should see his house burning. It is unlawful to extinguish split wood,
either for the sake of saving it from being burned, or to keep a pot
from being smoked, that is to say, if he can keep it from being smoked
without extinguishing the fire, as by removing it from one fire to
another. But if he has not got another fire, and if the pot must be
smoked unless he extinguish it, then the extinguishing is lawful, that
the pot may not be smoked.” (Orach Chaiim, 514.) Now we put it to the
common sense of every Jew, whether in these laws there be justice,
mercy, and religion; or hardship, inconsideration, and absurdity?
No. XIV.
SEVERITY AND ARTIFICE.
The oral law says, as we saw in our last, that, on a holy day, it is
unlawful to extinguish a fire in order to save a man’s house and
property, but that it is lawful, on the same day, to do the very same
thing to keep a pot of cookery from being smoked. This sentence may
perhaps appear wise and pious to those who have got more houses than
one, or the means of procuring them; but with respect to the poor man,
who in such a case loses his all, and must see his family left without a
roof over their heads or a bed to lie on, this decision is as cruel as
it is senseless. There is, however, a tyranny more dreadful than that
which affects only the temporal condition of men. The spiritual
despotism, which burdens and fetters the conscience and enslaves the
soul, is more intolerable still. Under temporal losses a man’s mind may
be supported by a sense of religion; but when his religion, by the
multiplicity and rigour, and intricacy of its requirements, becomes his
tormentor, man is bereft of his last consolation. The religion of the
oral law appears to us to be of this character, and its enactments with
regard to the holy days will serve to justify this our opinion. We have
seen already, that it requires two days’ cessation from business, where
God requires only one, and that the general rule is, Whatsoever is
unlawful on the Sabbath, is unlawful on the holy day, with one
exception. The Scribes, however, were not content with this, they have
contrived to invent something, which, though lawful on the Sabbath, is
on these days unlawful. They say, that there is a certain class of
things, which, if not deliberately destined the day before for the use
of the holy day, are unlawful. To this class they give the name of מוקצה
_Muktzeh_, which literally signifies “separated or cut off,” but which,
for shortness’ sake and for want of a better word in English, we shall
call “_undestined_.”
ויש ביום טוב מה שאין בשבת איסור מוקצה שהמוקצה אסור ביום טוב ומותר בשבת
מפני שיום טוב קל משבת אסרו בו המוקצה שמא יבואו לזלזל בו ׃
“There is on the holy day one thing which is not found on the Sabbath,
and that is, the forbidding of the _undestined_, for the _undestined is_
unlawful on the holy day, and is lawful on the Sabbath. Because the holy
day is less sacred than the Sabbath, they forbade the _undestined_ on
that day, lest persons should be led to make light of it.” (Hilchoth
Jom. Tov. c. i. 17.)
כיצד תרנגולת העומדת לגדל ביצים ושור הצומד לחרישה ויוני שובך ופירות
העומדין לסחורה כל אלו וכיוצא בהן מוקצה הן ואסור לאכול מהן ביום טוב עד
שיכין אותה מבערב ויחשוב עליהם לאכילה ׃
“For instance, a hen that is kept for the purpose of hatching eggs, and
an ox that is kept for ploughing, pigeons in a pigeon house, and fruits
that are kept for sale, all these and the like are _undestined_, and it
is unlawful to eat of them on a holy day, unless a man destine them on
the eve preceding, and form an intention to eat them.” (Ibid.) By this
law a numerous class of things is forbidden, which God has no where
forbidden, and fresh chains are forged for the conscience. An unlearned
man can hardly tell what does or does not belong to the class, and if he
be in doubt must first go to the rabbi, before he can eat or make use of
any thing doubtful; for this definition extends not only to eatables,
but to other things, as for instance, fuel. Suppose, for example, that a
man or a family had eaten nuts or almonds on the eve of the holy day, is
it lawful or unlawful to burn the shells on the holy day itself? The
Word of God leaves the Jew at perfect liberty to do as he pleases, but
the oral law tells him that he may by doing either commit a great sin.
If he cannot resolve his scruples in this matter, he must be content to
go to the rabbi or some learned man, and submit to his decision, and
thus every unlearned and devout Jew is brought into complete captivity
to the decisions of the learned. Another very similar law, and tending
to the same bondage, is that which makes any thing that is born or comes
into existence on the holy day, unlawful.
וכשם שהמוקצה אסור ביום טוב כך הנולד אסור . חול מכין לשבת וחול מכין ליום
טוב אבל אין יום טוב מכין לשבת ולא שבת מכינה ליום טוב . לפיכך ביצה שנולדה
ביום טוב אחר השבת אסורה ׃
“And as the undestined is unlawful on the holy day, so also what is born
is unlawful. On a common day a man may destine things for the Sabbath,
and also for the holy day. But on a holy day things may not be destined
for the Sabbath, nor on the Sabbath for the holy day, therefore an egg
that is laid on the holy day after the Sabbath is unlawful.” (Ibid.) Now
not to speak of the minute trifling of this law, there are cases where
it may become very oppressive. Suppose that by some means an unlawful
egg should get amongst a number of lawful eggs, they would all become
unlawful.
ואפילו נתערבה באלף כולן אסורות ׃
“Yea, though it should be mixed up amongst a thousand, they are all
unlawful.” It is true that the rabbies endeavour to guard against such
on accident, by forbidding the removal of such an egg on the holy day;
but a Gentile or a child might, through inadvertently putting such an
egg amongst others, produce great inconvenience or even loss, and to
this the poor man must submit, or burden his conscience with a wilful
transgression. But this law forbidding to eat or move whatsoever comes
into existence on the holy day extends beyond the class of eatables.
Wood accidentally broken on this day belongs to this class, and it is
therefore unlawful to use it as fuel, or to move it. In like manner,
ashes of wood that has been burnt on the holy day, is considered as
having come into existence, and it is a sin to move it, when once it has
cooled. And again, if a fire should go out on the holy day, it is a
grave question whether the fuel that remains may be kindled again.
Thus the conscience is burdened with definitions of unlawful, but the
directions about things lawful are quite as numerous and perplexing. For
instance, it is lawful to make a fire on a holy day, and to put on the
pot for cooking, but an unlearned man or woman may commit a sin in the
mode of doing it, and, therefore, the Baal Turim says,
כשעושה האש ונותן עליה קדירה צריך ליזהר בסדור העצים ובנתינת הקדירה עליהם
שלא יהיה דומה לבנין דאמר רב יהודה מדורתא מלמעלה למטה שרי , ממטה למעלה
אסור ׃
“When one makes a fire and puts on a pot, it is necessary to be very
careful in the arranging of the wood, and the mode of setting the pot
upon it, so that there should be no resemblance to budding, for Rav
Judah has said, every pile of wood begun from the top to the bottom is
lawful, from the bottom to the top is unlawful.” (Orach Chaiim, 502.)
For this reason very minute directions are given for the performance of
each of these operations. The fire is to be made in the following
manner:—
העושה מדורה ביום טוב כשהוא עורך את העצים אינו מניח זה על זה עד שיסדר
המערכה מפני שנראה כבונה . ואף על פי שהוא בנין עראי אסור אלא או שופך
העצים בערבוב או עורך בשנוי . כיצד מניח עץ למעלה ומניח אחר תחתיו ואחר
תחתיו עד שהוא מגיע לארץ ׃
“He that makes a pile of fire on a holy day, when he is arranging the
wood, is not to lay one piece upon another, so as to make an orderly
arrangement, for that looks as if he were building; and although it be
an accidental building it is unlawful. But either he is to scatter the
wood in confusion, or to arrange them with some variation. How so? He is
to lay one piece at the top, and another piece under it, and another
under that, until it reaches the ground.” (Hilchoth Jom. Tov. c. iv.
14.) In like manner the pot is not to be placed upon stones, or whatever
else is to support it, but is to be held up, and the support placed
under it; and so with other things. The great principle is, that some
difference is to be made between the work done on the holy day and on a
common day, and therefore in the carrying of wine, or wood, or other
things, they are not to be carried in a basket, nor as usual, but on the
shoulder or in some extraordinary way. Now, as the speculations of men
who had not much to do, or who chose to devote the powers that God had
given them to such minutiæ, these things hardly appear as harmless; but
when imposed as a burden upon the consciences of others, they are
utterly unjustifiable, and if they were found in the New Testament, they
would furnish abundant matter for Jewish wit and ridicule. They would
naturally say, what, is this the religion that the Messiah came to
teach? Had he nothing better to do than to look after the making of
fires, and the putting on of pots? But this is not the religion of Jesus
of Nazareth, nor of his apostles. There is nothing similar in the New
Testament. This is the religion, and these the laws of those who reject
him.
But this system of minute legislation has another and a worse
consequence; it leads to difficulty, and the difficulty leads to
artifice, and thus the mind, instead of being improved and benefited, is
actually corrupted by the practice of this rabbinical religion. Thus the
oral law says, that it is unlawful on a holy day to cook food for the
following day, especially to a common day, but that if any of the food
remain it is lawful. What is the consequence? Naturally that more food
is prepared than is necessary for the holy day because they know that
this may be eaten the day after. And this is no imaginary deduction of
ours, it is a case propounded most fully, and allowed by the rabbies.
ממלאה אשה קדירה בשר אף על פי שאינה צריכה אלא לחתיכה אחת . ממלא נחתום
הבית של מים אף על פי שאינו צריך אלא לקיתון אחד . ממלאה אשה תנור פת אף על
פי שאינה צריכה אלא לככר אחד שבזמן שהפת מרובה בתנור היא נאפת יפה . ומולח
אדם כמה חתיכות בשר בבת אחת אף על פי שאינו צריך אלא לחתיכה אחת וכן כל
כיוצא בזה ׃
“A woman may fill a pot with meat, though she wants only one piece. A
cook may fill a boiler with water, though he wants only the least
quantity. A woman may fill an oven with bread, though she want only one
loaf, for when the oven is full, the bread bakes better. A man may salt
a great many pieces of meat at once, although he require only one piece;
and so with similar things.” (Hilchoth Jom. Tov. c. i. 10.) Now this is
plainly an evasion of what is considered a Divine command. In like
manner the oral law forbids the preparing of food for Gentiles.
אין אופין ומבשלין ביום טוב כדי להאכיל גוים או כלבים שנאמר הוא לבדו יעדו
יעשה לכם לכם ול לגוים לכם ולא לכלבים ׃
“It is unlawful to bake or to cook on a holy day, in order to feed
Gentiles or dogs; for it is said, ‘That only may be done for you.’ (Exod
xii. 16.) ‘For you,’ and not for Gentiles. ‘For you,’ and not for dogs.”
(Ibid.) The principle of this decision may lead to several difficulties:
first, a Jew may have Gentiles in his employ and service whom he boards,
what is he to do then? This difficulty he may get over in the manner
just mentioned, by having more cooked than he wants, then it is lawful
for the Gentile to eat of the surplus. But suppose a Gentile and a Jew
had a beast in partnership, and either wished to have it slaughtered on
the holy day, is it lawful for a Jew to slaughter it? According to the
above decision, it would appear not, for it is preparing food to feed a
Gentile; but the rabbies have found out a reason for evading the
command.
בהמה שחציה של גוי וחציה של ישראל מותר לשחטו ביום טוב שאי אפשר לאכול ממנה
כזית בשר בלא שחיטה ׃
“A beast which partly belongs to a Gentile and partly to an Israelite,
may lawfully be slaughtered on a holy day, for it is impossible to eat
the size of an olive of the meat, if it be not slaughtered by a Jew.”
(Ibid.) This, also, is nothing more nor less than an evasion. But now
suppose that a Jew finds on a holy day, and after he has eaten his
meals, that a beast belonging to him is likely to die, and that
therefore he is likely to lose it altogether, what is he to do? The oral
law lays it down that it is unlawful to slaughter for the following day,
and yet if it die without slaughtering, it must be totally unlawful to
eat. In this case there is a saving clause which removes the difficulty.
מי שהיתה לו בהמה מסוכנת לא ישחוט אותה ביום טוב אלא אם כן יודע שיוכל
לאכול ממנה כזית צלי מבעוד יום , כדי אלא ישחוט ביום טוב מה שיאכל בחול ׃
“He that has a beast near unto death must not slaughter it on a holy
day, unless he knows that he can eat of its flesh the size of an olive,
roasted, whilst it is still day, that he may not slaughter on a holy day
what is to be eaten on a common day.” (Ibid.) Here the evasion is
palpable. The man has already eaten his meals, he knows that it is not
for the holy day, that it is simply to save himself from loss, and yet
the oral law obliges him to be guilty of deceit, and to eat a minute
particle of it, that the appearance may be kept up. If it were intended
mercifully to save the poor from loss, why not make it lawful at once,
without any such condition? Here the mercy of the enactment is quite
destroyed by the encouragement of deceit. In the same way the oral law
forbids open, straightforward buying and selling on a holy day, and yet
prescribes a method of evasion.
לא יאמר אדם לטבח תן לי בדינר בשר אלא תן לי חלק או חצי חלק ולמחר עושין
השבון אל שוויו ׃
“A man must not say to a butcher, Give me meat for so much money, only,
Give a portion, or half a portion, and on the morrow they settle the
account as to its value.” (Ibid. c. iv. 20.)
הולך אדם אצל חנוני או רועה הרגיל אצלו או אצל הפטם הרגיל אצלו ולוקח ממנו
בהמות ועופות וכל מה שירצה והוא שלא יזכור לו שום דמים ולא סכום מנין ׃
“A man may go to his accustomed shopkeeper, or shepherd, or grazier, and
take from him cattle, fowls, and whatsoever he pleases; only he must not
mention to him any money, nor any number.” (Ibid.) To take any thing
from a shopkeeper by weight or measure is also forbidden, if it be done
openly and honestly, but allowed if it be done cunningly and
deceitfully.
וכן לא יקח מבעל החנות במדה או במשקל אלא כיצד הוא עושה אומר לחנוני מלא לי
כלי זה ולמחר נותן לו שוויו ואפילו היה כלי המיוחד למדה ימלאנו והוא שלא
יזכור לו שם מדה ׃
“And thus a man must not take any thing from a shopkeeper by weight or
measure, only let him say to the shopkeeper, Fill this vessel for me;
and on the morrow he gives him the value. And even though the vessel
should be one set apart for the purpose of measuring, he may fill it,
provided that the name of a measure be not mentioned.” (Ibid.) In all
these cases it is plain that a real transaction of buying and selling
takes place, and on the showing of the rabbies themselves, contrary to
the Word of God. Those men who would flog a fellow-creature for not
keeping their own commandment of a second holy day, make no scruple of
devising and prescribing a system of fraudulent evasion of God’s
commands. Perhaps some may think that we use too strong language when we
apply the words cunning and deceit to those devices of the oral law, but
this language was suggested by the oral law itself, which does not
scruple to use similar words, and to pronounce that, in similar cases,
cunning or deceit is lawful.
אותו ואת בנו שנפלו לבור מעלה את הראשון על מנת לשחטו ואינו שוחטו . ומערים
ומעלה את השני על מנת לשחטו ושוחט אי זה מהן שירצה משום צער בעלי חיים
התירו להערים ׃
“If a first-born beast and its offspring fall into a pit, the first is
to be helped out on condition of slaughtering it, but it is not
slaughtered. Then guile is to be used, and the second also helped out on
condition of slaughtering it, and then they slaughter which of the two
they please. On account of the affliction of the animals, it has been
pronounced lawful to use guile.” (Ibid. c. ii.) Here the oral law speaks
plainly, it fairly says that guile may be used. It is no defence to say,
that this guile was suggested by compassion for the animals. If it be
lawful to help the animals out of the pit at all, it is lawful to do it
without any guile, openly and honestly. And if it be unlawful to help
them out, it is doubly unlawful to do so through guile and deceit, as if
God was ignorant of the thoughts and designs of their hearts, and could
be satisfied with false and fictitious conditions. But there is another
case, where this same word is also used, and where the excuse of
compassion is altogether out of the question.
המפשיט עור בהמה ביום טוב לא ימלחנו שזה עיוד הוא ונמצא עושה מלאכה שלא
לצורך אכילה ... ומותר למלוח בשר לצלי על גבי העור ומערימים בדבר זה . כיצד
מולח מעט בשר מכאן ומעט מכאן עד שימלח העור כולו ׃
“He that takes off the hide of a beast on a holy day, must not salt it,
for this is work, and he would be guilty of doing work that is not
necessary for the preparation of food.... But it is lawful to salt meat
for roasting on the top of the hide, and in this matter guile is
employed. How so? Thus. A little meat is salted on one part, and then a
little on another part, until the whole hide be salted.” (Ibid. c. iii.
4.) Here no defence whatever can be offered. The oral law confesses that
to salt a hide is unlawful, its compilers therefore set to work to find
out a method of doing what was forbidden, and yet have the appearance of
keeping the law, and they sagaciously discovered the above solution of
the difficulty. Thus the law of God is made null by the traditions of
men. The commandments of the Scribes are enforced by flogging and
excommunication, but full permission given to violate God’s commands, if
only an appearance of obedience can be preserved. No wonder that Jesus
of Nazareth, whose characteristic is mildness and gentleness, used such
harsh language to the authors of this system. His general address to
them was, “Woe unto you, Scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites.” They
professed the utmost anxiety to have the law of God observed. This was
the professed object of their commandments. They were invented as a
hedge to keep off every Israelite from even an approach to
transgression; and they enforced the observance of this defence by the
severest punishments. But where the law of God interfered with their
worldly interest, their profit or their gain, they fearlessly made void
the law, and inculcated a system of guile and evasion. And this is
perhaps the most deadly element in the Talmudic potion. The human heart
is ever ready to imbibe what is bad, and the human mind most quick in
generalizing the principles of evil. The only efficient remedy for this
disease of head and heart is the inculcation of those pure and holy
principles, which God has graciously revealed. But when these principles
are themselves adulterated, and a system of guileful evasion taught as
the religion of Moses and the prophets, what are the results to be
expected? The cruel oppression of the poor is bad enough. The enslaving
the consciences of the weak is worse; but the corrupting the minds of
the simple by such pernicious doctrines, is the worst of all. Yet this
is the work of the Jewish religion, as taught in the oral law, and as
recognized in the prayers of the synagogue. We do not mean to say that
there is anything peculiar in the system. We know that the Provincial
Letters develop a Gentile system as corrupt and corrupting. But that
system has nothing to do with the Christianity of the New Testament. Our
forefathers renounced it long ago. The Jews still adhere to the oral
law, and in their prayers and observances still acknowledge its Divine
authority; and wherever Judaism exists in vigour, these are the
doctrines instilled into the minds of the young, and to which the flower
of the Jewish nation devote the vigour of their manhood and the judgment
of their old age. That there are Jews who abhor this system, and have
adopted the purer principles of the New Testament, even though they do
not profess Christianity, we well know. But how is it that there are
none who have courage to protest against it? How is it that there is not
one who comes forward to emancipate his brethren from moral slavery and
the galling chain of superstition and error? “There is none to guide her
among all the sons whom she hath brought forth: neither is there any
that taketh her by the hand of all the sons that she hath brought up.”
(Isaiah li. 18.)
No. XV.
SABBATH MIXTURE.
In discussing the substance and tendency of the oral law, the very
nature of our design compels us to dwell upon its peculiarities, and to
notice those traits which appear as its essential characteristics. Our
object is not, primarily, to show its defects and fruits, but to prove
that it is not of Divine authority. In proving this, it is absolutely
necessary to show, by a comparison with the law and the prophets, as the
unerring standard of right and wrong, that the system is bad. We know,
and have more than once admitted, that as it is not a mere human
invention, but a corruption of a divinely revealed religion, it must
contain much that is good. But this admission no more justifies the
system, than a small quantity of gold in a mixed metal would prove that
the whole mass is gold. And this comparison may be well illustrated by
the holy day constitutions, which have lately occupied our attention.
The concluding paragraph of these constitutions contains several
beautiful and pious precepts; as, for example, after the command to
rejoice on such days, and to provide nuts and such-like things for the
children, new clothes and ornaments for the women, and good eating and
drinking for the men, we read as follows:—
וכשהוא אוכל ושותה חייב להאכיל לגר ליתום ולאלמנה עם שאר העניים אבל מי
שנועל דלתי ביתו ואוכל ושותה עם בניו ואשתו ואינו מאכיל ומשקה לעניים ולמרי
נפש אין זו מצוה אלא שמחת כרסו ועל אלו נאמר זבחיהם כלחם אונים להם כל
אוכליו יטמאו כי לחמם לנפשם וגו׳ ׃
“And when he eats and drinks, he is bound to feed the stranger, the
orphan, and the widow, with the other poor. But he that bolts the doors
of his house, and eats and drinks with his children and his wife, but
does not furnish meat and drink to the poor and afflicted, is not to be
regarded as having fulfilled the commandment; on the contrary, his joy
is that of a glutton, and of such persons it is said, ‘Their sacrifices
shall be unto them as the bread of mourners; all that eat thereof shall
be polluted: for their bread for their soul shall not come into the
house of the Lord.’ (Hos. ix. 4.)” (Arbah Turim, 529.) This makes a
merciful provision for the poor, and as teaching all who partake of the
good things of this world to remember their poorer brethren, is worthy
of praise and imitation. We know also that this charity is practised by
all devout Jews in every part of the world, and that they are on this
account entitled to the respect of all who can appreciate benevolence.
But the reason why every believer in revelation will approve this
commandment is, because it accords with the Word of God. Moses has made
this precept a part of his law: “The stranger, and the fatherless, and
the widow, which are within thy gates, shall come, and shall eat and be
satisfied; that the Lord thy God may bless thee in all the work of thine
hand which thou doest.” (Deut. xiv. 29.) And in the New Testament there
is found a similar command: “When thou makest a dinner or a supper, call
not thy friends, nor thy brethren, neither thy kinsmen nor thy rich
neighbours; lest they also bid thee again, and a recompense be made
thee. But when thou makest a feast, call the poor, the maimed, the lame,
the blind; and thou shalt be blessed; for they cannot recompense thee;
for thou shalt be recompensed at the resurrection of the just.” (Luke
xiv. 12-14). But excellent as this rabbinical commandment is in itself,
it loses considerably when interpreted according to the system. A person
acquainted only with the law of Moses, or the doctrine of Jesus of
Nazareth, would say, that one of the most lovely features in the command
is the universal love inculcated towards the stranger as well as the
Israelites. But an acquaintance with the oral law would compel him to
retract this commendation, for there universally the stranger is
interpreted to mean, “a proselyte to Judaism,” as for instance—
אהבת הגר שבא ונכנס תחת כנפי השכינה שתי מצוות עשה , אחת מפני שהוא בכלל
רעים , ואחת מפני שהוא גר והתורה אמרה ואהבתם את הגר ׃