Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

us.

[ocr errors]

a

be delivered. But to destroy him by active means, or to push him into a pit, or such-like things, is forbidden, as he is not at war with ""* The Lord Jesus does not say that the man who went down from Jerusalem to Jericho was an idolater. He only says, certain man." But he evidently intimates that he was such, for if he had been a Jew, the priest and the Levite would not have passed him without rendering assistance. As he was only an idolater, according to the oral law, the priest and the Levite were not simply not to blame in leaving him to his fate, but were obeying a command. They saw him perishing-near to death. They did not use any violence to accelerate it. They only looked at him, and left him to perish. So far, then, the lawyer who asked the question thought that the priest and Levite were in the right. But then the Lord Jesus introduces a Samaritan, whom the oral law also looks upon as an idolater, and showing how he acted, he appeals to the plain common sense of the questioner, "Which of these three was neighbour to him that fell among thieves ?" And the lawyer is compelled to acknowledge, "He that showed mercy." We make a similar appeal to the advocates of the oral law. We ask, which is, the oral law or the New Testament, the most like the law of God? The oral law forbids you to help a poor dying fellow-creature in his hour of need, because he is an idolater. It commands you to stifle the natural instinct of the human heart, which is indeed the voice of the God of nature-to behold the agonizing struggles, and hear the heartrending cries of a drowning fellow sinner, and yet when you have in your power to snatch him from the jaws of death, and from that everlasting destruction which awaits him, to leave him to his fate, without help and without pity. The New Testament, on the contrary, tells you, that though, by his idolatry, he has incurred the wrath of God, yet he is your neighbour-that it is your duty to help him, and by that very help to endeaWhich then vour to lead him to the truth. agrees with the law of God? We are quite sure that the language of your heart is, the New Testament is right. The oral law is Your brethren in France and Bavaria have already proclaimed that opinion to the world. In the answer of the Jewish deputies to Napoleon and in the Bavarian Catechism, they have said, "that we are to love our 糖 Hilchoth Accum, c. x. 1.

wrong.

fellow-creature as ourselves," whatever be his religion. They have thus made an involuntary acknowledgment of the superiority of the New Testament, and of the benefit which it has been to the world. Just suppose, for a moment, that the Scribes and Pharisees had succeeded in extirpating the doctrine of Jesus of Nazareth, what would have been the consequence to you and to the world? Had the doctrines of Jesus perished, the oral law would have had an undisturbed and universal domination, for the Karaites have always been few in number, and have never exerted any influence on mankind at large. The Jews in France, Bavaria, as well as in England and elsewhere, would all have known the law only according to the oral interpretation, and consequently would not have under. stood the command, "Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself." They would still have held the fearful doctrine, that a perishing idolater was not to be helped. They would, moreover, have had none but idolaters around them, for all the knowledge of God that prevails amongst us Gentiles comes from Jesus of Nazareth. Jew and Gentile, then, would have lived hateful and hating each other." You may think, perhaps, that some mighty. spirit would have burst the chains of tradition, and reasserted the simple truth of God. But such an event is altogether beyond the limits of probability. One of the mightiest intellects that ever dwelt in a tenement of clay was that of Moses, the son of Maimon; a man whose learning and industry were equal to his genius. If ever there was a Jew, who was likely to overcome the prejudices of tradition, it was he. And yet with all his genius and all his opportunities, he never was able to arrive at the true sense of the command which we have just considered. The atrocious passages, which we have above discussed, are all taken from his compendium of the oral law. You are indebted, then, to Jesus of Nazareth for your deliverance from this foul error. With respect to your duty to your neighbour, your own brethren in France and Bavaria confess, that you are right if you follow Jesus of Nazaraeth, and that you are wrong if you follow those who rejected him. Remember, then, that your duty to your neighbour is half of the whole law of God, and examine whether the Christians, who are confessedly right in the second table of the law, do not, also, possess the truth respecting the

first.

London:--Sold at the London Society's Office, 16, Exeter-hall, Strand; by James Duncan, Paternosterrow; and by 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 5.]

FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 12, 1836.

ANY one, who considers the circumstances | of the Jewish people after the desolation of the first temple, will be inclined to make great allowances for the spirit of the rabbinical laws against idolaters. Idolatry was not to them a mere system of religious error. It was the source of all their misfortunes; and idolaters were the destroyers of their country -the desolaters of their temple-and their own most cruel and tyrannical oppressors. Scarcely had they emerged from the horrors of the Babylonish captivity, when they were exposed to the insults and outrages as well as the persecutions of Antiochus; and hardly had they recovered from the havoc of his fury, before they were overrun by the fierce and haughty Romans, who were at last the executioners of the wrath of the Almighty. They

[PRICE ONE-PENNY.

selves? We have shown that the evidence adduced on this point by the French and Bavarian Jews, proves the contrary; and is therefore, nothing to the purpose. But we do not wish to rest the decision upon such limited proof, even though it be strong; we are willing to look at the whole system, and to compare it with the law and the prophets, which we all admit as divine authority. We say, then, that the Talmud not only does not teach us to love all our fellow-men, but that it puts idolaters altogether without the pale of humanity. We have seen already that it forbids its followers to save the life of a perishing idolater. But it goes farther still, and extends this precept even to an idolater's infant, which knows not its right-hand from its left.

בת ישראל לא תניק את בנה של נכרית מפני שמגדלת | not only saw the abominations of idolatry, but בן לעבודה של כוכבי' ומזלו' ולא תיילד את הנכרי' על יום אבל מילדת היא בשכר משו' איבה :

they felt the hard hand of the idolater; no wonder, then, if they hated the man as well as the system. In the Hilchoth Rotzeach there is a law which amply illustrates the misery of their situation, and the habitual treatment which they received from idolaters. According to this law, "It is forbidden to a Jew to be alone with Gentiles, for they are suspected of shedding blood; neither is a Jew to join company with them in the way; if he meet a Gentile, he is to cause him to pass on his right-hand (that the Jew, as the commentary says, may be able to defend himself, in case the Gentile should make an attempt on

"A daughter of Israel shall not suckle the son of a heathen woman, because that would be to bring up a son for idolatry; neither shall she act as midwife to a heathen idolatress. But if she should, it must be for pay, on account of the enmity (that might otherwise be excited)." (Hilchoth Accum., c. ix. 16.) What is meant by "pay, on account of the enmity," is fully explained in the following passage, which forbids a rabbinical physician to cure a

sick idolater;

מכאן אתה למד שאסור לרפאו' עובדי כוכבים ומזלות | his life); if they be ascending a height, or אפילו בשכר ואם היה מתיירא מהן או שהיה חושש | going down a descent, the Jew is not to be

משום איבה מרפא בשכר אבל בחנם אסור :

below and the Gentile above him; but the Jew above and the Gentile below, lest he should fall upon him to kill him; neither is he to stoop down before him, lest he should break his skull." What an affecting picture does this present of the Jews under heathen domination; and who can wonder if such treatment called forth the natural feelings of the human heart, and dictated laws in the same fierce and merciless spirit? We, for our part, are quite ready to admit and to de

"Hence thou learnest, that it is forbidden to cure idolaters even for pay. But if (an Israelite) is afraid of them, or is anxious on account of enmity, he may cure them for pay; but to do it gratuitously is forbidden." Hence the commonest offices of humanity are forbidden. But the Talmud goes further still, and prohibits even the giving of good advice

to these outcasts.

ולא נתנסה דניאל אלא על שהשיא עצה טובה לנבוכדנצר | plore the mighty provocations, which roused ואסור להשיא עצה טובה לגוי או לעדר רשע ••••

ליתן צדקה • שנאמר להן מלכא מלכי ישפר עלך :

the spirit of retaliation in the rabbies, and consequently, to make all due allowance for the men. But that is not the question before us. We are inquiring whether their religious system, the oral law, is or is not from God, and whether this religious system teaches Jews to love all their fellow-men as them

[blocks in formation]

king, let my counsel be acceptable unto thee.' Daniel iv. 23, in English 27.)* A more striking instance of the spirit of the Talmud can hardly be found. Nebuchadnezzar was the benefactor of Daniel, and had elevated him from the situation of a captive to the first dignity of the empire; and Daniel had not refused, but voluntarily taken upon himself the duties and responsibilities of the king's chief adviser. Under such circumstances, an

[ocr errors]

unto his neighbour." Hilchoth Gezelah, c. i. 7. So that the reason here assigned why the Gentile is not to get the fifth part in addition, is, because he is not a neighbour. In like manner, in the xith chapter of this same treatise, which treats of the restoration of things found, it is expressly commanded to restore whatever belongs to a Jew, because he is a brother; but to keep whatever belongs to an idolater, because he is not a brother.

השבת אבידה לישראל מצות עשה שנאמר השב | ordinary reader of the Bible would imagine

תשיבם :

that Daniel was bound by every tie of gratitude to his benefactor, of duty and fidelity to his sovereign, to give him the best advice in his power. No, says the Talmud. If the man be an idolater, gratitude, duty, and fidclity are out of the question; and because Daniel exercised those godlike graces, he was punished. It appears, at all events, on the Talmud's own showing, that Daniel was not a Talmudist. These extracts seem sufficient to prove, that the Talmud altogether excludes idolaters from all benefit of the command, "Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself." The system which makes it unlawful to save his life, to cure his sickness, to suckle his child, to help his wife in the hour of nature's trial, or even to give him good advice, can scarcely be said to teach us to love all our fellow-men, without any regard to religious differences. It may, however, be said, that the passages adduced lead to this conclusion only by inference, and that none of them expressly declares that an idolater is not our neighbour. We shall, therefore, add a few passages where this is plainly taught.

[blocks in formation]

66

Any thing that a Gentile has lost is lawful, for it is said, With all lost things of thy brother's.' (Deut xxii. 3.) And he that restores it transgresses a transgression, for he strengthens the hands of the wicked of the world. But if he restore it in order to sanctify the Name, that they may think well of Israel, and know that they are honest people, this is praiseworthy." In these passages (and many more might be added if it were necessary) it is plainly taught that an idolatrous Gentile is not to be regarded as "our neighbour," or our brother. We think then that we have fully proved that the Jewish deputies in France, and the compilers of the Jewish Catechism in Bavaria, did not learn their exposition of the

הגונב את הגוי או שגנב נכסי הקדש אינו משלם

command, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as אלא הקרן בלבד שנאמר ישלם שנים לרעהו • לרעהו

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

"He that steals from a Gentile, or he that steals property devoted to sacred purposes, is only to pay the principal: for it is said, He shall pay double unto his neighbour.' (Exod. xxii. 8, English 9.) To his neighbour, not to devoted property. To his neighbour, and not to a Gentile." (Hilchoth Genevah., c. ii. 1.) The same decision is given with respect to the law found Levit. v. 20 (in English, vi. 1), "If a soul sin, and commit a trespass against the Lord, and lie unto his neighbour,

all that about which he has sworn falsely; he shall even restore it in the principal, and shall add the fifth part more thereto." The oral law says

הנשבע לגוי משלם את הקרן ואינו חייב בחומש

[blocks in formation]

thyself" from the Talmud; neither in the particular passage which they quote, nor from the general principles of the Talmudic system. We have already stated our belief that they learned that exposition from the New Testament, for there it is taught plainly and repeatedly. We quoted, in proof, a parable spoken by the Lord Jesus Christ. We shall now add a few more passages in confirmation.

As to showing kindness to all our fellowmen, the New Testament teaches us to make no exception with regard to idolaters, or others who have not the same creed, but gives the following general rules :-" As we have, therefore, opportunity, let us do good UNTO ALL MEN, especially unto them that are of the household of faith." (Gal. vi. 10.) "See that no man render evil for evil UNTO ANY MAN; but ever follow that which is good both among yourselves, and TO ALL MEN. (1 Thess. v. 15.) " The Lord make you to increase and abound IN LOVE one toward another, and TOWARD ALL MEN." (1. Thess. iii. 12.) You observe that in these general rules the New Testament makes no reservation with respect to idolaters, or epicureans,

99

or heretics, or any other of those unfortunate beings whom the Talmud outlaws from all the common charities of humanity. It commands us to do good to all-and that not to avoid enmity, nor for the sake of the ways of peace, nor because we are afraid, nor because we wish them to speak well of us, and to be thought honest people, but because it is our duty. The New Testament requires of its followers, not only to abstain from active violence" in injuring them, but to do active good in assisting them, and the examples, which it proposes for our imitation, are of the same character as the precepts which it imposes upon our obedience. It sets before us Jesus of Nazareth, whom the traditionists crucified, praying for his murderers, and saying, "Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do"-and Stephen, his first martyr, interceding for them that stoned him, "Lord, lay not this sin to their charge." And Paul, whose feelings to those who differed from him in religion are thus expressed, "Brethren, my heart's desire and my prayer to God for Israel is that they may be saved." It sets before us the disciples of the Lord Jesus healing the diseases of all who applied, without reference to their religious opinions. (Acts xix. 11). We repeat our question, then, which system is according to the truth and the will of God, the Talmud, or the New Testament? Your brethren in France and Bavaria have declared, by adopting the New Testament exposition, that it is right; and by rejecting the intolerant principle which pervades the oral law, that the oral law is wrong. We trust that your hearts respond to their declarations. But we do not rest the decision on the natural feelings of the heart, we appeal to Moses and the prophets.

The question is, do the laws, which God gave respecting the idolatrous nations of Canaan, apply to all other idolaters, and under all circumstances? The oral law answers this question in the affirmative, and hence the source of all those revolting laws which we have just considered. But the oral law is wrong: 1st, Because it draws a general conclusion from a particular case, which is contrary to all sound reasoning. That the command to destroy these nations was peculiar appears from the command itself God does not speak generally of all the heathen, but only of certain nations which he specifies "When the Lord thy God shall bring thee into the land, whither thou goest to possess it, and hath cast out many nations before thee, the Hittites, and the Girgashites, and the Amorites, and the Canaanites, and the Perrizzites, and the Hivites, and the Jebusites, seven nations greater and mightier than thou; and when the Lord thy God shall deliver them before thee; thou shalt smite them, and utterly destroy them; thou shalt make no

covenant with, nor shew mercy unto them." (Deut. vii. 1, 2.) Here the command is precise, and is as much violated by extending it to those, to whom God has not extended it, as by refusing to execute it on those, whom He has here designated as the just victims of his wrath.

2dly, The oral law is wrong in this general application, for it contradicts the written lawGod expressly distinguishes between these and the other nations" When thou comest nigh unto a city to fight against it, then proclaim peace unto it. And it shall be, if it make thee answer of peace, and open unto thee, then it shall be, that all the people that is found therein shall be tributaries unto thee, and they shall serve thee. Thus shalt thou do unto all the cities which are very far from thee, which are not of the cities of these nations. But of the cities of these people, which the Lord thy God doth give thee for an inheritance, thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth, but thou shalt utterly destroy them; the Hittites, and the Amorites, the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the. Jebusites; as the Lord thy God hath commanded thee." (Deut. xx. 10, 18.) In the first case God commands mercy-in the second, extermination. And if, as in the first case, he commands merciful dealing even to a nation at war with Israel, much more does he command it towards those, with whom Israel is not at war.

3dly, The written law not only gives a general rule, but lays down exceptions founded on certain principles. "Thou shalt not abhor an Edomite, for he is thy brother; thou shalt not abhor an Egyptian, because thou wast a stranger in his land." (Deut. xxiii. 7.) Now the Egyptians were idolaters, yet God commands the Israelites not to abhor them, and gives a reason which will now apply to most nations of the earth-"Because thou wast a stranger in his land." Suppose, then, that a rabbinist were to see an Egyptian drowning, is he to show him mercy? To say No, will contradict the written law; and to say Yes, will overthrow the monstrous fabric of rabbinic legislation respecting idolaters.

4thly, The general practice of the Israelites, as described in the subsequent books of the Old Testament, directly contradicts the oral law. We have seen already that the prophet Daniel did not hold the doctrine, that no mercy was be shown to an idolater. When he knew of the judgment that was about to descend on Nebuchadnezzar, he was deeply distressed. "He was astonied for one hour, and his thoughts troubled him ;" and instead of leaving the idolater to perish, he endeavoured to find means to ward off the calamity. The prophet Elisha was of the same mind; when the idolatrous leper came to him for help, he administered it, and, contrary to the

dist, but considered it his duty to save the
lives of perishing idolaters, even when nothing
was to be feared or to be gained, If, on the
other hand, he did not know of the fish, he
must have expected a watery grave, whether
the idolaters threw him into the sea, or
whether he waited until the ship went to
pieces. In this case, also, if a Talmudist,
it would have been his duty to have stayed
where he was, and if he perished, die in the
fulfilment of the command, to show no mercy
to idolaters. But he did not-he had com-
passion on them, and, to save their lives, re-
linquished his only chance of safety, by telling
them to throw him into the sea.
It is plain,
therefore, that Jonah was not a Talmudist.
We have here, then, three inspired prophets,
Daniel, Elisha, and Jonah, all bearing a prac-
tical testimony against the Talmudic prin-
ciple, which extends God's law against the
Canaanites to all idolaters, and under all cir-

cumstances.

Talmudic command, he administered it gratuitously; and Gehazi, for acting in conformity to Talmudic ordinance, and making the idolater pay, was smitten with the leprosy. (2 Kings v. 20.) In like manner, when the Syrian host was miraculously led into Samaria, and the King of Israel proposed to act as a Talmudist and smite them, the man of God answered, "Thou shalt not smite them; wouldest thou smite those whom thou hast taken with thy sword and bow ? Set bread and water before them, that they may eat and drink and go to their master. " (2 Kings vi. 21, 22.) This answer is important, as it not only furnishes an example, but exhibits the principle, according to which idolatrous captives, not Canaanites, were to be treated. The prophet appeals to the general rule, "Wouldest thou smite those whom thou hast taken captive with thy sword and bow?" Even then, as they are not Canaanites, they ought not to be smitten; therefore, in this case much more, they ought to be treated with mercy. We Lastly, we have the testimony of the God have still another instance of a prophet acting of Israel himself. He who gave the command contrary to the oral law, and in conformity to destroy the Canaanites on account of their with the New Testament interpretation. The exceeding wickedness, shows by his own prophet Jonah once saw idolaters "nigh unto dealings with the world, that this case is an death," and ready to sink in the great deep, exception to the general rule, for "The but he had mercy on them, and pointed out Lord is good to all, and his mercies are the means of deliverance. When he fled from over all his works." He provides food the presence of the Lord, the mariners in whose and clothing for the idolater, as well as for ship he sailed were idolaters; for when the those who worship him in truth; or, as storm raged, it is said, "They cried every the New Testament says, "He maketh man unto his god." In their anguish they his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, said unto him, "What shall we do unto thee, and sendeth rain on the just and the unthat the sea may be calm unto us ?" In other just." (Matt. vi. 45.) He, then, whose words, "What shall we do to save our lives ?" conduct most resembles that of his Creator, is, Now if Jonah had been a Talmudist, it would beyond all doubt, the nearest to the truth. have been plainly not his duty to have told The Talmud, therefore, is wrong, and the them, but to have allowed the sea to rage on New Testament explanation of the comuntil the ship went to pieces, and he had the mand, "Thou shalt love thy neighbour as satisfaction of seeing the idolaters go to the thyself," is right. We ask the Jews, then, to bottom. This would have been an act of account for this fact, that Jesus of Nazareth obedience to a precise command, and could was right, and those who condemned him have made no difference to Jonah. For, as to wrong, respecting one-half of the whole law. himself, there are two suppositions possible, And we ask, moreover, those Jews who abhor either he knew that the Lord had prepared a the above Talmudic principles, how they can fish to swallow him, or he knew it not. If conscientiously join in the synagogue prayers, he knew it, then he was secure of his own which ascribe to the Talmud Divine authority? safety, and would have known that the fish We ask them why, at the very least, they could find him out just as readily if the ship have never publicly protested against these went to pieces, as if the idolaters threw him enormities; but allow their brethren through into the sea. It would, therefore, have been the world to remain victims to a system, which doubly his duty to conceal from the idolaters not only contradicts the written law of God, the means of deliverance. On this supposition, but outrages all the better feelings of even Jonah's counsel to them can only be accounted fallen humanity? for on the principle that he was not a Talmu

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

« AnteriorContinuar »