Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

him and keep his commandments as well as the men; and therefore he wills that they should make use of the same means, that they should hear, and learn all the words of the law. The traditionists have, therefore, in this case plainly made void the law of God. God commands women as well as men to learn the law the rabbies say they are exempt from this duty. God commands that the woman should be taught. It is plain, therefore, that the oral law which contradicts the written law cannot be from God. The command of God is so plain that it is unnecessary to enter deeply into the second rabbinical reason for the prohibition to teach women the law. It is evident that God did not think that the poverty of their understanding was any obstacle to their learning his will. Indeed it has pleased Him to show that He is no respecter of persons with regard to male or female, more than with regard to rich or poor. He has not only given them his law, but conferred on women as well as men the gift of prophecy, so that the names of Deborah, Hannah, and Huldah, must ever be remem bered amongst the inspired messengers of God. The rabbies seem to have forgotten that "the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom," and that this fear may be implanted by God just as easily in the heart of a woman as of a rabbi. But without inquiring further into their reasons or their motives, suffice it to say, that the oral law in thus robbing women of their right and inheritance in the law of God, and in degrading them to the same category with children and slaves, is opposed to the plain commands of the written law. But not so the New Testament. It exactly agrees with the Old in considering woman as a rational and responsible being, and a candidate for everlasting life. It, therefore, gives one general rule for the education of children, male and female. "Ye fathers provoke not your children to wrath, but bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord." (Ephes. vi. 4.) It does indeed prescribe modesty and subjection to the women in the mode of learning, but in so doing it plainly points out their duty to become acquainted with the will of God. "Let the women learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence." (1 Tim. ii. 11, 12.)

In these and other passages the woman is placed in the position assigned her in the Old Testament, and not in the very subordinate rank assigned her by the oral law. "Women, and slaves (D), and children, are exempt from the study of the law." But we think that this rule is as false with regard to slaves as to women. Here the oral law says that slaves are not bound to learn. In Hilchoth Avadim, c. viii. 18, we find that they are not to be taught.

אסור לאדם ללמד את עבדו תורה :

It

"It is forbidden to a man to teach his slave
the law." But, alas, the passage of the Word
of God which forbids it, is not referred to.
is only an inference from the passage,
"Ye
shall teach your sons;" but is evidently
contrary to the whole tenour of the law of
Moses. In the first place, the Israelite who
had been sold by the tribunal, or who, on
account of poverty, had sold himself, was still
an Israelite, and did not forfeit, finally, his
right to his inheritance in the land, how,
then, could he forfeit his right to the law,
which Moses gave as "the inheritance of
the congregation of Jacob ?" The law of
Moses expressly provides a day of rest" for
the man servant and the maid-servant," that
they may not only have rest for their bodies,
but may have time to learn the will of God,
and provide for that eternity to which they are
hastening as well as their masters. Indeed, if
meditation on the Word of God was more
necessary for one Israelite than another, it was
for the Hebrew servant. If he had been
guilty of theft, and had been sold by the
tribunal, he had special need of instruction in
the law of God to lead him to repentance, and
to teach him his duty for the future. If he
had been guilty of no crime, but had been
compelled by poverty to sacrifice his liberty,
surely he needed the consolation which the
Word of God can supply, to enable him to
bear his hard lot with patience, and to prevent
him from murmuring. But here the oral law
steps in, and actually prohibits his master from
teaching him; and instead of encouraging him
in his leisure time to turn to the Word of God
as his refuge and his comfort, it tells him that
he is not bound to study it. Here, again, the
New Tesament is much more like the law of
Moses, which breathes, all through, a spirit
of the most tender compassion for those in
servitude. Moses commands the Israelites to
remember that they had themselves been bond-
men in Egypt. The New Testament reminds
Christian masters that they have a Master in
heaven. "Ye masters do the same things
unto them, forbearing threatening: knowing
that your master also is in heaven; neither is
there respect of persons with him." (Ephes.
vi. 9.) It also plainly teaches that the relation
which exists between believing masters and
servants is, before God, that of brethren.
"And they that have believing masters, let
them not despise them, because they are breth-
ren; but rather do them service because they
are faithful and beloved, partakers of the
benefit." (1 Tim. vi. 2.) Yea, the New
Testament lays down a general principle, the
very opposite of that, that " women, and
slaves, and children are exempt from the study
of the law. It says, "There is neither Jew
nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there
is neither male nor female, for ye are all one
in Christ Jesus." (Gal. iii. 28.) It does not
dispense men from their relative duties, nor

deprive any of their legitimate privileges, but teaches that for all, Jew or Greek, bond or free, male or female, there is but one way of salvation. Very different is the doctrine of the oral law. We have seen that it makes a grand distinction between male and female, bond and free, we need not, therefore, be surprized if it make the line of demarcation broader still

between Jew and Greek.

concerned. Instruction out of God's Word is therefore the only means of producing conviction. Entertaining these sentiments, we endeavour to compare the oral law with the Word of God, and to convince its advocates that they are in error. We do not wish to have the modern Jews confounded with the authors of the system. Very many Jews of the present day are ignorant of its details. Not having time to make the inquiry, they take it for granted, that their forefathers were

גוי שעסק בתורה חייב מיתה • לא יעסוק אלא בשבע מצות שלהן בלבד : וכן גוי ששבת אפילו ביום מימות -right in preferring their own system to Chris | החול - אם עשאהו לעצמו כמו שבת חייב מיתה • ואין tianity, and that they are bound to do the | צריך לומר אם עשה מועד לעצמו : כללו של דבר אין

same. But even those who are learned in the

מניחין אותן לחדש דת ולעשות מצות לעצמן מדעתן

oral law, and know its details, are not to be | אלא או יהיה גר צדק ויקבל כל המצות • או יעמוד -viewed in the same light as the original com | בתורתו ולא יוסיף ולא יגרע • ואם עסק בתורה או pilers. They have received the system from | שבת • או חדש דבר : מכין אותו ועונשין אותו ומודיעין their forefathers, and view it through the | אותו שהוא חייב מיתה על זה אבל אינו נהרג :

"A Gentile who employs himself in the law is guilty of death. He is not to employ himself except in the seven commandments that belong to the Gentiles. And thus a Gentile who keeps a Sabbath, though it be on one of the week days-if he make it to himself as a Sabbath, he is guilty of death. It is not necessary to add, if he appoint for himself a festival. The general rule is, that they are not permitted to innovate in religion, or to make commandments for themselves out of their own heads. Either let a Gentile become a proselyte of righteousness, and take upon him the whole law or let him remain in his own law, and neither add nor diminish. But if he employs himself in the law, or keeps a Sabbath, or makes any innovation, he is to be beaten and punished, and informed that he is for this guilty of death-but he is not to be killed."-(Hilchoth Melachim, c. x. 9.) This law is taken from the Talmudical treatise Sanhedrin, where it is followed, by an apparently contradictory statement, "that a Gentile who employs himself in the law is as good as a high priest;" but the contradiction is immediately removed by the explanation which there follows, and says, that "law" is to be understood of the seven commandments of the Gentiles. Now we admit that liberty of conscience was not understood at the time; and that it would be unjust to expect that the compilers of the oral law (who were ignorant of, or opposed to, the New Testament, where liberty of conscience was first plainly revealed) should be at all elevated above the level of their own times. But making this admission and apology for the men, we cannot help saying that the law itself is bad, and cannot be from God. Religion is a matter between God and man. The heart, the conscience, and the understanding are all alike

* Fol. 59. col. 1.

medium of filial affection and national prejudice. They remember that to the Jews the law was given, and that the Jewish nation has been the original instrument in God's hand to diffuse light over the world; they have therefore hitherto taken it for granted that they must be right. The narrow prejudices of Christians for ages confirmed them in their views. But now circumstances are different. Christians begin to understand the position in which God has placed the Jewish nation, and to look forward to their restoration to the favour of God as the time of blessing for the whole world. Christians can now honour and estimate the learning, the talent, and the constancy of those very rabbies whose system they consider as erroneous. Now, then, is the time for the Jews themselves to inquire into those religious opinions, which have been handed down to them, and to compare them with the law and the prophets. We trust that many will admit, that the laws which we have been considering are bad, and therefore cannot be from God. Let them then remember, that the originators of these laws are the men who rejected the claims of the Lord Jesus Christ. If then these men were in error in making these laws, they were in condemning Jesus of Nazareth because he opposed them; and if the laws be bad, the Lord Jesus was right in opposing them. Yea, and where they taught error He and his disciples taught the truth. The rabbies have taught constraint. Jesus of Nazareth and his disciples have taught that fire is not to be called down from heaven on those who differ from us; that "the servant of God must not strive; but be gentle to all men, apt to teach, patient, in meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God will peradventure give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth." (2 Tim. ii. 25.)

London-Sold at the London Society's Office, 16, Exeter-hall, Strand; by James Duncan, Paternosterrow; and B. Wertheim, 57, Aldersgate-street. This publication may be had by applying at No. 5, No. 7, or No. 13, Palestine-place, Bethnal-green.

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

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

NUMBER 4.]

FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 5, 1836.

THE Jewish deputies, when asked by Napoleon whether they considered Frenchmen as their brethren, replied in the affirmative, and after quoting the Mosaic laws respecting the stranger said, "To these sentiments of benevolence towards the stranger, Moses has added the precept of general love for mankind: Love thy fellow-creature as thyself."" And in the authorised Jewish Catechism used in Bavaria, after the explanation of the moral duties, we find the following question :-"Are these laws and duties, affirmative and negative commandments, binding with respect to a non-Israelite ?" Answer-" By all means, for the fundamental law of all these duties, Love thy neighbour as thyself, is expressly laid down by the Holy Scriptures in reference to the nonIsraelite, yea, to the heathen, as it is written, And if a stranger scjourn with thee in your land, ye shall not vex him. But the stranger that dwelleth with you shall be unto you as one born amongst you, and thou shalt love him as thyself for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the Lord your God.'" (Levit. xix. 33-35.)† These declarations are very explicit, and, as forming part of public documents, highly satisfactory. The representatives of the Jewish people in France, and the teachers of the Jewish youth in Bavaria, declare, that in the scriptural command," Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself," neighbour means fellow-man, without distinction of na

this interpretation?

[PRICE ONE-PENNY.

such bold assertion respecting the Talmud. It only intimates that the oral law teaches this doctrine, by subjoining to the passage from Leviticus the same extract from Maimonides, alluded to by the Jewish deputies. The Catechism gives the extract a little more at length, and as follows:-"We are bound in every thing to treat the non-Israelite, who sojourns with us with justice and with love, as we would treat an Israelite. Yea we are even bound to maintain him, as the Scripture teaches in the words, Thou shalt give it to the stranger that is in thy gates, that he may eat it.' (Deut. xiv. 21.) Our wise men have commanded us for the good of society, even to visit the sick of the heathen, to bury their dead, and to deal out alms to them: for of our Creator it is said, The Lord is good to all; and his tender mercies are over all his works.' (Psalm cxlv. 9.) (Maimonid. Hilchoth Melachim 10, 12).'

[ocr errors]

No doubt the passage as here given, both by the French deputies and the Bavarian Catechism, is very plausible; and if it could be found verbatim either in the Talmud or any of its compendiums, would go far to justify the bold assertion of the former, and the cau tious insinuation of the latter. But unfortunately the original passage is very different. In the above citations, it is mutilated in order to suit the purpose of the citers. In the Jad Hachasakah it stands as follows:—

וכן יראה לי שנוהגין עם גרי תושב בדרך ארץ וגמילת הסדים כישראל - שהרי אנו מצווין להחיותן שנאמר לגר | tion or religion. Where then did they learn ' וזה שאמרו חכמים אין | From the Talmud or אשר בשעריך תתננה ואכלה כופלין להן שלום • בגוים לא בגר תושב • אפילו הגוים צוו חכמים לבקר חוליהם • ולקבור מתיהם עם מתי

ישראל - ולפרנס ענייהם בכלל עניי ישראל : מפני דרכי | professed by the Talmud. We are bound

שלום • הרי נאמר טוב יי' לכל ורחמיו על כל מעשיו

ונאמר דרכיה דרכי נועם וכל נתיבותיה שלום:

from the New Testament? The Jewish Deputies say, from the former. On the page cited above they add, "This doctrine is also

says a Talmudist, to love as brethren all those who observe the Noachides, whatever their religious opinions may otherwise be. We are bound to visit their sick, to bury their dead, to assist their poor, like those of Israel. In short there is no act of humanity which a true Israelite is not bound to perform towards those who observe the Noachides." The Bavarian Catechism is more cautious. It makes no

* Transactions of Parisian Sanhedrin, p. 178. + Lehrbuch der Mosaischen Religion. München,

1826, page 150.

We quote the passage as we find it. Noachides is here taken for the seven commandments of the children of Noah, contrary to the usual acceptation of the word.

6

"And thus it appears to me, that the proselytes allowed to sojourn are to be treated with the same courtesy and benevolence as the Israelites; for behold, we are commanded to maintain them, as it is written, Thou shalt give it to the stranger (proselyte) that is in thy gates, that he may eat it.' As to that saying of our wise men not to return their salute, it refers to the Gentiles, not to the proselyte allowed to sojourn. But even with regard to the heathen, the wise men have commanded us to visit their sick, and to bury their dead with the dead of Israel, and to feed their poor

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

along with the poor of Israel, FOR THE SAKE Bavaria, had one common object-they wished OF THE WAYS OF PEACE; for it is written, to prove, or to intimate, that the Talmud 'The Lord is good to all, and his mercies are teaches us to love as ourselves all our fellowover all his works;' and again, Her ways men, without any respect to religious differare ways of pleasantness, and all her paths are ences. In order to prove this, they both repeace.' (Prov. iii. 17.) The reader will fer to one and the same passage and from observe that there are several striking differ- the middle of that passage they both omit one ences between this translation and that of the important sentence. What conclusion will Bavarian Catechism; and these differences be drawn by any man of common understandprove that, by the word "neighbour," the ing? Just this, that as they both quote one oral law does not understand a fellow-man and the same passage, there must be a great without any regard to his religious opinions. scarcity of proof from the Talmud; and that, First, the Bavarian Catechism says, "We are as they both make the same omission, the bound in everything to treat the non-Israelite sentence omitted must be unfavourable to that who sojourns with us with justice and with proof; and that, therefore, this one passage love, and as we would treat an Israelite." does not prove that the Talmud teaches any The original says, "And thus it appears to such doctrine. Such is the conclusion to me, that the proselytes allowed to sojourn are which we are led by considering the facts of to be treated with the same courtesy and the case. An examination of the omitted benevolence as the Israelites." The Bavarian passage will show that this conclusion is most Catechism translates this passage as if it were just " As to the saying of our wise men, not the undisputed law of Israel thus to act; to return their salute, it refers to the Gentiles, whereas Maimonides only offers his own opi- not to the proselytes allowed to sojourn.' nion. He says, "It appears to me." Here Had this passage been inserted in its place, the French deputies represent the matter more the Bavarian Catechism could not have been accurately, by saying, "We are bound, says translated (sojourning proselytes) a Talmudist." Not the Talmud, but a Tal- "non-Israelites," for from this passage it mudist. Then, again, the Bavarian Cate- appears that these sojourners are different from chism speaks generally of "non-Israelites." the "Gentiles," whose salute is not to be Maimonides speaks of only one particular returned. In plain English, this passage class, the proselytes who had permission to restricts "the courtesy and benevolence" to sojourn in the land of Israel. That we do those proselytes who, by taking upon them not misrepresent Maimonides' meaning, is plain the seven commandments of Noah, obtained from the words of the Jewish deputies, who the privilege of sojourning in the land of also restrict the sense to that one particular Israel; and consequently excludes "the Genclass. "We are bound, says a Talmudist, tiles "and consequently disproves the asserto love as brethren all those who observe the tion that the Talmud teaches us to love as Noachides, whatever their religious opinions ourselves all our fellow-men, without any may otherwise be." Here, then, on the show-respect to religious differences. On the coning of the Jewish deputies themselves, the Talmud does not teach that all men are to be loved as brethren, but only those who keep the seven commandments of Noah. How, then, are we to regard the idolater and the heathen, who have not embraced these seven commandments, and how are we to treat them? This leads us to notice,

"

It

trary, this passage tells us that the salutation of the Gentiles is not to be returned. prescribes two different lines of conduct to be pursued towards different religionists, and makes the difference of religious persuasion the basis of the rule. But some readers may say, that the difference is very small-that the command" not to return the salute of the Gentiles," is a mere matter of etiquettewhereas the command to visit the sick of the Gentiles, to bury their dead, and to feed their poor, is a substantial kindness. This we should admit, if the reason assigned for such conduct, "for the sake of the ways of peace," did not utterly remove all the apparent kindness. And this brings us to

2dly, The important omission made by the Bavarian Catechism. In citing the words of Maimonides, the compilers have omitted the whole sentence, "As to the saying of our wise men not to return their salute, it refers to the Gentiles, not to the proselytes allowed to sojourn. To this sentence, the French Jewish deputies have also made no allusion; and yet this sentence is found in the very The third misrepresentation of the Bavamiddle of the passage quoted. What goes rian Catechism. It translates the words " before and what follows is quoted by both, 77 (for the sake of the ways of peace) but both have with one common consent "for the good of society." Here, then, omitted this passage. Now this mere fact of there is an evident difference between us. omission is, in itself, sufficient to excite the who is right? We do not ask the Israelite suspicions of Israelites not acquainted with to believe us. Maimonides here refers to anthe oral law. The Jewish deputies in Paris, other passage of the oral law, where this exand the compilers of the Jewish Catechism in pression is fully explained, and where the

But

[merged small][ocr errors]

the Gentiles are the weakest, there will be no necessity" for the ways of peace," or, as the Bavarian catechism has it, "for the good of society." It is plain, therefore, that the passage cited by the French deputies and the Bavarian catechism does not answer the pur

that the Talmud teaches us to love our fel

מפרנסים עניי עכ'ום עם עניי ישר' מפני דרכי שלום •

pose for which it is cited. It does not prove | אין ממחין בידי עניי עכ'ום בלקט שכחה ופיאה מפני דרכי שלום • ושואלים בשלומם ואפי' ביום חגם מפני

one class of religionists and another; and that

-low-men as ourselves, whatever be their reli | דרכי שלום ואין כופלין להן שלום לעולם • ולא יכנס gious opinions. On the contrary, it teaches | לביתו של נכרי עכ'ום ביום חגו לתת לו שלום • מצאו that a wide distinction is to be made between | בשוק נותן לו שלום בשפה רפה ובכובד ראש : אין כל הדברים האלו אמורי' אלא בזמן שגלו ישר' לבין האומות if men be idolaters, we are to show them no | או שיד עכ'ום תקיפה על ישראל אבל בזמן שיד ישראל kindness, except for fear of the consequences | תקיפה עליהם אסור לנו להניח עובד כיום בינינו אפילו that might result from betraying our real | יושב ישיבת עראי או עובר ממקום למקום בסחורה לא יעבור בארצנו אלא עד שיקבל עליו שבע מצות שנצטוו puties and the compilers of the Bavarian | בני נח שנאמר לא ישבו בארצך אפילו לפי שעה ואם Mosaic command, Thou shalt love thy | קבל עליו ז'מצות הרי זה גר תושב וכו' :

"The poor of the idolaters are to be fed with the poor of Israel for the sake of the ways of peace. They are also permitted to have part of the forgotten sheaf, and the corner of the field, for the sake of the ways of peace. It is also lawful to ask after their health, even on their feast-day, for the sake of the ways of peace; but never to return (literally reiterate) the salutation, nor to enter the house of an idolater on the day of his festival to salute him. If he be met in the street, he is to be saluted in a low tone of voice, and with a heavy head. But all these things are said only of the time that Israel is in captivity among the nations, or that the hand of the idolaters is strong upon Israel. But when the hand of Israel is strong upon them, we are forbidden to suffer an idolater amongst us, even so much as to sojourn incidentally, or to pass from place to place with merchandize. He is not to pass through our land until he take upon him the seven commandments given to the children of Noah, for it is said, They shall not dwell in thy land,' (Exod. xxiii. 33,) not even for an hour. But if he take upon himself the seven commandments, then he is a proselyte permitted to sojourn. ( )." Hilchoth Accum., c. x. 5, &c. This is the passage alluded to, and the reader may now judge whether the words," For the sake of the ways of peace," can be interpreted as the Bavarian Catechism renders them," for the good of society." If so, then "the good of society" is to be consulted only whilst the Jews are in captivity, and the Gentiles have got the power but as soon as the Jews get power," the good of society" may safely be disregarded. The meaning plainly is, that in the present position of affairs it is advisable to keep the peace between Jews and Gentiles, inasmuch as the Gentiles are at present the strongest. Now, then, it is expedient to visit the sick, and feed the poor, and bury the dead of the Gentiles, for this will promote that object; but when the tables are turned, and

sentiments. When, therefore, the Jewish de

Catechism asserted the true explanation of the

neighbour as thyself," it is plain that they had not learned it from the Talmud, but somewhere else. We hesitate not to say, that they learned it from the New Testament, for there it is taught plainly, repeatedly, and without any reservation. A certain lawyer once asked Jesus of Nazareth, "Who is my neighbour? And Jesus answering, said, A certain man went down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and fell among thieves, which stripped him of his raiment, and wounded him, and departed, leaving him half dead. And by chance there came down a certain priest that way; and when he saw him he passed by on the other side. And likewise a Levite, when he was at the place, came and looked on him, and passed by on the other side. But a certain Samaritan, as he journeyed, came where he was; and when he saw him, he had compassion on him, and went to him, and bound up his wounds, pouring in oil and wine, and set him on his own beast, and brought him to an inn, and took care of him. And on the morrow when he departed, he took out twopence, and gave them to the host, and said unto him, Take care of him; and whatsoever thou spendest more, when I come again, I will repay thee. Which now of these three, thinkest thou, was neighbour to him that fell among the thieves? And he said, He that showed mercy on him. Then said Jesus unto him, Go thou and do likewise." (Luke x. 29, &c.) Here then the Lord Jesus Christ teaches us that we are to show kindness even to an idolater, for that even he is included in the class specified by the word "neighbour." Jesus of Nazareth makes no limitation" for the sake of the ways of peace," but gives a general command. And he appears to have selected this case of a man lying half dead, in order to contrast it with a similar case supposed in the oral law.

"If a Gentile, an idolater, be seen perishing, or drowning in a river, he is not to be helped out. If he be seen near to death, he is not to

« AnteriorContinuar »