Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

עמדו על דרכים וראו ושאלו לנתבות עולם : ירמיה ו' טז

"THE OLD PATHS."-JER. vi. 16.

NUMBER 1.

FRIDAY, JANUARY 15, 1836.

[ocr errors]

PRICE ONE-PENNY.

Jewish nation, and also the possibility, in such a case, of God's turning to the Gentiles. "Thus saith the Lord, Stand ye in the ways, and see, and ask for the old paths, where is the good way, and walk therein, and ye shall find rest for your souls. But they said, We will not walk therein. Also, I set watchmen over you, saying, hearken to the sound of the trumpet. But they said, We will not hearken. Therefore, hear ye nations, w, and know, O congregation, what is among them. Hear, O earth; behold, I will bring evil upon this people, even the fruit of their thoughts, because they have not hearkened unto my words, nor to my law, but rejected it.”—Jer. vi. 16-19. Who will dare to deny, after such a passage, the possibility of a Jew's being in error?

SALVATION IS OF THE JEWS. Amongst all the religious systems existing in the world, there are but two deserving of attentive consideration, and they are both of Jewish origin, and were once exclusively confined to the Jewish nation. They are now known by the names of Judaism and Christianity; but it must never be forgotten that the latter is as entirely Jewish as the former. The Author of Christianity was a Jew. The first preachers of Christianity were Jews. The first Christians were all Jews; so that, in discussing the truth of these respective systems, we are not opposing a Gentile religion to a Jewish religion, but comparing one Jewish creed with another Jewish creed. Neither, in defending Christianity, do we wish to diminish aught from the privileges of the Jewish people, on the contrary, we candidly acknowledge that But some may ask, what is Judaism? we are disciples of the Jews, converts to what is Christianity? ANSWER.- -JudaJewish doctrines, partakers of the Jewish ism is that religious system contained and hope, and advocates of that truth which the acknowledged in the prayers of the Jewish Jews have taught us. We are fully persuaded synagogue, whether German or Portuguese, that the Jews whom we follow were in the right and professed by all who use them as the -that they have pointed out to us "the old ritual of their worship. Christianity is the paths," "the good way," and "we have religious system taught in the New Testament; found rest to our souls." And we, therefore, or, in other words, Judaism is the Old Testaconscientiously believe, that those Jews who ment explained according to the traditional Christianity is the Old

תורה שבעל פה,follow the opposite system are as wrong as | law

their forefathers, who, when God commanded Testament explained according to the New. them to walk in the good old way, replied, According to this explanation, the Jewish "We will not walk therein." Some modern Prayer-hook teaches the divine authority of Jews think that it is impossible for a Jew to the oral law. Of this there can be no doubt, be in error, and that a Jew, because he is a for, in the first place, the whole ritual of the Jew, must of necessity be in the right. Such synagogue service, and the existence and persons seem to have forgotten how the ma- arrangement of the synagogue itself, is acjority of the people erred in making the golden cording to the prescription of the oral law, as calf-how the generation that came out of may be seen by comparing the Jewish prayers Egypt died in the wilderness because of their with the Hilchoth T'phillah. If it be asked unbelief-how the nation at large actually why the Jew uses these prayers, and no other opposed and persecuted the truth of God in the days of Elijah-how their love of error sent them into the Babylonish captivity-and how there has been some grievous error of some kind or other, which delivered them into the hands of the Romans, and has kept them in a state of dispersion for so many hundred years. But the passage from which our motto is taken sets forth most strikingly the possibility of fatal mistake on the part of the

why he wears phylacteries (n) and the veil (why he conforms to certain ceremonies at the New year, and the Day of Atonement, and the other feasts-why he repeats a certain benediction at the reading of the law-why he reads out of a parchment roll, rather than out of a printed book-why a roll of the law written in one way is lawful, and in another way unlawful, the only answer is, The oral law

commands us thus to do. The whole syna- | who deny its authority, and explicitly informs gogue worship, therefore, from the begin- us that Christians are comprehended in this ning to the end of the year, is a practical anathema,

ואלו הן שאין להן חלק לעולם הבא אלא נכרתים | ,confession of the authority of the oral law ואובדין ונידונין על גודל השעם וחטאתם לעולם | and every Jew who joins in the synagogue ולעולמי עולמי' המינים והאפיקורוסין והכופרים בתורה | -worship does, in so far, conform to the pre

וכו'

scriptions of Rabbinism. But, secondly, the Jewish Prayer-book explicitly acknowledges the authority of the oral law. In the daily prayers, fol. 11, is found a long passage from the oral law, beginning,

איזהו מקומן של זבחים

"which are the places where the offerings
were slaughtered," &c. On fol. 12, we find
the thirteen Rabbinical rules for expounding
the law, beginning
27, "Rabbi
Ishmael says," &c. At the end of the daily

"These are they who have no part in the world to come, but who are cut off, and perish, and are condemned on account of the greatness of their wickedness and sin, for ever, even for ever and ever, the heretics and the Epicureans, and the deniers of the law," &c. Here is the general statement. But to prevent all mistake, a particular definition of each of those classes is added, from which we extract the following passage :—

fathers," the beginning of which treatise

שלושה הן הכופרים בתורה האומר שאין התורה מעם | prayers we find a whole treatise of the oral ה' אפילו פסוק אחד אפילו תיבה אחת אם אמר משה | the ethics of the פרקי אבות,law, called אמרו מפי עצמו הרי זה כופר בתורה וכן הכופר בפירושיה והוא תורה שבעל פה והמחכיש מגידיה כגון צדוק | asserts the transmission of the oral law. In

וביתוס והאומר שהבורא החליף מצוה זו במצוה אחרת וכבר בטלה תורה זו אף על פי שהיא היתה

מעם ה' כגון הנוצרים וההגרים כלאחד משלושה אלה | He, the Omnipotent, whose reverence is »

כופר בתורה :

the morning service for Pentecost, there is a most comprehensive declaration of the authority and constituent parts of the oral law.

purity, with his mighty word he instructed his chosen, and clearly explained the law, "There are three classes of the deniers of with the word, speech, commandment, and the law. He who says that the law is not admonition, in the Talmud, the Agadah, the from God, yea, even one verse or one word: Mishna, and the Testament, with the statutes, or if he says that Moses gave it of his own the commandment, and the complete cove-authority. Such an one is a denier of the nant," &c., p. 89. In this prayer, as used, translated, and published by the Jews themselves, the divine authority of the oral law is explicitly asserted, and the Talmud, Agadah, and Mishna, are pointed out as the sources where it is to be found. For these two reasons, then, we conclude that the Judaism of the Jewish Prayer-book is identical with the Judaism of the oral law, and that every Jew who publicly joins in those prayers does, with his lips at least, confess its divine authority.

Having explained what we mean by Judaism, we now go on to another preliminary topic. Some one may ask, what is the use of discussing these two systems? May they not both be safe ways of salvation for those that profess them? To this we must, according to the plain declarations of these systems themselves, reply in the negative. The New Testament denounces the oral law as subversive of the law of God. "Then the Pharisees and scribes asked him, Why walk not thy disciples according to the tradition of the elders, but eat bread with unwashen hands? He answered and said unto them, Well hath Esaias prophesied of you hypocrites, as it is written, This people honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me. Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for commandments the doctrines of men." (Mark vii. 5-7.) The oral law is still more exclusive. It excludes from everlasting life all

law. Thus, also, he who denies its interpretations; that is, the oral law, and rejects its Agadoth as Sadok and Baithos; and he who says that the Creator has changed one commandment for another, and that the law has long since lost its authority, although it was given by God, as the Christians and Mahometans, each of these three is a denier of the law."-Hilchoth T'shuvah, c. iii. 8.

In the first extract we see that those persons called" deniers of the law," are, according to the doctrine of modern Judaism, shut out from a hope of salvation. In the second extract we see that Christians are by name included in that class: from the two together it inevitably follows that modern Judaism teaches that Christians cannot be saved. We do not find any fault with modern Judaism for pronouncing this sentence; we do not tax the Jews either with uncharitableness or intolerance because of this opinion. On the contrary we honour those, who conscientiously holding this opinion, have the honesty and the courage to declare it. If they consider us as deniers of the law, they must, of course, believe that our state is far from safe; and if this be their conviction, the best proof which they can give of true charity, is to warn us of our danger. But, at the same time, when a religious system condemns us by name, and pronounces sentence concerning our eternal state in so decided a tone,

and that simply because we dissent from some of its tenets, we not only think that we have a right to defend ourselves and our religion,

אמר רבי אלעזר עם הארץ מותר לנוחרו ביום הכיפורים שחל להיות בשבת אמרו לו תלמידיו רבי

אמור לשוחטו אמר להן זה טעון ברכה וזה אינו טעון | but consider it our bounden duty to examine

ברכה :

the grounds on which a system of such pretension rests, and honestly, though quietly, to avow our reasons for rejecting it. We know, indeed, that there are some Rabbinical Jews, who think this sentence harsh, and consider themselves justified in denying it, because there is another sentence in this same oral law, which says, "that the pious amongst the nations of the world have a part in the world to come." But can they prove, by any citation from the oral law, that Christians are included " amongst the pious of the nations of the world?" If they can, then they will prove that in one place the oral law denies, and in another place affirms the salvability of Christians; that is, they will prove that the oral law contains palpable contradictions, and therefore cannot be from God. If they cannot produce any such citation, then the general declaration that "the pious of the nations of the world may be saved, is nothing to the purpose; for the same law which makes this general declaration, does also explicitly lay down the particular exception in the case of Christians, and that after it has made the general declaration. In fact, the exception follows close on the heels of the general rule. The general rule is,

Rabbi Eleazar says, "It is lawful to split open the nostrils of an amhaaretz (an unlearned man) on the Day of Atonement which falls on the Sabbath. His disciples said to him, Rabbi, say rather that it is lawful to slaughter him. He replied, That would require a benediction, but here no benediction is needful." It is hardly needful to remind the reader that the law of Moses says, nnx, "Thou shalt not kill." But there is in this passage a sneering contempt for the unlearned, which is utterly at variance with the character of Him" whose mercies are over all his works," the unlearned and the poor, as well as the mighty and the learned.

Indeed the passage is so monstrous, that one is almost inclined to think that it must have crept into the Talmud by mistake; or, at the least, to expect that would be followed by reprehension the most explicit and severe. But no, a little lower down another of these "wise men says,

[ocr errors]

עם הארץ מותר לקורעו כדג

"It is lawful to rend an amhaaretz like a fish ;" and, a little above, an Israelite is forbidden to marry the daughter of such a person, for that she is no better than a beast.

characteristic of the spirit of Rabbinism, that

But the whole of the preceding passage is so | כל ישראל יש להם חלק לעולם הבא • • • • -it is worth inserting | אומו' העולם יש להם חלק לעולם הבא :

תנו רבנן וכו'

וכן חסידי

come

"All Israel has a share in the world to and also the pious of the nations of the world have a share in the world to come." The words which immediately follow this declaration contain the exception,

ואלו הן שאין להם חלק וכו'

"But these are they which have no part in the world to come," &c. This exception is, therefore, plainly made in order to guard against any false inference from the general statement, and, therefore, according to the oral law, Christians cannot be saved. We proceed, therefore, to inquire into the merits of this system, which makes so decided a statement respecting our eternal state. We have a standard of comparison to which no Jew will object, even that Holy Book, which contains the writings of Moses and the prophets. We reject the oral law, not because it seems in itself bad or good to our judgment, but because it is repugnant to the plain words of the Old Testament. There is not space to enter at large into the proof at present, but we subjoin one passage, which is in itself amply sufficient to disprove the divine authority of any religious system where it occurs. In the Talmud, in the Treatise Pesachim, fol. 49. col. 2, we read as follows:

"Our Rabbies have taught. Let a man sell all that he has, and marry the daughter of a learned man. If he cannot find the daughter of a learned man, let him take the daughter of the great men of the time. If he cannot find the daughter of a great man of the time, let him marry the daughter of the head of a congregation. If he cannot find the daughter of the head of a congregation, let him marry the daughter of an almoner. If he cannot find the daughter of an almoner, let him marry the daughter of a schoolmaster. But let him not marry the daughter of the unlearned, for they are an abomination, and their wives are vermin; and of their daughters it is said, 'cursed is he that lieth with any beast."" Here, again, one is inclined to suppose that there is a mistake, or that these words were spoken in jest, though such a jest would be intolerably profane; but all ground for such supposition is removed on finding this passage transcribed into the digest of Jewish law, called the Shulchan Aruch, part 2; in the Hilchoth P'riah ur'viah, by which transcription it is stamped with all the authority of a law. Here, then, the reader is led to think, that an amhaaretz must mean something more

[blocks in formation]

belong? There must be at the least hundreds, if not thousands of poor Jews in this great city who cannot possibly devote themselves to study. Amongst whom, then, are they to be classed? Amongst the learned "on"¬n ? or amongst the unlearned ? Are they, their wives, and daughters, as the Talmud says, to be called an abomination, ver. min, and compared to the beasts? Or can a religion inculcating such sentiments proceed from that Holy One who is no respecter of persons? See here, ye children of Abraham, whom the providence of God has placed amongst the children of poverty, and cut off from the advantages of a learned education. You are not disciples of the wise, nor the great men of the time, nor heads of synagogues, nor almoners, nor even schoolmasters. You are quite shut out from these classes whom

עם הארץ אסו' לאכול בשר בהמה שאמר זאת תורת הבהמה והעוף כל העוסק בתורה מותר לאכול בשר בהמה ועוף וכול שאינו עוסק בתורה אסור לאכול

.your Talmudical doctors favour so highly בשר בהמ' ועוף :

"An amhaaretz is forbidden to eat the flesh of a beast, for it is said,This is the law of the beast and the fowl.' (Levit. xi. 46.) Every one that laboureth in the law, it is lawful for him to eat the flesh of the beast and the fowl. But for him who does not labour in the .aw, it is forbidden to eat the flesh of the beast and the fowl." According to this passage an amhaaretz is one who does not labour in the study of the law; and it being found on the very same page with the above most revolting declarations, it plainly shows the proud and haughty spirit of the authors of the Talmud, and their utter contempt for the poor, whose circumstances preclude them from the advantages of study. But, in reading such passages, the question naturally suggests itself, to which of the two classes does the poor Jewish population of London

See, then, in the above passages, what the Talmud says of yourselves, your wives, and daughters? Can you believe that is the law of the God of Israel? Can you think for one moment, that these doctors knew" the old paths," "the good way?" If you do we must assure you that we cannot. We rather find it in that book, which says, "Blessed is the man that considereth the poor and needy." (Psalm xli. 1.) And in that other book, which speaks in the same spirit, and says that "God hath chosen the foolish things of this world to confound the wise; and the weak things of this world to confound the things which are mighty, and base things of the world, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are; that no flesh should glory in his presence." (1 Cor. i. 27, 28.

ירמיה ר' טז'

כה אמר יהוה עמדו על דרכים וראו ושאלו לנתבות עולם אי זה דרך הטוב ולכו בה ומצאו מרגוע לנפשכם ויאמרו לא כלך :

London:-Sold at the London Society's Office, 16, Exeter-hall, Strand; by James Duncan, Paternosterrow; and B. Wertheim, 57, Aldersgate-street.

עמדו על דרכים וראו ושאלו לנתבות עולם • ירמיה ו' טז'

[ocr errors]

"THE OLD PATHS."-JER. vi. 16.

NUMBER 2.]

FRIDAY, JANUARY 22, 1836.

Ir appears from the undisguised acknowledgments of the New Testament, that the doctors and rabbies of the Jews, the Pharisees and Scribes, were the implacable enemies of Jesus of Nazareth, and that they were the main instruments in effecting his death. The modern Jews consider this fact as a sufficient apology for their rejection of his claims to the Messiahship. They take it for granted that the great and learned men of that day were also good men, and that they had valid reasons for their conduct. They think if Jesus of Nazareth had been the true Messiah, that the Sanhedrin, the great Jewish council of the time, would have acknowledged

[PRICE ONE-PENNY.

love the uppermost rooms at feasts, and the chief seats in the synagogues, and greetings in the markets, and to be called of men, Rabbi, Rabbi." (Matt. xxiii. 5-7.) Now, is this charge true? Does the oral law justify this assertion, or does it prove, on the contrary, that the enemies of Jesus were humble, pious men, whose piety serves as a warrant for the uprightness of their conduct in their treatment of the Lord Jesus? Let the reader judge from the following laws which these men framed with respect to themselves. In the first place they claim for themselves more honour and reverence than is due to a man's own parents

כשם שאדם מצווה בכבוד אביו וביראתו כך הוא,him, and conclude that, as they rejected him

חייב בכבוד רבו וביראתו יתר מאביו וכו'

he cannot be the true Messiah. The New Testament, on the contrary, accounts for their unbelief by plainly telling us, that they were bad men; and that they were enemies to the Lord Jesus, because he told them the truth, and exposed their hypocrisy. Now, which of these two representations accords with the truth? Were the Scribes and Pharisees, those great advocates of the oral law,

by, good men or bad men? The readers of our first number will be in some degree qualified to answer this question. Could those be good men who profanely talked of the lawfulness of killing an unlearned man, and who contemptuously compared the wives and daughters of the unlearned to "vermin and beasts ?" If they could talk with levity of "rending like a fish" an unlearned man, one of their own brethren who had never done them any harm, what were they likely to do with one who exposed their wickedness, and boldly told them that they by their traditions made void the law of God? The very fact, that Jesus of Nazareth was put to death by such men, is presumptive evidence, that he was a good man, and that his claims were just. But, however that be, it is worth while to inquire into the charges which the New Testament brings against these learned men, and to see whether they are substantiated by the memorials of their character and spirit, which they themselves have left us in their laws. One of the charges preferred against them is, that they were ambitious men, covetous of worldly honour, and loving the pre-eminence. "But all their works they do to be seen of men; they make broad their phylacteries, and enlarge the borders of their garments. And

"As a man is commanded to honour and fear his father, so he is bound to honour and fear his Rabbi more than his father; for his father has been the means of bringing him into the life of this world, but his Rabbi, who teaches him wisdom, brings him to the life of the world to come." (Hilchoth Talmud Torah, c. 5.) This general rule is bad enough, but the particulars are still worse. "If a man should see something that his father has lost, and something that his Rabbi has lost, he is first to return what his Rabbi has lost, and then to return that which belongs to his father. If his father and his Rabbi be oppressed with a load, he is first to help down that of his Rabbi, and then that of his father. If his father and his Rabbi be in captivity, he is first to ransom his Rabbi and afterwards his father; unless his father be the disciple of a wise man (i. e. learned), in which case he may ransom his father first." How fearful is this doctrine. A man is to see his father, the author of his existence, the guardian of his infancy, who has laboured for his support, and watched over him in the hour of sickness, he is to see this friend, to whom, under God, he owes everything, pining away in the bitterness of captivity, and yet, when he has got the means of restoring him to liberty and his family, he is to leave him still in all his misery, and ransom the Rabbi ; where is this written in the Old Testament ? "Honour thy father and thy mother," is there the first commandment that follows after our duty to God, and the first movement of natural affection. But this Rabbinical doc

« AnteriorContinuar »