ומודיעין אותו שבעשית מצוות אלו יזכה לחיי העולם הבא , ושאין שום צדיק גמור
אלא בעל החכמה שעושה ויודען ׃ ואומרים לו הוי יודע שהעולם הבא אינו צפון
אלא לצדיקים והם ישראל , וזה שתראה ישראל בצער בעולם הזה טובה היא צפונה
להם שאין יכולין לקבל רוב טובה בעולם הזה כאומות , שמא ירום לבם ויתעו
ויפסידו שכר העולם הבא כענין שנאמר וישמן ישורון ויבעט ׃ ואין הקדוש ברוך
הוא מביא עליהן רוב פורענות כדי שלא יאבדו אלא כל האומות כלין והן עומדין
וכו׳ ׃
“As they are to make known to him the punishments attached to the
commandments, so they are also to inform him of the rewards for keeping
them. They should inform him, that, by the doing of these commandments,
he will be worthy of everlasting life; and that there is no perfectly
righteous man, except that possessor of wisdom who does and knows them.
And they are to say to him, Be assured that _the world to come is laid
up for none but the righteous, and they are Israel_; and as to this that
thou seest Israel in trouble in this world, their good things are laid
up for them, _for they cannot receive an abundance of good things in
this world, like the nations_. Their heart might, perchance, be lifted
up, and they might go astray, and lose the reward of the world to come,
as it is said, ‘Jeshurun waxed fat and kicked.’ The Holy One, blessed be
he, brings upon them the abundance of afflictions for no other reason
than this, that they may not be lost. _All the nations shall be utterly
destroyed_, but they shall abide.” (Hilchoth Issure Biah., c. xiv. 3-5.)
To us this sounds very much like a flat contradiction to the above
declaration, that “the pious of the nations of the world have a share in
the world to come.” Here, on the contrary, it is stated that the
blessings of that state are reserved “for none but the righteous, and
they are Israel;” and again, “All the nations snail be utterly
destroyed.” And it is even implied that the nations get their good
things in this world, and do not suffer affliction, as they are not to
have that blessedness, which is reserved for the righteous. How, then,
are we to reconcile these two sayings? There are only two ways which
occur to us, either by saying that this is not strictly true, but only a
fair speech in order to catch proselytes; or, if it be strictly true,
that then “the pious of the world” are to have a much smaller share in
the blessedness to come. In any case the spirit is far from charitable
or tolerant. It represents God as an accepter of persons, saving
Israelites simply because they are Israelites, and destroying the other
nations because they are not Israelites. The New Testament
representation is very different, and far more worthy of “the Judge of
all the earth.” It does indeed say, “He that believeth shall be saved,
and he that believeth not shall be damned.” But in this very
declaration, we have an impartial rule applied to all mankind. “He that
believeth,” of whatsoever nation, kindred, or tongue—Jew or Gentile,
white or black—“shall be saved.” “He that believeth not,” whether he be
called a Jew or a Christian, whether he be a son of Japhet, of Shem, or
of Ham, “shall be damned.” The New Testament asserts no monopoly of
salvation for one favoured family. It excludes none because he had not
the happiness to be descended from a privileged stock. It lays down a
general and impartial rule to be applied to all the children of men. The
oral law says,
כל ישראל יש להם חלק לעולם הבא ׃
“All Israel has a share in the world to come.” The New Testament says,
“Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter the kingdom
of heaven, but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.”
(Matt. vii. 21.) The oral law says, “The world to come is laid up for
none but the righteous, and they are Israel.” The New Testament says,
“God is no respecter of persons; but in every nation he that feareth
him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him.” (Acts x. 34, 35.)
Now then we appeal to the good sense of every Jew, even of the
Talmudists to tell us which of these two statements is most just,
impartial, and worthy of the Just Judge?
But the reasoning employed in the above extract from the oral law, is as
false as the principles which it is intended to support, when it says,
“As to this that thou seest Israel in trouble in this world, their good
things are laid up for them, for they cannot receive an abundance of
good things in this world like the nations,” it directly contradicts the
law of Moses, which everywhere promises an abundance of temporal
blessings to Israel, if obedient. “It shall come to pass, if thou shalt
hearken diligently unto the voice of the Lord thy God, to observe and to
do all the commandments which I command thee this day, that the Lord thy
God will set _thee on high above all nations_ of the earth, and all
these blessings shall come upon thee, and overtake thee, if thou shalt
hearken unto the voice of the Lord thy God. Blessed shalt thou be in the
city, and blessed shalt thou be in the field. Blessed shall be the fruit
of thy body, and the fruit of thy ground, and the fruit of thy cattle,
the increase of thy kine, and the flocks of thy sheep.... The Lord shall
cause thine enemies that rise up against thee to be smitten before thy
face; they shall come out against thee one way, and flee before thee
seven ways. The Lord shall command the blessing upon thee in thy
store-houses, and in all that thou settest thine hand unto; and he shall
bless thee in the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee.” (Deut.
xxviii. 1-8, &c.) Here, then, is temporal blessing in abundance,
promised to obedience; and the afflictions which have come upon Israel
are not because of their piety, but because of their disobedience. In
this case, then, the oral law speaks utter falsehood. God has not two
ways of dealing with nations, but one way. He gives every nation a fair
trial, and if they refuse to hearken to his voice, he pours out upon
them his wrath. The rise, and growth, and trial, of a nation is slower,
and requires more time than the growth and trial of individual men. The
life of a nation is, so to speak, longer than the life of a man.
Centuries are required as the time of a nation’s trial, but all history,
sacred and profane, testifies the truth of the general rule given in the
Old Testament, “Righteousness exalteth a nation, but sin is a reproach
to any people.” The only difference which God makes between Israel and
the other nations, is with regard to their national existence in this
world. He has crumbled the mighty empires of Assyria, Babylon, Greece,
and Rome into dust, but he still preserves the independent existence of
the family of Abraham, according to his covenant; and when, as a nation,
they repent and return to him, He will remove the rod of his anger, and
give them the temporal prosperity which He has promised by the mouth of
Moses his servant. But this promise of temporal blessing will not
justify any impenitent Jew at the tribunal of God’s judgment. The hopes
held out by the oral law are utterly fallacious, and dishonouring to
God, inasmuch as he is represented as unduly favouring one nation, and
unjustly condemning all others.
An advocate of the oral law may, however, find out some other way of
evading the evident intolerance of the above statement, and still insist
upon it, that as the Talmud says, “The pious of the nations of the world
have a share in the world to come,” it is a very tolerant book. We
therefore proceed to inquire what pains the Rabbies have taken to add to
the number of those who are to be saved. They believe, as we are told,
that every one, who receives and observes the seven commandments of the
sons of Noah, will be saved; they believe that all others must be lost;
have they then taken any pains to make known this important information
to the world? Or, if that was not to be expected during the captivity,
did they during the days of their power and dominion? Or, at least, did
they offer every facility to those Gentiles who might come to renounce
idolatry, to receive the necessary instruction? Did they command all
their disciples to be ready day and night to open their doors at the
knock of the penitent idolater, and by receiving rescue him from
everlasting destruction? Not one of all these things. They commanded
that, when there was no jubilee, such converts should be refused, and
that if they did not choose to be circumcised and observe the whole
Mosaic law, they should be left to perish.
אי זה הוא גר תושב זה גוי שקבל עליו שלא יעבוד עכו׳׳ם עם שאר המצוות שנצטוו
בני נח ולא מל ולא טבל הרי זה מקבליו אותי והוא מחסידי אומות העולם , וממה
נקרא שמו תושב לפי שמותר לנו להושיבו בינינו בארץ ישראל כמו שבארנו בחלכות
עכו׳׳ם , ואין מקבלין גר תושב אלא בזמן שהיובל נוהג ׃
“What is meant by a sojourning proselyte? Such an one is a Gentile, who
has taken upon himself not to commit idolatry, together with the
remaining commandments given to the sons of Noah, but is not circumcised
nor baptized. Such an one is received, and is of the pious of the
nations of the world. And why is he called a _sojourner_? Because it is
lawful for us to let him dwell amongst us in the land of Israel, as we
have explained in the laws concerning idolatry. _But a sojourning
Proselyte is not received_ WHEN THE JUBILEE CANNOT BE OBSERVED.”
(Hilchoth Issure Biah., c. xiv. 7, 8.) At all other times the
unfortunate heathen might perish, if they did not choose to become Jews
altogether. Now what will be thought of the charity of this law if we
add, that there has been no jubilee, and consequently no pious amongst
the nations for two thousand seven hundred years and more? Yet this is
what the oral law tells us.
משגלו שבט ראובן ושבט גד וחצי שבט מנשה בטלו היובלות שנאמר וקראתם דרור
בארץ לכל יושביה , בזמן שכל יושביה עליה , והוא שלא יהיו מעורבבין שבט בשבט
אלא כולן יושבים כתקונן ׃
“Since the time that the tribe of Reuben, and the tribe of Gad and the
half-tribe of Manasseh were led away captive, the jubilees have ceased,
for it is said, ‘And ye shall proclaim liberty throughout the land unto
all the inhabitants thereof’ (Lev. xxv. 10); that means, when all its
inhabitants are upon it, and, moreover, when the tribes are not mixed
one with another, but all dwelling according as they were appointed.”
(Hilchoth Shemitah, c. x. 8.) We have the account of this captivity in
the following words, “In those days the Lord began to cut Israel short:
and Hazael smote them in all the coasts of Israel: from Jordan eastward,
all the land of Gilead, the Gadites, and the Reubenites, and the
Manassites.” (2 Kings x. 32, 33.) That was, according to the common
chronology about 884 years before the Christian era. If to this we add
1836, we have 2720 years since the time that there could be a jubilee,
and consequently 2720 years since any Gentiles were converted from the
errors of idolatry to the religion of the sons of Noah. What is it then
but solemn mockery, in any one acquainted with the oral law, to tell us
that the Talmud is tolerant, and admits “that the pious of the nations
of the world may be saved;” when according to that same book
seven-and-twenty centuries have elapsed, since any such converts were
received? We believe that those who make this defence are unacquainted
with the principles of the system which they undertake to defend. The
truth is, that the authors of the oral law, finding that they could not
altogether deny salvation to the pious of other nations, were determined
not to add to their number, and therefore limited the possibility of
this mode of conversion to times that had elapsed long before they were
born. But in their own times they would not receive any one who was not
willing to be circumcised and to receive the whole law. And hence we see
how exactly the New Testament represents the state of the case, when
Christianity was first propagated amongst the Gentiles, and free
salvation was proclaimed to all who believed, without becoming Jewish
proselytes. The Rabbinists opposed with all their might. “And certain
men which came down from Judea taught the brethren and said, Except ye
be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved.” And
again, “There rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which
believed, saying that it was needful to circumcise them, and to command
them to keep the law of Moses.” (Acts xv. 1-5.) There was no year of
jubilee, and therefore renunciation of idolatry was not sufficient in
the eyes of these traditionists, who believed that at such a time there
was no salvation except for those who observed the whole law. But how is
it now? If a Gentile should desire now to become one of the pious of the
nations, could the Jews receive him? According to the above general
principles, certainly not. The tribes are still scattered and mixed up
together. The land has not got “all its inhabitants.” There can be no
jubilee, and therefore those that wish to be saved, must, according to
the oral law, turn Jews, or take their chance of living to a year of
jubilee. But we are not necessitated to argue from the principles. The
thing is expressly laid down in the oral law. After explaining, as we
have quoted above, who are the pious of the world, and that when the
jubilee is possible, is the only time for receiving them, it adds—
אבל בזמן הזה אפילו קבל עליו כל התורה כולה חוץ מדקדוק אחד אין מקבלין אותו
׃
“But in the present time, though a man should be willing to take upon
him the whole law, with the exception of only one of its least
requirements, he is not to be received.” Now then what becomes of the
boasted toleration of the Talmud? It says, that “the pious of the
nations of the world may be saved.” But it says, first, that such
converts can only be received when the jubilee can be celebrated. It
says, secondly, that this only opportunity has not occurred for the last
2,700 years; and, lastly, it positively forbids the Jews in the present
time to give the Gentiles a chance of salvation, unless they are willing
to receive the whole law. What use is it then to talk of the pious of
the world, or to say that people of other religions may be saved?
According to the Talmud, there are no pious of the nations, unless
perchance there may be some descendants of those who were received 2,700
years ago. But all history that we have ever seen is silent on the
subject. We do not know of a single congregation of Noahites in the
whole world. The forefathers of the Christians were not received during
the usage of jubilee. They were idolaters received against the wishes of
the Rabbinists. The Britons and the Saxons were converted to
Christianity long after the final dispersion of the Jews, that is, at a
time when, according to the Talmud, it was unlawful to add to the pious
amongst the nations. Neither were they received according to the
Talmudic condition, in the presence of three learned Jews.
וצריך לקבל עליו בפני שלשה חברים ׃
“And it is necessary for such an one to take the seven commandments on
him in the presence of three learned men, who are qualified to be
Rabbies.” (Hilchoth Melachim, c. viii. 10.) According to the oral law,
then, there are no such persons now existing as “the pious of the
nations of the world.” It is, therefore, idle to talk of the liberality
with which they would be treated, were they forthcoming. Thus the only
appearance of an argument in favour of the Talmud vanishes into thin
air, and mocks our grasp, as soon as we endeavour to lay hold of it.
Those who caught at this phantom of charity, no doubt meant it
sincerely. They thought that the oral law was misrepresented. They were
told that it was charitable, and they therefore nobly came forward in
its defence. If they had known its true principles, they would have
renounced them. Their advocacy went on a false supposition. But now that
we have set forth the true bearings of the case, and given them chapter
and verse to which they may refer, and convince themselves, we call upon
them to do so: and then, as they hate intolerance, to join with us in
protesting against it, even though it should be found in that system,
which hitherto they have believed, on the testimony of others, to be
Divine. At the same time we would seriously ask of them to compare this
system, which has been for more than 1,700 years the religion of the
majority of the Jewish nation, with the system laid down in the New
Testament, and to decide which is most agreeable to the character of
God, as revealed in the law and the prophets, and most beneficial to the
world. The oral law says, that God has commanded the heathen to be left
for 2,700 years without the means of instruction, and that when the days
of Israel’s prosperity come, the nations are to be converted by force;
but that even then, they will not be raised to the rank of brethren, but
only be sojourning proselytes. The oral law looks forward to no reunion
of all the sons of Adam into one happy family. The New Testament has, on
the contrary, commanded its disciples to afford the means of instruction
“to every creature.” It speaks to us Gentiles, who were once regarded as
poor outcasts, in the language of love, and says, “Now, therefore, ye
are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellow-citizens with the
saints, and of the household of God.” (Ephes. ii. 19.) It takes nothing
from you. It asserts your privileges as the peculiar people of God; but
it reveals that great, and to us, most comfortable truth, “That the
Gentiles should be follow-heirs, and of the same body;” and it promises
a happy time, when there shall be one fold and one Shepherd. It does,
indeed, tell us not to forget what we once were, “aliens from the
commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenant of promise,
having no hope, and without God in the world.” (Eph. ii. 12.) It reminds
us that the olive-tree is Jewish, and that you are the natural branches,
and warns us against all boasting. (Rom. xi. 16-24.) And we desire to
remember these admonitions, and to acknowledge with thankfulness, that
all that we have received, is derived from the Jewish nation. We ask you
not to compare the oral law with any Gentile speculations, or systems,
or inventions, but with doctrines essentially and entirely Jewish.
Christianity has effected great and glorious changes in the world, but
we take not the glory to ourselves. We give it to God, who is the author
of all good, and under Him, to the people of Israel. We ask you, then,
to compare these two Jewish systems, Rabbinism, which has done no good
to the Gentiles, and perpetuated much error amongst the Jews; and
Christianity, which has diffused over the world the knowledge of the one
true God—disseminated the writings of Moses and the prophets, and
increased the happiness of a large portion of mankind. The comparison
may require time, and ought to be conducted with calmness and
seriousness. But we think that, even without instituting that
comparison, you must acknowledge that the principles of the oral law,
discussed in this paper, are contrary to the law of Moses; and that,
therefore, a decided and solemn protest against these Rabbinical
additions, is an immediate and imperative duty.
No. X.
RABBINIC WASHING OF HANDS.
There are various marks by which a religion of man’s making may be
detected. It is usually intolerant, superstitious, and voluminous. It
limits the love of God to a particular class. It exalts ceremonial
observances above the worship of the heart; and so multiplies its laws
and definitions, as to put the knowledge of it beyond the reach of any
but the learned. Any one of these marks would go far towards shaking the
claims of a religious system. Far instance, if it lay down as religious
duties so many and such subtle laws, as it is impossible for the
unlearned to attain a knowledge of, it is plainly the invention of the
learned, who have thought only of themselves, and have not that tender
regard and consideration for the ignorant, which the Creator has. His
religion must be for all, the poor as well as the rich, and the ignorant
as well as the wise of this world. We fear that the oral law of the
Rabbies will not stand any one of these tests: it is, at all events, a
religion for the learned, and the learned only. There is scarcely one of
its commandments that is not so encumbered with distinctions and
definitions, as to make the right interpretation of it the sole property
of the educated. Take, for example, one of the first and most frequent
of the commandments, in the Rabbinist’s daily practice, נטילת ידים (the
washing of hands.) The command appears very simple. It says—
ירחץ ידיו ויברך על נטילת ידים ׃
“Let him wash his hands, and pronounce the benediction for the washing
of hands.” (Orach Chaiim., § 4.) But out of this short command arise
endless distinctions, according to which the act performed is regarded
as a valid or invalid fulfilment of the command.
כל הנוטל ידיו צריך להזהר בארבעה דברים , במים עצמן שלא יהיו פסולין לנטילת
ידים ובשיעור שיהיה בהן רביעית לכל שתי ידים , ובכלי שיהיו המים שנוטלין
בהן בכלי , ובכוטל שיהיו המים באין מכח נותן ׃
“Every one who washes his hands must attend to four things. 1st, To the
water, that it be not unlawful for the washing of hands. 2d, To the
measure, that there be a quartern for the two hands. 3d, To the vessel,
that the water, wherewith the washing is performed, be in a vessel. 4th,
To the washer, that the water come with force from him that pours.”
(Hilchoth Berachoth, vi. 6.) Each of these four limitations requires new
explanations and definitions of its own, as for example, there are four
things that make water unlawful for the washing of hands; one of these
is, if any work be done with it. This necessarily requires fresh
definitions of what is and is not work. Then come the directions as to
how for the washing is to reach, the position of the hands, whether they
are to be held up or down, the drying of the hands. A perfect and
accurate knowledge of all these conditions can be attained only by the
learned. And after all the care which these things require, the
Israelite may after all fall short of Talmudic requirement, for there is
still another condition, that involves another host of Rabbinic
definitions, the non-observance of which will invalidate the merit of
his washing.
כל החוצץ בטבילה חוצץ בידים וכו׳ ׃
“Every thing that is an impediment in baptism is an impediment in
washing of hands.” (Hilchoth Mikvaoth, xi. 2.) This, of course, leads to
a new inquiry, what constitutes an impediment.
אלו חוצצין באדם , לפלוף שחוץ לעין , וגלד שחוץ למכה , והדם היבש שעל גבי
המכה , והרטיה שעליה , וגלדי צואה שעל בשרו , ובצק או טיט שתחת הצפורן ,
והמלמולין שעל הגוף היון , וטיט היוצרים וכו׳ ׃
“These are the impediments in human beings. The film that is outside the
eye. The incrustation outside a wound. Dry blood that is on a wound. The
plaster that is on it. Filth upon the flesh. The impurity or dirt under
the nails. Dirt upon the body, mud, potter’s clay, &c.” (Ibid., c. ii.
1.) Every one of these can give rise to endless questions in casuistry,
which are evidently beyond the powers of the unlearned, and must draw
him, if he be a conscientious man, to the Rabbi to solicit his advice.
Thus, one of the very first commandments with which the Jew begins the
day, requires for its accurate fulfilment a degree of knowledge which is
far beyond the attainment of the multitude. This one commandment
involves scores of others. Nay, we doubt not that an accurate Talmudist
might make 613 constitutions out of this one alone; and we appeal to the
conscience of the great majority of Jews in London to decide whether
they possess the knowledge here required, and consequently whether it is
possible for them to keep this one commandment. If they transgress any
one of these Rabbinic distinctions, their hands are not washed, and
consequently they are unfit for prayer. But this is not a command for
the morning only. It must be repeated through the day.
כל האוכל הפת שמברכין עליו המוציא צריך נטילת ידים תחלה וסוף , ואף על פי
שהוא פת חולין ואף על פי שאין ידיו מלוכלכות ואינו יודע להן טומאה לא יאכל
עד שיטול שתי ידיו , וכן כל דבר שטיבולו במשקה צריך נטילת ידים תחלה ׃