of Esther, will cease in the days of Messiah. But it is perpetual as the
five books of the written law, and the constitutions of the oral law,
which shall never cease.” (Hilchoth Megillah.) Some of the Rabbies say
that this is to be taken conditionally, “although they were all to
cease, yet this would not cease.” But this still attributes a decided
superiority to the book of Esther above all the other books. What then
is there in it, that gives this book such a peculiar favour, and makes
the history of Esther more important than that of the conquest of
Canaan, or of the glory of Solomon, or of the restoration of the house
of the Lord? Is there more devotion and piety to be found in it than in
the Psalms of David? Does it contain more wisdom than the Proverbs of
Solomon? Is there a sublimer flight of Divine poetry, a more heavenly
afflatus than in the visions of Isaiah? A more open revelation of the
mysteries of the Deity than is to be found in Job, or Daniel, or
Ezekiel? Why do the Rabbies pronounce it worthy of preservation, whilst
they contemplate without emotion the loss of all the other books? We
cannot possibly discover, unless it be that it furnishes more
gratification to the spirit of revenge so natural to all the children of
Adam, whether they be Jew or Gentile. To forgive is to be like God—and
God alone can teach forgiveness either speculatively or practically. But
the book of Esther contains an account of the revenge which the Jews
took upon their enemies, not like the destruction of the Canaanites,
fulfilling the commands of God upon His enemies, but taking personal and
individual revenge on their own. And this very fact may be one reason
why God did not permit his most holy name to occur in the whole
book—just as he did not permit David to build him a temple, so he would
not have his name associated with deeds of personal revenge. But,
however that be, we can discover no other reason for the decided
preference which the oral law gives to the book of Esther. And we think
that after the specimens which we have already given of their spirit
towards idolaters we do them no injustice; especially as, in this
particular case, the oral law breathes this spirit aloud.
צריך שיאמר ארור המן ברוך מרדכי , ארורה זרש ברוכה אסתר , ארורים כל עכו׳׳ם
ברוכים כל ישראל ׃
“It is necessary to say, Cursed be Haman, Blessed be Mordecai, Cursed be
Zeresh, Blessed be Esther, Cursed be all idolaters, Blessed be all
Israel.” (Orach Chaiim, sec. 690.) Why this is necessary, is not told
us. It appears not to bring glory to God, nor any blessing to man. Haman
and Zeresh have long since passed into eternity, and received from the
just Judge the reward of their deeds. Mordecai and Esther have in like
manner appeared before the God of Israel, and received according to
their faith. To these, then, the voice of human praise or reproach is as
nothing. But to curse a dead enemy, to pursue with unrelenting hatred
those who have already fallen into the hands of the living God, is
certainly not a Divine ordinance, and cannot be an acceptable act of
worship in poor sinners, who themselves stand so much in need of
forgiveness. To curse the dead is bad, but to curse the living is, in
one sense, still worse. “Cursed be all idolaters.” According to our
calculation, there are 600 millions of idolaters—according to the Jewish
account, there must be more. Why, then, should they be cursed? That will
not convert them from the error of their ways. It will not make them
more happy, either in this world or in the next. We are not aware, even
if God were to hear this execration and curse the idolatrous world, that
it would be productive of any blessing to Israel. Why make a day of
thanksgiving for mercies received an opportunity of invoking curses upon
the majority of mankind? The Word of God teaches a very different
petition for the heathen. “God, be merciful to us, and bless us, and
cause his face to shine upon us. That thy way may be known upon earth,
thy saving health among all nations. Let the people praise thee, O God;
yea, let all the people praise thee.” (Ps. lxvii.)
No. VIII.
RABBINIC CONTEMPT FOR THE SONS OF NOAH.
The noblest inquiry, to which the mental powers can be directed, is,
Which religion comes from God? The most satisfactory mode of conducting
such an inquiry, independently of the external evidence, is to compare
the principles of one system with those of the other, and both with an
acknowledged standard, if such there be, and this is what we are
endeavouring to do in these papers. We by no means wish to make the
modern Jews responsible for the inventions of their forefathers, but to
show them that their traditional argument for rejecting Christianity,
and that is the example of the high priest and the Sanhedrin, is of no
force; inasmuch as these same persons, who originally rejected Jesus of
Nazareth, were in great and grievous error in the fundamental principles
of religion, whilst He who was rejected taught the truth. To do this we
must appeal to the oral law, and discuss its merits. We have shown
already that those persons did not understand at least one half of the
law; that their doctrines were in the highest degree uncharitable. It
has, however, been replied, that the Talmud is more tolerant than the
New Testament, for it allows “that the pious of the nations of the world
may be saved;” whereas the latter asserts that “whosoever believeth not
shall be damned.” We must, therefore, inquire into the extent of
toleration and charity contained in that Talmudic sentence. The first
step in this inquiry, is to ascertain who are the persons intended in
the expression “The pious of the nations of the world.” The oral law
tells us, as quoted in No. 6, that the Israelites are commanded to
compel all that come into the world to receive the seven commandments of
the sons of Noah, and adds,
והמקבל אותם הוא הנקרא גר תושב בכל מקום ׃
“He that receives them is called universally a sojourning proselyte.”
And a little lower down it says plainly
כל המקכל שבע מצוות ונזהר לעשותן הרי זה מחסידי אומות העולם , ויש לו חלק
לעולם הבא ׃
“Whosoever receives the seven commandments, and is careful to observe
them, he is one of the pious of the nations of the world, and has a
share in the world to come.” (Hilchoth Melachim, c. viii. 10.) From
these two declarations, then, we learn that “the pious of the nations of
the world” are the same, as “the sojourning proselytes,” who were
allowed to reside in the land of Israel, and that their piety consisted
in receiving and practising the seven commandments. What these
commandments were, we are informed in the next chapter of the same
treatise.
על ששה דברים נצטוה אדם הראשון , על ע׳׳ז , ועל ברכת השם , ועל שפיכת דמים
, ועל גלוי עריות , ועל הגזל , ועל הדינים , אף על פי שכולן הן קבלה בידנו
ממשה רבינו , והדעת נוטה להן , מכלל דברי תורה יראה שעל אלה נצטוה , הוסיף
לנח אבר מן החי שנאמר אך בשר בנפשו דמו לא תאכלו , נמצאו שבע מצוות , וכן
היה הדבר בכל העולם עד אברהם ׃
“The first Adam was commanded concerning six things—idolatry, blasphemy,
shedding of blood, incest, robbery, and administration of justice.
Although we have all these things as a tradition from Moses, our master,
and reason naturally inclines to them, yet, from the general tenour of
the words of the law, it appears that he was commanded concerning these
things. Noah received an additional command concerning the limb of a
living animal, as it is said, ‘But flesh in the life thereof, which is
the blood thereof, ye shall not eat.’ (Gen. ix. 4.) Here are the seven
commandments, and thus the matter was in all the world until Abraham.”
(Ibid. ix. 1.)
Now, without stopping to dispute about the command given to Noah, we
cannot help saying that the above tradition is very defective, and
certainly not derived from Moses, for it is opposed to the history which
he himself has given us. In the first place, that command, on which, the
oral law lays such stress, “Be fruitful and multiply,” was originally
given to Adam (Gen. i. 28,), and was renewed to Noah, after the deluge.
If the Rabbies reckon this as a separate command in the case of the
Jews, as may be seen in the Hilchoth Priah Ureviah, it is only fair to
reckon it as a separate command in the case of the Gentiles, and thus we
get an eighth command. In the second place, God ordained marriage as a
holy state. “The Lord God said, It is not good that man should be alone;
I will make him an help meet for him.” “And the rib which the Lord God
had taken from man made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.” Here
is God’s holy institution, and in the following verses we have the
obligations of marriage distinctly acknowledged. “And Adam said, This is
now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman,
because she was taken out of man. Therefore shall a man leave his father
and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife, and they shall be one
flesh.” Here, then, is a ninth commandment. We know, indeed, that the
oral law gives a different account, but its doctrine is false and
pernicious. In the face of the above plain narrative, it teaches as
follows:—
קודם מתן תורה היה אדם פוגע אשה בשוק אם רצה הוא והיא לישא אותה מכניסה
למוך ביתו ובועלה בינו לבין עצמו ומהיה לו לאשה ׃
“Before the giving of the law, a man might happen to meet a woman in the
street; if they both agreed on marriage, he took her to his house, and
cohabited with her, and she became his wife.” (Hilchoth Ishuth, c. i.
1.) Now, not to speak of profane history, there is not in the law of
Moses a single passage to give colour to this statement, unless it be
the following:—“And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the
face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them, that the sons of
God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them
wives of all which they chose.” But, whatever is meant by “Sons of God,”
it is plain that this conduct is mentioned, not as having the sanction
or approval of God, but as a proof of antediluvian wickedness, for it is
immediately added, “And the Lord said, My Spirit shall not always strive
with man, for that he also is flesh.” But it is not simply an error of
judgment, it is most pernicious as it regards both Gentiles and Jews,
for it completely annuls the sanctity and obligation of the marriage
tie. It teaches that as the marriage of Noahites is contracted without
solemn espousals, so it may be dissolved without the formality of a
divorce.
ומאימתי תהיה אשת חברו כגרושה שלנו ? משיוציאנה מביתו וישלחנה לעצמה , או
שתצא היא מתחת רשותו ותלך לה , שאין להן גירושין בכתב , ואין הדבר תלוי בו
לבד , אלא כל זמן שירצה הוא או היא לפרוש זה מזה פורשין ׃
“When is his (the Noahite’s) neighbour’s wife to be considered in the
same light, as a divorced woman with us?
From the time that he sends her forth from his house, and leaves her to
herself. Or from the time that she goes forth from under his power, and
goes her way; for they have no divorces in writing, neither does the
matter depend upon that alone;[15] but whenever he or she please to
separate one from the other, they separate.” (Hilchoth Melachim, c. ix.
8.) We Gentiles have great reason to be thankful that Jesus of Nazareth
has taught us a different doctrine, according with the original
institution of marriage. What would have been the state of the world, if
the oral law had attained supreme power, and the Gentiles had been
instructed in the above law as Divine? What would result from the
doctrine that every man may turn out his wife, and every woman leave her
husband, whenever they like? The peace and well-being of Gentile society
would be at an end. The frightful state of disorder and misery that
would ensue, as well as the words of the original institution, plainly
show that this doctrine is not from God. But the effect upon the
believers in the oral law is still worse. With reference to them, the
marriage of Gentiles is no marriage at all. The oral law says
distinctly—
אין אישות לגוים .
“There is no matrimony to the Gentiles.” (Hilchoth Melachim, viii. 3.)
And again,
אין אישות אלא לישראל או לגוים על הגוים אבל לא לעבדים על עבדים ולא לעבדים
על ישראל ׃
“There is no matrimony except to Israel, or to Gentiles with respect to
Gentiles; but not to slaves with respect to slaves, nor to slaves with
respect to Israel.” (Hilchoth Issure Biah, c. xiv. 19.) Here, then, the
oral law directly makes void the law of God, and pronounces that a
command given to Adam in Paradise, and therefore equally binding on all
his descendants, is in particular cases of no force at all. The oral
law, therefore, is certainly not from God.
We have already made out nine commandments; in sacrifice we find a
tenth. Cain and Abel brought sacrifices, and the only reason that can be
assigned is, that they had received a command to that effect. Sacrifice
was either a Divine command or the dictate of their own reason. But it
was not the dictate of reason, for reason says, that the Creator of all
things has no need of gifts, and, least of all, such gifts as imply the
slaughter of an innocent animal. It must, therefore, have been of Divine
command. The reason why the Rabbies excluded this command is plain. They
did not choose that there should be acceptable sacrifices offered
anywhere but amongst themselves. But that this doctrine is altogether of
a recent date is plain. It was not known to Job. He says not a word
about the seven commandments, and he was in the habit of offering
sacrifices. “And it was so when the day of their feasting was gone
about, that Job sent and sanctified them, and rose up early in the
morning, and offered burnt-offerings according to the number of them
all.” (Job i. 5.) And the Lord himself expressly commanded Job’s friends
to do so likewise. “And it was so, that after the Lord had spoken these
words unto Job, the Lord said to Eliphaz the Temanite, My wrath is
kindled against thee, and against thy two friends.... Therefore, take
unto you now seven bullocks and seven rams, and go to my servant Job,
and offer up for yourselves a burnt-offering, and my servant Job shall
pray for you, for him will I accept.” (Job xlii. 7, 8.) It was not known
to Elisha. When Naaman said, “Shall there not then, I pray thee, be
given to thy servant two mules’ burden of earth? For thy servant will
henceforth offer neither burnt-offering nor sacrifice unto other gods,
but unto the Lord.” (2 Kings v. 17.) Elisha made no objection. He did
not tell him that he had only seven commandments to attend to. Neither
had Isaiah any idea that, when Judaism triumphed, the whole world was to
be compelled to adhere to the seven commandments, for he plainly
predicts the contrary. “And the Lord shall be known to Egypt, and the
Egyptians shall know the Lord in that day, and shall do sacrifice and
oblation: yea, they shall vow a vow unto the Lord and perform it.”
(Isaiah xix. 21.) Here again, then, the oral law contradicts the Word of
God.
But the law of God points out to us an eleventh commandment, in the
distinction between clean and unclean animals. The Lord commanded Noah
to take of the former by sevens and of the latter by pairs. (Gen. vii.
2.) And when Noah came forth from the ark “he builded an altar unto the
Lord; and took of every clean beast, and of every clean fowl, and
offered burnt-offerings on the altar.” (Gen. viii. 2.) It is plain, from
the command, that a greater number of clean than unclean animals was
required. Noah’s conduct shows that the rite of sacrifice was the cause
of the requirement. We have a twelfth commandment in the appointment of
a priesthood. “Melchizedek was the priest of the Most High God,” (Gen.
xiv. 10,) which he most certainly could not have been, if he had not
been Divinely appointed. From the law itself, then, we have made out
twelve distinct commandments. Eight would have been sufficient to
overthrow the oral tradition. But we appeal to the common sense of every
Talmudist. We ask him to look over the meagre list of the seven
commandments, in which neither love to God nor man is included, and to
tell us whether it be at all probable that “the God of the spirits of
all flesh” would leave all mankind, excepting the small company of
Rabbinists, without any better rule for time, and any better guide to
eternity? Is it possible that the God of love and mercy should leave the
minority of his reasonable creatures in doubt as to his love, and tell
them that he requires no love from them? Yet this is what the oral law
says. The Gentiles are, according to it, left without any direction as
to the worship of God, and are pronounced guilty of death if they study
the law. Nay, they are expressly told that God does not require them to
glorify him by their obedience.
בן נח שאנסו אנס לעבור על אחת ממצוותיו , מותר לו לעבור , אפילו נאנס לעבוד
ע׳׳ז עובד , לפי שאינן מצווין על קדוש השם ׃
“A Noahite who is forced to transgress one of his commandments, it is
lawful for him to do so. Even if he be compelled to commit idolatry he
may commit it, for they are not commanded to sanctify God.” (Hilchoth
Melachim, c. x. 2.) So that, according to the Rabbies, the Noahite who
is compelled to commit murder, adultery, or even to deny his God, may do
it with impunity; he still belongs “to the pious of the nations of the
world,” and may have a share in the world to come. We confess that we
cannot see in this doctrine either charity or toleration. We can
discover only that narrowness of heart which characterizes the oral law.
In order to magnify themselves, and depreciate the other nations, the
Rabbies first swell out their own commandments to 613, and reduce the
commandments of the nations to seven. But not content with that, they
also strive to confine the glories of martyrdom to themselves, and tell
the Gentiles that God does not require them to sanctify His name. Can
such doctrine come from God? Is God the God of the Rabbinists only? We
grant that the Jews are his “peculiar people.” We acknowledge that “they
have much advantage every way”—that “they are beloved for the fathers’
sakes”—that the time is coming when “all that see them shall acknowledge
them that they are the seed whom the Lord has blessed.” But we still
think that God’s heart is large enough to comprehend us Gentiles too in
his love. We know that we are the work of His hand, and we trust that,
as He is our Father, he requires, and is pleased to see even in
Gentiles, the feelings of children, love and filial fear. And we found
this our faith on your Scriptures as well as ours. The Word of God tells
us that, long before there were any Rabbies in the world, He had a
gracious and tender care for all mankind. He promised to our first
parents a Saviour who should “bruise the serpent’s head.” He saved Noah
and his family, not one of whom was a Rabbi, from the deluge; and when
they came forth from the ark, He made a gracious covenant not with one
nation only, but “with all flesh,” and hung up on high a lovely and
glittering arch, from one end of the heavens to the other, that all the
habitants of earth might have a token of their Father’s love and learn
to look up to Him with humble confidence. When he chose Abraham and his
seed, it was not an act of partiality, but that in his seed all the
families of the earth might be blessed. He did not leave himself without
witness to the nations. He manifested himself to Job, and taught him
“that his Redeemer liveth,” and moved even the prophets of Israel to
predict again and again the happy times when, “from the rising of the
sun to the going down of the same, His name should be great among the
Gentiles, and in every place incense should be offered to his name, and
a pure offering; for my name shall be great among the heathen, saith the
Lord of hosts.” (Mal. i. 11.) Having this word, we reject the oral law
which contradicts it, and would make God the God of the Rabbinists only:
and we believe in the New Testament, which exactly agrees with your
written law, and asks, “Is he the God of the Jews only? Is he not also
of the Gentiles?”—and answers, “Yes, of the Gentiles also” (Rom. iii.
29)—and which also declares that, in the sight of God, “There is no
difference between the Jew and the Greek; for the same Lord over all is
rich unto all that call upon him, for whosoever shall call upon the name
of the Lord shall be saved.” (Rom. x. 12, 13.)
In the fixing of the commandments, then, for the sons of Noah, we have
detected an intolerant and uncharitable spirit very different from that
of the Old and New Testament. But we have further to inquire, what was
the extent of toleration conceded to them? We do not stop to prove that
they were not allowed to possess land, nor to be judges, nor members of
the Sanhedrin, nor to hold any office, nor to intermarry with the Jews.
From all that, they were excluded by the law of God himself. They were
allowed to sojourn in the land, and hence their name “sojourning
proselytes.” Further, “They were to be treated with the same courtesy
and benevolence as the Israelites.” (See No. 4, p. 26.) But further than
this the toleration did not extend. The oral law, though it commands
“courtesy and benevolence,” does not administer even-handed justice to
the “pious of the nations of the world,” as may be seen from the
following specimens:—
ישראל שהרג בשגגה את העבד או את גר תושב גולה .
וכן גר תושב שהרג את גר תושב או את העבד בשגגה גולה .
גר תושב שהרג את ישראל בשגגה אף על פי שהיה שוגג הרי זה נהרג .
“An Israelite who unintentionally kills a slave, or a sojourning
proselyte, is imprisoned (in one of the cities of refuge).”
“And so a sojourning proselyte who unintentionally kills a sojourning
proselyte, or a slave, is imprisoned.”
“A sojourning proselyte who unintentionally kills an Israelite, although
he did it unintentionally, is to be put to death.” (Hilchoth Rotzeach,
c. v. 3.) The written law, on the contrary, says, “These six cities
shall be a refuge, both for the children of Israel and for the stranger,
and for the sojourner among them: that any one that killeth any person
unawares may flee thither.” (Numbers xxxv. 15.) Again, the oral law
says—
ישראל שהרג גר תושב אינו נהרג עליו בבית דין , שנאמר וכי יזיד איש על רעהו
׃
“An Israelite who kills a sojourning proselyte, is not put to death on
his account by the tribunal, for it is said, ‘But if a man come
presumptuously upon his neighbour.’ (Exodus xxi. 14.)” The law of God
says, “Whoso sheddeth man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for
in the image of God made he man.” (Gen. ix. 6.) And to this law the New
Testament commands us Christians to adhere, rejecting the oral
traditions; and in consequence the laws of Christian countries make no
difference between the murderer of a Jew, a Christian, Turk, Infidel, or
Heretic. Short as all Christian nations confessedly come of the pure
morality of the New Testament, their laws direct the administration of
impartial justice, and are a terror to all evil doers of every creed and
sect. The liberality of the Talmud then, in allowing a share of
salvation to the pious of the world is not so very great, nor its
toleration of a very comprehensive character. It not only withholds
justice from the pious of the world, but gives as the reason, because
they are not considered as neighbours. Want of room prevents us from
pursuing this subject further at present. We therefore ask, Is this law
from God? Can God, in an oral law, directly contradict his written law?
Can you point out anything similar in the New Testament? Is this law
just or unjust? You will grant that it is unjust and erroneous. Then
your fathers have been mistaken about one of the first principles of the
administration of justice, for many centuries. And your brethren who
adhere to this system as Divine, as on the Barbary coast, for instance,
are still mistaken. Why do you not protest aloud against such error? Why
not endeavour to convince your brethren that they are wrong? In England
there is nothing to prevent you. There is full liberty, free toleration.
You may lift up your voice like a trumpet against the errors of the
Talmud. You may expunge all acknowledgment of its authority from your
prayers—you may return to Moses and the prophets, and no man will say
nay.
Footnote 15:
Instead of לנד _alone_, there is another reading, לנד׳׳, the tribunal.
No. IX.
CHRISTIANS CANNOT BE RECKONED AMONGST THE “PIOUS OF THE NATIONS OF THE
WORLD.”
We said, in our last number, that “the pious of the nations of the
world” are, according to the oral law, those who have received the seven
commandments of the sons of Noah. We said that of the laws laid down for
their own conduct, some, as for instance that respecting divorces, are
such as would introduce confusion and misery into Gentile society—and
that others, referring to the administration of justice by Rabbinical
tribunals, are extremely unjust. But the advocates of the oral law
think, nevertheless, that it is very tolerant, more tolerant than the
New Testament, because it says that “the pious of the nations of the
world have a share in the world to come.” Now we cannot help feeling a
curiosity to know how great or how small that share will be. And this
our curiosity is excited by the following information, which the oral
law commands to be communicated to a Gentile who wishes to turn Jew:—