‘Blessed art thou, O Lord our God, King of the universe! who bringeth
forth bread from the earth,’[16] is bound to wash his hands at the
beginning and end. And although the bread be common, and although his
hands have not been defiled, and he is not aware of any uncleanness upon
them, he is not to eat until he wash both his hands. And thus, also,
with regard to anything that is dipped in fluid, the washing of hands is
necessary at the beginning.” (Hilchoth Berachoth, vi. 1.) Here, again,
it is necessary to know the different sorts of bread, and the compounds
that may be made with the different sorts of flour, and the various
forms of benediction, and out of these again may arise as many doubts
and questions as out of the former, for the solution of which learning,
acuteness, and practice are required; and the want of these may lead to
transgression, and, according to the Rabbies, to most fatal
consequences. For instance, neglect of this command after the meal may
cause blindness.
כל פת שהמלח בו צריך נטילת ידים באחרונה שמא יש בו מלח סדומית או מלח שטבעו
כמלח סדומית ויעביר ידיו על עיניו ויסמא . מפני זה חייבין ליטול ידים בסיף
כל סעודה מפני המלח . ונמחנה פטורִם מנטילה ידים בתחלה . מפני שהם טרודים
במלחמה וחייבין באחרונה מפני הסכנה ׃
“All bread that has salt in it requires washing of hands after it; lest
perhaps it might be the salt of Sodom, or salt of the same nature, and a
man might pass his hand over his eyes and become blind. On this account
all are bound to wash their hands at the end of every meal, because of
the salt. But in a camp they are exempt from washing at the beginning,
because they are oppressed with the fatigues of war, and are bound to
wash after meal on account of the danger.” (Ibid., 3.) Suppose, then,
that a poor ignorant man, with the best intention in the world, set
about this washing, and made a mistake with regard to the water, or the
vessel, or the pouring, or the position of his hands; or suppose that a
soldier, in the hurry of a camp, were to make this mistake, or omit the
washing altogether, and then have the ill luck to put his hands to his
eyes, according to the oral law, blindness would be the consequence. Any
neglect or defect in the morning ablution would be more fatal still.
יידקדק לערות עליהן ג׳ פעמים מפני שרוח רעה שורה על הידים קודם נטילה ואינה
סרה אד שיערה עליהן שלש פעמים . ועל כן צריך למנוע מהגיע בידו קודם הנטילה
לפה , ולחוטם , ולאזנִם , ולעינים . מפני שרוח רעה שורה עליהם ׃
“A man must be very careful in pouring water on his hands three times
for an evil spirit rests upon the hands before washing, and does not
depart until water be poured on them three times. Therefore it is
necessary, before washing, to abstain from touching the hand to the
mouth, and the nose, and the ears, and the eyes, because an evil spirit
rests upon them.” (Orach Chaiim., § 4.)
Now, is this the religion of the God of love, and mercy, and justice? Is
it at all like Him to give laws so subtle and multifarious in their
distinctions, that it is next to impossible for the unlearned man to
obey them aright, and then to attach to this non-observance such
calamitous consequences? If it be replied that the punishment is visited
only on those who transgress wilfully, then there are thousands of Jews,
perhaps in this very city, who live in the habitual and wilful omission
of this precept, and who have the use of their eyes, just as well as the
strictest Rabbinist. This fact, which no one will dispute, proves beyond
doubt, that the oral law has spoken falsehood, and therefore throws
utter discredit upon its testimony respecting the tradition of the
commandment itself. It is confessedly not a commandment from God, but
from the scribes.
כבר ביארנו שנטילת ידים וטבילתן מדברי סופרים ׃
“We have explained long ago, that the washing and bathing of the hands
are derived from the words of the scribes.” (Hilchoth Mikvaoth, xi. 1.)
That they had no Divine authority for the command is evident from the
subtilty and superstition of its ordinances; for we presume that few
will question the superstition of the threat of blindness to the
disobedient, or of the fable of the evil spirit resting upon the hands.
One such command, then, will go far to discredit the whole story of an
oral law, and to invalidate the character of its witnesses. They were
evidently superstitious men, no way elevated above the vulgar prejudices
or the times, not at all scrupulous in adding to the law of God, and
evidently aiming at a complete domination over the consciences of their
followers. It is hardly possible to believe that they were not aware of
the necessary result of the system, the complete subjugation of the
consciences of the multitude. The mass of mankind has no leisure for the
study of juristic distinctions, they must, therefore, if they believe
such to be Divine, cast themselves upon the mercy of the learned, and
there can be no doubt that those who have the keys of salvation, will
also possess no small degree of influence and power in this world. But,
whatever was the motive, there can be no doubt about the severity with
which the Rabbies enforced this command. They exacted even from the poor
unfortunate, whom circumstances left only enough water to slake his
thirst, that he should sacrifice a port of it to this Rabbinical
purification.
אפילו אין לו מים אלא כדי שתייה נוטל ידיו במקצתן ואח׳׳כ אוכל ושותה מקצתו
׳
“Though he should only have enough water to drink, he is to wash his
hands with a part of it, and then to eat, and to drink the remainder.”
(Hilchoth Berachoth, vi. 19.) And not content with this harsh
requirement, they sentence the despiser of their commands to
excommunication.
וצריך ליזהר בנטילת ידים שכל המזלזל בנטילתם חייב נדוי ׳
“It is necessary to be very careful in washing of hands, for every one
who despises the washing of hands is guilty of excommunication.” (Orach
Chaiim., § 158.) And this same book confirms this decision by a case
which actually occurred of a man thus excommunicated, and who dying in
his excommunication had the usual indignities offered to his corpse.
את מי נדו את אלעזר בן חצר שפקפק בנטילת ידים וכשמת שלחו בית דין והניחו
אבן גדולה על ארונו ללמדך שכל המתנדה ומת בנדויו בית דיו סוקלין את ארונו ׃
“Whom did they excommunicate? Eleazar ben Chatzar, who despised the
washing of hands; and when he was dead, the tribunal sent, and had a
great stone laid on his coffin, to teach thee that of every one who is
excommunicated and dies in his excommunication, the coffin is stoned by
the tribunal.” (Talmud, Berachoth, fol. 19, col. 1.) When they had the
power they employed it to the full, and now that they have it not, the
oral law still threatens poverty and extirpation to every transgressor.
כל המזלזל בנטילת ידים בא לידי עניות ׃ ואמר ר׳ זריקא אמר ר׳ אלעזר כל
המזלזל בנטילת ידים נעקר מן העולם ׃
“Every one who despises washing of hands sinks into poverty. R. Zerika
says, in the name of R. Eliezer, Every one that despises the washing of
hands is rooted out of the world.” (Orach Chaiim., ibid.) Such is the
toleration of the oral law towards Jews, accused of no breach of God’s
commandment, convicted of no denial of God’s Word, guilty of no crime.
And yet these same men, who are strict even to persecution about one of
their own institutions, allow that which they consider the Word of God
to be transgressed with impunity, if it be expedient. They assert their
belief, that the law of Moses forbids the Jews to have clothing, like
that of the Gentiles, to shave or to wear their hair like the other
nations, and yet they say the transgression of this Divine command is
lawful under the following circumstances:—
ישראל שהיה קרוב למלכות וצריך לישב לפני מלכיהם והיה לו גנאי לפי שלא ידמה
להם הרי זה מותר ללבוש במלבושיהן ולגלח בנגר פניו כדרך שהן עושין ׃
“An Israelite who is near to Royalty, and is obliged to sit before
Gentile kings, and for whom it would be disgraceful not to be like them,
is allowed to dress and to shave as they do.” (Hilchoth Accum., xi. 3.)
But it is not to be wondered at, that those should lightly esteem the
Word of God, who are capable of confounding the guilt of transgressing a
mere human ceremony with the guilt of transgressing a Divine command.
The Talmud makes the sin of neglecting this command as great as that of
gross immorality.
כל האוכל לחם בלא נטילת ידים כאלו בא על אשה זונה וכו׳ ׃
“Every one who eats bread without washing of hands, is as guilty as if
he had committed fornication.” (Sotah, fol. iv., col. 2.)
The sum of all that has been said is, that the scribes and Pharisees
added a commandment not given by Moses, that they so refined upon the
conditions of its fulfilment as to make it almost impossible for the
unlearned not to transgress it, and yet denounced such heavy penalties
upon the transgressor as to make it an intolerable burden to the
conscientious; that when they had the power, they persecuted all that
refused obedience, and did not scruple to pronounce the guilt of
transgression as great as that of breaking one of the moral
commandments. They have presented as the religion of Moses a system
which is voluminous, superstitious, and intolerant; difficult to the
comprehension of the unlearned, terrific to their consciences, and cruel
to their persons. But when the poor were ground down and oppressed under
this weight of superstition and tyranny, God sent them a deliverer in
Jesus of Nazareth, who asserted the revealed truth of God, and protested
against this mental bondage. “Then come together unto him the Pharisees,
and certain of the scribes which came from Jerusalem. And when they saw
some of his disciples eat bread with defiled (that is to say, with
unwashen) hands they found fault.... He answered and said unto them,
Well hath Esaias prophesied of you hypocrites, as it is written, This
people honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me.
Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the
commandments of men.... And when he had called all the people unto him,
he said unto them, Hearken unto me every one of you and understand:
there is nothing from without a man that, entering into him, can defile
him: but the things which come out of him, those are they that defile
him.... For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts,
adulteries, fornications, murders, thefts, covetousness, wickedness,
deceit, lasciviousness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness: all
these things come from within, and defile the man.” (Mark vii. 1-23.)
Here the Lord Jesus asserts what is alike the truth of God, and
agreeable to the dictates of sound sense. So Samuel said in the Old
Testament.
האדם יראה לעינים ויהוה יראה ללבב ׃
“Man looketh on the outward appearance, but God looketh on the heart.”
(1 Sam. xvi. 7.) But the scribes and Pharisees treated the Lord Jesus in
the spirit of the laws which we have adduced above. They persecuted him
unto death, and to the death He willingly went a martyr for the truth,
and a sacrifice for the sin of the world. The authors of the oral law
had but a short triumph. He rose from the dead, and his doctrine spread
through the world, and everywhere announced freedom from the bondage of
superstition as well as a hope of everlasting life. And the Jewish
nation is at this hour enjoying the fruits of His death and doctrine in
their liberty from Rabbinic domination. Many of you now hold some of
those principles, the assertion of which was the cause of His death. You
believe that moral duties are far beyond ceremonial observances. You
believe, many of you, that to eat with unwashen hands is no sin, and
have given up the practice. You transgress this commandment of the
scribes, and yet you are not excommunicated nor persecuted. For all this
you are indebted to Jesus of Nazareth. If the oral law had triumphed,
and the doctrine of Jesus been silenced, you would still be living the
victims of superstition or persecution. You would have been afraid of
being struck with blindness, or haunted with an evil spirit, or even of
being rooted out of the world. If a ray of Divine light had visited your
understanding, and you had protested against these traditions, you would
have had to feel the weight of Rabbinical persecution, like Jesus of
Nazareth. You would have been excommunicated like Eleazar, and if God
had given you strength to remain faithful, would have died
excommunicated, and have had a stone upon your coffin. How is it that
now you are free, that you can think and act without any such fear? Is
it because the Talmud has altered? No, it is just what it was. The
conscientious believers in the Talmud are just the same as their
fathers, and as conscientious men, if they had the power, they would
think it their bounden duty to treat you, as their predecessors treated
Eleazar. But the doctrine of Jesus of Nazareth delivers you; and the
followers of Jesus of Nazareth are your protectors against the rigour of
the oral law, and the intolerance of your brethren. Should not this
fact, then, lead you to examine into the claims of that same Nazarene?
How is it that if the principles of Jesus of Nazareth should ever become
universal, the world will be universally happy; whereas if the
principles of those who rejected him become universal, the whole world
will groan under superstition and cruelty? What stronger testimony can
there be to the justice of his claims, and the injustice of his
condemnation? Examine, then, into the other evidence, and in the
meanwhile protest against the principles of the Talmud, and endeavour to
deliver your brethren. There are multitudes of Jews who still groan
under the superstitious laws respecting the washing of hands. In the
book of daily prayer published here in London, the ordinance of washing
of hands is acknowledged as Divine. On the 151st leaf, col. 2, you will
find the following blessing:—
ברוך אתה ה׳ אלהינו מלך העולם אשר קדשנו במצותיו וצונו על נטילת ידים ׃
“Blessed art thou, O Lord our God! King of the universe! who hath
sanctified us with his commandments, and commanded us to cleanse our
hands.” Now this is a positive untruth; God has not given the
commandment respecting the washing of hands. And yet here your
prayer-book solemnly tells him that he has. And this prayer-book has
also put a rubric to this benediction, “When the children wash their
hands in the morning, they are taught to say the following blessing.”
From which it appears that the Jewish children in England are still
taught to acknowledge the Divine authority of the Talmud, for the only
way in which that benediction can be defended, is by saying that the
oral law is Divine, and that its commandments were given by God. It is
therefore a holy and imperative duty on all those Israelites who reject
Talmudic superstition and intolerance to have this benediction erased
from their prayer-book, and to preserve the children from the infection
of that law which persecutes the living and insults the dead.
Footnote 16:
Jewish Prayer-book, p. 152.
No. XI.
RABBINIC ARTIFICES RESPECTING LEAVEN AT THE PASSOVER.
One of the many bright features in the national character of Israel is
the devoted constancy, with which they have, in the most troublous times
and under the most disastrous circumstances, celebrated the anniversary
of their first great national deliverance. More than three thousand
years have now rolled away since Israel’s God heard the cries of the
first-born in Egypt, and by slaying the first-born of their enemies,
effected their salvation with a mighty hand and on outstretched arm. And
yet the memory of that great event is still fresh in the hearts of the
nation, and the children of Israel, wherever scattered, in the wilds of
Poland, the coasts of Africa, or the torrid regions of India, as well as
amongst ourselves, are now making consentaneous preparation for the
approaching festival. Such constancy and such devotion bespeak minds of
no ordinary mould, and naturally lead us to ask, how is it that the Lord
does not now hear Israel’s cries and prayers, which ascend from every
region under heaven, and restore them to that place in His dispensations
and that rank amongst the sons of men, which his Word assigns to them? A
Christian would give the answer suggested by the New Testament, but we
waive that at present. The oral law gives a reply the same in substance.
It tells us that the mass of the nation has obscured the light of Divine
revelation by the admixture of human inventions, that, therefore, a
restoration would only be the establishment of error, and is
consequently impossible. We have already given some proofs of this
assertion, the Rabbinical laws relating to the Passover furnish us with
many more, and to these the season of the year now naturally refers us.
Amongst the first directions relating to the Passover, the Word of God
gives this plain command, “Even the first day shall ye put away leaven
out of your houses.” (Exod. xii. 15.) This is intelligible to the most
illiterate, and easy to be obeyed, but the Rabbles have superadded a
mass of explanations and observances, which tend only to perplex and to
burden the conscience. In the first place they are not satisfied with
the honest endeavour of an Israelite to obey the command of God, unless
he does it according to the form and manner which they prescribe.
ומה היא השבתה זו האמורה בתורה היא שיבטלו בלבו ויחשוב אותו כעפר וישים
בלבו שאין ברשותו חמץ , ושכל חמץ שברשותו הרי הוא כעפר וכדבר שאין בו צורך
כלל ׃
“What is meant by the putting away (of leaven) mentioned in the law? It
is this, that a man annul it in his heart, and count it as dust, and
intend in his heart to have no leaven whatever in his possession, and
that all the leaven in his possession shall be as dust, and of no
necessity whatever.” (Hilchoth Chometz Umatzah, c. ii. 2.) Here, then,
they require a formal intention, but they have also prepared a form of
words in which to clothe it.
כל חמירא וחמיעא דאיכא ברשותי דחמיתיה ודלא חמיתיה דבערתיה ודלא בערתיה
לבטל ולהוי כעפרא דארעא ׃
“All manner of leaven that is in my possession, which I have seen, and
which I have not seen; which I have removed, and which I have not
removed, shall be null, and accounted as the dust of the earth.” (Levi’s
Prayers for the Passover, fol. 2, col. 1.) And to this form a rubric is
added, “If the master is not at home, he annuls the leaven wherever he
is.” Now this may at first sight appear as a very innocent ceremony, but
God warns us against all additions to His Word and commandments. It is
in itself presumptuous, and as connected with the Rabbinical doctrine of
merit, must have an injurious tendency upon the minds of the multitude.
They will argue that by observing this form, they have fulfilled a
commandment, and that consequently there is an additional sum of merit
to be put to the credit side of their account, as a set off against
their transgressions. And on the other hand, if they forget to go
through this form at the right hour, and afterwards any leaven be found
in their houses, the Rabbies bring them in guilty of transgressing two
negative commandments, which they say is a more heinous offence than
disobeying the affirmative precepts.
לפיכך אם לא בטל קודם שש ומשש שעות ולמעלה מצא חמץ שהיה דעתו עליו והיה
בלבו ושכחו בשעת הביעור ולא בערו הרי זה עבר על לא יראה ולא ימצא שהרי לא
בער ולא בטל ׃
“Therefore, if a man does not annul (the leaven) before the sixth hour,
and afterwards from the sixth hour and onwards should find leaven, which
was on his mind and in his heart, but he forgot it at the hour of
removal, and did not remove it; Behold, such an one has transgressed the
command, ‘It shall not be seen with thee’ (Exod. xiii. 7), and also the
command, ‘It shall not be found in your houses’ (Exod. xii. 19), for he
neither removed it nor annulled it.” (Hilchoth Chometz, c. iii. 8.) Now,
can you believe that this decision is from God who searcheth the heart?
Can you believe that a man who had it in his mind and heart to remove a
piece of leaven according to God’s commandment, but whilst removing the
rest forgot this one piece, is to be brought in guilty, simply because
he did not observe a mere form, which God has nowhere commanded? Or that
he would not have been guilty, if he had repeated some half dozen words
prescribed by men, sinners like himself? Very different is the
declaration of God himself, יען אשר היה, עם לבבך “Because it was in
thine heart” (1 Kings viii. 18): he accepted the intention, and gave it
the blessing of obedience. The Rabbinic decision is, therefore, not of
God, and goes far towards overthrowing the claims of the whole oral law.
But the Rabbies were not satisfied with this invention of בטול חמץ
annulling the leaven, they have imposed upon the consciences of their
followers another observance, utterly unknown to Moses, and that is
בדיקת חמץ, the searching for leaven.
אור לארבעה עשר בנסן קודם צאת הכוכבים בודקין את החמץ לאור הנר של שעוה
היחידי , ומשהגיע זמנו אסור לעשות שום מלאכה ולא לאכול ולא ללמוד ׃
“On the evening before the 14th of Nisan, before the coming out of the
stars, they are to search for the leaven by the light of a single wax
taper: and when the time draws near, it is unlawful to do any work, or
to eat, or to study.” (Passover Prayers, fol. 1, col. 2.) For this
command there is evidently no foundation in the law of Moses. It is
confessedly מדברי סופרים of the words of the Scribes, and yet the most
minute directions are given, and the greatest attention required, as if
it had been from God himself, and various cases supposed where a second
search is necessary, as for instance:—
אם ראה עכבר שנכנס לבית וחמץ בפיו אחר בדיקה צריך לבדוק פעם שניה אף על פי
שמצא פירורִן באמצע הבית אין אומרין כבר אכל אותה הפת במקום זה והרי
הפירורין אלא חוששין שמא הניחה בחור או בחלון ואלו הפירורין שם היו ולפיכך
חוזר ובודק , אם לא מצא כלום הרי זה בודק כל הבית ואם מצא אותה הפת שנטל
העכבר ונכנס אין צריך בדיקה ׃
“If, after the search, he see a mouse come into the house with leaven in
his mouth, it is necessary to search a second time. And although he
should find the crumbs about the house, he is not to say, the mouse has
eaten the bread long since, and these are the crumbs, but, on the
contrary, he must fear lest it should have left the leaven in a hole or
a window, and these crumbs were there before; he must therefore search
again. If he find nothing, then he must search the whole house; but if
he find the bread with which the mouse went off, then no further search
is necessary.” Another case of equal importance, and more ingenuity, is
the following:—
נכנס עכבר לבית וככר בפיו ויצא עכבר משם וככר בפיו אומרים הוא הראשון שנכנס
הוא האחרון שיצא ואינו צריך לבדוק . היה הראשון שגכנס שחור וזה שיצא לבן
צריך לבדוק . נכנס עכבר וככר בפיו ויצאה משם חולדה וככר בפיה צריך לבדוק .
יצאה משם חולדה ועכבר וככר בפיה אינו צריך לבדוק שזה הככר הוא שהיה בפי
העכבר ׃