient religion; that we follow a\nnew teacher, but that they follow Moses. The foregoing examination shows\nhow little ground they have for such a boast. If novelty be a valid\nobjection, they must confess that the religion of the rabbies is false.\nIf the distance of time that elapsed between Moses and Jesus of Nazareth\nconstitute a fair ground of objection, it is as valid against the\nrabbies as against the Lord Jesus. Nay, if supposed novelty be the\nreason why they reject Christianity, they must now reject the religion\nof the rabbies, and embrace that of Christ. We have proved that the\nreligion of the rabbies is a novelty, and every one knows that one\npeculiar feature in the teaching of Jesus of Nazareth was, that he\nopposed the rabbinic doctrines, that is, he opposed novelty: this\nopposition, therefore, is presumptive evidence that the Lord Jesus\nretained the ancient religion, and has on that very account a claim upon\nall those who profess to venerate antiquity. At all events the charge of\nnovelty can be as fairly urged against Rabbinism as against\nChristianity, and every Jew who urges it, is, if he be in earnest about\ntruth, bound to compare Christianity with the law and the prophets, in\norder to ascertain whether it be a new religion or not. One thing is\ncertain, that the ordinances of no religion can be farther from the\nMosaic appointment than those of Rabbinism. The Rabbinists have rejected\nthe religious teachers appointed by Moses, and have chosen others, who\ncannot pretend even to any degree of antiquity; and not only so, but\neven when the possibility of having regularly appointed rabbies ceased,\nthey preferred those, who in fact have no authority at all, to those\nteachers appointed in the law. The oral law makes promotion necessary to\nthe exercise of the rabbinical office, and limits the ceremony of\npromotion by two conditions, first, that it be conferred with the\nconsent of the \u05e0\u05e9\u05d9\u05d0, as we have seen above, and, secondly, that it be\nperformed in the land of Israel:\u2014\n\n\u05d0\u05d9\u05df \u05e1\u05d5\u05de\u05db\u05d9\u05df \u05d6\u05e7\u05e0\u05d9\u05dd \u05d1\u05d7\u05d5\u05e6\u05d4 \u05dc\u05d0\u05e8\u05e5 \u05d5\u05d0\u05e2\u05f3\u05f3\u05e4 \u05e9\u05d0\u05dc\u05d5 \u05d4\u05e1\u05d5\u05de\u05db\u05d9\u05df \u05e0\u05e1\u05de\u05db\u05d5 \u05d1\u05d0\u05e8\u05e5 \u05d9\u05e9\u05e8\u05d0\u05dc , \u05d0\u05e4\u05d9\u05dc\u05d5\n\u05d4\u05d9\u05d5 \u05d4\u05e1\u05d5\u05de\u05db\u05d9\u05df \u05d1\u05d0\u05e8\u05e5 \u05d5\u05d4\u05e0\u05e1\u05de\u05da \u05d1\u05d7\u05d5\u05e5 \u05dc\u05d0\u05e8\u05e5 \u05d0\u05d9\u05df \u05e1\u05d5\u05de\u05db\u05d9\u05df \u05c3\n\n\u201cElders are not promoted anywhere, except in the land of Israel; even\nalthough the promoters should have been promoted there themselves. Yea,\nthough the persons conferring the promotion be in the land, if the\nperson to be promoted be outside the land, the promotion is not to take\nplace.\u201d Now it is plain that these conditions cannot be fulfilled. The\ngreat majority of the present rabbies have never been in the land of\nIsrael; and even if they had been, there has not been a \u05e0\u05e9\u05d9\u05d0 prince for\nmany a century. For centuries, therefore, there has not been a rabbi\npromoted to the office as the oral law requires; and yet the Jews,\nrather than have the priests, the sons of Levi, still keep up the shadow\nof the rabbinical office. A more determined opposition to the\ninstitutions of Moses cannot be imagined. First, the Jewish people\nrejected the ordinance of Moses, and devised an order of teachers of\ntheir own, limited by certain conditions. Then God, in great mercy, made\nthe fulfilment of those conditions impossible. He took away the prince,\nhe drove them out of the land of Israel, to give them, as it were, an\nopportunity, yea, to compel them to return to his own appointment: but\nin vain. Although the Jews cannot fulfil the conditions of their own\ndevising, and could fulfil God\u2019s appointment, they refuse the latter,\nand have invented something newer still, and that is, an order of\nreligious teachers, who have not even the qualifications required by the\noral law. Truly this is to transgress, for the mere sake of\ntransgressing. How, then, can the Jews pretend to be disciples of Moses,\nor assert that the Mosaic law is unchangeable? Now, for near two\nthousand years they have lived in disobedience to one of Moses\u2019 simplest\ncommandments, and have changed one of the essential institutions of the\nlaw. The most superficial reader of the writings of Moses must see, that\na charge of prime importance was assigned to the family of Levi, not\nonly as respected the ministration in the temple, but also with regard\nto the instruction of the people. God in His providence has deprived\nthem of the former. The Jews themselves, by rejecting the commands of\nMoses, have taken away the latter office, and thus have destroyed not\nonly the interior, but actually demolished the external form of the\nMosaic edifice. It is, therefore, as we have said, a most difficult\nproblem to account for the profession which modern Jews make of zeal for\nthe law of Moses, and one which well deserves the consideration of the\nJews themselves. Why should they profess to be disciples of Moses, when\nthey openly trample upon his commands, and reject both the substance and\nthe form of his religion? If they really believe that obedience to the\nlaw of Moses is necessary to salvation, they ought instantly to\nreinstate the family of Levi in their office. But if they prefer the new\nreligion of the rabbies to the old religion of Moses, then they ought\nhonestly to say so; and not go on halting between two opinions. And they\nought to do this, not merely to avoid the charge of inconsistency before\nmen, but to satisfy their own consciences before God. How can any man\nreasonably hope to be saved by a religion whose commands he constantly\ntransgresses, and never intends to obey? And yet this is exactly the\ncase with the Rabbinists with regard to the law of Moses. There have\nbeen attempts at reform amongst the Jews, but we have never heard of any\nwho intended to restore the family of Levi to their office; and yet,\nwithout this, there is no return to the Mosaic institutions.\n\nA disciple of the rabbies may perhaps think, that he can retort this\nargument upon the Christians, and say that Jesus of Nazareth was not of\nthe tribe of Levi. Certainly he was not; but as the Messiah, the\nprophets foretold that he was to be of the tribe of Judah: and as the\nMessiah, promised and appointed of God, he has a right to the obedience\nof all, both Jew and Gentile. If he had been only an ordinary prophet,\nhe would have had a divine right to teach the people and to require\ntheir obedience; for, besides the priests, God also appointed prophets,\nbut to the prophetic office the rabbies do not lay claim. The Lord\nJesus, on the contrary, claimed not only the prophetic character, but\nasserted that he was the Messiah, and proved the truth of his claims by\nexhibiting miraculous powers, and especially by his resurrection from\nthe dead. As a prophet, therefore, and above all, as the Messiah, his\nteaching in no wise interfered with the office of the priests: and his\nconduct, as recorded in the New Testament, shows that, though in\ndetermined and constant opposition to the Pharisees, the advocates of\nthe oral law, he never lifted up his voice against the office of the\npriesthood. On the contrary, when occasion offered, he showed a\nscrupulous regard for the commandments of Moses respecting the priests;\nas for instance when he healed the leper, he \u201csaid onto him, See thou\ntell no man; but go thy way, show thyself to the priests, and offer the\ngift that Moses commanded, for a testimony unto them.\u201d (Matt. viii. 4.)\nAnd this conduct is perfectly conformable to one professed object of the\nLord Jesus, which was to vindicate the authority of the law against the\nunauthorized additions of men. He professed himself the defender of the\nMosaic law, and opposed the whole system of the Rabbinists, on the\nprofessed ground that they made it void by their traditions. The\nobjections, therefore, which we have brought against the oral law, as\noverturning the institutions of Moses, cannot be applied to the\ndoctrines or conduct of the Lord Jesus Christ. He never opposed the\npriests, never interfered with their office, never diminished aught from\ntheir authority. In these most important respects, the doctrine of Jesus\nof Nazareth is necessarily more agreeable to the law of Moses than the\ntraditions of the Pharisees, who have forcibly altered that great\ninstitution of Moses, the Levitic priesthood, and have themselves\nusurped the office and the rights of the priests. Modern Judaism is\ndirectly in opposition to the Mosaic law, and has at present no excuse\nfor its opposition. The Jews of the dispersion cannot possibly keep its\nrequirements concerning the promotion of rabbies; their adherence,\ntherefore, to that system has now the appearance of mere gratuitous and\nwilful hatred to the law of Moses. They profess to know the family of\nthe priests, and could therefore restore them to their office, if they\npleased. What is there to prevent them? Nothing but the want of love for\nMoses and his institutions. We are convinced that many of the Jews have\nnever considered this matter, or they would not act as they do. The\nhabits of thought induced by early education, the customs of their\nnation for two thousand years, have drawn a sort of veil over their\nunderstandings, so that they have not been able to see the palpable\ninconsistency of professing a zeal for Moses, whilst they do homage to\nprinciples which cut up his institutions by the roots. Until the priests\nbe reinstated in their functions and their rights, as the divinely\nappointed teachers of religion, the Jews can have no ground whatever to\npretend that they are disciples of Moses. They are, at present, nothing\nbut partisans of the sect of the Rabbinists. And if they choose to\npersevere in their attachment to this sect, they are bound, as honest\nmen, to renounce all profession of regard for the law of Moses.\n\n\n\n\n                               No. XLIII.\n                               SANHEDRIN.\n\n\nIt is certain that the Jews cannot appeal to the law of the prophets to\ndefend their rejection of the old religion of Moses, and their\npreference for the new religion of the rabbies. Neither Moses nor the\nprophets knew anything about the rabbies. They are quite a new order of\nmen, never heard of until the Jewish polity was tottering to its\ndestruction. There is, however, another argument to which they might\nappeal, in order to justify the reception of new religious teachers, and\nthat is, the existence of the Sanhedrin. It may be said, that when the\nrabbies arose and taught, both they and their doctrines were approved by\nthis great council, and that this approval is sufficient to establish\nthe justice of their claims, and the truth of what they taught. Indeed,\nthe rabbinists do actually look upon the Sanhedrin as the great\nfoundation on which the oral law rests:\u2014\n\n\u05d1\u05d9\u05ea \u05d3\u05d9\u05df \u05d4\u05d2\u05d3\u05d5\u05dc \u05e9\u05d1\u05d9\u05e8\u05d5\u05e9\u05dc\u05d9\u05dd \u05d4\u05dd \u05e2\u05d9\u05e7\u05e8 \u05ea\u05d5\u05e8\u05d4 \u05e9\u05d1\u05e2\u05f3\u05f3\u05e4 \u05d5\u05d4\u05dd \u05e2\u05de\u05d5\u05d3\u05d9 \u05d4\u05d4\u05d5\u05e8\u05d0\u05ea \u05d5\u05de\u05d4\u05dd \u05d7\u05d5\u05e7\n\u05d5\u05de\u05e9\u05e4\u05d8 \u05d9\u05d5\u05e6\u05d0 \u05dc\u05db\u05dc \u05d9\u05e9\u05e8\u05d0\u05dc , \u05d5\u05e2\u05dc\u05d9\u05d4\u05d9 \u05d4\u05d1\u05d8\u05d9\u05d7\u05d4 \u05ea\u05d5\u05e8\u05d4 \u05e9\u05e0\u05d0\u05de\u05e8 \u05e2\u05dc \u05e4\u05d9 \u05d4\u05ea\u05d5\u05e8\u05d4 \u05d0\u05e9\u05e8 \u05d9\u05d5\u05e8\u05d5\u05da \u05d6\u05d5\n\u05de\u05e6\u05d5\u05ea \u05e2\u05e9\u05d4 \u05d5\u05db\u05dc \u05d4\u05de\u05d0\u05de\u05d9\u05df \u05d1\u05de\u05e9\u05d4 \u05e8\u05d1\u05d9\u05e0\u05d5 \u05d9\u05d1\u05ea\u05d5\u05e8\u05ea\u05d5 \u05d7\u05d9\u05d9\u05d1 \u05dc\u05e1\u05de\u05d5\u05da \u05de\u05e2\u05e9\u05d4 \u05d4\u05d3\u05ea \u05e2\u05dc\u05d9\u05d4\u05df \u05d5\u05dc\u05d9\u05e9\u05e2\u05df\n\u05e2\u05dc\u05d9\u05d4\u05df \u05c3\n\n\u201cThe Great Council in Jerusalem is the foundation-stone of the oral law,\nand the pillars of the doctrine: and from them the statute and the\njudgment goes forth to all Israel. They have the warrant of the law, for\nit is said, \u2018According to the sentence of the law which they shall teach\nthee,\u2019 &c. (Deut. xvii. 11); which is an affirmative precept, and every\none who believes in Moses our master, and in his law, is bound to rest\nthe practice of the law on them, and to lean on them.\u201d (Hilchoth Mamrim,\nc. i. 1.) Here the indispensable duty of every Israelite to follow the\ndecisions of the Sanhedrin is plainly asserted: it becomes, then,\nabsolutely necessary for us to examine into the nature of the foundation\non which claims so unlimited are based. One would suppose that, at the\nvery least, the Sanhedrin was infallible, and could never say or do\nanything wrong; for if this council was liable to error, and yet\nundeviating obedience to its decisions required, whenever they went\nwrong, all Israel must have gone wrong also. But yet, strange to say,\nthe infallibility of the Sanhedrin is not only not asserted, but plainly\ndenied\u2014yea, the possibility of error unequivocally intimated, and even\nprovided for:\u2014\n\n\u05d1\u05d9\u05ea \u05d3\u05d9\u05df \u05d2\u05d3\u05d5\u05dc \u05e9\u05d3\u05e8\u05e9\u05d5 \u05d1\u05d0\u05d7\u05ea \u05de\u05df \u05d4\u05de\u05d3\u05d5\u05ea \u05db\u05e4\u05d9 \u05de\u05d4 \u05e9\u05e0\u05e8\u05d0\u05d4 \u05d1\u05e2\u05d9\u05e0\u05d9\u05d4\u05dd \u05e9\u05d4\u05d3\u05d9\u05df \u05db\u05da \u05d5\u05d3\u05e0\u05d5 \u05d3\u05d9\u05df\n, \u05d5\u05e2\u05de\u05d3 \u05d0\u05d7\u05e8\u05d9\u05d4\u05dd \u05d1\u05d9\u05ea \u05d3\u05d9\u05df \u05d0\u05d7\u05e8 \u05dc\u05e1\u05ea\u05d5\u05e8 \u05d0\u05d5\u05ea\u05d5 \u05d4\u05e8\u05d9 \u05d6\u05d4 \u05e1\u05d5\u05ea\u05e8 \u05d5\u05d3\u05df \u05db\u05e4\u05d9 \u05de\u05d4 \u05e9\u05e0\u05e8\u05d0\u05d4 \u05d1\u05e2\u05d9\u05e0\u05d9\u05d5\n, \u05e9\u05e0\u05d0\u05de\u05e8 \u05d0\u05dc \u05d4\u05e9\u05d5\u05e4\u05d8 \u05d0\u05e9\u05e8 \u05d9\u05d4\u05d9\u05d4 \u05d1\u05d9\u05de\u05d9\u05dd \u05d4\u05d4\u05dd \u05d0\u05d9\u05e0\u05da \u05d7\u05d9\u05d9\u05d1 \u05dc\u05dc\u05db\u05ea \u05d0\u05dc\u05d0 \u05d0\u05d7\u05e8 \u05d1\u05d9\u05ea \u05d3\u05d9\u05df\n\u05e9\u05d1\u05d3\u05d5\u05e8\u05da , \u05d1\u05d9\u05ea \u05d3\u05d9\u05df \u05e9\u05d2\u05d6\u05e8\u05d5 \u05d2\u05d6\u05e8\u05d4 \u05d0\u05d5 \u05ea\u05e7\u05e0\u05d5 \u05ea\u05e7\u05e0\u05d4 \u05d5\u05d4\u05e0\u05d4\u05d9\u05d2\u05d5 \u05de\u05e0\u05d4\u05d2 \u05d5\u05e4\u05e9\u05d8 \u05d4\u05d3\u05d1\u05e8 \u05d1\u05db\u05dc\n\u05d9\u05e9\u05e8\u05d0\u05dc , \u05d5\u05e2\u05de\u05d3 \u05d0\u05d7\u05e8\u05d9\u05d4\u05dd \u05d1\u05f3\u05f3\u05d3 \u05d0\u05d7\u05e8 \u05d5\u05d1\u05e7\u05e9 \u05dc\u05d1\u05d8\u05dc \u05d3\u05d1\u05e8\u05d9\u05dd \u05d4\u05e8\u05d0\u05e9\u05d5\u05e0\u05d9\u05dd \u05d5\u05dc\u05e2\u05e7\u05d5\u05e8 \u05d0\u05d5\u05ea\u05d4 \u05d4\u05ea\u05e7\u05e0\u05d4\n\u05d5\u05d0\u05d5\u05ea\u05d4 \u05d4\u05d2\u05d6\u05e8\u05d4 \u05d5\u05d0\u05d5\u05ea\u05d5 \u05d4\u05de\u05e0\u05d4\u05d2 \u05d0\u05d9\u05e0\u05d5 \u05d9\u05db\u05d5\u05dc \u05e2\u05d3 \u05e9\u05d9\u05d4\u05d9\u05d4 \u05d2\u05d3\u05d5\u05dc \u05de\u05df \u05d4\u05e8\u05d0\u05e9\u05d5\u05e0\u05d9\u05dd \u05d1\u05d7\u05db\u05de\u05d4 \u05d5\u05d1\u05de\u05e0\u05d9\u05df\n\u05d5\u05db\u05d5\u05f3 \u05c3\n\n\u201cWhen a great council has decided by one of the rules, and according to\nthe best of their judgment, that the judgment is so and so, and has\npassed sentence; if there arise after them another council of a contrary\nopinion, the latter may reverse the sentence, and pass another according\nto the best of their judgment, for it is said, \u2018Unto the judge that\nshall be in those days\u2019 (Deut. xvii. 9); thou art, therefore, not bound\nto follow any other but the existing council. But if a council decree a\ndecree, or ordain an ordinance, or sanction a custom, and the thing has\nspread in all Israel; and there arise after them another council, which\nwishes to abrogate the former things, and to root out that ordinance,\ndecree, or custom, it is not permitted, unless they excel the former in\nwisdom and in number.\u201d (Ibid. c. ii. 1, 2.) According to this doctrine\nthe Sanhedrin in one generation may teach one doctrine, and in the next\ngeneration another Sanhedrin may abrogate all the legislative acts of\nthe former, and teach another doctrine, and yet, though one of the two\nmust necessarily be in the wrong, Israel is bound to obey both; and thus\nthe law is made to sanction disobedience to itself. Nay, more, the will\nof God is made actually to depend upon the wit and the will of man.\nInstead of being eternal and unchangeable truth, it must vary with each\nsucceeding generation, so that what was truth to a father, might be\nfalsehood to his son; and every new Sanhedrin would, in fact, have the\npower to make a new law. How, then, can the Jews pretend that the Mosaic\nlaw is unchangeable? Here it is asserted, that the Jews are to receive,\nas the law of Moses, whatever the Sanhedrin may think right to teach\u2014and\nthat every new Sanhedrin may overturn the doctrines of their\npredecessors, and teach the very opposite; so that instead of being\neternal, the law would be one of the most changeable things in the\nworld, and might never last the same for even two generations. But how\ncan any man possibly believe, that a command so preposterous should come\nfrom God, or that he would deliver over his people Israel, bound hand\nand foot, into the power of seventy-one persons, and require\nunconditional obedience, no matter whether these persons were in the\nright or in the wrong? Pretensions so extravagant justly excite\nsuspicion, and entirely destroy the credit of those that make them. They\nbetray an inordinate lust of power, and savour far more strongly of\nambition than piety. It was no doubt very convenient for the members of\nthe Sanhedrin to be able to reverse the decisions of their predecessors.\nOn these terms, the law could never stand in the way of their own\nschemes. No matter how it had been explained or understood before, they\nhad the power of giving a new interpretation to suit their own purpose.\nIt is truly wonderful how the Jews can suffer themselves to be deluded\nby an imposture so exceedingly coarse. A child ought to be able to see,\nthat God could never require a man to renounce his understanding, and to\nreceive two direct contradictions as true.\n\nThe manifest absurdity of this doctrine is sufficient to prove that the\npassage cited from Deut. xvii. is misinterpreted and misapplied; and a\nlittle consideration will show that it does not refer to the Sanhedrin\nat all. In the first place there is no mention of that council, nor any\nthing that even implies a reference to such a body. The command of God\nis, \u201cThou shalt come unto the _priests_, _the Levites_, and unto the\n_judge_ that shall be in those days, and inquire.\u201d It is not said to the\njudges, but to the judge \u05d4\u05e9\u05d5\u05e4\u05d8. To these, and not to the Sanhedrin,\nMoses requires absolute obedience, and that for a just and sufficient\nreason, because, as we have shown in Number 2, they had the means of\nobtaining an infallible answer by means of the \u05d0\u05d5\u05e8\u05d9\u05dd \u05d5\u05ea\u05d5\u05de\u05d9\u05dd Urim and\nThummim. It was the privilege of Israel to be able to ask counsel\nimmediately of God; and it was therefore only rational to expect\nunconditional obedience to the command of the Almighty. Such decisions\nwere absolutely unchangeable as God himself, for \u201cHe is not a man that\nhe should lie, nor the son of man that He should repent;\u201d and no man in\nhis senses would have thought of getting a sentence of this kind\nreversed. These words can therefore by no means apply to a tribunal\nfallible in judgment, and as changeable in its opinions as in the\npersons of which it was composed: but if this passage does not apply,\nthere is no other in the Bible which requires us to receive the decision\nof the Sanhedrin as of divine authority, nor in the oral law either, for\nit supposes that this council was capable of mistake. Consequently, the\nSanhedrin\u2019s approval of the new order and new religion of the rabbies is\nof no weight whatever. The Bible does not command us to believe that\nthey were always in the right; and they themselves tell us that they\nmight be in the wrong, and therefore might be in the wrong in their\napproval of the rabbies.\n\nBut the truth is, that neither the Bible nor history gives us any\nwarrant whatever for regarding the Sanhedrin as a Mosaic institution. In\nthe first place, it is never once mentioned either in the Law or in the\nProphets. The word _Sanhedrin_ is Greek, and so far as it goes would\nlead us to suppose that this tribunal was not instituted until some time\nafter the building of the second temple, and after the Greek occupation\nof the land, when the Jews had become acquainted with the Greek\nlanguage. This Greek word would lead us even to suppose that the\nSanhedrin was instituted by the Greek rulers, and that they gave the\ntribunal its name. If it had been an old Mosaic institution, the Jews\nthemselves, who hated the Greeks, and that with good reason, would never\nhave given it a Greek name: and even if the Greeks had assigned this\nname to a Jewish tribunal, which had previously existed, the Jews would\nnot have adopted it. It is true that there is also a Hebrew name for\nthis tribunal, \u05d1\u05d9\u05ea \u05d3\u05d9\u05df \u05d4\u05d2\u05d3\u05d5\u05dc, \u201cThe great house of judgment,\u201d but if this\nhad been the original name, it is not at all likely that the Greek name\nwould have supplanted it; whereas if it was a Greek institution, and\ntherefore had a Greek name, it is not to be wondered at that that name\nshould have obtained general currency, or that it should also be\ntranslated into Hebrew. The Hebrew name will not do more than the Greek\nto prove the antiquity of the tribunal, for it never once occurs in the\nBible, and it would be very strange, if this council had existed from\nthe time of Moses, that it should never once be mentioned. The High\nCourt of Parliament does not hold a more important place in the history\nof this country, than the Sanhedrin must have done in the history of\nIsrael, if it had really existed: how then are we to account for the\nfact, that neither the historians nor the prophets of Israel ever make\nthe most distant allusion to its being? If the rabbies speak truth, the\nprophets, the high priests, and the kings of Israel, were mere ciphers\ncompared with the Sanhedrin, for it had supreme power over them all, and\ncould try, condemn, and execute them, and yet they are mentioned again\nand again, and the Sanhedrin passed by in mysterious silence! There are\ntwo books of Kings, and two of Chronicles, relating the history of the\nRoyal rulers of Israel, but the Supreme Council of the nation, the\nrulers of kings and priests, the foundation-stone of the law, the pillar\nof religion, have never obtained even a casual notice! Is this at all\nprobable? Would it be possible to write a history of the British\nConstitution without ever once mentioning the existence of the\nParliament? And yet this is what has happened, according to the rabbies\nto the essential feature of the Constitution of Israel. Neither the\nlawgiver, nor the historians, nor the prophets, have said one word about\nit.\n\nThe rabbies have felt the necessity of finding something or other in the\nwritten law, that would look like the recognition of the Sanhedrin, and\nhave therefore fixed on two passages which they think will serve their\ncause. One is that to which we have already alluded, \u201cThou shalt come\nunto the priests the Levites, and unto the judge that shall be in those\ndays.\u201d (Deut. xvii. 9.) We have already said sufficient to show that\nthis passage is totally irrelevant, and now add one remark more, which\nis in itself decisive, and that is, that the constitution of the\nSanhedrin, as described in the oral law, is altogether at variance with\nthe conditions laid down in this passage. The oral law says\u2014\n\n\u05d5\u05de\u05e6\u05d5\u05d4 \u05dc\u05d4\u05d9\u05d5\u05ea \u05d1\u05e1\u05e0\u05d4\u05d3\u05e8\u05d9\u05df \u05d2\u05d3\u05d5\u05dc\u05d4 \u05db\u05d4\u05e0\u05d9\u05dd \u05d5\u05dc\u05d5\u05d9\u05dd \u05e9\u05e0\u05d0\u05de\u05e8 \u05e9\u05e0\u05d0\u05de\u05e8 \u05d5\u05d1\u05d0\u05ea \u05d0\u05dc \u05d4\u05db\u05d4\u05e0\u05d9\u05dd \u05d4\u05dc\u05d5\u05d9\u05dd\n\u05d5\u05d0\u05dd \u05dc\u05d0 \u05de\u05e6\u05d0\u05d5 \u05d0\u05e4\u05d9\u05dc\u05d5 \u05d4\u05d9\u05d5 \u05db\u05d5\u05dc\u05dd \u05d9\u05e9\u05e8\u05d0\u05dc\u05d9\u05dd \u05d3\u05e8\u05d9 \u05d6\u05d4 \u05de\u05d5\u05ea\u05e8 \u05c3\n\n\u201cThe command is, that there should be in the great Sanhedrin, priests\nand Levites, for it is said, \u2018Thou shalt come to the priests, the\nLevites.\u2019 But if they find none, yea, though they be all mere\nIsraelites, this is lawful.\u201d (Hilchoth Sanhedrin, c. ii. 2.) According\nto this the Sanhedrin was to consist of three distinct classes, priests,\nLevites, and Israelites; but Moses does not say one word of the Levites,\nas distinguished from the priests. His words are, \u201cThou shalt come to\nthe priests, the Levites.\u201d He does not say, \u201cThe priests _and_ the\nLevites;\u201d but simply, \u201cThe priests, the Levites;\u201d from which it is plain\nthat he was speaking only of that one class of the sons of Levi, who had\nthe office of the priesthood; but not of that other class, whose only\ntitle was \u201cThe Levites.\u201d This is the first difference. The second is\nlike it, inasmuch as it is also an unauthorized addition, and that is,\nthat there should be Israelites members of this council, of whom Moses\ndoes not say one word more than he does of the Levites. Besides the\npriests, Moses mentions none but the judge \u05d4\u05e9\u05d5\u05e4\u05d8, not the judges, so\nthat if the judge was an Israelite, there could at the very most be only\none Israelite amongst those whom Moses appoints as the highest court of\nappeal in Israel. But if the judge \u05d4\u05e9\u05d5\u05e4\u05d8 was himself a priest, then\nthere was not even one Israelite; but the court was composed exclusively\nof priests. This court cannot, therefore, be the same as the Sanhedrin,\nwhich was to be composed of all the three classes. Thirdly, the oral law\nsays, That though the Sanhedrin should not reckon one priest amongst its\nmembers, but should consist entirely of Israelites, that still it is\nlawful; this court can, therefore, never be the same as that of which\nMoses says, \u201cThou shalt come to the priests, the Levites, and to the\njudge.\u201d The court which the rabbies have appointed might not have even\none priest, and yet they ask us to believe that this is identical with\nthat, which, according to the appointment of Moses, could never have\nmore than one Israelite, but might, and in the days of Eli actually did,\nconsist exclusively of priests. Truly the rabbies must have calculated\nupon disciples with a most inordinate measure of credulity. The man that\nwould believe this, would believe that black is white; or as Rashi says,\nthat his right hand is the left, and his left hand the right. And this\nis really what modern Judaism expects, and absolutely commands in so\nmany words. In Rashi\u2019s commentary on the words \u201cThou shalt not decline\nfrom the sentence which they shall show thee, to the right nor to the\nleft\u201d (Deut. xvii. 11); which words, as we have seen, the rabbies apply\nto the Sanhedrin, he says\u2014\n\n\u05d0\u05e4\u05d9\u05dc\u05d5 \u05d0\u05d5\u05de\u05e8 \u05dc\u05da \u05e2\u05dc \u05d9\u05de\u05d9\u05df \u05e9\u05d4\u05d5\u05d0 \u05e9\u05de\u05d0\u05dc \u05d5\u05e2\u05dc \u05e9\u05de\u05d0\u05dc \u05e9\u05d4\u05d5\u05d0 \u05d9\u05de\u05d9\u05df \u05c3\n\n\u201cYea, though they should tell thee of the right hand, that it is the\nleft, and of the left hand, that it is the right.\u201d Of course men that\nexpected from their followers this perfect renunciation of reason, might\nsay any thing they liked, and might therefore ask them to believe that a\ncourt consisting of all priests was identical with one from which\npriests were altogether excluded. But as we are not willing to give up\nthat reason, which we consider a noble gift of God, we cannot help\nthinking that these two courts are as different as day and night, and\nthat the appointment of Moses does not in the remotest degree serve as a\nwarrant for the appointment of the Sanhedrin. Indeed, the sad perplexity\nof the rabbies to find out some passage or other on which to father\ntheir own inventions, and the desperate necessity which they felt of\nappealing to this passage, proves to us most satisfactorily, that the\nSanhedrin is not a Mosaic institution at all. It is as impossible that\nthere could be two supreme courts, as that a man can have two heads.\nMoses did appoint a supreme court, from which there was no appeal, as is\nplain from the words, \u201cThou shalt come to the priests, the Levites, and\nto the judge,\u201d and we have proved that this court is not identical with\nthe Sanhedrin. But according to the rabbies, the Sanhedrin was a supreme\ncourt; if, therefore, it had existed, there would have been two supreme\ncourts, perfectly independent of each other, which is plainly\nimpossible. It never entered into the head even of human lawgivers to be\nguilty of such absurdity, and it would be an affront to the wisdom of\nthe Almighty to suppose that he had sanctioned it in his own law. This\none argument is in itself sufficient to overthrow the doctrine of a\nSanhedrin as taught in the oral law. It was not only unknown to Moses,\nbut is directly opposed to his own institution.\n\nThis portion of the oral law is, however, most important for proving the\ntotal disregard, or rather contempt, which the rabbies had for the\ninstitutions of Moses, and the motives by which they were actuated.\nMoses ordained a supreme court of judicature, to consist exclusively of\npriests, together with the chief civil governor for the time being. The\nrabbies not only did not choose to obey the command of Moses, but\nactually abrogated his institution, and set up another instead of it.\nThey were probably enabled to do this in the time of confusion which\nfollowed the Greek conquest. The Greeks, who cared nothing for Moses or\nhis laws, naturally disregarded the priests and the lawful civil\ngovernor; and therefore when they conquered the land, set up a tribunal\nof their own, composed not of those whom Moses had appointed, but of any\nwhom they could find. Indeed, to secure their own dominion, their\nnatural policy was to exclude those who had previously held the reins of\ngovernment. To this new tribunal they of course gave a Greek name, and\ncalled it in their own language, \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03ad\u03b4\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd, or, as the Talmud pronounces\nit, Sanhedrin. The Jews, whom they appointed members, liked the power\nwhich it gave them, and therefore, when the Greeks were gone,\nendeavoured to perpetuate it; and as they could not find a warrant for\nit in the written law, declared that the institution was a part of the\noral law: and thus, to gratify their own ambition, trampled upon the law\nof Moses. This is the probable history of the rise of the Sanhedrin; but\nhowever that be, it is certain that it is directly opposed to that\nsupreme court appointed by Moses, and that it was love of power which\ninduced the rabbies to sanction it. They thereby depressed the authority\nof the priests and the civil governor, and in fact became the dictators\nof the Jewish commonwealth. A tribunal supported from such motives, and\nso directly subversive of the commands of Moses, cannot prove to any\nlover of the old religion the authority of the rabbies. Indeed, the\napproval of such a body would go far to prove that the oral law and the\nrabbies were Moses\u2019s enemies. The Mosaic law was first pulled down\nbefore the Sanhedrin could be built up, and it was founded on the ruins\nof the Mosaic institutions.\n\nWe have not space at present to enter into the other passage which the\nrabbies cite in proof of the authority of the Sanhedrin, but hope to do\nso in our next number\u2014not that it is necessary to the argument, but\nsimply because it is our earnest wish that the people of Israel should\nsee how the rabbies are in difficulty to find even a semblance of proof\nfor the foundation-stone of their whole fabric. That one passage from\nDeuteronomy\u2014\u201cThou shalt come unto the priests, the Levites, and unto the\njudge,\u201d is quite sufficient to prove that Moses did not institute the\nSanhedrin but that, on the contrary, it must have been established by\nsome determined enemies of the Mosaic law; and that it was perpetuated\nby those whose ambition led them to usurp power, which Moses had\ncommitted unto others. We have thus another proof that modern Judaism\nhas demolished even the external form of the Mosaic constitution. The\nrabbies were not content with rejecting the religion of Moses, and\ncasting out the religious teachers whom he had appointed, but have also\nrevolutionized the national polity. Moses ordained a supreme council,\nconsisting of the priests, the Levites, together with the judge, the\nchief civil governor; but the rabbies have preferred a tribunal\nestablished by idolatrous Greeks, because this Greek institution gave\nthe power into their own hands. No wonder that the God of Moses\ndestroyed their city, and put an end to that delusion with which\nambitious and wicked men deceived his people Israel.\n\n\n\n\n                               No. XLIV.\n                          SANHEDRIN CONTINUED.\n\n\nThe Sanhedrin is, as we said in our last number, the foundation-stone on\nwhich the authority of the rabbies, and the whole fabric of tradition\nrests. Take away this, and not the shadow of an argument remains to\njustify the Jews in their rejection of the Mosaic religion, and their\ndemolition of the Mosaic constitution. But this we have done. Enough has\nalready been said to make it probable that the Sanhedrin, with its Greek\nname, was invented and established by the idolatrous Greeks; and to make\nit certain that it is subversive of the Supreme Council established by\nMoses, and that, for that reason, it was not one of his institutions. We\nhave already disposed of one of the passages which the rabbies quote\nfrom the Pentateuch, to prove the Divine authority of the Sanhedrin;\nbut, as they have, with much difficulty, found two, we now proceed to\nconsider the second. It is quoted in the following manner:\u2014\n\n\u05db\u05de\u05d4 \u05d1\u05ea\u05d9 \u05d3\u05d9\u05e0\u05d9\u05df \u05e7\u05d1\u05d5\u05e2\u05d9\u05df \u05d9\u05d4\u05d9\u05d5 \u05d1\u05d9\u05e9\u05e8\u05d0\u05dc \u05d5\u05db\u05de\u05d4 \u05d9\u05d4\u05d9\u05d4 \u05de\u05e0\u05d9\u05e0\u05df , \u05e7\u05d5\u05d1\u05e2\u05d9\u05df \u05d1\u05ea\u05d7\u05dc\u05d4 \u05d1\u05d9\u05ea \u05d3\u05d9\u05df\n\u05d4\u05d2\u05d3\u05d5\u05dc \u05d1\u05de\u05e7\u05d3\u05e9 , \u05d5\u05d4\u05d5\u05d0 \u05d4\u05e0\u05e7\u05e8\u05d0 \u05e1\u05e0\u05d4\u05d3\u05e8\u05d9 \u05d2\u05d3\u05d5\u05dc\u05d4 \u05d5\u05de\u05e0\u05d9\u05e0\u05dd \u05e2\u05f3\u05f3\u05d0 , \u05e9\u05e0\u05d0\u05de\u05e8 \u05d0\u05e1\u05e4\u05d4 \u05dc\u05d9 \u05e9\u05d1\u05e2\u05d9\u05dd\n\u05d0\u05d9\u05e9 \u05de\u05d6\u05e7\u05e0\u05d9 \u05d9\u05e9\u05e8\u05d0\u05dc \u05d5\u05de\u05e9\u05d4 \u05e2\u05dc \u05d2\u05d1\u05d9\u05d4\u05df , \u05e9\u05e0\u05d0\u05de\u05e8 \u05d5\u05d4\u05ea\u05d9\u05e6\u05d1\u05d5 \u05e9\u05dd \u05e2\u05de\u05da \u05d4\u05e8\u05d9 \u05e2\u05f3\u05f3\u05d0 \u05c3\n\n\u201cHow many councils (or tribunals) ought to be established in Israel, and\nof how many members ought they to consist? _Ans._ The Great Council in\nthe temple called the Great Sanhedrin, ought to be established first,\nand the number of its members ought to be seventy-one; for it is said,\n\u2018Gather unto me seventy men of the elders of Israel;\u2019 and to them Moses\nis to be added, and as it is said, \u2018And they shall stand there with\nthee.\u2019 (Numb. xi. 16.) This makes seventy-one.\u201d (Hilchoth Sanhedrin, c.\ni. 2.) Here the rabbies have certainly found the number seventy-one; but\nto prove that this was the Sanhedrin, they ought first, to show, that\nthese seventy-one persons were not to be scattered through the tribes,\nbut always to remain together as one council; and, secondly, that this\ncouncil was to be permanent; and, thirdly, that this council did really\nexist from the time of Moses to the destruction of Jerusalem; and,\nfourthly, and most important of all, that this was the _Supreme_\nCouncil; for even if the other three points could be made out, they\nwould be insufficient without this. The Sanhedrin claims to be the\nSupreme Council, and, therefore, if it cannot be shown, that the\nassembly of the seventy elders is identical with the Supreme Council\nappointed by Moses, this passage is of no more use than the former one.\nNow, respecting the three first points, nothing whatever is said, either\nin the Law or the Prophets. And respecting the fourth; even if we grant\nthe three first, we can shew that these seventy elders did not\nconstitute the Supreme Council of the nation. We have proved in our last\npaper, that the supreme power was vested in an exclusive council\ncomposed of the priests, together with the judge \u05d4\u05e9\u05d5\u05e4\u05d8, but the seventy\nelders, here spoken of, were to be chosen promiscuously from the tribes\nof Israel, and therefore cannot be identical with that exclusive\nassembly; and therefore did not compose the Supreme Council; and\ntherefore had nothing of the nature of the Sanhedrin, which pretended to\nbe supreme over all. Thus it appears on examination, that there is not\none text in the whole law of Moses, which authorizes the establishment\nof such a council as the Sanhedrin; but that on the contrary, it stands\nin direct opposition to that order of things prescribed by Moses.\n\nWe can, however, go farther, and show that all the particulars which the\nrabbies detail concerning it are manifest falsehoods; and that, if the\nJews choose to believe what the oral law says concerning the Sanhedrin\nthey most not only give up Moses, but renounce all the other inspired\nwriters of the Old Testament. The particular and exclusive duties of the\nSanhedrin are thus detailed:\u2014\n\n\u05d0\u05d9\u05df \u05de\u05e2\u05de\u05d9\u05d3\u05d9\u05df \u05de\u05dc\u05da \u05d0\u05dc\u05d0 \u05e2\u05dc \u05e4\u05d9 \u05d1\u05d9\u05ea \u05d3\u05d9\u05df \u05e9\u05dc \u05e2\u05f3\u05f3\u05d0 , \u05d5\u05d0\u05d9\u05df \u05e2\u05d5\u05e9\u05d9\u05df \u05e1\u05e0\u05d4\u05d3\u05e8\u05d9 \u05e7\u05d8\u05e0\u05d4 \u05dc\u05db\u05dc\n\u05e9\u05d1\u05d8 \u05d5\u05e9\u05d1\u05d8 \u05d5\u05dc\u05db\u05dc \u05e2\u05d9\u05e8 \u05d5\u05e2\u05d9\u05e8 \u05d0\u05dc\u05d0 \u05e2\u05dc \u05e4\u05d9 \u05d1\u05d9\u05ea \u05d3\u05d9\u05df \u05e9\u05dc \u05e2\u05f3\u05f3\u05d0 , \u05d5\u05d0\u05d9\u05df \u05d3\u05e0\u05d9\u05df \u05dc\u05d0 \u05d0\u05ea \u05d4\u05e9\u05d1\u05d8\n\u05e9\u05d4\u05d5\u05d3\u05d7 \u05db\u05d5\u05dc\u05d5 \u05d5\u05dc\u05d0 \u05d0\u05ea \u05e0\u05d1\u05d9\u05d0 \u05d4\u05e9\u05e7\u05e8 \u05d5\u05dc\u05d0 \u05d0\u05ea \u05db\u05d4\u05df \u05d4\u05d2\u05d3\u05d5\u05dc \u05d1\u05d3\u05d9\u05e0\u05d9 \u05e0\u05e4\u05e9\u05d5\u05ea \u05d0\u05dc\u05d0 \u05d1\u05d1\u05d9\u05ea \u05d3\u05d9\u05df\n\u05d4\u05d2\u05d3\u05d5\u05dc , \u05d0\u05d1\u05dc \u05d3\u05d9\u05e0\u05d9 \u05de\u05de\u05d5\u05e0\u05d5\u05ea \u05d1\u05e9\u05dc\u05e9\u05d4 , \u05d5\u05db\u05df \u05d0\u05d9\u05df \u05e2\u05d5\u05e9\u05d9\u05df \u05d6\u05e7\u05df \u05de\u05de\u05e8\u05d0 \u05d5\u05dc\u05d0 \u05e2\u05d5\u05e9\u05d9\u05df \u05e2\u05d9\u05e8\n\u05d4\u05e0\u05d3\u05d7\u05ea \u05d5\u05dc\u05d0 \u05de\u05e9\u05e7\u05d9\u05df \u05d0\u05ea \u05d4\u05e1\u05d5\u05d8\u05d4 \u05d0\u05dc\u05d0 \u05d1\u05d1\u05d9\u05ea \u05d3\u05d9\u05df \u05d4\u05d2\u05d3\u05d5\u05dc , \u05d5\u05d0\u05d9\u05df \u05de\u05d5\u05e1\u05d9\u05e4\u05d9\u05df \u05e2\u05dc \u05d4\u05e2\u05d9\u05e8 \u05d5\u05e2\u05dc\n\u05d4\u05e2\u05d6\u05e8\u05d5\u05ea \u05d5\u05dc\u05d0 \u05de\u05d5\u05e6\u05d9\u05d0\u05d9\u05df \u05dc\u05de\u05dc\u05d7\u05de\u05ea \u05d4\u05e8\u05e9\u05d5\u05ea \u05d5\u05dc\u05de\u05d3\u05d9\u05d3\u05ea \u05d4\u05d7\u05dc\u05dc \u05d0\u05dc\u05d0 \u05e2\u05dc \u05e4\u05d9 \u05d1\u05d9\u05ea \u05d3\u05d9\u05df \u05d4\u05d2\u05d3\u05d5\u05dc ,\n\u05e9\u05e0\u05d0\u05de\u05e8 \u05db\u05dc \u05d4\u05d3\u05d1\u05e8 \u05d4\u05d2\u05d3\u05d5\u05dc \u05d9\u05d1\u05d9\u05d0\u05d5 \u05d0\u05dc\u05d9\u05da \u05c3\n\n\u201cA king is not to be appointed except by the decision of the Great\nCouncil of Seventy-one. The minor councils through the tribes and towns\nare not to be established except by the Council of Seventy-one. Judgment\nis not to be passed on a tribe that has been entirely seduced, nor upon\na false prophet, nor upon a high priest in capital cases, except by the\nGreat Council, (In mere money matters the tribunal of three is\ncompetent.) In like manner an elder is not declared rebellious, nor a\ncity dealt with as seduced,[35] nor the bitter waters administered to\nthe suspected adulteress, except by the Great Council. Neither is an\naddition made to the city nor to the courts. Neither are armies led\nforth to the wars of permission; nor the elders led forth to measure in\nthe case of a slain person (Deut. xxi. 1, &c.), except by command of the\nGreat Council, for it is said, \u2018Every great matter they shall bring to\nthee.\u2019 (Exod. xviii. 22.)\u201d (Hilchoth Sanhedrin, c. v. 1.) Such is the\npower and jurisdiction attributed by the rabbies to the Sanhedrin, and\nwhich we have now to consider. The mere reading over of these details is\nsufficient to convince any reasonable man that the whole affair is a\nwaking dream of some man or men, intoxicated with the love of dominion.\nNo man in his senses can believe that God could be the author of a\ndespotism so dreadful over the minds and bodies of men. In the first\nplace, here is an aristocracy of seventy persons, described as having\nsupreme jurisdiction over the King, the High Priest, the Prophets, and\nthe people\u2014possessing the power not only to judge individuals, but to\npass sentence on whole cities and tribes, and utterly to destroy them if\nthey pleased\u2014and this without any other law or precedent to guide them\nthan their own will\u2014and, inasmuch as they were self-elective, subject to\nno control whatever, either of the king or the people. We have heard\nmuch of corrupt corporations lately, but any thing at all equal to the\nself-elective corporation of the Sanhedrin we never heard of, excepting\nanother college of seventy-one, the grand council of another oral law of\nlater date. It is vain to say that this body was controlled by the law\nof Moses. When the Sanhedrin existed there was no law of Moses, but\ntheir own will. They expounded the law as they liked; and as we saw in\nour last, were not bound even by the decisions of their predecessors:\nand if any man dared to think for himself or to dispute their\ninterpretation, he was strangled:\u2014\n\n\u05db\u05dc \u05d7\u05db\u05dd \u05e9\u05de\u05d5\u05e8\u05d4 \u05e2\u05dc \u05d3\u05d1\u05e8\u05d9\u05d4\u05dd \u05de\u05d9\u05ea\u05ea\u05d5 \u05d1\u05d7\u05e0\u05e7 \u05c3\n\n\u201cStrangulation was the mode of execution for any learned man, who\nrebelled against their words.\u201d (Hilchoth Mamrim, c. i 2.) They had thus\nthe power to make the law say what they liked: and there was no power on\nearth to control them. If they had been appointed by the king, or\nelected by the people, they would have been responsible for the abuse of\ntheir power; but they elected their members, and could be deposed by\nnone but themselves. A despotism so complete and so dreadful, so\ninimical to personal security, and so subversive of all liberty of\nconscience, could never have been created by God, but must necessarily\nbe the offspring of the distempered brain of man. We can hardly believe\nthat many Jews, except the Talmudistic zealots, who might hope to be\nmade members wish for the restoration of the Sanhedrin; and yet, if they\ndo not, they do not believe in the Jewish religion, for the\nre-establishment of that Great Council is the consummation of Judaism:\nand if they do not believe in this religion, can they consider\nthemselves honest men in professing it?\n\nBut we must proceed to consider on what authority the rabbies make these\nclaims to such extensive jurisdiction. One would expect to find some\ndistinct command of God, expressly addressed to the council; but no,\ntheir only authority is the words of Jethro to Moses, \u201cEvery great\nmatter they shall bring to thee;\u201d a plain confession that there is in\nthe whole Bible nothing to warrant their pretensions, or they never\nwould have taken refuge in words so totally irrelevant. Indeed, we are\nrather surprised that they appealed to the Bible at all, for such an\nappeal is fatal to all their pretensions. Just let us examine some of\nthe particulars detailed above, by the light of God\u2019s word. The first\npretension is, that \u201cA king is not to be appointed except by the\ndecision of the Great Council of Seventy-one.\u201d Now is this true? Is it\npossible to show that any one of the Kings of Israel was appointed by\nthe Sanhedrin? Not one; but it is possible to prove of many that they\nwere appointed without any reference whatever to any such council. Take,\nfor instance, Saul, the first king of Israel; what had the Sanhedrin to\ndo with his election to the kingly office? Nothing at all. So far as man\nwas concerned, Samuel, and Samuel alone, was the instrument of his\nelection. When the people wished a king, they did not go to the\nSanhedrin, but to Samuel. He dissuaded them, \u201cNevertheless, the people\nrefused to obey the voice of Samuel.\u201d Would they have ventured to do so\nif he had been president of so dreadful a council as the Sanhedrin? When\nSaul was anointed, it was not by the Sanhedrin, nor by their command. No\nman was present but the king elect and the prophet. \u201cThen Samuel took a\nvial of oil, and poured it upon his head, and kissed him, and said, Is\nit not because the Lord hath anointed thee to be captain over his\ninheritance?\u201d (1 Sam. x. 1.) And when Saul was solemnly confirmed before\nthe people, Samuel was still the sole agent. \u201cSamuel called the people\ntogether unto the Lord to Mizpeh, and said, Now therefore present\nyourselves before the Lord by your tribes and by your thousands; and\nSaul the son of Kish was taken.\u201d (xi. 17-21.) It cannot be pretended\nthat the Sanhedrin had anything whatever to do with the matter. But let\nus try another instance. Let us look at the election of David; was he\nchosen by the voice of the Sanhedrin? Just as little as Saul. Samuel was\nagain the sole agent. \u201cThe Lord said unto Samuel, How long wilt thou\nmourn for Saul, seeing I have rejected him from reigning over Israel?\nFill thine horn with oil and go; I will send thee to Jesse, the\nBethlehemite; for I have provided me a king among his sons.\u201d And so\nSamuel went and anointed him, without any intervention whatever of the\nSanhedrin, or any one else. These two cases are sufficient to prove the\nfalsehood of the rabbinic pretensions; but there is one more decisive\nstill, and that is the case of Solomon. Adonijah had made himself king,\nand Bathsheba, by the advice of Nathan the prophet, took measures to\nmake her son Solomon king. But to whom did Nathan advise her to go? Did\nhe tell her to go to the Sanhedrin and to seek justice? No, but to go to\nDavid the king, and to him she accordingly went, and found him not in\ncouncil, or surrounded by the members of the Sanhedrin, but with\nAbishag, the Shunammite, ministering to him; and David, without asking\nany advice, sware unto her, \u201cAssuredly Solomon, thy Son, shall reign\nafter me.\u201d The Sanhedrin had nothing whatever to do with the matter. The\nassertion, then, that \u201cNothing was appointed except by the authority of\nthe Sanhedrin,\u201d is a gross falsehood, and very evidently made by\nambitious men, grasping after power to which they had no right.\n\nIn like manner, we might appeal to history to show, that the tribe of\nDan was judged, and that Saul, David, and the other kings of Israel,\nwaged wars without once consulting the Sanhedrin; but there is one of\nthese pretensions so directly opposed to the plain letter of the Mosaic\nlaw, that we prefer noticing it. The oral law says, that the waters of\njealousy were not administered except by the authority of the Sanhedrin.\nBut what says Moses? When the spirit of jealousy comes upon a man, does\nhe tell him to bring his wife to the Sanhedrin? No, but to the priest.\n\u201cThen shall the man bring his wife unto the priest,\u201d &c. (Numb. v. 15.)\nWhat then is the priest to do? Is he to go first to the Sanhedrin, and\nget its sanction? No; as soon as the man has brought his wife, and the\noffering of jealousy, the priest\u2019s business is to bring her before the\nLord\u2014\u201cAnd the priest shall bring her near, and set her before the\nLord,\u201d\u2014and is then to proceed with all the prescribed rites; and the\nwhole ends with these plain words, \u201cAnd the priest shall execute upon\nher all this law.\u201d There is not only no mention of the Sanhedrin, but\nimmediate power is unequivocally given to the priest, yea, he is\ncommanded to proceed without awaiting the decision of any other\ntribunal. Here again, then, the pretenders of rabbinic tradition are in\ndirect opposition to the plain commands of Moses, and are therefore\nunfounded. It is unnecessary to enter into more of these particulars.\nThe two which we have examined are contrary to truth; and two falsehoods\nare quite enough to shake the credit of any claims. The only possible\nway of establishing the authority of the Sanhedrin, in answer to this\nargument, is, to deny the authority of the Bible. There is no other\nalternative\u2014either the authors of the Pentateuch, the books of Samuel\nand Kings, are mistaken, or the jurisdiction of the Sanhedrin is a mere\nfiction. Moses commands a very different institution, and the historical\nbooks represent a very different form of government. He who receives\nthese books as inspired, must renounce the authority of the Sanhedrin,\nwhilst he who maintains it must give up the sacred books.\n\nThere is, however, another tribunal mentioned in the above-quoted\npassage of the oral law which it is necessary to notice, and that is the\nminor Sanhedrin, or council of twenty-three. It is said, \u201cThe minor\ncouncils through the tribes and towns are not to be established except\nby the council of seventy-one;\u201d and elsewhere we read:\u2014\n\n\u05d9\u05de\u05e2\u05de\u05d9\u05d3\u05d9\u05df \u05d1\u05db\u05dc \u05e2\u05d9\u05e8 \u05d5\u05e2\u05d9\u05e8 \u05d1\u05d9\u05e9\u05e8\u05d0\u05dc \u05e9\u05d9\u05e9 \u05d1\u05d4 \u05e7\u05f3\u05f3\u05db \u05d0\u05d5 \u05d9\u05d5\u05ea\u05e8 \u05e1\u05e0\u05d4\u05d3\u05e8\u05d9 \u05e7\u05d8\u05e0\u05d4 , \u05d5\u05db\u05de\u05d4 \u05d9\u05d4\u05d9\u05d4\n\u05de\u05e0\u05d9\u05e0\u05dd \u05db\u05f3\u05f3\u05d2 \u05d3\u05d9\u05d9\u05e0\u05d9\u05dd \u05c3\n\n\u201cIn every city of Israel that contains one hundred and twenty Israelites\nor more, a minor Sanhedrin ought to be appointed, and of how many\nmembers ought it to consist? Of twenty-three judges.\u201d (Hilchoth\nSanhedrin, i. 3.) Now this is another innovation for which there is no\nwarrant whatever in the law of Moses. \u201cMoses chose able men out of all\nIsrael, and made them heads over the people, rulers of thousands, rulers\nof hundreds, rulers of fifties, and rulers of tens. And they judged the\npeople at all times.\u201d (Exod. xviii. 25, 26.) This is the provision which\nMoses made for the administration of justice, but he says not a syllable\nabout the appointment of minor Sanhedrins of twenty-three, so that in\nthis we have another instance of the effort, which the rabbies made, to\nget rid of all the Mosaic institutions, and to substitute their own. And\nalso another proof that the laws of the Sanhedrin were not given by\nMoses, for they require this Council to appoint minor courts, contrary\nto his ordinances. It appears, then, from what has been said in these\ntwo papers, that the Sanhedrin was altogether an unlawful tribunal, and\nthat therefore the oral law can receive no support from its approval:\nand it appears, further, that modern Judaism has entirely subverted that\norder of things established by Moses. He ordained the priests, the\nLevites, as the teachers of Israel. Modern Judaism has turned them out\nof their office, and substituted the rabbies. Moses ordained a Supreme\nCouncil, consisting of the priests and the judge. Modern Judaism has\ndestroyed that Council, and established the Sanhedrin in its place.\nMoses appointed rulers over thousands, hundreds, fifties, and tens.\nModern Judaism has put an end to that order, and erected new tribunals\nof twenty-three. In fact, if it were possible for the Jews to realize\nall the commands of the oral law in their own land, and Moses were to\ncome amongst them again, he could never recognize them as his disciples.\nHe would not find one of his institutions remaining as he left it. It is\nquite absurd, and if the subject were not so grave, it would be\nludicrous to hear the Rabbinists exclaiming that the law of Moses is\nunchangeable, when they themselves have changed all its main provisions,\nand made an entirely new religion. But to the Jews it ought to be a\nmatter of very serious enquiry, whether the Mosaic law is unchangeable\nor not. If the law be unchangeable, then no rabbinical Jew can entertain\na reasonable hope of salvation, for he professes a religion which has\neffected the most extensive changes. In his creed he denies the\nlawfulness of change, and in his practice he changes without scruple. If\nthe law be unchangeable, it is the bounden duty of every Jew to give up\nat once the new religion of the rabbies, and to return with all haste to\nthe institutions of Moses. But if he believe that the law is changeable\nat pleasure, then he ought to renounce that article of his creed which\nteaches its immutability. In so serious a matter as religion, he ought\nto endeavour to be consistent, and not halt between two opinions. If\nMoses be his lawgiver, then let him serve him. But if he be determined\nto continue in the new religion of the rabbies, he ought to inquire into\ntheir character, and the authority and motives which led them to\noverturn the religion of their forefathers. Is the religion of Moses a\nbad religion, which it was necessary to renounce? Or, was it only given\nfor a certain period, and when that period had expired, exchanged for a\nnew one? Had the rabbies Divine authority for the changes which they\nmade, or did they change it for their own convenience and interest? The\nnature of the changes looks very suspicious, they all added to their\ninfluence and power. As long as the law of Moses was observed, the\nrabbies had no power either in Church or State. But by the changes which\nthey made, they became absolute despots over the bodies and souls of all\nIsrael. They had, thus, every possible temptation to reject the one and\nadopt the other. But is this a reason why the Jewish people should also\nreject the law of Moses? They gain nothing, and loose everything, both\nfor time and eternity, by the change. By adopting the new religion of\nthe rabbies, they give up the use of that most precious gift, their\nreason, in all that regards the law and service of God. A Jew, who\nreceives the oral law, can have nothing but a blind faith. He has lost\nthe privilege of considering what God requires of him, and must simply\nreceive what the rabbies choose to prescribe as his duty: and if they\nshould even go so far as to tell him that his left hand is his right,\nand his right hand his left, he must believe in the decision, and reject\nthe evidences of his senses. Or, if he should dare to doubt, where\nJudaism reigns triumphant, he must be strangled. There is certainly\nnothing very inviting in this system, nothing that should tempt a man to\nprefer it to the just, and equitable, and rational religion of Moses. He\ngives the law of God into the hands of the Israelite, and says, \u201cBehold\nI have set life and death before you, choose ye.\u201d He deals with men as\nrational beings, and requires implicit obedience, not to the word of\nman, but to the oracles of God. He established a supreme council, but\ndid not permit that council to pass off their own opinions as\ninfallible, but commanded them to inquire of Him who alone is free from\nerror. It is truly astonishing that so large a portion of the Jewish\npeople should still prefer the religious despotism of the oral law; and\nit is more astonishing still, that they should be deluded to believe,\nthat a system, which has subverted all the institutions of Moses, is the\nMosaic religion. But the most astonishing circumstance of all is, that\nthose Jews who have detected the grossness of the delusion and have\nthemselves renounced the practice of the oral law, should feel so\nindifferent about the welfare of their brethren, and so reckless of the\ninterests of truth, as to look on in silence; or even appear to\ncountenance error by joining in the rights and ceremonies of tradition.\nEven the tribe of Levi itself has lost its zeal, and abdicated the\nsacred office committed to it by God. For eighteen hundred years there\nhas not appeared in Israel one single person zealous for the law of\nMoses. All have been content with calling Moses their master, and there\nthe matter ends. The priests and the people all unite in violating his\nlaws, and trampling upon the ruins of his institutions, and then expect\nother people to believe that they are the faithful disciples of Moses.\n\nFootnote 35:\n\n  Compare Deut. xiii. 13, and Hilchoth Accum, c. iv.\n\n\n\n\n                                No. XLV.\n                          SANHEDRIN CONTINUED.\n\n\nHow a nation, so acute and so fond of learning as the Jews, should ever\nhave been imposed upon by so clumsy an imposture as that of the oral\nlaw, is truly astonishing. The exceeding folly of some of its\nordinances, the incredibility of the legends with which it abounds, the\nextravagant pretensions of its doctors, the grinding tyranny of its\ndespotic tribunals, all seem calculated to awaken doubt in the mind of\nthe most credulous, and the most ignorant. But the utter want of\nevidence to support its claims ought to be sufficient to open the eyes\nof even superstition itself. To establish the genuineness of an oral\ntradition, an unbroken chain of witnesses, from the rise of the\ntradition to the present time, is indispensably necessary. The\nsuccession of persons who received it from their predecessors, and\ntransmitted it to their followers, must be clearly and accurately made\nout; and the want of a single link, or the existence of a single chasm\nin the chain of transmission is quite sufficient to discredit the whole,\nand to invalidate the claims to genuineness. To prove the genuineness of\nthe \u05ea\u05d5\u05e8\u05d4 \u05e9\u05d1\u05e2\u05dc \u05e4\u05d4, oral law, it is necessary not only to point out a\nsuccession of persons, but a succession of Sanhedrins, for, as we have\nseen, the Sanhedrin was regarded as the foundation and pillar of\ntradition. If a single chasm in history exists, where a Sanhedrin cannot\nbe pointed out, or if the assigned succession be inconsistent with the\nwritten and inspired records of the people, the claims of the oral law\nare invalidated, and the Jewish nation convicted as the abettors of a\npious fraud, or the unwitting dupes of an imposture. Now we have already\nshown that the Sanhedrin was not instituted by Moses, and was never\nheard of until after the Greek conquest of the land of Israel; and hence\nit inevitably follows, that the oral law is totally destitute of that\nchain of testimony, by which alone its genuineness could be established.\nFrom Moses to the Maccabees there is one continued chasm, an immense and\nimpassable abyss, which separates between modern Judaism and truth. But\nas the rabbies have endeavoured to fill up the yawning gulf or rather to\nbuild a bridge in the air for the purpose of passing it, we think it\nnecessary to examine the success of their efforts. They say, that a\nchain of testimony, such as is wanted, does actually exist, and have\nendeavoured to point out the various links. If this prove fallacious,\nthen the last and only hope of modern Judaism is gone; to prove the\nfallacy does not require much argument. The chain of testimony as\npointed out by the rabbies themselves, is inconsistent with history, and\nwants continuity even at the very commencement. The first part of the\nsuccession is thus described:\u2014\n\n\u05d0\u05e3 \u05e2\u05dc \u05e4\u05d9 \u05e9\u05dc\u05e9 \u05e0\u05db\u05ea\u05d1\u05d4 \u05ea\u05d5\u05e8\u05d4 \u05e9\u05d1\u05e2\u05f3\u05f3\u05e4 \u05dc\u05de\u05d3\u05d4 \u05de\u05e9\u05d4 \u05e8\u05d1\u05d9\u05e0\u05d5 \u05db\u05d5\u05dc\u05d4 \u05d1\u05d1\u05d9\u05ea \u05d3\u05d9\u05e0\u05d5 \u05dc\u05e9\u05d1\u05e2\u05d9\u05dd\n\u05d6\u05e7\u05e0\u05d9\u05dd \u05d5\u05d0\u05dc\u05e2\u05d6\u05e8 \u05d5\u05e4\u05e0\u05d7\u05e1 \u05d5\u05d9\u05d4\u05d5\u05e9\u05e2 \u05e9\u05dc\u05e9\u05ea\u05df \u05e7\u05d1\u05dc\u05d5 \u05de\u05de\u05e9\u05d4 , \u05d5\u05dc\u05d9\u05d4\u05d5\u05e9\u05e2 \u05e9\u05d4\u05d5\u05d0 \u05ea\u05dc\u05de\u05d9\u05d3\u05d5 \u05e9\u05dc \u05de\u05e9\u05d4\n\u05e8\u05d1\u05d9\u05e0\u05d5 \u05de\u05e1\u05e8 \u05ea\u05d5\u05e8\u05d4 \u05e9\u05d1\u05e2\u05f3\u05f3\u05e4 \u05d5\u05e6\u05d5\u05d4\u05d5 \u05e2\u05dc\u05d9\u05d4 , \u05d5\u05db\u05df \u05d9\u05d4\u05d5\u05e9\u05e2 \u05db\u05dc \u05d9\u05de\u05d9 \u05d7\u05d9\u05d9\u05d5 \u05dc\u05de\u05d3 \u05e2\u05dc \u05e4\u05d4 ,\n\u05d5\u05d6\u05e7\u05e0\u05d9\u05dd \u05e8\u05d1\u05d9\u05dd \u05e7\u05d1\u05dc\u05d5 \u05de\u05d9\u05d4\u05d5\u05e9\u05e2 , \u05d5\u05e7\u05d1\u05dc \u05e2\u05dc\u05d9 \u05de\u05df \u05d4\u05d6\u05e7\u05e0\u05d9\u05dd \u05d5\u05de\u05e4\u05e0\u05d7\u05e1 \u05c3\n\n\u201cAlthough the oral law was not written, Moses our master taught it all\nin his Council to the seventy elders; Eleazar also, and Phinehas, and\nJoshua, all three, received it from Moses. But to Joshua, who was the\ndisciple of Moses our master, he delivered the oral law, and gave him a\ncharge concerning it In like manner Joshua taught it by word of mouth\nall the days of his life; and many elders received it from Joshua, and\nEli received it from the elders, and from Phinehas.\u201d (Preface to the Yad\nHachazakah.) Now here the want of continuity begins, immediately after\nthe third link in the chain. That Joshua should inherit the oral law\nfrom Moses is very likely, if there was any to be inherited, but who was\nJoshua\u2019s successor the rabbies cannot tell us. It is not enough to say\nthat the elders received it from Joshua; who were the elders, and who\nwas the next president of the Sanhedrin, and who was the president after\nthat? To make out a chain of witnesses, we must at least have their\nnames, but ought to know, besides, their character, their piety, their\nprobity, before we can depend upon their testimony. The absence of this\ndetail shows that the rabbies had no information on the subject, and\nwere merely trying to make up a story to impose upon the credulous. It\nis self-evident that if they had possessed an accurate detail, they\nwould have given it; but as they do not, we must infer that they had it\nnot; and as the Bible gives no information on the subject, we must\nassert, that the chain of testimony terminates at the second link. So\nfar are the rabbies from being able to prove a succession of Sanhedrins\nfrom the time of Joshua to their own, that they are compelled to make a\ngrand leap from Joshua to Eli, and thus to leave a chasm of more than\ntwo hundred years, which of itself is sufficient to overthrow the claims\nof the oral law, and to stamp the Jews as the most credulous of men if\nthey believe without any evidence. It is true that the rabbies endeavour\nto stop up this great cavity with a great falsehood. They say that Eli\nreceived the oral law from Joshua\u2019s elders, and from Phinehas; which\nassertion implies that all these persons lived to be about three hundred\nyears old! And yet, if it were true, it would not be sufficient to make\nout the proof, for which the succession of Sanhedrins is absolutely\nnecessary, and especially for this period. From the book of Judges, it\nappears, that in the interval between Joshua and Eli, and even in the\nnext generation after Joshua\u2019s death, the people forsook the law of\nMoses, even the written law, and gave themselves up to idolatry. Thus we\nread, \u201cAnd Joshua the son of Nun, the servant of the Lord, died, being\nan hundred and ten years old.... And also all that generation were\ngathered unto their fathers: and there arose another generation after\nthem, which knew not the Lord, nor the works which he had done for\nIsrael. And the children of Israel did evil in the sight of the Lord,\nand served Baalim.\u201d (Judges ii. 8-11.) Now, here the inspired writer\nsays that Joshua and all that generation died, which expressly\ncontradicts the rabbinic assertion that Joshua\u2019s elders lived to the\ntime of Eli; and, further, he says, that the Israelites turned aside to\nidols: where was the Sanhedrin at that time? If it existed, why did it\nnot stop the torrent of corruption, and punish the transgressors? And\nwhy was it necessary for God to raise up Judges to do the Sanhedrin\u2019s\nwork? We do not once read of the Sanhedrin, or any other council,\nhelping Israel. In the book of Judges, deliverance is ascribed solely to\nthe judges whom God raised up. \u201cWhen the Lord raised them up judges,\nthen the Lord was with the judge, and delivered them out of the hand of\ntheir enemies all the days of the judge.... And it came to pass when the\njudge was dead, that they returned and corrupted themselves more than\ntheir fathers.\u201d (Ibid. 18, 19.) Indeed, that saying so often repeated in\nthe book of Judges, \u201cIn those days there was no king in Israel, but\nevery man did that which was right in his own eyes,\u201d shows that there\nwas no Sanhedrin either. If any council of the kind, armed with such\ndespotic power, had existed, the children of Israel could not have done\nthat which was right in their own eyes. Whether, then, we look at the\nBible or at the rabbinic account, we have a period of more than two\nhundred years, during which there is no evidence at all either for the\nexistence of the Sanhedrin or of the oral law. The chain of testimony,\ntherefore, offered by the rabbies, is not complete; and is, moreover,\nunworthy of credit, as it contains a gross falsehood concerning the age\nto which Joshua\u2019s elders lived. A little more examination will show us\nthat it contains more than one falsehood. After telling us that David\nreceived the oral law from Samuel and his council, it thus proceeds:\u2014\n\n\u05d0\u05d7\u05d9\u05d4 \u05d4\u05e9\u05d9\u05dc\u05d5\u05e0\u05d9 \u05de\u05d9\u05d5\u05e6\u05d0\u05d9 \u05de\u05e6\u05e8\u05d9\u05dd \u05d4\u05d9\u05d4 \u05d5\u05dc\u05d5\u05d9 \u05d4\u05d9\u05d4 \u05d5\u05e9\u05de\u05e2 \u05de\u05de\u05e9\u05d4 \u05d5\u05d4\u05d9\u05d4 \u05e7\u05d8\u05df \u05d1\u05d9\u05de\u05d9 \u05de\u05e9\u05d4 \u05d5\u05d4\u05d5\u05d0\n\u05e7\u05d1\u05dc \u05de\u05d3\u05d5\u05d3 \u05d5\u05d1\u05d9\u05ea \u05d3\u05d9\u05e0\u05d5 , \u05d5\u05d0\u05dc\u05d9\u05d4\u05d5 \u05e7\u05d1\u05dc \u05de\u05d0\u05d7\u05d9\u05d4 \u05d4\u05e9\u05d9\u05dc\u05d5\u05e0\u05d9 \u05d5\u05d1\u05d9\u05ea \u05d3\u05d9\u05e0\u05d5 \u05c3\n\n\u201cAhijah the Shilonite was one of those who came out of Egypt, and a\nLevite, and he heard the oral law from Moses: but he was little in the\ndays of Moses, and received the oral law from David and his council. And\nElijah received from Ahijah the Shilonite and his council.\u201d Now, in the\nfirst place, this statement is very absurd. To suppose that one, who had\nheard the law from Moses, should at last receive it from David, is\ncontrary to probability: but to assert that Ahijah was a little boy in\nthe time of Moses, and that he lived until the reign of Solomon, that\nis, above five hundred years, is manifestly a falsehood, and, whether\nwilful or not, completely destroys the credibility of this attempt at a\nsuccession of witnesses. If involuntary, and the result of error, it\nshows that the rabbies who have transmitted this story were so weak in\nintellect as to swallow any improbability; and that as they transmitted\none lie, they may have transmitted more. But if voluntary, no one will\nargue that the testimony of wilful liars is worth much. This last\nattempt, therefore, to prop up the authority of the oral law is vain.\n\nBut this rabbinic chain of testimony goes on to tell us that, amongst\nothers, the oral law passed through Jeremiah the prophet:\u2014\n\n\u05d5\u05d9\u05e8\u05de\u05d9\u05d4\u05d5 \u05e7\u05d1\u05dc \u05de\u05e6\u05e4\u05e0\u05d9\u05d4 \u05d5\u05d1\u05d9\u05ea \u05d3\u05d9\u05e0\u05d5 , \u05d5\u05d1\u05e8\u05d5\u05da \u05d1\u05df \u05e0\u05e8\u05d9\u05d4 \u05e7\u05d1\u05dc \u05de\u05d9\u05e8\u05de\u05d9\u05d4 \u05d5\u05d1\u05d9\u05ea \u05d3\u05d9\u05e0\u05d5 \u05c3\n\n\u201cJeremiah received from Zephaniah and his council, and Baruch the son of\nNeriah received from Jeremiah and his council.\u201d Now, if this means that\nJeremiah was the \u05e0\u05e9\u05d9\u05d0, or President of the Sanhedrin, it is plainly\nfalse. The whole history of Jeremiah shows us that he was not the\npowerful head of a despotic and irresistible council, but an unprotected\nand persecuted man. Had he been president of a tribunal so dreadful, and\nwhose sentence of excommunication was in itself sufficient to protect\nhim, the people and the princes would never have dared to reject his\nwords as they did, much less to make an attempt on his life. But if, on\nthe other hand, it be said that Jeremiah\u2019s council does not mean the\nSanhedrin, then we have another chasm in the succession of Sanhedrins,\nand consequently the proof fails again. But this chain of evidence is\nnot only contrary to fact, and to the inspired writings of the prophets;\nit is also inconsistent with the oral law itself, for it asserts that\ntwo proselytes form a part of the chain of transmission:\u2014\n\n\u05e9\u05de\u05e2\u05d9\u05d4 \u05d5\u05d0\u05d1\u05d8\u05dc\u05d9\u05d5\u05df \u05d2\u05e8\u05d9 \u05d4\u05e6\u05d3\u05e7 \u05d5\u05d1\u05d9\u05ea \u05d3\u05d9\u05e0\u05dd \u05e7\u05d1\u05dc\u05d5 \u05de\u05d9\u05d4\u05d5\u05d3\u05d4 \u05d5\u05e9\u05de\u05e2\u05d5\u05df \u05d5\u05d1\u05d9\u05ea \u05d3\u05d9\u05e0\u05dd , \u05d4\u05dc\u05dc\n\u05d5\u05e9\u05de\u05d0\u05d9 \u05d5\u05d1\u05d9\u05ea \u05d3\u05d9\u05e0\u05dd \u05e7\u05d1\u05dc\u05d5 \u05de\u05e9\u05de\u05e2\u05d9\u05d4 \u05d5\u05d0\u05d1\u05d8\u05dc\u05d9\u05d5\u05df \u05d5\u05d1\u05d9\u05ea \u05d3\u05d9\u05e0\u05dd \u05c3\n\n\u201cShemaiah and Abtalion, proselytes of righteousness, and their council,\nreceived from Judah and Simon and their council. Hillel and Shammai and\ntheir council received from Shemaiah and Abtalion and their council.\u201d\nNow, according to the oral law, it is unlawful for proselytes to be\nmembers of any council or tribunal. Respecting the Supreme Council, it\nis expressly said:\u2014\n\n\u05d0\u05d9\u05df \u05de\u05e2\u05de\u05d9\u05d3\u05d9\u05df \u05d1\u05e1\u05e0\u05d4\u05d3\u05e8\u05d9\u05df \u05d0\u05dc\u05d0 \u05db\u05d4\u05e0\u05d9\u05dd \u05dc\u05d5\u05d9\u05d9\u05dd \u05d5\u05d9\u05e9\u05e8\u05d0\u05dc\u05d9\u05dd \u05d4\u05de\u05d9\u05d5\u05d7\u05e1\u05d9\u05dd \u05d4\u05e8\u05d0\u05d5\u05d9\u05d9\u05dd \u05dc\u05d4\u05e9\u05d9\u05d0\n\u05dc\u05db\u05d4\u05d5\u05e0\u05d4 , \u05e9\u05e0\u05d0\u05de\u05e8 \u05d5\u05d4\u05ea\u05d9\u05e6\u05d1\u05d5 \u05e9\u05dd \u05e2\u05de\u05da \u05d1\u05d3\u05d5\u05de\u05d9\u05df \u05dc\u05da \u05d1\u05d7\u05db\u05de\u05d4 \u05d5\u05d1\u05d9\u05e8\u05d0\u05d4 \u05d5\u05d1\u05d9\u05d7\u05e1 \u05c3\n\n\u201cNone are to be made members of the Sanhedrin except priests and\nLevites, and Israelites of so good a genealogy as to be fit to\nintermarry with the priests; for it is said, \u2018And they shall stand there\nwith thee,\u2019 (Numb. xi. 16,) _i.e._ like unto thee in wisdom, in piety,\nand in genealogy.\u201d (Hilchoth Sanhedrin, c. ii. 1.) And even of an\ninferior tribunal it is said:\u2014\n\n\u05d1\u05d9\u05ea \u05d3\u05d9\u05df \u05e9\u05dc \u05e9\u05dc\u05e9\u05d4 \u05e9\u05d4\u05d9\u05d4 \u05d0\u05d7\u05d3 \u05de\u05d4\u05dd \u05d2\u05e8 \u05d4\u05e8\u05d9 \u05d6\u05d4 \u05e4\u05e1\u05d5\u05dc \u05c3\n\n\u201cA tribunal of three, one of whom is a proselyte, is unlawful.\u201d (Ibid.\n9.) If then, it was unlawful for a proselyte to be a member of the\nSanhedrin, or any other tribunal, how is it that we find two at the head\nof one of those councils through which the oral law was transmitted? If\nthe decisions of the oral law be valid, that council was illegitimate,\nand therefore totally incompetent to the transmission of tradition, and\nthen we have a break in the chain of testimony even at that end which is\nnearest to the rabbies. But if that council be considered competent,\nthen the oral law which condemns it cannot contain the true tradition.\nBut in either case, the genuineness of the law is overthrown.\n\nThe sum of what we have said is this:\u2014That even if we were to give up\nour other arguments against the authority of the Sanhedrin and the oral\nlaw, and were willing to rest this question on the testimony of the\nrabbies themselves, the defectiveness, inconsistency, and falsehood\nmanifested in that testimony, would be sufficient to throw discredit on\nall their claims. They have not only no proof from Scripture, but are\nnot able themselves to find in tradition an unbroken chain of testimony.\nThey fail at the very outset. After producing two links, they leave a\nchasm of above two hundred years unaccounted for. When they take it up\nagain, they are convicted of gross falsehood in asserting that men\nlived, after the deluge, to the age of five hundred years: and are not\nable even to make out a story that will agree with the oral law itself.\nThe most favourable ground, then, that can be taken for the defence of\nthe oral law proves untenable. But if to this we add the arguments\ncontained in the former papers, and remember that the Sanhedrin is in\ndirect opposition to the law of Moses, is never mentioned in any of the\nsacred books, nor heard of until the Greek language was spoken in the\nland of Israel, every support is taken from the oral law, and it sinks\ndown to the level of a mere imposture, of which the Jewish people have\nbeen the dupes and the victims. How long they will remain so, it is for\nthemselves to consider. The times of blind faith, such as modern Judaism\nrequires, are gone by; the Jews can therefore no longer remain the blind\nfollowers of the superstitious and ambitious rabbies. Either they must\nhonestly confess that they and their fathers have been deceived for the\nlast eighteen hundred years, and earnestly set about seeking that truth\nwhich they lost; or they most be content to be regarded either as\ninterested upholders of error, or reckless despisers of truth. No one,\nwho at all knows the nation, will ever believe that they are so weak in\nunderstanding as to be unable, under present circumstances, to detect\nthe clumsy pretensions of the oral law. Some Jews may, indeed, still\nobstinately refuse to investigate the evidences of their paternal\nreligion, and persist in professing Judaism simply because their fathers\ndid so before them: but such persons must be content to acknowledge that\ntheir faith is not that of a rational being, or that their religion will\nnot stand the test of reason. All who will take the trouble to\ninvestigate, must, if they be honest men, make up their minds to\nrenounce the religion of the rabbies. There is not any one argument,\neither of internal or external evidence, in its behalf, on which a man\nof ordinary understanding can rest for a moment. The only shadow of a\nbasis on which to support the oral law is the doctrine of the Sanhedrin,\nbut this, as we have seen, disappears so soon as we approach the\nillusion. Instead of giving authority to the other parts of the oral\nlaw, the doctrine of a Sanhedrin appears one of the most objectionable\nof its many errors, for it bears upon its front the stamp of selfishness\nand ambition. It was an invention of men, who aimed not only at a\nspiritual dominion, but also at a secular despotism. The Sanhedrin was\nmerely the engine whereby the rabbies hoped to get all the power, both\nof Church and State, into their own hands, and thereby distinguishes the\nrabbinical religion in the most striking manner from that of Jesus of\nNazareth. Christianity contains no apparatus for securing to its\nteachers the dominion of the world; and therefore the professing\nfollowers of Christ, when they aimed at worldly power, were first\nobliged to invent an oral law of their own. Jesus of Nazareth seeks\nnothing but the dominion of truth. \u201cWhen he perceived that they would\ncome and take him by force, to make him a king, he departed again into a\nmountain himself alone.\u201d (John vi. 15.) His doctrine was, \u201cMy kingdom is\nnot of this world.\u201d And in like manner he taught his disciples not to\nseek after worldly power. \u201cYe know that they which are accounted to rule\nover the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and their great ones\nexercise authority upon them. But so shall it not be among you: but\nwhosoever will be great among you, shall be your minister: and whosoever\nwill be chiefest, shall be servant of all. For even the Son of man came\nnot to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a\nransom for many.\u201d (Mark x. 42-45.) Jesus and his apostles are perfectly\nfree man the suspicion of making religion subservient to the promotion\nof ambitious schemes. The teachers of the oral law had, and even now\nhave a temptation to uphold its doctrines, because they make them the\nabsolute rulers of the Jewish people, and this tendency is a strong\nground of suspicion. When God sent Moses, he preserved him from all\nsimilar imputation, for though he possessed the supreme power during his\nlife, his claims were attested by miracles which could not be denied:\nand at his decease his children were chief neither in Church nor State.\nThe priesthood remained in the family of Aaron, and the chief magistracy\nfell to the lot of Joshua. Thus disinterestedness distinguished the\ncharacters of Moses and Jesus from those of the rabbies. The doctrine of\nthe Sanhedrin reveals but too plainly the motives by which the authors\nof the oral law were actuated. Of course we do not mean to ascribe the\nsame motives to all the advocates of the oral law in the present day.\nThose motives are necessarily confined to those times when Judaism can\nbe realized, and cannot, therefore, be called forth until there is a\nprospect of restoring the rabbinic polity. Our object is not to condemn\nthe modern Jews, but to open their eyes to a true view of that system by\nwhich they have been so long deluded. And if they should ask us, Where,\nthen, is the truth to be found? we reply, in Moses and the prophets. For\nthough we are Christians, we firmly believe that true faith in the Old\nTestament must terminate in Christianity. The only real obstacle in the\nway of a Jew\u2019s receiving Jesus as the Messiah, is the prejudice, that\nhis fathers, who rejected him, must have been in the right; and this\nobstacle we are endeavouring to remove. We have already made it appear\nthat they were in the wrong; and our late papers have removed the\nstrongest objection that they urge, namely, that the sentence of the\nSanhedrin was decisive against his claims. We have shown that the\nSanhedrin was altogether an unlawful tribunal, not established by Moses,\nbut, as its name intimates, by the Greeks, and modelled by artful and\nambitious men for their own purposes: and as the tribunal was unlawful,\nso was the sentence. Indeed the fact that the Lord Jesus Christ was\ncondemned by an unlawful tribunal is a testimony in his favour. It shows\nthat he disapproved of and opposed their unlawful doings. Jesus was not\ncondemned by the friends of Moses, but by his enemies. The religion of\nChrist was persecuted, not by those who conscientiously kept Moses\u2019\ncommands, but by those who had first defaced every feature of Mosaism.\nThe men who condemned the Lord Jesus were the tyrannical usurpers of an\nauthority which Moses had given to others; and if Moses himself had\nappeared amongst them, and asserted the rights of the priests and\nLevites against the rabbies, they would just as readily have crucified\nhim as the Lord Jesus Christ. The Jews, therefore, of the present day,\nwho approve the condemnation of Jesus, unite with the enemies of Moses;\nbut those who are lovers of the Mosaic law must approve the efforts of\nJesus to deliver it from the corruptions or wicked and ambitious men. An\nunlawful tribunal condemned him for doing what every true Jew must\nacknowledge to be right. Whether, then, they acknowledge him as the\nMessiah, or not, they must confess that he died a martyr to his zeal for\nthe law of Moses, and are, therefore, bound to re-consider his claims.\nJesus was put to death, not because he violated the Mosaic precepts, but\nbecause he reproved others for their transgressions\u2014not because he\nendeavoured to overturn the religion of Moses, but because he resolutely\ndefended its truth against those who were introducing a new religion\nupon its ruins.\n\n\n\n\n                               No. XLVI.\n                   CONTEMPT FOR THE FEMALE CHARACTER.\n\n\nModern Judaism, or the religion of the oral law, cannot bear the\nslightest investigation. Its existence depends altogether upon a blind\nfaith. As long as a man is willing to deliver up his understanding into\nthe hands of the rabbies, and at their bidding believe that his right\nhand is his left, as they require; so long he may be a zealous professor\nof Judaism. But, the moment that he begins to think and to reason, and\nto compare his traditional faith with the doctrines of Moses and the\nprophets, he must begin to doubt, and if he really has a love for the\nlaw of God, he must ultimately renounce that superstition which caused\nthe destruction of the temple and all the subsequent calamities of his\npeople, and still enslaves the greatest portion of his nation. It\nmatters not at which point he views it\u2014its theoretic principles and its\npractical effects equally condemn it, and prove that it is so far from\nbeing a revelation from God, that it is not even the work of good or\nwise men. The doctrine of the Sanhedrin, which we lately considered,\nexhibits it as a spiritual despotism the most intolerable; but the utter\ncontempt with which it looks down upon the female portion of mankind\nmakes it to this hour a positive curse to the daughters of Israel, and\nproves that it does not proceed from Him who created male and female,\nand pronounced a blessing upon the one as well as the other. One of the\nprominent characteristics in every false religion is the degradation of\nwomankind. The Mahometan imposture debases women to the level of the\nbrute creation. Judaism places them in the same category with slaves. In\nMahometan countries, women are deprived of all culture of head and\nheart. Rabbinism, as we saw in No. 3, pronounces that fathers are exempt\nfrom all obligation to teach their daughters the law of the lord: but we\nmust proceed to consider fully _the estimate which Rabbinism teaches the\nJews to form of their daughters, their sisters, their mothers, and even\nthe wife of their bosom_: and in doing this we shall not go to the\nopinions of the ignorant, the vicious, or the superstitious, but to the\nstandard books of the nation. It is not possible to produce in English\nmuch of the slanderous assertions contained in the Talmud; many are too\nbad for translation, but still enough can be brought forward to prove\nsatisfactorily that the rabbies look upon womankind with contempt. It is\ngenerally agreed that Rambam, or Maimonides, was one of the most learned\nand enlightened of the rabbies, and yet the contempt which he felt for\nthe female head and heart appears very plainly in the following\npassage:\u2014\n\n\u05d0\u05dc \u05d9\u05d0\u05de\u05e8 \u05d0\u05d3\u05dd \u05d4\u05e8\u05d9\u05e0\u05d9 \u05e2\u05d5\u05e9\u05d4 \u05de\u05e6\u05d5\u05d5\u05ea \u05d4\u05ea\u05d5\u05e8\u05d4 \u05d5\u05e2\u05d5\u05e1\u05e7 \u05d1\u05d7\u05db\u05de\u05ea\u05d4 \u05db\u05d3\u05d9 \u05e9\u05d0\u05e7\u05d1\u05dc \u05db\u05dc \u05d4\u05d1\u05e8\u05db\u05d5\u05ea\n\u05d4\u05db\u05ea\u05d5\u05d1\u05d5\u05ea \u05d1\u05d4 \u05d0\u05d5 \u05db\u05d3\u05d9 \u05e9\u05d0\u05d6\u05db\u05d4 \u05dc\u05d7\u05d9\u05d9 \u05d4\u05e2\u05d5\u05dc\u05dd \u05d4\u05d1\u05d0 , \u05d5\u05d0\u05e4\u05e8\u05d5\u05e9 \u05dd\u05df \u05d4\u05e2\u05d1\u05d9\u05e8\u05d5\u05ea \u05e9\u05d4\u05d6\u05d4\u05d9\u05e8\u05d4 \u05ea\u05d5\u05e8\u05d4\n\u05de\u05d4\u05df \u05db\u05d3\u05d9 \u05e9\u05d0\u05e0\u05e6\u05dc \u05de\u05df \u05d4\u05e7\u05dc\u05dc\u05d5\u05ea \u05d4\u05db\u05ea\u05d5\u05d1\u05d5\u05ea \u05d1\u05ea\u05d5\u05e8\u05d4 \u05d0\u05d5 \u05db\u05d3\u05d9 \u05e9\u05dc\u05d0 \u05d0\u05db\u05e8\u05ea \u05de\u05d7\u05d9\u05d9 \u05d4\u05e2\u05d5\u05dc\u05dd \u05d4\u05d1\u05d0 ,\n\u05d0\u05d9\u05df \u05e8\u05d0\u05d5\u05d9 \u05dc\u05e2\u05d1\u05d5\u05d3 \u05d4\u05e9\u05dd \u05e2\u05dc \u05d4\u05d3\u05e8\u05da \u05d4\u05d6\u05d4 , \u05e9\u05e2\u05d5\u05d1\u05d3 \u05e2\u05dc \u05d3\u05e8\u05da \u05d6\u05d4 \u05d4\u05d5\u05d0 \u05e2\u05d5\u05d1\u05d3 \u05de\u05d9\u05e8\u05d0\u05d4 \u05d5\u05d0\u05d9\u05e0\u05e0\u05d4\n\u05de\u05e2\u05dc\u05ea \u05d4\u05e0\u05d1\u05d9\u05d0\u05d9\u05dd \u05d5\u05dc\u05d0 \u05de\u05e2\u05dc\u05ea \u05d4\u05d7\u05db\u05de\u05d9\u05dd , \u05d5\u05d0\u05d9\u05df \u05e2\u05d5\u05d1\u05d3\u05d9\u05df \u05d4\u05f3 \u05e2\u05dc \u05d3\u05e8\u05da \u05d6\u05d4 \u05d0\u05dc\u05d0 \u05e2\u05de\u05d9 \u05d4\u05d0\u05e8\u05e5\n\u05d5\u05d4\u05e0\u05e9\u05d9\u05dd \u05d5\u05d4\u05e7\u05d8\u05e0\u05d9\u05dd \u05e9\u05de\u05d7\u05e0\u05db\u05d9\u05df \u05d0\u05d5\u05ea\u05df \u05dc\u05e2\u05d1\u05d5\u05d3 \u05de\u05d9\u05e8\u05d0\u05d4 \u05e2\u05d3 \u05e9\u05ea\u05e8\u05d1\u05d4 \u05d3\u05e2\u05ea\u05df \u05d5\u05d9\u05e2\u05d1\u05d3\u05d5 \u05de\u05d0\u05d4\u05d1\u05d4 \u05c3\n\n\u201cLet not any man say, Behold I perform the commandments of the law, and\nstudy in its wisdom, in order to obtain the blessings written therein,\nor to be worthy of the life of the world to come: and I abstain from the\ntransgressions against which it warns, in order to be delivered from the\ncurses written in the law, or that I may not be cut off from eternal\nlife. It is not right to serve God in this way, for he that serves thus,\nserves from fear, and that is not the degree to which the prophets and\nwise men attained. No one serves God in this way, except unlearned men\n(Amharatzin), women, and children, whom they accustom to serve from\nfear, until their understanding increases, so that they may serve from\nlove.\u201d (Hilchoth T\u2019shuvah, c. x. 1.) Here Maimonides sinks women down to\nthe level of children, and even classes their moral and intellectual\nfaculties with those of the despised _Amharatzin_. We saw in No. 1 that\nan _amhaaretz_ is of so little value, that his life is not considered\nmore precious than that of a fish, and such it appears was Rambam\u2019s\nestimate of the value of a woman. This most learned rabbi considered it\nimpossible for a woman to love God or to serve him aright; and when he\nwished to warn the Jews against serving God in an erroneous manner, he\nactually tells them not to serve Him as the women do. A more debasing\nimputation cannot be cast upon a human being than this, that he is\nphysically incapable of loving God or serving Him aright. If he had\nasserted that since the fall of Adam, the whole human race is far gone\nfrom original righteousness, and that therefore the love of God is not\nin them, he would have said what is asserted in Scripture: but the\nopinion that women, that is, one half of the human species, have a\nphysical incapacity to love and serve God; and that we are to regard\nthem as a sort of finger-post for pointing out error, or a notorious\nexample of that irreligion which we are to avoid, is to blaspheme the\nCreator, and to hold up the whole female sex to the universal scorn of\ntheir sons, their brothers, and their husbands. It may be said, in\npalliation of so foul a libel, that Rambam lived amongst Mahometans, and\nthat he insensibly imbibed the opinions of the followers of the false\nprophet. Now it is most true that he could never have learned this\nsentiment from Christians. The New Testament does not teach us to look\nupon women as Amharatzin, but to regard them as rational and responsible\nbeings, capable of doing God the same acceptable service as men, liable\nto the same awful judgment, and partakers of the same blessed hope. This\napology, if true, would only serve to excuse Rambam: it would not defend\nthe sentiment itself, but on the contrary, stamp it as Mahometan. It is\nnot true, however, that Rambam imbibed this notion from intercourse with\nMahometans: he learned it in the oral law, which has such a low opinion\nof women as to pronounce their testimony invalid.\n\n\u05e2\u05e9\u05e8\u05d4 \u05de\u05d9\u05e0\u05d9 \u05e4\u05e1\u05dc\u05d5\u05ea \u05d4\u05dd , \u05db\u05dc \u05de\u05d9 \u05e9\u05e0\u05de\u05e6\u05d0 \u05d1\u05d5 \u05d0\u05d7\u05d3 \u05de\u05d4\u05df \u05d4\u05e8\u05d9 \u05d4\u05d5\u05d0 \u05e4\u05e1\u05d5\u05dc \u05dc\u05e2\u05d3\u05d5\u05ea , \u05d5\u05d0\u05dc\u05d5 \u05d4\u05df\n\u05d4\u05e0\u05e9\u05d9\u05dd , \u05d5\u05d4\u05e2\u05d1\u05d3\u05d9\u05dd , \u05d5\u05d4\u05e7\u05d8\u05e0\u05d9\u05dd , \u05d5\u05d4\u05e9\u05d5\u05d8\u05d9\u05dd , \u05d5\u05d4\u05d7\u05e8\u05e9\u05d9\u05dd , \u05d5\u05d4\u05e1\u05d5\u05de\u05d9\u05dd , \u05d5\u05d4\u05e8\u05e9\u05e2\u05d9\u05dd ,\n\u05d5\u05d4\u05d1\u05d6\u05d5\u05d9\u05d9\u05df , \u05d5\u05d4\u05e7\u05e8\u05d5\u05ea\u05d9\u05dd \u05d5\u05d4\u05e0\u05d5\u05d2\u05e2\u05d9\u05df \u05d1\u05e2\u05d3\u05d5\u05ea\u05df , \u05d4\u05e8\u05d9 \u05d0\u05dc\u05d5 \u05e2\u05e9\u05e8\u05d4 \u05c3\n\n\u201cThere are ten sorts of disqualification, and every one in whom any one\nof them is found, he is disqualified from giving evidence; and these are\nthey\u2014women, slaves, children, idiots, deaf persons, the blind, the\nwicked, the despised, relations, and those interested in their\ntestimony\u2014behold these are ten.\u201d (Hilchoth Eduth., c. ix. 1.) Now, it\nwill be observed that these ten classes may be reduced to two\u2014those who\nare disqualified by physical or intellectual infirmity, as children,\nidiots, deaf and blind persons; and secondly, those whose moral\nintegrity is exposed to suspicion, as slaves, wicked and despised\npersons, relations, and those who have an interest in the cause. To one\nof these two classes women must belong: they are disqualified either\nbecause of incapacity, or because their moral feeling may not be\ntrusted, and in either case are treated with a most unmerited contempt.\nIt is true, that the rabbies endeavour to prove that the law of Moses\nexcludes women from giving testimony, saying\u2014\n\n\u05e0\u05e9\u05d9\u05dd \u05e4\u05e1\u05d5\u05dc\u05d5\u05ea \u05dc\u05e2\u05d3\u05d5\u05ea \u05de\u05df \u05d4\u05ea\u05d5\u05e8\u05d4 \u05e9\u05e0\u05d0\u05de\u05e8 \u05e2\u05dc \u05e4\u05d9 \u05e9\u05e0\u05d9\u05dd \u05e2\u05d3\u05d9\u05dd \u05dc\u05e9\u05d5\u05df \u05d6\u05db\u05e8 \u05d5\u05dc\u05d0 \u05dc\u05e9\u05d5\u05df \u05e0\u05e7\u05d1\u05d4\n\u05c3\n\n\u201cWomen are disqualified by the law from giving testimony, for it is\nsaid, \u2018At the mouth of two witnesses,\u2019 where the word witness is of the\nmasculine, not the feminine gender;\u201d but this proof is altogether\ninconclusive; on the same principle it might be proved that women might\nbreak all the ten commandments, for they are all given in the masculine\ngender. Indeed it is self-evident that God could not have given a law so\nabsurd. There are thousands of cases, where, if women could not give\nevidence, all the ends of justice would be defeated. Take, for instance,\nthe famous judgment of Solomon, where the two women laid claim each to\nthe living child. In this case there could be no testimony but that of\nthe women themselves, and Solomon did not send them away because they\nwere women. Take also the case of Boaz and Ruth. When Boaz wished to\nmarry Ruth, it was necessary first to redeem the inheritance, and for\nthis it was absolutely necessary to prove that Ruth was the wife of\nNaomi\u2019s son. But there was no testimony but that of the women\nthemselves. Elimelech, Chilion, and Mahlon, were all dead, and the\nmarriage had taken place in a foreign land, yet we do not read of any\ndifficulties being raised. Boaz himself, Naomi\u2019s kinsman, and the elders\nof Israel, appear all to have been perfectly satisfied. The\ndisqualification of women, therefore, was not ordained by Moses, but is\nthe invention of the rabbies, and shows that the rabbies had so low an\nopinion of the intellect or the integrity of women, as to think either\nthat women are so half-witted as not to be fit to give testimony, or so\ndishonest as not to be trusted in the testimony which they may give.\n\nBut this degradation of the female character is not confined to the\nrabbinic courts of law. They have dared to carry it even into the house\nof God, and to make it prominent in the public worship of the Creator.\nThe oral law has ordained that no public worship, nor indeed many\nreligious solemnities, can be performed, unless there be ten persons\npresent, but from this number it has carefully excluded the women,\ndetermining that\u2014\n\n\u05d5\u05d0\u05dc\u05d5 \u05d4\u05e2\u05e9\u05e8\u05d4 \u05e6\u05e8\u05d9\u05da \u05e9\u05d9\u05d4\u05d9\u05d5 \u05db\u05d5\u05dc\u05dd \u05d1\u05e0\u05d9 \u05d7\u05d5\u05e8\u05d9\u05df \u05d5\u05d2\u05d3\u05d5\u05dc\u05d9\u05dd \u05e9\u05d4\u05d1\u05d9\u05d0\u05d5 \u05d1\u05f3 \u05e9\u05e2\u05e8\u05d5\u05ea \u05c3\n\n\u201cIt is necessary that all these ten be free and adult men.\u201d (Orach\nChaiim, 55.) So that if there should be ten thousand women in the\nsynagogue, they are counted as nobody, and unless there be ten men there\ncan be no service. Hence it is that the daughters of Israel are never\nsuffered to appear as participators in the worship of God, but are\ncompelled to look on from a distance, as if they had neither part nor\nlot in the matter. Now what reason is there why women should not be\nregarded as worshippers? Are they not rational beings? are they not\ncreatures of God? are they not heirs of immortality just as well as the\nmen? Will they not join in the praises of the redeemed in Paradise; or\nis the Mahometan doctrine true, that women have no souls? Certainly,\nwhen one looks at the Jewish synagogue, one would think so. Before\nmarriage the women never go there at all, and after marriage how seldom.\nOn the Barbary coast they hardly ever go, and in Poland how common is\nit, whilst the men are in the synagogue at prayer, to see their wives\noutside loitering and chatting, as if the public worship of God was no\nconcern of theirs. Even in this country the attendance of females is not\nat all equal to that of the men. How contrary is this state of things to\nthe command of God in the Psalms, \u201cBoth young men and maidens; old men\nand children; let them praise the name of the Lord.\u201d (Psalm cxlviii. 12,\n13.) And again, \u201cLet every thing that hath breath praise the Lord.\u201d\n(Psalm cl. 6.) How different is the condition of the Jewish females\nunder the oral law, from that described by Moses:\u2014\u201cWhen Miriam, the\nprophetess, the sister of Aaron, took a timbrel in her hand; and all the\nwomen went out after her, with timbrels and with dances. And Miriam\nanswered them, Sing ye to the Lord, for he hath triumphed gloriously.\u201d\n(Exod. xi. 21.) Then the women were permitted to unite in the noblest\nwork that can engage the soul of human beings, the praises of our God.\nBut now they are shut out, according to the ordinance of the\nrabbies\u2014they are not reckoned amongst God\u2019s worshippers, and if ten\nthousand of them should go to the synagogue, unless there should also be\na sufficient number of men, a disciple of the rabbies would count them\nas nobody, and not think it worth his while to read prayers for them. A\nlaw like this cannot possibly proceed from God, He makes no such\ndifference between male and female.\n\n\u05dc\u05d0 \u05d1\u05d2\u05d1\u05d5\u05ea\u05ea \u05d4\u05e1\u05d5\u05e1 \u05d9\u05d7\u05e4\u05e5 \u05dc\u05d0 \u05d1\u05e9\u05d5\u05e7\u05d9 \u05d4\u05d0\u05d9\u05e9 \u05d9\u05e8\u05e6\u05d4 \u05c3\n\n\u201cHe delighteth not in the strength of the horse; he taketh not pleasure\nin the legs of a man.\u201d (Ps. cxlvii. 10.) \u201cThe sacrifices of God are a\nbroken spirit; a broken and contrite heart, O God, thou wilt not\ndespise\u201d (Ps. li. 17); no matter whether it be male or female.\n\nBut the oral law is not content with degrading women by refusing to\nnumber them as a part of the congregation, it actually prescribes a form\nof daily prayer expressive of their contempt. Every day the men say\u2014\n\n\u05d1\u05e8\u05d5\u05da \u05d0\u05ea\u05d4 \u05d4\u05f3 \u05d0\u05dc\u05d4\u05d9\u05e0\u05d5 \u05de\u05dc\u05da \u05d4\u05e2\u05d5\u05dc\u05dd \u05e9\u05dc\u05d0 \u05e2\u05e9\u05e0\u05d9 \u05d0\u05e9\u05d4 \u05c3\n\n\u201cBlessed art thou, O Lord, our God! king of the universe, who hath not\nmade me a woman.\u201d Whilst the women are directed to say\u2014\n\n\u05d1\u05e8\u05d5\u05da \u05d0\u05ea\u05d4 \u05d4\u05f3 \u05d0\u05dc\u05d4\u05d9\u05e0\u05d5 \u05de\u05dc\u05da \u05d4\u05e2\u05d5\u05dc\u05dd \u05e9\u05e2\u05e9\u05e0\u05d9 \u05db\u05e8\u05e6\u05d5\u05e0\u05d5 \u05c3\n\n\u201cBlessed art thou, O Lord our God! King of the universe, who hath made\nme according to his will.\u201d (Daily Prayers, p. 6.) The proud benediction\nof the men is founded altogether on the oral law, which promises rewards\nnot to the state of the heart, but to the external operation of keeping\nGod\u2019s commands, and as many of them cannot be kept by the women,\nintimates that the men will have a greater reward. This prayer, or\nrather thanksgiving, refers especially to the study of the law, from\nwhich they suppose the woman to be dispensed, and for which they expect\nno small reward in the world to come, and upon which they pride\nthemselves, particularly in this present life. The man who remembers the\nday of judgment, when the secrets of all hearts shall be revealed, or\nbears in mind that the distinction of sex, like the difference of rank\nor office or nationality, is only for this world, will find but little\nreason for offering up any such thanksgiving. He knows that God will\nrender to every human being, not according to sex, but according to\ndeeds; and feeling that all, both male and female, are sinners, will see\nthat such arrogance is unbecoming at all times, and particularly odious\nat the moment when he comes to ask pardon of Him \u201cwho spieth out all our\nways.\u201d Instead of despising others, under the pretence of thanking God,\nthe truly devout man will be much more ready to take up the language of\nDavid, and say\u2014\u201cEnter not into judgment with thy servant, O Lord; for in\nthy sight shall no man living be justified.\u201d\n\nIt appears, from these quotations, that Maimonides did not learn his\ncontempt for womankind from the Mahometans, but from the oral law and\nthe prayers of the synagogue. Modern Judaism disqualifies a woman from\ngiving evidence, shuts her out from the study of God\u2019s Word, excludes\nher from the number of his worshippers, and even in its prayers to God\npronounces her as nothing better than a heathen, or a slave: for in the\npreceding benedictions, the man says first\u2014\u201cBlessed art thou, O God,\n&c., who hath not made me a heathen;\u201d then, \u201cBlessed art thou, &c., who\nhath not made me a slave;\u201d and, finally, \u201cBlessed art thou, &c. who hath\nnot made me a woman.\u201d Now we ask every Jew and Jewess, into whose hands\nthis book may fall, whether a religion which teaches one-half of the\nhuman race to despise and degrade the other half, can possibly come from\nGod? or whether it is not the invention of narrow-minded and\nvain-glorious men? Even reason itself would tell us that God can never\nteach us to despise the works of his own hands, and still less to hold\nup the mother who bore us, or the companion who has shared all our joys\nand sorrows, to the scorn of a privileged class of human beings. And yet\nthis is what the oral law does, and thereby shows that it does not\nproceed from Him who inspired Moses and the prophets. The writings of\nthe Old Testament furnish no warrant for female degradation. They\ncommence by telling us that the woman as well as the man was formed in\nthe image of God, and that though woman was first led into\ntransgression, yet that she should have the honour of giving birth to\nhim who should bruise the serpent\u2019s head. (Gen. iii. 15.) They tell us\nfarther, that when God was pleased to give the commandments from Sinai,\nthat he exacted of all children to honour the mother as well as the\nfather\u2014\u201cHonour thy father and thy mother.\u201d But how is it possible for\nany one to honour his mother who despises her as an inferior being, does\nnot look upon her as fit to give evidence in a court of law, and even\nmakes it a matter of public thanksgiving that he is not like her? Surely\nsuch an one is much more like him of whom it is said\u2014\n\n\u05db\u05e1\u05d9\u05dc \u05d0\u05d3\u05dd \u05d1\u05d5\u05d6\u05d4 \u05c3\n\n\u201cA foolish man despiseth his mother.\u201d (Prov. xv. 20.) The oral law is,\nin this respect, altogether inconsistent with the law of God. The former\ntells fathers to leave their daughters without any religious education,\nand the latter supposes that they have been so well taught as to be able\nto teach their sons. Thus Solomon says, more than once, \u201cMy son, keep\nthy father\u2019s commandment, and forsake not the law of thy mother,\u201d \u05ea\u05d5\u05e8\u05ea\n\u05d0\u05de\u05da. (Prov. vi. 20.) But how is it possible for those Jewish mothers, in\nPoland or Africa for instance, who cannot even read themselves, to teach\ntheir sons? or, even suppose they could read, how can a son believe in\nhis mother\u2019s instruction, when the oral law tells him that she is not\nqualified to give testimony? But the Bible does not teach us merely to\nhave a respect for our own mother, but shows as generally that God is no\nrespecter of persons, and that he bestows his gifts upon all. It\npresents to our view many women, as Sarah, Rebecca, Miriam, Deborah, and\nHannah, as examples of piety, and informs us that in the time of\nsalvation, he will pour out his Spirit upon all flesh, without any\ndistinction of sex or nation. \u201cAnd it shall come to pass afterward, that\nI will pour out my spirit upon all flesh; and your sons and your\ndaughters shall prophesy.\u201d (Joel iii. 1. In the English Bible, ii. 28.)\nYea, as if to mock the rabbies and the oral law, God adds, that it shall\nbe given even to the male and female slaves.\n\n\u05d5\u05d2\u05dd \u05e2\u05dc \u05d4\u05e6\u05d1\u05d3\u05d9\u05dd \u05d5\u05d0\u05dc \u05d4\u05e9\u05e4\u05d7\u05d5\u05ea \u05d1\u05d9\u05de\u05d9\u05dd \u05d4\u05d4\u05de\u05d4 \u05d0\u05e9\u05e4\u05d5\u05da \u05d0\u05ea \u05e8\u05d5\u05d7\u05d9 \u05c3\n\n\u201cYea, even upon the servants and handmaids, in those days, will I pour\nout my spirit.\u201d The two classes of human beings whom, next to the\n_Amharatzin_, the oral law treats with the most indignity, are women and\nslaves: but God\u2019s thoughts are not like the rabbies\u2019 thoughts, and he,\ntherefore, graciously stands forth as the vindicator of the oppressed,\nand promises even to these classes the gift of prophecy. Here again,\nthen, we see that \u201cas far as the east is from the west,\u201d so different is\nGod\u2019s law from the present religion of the Jewish people. The religion\nof the rabbies is a grinding tyranny, oppressive to the Gentiles, to\nslaves, yea, and to all unlearned Jews, and that does not even spare the\nwives, the mothers, and the daughters of Israel. Wherever the oral law\ncan have its full sway, as in Mahometan countries, the women are left\ntotally destitute of learning and religion\u2014they are not even taught to\nread. In not one of those countries is a school for female children to\nbe found. It is only in Christian lands that the daughters of Israel get\nany education, or ever attain to anything like that station which God\ndestined them to fill. Wherever the light of Christianity shines,\nhowever feeble, it ameliorates the condition of the female portion of\nthe Jewish nation, and compels even the disciples of Rabbinism to take a\nlittle more care of their souls and their intellects. Jewish females are\ntherefore deeply indebted to the doctrines of Jesus of Nazareth. If he\nhad not risen up against the oral law, they would be universally classed\nwith slaves, idiots, and Amharatzin. He has delivered them from this\ndegradation. Let them then consider the religion of Jesus, and the\nreligion which the rabbies have taught them, and then let them decide\nwhich is most beneficial to their temporal and eternal welfare. The\nreligion that comes from God must be beneficial to all his rational\ncreatures. A religion that oppresses or disdains any one class, and\ndeprives them of religious instruction, cannot come from him.\n\n\n\n\n                               No. XLVII.\n                               POLYGAMY.\n\n\nGreat and striking is the difference of position which womankind\noccupies in Europe and in the countries of the East. In the latter they\nare men\u2019s slaves: in the former his companions. In the latter they are\nobjects of contempt even to their own sons. In the former they are the\nhonoured instruments to impart the first elements of learning and\nreligion. Here in Europe they appear as co-heirs, with man, of reason,\nof intellect, of liberty and immortality; but there they seem to be an\ninferior race of beings, at the very most a better sort of domestic\nanimal. That the European state of things is more agreeable to God\u2019s\nintention in the creation of male and female is evident from the\nconsideration, that there one half of the human race is doomed to\ndegradation and misery, whilst here they enjoy a becoming respect, and a\nmuch larger portion of happiness; and still more from observing the\neffects of the two systems. Here the intellectual and moral powers of\nmankind have far advanced towards perfection, but there the human race\nis still debased and barbarous. Now that, which makes happy and\nimproves, must necessarily be more agreeable to God\u2019s purpose in\ncreation, than that which degrades and makes unhappy; and this argument\nwill also go far to prove that another striking feature of difference,\nwhich distinguishes the West from the East, is also more in accordance\nwith the will of God; we mean the fact that here men have only one wife,\nwhilst there they have many. There can be no doubt that this\ncharacteristic of European life conduces much to the well-being and the\npeace of families, as well as to the moral and intellectual improvement\nof individuals. In these two great advantages and means of happiness the\nJewesses of Europe participate. They are not illiterate slaves like\ntheir sisters in the east, neither do they divide their husbands\u2019\naffections with many. Here the Jews, like the Christians, have only one\nwife. It becomes, therefore, a most interesting subject of inquiry to\nknow to what the European Jewesses are indebted for this superiority of\nrespect and happiness. Is it to their own religion, or to the religion\nof Christians, that is, is it to Judaism or Christianity? We might\nanswer at once, that Judaism has certainly not produced this salutary\ndifference, for then it would have produced the same effect in Mahometan\ncountries, but we prefer referring to the oral law itself. We have\nalready shown that modern Judaism degrades women to the level of slaves\nand _Amharatzin_: we shall now prove that _the Jewesses are not indebted\nto it for the abolition of polygamy_. When Napoleon assembled the famous\nParisian Sanhedrin, he proposed this question to the Jewish deputies,\n\u201c_Is it lawful for Jews to marry more than one wife?_\u201d To which they\nreturned the following answer:\u2014\u201cIt is not lawful for Jews to marry more\nthan one wife: in all European countries they conform to the general\npractice of marrying only one. Moses does not command expressly to take\nseveral; but he does not forbid it. He seems even to adopt that custom\nas generally prevailing, since he settles the rights of inheritance\nbetween children of different wives. Although this practice still\nprevails in the East, yet their ancient doctors have enjoined them to\nrestrain from taking more than one wife, except when the man is enabled\nby his fortune to maintain several. The case has been different in the\nWest; the wish of adopting the customs of the inhabitants of this part\nof the world has induced the Jews to renounce polygamy. But as several\nindividuals still indulged in that practice, a synod was convened at\nWorms in the eleventh century, composed of one hundred rabbies, with\nGuerson (Gershom) at their head. This assembly pronounced an anathema\nagainst every Israelite who should, in future, take more than one wife.\nAlthough this prohibition was not to last for ever, the influence of\nEuropean manners has universally prevailed.\u201d (Transactions of the\nSanhedrin, p. 150.) A more evasive, false, and inconsistent answer has\nrarely been given to a plain straightforward question. First they say\ndecidedly, that it is not lawful for Jews to marry more than one wife:\nthen they spend a page in contradicting themselves, and at last\nacknowledge that the abolition of polygamy was first owing to the\nanathema of a rabbi, and that it is now to be attributed to the\ninfluence of European manners. But what are European manners? What\nreligion do Europeans profess? Plainly the religion of Jesus of\nNazareth, so that here the Jewish deputies acknowledge that if Jewish\nwives have not got three or four or more rivals shut up with them in the\nsame house, they owe this benefit to Christianity. But we must not rest\nsatisfied with this answer of the Parisian deputies; we must ask the\noral law itself, whether it is lawful for Jews to marry more than one\nwife, and must hear the oral law\u2019s reply. It answers thus:\u2014\n\n\u05e0\u05d5\u05e9\u05d0 \u05d0\u05d3\u05dd \u05db\u05de\u05d4 \u05e0\u05e9\u05d9\u05dd \u05d0\u05e4\u05d9\u05dc\u05d5 \u05de\u05d0\u05d4 \u05d1\u05d9\u05df \u05d1\u05d1\u05ea \u05d0\u05d7\u05ea \u05d1\u05d9\u05df \u05d1\u05d6\u05d5 \u05d0\u05d7\u05e8 \u05d6\u05d5 \u05d5\u05d0\u05d9\u05df \u05d0\u05e9\u05ea\u05d5 \u05d9\u05db\u05d5\u05dc\u05d4\n\u05dc\u05e2\u05db\u05d1 , \u05d5\u05d4\u05d5\u05d0 \u05e9\u05d9\u05d4\u05d9\u05d4 \u05d9\u05db\u05d5\u05dc \u05dc\u05d9\u05ea\u05df \u05e9\u05d0\u05e8 \u05db\u05e1\u05d5\u05ea \u05d5\u05e2\u05d5\u05e0\u05d4 \u05db\u05e8\u05d0\u05d5\u05d9 \u05dc\u05db\u05dc \u05d0\u05d7\u05ea \u05d5\u05d0\u05d7\u05ea \u05c3\n\n\u201cA man may marry many wives, even a hundred, either at once, or one\nafter the other, and his wife cannot prevent it, provided that he is\nable to give to each suitable food, clothing, and marriage-duty.\u201d (Iad\nHachasakah Hilchoth Ishuth., c. xiv. 3.) This is rather different\ndoctrine from that of the Parisian Sanhedrin. Here it is plain that the\noral law allows a man to have more than one wife, and does not stint him\nat all as to the number. The Arbah Turim teaches precisely the same\ndoctrine, except that it advises a man not to marry more than four:\u2014\n\n\u05e0\u05d5\u05e9\u05d0 \u05d0\u05d3\u05dd \u05db\u05de\u05d4 \u05e0\u05e9\u05d9\u05dd \u05d3\u05d0\u05de\u05e8 \u05e8\u05d1\u05d0 \u05e0\u05d5\u05e9\u05d0 \u05d0\u05d3\u05dd \u05db\u05de\u05d4 \u05e0\u05e9\u05d9\u05dd , \u05d5\u05d4\u05d5\u05d0 \u05d3\u05d0\u05e4\u05e9\u05e8 \u05dc\u05de\u05d9\u05e7\u05dd\n\u05d1\u05e1\u05d9\u05e4\u05d5\u05e7\u05d5\u05d4\u05d9 , \u05d5\u05de\u05db\u05dc \u05de\u05e7\u05d5\u05dd \u05e0\u05ea\u05e0\u05d5 \u05d7\u05db\u05de\u05d9\u05dd \u05e2\u05e6\u05d4 \u05d8\u05d5\u05d1\u05d4 \u05e9\u05dc\u05d0 \u05d9\u05e9\u05d0 \u05d0\u05d3\u05dd \u05d9\u05d5\u05ea\u05e8 \u05de\u05d3\u05f3 \u05e0\u05e9\u05d9\u05dd \u05c3\n\n\u201cA man may marry many wives, for Rabba says it is lawful to do so, if he\ncan provide for them. Nevertheless, the wise men have given good advice,\nthat a man should not many more than four wives.\u201d (Even Haezer, 1.) So\nfar then as Judaism is concerned, polygamy is lawful; and a Jew that\nwould even restrict himself according to the advice of the rabbies,\nmight still have four wives. It is not his religion that teaches him to\nbe content with one: and therefore, we must, farther, inquire how it is\nthat the Jews, who consider polygamy lawful, do not indulge in it. The\nParisian deputies have already informed us that it still prevails in the\nEast, and that it prevailed in Europe until the eleventh century, when\nR. Gershom anathematized it. In the place just cited we find a similar\nstatement:\u2014\n\n\u05d1\u05de\u05e7\u05d5\u05dd \u05e9\u05e0\u05d4\u05d2\u05d5 \u05e9\u05dc\u05d0 \u05dc\u05d9\u05e9\u05d0 \u05d0\u05dc\u05d0 \u05d0\u05e9\u05d4 \u05d0\u05d7\u05ea \u05d0\u05d9\u05e0\u05d5 \u05e8\u05e9\u05d0\u05d9 \u05dc\u05d9\u05e9\u05d0 \u05d0\u05e9\u05d4 \u05d0\u05d7\u05e8\u05ea \u05e2\u05dc \u05d0\u05e9\u05ea\u05d5 , \u05e8\u05f3\n\u05d2\u05e8\u05e9\u05d5\u05df \u05d4\u05d7\u05e8\u05d9\u05dd \u05e2\u05dc \u05d4\u05e0\u05d5\u05e9\u05d0 \u05e2\u05dc \u05d0\u05e9\u05ea\u05d5 \u05d0\u05d1\u05dc \u05d1\u05d9\u05d1\u05de\u05d4 \u05dc\u05d0 \u05d4\u05d7\u05e8\u05d9\u05dd \u05d5\u05db\u05df \u05d1\u05d0\u05e8\u05d5\u05e1\u05d4 , \u05d5\u05dc\u05d0 \u05e4\u05e9\u05d8\u05d4\n\u05ea\u05e7\u05e0\u05ea\u05d5 \u05d1\u05db\u05dc \u05d4\u05d0\u05e8\u05e6\u05d5\u05ea , \u05d5\u05dc\u05d0 \u05d4\u05d7\u05e8\u05d9\u05dd \u05d0\u05dc\u05d0 \u05e2\u05d3 \u05e1\u05d5\u05e3 \u05d4\u05d0\u05dc\u05e3 \u05d4\u05d7\u05de\u05d9\u05e9\u05d9 \u05c3\n\n\u201cIn a place where the custom is to marry only one wife, it is not\npermitted to marry more than one woman. R. Gershom anathematized any one\nthat should many a second, whilst his wife was alive; but this anathema\ndoes not extend to the case of the widow of a brother, who has died\nwithout children, nor to the case of a woman who is only betrothed. This\nordinance, however, does not obtain in all lands, and the anathema was\nonly to last until the end of the fifth thousand years.\u201d Hence it\nappears that before R. Gershom, polygamy was lawful and practised by the\nJews in Europe, but that he forbade it except in particular cases; and\nfurther, that R. Gershom\u2019s prohibition was only temporary, it was to\nhave full force until the end of the fifth thousand years, that is,\nuntil the year 1240 of the Christian era. This period is how long past,\nfor the Jews reckon this year 5597, and Gershom\u2019s anathema has therefore\nlost its force; consequently, the only obstacle, which their religion\nopposed to polygamy has been removed, and, so far as conscience is\nconcerned, every professor of Judaism must feel himself at liberty to\nmarry as many wives as he likes. He knows that R. Gershom\u2019s anathema has\nexpired, and if he goes to the codes of Jewish law, he finds that it is\nleft doubtful. For instance, the note on the passage just cited says\u2014\n\n\u05d5\u05de\u05db\u05dc \u05de\u05e7\u05d5\u05dd \u05d1\u05db\u05dc \u05de\u05d3\u05d9\u05e0\u05d5\u05ea \u05d0\u05dc\u05d5 \u05d4\u05ea\u05e7\u05e0\u05d4 \u05d5\u05d4\u05de\u05e0\u05d4\u05d2 \u05d1\u05de\u05e7\u05d5\u05de\u05d5 \u05e2\u05d5\u05de\u05d3 \u05d5\u05d0\u05d9\u05df \u05e0\u05d5\u05e9\u05d0\u05d9\u05df \u05e9\u05ea\u05d9 \u05e0\u05e9\u05d9\u05dd\n\u05d5\u05db\u05d5\u05e4\u05d9\u05df \u05d1\u05d7\u05e8\u05de\u05d5\u05ea \u05d5\u05de\u05e0\u05d3\u05d9\u05df \u05de\u05d9 \u05e9\u05e2\u05d5\u05d1\u05e8 \u05d5\u05e0\u05d5\u05e9\u05d0 \u05d1\u05f3 \u05e0\u05e9\u05d9\u05dd \u05dc\u05d2\u05e8\u05e9 \u05d0\u05d7\u05ea \u05de\u05d4\u05df \u05d5\u05d9\u05e9 \u05d0\u05d5\u05de\u05e8\u05d9\u05dd\n\u05d3\u05d1\u05d6\u05de\u05df \u05d4\u05d6\u05d4 \u05d0\u05d9\u05df \u05dc\u05db\u05d5\u05e3 \u05de\u05d9 \u05e9\u05e2\u05d1\u05e8 \u05d7\u05e8\u05dd \u05d3\u05e8\u05f3 \u05d2\u05e8\u05e9\u05d5\u05df \u05de\u05d0\u05d7\u05e8 \u05e9\u05db\u05d1\u05e8 \u05e0\u05e9\u05dc\u05dd \u05d0\u05dc\u05e3 \u05d4\u05d7\u05de\u05d9\u05e9\u05d9 ,\n\u05d5\u05d0\u05d9\u05df \u05e0\u05d5\u05d4\u05d2\u05d9\u05df \u05db\u05df \u05c3\n\n\u201cNevertheless, in all these countries the ordinance and the custom\nremain in force, and it is not lawful to marry two wives; and he that\ntransgresses and does so is to be compelled by anathema and\nexcommunication to divorce one of them. But some say that in the present\ntime he that transgresses the anathema of R. Gershom is not to be\ncompelled, for the five thousand years have been completed long since;\nbut the custom is not according to this.\u201d Here then are two opinions.\nThe most strict of the two is, that polygamy is now not lawful, and that\nhe who marries two wives must divorce one of them: but even this cannot\nbe very satisfactory to the woman whom he first married, for it does not\ndefine which of the two is to be divorced. It only requires that one of\nthem should be divorced, and leaves it to the man himself to divorce\nwhich he pleases. The other opinion is, that polygamy is now lawful, and\nthat he is not to be compelled to divorce either. Hence it appears that\nit is not Judaism which protects the rights and the happiness of Jewish\nwomen, or the peace and comfort of Jewish families. The influence and\nthe laws of Christianity forbid polygamy. To Christianity, then, Jewish\nfemales are indebted, not only for the station which they hold in\nsociety, but for the peace which they enjoy in their homes. Wherever\nChristianity has no power, there the Jews may take as many wives as they\nplease: and if ever Judaism should obtain supreme power, Jewesses must\nexpect to be again degraded into the category of slaves and\n_Amharatzin_, and to have their domestic peace annihilated by the\nintroduction of new wives and families. It may be replied, that this\nobjection applies with equal force to the written law, for that Moses\nhimself allows polygamy. But to this we answer, that Moses only\n_tolerated_ polygamy, but that he shows clearly that it was not the\npurpose of God, that men should have more wives than one. He found an\nevil custom existing amongst a people debased by Egyptian slavery, and\nlike a wise reformer, he did not commence his improvements by destroying\nall that existed, but endeavoured to restrain the evil, to show that it\nwas contrary to God\u2019s original institution, and to point out the\nconsequences. He did not immediately pronounce it unlawful, for that\nwould have been attended with serious inconveniences, but by the\ndirection of God gave laws to protect the wives and children. In the\nbeginning of Genesis\u2014he showed that God\u2019s will was, that a man should\nhave only one wife, for that he did not create several women, but only\none. He gives the words of God, saying, \u201cIt is not good that the man\nshould be alone: I will make him an help meet for him\u201d \u05e2\u05d6\u05e8 \u05db\u05e0\u05d2\u05d3\u05d5 where\n\u201chelp\u201d is in the singular number, to show that man was not to have more\nthan one help meet for him. And again, those words, \u201cTherefore shall a\nman leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife,\u201d\nnot unto his wives, but to his wife; where it is also to be observed,\nthat God is laying down a law, not for Adam only, but for coming\ngenerations. By exhibiting the original institution of marriage in\nParadise, whilst man was yet innocent, and stating the original law and\npurpose of God, Moses plainly showed, that God\u2019s will was, that a man\nshould have only one wife. He then goes on to show, that the first who\ndeparted from this original institution was Lamech, one of the wicked\ndescendants of wicked Cain. \u201cAnd Lamech took unto him two wives,\u201d (Gen.\niv. 19,) whom he held up as a warning, recording of him only that he had\ntwo wives, and that he was a murderer. With this he contrasts the\nconduct of Noah and his sons, who had only one wife each. In the history\nof the patriarchs he shows the evil consequences of polygamy. He shows\nthat it was not the will of Abraham to take a second wife, but that\nSarah in her eagerness to have children misled him, and that discord and\ndomestic trouble soon followed. And by all the troubles which the sons\nof Ishmael have since inflicted upon the children of Isaac, God has, in\nhis providence, confirmed the moral to be drawn from the Mosaic\nnarrative. Moses then points out the happiness of Isaac, who had only\none wife; and the troubles of Jacob, who, not by his own choice, but by\nthe wickedness of Laban and the folly of Laban\u2019s daughters, had more\nthan one; and last of all, Moses gave in himself an example of the\nconduct which he wished Israel to pursue by having only one wife\nhimself. A careful examination, therefore, of the law of Moses will show\nthat he only tolerated polygamy as an existing evil, but that he\nintended to discourage it, by exhibiting the original institution of\nmarriage, and the many evils that result from a departure from God\u2019s\npurpose. When, therefore, we show that the oral law permits men to have\nmore wives than one, and that consequently it is accountable for all the\nevil thence resulting, we cannot be charged with reproaching the law of\nMoses. The oral law says expressly, that a man may marry many wives,\neven a hundred. The law of Moses nowhere says any thing of the kind. It\nonly legislates in case that such a thing should happen. The oral law\nplainly advises a man not to take more than four wives. The law of Moses\nholds up the evil of having more than one. If men would carefully read\nthe law of Moses, they would see that the original intention was, that a\nman should have only one wife. But if a man follow the oral law, he will\nbe encouraged to take as many as he can support. It is evident,\ntherefore, that if the Jews in Europe do not practise polygamy, their\nconduct is not to be ascribed to the influence of Judaism, but of\nChristianity.\n\nIt is, further, evident that this Christian practice of having only one\nwife, cannot be objected to as an unauthorized alteration of the law of\nMoses. If R. Gershom was allowed to forbid polygamy, and the Jews\nconsidered themselves bound to obey him, they cannot reasonably object\nto the Christian laws on the same subject. Christianity has only\neffected by its influence what R. Gershom endeavoured to accomplish by\nanathema. The only difference is, that Christianity was first, and that\nR. Gershom learnt the evil of polygamy from Christians. If it was lawful\nfor a rabbi, it was still more lawful for the Messiah to restore the\noriginal constitution of marriage as established in Paradise, and to\ndeliver Jewish wives and families from all that confusion and discord\nwhich results from polygamy. But it is particularly deserving of notice\nthat R. Gershom, by forbidding the Jews to have more wives than one,\nmade a great and decided change in the oral law. That which the oral law\nallows, R. Gershom forbids. We grant, indeed, that by thus changing the\noral law, he approximated to the mind and intention of Moses: but he\naltered the oral law, and thereby shows us that he himself did not\nbelieve that the oral law was to last for ever, or that it is of eternal\nobligation. If he had considered it unchangeable, he would not have\ndared to make the change; but by making so important a change as this,\nto forbid what it allows, he plainly shows it as his opinion, that where\nthere is a grave reason, the oral law may be changed or abolished; and\nall the Jews who acquiesce in his ordinance, and think it is unlawful to\nmarry more wives than one; consent to the change. But if it be lawful to\nchange in one thing, it must also be lawful to change in another, so\nthat the rabbinical Jews have no reason whatever for reproaching their\nbrethren who renounce the oral law totally. Such persons are only acting\nupon a principle practically acknowledged by all the Jews of Europe. It\nmay be said that R. Gershom\u2019s change was only temporary, and that the\npresent acquiescence of European Jews is only a sort of homage to\nChristian principles. This is certainly true, and this reply leads us to\nconsider the dreary prospect presented to Jewish females, if ever modern\nJudaism should obtain power. The influence of Christian principle would\nthen cease,\u2014polygamy would again be lawful, and the matrons of Israel,\nwho now appear as the participators in the family government and the\nguides of their households, would again be degraded into one of a herd\nof female slaves. They might have a hundred competitors and rivals in\ntheir husbands\u2019 affections, and even if the husband should follow the\nadvice of the rabbies, and take only four wives, they would at least\nhave three. Now, we ask every matron in Israel whether she would wish\nsuch a change, or whether she would prefer the present state of things,\nwhere a man can have only one wife? If she prefers the present state,\nthen she prefers the Christian principle, and acknowledges that\nChristianity is better than Judaism. If she does not wish for the\nrestoration of polygamy, then she confesses that the doctrines of\nJudaism are injurious, and that she does not desire the triumph of her\nown religion. Then why should she profess a religion which she\nacknowledges to be prejudicial to her welfare\u2014or why should she reject a\nreligion which protects her peace and comfort? There can be no question,\nthat Christianity has prevented amongst the Jews that practice of having\nmany wives; it has, therefore, been a blessing to Jewish families for\ncenturies; why, then, should they despise or oppose a religion which has\nbeen, and still is, a blessing? And we propose this question, not only\nto Jewish wives, but to Jewish husbands. Is it not a fact, that God\u2019s\noriginal institution was that a man should have only one wife\u2014does not\nMoses show that the first polygamist was a descendant of wicked Cain,\nand, that family discord and unhappiness is the consequence of having\nmore wives than one? Does not reason, and the state of Mahometan\ncountries, show that where there are many wives, woman is degraded, and\nthe education of children necessarily neglected? Is not the moral, the\nintellectual, and scientific progress of mankind greatly superior in\nChristian countries, where men have only one wife? Is not, then, the\npractice of having only one wife a blessing? Has it not been a blessing\nto Jewish husbands, wives, and children? Are not, then, the Jews deeply\nindebted to Christianity for that measure of peace and moral improvement\nwhich they have derived from this practice? And would not an adherence\nto their own oral law in the same degree have proved a disadvantage, if\nnot a curse? How, then, can they oppose a religion which has been to\nthem a blessing?\u2014or how can they adhere to a religion which contains\nprinciples subversive of their domestic peace, and destructive to the\nwell-being, and the moral and intellectual improvement of one-half the\nhuman race? The rabbies say, that the oral law is eternal in its\nobligation: if so, then polygamy is to be eternal in its continuance,\nand then men are never to return to that state of perfection which they\nenjoyed in Paradise. Who is there that does not see that the race of men\nwas most happy when sin was unknown, and most perfect in intellect when\nhe could hold converse with the Deity and dwell in the garden of God?\nBut if Judaism be true, men are never again to enjoy that state, for\nthen polygamy was unknown. Adam had only one wife; and until sin entered\ninto the world, and ripened even into murder, no man had two wives.\nJudaism is, therefore, opposed to the pure and perfect state of things\nthat existed in Paradise, and favourable to that confusion introduced by\nthe murderous Lamech, the son of murderous Cain\u2014and Christianity\nresembles, in its principles of marriage, the happy state ordained by\nGod in Paradise. Here, then, we have another and a practical proof that\nthe oral law is not of God. Its authors totally misunderstood the mind\nand purpose of Moses, the servant of God, and misinterpreted his\ntemporary toleration of an existing evil into a positive permission and\nsanction for continuing it. We have also another proof of the divine\norigin of Christianity.\n\n\n\n\n                              No. XLVIII.\n                                DIVORCE.\n\n\nWhen God delivered the commandments at Sinai, he placed those which\nrelated to himself first, to teach us that our first duty is to love and\nserve him: and immediately after these he gave the command \u201cHonour thy\nfather and thy mother,\u201d to show us that, next to himself, we are bound\nto reverence, to love, and to obey those to whom we owe our existence.\nThis order of things was not an arbitrary choice, but founded in that\nnatural constitution of creation which God ordained as most conducive to\nthe intellectual and moral well-being as well as to the happiness of his\ncreatures. He does not command us to love and serve Him, and Him only,\nmerely because He has the light on the one hand, and it is our bounden\nduty on the other; but because a conformity to his will is an\napproximation both to wisdom and happiness. Neither does he tell us to\nhonour father and mother, because we owe them all such reverence, as\nfrom them we have derived our being, and to them are indebted for all\nthe care and affection with which they have tended and watched over our\ninfancy; but because He has himself constituted the relation of parent\nand child, and ordained parental affection and filial duty as the means\nof promoting our welfare in time and in eternity. Any religion,\ntherefore, whose tendency is to render obedience to that command\nimpossible, must not only be contrary to the will of God, but to the\nhappiness of man; and this is one of the many reasons for which we think\nthat Judaism must be false. The religion of the oral law has a direct\ntendency to diminish a son\u2019s respect for his mother. We do not mean to\nsay that in this or any other Christian country Jewish sons despise\ntheir mothers. The co-existence of Christianity necessarily counteracts\nthe development of rabbinical principles. We intend only to exhibit the\nnatural and necessary consequences, if there were no counteracting\nforce. The contempt which the oral law pours upon women in general, and\nthe encouragement which it gives to polygamy have necessarily the effect\nof lessening their respect both in the eyes of their husbands and their\nsons, and this tendency is still more increased by the _rabbinic\ndoctrine of divorce_, which we now propose to consider. The law of Moses\npermits divorce under certain circumstances. It says, \u201cWhen a man hath\ntaken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no\nfavour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness, \u05e8\u05d5\u05ea \u05d3\u05d1\u05e8, in\nher; then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her\nhand, and send her out of his house,\u201d &c. (Deut. xxiv. 1.) But this\npermission, founded on grave and important considerations, the rabbies\nhave perverted into an unlimited licence to divorce on the most trifling\npretext.\n\n\u05d1\u05d9\u05ea \u05e9\u05de\u05d0\u05d9 \u05d0\u05d5\u05de\u05e8\u05d9\u05dd \u05dc\u05d0 \u05d9\u05d2\u05e8\u05e9 \u05d0\u05d3\u05dd \u05d0\u05ea \u05d0\u05e9\u05ea\u05d5 \u05d0\u05dc\u05d0 \u05d0\u05dd \u05db\u05df \u05de\u05e6\u05d0 \u05d1\u05d4 \u05e2\u05e8\u05d5\u05ea \u05d3\u05d1\u05e8 \u05d3\u05d3\u05e8\u05e9\u05d9 \u05dc\u05d9\u05d4\n\u05dc\u05e7\u05e8\u05d0 \u05db\u05e4\u05e9\u05d8\u05d9\u05d4 \u05d0\u05dd \u05dc\u05d0 \u05ea\u05de\u05e6\u05d0 \u05d7\u05df \u05d1\u05e2\u05d9\u05e0\u05d5 \u05dc\u05e4\u05d9 \u05e9\u05de\u05e6\u05d0 \u05d1\u05d4 \u05e2\u05e8\u05d5\u05ea \u05d3\u05d1\u05e8 , \u05d5\u05d1\u05d9\u05ea \u05d4\u05dc\u05dc \u05e1\u05d1\u05e8\u05d9\n\u05d0\u05e4\u05d9\u05dc\u05d5 \u05d4\u05e7\u05d3\u05d9\u05d7\u05d4 \u05ea\u05db\u05e9\u05d9\u05dc\u05d5 \u05d3\u05d3\u05e8\u05e9\u05d9 \u05dc\u05e7\u05e8\u05d0 \u05d4\u05db\u05d9 \u05db\u05d9 \u05de\u05e6\u05d0 \u05d1\u05d4 \u05e2\u05e8\u05d5\u05ea \u05d3\u05d1\u05e8 \u05d0\u05d5 \u05e2\u05e8\u05d5\u05d4 \u05d0\u05d5 \u05d3\u05d1\u05e8 \u05d0\u05d7\u05e8\n\u05e9\u05e4\u05e9\u05e2\u05d4 \u05db\u05e0\u05d2\u05d3\u05d5 , \u05d5\u05e8\u05f3 \u05e2\u05e7\u05d9\u05d1\u05d0 \u05e1\u05d1\u05e8 \u05d0\u05e4\u05d9\u05dc\u05d5 \u05de\u05e6\u05d0 \u05d0\u05d7\u05e8\u05ea \u05e0\u05d0\u05d4 \u05d4\u05d9\u05de\u05e0\u05d4 \u05d3\u05d3\u05e8\u05d9\u05e9 \u05dc\u05d9\u05d4 \u05dc\u05e7\u05e8\u05d0 \u05d4\u05db\u05d9\n\u05d5\u05d4\u05d9\u05d4 \u05d0\u05dd \u05dc\u05d0 \u05ea\u05de\u05e6\u05d0 \u05d7\u05df \u05d1\u05e2\u05d9\u05e0\u05d9\u05d5 \u05e4\u05d9\u05f3 \u05d7\u05df \u05e9\u05dc \u05e0\u05d5\u05d9 \u05d0\u05d5 \u05e9\u05de\u05e6\u05d0 \u05e2\u05e8\u05d5\u05ea \u05d3\u05d1\u05e8 \u05d5\u05d4\u05dc\u05db\u05d4 \u05db\u05d1\u05d9\u05ea \u05d4\u05dc\u05dc\n\u05e9\u05d0\u05dd \u05e4\u05e9\u05e2\u05d4 \u05db\u05e0\u05d2\u05d3\u05d5 \u05d9\u05db\u05d5\u05dc \u05dc\u05d2\u05e8\u05e9\u05d4 \u05c3\n\n\u201cThe school of Shamai says, A man is not to divorce his wife unless he\nshall find some uncleanness in her, for they interpret the verse\naccording to its simple meaning, if she find no favour in his eyes on\naccount of his finding some uncleanness in her. The school of Hillel\nthinks, that if a woman let the broth burn it is sufficient for they\ninterpret the words, \u2018a matter of uncleanness,\u2019 to mean, Either\nuncleanness, or any other matter in which she has offended him. But R.\nAkiva thinks, that a man may divorce his wife, if he only find another\nhandsomer than she is, for he interprets the verse thus, \u2018If she find no\nfavour in his eyes,\u2019 where he explains favour to refer to the favour of\nbeauty, or if he find a matter of uncleanness. But the legal decision is\naccording to the school of Hillel, that is, if a wife sin against her\nhusband, he may divorce her.\u201d (Arbah Turim, Hilchoth Gittin., 1.) This\nmonstrous passage is in itself sufficient to shake the authority of the\noral law, for in the first place we find three grave authorities,\nShamai, Hillel, and Akiva, all differing as to the sense of a most\nimportant passage, bearing upon a subject that most nearly affects the\nhappiness and well-being of human society. One of the gravest questions\nthat can be propounded is, When is a man justified in divorcing his\nwife? If there be an oral law at all, it ought certainly to answer this\nquestion clearly, unequivocally, and satisfactorily. The existence of\ndisputation shows that these three rabbies had no authoritative\ntradition on the subject, but were merely giving their own private\nopinions: and that therefore the assertion, that an oral law exists, is\na mere fiction invented to impose upon the credulous, but insufficient\nto beget faith in any man or woman that will make use of the reason\ngiven by God. The old fable, that God caused a voice to be heard from\nheaven, saying, when the rabbies differ, \u201cThat\n\n\u05d0\u05dc\u05d5 \u05d5\u05d0\u05dc\u05d5 \u05d3\u05d1\u05e8\u05d9 \u05d0\u05dc\u05d4\u05d9\u05dd \u05d7\u05d9\u05d9\u05dd \u05c3\n\nboth speak the words of the living God,\u201d will not do now. Every one can\nunderstand that God does not speak contradictions. No one will believe\nthat the profane sentiment of R. Akiva, That a man may divorce his wife\nas soon as he finds another who pleases him better, can proceed from the\nGod of holiness and justice. It is true that his opinion is not the law;\nbut the opinion of Hillel, which is the law, is not a whit better. It\npronounces that if a woman only spoil the broth she may be divorced: now\nthis interpretation or the words of Moses is plainly contrary to the\ngrammatical sense: \u05e2\u05b6\u05e8\u05b0\u05d5\u05b7\u05ea is in Regimen (\u05e1\u05de\u05d9\u05db\u05d4) and joined to \u05d3\u05b8\u05bc\u05d1\u05b8\u05e8 by\na munach, and can therefore by no means be separated from it so as to\nsignify \u201cEither uncleanness or some other matter.\u201d The words of Moses,\nthe points, and the accents, all decide that there is only one cause for\nwhich a man may put away his wife. Hillel and his successors have\nwilfully passed by the plain sense of the Hebrew words, in their\neagerness to obtain a facility for putting away their wives. They were\nnot ignorant of the right sense, for that was plainly asserted by\nShamai, but were determined to get rid of it; and such was the state of\nthe Jews at the time, that they had influence enough to turn their false\ninterpretation into law; and such has been the state of the Jews ever\nsince, that it continues law to this very hour. A rabbinical Jew may,\naccording to his religious tenets, turn away his wife, the mother of his\nchildren, on a pretext that would hardly justify the dismissal of a\nservant. He may rudely tear asunder the sacred ties of conjugal\naffection, and separate between mother and children, if the unhappy\nwoman should only make a mistake in her cookery. One of the worst\ncharges brought against the slave-dealers was, that they had no respect\neither for maternal or filial affection; that they separated between\nmother and children. The very same accusation can be brought against\nmodern Judaism, which legitimatizes the very same disregard for the\nfeelings of a mother. Can, then, such a religion, which thus daringly\nsnaps the ties of nature, be from God? Is it possible that God should\nthus expose one half of his rational creatures to the caprice and the\ntyranny of those who ought to be their defenders and protectors from\nevery insult and every harm? If the same right were given to women,\nthough the laws would be most contrary to the divine institution of\nmarriage, it would at least have the appearance of justice; but this is\ndenied. The oral law says,\u2014\n\n\u05d0\u05dd \u05dc\u05d0 \u05ea\u05de\u05e6\u05d0 \u05d7\u05df \u05d1\u05e2\u05d9\u05e0\u05d9\u05d5 , \u05de\u05dc\u05de\u05d3 \u05e9\u05d0\u05d9\u05e0\u05d5 \u05de\u05d2\u05e8\u05e9 \u05d0\u05dc\u05d0 \u05d1\u05e8\u05e6\u05d5\u05e0\u05d5 \u05d5\u05d0\u05dd \u05e0\u05ea\u05d2\u05e8\u05e9\u05d4 \u05e9\u05dc\u05d0 \u05d1\u05e8\u05e6\u05d5\u05e0\u05d5\n\u05d0\u05d9\u05e0\u05d4 \u05de\u05d2\u05d5\u05e8\u05e9\u05ea , \u05d0\u05d1\u05dc \u05d4\u05d0\u05e9\u05d4 \u05de\u05ea\u05d2\u05e8\u05e9\u05ea \u05d1\u05e8\u05e6\u05d5\u05e0\u05d4 \u05d5\u05e9\u05dc\u05d0 \u05d1\u05e8\u05e6\u05d5\u05e0\u05d4 \u05c3\n\n\u201cThe words, \u2018If she find no favour in his eyes,\u2019 teach, that the husband\ndoes not divorce except voluntarily; and if the woman be divorced\nagainst his will, she is not divorced. But the woman is divorced with or\nwithout her will.\u201d (Jad Hachazakah Hilchoth, Gerushin, c. 1, 2.)\nAccording to this doctrine the happiness of the wife and the children is\nabsolutely vested in the power of the man; and in any paroxysm of\nill-humour, he may make them both unhappy for life; he may turn the\nmother out of her home, drive her forth like a criminal from the bosom\nof her family, and introduce a stranger. Who does not see that this is a\npower unfit to be trusted to the hands of any man or any people? We do\nnot mean to impute anything peculiar to the Jews; we believe that as to\ntheir natural propensities, humours, and caprices, all men are much\nalike, and that therefore none ought to have the power of thus lightly\nbreaking up the domestic constitution. It is no answer to this to say,\nthat in this country divorce is not so lightly practised. Thanks to the\npower of Christian principle and the existence of Christian laws, it\ncannot be. But every one, who has had much opportunity of seeing\nrabbinical Jews, knows that divorce is practised amongst them with a\nfacility and frequency that is astonishing. But this is not the\nquestion; we are not examining Jewish manners, but the modern Jewish\nreligion; and if divorce had never been practised, we should still\npronounce of the oral law, which inculcates such principles, that it\ncannot be from God; and of its authors that they were bad men, or they\nwould never have thus trifled with God\u2019s most holy institution. The\ntruth is, that the rabbies were altogether ignorant of the nature of\nmarriage as God established it. They not only allow divorce on the most\ntrifling pretext, but they sanction the practice of marrying for a given\nlength of time, and, when that time is expired, of dissolving the\nmarriage by divorce:\u2014\n\n\u05dc\u05d0 \u05d9\u05e9\u05d0 \u05d0\u05d3\u05dd \u05d0\u05e9\u05d4 \u05d5\u05d3\u05e2\u05ea\u05d5 \u05dc\u05d2\u05e8\u05e9\u05d4 , \u05d5\u05d0\u05dd \u05d4\u05d5\u05d3\u05d9\u05e2\u05d4 \u05d1\u05ea\u05d7\u05dc\u05d4 \u05e9\u05d4\u05d5\u05d0 \u05e0\u05d5\u05e9\u05d0 \u05d0\u05d5\u05ea\u05d4 \u05dc\u05d9\u05de\u05d9\u05dd \u05de\u05d5\u05ea\u05e8\n\u05c3\n\n\u201cA man must not marry a woman with the intention of divorcing her; but,\nif he previously inform her that he is going to marry her for a season,\nit is lawful.\u201d (Hilchoth Gittin in Even Haezer, 1.) Now how contrary is\nsuch doctrine to the express words of Scripture. \u201cThis is bone of my\nbones, and flesh of my flesh. Therefore shall a man leave his father and\nhis mother, and shall cleave unto his wife; and they shall be one\nflesh.\u201d (Gen. ii. 23.) Here Adam, in his state of innocence, pronounces\nthat the tie of marriage is more sacred and more binding, than even that\nwhich exists between parent and child. A man may, and for his wife\u2019s\nsake shall, forsake father and mother, but should no more think of\nseparating from his wife, than from his own bones and flesh. Who would\nlightly think of parting with a limb, or a portion of his body? Urgent,\nindeed, must be the necessity that will induce a man to permit the\nseparation of a portion of himself, and equally urgent should be the\ncause that should move a man to part with her who is bone of his bones,\nand flesh of his flesh. Such is the Mosaic doctrine of the marriage\nobligation; but so little did the rabbies understand it, that they\npermit a man to marry for a week, a month, or a year; and when that\nseason is expired, to tear asunder the sacred ties, and that without any\ncause whatever. But the evident evil that must result from the rabbinic\ndoctrine of divorce is still more apparent from the first sentence of\nthe passage last quoted\u2014\u201cA man must not marry a woman with the intention\nof divorcing her.\u201d These words show the direct tendency of the doctrine.\nWhen power is given to a man to turn out his wife when he likes, a\ntemptation is at once held out to the evil-disposed to marry with the\nexpress intention of divorcing. The rabbies, therefore, find it\nnecessary to forbid it; but is it likely that this prohibition will have\nmuch force in the eyes of a man who is wicked enough to form the\nintention? And suppose a wicked man does form the intention, and execute\nit, what remedy had the poor injured woman? Thus the oral law leaves the\ndaughters of Israel completely at the mercy of the unprincipled, and\nplaces them beyond this possibility of obtaining justice.\n\nBut the cruelty and total want of feeling which the oral law displays\nand teaches, with regard to women, appears still more plainly from the\nfollowing extract:\u2014\n\n\u05de\u05d9 \u05e9\u05e0\u05ea\u05d7\u05e8\u05e9\u05d4 \u05d0\u05e9\u05ea\u05d5 \u05d4\u05e8\u05d9 \u05d6\u05d4 \u05de\u05d2\u05e8\u05e9\u05d4 \u05d1\u05d2\u05d8 \u05d5\u05ea\u05d4\u05d9\u05d4 \u05de\u05d2\u05d5\u05e8\u05e9\u05ea , \u05d0\u05d1\u05dc \u05d0\u05dd \u05e0\u05e9\u05ea\u05d8\u05ea \u05d0\u05d9\u05e0\u05d5 \u05de\u05d5\u05e6\u05d9\u05d0\u05d4\n\u05e2\u05d3 \u05e9\u05ea\u05d1\u05e8\u05d9\u05d0 , \u05d5\u05d3\u05d1\u05e8 \u05d6\u05d4 \u05ea\u05e7\u05e0\u05ea \u05d7\u05db\u05de\u05d9\u05dd \u05d4\u05d5\u05d0 , \u05db\u05d3\u05d9 \u05e9\u05dc\u05d0 \u05ea\u05d4\u05d9\u05d4 \u05d4\u05e4\u05e7\u05e8 \u05dc\u05e4\u05e8\u05d5\u05e6\u05d9\u05df \u05e9\u05d4\u05e8\u05d9 \u05d0\u05d9\u05e0\u05d4\n\u05d9\u05db\u05d5\u05dc\u05d4 \u05dc\u05e9\u05de\u05d5\u05e8 \u05d0\u05ea \u05e2\u05e6\u05de\u05d4 ; \u05dc\u05e4\u05d9\u05db\u05da \u05de\u05e0\u05d9\u05d7\u05d4 \u05d5\u05e0\u05d5\u05e9\u05d0 \u05d0\u05d7\u05e8\u05ea \u05d5\u05de\u05d0\u05db\u05d9\u05dc\u05d4 \u05d5\u05de\u05e9\u05e7\u05d4 \u05de\u05e9\u05dc\u05d4 ; \u05d5\u05d0\u05d9\u05df\n\u05de\u05d7\u05d9\u05d9\u05d1\u05d9\u05df \u05d0\u05d5\u05ea\u05d5 \u05d1\u05e9\u05d0\u05e8 \u05db\u05e1\u05d5\u05ea \u05d5\u05e2\u05d5\u05e0\u05d4 , \u05e9\u05d0\u05d9\u05df \u05db\u05d7 \u05d1\u05d1\u05df \u05d3\u05e2\u05ea \u05dc\u05d3\u05d5\u05e8 \u05e2\u05dd \u05d4\u05e9\u05d5\u05d8\u05d9\u05dd \u05d1\u05d1\u05d9\u05ea \u05d0\u05d7\u05d3 ,\n\u05d5\u05d0\u05d9\u05e0\u05d5 \u05d7\u05d9\u05d9\u05d1 \u05dc\u05e8\u05e4\u05d0\u05d5\u05ea\u05d4 \u05d5\u05dc\u05d0 \u05dc\u05e4\u05d3\u05d5\u05ea\u05d4 , \u05d5\u05d0\u05dd \u05d2\u05e8\u05e9\u05d4 \u05d4\u05e8\u05d9 \u05d6\u05d5 \u05de\u05d2\u05d5\u05e8\u05e9\u05ea \u05d5\u05de\u05d5\u05e6\u05d9\u05d0\u05d4 \u05de\u05d1\u05d9\u05ea\u05d5\n\u05d5\u05d0\u05d9\u05e0\u05d5 \u05d7\u05d9\u05d9\u05d1 \u05dc\u05d7\u05d6\u05d5\u05e8 \u05d5\u05dc\u05d4\u05d8\u05e4\u05dc \u05d1\u05d4 \u05c3\n\n\u201cIf a man\u2019s wife should become deaf and dumb, he gives her a bill of\ndivorce, and she is divorced. But if she become insane, he is not to\nsend her forth until she is recovered: and this thing is an ordinance of\nthe wise men, that she should not become a prey to the immodest, because\nshe is not able to take care of herself. The husband therefore, leaves\nher where she is, and marries another, and gives her meat and drink out\nof her own property. But he is not to be compelled to give her food and\nraiment, and duty of marriage, for it is not in the power of a sane\nperson to dwell in one house with the insane. Neither is he obligated to\nhave her cured, nor to ransom her. But if he should divorce her, then\nshe is divorced, and is to be put out of his house: and he is not\nobligated to return and take any trouble about her.\u201d (Hilchoth Gerushin,\nx. 23.) Principles more contrary to God\u2019s Word, and to the common\nfeelings of humanity, were never inculcated under the name of religion.\nWe have been astonished at the cruelty with which the oral law treats\nGentiles\u2014we have been horrified at the coolness with which it speaks of\nsplitting open an _Amhaaretz_\u2014but here it surpasses itself, and\nout-herods Herod. A man accustomed to judge of his duty by the words of\nMoses and the prophets, or even to follow toe dictates of\nunsophisticated nature, would conclude that, as he is at all times bound\nto love and cherish his wife, the obligation is doubly imperative in\ncase of sickness, but especially so when that sorest calamity with which\nhuman frailty is visited, insanity, attacks the partner of his life.\nThen it is that the man, who has one spark of the fear of God or of the\nlove of man, will show all his tenderness, watch over the sufferer with\nall care and anxiety, and if necessary, devote all his worldly goods to\nminister to her recovery. No, says the oral law, when the wife of your\nbosom most requires your attention, then marry another: give her neither\nfood nor raiment, and, if you please, cast her out of your house, and\nleave her to her fate. The most charitable conclusion would be, to\nsuppose that the men who uttered such sentiments under the mask of\nreligion, were themselves insane. But what are we to think of Israel,\nthat for eighteen hundred years they have been unable to detect so\nmanifest an imposture? And what are we to think of Israel at present,\nthat they sit still and suffer their children to be deluded, by being\ntaught that this most atrocious system of inhumanity, is that pure and\nholy religion which the God of Israel revealed to Moses? Let not any\nIsraelite mistake us. We do not mean to charge such wickedness upon\nthem. The Providence of God has in a measure delivered them from such an\nodious yoke. The influence of Christianity has successfully counteracted\nthe full development of these anti-human principles. We only mean to\ndirect their attention to the nature of that religion to which they have\nadhered so long; and to induce them to consider what would be the state\nof the world, if Jesus of Nazareth had not arisen to protest against\nsuch gross corruptions, and to assert the truth. Just suppose that the\ntraditions had triumphed. The universal law would then be, that men\nmight divorce their wives when they please, and in the time of their\ncalamity cast them forth into the streets. All the bonds of natural\naffection would be rent asunder. Conjugal affection would cease, filial\nduty be unknown\u2014no son would honour his mother, for how could a son\nhonour the unhappy being whom his religion pronounces unworthy either of\nsuccour or compassion in the time of her utmost need? If such principles\nhad attained dominion, mankind would have been turned into a race of\nfiends, and this earth have become a hell. What, then, has stopped all\nthis misery? Christianity, and Christianity alone. It teaches very\ndifferent principles. When a Christian man is married, the vow which he\nis required to make is this\u2014\u201cWilt thou have this woman to thy wedded\nwife, to live together after God\u2019s ordinance in the holy estate of\nmatrimony? Wilt thou love her, comfort her, honour, and keep her in\nsickness and in health; and, forsaking all other, keep thee only unto\nher, so long as ye both shall live?\u201d This is the doctrine of the New\nTestament. The Pharisees asked the Lord Jesus, \u201cIs it lawful for a man\nto put away his wife for every cause? And he answered and said unto\nthem, Have ye not read, that He which made them at the beginning made\nthem male and female, and said, For this cause shall a man leave father\nand mother, and shall cleave to his wife; and they twain shall be one\nflesh? Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore\nGod hath joined together, let not man put asunder.\u201d (Matt. xix. 3-7.) In\nlike manner, Paul teaches, \u201cSo ought men to love their wives as their\nown bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself.\u201d (Ephes. v. 28.) And\nPeter teaches in the same spirit, \u201cLikewise, ye husbands, dwell with\nthem according to knowledge, giving honour unto the wife, as unto the\nweaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life; that\nyour prayers be not hindered.\u201d (1 Peter iii. 7.)\n\nLet any unprejudiced, yea, or any prejudiced, man, if he have only the\nuse of his senses, compare these two doctrines, and say which is most\nagreeable to the will and character of God, as revealed in the Old\nTestament\u2014and, which is most calculated to promote the happiness of the\nhuman race. The combination of mercy and justice forms a striking\nfeature in the revealed character of God, but is there either justice or\nmercy in the laws which we have just considered? The happiness of the\nhuman race depends, in a more than ordinary measure, upon the right\norganization of the family relations: but how can there be any such\nthing as domestic order or peace, so long as the mother is looked upon\nas belonging to an inferior caste, whom it is permitted at any moment,\neven in the most afflictive of all visitations, to outlaw, and drive\nforth from the family circle? The uncontrolled dominion of the oral law\nwould practically annihilate all the sympathies and consolations of the\ndomestic constitution. The husband could not love the wife whom his\nreligion teaches to despise, and forbids to pity. The wife could not\nlove the husband, whom she must suspect not only of being destitute of\naffection, but devoid of pity; and from whom she could only expect\ndivorce and expulsion in the hour of calamity. The son would learn to\ndespise his mother, whom his religion marks out as a fit object for\ncontempt, and a suitable victim for the exercise of cruelty. The mother,\ncast out by her own partner, would not even have the consolation of\nbeing pitied by her own children. A false religion would have taught\nthem that this unnatural conduct was only obedience to the Divine will.\nThe principles of Christianity, on the contrary, produce and protect all\nthat domestic happiness which distinguishes Christian countries from the\nrest of the world; and in which Jews participate. The influence of\nChristianity has prevented that misery of which we have given but a\nfaint outline. Can, then, the Jews deny that Christianity has been, and\nis, to them a blessing? or that it is, in its principles and effects,\nmore agreeable to the character of God, and more productive of human\nhappiness, and therefore more excellent and more true than modern\nJudaism.\n\n\n\n\n                               No. XLIX.\n                     RABBINIC LAWS CONCERNING MEAT.\n\n\nConscientious adherence to the dictates of true religion is one of the\nnoblest traits that can adorn the human character, and this trait has\nappeared in its most vivid light in not a few of the Israelite nation.\nElijah the prophet, for instance, is a bright example of religious\nconstancy. At a time when all Israel had forsaken the true God, and\nzealously professed a false religion, neither the allurements of\nself-interest, nor the power of universal example, nor the natural\ndesire of self-preservation, could draw him aside from the paths of\ntruth and righteousness. Daniel and his three friends in Babylon exhibit\nthe same unwavering firmness in the assertion of truth. The Royal\ndainties could not prevail upon them to partake of food offered to\nidols. The fiery furnace could not terrify Hananiah, Mishael, and\nAzariah, to commit idolatry; the lions\u2019 den possessed no terrors that\ncould move Daniel to omit the worship of his God. But as constancy for\nthe truth ennobles and adorns, in the very same degree an obstinate\nperseverance in error diminishes from man\u2019s moral or intellectual value.\nIt shows either that his moral perception is so blunted as to be unable\nto discern between truth and error, or his moral taste so perverted as\nnot to care for the difference\u2014or that there is some intellectual\ndeficiency which renders the moral powers inoperative. It leads to the\nsuspicion that there is something wrong either with the head or the\nheart. There is, however, a class of persons, who persevere in error,\nnot because the head is weak, or the heart sick, but because they have\nnever fairly beheld the light of truth. They have grown up in a mist of\nerror, and circumstances have prevented them from emerging into a purer\natmosphere. To this class, we would hope, the professors of modern\nJudaism belong. That they have been for centuries in error is certain.\nMany incontestable proofs of this have been already advanced; _The\nrabbinic laws concerning_ \u05e9\u05d7\u05d9\u05d8\u05d4, _or the slaughtering of animals_, will\nadd another link to the chain of evidence. The Rabbinists have an idea\nthat wherever they may be wrong, in this doctrine they are infallibly in\nthe right; and yet, if the force of education did not afford some aid,\nit would be impossible to imagine how they can be deceived by a doctrine\nso manifestly false, and so entirely devoid of Scriptural foundation. In\nthe first place, the slaughtering of beasts is, like eating, of\nevery-day and universal concernment\u2014a matter that affects the poor and\nunlearned as much as the studious; and yet the rabbinic rules are so\nmany and so intricate that either a man must be learned himself, or\nemploy a man of competent learning, to perform this business; or, he\nmust, in spite of himself, turn Pythagorean and renounce the use of\nanimal food. The oral law gives the following outline of what is to be\nunderstood by the word \u05e9\u05d7\u05d9\u05d8\u05d4 or _slaughtering_:\u2014\n\n\u05d6\u05d1\u05d9\u05d7\u05d4 \u05d6\u05d5 \u05d4\u05d0\u05de\u05d5\u05e8\u05d4 \u05d1\u05ea\u05d5\u05e8\u05d4 \u05e1\u05ea\u05dd \u05e6\u05e8\u05da \u05dc\u05e4\u05e8\u05e9 \u05d0\u05d5\u05ea\u05d4 \u05d5\u05dc\u05d9\u05d3\u05e2 \u05d1\u05d0\u05d9 \u05d6\u05d4 \u05de\u05e7\u05d5\u05dd \u05dd\u05df \u05d4\u05d1\u05d4\u05de\u05d4\n\u05e9\u05d5\u05d7\u05d8\u05d9\u05df , \u05d5\u05db\u05de\u05d4 \u05e9\u05d9\u05e2\u05d5\u05e8 \u05d4\u05e9\u05d7\u05d9\u05d8\u05d4 , \u05d5\u05d1\u05d0\u05d9\u05d6\u05d4 \u05d3\u05d1\u05e8 \u05e9\u05d5\u05d7\u05d8\u05d9\u05df \u05d5\u05de\u05ea\u05d9 \u05e9\u05d5\u05d7\u05d8\u05d9\u05df \u05d5\u05d4\u05d9\u05db\u05df \u05e9\u05d5\u05d7\u05d8\u05d9\u05df\n\u05d5\u05db\u05d9\u05e6\u05d3 \u05e9\u05d5\u05d7\u05d8\u05d9\u05df , \u05d5\u05de\u05d4 \u05d4\u05df \u05d4\u05d3\u05d1\u05e8\u05d9\u05dd \u05d4\u05de\u05e4\u05e1\u05d9\u05d3\u05d9\u05df \u05d0\u05ea \u05d4\u05e9\u05d7\u05d9\u05d8\u05d4 \u05d5\u05de\u05d9 \u05d4\u05d5\u05d0 \u05d4\u05e9\u05d5\u05d7\u05d8 , \u05d5\u05e2\u05dc \u05db\u05dc\n\u05d4\u05d3\u05d1\u05e8\u05d9\u05dd \u05d4\u05d0\u05dc\u05d4 \u05e6\u05d5\u05e0\u05d5 \u05d1\u05ea\u05d5\u05e8\u05d4 \u05d5\u05d0\u05de\u05e8 \u05d5\u05d6\u05d1\u05d7\u05ea \u05de\u05d1\u05e7\u05e8\u05da \u05d5\u05db\u05d5\u05f3 \u05db\u05d0\u05e9\u05e8 \u05e6\u05d5\u05ea\u05d9\u05da \u05d5\u05d0\u05db\u05dc\u05ea \u05d1\u05e9\u05e2\u05e8\u05d9\u05da\n\u05d5\u05db\u05d5\u05f3 \u05c3\n\n\u201cIt is absolutely necessary to explain the killing (or slaughtering\nmentioned in the law), and to know, in what part of the beast one\nslaughters\u2014what is the measure of the slaughtering\u2014with what implement\none slaughters\u2014when\u2014where\u2014and how one slaughters\u2014what things they are\nwhich invalidate the act of slaughtering\u2014and who is permitted to\nslaughter. Concerning all these things, He has commanded us in the law\nwhere it is said, \u2018Then thou shalt kill of thy herd and of thy flock,\nwhich the Lord hath given thee, as I have commanded thee, and thou shalt\neat in thy gates whatsoever thy soul lusteth after!\u2019 (Deut. xii. 21.)\u201d\n(Jad Hachazakah, Hilchoth Shechitah, c. i. 4.) Here we have at once a\nlist of eight particulars, which must first be known, but then most of\nthese again require a long and learned explanation; for instance the\nfirst is thus defined:\u2014\n\n\u05d5\u05d0\u05d9\u05d6\u05d4 \u05d4\u05d5\u05d0 \u05de\u05e7\u05d5\u05dd \u05e9\u05d7\u05d9\u05d8\u05d4 \u05d1\u05e7\u05e0\u05d4 \u05de\u05e9\u05e4\u05d5\u05d9 \u05db\u05d5\u05d1\u05e2 \u05d5\u05dc\u05de\u05d8\u05d4 \u05e2\u05d3 \u05e8\u05d0\u05e9 \u05db\u05e0\u05e3 \u05d4\u05e8\u05d9\u05d0\u05d4 \u05db\u05e9\u05ea\u05de\u05e9\u05d5\u05da\n\u05d4\u05d1\u05d4\u05de\u05d4 \u05e6\u05d5\u05d0\u05e8\u05d4 \u05dc\u05e8\u05e2\u05d5\u05ea \u05d6\u05d4 \u05d4\u05d5\u05d0 \u05de\u05e7\u05d5\u05dd \u05d4\u05e9\u05d7\u05d9\u05d8\u05d4 \u05d1\u05e7\u05e0\u05d4 , \u05d5\u05db\u05dc \u05e9\u05db\u05e0\u05d2\u05d3 \u05d4\u05de\u05e7\u05d5\u05d0 \u05d4\u05d6\u05d4 \u05de\u05d1\u05d7\u05d5\u05e5\n\u05e0\u05e7\u05e8\u05d0 \u05e6\u05d5\u05d0\u05e8 , \u05d0\u05e0\u05e1\u05d4 \u05d4\u05d1\u05d4\u05de\u05d4 \u05e2\u05e6\u05de\u05d4 \u05d5\u05de\u05e9\u05db\u05d4 \u05e6\u05d5\u05d0\u05e8\u05d4 \u05d4\u05e8\u05d1\u05d4 \u05d0\u05d5 \u05e9\u05d0\u05d9\u05e0\u05e1 \u05d4\u05e9\u05d5\u05d7\u05d8 \u05d0\u05ea \u05d4\u05e1\u05d9\u05de\u05e0\u05d9\u05df\n\u05d5\u05de\u05e9\u05db\u05df \u05dc\u05de\u05e2\u05dc\u05d4 \u05d5\u05e9\u05d7\u05d8 \u05d1\u05de\u05e7\u05d5\u05dd \u05e9\u05d7\u05d9\u05d8\u05d4 \u05d1\u05e6\u05d5\u05d0\u05e8 , \u05d5\u05e0\u05de\u05e6\u05d0\u05ea \u05d4\u05e9\u05d7\u05d9\u05d8\u05d4 \u05d1\u05e7\u05e0\u05d4 \u05d0\u05d5 \u05d1\u05d5\u05e9\u05d8 \u05e9\u05dc\u05d0\n\u05d1\u05de\u05e7\u05d5\u05dd \u05e9\u05d7\u05d9\u05d8\u05d4 \u05d4\u05e8\u05d9 \u05d6\u05d4 \u05e1\u05e4\u05e7 \u05e0\u05d1\u05dc\u05d4 \u05c3\n\n\u201cOn what part of the animal is the slaughtering to be effected? On the\nwind-pipe, from the edge of the uvula downwards as far as the top or the\nextremity of the lungs, as these parts are situated when the beast\nstretches out its neck to feed: this is the place of the slaughtering in\nthe wind-pipe; and all the part outside which answers to this place, is\ncalled the neck. If the beast forces itself and stretches out its neck\nmuch, or if the slaughterer has forced the sinews, and drawn them\nupwards, and he slaughters at the right part of the neck, but afterwards\nit is found that the wind-pipe or the \u0153sophagus is not cut at the right\nplace, then it is a doubtful case of carrion.\u201d (Ibid. 7.) In like\nmanner, the _measure of the slaughtering_ is accurately defined, and\nmust be as accurately attended to, or else the slaughtering must be\nconsidered unlawful, and then it becomes unlawful for the Rabbinists to\neat it. But the most care is required in examining the knife, which may\nbe of any material that will cut, on condition that there be no gap in\nit:\u2014\n\n\u05d0\u05d1\u05dc \u05d0\u05dd \u05d4\u05d9\u05d4 \u05db\u05de\u05d5 \u05ea\u05dc\u05dd \u05d1\u05d7\u05d5\u05d3\u05d5 \u05e9\u05dc \u05d3\u05d1\u05e8 \u05e9\u05e9\u05d5\u05d7\u05d8\u05d9\u05df \u05d1\u05d5 \u05d5\u05d0\u05e4\u05d9\u05dc\u05d5 \u05d4\u05d9\u05d4 \u05d4\u05ea\u05dc\u05dd \u05e7\u05d8\u05df \u05d1\u05d9\u05d5\u05ea\u05e8\n\u05e9\u05d7\u05d9\u05d8\u05ea\u05d5 \u05e4\u05e1\u05d5\u05dc\u05d4 \u05c3\n\n\u201cBut if there be anything like a furrow in the edge of the implement\nwherewith the slaughtering is effected, even though the furrow be the\nleast possible, the slaughtering is unlawful.\u201d The slaughterer is\ntherefore required to examine the knife before and after the act; for if\na gap be found in it after the slaughtering, it is doubtful whether the\nbeast is not be considered carrion:\u2014\n\n\u05dc\u05e4\u05d9\u05db\u05da \u05d4\u05e9\u05d5\u05d7\u05d8 \u05d1\u05d4\u05de\u05d5\u05ea \u05e8\u05d1\u05d5\u05ea \u05d0\u05d5 \u05e2\u05d5\u05e4\u05d5\u05ea \u05e8\u05d1\u05d5\u05ea \u05e6\u05e8\u05d9\u05da \u05dc\u05d1\u05d3\u05d5\u05e7 \u05d1\u05d9\u05df \u05db\u05dc \u05d0\u05d7\u05ea \u05d5\u05d0\u05d7\u05ea \u05e9\u05d0\u05dd \u05dc\u05d0\n\u05d1\u05d3\u05e7 \u05d5\u05d1\u05d3\u05e7 \u05d0\u05d7\u05e8\u05d5\u05e0\u05d4 \u05d5\u05e0\u05de\u05e6\u05d0\u05ea \u05e1\u05db\u05d9\u05df \u05e4\u05d2\u05d5\u05de\u05d4 \u05d4\u05e8\u05d9 \u05d4\u05db\u05dc \u05e1\u05e4\u05e7 \u05e0\u05d1\u05dc\u05d5\u05ea \u05d5\u05d0\u05e4\u05d9\u05dc\u05d5 \u05d4\u05e8\u05d0\u05e9\u05d5\u05e0\u05d4 \u05c3\n\n\u201cTherefore he that has to slaughter many beasts or many fowls, must\nexamine the knife after each; for if he does not, but examines at the\nend, and the knife is found to have a gap, then all are to be considered\nas doubtful carrion, even the first.\u201d (Ibid. 24.) From these few\nparticulars, it appears that great care, and not a little study and\npractice, are required in order to slaughter an animal for food\naccording to the oral law, and that it is very easy, by mistake or want\nof knowledge, to make the meat unfit for rabbinic eating: but then,\nbesides all this, there are the five circumstances which invalidate the\nslaughtering altogether:\u2014\n\n\u05d7\u05de\u05e9\u05d4 \u05d3\u05d1\u05e8\u05d9\u05dd \u05de\u05e4\u05e1\u05d9\u05d3\u05d9\u05dd \u05d0\u05ea \u05d4\u05e9\u05d7\u05d9\u05d8\u05d4 \u05d5\u05e2\u05d9\u05e7\u05e8 \u05d4\u05dc\u05db\u05d5\u05ea \u05e9\u05d7\u05d9\u05d8\u05d4 \u05dc\u05d4\u05d6\u05d4\u05e8 \u05d1\u05db\u05dc \u05d0\u05d7\u05ea \u05de\u05d4\u05df \u05d5\u05d0\u05dc\u05d5 \u05d4\u05df\n\u05e9\u05d4\u05d9\u05d9\u05ea \u05d3\u05e8\u05e1\u05d4 \u05d7\u05dc\u05d3\u05d4 \u05d4\u05d2\u05e8\u05de\u05d4 \u05d5\u05e2\u05d9\u05e7\u05e8 \u05c3\n\n\u201cThere are five things which invalidate the slaughtering: and the most\nimportant thing respecting the constitutions of slaughtering is, to\nattend to each one of them, and these are they\u20141st, If the person makes\na stop of a certain length before the act is completed. 2d, If the\nthroat be cut at a single blow, as with a sword. 3d, If the knife enters\ntoo deep, and is hidden. 4th, When the knife slips up or down from the\nright place. 5th, When the wind-pipe or \u0153sophagus is torn and comes out,\nbefore the act is completed.\u201d (Ibid. c. iii.) These five essentials of\nrabbinic slaughtering lead again to endless questions and definitions;\nso that, putting all together, it is much to be doubted whether a beast\never was, or ever will be, rightly slaughtered according to the oral\nlaw. And yet these things, of which there is not the slightest mention\nin the Mosaic law, are tied like a heavy burden about the necks of the\npoor and ignorant, and are most oppressive to their bodies and their\nsouls. The rich may not, perhaps, feel the oppression, but the poor sigh\nand groan under the load; and no man considers their sorrow, or\nstretches out a hand to help them. In the first place, the intricacy of\nthe act always makes rabbinic meat a great deal dearer than other meat,\nso that the poor man and his family, who can at any time, or under any\ncircumstances, afford to buy but little food, are compelled by the oral\nlaw to do with still less, and in many cases to do without it\naltogether. Let any one visit the haunts of the poor Jews in this city,\nor enter their abodes, and he will find many a wretched family pining\naway for want of proper food; and yet it is too dear to procure a\nsufficiency; and if any benevolent Christian should wish to assist them,\noffer them some of his own, or give them a ticket to some of those\ninstitutions which distribute meat to the poor, the starving family\nwould not dare to accept it, even if their conscience allowed them, or\nif they did, would inevitably draw down upon themselves a storm of\npersecution, and be treated as if they had committed the greatest\ncrimes: yea, if the oral law had power, the poor starving creatures,\nthat had partaken of Christian bounty, would be flogged for satisfying\nthe wants of nature:\u2014\n\n\u05e0\u05db\u05e8\u05d9 \u05e9\u05e9\u05d7\u05d8 \u05d0\u05e2\u05f3\u05f3\u05e4 \u05e9\u05e9\u05d7\u05d8 \u05d1\u05e4\u05e0\u05d9 \u05d9\u05e9\u05e8\u05d0\u05dc \u05d1\u05e1\u05db\u05d9\u05df \u05d9\u05e4\u05d4 \u05d5\u05d0\u05e4\u05d9\u05dc\u05d5 \u05d4\u05d9\u05d4 \u05e7\u05d8\u05df \u05e9\u05d7\u05d9\u05d8\u05ea\u05d5 \u05e0\u05d1\u05dc\u05d4\n\u05d5\u05dc\u05d5\u05e7\u05d4 \u05e2\u05dc \u05d0\u05db\u05d9\u05dc\u05ea\u05d4 \u05de\u05df \u05d4\u05ea\u05d5\u05e8\u05d4 \u05e9\u05e0\u05d0\u05de\u05e8 , \u05d5\u05e7\u05e8\u05d0 \u05dc\u05da \u05d5\u05d0\u05db\u05dc\u05ea \u05de\u05d6\u05d1\u05d7\u05d5 \u05c3\n\n\u201cIf a Gentile slaughters, even though he does it in the presence of an\nIsraelite, with a proper knife, his slaughtering is carrion; and he that\neats of it is to be flogged according to the written law, for it is\nsaid, \u2018And one call thee, and thou eat of his sacrifice.\u2019 (Exod. xxxiv.\n15.)\u201d Yea, the oral law goes so far as to extend this rule even to the\ncase of a Gentile who is not an idolater:\u2014\n\n\u05d5\u05d2\u05d3\u05e8 \u05d2\u05d3\u05d5\u05dc \u05d2\u05d3\u05e8\u05d5 \u05d1\u05d3\u05d1\u05e8 \u05e9\u05d0\u05e4\u05d9\u05dc\u05d5 \u05d2\u05d5\u05d9 \u05e9\u05d0\u05d9\u05e0\u05d5 \u05e2\u05d5\u05d1\u05d3 \u05e2\u05f3\u05f3\u05d6 \u05e9\u05d7\u05d9\u05d8\u05ea\u05d5 \u05e0\u05d1\u05dc\u05d4 \u05c3\n\n\u201cA very strong fence has been made round this matter, so that the\nslaughtering even of a Gentile, who is not on idolater, is carrion.\u201d\n(Ibid., c. iv. 11, 12.) It is hardly necessary to say, that the above\nquotation from the oral law is now-a-days altogether out of place. Moses\nwas not speaking of Christians nor of the inhabitants of these\ncountries, but of the nations of Canaan. He had been declaring the words\nof the Lord, \u201cBehold, I drive out before thee the Amorite, and the\nCanaanite, and the Hittite, and the Perizzite, and the Jebusite.\u201d And\nthen adds, \u201cTake heed to thyself, lest thou make a covenant with the\ninhabitants of the land, and they go a whoring after their gods, and do\nsacrifice unto their gods, and one call thee, and thou eat of his\nsacrifice.\u201d (Exod. xxxiv. 11-15.) So then, according to the oral law,\nbecause Moses forbade the Israelites to partake of the idolatrous\nsacrifices of the Hivites and the Jebusites, a poor famished creature\nhere in London is not to touch Christian meat, nor to partake of\nChristian bounty. A more cruel or oppressive law could hardly have been\ndevised. It is all very well for the rich, but it is very little short\nof murder to the poor. It binds their consciences with fetters of iron,\nso that even when relief is offered, many turn from good and wholesome\nfood sent to them by a kind Providence; and if a spark of light has\nvisited the mind of some victim of poverty, and he thinks it lawful to\nbring home the Christian bounty to save the lives of his starving\nchildren, fear prevents him. Perhaps his wife is still enveloped in all\nthe darkness of superstition, and would spurn the proffered relief as an\nunclean thing, or perhaps his children might innocently betray him, and\ndraw down all the weight of rabbinic indignation. A grosser insult has\nrarely been offered to the Majesty of heaven, than to call good and\nproper food, the work of his hands, carrion. A mistake in the\nslaughtering, an ignorance of the rabbinic art, a Gentile hand, is to be\nsufficient to turn the bounty of Almighty God into an unclean thing, and\nto deprive the poor of their daily food. How can the Jews expect God\u2019s\nblessing so long as this state of things continues\u2014how can they be\nsurprised if poverty and want, and wretchedness and scorn, tread close\nupon their heels, when they themselves spurn God\u2019s bounty from them with\ndisdain? As nations deal with God and his word, so he deals with them,\n\u05de\u05d3\u05d4 \u05db\u05de\u05d3\u05d4, measure for measure; and therefore, so long as the oral law\nteaches them to scorn his bounty, and to deprive the poor of their\nfood\u2014so long as the cries of the poor ascend and enter into the ears of\nthe Lord of Hosts, so long must they expect to feel the rod of his\nindignation. The times of ignorance and superstition God winked at; but\nthose times have passed away. Good or bad, there is a stir in the\nworld\u2014there is a shaking of all old opinions, true and false; and from\nits effects the Jews have not escaped. There are many who, for\nthemselves and their families, have renounced Rabbinism\u2014who eat Gentile\nfood, and know that in doing so they commit no sin. These are the\npersons who are most guilty in looking upon the misery of their poor\nbrethren without pity or concern and without an effort to deliver them.\nThe rabbinic zealot who would persecute his brother for eating meat not\nslaughtered according to rabbinic precept is in comparison innocent. He\nconscientiously thinks that he is doing right; but for the man, who\nhimself openly transgresses the oral law, and yet sees the faces of his\nbrethren ground by that system, without a sentiment of pity, there is no\nexcuse. If he had the common feelings of humanity, he would rise up,\nfearless of all consequences, and cry out with all his might against\nthose principles which have been and are the curse of his nation. He\nwould stand forth as the advocate and defender of the poor\u2014yea, and he\nwould have God\u2019s blessing. But so long as this class of anti-rabbinic\nJews remain silent, whether from fear or from interest, or from\nindifference, let them not boast of their superior light. Let them not\nlook with self-complacency on the poor victims of superstition. They are\nthemselves less respectable and more guilty. They are conniving at what\nthey know to be falsehood. They are with their eyes open consenting to\noppression and starvation. They are, by their silence, helping to\nstrengthen and confirm a system of anti-social intolerance, which has\nbeen the source of all the calamities which their nation has endured for\neighteen centuries. What can be more pernicious than to teach the\nignorant that the food which their neighbours eat is carrion, so unfit\nfor the nourishment of a Rabbinist that he ought to die, and suffer his\nfamily to die of want, rather than eat it? Is it likely to produce\nkindly feeling on either side, considering that the mass of mankind is\nnot actuated by the dictates of reason or the precepts of the Bible? On\nthe one side it is likely to produce proud contempt, and on the other a\nspirit of retaliation. Every Jew that wishes well to his nation, and\nknows that these rabbinic principles are false, is bound to protest\nagainst them. He ought not to be a poor selfish thing, insensible to the\nwants and the sufferings of others, but should do what in him lies, to\nassert what he knows to be the truth. And is it necessary to remind such\nof the misery which these rabbinic principles are still working in every\npart of the world? Here in London the poor are suffering. In the various\ntowns of England many Jews are suffering. In some places a single Jewish\nfamily is found, generally poor, and the father ignorant of the rabbinic\nart of slaughtering: such persons are compelled to abstain altogether\nfrom animal food, or to do violence to their conscience. The poor Jews\nwho go out to the colonies to seek employment are in the same case, and\nare precluded from taking such situations as require them to partake of\nthe food of their employers. Even if they can buy an animal, they are\nnot allowed to kill it for themselves:\u2014\n\n\u05d9\u05e9\u05e8\u05d0\u05dc \u05e9\u05d0\u05d9\u05e0\u05d5 \u05d9\u05d5\u05d3\u05e2 \u05d7\u05de\u05e9\u05d4 \u05d3\u05d1\u05e8\u05d9\u05dd \u05e9\u05de\u05e4\u05e1\u05d9\u05d3\u05d9\u05df \u05d0\u05ea \u05d4\u05e9\u05d7\u05d9\u05d8\u05d4 \u05d5\u05db\u05d9\u05d5\u05e6\u05d0 \u05d1\u05d4\u05df \u05de\u05d4\u05dc\u05db\u05d5\u05ea \u05e9\u05d7\u05d9\u05d8\u05d4\n\u05e9\u05d1\u05d9\u05d0\u05e8\u05e0\u05d5 \u05d5\u05e9\u05d7\u05d8 \u05d1\u05d9\u05e0\u05d5 \u05dc\u05d1\u05d9\u05df \u05e2\u05e6\u05de\u05d5 \u05d0\u05e1\u05d5\u05e8 \u05dc\u05d0\u05db\u05d5\u05dc \u05de\u05e9\u05d7\u05d9\u05d8\u05ea\u05d5 \u05dc\u05d0 \u05d4\u05d5\u05d0 \u05d5\u05dc\u05d0 \u05d0\u05d7\u05e8\u05d9\u05dd , \u05d5\u05d4\u05e8\u05d9\n\u05d6\u05d5 \u05e7\u05e8\u05d5\u05d1\u05d4 \u05dc\u05e1\u05e4\u05e7 \u05e0\u05d1\u05dc\u05d4 \u05d5\u05d4\u05d0\u05d5\u05db\u05dc \u05de\u05de\u05e0\u05d4 \u05db\u05d6\u05d9\u05ea \u05de\u05db\u05d9\u05df \u05d0\u05d5\u05ea\u05d5 \u05de\u05db\u05ea \u05de\u05e8\u05d3\u05d5\u05ea \u05c3\n\n\u201cIf an Israelite does not know the five things which invalidate the act\nof slaughtering, as we have explained, and slaughters by himself, it is\nunlawful to eat of his slaughtering, both for himself and others; for\nthis case is much the same as that of doubtful carrion, and he that eats\nof it a quantity equal to an olive, is to be flogged with the flogging\nof rebellion.\u201d (Ibid., c. iv.) Such is the mercy of the oral law, and\nsuch its justice. It punishes the eating of what God has allowed, with\nthe same severity that it would visit a great crime. It makes no\nprovision for those numerous cases of distress which we have mentioned.\nWhether one of its disciples has or has not food, it never considers.\nWithout reflection and without mercy it sentences every one, who eats\nmeat not rabbinically slaughtered, to be flogged. But, besides the\ncruelty, what is the effect upon the minds of its votaries? It teaches\nthem that to transgress this mere human observance is a sin of the\ndeepest die, more dreadful far than many which God has forgiven. A\nRabbinist would be more grieved to hear that his son had transgressed\nthe law of slaughtering, than to find that he had been guilty of\nfalsehood. Its tendency is directly to draw off the mind from the\nweightier matters of the law, judgment, justice, and mercy, and to\nflatter the ill-informed that they are good Jews, if only they abstain\nfrom meat not slaughtered according to rabbinic art.\n\nLet not any Jew imagine that we wish him lightly to transgress the law\nof Moses, or to eat of food which the law of God has forbidden. We now\nspeak of that which Moses has allowed. If a Jew would see meat offered\nto idols, or be invited to partake of an idolatrous feast, let him\nabstain\u2014let him refuse, and protest as strongly as he will and can\nagainst the sinfulness of such conduct. But where does Moses forbid the\npoor to partake of meat slaughtered by a Gentile worshipper of the true\nGod, or by an Israelite who has not learned the rabbinic art? Certainly\nnot in that passage to which the oral law refers. Moses gives a general\npermission to every Israelite, without exception, to kill and eat.\n\u201cNotwithstanding thou mayest kill and eat flesh in all thy gates,\nwhatsoever thy soul lusteth after, according to the blessing of the Lord\nthy God which he hath given thee.\u201d (Deut. xii. 15.) He makes no mention\nof any mysteries, connected with the art of slaughtering, the ignorance\nof which would disqualify. Why then should a Jew be prevented from doing\nwhat Moses has allowed\u2014why should he be flogged with the flogging of\nrebellion, or avow that that mode and measure of punishment is\nimpracticable\u2014why should he be persecuted for satisfying the cravings of\nnature, and endeavouring to supply the wants of his family? There is not\nroom now to show fully how groundless the rabbinic commands are; but the\none fact of their cruelty and oppression of the poor is sufficient to\nshow that they are not from God. Is it possible that any man in his\nsenses can believe that God would sentence a poor famishing creature to\nbe flogged without mercy for doing what the letter of the law allows him\nto do? or, that the All-wise Being, who foresees and foreknows all\nthings, would give a system of laws respecting food, which must expose a\nlarge portion of his chosen people to want and starvation? The\nworshippers of some cruel heathen deity might possibly be led to believe\nsuch things, but the disciples or Moses and the Prophets know that God\nis a God of mercy. Let, then, every one who has got the sacred books\ncontrast their doctrines with those of the rabbies. But, above all, let\nthose Israelites, who reject the rabbinic laws concerning the\nslaughtering of meat, show that they have not done it from levity nor\nindifference, but upon principle. Let them explain to their brethren the\nreasons and the motives by which they are actuated, and let them\nprotest, by word and deed, against such cruelty, oppression, and\nintolerance.\n\n\n\n\n                                 No. L.\n                         THE BIRTH OF MESSIAH.\n\n\nThis season of the year naturally draws away our thoughts from the\nsubject last under consideration, and reminds us of a remarkable\ndifference between Jews and Christians. The latter are now about to\ncommemorate the birth of the Messiah.[36] In two days more the voice of\npraise and thanksgiving will ascend to the Creator and Preserver of men\nfrom every part of the world. On the frozen shores of Labrador, and the\nglowing plains of Hindostan\u2014in the isles of the sea, and on the\ncontinents of the old and new worlds, millions of Christians will lift\nup their hands and voices to thank the God of heaven for his unspeakable\ngift, and this shall be the burden of their song, \u201cUnto us a child is\nborn, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his\nshoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, the mighty\nGod, the everlasting Father, the Prince of Peace.\u201d (Isaiah ix. 6.) But\namongst the followers of the oral law not a sound of sympathy will be\nheard. Not a single heart will beat with joy, not a tongue offer up the\ntribute of praise. Here is a great and sinking difference, that should\nnaturally lead both Jew and Christian to inquire, Who is in the right:\nThose who believe that Messiah is born, and joy in the remembrance of\nhis nativity; or, those who refuse to join in the general rejoicing, and\ndeny that the Redeemer has appeared? The question is whether there is\nreason to believe that the Messiah was born eighteen hundred years ago?\nand there are several ways in which it can be satisfactorily answered.\nAn appeal may be made to the predictions contained in the Old Testament,\nor to the evidence for the truth of the Christian Scriptures\u2014or, it may\nbe shown that the Jewish rabbies have plainly confessed that the time\nfor the birth and appearance of the Messiah is long since past; and this\nis the mode which we shall adopt at present. The Jews now deny that\nMessiah is come, and consequently believe that Christians are mistaken\nas to the time of his appearing. If they had always said so\u2014if they had\nalways assigned a time for the coming of Messiah different from that in\nwhich Christians think the Messiah was born, their present assertion\nwould have at least the merit of consistency, and the Jews of the\npresent day might urge that their present belief has been inherited from\ntheir fathers, and that Christians have adopted a notion unknown to the\nnation at large. But, if it should appear that the ancient Jews expected\nthe coming of Messiah at the very time, when, as Christians say, he did\nactually come, then the ancient Jews testify that Christians are in the\nright, and that modern Jews are in the wrong, and this is really the\nstate of the case. In the first place, the Talmud contains a general\ndeclaration that the time is long since past:\u2014\n\n\u05d0\u05de\u05e8 \u05e8\u05d1 \u05db\u05dc\u05d5 \u05db\u05dc \u05d4\u05e7\u05e6\u05d9\u05df \u05c3\n\n\u201cRav says, The appointed times are long since past\u201d (Sanhedrin, fol. 97,\ncol. 2), where it is to be noted that the word \u05e7\u05e5 is taken from Daniel,\nand literally signifies \u201cEnd,\u201d as it is said:\u2014\n\n\u05e2\u05d3 \u05de\u05ea\u05d9 \u05e7\u05e5 \u05d4\u05e4\u05dc\u05d0\u05d5\u05ea \u05c3\n\n\u201cHow long shall it be to the end of these wonders; and again:\u2014\n\n\u05d5\u05d0\u05ea\u05d4 \u05dc\u05da \u05dc\u05e7\u05e5 \u05d5\u05ea\u05e0\u05d5\u05d7 \u05d5\u05ea\u05e2\u05de\u05d5\u05d3 \u05dc\u05d2\u05d5\u05e8\u05dc\u05da \u05dc\u05e7\u05e5 \u05d4\u05d9\u05de\u05d9\u05df \u05c3\n\n\u201cBut go thou thy way till the end be, for thou shalt rest, and stand in\nthy lot at the end of the days.\u201d (Daniel xii. 6-13.) Rav was therefore\nof opinion that the period appointed by Daniel the prophet was past. But\nis it possible to believe that the God of truth would suffer the time,\nwhich he had appointed, to pass away without accomplishing what he had\npromised? When the time which God had fixed for the deliverance from\nEgypt had arrived, not a single day was lost. \u201cIt came to pass at the\nend \u05e7\u05e5 of the four hundred and thirty years, even the self-same day,\n\n\u05d1\u05e2\u05e6\u05dd \u05d4\u05d9\u05d5\u05dd \u05d4\u05d6\u05d4 \u05c3\n\nit came to pass, that all the hosts of the Lord went out from the land\nof Egypt.\u201d (Exod. xii. 41.) When the period fixed for the return from\nBabylon was come, we read, \u201cIn the first year of Cyrus, King of Persia\n(that the word of the Lord by the mouth of Jeremiah might be\naccomplished), the Lord stirred up the spirit of Cyrus king of Persia,\nthat he made a proclamation through all his kingdom.\u201d (2 Chron. xxxvi.\n22.) And can we think that the Lord God, who so graciously fulfilled his\nword on these occasions should break it with reference to the coming of\nthe Messiah? Rav is either right or wrong. If he be right, then the time\nfixed by God is long since past, and as God cannot break his word, the\nMessiah must have come long since. But if, to get out of a difficulty,\nthe Rabbinists say, that Rav was wrong, then we have another proof that\nno reliance is to be placed on the doctors of the oral law; indeed we\nhave a proof that the Rabbinists themselves do not believe it, except\nwhen they like; and that therefore they are not thoroughly in earnest\nabout their religion.\n\nBut, secondly, the ancient Jews not only believed that the time for the\ncoming of the Messiah was past: they also fixed the exact period:\u2014\n\n\u05ea\u05e0\u05d0 \u05d3\u05d1\u05d9 \u05d0\u05dc\u05d9\u05d4\u05d5 \u05e9\u05e9\u05d4 \u05d0\u05dc\u05e4\u05d9\u05dd \u05e9\u05e0\u05d4 \u05d4\u05d5\u05d9 \u05e2\u05dc\u05de\u05d0 \u05e9\u05e0\u05d9 \u05d0\u05dc\u05e4\u05d9\u05dd \u05ea\u05d5\u05d4\u05d5 , \u05e9\u05e0\u05d9 \u05d0\u05dc\u05e4\u05d9\u05dd \u05ea\u05d5\u05e8\u05d4 ,\n\u05e9\u05e0\u05d9 \u05d0\u05dc\u05e4\u05d9\u05dd \u05d9\u05de\u05d5\u05ea \u05d4\u05de\u05e9\u05d9\u05d7 \u05c3\n\n\u201cTradition of the school of Elijah. The world is to stand six thousand\nyears. Two thousand, confusion. Two thousand, the law. Two thousand, the\ndays of Messiah.\u201d (Sanhedrin, fol. 97, col. 1.) Upon which Rashi\nremarks\u2014\n\n\u05e9\u05dc\u05d0\u05d7\u05e8 \u05e9\u05e0\u05d9 \u05d0\u05dc\u05e4\u05d9\u05dd \u05ea\u05d5\u05e8\u05d4 \u05d4\u05d5\u05d4 \u05d3\u05d9\u05e0\u05d5 \u05e9\u05d9\u05d1\u05d5\u05d0 \u05de\u05e9\u05d9\u05d7 \u05d5\u05ea\u05db\u05dc\u05d4 \u05de\u05dc\u05db\u05d5\u05ea \u05d4\u05e8\u05e9\u05e2\u05d4 \u05d5\u05d9\u05d1\u05d8\u05dc \u05d4\u05e9\u05d9\u05e2\u05d1\u05d5\u05d3\n\u05de\u05d9\u05e9\u05e8\u05d0\u05dc \u05c3\n\n\u201cAfter the two thousand years of the law, according to the decree.\nMessiah ought to have come, and the wicked kingdom should been destined,\nand Israel\u2019s state of servitude should have been ended.\u201d Here, then, it\nis expressly stated, that Messiah ought to have come at the end of the\nfourth thousand years, that is, according to the Jewish reckoning,\nfifteen hundred and ninety-seven years ago; or, according to the\nChristian reckoning, about eighteen hundred and thirty-six years\nago\u2014that is, at the very time when Jesus of Nazareth did appear. We do\nnot quote this tradition because we believe that it is really a\ntradition of the school of Elijah, but to show what was the opinion of\nthe more ancient Jews, and this it certainly does, if the general\nexpectation of the Jews at that time had not been that Messiah was to\nappear at the end of the four thousand years, this tradition, whether\ngenuine or forged, could never have obtained currency nor belief. If it\nbe a genuine tradition from Elijah, then the Messiah is certainly come.\nBut if it be fictitious, then it shows the general belief of the Jews at\nthe time, and in every case proves that the modern Jews do not hold the\ndoctrines of their forefathers, but have got a new doctrine of their\nown. And it further shows, that Christians do not hold any new or\npeculiar opinion about the time of Messiah\u2019s coming, but that they\nbelieve, as the ancient Jews believed, that the end of the fourth\nthousand years is the right time of Messiah\u2019s coming.\n\nThe only answer that the Jews have, is, that the promise of Messiah\u2019s\ncoming was conditional upon their repentance, but that evasion has been\nlong since refuted in the Talmud as contrary to Scripture:\u2014\n\n\u05e8\u05f3 \u05d0\u05dc\u05d9\u05e2\u05d6\u05e8 \u05d0\u05d5\u05de\u05e8 \u05d0\u05dd \u05d9\u05e9\u05e8\u05d0\u05dc \u05e2\u05d5\u05e9\u05d9\u05df \u05ea\u05e9\u05d5\u05d1\u05d4 \u05e0\u05d2\u05d0\u05dc\u05d9\u05df \u05d5\u05d0\u05dd \u05dc\u05d0\u05d5 \u05d0\u05d9\u05e0\u05dd \u05e0\u05d2\u05d0\u05dc\u05d9\u05df , \u05d0\u05de\u05e8 \u05dc\u05d5\n\u05e8\u05f3 \u05d9\u05d4\u05d5\u05e9\u05e2 \u05d0\u05dd \u05d0\u05d9\u05df \u05e2\u05d5\u05e9\u05d9\u05df \u05ea\u05e9\u05d5\u05d1\u05d4 \u05d0\u05d9\u05e0\u05dd \u05e0\u05d2\u05d0\u05dc\u05d9\u05df \u05d0\u05dc\u05d0 \u05d4\u05e7\u05d1\u05f3\u05f3\u05d4 \u05de\u05e2\u05de\u05d9\u05d3 \u05dc\u05d4\u05df \u05de\u05dc\u05da\n\u05e9\u05d2\u05d6\u05e8\u05d5\u05ea\u05d9\u05d5 \u05e7\u05e9\u05d5\u05ea \u05db\u05d4\u05de\u05df \u05d5\u05d9\u05e9\u05e8\u05d0\u05dc \u05e2\u05d5\u05e9\u05d9\u05df \u05ea\u05e9\u05d5\u05d1\u05d4 \u05d5\u05de\u05d7\u05d6\u05d9\u05e8\u05df \u05dc\u05de\u05d5\u05d8\u05d1 , \u05ea\u05e0\u05d9\u05d0 \u05d0\u05d9\u05d3\u05da \u05e8\u05f3\n\u05d0\u05dc\u05d9\u05e2\u05d6\u05e8 \u05d0\u05d5\u05de\u05e8 \u05d0\u05dd \u05d9\u05e9\u05e8\u05d0\u05dc \u05e2\u05d5\u05e9\u05d9\u05df \u05ea\u05e9\u05d5\u05d1\u05d4 \u05e0\u05d2\u05d0\u05dc\u05d9\u05df , \u05e9\u05e0\u05d0\u05de\u05e8 \u05e9\u05d5\u05d1\u05d5 \u05d1\u05e0\u05d9\u05dd \u05e9\u05d5\u05d1\u05d1\u05d9\u05dd \u05d0\u05e8\u05e4\u05d0\n\u05de\u05e9\u05d5\u05d1\u05d5\u05ea\u05d9\u05db\u05dd , \u05d0\u05de\u05e8 \u05dc\u05d5 \u05e8\u05f3 \u05d9\u05d4\u05d5\u05e9\u05e2 \u05d5\u05d4\u05dc\u05d0 \u05db\u05d1\u05e8 \u05e0\u05d0\u05de\u05e8 \u05d7\u05e0\u05dd \u05e0\u05de\u05db\u05e8\u05ea\u05dd \u05d5\u05dc\u05d0 \u05d1\u05db\u05e1\u05e3 \u05ea\u05d2\u05d0\u05dc\u05d5 \u05d7\u05e0\u05dd\n\u05e0\u05de\u05db\u05e8\u05ea\u05dd \u05d1\u05e2\u05d1\u05d5\u05d3\u05d4 \u05d6\u05e8\u05d4 \u05d5\u05dc\u05d0 \u05d1\u05db\u05e1\u05e3 \u05ea\u05d2\u05d0\u05dc\u05d5 \u05dc\u05d0 \u05d1\u05ea\u05e9\u05d5\u05d1\u05d4 \u05d5\u05de\u05e2\u05e9\u05d9\u05dd \u05d8\u05d5\u05d1\u05d9\u05dd , \u05d0\u05de\u05e8 \u05dc\u05d5 \u05e8\u05f3\n\u05d0\u05dc\u05d9\u05e2\u05d6\u05e8 \u05dc\u05e8\u05f3 \u05d9\u05d4\u05d5\u05e9\u05e2 \u05d5\u05d4\u05dc\u05d0 \u05db\u05d1\u05e8 \u05e0\u05d0\u05de\u05e8 \u05e9\u05d5\u05d1\u05d4 \u05d0\u05dc\u05d9 \u05d5\u05d0\u05e9\u05d5\u05d1\u05d4 \u05d0\u05dc\u05d9\u05db\u05dd , \u05d0\u05de\u05e8 \u05dc\u05d5 \u05e8\u05f3 \u05d9\u05d4\u05d5\u05e9\u05e2\n\u05d5\u05d4\u05dc\u05d0 \u05db\u05d1\u05e8 \u05e0\u05d0\u05de\u05e8 \u05db\u05d9 \u05d0\u05e0\u05db\u05d9 \u05d1\u05e2\u05dc\u05ea\u05d9 \u05d0\u05ea\u05db\u05dd \u05d5\u05dc\u05e7\u05d7\u05ea\u05d9 \u05d0\u05ea\u05db\u05dd \u05d0\u05d7\u05d3 \u05de\u05e2\u05d9\u05e8 \u05d5\u05e9\u05e0\u05d9\u05dd \u05de\u05de\u05e9\u05e4\u05d7\u05d4\n\u05d5\u05d4\u05d1\u05d0\u05ea\u05d9 \u05d0\u05ea\u05db\u05dd \u05e6\u05d9\u05d5 , \u05d0\u05de\u05e8 \u05dc\u05d5 \u05e8\u05f3 \u05d0\u05dc\u05d9\u05e2\u05d6\u05e8 \u05d5\u05d4\u05dc\u05d0 \u05db\u05d1\u05e8 \u05e0\u05d0\u05de\u05e8 \u05d1\u05e9\u05d5\u05d1\u05d4 \u05d5\u05e0\u05d7\u05ea \u05ea\u05d5\u05e9\u05e2\u05d5\u05df \u05d0\u05de\u05e8\n\u05dc\u05d5 \u05e8\u05f3 \u05d9\u05d4\u05d5\u05e9\u05e2 \u05dc\u05e8\u05f3 \u05d0\u05dc\u05d9\u05e2\u05d6\u05e8 \u05d5\u05d4\u05dc\u05d0 \u05db\u05d1\u05e8 \u05e0\u05d0\u05de\u05e8 \u05db\u05d4 \u05d0\u05de\u05e8 \u05d4\u05f3 \u05d2\u05d5\u05d0\u05dc \u05d9\u05e9\u05e8\u05d0\u05dc \u05d5\u05e7\u05d3\u05d5\u05e9\u05d5 \u05dc\u05d1\u05d6\u05d4\n\u05e0\u05e4\u05e9 \u05dc\u05de\u05ea\u05e2\u05d1 \u05d2\u05d5\u05d9 \u05dc\u05e2\u05d1\u05d3 \u05de\u05d5\u05e9\u05dc\u05d9\u05dd \u05de\u05dc\u05db\u05d9\u05dd \u05d9\u05e8\u05d0\u05d5 \u05d5\u05e7\u05de\u05d5 \u05e9\u05e8\u05d9\u05dd \u05d5\u05d9\u05e9\u05ea\u05d7\u05d5\u05d5 , \u05d0\u05de\u05e8 \u05dc\u05d5 \u05e8\u05f3\n\u05d0\u05dc\u05bb\u05d9\u05e2\u05d6\u05e8 \u05d5\u05d4\u05dc\u05d0 \u05db\u05d1\u05e8 \u05e0\u05d0\u05de\u05e8 \u05d0\u05dd \u05ea\u05e9\u05d5\u05d1 \u05d9\u05e9\u05e8\u05d0\u05dc \u05e0\u05d0\u05dd \u05d4\u05f3 \u05d0\u05dc\u05d9 \u05ea\u05e9\u05d5\u05d1 \u05d0\u05de\u05e8 \u05dc\u05d5 \u05e8\u05f3 \u05d9\u05d4\u05d5\u05e9\u05e2 \u05d5\u05d4\u05dc\u05d0\n\u05db\u05d1\u05e8 \u05e0\u05d0\u05de\u05e8 \u05d5\u05d0\u05e9\u05de\u05e2 \u05d0\u05ea \u05d4\u05d0\u05d9\u05e9 \u05dc\u05d1\u05d5\u05e9 \u05d4\u05d1\u05d3\u05d9\u05dd \u05d0\u05e9\u05e8 \u05de\u05de\u05e2\u05dc \u05dc\u05de\u05d9\u05de\u05d9 \u05d4\u05d9\u05d0\u05e8 \u05d5\u05d9\u05e8\u05dd \u05d9\u05de\u05d9\u05e0\u05d5 \u05d5\u05e9\u05de\u05d0\u05dc\u05d5\n\u05d0\u05dc \u05d4\u05e9\u05de\u05d9\u05dd \u05e0\u05e4\u05e5 \u05d9\u05d3 \u05e2\u05dd \u05e7\u05d5\u05d3\u05e9 \u05ea\u05db\u05dc\u05d9\u05e0\u05d4 \u05db\u05dc \u05d0\u05dc\u05d4 \u05d5\u05d2\u05d5\u05f3 \u05d5\u05e9\u05ea\u05e7 \u05e8\u05f3 \u05d0\u05dc\u05d9\u05e2\u05d6\u05e8 \u05c3\n\n\u201cR. Eliezer said, If Israel do repentance they will be redeemed, but, if\nnot, they will not be redeemed. R. Joshua replied, If they do not repent\nthey will not be redeemed: but God will raise up to them a king whose\ndecrees shall be as dreadful as Haman, and then Israel will repent, and\nthus he will bring them back to what is good. Another tradition. R.\nEliezer said, If Israel do repentance, they shall be redeemed, for it is\nsaid, \u2018Turn, O backsliding children; I will heal your backsliding.\u2019 R.\nJoshua replied, But was it not said long since, \u2018Ye have sold yourselves\nfor nought; and ye shall be redeemed without money,\u2019 (Isaiah lii. 3.)\nWhere the words \u2018sold for nought\u2019 mean, for idolatry; and the words\n\u2018redeemed without money,\u2019 signify, not for money and good works. R.\nEliezer then said, to R. Joshua, But has it not been said long since,\n\u2018Return unto me, and I will return unto you.\u2019 (Mal. iii. 7.) R. Joshua\nreplied, But has it not been said long since, \u2018I am married unto you,\nand I will take you one of a city, and two of a family, and I will bring\nyou to Zion.\u2019 (Jer. iii. 14.) R. Eliezer said, But has it not been\nwritten long since, \u2018In returning and rest ye shall be saved.\u2019 (Isaiah\nxxx. 15.) R. Joshua replied to R. Eliezer, But has it not been said long\nsince, \u2018Thus saith the Lord, the Redeemer of Israel, and his Holy One,\nto him whom man despiseth, to him whom the nation abhorreth, to a\nservant of rulers, kings shall see and arise, princes also shall\nworship.\u2019 (Isaiah xlix. 7.) R. Eliezer said to him again, But has it not\nbeen said long since, \u2018If thou wilt return, O Israel, return unto me.\u2019\n(Jer. iv. 1.) To which R. Joshua replied, But has it not been written\nlong since, \u2018I heard the man clothed in linen, which was upon the waters\nof the river, when he held up his right hand and his left hand unto\nheaven, and swore by Him that liveth for ever, that it shall be for a\ntime and times and half a time; and when he shall have accomplished to\nscatter the power of the holy people, all these things shall be\nfinished.\u2019 Whereupon R. Eliezer was silent.\u201d Here then, on the showing\nof the Talmud itself, the opinion that the coming of the Messiah is\ndependent upon Israel\u2019s repentance, is false; and consequently it is\ntrue, that Messiah was to come unconditionally at the time appointed;\nand therefore, as the time is long since past, the Messiah must have\ncome. But the ancient rabbies do not leave us to reason upon their\nwords; on the contrary, they tell us expressly that Messiah was born\nabout the time that the temple was destroyed. In the Jerusalem Talmud,\nR. Judan tells us a story of a Jew who actually went and saw him:\u2014\n\n\u05e2\u05d5\u05d1\u05d3\u05d0 \u05d4\u05d5\u05d4 \u05d1\u05d7\u05d3 \u05d9\u05d4\u05d5\u05d3\u05d0\u05d9 \u05d3\u05d4\u05d5\u05d4 \u05e7\u05d0\u05d9\u05dd \u05e8\u05d3\u05d9 \u05d2\u05e2\u05ea \u05ea\u05d5\u05e8\u05ea\u05d9\u05d4 \u05e7\u05d5\u05de\u05d5\u05d9 \u05e2\u05d1\u05e8 \u05d7\u05d3 \u05e2\u05e8\u05d1\u05d9\u05d9 \u05d5\u05e9\u05de\u05e2\n\u05e7\u05dc\u05d4 , \u05d0\u05de\u05e8 \u05dc\u05d9\u05d4 \u05d1\u05e8 \u05d9\u05d5\u05d3\u05d0\u05d9 \u05d1\u05e8 \u05d9\u05d5\u05d3\u05d0\u05d9 \u05e9\u05e8\u05d9 \u05ea\u05d5\u05e8\u05da \u05d5\u05e9\u05e8\u05d9 \u05e7\u05e0\u05e7\u05e0\u05da \u05d3\u05d4\u05d0 \u05d7\u05e8\u05d1 \u05d1\u05d9\u05ea \u05de\u05e7\u05d3\u05e9\u05d0 ,\n\u05d2\u05e2\u05ea \u05d6\u05de\u05df \u05ea\u05e0\u05d9\u05d9\u05e0\u05d5\u05ea , \u05d0\u05de\u05e8 \u05dc\u05d9\u05d4 \u05d1\u05e8 \u05d9\u05d5\u05d3\u05d0\u05d9 \u05d1\u05e8 \u05d9\u05d5\u05d3\u05d0\u05d9 \u05e7\u05d8\u05d5\u05e8 \u05ea\u05d5\u05e8\u05da \u05d5\u05e7\u05d8\u05d5\u05e8 \u05e7\u05e0\u05e7\u05e0\u05da \u05d3\u05d4\u05d0\n\u05d9\u05dc\u05d9\u05d3 \u05de\u05dc\u05db\u05d0 \u05de\u05e9\u05d9\u05d7\u05d0 , \u05d0\u05de\u05e8 \u05dc\u05d9\u05d4 \u05de\u05d4 \u05e9\u05de\u05d9\u05d4 \u05d0\u05de\u05e8 \u05dc\u05d9\u05d4 \u05de\u05e0\u05d7\u05dd , \u05d0\u05de\u05e8 \u05dc\u05d9\u05d4 \u05d5\u05de\u05d4 \u05e9\u05dd \u05d3\u05d0\u05d1\u05d5\u05d9\n\u05d0\u05de\u05e8 \u05dc\u05d9\u05d4 \u05d7\u05d6\u05e7\u05d9\u05d4\u05d5 , \u05d0\u05de\u05e8 \u05dc\u05d9\u05d4 \u05dd\u05df \u05d4\u05df \u05d4\u05d5\u05d0 , \u05d0\u05de\u05e8 \u05dc\u05d9\u05d4 \u05de\u05df \u05d1\u05d9\u05e8\u05ea \u05de\u05dc\u05db\u05d0 \u05d3\u05d1\u05d9\u05ea \u05dc\u05d7\u05dd \u05d9\u05d4\u05d5\u05d3\u05d4\n\u05c3\n\n\u201cIt happened once to a certain Jew, who was standing ploughing, that his\ncow lowed before him. A certain Arab was passing and heard its voice; he\nsaid, O Jew, O Jew! unyoke thine ox, and loose thy plough-share, for the\ntemple has been laid waste. It lowed a second time, and he said, O Jew,\nO Jew! yoke thine oxen, and bind on thy plough-shares, for King Messiah\nis born. The Jew said, What is his name? Menachem. He asked further,\nWhat is the name of his father? The other replied, Hezekiah. He asked\nagain, Whence is he? The other said from the Royal residence of\nBethlehem of Judah.\u201d (Berachoth, fol. 5, col. 1.) The story, then, goes\non to tell us how he went and saw the child, but when he called the\nsecond time, the mother told him that the winds had carried the child\naway. We are quite willing to grant that this story is a fable. We do\nnot quote it because we give it the slightest degree of credit, but\nsimply to show that the more ancient Jews were so fully persuaded that\nthe right time of Messiah\u2019s advent was past, that they readily believed\nalso that he was actually born. The Babylonian Talmud, also, evidently\ntakes for granted that Messiah is born, as appears from the following\nlegend:\u2014\n\n\u05e8\u05f3 \u05d9\u05d4\u05d5\u05e9\u05e2 \u05d1\u05df \u05dc\u05d5\u05d9 \u05d0\u05e9\u05db\u05d7\u05d9\u05d4 \u05dc\u05d0\u05dc\u05d9\u05d4\u05d5 \u05d3\u05d4\u05d5\u05d4 \u05e7\u05d9\u05d9\u05dd \u05d0\u05e4\u05d9\u05ea\u05d7\u05d0 \u05d3\u05de\u05e2\u05e8\u05ea\u05d0 \u05d3\u05e8\u05f3 \u05e9\u05de\u05e2\u05d5\u05df \u05d1\u05df \u05d9\u05d5\u05d7\u05d0\u05d9\n\u05d0\u05de\u05e8 \u05dc\u05d9\u05d4 \u05d0\u05ea\u05d9\u05e0\u05d0 \u05dc\u05e2\u05dc\u05de\u05d0 \u05d3\u05d0\u05ea\u05d9 \u05d0\u05de\u05e8 \u05dc\u05d9\u05d4 \u05d0\u05dd \u05d9\u05e8\u05e6\u05d4 \u05d4\u05d0\u05d3\u05d5\u05df \u05d4\u05d6\u05d4 , \u05d0\u05de\u05e8 \u05e8\u05f3 \u05d9\u05d4\u05d5\u05e9\u05e2 \u05d1\u05df \u05dc\u05d5\u05d9\n\u05e9\u05e0\u05d9\u05dd \u05e8\u05d0\u05d9\u05ea\u05d9 \u05d5\u05e7\u05d5\u05dc \u05d2\u05f3 \u05e9\u05de\u05e2\u05ea\u05d9 , \u05d0\u05de\u05e8 \u05dc\u05d9\u05d4 \u05d0\u05d9\u05de\u05ea \u05d0\u05ea\u05d9 \u05de\u05e9\u05d9\u05d7 \u05d0\u05de\u05e8 \u05dc\u05d9\u05d4 \u05d6\u05d9\u05dc \u05e9\u05d9\u05d9\u05dc\u05d9\u05d4\n\u05dc\u05d3\u05d9\u05d3\u05d9\u05d4 \u05d5\u05d4\u05d9\u05db\u05d0 \u05d9\u05ea\u05d9\u05d1 \u05d0\u05e4\u05d9\u05ea\u05d7\u05d0 \u05d3\u05e8\u05d5\u05de\u05d9 \u05d5\u05de\u05d0\u05d9 \u05e1\u05d9\u05de\u05e0\u05d9\u05d4 \u05d9\u05ea\u05d9\u05d1 \u05d1\u05d9\u05e0\u05d9 \u05e2\u05e0\u05d9\u05d9\u05dd \u05e1\u05d5\u05d1\u05dc\u05d9 \u05d7\u05dc\u05d0\u05d9\u05dd\n\u05d5\u05db\u05d5\u05dc\u05df \u05e9\u05e8\u05d5 \u05d5\u05d0\u05e1\u05d9\u05e8\u05d9 \u05d1\u05d7\u05d3 \u05d6\u05de\u05e0\u05d0 \u05d0\u05d9\u05d4\u05d5 \u05e9\u05e8\u05d9 \u05d7\u05d3 \u05d5\u05d0\u05e1\u05d9\u05e8 \u05d7\u05d3 \u05d0\u05de\u05e8 \u05d3\u05d9\u05dc\u05de\u05d0 \u05de\u05d1\u05e2\u05d9\u05e0\u05d0 \u05d3\u05dc\u05d0\n\u05d0\u05d9\u05e2\u05db\u05d1 \u05d0\u05d6\u05dc \u05dc\u05d2\u05d1\u05d9\u05d4 \u05d0\u05de\u05e8 \u05dc\u05d9\u05d4 \u05e9\u05dc\u05d9\u05dd \u05e2\u05dc\u05d9\u05da \u05e8\u05d1\u05d9 \u05d5\u05de\u05d5\u05e8\u05d9 \u05d0\u05de\u05d5 \u05dc\u05d9\u05d4 \u05e9\u05dc\u05d5\u05dd \u05e2\u05dc\u05d9\u05da \u05d1\u05e8 \u05dc\u05d9\u05d5\u05d0\u05d9\n\u05d0\u05de\u05e8 \u05dc\u05d9\u05d4 \u05dc\u05d0\u05d9\u05de\u05ea \u05d0\u05ea\u05d9 \u05de\u05e8 \u05d0\u05de\u05e8 \u05dc\u05d9\u05d4 \u05d4\u05d9\u05d5\u05dd \u05c3\n\n\u201cR. Joshua, the son of Levi, found Elijah standing at the door of the\ncave of R. Simeon ben Jochai, and said to him, Shall I arrive at the\nworld to come? He replied, If this Lord will. R. Joshua, the son of\nLevi, said, I see two, but I hear the voice of three. He also asked,\nWhen will Messiah come? Elijah replied, Go, and ask himself. R. Joshua\nthen said, Where does he sit? At the gate of Rome. And how is he to be\nknown? He is sitting amongst the poor and sick, and they open their\nwounds and bind them up again all at once: but he opens only one, and\nthen he opens another, for he thinks, perhaps I may be wanted, and then\nI must not be delayed. R. Joshua went to him and said, Peace be upon\nthee, my master and my Lord. He replied, Peace be upon thee, son of\nLevi. The rabbi then asked him, When will my Lord come? He replied,\nTo-day (alluding to the words of the Psalm, To-day, if ye will hear his\nvoice).\u201d (Sanhedrin, fol. 98, col. 1.) This is evidently a fiction, and\na proof how little those doctors regarded truth; but it shows that he\nwho invented it, and those who received it, all equally believed that\nMessiah was born, and ready waiting to come forth for the redemption of\nIsrael. It does, indeed, confirm the common idea, that Messiah\u2019s advent\ndepends upon the repentance of Israel, for it makes the Messiah say that\nhe would come this very day, if Israel would only hear his voice. But if\nthe Messiah may any day, when they repent, come and save Israel, then it\nis plain that he must have been born long since. The testimony of the\nancient Jews, then, goes to establish these points\u2014First, That the time\nfor Messiah\u2019s advent has been long past; Secondly, That the end of the\nfourth thousand years was the time when he ought to have come: and,\nThirdly, That at that time he did really come; for about that time, they\nsay, he was born in Bethlehem of Judah. Fourth, That he was taken into\nParadise, as Rashi explains the gate of Rome to mean the gate of\nParadise opposite Rome; and, Fifthly, That he is waiting to return to\nthis earth for the redemption of his people. Now who is there that does\nnot see at once, that this agrees in the main with the Christian\ndoctrine? We believe that, at the end of the fourth thousand years, the\nMessiah was born, and at this season of the year we rejoice at the\nremembrance of the Saviour\u2019s birth. The Jews refuse to join with us, but\nwho has the greatest show of right? Not now to speak of the prophecies,\nand of the historical evidence which we have, we have the testimony even\nof our opponents to show that we are in the right. The most ancient\nrabbinical writings unanimously confess, that the time is past, and that\nthe Messiah has been long since born, and thus testify the correctness\nof our faith respecting the time of Messiah\u2019s advent. Christians,\nhowever, go on consistently and believe further, that God did not break\nhis word, but performed his promise, and therefore we rejoice. The Jews\ndo not believe, because they are so engrossed with the temporal\ndeliverance of the nation, that they cannot see that another and a\ngreater redemption was necessary. We do not, by any means, wish to deny\nthat Israel is to be restored to the land of promise, and to inherit all\nthe blessings promised in the prophets. On the contrary, we fully\nbelieve that the Messiah, who visited this earth, for a short season,\nwill return and re-establish the Theocracy which was once the glory of\nIsrael, and that, in a much more glorious form than Israel ever saw\nunder any of their kings. We heartily wish Israel the enjoyment of every\nblessing promised; but we cannot help remembering that Messiah has\nanother and more important office than that of restoring the kingdom to\nIsrael, and that is the redemption of the human race. The highest pitch\nof national glory and earthly prosperity would be as nothing, and less\nthan nothing unless the children of men were delivered from the effects\nof Adam\u2019s sin, and made partakers of a good hope of everlasting life.\nEven the gathering of Israel from all the ends of the earth would appear\nbut a very insignificant business, if it did not stand in immediate\nconnexion with the eternal welfare of all nations. Many of the sons of\nmen have appeared as conquerors and heroes, and have raised their\ncountry to a high degree of glory, and conferred upon them much temporal\nprosperity; but if Messiah was to be nothing more, we confess we should\nnot think him worth the having. We think of the Messiah as the Being, in\nwhom all the families of the earth shall be blessed, as the restorer\nindeed of Israel, but also God\u2019s salvation unto the end of the earth.\nThis is the doctrine which Christianity teaches, and which is confirmed\nby the law and the prophets; and therefore we rejoice that this great\nDeliverer has been born\u2014that He came at first in great humility to\nbruise the serpent\u2019s head, and to lay down his life a ransom for many.\nWe remember that this blessed news, these glad tidings of great joy,\nwere brought to us by Jews; and, therefore, feeling our deep\nobligations, we desire to show our gratitude by inviting Israel to come\nand partake in our joy. We feel assured that our joy is no illusion.\nEven the rabbies themselves bear witness that the Messiah ought to have\nbeen born, and was born at the very time in which we believe the Messiah\nto have been born. But if he was born who was he? What other person can\nmake any claim to the Messiahship, but He whom we acknowledge? Is it\nreasonable to believe, as the rabbies do, that God actually sent the\nGreat Deliverer down into this wretched world, and then took him away\nagain, without permitting him to accomplish his work? No; if ever he\nvisited this earth\u2014and that he did visit it, both the ancient Jews and\nChristians assert\u2014he could not have left it again without bestowing upon\nits inhabitants a remedy for their woes. The ancient rabbies and the\nChristians both agree as to the time of Messiah\u2019s birth, and the fact of\nhis birth in Bethlehem. Indeed the whole nation practically showed their\nagreement with Christians, as to the time of Messiah\u2019s advent, by\nreadily following every military adventurer, who laid claim to the\ncharacter of Redeemer. Even before the destruction of the temple,\nmultitudes had suffered by their credulity; but immediately after the\ndesolation, the people and the rabbies with one accord followed Bar\nChochba, and thereby showed the reality of their belief, that that was\nabout the time when Messiah ought to appear. Judaism, therefore, teaches\nthis doctrine\u2014that God promised the Messiah, that God fixed a time, that\nthat time is past, and yet that God did not keep his promise.\nChristianity, on the contrary, acknowledges the promise, recognises the\ntime, believes that Messiah was born, but believes further that God\nfulfilled his word\u2014that Messiah was not carried away into Paradise,\nuntil he had accomplished the work that was to be done at his first\nadvent. Then, indeed, we acknowledge that He ascended into heaven, and\nsitteth at God\u2019s right hand, from whence he will come again for the\nfinal redemption of his people, and the establishment of the reign of\nrighteousness. The only real difference between us is, as to the\nVERACITY of God. We believe that God did not, and could not, break his\nword. Modern Judaism teaches that God broke his promise. It is for\nrational beings to decide which doctrine is most agreeable to the Divine\ncharacter. For our own parts, we will rejoice in God\u2019s unchangeableness,\nand say, in the remembrance, that \u201cHis truth endureth for ever.\u201d\n\nFootnote 36:\n\n  This number was originally published December 23, 1836.\n\n\n\n\n                                No. LI.\n                    SLAUGHTERING OF MEAT, CONTINUED.\n\n\nAccording to the confessions of the rabbies themselves, the time for the\nadvent of Messiah is long since past, what is there then that prevents\nthe Jews from believing in him, who came at the appointed time? The\ngrand objection is, that the nation is still in captivity; they say that\nMessiah ought to have given them liberty. The answer to this objection\nis, that Messiah was willing, and is willing to this hour, to give them\nliberty, but that they will not have it. The very first condition of\nnational liberty and independence is moral and intellectual\nemancipation. No nation was ever yet enslaved until the hearts and\nintellects of the people had first become the slaves of corruption or\nsuperstition\u2014and no nation that hugs to its heart the chains of moral\nslavery, can ever be made free, nor could it retain its liberty if it\ngot it. When Messiah came, therefore, as he found the Jewish nation\nalready under the Roman yoke, the very first step was to endeavour to\nemancipate their hearts and minds, and to deliver them from that moral\nbondage, of which their national degradation was only a consequence.\nThis first step Messiah immediately took\u2014he protested against the\nsuperstitions of the oral law, and pointed them to the perfect liberty\nof God\u2019s written Word. But the nation chose to retain the cause of their\nmisfortunes, and to reject the overtures of deliverance. If therefore\nthey are still in a state of national dependence, they must not cast the\nblame on God, and say that He suffered the time to pass away without\nfulfilling his promise; nor upon the Messiah, when they themselves\nrefused to receive that without which no national liberty can possibly\nexist. They chose to give themselves, body and soul, as bond-slaves to\nthe oral law, there was, therefore, no possibility of national\nredemption. It would require an act of omnipotent coercion, such as God\ndoes not employ, to make a nation free against its will. But perhaps the\nJews of the present day will deny that they are in a state of moral and\nintellectual slavery. We refer them, in reply, to the numerous proofs\nalready given in these papers, and especially the laws of \u05e9\u05d7\u05d9\u05d8\u05d4 or\n_slaughtering_, upon which we have a few words to add. Where in all the\nworld can a more wretched slave be found, than the man, who himself,\ntogether with his family, is ready to perish of hunger, and yet dare not\npartake of wholesome food, offered by the providence of God, because his\nrabbinical task-masters say, No? But now take another instance:\u2014\n\n\u05db\u05dc \u05d8\u05d1\u05d7 \u05e9\u05dc\u05d0 \u05d1\u05d3\u05e7 \u05d4\u05e1\u05db\u05d9\u05df \u05e9\u05dc\u05d5 \u05e9\u05e9\u05d5\u05d7\u05d8 \u05d1\u05d4 \u05dc\u05e4\u05e0\u05d9 \u05d7\u05db\u05dd \u05d5\u05e9\u05d7\u05d8 \u05dc\u05e2\u05e6\u05de\u05d5 \u05d1\u05d5\u05d3\u05e7\u05d9\u05df \u05d0\u05d5\u05ea\u05d4 , \u05d0\u05dd\n\u05e0\u05de\u05e6\u05d0\u05ea \u05d9\u05e4\u05d4 \u05d5\u05d1\u05d3\u05d5\u05e7\u05d4 \u05de\u05e0\u05d3\u05d9\u05df \u05d0\u05d5\u05ea\u05d5 \u05dc\u05e4\u05d9 \u05e9\u05d9\u05e1\u05de\u05d5\u05da \u05e2\u05dc \u05e2\u05e6\u05de\u05d5 \u05e4\u05e2\u05dd \u05d0\u05d7\u05e8\u05ea \u05d5\u05ea\u05d4\u05d9\u05d4 \u05e4\u05d2\u05d5\u05de\u05d4\n\u05d5\u05d9\u05e9\u05d7\u05d5\u05d8 \u05d1\u05d4 , \u05d5\u05d0\u05dd \u05e0\u05de\u05e6\u05d0\u05ea \u05e4\u05d2\u05d5\u05de\u05d4 \u05de\u05e2\u05d1\u05d9\u05e8\u05d9\u05df \u05d0\u05d5\u05ea\u05d5 \u05d5\u05de\u05e0\u05d3\u05d9\u05df \u05d0\u05d5\u05ea\u05d5 \u05d5\u05de\u05db\u05e8\u05d9\u05d6\u05d9\u05df \u05d0\u05dc \u05db\u05dc \u05d1\u05e9\u05e8\n\u05e9\u05e9\u05d7\u05d8 \u05e9\u05d4\u05d5\u05d0 \u05d8\u05e8\u05e4\u05d4 \u05c3\n\n\u201cIf a slaughterer, who has not had his slaughtering knife examined\nbefore a wise man [a rabbi], slaughters by himself, his knife must be\nexamined. If it be found in good order and examined, he is to be\nexcommunicated, because he may depend upon himself another time, when it\nhas a gap in it and yet slaughter therewith. But, if it be found to have\na gap, he is to be deposed from his office, and excommunicated, and\nproclamation is to be made, that all the meat which he has slaughtered\nis carrion.\u201d (Jad Hachazakah, Hilchoth Sh\u2019chitah, c. i. 26.) Here we\nhave the same slavery and the same cruel oppression. In the first place\nwe see the intention to make the Jews entirely dependent upon the\nrabbies. The Jews are not to eat meat unless it be slaughtered as the\nrabbies direct, and the slaughterer himself is not even to do that,\nwhich he knows to be right according to the oral law, without the\nexpress sanction of the rabbies. All are to be in bondage, not merely to\nthe oral law, but to the rabbi for the time being. They are to have no\nmind and no judgment of their own. In the simplest concerns of life they\nare to be entirely dependent upon the will and judgment of another. In\nthe second place, we see the determination to maintain this tyranny by\nthe severest punishments. The man who has slaughtered without showing\nhis knife to the rabbi, even though they have no fault to find with him,\nis to be excommunicated\u2014but if a rabbinic flaw in the knife should be\ndetected, then not only the man himself is to suffer, but those who\nemployed him, and also the Israelites themselves to be deprived of food.\nAll that he has slaughtered is to be declared unfit for use. Who can\ndeny that those who think their consciences bound by such laws are in\nmiserable bondage? Who, that has his senses and God\u2019s Word to guide\nthem, can believe that a small gap in a knife is sufficient to make meat\nunfit for food? Who ever saw a knife, or even the finest razor that ever\nwas manufactured, without a series of such imperfections? Let a rabbi,\nwho has just pronounced, concerning a knife, that it has no gap in it,\napply a microscope, and he will soon find out that a knife without gaps\nnever existed. He will be convinced that the oral law requires what is\nimpossible, and therefore cannot possibly be from God. Who then can deny\nthat those who are bound by it, are the slaves of superstition? There\nnever was, and never will be in the world, such a thing as a knife\nwithout the least possible gap, and consequently there never was, and\nnever will be, any meat fit for the food of a Rabbinist. The Jews must\ntherefore either give up the use of meat entirely, or they must give up\nthe oral law.\n\nIf the oral law were uniformly severe, and everywhere required that its\nadherents should obtain the best possible evidence that their meat was\nproperly slaughtered: or in case they could not obtain this evidence,\nthat they should entirely abstain from meat, the consistency of the\ndoctrine would in some measure justify, or at least excuse the credulity\nof the Jews. But this is not the case, its authors felt the\ninconvenience of their own doctrine, and therefore relaxed whenever it\nsuited themselves. For instance, they say:\u2014\n\n\u05d4\u05e8\u05d9 \u05e9\u05e8\u05d0\u05d9\u05e0\u05d5 \u05d9\u05e9\u05e8\u05d0\u05dc \u05de\u05e8\u05d7\u05d5\u05e7 \u05e9\u05e9\u05d7\u05d8 \u05d5\u05d4\u05dc\u05da \u05dc\u05d5 \u05d5\u05dc\u05d0 \u05d9\u05d3\u05e2\u05e0\u05d5 \u05d0\u05dd \u05d9\u05d5\u05d3\u05e2 \u05d0\u05d5 \u05d0\u05d9\u05e0\u05d5 \u05d9\u05d5\u05d3\u05e2 \u05d4\u05e8\u05d9\n\u05d6\u05d5 \u05de\u05d5\u05ea\u05e8\u05ea , \u05d5\u05db\u05df \u05d4\u05d0\u05d5\u05de\u05e8 \u05dc\u05e9\u05dc\u05d5\u05d7\u05d5 \u05e6\u05d0 \u05d5\u05e9\u05d7\u05d5\u05d8 \u05dc\u05d9 \u05d5\u05de\u05e6\u05d0 \u05d4\u05d1\u05d4\u05de\u05d4 \u05e9\u05d7\u05d5\u05d8\u05d4 , \u05d5\u05d0\u05d9\u05df \u05d9\u05d3\u05d5\u05e2 \u05d0\u05dd\n\u05e9\u05dc\u05d5\u05d7\u05d5 \u05e9\u05d7\u05d8\u05d4 \u05d0\u05dd \u05d0\u05d7\u05e8 \u05d4\u05e8\u05d9 \u05d6\u05d5 \u05de\u05d5\u05ea\u05e8\u05ea , \u05e9\u05e8\u05d5\u05d1 \u05d4\u05d8\u05e6\u05d5\u05d9\u05d9\u05df \u05d0\u05e6\u05dc \u05e9\u05d7\u05d9\u05d8\u05d4 \u05de\u05d5\u05de\u05d7\u05d9\u05df \u05d4\u05df \u05c3\n\n\u201cIf we were to see an Israelite at a distance who had slaughtered a\nbeast, and he was to go his way, and we were ignorant of the fact\nwhether he understood the art or not, in that case the meat is lawful.\nAnd in like manner, if a man should say to his messenger, Go and\nslaughter for me, and should find the beast slaughtered, but it should\nnot be certain whether his messenger, or another person, had slaughtered\nit, this also is lawful, for the majority of persons concerned in\nslaughtering are skilful.\u201d (Ibid., c. iv. 7.) This relaxation shows how\nexceedingly inconvenient the doctrine was found, and how unwilling the\ndoctors were to bear inconvenience themselves. No doubt cases often\noccurred in real life similar to those supposed. An Israelite travelling\nmight come to a town in which lived a small congregation of Jews, and\nmight wish to have some dinner, and would of course wish to have it of\nlawful meat. The only satisfactory way of obtaining it would be to go to\nthe person who had slaughtered it, and examine him as to his competency,\nbut he might be absent, if therefore he should be scrupulous, he would\nhave to go without his dinner; and the same thing would happen to a rich\nman, who might send a messenger to a neighbouring town to have a beast\nkilled for him. The messenger might send back the meat by some one else,\nand thus the owner would not have satisfactory evidence, that the\nrabbinic laws had been observed. Here again the man who was rich enough\nto do this, might have to go without his dinner, or to wait an\ninconvenient time. The oral law has therefore provided in this case that\nthe meat is lawful for use without any further scruples. But this\ndecision shows of how little real importance all these precepts about\nslaughtering are. If it be a sin to eat meat not properly killed, then\nit is also a sin to eat meat, when there is no satisfactory evidence of\nthis fact. Whenever a man doubts about the right or wrong of any\nparticular action, he is certainly wrong if he does it. But if it be\ncertain that he may either do it or leave it undone without guilt, then\nthat action cannot be sinful. And as the rabbies here affirm, that men\nmay lawfully eat meat, concerning which they have no satisfactory\nevidence that it has been lawfully slaughtered, it follows that the\nrabbinic art cannot be of much value. Why then should a poor man be\nstarved if he does not eat, or flogged if he does eat, meat slaughtered\nby a Gentile, when, if he had money to send a beast to be killed, he\nmight eat what was sent back, even though he had no proof that the laws\nwere kept? Indeed how are the poor and unlearned ever to know, that they\neat lawful meat? If they were even to stand by, and see the operation\nperformed, still, as being ignorant of the rabbinic laws, they could not\nunderstand, and must therefore take the matter entirely upon trust: and\nthus the mass of the nation, the unlearned and the women, are made the\nblind slaves of laws which they neither understand nor know; or rather\nof those who expound those laws, for how can it be said that a man\ntransgresses that of which he does not know the right or wrong?\n\nIf the rabbies were all unanimous in their statement of what is and is\nnot lawful, the unanimity might in some degree excuse the Jews for\nsubmitting to a yoke so grievous, and holding it that round the necks of\ntheir brethren. They might urge the uniformity of the tradition as a\nproof of its genuineness. But this cannot be pretended in the present\ncase. To this very hour the rabbies themselves are not agreed as to what\nis, or what is not the oral law. We have just seen that if a man send a\nmessenger to have a beast slaughtered, and afterwards find it\nslaughtered, that he may eat of it without asking any more questions.\nThis is the general principle, but as soon as it comes to be applied in\ndetail the rabbies differ. The Baal Turim thus states the difference:\u2014\n\n\u05d5\u05db\u05ea\u05d1 \u05d4\u05e8\u05de\u05d1\u05f3\u05f3\u05dd \u05d3\u05d5\u05e7\u05d0 \u05e9\u05de\u05e6\u05d0\u05d4 \u05d1\u05d1\u05d9\u05ea \u05d0\u05d1\u05dc \u05de\u05e6\u05d0\u05d4 \u05d1\u05e9\u05d5\u05e7 \u05d0\u05d5 \u05d1\u05d0\u05e9\u05e4\u05d4 \u05e9\u05d1\u05d1\u05d9\u05ea \u05d0\u05e1\u05d5\u05e8\u05d4 \u05d5\u05db\u05df \u05db\u05ea\u05d1\n\u05d1\u05e2\u05dc \u05d4\u05e2\u05d9\u05d8\u05d5\u05e8 \u05d5\u05d0\u05f3\u05f3\u05d0 \u05d6\u05f3\u05f3\u05dc \u05d4\u05ea\u05d9\u05e8 \u05d0\u05e4\u05d9\u05dc\u05d5 \u05d1\u05d0\u05e9\u05e4\u05d4 \u05e9\u05d1\u05d1\u05d9\u05ea \u05d5\u05dc\u05d0 \u05d0\u05e1\u05e8 \u05d0\u05dc\u05d0 \u05d1\u05d0\u05e9\u05e4\u05d4 \u05e9\u05d1\u05e9\u05d5\u05e7 \u05d5\u05db\u05df\n\u05d4\u05e8\u05e9\u05d1\u05f3\u05f3\u05d0 \u05c3\n\n\u201cRambam has written expressly, In case that it should be found in the\nhouse; but, if he find it in the street, or on the dunghill in the\nhouse, it is forbidden. The Baal Haittur has given the same judgment:\nbut my lord my father of blessed memory says, the meat is lawful, even\nif it be found on the dunghill in the house, and has not pronounced it\nunlawful, except when found on the dunghill in the street; and Rashba is\nof the same opinion.\u201d (Joreh Deah., 1.) Here, then, we have the most\nlearned of the rabbies, disputing as to what is the law; the one party\npronouncing that to be unlawful which the other party declares lawful.\nWhat, then, are the unlearned to do in this case? Or how can it be said\nthat there is an oral law which gives the true meaning of the written\nlaw? Or, if there be an oral law, what use is it, when it is itself a\nsubject of dispute? Every one who has looked into the oral law knows\nthat this difference of opinion is by no means a rare case; and that it\ncannot be said that the difference of opinion is in matters of minor\nimportance. Let us, for example, consider the case of an Israelite who\nis accustomed to eat unlawful meat, and does so to vex Israel\u2014is it\nlawful to eat the meat which he has killed?\n\n\u05db\u05ea\u05d1 \u05d4\u05e8\u05e9\u05d1\u05f3\u05f3\u05d0 \u05e9\u05d0\u05d9\u05df \u05de\u05d5\u05e1\u05e8\u05d9\u05df \u05dc\u05d5 \u05d1\u05ea\u05d7\u05dc\u05d4 \u05dc\u05e9\u05d7\u05d5\u05d8 \u05d0\u05e4\u05d9\u05dc\u05d5 \u05d0\u05dd \u05d9\u05e9\u05e8\u05d0\u05dc \u05e2\u05d5\u05de\u05d3 \u05e2\u05dc \u05d2\u05d1\u05d9\u05d5 , \u05d5\u05d0\u05dd\n\u05e9\u05d7\u05d8 \u05d1\u05d3\u05d9\u05e2\u05d1\u05d3 \u05db\u05e9\u05e8 \u05e2\u05f3\u05f3\u05d9 \u05d1\u05d3\u05d9\u05e7\u05ea \u05e1\u05db\u05d9\u05df \u05ea\u05d7\u05d9\u05dc\u05d4 \u05d0\u05d5 \u05e1\u05d5\u05e3 \u05d5\u05d0\u05f3\u05f3\u05d0 \u05d4\u05e8\u05d0\u05f3\u05f3\u05e9 \u05d6\u05f3\u05f3\u05dc \u05db\u05ea\u05d1 \u05e9\u05d3\u05d9\u05e0\u05d5\n\u05db\u05d2\u05d5\u05d9 \u05c3\n\n\u201cRashba has written that it is not lawful to give him a beast\nintentionally to slaughter, even if an Israelite should stand by. But if\nhe has slaughtered the beast, it may be declared lawful by means of\nexamining the knife, either at the beginning or at the end; and my lord\nmy father of blessed memory has written that in the case of such a\nperson the law is the same as in that of a Gentile.\u201d (Ibid. 2.) Now the\ndifference here is very great and very important. The one opinion says,\nthat, under certain circumstances, such meat is lawful. The other, that\nit is unlawful as that killed by a Gentile\u2014that is, what the one allows,\nthe other pronounces to be so unlawful as to deserve the flogging of\nrebellion, as we saw in No. 49. Here, then, is a case involving severe\ncorporal punishment, and yet the rabbies are not agreed as to which is\nthe law. How, then, can men of sense and reflection give themselves up\nto a system, the doctors of which cannot agree upon a question so simple\nas this, What sort of food is lawful, and what is unlawful? and who,\nnevertheless, require unlimited obedience under the heaviest penalties\ntemporal and eternal? The oral law does not suffer a wise man to be\ncontradicted, and declares that all their sayings are \u201cthe words of the\nliving God;\u201d and yet here they contradict one another so widely, that if\na man follow the one, he will be sentenced to a flogging by the\nother\u2014and if from fear of the flogging he should agree with the latter,\nhe will then be contradicting the former, and thereby incur the sentence\nof excommunication, and even run a risk of losing his soul. But in every\ncase he must give up his judgment and his reason, and submit to be led\nby those, who are still disputing about the right road: yea, and if he\nwould obey the oral law, must confess that they are both in the right.\nIf this be not moral and intellectual slavery of the worst kind, we have\nyet to learn the meaning of these words. It will not be a pertinent\nreply to say that Christians also differ in opinion on important points.\nWe confess that they do, and will continue to do so, as long as they\ncontinue to be fallible men: but then these persons do not profess to\nhave an oral law given by God in order to preserve them from a wrong\ninterpretation. There is one Christian Church that has followed the\nexample of the rabbies in this particular, and has therefore fallen into\nmany of their absurdities. Difference of opinion amongst those who make\nno such pretensions is no argument against the truth of the original\nrecords, whence both professedly draw their religion. Two men may differ\nas to the sense of a verse in the law of Moses, and yet we know that the\nverse itself contains the truth. But when each of these persons tells us\nthat his interpretation is an inspired tradition, and that both, though\ncontradicting each other, are equally true and correct, then it is\nevident that they say not only what is false, but what is absurd, and\nthat they are labouring under a delusion. If it be a mere speculative\ndelusion it is to be deplored\u2014but if it be a practical delusion,\ninvolving the happiness and welfare of thousands, it must be combated\nand exposed\u2014and this is precisely the case with the oral law. The\nparticular part of it which we have now been considering seriously\naffects the temporal comfort of many thousands of the poor in every part\nof the world. The general principles enslave the minds of the whole\nnation, and thus prevent the state of happiness and glory which the\nprophets have promised. The Jewish nation is in a state of dispersion,\nand in some parts of the world victims of a cruel oppression, simply\nbecause they are the willing slaves of superstition. Until an\nintellectual and moral change is effected, they never can appear as \u201cthe\npeculiar people, the kingdom of priests, the holy nation.\u201d High and holy\nis their destiny, and great is the providential mercy of God in still\npreserving them, when they refuse obstinately to fulfil it. But neither\ntheir destiny nor God\u2019s forbearance can be of any avail, until they\nreassert the glorious liberty of the children of God. The chains of\nRabbinism must be broken, and the mild yoke of Messiah taken upon their\nshoulders, before national independence and liberty can return. How\ncould a nation exist, whose moral and intellectual energies are all\ncrampt by the endless subtleties of the rabbies? How could a people\nmaintain national liberty whilst they are such perfect slaves to\nsuperstition as to believe that traditions, which are the curse of the\npoor, and many of which flatly contradict others, all proceed from the\nGod of mercy and truth? The temple must first be cleansed of all\ndefilement before the glory of God can enter. It is therefore a matter\nof the first and highest importance, to every Jew who wishes well to his\nnation, to examine that system, whose constant companion for so many\ncenturies has been misery; and if they are convinced of its falsehood,\nthen to use every exertion to deliver their brethren, from that which is\nmischievous as well as false. We might urge its tendency to produce and\nperpetuate an unfriendly separation between the Jews and their\nneighbours: not that we are ignorant of God\u2019s declaration,\n\n\u05d4\u05df \u05e2\u05dd \u05dc\u05d1\u05d3\u05d3 \u05d9\u05e9\u05db\u05d5\u05df \u05d5\u05d1\u05d2\u05d5\u05d9\u05dd \u05dc\u05d0 \u05d9\u05ea\u05d7\u05e9\u05d1 \u05c3\n\n\u201cLo, the people shall dwell alone, and shall not be reckoned among the\nnations.\u201d (Numb, xxiii. 9.) We know it and believe it, and are therefore\nfully convinced, that all the wit and power of man will never be able to\neffect what some so ardently desire, an amalgamation with the nations\nwhere Israel is dispersed. We have no desire to contravene the declared\nwill of God, and to degrade Israel from their position as a holy nation\nto the rank of an inconsiderable religious sect. But still we might urge\nagainst the oral law, that it goes beyond God\u2019s intention by producing\nan unfriendly separation and an estrangement between man and man, which\nis injurious to the welfare of both Jew and Gentile; we leave this,\nhowever, to the consideration of those Israelites who feel, or profess\nto feel, a love and affection for all men; and content ourselves at\npresent with the indubitable fact, that the laws concerning slaughtering\nare most oppressive to the poor and enslaving to the minds of all. It is\nnot merely the bodily grievance of starvation to which we now allude,\nthough that is wicked and vexatious to the last degree, and should\ntherefore not be tolerated for a moment by the humane and the merciful.\nThere is something that is worse than any bodily suffering, and that is,\nto be tempted to do violence to conscience by professing what we do not\nbelieve, or by congealing our real sentiments. And yet in many a Jewish\ncongregation this is frequently the case. It pleases God to give to the\npoor the power of reasoning as well as to the rich, and thus some of\nthis class are occasionally led to see the absurdity of the oral law,\nand to detest those inventions which doom them and their families to\nstarvation, but yet they would not dare either to avow or to act upon\ntheir conviction. To eat any ether than rabbinical food would at once\ncut them off from the bounty of the synagogue, and from the sympathy of\nits worshippers. To express their convictions would be sufficient to\nhave them numbered with the profane and ungodly, and therefore they\nconceal their real sentiments, and pretend to be what they are not, that\nthey may not deprive their families of the little assistance which an\napparent conformity to rabbinic usages may procure. Here then is another\nand more unequivocal badge of slavery. The oral law deprives the poor\nentirely of liberty of conscience. He not only must not eat, he must not\nthink, at least he must not express a thought, no, nor even a doubt,\nabout that system which is the cause of his misery. It is true, that\nthose who profess or suppress religious sentiments merely to serve their\ntemporal interests, are either very weak or very guilty. But we must\nmake some allowance for the infirmity of human nature, and especially in\nthe case of a poor man, who has no bread for his children, and whose\nmind has been debased from his youth by such bondage. It is to the\nsystem that we are to impute these debasing effects. It not only\ntorments the body, but degrades the mind; and, therefore, every\nIsraelite who loves and respects liberty of conscience, should endeavour\nto procure it for his brethren. According to the law of the land they\nhave it. They are free to worship and serve God as they think most\nagreeable to his will; but the oral law steps in between, and deprives\nthem of the benefit. The Jewish poor dare not serve God according to\ntheir conscience, nor even express the convictions of their heart. All\nthe legislators in Christendom could not set them free. The duty as well\nas the possibility of delivering them from this bondage rests with their\nbrethren. But they, alas! whatever the motive, decline the glorious\ntask.\n\n\n\n\n                                No. LII.\n                    LAWS CONCERNING MEAT WITH MILK.\n\n\nIt is recorded of the Cutheans and those other nations whom the King of\nAssyria placed as colonists at Samaria, that they endeavoured to combine\nthe service of the true God with the worship of idols. \u201cSo these nations\nfeared the Lord, and served their craven images, both their children and\ntheir children\u2019s children: as did their fathers, so do they unto this\nday.\u201d (2 Kings xvii. 41.) Every one can see that this conduct was as\nfoolish as it was wicked. It was wicked to dishonour the true God by\nassociating him with them that were no gods; and it was foolish to\nimagine that God could be pleased with a partial homage and a divided\nheart. Total idolatry would have been more reasonable and less offensive\nto the Divine Being, for he, whom we acknowledge as God, must\nnecessarily have the whole of our fear, our love, and our obedience. And\nyet there is perhaps a way of serving God more unreasonable still, and\nthat is by giving to sinful and fallible men the honour that is due to\nGod alone. The Cutheans falsely thought that God was one amongst many;\nand if they worshipped the many, it was under the impression that they\nwere really gods. But suppose a nation to acknowledge the one true God,\nand then to fix upon a certain number of men to be honoured and served\nwith the same degree of reverence and obedience; none can doubt that\nthis nation would be far more irrational than that of the Cutheans,\ninasmuch as to pay Divine honours to a number of our fellow-men is more\nextravagant still than to worship a plurality of imaginary deities. Some\nmay think that such a degree of absurdity is impossible, but fact shows\nthat it is not only possible, but that it has actually occurred. When\nmen exalt the inventions of their teachers to a level with the known and\nacknowledged laws of God, and make obedience to these inventions an\nessential part of their religion, they confer upon men the highest\ndegree of honour and of service that can be rendered to God. The\nunreserved submission of the heart and conscience to the will of God is\nthe highest act of worship, and when it is given to the will of men, in\nthat degree men are made gods. Whether these remarks apply to those who\nmake the \u05d4\u05dc\u05db\u05d5\u05ea \u05d1\u05e9\u05e8 \u05d1\u05d7\u05dc\u05d4 , _i.e._, \u201cThe constitutions concerning meat in\nmilk\u201d a part of their religion, it is for the adherents of the oral law\nto inquire.\n\nThe general principle of these constitutions is thus expressed\u2014\n\n\u05d1\u05e9\u05e8 \u05d1\u05d7\u05dc\u05d1 \u05d0\u05e1\u05d5\u05e8 \u05dc\u05d1\u05e9\u05dc\u05d5 \u05d5\u05d0\u05e1\u05d5\u05e8 \u05dc\u05d0\u05db\u05dc\u05d5 \u05de\u05df \u05d4\u05ea\u05d5\u05e8\u05d4 \u05d5\u05d0\u05e1\u05d5\u05e8 \u05d1\u05d4\u05e0\u05d0\u05d4 \u05d5\u05e7\u05d5\u05d1\u05e8\u05d9\u05df \u05d0\u05d5\u05ea\u05d5 \u05d5\u05d0\u05e4\u05e8\u05d5\n\u05d0\u05e1\u05d5\u05e8 \u05db\u05d0\u05e4\u05e8 \u05db\u05dc \u05d4\u05e0\u05e7\u05d1\u05e8\u05d9\u05df , \u05d5\u05de\u05d9 \u05e9\u05d9\u05d1\u05e9\u05dc \u05de\u05e9\u05e0\u05d9\u05d4\u05dd \u05db\u05d6\u05d9\u05ea \u05db\u05d0\u05d7\u05d3 \u05dc\u05d5\u05e7\u05d4 \u05e9\u05e0\u05d0\u05de\u05e8 \u05dc\u05d0 \u05ea\u05d1\u05e9\u05dc \u05d2\u05d3\u05d9\n\u05d1\u05d7\u05dc\u05d1 \u05d0\u05de\u05d5 , \u05d5\u05db\u05df \u05d4\u05d0\u05d5\u05db\u05dc \u05db\u05d6\u05d9\u05ea \u05de\u05e9\u05e0\u05d9\u05d4\u05dd \u05de\u05d4\u05d1\u05e9\u05e8 \u05d5\u05d4\u05d7\u05dc\u05d1 \u05e9\u05e0\u05ea\u05d1\u05e9\u05dc\u05d5 \u05db\u05d0\u05d7\u05d3 \u05dc\u05d5\u05e7\u05d4 \u05d5\u05d0\u05e2\u05f3\u05f3\u05e4\n\u05e9\u05dc\u05d0 \u05d1\u05e9\u05dc \u05c3\n\n\u201cIt is unlawful to boil meat in milk\u2014according to the law, it is also\nunlawful to eat it; it is likewise unlawful to make any profit by it,\nand it is to be buried. Its ashes are also unlawful, like the ashes of\nother things that are buried. Whosoever boils together a quantity of\nthese two things, equal to an olive, is to be flogged, for it is said,\n\u2018Thou shalt not seethe a kid in its mothers milk.\u2019 (Exod. xxiii. 19.) In\nlike manner, he that eats a quantity of the flesh and the milk, which\nhave been boiled together, amounting in value to an olive, is to be\nflogged, even though be did not boil them.\u201d (Hilchoth Maakhaloth\nAsuroth, c. ix. i.) Here the oral law determines generally, that it is\nunlawful to boil meat in milk, or to make any use of meat so boiled, and\nsentences the transgressor to a severe and degrading corporal\npunishment, and yet this determination is altogether an invention of\nmen, for which there is not the slightest authority in the Word of God.\nThe prohibition of Moses is confined to one single case, which is\nexactly defined: \u201cThou shalt not seethe a kid in its mother\u2019s milk,\u201d but\nthere the prohibition ends, for the specification of one particular\nshows that that alone is intended, and necessarily excludes all others.\nTo give some colour to the unwarranted extension, it is asserted that\n\n\u05d5\u05d2\u05d3\u05d9 \u05d4\u05d5\u05d0 \u05db\u05d5\u05dc\u05dc \u05d5\u05dc\u05d3 \u05d4\u05e9\u05d5\u05e8 \u05d5\u05dc\u05d3 \u05d4\u05e9\u05d4 \u05d5\u05dc\u05d3 \u05d4\u05e2\u05d6 \u05e2\u05d3 \u05e9\u05d9\u05e4\u05e8\u05d5\u05d8 \u05d5\u05d9\u05d0\u05de\u05e8 \u05d2\u05d3\u05d9 \u05e2\u05d6\u05d9\u05dd \u05c3\n\n\u201cKid includes the young of kine, of sheep, and of goats, so that to\nparticularize, the word goat is added as \u2018a kid of the goats.\u2019\u201d And so\nRashi also affirms in his commentary. Aben Ezra, however, has saved us\nthe trouble of giving a refutation of our own, for he says\u2014\n\n\u05d5\u05d0\u05d9\u05e0\u05e0\u05d5 \u05db\u05df \u05db\u05d9 \u05d2\u05d3\u05d9 \u05dc\u05d0 \u05d9\u05e7\u05e8\u05d0 \u05e8\u05e7 \u05e9\u05d4\u05d5\u05d0 \u05de\u05d4\u05e2\u05d6\u05d9\u05dd \u05d5\u05d1\u05dc\u05e9\u05d5\u05df \u05e2\u05e8\u05d1\u05d9 \u05d4\u05d5\u05d0 \u05d2\u05d3\u05d9 \u05d5\u05dc\u05d0 \u05d9\u05d0\u05de\u05e8 \u05e2\u05dc\n\u05de\u05d9\u05df \u05d0\u05d7\u05e8 , \u05e8\u05e7 \u05d9\u05e9 \u05d4\u05e4\u05e8\u05e9 \u05d1\u05d9\u05df \u05d2\u05d3\u05d9 \u05d5\u05d1\u05d9\u05df \u05d2\u05d3\u05d9 \u05e2\u05d6\u05d9\u05dd \u05db\u05d9 \u05d2\u05d3\u05d9 \u05d2\u05d3\u05d5\u05dc \u05de\u05d2\u05d3\u05d9 \u05e2\u05d6\u05d9\u05dd \u05db\u05d9\n\u05e2\u05d5\u05d3\u05e0\u05d5 \u05e6\u05e8\u05d9\u05da \u05d4\u05d9\u05d5\u05ea\u05d5 \u05e2\u05dd \u05d4\u05e2\u05d6\u05d9\u05dd \u05d5\u05db\u05db\u05d4 \u05e9\u05e2\u05d9\u05e8 \u05d5\u05e9\u05e2\u05d9\u05e8 \u05e2\u05d6\u05d9\u05dd \u05d5\u05d7\u05db\u05de\u05d9\u05dd \u05e7\u05d1\u05dc\u05d5 \u05e9\u05dc\u05d0 \u05d9\u05d0\u05db\u05dc\u05d5\n\u05d9\u05e9\u05e8\u05d0\u05dc \u05d1\u05e9\u05e8 \u05d1\u05d7\u05dc\u05d1 \u05c3\n\n\u201cThis is not so, for nothing is called kid except the young of the\ngoats; and in Arabic the word has the same signification, and is never\napplied to any other species. But there is a difference between _kid_\nand _kid of the goats_, for the former is larger, and it is necessary\nfor the latter still to be with the goats; and the same thing is true of\n\u05e9\u05e2\u05d9\u05e8, which is used in the same way. It is by tradition that the wise\nmen received, that Israel should not eat meat in milk.\u201d (Comment. in\nExod. xxiii. 19.) Thus Aben Ezra, himself a most learned rabbi,\nconfesses that the words of the written law restrict the prohibition to\none particular case, and that the rest is mere matter of tradition. Of\ncourse if it could be proved that this tradition came from God through\nMoses, it would be equivalent to the written law, but there is no\nattempt to prove anything of the kind. The authors of the oral law\ncalculated throughout upon the blind credulity of their followers, and\ntherefore here, as elsewhere, there is an entire absence of proof.\nIndeed, the tradition itself bears the plain mark of forgery. How can\nany one possibly believe that, if God meant to forbid meat and milk\nentirely, he should first express himself incorrectly, and then leave\nthe correction of the error to uncertain tradition? If the command had\nonly been once noticed, it would have been hard to believe such a thing;\nbut when we remember that this command is thrice repeated, in Exod.\nxxiii. 19, xxxiv. 26, and Deut. xiv. 21, it is plainly incredible.\nThrice is the command written, and thrice it is restricted to one\nparticular case, and yet the rabbies have dared to make unauthorized\nadditions of their own, and their followers to this day exalt them to a\nlevel with the laws of God. It cannot be replied that the rabbies would\nnot commit such wickedness as this, for every one who knows anything of\nthe oral law, knows that a great proportion of it consists merely of the\n_words of the Scribes_, acknowledged as such, and distinguished by that\nname from the supposed traditions from Sinai. Thus in the constitutions\nbefore us, it is plainly confessed that the written law allows the flesh\nof wild animals and of fowl in milk, and yet the rabbies forbid it:\u2014\n\n\u05d5\u05db\u05df \u05d1\u05e9\u05e8 \u05d7\u05d9\u05d4 \u05d5\u05e2\u05d5\u05e3 \u05d1\u05d9\u05df \u05d1\u05d7\u05dc\u05d1 \u05d7\u05d9\u05d4 \u05d1\u05d9\u05df \u05d1\u05d7\u05dc\u05d1 \u05d1\u05d4\u05de\u05d4 \u05d0\u05d9\u05e0\u05d5 \u05d0\u05e1\u05d5\u05e8 \u05d1\u05d0\u05db\u05d9\u05dc\u05d4 \u05de\u05df \u05d4\u05ea\u05d5\u05e8\u05d4\n\u05dc\u05e4\u05d9\u05db\u05da \u05de\u05d5\u05ea\u05e8 \u05dc\u05d1\u05e9\u05dc\u05d5 \u05d5\u05dd\u05d5\u05ea\u05e8 \u05d1\u05d4\u05e0\u05d0\u05d4 , \u05d5\u05d0\u05e1\u05d5\u05e8 \u05d1\u05d0\u05db\u05d9\u05dc\u05d4 \u05de\u05d3\u05d1\u05e8\u05d9 \u05e1\u05d5\u05e4\u05e8\u05d9\u05dd \u05db\u05d3\u05d9 \u05e9\u05dc\u05d0 \u05d9\u05e4\u05e9\u05d8\u05d5\n\u05d4\u05e2\u05dd \u05d5\u05d9\u05d1\u05d5\u05d0\u05d5 \u05dc\u05d9\u05d3\u05d9 \u05d0\u05d9\u05e1\u05d5\u05e8 \u05d1\u05e9\u05e8 \u05d1\u05d7\u05dc\u05d1 \u05e9\u05dc \u05ea\u05d5\u05e8\u05d4 \u05d5\u05d9\u05d0\u05db\u05dc\u05d5 \u05d1\u05e9\u05e8 \u05d1\u05d4\u05de\u05d4 \u05d8\u05d4\u05d5\u05e8\u05d4 \u05d1\u05d7\u05dc\u05d1 \u05d1\u05d4\u05de\u05d4\n\u05d8\u05d4\u05d5\u05e8\u05d4 \u05e9\u05d4\u05e8\u05d9 \u05d0\u05d9\u05df \u05de\u05e9\u05de\u05e2\u05d5\u05ea \u05d4\u05db\u05ea\u05d5\u05d1 \u05d0\u05dc\u05d0 \u05d2\u05d3\u05d9 \u05d1\u05d7\u05dc\u05d1 \u05d0\u05de\u05d5 \u05de\u05de\u05e9 \u05dc\u05e4\u05d9\u05db\u05da \u05d0\u05e1\u05e8\u05d5 \u05db\u05dc \u05d1\u05e9\u05e8 \u05d1\u05d7\u05dc\u05d1\n\u05c3\n\n\u201cAnd thus the flesh of a wild animal or of fowl, whether in the milk of\na wild or tame animal, is not forbidden as food by the written law, and\ntherefore it is lawful to boil it, and to profit by it. But according to\nthe words of the scribes, it is unlawful to eat it, lest the people\nshould go farther, and be led into a transgression of the written law,\nand eat the flesh of a clean beast in the milk of a clean beast: for the\nletter of the written law refers only to a kid in its mother\u2019s milk in\nthe strictest sense; therefore the wise men have forbidden all meat in\nmilk.\u201d In this there is no equivocation, but a simple confession that\nthe rabbies have taken upon themselves to forbid what God has allowed;\nand have, without ceremony or scruple, made great additions to his law.\nIt matters little what the motive was, the conduct itself is in the\nhighest degree presumptuous. The pretence, that these additions were\nmade only for the purpose of keeping the people far removed from sin,\nwill not serve as a ground of justification. If God had desired such\nprecautionary measures, as being either necessary or beneficial, he\nwould have prescribed them himself. If he did not prescribe them, and\nthe rabbies themselves confess that he did not, but that they are the\nwords of the scribes, then they can be neither necessary nor beneficial,\nunless we can believe what it would be blasphemy to assert, that is,\nthat God\u2019s law was imperfect until it was mended by the scribes. It is\ntruly astonishing that men professing respect for the law of Moses\nshould treat it with such indignity, and still more so that those who\nappear so anxious to avoid transgression, should themselves\nsystematically transgress that plain command.\n\n\u05dc\u05d0 \u05ea\u05d5\u05e1\u05d9\u05e4\u05d5 \u05e2\u05dc \u05d4\u05d3\u05d1\u05e8 \u05d0\u05e9\u05e8 \u05d0\u05e0\u05db\u05d9 \u05de\u05e6\u05d5\u05d4 \u05d0\u05ea\u05db\u05dd \u05c3\n\n\u201cYe shall not add unto the word which I command you.\u201d (Deut. iv. 2.) But\nthe most extraordinary thing of all is, that the modern Jews should\npride themselves on the purity of their faith, and think that they only\nof all the nations serve the true God and him only, when they are in\ntruth serving the authors of the oral law, and dividing their religious\nobedience between God and the rabbies. If the rabbinic additions were\nspecimens of profound wisdom in legislation, or had a tendency to\npromote either the moral or temporal welfare of mankind, there would be\nsome excuse, but what shall we say of those who transgress a plain\ncommand for the sake of such an addition as the following:\u2014\n\n\u05d4\u05d1\u05e9\u05e8 \u05dc\u05d1\u05d3\u05d5 \u05de\u05d5\u05ea\u05e8 \u05d5\u05d4\u05d7\u05dc\u05d1 \u05dc\u05d1\u05d3\u05d5 \u05de\u05d5\u05ea\u05e8 \u05d5\u05d1\u05d4\u05ea\u05e2\u05e8\u05d1 \u05e9\u05e0\u05d9\u05d4\u05dd \u05e2\u05f3\u05f3\u05d9 \u05d1\u05d9\u05e9\u05d5\u05dc \u05d9\u05d0\u05e1\u05e8\u05d5 \u05e9\u05e0\u05d9\u05d4\u05dd ,\n\u05d1\u05de\u05d4 \u05d3\u05d1\u05e8\u05d9\u05dd \u05d0\u05de\u05d5\u05e8\u05d9\u05dd \u05e9\u05e0\u05ea\u05d1\u05e9\u05dc\u05d5 \u05e9\u05e0\u05d9\u05d4\u05dd \u05d1\u05d9\u05d7\u05d3 \u05d0\u05d5 \u05e9\u05e0\u05e4\u05dc \u05d7\u05dd \u05dc\u05ea\u05d5\u05da \u05d7\u05dd \u05d0\u05d5 \u05e6\u05d5\u05e0\u05df \u05dc\u05ea\u05d5\u05da \u05d7\u05dd\n\u05d0\u05d1\u05dc \u05d0\u05dd \u05e0\u05e4\u05dc \u05d0\u05d7\u05d3 \u05de\u05e9\u05e0\u05d9\u05d4\u05dd \u05d5\u05d4\u05d5\u05d0 \u05d7\u05dd \u05dc\u05ea\u05d5\u05da \u05d4\u05e9\u05e0\u05d9 \u05d5\u05d4\u05d5\u05d0 \u05e6\u05d5\u05e0\u05df \u05e7\u05d5\u05dc\u05e3 \u05d4\u05d1\u05e9\u05e8 \u05db\u05d5\u05dc\u05d5 \u05e9\u05e0\u05d2\u05e2 \u05d1\u05d5\n\u05d4\u05d7\u05dc\u05d1 \u05d5\u05d0\u05d5\u05db\u05dc \u05d4\u05e9\u05d0\u05e8 \u05d5\u05d0\u05dd \u05e0\u05e4\u05dc \u05e6\u05d5\u05e0\u05df \u05dc\u05ea\u05d5\u05da \u05e6\u05d5\u05e0\u05d5 \u05de\u05d3\u05d9\u05d7 \u05d4\u05d7\u05ea\u05d9\u05db\u05d4 \u05d5\u05d0\u05d5\u05db\u05dc\u05d4 \u05c3\n\n\u201cThe flesh by itself is lawful, and the milk by itself is lawful, but as\nsoon they are mixed together by means of boiling (or cooking) they both\nbecome unlawful. In what cases does this hold? When both are boiled\ntogether, or when one being hot falls into the other also being hot, or\nwhen one, cold, falls into the other hot. But if one of them being hot\nfalls upon the second being cold, then all that part of the meat which\nwas touched by the milk is to be peeled off, and the remainder may be\neaten. But if one in a cold state falls upon the other also cold, then\nthat piece is to be washed, and after that may be eaten.\u201d (Hilchoth\nMaakhaloth Asuroth, c. ix. 17.) We have, in the first place, an\nunwarranted extension of the divine command. God has simply forbidden to\nseethe a kid in its mother\u2019s milk. The rabbies first extend this to the\nyoung of kine, and sheep. Then they advance another step and forbid the\nboiling or cooking of any sort of meat in milk, and now we have seen\nanother advance still, whereby even any mixture of flesh and milk is\nstrictly forbidden. Thus the rabbies aim at universal dominion, and are\nsatisfied with nothing short of an entire subjugation of the heart and\nconscience. Other tyrants must rest satisfied with the enslavement of\nthe body, but cannot touch the thought. The authors of the oral law\nattack the liberty of thought, and intrude even into the kitchens of\ntheir victims. They are determined that their followers shall not eat\nexcepting as they please, and boldly invade the prerogative of God\nhimself, by forbidding the food which he provides for his people. But\nthis extract presents, in the second place, an outrage on common sense.\nIf milk and meat each be lawful by itself, how can the mixture make them\nunlawful? Whatever God forbids is unlawful, no matter whether we\nunderstand the reason or not. But here the rabbies themselves\nacknowledge that God has not forbidden this mixture; but that the\nprohibition is entirely their own invention. We are therefore bound to\nuse our senses, if God has given us any, and to ask a reason why. Then,\nagain, why should that which is lawful when cold, be made unlawful by\nbeing hot? It may be said, that this is a matter of little importance.\nIn itself it is; but as a burden on the consciences of men, it is of the\nvery highest importance, and as a cheat upon the ignorant it is more\nimportant still. In many countries, these and similar inventions\nconstitute the whole religion of the ignorant, and especially of the\nwomen. The oral law affirms that it is not necessary to teach women the\nlaw of God, but it is almost a matter of life and death that they should\nknow these rabbinic laws about meat and milk. If a woman is unable to\nread the Word of God, and is as ignorant as a heathen, of God\u2019s will,\nthe rabbies think that is a trifle. But if a woman were, through\nignorance to serve up meat with any admixture of milk, the whole family\nwould be in an uproar, and the rabbi himself would have to be consulted\nabout a remedy for so dreadful a calamity. The consequence is, that with\nthe mass of the uneducated, accuracy in these observances passes for\npiety, and these poor beings hope that they are going straight to\nheaven, when they are utterly devoid or ignorant of that holiness,\ntruth, and purity, which are the first essentials for admission into the\npresence of God. Thus the oral law destroys the souls of multitudes, but\nothers will have to answer for their blood. All who uphold the system\nmust share in the responsibility. The rabbies who teach, the learned\nJews who aid and abet, the priests and Levites to whom God has committed\nthe pastorship of his people, but who neglect their sacred office, all\nwill have to answer for the souls of the lost. But most of all those who\nknow that these things are wrong, who themselves eat meat and milk, and\nlaugh at rabbinic superstition, and yet are insensible to the miseries\nof their poor and ignorant brethren. Every one practically acquainted\nwith the working of these laws, knows not only that they beget a false\nnotion of religion, but that they are also a torment in this life. In\ndomestic and culinary economy, accidents will happen. Meat may fall into\nmilk, or milk into a pot of meat. Misery and vexation are the\nconsequence, and if the unfortunate woman to whom the accident has\nhappened cannot get satisfaction at home, she must go to the rabbi to\ninquire what is to be done. For instance\u2014\n\n\u05d1\u05e9\u05e8 \u05e9\u05e0\u05e4\u05dc \u05dc\u05ea\u05d5\u05da \u05d4\u05d7\u05dc\u05d1 , \u05d0\u05d5 \u05d7\u05dc\u05d1 \u05e9\u05e0\u05e4\u05dc \u05dc\u05ea\u05d5\u05da \u05d4\u05d1\u05e9\u05e8 \u05d5\u05e0\u05ea\u05d1\u05e9\u05dc \u05e2\u05de\u05d5 \u05e9\u05d9\u05e2\u05d5\u05e8\u05d5 \u05d1\u05e0\u05d5\u05ea\u05df \u05d8\u05e2\u05dd ,\n\u05db\u05d9\u05e6\u05d3 \u05d7\u05ea\u05d9\u05db\u05d4 \u05e9\u05dc \u05d1\u05e9\u05e8 \u05e9\u05e0\u05e4\u05dc\u05d4 \u05dc\u05e7\u05d3\u05d9\u05e8\u05d4 \u05e8\u05d5\u05ea\u05d7\u05ea \u05e9\u05dc \u05d7\u05dc\u05d1 , \u05d8\u05d5\u05e2\u05dd \u05d4\u05d2\u05d5\u05d9 \u05d0\u05ea \u05d4\u05e7\u05d3\u05e8\u05d4 \u05d0\u05dd \u05d0\u05de\u05e8\n\u05e9\u05d9\u05e9 \u05d1\u05d4 \u05d8\u05e2\u05dd \u05d1\u05e9\u05e8 \u05d0\u05e1\u05d5\u05e8\u05d4 \u05d5\u05d0\u05dd \u05dc\u05d0\u05d5 \u05de\u05d5\u05ea\u05e8\u05ea \u05d5\u05d0\u05d5\u05ea\u05d4 \u05d7\u05ea\u05d9\u05db\u05d4 \u05d0\u05e1\u05d5\u05e8\u05d4 , \u05d1\u05d3\u05f3\u05f3\u05d0 \u05e9\u05e7\u05d3\u05dd \u05d5\u05d4\u05d5\u05e6\u05d9\u05d0\n\u05d0\u05ea \u05d4\u05d7\u05ea\u05d9\u05db\u05d4 \u05e7\u05d5\u05d3\u05dd \u05e9\u05ea\u05e4\u05dc\u05d5\u05d8 \u05d7\u05dc\u05d1 \u05e9\u05d1\u05dc\u05e2\u05d4 , \u05d0\u05d1\u05dc \u05d0\u05dd \u05dc\u05d0 \u05e1\u05dc\u05e7 \u05de\u05e9\u05e2\u05e8\u05d9\u05dd \u05d0\u05d5\u05ea\u05d4 \u05d1\u05e9\u05e9\u05d9\u05dd \u05de\u05e4\u05e0\u05d9\n\u05e9\u05d4\u05d7\u05dc\u05d1 \u05e9\u05e0\u05d1\u05dc\u05e2 \u05d1\u05d4 \u05d5\u05e0\u05d0\u05e1\u05e8 \u05d9\u05e6\u05d0 \u05d5\u05e0\u05ea\u05e2\u05e8\u05d1 \u05e2\u05dd \u05e9\u05d0\u05e8 \u05d4\u05d7\u05dc\u05d1 \u05c3\n\n\u201cWith respect to meat which falls into milk, or milk that falls into the\nmidst of meat, the measure is, if it give a taste? How so? If a peace of\nmeat fall into a boiling pot of milk, a Gentile is to taste the contents\nof the pot: and if he says that it has a taste of meat, then it is\nunlawful. But if it has not the taste of meat, then the milk is lawful,\nbut that piece of meat is unlawful. In what cases does this hold? In\ncase that the piece of meat has been taken out, before it has emitted\nthe milk which it has sucked in. But if it has not been taken out, then\na calculation must be made whether its proportion to the whole is as one\nto sixty; because the milk that was sucked in, and had become unlawful,\nhas been emitted and has mixed with the rest of the milk.\u201d (Ibid.) Now,\nin the most tolerable case, that is, if the owner of the milk can afford\nto lose it and the meat too, there is, first, an unnecessary\ninconvenience and vexation, which no man has a right to inflict upon\nanother. But there is, secondly, and what is of far more consequence, a\ngreat sin in wasting good and wholesome, and, according to the written\nlaw, lawful food. If the milk tastes of meat, then the milk and the meat\nare rendered not only unlawful but perfectly useless. How then can the\nJews expect peace and plenty, when their oral law teaches them to\ndespise and cast from them with disdain God\u2019s blessings? But suppose\nthat the owner of the milk and the meat is a poor man, and that he has\nlaid out his hard and scanty earnings to provide food for his family, an\naccident of this kind will leave them destitute. Their last hope of\nsupport is taken away, and they may die of hunger. If they go to the\nrabbies, and urge the necessity of the case\u2014plead that they have no\nmore\u2014reason that if meat by itself is lawful, that milk is also\nlawful\u2014that the law of Moses no where forbids this food\u2014the teachers of\nthe oral law will answer, that their traditions cannot be broken; and\nthe poor people must learn that to eat food permitted and given by God\nis a sin, but to die of starvation is lawful. How can men with any of\nthe feelings of humanity believe that such a law is from God?\u2014how can\nmen of any common sense suffer the consciences and the bodies of the\npoor and ignorant to be thus tormented? Above all, how can a nation that\nprides itself on the purity of its faith yield an idolatrous obedience\nto cruel and oppressive laws invented by men? It is a vain boast for\nthem to say that they have no images\u2014the oral law and its enactments\nconstitute a whole host of idols. It is an unfounded triumph which they\ncelebrate over the worshippers of Moloch. The oral law is a deity as\nfierce and as bloody, and to it are daily immolated the souls and bodies\nof the poor and ignorant. Any homage rendered to falsehood, or to\ncruelty, is idolatrous; and every thinking man must admit, that the\nworship of the oral law is of this character. To the Rabbinists\nthemselves we would say, Just think whether it be possible that God\nwould have given a law so oppressive, or whether he can have any\npleasure in the obedience which is rendered at the expense of mercy? To\nthose who reject the oral law we would say, You have a duty to perform\nfrom which nothing can exempt you\u2014and that is, to rest neither day nor\nnight until Israel is delivered from this idolatrous worship of men, and\nset free from a yoke so oppressive to body and soul. We grant that\nChristians have also a duty, and in these papers we endeavour to\ndischarge our share of it. But the duty incumbent upon Israelites is\ntenfold more imperative. The ties of flesh and blood\u2014their office as a\nkingdom of priests\u2014the mercy of God in giving them the law as their\ninheritance\u2014all increase their responsibility and add to the weight of\nobligation. It would be a shame for Israel to be silent when even the\nGentiles cry out for the restoration of the religion of Moses and the\nprophets. Israelites may have peculiar difficulties. They may be united\nin commercial relations or by family ties with those who are in bondage\nto the oral law. They may fear the injury of their worldly\nprospects\u2014they may dread the frown of relatives and friends. This was\nalso the case of Abraham, when he determined to renounce the false gods\nof his fathers, and to worship the true God alone; and every one who\ndetermines by God\u2019s help to follow and assert the truth, must make up\nhis mind to love it even more than life itself. But can a son of Abraham\nhesitate? Will he forfeit the smile of God to escape the frown of\nfriends? Nay, if his friends are still in error, is this not a double\nmotive to urge him forward in the overthrow of that error? Must he not\nhe doubly anxious to deliver his father, his mother, his brothers and\nhis sisters from such bondage? The first attempt may be difficult\u2014the\nimmediate results may be unpleasant; but if for God\u2019s sake he asserts\nGod\u2019s truth, he shall have God\u2019s blessing, and at last find peace even\namongst those who are now offended. As long as the present state of\nthings continues, Israel can never be restored to their ancient\nposition. God in mercy keeps them in dispersion, to prevent the triumph\nof the oral law. But when is this state of misery to cease? There must\nbe a beginning. Some one follower of Moses must be zealous enough and\nbold enough to attack the strong holds of superstition, and to rouse his\nbrethren to a sense of their condition\u2014some one who not only professes\nto be a follower of Moses, but who has imbibed his spirit, and whose\ntrust is in the God of his fathers.\n\n\n\n\n                               No. LIII.\n                   RABBINISM OPPRESSIVE TO THE POOR.\n\n\nWhen God gave Israel the law, by the hand of Moses, he also gave them\nseveral tests, whereby they might at all times try themselves, and know\nto a certainty whether they were really obedient or not\u2014and whether the\nlaws, to which they yielded obedience, were really the laws given by\nMoses. One of these tests is found in the following words:\u2014\u201cBehold, I\nhave taught you statutes and judgments, even as the Lord my God\ncommanded me, that ye should do so in the land whither ye go to possess\nit. Keep, therefore, and do them; for this is your wisdom and your\nunderstanding in the sight of the nations, which shall hear all these\nstatutes, and say, Surely this great nation is a wise and understanding\npeople.\u201d (Deut. iv. 5.) By the help of these words, Israel may know at\nany time whether they are really keeping the laws of Moses. They have\nonly to consult their own experience, and determine whether they are\nhonoured by all nations on account of their wisdom. Moses promises that\na reputation for wisdom, and the honour that accompanies it, shall be\nthe reward of obedience. If therefore the Jews at this present time are\nobedient, this promise must be in daily fulfilment. But, if they are not\nhonoured and respected for their wisdom, then we must conclude, that\nthey are deficient in obedience, and further, that the laws to which\nthey are at present so devoted are not the laws of Moses. Now it is a\ncertain fact, that admiration for the wisdom of Israel has not been the\nprevailing sentiment amongst the nations of the world for the last two\nthousand years. The Jewish people has been most deplorably underrated.\nTheir genius and their literature have been ignorantly undervalued, and\nthe folly of the authors of the oral law has been unjustly visited upon\neach and every individual of the nation. We grant the injustice and the\nimpiety of such hasty judgments, but cannot deny the fact, and the fact\nproves that the laws to which Israel now yields obedience are not the\nlaws of Moses. They now obey the commands of the oral law, and the\nnations have heard of the statutes thereof, but no one says, \u201cSurely\nthis great nation is a wise and understanding people.\u201d Some may,\nperhaps, ascribe this to prejudice, and no doubt there are cases where\nprejudice has much to do with the decision, but this is not our case.\nOur prepossessions are all in favour of the Jews, and yet we cannot help\nquestioning the wisdom of those, who make such laws as the following a\npart of their religion:\u2014\n\n\u05d0\u05d9\u05df \u05dc\u05e9\u05d9\u05df \u05d4\u05e2\u05d9\u05e1\u05d4 \u05d1\u05d7\u05dc\u05d1 \u05d5\u05d0\u05dd \u05dc\u05e9 \u05db\u05dc \u05d4\u05e4\u05ea \u05d0\u05e1\u05d5\u05e8\u05d4 \u05de\u05e4\u05e0\u05d9 \u05d4\u05e8\u05d2\u05dc \u05e2\u05d1\u05d9\u05e8\u05d4 \u05e9\u05de\u05d0 \u05d9\u05d0\u05db\u05dc \u05d1\u05d4 \u05d1\u05e9\u05e8\n, \u05d5\u05d0\u05d9\u05df \u05d8\u05e9\u05d9\u05df \u05d0\u05ea \u05d4\u05ea\u05e0\u05d5\u05e8 \u05d1\u05d0\u05dc\u05d9\u05d4 \u05d5\u05d0\u05dd \u05d8\u05e9 \u05db\u05dc \u05d4\u05e4\u05ea \u05d0\u05e1\u05d5\u05e8\u05d4 \u05e2\u05d3 \u05e9\u05d9\u05e1\u05d9\u05e7 \u05d0\u05ea \u05d4\u05ea\u05e0\u05d5\u05e8 \u05e9\u05de\u05d0\n\u05d9\u05d0\u05db\u05dc \u05d1\u05d4 \u05d7\u05dc\u05d1 , \u05d5\u05d0\u05dd \u05e9\u05d9\u05e0\u05d4 \u05d1\u05e6\u05d5\u05e8\u05ea \u05d4\u05e4\u05ea \u05e2\u05d3 \u05e9\u05ea\u05d4\u05d9\u05d4 \u05e0\u05db\u05e8\u05ea \u05db\u05d3\u05d9 \u05e9\u05dc\u05d0 \u05d9\u05d0\u05db\u05dc \u05d1\u05d4 \u05dc\u05d0 \u05d1\u05e9\u05e8\n\u05d5\u05dc\u05d0 \u05d7\u05dc\u05d1 \u05d4\u05e8\u05d9 \u05d6\u05d4 \u05de\u05d5\u05ea\u05e8 \u05c3\n\n\u201cIt is not lawful to knead the dough with milk, and if it be done, all\nthe bread is unlawful, lest this should lead to further transgression,\nand it should be eaten with meat. It is also unlawful to smear the oven\nwith the tail of a sheep; and if it be done, all the bread is unlawful,\nlest milk should be eaten with it. But, if some change be made in the\nform of the bread whereby it may be recognized, so as that neither meat\nnor milk should be eaten with it, then it is lawful.\u201d (Hilchoth\nMaakhaloth Asuroth, c. ix. 22.) We do not wish to persuade the Jews\neither to knead dough with milk, or to smear an oven with the tail of a\nsheep, but when we remember all the poverty and want that is in the\nworld, we cannot help asking, What is there so sinful in either of the\nabove actions, as to make such bread unlawful for the use of God\u2019s\npeople? Has God forbidden it? or has he so strictly prohibited the use\nof meat and milk together, as to make this excess of caution necessary?\nNeither the one nor the other. The law of God as given by Moses, allows\nthe use of meat and milk together. It forbids only one particular case,\nthe boiling of a kid in its mother\u2019s milk: and to this the rabbies have,\nwithout any authority, added all these other commands, and thus burdened\nthe conscience, and made religion an intricate and difficult science\nintelligible only to the learned, and not always to them. What wisdom is\nthere in forbidding what God did not think necessary to forbid? What\nwisdom is there in neglecting or disregarding the revealed will of God,\nand giving up the conscience to the guidance of weak and fallible men\nlike ourselves? But above all, what wisdom is there in oppressing and\ntormenting the poor? The oral law says\u2014\n\n\u05de\u05d9 \u05e9\u05d0\u05db\u05dc \u05d2\u05d1\u05d9\u05e0\u05d4 \u05d0\u05d5 \u05d7\u05dc\u05d1 \u05ea\u05d7\u05dc\u05d4 \u05de\u05d5\u05ea\u05e8 \u05dc\u05d0\u05db\u05d5\u05dc \u05d0\u05d7\u05e8\u05d9\u05d5 \u05d1\u05e9\u05e8 \u05de\u05d9\u05d3 .\n\n\u05de\u05d9 \u05e9\u05d0\u05db\u05dc \u05d1\u05e9\u05e8 \u05d1\u05ea\u05d7\u05dc\u05d4 \u05d1\u05d9\u05df \u05d1\u05e9\u05e8 \u05d1\u05d4\u05de\u05d4 \u05d1\u05d9\u05df \u05d1\u05e9\u05e8 \u05e2\u05d5\u05e3 \u05dc\u05d0 \u05d9\u05d0\u05db\u05dc \u05d0\u05d7\u05e8\u05d9\u05d5 \u05d7\u05dc\u05d1 \u05e2\u05d3 \u05e9\u05d9\u05d4\u05d9\u05d4\n\u05d1\u05d9\u05e0\u05d9\u05d4\u05dd \u05db\u05d3\u05d9 \u05e9\u05d9\u05e2\u05d5\u05e8 \u05e1\u05e2\u05d5\u05d3\u05d4 \u05d0\u05d7\u05e8\u05ea \u05d5\u05d4\u05d5\u05d0 \u05db\u05de\u05d5 \u05e9\u05e9 \u05e9\u05e2\u05d5\u05ea \u05de\u05e4\u05e0\u05d9 \u05d4\u05d1\u05e9\u05e8 \u05e9\u05d1\u05d9\u05df \u05d4\u05e9\u05d9\u05e0\u05d9\u05dd \u05e9\u05d0\u05d9\u05e0\u05d5\n\u05e1\u05e8 \u05d1\u05e7\u05d9\u05e0\u05d5\u05d7 \u05c3\n\n\u201cHe that eats cheese or milk first, may eat meat immediately after.\n\n\u201cHe that eats meat first, whether it be the meat of a beast or of a\nfowl, must not eat milk after it, until the regular time between two\nmeals, that is six hours, shall have elapsed; because of the meat which\nremains between the teeth, and which is not got out by wiping.\u201d (Ibid.,\n26, 28.) Now in the case of the rich or the affluent, who can procure a\ngood and sufficient meal of meat, and can therefore wait for six hours,\nthis may be no great hardship, though even in that case, we must protest\nagainst the unauthorized burden imposed upon the conscience; but when\napplied to the needy and the destitute, this law becomes an intolerable\nyoke. Just suppose the father of a starving family who goes forth to beg\nassistance from the charitable. He receives a small portion of meat, and\nhastens back to divide it with his wife and children. They partake of\nthe relief, but it is not sufficient to supply their wants. He therefore\ngoes forth again, and some friend of the poor gives him some milk or\ncheese, he brings it home with thankfulness, but dare not touch it\nhimself nor give it to his children\u2014they have already fasted many an\nhour\u2014they are still weak with hunger\u2014a little of the milk or the cheese\nwould recruit exhausted nature\u2014the children cry and entreat for six\nhours more, for though God allows this food, rabbies have forbidden it.\nIs there wisdom in this? Is God honoured by such a religion, which\ncounts his permission as nothing, and exalts the authority of the\nrabbies above that of God himself? And may we not ask the some question\nof the following law?\n\n\u05d4\u05d0\u05d5\u05db\u05dc \u05d2\u05d1\u05d9\u05e0\u05ea \u05d4\u05d2\u05d5\u05d9\u05dd \u05d0\u05d5 \u05d7\u05dc\u05d1 \u05e9\u05d7\u05dc\u05d1\u05d5 \u05d2\u05d5\u05d9 \u05d5\u05d0\u05d9\u05df \u05d4\u05d9\u05e9\u05e8\u05d0\u05dc \u05e8\u05d5\u05d0\u05d4\u05d5 \u05de\u05db\u05d9\u05df \u05d0\u05d5\u05ea\u05d5 \u05de\u05db\u05ea \u05de\u05e8\u05d3\u05d5\u05ea\n, \u05d5\u05d4\u05d7\u05de\u05d0\u05d4 \u05de\u05e7\u05e6\u05ea \u05d4\u05d2\u05d0\u05d5\u05e0\u05d9\u05dd \u05d4\u05ea\u05d9\u05e8\u05d5\u05d4 \u05e9\u05d4\u05e8\u05d9 \u05dc\u05d0 \u05d2\u05d6\u05e8\u05d5 \u05e2\u05dc \u05d7\u05d7\u05de\u05d0\u05d4 \u05d5\u05d7\u05dc\u05d1 \u05d8\u05de\u05d0 \u05d0\u05d9\u05e0\u05d5 \u05e2\u05d5\u05de\u05d3\n\u05d5\u05de\u05e7\u05e6\u05ea \u05d4\u05d2\u05d0\u05d5\u05e0\u05d9\u05dd \u05d0\u05e1\u05e8\u05d5\u05d4 \u05de\u05e4\u05e0\u05d9 \u05e6\u05d7\u05e6\u05d5\u05d7 \u05d7\u05dc\u05d1 \u05e9\u05d9\u05e9\u05d0\u05e8 \u05d1\u05d4 \u05c3\n\n\u201cHe that eats Gentile cheese, or milk which a Gentile has milked, but\nthe Israelite did not see him, is to be flogged with the flogging of\nrebellion. But, as to the butter, some of the Gaons have pronounced it\nlawful, because there is no express decision about it, and because\nunclean milk will not set. Others of the Gaons, on the contrary, have\npronounced it unlawful, on account of the small drops of milk which\nremain in it.\u201d (Joreh Deah, 115.) Here we have the same total want of\nconsideration for the poor, and the same fierce and cruel spirit. Just\nsuppose, again, the case of a destitute Jewish family, where the father\nis laid on a bed of sickness, and unable to earn daily bread for his\nchildren. The mother, weary with tending the sick couch of her husband,\nand her heart half-broken with the children\u2019s cry for bread, goes to\nsolicit help from the almoners of the synagogue. She obtains eighteen\npence per month, but finds that on this small sum it is impossible for a\nfamily to subsist; she then goes to individuals of her nation, and gets\nwhat she can, but still not sufficient to the wants of her children, and\nof her sick husband. In her distress, she goes to some Christian\nneighbours, who give her some milk and cheese. The pangs of hunger, and\nthe affections of a wife and mother overcome her superstition, she\ncarries this bounty home and partakes of it along with her husband and\nchildren. Has, she thereby committed a sin; has she violated any one\nprecept of the Mosaic law; has she blasphemed the name of her God? Let\nreason, let the Law and the Prophets answer, and they will say, No: she\nhas done her duty. But what does the oral law say? It says, that she has\ncommitted a dreadful sin. And what is to be her punishment, and that of\nher husband and children? Flogging\u2014the flogging of rebellion. If the\noral law had power, it would lead them forth to the place of execution,\nand there inflict stripes without number and without mercy. The\nbystanders, and those attracted by the cries would ask, What dreadful\ncrime has this family committed? and the answer would be, To save\nthemselves from starvation they dared to eat Gentile cheese and milk.\nGentiles would ask again, What, is this the law? Does Judaism teach that\nso innocent an action is to be punished with such severity? and being\nanswered in the affirmative, would go away exclaiming, \u201cWhat a merciful\nreligion! Surely this great nation is a wise and understanding people!\u201d\nNo: they would retire in horror, thanking God that they are not Jews,\nand that God has preserved them from so dreadful a delusion, and from\nsuch iniquitous cruelty. What, then, do our Jewish readers think of this\nlaw, and the religion of which it is a part? It is certain that there\nare multitudes of Jews in this city who live in the constant violation\nof this command; who constantly use milk supplied by Gentiles, and yet\npretend to profess Judaism as their religion. Let all such ask\nthemselves, by what authority they transgress a command sanctioned by so\nsevere a punishment. Is it because they think it irrational, or\nunwarranted by the law of Moses? if so, they attack at once the\nauthority of the whole system of Judaism. If the oral low can be proved\nto be absurd, or unjust, or cruel, in any one particular, its value as a\ndivine tradition is utterly destroyed. Let them, then, be consistent; if\nthey reject Judaism, let them say so, let them not pretend to have the\nJewish religion, when they have it not. Let them honestly confess that\ntheir reason, directed by Scripture, has led them to reject it; and let\nthem fulfil the consequent duty of endeavouring to deliver their poor\nbrethren from a bondage so cruel. They must know that these laws about\nmilk and butter, and the art of slaughtering, cut off many a poor Jew\nfrom the last refuge of the destitute\u2014the poor-house. Many a one who is\nnow starving with his family, would be glad to have the relief which the\nparish provides, but he dare not accept of it. Either his conscience,\nperverted by these rabbinical statutes, will not permit him, or he is\nafraid of his brethren, who would think that in going into such an\nasylum he had renounced his God. Those who use Gentile milk without\nscruple, will have much to answer for, if they suffer such oppression\nand such superstition to continue. It is a vain excuse for any one to\nsay, \u201cWhat can I do?\u201d Any one individual, however weak and\nuninfluential, has it in his power by God\u2019s blessing, to deliver the\npoor. Let him continually protest against such superstition, let him\nreason with his brethren. Let him determine to take no rest, until the\nyoke is torn from the necks of his nation. He will ultimately prevail.\nHe will be the instrument in God\u2019s hand, of offering a greater\ndeliverance than that from Egypt, inasmuch as the emancipation of the\nsoul is of more importance than that of the body. In this respect,\namongst others, Jesus of Nazareth has done more than Moses. If he had\nnot arisen, the oral law would have been universal, and the world have\ncontinued either sunk in idolatry or slaves to a cruel superstition. The\ncruelty of a religion, which commands a man to be flogged for eating\nthat which God permits, is not to be disputed; the prohibition of\nGentile bread furnishes another instance of similar inhumanity.\n\n\u05d9\u05e9 \u05d3\u05d1\u05e8\u05d9\u05dd \u05e9\u05d0\u05e1\u05e8\u05d5 \u05d7\u05db\u05de\u05d9\u05dd \u05d0\u05e2\u05f3\u05f3\u05e4 \u05e9\u05d0\u05d9\u05df \u05dc\u05d4\u05dd \u05e2\u05d9\u05e7\u05e8 \u05de\u05df \u05d4\u05ea\u05d5\u05e8\u05d4 \u05db\u05de\u05d5 \u05e4\u05ea \u05e9\u05dc \u05d2\u05d5\u05d9\u05dd \u05d0\u05e4\u05d9\u05dc\u05d5\n\u05d0\u05e4\u05d0\u05d5 \u05dc\u05d5 \u05d9\u05e9\u05e8\u05d0\u05dc \u05d5\u05d4\u05e9\u05dc\u05e7\u05d5\u05ea \u05e9\u05de\u05d1\u05e9\u05dc\u05d9\u05df \u05d4\u05d2\u05d5\u05d9\u05dd \u05d5\u05d0\u05e1\u05e8\u05d5 \u05dc\u05e9\u05ea\u05d5\u05ea \u05d1\u05de\u05e1\u05d9\u05d1\u05ea\u05df \u05d0\u05e4\u05d9\u05dc\u05d5 \u05e9\u05d0\u05e8 \u05de\u05e9\u05e7\u05d9\u05df\n\u05e9\u05d0\u05d9\u05df \u05d1\u05d4\u05df \u05de\u05e9\u05d5\u05dd \u05d7\u05e9\u05e9 \u05d9\u05d9\u05df \u05e0\u05e1\u05da \u05d5\u05db\u05dc \u05d0\u05dc\u05d5 \u05d3\u05d1\u05e8\u05d9\u05dd \u05d0\u05e1\u05e8\u05d5 \u05de\u05e9\u05d5\u05dd \u05d7\u05ea\u05e0\u05d5\u05ea \u05d5\u05db\u05d5\u05f3 \u05c3\n\n\u201cThere are some things which the wise men have pronounced unlawful,\nalthough they have no foundation for the prohibition in the law, as\nbread of the Gentiles, even though an Israelite should have baked it for\nhim\u2014and cooked victuals, which the Gentiles have cooked. They have also\npronounced it unlawful to drink at a Gentile table, even those drinks of\nwhich there can be no suspicion that wine of libation is mixed with\nthem. And they pronounced these things unlawful to prevent the\npossibility of intermarriage,\u201d &c. (Ibid. 112.) There are many remarks\nsuggested by this passage, but at present we limit ourselves to the\nprohibition of Gentile bread. It is here confessed that there is no\nfoundation for it in the law of Moses, and that therefore the rabbies\nhave no authority for the prohibition; and yet a very little\nconsideration is sufficient to show that great inconvenience may arise.\nFor instance, if a poor Jew is travelling in this country, exhausts his\nstock of money, and goes to a farm-house to ask relief, he cannot accept\nany meat\u2014he is not to drink any milk on pain of a flogging. Suppose,\nthen, that the people offer him some home-baked bread, even this is\nforbidden:\u2014\n\n\u05e4\u05ea \u05e9\u05dc \u05d1\u05e2\u05dc \u05d4\u05d1\u05d9\u05ea \u05d0\u05e1\u05d5\u05e8\u05d4 \u05dc\u05e2\u05d5\u05dc\u05dd \u05c3\n\n\u201cBread baked by a private house-keeper is eternally forbidden.\u201d The poor\nman, therefore, may starve. But the inhumanity appears still more in the\ndiscussion of the question, whether and when it is lawful to eat baker\u2019s\nbread. The rabbies are divided. Some allow it, because the rule is\u2014\n\n\u05de\u05d9 \u05e9\u05d4\u05ea\u05e2\u05e0\u05d4 \u05d2\u05f3 \u05d9\u05de\u05d9\u05dd \u05de\u05d5\u05ea\u05e8 \u05d1\u05e4\u05ea \u05e9\u05dc \u05d2\u05d5\u05d9\u05dd \u05de\u05e9\u05d5\u05dd \u05d7\u05d9\u05d9 \u05e0\u05e4\u05e9 \u05d5\u05d1\u05e8\u05d5\u05d1 \u05de\u05e7\u05d5\u05de\u05d5\u05ea \u05d2\u05dc\u05d9\u05d5\u05ea\u05e0\u05d5 \u05d0\u05d9\u05df\n\u05e4\u05dc\u05d8\u05e8 \u05d9\u05e9\u05e8\u05d0\u05dc \u05de\u05e6\u05d5\u05d9 \u05d5\u05d4\u05d5\u05d4 \u05db\u05d0\u05dc\u05d5 \u05d4\u05ea\u05e2\u05e0\u05d4 \u05d2\u05f3 \u05d9\u05de\u05d9\u05dd , \u05d5\u05d9\u05e9 \u05d0\u05d5\u05e1\u05e8\u05d9\u05df \u05d0\u05d5\u05ea\u05d5 \u05d0\u05dc\u05d0 \u05d0\u05f3\u05f3\u05db \u05d4\u05ea\u05e2\u05e0\u05d4\n\u05d2\u05f3 \u05d9\u05de\u05d9\u05dd \u05de\u05de\u05e9 \u05c3\n\n\u201cHe that has fasted three days may lawfully eat Gentile bread, and as in\nmany places of our captivity there is no Israelite baker, this case is\nconsidered parallel to that of him who has fasted three days. But there\nare others who say that it is unlawful, unless he has fasted three days,\nin the strictest sense of the word.\u201d (Ibid.) One would think that, in a\ncase of doubt, men that had the fear of God would naturally incline to\nthe side of mercy; but here we find teachers of religion forbidding what\nGod has allowed, unless the victim of poverty has first endured the\ntorment of starvation for three days; and in one case actually\ndetermining that a fellow-creature shall die of hunger, rather than\nsuffer their unauthorized traditions to be broken. If a Gentile\nGovernment should seize on a number of unfortunate Israelites guilty of\nno crime, and shut them up in a prison, and then leave them to die of\nstarvation, what just indignation would be excited! Every man would\nprotest against such wanton cruelty, and yet this is just what modern\nJudaism has done. By forbidding Gentile meat, milk, cheese, and bread,\nit has consigned hundreds to starvation. There are at this moment\nnumbers of individuals, if not families, pining away in want, whose\nwants could be relieved, if the oral law did not interpose its iron\nfront, and pronounce starvation lawful, and help from Gentiles unlawful;\nand yet their brethren, who pride themselves upon their benevolence and\nhumanity, leave them to perish, and suffer the system to remain that it\nmay be a curse to coming generations. It is truly astonishing to see the\nindifference of those who pride themselves upon their emancipation from\nsuperstition, and who themselves eat Gentile bread, and milk, and\ncheese, and perhaps meat, without any scruple. It is more astonishing\nstill, how the nation at large suffers itself to be deluded by men who\ndo not agree amongst themselves as to what the law really is. We saw\nabove, that the greatest of the rabbies, even the Gaons themselves,\ndiffer as to the lawfulness of Gentile butter;\u2014here we see that they\ncannot agree as to the lawfulness of Gentile bakers\u2019 bread. How is it,\nthen, that the Jews cannot see that their present religion of the oral\nlaw is altogether one of uncertainty and that, therefore, there is no\ndependence upon it? Here they eat freely, even the strictest, of Gentile\nbread; but yet, according to some of their greatest men, they are\nthereby committing a deadly sin. These wise men humanely say, that it is\nnecessary first to fast for three days. Now of what use is an oral law\nthat cannot even tell us certainly what sort of bread it is unlawful to\neat? The Rabbinist boast is, that the oral law teaches them the true\nmeaning of the written law, and thus saves them from all doubtful\ndisputation. But how can that be true, when the oral law has not yet\nsettled when it is lawful to eat Gentile bread? If the rabbies cannot\nagree on so simple a matter, what trust can be placed in them in\ndifficult questions? The Jews cannot even tell, by the help of their\nreligion, whether they are not committing a sin, and leading their\nchildren to commit a sin, when they give them a piece of bread and\nbutter. How, then, can they be satisfied with a religion where the\nsimplest concerns of life are still a matter of doubt and disputation;\nand especially where the poor are made to suffer the greatest hardships,\nwhilst, by keeping to Moses and the prophets, they might find relief?\nBut, above all, how can they believe that a religion is divine, or its\nauthors good and pious men, when an innocent action, nay, the fulfilment\nof a natural duty, is punished with flogging? There is no punishment of\nwhich the oral law is so fond; and it would be a curious and interesting\nemployment to furnish a list of all the offences to which it is annexed.\nPerhaps in nothing does the Talmud differ more from the New Testament.\nThe New Testament has not, in any one case, prescribed so cruel a\npunishment. The Talmud and all its compendiums prescribe it on the most\ntrifling occasion. The maxim of the New Testament is that of the Old\nalso, \u201cI will have mercy, not sacrifice.\u201d Now, if the practice of mercy\nbe more agreeable in the eyes of God, than even those ceremonial rites\nwhich he himself ordained, with what pleasure can he contemplate the\nreligion of the oral law, which punishes, even what God has allowed,\nwith unmeasured cruelty? Aben Ezra supposed that this command, \u201cNot to\nseethe a kid in its mother\u2019s milk,\u201d was given in order to prevent\ncruelty even to the brute creation; if this be true, how does God regard\nthe perversion of his mercy, which pretends to keep this command, to\nspare the brute creation, by dooming hundreds of mankind to starvation,\nand by flogging those who endeavour to escape from their misery by\neating what he has nowhere forbidden? If God has compassion upon the\nbeasts that perish, what can he think of those teachers of religion who\ntalk with such composure of a fellow-creature\u2019s fasting for three days\nbefore he may eat bread sold by a Gentile baker, and who absolutely\ndecide that it is his duty to die, rather than partake of bread baked by\na private individual who is not a Jew? We appeal to the good sense of\nevery Israelite to answer these questions. Is it not evident that the\nGod of mercy must view with indignation, those teachers who thus\nmisrepresent the nature of revealed religion, and who cause his holy\nname to be blasphemed amongst the ignorant? But if those men are guilty,\na portion of their guilt rests upon all those who aid and abet in\nupholding the system. There can be but little excuse for those who have\nthe Law and the Prophets in their hands, and who therefore ought to\nknow, that the cruelty of the oral law is as contrary to the character\nof God, as light is to darkness. And there is no excuse at all for those\nIsraelites who themselves despise these Rabbinical laws, and yet by\ntheir silence and indifference leave their brethren still in misery.\nThey are answerable for all the dishonour done to God; for all the\nmisery inflicted upon man; and for all the contempt heaped upon the\nwisdom of Israel.\n\n\n\n\n                                No. LIV.\n                             GENTILE WINE.\n\n\nThe Jews of the present day have got one religion\u2014the Christians have\ngot another. It is much to be desired that all the sons of men should\nhave the one true religion, but, as this is not likely to be the case\nfor some little time longer, it becomes those who differ to examine the\nnature and grounds of their differences. Whatever Jews may think upon\nthe subject, Christians feel themselves bound to inquire whether they\nhave really erred so grievously as modern Judaism asserts. The oral law\nbrings no less a charge against them than this, That they are guilty of\nidolatry, and therefore in a worse state than even the Mahometans.\n\n\u05db\u05dc \u05d2\u05d5\u05d9 \u05e9\u05d0\u05d9\u05e0\u05d5 \u05e2\u05d5\u05d1\u05d3 \u05e2\u05db\u05d5\u05f3\u05f3\u05dd \u05db\u05d2\u05d5\u05df \u05d0\u05dc\u05d5 \u05d4\u05d9\u05e9\u05de\u05e2\u05d0\u05db\u05d9\u05dd \u05d9\u05d9\u05e0\u05df \u05d0\u05e1\u05d5\u05e8 \u05d1\u05e9\u05ea\u05d9\u05d4 \u05d5\u05de\u05d5\u05ea\u05e8 \u05d1\u05d4\u05e0\u05d0\u05d4\n, \u05d5\u05db\u05df \u05d4\u05d5\u05e8\u05d5 \u05db\u05dc \u05d4\u05d2\u05d0\u05d5\u05e0\u05d9\u05dd , \u05d0\u05d1\u05dc \u05d4\u05e0\u05d5\u05e6\u05e8\u05d9\u05dd \u05e2\u05d5\u05d1\u05d3\u05d9 \u05e2\u05db\u05d5\u05f3\u05f3\u05dd \u05d4\u05dd \u05d5\u05e1\u05ea\u05dd \u05d9\u05d9\u05e0\u05dd \u05d0\u05e1\u05d5\u05e8 \u05d1\u05d4\u05e0\u05d0\u05d4\n\u05c3\n\n\u201cAs to those Gentiles who, like the Ishmaelites, are not idolaters,\ntheir wine is unlawful to drink, but is lawful for purposes of profit,\nas is taught by all the Gaons; but Christians are idolaters, and their\nwine, even such as has not been used as wine of libation, is unlawful\neven for purposes of profit.\u201d (Hilchoth Maakhaloth Asuroth, c. xi. 7.)\nThese words are very plain, and are confirmed by the practice of\nRabbinists in every part of the world, who abstain as carefully from the\nwine belonging to Christians, as their forefathers would have done from\nthe idolatrous libation of the Canaanites. Jews, therefore cannot be\nastonished if we examine with care a religion that brings against us so\ngrave an accusation, and endeavour to defend ourselves against the\ncharge. We might ask them, whether they behold in our churches any of\nthe emblems of idolatry. We might refer them to the ten commandments\nwritten up in the most holy place of our sacred edifices. We might quote\nfrom the New Testament many warnings against idolatry as plain and as\nsolemn as any to be found in the law of Moses; but there is a previous\nquestion to be considered, and that is, What is the character of that\nsystem, which witnesses against us? Is it worthy of credit\u2014can its\ntestimony be depended upon? If the oral law be really from God, and if\nits teachers should appear as faithful depositories of Divine truth,\ntheir testimony would have great weight. But if the rabbies be detected\nas daring corrupters of Divine revelation, and their religion be proved\nto be a perversion of the law of Moses, then this charge must fall to\nthe ground as unworthy of all credit; and this is what we assert. We\nhave already given many reasons in support of this assertion, and now\nadd some more which we find in the laws about \u05d9\u05d9\u05df \u05e0\u05e1\u05da, \u201cwine of\nlibation,\u201d which laws appear to us to be not only unwarranted additions,\nbut unmerciful, uncharitable, and irrational.\n\nWe do not mean to deny that it is utterly unlawful to partake of wine\nthat has been consecrated to idols; on the contrary, we would assert\nthis as zealously as any Israelite. Concerning things offered to idols,\nthe New Testament says, \u201cThe things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they\nsacrifice to devils, and not to God: and I would not that ye should have\nfellowship with devils. Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord, and the cup\nof devils.\u201d (1 Cor. x. 20, 21.) Let not therefore any Israelite think\nthat we wish to defend what is contrary both to the Old and New\nTestament. But though fully convinced of the unlawfulness of drinking\nwine or anything else consecrated to the service of idolatry, we confess\nthat we cannot see why it is unlawful to make use of wine not\nconsecrated to idolatry, simply because it belongs to, or has been\ntouched by, a Gentile; and yet this is the rabbinic law:\u2014\n\n\u05d9\u05d9\u05df \u05d4\u05d2\u05d5\u05d9\u05dd \u05e9\u05d0\u05d9\u05df \u05d0\u05e0\u05d5 \u05d9\u05d5\u05d3\u05e2\u05d9\u05dd \u05d0\u05dd \u05e0\u05ea\u05e0\u05e1\u05da \u05d0\u05d5 \u05dc\u05d0 \u05e0\u05ea\u05e0\u05e1\u05da \u05d5\u05d4\u05d5\u05d0 \u05d4\u05e0\u05e7\u05e8\u05d0 \u05e1\u05ea\u05dd \u05d9\u05d9\u05e0\u05dd \u05d0\u05e1\u05d5\u05e8\n\u05d1\u05d4\u05e0\u05d0\u05d4 \u05db\u05de\u05d5 \u05d9\u05d9\u05df \u05e9\u05e0\u05ea\u05e0\u05e1\u05da \u05d5\u05d3\u05d1\u05e8 \u05d6\u05d4 \u05de\u05d2\u05d6\u05d9\u05e8\u05ea \u05d4\u05e1\u05d5\u05e4\u05e8\u05d9\u05dd \u05d4\u05d5\u05d0 \u05d5\u05d4\u05e9\u05d5\u05ea\u05d4 \u05de\u05e1\u05ea\u05dd \u05d9\u05d9\u05e0\u05dd \u05e8\u05d1\u05d9\u05e2\u05d9\u05ea\n\u05de\u05db\u05d9\u05df \u05d0\u05d5\u05ea\u05d5 \u05de\u05db\u05ea \u05de\u05e8\u05d3\u05d5\u05ea , \u05d5\u05db\u05dc \u05d9\u05d9\u05df \u05e9\u05d9\u05d2\u05e2 \u05d1\u05d5 \u05d4\u05d2\u05d5\u05d9 \u05d4\u05e8\u05d9 \u05d6\u05d4 \u05d0\u05e1\u05d5\u05e8 \u05e9\u05de\u05d0 \u05e0\u05e1\u05da \u05d0\u05d5\u05ea\u05d5\n\u05e9\u05de\u05d7\u05e9\u05d1\u05ea \u05d4\u05d2\u05d5\u05d9 \u05dc\u05e2\u05db\u05d5\u05f3\u05f3\u05dd \u05d4\u05d0 \u05dc\u05de\u05d3\u05ea \u05e9\u05d9\u05d9\u05df \u05d9\u05e9\u05e8\u05d0\u05dc \u05e9\u05e0\u05d2\u05e2 \u05d1\u05d5 \u05d4\u05d2\u05d5\u05d9 \u05d3\u05d9\u05e0\u05d5 \u05db\u05e1\u05ea\u05dd \u05d9\u05d9\u05e0\u05dd \u05e9\u05d4\u05d5\u05d0\n\u05d0\u05e1\u05d5\u05e8 \u05d1\u05d4\u05e0\u05d0\u05d4 \u05c3\n\n\u201cWine belonging to Gentiles, of which we do not know whether it has been\nconsecrated or not, and what is called _common Gentile wine_, is\nunlawful even to make a profit of, just like wine that has been\nconsecrated; and this is by the decree of the scribes. Whosoever drinks\nso much as one quarter measure of this common Gentile wine is to be\nflogged with the flogging of rebellion. All wine also which a Gentile\ntouches is unlawful because he may have consecrated it, for the thought\nof a Gentile is to idolatry. Hence thou hast learned, that concerning\nwine belonging to an Israelite which a Gentile has touched, the law is\nthe same as in the case of common Gentile wine, which is unlawful even\nto make a profit of.\u201d (Ibid., 3, 4.) Now in this law we have first the\nunauthorized additions of the rabbies. We have already granted, that\nwine, and everything else, consecrated to the service of idols is\nunlawful, but with this the rabbies are not content. They forbid wine\nthat was made by, or ever in the possession of, a Gentile, or even if a\nGentile has touched it, and that not only to drink it, but to make any\nuse of it, or to sell it, or to be in any way employed about it, so as\nto make any profit by it.\n\n\u05d5\u05d4\u05d7\u05de\u05d9\u05e8\u05d5 \u05d7\u05db\u05de\u05d9\u05dd \u05d1\u05e1\u05ea\u05dd \u05d9\u05d9\u05e0\u05dd \u05dc\u05d4\u05d9\u05d5\u05ea \u05d3\u05de\u05d9\u05d5 \u05d0\u05e1\u05d5\u05e8\u05d9\u05df \u05db\u05d3\u05de\u05d9 \u05d9\u05d9\u05df \u05e9\u05e0\u05ea\u05e0\u05e1\u05da \u05dc\u05e2\u05db\u05d5\u05f3\u05f3\u05dd \u05dc\u05e4\u05d9\u05db\u05da\n\u05d2\u05d5\u05d9 \u05e9\u05e9\u05db\u05e8 \u05d0\u05ea \u05d9\u05e9\u05e8\u05d0\u05dc \u05dc\u05e2\u05e9\u05d5\u05ea \u05e2\u05de\u05d5 \u05d1\u05d9\u05d9\u05df \u05e9\u05db\u05e8\u05d5 \u05d0\u05e1\u05d5\u05e8 , \u05d5\u05db\u05df \u05d4\u05e9\u05d5\u05db\u05e8 \u05d0\u05ea \u05d4\u05d7\u05de\u05d5\u05e8 \u05dc\u05d4\u05d1\u05d9\u05d0\n\u05e2\u05dc\u05d9\u05d5 \u05d9\u05d9\u05df \u05d0\u05d5 \u05e9\u05e9\u05db\u05e8 \u05e1\u05e4\u05d9\u05e0\u05d4 \u05dc\u05d4\u05d1\u05d9\u05d0 \u05d1\u05d4 \u05d9\u05d9\u05df \u05e9\u05db\u05e8\u05df \u05d0\u05e1\u05d5\u05e8 , \u05d0\u05dd \u05de\u05e2\u05d5\u05ea \u05e0\u05ea\u05e0\u05d5 \u05dc\u05d5 \u05d9\u05e9\u05dc\u05d9\u05db\u05d5\u05df\n\u05dc\u05d9\u05dd \u05d4\u05de\u05dc\u05d7 , \u05d5\u05d0\u05dd \u05e0\u05ea\u05e0\u05d5 \u05dc\u05d5 \u05d1\u05e9\u05db\u05e8\u05d5 \u05db\u05e1\u05d5\u05ea \u05d0\u05d5 \u05db\u05dc\u05d9\u05dd \u05d0\u05d5 \u05e4\u05d9\u05e8\u05d5\u05ea \u05d1\u05d5 , \u05e9\u05db\u05e8 \u05dc\u05d2\u05d5\u05d9 \u05d7\u05de\u05d5\u05e8\n\u05dc\u05e8\u05db\u05d5\u05d1 \u05e2\u05dc\u05d9\u05d5 \u05d5\u05d4\u05e0\u05d9\u05d7 \u05e2\u05dc\u05d9\u05d5 \u05dc\u05d5\u05d2\u05d9\u05df \u05e9\u05dc \u05d9\u05d9\u05df \u05e9\u05db\u05e8\u05d5 \u05de\u05d5\u05ea\u05e8 \u05c3\n\n\u201cThe wise men have been very strict with respect to the common Gentile\nwine, and have pronounced its price to be unlawful, as that of wine\nwhich has been consecrated to idolatry; therefore, if a Gentile have an\nIsraelite to labour with him, in any thing concerning wine, his wages\nare unlawful. In like manner, if he hire an ass, or a ship, to carry\nwine, the hire thereof is unlawful: and if it be given to him in money,\nhe is to throw it into the salt sea. But if the hire be given him in\nclothes, or vessels, or fruits, he is to burn them, and to bury their\nashes, that no profit may arise therefrom. But if an Israelite has hired\nan ass to a Gentile to ride upon, and he lays upon it bottles of wine,\nthen the hire thereof is lawful.\u201d (Ibid., c. xiii. 15, &c.) For all this\nthere is no authority whatever in the law of Moses,\u2014it is a pure\ninvention of the rabbies, who had but little respect for the Divine law,\nand no consideration at all for the necessities of man. It is evident\nthat these additions must, in many cases, become so many impediments in\nthe way of earning a subsistence. The proprietor of a ship, or the owner\nof cattle, is cut off from one source of employment and profit. Now,\neven in the case of the rich, though they may feel it less, this is an\nunjustifiable severity; but in the case of the poor, it becomes a most\ncruel oppression. In the wine-countries, for example, a poor Jew might\nperchance find employment with some of the growers of that article; but\nthe rabbies have declared that honest industry, in a matter which God\nhas nowhere forbidden, is unlawful, and the fruits of it so abominable,\nas to be fit only for destruction. In this city, also, many examples of\nthe absurdity and cruelty of this law might be found. Suppose that a\nChristian wine-merchant should wish to employ some one or more of those\nnumerous Israelites, who are destitute of the means of earning a\nlivelihood, and should therefore offer him a situation, either in his\ncellar or his counting-house, the rabbies say that he dare not accept of\nit: and that it is more pleasing in the sight of God that the man should\ngo about idle, and that his family should starve, than that he should\nlabour honestly, and do what God has permitted. Who is there, except the\nrabbies themselves, who does not see that such a decision is irrational,\noppressive, and unmerciful, not now to speak of its injustice to\nChristian nations, by classing them with the idolaters of Canaan? But\ntake another case, suppose that some Christian, finding a Jewish family\nin deep distress, some of the members perhaps recovering from sickness,\nto whom a little wine might be beneficial, gives them a bottle of wine,\nWhat are they to do with it? May they make use of it to strengthen their\nexhausted frames? The rabbies answer, No. May they sell it, and with the\nmoney purchase food, or some other necessary of life? The rabbies\nanswer, No. What then are they to do with it? The rabbies answer,\nDestroy it; destroy what would recruit your fainting bodies\u2014what would\npurchase bread for your starving children\u2014destroy what might perhaps\nsave your life, simply because we have forbidden it; and it is more\nimportant that our unauthorized laws should be preserved inviolate, than\nthat you should be comforted or strengthened or relieved in your misery.\nThis is the mercy of Judaism. But we have not done yet. Suppose that the\nmother of the family should begin to reason, and say, This wine would\npreserve my poor child\u2019s life; a little of it would strengthen me, and\nenable me to tend the sick bed with more alacrity; God has nowhere\nforbidden it. She accordingly administers to her child, and partakes\nherself, when some rabbinic zealot enters and perceives what she has\ndone. Now suppose that the ministers of the oral law had the liberty to\nfollow out all its enactments, what would be the consequence? The poor\nwoman would be summoned before a \u05d1\u05d9\u05ea \u05d3\u05d9\u05df, a tribunal; the oral law would\nbe opened, and her sentence be, The flogging of rebellion, as we have\ncited above. Is this merciful, is it just, is it rational? Is there\nanything like it in the New Testament, or in the religion of Jesus of\nNazareth? The oral law says that we are idolaters, but is it worthy of\ncredit? Can any reasonable man place confidence in the teaching of those\nwho are so senseless as to forbid a perishing fellow-creature to make\nuse of proffered relief, and so merciless as to flog him with the\nflogging of rebellion, if he regards God\u2019s permission more than their\nprohibition? But it is not only absurdity and cruelty, which here are to\nbe noticed, there is also a certain measure of that cleverness which we\nhave remarked on former occasions, which provides for the transgression\nof the law and the retaining of the merit of keeping it. The above\nextract says, \u201cIf an Israelite has hired an ass to a Gentile to ride\nupon, and he lays upon it bottles of wine, then the hire thereof is\nlawful;\u201d and on this principle the owner of a ship or a wagon may let\neither generally for the transport of merchandize, and provided the word\n_wine_ is not mentioned, the Gentile may transport his wine, and the Jew\nlawfully receive and use his money, though if the word _wine_ had been\nmentioned, the money would have been so unlawful, that it ought not even\nbe given to relieve the wants of the poor, but thrown into the salt sea.\nHere the rabbies betray their own insincerity, and their unbelief in\ntheir own enactments, by their determination to evade their severity,\nwhenever it interfered with their own interests. But even if there were\nno cruelty, no contempt for the law of God, and no evasion, the effect\nof multiplying such observances is to lead away the mind from the\nweightier matters of religion. The ignorant think, even whilst they are\nviolating the ten commandments, that, if they abstain from Gentile wine,\nthey are fulfilling a most meritorious duty, and making compensation for\ntheir other transgressions. Indeed the rabbies themselves are not free\nfrom this effect, if we may judge by the following passage:\u2014\n\n\u05d6\u05d5\u05e0\u05d4 \u05d2\u05d5\u05d9\u05d4 \u05d1\u05de\u05e1\u05d9\u05d1\u05d4 \u05e9\u05dc \u05d9\u05e9\u05e8\u05d0\u05dc \u05d4\u05d9\u05d9\u05df \u05de\u05d5\u05ea\u05e8 \u05de\u05e4\u05e0\u05d9 \u05e9\u05d0\u05d9\u05de\u05ea\u05d4 \u05e2\u05dc\u05d9\u05d4 \u05d5\u05dc\u05d0 \u05ea\u05d2\u05e2 \u05d0\u05d1\u05dc \u05d6\u05d5\u05e0\u05d4\n\u05d9\u05e9\u05e8\u05d0\u05dc\u05d9\u05ea \u05d1\u05de\u05e1\u05d9\u05d1\u05ea \u05d2\u05d5\u05d9\u05dd \u05d9\u05d9\u05e0\u05d4 \u05e9\u05dc\u05e4\u05e0\u05d9\u05d4 \u05d1\u05db\u05dc\u05d9\u05d4 \u05d0\u05e1\u05d5\u05e8 \u05de\u05e4\u05e0\u05d9 \u05e9\u05d4\u05dd \u05e0\u05d5\u05d2\u05e2\u05d9\u05df \u05e9\u05dc\u05d0 \u05de\u05d3\u05e2\u05ea\u05d4 \u05c3\n\n\u201cIf a Gentile harlot be at an entertainment of Israelites, the wine is\nlawful, for their fear is upon her, so that she would not touch it. But\nif an Israelite harlot be at an entertainment of Gentiles, her wine that\nis before her in her own vessel is unlawful, because they may touch it\nwithout her knowledge.\u201d (Ibid., c. xii. 26.) Now if men or women are so\nwicked as to be found in such circumstances, in the open disregard of\nGod\u2019s law, is it not deceiving them to tell them, or to lead them to\nsuppose, that there can be any merit in any mere ceremonial observance,\neven though it should have been ordained by God himself: and is it not\nstraining at a gnat and swallowing a camel, to forbid a poor perishing\nJew to taste wine touched by a Gentile, and to allow it to those who are\nfeasting with a harlot? Perhaps some one will reply that it is on\naccount of the idolatry of the Gentile; but we have seen in the first\nextract given in this paper, that if wine be touched even by a Gentile\nwho is not an idolater, it is unlawful for a Jew to drink it; so that to\nbe a Gentile at all is in the eyes of the rabbies a greater degradation\nand of more contaminating influence, than to be guilty of gross\nimmorality. Now we appeal to the good sense of every Israelite, whether\nthis is not to exalt vice, and to degrade humanity? God chose a people\nto himself, Israel is that people; we honour them as such: but, is that\nany reason why Israel should trample upon the ties of our common\nhumanity, and look upon the touch even of a Gentile who fears God, as so\ndefiling that it makes wine unfit for the use of a Jew? How are peace\nand charity ever to prevail between Jews and Gentiles, so long as this\nis looked upon as religion? Yea, and how is true religion and true fear\nof God ever to prevail amongst the mass of the Jewish community, so long\nas they are taught that Israelites guilty of immorality are more holy\nthan a Gentile who fears God, and that sin is not so dreadful as\nuncircumcision? The object of such commands was plainly to prevent all\nsocial and friendly intercourse between Jews and Gentiles under any\ncircumstances, and to build up an eternal wall of separation between\nthem. This is very different from that national and official distinction\ninstituted by God himself. The object of God\u2019s choice was not to put an\nend to the practice of love and charity between the Jews and all the\nother nations of the earth, but to cement the bonds of affection. He\nmade Israel the depository of his oracles, that they might communicate\nthe truth to other nations, and that thus the nations should feel\ngratitude for the benefit conferred, and the Israelites feel that\naffection for the nations, which a teacher naturally feels for those\nwho, by his instrumentality, have forsaken error and embraced the truth.\nThe oral law prevents the fulfilment of the Divine law, and cuts asunder\nalso these ties of amity and peace. It makes it impossible for Israel to\ncommunicate any blessing, and for the Gentiles to receive any blessing\nat their hands, and goes far towards throwing suspicion on the Divine\nlaw. If there were no other medium of communication, than the rabbies,\nbetween the Divine law and the world, the worship of Jupiter and Bacchus\nand all the other heathen deities would still prevail. How could the\nnations ever have been converted by those who taught them, in the first\nplace, that God is such a respecter of persons, as to think immorality\nin a Jew less contaminating than the mere external touch of a pious\nGentile? Reason revolts at such profane absurdity, and therefore if God\nhad had no better messengers and representatives of his truth, idolatry\nwould still continue. Some may reply, idolatry does still continue, such\nat least is the sentence of the oral law, and, though grieved that any\nshould be so blind as to bring such a charge against Christianity, we\nare by no means angry or offended at it. If the Jews still believe in\ntheir own religion, and therefore think that Christians are idolaters,\nit is their bounden duty to say so. But then we ask in reply, if\nChristianity be idolatry, how is it that its doctrine is more pure, more\nmerciful, more charitable, and more rational than that of the oral law?\nChristianity has no ceremonial laws to be observed by those who feast\ntogether with harlots\u2014Christianity nowhere sentences the poor to\nflogging, because they partake of what God allows\u2014Christianity nowhere\nrepresents God as an unjust and impartial judge, who looks not at moral\ngood and evil, but at a man\u2019s nation. Christianity teaches that true\nreligion is that of the heart\u2014that at the day of judgment mercilessness\nwill obtain no mercy, and that God is the God of the spirits of all\nflesh. Let then the lovers of the oral law account for this fact, that\nChristianity, which they call idolatry, teaches a doctrine that\nglorifies God and benefits all men; whilst Judaism, which they say is\nthe truth, teaches a doctrine dishonouring to God, oppressive to the\nJews, and degrading to all other nations. Some Jews will reply, that\nChristians are not idolaters; then we ask such persons how they can\npretend to profess Judaism, which has asserted the contrary for so many\ncenturies, and also acted upon this principle, prohibiting all\nintercourse, as much as Moses did in the land of Canaan? Either\nChristianity is idolatry, or Judaism is false; there is no alternative.\nEvery Jew, therefore, who asserts that Christians are not idolaters,\npronounces of Judaism that it is false. Let all such persons then deal\nhonestly, let them renounce what they do not believe; and let them\ndenounce to their brethren what they think it necessary to disavow\nbefore Christians. They are bound to do this, not only to renounce the\ninjustice with which the oral law treats Christians, but to take away\nthe cruel and oppressive yoke which bows down their brethren the Jews.\nIf Christianity be not idolatry, then all the laws concerning \u05d9\u05d9\u05df \u05e0\u05e1\u05da,\n\u201cwine of libation,\u201d are utterly out of place in this country. Then poor\nJews may accept of Christian bounty, and the offices of kindliness and\ncharity may be practised between Jew and Christian. Those Jews therefore\nwho profess to believe that Christians are not idolaters, are bound, by\ntheir obligations both to Jews and Christians, to protest against the\noral law, and publicly to disavow all belief in it. So long as they do\nnot make such a public disavowal, their professions of love and charity\nand respect for the religion of Christians must be looked upon as hollow\nand insincere. So long as they make such professions, contrary to the\noral law, and yet frequent the worship of the synagogue, which asserts\nthe divinity of the oral law, they must be regarded either as persons\nwho have motives for professing what they do not feel, or who want moral\ncourage to renounce what they disapprove. These remarks apply\nparticularly to those Israelites who have practically forsaken Judaism,\nwho associate with Christians, eat Gentile food, and drink Gentile wine,\nand some of whom perhaps even deal in it as an article of merchandize.\nSuch persons, though Israelites by nation, are not Jews by religion, at\nleast according to that sense in which the word Jew has been used both\nby Israel and Gentile nations for the last two thousand years. Such\npersons cannot pretend to be professors of the Jewish persuasion. Any\none who is in the habit of drinking Gentile wine has practically\nforsaken Judaism, just as much as if he had assumed the turban and\nprofessed himself a Mahometan. It becomes such persons especially to\nmake a stand against the oral law, and to declare publicly what their\nreligion is, and whether they have any fixed principles at all. They\ncannot be regarded as Christians, for they have not been baptized; they\ncannot, say that they are Jews, for they have forsaken Judaism; they\ncannot assert that they have the religion of Moses, for unless that\nreligion be found amongst Christians, it does not exist. There is no\nbody of religionists to be found in this country who profess themselves\nMosaists. In the synagogue the oral law is professed; in the Church\nChristianity is professed; but where is the place of worship frequented\nby those who have forsaken Judaism without embracing Christianity? Such\npersons appear in a light that is not at all advantageous to their\nprinciples. In private they profess to abhor the intolerance of the oral\nlaw, they violate its precepts, and yet on the occasion of the great\nJewish fasts and festivals they are to be seen in the synagogue joining\nin the worship, and observing the rites of the oral law. What then are\nwe to believe concerning such persons? Are they indifferentists, who\nhave no religion at all? or are they secret admirers of the oral law,\nwho, for worldly purposes, deny it when occasion suits, and conform to\nit when the conscience is uneasy? We are far from pronouncing them\neither one or the other, but simply propose these questions for their\nown consideration, remind them of the equivocal light in which they\nappear, and would give them advice similar to that of Elijah to their\nforefathers. If the oral law be true religion, profess and practise it.\nIf the oral law be erroneous, superstitious, and uncharitable, renounce\nit openly and honestly.\n\n\n\n\n                                No. LV.\n                         MOURNING FOR THE DEAD.\n\n\nModern Judaism, or the religion of the Jews, as it is professed by the\nmajority of the nation scattered through the world, confessedly consists\nof two parts. The first is composed of those laws which are \u05de\u05df \u05d4\u05ea\u05d5\u05e8\u05d4,\n_i.e._, which are either really found in the written law, or are\nsupposed to be based upon some passage of it. The second, of those laws\nwhich are \u05de\u05d3\u05d1\u05e8\u05d9 \u05d4\u05e1\u05d5\u05e4\u05e8\u05d9\u05dd \u201cof the words of the scribes,\u201d and which are,\ntherefore, mere human institutions. Concerning those that were given by\nGod, we readily grant that they can be changed or abrogated only by God\nhimself. But respecting the latter, both reason and Scripture concur in\nassuring us, that what human authority has ordained, a similar human\nauthority may also abrogate. We grant that so long as the Jewish polity\nremained, and the scribes were magistrates, their ordinances, so far as\nthey were not contrary to the Word of God, were binding upon the Jews:\nbut even then those ordinances were not immutable. They might have been\nrepealed by the scribes and magistrates who succeeded them. And even\nthen, whenever they stood in opposition to the Word of God, it was the\nbounden duty of the Jews to refuse obedience. For what reason, then do\nthe Jews of the present day still pay the same homage to the words of\nthe scribes that they do to the Word of God? The scribes are not now the\ncivil magistrates of the countries where the Jews reside; their words,\ntherefore, carry with them no authority whatever. The Jews are now in\ndifferent circumstances\u2014are subject to other magistrates and lawgivers.\nThe magisterial sanction, which the words of the scribes had before the\ndispersion, has long since been lost; but God nowhere commands the Jews\nin England to obey laws made by the civil magistrates of Palestine two\nthousand years ago. There is not a shadow of obligation remaining; and\ntherefore the Jews of the present day have a full right to examine into\ntheir tendency and effects, and if they should be found injurious or\nunsuitable to present circumstances, to reject them. If the words of the\nscribes be not obligatory by virtue of Divine authority, the only\nimaginable reason for observing them is the supposition that they are\nconducive to the welfare and happiness of Israel, but if it can be shown\nthat this supposition is false, then both reason and religion would\nsuggest the wisdom of rejecting them. We have already shown of several\nsuch laws that they are alike noxious to man and dishonouring to God,\nand think now to exhibit a similar result with regard to the _laws\nconcerning mourners for the dead_. Of many of these it is confessed that\nthey are not of God, but simply ordinances of the scribes: thus, of the\ncommand to mourn seven days, it is acknowledged, that it is not to be\nfound in the law:\u2014\n\n\u05d5\u05d0\u05d9\u05df \u05d0\u05d1\u05dc\u05d5\u05ea \u05de\u05df \u05d4\u05ea\u05d5\u05e8\u05d4 \u05d0\u05dc\u05d0 \u05d1\u05d9\u05d5\u05dd \u05e8\u05d0\u05e9\u05d5\u05df \u05d1\u05dc\u05d1\u05d3 \u05e9\u05d4\u05d5\u05d0 \u05d9\u05d5\u05dd \u05d4\u05de\u05d9\u05ea\u05d4 \u05d5\u05d9\u05d5\u05dd \u05d4\u05e7\u05d1\u05d5\u05e8\u05d4 \u05d0\u05d1\u05dc\n\u05e9\u05d0\u05e8 \u05d4\u05e9\u05d1\u05e2\u05d4 \u05d9\u05de\u05d9\u05dd \u05d0\u05d9\u05e0\u05d5 \u05d3\u05d9\u05df \u05ea\u05d5\u05e8\u05d4 \u05c3\n\n\u201cThe only mourning commanded in the law is that on the first day, which\nis the day of the death and of the burial. But that of the rest of the\nseven days is not an ordinance of the law.\u201d (Hilchoth Avel., c. i. 1.)\nAnd thus with regard to the various things from which the mourner is to\nabstain during those seven days, it is acknowledged expressly that the\ncommand is altogether an ordinance of the scribes:\u2014\n\n\u05d0\u05dc\u05d5 \u05d4\u05d3\u05d1\u05e8\u05d9\u05dd \u05e9\u05d4\u05d0\u05d1\u05dc \u05d0\u05e1\u05d5\u05e8 \u05d1\u05d4\u05df \u05d1\u05d9\u05d5\u05dd \u05d4\u05e8\u05d0\u05e9\u05d5\u05df \u05de\u05df \u05d4\u05ea\u05d5\u05e8\u05d4 \u05d5\u05d1\u05e9\u05d0\u05e8 \u05d9\u05de\u05d9\u05dd \u05de\u05d3\u05d1\u05e8\u05d9\u05d4\u05dd \u05d0\u05e1\u05d5\u05e8\n\u05dc\u05e1\u05e4\u05e8 \u05d5\u05dc\u05db\u05d1\u05e1 \u05d5\u05dc\u05e8\u05d7\u05d5\u05e5 \u05d5\u05dc\u05e1\u05d5\u05da \u05d5\u05dc\u05e9\u05de\u05e9 \u05de\u05d8\u05ea\u05d5 \u05d5\u05dc\u05e0\u05e2\u05d5\u05dc \u05d0\u05ea \u05d4\u05e1\u05e0\u05d3\u05dc \u05d5\u05dc\u05e2\u05e9\u05d5\u05ea \u05de\u05dc\u05d0\u05db\u05d4 \u05d5\u05dc\u05e7\u05e8\u05d5\u05ea\n\u05d1\u05d3\u05d1\u05e8\u05d9 \u05ea\u05d5\u05e8\u05d4 \u05d5\u05dc\u05d6\u05e7\u05d5\u05e3 \u05d0\u05ea \u05d4\u05de\u05d8\u05d4 \u05d5\u05dc\u05e4\u05e8\u05d5\u05e2 \u05d0\u05ea \u05e8\u05d0\u05e9\u05d5 \u05d5\u05dc\u05e9\u05d0\u05d5\u05dc \u05e9\u05dc\u05d5\u05dd \u05d4\u05db\u05dc \u05c3\n\n\u201cThese are the things which the mourner is prohibited from doing,\naccording to the law, on the first day, but according to the words of\nthe scribes on the remaining days\u2014shaving, washing the clothes, bathing,\nanointing, duty of marriage, putting on shoes, working, reading in the\nwords of the law, elevating the chair, uncovering the head, asking after\nthe peace of any one.\u201d (Ibid., c. v.) As therefore the rabbies\nthemselves do not pretend that abstinence from these things during those\ndays of mourning is required in the law; and it is further a matter of\nfact, that this abstinence is not inculcated by the laws of the land, it\nnaturally becomes a question, Why then do the Jews now observe these\nrites? Are they conducive to the happiness and welfare of Israel? We\nmight doubt respecting several of them, but one is so obviously\noppressive to the poor as to be almost beyond controversy; we mean the\nprohibition to work during the seven days\u2019 mourning. We do not mean to\ndeny, that when death enters a family, it is a providential call to\nhumiliation and serious reflection, and that therefore those who can\nshould withdraw for a while from their every-day occupation, and seek by\nprayer and penitence to have the affliction turned into a blessing. But\nto require of those who have not food for themselves or their families\nto embitter their cup of sorrow by adding the pangs of hunger, is to act\nthe part of an inconsiderate and merciless tyrant, and this is what the\noral law does. It says\u2014\n\n\u05db\u05dc \u05e9\u05dc\u05e9\u05d4 \u05d9\u05de\u05d9\u05dd \u05d4\u05e8\u05d0\u05e9\u05d5\u05e0\u05d9\u05dd \u05d0\u05e1\u05d5\u05e8 \u05d1\u05e2\u05e9\u05d9\u05d9\u05ea \u05de\u05dc\u05d0\u05db\u05d4 , \u05d0\u05e4\u05d9\u05dc\u05d5 \u05d4\u05d9\u05d4 \u05e2\u05e0\u05d9 \u05d4\u05de\u05ea\u05e4\u05e8\u05e0\u05e1 \u05de\u05df \u05d4\u05e6\u05d3\u05e7\u05d4\n, \u05de\u05db\u05d0\u05df \u05d5\u05d0\u05d9\u05dc\u05da \u05d0\u05dd \u05d4\u05d9\u05d4 \u05e2\u05e0\u05d9 \u05e2\u05d5\u05e9\u05d4 \u05d1\u05e6\u05e0\u05e2\u05d4 \u05d1\u05ea\u05d5\u05da \u05d1\u05d9\u05ea\u05d5 \u05c3\n\n\u201cAll the first three days it is unlawful to work, even though the man\nshould be so poor as to live on alms. But after that, if he be poor, he\nmay work privately in his own house.\u201d Thus, all those whose business\nlies out of doors, and who are obliged to wander about in order to get a\nlivelihood, are completely cut off from the possibility of supplying the\nwants of their family. The law was evidently made under very different\ncircumstances from those in which the Jewish people are now found. It\npresupposes that every one has got some trade or occupation whereby he\ncan earn his bread at home, but this is not the case at present. A large\nproportion of the people, in every part of the world, now get a living\nby frequenting the public resorts of men: to forbid these, then, from\ngoing forth to their work, is equivalent to forbidding them to eat\nduring seven days. Why then should Israel be bound by these laws, which\neven, according to the confession of the rabbies, have no Divine\nauthority, and are now only oppressive to the poor?\n\nBut it is not merely of inconsideration for the poor that the oral law\nis guilty: we have more than once remarked the proud contempt with which\nit treats the poor and the unlearned, and are sorry to find it even in\nthe laws concerning the last sad offices to humanity:\u2014\n\n\u05e2\u05d9\u05e8 \u05e9\u05d9\u05e9 \u05d1\u05d4 \u05e9\u05e0\u05d9 \u05de\u05ea\u05d9\u05dd \u05db\u05d0\u05d7\u05d3 \u05de\u05d5\u05e6\u05d9\u05d0\u05d9\u05df \u05d4\u05e8\u05d0\u05e9\u05d9\u05df \u05d5\u05d0\u05d7\u05e8 \u05db\u05da \u05de\u05d5\u05e6\u05d9\u05d0\u05d9\u05df \u05d4\u05e9\u05e0\u05d9 , \u05d7\u05db\u05dd\n\u05d5\u05ea\u05dc\u05de\u05d9\u05d3 \u05d7\u05db\u05dd \u05de\u05d5\u05e6\u05d9\u05d0\u05d9\u05df \u05d4\u05d7\u05db\u05dd , \u05ea\u05dc\u05de\u05d9\u05d3 \u05d7\u05db\u05dd \u05d5\u05e2\u05dd \u05d4\u05d0\u05e8\u05e5 \u05de\u05d5\u05e6\u05d9\u05d0\u05d9\u05df \u05ea\u05dc\u05de\u05d9\u05d3 \u05d7\u05db\u05dd \u05c3\n\n\u201cIf there be two persons dead in a city at once, he that died first, is\nfirst to be carried forth to burial, and then the second. But if one of\nthem be a wise man, and the other the disciple of a wise man, the wise\nman is to have the precedency. If one be the disciple of a wise man and\nthe other an unlearned one (amhaaretz), the disciple of the wise man is\nto be carried forth first.\u201d (Joreh Deah, 354.) We do not here object to\nthe practical result, but to the spirit of the law. God has ordained\ndifferent ranks and grades of society, and wills, therefore, that honour\nshould be given to whom honour is due, and the common course of the\nworld brings men and things to their level. But the doctors of the oral\nlaw were determined not to leave their posthumous honour to the natural\ncourse of events, but whilst they lived, took the matter into their own\nhands, and decreed that the honour paid them in life should also be\nrendered to their poor bodies after death; and that no plebeian or\nunlearned person should take precedency, even in the last sad memento of\nhuman frailty. After death there is but little difference between the\nlearned and the unlearned, and the real difference is made, not by their\nprevious learning or ignorance, but by their moral worth. An unlearned\nman may be, and often is, far more beloved by man, and far more pleasing\nin the sight of God, than the most learned, and therefore, when death\nhas destroyed the imaginary distinctions of time, if religion makes any\ndifference between the dead, it surely ought to make it according to\nthat estimate, which is eternal. But the religion of the oral law cannot\nforget worldly distinction, even in the solemn moment of death, and\ntherefore commands, that as the unlearned man, no matter what his moral\nworth may have been, has been despised in his life, he should still bear\nthe marks of dishonour even in his death and burial. But the homage\nwhich the oral law pays to wealth and mere worldly distinction, is still\nmore apparent in its commands respecting the measure of lamentation to\nbe dealt out to the deceased. It says, on this subject\u2014\n\n\u05d1\u05e0\u05d9 \u05e2\u05e9\u05d9\u05e8\u05d9\u05dd \u05db\u05d1\u05e0\u05d9 \u05d7\u05db\u05de\u05d9\u05dd , \u05d1\u05e0\u05d9 \u05d7\u05db\u05de\u05d9\u05dd \u05db\u05d1\u05e0\u05d9 \u05de\u05dc\u05db\u05d9\u05dd \u05dc\u05e2\u05e0\u05d9\u05df \u05e9\u05d1\u05d7 \u05de\u05e2\u05e9\u05d9\u05d4\u05dd \u05c3\n\n\u201cThe sons of the rich are to be regarded as the sons of the wise men;\nand the sons of the wise men as the sons of kings, with regard to\npraising their deeds.\u201d (Ibid., 344.) Here there is no concealment. The\nlearned makers of the oral law choose to have their children honoured\nwith the honours of royalty, and show that, however highly they might\nprize their learning, they had a due estimate of the value of wealth;\nand that however they might despise the unlearned, their contempt might\nbe moderated, if the object of it was only rich. In the world we are not\nastonished at the inordinate homage paid to wealth, but when the\nteachers of religion bow down before the golden idol, and assign to mere\nwealth an honour which they refuse to the piety and moral worth of the\npoor, we cannot help doubting the purity of their professed principles,\nand questioning the truth of their religious system. The main object of\nreligion should be to raise men above the delusive appearances of this\npresent world\u2014to teach men to look beyond the distinctions of rank, and\nwealth, and learning, to that eternal distinction which the righteous\nJudge will make according to man\u2019s deeds. And if there be one season\nmore than another where religion ought to disregard the principles and\ncustoms of the world, it is with respect to the hour of death and\nburial. But here the oral law still maintains its love for wealth and\nworldly distinction, and its haughty contempt for ignorance, poverty,\nand humbleness of station. If any additional proof is still necessary,\nit is found in the forms prescribed on the death of slaves:\u2014\n\n\u05d4\u05e2\u05d1\u05d3\u05d9\u05dd \u05d5\u05d4\u05e9\u05e4\u05d7\u05d5\u05ea \u05d0\u05d9\u05df \u05e2\u05d5\u05de\u05d3\u05d9\u05df \u05e2\u05dc\u05d9\u05d4\u05df \u05d1\u05e9\u05d5\u05e8\u05d4 \u05d5\u05d0\u05d9\u05df \u05d0\u05d5\u05de\u05e8\u05d9\u05dd \u05e2\u05dc\u05d9\u05d4\u05df \u05d1\u05e8\u05db\u05ea \u05d0\u05d1\u05dc\u05d9\u05dd \u05d5\u05dc\u05d0\n\u05ea\u05e0\u05d7\u05d5\u05de\u05d9 \u05d0\u05d1\u05dc\u05d9\u05dd \u05d0\u05dc\u05d0 \u05db\u05e9\u05dd \u05e9\u05d0\u05d5\u05de\u05e8\u05d9\u05df \u05dc\u05d0\u05d3\u05dd \u05d0\u05dc \u05e9\u05d5\u05e8\u05d5 \u05d5\u05d7\u05de\u05d5\u05e8\u05d5 \u05e9\u05de\u05ea \u05d4\u05de\u05e7\u05d5\u05dd \u05d9\u05de\u05dc\u05d0 \u05ea\u05e1\u05e8\u05d5\u05e0\u05da\n\u05db\u05da \u05d0\u05d5\u05de\u05e8 \u05e2\u05dc \u05e2\u05d1\u05d3\u05d5 \u05d5\u05e9\u05e4\u05d7\u05ea\u05d5 \u05e9\u05de\u05ea\u05d5 \u05c3\n\n\u201cIn the case of male and female slaves, the people are not to stand in a\nrow, nor to say the benediction of the mourners, nor the consolations of\nthe mourners; but, as one says, to a man whose ox or ass is dead, God\nreplace your loss, so one is to say, in the case of a male or female\nslave who has died.\u201d (Ibid., 377.) Volumes could not so clearly set\nforth the genius of Judaism, and the spirit of its authors, as this one\nshort law. It exhibits the founders of Judaism, not only as void of all\ntrue religious sentiment, but absolutely dead to all the natural\nfeelings of humanity. If mourners of any description require sympathy\nand respect, surely they are the mourning family of a slave, for,\nexcepting crime, there is not anything that can aggravate the bitterness\nof death more than slavery. Here religion should pour in its oil and\nwine, and as it alleviated the miseries of life, diminish from the pangs\nof death. At such an hour, religion should assert the liberty of the\nsoul, and remind the children of pride, that in the life after death the\ndistinction of master and slave is unknown; that there eternal and\nspiritual liberty awaits all the children of God, whatever their outward\ncondition here. At such an hour, religion should especially console the\nsurvivors with the hope, that there is another and better state of\nexistence, where the slave and the freeman are equally regarded, and\ndealt with according to one eternal rule of justice. But the religion of\nthe oral law, on the contrary, carries the degradation of slavery even\ndown to the grave, and helps it to survive the period of bondage. It\nordains that the usual religious rites should not be observed, and\nplaces the slave on the same level with the brute that perisheth. It\nprescribes no consolation for the slave\u2019s afflicted family, but ordains\nthat his master should receive the same words of comfort, as if he had\nlost an ox or ass. The death of the slave is looked upon as nothing; it\nis only for the slave-owner\u2019s loss that the oral law has any\nconsideration. The fact of his having been a human being, an inheritor\nof God\u2019s image, and an heir of everlasting life, is entirely overlooked\nby the rabbies. He was a slave, and they think, therefore, that as he\nwas treated like a beast whilst he lived, he may be buried like a beast\nnow that he is dead. If these slaves had been Gentiles, it would not\nhave been surprising that the oral law should treat them with such\nlittle ceremony. But we must remember that all such slaves were\ncompelled to become proselytes to Judaism. They were, therefore,\nco-religionists with their masters; but even this could not procure them\nthe respect due to human beings. Because the providence of God had made\nthem slaves, the oral law endeavoured to turn them into beasts. We are\nsure that many Jews of the present day will revolt with horror from such\na doctrine; and acknowledge that it is a libel upon religion. They will\nbe ready to confess, that the poor slave is a fellow-creature, and an\nexpectant of life eternal; but let such persons stop to consider whence\nthey have derived these sentiments, so much more just, more merciful,\nand more worthy of religion, than those expressed in the oral law. That\nthey have not derived them from Judaism is clear. May they not, then, be\nindebted for them to the influence and atmosphere of Christianity in\nwhich they live? Certain it is, that the New Testament contains very\ndifferent principles, respecting the treatment of slaves, from those\nwhich we have discovered in the oral law. But, further, would it not be\nwell for those who disapprove these rabbinic principles, to ask\nthemselves why they profess the rabbinic religion? If it be true that a\nslave is something better than an ox or an ass, Judaism, which classes\nthem altogether, must be false: and the men who made such laws, must be\nconfessed to be very unfit teachers of religion. Nay more, Judaism must\nbe acknowledged as a religion most unfit to promote the happiness of the\nhuman race. If Judaism should prevail again, and, as its advocates\nexpect, prevail universally, slavery would also prevail in the same\ndegree: slaves would again be compelled to become proselytes, and again\nbe treated as beasts. Such is the great consummation, the regeneration\nthat Judaism promises the world. We therefore ask every Jewish reader,\nWhether he can pray for such a state of things, and whether he wishes to\nbe thus enabled to degrade and trample upon his fellow-sinners? If he\ndoes not, there must be something wrong in the religious system which he\nprofesses\u2014and if he only detects this one error, or acknowledges only\nthis one falsehood respecting the classification of slaves with oxen and\nasses, it is sufficient to shake the whole rabbinic fabric: and if he\nhas any concern for the honour of the Jewish nation, he will endeavour\nto deliver them from such a foul imputation upon their mercy and their\nhumanity.\n\nBut there is one point more in these laws respecting mourners, which it\nis necessary to notice. The oral law forbids the mourner, as we have\nseen above, to read in the words of the law for seven days:\u2014\n\n\u05d0\u05d1\u05dc \u05d0\u05e1\u05d5\u05e8 \u05dc\u05e7\u05e8\u05d5\u05ea \u05d1\u05ea\u05d5\u05e8\u05d4 \u05d5\u05e0\u05d1\u05d9\u05d0\u05d9\u05dd \u05d5\u05db\u05ea\u05d5\u05d1\u05d9\u05dd , \u05d5\u05d0\u05e1\u05d5\u05e8 \u05dc\u05e9\u05e0\u05d5\u05ea \u05d1\u05de\u05e9\u05e0\u05d4 \u05ea\u05dc\u05de\u05d5\u05d3 \u05d4\u05dc\u05db\u05d5\u05ea\n\u05d5\u05d0\u05d2\u05d3\u05d5\u05ea \u05c3\n\n\u201cThe mourner is forbidden to read in the law, the prophets, and the\nHagiographa: it is also forbidden to study in the Mishna, Talmud,\nConstitutions, and Agadoth.\u201d That a mourner would have no great loss in\nnot being allowed to study in the oral law, we can readily believe; but\nwhy should he be prohibited from going to the great fountain of\nconsolation\u2014the revealed Word of God? If there be one season of life\nmore fit than another for studying the Word of God, surely it is when\ndeath has entered a family, and reminded all its inmates that the wages\nof sin is death. If a husband or wife be left to mourn over the\nbereavement of a beloved partner, what consolation can be equal to that\nwhich they find in God\u2019s promise of a world where there is neither\nsorrow nor death, and where those who meet shall never part again? If\nchildren be left to mourn over the removal of their parents, whither\nshould they flee for consolation rather than to that Word which tells\nthem of him who is the father of the fatherless? Every reasonable person\nwill think also that, when the heart is softened by the paternal\nchastisement, then is a peculiarly appropriate season for learning his\nprecepts and taking heed to his exhortations\u2014and yet the oral law, with\na sort of most perverse ingenuity, has just selected that period of\nhuman life, in which the consolations of God\u2019s Word are most necessary\nand its instruction likely to be of most use, to forbid the reading of\nit altogether. And here, the rabbies have not scrupled to set aside the\nplain command of God. God says of his law, \u201cThou shalt meditate therein\nday and night and makes no exception for the seven days of mourning for\nthe dead.\u201d In describing the character of the righteous he says, \u201cHis\ndelight is in the law of the Lord, and in his law doth he meditate day\nand night and pronounces a blessing upon such a character.\u201d But the\nrabbies, in contempt both of the command and of the promised blessing,\nforbid the already afflicted mourner to obey the command and to seek the\nblessing. Even when the scribes and rabbies were in the plenitude of\ntheir power as civil magistrates in the land of Israel, obedience to\nsuch a command would have been unlawful, as implying disobedience to the\ncommand of God. The law of God and the law of man are here plainly in\ncollision; the former commanding Israel to study in his law day and\nnight; the latter prohibiting all study for the seven days of the\nmourning; but whenever these two authorities are opposed, no rational\nbeing can doubt that it is Israel\u2019s duty to obey God rather than man.\nBut, in the present day, when the oral law is not the law of the land,\nwhen, therefore, the ordinances of the scribes have no authority\nwhatever, it is impossible to conceive why Israel should obey this\nprohibition, unless they wish, by some public act, to exhibit their\ndetermination to transgress the laws or God. Every one who abstains from\nthe study of God\u2019s Word for seven days, plainly disobeys the Divine\ncommand as given by Moses and the prophets; how then can the Jews of the\npresent day deceive themselves by supposing that they have the religion\nof Moses? The main difference between Heathenism and the religion of\nMoses is, that the latter gives a revelation of God\u2019s will to guide us\nin difficulty and to comfort us in affliction. The main difference\nbetween a Heathen and a Jewish mourner ought to be, that the Jew flees\nfor consolation to God and his Word, whilst the Heathen indulges in\nsorrow as those that have no hope. The oral law, however, breaks down\nwith this distinction, and reduces the Jew to the level of the Heathen,\nby robbing him in his hour of need of God\u2019s promises, and commanding him\nto abstain for seven days from all study of God\u2019s Word. These laws\nrespecting mourning, then, as being oppressive to the poor, insulting to\nthe unlearned, degrading to humanity, and contrary to the express\nprecepts of the Divine law, have no intrinsic merit to commend them to\nIsrael, and no claim upon their obedience.\n\n\n\n\n                                No. LVI.\n                       DISPENSATION FROM AN OATH.\n\n\nA religion which is plainly contrary to any of the Divine attributes,\nmust necessarily be false. For instance, God is a holy God: a religion,\ntherefore, which would promote unholiness could not have the Holy One of\nIsrael for its author. God is also a merciful and a just God: a\nreligion, therefore, which is characterized by cruelty or injustice,\ncannot proceed from him; and for this reason, amongst others, we believe\nthat the religion of the oral law cannot be that true religion which God\ngave to Moses and the prophets. The oral law is most unjust in its laws\nrespecting Gentiles, slaves, and unlearned men, and most unmerciful in\nvery many of its enactments. But if there be one attribute more than\nanother, which is distinctive of the true God, it is truth. In the\nprophecies of Jeremiah, He is even identified with truth, as it is\nsaid:\u2014\n\n\u05d5\u05d4\u05f3 \u05d0\u05dc\u05d4\u05d9\u05dd \u05d0\u05de\u05ea \u05c3\n\n\u201cThe Lord God is Truth.\u201d (Jer. x. 10.) And in that prediction, which he\nput into the mouth of Balaam, he says, that it is by this attribute that\nhe is distinguished from the sons of men. \u201cGod is not a man that he\nshould lie; neither the son of man that he should repent: hath he said,\nand shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it\ngood?\u201d (Numbers xxiii. 19.) Men may be wicked enough to promise what\nthey do not intend to perform, or after promising, may change their\nmind, and refuse to fulfil their engagements; but God is too holy to\ndeceive wilfully, or to alter what has proceeded out of his mouth. A\nreligion, therefore, which in any wise tends to lessen our reverence for\ntruth, or encourages men to alter a solemn engagement, or, what is still\nworse, teaches how to absolve from oaths, cannot proceed from the God of\ntruth; and this is what the oral law does in certain cases. We do not\nmean to accuse it of teaching, as the religion of Rome does, that\ndispensation may be had from every kind of oath. On the contrary, the\nrabbies assume the power of dispensation only in the case of \u05e9\u05d1\u05d5\u05e2\u05d5\u05ea\n\u05d1\u05d8\u05d5\u05d9, \u201crash oaths;\u201d but we mean to assert, that even that assumption is\ncontrary to the Word of God, and injurious to the cause of truth; and,\ntherefore, sufficient to overthrow the credit of the oral law as a\nreligion given by God. The doctrine itself is as follows:\u2014\n\n\u05de\u05d9 \u05e9\u05e0\u05e9\u05d1\u05e2 \u05e9\u05d1\u05d5\u05e2\u05ea \u05d1\u05d8\u05d5\u05d9 \u05d5\u05e0\u05d7\u05dd \u05e2\u05dc \u05e9\u05d1\u05d5\u05e2\u05ea\u05d5 \u05d5\u05e8\u05d0\u05d4 \u05e9\u05d4\u05d5\u05d0 \u05de\u05e6\u05d8\u05e2\u05e8 \u05d0\u05dd \u05e7\u05d9\u05d9\u05dd \u05e9\u05d1\u05d5\u05e2\u05d4 \u05d6\u05d5\n\u05d5\u05e0\u05d4\u05e4\u05db\u05d4 \u05d3\u05e2\u05ea\u05d5 \u05dc\u05d3\u05e2\u05ea \u05d0\u05d7\u05e8\u05ea , \u05d0\u05d5 \u05e9\u05e0\u05d5\u05dc\u05d3 \u05dc\u05d5 \u05d3\u05d1\u05e8 \u05e9\u05dc\u05d0 \u05d4\u05d9\u05d4 \u05d1\u05d3\u05e2\u05ea\u05d5 \u05d1\u05e9\u05e2\u05ea \u05d4\u05e9\u05d1\u05d5\u05e2\u05d4 \u05d5\u05e0\u05d9\u05d7\u05dd\n\u05d1\u05d2\u05dc\u05dc\u05d5 \u05d4\u05e8\u05d9 \u05d6\u05d4 \u05e0\u05e9\u05d0\u05dc \u05dc\u05d4\u05db\u05dd \u05d0\u05d7\u05d3 \u05d0\u05d5 \u05dc\u05e9\u05dc\u05e9\u05d4 \u05d4\u05d3\u05d9\u05d5\u05d8\u05d5\u05ea \u05d1\u05de\u05e7\u05d9\u05dd \u05e9\u05d0\u05d9 \u05e9\u05dd \u05d7\u05db\u05dd \u05d5\u05de\u05ea\u05d9\u05e8\u05d9\u05df \u05dc\u05d5\n\u05e9\u05d1\u05d5\u05e2\u05ea\u05d5 , \u05d5\u05d9\u05d4\u05d9\u05d4 \u05de\u05d5\u05ea\u05e8 \u05dc\u05e2\u05e9\u05d5\u05ea \u05d3\u05d1\u05e8 \u05e9\u05e0\u05e9\u05d1\u05e2 \u05e9\u05dc\u05d0 \u05dc\u05e2\u05e9\u05d5\u05ea\u05d5 \u05d0\u05d5 \u05e9\u05dc\u05d0 \u05dc\u05e2\u05e9\u05d5\u05ea \u05d3\u05d1\u05e8 \u05e9\u05e0\u05e9\u05d1\u05e2\n\u05dc\u05e2\u05e9\u05d5\u05ea\u05d5 \u05d5\u05d6\u05d4 \u05d4\u05d5\u05d0 \u05d4\u05e0\u05e7\u05e8\u05d0 \u05d4\u05d9\u05ea\u05e8 \u05e9\u05d1\u05d5\u05e2\u05d5\u05ea , \u05d5\u05d3\u05d1\u05e8 \u05d6\u05d4 \u05d0\u05d9\u05df \u05dc\u05d5 \u05e2\u05d9\u05e7\u05e8 \u05db\u05dc\u05dc \u05d1\u05ea\u05d5\u05e8\u05d4 \u05e9\u05d1\u05db\u05ea\u05d1 ,\n\u05d0\u05dc\u05d0 \u05db\u05da \u05dc\u05de\u05d3\u05d5 \u05de\u05de\u05e9\u05d4 \u05e8\u05d1\u05d9\u05e0\u05d5 \u05de\u05e4\u05d9 \u05d4\u05e7\u05d1\u05dc\u05d4 \u05e9\u05d6\u05d4 \u05d4\u05db\u05ea\u05d5\u05d1 \u05dc\u05d0 \u05d9\u05d7\u05dc \u05d3\u05d1\u05e8\u05d5 \u05e9\u05dc\u05d0 \u05d9\u05d7\u05dc\u05dc \u05d4\u05d5\u05d0\n\u05d1\u05e2\u05e6\u05de\u05d5 \u05d3\u05e8\u05da \u05e7\u05dc\u05d5\u05ea \u05e8\u05d0\u05e9 \u05d1\u05e9\u05d0\u05d8 \u05e0\u05e4\u05e9 \u05db\u05e2\u05e0\u05d9\u05df \u05e9\u05e0\u05d0\u05de\u05e8 \u05d5\u05d7\u05dc\u05dc\u05ea \u05d0\u05ea \u05e9\u05dd \u05d0\u05dc\u05d4\u05d9\u05da \u05d0\u05d1\u05dc \u05d0\u05dd \u05e0\u05d7\u05dd\n\u05d5\u05d7\u05d6\u05e8 \u05d1\u05d5 \u05d7\u05db\u05dd \u05de\u05ea\u05d9\u05e8 \u05dc\u05d5 \u05c3\n\n\u201cIf any man swear a rash oath, and afterwards repent of it, because he\nsees that if he keep this oath it will cause him grief, and therefore\nchanges his mind; or if something should occur to him which was not in\nhis mind at the time when he swore, and he repent on that account;\nbehold, a person, in such circumstances, is to ask one wise man (rabbi),\nor three common men in any place where there is not a wise man, and they\nabsolve him from his oath; and then it will be lawful to do a thing\nwhich he had sworn not to do, or to leave undone a thing which he had\nsworn to do: and this is what is called absolution from oaths. _This\nmatter has no foundation whatever in the written law_, but it has been\nlearned from Moses, our master, by oral tradition, that the Scripture,\n\u2018He shall not profane his word,\u2019 (Numbers xxx. 3, in the English Bible\n2,) means, that a man shall not himself profane his word in a way of\nlevity and with a contemptuous mind, according as it is written,\n\u2018Neither shalt thou profane the name of thy God\u2019 (Levit. xix. 12); but\nif a man repent and change his mind, a wise man is to absolve him.\u201d\n(Hilchoth Sh\u2019vuoth, c. vi. 1, 2.) Here it is plainly taught, that if a\nman has reason to fear any personal inconvenience, or even if he changes\nhis mind, he may escape from the most solemn obligation that can be laid\nupon the consciences of men; and that, after appealing to God in\nconfirmation of his declaration to do or to leave undone some particular\naction, one or more of his fellow-sinners can remit his duty to his\nCreator, and give him a license to do the very contrary of that which he\nhad promised before and unto God, that he would do. Now let every\nIsraelite reader first consult his own reason, and reflect whether this\ndoctrine is agreeable to the character of God, as set forth in the\nScripture. The God of the Bible is a God of eternal and immutable truth.\nOne of his peculiar characteristics, that he keepeth covenant and mercy.\nA man, therefore, who breaks his word, and still more so, a man who\nbreaks an oath, is unlike God. Is it probable, then, that God would give\na religion with a special provision for making men unlike himself?\nAgain, God is a God of knowledge, and therefore knows that the children\nof men are in a great degree the children of habit; he knows also that\nby habit the evil propensities are strengthened, and that there is in\nmen a strong propensity to shrink from their word, if it cause any\ntrouble or damage: is it likely, then, that God would give a law\ndirectly tending to strengthen that evil propensity by forming a habit\nof breaking one\u2019s word, even under the solemn circumstances of an oath?\nReason decides that such a law cannot proceed from the God of Israel.\nHas it then any support in the written Word of God? It would be strange,\nindeed, if the Word of God should contain anything contrary to reason.\nAs revealing the nature of Him who is incomprehensible, it may contain\nthings above our reason: but that in giving laws for man it should give\nhim license to do what his reason tells him is directly opposed to the\ncharacter of God, is altogether incredible. The rabbies, themselves,\nhowever, do not endeavour to justify the doctrine by a reference to\nScripture. They say in plain terms, \u201c_This matter has no foundation\nwhatever in the written law_,\u201d and thus acknowledge that it is\naltogether a matter of tradition, the argument against it, therefore,\nbecomes doubly strong. Every one knows, that a story loses nothing by\npassing through many mouths, but that in the course of its progress it\ngets so many additions, and undergoes so many changes as at last to be\nscarcely recognisable. This circumstance makes all oral tradition\nuncertain and unsatisfactory, but is particularly suspicious when it\nappears, not only opposed to the Scripture character of God, but also\nfavourable to the evil propensities of man. If it had exacted a more\nscrupulous regard to truth and a willing submission to hardship and\ninconvenience for the sake of truth, then, as opposing the principles of\nself-interest, it would have been less suspicious; but when it actually\ntells men that to do what may save them from worldly trouble or personal\ndisadvantage is a Divine institution, one cannot help suspecting that it\nis an invention of men, who found it convenient occasionally to escape\nfrom the obligation of an oath. But after all, the great arbiter must be\nthe written Word of God. The rabbies say, That it has been learned from\nMoses by oral tradition, that the words, \u201cHe shall not profane his\nword,\u201d mean that a man shall not himself profane his word in a way of\nlevity, but that he shall go to a wise man and get absolution; let us\nthen read the whole verse from which those words are taken:\u2014\n\n\u05d0\u05d9\u05e9 \u05db\u05d9 \u05d9\u05d3\u05d5\u05e8 \u05e0\u05d3\u05e8 \u05dc\u05d4\u05f3 \u05d0\u05d5 \u05d4\u05e9\u05d1\u05e2 \u05e9\u05d1\u05d5\u05e2\u05d4 \u05dc\u05d0\u05e1\u05e8 \u05d0\u05e1\u05e8 \u05e2\u05dc \u05e0\u05e4\u05e9\u05d5 \u05dc\u05d0 \u05d9\u05d7\u05dc \u05d3\u05d1\u05e8\u05d5 \u05db\u05db\u05dc \u05d4\u05d9\u05d5\u05e6\u05d0\n\u05de\u05e4\u05d9\u05d5 \u05d9\u05e2\u05e9\u05d4 \u05c3\n\n\u201cIf a man vow a vow unto the Lord, or swear an oath to bind his soul\nwith a bond, he shall not break his word, he shall do according to all\nthat proceedeth out of his mouth.\u201d Now let any man of common sense and\nhonesty say, whether if it had been God\u2019s intention to forbid all\nabsolution from oaths, He could have employed words more to the purpose\nthan these; or whether the plain simple grammatical meaning is not\ndirectly opposed to the rabbinic doctrine? God says, If a man swear, he\nshall not profane his word. The rabbies say, he may profane his word. To\nprevent all mistake, God further adds, \u201cHe shall do according to all\nthat proceeds out of his mouth.\u201d The rabbies say, he need not do what\nproceeds out of his mouth; and yet they have the face to tell us, that\ntheir doctrine is from Moses, and is the traditional interpretation of\nwords which signify the very reverse of what they say. It is only\nwonderful that they should have referred to this verse at all, and the\nfact can only be accounted for by the supposition that this verse was\ntoo plain to be got over, and therefore they thought it best to take the\nbull by the horns, by selecting this very verse as the basis of their\ninterpretation. That this verse in its grammatical construction is\ndirectly opposed to the oral law no one can doubt, for it forbids what\nthe rabbies allow, and commands what the rabbies forbid. But the\nopposition is not found in this verse only. The other verse to which the\nrabbies also allude is equally plain against it. The words, \u201cYe shall\nnot swear by my name falsely, neither shalt thou profane the name of thy\nGod. I am the LORD,\u201d plainly forbid that absolution from oaths which the\nrabbies teach not only as lawful, but as of Divine authority. We know\nthat the rabbies make a distinction between \u05e9\u05d1\u05d5\u05e2\u05ea \u05e9\u05e7\u05e8 a false oath and a\n\u05e9\u05d1\u05d5\u05e2\u05ea \u05d1\u05d8\u05d5\u05d9 rash oath; but the distinction, as made by them is unfounded.\nA rash oath, according to their doctrine, is an oath concerning\nsomething which it is possible and lawful for a man to do or to leave\nundone; for as soon as it interferes with the fulfilment of a Divine\ncommand, it belongs to that class of oaths which they call \u05e9\u05d1\u05d5\u05e2\u05d5\u05ea \u05e9\u05d5\u05d0\nvain oaths. If, therefore, a man swears to do what is both lawful and\npossible for him to do, and afterwards draws back and does it not, what\nman in his senses can doubt, that that individual, no matter what the\npretext for not keeping the oath, is guilty of having sworn falsely?\nWhat is it to swear falsely, if voluntarily to refuse to do what a man\nhad previously sworn to do, constitute not that sin? A sinful falsehood\nis a wilful departure from truth; here there is that wilful departure:\nwho, then, will dare to affirm, that such conduct is not contrary to the\nexpress command of God? Rabbinists sometimes say, that though the oral\nlaw sometimes commands more than is commanded in the Scriptures, it\nnever allows what God has forbidden; but here we have a plain example of\nthe contrary. Here the oral law allows false swearing, which God has\npositively forbidden. The doctrine of absolution from oaths teaches men\nto transgress three \u05de\u05d8\u05d5\u05ea \u05dc\u05d0 \u05ea\u05e2\u05e9\u05d4 negative precepts. The man who swears\nto do anything and then does it not, because he has got absolution,\nviolates, first, the negative precept, \u201cHe shall not profane his word;\u201d\nhe violates, secondly, the negative precept, \u201cYe shall not swear by my\nname falsely;\u201d and, lastly, he violates a negative precept more\nimportant than either of the others; and that is, \u201cNeither shalt thou\nprofane the name of thy God.\u201d Any man, pretending to religion, who\nshould act upon these principles, first swear and then obtain absolution\nfrom his oath, would expose his religion to the contempt and indignation\nof all honest men, and thereby do all that in him lies to profane the\nname of his God. Let, then, every Israelite who thinks that the negative\nprecepts are more important than the affirmative, remember, that in this\none instance the oral law teaches him to violate three such precepts;\nand let him reflect further, that the upholding such a law as this is to\nprofane the name of the God of Israel before those who are ignorant of\nthe Scripture.\n\nBut the rabbinical doctrine does not stop at prospective absolution, it\ngoes so far as to absolve from the guilt of perjury actually committed:\u2014\n\n\u05de\u05d9 \u05e9\u05e0\u05e9\u05d1\u05e2 \u05e9\u05d1\u05d5\u05e2\u05ea \u05d1\u05d8\u05d5\u05d9 \u05dc\u05d4\u05d1\u05d0 \u05d5\u05e9\u05e7\u05e8 \u05d1\u05e9\u05d1\u05d5\u05e2\u05ea\u05d5 , \u05db\u05d2\u05d5\u05df \u05e9\u05e0\u05e9\u05d1\u05e2 \u05e9\u05dc\u05d0 \u05d9\u05d0\u05db\u05dc \u05e4\u05ea \u05d6\u05d5 \u05d5\u05d0\u05db\u05dc\u05d4\n, \u05d5\u05d0\u05d7\u05e8 \u05e9\u05d0\u05db\u05dc\u05d4 \u05e7\u05d5\u05d3\u05dd \u05e9\u05d9\u05d1\u05d9\u05d0 \u05e7\u05e8\u05d1\u05e0\u05d5 \u05d0\u05dd \u05d4\u05d9\u05d4 \u05e9\u05d5\u05d2\u05d2 , \u05d0\u05d5 \u05e7\u05d5\u05d3\u05dd \u05e9\u05d9\u05dc\u05e7\u05d4 \u05d0\u05dd \u05d4\u05d9\u05d4 \u05de\u05d6\u05d9\u05d3 ,\n\u05e0\u05d7\u05dd \u05d5\u05e0\u05e9\u05d0\u05dc \u05dc\u05d7\u05db\u05dd \u05d5\u05d4\u05ea\u05d9\u05e8\u05d4 \u05dc\u05d5 \u05d4\u05e8\u05d9 \u05d6\u05d4 \u05e4\u05d8\u05d5\u05e8 \u05de\u05df \u05d4\u05e7\u05e8\u05d1\u05df \u05d0\u05d5 \u05de\u05df \u05d4\u05de\u05dc\u05e7\u05d5\u05ea , \u05d5\u05dc\u05d0 \u05e2\u05d5\u05d3 \u05d0\u05dc\u05d0\n\u05d0\u05e4\u05d9\u05dc\u05d5 \u05db\u05e4\u05ea\u05d5\u05d4\u05d5 \u05dc\u05dc\u05e7\u05d5\u05ea \u05d5\u05e0\u05e9\u05d0\u05dc \u05d5\u05d4\u05ea\u05d9\u05e8\u05d5 \u05dc\u05d5 \u05e7\u05d5\u05d3\u05dd \u05e9\u05d9\u05ea\u05d7\u05d9\u05dc\u05d5 \u05dc\u05d4\u05dc\u05e7\u05d5\u05ea\u05d5 \u05d4\u05e8\u05d9 \u05d6\u05d4 \u05e4\u05d2\u05d5\u05e8 \u05c3\n\n\u201cIf a man swear a rash oath concerning the future, but lies in that\nwhich he has sworn, as, if he should swear not to eat this bread, and\nafterwards should eat it; and if, after he has eaten it, before he\nbrings his sacrifice, in case he did it ignorantly, or before he is\nflogged, in case he did it presumptuously\u2014he repent and ask a wise man,\nand he absolve him, behold such an one is exempt from the sacrifice or\nfrom the flogging: and not only so, but if they had actually bound him\nin order to flog him, and he ask a wise man, and he absolve him before\nthe flogging has commenced, he is exempt.\u201d (Ibid. 18.) In this rabbinic\ndecision there are two cases, and both contrary to the Word of God.\nFirst, we have the case of the man who has broken his oath ignorantly,\nand respecting whom God has decided in the following words: \u201cIf a soul\nswear, pronouncing with his lips to do evil, or to do good, whatsoever\nit be that a man shall pronounce with an oath, and it be hid from him;\nwhen he knoweth of it, then he shall be guilty in one of these. And it\nshall be, when he shall be guilty in one of these things, that he shall\nconfess that he hath sinned in that thing: and he shall bring his\ntrespass-offering unto the Lord for his sin which he hath sinned,\u201d &c.\n(Levit. v. 4, &c.) Here God positively commands, first, that he should\nconfess his sin, and secondly, that he should bring a sacrifice in order\nto obtain forgiveness; and, by the above law, the rabbies as positively\ndeclare that obedience to these commands is superfluous. A man need only\nsay that he has changed his mind, and get a rabbi to absolve him, and\nthen he can set the Word of God at defiance, he need neither confess his\nsin, nor bring the sacrifice. How can the men who profess such a\nreligion pretend to have any regard for the law of Moses, or how can\nthey with any consistency reproach Christians with the non-observance of\nthe ceremonial precepts, when they themselves profess religious\nprinciples which unceremoniously subvert such plain commands? The second\ncase is, however, far more flagrant. It supposes a man to have sworn\nthat he would not do a certain thing, but afterwards wilfully to have\ndone it\u2014that is, it supposes a man to have been guilty of wilful\nperjury, and yet declares that he may be delivered both from the guilt\nand the punishment, by going to a rabbi and getting absolution. This\noral law, which would flog a poor starving creature for eating Gentile\nfood, or meat and milk together, devises an expedient for delivering him\nwho is guilty of the grave crime of perjury\u2014that is, though cruel to the\npoor, it is merciful to the criminal. If this be not to violate the laws\nof God with a high hand, then we know not what sin is. Here both classes\nof the precepts, negative and affirmative, are treated with the same\ncontempt; both equally trampled under foot. The guilty are absolved, not\nonly from doing what God commands, but from the penalty of actual\ntransgression. The rabbies presume not only to absolve a man from doing\nwhat he has sworn to do, but also to turn perjury actually committed\ninto innocence. They have assumed the high prerogative of God, have\nabrogated his laws, and taught the guilty to set his threatenings at\ndefiance. We verily believe that the mass of the Jewish people have been\nignorant of this gross contempt for the Mosaic law, or they could never\nhave continued so long in such a system, nor so long have suffered the\nname of God to be profaned by the attempt to pass off such a religion as\nproceeding from Him. Now, then, we call on every reader of this paper to\ndecide whether the oral law can really be from God? Has this doctrine of\nabsolution from oaths anything resembling the character of the Divine\nBeing as a God of truth? Is it possible that God should give an oral law\ndirectly subversive of that which he has given in writing; or will any\none dare to say that the Almighty, when he wished to give a law\npermitting absolution from oaths, knew so little of the Hebrew language\nas to enunciate it in words which directly forbid it? Let no one\nmisunderstand us, as if we applied the passages quoted from the oral law\ngenerally to the case of all oaths, or as if we attributed this doctrine\nof the oral law to all Israel. We do neither the one nor the other; in a\nfuture number we hope to consider the case of an oath between man and\nman, and at present our only intention is to show that the oral law is\ndishonouring to God, subversive of the commands given by Moses, and\ninjurious to the best interests of the Jewish people; nay, that it is\nactually a libel on the children of Abraham; and that, therefore, if\nthey have any love to God, any reverence for Moses, and any respect for\nthemselves and their brethren, they are bound publicly to renounce the\nprinciples which it inculcates, and by which they have been deluded for\nso many centuries. It is possible to do one of two things\u2014either to\napprove the doctrine of absolution from oaths, or to disapprove of it.\nThose who approve of it will, of course, endeavour to uphold it, and\nwill thereby continue the profanation of God\u2019s name; and, so far as they\ncan, stamp dishonour upon the religion of Israel. Those, who disapprove\nthe idea of a rabbi\u2019s absolving from a solemn oath, and think that oaths\nare not to be tampered with, are bound not only to protest against this\nparticular abuse, but to reject the whole oral law. The rabbies declare\nthat this doctrine is not an ordinance of the scribes, but an oral\ntradition from Moses; if then it be false, the rabbies are again\nconvicted of passing off an invention of their own as an ordinance of\nGod, and are therefore wholly unworthy of credit. The oral law depends\naltogether upon the validity of the testimony, and if the witnesses can\nbe proved, in any one instance, to have spoken falsehood, the credit of\nthe whole is destroyed. Now this is eminently the case, for not only\nhave they said what is false, but have endeavoured to establish a\nprinciple subversive of all reverence for truth. It would be difficult\nfor any man, who was known as one in the habit of getting dispensation\nfrom oaths, to find belief or credit in the world, and he would scarcely\nbe admitted as a valid witness in a court of justice; but the man who\npropounds dispensation from oaths as a religious doctrine, and teaches\nit systematically as agreeable to the will of God, is a more suspicious\nperson still, and such are the authors of the oral law. The former might\nbe regarded as a deluded person, who only broke his oaths when he got\ndispensation, but the latter would be considered an artful underminer of\nprinciple, and a wilful despiser of truth; his testimony would,\ntherefore, have no weight. Now, it is upon the testimony of such persons\nthat the authority of the oral law entirely depends. It is confessed,\nthat until the Mishna and Gemara were compiled, there was no written\nrecord of its contents, but that it was propagated from mouth to mouth.\nIf, therefore, it appear that those who transmitted it were men whose\nlove for truth was equivocal, we cannot be sure that they did not\ntransmit a forgery. The doctrine, which we have just considered, shows\nthat they did not love truth, and that they have actually libelled the\nmemory of Moses, the servant of God, by asserting that he taught them\nhow to get absolution from oaths. It is for the Jews to consider whether\nthey will still be deluded by such incompetent witnesses, and still,\neven silently, uphold a doctrine so dishonouring to their religion.\n\n\n\n\n                               No. LVII.\n                     DOCTRINE OF OATHS, CONTINUED.\n\n\nEvery one naturally thinks that his own religion is the true one. The\nMussulman thinks thus of Mahometanism, the Christian of Christianity,\nand the Jew of Judaism, and yet it is plain that they cannot all be\nright\u2014two out of the three must necessarily be in error. What then is to\nbe done? Are they all to go on in listless and lazy indifference, and\nleave it to another world to find out whether or not they have been in\nthe right, or are we to lay it down as a maxim that every one is to\ncontinue in that religion in which he was born, whether right or wrong,\nand that therefore the Turk is to remain a Mahometan, and the Hindoo an\nidolater, to his life\u2019s end? There are very many in the world who seem\nto think so, and who adhere to a religion simply because it was the\nreligion of their forefathers. Now we grant that no man should\ncarelessly or lightly abandon the religion of his childhood, and have no\nscruple in saying that he who changes his religion as he would his\nclothes must be a fool, or something worse. But we must say, at the same\ntime, that he who retains his religion, merely as a matter of prejudice\nor interest, is not a great deal better, and can hardly be considered as\na rational being. Every being, whom the Creator has endowed with reason,\nought to have a religion and to know why he prefers it to all others.\nBut perhaps some reader will say, I have a religion\u2014I am a Jew, and I\nprefer this religion to all others, because God himself gave it to Moses\non Mount Sinai. To this we reply, But how do you know that you have got\nthe religion of Moses? If you really had Moses\u2019 religion you could not\nbe wrong, but how can you prove that the religion which you now profess\nis really that true religion? Your fathers in the times of old often\nforsook Moses and the Prophets, and taught their children a false\nreligion, how, then, can you be sure that this is not the case with what\nyou have got at present? Certainty can be had only by examination and\ncomparison. The Judaism of the present day must be compared with the Law\nand the Prophets. If it agrees with them, then the Jews have reason to\nbelieve that they are in the right; but if not, then they must be in the\nwrong. Our own firm conviction is, that modern Judaism is altogether\nspurious, and plainly opposed to that religion which God gave to your\nfathers. The doctrine of dispensation from oaths is sufficient to prove\nthis, as was shown in the last number. But we have more objections still\nto make against that doctrine, and all confirmatory of the conclusion to\nwhich we have come. We saw in our last, that if a man swear an oath to\nhimself only, where others are not concerned, he can have absolution,\nbut we now come to consider the case of an oath, made to another person,\nrespecting which the oral law teaches us as follows:\u2014\n\n\u05e8\u05d0\u05d5\u05d1\u05df \u05e9\u05d4\u05e9\u05d1\u05d9\u05e2 \u05dc\u05e9\u05de\u05e2\u05d5\u05df \u05d5\u05e2\u05e0\u05d4 \u05d0\u05de\u05df \u05d0\u05d5 \u05e7\u05d1\u05dc \u05d4\u05e9\u05d1\u05d5\u05e2\u05d4 \u05d5\u05e0\u05d7\u05dd \u05e9\u05de\u05e2\u05d5\u05df \u05e2\u05dc \u05e9\u05d1\u05d5\u05e2\u05ea\u05d5 \u05d5\u05e0\u05e9\u05d0\u05dc\n\u05e2\u05dc\u05d9\u05d4 \u05d0\u05d9\u05df \u05de\u05ea\u05d9\u05e8\u05df \u05dc\u05d5 \u05d0\u05dc\u05d0 \u05d1\u05e4\u05e0\u05d9 \u05e8\u05d0\u05d5\u05d1\u05df \u05e9\u05d4\u05e9\u05d1\u05d9\u05e2\u05d5 , \u05d5\u05db\u05df \u05d0\u05dd \u05e0\u05e9\u05d1\u05e2 \u05e8\u05d0\u05d5\u05d1\u05df \u05d0\u05d5 \u05e0\u05d3\u05e8 \u05e9\u05dc\u05d0\n\u05d9\u05d4\u05e0\u05d4 \u05d1\u05e9\u05de\u05e2\u05d5\u05df \u05d0\u05d5 \u05e9\u05dc\u05d0 \u05d9\u05d4\u05e0\u05d4 \u05d1\u05d5 \u05e9\u05de\u05e2\u05d5\u05df \u05d5\u05e0\u05d7\u05dd \u05d5\u05e0\u05e9\u05d0\u05dc \u05dc\u05d7\u05db\u05dd \u05d0\u05d9\u05df \u05de\u05ea\u05d9\u05e8\u05d9\u05df \u05dc\u05d5 \u05d0\u05dc\u05d0 \u05d1\u05e4\u05e0\u05d9\n\u05e9\u05de\u05e2\u05d5\u05df \u05e9\u05e0\u05d3\u05e8 \u05de\u05de\u05e0\u05d5 \u05d4\u05e0\u05d0\u05d4 \u05d5\u05d0\u05e4\u05d9\u05dc\u05d5 \u05d4\u05d9\u05d4 \u05e9\u05d9\u05d3\u05e2 \u05d4\u05e0\u05d9\u05d3\u05e8 \u05e9\u05d4\u05ea\u05d9\u05e8 \u05d6\u05d4 \u05e0\u05d3\u05e8\u05d5 \u05d0\u05d5 \u05e9\u05d1\u05d5\u05e2\u05ea\u05d5\n\u05d5\u05dc\u05e4\u05d9\u05db\u05da \u05d9\u05d4\u05e0\u05d4 \u05de\u05de\u05e0\u05d5 \u05d0\u05d5 \u05d9\u05d4\u05e0\u05d4 \u05dc\u05d5 \u05c3\n\n\u201cIf Reuben should adjure Simeon, and he answer Amen, or accept the oath;\nand afterwards Simeon should repent of his oath, and ask concerning it,\nhe is not to be absolved except in the presence of Reuben who adjured\nhim. In like manner, if Reuben should swear an oath not to receive any\nprofit from Simeon, or that Simeon should receive no profit from him,\nand afterwards should repent and ask a wise man, he is not to be\nabsolved except in the presence of Simeon, concerning whose profit he\nhad vowed: yea, even though Simeon were an infant or a Gentile, he is\nnot to be absolved except in his presence, in order that he, with\nrespect to whom the vow was made, may know that the other has got\nabsolution from his oath or vow, and that therefore he may receive from\nor confer profit upon him.\u201d (Hilchoth Sh\u2019vuoth, c. vi. 7.) Now in\nconsidering this doctrine, we must not withhold that measure of\napprobation which is due to the rabbies. There is here a certain degree\nof honesty and plain dealing. The rabbies have determined that where one\nman swears to another, he is not to be absolved, except in the presence\nof that other, and are in so far vastly superior in morality to those\nwho hold and teach, not only that all oaths may be absolved, but that\nthey may be absolved secretly, so that he who is most affected by the\ndispensation, knows nothing about it. Bad as the oral law is, it does\nnot descend to such a depth of hypocrisy and profaneness. Another trait\nwhich deserves notice is, that it does not teach that no faith is to be\nkept towards those who have got another religion, but expressly\ndetermines, that if a Jew swear to a Gentile, he is not to be absolved\nwithout that Gentile\u2019s knowledge. We readily admit that this is greatly\nsuperior to a doctrine of dispensation, taught and practised by some who\ncall themselves Christians; but, having made this admission, and given\nthe rabbies their due, We must also say, that the doctrine of absolution\nhere taught is plainly contrary to reason and Scripture, and if\nextensively practised, would destroy all confidential intercourse or\ndealings between man and man. Just suppose that the law of this country\nwas, that any one who had entered into a solemn engagement with another,\ncould be enabled to break it, simply, by calling up the person to whom\nhe had mode the promise before a magistrate, and by declaring, in his\npresence, that he repented of what he had done, who would ever trust\nanother, or value even an oath? Not only would the commercial\ntransactions of the country be at an end, but the very bonds of society\nwould be rent asunder. The existence of human society depends upon that\nmeasure of confidence which a man can place in his brother, but if the\nrabbinical doctrine prevailed and were acted upon, there could be no\nconfidence more. A man\u2019s oath would be good for nothing, and if so, the\nvalue of his word still less. But, besides this, the doctrine that a\nrabbi may absolve Simeon from his sworn obligation to Reuben, is absurd.\nIf Simeon swear to Reuben a lawful oath, no one on earth but Reuben can\nrelease him; but here we are told that a rabbi, who has nothing at all\nto do with the matter, may remit the obligation. He might, with as much\nreason and with less profanity, undertake to absolve Simeon from his\npecuniary debts. That the dispensation must take place in the presence\nof the party to whom Simeon swore, is but poor satisfaction, and would\nnot remove the inconvenience, nor diminish the guilt. Suppose, for\ninstance, that Simeon should promise Reuben with an oath, that within a\ngiven time he would complete certain business, or lend him a certain sum\nof money, or anything else of the kind, and that Reuben should arrange\nhis affairs in dependence upon this oath, what satisfaction would it be\nto Reuben to be present at the absolution! It would not remove the\ninconvenience nor indemnify him for the loss to which the non-fulfilment\nof the oath exposed him, nor abate the vexation and sorrow which he must\nfeel to see a teacher of religion trampling upon the most solemn\nsanction with which religion guards the intercourse between man and man.\nFor, after all, the main objection to the doctrine is, that it allows\nwhat God forbids, as we showed in the last number, and under the\npretence of religion, makes perjury systematic.\n\nBut to estimate this doctrine fully, and also the character of the men\nwith whom it originated, we must look at the original passage in the\nTalmud, on which the above-cited decision is founded:\u2014\n\n\u05d4\u05de\u05d5\u05d3\u05e8 \u05d4\u05e0\u05d0\u05d4 \u05de\u05d7\u05d1\u05e8\u05d5 \u05d0\u05d9\u05df \u05de\u05ea\u05d9\u05e8\u05d9\u05df \u05dc\u05d5 \u05d0\u05dc\u05d0 \u05d1\u05e4\u05e0\u05d9\u05d5 \u05de\u05e0\u05d4\u05e0\u05d9 \u05de\u05d9\u05dc\u05d9 \u05d0\u05de\u05e8 \u05e8\u05d1 \u05e0\u05d7\u05de\u05df \u05d3\u05db\u05ea\u05d9\u05d1\n\u05d5\u05d9\u05d0\u05de\u05e8 \u05d4\u05f3 \u05d0\u05dc \u05de\u05e9\u05d4 \u05d1\u05de\u05d3\u05d9\u05df \u05dc\u05da \u05e9\u05d5\u05d1 \u05de\u05e6\u05e8\u05d9\u05de\u05d4 \u05db\u05d9 \u05de\u05ea\u05d5 \u05db\u05dc \u05d4\u05d0\u05e0\u05e9\u05d9\u05dd \u05d0\u05de\u05e8 \u05dc\u05d5 \u05d1\u05de\u05d3\u05d9\u05df \u05e0\u05d3\u05e8\u05ea\n\u05dc\u05da \u05d5\u05d4\u05ea\u05e8 \u05e0\u05d3\u05e8\u05da \u05d1\u05de\u05d3\u05d9\u05df \u05d3\u05db\u05ea\u05d9\u05d1 \u05d5\u05d9\u05d5\u05d0\u05dc \u05de\u05e9\u05d4 \u05d0\u05d9\u05df \u05d0\u05dc\u05d4 \u05d0\u05dc\u05d0 \u05e9\u05d1\u05d5\u05e2\u05d4 \u05d3\u05db\u05ea\u05d9\u05d1 \u05d5\u05d9\u05d1\u05d0 \u05d0\u05d5\u05ea\u05d5\n\u05d1\u05d0\u05dc\u05d4 \u05d5\u05d2\u05dd \u05d1\u05de\u05dc\u05da \u05e0\u05d1\u05d5\u05db\u05d3\u05e0\u05e6\u05e8 \u05de\u05e8\u05d3 \u05d0\u05e9\u05e8 \u05d4\u05e9\u05d1\u05d9\u05e2\u05d5 \u05d1\u05d0\u05dc\u05d4\u05d9\u05dd \u05d7\u05d9\u05d9\u05dd \u05de\u05d0\u05d9 \u05de\u05e8\u05d3\u05d5\u05ea\u05d9\u05dd \u05d0\u05e9\u05db\u05d7\u05d9\u05d4\n\u05e6\u05d3\u05e7\u05d9\u05d4\u05d5 \u05dc\u05e0\u05d1\u05d5\u05db\u05d3\u05e0\u05e6\u05e8 \u05d3\u05d4\u05d5\u05d4 \u05e7\u05d0\u05db\u05d9\u05dc \u05d0\u05e8\u05e0\u05d1\u05ea \u05d7\u05d9\u05d9\u05d0 \u05d0\u05de\u05e8 \u05dc\u05d9\u05d4 \u05d0\u05d9\u05e9\u05ea\u05d1\u05e2 \u05dc\u05d9 \u05d3\u05dc\u05d0 \u05de\u05d2\u05dc\u05d9\u05ea \u05e2\u05dc\u05d5\u05d9\n\u05d5\u05dc\u05d0 \u05ea\u05d9\u05e4\u05d5\u05e7 \u05de\u05d9\u05dc\u05ea\u05d0 \u05d0\u05d9\u05e9\u05ea\u05d1\u05e2 \u05dc\u05d9\u05d4 \u05dc\u05e1\u05d5\u05e3 \u05d4\u05d5\u05d4 \u05e7\u05d0 \u05de\u05e6\u05d8\u05e2\u05e8 \u05e6\u05d3\u05e7\u05d9\u05d4\u05d5 \u05d1\u05d2\u05d5\u05e4\u05d9\u05d4 \u05d0\u05d9\u05ea\u05e9\u05d9\u05dc\n\u05d0\u05e9\u05d1\u05d5\u05e2\u05ea\u05d9\u05d4 \u05d5\u05d0\u05de\u05e8 \u05e9\u05de\u05e2 \u05e0\u05d1\u05d5\u05db\u05d3\u05e0\u05e6\u05e8 \u05d3\u05e7\u05d0 \u05de\u05d1\u05d6\u05d9\u05df \u05dc\u05d9\u05d4 \u05e9\u05dc\u05d7 \u05d5\u05d0\u05d9\u05d9\u05ea\u05d9 \u05e1\u05e0\u05d4\u05d3\u05e8\u05d9\u05df \u05d5\u05e6\u05d3\u05e7\u05d9\u05d4\u05d5 \u05d0\u05de\u05e8\n\u05dc\u05d4\u05d5\u05df \u05d7\u05d6\u05d9\u05ea\u05d9\u05df \u05de\u05d0\u05d9 \u05e7\u05d0 \u05e2\u05d1\u05d9\u05d3 \u05e6\u05d3\u05e7\u05d9\u05d4\u05d5 \u05dc\u05d0\u05d5 \u05d4\u05db\u05d9 \u05d0\u05d9\u05e9\u05ea\u05d1\u05e2 \u05d1\u05e9\u05de\u05d0 \u05d3\u05e9\u05de\u05d9\u05d0 \u05d3\u05dc\u05d0 \u05de\u05d2\u05dc\u05d9\u05e0\u05d0 \u05d0\u05de\u05e8\n\u05dc\u05d9\u05d4 \u05d0\u05d9\u05ea\u05e9\u05dc\u05d9 \u05d0\u05e9\u05d1\u05e2\u05ea\u05d9\u05d4 [ \u05d0\u05de\u05e8 \u05dc\u05d9\u05d4 \u05de\u05ea\u05e9\u05dc\u05d9\u05df \u05d0\u05e9\u05d1\u05d5\u05e2\u05ea\u05d0 ] \u05d0\u05de\u05e8\u05d9 \u05dc\u05d9\u05d4 \u05d0\u05d9\u05df \u05d0\u05de\u05e8 \u05dc\u05d4\u05d5 \u05d1\u05e4\u05e0\u05d9\u05d5\n\u05d0\u05d5 \u05e9\u05dc\u05d0 \u05d1\u05e4\u05e0\u05d9\u05d5 \u05d0\u05de\u05e8\u05d9 \u05d1\u05e4\u05e0\u05d9\u05d5 \u05d5\u05db\u05d5\u05f3 \u05c3\n\n\u201cHe that has a vow upon him, with respect to profit from his neighbour,\nis not to be absolved, except in that neighbour\u2019s presence. How is this\nproved? Rav Nachman says, it is proved by the words, \u2018And the Lord said\nunto Moses, in Midian, Go return into Egypt; for all the men are dead\nwhich sought thy life;\u2019 he said to him, In Midian thou hast vowed, go\nand get absolution from thy vow in Midian, for it is written, \u05d5\u05b7\u05d9\u05bc\u05d5\u05b9\u05d0\u05b6\u05dc\n\u05de\u05e9\u05b6\u05c1\u05d4 , \u2018And Moses was content.\u2019 (Exodus ii. 21.) Now this word means\nnothing else but swearing, as it is written, \u2018And he took an oath of\nhim.\u2019 (Ezek. xvii. 13.) It is farther proved by the words, \u2018And he also\nrebelled against King Nebuchadnezzar, who had made him swear by God.\u2019 (2\nChron. xxxvi. 13.) What was the nature of his rebellion? Zedekiah found\nNebuchadnezzar eating a live hare, whereupon Nebuchadnezzar said to him,\nswear to me not to reveal this, nor to report the matter. Zedekiah\nswore, but afterwards he was grieved, and went and got his oath absolved\nand told. Nebuchadnezzar heard that they despised him, and sent and\nfetched the Sanhedrin and Zedekiah, and said to them, Ye see what\nZedekiah has done, although he swore by the name of God not to reveal\nthe matter. They said to him, He got a dispensation from his oath. He\nsaid, Is it lawful, then, to get dispensation from an oath? They said,\nYes. He said again, Is this to be done in the other\u2019s presence or\nabsence? They say, In his presence,\u201d &c. (Nedarim, fol. lxv. 1.) Now\nthis passage not only illustrates the doctrine of dispensation, but\nthrows much light upon the character and knowledge of the men from whom\nthe tradition is derived. In the first place, it shows a strange\nconfusion of mind to derive \u05d5\u05b7\u05d9\u05bc\u05d5\u05b9\u05d0\u05b6\u05dc, \u201che was willing,\u201d from \u05d0\u05dc\u05d4, \u201che\nsware;\u201d but it is stranger still out of this mistranslation, to invent a\nstory of Moses having sworn and got absolution; but the most strange of\nall is, that any one should be found who can believe this a sufficient\nwarrant for the doctrine of dispensation from an oath made to a\nfellow-creature. If even it were true, as the rabbies say, that Moses\nhad sworn to Jethro not to return into Egypt, still this is not a case\nin point; for Moses did not get absolution from any third person, but\nreceived express permission from Jethro himself to return, as we find in\nthe chapter referred to, where it is said, \u201cAnd Moses went and returned\nto Jethro, his father-in-law, and said unto him, Let me go, I pray thee,\nand return unto my brethren which are in Egypt, and see whether they be\nyet alive. And Jethro said to Moses, Go in peace.\u201d (Exod. iv. 18.) If\nthere was any oath, we see that it was dispensed with, not by a wise\nman, nor by any third person or persons, but by him to whom the oath was\nmade. This passage is, therefore, decidedly against the rabbinic\ndoctrine, and therefore the rabbinic doctrine cannot be true. The second\ncase cited by the Talmud is still stronger, as a testimony, both against\nthe system and the men. It tells us that Zedekiah swore to\nNebuchadnezzar not to betray him in a certain matter, which no law,\neither of God or man, compelled him to divulge\u2014that he swore by the name\nof the God of Israel, and yet that, after this most solemn transaction,\nhe did what he had sworn not to do. He betrayed a man from whom he had\nreceived kindness, and equally disregarded the obligations of gratitude\nand the sacred ties of an oath\u2014in short, that he committed perjury. This\nis in itself bad enough; but the Talmud proceeds further to tell us,\nthat this was not his own individual act, but the solemn decision of the\nSupreme Council of the Sanhedrin. Zedekiah did not perjure himself\nwithout having advice. He went to the Sanhedrin, and they absolved him\nfrom the obligation of the oath, and that contrary to their own maxim,\nthat an oath sworn to a neighbour cannot be absorbed, except in his\npresence. Here, then, the Talmud plainly confesses that the Sanhedrin\ndid wrong, in fact, that they were aiders and abettors in Zedekiah\u2019s\nperjury; that, therefore, they were men who had no regard to truth, and\nno fear of God; and, consequently, that no man of any common sense would\nbelieve a single word that came out of their mouths. What, then, becomes\nof the whole fabric of Jewish tradition? It depends altogether upon the\nunimpeachable character of the various Sanhedrins through whose hands it\npassed. If, therefore, we should, find that any one Sanhedrin consisted\nof notorious liars, the genuineness of the oral law is at an end. But\nhere the Talmud itself tells us that even before the deportation of\nZedekiah, the Sanhedrin consisted, not of common liars, but of false\nswearers, of men who had so little regard for the name of the Lord, as\nto absolve a solemn oath of which that name was the safeguard. If they\nhad done this in accordance with their traditions, there would be some\nappearance of consistency, but they did it in the face of the tradition,\nwhich says, that when an oath is sworn to another person absolution\ncannot be given except in his presence. When Zedekiah demanded\nabsolution, they should have refused, and told him that it was contrary\nto the oral law; but, whether from fear or from self-interest, they\nacceded to the king\u2019s wish, and helped hint to commit perjury: and these\nare the men who have handed down the oral law; what trust, then, can be\nplaced in their word, when they disregard an oath? The story is either\ntrue or false. If true, then all the members of the Sanhedrin were\nguilty of perjury,\u2014if false, then the Talmud has handed down a falsehood\nas truth, and in neither case is it worthy of credit. Surely it is time\nfor the chosen people of God to use the reason which God has given, and\nto examine the grounds upon which they profess Judaism. The ignorant and\nthe thoughtless may retain their profession as a mere matter of\nprejudice, but it would be very strange if any, who think religion worth\na thought, should still adhere to a system for which there is not only\nno evidence, but against which there is evidence so satisfactory.\nAccording to the Talmud itself, and on its own showing, the persons\nwhose office it was to guard the traditions in the days of Zedekiah were\nmen who transgressed those traditions, and made themselves guilty of\nperjury; what warrant, then, have the Jews for believing that those men\ndid not change the traditions, and hand down mere inventions of their\nown? What was there to restrain them from such conduct, if they could\nfree themselves from the obligation of an oath by the name of the God of\nIsrael?\n\nBut as the men who handed down the traditions are described by their own\nsuccessors as wicked and ungodly persons, so the traditions which they\nhave handed down are of the same character, and, as we have said, if\ngenerally acted upon, would rend asunder all the ties of human society,\nand beget universal distrust and suspicion. The oral law plainly and\nunequivocally allows a man to swear to his neighbour that he will do or\nleave undone something that his neighbour requires, and then to get\nabsolution from that oath and do the contrary. It is true that it\nrequires this to be done in the presence of the other person, but that\ndoes not much alter the matter. Whether Zedekiah divulged what he had\nsworn to Nebuchadnezzar to keep secret, in his presence or behind his\nback, is a thing of very little consequence; the oath is just as much\nand as really broken, and the results might be just as pernicious and\ninjurious. Take, for example, the case of a manufacturer who\ncommunicates to his servant some important secret in his trade, and for\nhis own security binds him by an oath not to divulge it. In a little\ntime, the servant, for some reason or other, finds it convenient or\nprofitable to make this secret known, and goes to a wise man, summons\nthe manufacturer to be present, gets absolution, and then divulges what\nhe had sworn to keep secret,\u2014where is the difference as to all practical\npurposes, or as to the actual guilt of perjury? But again, suppose that\nthe wise man was to act as the Sanhedrin did, and absolve the man\nwithout summoning the person to whom he swore, it is a question whether\nthe servant would then he bound. Zedekiah evidently thought not. All he\nwas concerned about was to have absolution, and if there was any sin in\ngiving it, he evidently thought that the onus rested upon those who\ngave, and not upon him who received it. According to the oral law, the\nSanhedrin was wrong in giving absolution under the circumstances: but,\naccording to the same oral law, Zedekiah was right in obeying their\ndecision. Implicit and universal obedience to the words of the Sanhedrin\nand wise men is required by the Talmud; and, therefore, if a wise man\ngive absolution, even though he give it unlawfully, it is still the duty\nof him who is absolved to obey his decision, and act upon it. A\nRabbinist is not allowed to reason; but as we have seen on a former\noccasion, to believe that his right hand is his left, and _vice versa_,\nif the rabbies say so\u2014and, consequently, if a wise man absolve him, he\nis not to trouble either his conscience or his reason as to the right or\nthe wrong; his duty is not to dispute, but to receive the determination\nas the words of the living God. The provision, therefore, that if Simeon\nswear to Reuben he is not to be absolved, except in Reuben\u2019s presence,\naffords but little protection. If it was possible for the Sanhedrin, a\nbody consisting of seventy-one persons, to disregard it, it is surely\npossible that any other wise man might disregard it also, and absolve\nSimeon, even in Reuben\u2019s absence. Now the bare possibility of such\noccurrences would make all promises, whether sanctioned by oaths or not,\nof no value, and have the most pernicious effect as to the practice of\nspeaking truth. Men might reason from the greater to the less, and say,\nIf it be lawful, by means of absolution, to break an oath, \u05e7\u05dc \u05d5\u05d7\u05d5\u05de\u05e8, _\u00e0\nfortiori_, it is lawful to break one\u2019s word without absolution; and, at\nall events, those to whom the promise was given would be likely to\nreason thus, and say, If we cannot depend upon this man\u2019s oath, much\nless can we place confidence in his word. But what is worse still, such\na doctrine is calculated to make men despise all religion, and to render\nthem a prey to infidelity. The thoughtless and the rash are very likely\nto say, If this be religion, better far to be without it; or, to\nconclude that as such doctrine cannot possibly be the offspring of the\nDivine mind, all revealed religion is a mere imposture. In every case it\nis a reproach to the good sense and piety of Israel to profess such a\ndoctrine; or, if they do not believe it, to remain silent, and suffer\nmankind to suppose that this is the religion of the children of Abraham.\nSo long as they profess that the oral law is the source of their\nreligion, so long are they responsible for the doctrines which it\nteaches; and so long as they abstain from a public renunciation of the\noral law, they must be considered as believers in its authority. It will\nnot do to renounce one particular doctrine, whilst they profess faith in\nthe general system. The body of traditions is a whole which cannot be\nparted. They have all come down, resting on the same evidence; if,\ntherefore, the evidence be invalid in any one case, it is invalid in\nall; and if any one admits its validity in some cases, he cannot, if a\nreasonable man, deny it in others. He may dispute about the conflicting\nopinions of the rabbies, but if he admit any one of those doctrines\nwhich are called traditions from Sinai, he must admit them all, and,\nconsequently, this which professes to be one of them. It remains,\ntherefore, for the Israelites of the present day to choose, whether they\nwill still retain the system of the oral law, and thereby sanction the\ndispensation from oaths, or whether they will repudiate this doctrine,\nand thereby renounce the whole oral law.\n\n\n\n\n                               No. LVIII.\n                    MERITORIOUSNESS OF CIRCUMCISION.\n\n\nWherever there is an internal principle of religion, it will, like all\nother principles, manifest itself in external acts, and in an external\nform of rites and ceremonies. It is just as impossible for a living man\nto continue without giving any signs of life, as for the religious\nprinciple to exist without an outward expression. It is the universal\nlaw of creation that every vital principle should manifest itself and\ntherefore, when the Creator himself was pleased to give a religion, he\nordained certain rites and ceremonies to give notice of its existence,\nand to serve as the body in which the soul should reside. Rites and\nceremonies, therefore, are not to be despised, even when devised by man,\nfor they are demonstrations of an internal life from which they proceed;\nbut when instituted by God, they are doubly important, because besides\nbeing a sign, they have all the authority of a Divine command. False\nreligion, however, is not satisfied with this acknowledgment, nor this\nmeasure of reverence. It goes still further, and elevates the external\nsign above the thing signified, by making the external rites the great\nessentials of religion. Thus, in the time of the Prophet Isaiah, the\nIsraelites thought that the act of sacrifice, and the external\nobservation of the Sabbath and holidays, formed the substance of\nreligion, and therefore God told them, that even these things, though\nordained by himself, were not pleasing in his sight, unless they\nproceeded from the living principle within. \u201cBring no more vain\noblations: incense is an abomination unto me; the new moons and\nSabbaths, the calling of assemblies, I cannot away with; it is iniquity,\neven the solemn meeting.\u201d (Isaiah i. 13.) And again in a subsequent\nchapter he says, \u201cThey seek me daily, and delight to know my ways, as a\nnation that did righteousness and forsook not the ordinances of their\nGod: they ask of me the ordinances of justice; they take delight in\napproaching to God.\u201d (lviii. 2.) And yet at the same time he shows that\nthis was all mere outside work, and displeasing in his sight. Wherever,\ntherefore, we find a religion, which places external observances above\nthe moral duties, we may be sure it is not of God; and for this reason,\namongst others, we believe that the oral law is the invention of men. We\nhad an instance in the subject last considered, the dispensation from\noaths. The rabbies disregard the moral obligation, but make the mere\nform of going to a rabbi to get absolution an essential requisite.\nAnother proof is furnished by their doctrine concerning _The\nmeritoriousness of Circumcision_, which is set forth as follows:\u2014\n\n\u05de\u05e6\u05d5\u05ea \u05e2\u05e9\u05d4 \u05dc\u05db\u05dc \u05d0\u05d3\u05dd \u05de\u05d9\u05e9\u05e8\u05d0\u05dc \u05e9\u05d9\u05de\u05d5\u05dc \u05d0\u05ea \u05d1\u05e0\u05d5 \u05d5\u05d2\u05d3\u05d5\u05dc\u05d4 \u05d4\u05d9\u05d0 \u05de\u05e9\u05d0\u05e8 \u05de\u05e6\u05d5\u05d5\u05ea \u05e2\u05e9\u05d4 \u05e9\u05d9\u05e9 \u05d1\u05d4 \u05e6\u05d3\n\u05db\u05e8\u05ea , \u05d5\u05d2\u05dd \u05e0\u05db\u05e8\u05ea\u05d5 \u05e2\u05dc\u05d9\u05d4 \u05e9\u05dc\u05e9 \u05e2\u05e9\u05e8\u05d4 \u05d1\u05e8\u05d9\u05ea\u05d5\u05ea \u05d1\u05e4\u05e8\u05e9\u05ea \u05de\u05d9\u05dc\u05d4 , \u05d5\u05dc\u05d0 \u05e0\u05e7\u05e8\u05d0 \u05d0\u05d1\u05e8\u05d4\u05dd \u05e9\u05dc\u05dd \u05e2\u05d3\n\u05e9\u05e0\u05d9\u05de\u05d5\u05dc \u05d5\u05d1\u05d6\u05db\u05d5\u05ea\u05d4 \u05e0\u05db\u05e8\u05ea\u05d4 \u05dc\u05d5 \u05d1\u05e8\u05d9\u05ea \u05e2\u05dc \u05e0\u05ea\u05d9\u05e0\u05ea \u05d4\u05d0\u05e8\u05e5 \u05d5\u05d4\u05d9\u05d0 \u05de\u05e6\u05dc\u05ea \u05de\u05d3\u05d9\u05e0\u05d4 \u05e9\u05dc \u05d2\u05d9\u05d4\u05e0\u05dd \u05db\u05de\u05d5\n\u05e9\u05d0\u05de\u05e8\u05d5 \u05d7\u05db\u05de\u05d9\u05dd \u05e9\u05d0\u05d1\u05e8\u05d4\u05dd \u05d0\u05d1\u05d9\u05e0\u05d5 \u05d9\u05d5\u05e9\u05d1 \u05e9\u05e0\u05d9\u05de\u05d5\u05dc , \u05d5\u05de\u05d0\u05d5\u05e1\u05d4 \u05d4\u05d9\u05d0 \u05d4\u05e2\u05e8\u05dc\u05d4 \u05e9\u05e0\u05ea\u05d2\u05e0\u05d5 \u05d1\u05d4 \u05d4\u05d2\u05d5\u05d9\u05dd\n\u05e9\u05e0\u05d0\u05e0\u05e8 \u05db\u05d9 \u05db\u05dc \u05d4\u05d2\u05d5\u05d9\u05dd \u05e2\u05e8\u05dc\u05d9\u05dd , \u05d5\u05db\u05dc \u05d4\u05de\u05e4\u05e8 \u05d1\u05e8\u05d9\u05ea\u05d5 \u05e9\u05dc \u05d0\u05d1\u05e8\u05d4\u05dd \u05d0\u05d5 \u05e9\u05de\u05d5\u05e9\u05da \u05e2\u05e8\u05dc\u05ea\u05d5 \u05d0\u05e2\u05f3\u05f3\u05e4\n\u05e9\u05d9\u05e9 \u05d1\u05d9\u05d3\u05d5 \u05ea\u05d5\u05e8\u05d4 \u05d5\u05de\u05e2\u05e9\u05d9\u05dd \u05d8\u05d5\u05d1\u05d9\u05dd \u05d0\u05d9\u05df \u05dc\u05d5 \u05d7\u05dc\u05e7 \u05dc\u05e2\u05d5\u05dc\u05dd \u05d4\u05d1\u05d0 \u05c3\n\n\u201cIt is an affirmative precept, binding on every man of Israel, to\ncircumcise his son; and this is greater than any of the other\naffirmative precepts, for there is a threat of excision attached to it;\nand further, on account of it, thirteen covenants were made, as is\nrecorded in the chapter of circumcision. Abraham was not called perfect\nuntil he was circumcised, and by the merit of circumcision, a covenant\nwas made with him respecting the giving of the land. It also delivers\nfrom the judgment of hell, for the wise men have said, that Abraham our\nfather sits at the door of hell, and does not suffer any one that is\ncircumcised to be cast into it. Uncircumcision is despised, for the\nGentiles are reproached with it, as it is said, \u2018All the nations are\nuncircumcised\u2019 (Jer. ix. 25); and every one who breaks the covenant of\nAbraham our father, either by not being circumcised or by becoming\nuncircumcised, has no part in the world to come, even though he possess\na knowledge of the law and good works.\u201d (Joreh Deah., 260.) Here we have\nthe very same misconception, which God reproved by the mouth of Isaiah;\nan external act is preferred to holiness of life, and a mere preparation\nof the body to purity of heart. It is gravely and solemnly asserted that\nthe precept concerning circumcision is greater than all the other\naffirmative precepts, that is, it is exalted above our duty to God and\nour duty to our neighbour. The command\n\n\u05d5\u05d0\u05d4\u05d1\u05ea \u05dc\u05e8\u05e2\u05da \u05db\u05de\u05d5\u05da\n\n\u201cThou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself,\u201d is an affirmative precept,\nand is therefore one of those to which circumcision is preferred. The\ncommand\n\n\u05db\u05d1\u05d3 \u05d0\u05ea \u05d0\u05d1\u05d9\u05da \u05d5\u05d0\u05ea \u05d0\u05de\u05da\n\n\u201cHonour thy father and thy mother,\u201d is an affirmative precept, and has a\npromise of long life in the land attached to it. It concerns our duty to\nthose, to whom, under God, we owe our existence, and yet the oral law\nteaches that obedience to it is not so important as to the precept\nconcerning circumcision. We do not mean to deny the scriptural\nimportance of circumcision, nor of any other of the Divine institutions,\nbut we do mean to appeal to every Israelite of understanding to judge,\nwhich of these commandments is of most importance. Can an Israelite,\nmerely because he is circumcised, though he has no love to his\nfellow-men, and no reverence for his parents, be acceptable in the sight\nof God, or can he be more acceptable than a Gentile who obeys these\ncommands? But the sweeping declaration of the oral law, not only teaches\nmen that circumcision is more valuable than love to man, but exalts it\neven above love to God. The commandment, \u201cThou shalt love the Lord thy\nGod, with all thy heart,\u201d &c., is an affirmative precept, and is\nconsequently included amongst those which are stated to be inferior to\ncircumcision. This conclusion seems so monstrous, that one is almost\nafraid of having misunderstood the sense; but Rashi, who must be\nacknowledged as an authority, goes still farther, and endeavours to\nprove that circumcision is equal in importance to all the other\ncommandments put together.\n\n\u05e9\u05d4\u05d9\u05d0 \u05e9\u05e7\u05d5\u05dc\u05d4 \u05db\u05e0\u05d2\u05d3 \u05db\u05dc \u05d4\u05de\u05e6\u05d5\u05d5\u05ea \u05e9\u05d1\u05ea\u05d5\u05e8\u05d4 \u05c3\n\n\u201cIt is equivalent to all the commandments which are in the law.\u201d\n(Nedarim, fol. 31, col. ii.) So that there can be no doubt that this is\nthe doctrine of the oral law. Now just let the reader consider the\nnature of circumcision. It is, in the first place, an external act,\u2014it\nis, in the second place, an act performed without the will of the\ninfant, and at a time when he can exercise no act of moral\nresponsibility, and yet the mere act is placed above the highest\nperfection of a created being, love to God and his fellow-creatures. But\nthe oral law does not merely assert this doctrine, but gives its proofs,\nand the first is, that to the precept of circumcision the threat of\nexcision is annexed. Of course, we admit the fact, for it is plainly\nsaid, \u201cThe uncircumcised man-child, whose flesh of his foreskin is not\ncircumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken\nmy covenant\u201d (Gen. xvii. 14.); but we deny the consequence. There is\nnothing peculiar to circumcision in the annexed threat of excision. God\nhas pronounced the same threat against every presumptuous sin, as it is\nwritten, \u201cBut the soul that doeth ought presumptuously, whether he be\nborn in the land or a stranger, the same reproacheth the Lord; and that\nsoul shall be cut off from among his people. Because he hath despised\nthe word of the Lord, and hath broken his commandment, that soul shall\nbe utterly cut off; his iniquity shall be upon him.\u201d (Numb. xv. 30, 31.)\nHere we see that presumptuous transgression of any one of God\u2019s\ncommandments will be visited with the same punishment denounced against\nthe omission of circumcision, so that the annexed threat is far from\nproving that this precept is superior to all the other affirmative\ncommandments. On the contrary, it shows that God does not judge by the\nexternal act, but by the state of the heart, and that presumptuous\ndisobedience of any commandment, as demonstrating an utter want of love\nto him, will be visited with the severity of his wrath. It is further\nalleged, \u201cThat Abraham was not called perfect until he was\ncircumcised,\u201d\u2014and this is proved in the Talmud, by the words, \u201cWalk\nbefore me, and be thou perfect.\u201d But these words do not prove that, even\nafter his circumcision, Abraham was called perfect; they are a command\nto be perfect, but not a declaration that he was so; and it cannot be\nurged that by being circumcised he obeyed this command, and thus became\nperfect, for this would open an easy way of attaining perfection to the\nmost abandoned of mankind. Besides, it is easy to prove that this word\n\u201cperfect\u201d is also given to the uncircumcision. Long before circumcision\nwas given, it was applied to Noah. \u201cNoah was a just man, and perfect in\nhis generations, and Noah walked with God\u201d (Gen. vi. 9), where that\nwhich is only commanded to Abraham, is asserted to have been found in\nNoah. God commanded to Abraham to walk with him, and to be perfect; but\nhe declares of the uncircumcised Noah, that he was perfect, and did walk\nwith him. In this respect, therefore, even if the rabbinic\ninterpretation of the words were correct, circumcision has no\nsuperiority over uncircumcision. The next proof, namely, \u201cThat by the\nmerit of circumcision a covenant was made with Abraham, respecting the\ngiving of the land,\u201d is equally inconclusive. Long before the covenant\nof circumcision God had promised the land to Abraham, and that\nrepeatedly; and not only had promised it, but had actually made a\ncovenant with him respecting the gift, as we read, \u201cIn the same day, the\nLord made a covenant with Abram, saying, Unto thy seed have I given this\nland, from the river of Egypt unto the great river, the river\nEuphrates.\u201d (Gen. xvi. 18.) This covenant was made before the birth of\nIshmael; and when Ishmael was born, Abraham was eighty-six years of age;\nconsequently, it was at least fourteen years before circumcision, so\nthat the assertion that the covenant respecting the land was made on\naccount of the merit of circumcision is altogether false. God made the\ncovenant, not because Abraham deserved it, but according to his own\ngrace and mercy, when Abraham had no bodily mark to distinguish him from\nthe surrounding nations. Here again, then, the oral law asserts what is\nfalse. But the rabbies were not contented with Scripture proof; they\nfelt that the letter of Scripture was against them, and therefore had\nrecourse to their own invention, and have devised the fable that\n\u201cCircumcision delivers from the judgment of hell, for that Abraham sits\nat the door of hell, and does not suffer any one that is circumcised to\nbe cast into it.\u201d That this is a regular and wilful falsehood, no one\nthat has reason, and takes the Scripture to guide it, can possibly\ndoubt. It implies that many who are circumcised deserve the punishment\nof hell, and are led to the very door, but that Abraham interferes, and\ndelivers them from their just punishment. If they did not deserve it,\nand were not liable to it, there could be no necessity for Abraham\u2019s\nsitting in so unpleasant a situation. The guilt of these persons is,\ntherefore, fully admitted, and yet the wise men say, that out of regard\nto the mere external token of the covenant, God gives up his attribute\nof justice, and acquits those who deserve punishment. But it implies\nfurther, that God does not deal thus to the Gentiles\u2014that to them he\nexercises all justice, and shows no mercy. Abraham looks on with\nunconcern when a Gentile is brought to the place of the damned, feels no\ncompassion and exercises none, and the Divine Being himself is made a\nparty in this injustice, and want of compassion. Religion is\nmisrepresented as a mere system of favouritism, and the Judge of all the\nearth as a doer of wrong. That this is the plain drift of the story is\nplain from what follows: \u201cCircumcision is despised, for the Gentiles are\nreproached with it, as it is said, \u2018All the nations are uncircumcised.\u2019\u201d\nHere the rabbies plainly tell us, that God despises the works of his own\nhands, that he disdains the overwhelming majority of his rational\ncreatures, and that not because of their wickedness, or their cruelty,\nor their idolatry, or their profanity, but because they have not got a\ncommandment which He never gave them. The rabbies themselves will admit\nthat God never gave the Gentiles the commandment of circumcision, how\nthen is it possible that he should blame them, or despise them, or treat\nthem with unmitigated severity, because they have not got what He never\ngave them? If it had been offered to them, and they had refused, there\nwould have been some ground for such a representation, but at present\nthere is none. It is not true that God reproaches the Gentiles in the\nwords, \u201cAll the nations are uncircumcised;\u201d on the contrary, He is\nreproaching Israel. The context is, \u201cBehold the days come, saith the\nLord, that I will punish all them which are circumcised with the\nuncircumcised; Egypt, and Judah, and Edom, and the children of Ammon and\nMoab, and all that are in the utmost corners, that dwell in the\nwilderness; for all the nations are uncircumcised, and all the house of\nIsrael are uncircumcised in the heart.\u201d (Jer. ix. 25, 26.) This is very\ndifferent doctrine from that of the rabbies. God declares that the mere\noutward sign of circumcision shall not save from punishment; that he\nmakes no difference whatever between the uncircumcised and the\ncircumcised, but that he looks upon the heart, and deals out to all\nevenhanded justice. He says, that he will punish the idolatrous nations,\nwhom he has enumerated, but declares that he will punish the sinners of\nIsrael along with them, and then to obviate the very objection which the\noral law urges, and to take away all false confidence in circumcision,\nhe adds, \u201cThe nations are uncircumcised, and all the house of Israel are\nuncircumcised in heart;\u201d as if he would have said, Do not deceive\nyourselves, thinking that your circumcision will save you: there is a\nworse uncircumcision than that of the flesh, the uncircumcision of the\nheart. This is doctrine worthy of the Divine Being, consistent with his\nattributes of justice and holiness, and consolatory and encouraging to\nall his rational creatures; whereas the rabbinic doctrine is\ndishonouring to God, and contemptuous to all the Gentile nations. If it\nwere believed, no Gentile would have any motive to serve or honour the\ntrue God, from whom he could expect neither justice nor mercy. It is\nequally pernicious and destructive to the moral and spiritual welfare of\nthe Israelites themselves. Any man who believes that his circumcision\nwill save him from hell, will feel himself at liberty to violate other\ncommands without fear. Why should he be holy, or chaste, or honest, or\ntrue? His father Abraham is sitting at the gate of hell waiting for him,\nand will deliver him from the just reward of his delinquencies. We do\nnot mean to attribute such reasoning to all Israelites\u2014far from it; but\nit is certain that on the minds of the ignorant and superstitious this\ndoctrine must have this effect. Those who are acquainted with the Word\nof God, or know how to reason, must believe that it is false, but then\nit is their duty not only to disbelieve it in their hearts, but to\nrenounce it publicly, and to teach the ignorant and uneducated that it\nis false. Israelites often feel justly indignant at the want of due\nappreciation which characterizes public opinion with regard to the\nnation, but let them reflect on the causes, and they will cease to\nwonder. Mankind in general does not distinguish between the Jews and\nJudaism, but erroneously attribute, without any discrimination, the\nerrors of the system to the men; and how can they do otherwise, so long\nas the oral law is still upheld as a Divine code of law? Let Israel\nrenounce the errors publicly, and all the causes of misconception will\nbe removed.\n\nBut we would ask our readers to go a little farther, and compare the\ndoctrines of Christianity on this subject with those of the oral law.\nThey will find that where the rabbies have erred, the disciples of Jesus\nof Nazareth have taught the truth. St. Paul admits the importance and\nthe privileges of circumcision. He asks, \u201cWhat advantage then hath the\nJew? or what profit is there of circumcision?\u201d And answers, \u201cMuch every\nway: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God.\u201d\n(Rom. iii. 1.) He does not undervalue God\u2019s mercy to Israel, but at the\nsame time he honours God\u2019s justice and holiness, by declaring that \u201cGod\nwill render to every man according to his deeds: to them who by patient\ncontinuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality,\neternal life: but unto them that are contentious, and do not obey the\ntruth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath, tribulation and\nanguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil, of the Jew first, and\nalso of the Gentile; but glory, honour, and peace, to every man that\nworketh good, to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile: for there is no\nrespect of persons with God.\u201d (Romans ii. 6-11.) This exactly agrees\nwith the words of Jeremiah, and with the character of God, as set forth\nby Moses and the Prophets, and must commend itself to the mind of every\nreflecting person. Let then those who reject Christianity account for\nthe fact, that where the rabbies are wrong, the preachers of\nChristianity are right. If all truth come from God, and unassisted human\nreason must go wrong, how is it that God should have helped Christians\nto the truth, and left the Jews in deadly error for so many centuries?\n\nJudaism teaches that the Gentiles are despised, simply because they have\nnot got an outward sign, which God never intended they should have.\nChristianity proclaims that God is a just Judge. It says, \u201cCircumcision\nverily profiteth, if thou keep the law; but if thou be a breaker of the\nlaw, thy circumcision is made uncircumcision. Therefore if the\nuncircumcision keep the righteousness of the law, shall not his\nuncircumcision be counted for circumcision?\u201d Judaism teaches that\nAbraham sits at the gate of hell to deliver even the wicked, if they be\nonly circumcised. Christianity teaches that Abraham has no respect to\nthe outward sign, unless it be accompanied by purity of heart. \u201cThere\nwas a certain rich man, which was clothed in purple and fine linen, and\nfared sumptuously every day: and there was a certain beggar named\nLazarus, which was laid at his gate, full of sores. And it came to pass\nthat the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham\u2019s\nbosom: the rich man also died, and was buried; and in hell he lifted up\nhis eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in\nhis bosom. And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and\nsend Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool\nmy tongue; for I am tormented in this flame. But Abraham said, Son,\nremember that thou in thy lifetime receivedst thy good things, and\nlikewise Lazarus evil things; but now he is comforted, and thou art\ntormented. And beside all this, between us and you there is a great gulf\nfixed: so that they which would pass from hence to you cannot; neither\ncan they pass to us, that would come from thence. Then he said, I pray\nthee therefore, father, that thou wouldest Send him to my father\u2019s\nhouse: for I have five brethren; that he may testify unto them, lest\nthey also come into this place of torment. Abraham said unto him, They\nhave Moses and the prophets; let them hear them. And he said, Nay,\nfather Abraham: but if one went to them from the dead, they will repent.\nAnd he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither\nwill they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.\u201d (Luke xvi.\n19-31.) Let the reader compare this with the rabbinic doctrine, and then\nexplain why it is that where the oral law errs, God has given the truth\nin the New Testament.\n\n\n\n\n                                No. LIX.\n                       CRUELTY TO THE UNLEARNED.\n\n\nThe great object of these papers has been to compare Judaism, as it at\npresent exists, with the religion of Moses and the Prophets, and thus to\nascertain whether the Jews of the present day walk in the good old paths\npointed out to their forefathers. We have endeavoured to give our\nreasons for believing that the Jews have been imposed upon by the\ninventors of the oral law, and have now got a religion diametrically\nopposed to that which was revealed to them by God. More than a year has\nelapsed since the first of these papers was published, and yet no answer\nhas appeared. This silence may be attributed to one of three causes.\nEither there has been a want of sufficient zeal on the part of those who\nprofess Judaism\u2014or, prudence has suggested that the system would not\nbear discussion\u2014or, these papers have been thought unworthy of notice.\nIt is for the Jewish people at large to consider, which of these three\nreasons have influenced the champions of the oral law. The Jews\ncertainly have a right to some explanation from those, whose learning\nand station point them out as the natural defenders of Judaism. Every\nreflecting man must be staggered by the fact, that a strong case has\nbeen made out against the oral law\u2014that, contemporaneously with the\npublication of these papers, strong symptoms of dissatisfaction with\ncertain parts of Judaism have been manifested in one of the most\nrespectable synagogues in London\u2014and yet, that nothing has appeared,\neither in the shape of defence or explanation. That this silence has not\nproceeded altogether from contempt is made probable by another fact, and\nthat is, That it is confidently asserted that a public answer was given\norally to the first number, and that this answer was satisfactory to\nthose who heard it. It is much to be regretted that the answer was not\nmade known generally, so as to afford the same satisfaction to others.\nFor ourselves, we should have been most happy, if convinced of error, to\nhave retracted any erroneous charge. We have, in the interval,\nfrequently considered the subject which is said to have been answered;\nand now consider it our duty, before closing this series, to make known\nour reasons for still believing, that that one topic is in itself\nsufficient to prove that the religion of the oral law is a system of\nerror. Our arguments were simply these. A religion which despises and\ninsults the unlearned cannot be from God. The oral law does despise and\ninsult the unlearned, for it commands its disciples not to marry the\ndaughters of the unlearned on the ground that they are no better than\nbeasts. Therefore the oral law cannot be from God. Secondly, a religion\nwhich makes the murder of an unlearned man lawful, cannot be from God.\nThe oral law does make it lawful, for, as we showed in No. 1, Rabbi\nEleazer says, That it is lawful even on the most solemn day of the\nJewish year, to kill an unlearned man without observing any of the\ntechnicalities of the rabbinic art of slaughtering; or, as another says,\nto rend him asunder like a fish. Therefore the oral law cannot be from\nGod. We now proceed to show why we still think that that line of\nargument is valid.\n\nThe first step is, to establish the meaning of the expression \u05e2\u05dd \u05d4\u05d0\u05e8\u05e5\n_Amhaaretz_, which we translated \u201can unlearned man.\u201d The literal English\nof this expression is, \u201cPeople of the land,\u201d it might therefore signify\nthe inhabitants of Canaan, but in the Bible it is more commonly used of\nthe mass of the Israelitish people, as for instance:\u2014\n\n\u05d5\u05db\u05dc \u05e2\u05dd \u05d4\u05d0\u05e8\u05e5 \u05e9\u05de\u05d7 \u05d5\u05ea\u05d5\u05e7\u05e2 \u05d1\u05d7\u05e6\u05d5\u05e6\u05e8\u05d5\u05ea \u05c3\n\n\u201cAnd all the people of the land rejoiced, and blew with trumpets.\u201d (2\nKings xi. 14. See also verses 18-20.) Here the expression is opposed to\nking and princes, and evidently means the mass of the population, or, as\nsome would say, \u201cThe common people.\u201d And, again, to give an example from\nthe Prophets:\u2014\n\n\u05d5\u05e2\u05ea\u05d4 \u05d7\u05d6\u05e7 \u05d6\u05e8\u05d1\u05d1\u05dc \u05e0\u05d0\u05dd \u05d4\u05f3 \u05d5\u05d7\u05d6\u05e7 \u05d9\u05d4\u05d5\u05e9\u05e2 \u05d1\u05df \u05d9\u05d4\u05d5\u05e6\u05d3\u05e7 \u05d4\u05db\u05d4\u05df \u05d4\u05d2\u05d3\u05d5\u05dc \u05d5\u05d7\u05d6\u05e7 \u05db\u05dc \u05e2\u05de\u05d9 \u05d4\u05d0\u05e8\u05e5 \u05c3\n\n\u201cYet now be strong, O Zerubbabel, saith the Lord; and be strong, O\nJoshua, son of Josedech, the high priest; and be strong, all ye people\nof the land.\u201d (Hag. ii. 4.) Here, also, the expression is opposed to the\ngovernor of Judah and the high priest, and plainly signifies the mass of\nthe population. In the oral law, it has much the same signification; it\nstands for those who are not counted amongst the learned, nor the great\nmen of the time, nor the almoners, nor the schoolmasters, as appears in\nthe extract given in page 7, with this difference, that in the oral law\nthe want of learning is a prominent idea, and the expression may\ntherefore be applied to a high priest if he be unlearned. In further\nproof we might appeal to the common parlance of the Jews, even at this\nday, for they commonly call an unlearned man an _Amhaaretz_. We prefer,\nhowever, giving one or two extracts more from the laws, where the\nexpression _Amhaaretz_ is put in opposition to \u201cThe disciple of a wise\nman,\u201d that is, to a learned man. We read, for instance, that in a court\nof justice,\n\n\u05d3\u05d9\u05df \u05ea\u05dc\u05de\u05d9\u05d3 \u05d7\u05db\u05dd \u05e7\u05d5\u05d3\u05dd \u05dc\u05d3\u05d9\u05df \u05e2\u05dd \u05d4\u05d0\u05e8\u05e5 \u05c3\n\n\u201cThe cause of the disciple of a wise man takes precedence of the cause\nof an Amhaaretz.\u201d (Hilchoth Sanhedrin, c. xxi. 6.) Again,\n\n\u05d5\u05db\u05df \u05d0\u05e1\u05d5\u05e8 \u05dc\u05d5 \u05dc\u05e0\u05d4\u05d5\u05d2 \u05d1\u05d4\u05df \u05e7\u05dc\u05d5\u05ea \u05e8\u05d0\u05e9 \u05d0\u05e2\u05f3\u05f3\u05e4 \u05e9\u05d4\u05df \u05e2\u05de\u05d9 \u05d4\u05d0\u05e8\u05e5 , \u05d5\u05dc\u05d0 \u05d9\u05e4\u05e1\u05d9\u05e2 \u05e2\u05dc \u05e8\u05d0\u05e9\u05d9 \u05e2\u05dd\n\u05d4\u05e7\u05d5\u05d3\u05e9 \u05d0\u05e2\u05f3\u05f3\u05e4 \u05e9\u05d4\u05df \u05d4\u05d3\u05d9\u05d5\u05d8\u05d5\u05ea \u05d5\u05e9\u05e4\u05dc\u05d9\u05dd \u05d1\u05e0\u05d9 \u05d0\u05d1\u05e8\u05d4\u05dd \u05d9\u05e6\u05d7\u05e7 \u05d5\u05d9\u05e2\u05e7\u05d1 \u05d4\u05dd \u05c3\n\n\u201cIn like manner, it is unlawful for an elder to behave with levity to\nthe congregation, even though they be Amharatzin. Neither let him behave\nhaughtily to the holy people, for although they be common and humble\npersons, they are children of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.\u201d (Ibid., c.\n25.) Again,\n\n\u05dc\u05e4\u05d9\u05db\u05da \u05db\u05e9\u05de\u05dc\u05de\u05d3\u05d9\u05df \u05d0\u05ea \u05d4\u05e7\u05d8\u05e0\u05d9\u05dd \u05d5\u05d0\u05ea \u05d4\u05e0\u05e9\u05d9 \u05d5\u05db\u05dc \u05e2\u05de\u05d9 \u05d4\u05d0\u05e8\u05e5 \u05d0\u05d9\u05df \u05de\u05dc\u05de\u05d3\u05d9\u05df \u05d0\u05d5\u05ea\u05df \u05d0\u05dc\u05d0 \u05dc\u05e2\u05d1\u05d5\u05d3\n\u05de\u05d9\u05e8\u05d0\u05d4 \u05d5\u05db\u05d3\u05d9 \u05dc\u05e7\u05d1\u05dc \u05e9\u05d1\u05e8 \u05d5\u05db\u05d5\u05f3 \u05c3\n\n\u201cTherefore, when children and women, and the whole genus of Amharatzin,\nare instructed, they are to be taught to serve God only from the motive\nof fear, and the desire to receive a reward until,\u201d &c. (Hilchoth\nT\u2019shuvah, c. x. 5.) In these passages, and many, many more may be added,\n_Amhaaretz_ plainly signifies an unlearned man, and it does not appear\nfrom any one, that there is any crime to be laid to his charge. He may\nappear as suitor in a court of law; he is considered as a son or\nAbraham, Isaac, and Jacob; he is put on a level with the children and\nthe women of Israel. The only disparagement is, that he has not been\nbrought up at the feet of a learned rabbi, and, therefore, cannot be\nreckoned amongst the disciples of the wise men.\n\nThe next thing to be established is, that the oral law despises and\ninsults those whose misfortune it is to be unlearned; and here, in\naddition to the complement paid to their wives and daughters, noticed in\nNo. 1, we bring, as a proof, the general rule which is given respecting\ntheir treatment:\u2014\n\n\u05ea\u05e0\u05d5 \u05e8\u05d1\u05e0\u05df \u05e9\u05e9\u05d4 \u05d3\u05d1\u05e8\u05d9\u05dd \u05e0\u05d0\u05de\u05e8\u05d5 \u05d1\u05e2\u05de\u05d9 \u05d4\u05d0\u05e8\u05e5 \u05d0\u05d9\u05df \u05de\u05d5\u05e1\u05e8\u05d9\u05df \u05dc\u05d4\u05df \u05e2\u05d3\u05d5\u05ea \u05d5\u05d0\u05d9\u05df \u05de\u05e7\u05d1\u05dc\u05d9\u05df \u05de\u05d4\u05df\n\u05e2\u05d3\u05d5\u05ea \u05d5\u05d0\u05d9\u05df \u05de\u05d2\u05dc\u05d9\u05df \u05dc\u05d4\u05df \u05e1\u05d5\u05d3 \u05d5\u05d0\u05d9\u05df \u05de\u05de\u05e0\u05d9\u05df \u05d0\u05d5\u05ea\u05df \u05d0\u05e4\u05d5\u05d8\u05e8\u05d5\u05e4\u05d5\u05e1 \u05e2\u05dc \u05d4\u05d9\u05ea\u05d5\u05de\u05d9\u05dd \u05d5\u05d0\u05d9\u05df \u05de\u05de\u05e0\u05d9\u05df\n\u05d0\u05d5\u05ea\u05df \u05d0\u05e4\u05d5\u05d8\u05e8\u05d5\u05e4\u05d5\u05e1 \u05e2\u05dc \u05e7\u05d5\u05e4\u05d4 \u05e9\u05dc \u05e6\u05d3\u05e7\u05d4 \u05d5\u05d0\u05f3\u05f3\u05df \u05de\u05ea\u05dc\u05d5\u05d9\u05df \u05e2\u05de\u05d4\u05df \u05d1\u05d3\u05e8\u05da \u05d5\u05d9\u05f3\u05f3\u05d0 \u05d0\u05e3 \u05d0\u05d9\u05df\n\u05de\u05db\u05e8\u05d9\u05d6\u05d9\u05df \u05e2\u05dc \u05d0\u05d1\u05d3\u05ea\u05df \u05c3\n\n\u201cOur rabbies have handed down as a tradition, that six things are said\nwith respect to Amharatzin. Testimony is not to be given to them, nor\nreceived from them. A secret is not to be revealed to them. They are not\nto be appointed as guardians to orphans, nor to an alms-fund. One is not\nto bear them company in the way. And some say, that if they have lost\nany thing, and it is found, no public notice is to be given respecting\nit.\u201d (Pesachim, fol. 49, col. 2.) Here, then, the unlearned are branded\nas liars, whose word is not to be depended upon\u2014as rogues, unfit to be\ntrusted with property\u2014as murderers, with whom it is unsafe to walk by\nthe way-side. Can contempt or insult add more? Yes; rabbinic contempt\nhad one insult more galling than these, and that was to put them on a\nlevel with Gentiles, and this it has done by forbidding public notice to\nbe given, if any thing which they had lost should be found. Now, we fear\nnot to assert, that this one passage is fatal to the claims of the oral\nlaw. There is not a particle of resemblance in it to the merciful and\njust religion made known by Moses. It is the effusion of a mind\nintoxicated with self-conceit and arrogance. The authors of the oral law\nwere determined, so far as they could, to lay it down as a maxim, not\nonly that no wisdom, but no truth, no honesty, and no humanity, was to\nbe found, except amongst themselves, and their disciples; they wished to\nhave the monopoly of all moral virtue, as well as of all learning. We\nask both the learned and the unlearned, whether it be possible that such\na law could have emanated from the God of Israel? But there is not only\nexcessive arrogance, there is also gross injustice in their law. It is\nordained, first, that in a court of law, the cause of the learned is to\nbe heard before the cause of the unlearned; this is in itself most\nunjust, but is not to be compared with what follows. The oral law\nforbids the appointment of an unlearned man as guardian to orphans; can\nany thing be more oppressive? Suppose that an unlearned man, on his\ndeath-bed, thinks of a guardian for his orphan children, and looks to a\nbrother, or an intimate friend, as unlearned as himself, but whose\nworth, and honesty, and affection, he has long known and valued; the\noral law forbids him to make such an appointment; and if he has no\nlearned friend\u2014and how, where such a law exists, is it ever possible\nthat the learned and the unlearned should be friends?\u2014he must die with\nthe agonizing thought, that his children must be left to the\nguardianship of a perfect stranger. Is it possible to conceive anything\nmore oppressive, unjust, or cruel? But the oral law is not content with\nthis; it will not permit an unlearned man, even in his lifetime, to\nrecover property that has been lost. Whoever finds it may keep it. The\nlaw for other people is, that if any thing be found, the finder is to\nhave proclamation made in the city, or, if the majority of the\ninhabitants be Gentiles, in the synagogue, that the loser may hear of\nit. But the poor Amhaaretz is excluded from the benefit of this command.\nIt may, however, puzzle the reader, how the finder is to know whether\nthe thing which he has found belongs to a learned or an unlearned man.\nOne of the commentators has solved this difficulty in the following\nmanner:\u2014\n\n\u05d5\u05d0\u05f3\u05f3\u05ea \u05de\u05d0\u05d9\u05df \u05d9\u05d5\u05d3\u05e2 \u05e9\u05d4\u05d5\u05d0 \u05e9\u05dc \u05e2\u05dd \u05d4\u05d0\u05e8\u05e5 \u05d5\u05d0\u05de\u05e8 \u05e8\u05f3 \u05d9\u05e6\u05d7\u05e7 \u05db\u05d2\u05d5\u05df \u05e9\u05e9\u05d9\u05d9\u05e8\u05d0 \u05e9\u05dc \u05e2\u05dd \u05d4\u05d0\u05e8\u05e5\n\u05e2\u05d5\u05d1\u05e8\u05ea \u05d5\u05e8\u05d0\u05d9\u05e0\u05d5 \u05e9\u05e0\u05e4\u05dc \u05de\u05d4\u05dd \u05c3\n\n\u201cIf you ask, How is the finder to know that the thing found belongs to\nan Amhaaretz? R. Isaac says, it is in such a case as when a crowd of\nAmharatzin is passing, and we see that it fell from them.\u201d (Ibid.) So\nthat, according to this interpretation, the disciples of the wise men\nare positively allowed to retain what they know does not belong to them,\nif they only see that it does belong to an unlearned man; and yet these\nare the men who are so afraid of the dishonesty of the unlearned, as to\nforbid their appointment to the office of guardian to orphans, or\ntreasurer to a charitable fund. Let any man of common sense decide,\nwhether this law is honest or dishonest, and then let him decide,\nwhether it can come from God, and whether such a religion is fit for an\nhonest man?\n\nThe most important point, however, remains, and that is, the permission\nto kill an unlearned man, or to rend him like a fish. We have been told\nthat this is merely figurative language, but the context is not such as\nto lead to this conclusion; on the contrary, the passage itself, and all\nthat precedes and follows, leads us to believe that it was meant\nliterally. In the first place, it is said, that it is lawful to kill an\nAmhaaretz without observing the rules of \u05e9\u05d7\u05d9\u05d8\u05d4 slaughtering, and when\nthe disciples ask the reason, R. Eleazar replies, Because these rules\nwould require a benediction to be pronounced, whereas he would not have\nan Amhaaretz treated with such respect. Let any man explain the\nfigurative meaning of all this. Secondly, R. Samuel, to take away all\nambiguity, says, in the name of R. Johannan, that it is lawful to rend\nhim as a fish. Now it is known that, with regard to fish, the rules of\n\u05e9\u05d7\u05d9\u05d8\u05d4 or slaughtering, are not observed. All ambiguity, therefore, as to\nR. Eleazar\u2019s meaning, is here removed. Thirdly, it is evident that the\nrabbies looked upon the unlearned as nothing better than beasts. They\nsay, that the daughters of the unlearned are an abomination, and their\nwives vermin: yea, that their daughters are beasts. Now, when men are so\nwicked as to use such language concerning their fellow-creatures, are we\nto be astonished that they would draw the conclusion that necessarily\nfollows from such premises, and that they should allow these beasts and\nvermin to be killed? When we see that these rabbies allow an unlearned\nman to be robbed with impunity of that which he has lost, what principle\nof conscience or justice is there left to prevent them from killing him\nwhom they have robbed? If all the other principles of these rabbies were\njust, honest, upright, and merciful, we might be tempted to suppose,\nthat in these words they enveloped some mystical sense. But when we see\nthat the principles which precede and follow are an outrage upon\nhumanity, justice, and mercy, no such supposition is necessary.\n\nBut, after all, how did the commentators understand the passage? If we,\nas Gentiles, are accused of misrepresenting the sense, what did the\nrabbies, who succeeded, make of this passage? The commentary from which\nwe have just quoted, after saying, that if a crowd of Amharatzin let any\nthing fall, it is lawful to keep it without giving public notice, adds,\nthat this is to be understood strictly of what is lost, but that it does\nnot warrant the learned to rob them by force; upon which the following\ndifficulty is started:\u2014\n\n\u05d0\u05de\u05d0\u05d9 \u05de\u05de\u05d5\u05e0\u05d5 \u05d0\u05e1\u05d5\u05e8 \u05d4\u05e9\u05ea\u05d0 \u05e0\u05d5\u05e4\u05d5 \u05de\u05d5\u05ea\u05e8 \u05e9\u05de\u05d5\u05ea\u05e8 \u05dc\u05e7\u05e8\u05e6\u05d5 \u05db\u05d3\u05d2 \u05d5\u05db\u05d5\u05f3 \u05c3\n\n\u201cWhy should it be unlawful to deal thus with his money, when it is\nlawful to deal violently with his body, for it is lawful to rend him as\na fish.\u201d (Ibid.) Now here this rabbi evidently interpreted the\npermission to kill literally, and he naturally asks, If it be lawful to\ntake away a man\u2019s life by violence, why should it not be lawful to take\naway his money? If the words had been taken figuratively, there would\nhave been no room for this question. We have, therefore, neither\nmisunderstood nor misrepresented the meaning. The oral law allows the\nmurder of an unlearned man, and that with as little ceremony as it\npermits the killing of an unclean animal, or a fish. We therefore repeat\nour assertion, that the oral law cannot be from God. One such passage is\nquite sufficient to discredit the whole, not only because of its\nintrinsic wickedness, but because it displays the character of those men\nwith whom the oral law originated. Superabundant self-conceit,\ncold-blooded cruelty, and unrelenting enmity, are the striking\ncharacteristics of those men, who, by dint of force and fraud, gradually\nenslaved the minds of the Jewish people. It appears from these passages,\nand from the plain confessions of the rabbies in the context, that the\ncommon people struggled hard before they submitted to the yoke of the\noral law. The attempt to impose such a burden, evidently produced the\nmost bitter animosity between the rabbies and the people. The people\nwere ready, as one of the rabbies says, to kill all the wise men, and\nthese, in return laid down the principles of retaliation which we have\njust considered, and which are a disgrace to the name of religion. These\nprinciples, however, would not have triumphed if the rabbies had not got\nthe whole power of the State into their own hands. By means of that\nunlawful and heathenish tribunal, the Sanhedrin, they were able to\ncoerce the people, and to kill all who refused to submit. Judaism,\ntherefore, as it at present exist, is a religion which was originally\nforced upon the Jewish people against their will, and therefore has no\nclaims upon their reverence or gratitude. By the dispersion, God has\nremoved the main difficulties in the way of their moral and spiritual\nemancipation. Christianity is in the ascendant, and will not permit any\n\u201cwise men\u201d to kill the unlearned without ceremony. The people may,\ntherefore, assert their religious liberty in perfect security, and\nwithout any fear of the Sanhedrin. We tell the Jews, even on the\nadmissions of the Talmud itself, that their present religion is not even\nthe object of their choice, and much less the religion given by God, but\nthat it was imposed upon the consciences of their fathers by force; and,\ntherefore, ask the Jews, Whether they still wish to continue slaves to\nsuperstition and cruelty, when God has, in his providence, arranged the\nmeans of their delivery? The Jewish people have often had reason to\ncomplain of the injustice, contempt, and cruelty of the nations amongst\nwhom they have been scattered; but we ask them, Have the most barbarous\nnations ever treated them with more contempt, injustice, and cruelty\nthan that which we have just found authorized by the oral law? Ignorant\nand superstitious Gentiles have turned the holy name of Jew into a term\nof reproach, but where was it ever known or heard of, that the most\nignorant and most superstitious called the Jews vermin, or compared the\nwives and daughters of Israel to beasts? It is Judaism, and Judaism\nonly, that utters this foul and inhuman slander. In seasons of popular\ntumult, mobs have risen and plundered the Jews; but where is the nation,\nor the religion, which has made a law that it is lawful to keep the lost\nproperty of a Jew? Judaism, and Judaism alone, is guilty of this\ninjustice. Prejudice has unjustly assailed the character of the Jewish\npeople, but what sect or party of Christians ever thought of branding\nthem as liars, whose evidence is not to be received; as rogues, unworthy\nto be appointed as guardians to orphans or property; as murderers, with\nwhom it is unsafe to walk by the road-side? Yet this is the deliberate\nsentence of Judaism respecting the unlearned; that is, respecting the\ngreat mass of the Jewish people. Just suppose that the Parliament of\nEngland was to pass a law, declaring that the Jews are to be considered\nincompetent to give testimony, or to be guardians of property, warning\npeople to beware of walking with a Jew, and permitting men to kill them,\nor to rend them like a fish; would not the Jewish people perceive in a\nmoment the injustice and the cruelty of such legislation? Would they not\nhave just reason to complain of the blind prejudice which possessed the\nminds of the legislators? And yet, this is only what the rabbies have\ndone. If Judaism be true, then the mass of the Jewish people are liars,\nrogues, and murderers; for this is what Judaism asserts; and if the\nJewish people consent to its truth, they are stamping themselves, their\nwives, and their daughters with infamy. The truth or falsehood of the\noral law is not simply a speculative question, or a question relating to\ntheir eternal interests in another world; it is a question deeply\naffecting their characters and their welfare at present. It simply comes\nto this, are all unlearned Jews, that is, the overwhelming majority of\nthe people, to be considered as utterly destitute of truth, honesty, and\nhumanity? If Judaism be true, the answer is, Yes. Let, then, every Jew,\nrich or poor, learned or unlearned, consider whether he will still\nprofess a religion that defames and insults the mass of his countrymen.\nThe character of the nation is foully attacked, defamed, and vilified,\nbut not by Gentiles, not by Turk, Infidel, or Heretic, but by the Talmud\nand the Rabbies. The only way in which this calumny can be met and wiped\naway, is, by a renunciation of that system which has dared to utter it.\nIf there live a Jew who has the slightest regard for the honour of the\nnation, he is bound to protest aloud against the falsehood of the oral\nlaw. That it is false, requires no great stretch of argument to prove.\nEvery unlearned Jew, who is conscious that he is not a liar, a rogue,\nand a murderer, has the proof in his own breast, that Judaism is false.\nEvery unlearned Jew, who duly honours and respects his wife and\ndaughters, and believes that they are neither vermin nor beasts, is a\nwitness against the truth of the oral law. Every one who believes that\ndishonesty is contrary to the will of God, and that the murder of the\nunlearned is unlawful, has the proof that that system which was imposed\nupon his fathers, is not from God.\n\n\n\n\n                                No. LX.\n                            RECAPITULATION.\n\n\nHaving, by the help and mercy of God, brought those papers to the last\nnumber, we propose here to sum up their contents, and to give a review\nof the arguments which have been urged. The topics discussed have been\nvery various, but the object in all has been the same,\u2014To show that\nJudaism, or the religion of the oral law, is not the old religion of\nMoses and the Prophets, but a new and totally different system, devised\nby designing men, and unworthy of the Jewish people. That Judaism is\nidentical with the religion of the oral law was proved in the first\nnumber by an appeal to the highest possible authority, the Prayer-book\nof the synagogue, which is not only formed in obedience to the\ndirections of the oral law, but declares expressly that the Talmud is of\nDivine authority. So long, therefore, as that Prayer-book is the ritual\nof the synagogue, the worshippers there must be considered as\nTalmudists, believers in all the absurdities, and advocates of all the\nintolerance of that mass of tradition. That this is no misrepresentation\nand no unfounded conclusion of our own, appears from the latest book\npublished in this country by a member of the Jewish persuasion. Joshua\nVan Oven, Esq., has, in his \u201cIntroduction to the Principles of the\nJewish Faith,\u201d a chapter, headed JUDAISM, which begins thus,\u2014\u201cThe Jewish\nreligion, or Judaism, is founded solely on the law of Moses, so called\nfrom its having been brought down by him from Mount Sinai. With the\nparticulars of these laws he had been inspired by the Almighty during\nthe forty days he remained on the mount, after receiving the Ten\nCommandments; these he afterwards embodied in the sacred volume, known\nand accepted as the written law, and called the Pentateuch, or the Five\nBooks of Moses, contained in the volume we term the Bible. _We also,\nfrom the same source, receive, as sacred and authentic_, a large number\nof traditions not committed to writing, but transmitted by word of mouth\ndown to later times; without which many enactments in the Holy Bible\ncould not have been understood and acted upon; these, termed traditional\nor oral laws, were collected and formed into a volume called the\n\u2018Mishna,\u2019 by Rabbi Jehudah Hakodesh, A.M. 4150. In addition to this, _we\nare guided_ by the explications of the later schools of pious and\nlearned rabbies, _constituting what is now known by the name of the\nTalmud, or Gemara_.\u201d[37]\n\nNothing can be more explicit than this avowal. A learned and pious Jew\nof the nineteenth century honestly avows that Judaism is the religion of\nthe Talmud; and upon this principle we have examined Judaism, and\ncompared it with Moses and the Prophets, and the result of this\ncomparison is\u2014\n\nI. THAT JUDAISM IS A FALSE RELIGION.\n\nThe premises, from which we draw this conclusion, are\u2014\n\n1. _That the oral law is altogether destitute of external evidence._ To\nestablish the authority of the oral law, it is absolutely necessary to\nprove a succession of Sanhedrins from the time of Moses to that of Rabbi\nJehudah, or at the least an unbroken chain of tradition. But it has been\nproved, in Nos. xliii. and xliv., that there was no such thing as a\nSanhedrin until after the Greek conquest of Judea, and in No. xlv., that\nthere is no continuous chain of tradition. The only evidence, therefore,\nwhich could beget faith in the mind of a reasonable man is wanting.\n\n2. _The oral law itself is full of manifest fables._ This has been\nproved almost in every number, but particularly from Nos. xvii.-xxi.,\nwhere the fables selected are such as are particularly noticed in the\nprayers of the synagogue. No one can doubt that the stories about\nLeviathan and Behemoth\u2014of Adam\u2019s singing the 92d Psalm after a\nconversation with Cain\u2014of the river Sambation\u2014of the experiment made by\nTurnus Rufus to raise his father\u2014of Mount Sinai having been turned, like\na tub, over the Israelites\u2014of the descent of 600,000 angels to crown the\nIsraelites\u2014of the people\u2019s travelling 240 miles backwards and forwards\nduring the delivery of the Ten Commandments, &c., &c.,\u2014are all downright\nfables, not a whit more authentic than similar stories contained in the\nKoran, or the Arabian Nights\u2019 Entertainments. Any one fable would be\nsufficient to overturn the credit of the oral law, but what are we to\nthink of the host of downright falsehoods here enumerated?\n\n3. _It is directly subversive of the state of things established in the\nwritten law._ Moses appointed the priests, the sons of Levi, as the\nreligious teachers of Israel. The oral law has ousted them altogether\nfrom their office, as was shown in No. xli.\n\n4. _The oral law encourages those Heathen superstitions expressly\nforbidden by Moses and the Prophets_, such as magic, astrology, amulets,\nand charms, as is shown from Nos. xxii.-xxvi.\n\n5. _The oral law loosens the moral obligations._ It teaches men how to\nevade the Divine commandments, as was shown in Nos. xi., xiv., and xv.\nIt allows dispensation from oaths, as proved in Nos. lvi. and lvii. It\nallows men to retain what they know does not belong to them, if it only\nbelongs to a Gentile (p. 18), or to an unlearned Jew, as appears from\nNo. lix. It sanctions the murder of the unlearned.\n\n6. _It leads men to put trust in mere external acts as a compensation\nfor moral delinquencies._ The washing of hands (No. x.)\u2014the external\nsanctification of the Sabbath (No. xxix.)\u2014the blowing of the cornet at\nthe new year (No. xxxiv.)\u2014the rite of circumcision (No. lviii.), &c.,\n&c., are represented as sufficient to save wicked men from the just\npunishment of their misdeeds.\n\n7. _Though called an oral law, because not written with ink, it is\nreally written in blood._ For the most trifling offences it sentences\nthe offender to be flogged (Nos. xiii. and liii.)\u2014for the transgression\nof the rabbinic commands respecting the Sabbath, it awards the sentence\nof death (No. xxvii.)\u2014and, by its laws respecting the killing and\ncooking meat (Nos. xlix.-liv.), it prevents the poor from getting food\nfor themselves and their children.\n\n8. _It degrades the female sex_, by permitting polygamy (No. xlvii.)\u2014by\npermitting divorce on the most trifling pretext (No. xlviii.)\u2014by\ndeclaring women incompetent to give evidence\u2014by excluding them from the\npublic worship of God\u2014and by teaching that they are under no obligation\nto learn the revealed will of their Creator (No. iii.).\n\n9. _It oppresses and insults slaves_, by forbidding them to be\ninstructed in the law (No. iii.), and by placing them, when dead, on a\nlevel with brutes (No. lv.).\n\n10. _It is a persecuting and intolerant system._ It gives every rabbi\nthe power of excommunicating the Jews (No. xxxi.), and it commands the\nconversion of all the Gentile nations by the sword (No. vi.).\n\n11. _It forbids the exercise of the commonest feelings of humanity to\nthose whom it calls idolaters._ It will not permit a drowning idolater\nto be helped, nor a perishing idolater to be rescued, nor an idolatrous\nwoman in travail to be delivered (Nos. iv. and v.).\n\n12. _It leaves those Gentiles who are not idolaters without religion._\nIt teaches that they are not commanded to love God, and breaks up all\nthe happiness of domestic life, by asserting that amongst Gentiles there\nis no such thing as marriage (No. viii.). For these and other reasons\nwhich might be adduced, we believe that Judaism is contrary to the\nreligion of Moses and the Prophets\u2014that it has not proceeded from God,\nbut is the mere invention of men, and therefore false.\n\nII. From these premises we have concluded, secondly, THAT JUDAISM HAS\nFOR ITS AUTHORS WICKED MEN, UNWORTHY OF CREDIT. One of the most daring\nacts of wickedness, that can be committed is to invent laws and\nprinciples, and pass them off as the laws of God. Every degree of wilful\nfalsehood is sinful; but to forge Divine laws, and impose upon the\nconsciences of men, is the most daring of all wickedness, for it not\nonly deceives men, but it dishonours God. The Divine Being is\nrepresented as the author of principles and practices which are abhorred\nby the good even amongst men. Is it possible that those men could be\ngood, who invented the fables of which we have spoken above\u2014or who\noverturned the Mosaic constitution for the purposes of personal\naggrandisement\u2014or who teach that oaths may be broken with impunity\u2014or\nthat men may keep what does not belong to them\u2014or that unlearned men may\nbe murdered without ceremony\u2014or that it is lawful to look upon the\nagonies and pain of an idolater without rendering him any assistance or\nfeeling any pity? If falsehood, perjury, dishonesty, cruelty, and\ninhumanity, constitute men wicked, then the authors of the oral law are\nwicked men, and altogether unworthy of credit. And therefore we\nconclude\u2014\n\nIII. THAT THEIR TESTIMONY AGAINST CHRISTIANITY IS OF NO VALUE. Many Jews\nof the present day reject Christianity simply because the rulers of the\nnation rejected the Lord Jesus Christ. But the discoveries which we have\nmade of the principles and practices of these men show, that there is no\nforce whatever in this argument. Their testimony against Jesus of\nNazareth is not to be trusted any more than Mahomet\u2019s testimony against\nthe fidelity of the Jewish nation in preserving the Scriptures. This\nimpostor says, that the Jews have corrupted the Old Testament, but no\none believes the charge, because he has been convicted himself of\nforging revelations and laws. The authors of the oral law have been\nconvicted of the same offence, and their testimony must be rejected for\nthe very same reason. They have passed off their own inventions as\nDivine laws\u2014they have taught their absurd legends as undoubted matters\nof fact\u2014they are plainly convicted of falsehood, and the only\nalternative is to say that these falsehoods are wilful, and then the men\nwho witness against Christianity are wilful liars, or to confess that\nthe authors were mad, and therefore incompetent to give any testimony.\nIn every case they must be regarded as propagaters of falsehood. But\nfalsehood is not the only trait in their character; they were interested\nin their testimony against Jesus: they were his personal enemies,\nbecause he opposed their pretensions and condemned all their inventions.\nThey had, therefore, a strong motive for condemning him, and there is\nnothing in their character to lead us to suppose that their love of\njustice would prevail over their private feelings. When the general\ntenour of a man\u2019s conduct is evidently the result of upright principle,\nit is possible to believe that he would be just even to an enemy. When a\nman\u2019s whole life has been distinguished by tender compassion, it is\npossible to believe that he would not be cruel even to a foe. But\nneither supposition holds good with respect to the authors of the oral\nlaw. They do not even profess integrity, for they teach that it is\nlawful to defraud an unlearned man\u2014they declare, by their permission to\nkill an Amhaaretz, that they had no value for human life. If they were\ncapable of murdering in cold blood a man who had never offended them,\nsimply because he did not belong to their party, is it to be wondered at\nthat they should endeavour to destroy one who who was a direct opposer?\nThe condemnation of the Lord Jesus Christ by such men is not only no\nargument against his character or claims, but even an argument in his\nfavour. It is a decisive proof that he did not belong to their party,\nand that, therefore, there are not the same objections to his testimony\nas to theirs. The Jews of the present day, therefore, must find some\nother reasons for rejecting Jesus of Nazareth. The conduct of their\ngreat and learned men at the time can supply no warrant for unbelief at\npresent: it is, on the contrary, a sort of presumptive evidence that He\nwas a good man. And this presumption is much strengthened by comparing\nthe oral law with the New Testament, whereby we learn\u2014\n\nIV. THAT IN ALL THOSE POINTS WHERE THE ORAL LAW IS WEAK, THE NEW\nTESTAMENT IS STRONG. In the first place, it is entirely free from all\nfabulous additions to the Old Testament history. It recognises the\nauthority, and frequently cites the writings, of Moses and the Prophets,\nbut it is never, like the Talmud, guilty of forgeries. Neither Jesus nor\nhis disciples pretended to have an oral interpretation of the law,\nunknown to the people at large, and therefore capable of being twisted\nto their own purposes. They referred simply to the written word, and by\nit desired to have all their doctrines judged. In the second place, it\nis free from all superstitious doctrines concerning magic, astrology,\nand other heathenish arts. It does not allow absolution from oaths, nor\nmark out any class of society as the lawful victims of fraud and\nviolence. It is merciful to the poor and to slaves. It teaches that the\nsouls of women are as precious in the sight of God as those of men. It\nforbids polygamy, and allows divorce only in one case where it is\nnecessary, and thus protects the weaker sex, and guards the sacredness\nand the happiness of domestic life. It differs especially from the oral\nlaw in its estimation of external rites, and thus gives the strongest\nevidence of its Divine origin. If there be one sign of true religion\nmore satisfactory than another, it is the placing of holiness of heart\nand life as the first great requisite, at the same time that it does not\nundervalue any of God\u2019s commands. Now this mark Christianity has, and\nJudaism wants. The former teaches expressly, That without holiness no\nman shall see the Lord, and that for the want of it no external\nceremonies can compensate. Further, Christianity knows of no violent\nmethods of propagating the truth. It nowhere tells its followers, when\nthey have the power, to compel all men to embrace its doctrines, or to\nput them to death if they refuse. It has not a criminal code written in\nblood, and prescribing floggings of rebellion, or even death, for a mere\nceremonial offence. It does not allow each individual teacher to torment\nthe people by excommunication and anathema at his pleasure. And lastly,\nit does not misrepresent God as an unjust and partial judge, who\nconfines the benefits of revelation to one small nation, and sentences\nthe overwhelming majority of mankind to unholiness and unhappiness. If\never Judaism should attain to universal dominion, and the principles of\nJudaism be brought into action, the whole Gentile world would be doomed\nto misery and ignorance. By pronouncing that amongst Gentiles there is\nno marriage-tie, it would rob them of all domestic peace. By sentencing\nevery Gentile reader of the Bible to death, it would deprive them of all\nthe consolations and instructions of the Word of God, and by forbidding\nthem to keep a Sabbath, it would, so far as it could, annihilate every\ntoken of God\u2019s care and loving-kindness. The triumph of Christianity, on\nthe contrary, and the full development of all its principles, would fill\nthe world with peace, and joy, and happiness. The fundamental principles\nof Christianity, namely, that the Messiah has died for the sins of the\nwhole world, sets forth God as the tender father who cares for all his\nchildren, and therefore teaches all men to regard one another as\nfellow-heirs of the same eternal salvation. It does not deny that Israel\nhas peculiar privileges as a nation, but fully acknowledges that \u201cthey\nare still beloved for the fathers\u2019 sakes,\u201d and that they are yet to be\nthe benefactors of the human race as they were of old. But it asserts,\nat the same time, that God is not the God of the Jews only, but of the\nGentiles also, and thus makes it possible for Jew and Gentile to love\neach other. The only foundation for the peace and unity of all nations\nis the recognition of God as the Father of all, and this foundation is\nthe very corner-stone of Christianity, whilst it neither does nor can\nform any part of the fabric of Judaism. Christianity teaches that the\nfirst and great commandment is, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with\nall thy heart; and the second is, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as\nthyself; and teaches, at the same time, that all men are our neighbours.\nJudaism teaches that circumcision is the greatest of all the\ncommandments, and that none but Jews and proselytes are neighbours. Thus\nJudaism divides, whilst Christianity tends to unite, all the children of\nmen in the bands of peace. It has only one principle of God\u2019s dealings\nto men, and that principle is love; and one principle for the guiding of\nman\u2019s conduct to men, and that is love also. Let not the Jewish reader\nthink that we Gentiles wish to ascribe any merit to ourselves, as if by\nour own wit or wisdom we had found out a religious system superior to\nanything that Israel had been able to devise. Far from it; we\nacknowledge again, as we did in the first number, that we are only\ndisciples of one part of the Jewish nation. From the Jews Christianity\ncame to us. It has been a light to lighten us Gentiles, but we\nacknowledge its Divine Author as the glory of his people Israel. All we\nmean by instituting the comparison is, to show those who still adhere to\nthe oral law, that there is another Jewish religion infinitely superior,\nand more like that of Moses and the Prophets. And we appeal confidently\nto every reader of these papers to decide whether the New Testament or\nthe Talmud is the better book, and to say which is the most agreeable to\nthe will of God as revealed to their forefathers. We earnestly call upon\nthem to make the decision, and to deliver themselves from that unmerited\nweight of odium which has rested upon them for centuries; and from that\nstill more dreadful evil, the displeasure of Almighty God, which has\nfollowed them ever since they forsook the Old Paths wherein their\nfathers walked.\n\nIt is time for those, at least, who profess to abhor certain parts of\nthe Talmud and oral law, to justify their professions by consistent\nconduct. If they wish people to believe them when they profess love and\ncharity towards all men, they must begin by repudiating the authority of\nthe oral law, and renouncing the worship of the synagogue. How can we\npossibly believe that those are sincere in their professions to men, who\ndeclare that they are insincere in their worship of the heart-searching\nGod? Every man who uses the prayers of the synagogue, there confesses\nhimself to God as a believer in the oral law, and consequently ready to\nexecute all its decrees of cruelty, fraud, and persecution\u2014ready, when\nhe has the power, to convert all nations with the sword. That is his\nprofession in the synagogue; when, then, he comes forth from the solemn\nact of Divine worship, and tells me that he is liberal and charitable,\nand that he abhors persecution, how can I possibly believe him? There is\nfalsehood somewhere, and the only possible mode of removing this\nappearance is by a public renunciation of the oral law, and an erasure\nof those passages in the public prayers which affirm its Divine\nauthority. This all truly liberal-minded Jews owe to themselves, to the\nChristian public, to their brethren, and, above all, to their God. To\nthemselves they owe it, because so long as their words and their deeds\ncontradict each other, a mist hangs over them. To the Christian public\nthey owe it, for they must naturally desire to know the principles of\nthose with whom they are connected. To their brethren they owe it, for\nthis is the only way of delivering the nation from the calamities of\ncenturies. To their God they owe it, for by the blasphemies of the oral\nlaw, His character is misrepresented, and His name blasphemed.\n\nTHE END.\n\nFootnote 37:\n\n  \u201cA Manual of Judaism,\u201d by Joshua Van Oven, Esq., M.R.C.S.L., London,\n  1835. Page 22.\n\n\n\n\n                                 INDEX.\n\n\n Abarbanel, 124\n\n Aben Ezra, 123\n\n Abraham at the door of hell, 450\n\n Adam, 136\n\n Agadah, recognized in Jewish Prayer-book, 3\n\n Ahijah, the Shilonite, fable about, 352\n\n Almsgiving, Rabbinic, 302\n   merit of, 307\n\n Amhaaretz, meaning of the word, 458\n   disqualifications of, 459\n   may be robbed and slain with impunity, 461\n   lawful to kill, 6\n\n Amulets, virtues of, 183\n\n Angels carry up the sound of the horn at new year, 267\n\n Angels, of the waves, 197\n\n Angel, evil, 229\n\n Angels ministering, 164\n\n Apostates, to be killed, 36\n\n Arbah, Turim, 112\n\n Astrology, taught and practised, 175\n\n Atonement, day of, 279\n   itself an atonement, 279\n   repentance an, 279\n   a cock killed as an, 283\n   death an, 299\n\n\n Baptism necessary to a proselyte, 304\n\n Bar Kochav, 222\n\n Bechai, 142\n\n Behemoth, legend of, 128, &c.\n\n Bither, the city of, 216\n\n\n Cain, 138\n\n Catechism, Bavarian Jewish, 25\n   gives a false view of Judaism, 26\n\n Charity, Rabbinic, 112\n\n Charm, Rabbinic, for a bleeding of the nose, 192\n   for the bite of a mad dog, 193\n   for a storm at sea, 196\n   for the bite of a scorpion, 200\n\n Charms allowed on the Sabbath-day, 200\n\n Charm for bed time, 201\n\n Christianity, a Jewish religion, 1\n\n Christianity, the religion of the New Testament, 2\n\n Christians considered as idolaters, 419\n   not counted amongst the pious of the nations, 4\n   not in a state of salvation, 4\n\n Circumcision equivalent to all the commandments, 451\n   meritoriousness of, 450\n\n Cock, killing a cock as atonement, 283\n\n Commandments, 442; 162\n\n Cruelty, Rabbinic, 8, 99, 209\n   to women, 377\n\n\n Dead, Rabbinic mourning for, 428\n   prayers for the, 295\n\n Death, an atonement, 299\n\n Demons, asking counsel of, 203\n\n Deniers of the law, three classes of, 4\n\n Deputies, French Jewish, 24\n\n Deuteronomy xvii. 8, &c., explained, 11\n\n Dispensation, Rabbinic, from oaths, 434\n\n Divorce, Rabbinic, doctrine of, 373\n\n Drunkenness allowed on feast of Purim, 47\n\n\n Edomites, Christians called, 123\n\n Eleazar, Rabbi, 6\n\n Elijah, the Prophet, conversation of, with R. Jose, 323\n\n Epicureans, 4\n   to be killed, 36\n\n Epicurean, reader in synagogue suspected of being, 127\n\n Evasion, Rabbinic, 80, 83, 107, 225, 235\n\n Excommunication for not washing hands, 75\n   Rabbinic, 239\n   laws concerning, with respect to the unlearned and learned, 239\n   injustice of, 239\n\n\n Fast on the ninth of Av, 216\n\n Fasting, merit of, 264\n\n Fire, not to be extinguished, 102\n\n Flogging of rebellion, 99, 211, 228, 383, 386, 420\n\n Friday, Good, 87\n\n\n Gentile, who studies the law, guilty of death, 22\n   who keeps a Sabbath-day, guilty of death, 22\n   good advice not to be given to, 33\n   woman not to be helped in child-bed, 33\n   not neighbour, 34\n   lost property not to be restored to, 35\n   Daniel punished for giving good advice to, 33\n   who wishes to turn Jew, 63\n   a Jew not publicly to receive alms from, 306\n   Sabbath not to be profaned to save a Gentile\u2019s life, 212, 214\n   food regarded as carrion, 383\n   food not to be eaten, 383, 416\n   wine unlawful, 419\n   he that steals from, only to pay the principal, 34\n   wine, to drink, worse than fornication, 424\n\n Gentiles, idolatrous, to be exterminated, 42\n   to be converted by force, 42\n   idolatrous, not to be suffered in the land of Israel, 28\n\n Gentile, drowning, not to be delivered, 30\n\n Gentiles, duties towards, 24\n   not brethren, 26\n   not neighbours, 26\n   not to be greeted except from fear, 10, 26, 28\n   condemned for transgressing the command about tabernacles, 288\n   still have the defilement of the serpent, 156\n   cursing the, on the feast of Passover, 120, 121, 122\n   no pious, now, 67\n   marriage of, not binding, 58\n   and dogs, 107\n\n Gershom, R., anathema by, 366\n\n\n Hands, laying on of, 328\n   washing of, 71\n\n Heathen, who are not in a state of salvation, 5\n\n High Priest, an unlearned man, 7\n\n Hilchoth Accum, 28, 33\n   Avadim, 21\n   Avel, 428\n   Berachoth, 71, 73\n   Deoth, 113\n   Genevah, 34\n   Gezelah, 34\n   Girushin, 375\n   Gittin, 374\n   Iom Tov, 116\n   Ishuth, 366\n   Issure Biah, 64\n   Kiddush Hachodesh, 100\n   Maakaloth Asuroth, 419\n   Mamrim, 335\n   Matt\u2019noth Aniim, 304\n   Megillah, 48\n   Mikvaoth, 72\n   M\u2019lachim, 22, 25\n   P\u2019riah u\u2019r\u2019viah, 7\n   Rotzeach, 32, 33\n   Sanhedrin, 172, 342\n   Sh\u2019vuoth, 436\n   Taanith, 216\n   Talmud Torah, 17, 148\n   T\u2019phillah, 2, 128\n   T\u2019shuvah, 4, 247\n\n Hillel, the elder, 187\n\n Holyday, how to make fire on, 106\n\n Holydays, additional, prescribed by the rabbies, 98, 101\n\n\n Jeremiah unjustly condemned, 13\n\n Jewish-German, 283\n\n Jews persecuted in Spain and Portugal, 42\n\n Illegitimate, a learned man takes precedence of High Priest, 7\n\n Intolerance, Talmudic, 28-39\n\n Ioma, 19\n\n Jonathan, son of Uzziel, 187\n\n Jost\u2019s history, 125\n\n Isaac, merit of offering, 271\n\n Jubilee, year of, 66\n\n Judaism the religion of the oral law, 2\n   and of the Jewish Prayer-book, 2\n   and Christianity cannot both be true, 3\n   a false religion, 465\n   its authors wicked men, 467\n\n Judgment, Rabbinic, idea of the final, 287\n\n\n Karo, R. Joseph, 17\n\n K\u2019hillath Shlomoh, 282\n\n Kiddushin, 19\n\n Kimchi, 93\n\n\n Leaven, putting away of, 80\n\n Legends, 127-167\n\n Levi, family of, still known, 312\n   privileges of, in the synagogue, 313\n   David, 134\n\n Leviathan, legend of, 128, &c.\n\n Levites, scriptural privileges of, 311\n\n Liberty, religious, first taught by Jesus Christ, 46\n\n Luck, good, 182\n\n\n Magic allowed by Talmud, 168-174\n\n Maimonides, 25, et passim\n   intolerance, 26\n\n Meat, lawful and unlawful, 397\n   in milk, laws concerning, 404\n   contrary to Scripture, 404, 405\n\n Medrash Rabba, 153\n\n Merit of ancestors, 285\n\n Merit, doctrine of, 247, &c.\n\n Messiah, already come, 387\n\n Miracles, Rabbinic, 203\n\n Mishna, recognised in Jewish Prayer-book, 3\n\n Mixture, Rabbinic, command of, 116\n\n Muktzeh, 103\n\n\n Napoleon, 24\n\n New Year, Jewish, 247\n\n New Year, judgment at, 247\n   prayers for, 264\n   merit and advantage of blowing the horn on, 266\n\n Noachid\u00e6, 25, 41\n   who they are, 55\n   seven commandments of, 56\n   may transgress commandments, 57\n   murderer of, not to be put to death, 62\n   unintentionally killing a Jew, to be put to death, 61\n   when received, 67\n   how received, 68\n\n\n Oral law opposed to the Word of God in duty to parents, 9, 10\n   a mixed system of good and evil, 16\n   how much time to be devoted to the study of, 16\n   women and children not to study, 18\n   perpetual and unchangeable, 53\n   precepts of, given to Moses, 161\n\n Oaths, Rabbinic dispensation from, 435, 450\n\n\n Parable of Good Samaritan illustrated, 29\n\n Parents, if in captivity, to be redeemed after the Rabbi, 9\n   duty to, according to oral law, 9\n\n Passover, rites of, 79\n   Christ our, 91\n   four cups of, 96\n\n Pentecost prayers, 145\n\n Pesachim, treatise, 6\n\n Pharisees, enemies of the Lord Jesus, 9\n   bad men, 8\n\n Physician, Jewish, not to cure idolaters, 33\n\n Pirke, Eleazer, 137\n\n Planets, 175\n\n Polygamy, allowed, 366\n\n Poor, Rabbinic, oppression of the, 97\n   Rabbinic religion not for the, 237\n   Rabbinic cruelty to, 414, 429\n\n Power, Rabbinic, to excommunicate, 239\n\n Prayer-book, Jewish, acknowledges and teaches the authority of the\n    Talmud, 2, 3\n   Jewish, full of legends, 127-167\n\n Priests, scriptural office of, 310\n\n Proselytes, sojourning, 26\n   how to be instructed, 63\n   baptism of, 304\n\n Purgatory, Rabbinic, 296\n\n Purim, feast of, 47\n\n\n Rabbi, duty to, goes before duty to parents, 9, 10\n   fear of, as the fear of God, 11\n   reverence due to, 15\n   whosoever despises a, to be excommunicated, 15\n   not to forgive a public affront, 243\n   method of creating a, 328\n\n Rabbies not agreed, 399, 400\n\n Rabbinic charity, 112\n   evasion, 107, 110\n   order, novelty of, 328\n   power to excommunicate, 239\n   acknowledgments that Messiah is born, 389-393\n\n Ramban, 142\n\n Rome called Edom, 123\n\n Rosh Hashanah, 298\n\n\n Saadiah Gaon, 162\n\n Sabbath, unlawful for a Gentile to keep a, 22\n   laws of, 104, 114-119\n   spirits cannot be cited on, 141\n   damned have rest on, 141\n\n Sabbath-day, amulets on, 184\n\n Sabbath, laws concerning, 285-290\n   lamp, reward for, 229\n   moving things on, 232\n   merit of keeping the, 224\n   jurisdictions, 232\n\n Salvation, who are excluded from, by the oral law, 4\n\n Sambation, 139\n\n Sanhedrin, not infallible, 8\n   great council of, 168\n   members of, magicians, 168\n   understood seventy languages, 168\n   all handsome men, 171\n   pillar of the oral law, 335\n   a later, may reverse the decision of a former, 335\n   not a Divine institution, 337\n   of Greek origin, 341\n   greater and lesser, 343\n   business of, 345\n   death to those who rebelled against, 344\n   contrary to Scripture, 345\n   Parisian, 366\n\n Satan deceived by the blowing of the horn in the month of Elul, 266\n\n Scapegoat, 280\n\n Schoolmasters, Rabbinic, 315\n\n Scripture, women not bound to study, 18\n   not to be studied so much as the Talmud, 16\n   when not to be studied at all, 17\n\n Sepher Jetzirah, 181\n\n Schulchan Aruch, 7\n\n Sinai, 163\n\n Slaughtering, laws concerning, 380\n   laws of, 396\n\n Slaves exempt from the duty of studying the law of God, 17\n   unlawful to teach, 21\n   regarded as beasts, 431\n\n Souls of all Israel at Sinai, 152\n\n Sotah, 76\n\n Stars, influence of, 175\n\n Study of the law equivalent to all the commandments, 51\n\n\n Tabernacles, feast of, 287\n   merit of, 287\n   prayers for the feast of, 295\n\n Talmud, recognised in Jewish Prayer-book, 3\n   legends of, 128, 167\n\n Tradition, Rabbinic argument for overthrow, 11\n   no unbroken train of, 350\n\n Treatise, Avodah Zarah, 291\n   Bava Bathra, 187\n   Berachoth, 161\n   Gittin, 192\n   Moed Katon, 175\n   Shabbath, 157\n   Succah, 180\n   Z\u2019vachin, 150\n\n Turnus Rufus, 140, 216\n\n\n Unlearned man, lawful to kill, 6\n   the wives and daughters of, not to be taken as wives, 6\n   to be accounted as beasts, 6\n   man, unlawful for, to eat meat, 7\n\n\n Van Oven, Joshua, Esq., Manual of Judaism, 465\n\n Venus planet, 177\n\n Washing of hands, 71\n   to neglect, as bad as fornication, 76\n   who neglects, excommunicated, 75\n\n Wine, Gentile, unlawful, 419\n\n Woman, insane, to be turned out, 377\n\n Women, exempt from the duty to study the law, 17\n   do not receive the same reward as a man, 18\n   not to be taught the law, 18\n   minds of, not equal to the study of the law, 18\n   command of Moses, respecting, 21\n   duties of, prescribed in New Testament, 22\n   Rabbinic degradation of, 359\n   cannot give testimony, 360\n   not regarded as part of the congregation, 361\n\n World to come, who are excluded from, 4\n   all Israel has a share in, 64\n   Rabbinic opinions about, 129\n\nPrinted at the Operative Institution, Palestine Place, Bethnal Green,\nLondon.\n\n\n\n\n \u25cf Transcriber\u2019s Notes:\n    \u25cb Text that was in italics is enclosed by underscores (_italics_).\n    \u25cb Footnotes have been moved to follow the chapters in which they are\n      referenced.","title":"The old paths, or the Talmud tested by Scripture: Being a comparison of the principles and doctrines of modern Judaism with the religion of Moses and the prophets","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":221348}