“An amhaaretz is forbidden to eat the flesh of a beast, for

THE OLD PATHS

THE OLD PATHS,

OR

THE TALMUD TESTED BY SCRIPTURE;

BEING

A COMPARISON OF THE PRINCIPLES AND DOCTRINES

OF

MODERN JUDAISM,

WITH THE

RELIGION OF MOSES AND THE PROPHETS.

BY THE

REV. ALEXANDER McCAUL, D.D.,

LATE PROFESSOR OF DIVINITY, KING’S COLLEGE, LONDON;

AND LATE PREBENDARY OF ST. PAUL’S.

LONDON:

LONDON SOCIETY’S HOUSE,

16, Lincoln’s Inn Fields.

1880.

TO

THE RIGHT HONOURABLE AND RIGHT REVEREND

CHARLES JAMES, LORD BISHOP OF LONDON,

ETC., ETC.,

WHOSE APPROBATION OF HIS LABOURS

HAS BEEN AN ENCOURAGEMENT AND A REWARD,

THE FOLLOWING PAGES

ARE RESPECTFULLY

AND GRATEFULLY INSCRIBED, BY

THE AUTHOR.

ADVERTISEMENT TO THE SECOND EDITION.

Nine years have now elapsed since “The Old Paths” appeared as a volume.

They have been translated, in the meantime, into Hebrew, German, and

French; and their merits discussed by the learned and unlearned of the

Jewish people, in all the countries of their dispersion. The reception

has in general been favourable, and the effect upon the Jewish mind

perceptible. Since their first appearance, the West London Synagogue and

the Liturgies of the British Jews, both renouncing that which “The Old

Paths” pronounced objectionable, have started into existence. The

assembled rabbies at Brunswick and Frankfort have discussed topics

similar to some treated in “The Old Paths,” and in some cases come to

similar conclusions respecting the value of Rabbinic Traditions. The

Reform Societies of Germany have commenced a formidable attack upon the

Oral Law, and a free discussion is now carried on in the numerous Jewish

periodicals of that country, of which the results are easily foretold.

The promised German translation of the Talmud, if ever completed, must,

without any discussion, overthrow Talmudism. Its exhibition in any

European language is the most fatal attack that can be made on its

authority. It needs only to be seen as it is, in order to be rejected.

The reader is again warned against mistaking this discussion of the

merits of Rabbinism for an attack upon the Jewish people, or the rabbies

of the present day. The reproach attaches not to the victims, but to the

authors of tradition. The Jews are a great and a noble people, and the

majority ignorant of the details of the system, by which they have been

bowed down and misrepresented for centuries; so ignorant, indeed, that

some zealously undertake a defence of the whole, maintain that Rabbinism

is a perfect model of charity and wisdom, and regard “The Old Paths” as

a mere emanation of common Anti-Jewish prejudice. Such persons are

requested to compare these papers with the articles in the Jewish

periodical, entitled, “Der Israelit des Neunzehnten Jahrhunderts,”

written by Rabbi Dr. Holdheim, and other distinguished Jewish scholars.

They will there find that, had the author not been influenced by a

desire to avoid all occasion of unnecessary offence, truth might have

been stated with more severity.

A mistake in one number, not, however, affecting the argument, has been

corrected.

ADVERTISEMENT TO THE FIRST EDITION.

The reader will perceive, by the date at the head of each number, that

the following papers were published weekly, and, from the contents, he

will readily infer that they were intended for distribution amongst

those Jews who still adhere to the rabbinic system. But in presenting

them to the public as a volume, it may be well to state that the great

object was to exhibit Judaism as it appears in its practical workings,

and that, therefore, most references are made to the Jewish Prayer-book,

and to the codes of law commonly in use amongst rabbinic Jews, and which

are considered as authoritative. It was the Author’s wish, not to

ridicule any man’s superstition, but to instruct those, whom Moses and

the Prophets would have declared to be in error. He has therefore,

carefully avoided the tone in which Eisenmenger and others have treated

this subject, and, in treating the Jewish legends, has confined himself

to those which are mentioned in the prayers of the Synagogue. The

materials are the result of many years’ study and practical observation.

Buxtorf, Majus, Edzard, Eisenmenger, Wagenseil, &c., have been carefully

consulted, but the Jewish Liturgies, the Arbah Turim, the Shulchan

Aruch, the Yad Hachasakah, are the principal sources, whence this view

of Judaism has been drawn. The Author has only to add a hope, that these

papers may not be misunderstood, either by Jew or Christian, but that

all who read them will carefully distinguish between Judaism and the

Jewish people—and a wish, that they may contribute to the welfare of

Israel, and the promotion of truth.

CONTENTS.

I. Rabbinism not a Safe Way of Salvation 1

II. Implicit Faith not due to the Rabbies 8

III. Rabbinic Injustice to Women, Slaves, and Gentiles 16

IV. Rabbinic Intolerance towards other Nations 24

V. Talmudic Intolerance contrasted with the Charity of the Bible 32

VI. Compulsory Conversion of the Gentiles 39

VII. The Feast of Purim 47

VIII. Rabbinic Contempt for the Sons of Noah 55

IX. Christians cannot be reckoned amongst the “Pious of the Nations of

the World” 63

X. Rabbinic Washing of Hands 70

XI. Rabbinic Artifices respecting Leaven at the Passover 79

XII. The Passover a Type of Future Deliverance 87

XIII. Severity of the Rabbinic Ordinances 95

XIV. Severity and Artifice 103

XV. Sabbath Mixture 111

XVI. Intolerance of Rabbinic Prayers 119

XVII. Rabbinic Legends in the Synagogue Services 127

XVIII. Rabbinic Legends, continued 136

XIX. Legends in the Prayers for Pentecost 144

XX. Legends in the Prayers for Pentecost 152

XXI. Legends in the Prayers for Pentecost 160

XXII. Rabbinic Magic 167

XXIII. Astrology 175

XXIV. Amulets 183

XXV. Charms 191

XXVI. Charms, continued 199

XXVII. Sabbatic Laws 207

XXVIII. Fast for the Destruction of the Temple 215

XXIX. Sabbatic Laws, continued 223

XXX. Sabbatic Laws, continued 231

XXXI. Rabbinic Excommunication 239

XXXII. New Year’s Day 247

XXXIII. New Year, continued 255

XXXIV. New Year, continued 262

XXXV. Justification 270

XXXVI. Day of Atonement 279

XXXVII. Feast of Tabernacles 287

XXXVIII. Prayers for the Dead 295

XXXIX. Almsgiving 302

XL. Priests and Levites 310

XLI. Rabbinic Ideas of the Deity 319

XLII. Title of Rabbi 326

XLIII. Sanhedrin 334

XLIV. Sanhedrin, continued 342

XLV. Sanhedrin, continued 349

XLVI. Contempt for the Female Character 357

XLVII. Polygamy 365

XLVIII. Divorce 372

XLIX. Rabbinic Laws concerning Meat 380

L. The Birth of Messiah 387

LI. Slaughtering of Meat, continued 396

LII. Laws concerning Meat with Milk 403

LIII. Rabbinism oppressive to the Poor 411

LIV. Gentile Wine 419

LV. Mourning for the Dead 427

LVI. Dispensation from an Oath 434

LVII. Doctrine of Oaths, continued 442

LVIII. Meritoriousness of Circumcision 449

LIX. Cruelty to the Unlearned 457

LX. Recapitulation 464

No. I.[1]

RABBINISM NOT A SAFE WAY OF SALVATION.

SALVATION IS OF THE JEWS. Amongst all the religions 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 we are

disciples of the Jews, converts to Jewish doctrines, partakers of the

Jewish hope, and advocates of that truth which the Jews have taught us.

We are fully persuaded that the Jews whom we follow were in the

right—that they have pointed out to us “the old paths,” “the good way,”

and “we have found rest to our souls.” And we, therefore,

conscientiously believe, that those Jews who follow the opposite system

are as wrong as their forefathers, who, when God commanded them to walk

in the good old way, replied, “We will not walk therein.” Some modern

Jews think that it is impossible for a Jew to be in error, and that a

Jew, because he is a Jew, must of necessity be in the right. Such

persons seem to have forgotten how the majority of the people erred in

making the golden calf—how the generation that came out of Egypt died in

the wilderness because of their unbelief—how the nation at large

actually 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 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,_ שמעו הגוים, 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?

But some may ask, What is Judaism? what is Christianity? ANSWER.—Judaism

is that religious system contained and acknowledged in the prayers of

the Jewish synagogue, whether German or Portuguese, and professed by all

who use them as the ritual of their worship. Christianity is the

religious system taught in the New Testament; or, in other words,

Judaism is the Old Testament explained according to the traditional law,

תורה שבעל פה. Christianity is the Old Testament explained according to

the New. According to this explanation, the Jewish Prayer-book teaches

the divine authority of the oral law. Of this there can be no doubt,

for, in the first place, the whole ritual of the synagogue service, and

the existence and arrangement of the synagogue itself, is according to

the prescription of the oral law, as may be seen by comparing the Jewish

prayers with the Hilchoth T’phillah. If it be asked why the Jew uses

these prayers, and no other—why he wears phylacteries (תפילין) and the

veil (טלית)—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 synagogue worship, therefore,

from the beginning to the end of the year, is a practical confession of

the authority of the oral law, and every Jew who joins in the synagogue

worship does, in so far, conform to the prescriptions 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,

רבי ישמעאל אומר,

“Rabbi Ishmael says,” &c. At the end of the daily prayers we find a

whole treatise of the oral law, called, פרקי אבות, “the ethics of the

fathers,” the beginning of which treatise asserts the transmission of

the oral law. In the morning service for Pentecost, there is a most

comprehensive declaration of the authority and constituent parts of the

oral law. “He, the Omnipotent, whose reverence is purity, with his

mighty word he instructed his chosen, and clearly explained the law,

with the word, speech, commandment, and admonition, in the Talmud, the

Agadah, the Mishna, and the Testament, with the statutes, the

commandment, and the complete covenant,” &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

who deny its authority, and explicitly informs us that Christians are

comprehended in anathema,—

ואלו הן שאין להם הלק לעולם הבא אלא נכרתין ואובדין ונדונין על גודל רשעם

וחטאתם לעולם ולעולמי עולמים המינין והאפיקורסין והכופרים בתורה וכו ׃

“_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 these classes is added, from which we extract the following passage:—

שלשה הן הכופרים בתורה האומר שאין התורה מעם ה׳ אפילו פסוק אחד אפילו תיבה

אחת אם אמר משה אמרו מפי עצמו הרי זה כופר בתורה וכן הכופר בפירושיה והיא

תורה שבעל פה והמכחיש במגידיה כנון צדוק וביתום והאומר שהבורא החליף מצוה

זו במצוה אחרת וכבר בטלה תורה זו אף על פי שהיא היתה מעם ה׳ כנון הנוצרים

וההנרים כל אחד משלשה אלה הוא כופר בתורה ׃

“_There are three classes of the deniers of the law. He who says that

the law is not from God, yea, even one verse or one word: or if he says

that Moses gave it of his own authority. Such an one is a denier of the

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, but consider it our bounden duty to examine 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,—

כל ישראל יש להם חלק לעולם הבא .... וכן חסידי אומות העולם יש להם חלק

לעולם הבא ׃

“_All Israel has a share in the world to come ... 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 לעולם הבא 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:—

אמר רבי אלעזר עם הארץ מותר לנחרו ביום הכפורים שחל להיות בשבת אמרו לו

תלמידיו רבי אמור לשחטו אמר להן זה טעון ברכה וזה אינו טעון ברכה ׃

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, לא תרצח, “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 it would be followed by reprehension the most explicit and

severe. But no, a little lower down another of these “wise men” says,—

עם הארץ מותר לקרעו 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. But the whole of the preceding passage is

so characteristic of the spirit of Rabbinism, that it is worth

inserting—

תנו רבנן וכו׳ ,

“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 Schulchan

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 and worse than

an unlearned man—that it ought, perhaps, to be taken in its literal

signification, “people of the land,” and that it may refer to the

idolatrous and wicked Canaanites. But the common usage of the Talmud

forbids a supposition. There is a well-known sentence which shows that

even a High Priest might be an amhaaretz:—

ממזר ת׳׳ח קודם לכהן גדול עם הארץ ,

“A learned man, though illegitimate, goes before a High Priest, who is

an amhaaretz.” Here the amhaaretz is plainly opposed to him that is

learned. And so, on the page of the Talmud from which we have quoted

above, we find the following words:—

עם הארץ אסור לאכול בשר בהמה שנאמר זאת תורת הבהמה והעוף כל העוסק בתורה

מותר לאכול בשר בהמה ועוף וכל שאינו עוסק בתורה אסור לאכול בשר בהמה 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 law, 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 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 תלמידי חכמימ? or

amongst the unlearned עמי הארץ? Are they, their wives, and daughters, as

the Talmud says, to be called an abomination, vermin, 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 advantage 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 your Talmudical doctors favour so highly. See,

then, in the above passages, what the Talmud says of yourselves, your

wives, and daughters? Can you believe that this 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.)

Footnote 1:

Published originally January 15, 1836.

No. II.

IMPLICIT FAITH NOT DUE TO THE RABBIES.

It 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 him, and conclude that, as they rejected him, 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_, תורה שבעל פה, 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 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 כד הוא חייב בכבוד רבו וביראתו יותר

מאביו וכו׳ ׃

“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 doctrine silences the voice of

nature, and makes void the law of God. What is the doctrine of the New

Testament here? “If any provide not for his own, and specially for those

of his own house, 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 consent 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 pretensions? 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 הרב 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 השופט. 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 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 כהנים, and to the judge שופט, 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. We beg of them then to

turn to the 26th chapter of the Prophet Jeremiah, and to consider the

case there set before them. We there find that Jeremiah had delivered a

message from God, very similar to our Lord’s prediction of the

destruction of Jerusalem. “I will make this house like Shiloh, and will

make this city a curse to all the nations of the earth.” We find,

further, that for this message the priests condemned Jeremiah to death,

just as their successors condemned Jesus of Nazareth. “Now it came to

pass, when Jeremiah 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 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 in judgment, and to pronounce on 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.

But it may be asked, if the judgment of the priests was not infallible,

and if men were sometimes justifiable in refusing it, what use was there

in the above commandment to apply to them in cases of difficulty, and to

abide by their sentence? The answer to this is very simple. The priest

that stood to minister before the Lord had it in his power, before the

destruction of the first Temple, to inquire of the Lord and to receive a

miraculous answer from God himself, which answer was, of course,

infallible, and universally obligatory, without the possibility of

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 Phinehas, the son of Eleazar, the

son of Aaron, stood before it in those days), saving, Shall I yet again

go out to battle against the children of Benjamin my brother, or shall I

cease? And 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 17th of

Deuteronomy, 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, and the

extravagant claims of the Rabbies. Having given this passage the

consideration it deserves, we now return to the laws which 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:—

אסור לו לתלמיד לקרות לרבו בשמו ואפילו שלא בפניו ,

“It is forbidden to a disciple to call his Rabbi by name, even when he

is not in his presence.” Another law, still extant, prescribes the

formula of greeting or salutation:—

ולא יתן שלום לרבו או יחזיר לו שלום כדרך שנותנים לריעים ומחזירים זה לזה

אלא שוחה לפניו ואומר לו ביראה וכבוד שלום עליך רבי ׃

“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,

they 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:—

וכל המבזה את החכמימ אין לו חלק לעולם הבא והרי הוא בכלל כי דבר יהוה בזה ׃

אף על פי שהמבזה את החכמים אן לו חלק לעולם הבא אם באו עדים שבזהו אפילו

בדברים חייב נדוי , ומנדין אותו בית דין ברבים וקונסין אותו ליטרא זהב בכל

מקום ונותנין אותו לחכם והמבזה את החכם בדברים אפילו לאחר מיתה מנדין אותו

בית דין וכו׳ ,

“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 pound of 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 tribunal,

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?

No. III.

RABBINIC INJUSTICE TO WOMEN, SLAVES, AND GENTILES.

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

principles shows that the system itself is radically bad, and therefore

cannot be from God. No one will deny that the Rabbies are right in

asserting the obligation resting on every Israelite 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:” so that the written law of God is to have only half as much

attention as the traditions of men. This is bad enough. But the Rabbies

do not stop here. They go on to say, that this third of attention is

only required when a man begins to study, but that when he has made

progress, he is to read the law of God only at times, and to devote

himself to Gemara.

בד׳׳א בתחלת תלמודו של אדם אבל כשיגדיל בחכמה ולא יהא צריך לו ללמוד תורה

שבכתב ולא לעסוק תמיד בתורה שבעל פה יקרא בעתים מזומנים תורה שבכתב ודברי

השמועה כדי שלא ישכח דבר מדברי דיני תורה ויפנה כל ימיו לגמרא ׃