but as soon as a man becomes great in wisdom, and has no need of
learning the written law, or of labouring constantly in 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[2] 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 theology 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 command 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 is
נשים ועבדים וקטנים פטורים מתלמוד תורה ,
“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.
אשה שלמדה תורה יש לה שכר אבל אינו כשכר האיש מפני שלא נצטוית , וכל העושה
דבר שאינו מצווה עליו לעשותו אין שכרו כשכר המצווה ועושה אלא פחות ממנו
ואע׳׳פ שיש לה שכר צוו חכמים שלא ילמד אדם את בתו תורה מפני שרוב הנשים אין
דעתן מכוונת להתלמד אלא הן מוציאות דברי תורה לדברִי הבאי מפי עניות דעתן ,
אמרו חכמים כל המלמד את בתו תורה כאלו למדה תיפלות , בד׳׳א בתורה שבעל פה
אבל תורה שבכתב לא ילמד אותה לכתחלה ואם למדה אינו כמלמדה תיפלות ׃
“A woman who learns the law has a reward, but it is not equal to the
reward which the man has, _because she is not commanded to do so_: for
no one who does anything which he is not commanded to do, receives the
same reward as he who is commanded to do it, but a less one. But though
the woman has a reward, the wise men have 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.[3] _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 תיפלות. 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, is 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 בניכם “your
sons;” and the rabbies infer ולא את בנותיכם, “and not your
daughters.”[4] Secondly, they say, as we have seen above, “that the
majority of women have not got minds fitted for study,” and in the
Talmud[5] 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 transgressions 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 hesitate not to say, that both these reasons are
contrary to Scripture. We do not deny that בניכם 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 בנים 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 בניכם (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 ובניכם
(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 (ולכל בני ישראל,
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 God 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_ ולמען ילמדו, 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
that women should fear him and keep his commandments as well as the men;
and therefore he wills that they should make use of the same means, that
they should hear, and learn all the words of the law. The traditionists
have, therefore, in this case plainly made void the law of God. God
commands women as well as men to learn the law; the Rabbies say they are
exempt from this duty. God commands that the woman should be taught. It
is plain, therefore, that the oral law, which contradicts the written
law, cannot be from God. The command of God is so plain that it is
unnecessary to enter deeply into the second Rabbinical reason for the
prohibition to teach women the law. It is evident that God did not think
that the poverty of their understanding was any obstacle to their
learning his will. Indeed it has pleased Him to show that He is no
respecter of persons with regard to male or female, more than with
regard to rich or poor. He has not only given them his law, but
conferred on women as well as men the gift of prophecy, so that the
names of Deborah, Hannah, and Huldah, must ever be remembered amongst
the inspired messengers of God. The Rabbies seem to have forgotten that
“the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom,” and that this fear
may be implanted by God just as easily in the heart of a woman as of a
Rabbi. But without inquiring further into their reasons or their
motives, suffice it to say, that the oral law in thus robbing women of
their right and inheritance in the law of God, and in degrading them to
the same category with children and slaves, is opposed to the plain
commands of the written law. But not so the New Testament. It exactly
agrees with the Old in considering woman as a rational and responsible
being, and a candidate for everlasting life. It, therefore, gives one
general rule for the education of children, male and female. “Ye
fathers, provoke not your children to wrath, but bring them up in the
nurture and admonition of the Lord.” (Ephes. vi. 4.) It does indeed
prescribe modesty and subjection to the women in the mode or learning,
but in so doing it plainly points out their duty to become acquainted
with the will of God. “Let the woman learn in silence with all
subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach nor to usurp authority
over the man, but to be in silence.” (1 Tim. ii. 11, 12.)
In these and other passages the woman is placed in the position assigned
her in the Old Testament, and not in the very subordinate rank imposed
upon her by the oral law. “Women, and slaves (עבדים), and children, are
exempt from the study of the law.” But we think that this rule is as
false with regard to slaves as to women. Here the oral law says that
slaves are not bound to learn. In Hilchoth Avadim, c. viii. 18, we find
that they are not to be taught.
אסור לאדם ללמד את עבדו תורה ׃
“It is forbidden to a man to teach his slave the law.” But, alas, the
passage of the Word of God which forbids it, is not referred to. It is
only an inference from the passage, “Ye shall teach your _sons_;” but is
evidently contrary to the whole tenour of the law of Moses. In the first
place, the Israelite who had been sold by the tribunal, or who, on
account of poverty, had sold himself, was still an Israelite, and did
not forfeit, finally, his right to his inheritance in the land; how,
then, could he forfeit his right to the law, which Moses gave as “the
inheritance of the congregation of Jacob?” The law of Moses expressly
provides a day of rest “for the man servant and the maid servant,” that
they may not only have rest for their bodies, but may have time to learn
the will of God, and provide for that eternity to which they are
hastening as well as their masters. Indeed, if meditation on the Word of
God was more necessary for one Israelite than another, it was for the
Hebrew servant. If he had been guilty of theft, and had been sold by the
tribunal, he had special need of instruction in the law of God to lead
him to repentance, and to teach him his duty for the future. If he had
been guilty of no crime, but had been compelled by poverty to sacrifice
his liberty, surely he needed the consolation which the Word of God can
supply, to enable him to bear his hard lot with patience, and to prevent
him from murmuring. But here the oral law steps in, and actually
prohibits his master from teaching him; and instead of encouraging him
in his leisure time to turn to the Word of God as his refuge and his
comfort, it tells him that he is not bound to study it. Here, again, the
New Testament is much more like the law of Moses, which breathes, all
through, a spirit of the most tender compassion for those in servitude.
Moses commands the Israelites to remember that they had themselves been
bondmen in Egypt. The New Testament reminds Christian masters that they
have a master in heaven. “Ye masters, do the same things unto them,
forbearing threatening: knowing that your master also is in heaven;
neither is there respect of persons with him.” (Ephes. vi. 9.) It also
plainly teaches that the relation which exists between believing masters
and servants is, before God, that of brethren. “And they that have
believing masters, let them not despise them, because they are brethren;
but rather do them service because they are faithful and beloved,
partakers of the benefit.” (1 Tim. vi. 2.) Yea, the New Testament lays
down a general principle, the very opposite of that, that “women, and
slaves, and children are exempt from the study of the law.” It says,
“There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there
is neither male nor female, for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.” (Gal.
iii. 28.) It does not dispense men from their relative duties, nor
deprive any of their legitimate privileges, but teaches that for all,
Jew or Greek, bond or free, male or female, there is but one way of
salvation. Very different is the doctrine of the oral law. We have seen
that it makes a grand distinction between male and female, bond and
free, we need not, therefore, be surprised if it make the line of
demarcation broader still between Jew and Greek.
גוי שעסק בתורה חייב מיתה , לא יעסוק אלא בשבע מצוות שלהן בלבד , וכן גוי
ששבת אפילו ביום מימות החול , אם עשהו לעצמו כמו שבת חיב מיתה , ואין צריך
לומר אם עשה מועד לעצמו , כללו של דבר אין מניחין אותן לחדש דת ולעשות
מצוות לעצמן מדעתן , אלא או יהוה גר צדק ויקבל כל המצוות , אל יעמוד בתורתו
ולא יוסיף ולא יגרע , ואם עסק בתורה או שבת , או חדש דבר , מכין אותו
ועונשין אותו ומודיעין אותו שהוא חייב מיתה על זה אבל אינו נהרג ׃
“A Gentile who employs himself in the law is guilty of death. He is not
to employ himself except in the seven commandments that belong to the
Gentiles. And thus a Gentile who keeps a Sabbath, though it be on one of
the week days—if he make it to himself as a Sabbath, he is guilty of
death. It is not necessary to add, if he appoint for himself a festival.
The general rule is that they are not permitted to innovate in religion,
or to make commandments for themselves out of their own heads. Either
let a Gentile become a proselyte of righteousness, and take upon him the
whole law: or let him remain in his own law, and neither add nor
diminish. But if he employs himself in the law, or keeps a Sabbath, or
makes any innovation, he is to be beaten and punished, and informed that
he is for this guilty of death—but he is not to be killed.” (Hilchoth
Melachim, c. x. 9.) This law is taken from the Talmudical treatise
Sanhedrin,[6] where it is followed by an apparently contradictory
statement, “that a Gentile who employs himself in the law is as good as
a high priest;” but the contradiction is immediately removed by the
explanation which there follows, and says, that “law” is to be
understood of the seven commandments of the Gentiles. Now we admit
liberty of conscience was not understood at the time; and that it would
be unjust to expect that the compilers of the oral law (who were
ignorant of, or opposed to, the New Testament, where liberty of
conscience was first plainly revealed) should be at all elevated above
the level of their own times. But making this admission and apology for
the men, we cannot help saying that the law itself is bad, and cannot be
from God. Religion is a matter between God and man. The heart, the
conscience, and the understanding are all alike concerned. Instruction
out of God’s Word is, therefore, the only means of producing conviction.
Entertaining these sentiments, we endeavour to compare the oral law with
the Word of God, and to convince its advocates that they are in error.
We do not wish to have the modern Jews confounded with the authors of
the system. Very many Jews of the present day are ignorant of its
details. Not having time to make the inquiry, they take it for granted,
that their forefathers were right in preferring their own system to
Christianity, and that they are bound to do the same. But even those who
are learned in the oral law, and know its details, are not to be viewed
in the same light as the original compilers. They have received the
system from their forefathers, and view it through the medium of filial
affection and national prejudice. They remember that to the Jews the law
was given, and that the Jewish nation has been the original instrument
in God’s hand to diffuse light over the world; they have therefore
hitherto taken it for granted that they must be right. The narrow
prejudices of Christians for ages confirmed them in their views. But now
circumstances are different. Christians begin to understand the position
in which God has placed the Jewish nation, and to look forward to their
restoration to the favour of God as the time of blessing for the whole
world. Christians can now honour and estimate the learning, the talent,
and the constancy of those very Rabbies whose system they consider as
erroneous. Now, then, is the time for the Jews themselves to inquire
into those religious opinions, which have been handed down to them, and
to compare them with the law and the prophets. We trust that many will
admit, that the laws which we have been considering are bad, and
therefore cannot be from God. Let them then remember, that the
originators of these laws are the men who rejected the claims of the
Lord Jesus Christ. If then these men were in error in making these laws,
they were in condemning Jesus of Nazareth because he opposed them; and
if the laws be bad, the Lord Jesus was right in opposing them. Yea, and
where they taught error He and his disciples taught the truth. The
Rabbies have taught constraint. Jesus of Nazareth and his disciples have
taught that fire is not to be called down from heaven on those who
differ from us; that “the servant of God must not strive; but be gentle
to all men, apt to teach, patient, in meekness instructing those that
oppose themselves; if God will peradventure give them repentance to the
acknowledging of the truth.” (2 Tim. ii. 25.)
Footnote 2:
Joreh Deah, sec. 246.
Footnote 3:
Literally, תיפלות. In the translation of this word we follow the
interpretation of the Joreh Deah, which renders it דבר עבירה. This is
obviously not the place to discuss the other opinions of the Rabbies.
Footnote 4:
See Kiddushin, fol. 29, col. 2.
Footnote 5:
Joma., fol. 66, col. 2.
Footnote 6:
Fol. 59, col. 1.
No. IV.
RABBINIC INTOLERANCE TOWARDS OTHER NATIONS.
The Jewish deputies, when asked by Napoleon whether they considered
Frenchmen as their brethren, replied in the affirmative, and after
quoting the Mosaic laws respecting the stranger said, “To these
sentiments of benevolence towards the _stranger_, Moses has added the
precept of general love for mankind: ‘_Love thy fellow-creature as
thyself_.’”[7] And in the authorized Jewish Catechism used in Bavaria,
after the explanation of the moral duties, we find the following
question:—“Are these laws and duties, affirmative and negative
commandments, binding with respect to a non-Israelite?” ANSWER—“By all
means, for the fundamental law of all these duties, ‘_Love thy neighbour
as thyself_,’ is expressly laid down by the Holy Scriptures in reference
to the non-Israelite, yea, to the heathen, as it is written, ‘And if a
stranger sojourn with thee in your land, ye shall not vex him. But the
stranger that dwelleth with you shall be unto you as one born amongst
you, _and thou shalt love him as thyself_: for ye were strangers in the
land of Egypt: I am the Lord your God.’” (Levit. xix. 33-35.)[8] These
declarations are very explicit, and, as forming part of public
documents, highly satisfactory. The representatives of the Jewish people
in France, and the teachers of the Jewish youth in Bavaria, declare,
that in the scriptural command, “Thou shalt love thy neighbour as
thyself,” neighbour means _fellow-man_, without distinction of nation or
religion. Where then did they learn this interpretation? From the Talmud
or from the New-Testament? The Jewish deputies say, from the former. On
the page cited above they add, “This doctrine is also professed by the
Talmud. We are bound, says a Talmudist, to love as brethren all those
who observe the _Noachides_,[9] whatever their religious opinions may
otherwise be. We are bound to visit their sick, to bury their dead, to
assist their poor, like those of Israel. In short, there is no act of
humanity which a true Israelite is not bound to perform towards those
who observe the _Noachides_.” The Bavarian Catechism is more cautious.
It makes no such bold assertion respecting the Talmud. It only intimates
that the oral law teaches this doctrine, by subjoining to the passage
from Leviticus the same extract from Maimonides, alluded to by the
Jewish deputies. The Catechism gives the extract a little more at
length, and as follows:—“We are bound in everything to treat the
non-Israelite, who sojourns with us, with justice and with love, as we
would treat an Israelite. Yea, we are even bound to maintain him, as the
Scripture teaches in the words, ‘Thou shalt give it to the stranger that
is in thy gates, that he may eat it.’ (Deut. xiv. 21.) Our wise men have
commanded us for the good of society, even to visit the sick of the
heathen, to bury their dead, and to deal out alms to them: for of our
Creator it is said, ‘The Lord is good to all; and his tender mercies are
over all his works.’ (Psalm cxlv. 9.) (Maimonid. Hilchoth Melachim, 10,
12.)”
No doubt the passage as here given, both by the French deputies and the
Bavarian Catechism, is very plausible; and if it could be found
verbatim, either in the Talmud or any of its compendiums, would go far
to justify the bold assertion of the former, and the cautious
insinuation of the latter. But unfortunately the original passage is
very different. In the above citations, it is mutilated in order to suit
the purpose of the citers. In the Jad Hachasakah it stands as follows:—
וכן יראה לי שנוהגין עם גרי תושב בדרך ארץ וגמילות חסדים כישראל , שהרי אנו
מצווין להחיותן שנאמר לגר אשר בשעריך תתננה ואכלה , וזה שאמרו חכמים אין
כופלין להם שלום , בגוים לא בגר תושב , אפילו הגוים צוו חכמים לבקר חוליהם
, ולקבור מתיהם עם מתי ישראל , ולפרנס את ענייהם בכלל עניי ישראל , מפני
דרכי שלום , הרי נאמר טוב ה׳ לכל ורחמיו על כל מעשיו ונאמר דרכיה דרכי נועם
וכל נתיבותיה שלום ׃