against thee: I am God, even thy God. I will not reprove thee for thy
sacrifices or thy burnt offerings, to have been continually before me. I
will take no bullock out of thy house, nor he goats out of thy folds.”
Here God plainly excepts the offerings of bulls and goats, and thereby
overthrows the exposition of Rashi and others, who say that the covenant
and sacrifices here alluded to are the same as those described at the
giving of the law, when Moses said, “Behold the blood of the covenant,”
&c. (Exod. xxiv. 8.) The sacrifices then offered were “burnt-offerings
and peace-offerings of oxen,” which God here declares that he will not
accept. Besides, God is not speaking of many sacrifices, but of one
sacrifice אלי זבח . He is moreover speaking of one great sacrifice, by
virtue of which sinful men may stand before him as saints at the great
day of judgment, and obtain mercy. This certainty cannot mean the
sacrifices of the Mosaic covenant at Sinai, for by reason of that
sacrifice, they will appear as guilty sinners who have broken God’s
covenant, as he himself says—
אשר המה הפרו את ברית ׃
“Which my covenant they brake.” (Jer. xxxi. 32.) At that solemn hour the
Mosaic covenant will only condemn, and therefore cannot be meant here.
Indeed the rabbies appear to have felt the untenableness of this
exposition, and therefore invented another figurative one—
ויש דרש כי על ברית מילה שהחזיקו בה ישראל בגלות ׃
“There is also an allegorical interpretation referring it to the
covenant of circumcision, which Israel has faithfully adhered to in the
captivity.” (Kimchi, in loc.) But this exposition is as unfounded as the
former. Circumcision is never called a sacrifice in Scripture. Neither
will it serve a man in the day of judgment. What then is the sacrifice
which is here intended? We answer, the true Passover, the blood of the
Messiah, whereby the new covenant is ratified. Some object that the
shedding of blood is altogether unnecessary—that if God will forgive at
all, he can forgive without atonement or sacrifice. But this objection
will equally affect the sacrifice of the first Passover. On the very
same grounds, we may say, What necessity was there for killing a lamb,
and sprinkling its blood upon the door-posts? The directions given by
Moses are very striking—“Kill the passover. And ye shall take a bunch of
hyssop, and dip it in the blood that is in the bason, and strike the
lintel and the two side posts with the blood that is in the bason; and
none of you shall go out at the door of his house until the morning. For
the Lord will pass through to smite the Egyptians; and when he seeth the
blood upon the lintel, and on the two side posts, the Lord will pass
over the door, and will not suffer the destroyer to come in unto your
houses to smite you.” (Exod. xii. 21-23.) Surely the blood was not
necessary to make known to him which house belonged to an Israelite. He
could have saved them as well without the blood as with it. Why then
destroy the life of a lamb, and give them all this trouble? Suppose that
an Israelite had thus argued at that time, had refused to kill the
passover, or having killed it, had neglected to sprinkle the blood, or
having done both, was not content to abide in his house, but had gone
forth before the morning, what would have been the consequence? Certain
punishment. God was indeed determined to save Israel, but only in a
certain way: and he that did not choose to submit to God’s method, would
naturally lose the benefit of his appointment. Our business is not to
argue with God, but having ascertained His will, to submit to it.
Inquire, then, what God means by “his saints who have made a covenant
with Him by sacrifice;” and endeavour to enter into that covenant, that
when He appears to judgment, ye may be gathered unto Him. If the
Christian view be not the true one, then since the destruction of the
temple there has been no sacrifice, and no way of entering into that
covenant with Him. You observe the season—you abstain from leaven—but
there is no sacrifice. The main, yea the essential, element of the
Passover is wanting. The lamb cannot be slain. And even if it could be,
if you had again a temple and a high-priest, and all the service of a
sanctuary, still the sacrifice of the Passover would only be a memorial
of mercies long since gone by. It would be no real atonement for your
sins, and when you had slain it, and eaten of it, the question would
still remain, How am I, a sinner, to appear in the presence of the
righteous Judge?
The first part of this paper will have shown you, that we are firm
believers in the future glory and blessedness of Israel; that we do not,
therefore, in offering you our hope for eternity, wish to deprive you of
your own hopes for time. No, we wish you every blessing which God has
promised by the mouth of Moses and the prophets, and can affectionately
join in the words—
לשנה הבאה בירושלִם ׃
If it should please God to spare us all to see the re-union of all the
families of the earth, we should rejoice to unite with others in
acknowledging “that ye are the seed whom the Lord has blessed.” But we
should rejoice a thousandfold more to meet you in the heavenly
Jerusalem, and to mingle our voices with yours in singing,
“Worthy is the Lamb that was slain to receive power, and riches, and
wisdom, and strength, and honour, and glory, and blessing.” Amen.
No. XIII.
SEVERITY OF THE RABBINIC ORDINANCES.
The feast of the Passover, ordained as a memorial of past mercies, has
at the same time served to remind us of another deliverance necessary
both for Jew and Gentile, and also of a happy time when “there shall be
one fold and one shepherd”—“One LORD and His name One.” But the blessed
anticipations of the future cannot, and ought not, withdraw our thoughts
from the reality of the present. That happy time is not yet come. Jews
and Christians are not yet agreed as to the articles of faith; and this
feast of the Passover especially directs our attention to the cause and
origin of the difference. At this solemn season of the year, Jesus of
Nazareth was condemned by the Scribes and Pharisees, and by them
delivered to the Roman power to be executed as a malefactor. One portion
of the Jewish nation, and that the majority, concurred in the judgment
of the rulers. Another portion, at first small, but ultimately
considerable in number and station, arraigned the justice of the
sentence, and professed their faith in His Messiahship. The question
between Jews and Christians at present is, which of these two portions
of the Jewish nation was in the right. In these papers we have taken up
this simple position, that the religious system of those who rejected
Jesus of Nazareth is contrary to the law and the prophets, and is
therefore false; whilst the doctrines of Him, that was rejected, are in
conformity with those writings, and must therefore be true. When we say
that the rabbinical system is false, we do not mean that the Pharisees
held no truth. On the contrary, we showed in our last number that some
of their expectations were agreeable to the Word of God, and therefore
true. All we intend is, that the peculiarities of Rabbinism of which the
system is composed are erroneous. The laws relating to the present
festival furnish us with abundant proof of our assertion. The Divine
commands relating to it exhibit the care, consideration, and
condescension of God in providing an opportunity of instruction, a time
of relaxation, and a season of joy for the poor as well as the rich. The
rabbinical laws, on the other hand, are burdensome, oppressive, and
hurtful, especially to the poor and unlearned.
We take our first proof from one of the laws relating to the ארבע כוסות
“the four cups”—God has given a simple command to Israel to make known
to their children the reasons for the feast. והגדת לבנך וגו׳ “And thou
shalt declare unto thy son in that day, saying, This is done because of
that which the Lord did unto me, when I came forth out of Egypt.” (Exod.
xiii. 8.) In order to fulfil this command, a sort of liturgy has been
composed, much of which is solemn and beautiful: and a ceremonial
appointed, of which one ordinance is, that there should be four cups or
glasses of wine.
וכל אחד ואחד בין אנשים בין נשים חייב לשתות בלילה הזה ארבע כוסות אל יין
ואין פוחתין לו מהן ׃
“All persons, whether men or women, are obligated on this night to drink
four cups (or glasses) of wine, and this number is not to be
diminished.” (Hilchoth Chometz, c. vii.) As to the ceremony of the four
cups, the circumstances connected with them evidently show that they are
not for the purpose of revelry, but part of a solemn religious
observance.
כל כוס וכוס מארבע כוסות הללו מברך עליו ברכה בפני עצמה . כוס ראשון אומר
עליו קידוש היום . כוס שני קורא עליו את ההגדה . כוס שלישי מברך עליו ברכת
המזון . כוס רביעי גומר עליו את ההלל ומברך עליו ברכת השיר ׃
“Over each of these four cups a benediction is to be pronounced. Over
the first cup is said the consecration of the day. Over the second cup
the Haggadah is read. Over the third cup the benediction for food is
pronounced. And over the fourth the Hallel is completed, and the
benediction for the song pronounced.” (Ibid.) With a solemn religious
ordinance it is not for us to find fault. On the contrary, in these and
their other prayers, we earnestly wish the Jews the blessing of God, and
the spirit of grace and supplication. But when we find this human
institution imposed as a burden upon the conscience, and the observance
of it exacted from those who have not the means of gaining their daily
bread, we must protest against it as harsh and oppressive. Now in the
oral law this requirement is made.
מי שאין לו יין עבר אדרבנן דאמרי ולא יפחתו לו מארבע כוסות , וצריך למכור
מה איא לו לקיים מצות חכמים ולא יסמוך על הפת שאם קיים כוס אחד לא קיים
השלשה לכן ימכור מה שיש לו ולהוציא הוצאות עד שימצא יין או צמוקים ׃
“Whosoever has not got wine transgresses a command of the Rabbies, for
they have said, that there is to be no diminution from the four cups.
And it is necessary to sell what he has in order to keep the command of
the wise men. He is not to depend upon the bread, for if he fulfil the
command concerning one cup, he has not fulfilled that respecting the
three. Therefore let him sell what he has, and furnish the expense,
until he procure wine or raisins.” (Arbah Tur. Orach Chaiim, 483.) It
may be replied, that the congregation furnishes those who have not the
means. But what is to become of those who have displeased the dispensers
of the congregation’s bounty, or what is a Jew to do, who is living
alone in the midst of Gentiles, as is frequently the case, particularly
in this country? If he be a conscientious Rabbinist he must either
grieve his conscience by transgression, or sell what he may not be well
able to spare. The same may also be said of the unleavened cakes. The
Rabbies have given so many directions about the lawful mode of preparing
them, as to make it almost impossible for a Jew, living at a distance
from a congregation, to keep the command, and to keep the poor in a
state of perpetual bondage to the synagogue, if they wish to be supplied
by the bounty of the congregation.
But if this utter want of consideration for the poor is more strikingly
displayed in the institution and exaction of a second holy day, where
God has required the observance of only one, as the Rabbies themselves
acknowledge in the following passage:—
ששת ימים האלה שאסרן הכתוב בעשיית מלאכה שהן ראשון ושביעי של פסח וראשון
וח׳ של חג הסוכות וביום חג השבועות ובאחד לחודש השביעי הן הנקראים ימים
טובים . ושביתת כולן שוה שהן אסורין בכל מלאכת עבודה חוץ ממלאכה שהיא לצורך
אכילה שנאמר אך אשר יאכל לכל נפש וכו׳ ׃
“These are the six days on which the Scripture has forbidden the doing
of work. The first and seventh day of Passover: the first and eighth day
of the Feast of Tabernacles: the day of the Feast of Weeks, and the
first day of the seventh month; and these days are called holy days. The
sabbatism of all is alike; it is unlawful on them to do any manner of
work, excepting that which is necessary for the preparation of food, as
it is said, ‘Save that which every man must eat.’ (Exod. xii. 16.)”
(Hilchoth Jom. Tov., c. i. 1.) Here is an express recognition of what
God has commanded. And yet the Scribes were not content with this
ordinance of God, but have appointed the observance of a second day on
all these occasions, and have annexed the sentence of excommunication to
any transgression of their command.
ואנו שעושים שני ימים טובים כל מה שאסור בראשון אסור גם בשני , ומנדין עליו
למי שמזלזל בו , ואם הוא צורבא מרבנן אין מחמיריו לנדותו אלא מלקין אותו ׃
“To us, who observe two days, every thing that is forbidden on the first
day, is also forbidden on the second day; and whosoever makes light of
it, is to be excommunicated. But if he be an acute Talmudist the
excommunication is not to be severe, only he is to be beaten.” (Orach
Chaiim, 496.) In the Yad Hachasakah we find the same severity, and the
same exception.
יום טוב שני אף על פי שהוא מדברי סופרים כל דבר שאסור בראשון אסור בשני .
וכל המחלל יום טוב שני ואפילו של ראש השנה בין בדבר שהוא משום שבות ובין
במלאכה בין שיצא חוץ לתחום מכין אותו מכת מרדות או מנדין אותו אם לא יהיה
מן התלמידים ׃
“Although the second holy day is only of the words of the Scribes, every
thing that is forbidden on the first day, is forbidden on it also. And
every one who professes the second holy day, even that of the new year,
whether it be in a matter relating to the sabbatism, or by work, or by
going beyond the Sabbath limit, is to receive the beating denounced
against rebellion, or to be excommunicated, unless he be a learned man.”
(Hilchoth Jom. Tov., c. i. 24.) The hardship, oppression, and severity
of this ordinance are apparent at first sight, and are severely felt by
many a poor Jew in this city, who hardly knows how to get bread for
himself and his children. In every case it robs him in one week of two
days, on which God has allowed him to work, and to endeavour to gain a
livelihood. But if the first day of a festival happen on a Thursday,
then that day, Friday, and Saturday, he dare not do anything to earn the
means of subsistence for his family. Sunday is the Christian Sabbath, so
that in one week four successive days are lost, and in the following
week four more. What, then, is the poor man to do? If he does not work,
his children may starve; if he makes use of the time allowed him by his
merciful God, and pursues his daily occupations, he transgresses a
command of unmerciful men, and renders himself obnoxious to his more
bigoted brethren. True that they cannot now beat him with the stripes
awarded to the rebellious, and that they would hardly dare, in the
present state of things, to excommunicate him; yet there are other ways
and means of persecution more secret, but equally sure. But whatever be
the present circumstances, the cruel and oppressive spirit of the oral
law remains the same. If the Rabbinists had the power, they would soon
proceed to excommunicate and flog all the profaners of the second holy
day. We appeal, then, to the common sense of every Jew, and ask him,
What right have men to rob the poor of that time which God hath given
them? or to sentence a man who only goes to get bread for his children,
and in so doing transgresses none of God’s commandments, to
excommunication or flogging, especially to that severe species of
flogging here specified?
The flogging here spoken of is called מכת מרדות, “the flogging of
rebellion,” and is altogether different from that merciful punishment
prescribed in the law. God says, “And it shall be, if the wicked man be
worthy to be beaten, that the judge shall cause him to lie down, and to
be beaten before his face, according to his fault by a certain number.
Forty stripes he may give him, and not exceed; lest, if he should
exceed, and beat him above these with many stripes, then thy brother
should seem vile to thee.” (Deut. xxv. 2, 3.) Here, as everywhere else,
in the midst of judgment, God remembers mercy. The Rabbies, never
satisfied unless they can add to, or diminish from, God’s commandments,
have reduced the number to thirty-nine, lest they should make any
mistake. But to compensate for this diminution, they have invented “the
flogging of rebellion,” which is without number and without mercy, as
may be seen from the following explanation of the Baal Aruch:—
מי שעובר על מצות עשה שאמר לו עשה סוכה עשּה לולב ואינו עושה מכין אותו עד
שתצא נשמתו בלא אומד ובלא מכה משולשה וכן מי שעובר על דברי חכמים מכין אותו
בלא מספר ובלא מנין ובלא אומד ולמה קורון אותו מכת מרדות שמרד בדברי תורה
ובדברי סופרים ׃
“Whosoever transgresses an affirmative commandment, for instance, he was
commanded to make a tabernacle, or a lulav, and did not, he is to be
beaten until his soul go out, without any consideration of his strength,
and without dividing the flogging into three. And, in like manner,
whosoever transgresses the words of the wise men, he is to be beaten
without number, and without consideration. Why is this called the
flogging of rebellion? Because he has rebelled against the words of the
law and against the words of the Scribes.” (Baal Aruch, in voc.) This,
then, is the punishment denounced against those who try to get bread for
their children on the second holy day; a punishment invented by the
Rabbies themselves, not against the immoral or the irreligious, but
against the transgressors of their own commandments. What could have
been the spirit, the temper, the religious feeling of such men? Had they
any perception of the merciful character of the law, or any resemblance
to the compassionate nature of the God of Israel? Can you put any
confidence in the religious instruction of those who would excommunicate
or flog a fellow-creature to death because he obeyed the instincts of
nature, because he could not stay at home and listen to the cries of his
famishing children, but went forth, to procure them food in the manner,
and on the day which God had permitted him to do so? These are the men
who condemned Jesus of Nazareth to death, and this is the religion of
the oral law, which you prefer to the mild and merciful doctrines of
Christianity. If Rabbinism had continued in its power, you would have
been exposed to all the severity of this intolerance. The triumph of
Christianity has, in this respect, also been a blessing to the Jewish
nation, and the power of the followers of Jesus of Nazareth protects you
from excommunication and corporal chastisement.
The cruelty and hardship of the imposition of a second holy day, with
such a punishment annexed appears not only from the circumstance of its
being altogether a human institution, but further, that the original
object of its institution has long since ceased. The Scribes appointed
the observance of two days at a time, when the feast-days were fixed by
the appearance of the moon, lest those at a distance from Jerusalem
should keep a wrong day, but now that they are fixed by calculation,
this is altogether unnecessary.
בזמן הזה שאין שם סנהדרים ובית דין של ארץ ישראל קובעין על חשבון זה היה מן
הדין שיהיו בכל המקומות עושין יום טוב אחד בלבד אפילו המקומות הרחוקות
שבחוץ לארץ כמו בני ארץ ישראל שהכל על חשבון אחד סומכין וקובעין אבל תקנת
חכמים הוא שיזהרו במנהג אבותיהם שבידם ׃
“In the present time, when there is no Sanhedrin, nor house of judgment
in the land of Israel, the feasts are fixed by calculation, and
therefore all places, even those that are remote from the land of
Israel, ought properly to observe only one day as a holy day, as well as
the inhabitants of that country, for all depend on and fix the feast by
one and the same calculation; but it is an ordinance of the wise men to
adhere diligently to the custom of their forefathers.” (Hilchoth Kiddush
Hachodesh, c. v. 5.) There is, therefore, no excuse for this burden
imposed upon the poor, and much less for the cruel punishments,
denounced against those who cease to observe what is confessedly an
useless custom. How different is the doctrine of Christianity with
respect to such days. No excommunication, no flogging, no imposing of
burdens upon the consciences of our brethren. The New Testament condemns
even all rash judgment in such matters. It says, “Who art thou, that
judgeth another man’s servant? To his own master he standeth or falleth.
Yea he shall be holden up, for God is able to make him stand. One man
esteemeth one day above another; another esteemeth every day alike. Let
every man be fully persuaded in his own mind. He that regardeth the day,
regardeth it to the Lord; and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord
he doth not regard it. He that eateth, eateth to the Lord, for he giveth
God thanks; and he that eateth not, to the Lord he eateth not, and
giveth God thanks. For none of us liveth to himself, and no man dieth to
himself. For whether we live, we live onto the Lord, and whether we die,
we die unto the Lord; whether we live, therefore, or die, we are the
Lord’s.” (Rom. xiv. 2-8.) Here is the spirit of love and mercy, and
therefore the spirit of God. How is it, then, that Jesus and his
disciples were able to overcome the prejudices of their times, and to
stem the torrent of authority and learning, which was altogether in
favour of the opposite opinions? How is it, if they were impostors and
deceivers that they have left a tolerant and merciful system, whilst the
Scribes and Pharisees, who, according to that supposition, were the true
servants of God, have left a religion of oppression and cruelty? “Ye
shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs
of thistles? Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit, and
every evil tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring
forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.”
(Matt. vii. 16-18.) This is certainly true in nature. Now the Pharisees
have brought forth evil fruit, Jesus of Nazareth and his disciples have
brought forth good fruit. What is the conclusion from such premises?
But we have hitherto spoken only generally of the Institution of a
second holy day, we have yet to consider the details of the commandment,
which will show still more clearly that “The Scribes and Pharisees bind
heavy burdens, and grievous to be borne, and lay them on other men’s
shoulders.” (Matt. xxiii. 4.) They are, as usual, most exact in defining
what is and is not work. They say,
כל שאסור בשבת בין משום שהוא דומה למלאכה או מניא לידי מלאכה בין שהוא משום
שבות הרי הוא אסור ביום טוב אלא אם כן היה צורך אכילה וכיוצא בה . או דברים
שהם מותרים ביום טוב כמו שיתבאר בהלכות אלו . וכל שאסור לטלטלו בשבת אסור
לטלטלו ביום טוב אלא לצורך אכילה וכיוצא בה וכל שמותר בשבת מותר ביום טוב ׃
“Every thing that is unlawful on the Sabbath, either because it has the
appearance of work, or because it leads to work, or on account of
sabbatising, is unlawful on a holy day, unless it be necessary for the
preparation of food, and the like, or such things as are allowed on the
holy day, as will be explained in these constitutions. And every thing
that it is unlawful to move on the Sabbath, is also unlawful to be moved
on the holy day, unless it be necessary for food: and every thing that
is lawful on the Sabbath is lawful on a holy day.” (Hilchoth Jom. Tov.,
c. i. 17.) This law effectually ties up the hands of the poor Rabbinist.
He not only dare not pursue his trade, but he dare not make any domestic
arrangement, that might promote order in his house, or conduce to his
comfort. He must not write a letter to his friends, nor even extinguish
a fire, though it be to save his property.
אף על פי שהותרה הבערה ביום טוב שלא לצורך אסור לכבות את האש אפילו הובערה
לצורך אכילה , אהכבוי מלאכה ואין בו צורך אכילה כלל , וכשם שאין מכבין את
האש כך אין מכבין את המר ואם כבה לוקה במי שארג או בנה ... אין מכבין את
הדליקה כדי להציל ממון ביום טוב כדרך שאין מכבין בשבת אלא מניחה ויוצא ׃
“Although it has been pronounced lawful to kindle fire on the holy day,
even where not absolutely necessary, yet it is unlawful to extinguish
fire, even though it had been kindled for the preparation of food; for
the extinguishing of fire is work, and is not at all necessary for the
dressing of food. And as fire is not to be extinguished, so neither is a
candle to be extinguished and whosoever extinguishes is to be flogged,
just as he that weaves or builds.... Fire is not to be extinguished, in
order to save property on a holy day, no more than on the Sabbath. On
the contrary, one lets it burn and goes away.” (Ibid., c. iv. 2, 4.) In
the Arbah Turim this law is laid down with still more precision.
אסור לכבות את הדליקה ביום טוב אפילו רואה את ביתו שנשרף . אסור לכבות
הבקעת בין אם מכבה מפני שחס עליה שלא תשרף בין אם מכבה שלא תתעשן הקדרה .
ודוקא כשאפשר לו להצילה מעישון בלא כבוי כגון שיסירנה מאש זה ויתננה על אש
אחר אבל אם אין לו אש אחר ואם לא יכבנה תתעשן הקדרה מותר לכבותה כדי שלא
תתעשן הקדרה ׃