neither has He given any countenance to such doctrine, by the
instrumentality which He has employed for the preservation of religion
in the world. He did not choose a mighty nation of soldiers as the
depositories of his truth, nor any of the overturners of kingdoms for
his prophets. If it had been his intention to convert the world by force
of arms, Nimrod would have been a more suitable instrument than Abraham,
and the mighty kingdom of Egypt more fitted for the task than the family
of Hebrew captives. But by the very choice He showed, that truth was to
be propagated by Divine power working conviction in the minds of men,
and not by physical strength. It would have been just as easy for him to
have turned every Hebrew captive in Egypt into a Samson, as to turn the
waters into blood; and to have sent them into the world to overturn
idolatry by brute force; but He preferred to enlighten the minds of men
by exhibiting a series of miracles, calculated to convince them of his
eternal power and Godhead. When the ten tribes revolted, and fell away
into idolatry, He did not employ the sword of Judah, but the voice of
his prophets, to recall them to the truth. He did not compel them, as
the oral law would have done, to an outward profession, but dealt with
them as with rational beings, and left them to the choice of their
hearts. Nineveh was not converted by Jewish soldiers, but by the
preaching of Jonah. So far is God from commanding the propagation of
religion by the sword, that He would not even suffer a man of war to
build a temple for his worship. When David thought of erecting a temple,
the Lord said unto him, “Thou hast shed blood abundantly, and hast made
great wars; thou shalt not build an house unto my name, because thou
hast shed much blood upon the earth.” (1 Chron. xxii. 8.) Thus hath God
shown his abhorrence of compulsory conversion, and in all his dealings
confirmed his Word, “Not by might nor by power, but by my Spirit, saith
the Lord of hosts.” (Zech. iv. 6.)
3dly, God has in his Word promised the conversion of the world, but not
by the means prescribed in the oral law. His promise to Abraham was, “In
thy seed shall all the families of the earth be blessed.” (Gen. xxii.
18.) Now this can hardly mean that his descendants are to treat all
nations, as the Portuguese treated the Jews. The 72nd Psalm gives rather
a different view of the fulfilment of this promise. It promises not a
victorious soldier like Mahomet, but one “in whose days the righteous
shall flourish, and abundance of peace so long as the moon endureth....
All nations shall call Him blessed.” The prophet Isaiah tells us “that
out of Zion shall go forth (not conquering armies to compel, but) the
law, and the Word of the Lord from Jerusalem. And he shall judge among
the nations, and rebuke many people; and they shall beat their swords
into ploughshares, and their spears into pruning-hooks; nation shall not
lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more.”
Zechariah says, “He shall speak peace to the heathen;” and declares that
the conversion of the world will not be the reward of conquest, but the
result of conviction. “In those days it shall come to pass, that ten men
shall take hold, out of all the languages of the nations, even shall
take hold of the skirt of him that is a Jew, saying, We will go with
you, _for we have heard_ that God is with you.” (Zech. viii. 23.) Here
again, then, you see that whilst the oral law differs from Moses and the
prophets, the New Testament agrees with them. Account, then, for this
extraordinary fact, that whilst the whole Jewish nation lost the great
and glorious doctrine of liberty of conscience, it has been preserved
for you and for all mankind by Jesus of Nazareth. Just suppose that the
principles of the Talmud had triumphed, either amongst the Jews or the
Portuguese, what would have been the consequence to the world? If the
Talmudists had attained to supreme power, we should have had to choose
between compulsory conversion and the sword. If the Portuguese had
attained to universal dominion, both you and we should have had the
alternative of compulsory conversion or the fires of the Inquisition. In
either case, the noblest and most precious gift that the God of heaven
ever sent down to earth, liberty of conscience, would have been extinct.
But, thank God, the doctrine of Jesus of Nazareth has triumphed over the
oral laws of both Jews and Portuguese, and the result is, that both you
and we have the liberty of worshipping God according to the convictions
of our understanding and the dictates of our conscience. Behold, then,
how you are indebted to Jesus of Nazareth. Without him you would not
have known religious liberty, either theoretically or practically. He is
right on this all-important point, whilst those who condemned him to
death and rejected his claims are wrong. If he was not the true Messiah,
but only a pretender, how is it that God has made him and his doctrine
the exclusive channel for preserving the truth of his Word, and
conveying such blessings to you as well as to us Gentiles? If the
Pharisees were right in rejecting him, how is it that God has rewarded
their piety by giving them over to such gross delusions, and making them
the transmitters of doctrines, which would fill the world with blood and
hatred and discord, and make even the truth odious in the eyes of all
mankind? For ourselves we cannot help coming to the conclusion, that He
who has taught us mercy and love to all men, and delivered both you and
us from such horrors—and who, in doing this, rose above all the
doctrines of his nation and his times, was taught of God, and is,
therefore, the true Messiah, the Saviour of the world.
Certain it is, that this doctrine has already been a blessing to the
world; and that until your nation embrace its principles, at least on
this one point of love and toleration, it is impossible that the
promised glory and pre-eminence of the Jewish nation should come. With
such principles as are inculcated in the oral law, a restoration to the
land of your forefathers would be no blessing. It would only realize all
the legislative and religious speculations of the Talmudists, and arm
them with the power to tyrannize over their more enlightened brethren.
It would be the triumph of tradition over the Word of God, and that the
God of truth will not permit. It would be to instal the spirit of
intolerance and persecution on the throne of love and charity, and that
God will not suffer. The Talmud is, thus, a main obstacle in the way of
God’s fulfilling his promises to the nation, because it incapacitates
Israel for the reception or the right employment of the promised
blessings. Is it not, then, the duty of all Jews who desire and long for
the glory and the happiness which God has promised, to lift up their
voice with power, and to protest against that system which prevents the
fulfilment of God’s promises; and by all lawful means to endeavour to
deliver their brethren from the bondage of such intolerance?
Footnote 12:
Jost. volume vii. p. 91.
Footnote 13:
Hilchoth Rotzeach, c. iv. 10.
Footnote 14:
Dr. Jost’s Geschichte der Israeliten, vol. vii. p. 93.
No. VII.
THE FEAST OF PURIM.
The feast of Purim now at hand, recalls to the Jewish recollection one
of those miraculous deliverances, with which the history of Israel
abounds. The narrative of the institution, as contained in the Bible, is
a signal proof and illustration of the superintending providence of God,
instructive to all the world, but calling peculiarly for the gratitude
and praise of the Jewish nation, whose forefathers were then delivered.
And it is much to the honour of their posterity that they have not
suffered the lapse of more than twenty centuries to wear out the memory
of this great event, but that to this day they observe its anniversary
with alacrity and zeal. If the oral law simply contented itself with
commanding the observance and prescribing the mode of worship for such
an important season, we should have no fault to find; but the oral law
claims for itself Divine origin and authority, anathematizes any denial
of these claims as heresy, and sentences the heretic to death. We are,
therefore, compelled to examine its pretensions, and to scrutinize its
features, in order to see whether they really bear the stamp of
divinity. We have already pointed out some, that savoured more of earth
than heaven: the constitutions for the feast of Purim may be traced to
the same source. The following law respecting the meal to be provided on
this occasion did certainly not come to man from heaven:—
חובת סעודה זו שיאכל בשר ויתקן סעודה נאה כפי אשר תמצא ידו , ושותה יין עד
שישתכר וירדם בשכרותו ׃
“A man’s duty with regard to the feast is, that he should eat meat and
prepare a suitable feast according to his means; and drink wine, until
he be drunk, and fell asleep in his drunkenness.” (Hilchoth Megillah, c.
ii. 15.) The Talmud, however, is not satisfied with so indefinite a
direction, but lays down, with its usual precision, the exact measure of
intoxication required.
חייב איניש לבסומי בפוריא עד דלא ידע בין ארור המן לברוך מרדכי ׃
“A man is bound to get so drunk with wine at Purim, as not to know the
difference between Cursed is Haman, and Blessed is Mordecai.” (Megillah,
fol. 7, col. 2.) But perhaps some learned champion of the Talmud will
fly to that sort of refuge for destitute commentators, the parabolic
language of the orient, and tell us that this precept is not to be
understood literally but figuratively; and that so far from recommending
intoxication, it means to inculcate excess of sobriety or devotion, such
abstraction of the senses, from all outward objects, as not to
distinguish between cursed is Haman and blessed is Mordecai. This sort
of defence is neither imaginary nor novel. In this way Rabbi Eliezer’s
permission to split open an unlearned man like a fish has been made to
signify the spiritual opening of the understanding, and of course the
overweening anxiety of the Rabbies to communicate instruction to the
ignorant. But however we dull Gentiles may be enlightened by such an
exposition, we much doubt whether the greatest amhaaretz in Israel will
believe the interpretation. The great and learned Rabbies Solomon Jarchi
and Moses Maimonides have understood literal drunkenness, and have named
wine as the legitimate liquor. R. Joseph Karo has simply given the
command verbatim as it stands in the Talmud, but a note in the Orach
Chaiim shows, that some of the modern Rabbies were not able to swallow
such a command, and, therefore, say that an Israelite does his duty, if
he only drink a little more than usual. The Talmud itself admits of no
such softening down, nor explaining away, for immediately after the
precept it goes on to propose an example and to furnish an illustration
of its meaning in the following history of the very Rabbi, on whose
authority this traditional command rests;—
רבה ורבי זירא עבדו סעודת פורים בהדי הדדי , איבסום קם רבה שחטיה לרבי זירא
למחר בעא רחמי ואחייה , לשנה אמר ליה ניתי מר ונעביד סעודת פורים בהדי הדדי
אמר ליה לאו בכל שעתא ושעתא מתרחיש ניסא ׃
“Rabba and Rabbi Zira made their Purim entertainment together. When
Rabba got drunk, he arose and killed Rabbi Zira. On the following day he
prayed for mercy, and restored him to life. The following year Rabba
proposed to him again to make their Purim entertainment together, but he
answered, ‘Miracles don’t happen every day.’” (Talmud, Tr. Megillah,
fol. 7, col. 2.) This history of one of the men who are authorities for
the above Talmudic command to get drunk, plainly illustrates its
meaning, and shows that the Talmud meant and commanded its followers to
drink wine to excess on this occasion. It sets before them the example
of one of the greatest Rabbies committing murder in his drunkenness, and
so far from reprobating this sin, it gravely tells us that God
interposed by a miracle to prevent the ill-consequences; and that the
Rabbi, far from being cured of his propensity, or making any declaration
of his intention to amend, continued in that state of mind, that his
colleague found it imprudent to trust himself at his table. Now every
body that is acquainted with the Jews, knows that they are a temperate
and sober people; and because they are so, we ask them whether the above
command can be from God? and whether they believe that the Talmud speaks
truth in giving the above narrative? It says not merely that men may get
drunk with impunity, but that to get drunk is an act of piety, and
obedience to a command! Here, again, the Talmud is directly at issue
with the New Testament, which says, “Be not drunk with wine, wherein is
excess.” (Ephes. v. 18.) “Take heed to yourselves, lest _at any time_
your hearts be overcharged with surfeiting, and _drunkenness_, and the
cares of this life, and so that day come upon you unawares.” (Luke xxi.
34.) The New Testament holds out to us no hope, that if in our
drunkenness, we should commit murder, a miracle will be wrought in order
to deliver us from the consequences; but tells us, that “neither
murderers nor drunkards shall inherit the kingdom of God.” (1 Cor. vi.
9, 10.) Now which of these two doctrines is the most agreeable to the
revealed will of God? How would you desire to meet death, if death
should come upon the feast of Purim? Would you wish the angel of death
to find you, in obedience to the oral law, insensible from overmuch
wine? or in that state of sobriety and thoughtfulness prescribed by
Jesus of Nazareth? Does not the inward tribunal of the heart decide that
Jesus of Nazareth is right, and that the Talmud is wrong? And does not
the Old Testament confirm the sentence? Isaiah says, “Woe unto them that
rise up early in the morning, that they may follow strong drink; that
continue until night, till wine inflame them! and the harp and the viol,
the tabret and pipe, and wine are in their feasts; but they regard not
the work of the Lord, neither consider the operation of his hands.
Therefore my people are gone into captivity, because they have no
knowledge; and their honourable men are famished, and their multitude
dried up with thirst.” (Isaiah v. 11-13.) And so Moses commands the
parents that should they have a son “a glutton and a drunkard,” to bring
him to justice, and to have him stoned. (Deut. xxi. 20.) The Talmud,
then, manifestly contradicts the Old Testament; it therefore cannot
speak truth when it narrates that God wrought a miracle in order to save
a drunkard and a murderer from that punishment, which He had himself
commanded to be visited upon either of these crimes. The story of the
miracle is therefore a palpable falsehood, contradictory to the law of
Moses, and derogatory to the honour of God. How, then, can the Talmud be
of God? If you attempt to distinguish, as some do, between the Talmud
and the oral law, and say that though the Talmud contains the oral law,
yet it is not all inspired, then we ask, how can you rely upon the
testimony of a witness convicted of wilful, gross, and flagrant
falsehood? If you do not believe in the above miracle of the drunken
Rabba, you denounce it as a liar. If it lie, then, upon this solemn
occasion in relating a miracle, in handing down the law of God, how can
you depend upon it at all? If it does not scruple to forge miracles,
what warrant have you for believing that it does not forge laws also?
But suppose, which is far more probable, that Rabbi Zira, when killed by
Rabba, had not come to life again, would Rabba, in the eye of the modern
Jewish law, be considered as a murderer, and guilty of death, or as an
innocent person, who might safely be permitted to go at large, and
pursue his usual avocations? This is a question well deserving an answer
from some of your learned men, and naturally suggested by some
principles asserted and implied in the following decisions of the oral
law:—
קריאת המגלה בזנה מצות עשה מדברי סופרים , והדברים ידועים שהיא תקנת
הנביאים , והכל חייבים בקריאתה , אנשים ונשים וגרים ועבדים משוחררים ,
ומחנכין את הקטנים לקריאתה , ואפילו כהנים בעבודמן מבטלין עבודתן ובאין
לשמוע מקרא מגלה , וכן מבטלין תלמוד תורה לשמוע מקרא מגלה , קל וחומר לשאר
מצוות של תורה שכולן נדחין מפני מקרא מגלה , ואין לך דבר שנדחה מקרא מגלה
מפניו חוץ ממה מצוה שאין לו קוברים שהפוגע בו קוברו תחלה ואחר כך קורא ׃
“The reading of the Megillah (the book of Esther) in its time is an
affirmative precept according to the words of the scribes, and it is
known that this is an ordinance of the Prophets. The obligation to read
it rests upon all, men, women, and proselytes, and manumitted slaves.
Children also are to be accustomed to the reading of it. Even priests in
their service are to neglect their service, and to come to hear the
reading of the Megillah. In like manner the study of the law is to be
omitted, in order to hear the reading of the Megillah, and _a fortiori_
all the remaining commandments of the law, all of which give way to the
reading of the Megillah: but there is nothing to which the reading of
the Megillah gives way, except that particular class of dead person
called the dead of the commandment, who has none to bury him. He that
happens upon him is first to bury him, and afterwards to read.”
(Hilchoth Megillah, c. i. 1.) On this extract we have several remarks to
make, but at present we request the attention of our readers to the
reason given why the reading of the Megillah is more important than any
of the commandments. It is this. According to the oral law, “the study
of the law is equivalent to all the commandments, and the other
commandments are to give way to this study.” But according to the
passage before us, the study of the law is to give way to the reading of
the Megillah. The reading of the Megillah, therefore, being greater than
the greatest of the commandments, is of course greater than all the
inferior ones. Now apply this reasoning to the above command to get
drunk, and you will prove that getting drunk at Purim feast is the
greatest of all the commandments. In order to get drunk, it is plain
that the study of the law must give way. The man who cannot distinguish
between “Cursed be Haman and blessed be Mordecai,” certainly cannot
study, neither can he bury the dead. The commandment, therefore, to
which the study of the law and the burying of the dead give way, must be
the greatest of all the commandments; _i.e._, the getting drunk on Purim
is the greatest of all the commandments. This conclusion, which
inevitably follows upon Talmudic principles, necessarily shows that
those principles are false. But that is not the object for which I have
exhibited this conclusion; it is with reference to the case of Rabba
above-mentioned. Having got drunk according as the oral law commanded,
and having thereby obeyed the greatest of the commandments, and one to
which all others are necessarily in abeyance, was he guilty or innocent
in having murdered R. Zira? It certainly seems a very hard case to
condemn him to death for an act, which resulted from his obedience to
the greatest of all the commandments. He might urge that he had a great
dislike to drunkenness—that he had overcome his natural aversion simply
to satisfy the Rabbinical requirements—that by the time that he had
arrived at the prescribed incompetency to distinguish between Haman and
Mordecai, he had lost all power of distinguishing between right and
wrong—that, therefore, he had not done it with malice propense; what
sentence, therefore, does the Talmud pronounce against a murderer of
this sort? If Rabba was allowed to go at large, as would appear from his
invitation to Rabbi Zira the following year, a repetition of the same
offence was possible, a repetition of the miracle in R. Zira’s opinion
highly improbable. Thus Rabba might go on from year to year killing one
or more with impunity, and would be a far more dangerous neighbour than
“the ox that was wont to push with his horn.” If, on the other hand, he
is to be punished capitally, then the oral law is plainly not from God;
for obedience to the greatest of its commandments makes it possible for
a man to commit the greatest of crimes, and to subject himself to the
extremity of punishment. But we object, secondly, to _the exaltation of
a mere human ordinance above the Word of God_. The reading of the book
of Esther at the feast of Purim, is no doubt a very appropriate, and may
be a very profitable exercise. But it is confessedly of human
appointment. It is of the words of the scribes; the time and the mode
are altogether Rabbinical ordinances. Why, then, “are all the remaining
commandments of the law to give way to the reading of the Megillah?” The
priest was to neglect the service to which God had appointed him, in
order to obey a mere human institution. And the Israelites to neglect
the duties of love and charity, to fulfil a mere ceremonial commandment.
Here is a plain token that the oral law is not from God, but is the
offspring of human invention and superstition. The human mind exalts
ceremonies above moral duties. God declares that all outward observances
are secondary. “I desired mercy and not sacrifice, and the knowledge of
God more than burnt offerings.” (Hos. vi. 6.) “He hath showed thee, O
man, what is good; and what doth the Lord require of thee, but to do
justly, and to love mercy, and to walk numbly with thy God?” (Mic. vi.
8.) And so the New Testament says in the very same spirit, “The first of
all the commandments is, Hear O Israel: the Lord our God is one Lord,
and thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, &c. This is the
first commandment. And the second is like, namely this, Thou shalt love
thy neighbour as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than
these.” (Mark. xii. 29-31.) The oral law, on the contrary, tells us that
“all the commandments, except the burying of the dead, are to give way
to the reading of the Megillah,” to a mere ceremony; and that not even
of God’s appointment. God prefers mercy before the sacrifices which He
himself has instituted. The Talmud prefers a human institution to all
God’s commandments. A more striking instance of genuine superstition,
and a stronger proof of the human origin of the oral law cannot be
found.
The book of Esther appears to have been a peculiar favourite of the
Rabbies. The reading of it takes precedence of all other duties but one,
and is considered as obligatory, even upon the women, who are declared
exempt from the study of the law. It is true that it contains a very
notable warning for disobedient wives, and a striking instance of the
deliverance of Israel by the instrumentality of a woman; but when we
consider that the name of God does not occur once in the whole book, and
that the law contains the account of man’s creation and fall, the ten
commandments, the deliverance from Egypt, and all those events of
primary interest to women as well as men, it becomes of some importance
to consider why the women, who are not bound to study the law of God,
are bound to read the book of Esther. The authors of the oral law appear
to have attached uncommon importance to this book, as appears from this
circumstance, and still more so from the following startling declaration
of Maimonides:—
כל ספרי הנביאים וכל הכתובים עתידן ליבטל לימות המשיח חוץ ממגלת אסתר ,
והרי היא קיימת כחמשה חומשי תורה וכהלכות של תורה שבעל פה שאינן לעולם ׃