Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

trine silences the voice of nature, and makes
void the law of God. What is the doctrine
of the New Testament here? "If any pro-
vide not for his own, and specially for those
of his own household, he hath denied the faith
and is worse than an infidel” (1 Tim. v. 8.)
The disciples of the Lord Jesus Christ never
claimed for themselves any honour like this.
In the passage just cited, they plainly declare
that the first, in the circle of duties to men, is
the duty to our own flesh and blood. And
the only case in which the New Testament
permits a deviation from this rule, is that
where the same exception is made in the law
of Moses, when love to parents would interfere
with love to God. "If any man come to
me and hate not his father and mother, and
wife and children, and brethren and sisters,
yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my
disciple." (Luke xiv. 26.) Here father and
mother, and kindred, are put in one category
with a man's own life, in order to show that
there is but one case in which the natural ties
of blood may be overlooked, and this is when
the service of God requires it. As it is also
written in the law of Moses, "If thy brother,
the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy
daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy
friend who is as thine own soul, entice thee
secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other
gods, which thou hast not known, thou nor
thy fathers.
Thou shalt not con-
sent unto him, nor hearken unto him,
neither shall thine eye pity him," &c. (Deut.
xiii. 6-9.) And thus the tribe of Levi is
praised, because "He said unto his father
and his mother, I have not known him;
neither did he acknowledge his brethren, nor
know his own children." (Deut. xxxiii. 9.)
But this Talmudical law is widely different.
It has no saving clause to show that the case
specified is an exception to the general rule.
It does not pretend to suppose that the father
is a bad man, or an idolater, or an apostate.
It specifies but one exception, and that is,
where the father is "the disciple of a wise
man;" otherwise, though he be a good man
and a pious man, a loving and tender parent,
still he is to be disregarded by his own son,
and the Rabbi preferred before him. Is it
possible to doubt that the men who conceived,
sanctioned, and promulgated a law like this,
had an eye to their own personal honour and
interest? Is it reasonable to suppose that
men who would sacrifice their own father to
the honour of their Rabbi, would be very
tender about the life of one who appeared, like
Jesus of Nazareth, as an opposer of their pre-
tensions? Or can the Jews, with the law and
the prophets in their hands, suppose that these
men pointed to "the old paths," "the good
way ?"
This is certainly not the doctrine of
Moses. He says-

ארור מקלה אביו ואמו ואמר כל העם אמן :

Cursed be he that setteth light by his father or his mother, and all the people shall say, Amen." (Deut. xxvii. 16.)

But these men did not stop here. They were not content with being exalted above father and mother. They did not scruple to assert, that their honour was as sacred as that of God himself.

ואין לך כבוד גדול מכבוד הרב ולא מורא ממורא

הרבי אמרו חכמים מורא רבך כמורא שמים

"Thou must consider no honour greater than the honour of the Rabbi, and no fear greater than the fear of the Rabbi. The wise men have said, The fear of thy Rabbi is as the fear of God."

They endeavour to prove the validity of these extravagant claims by such passages as Exod. xvi. 8, "Your murmurings are not against us, but against the Lord." But they have taken for granted what they can never prove, and that is, that every Rabbi is invested with the same office and authority as Moses. But where, in all the law of Moses, is there any warrant for such an assumption? Moses could with all propriety say, "Your murmurings are not against us, but against the Lord," for he held a special commission from God, and had proved to the people the reality of his commission by a series of miracles. But this the Rabbies never pretended to do. In this dearth of evidence the advocates of tradition flee for refuge to Deut. xvii. 8, &c. "If there arise a matter too hard for thee in judgment, between blood and blood, between plea and plea, and between stroke and stroke, being matters of controversy within thy gates; then shalt thou arise, and get thee up into the place which the Lord thy God shall choose; and thou shalt come unto the priests, the Levites, and unto the judge that shall be in those days, and inquire, and they shall show thee the sentence of judgment. And thou shalt do according to the sentence, which they of that place which the Lord shall choose shall shew thee; and thou shalt observe to do according to all that they inform thee; according to the sentence of the law which they shall teach thee, and according to the judgment which they shall tell thee, thou shalt do; thou shalt not decline from the sentence which they shall show thee to the right hand nor to the left." Here, say the traditionists, is a plain and unequivocal command. No doubt, God here plainly declares what is to be done in a difficult case. He commands the Israelites to go to the place which the Lord God chose, that is, to the place where was found the ark of the covenant; and to inquire, not of the Rabbies, but of the priests, the Levites, and the judge. But this passage, instead of proving that "the fear of the Rabbi is as the fear of God," proves the contrary. It supposes first, that the Rabbies and learned

which the Lord had chosen," in the temple itself. "And all the people were gathered against Jeremiah in the house of the Lord." We find, further, that the sentence against Jeremiah was no rash sudden act, but the deliberate judgment of the priests. For when the princes of Judah came afterwards to inquire into the matter, "Then spake the priests and the prophets unto the princes and to all the people, saying, This man is worthy to die, for he hath prophesied against this city, as ye have heard with your ears." Now, then, we ask again, whether the people of Israel was in duty bound to abide by this sentence, and not to decline from it, either to the right hand or to the left? We fearlessly reply, that they were not bound by this sentence, and that, if they had executed it, they would have been guilty of murder, as Jeremiah himself declares: "But know ye for certain, that if ye put me to death, ye shall surely bring innocent blood upon yourselves, and upon this city, and upon the inhabitants thereof: for of a truth the Lord hath sent me unto you to speak all these words in your ears." We infer, therefore, that it was possible for the priests, assembled in solemn deliberation in the house of the Lord, to err ir. judgment, and to pronounce an unrighteous sentence. We infer, further, that it was possible for the priests so far to err, as to condemn to death a true prophet of the Lord. We infer, further, that in such a case the people was not bound by this mistaken judgment; but that it was their duty to decline from it, both to the right hand and to the left. We infer, lastly, that as the priests might mistake, and unjustly condemn to death a true prophet, their sentence against Jesus of Nazareth forms no more argument against the Messiahship of Jesus, than the similar sentence just considered did against the true prophetic character of Jeremiah; and that it affords just as little warrant for Jewish unbelief as the former sentence did for putting Jeremiah to death.

men may differ in judgment, that there may be a controversy, and consequently that one party may be in the wrong. It, therefore, effectually overthrows Rabbinical infallibility. It shows that these learned men are, after all, only poor fallible creatures like ourselves, and that, therefore, we are not to fear them as we would fear God, nor reverence their dictates, as the Word of God. It shows secondly, that in a case of difficulty, the Israelites were not to appeal to the Rabbies, but to the priests , and to the judge, and even to them only in the place which the Lord should choose. There is not one word said about the Rabbies or the wise men, and, therefore, this passage completely annihilates all their lofty pretensions. For centuries the place which the Lord chose has been desolate, and there has been no priest standing to minister before the Lord. The Jews have thus lost all possibility of appeal. They have neither ministering priest nor judge, and the Mosaic law nowhere recognises the pretensions of the Rabbies. But some Jew may say, that though this passage does not prove the authority of the Rabbies, it does at least warrant the Jews in persisting to reject the claims of the Lord Jesus, for that he was condemned by the priests, and in Jerusalem, the place which the Lord chose. We confess that this objection is plausible; but can easily prove that it is nothing more. In order to this, we ask the Jews, whether the above command to abide by the sentence of the priests is in every case, and without any exception, binding? To this question there are two answers possible-Yes and No. If they say No, then they admit that the priests might sometimes be in the wrong, and we would, of course, take advantage of this admission to show that they erred in their judgment on Jesus of Nazareth. They will then, most probably, say, Yes; the sentence of the priests, the Levites, and the judges is in every case binding, and Israel is commanded not to deviate from it, either to the right hand or to the left, upon pain of capital punishment. But it may be asked, if the judgment of We beg of them then to turn to the 26th the priests was not infallible, and if men chapter of the Prophet Jeremiah, and to con- were sometimes justifiable in refusing it, what sider the case there set before them. We use was there in the above commandment to there find that Jeremiah had delivered a mes- apply to them in cases of difficulty, and to sage from God, very similar to our Lord's pre- abide by their sentence? The answer to this diction of the destruction of Jerusalem. "I is very simple. The priest that stood to miwill make this house like Shiloh, and will nister before the Lord had it in his power, bemake this city a curse to all the nations of the fore the destruction of the first Temple, to earth." We find, further, that for this mes- inquire of the Lord, and to receive a mirasage the priests condemned Jeremiah to death, culous answer from God himself, which anjust as their successors condemned Jesus of swer was, of course, infallible, and uniNazareth. "Now it came to pass, when Je-versally obligatory, without the possibility of remiah had made an end of speaking all that the Lord had commanded him to speak unto all the people, that the priests, and the prophets, and all the people took him, saying, Thou shalt surely die." We find, further, that this sentence was pronounced "in the place

exception. We find in the Old Testament many instances in which the Israelites availed themselves of this power, as in Judges xx. 27. "And the children of Israel inquired of the Lord (for the ark of the covenant of God was there in those days: and Phineh as

the son of Eleazar, the son of Aaron, stood scribes the formula of greeting or salutation.

again go out to battle against the children of

ולא יתן שלום לרבו או יחזיר לו שלום כדרך שנותני | before it in those days), Saying, shall I yet לריעי' ומחזירים זה לזה אלא שוחה לפניו ואומר לו | Benjamin my brother, or shall I cease? And

ביראה וכבוד שלום עליך רבי

the Lord said, Go up; for to-morrow I will deliver them into thine hand." And in the history of David's life, there are several instances of his employment of this miraculous power, as 1 Sam. xxiii. 4, "Then David inquired of the Lord yet again. And the Lord answered him and said, Arise, go down to Keilah; for I will deliver the Philistines into thine hand." In all such cases where the priest first inquired of the Lord, his sentence was, of course, infallible, and the Israelites were bound to abide by it. But where they did not inquire of the Lord, their sentence was only that of fallible men, and, therefore, not binding upon the consciences of the people. Of this sort was their sentence upon Jeremiah. Being wicked men, they did not choose to ask counsel of the Lord, but pronounced sentence according to the devices of their own hearts. In the case of the Lord Jesus Christ the priests could not ask counsel of the Lord, for in the second temple the Urim and Thummim, and the ark of the covenant were wanting; the miraculous power, therefore, did not exist, and for this very reason the sentence of the priests, during the whole period of the second Temple, was only fallible, like that of other men, and, therefore, not binding, and consequently of no force as an argument against the Messiahship of the Lord Jesus Christ. The above passage, therefore, from the xviith of Deut., is of no use to the Rabbinical Jews, it does not prove the infallibility of the priests in the second Temple, and is still less applicable for sanctioning the traditions of the oral law,

"Neither is he to salute his Rabbi, nor to return his salutation in the same manner that salutations are given or returned amongst friends. On the contrary, he is to bow down before the Rabbi, and to say to him, with reverence and honour, Peace be unto thee, Rabbi." The Rabbinical Jews, who see this, must not mistake us. We do not consider it in anywise sinful, but decorous, to treat a Rabbi with all due respect. We should feel no objection ourselves to make a bow to a Rabbi, and to salute him in the prescribed formula. But we cite these laws to show that the New Testament gives a fair representation of the Pharisees: for men, who could gravely sit down and enter into all these details of the mode in which they were to be honoured, and then give out these laws as divine, and, besides all this, call in the civil power to enforce them, must have had no mean idea of themselves and their Own dignity. It must never be forgotten that these laws are not the mere regulations of a religious community. When the Rabbies had the power in their own hands, thay enforced them by civil sanctions. They were not satisfied with excluding despisers of rabbinical authority from eternal life, they prosecuted such before the tribunals, and sentenced them to a pecuniary fine and excommunication, as may be seen from the following law :

[ocr errors]

וכל המבזה את החכמים אין לו חלק לעולם הבא והרי הוא בכלל כי דבר יהוה בזה : אף על פי שהמבזה את החכמים אין לו חלק לעולם הבא אם באו עדים שבזהו אפילו בדברים הייב נדוי ומנדין אותו בית דין | and the extravagant claims of the Rabbies ברבים וקונסין אותו ליטרא זהב בכל מקום, ונותנין | Having given this passage the consideration אותו להכם • והמבזה את החכם בדברים אפילו לאחר | it deserves, we now return to the laws which

מיתה מנדין אותו בית דין וכו'

the Rabbies have made in favour of themselves, and for their own honour. We consider that the two passages of the oral law already quoted, prove that the New Testament gives a fair delineation of their character. When men, without any warrant from God's Word, claim for themselves the same degree of reverence which is due to God, it must be admitted that they are vainglorious and wicked in no ordinary degree. But it is possible to descend to particulars:-For instance, our Lord says, that these men "loved greetings in the market places, and to be called of men, Rabbi, Rabbi." Now one of the laws still extant, forbids a man, when speaking of his Rabbi, to call him by name.

"Whosoever despises the wise men has no share in the world to come. But notwithstanding this, if there come witnesses to prove that he has been guilty of contempt even in words, his sentence is excommunication, and the tribunal (house of judgment) excommunicates him publicly, and everywhere mulct him in a fine in gold, and give it to the wise man. He that despiseth a wise man in words, even after his death, is to be excommunicated by the tribunal," &c. We now ask the Jews of modern times what they think of those who made their own personal honour the subject of legislation, who required the same reverence for their words as the Word of God, and who

-dragged up him that refused it before a tri אסור לו לתלמיד לקרות לרבו בשמו ואפילו שלא

PD "It is forbidden to a disciple to call his Rabbi by name, even when he is not in his presence." Another law, still extant, pre

bunal, had him sentenced to pecuniary fine, and excommunication; and, besides all this, excluded him from the hope of everlasting life? Had such men any idea of liberty of conscience?

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

NUMBER 3.

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

FRIDAY, JANUARY 29, 1836.

IF any of our readers should think that the design of these papers is to represent the oral law as a system of unmixed evil, we beg to assure them that they are mistaken. We are fully aware that a system based on the law and the prophets must and does contain much, that is good and worthy of admiration. Of this nature is the general command to all Israelites to study the law, which is as follows:"Every man of Israel is bound to study the law. Whether he be poor or rich, healthy or unhealthy, young or old, yea, though he live upon alms, and beg from door to door, and though he have a wife and children, he is bound to set apart a fixed time for the study of the law, by day and by night, as it is written, Thou shalt meditate therein by day and by night.' And again, the maxim, "Every one that is bound to learn is also bound to teach ;" and that, "therefore, a man is bound to teach his son and his son's son,' &c., is in accordance with the plain command of God, and is therefore good. But the explanation and development of these good prin

[ocr errors]

PRICE ONE-PENNY.

the oral law, let him at fixed times read them, that he may not forget any of the judgments of the law, but let him devote all his days to Gemara." It is to be observed that "oral law" is here taken in a limited sense, as referring to the expositions of the written law, or, as Rabbi Joseph Karo* explains it, the Mishna; and Gemara signifies the legal decisions which are inferred by a process of reasoning, and to this third topic of Jewish the. ology the Israelites are commanded to give the chief of their time and attention, rather than to the written Word of God.

The apparent excellence of the above com.. mand to study the law is thus utterly destroyed by the rabbinical exposition of what is to be studied. And if we go on to inquire upon whom this command is binding, the rabbinical answer will afford just as little satisfaction. When the rabbies say, that "every man of Israel is bound to study the law," they mean to limit the study to the men of Israel, and to exclude the women and slaves. The very

first sentence of the Hilchoth Talmud Torah

נשים ועבדים וקטנים פטורים מתלמוד תורה ciples shows that the system itself is radically

is

|

:

bad, and therefore cannot be from God. No one will deny that the rabbies are right in asserting the obligation resting on every Is raelite to study the law but they are wrong in their explanation of what the law is. Immediately after the above good command, the oral law goes on to say, "Every one is bound to divide the time of his study into three parts: one-third to be devoted to the written law; one-third to Mishna; and one-third to Gemara :"

"Women and slaves and children are exempt from the study of the law." According to this declaration, women are not obliged to learn. The following extract will confirm this opinion, and at the same time show that there is no obligation on fathers to have their daughters taught.

traditions of men.

אשה שלמדה תורה יש לה שכר אבל אינה כשכר וכל העושה דבר שאינו האיש מפני שלא נצטוית מצווה עליו לעשותו אין שכרו כשכר המצווה שעשה | so that the written law of God is אלא פחות ממנו ואע''פ שיש לה שכר צוו חכמים שלא to have only half as much attention as the ילמד אדם את בתו תורה מפני שרוב הנשים אין דעתן | .This is bad enough מכוונת להתלמוד אלא הן מוציאות דברי תורה לדברי | But the rabbies do not stop here. They go הבאי לפי עניות דעתן : אמרו חכמים כל המלמד את | on to say, that this third of attention is only בתו תורה כאילו למדה תפלות • בד"א בתורה שבעל פה אבל תורה שבכתב לא ילמד אותה לכתחלה ואם למדה | that when he has made progress, he is to read

אינו כמלמדה תפלות :

required when a man begins to study, but

the law of God only at times, and to devote himslf to Gemara.

"A woman who learns the law has a reward, but it is not equal to the reward

בד'א' בתחלת תלמודו של אדם אבל כשיגדיל בחכמה

-which the man has, because she is not com | ולא יהא צריך לא ללמוד תורה שבכתב ולא לעסוק -manded to do so : for no one who does any | תמיר בתורה שבעל פה יקרא בעיתים מזומנים תורה -thing which he is not commanded to do, re | שבכתב ודברי השמועה כדי שלא ישכח דבר מדברי

דיני תורה ויפנה כל ימיו לגמרא :

"What has ceives the same reward as he who is com-
manded to do it, but a less one. But though
the woman has a reward, the wise men have

been said refers only to the beginning of a man's learning, but as soon as a man becomes great in wisdom, and has no need of learning the written law, or of labouring constantly in

* Jorth Deah, sec. 246.

commanded that no man should teach his daughter the law, for this reason, that the majority of women have not got a mind fitted for study, but pervert the words of the law on account of the poverty of their mind. The wise men have said, Every one that teacheth his daughter the law is considered as if he taught her transgression. But this applies only to the oral law. As to the written law, he is not to teach her systematically; but if he has taught her, he is not to be considered as having taught her transgression."

According to this decision, it is absolutely forbidden to teach a woman the oral law; and the teaching of it is looked upon as the teaching of transgression nion. We cannot forbear asking the advocates of the oral law, whether it does not here testify against itself that it is bad. It declares of itself that it is unfit for the perusal and study of the pure female mind, and that it is as corrupting as the teaching of transgression. We ask, then, can such a law be divine? Can it proceed from the God of Israel, who hath said, "Be ye holy, for I am holy?" What a noble testimony to the superiority of the written Word, and to the justice of the Lord Jesus Christ's opposition to the oral law ! The oral law itself says, "He that teacheth his daughter the oral law, to be considered as if he taught her transgression. He that teacheth her the written law, is not to be so considered." With such a confession, we fearlessly ask the sons and daughters of Israel, who then was in the right ? Jesus of Nazareth, who opposed it, or the scribes and pharisees, who defended it?

But the wise men" also forbid Israelites to teach women the written law, and declare that women are not bound to learn. For the prohibition they assign two reasons. First, they say that God has commanded them to teach only their sons, in proof of which they refer to Deut. xi. 19, " And ye shall teach them your children." In the Hebrew it is

66

your sons;" and the Rabbies infern D, “ and not your daughters. "f Secondly, they say, as we have seen above, “that the majority of women have not got minds fitted for study," and in the Talmud this is attempted to be proved from Scripture. "A wise woman once asked R. Eliezer, How it was that after the sin of the golden calf, those who were alike in trangressions did not all die the same death? He replied, A woman's wisdom is only for the distaff, as it is written, All the women that were wise-hearted did spin with their hands.' (Exod. xxxv. 25.)" We he

[ocr errors]

* non. In the translatlon of this word we follow the interpretation of the Joreh Deah, which renders it 17. This is obviously not the place to discuss the other opinions of the rabbies. + See Kiddushin, fol. 29. col. 2. 1-Joma., fol. 66. col. 2.

|

sitate not to say, that both these reasons are | contrary to Scripture. We do not deny that signifies sons, but we utterly deny the conclusion of the rabbies, that because the masculine word is used, therefore the women are not included in the command. There is an abundance of instances in which the masculine word is used for children generally, without any allusion to sex. Take for example Exod. xxii. 23 (in the English 24). "And my wrath shall wax hot, and I will kill you with the sword; and your wives shall be widows, and your children □ (literally your sons) orphans." Here again the masculine word is used, so that if the rabbinical argument be valid in the above case, it will be valid here, and consequently the daughters are excluded from this denunciation, so that the sons were to be orphans, but not the daughters, which is plainly impossible. In the same way we can prove that the daughters of Israel did not wander in the wilderness forty years, for in Numbers xiv. 33, it is said," And your children (literally your sons, and, therefore, according to Talmudic logic, not your daughters) shall wander in the wilderness forty years.' The same logic will also prove that during the three days of miraculous darkness in Egypt, the women of Israel were left in darkness as well as the Egyptians, for it is said all the children of Israel ( 222, literally the sons of Israel) had light in their dwellings. And thus also it might be proved that not one of the ten commandments is binding upon the women, for the masculine gender is employed throughout. This logic, therefore, is evidently false; and we conclude, on the contrary, that as the women are included in all these passages -as they wandered through the wilderness, and had light in their dwellings - and are bound to keep the ten commandments as well as the men, so also they are included in the command, "Ye shall teach them your children," and that, therefore, the command of the oral law not to teach women, is contrary to the Word of God. But we are not confined to argument, God has plainly commanded that the women should learn as well as the men. "And Moses commanded them, saying, At the end of every seven years, in the solemnity of the year of release in the feast of tabernacles, when all Israel is come to appear before the Lord thy Gd in the place which he shall choose, thou shalt read this law before all Israel in their hearing. Gather the people together, men and women, and children, and thy stranger that is within thy gates, that they may hear, and that they may learn, and fear the Lord your God, and observe to do all the words of this law." (Deut. xxxi. 10-12.) Here a most beautiful order is observed, and required of women as well as men; hearing -learning-fearing-keeping the words of the law-God wills that the women should fear

« AnteriorContinuar »