Shechinah, is to fulfil two affirmative precepts; one, because he is
included in the number of those considered ‘neighbours,’ and a second,
because the law says, ‘Ye shall love the stranger.’” (Hilchoth Deoth, c.
vi. 4.) Here, then, that comprehensive word “stranger” is narrowed down
to the signification “religious proselyte,” and abundance of similar
passages have already been given in Nos. 4 and 5. But even with this
great drawback we admit that there is much to be commended in the above
commandment. We are quite willing to recognize all the good which we
can, and therefore add another passage or two which deserve notice.
מדת החסידים אשר השם לנגדם תמיד ובכל דרכיהם ידעוהו בעת שמחתם אז יותר
ויותר מברכים ומשבחים להקב׳׳ה אשר שמחם . ויאמר האדם בלבו בעת שמחתו והנאתו
אם כך היא שמחת העולם הזה אשר הוא הבל כי יש אחרים תוגה וצער אם כן מה תהיה
שמחת העה׳׳ב התמידה שאין אחריה תוגה ׃
“It is a characteristic of the pious, who set the Lord always before
them, and in all their ways acknowledge him, that in the time of their
joy they multiply still more the blessings and praises of the Holy One,
blessed be He, who makes them to rejoice. At such a season, too, a man
ought to think, if such be the joy of this world, which is vanity, for
it is followed by sorrow and trouble, what will be the joy of the world
to come, which is everlasting, and to which no sorrow can succeed.”
(Arbah Turim, ibid.) This passage also, as resting upon the
unsophisticated Word of God, must receive unqualified assent. The
character of the pious is here beautifully described by the union of two
passages of Scripture. They are those “who set the Lord always before
them,” (Ps. xvi. 8,) and who “in all their ways acknowledge him.” (Prov.
iii. 6.) God grant that all, both Jews and Christians, may earnestly
endeavour to realize this character. The piety of this passage is
equalled by the prudence of one of their police regulations for the
three great feasts.
חייבין ב׳׳ד להעמיד שוטרים ברגלים שיהיו שוטטים ומחפשים בגנות ופרדסים ועל
הנהרות שלא יתקבצו שם לאכול ולשתות אנשים ונשים ויבואו לידי עבירה ׃
“The tribunal is bound, at the three feasts, to appoint officers for the
purpose of going about and inspecting gardens, and parks, and rivers,
that men and women may not congregate in such places to eat and drink,
and be led to commit sin.” If the authors of the oral law had confined
themselves to such commandments as these, there would be but little to
blame. But unfortunately the good and useful precepts bear but a small
proportion to the whole, and are often directly counteracted by the
peculiar principles of the system. The above general description of
piety is unexceptionable, but the detail of the requirements, even for
the holy day alone, is such as must effectually pervert and distort the
features there delineated. How can a man have a just idea of setting the
Lord always before him, who thinks that a cunning evasion of God’s
commandments is permitted, as was shown in the last number? Or how can a
man be said to acknowledge God, when his mind is filled and occupied
with the manifold and perplexing ceremonies of man’s institution? Of
these inventions many have already been given, but more remain, and the
Jewish Prayer-book for the passover especially reminds us of one.
דיני עירוב תבשילין ׃
“The laws of the mixture for the cooking of victuals.” This oral law has
made it unlawful on the holy day to prepare food for the Sabbath.
יום טוב שחל להיות ערב שבת אין אופין ומבשלין ביום טוב מה שהוא אוכל למחר
בשבת ׃
“When a holy day falls on the eve of the Sabbath, it is unlawful to bake
or to cook on that day what is to be eaten on the morrow, _i.e._ on the
Sabbath.” (Hilchoth Jom. Tov. c. vi. 1.) This law may of course create a
great inconvenience, for if nothing remains after the meals of the holy
day, there will be no food for the Sabbath, and on that day the law of
Moses forbids all cooking. And, strange to say, the evasion which is
allowed at other times is here forbidden. A man is not permitted to cook
a surplus of victuals under the pretence that it is for the holy day.
Another and more solemn mode of evasion has been invented, and is thus
prescribed in the Jewish Prayer-book—
אם חל ערב פסח ביום ד׳ אז צריכין לעשות ערוב תבשילין קרדם י׳׳ט . וכך מעשהו
. לוקחין מצה שלימה וכזית תבשיל או בשר או ביצה צלויה ומניחין אותה על המצה
. ובעל הבית וכו׳ ׃
Of which D. Levi gives the following translation, which though not very
literal, is preferable to a new one, as occurring in an authorized
edition of the Jewish prayers:—
“If the first day of the festival happens on the Thursday, the following
ceremony is observed. On the day preceding the festival, the master of
every family takes a whole cake and a piece of meat, fish, or a roasted
egg; and having delivered them to one standing by, to denote that all
the other Jews in the city that may have forgotten to make the mixture
shall, nevertheless, have the benefit of the said mixture, so as to be
able to prepare on the festival what is necessary for the Sabbath, he
then says the following:—
ברוך אתה יי אלהינו מלך העולם אשר קדשנו במצותיו וצונו על מצות ערוב ׃
בהדין ערובא יהא שרי לנא למיפא ולבשלא ולאטמנא ולאדלקא שרגא ולמעבד כל
צרכנא מיומא טבא לשבתא . לנו ולכל ישראל הדרים בעיר הזאת ׃
“Blessed art thou, O Lord, our God! King of the universe, who has
sanctified us with thy commandments, and commanded us concerning the
mixture.”
“By this mixture it shall be allowable for us to bake, boil, and to keep
the victuals warm: to light up lights, and to do, and prepare all things
necessary, on the festival for the Sabbath; we, and all Israel that
dwell in this city.” (Levi’s Prayers, vol. v. pp. 4, 5.) Now, against
this ceremony several and serious objections may be made. First, if it
be absolutely unlawful on the holy day to cook for the Sabbath-day, how
is the unlawfulness removed, by going through a trifling ceremony, and
repeating a few words? The cooking is, in the sight of God, either
lawful or unlawful. If lawful, then this ceremony is utterly useless,
and the solemn calling upon God is only a solemn profanation. If
unlawful, then nothing but a dispensation from Israel’s great lawgiver,
God himself, can make it lawful. Any thing short of this must, by every
honest man, be regarded either as an evasion, or a bold and wilful
transgression. Secondly, the unlawfulness on which this ceremony is
founded, is altogether of man’s making—God has nowhere forbidden the
Jews to prepare for Sabbath on the holy day. The Scribes have here as
elsewhere dared to add to the law of God.
ואיסר זה מדברי סופרים כדי שלא יבוא לבשל מיום טוב לחול . שקל וחומר הוא
לשבת אינו מבשל כל שכן לחול ׃
“This prohibition is of the words of the Scribes, that a man may not be
led to prepare on a holy day for a common day. For if he feel it
unlawful to cook for Sabbath, still more will he feel this for a common
day.” (Hilchoth Jom. Tov. vi. 1.) Here it is plainly confessed that the
prohibition is not from God but from man. A reason is assigned for this
addition, which is unsatisfactory, and shows that the Scribes thought
the law imperfect, and themselves wiser than God. They were afraid, if
men got into a habit of cooking on the holy day for the following day,
when that day was the Sabbath, they might get into the habit of cooking
generally for the following day, and thus cook for common days. But did
not God foresee this possibility, and know the frailty of human nature
just as well as the rabbies? why then did he not take this precaution
himself? If this precaution be absolutely necessary, as it was not given
by God, it will necessarily follow that God did not give that which was
necessary, and therefore that the law of God was imperfect until it was
mended by the rabbies. If the law, as given by God, be perfect, and who
can deny it without blasphemy, then this precaution of the rabbies is
useless, and they are proved guilty of making additions to the law of
God, and of imposing needless burdens on the consciences of their
brethren. If this ceremony were left to the free will of every
individual, it would be very different, but it is imposed as an
indispensable duty, and a man pronounced a sinner if he does not comply.
מי שאיפשר לו לערב ואינו מערב אלא שרוצה לסמוך על עירובו של גדול העיר נקרא
פושע ואינו יוצא בו ׃
“He who can make the mixture, and does not, but chooses to depend on the
mixture made by the great men of the city, is called a sinner, and has
not fulfilled his duty.” (Arbah Turim, 527.) Here then his conscience is
burdened, but further, he may be exposed to considerable inconvenience,
to escape from which he is driven again to a prescribed exercise of
artifice and guile.
מי שלא הניח עירוב תבשילין ולא הניחו לו אחרים כשם שאסור לו לבשל ולאפות כך
קמחו ומאכלו אסור . ואסור לאחר שהניח לעצמו לבשל ולאפות לזה שלא הניח עד
שיקנה לו . שנמצא זה מבשל ואופה שלו שהרי קנהו ואם רצה יתן אחר כך לזה שלא
הניח במתנה ׃
“He that has not performed the ceremony of the mixture for himself, and
for whom others have not done it, as it is unlawful for him to boil or
to bake, so his flour and food are unlawful; and it is unlawful for
another, who has performed the ceremony for himself, to boil and bake
for such an one until he buy for himself. Then he may boil and bake of
his own, for he has bought it, and if he please may make a present of it
to the other.” Here of course the purchase is fictitious. In like manner
it is unlawful for him to light the Sabbath candle. This would be a
great misfortune, and a learned rabbi has accordingly found out a remedy
of the same kind.
כתב הר׳ מאיר מרוטנבורק שיכול לחפש בחדר שום חפץ בנר אפילו מבעוד יום
ולהניחנו דולק עד הלילה ׃
“Rabbi Meyer, of Rothenburg, has said in his writings, that a man may
seek for something in the room by the light of a candle, yea though it
be still day, and then leave it lighting until night.” (Arbah Turim,
527.) We ask the Jews seriously to consider this specimen of rabbinical
wisdom and conscientiousness. A man who has not performed the ceremony
of the mixture dare not do what God has allowed him to do, he dare not
light the candle for Sabbath, that is, if he does it honestly and
openly, he would, according to the oral law, commit a sin. But then he
may do this same thing by using guile and deceit, which God has
forbidden, and then according to these same teachers, the act is lawful.
He may light a candle under pretence of searching for something, even
though he has the daylight, and therefore evidently does not want it for
that purpose, and then he can leave it lighting. Thus the oral law
teaches that the neglect of a mere human invention is a greater sin than
guile and deceit. Is not this to strain at a gnat and to swallow a
camel? But some Rabbinist may say, if the oral law encourages guile and
deceit, why does it forbid the employment or guile in the preparation of
food for the Sabbath, as has been stated above? This is a curious point,
and deserves attention. The oral law says, if food be left after the
meals of the holy day, it is lawful to eat it on the Sabbath, provided
that no guile be used; but if guile be used, it is unlawful. Whereas, if
a man wilfully neglect the ceremony of the mixture, and cook
notwithstanding for the Sabbath he may lawfully eat what he has
prepared. This has at first sight, the appearance of wishing to
discourage guile, but the reasons, given for this decision, show that
this is far from being the case.
ולמה החמירו ואסרו על המערים ולא אסרו על המזיד שאם התירו למערים נמצאו הכל
מערימיו וישתקע שם ערובי תבשילין . אבל המזיד אינו מצוי ואם עבר היום לא
יעבור פעם אחרת ׃
“What is the reason that they were more severe upon him that used guile
than upon the wilful transgressor, and made it unlawful for the former,
but not for the latter? The reason is this, if they had pronounced it
lawful for him that uses guile, all would use guile, and the very name
of mixture for food would perish. On the other hand, a wilful
transgressor is rare, and if he transgresses to-day, he will not
transgress again.” The employment of guile, then, is not forbidden
because it is odious in the sight of God and man, but simply from the
fear that it might operate prejudicially upon the observance of a
rabbinic command. Such is and must be the effect of multiplying
religious ceremonies, and imposing them upon the conscience as necessary
to salvation. The conscience becomes burdened, and beset with
difficulties, and is glad of any refuge or relief, even though it should
be derived from artifice and deceit. Artifice is at last made lawful, or
even prescribed, as we have seen in many instances, and then religion,
which God intended as a remedy for our moral disease, becomes itself a
new source of infection. But if any burdened conscience should awake and
become sensible of the cheat that has been put upon it by the oral law,
the probability is that it will cast off religion altogether, and
mistake Moses too for a companion or the Scribes and Pharisees; and thus
many a rabbinical Jew has been led to utter infidelity.
But there is still a third objection to be urged against this ceremony
of the mixture, and that is, that it prescribes a form of thanksgiving
to God for appointing that which he never appointed: “Blessed art thou,
O Lord our God! King of the universe! who has sanctified us with thy
commandments, and commanded us concerning the mixture.” Where has God
commanded the mixture? Where, from one end of the law to the other, or
in the prophets, is there one word about this ceremony? It is from first
to last a pure invention of the Scribes. God never appointed it. This
prayer, then, contains a positive untruth, and thus the ignorant and
unlearned are deceived, and taught even in the solemn act of public
worship to believe that God has commanded what he never commanded. The
minds of children, too, are thus imbued with the commandments of men,
and taught in the language of prayer to stamp the divine authority upon
the invention of the Scribes and Pharisees. And this is done not only in
the forests of Poland, or on the uncivilized coasts of Barbary, but here
in England. This ceremony and this prayer are prescribed in the two
editions of the Jewish prayer-book, published by Levi and Alexander. In
this country, where full liberty of conscience prevails, the language of
the synagogue is just the same as in the darkest and most oppressed
regions of the habitable globe. The Jewish children are still taught to
bless God for giving what he never gave, and the sacred voice of prayer
still consecrates the intolerance, the errors, and the absurdities of
the oral law. In other countries, where the circumstances were not so
favourable, the Jews have made more than one attempt to renounce and
repudiate the errors of the Talmud. But in England, whether from
listlessness or from a love to these Talmudic doctrines, we do not
presume to say, nothing has been done either by the German or the
Portuguese Jews. In England the Talmud still maintains its empire of
error and uncharitableness, and spiritual tyranny, and not one
individual has dared publicly to protest against it. We ask the Jews
seriously to consider this matter, and to compare the extracts which we
give with Moses and the prophets; if the oral law agrees with that which
is confessedly the Word of God, then we beg of them to explain the
lawfulness of using guile, of inventing new commandments, and enforcing
them with the severest punishments. But if they decide that these things
are altogether forbidden by God, then we call upon them to protest aloud
against these adulterations of revealed truth.
No. XVI.[17]
INTOLERANCE OF RABBINIC PRAYERS.
In our last number we ventured to say, that in the English synagogues
“The sacred voice of prayer still consecrates the intolerance, the
errors, and the absurdities of the oral law;” and we gave an instance in
proof of our assertion. But to some Israelites, who have overlooked the
contents of their Prayer-book, this assertion may require more proof; we
therefore, proceed to give it, and first of all with regard to
intolerance. In the ceremonial for the first two evenings of the
Passover, in the midst of the rejoicings and thanksgivings, which the
memory of their great deliverance naturally calls forth, we suddenly
find the following prayer:—
שפוך חמתך אל הגוים אשר לא ידעוך ואל ממלכות אשר בשמך לא קראו . כי אכל את
יעקב ואת נוהו השמו . שפוך עליהם זעמך וחרון אפך ישיגם . תרדף באף ותשמידם
מתחת שמי ה׳ ׃
“Pour out thy wrath upon the heathen that have not known thee, and upon
the kingdoms that have not called upon thy name. For they have devoured
Jacob, and laid waste his dwelling place. (Psalm lxxix. 6, 7.) Pour out
thine indignation upon them, and let thy wrathful anger take hold of
them. (Psalm lxix. 24.) Persecute them in anger, and destroy them from
under the heavens of the Lord.” (Lament. iii. 66.) Here are three
passages of Scripture, taken from their context, and joined together to
make one prayer. In their context, and with reference to the times for
which those portions of Scripture were given by God, they are
intelligible. After the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans, whilst
the Jewish mind was still in a state of violent excitement against the
authors of that calamity, such on imprecation may appear natural. During
the persecutions of the Crusaders or the Inquisition it might be
excusable, but in the present time and circumstances it is indefensible.
Who are the heathen and the kingdoms, whom the offerers of these
petitions wish to be pursued with God’s wrath, and to be destroyed from
under the heavens? Are they the Christians, or the heathen idolaters of
Africa and India? The Mahometans profess a faith in the Unity very
similar to that of the later rabbies: they, therefore, cannot be
intended. If it be said that the idolatrous heathen are here intended,
we must still protest against the intolerance of this imprecation; why
should the Jews wish for their destruction? What evil did these poor
ignorant people ever do to the Jews in England, that they should pray
for their destruction rather than their conversion? If it be said, that
nobody at all is intended in the present day, why, we would ask, is it
still made a part of the Passover ceremonial? We have before us several
copies of the Haggadah, some printed very lately, and it occurs in them
all.
If this were the only passage of the kind to be found in the liturgies
of the synagogue, it might perhaps admit of palliation or excuse, but it
is only one of a similar class, all breathing the same spirit. In the
morning service for the second day of the Passover, as translated by D.
Levi, we find another more fearful still.
ברח דודי אל לבך ועיניך שם , ואם זנחנו טוב מדשם , אנא שמע שאנת קול צורריך
, רוה מדם גושם , ועפרם מחלב ידשם , ופגיהם יעלה באשם ׃
“Hasten, O my beloved, to where thy heart and eyes are; and though we
have cast off that that is good and pleasant, yet hear the roaring
raging voice of those that oppress thy people; satiate the clods with
their blood; manure the earth with their fat; and let the stench of
their carcasses ascend.” (Levi’s Prayers, vol. 5, fol. 142.) The
translation is D. Levi’s, so that it cannot be said, that the sense has
been misrepresented or distorted for polemical purposes. It is the
translation of a Jew, and of a Jew in England, and the title-page tells
us that it is the second edition “carefully revised and corrected, and
illustrated by Isaac Levi.” The title-page also says, “As read in their
synagogues and used in their families.” Is not this prayer intolerant?
Is there any thing like it in the New Testament, or in our Christian
Prayer-books? And yet we are told that modern Judaism is more tolerant
than Christianity, and that it teaches charity to all men. Let not the
Jews think that we impute this spirit to the whole nation. No such
thing. This passage is quoted as a specimen of the spirit of the oral
law and its authors, who not only were possessed of this spirit of
resentment, but so overwhelmed with it, as to transfuse it into their
addresses to the God of mercy, and to prescribe it as a port of the
public worship of the congregation. Whenever introduced, there it still
remains, as a testimony to the spirit of the first opposers of Jesus of
Nazareth, and as a portion of the liturgic service of the synagogue. In
these passages, however, it does not appear what nations are intended;
no name or particular characteristic is given, though the allusion, in
the last quoted prayer, to Isaiah xxxiv., naturally leads the reader to
think of Edom; but in other places a more definite form is prescribed,
from which we find that Edom is the great object of hatred.
ליל שמורים אל חצה , בחצות לילה בתוך מצרים כיצא , גבור על אדום יחצנה כחצה
׃
“God divideth the night of preservation, when in the midst of the night
he went forth through the _land_ of Egypt: may the mighty God also
divide it concerning Edom.” (Levi, ibid. fol. 7.) This is a petition
that God would do to Edom as he did unto Egypt. Again, a little further
on we read,
פסח חרב חרה על אדום , ביד צח ואדום , כימי חג פסח ׃
“On the Passover, a sharp sword shall fall on Edom, by the hand of him
who is white and ruddy, as in the days of the feast of Passover.” (Ibid.
fol. 10.) And so throughout the prayers there are frequent allusions to
this subject, as for instance—
שם יקרא ככתיבתו , מחציו תתמלא תיבתו , עוד תתנשא מלכותו , וכסאו תכון
במלאתו , נכדי שעיר בהכותו , באויביו יתן נקמתו ׃
“Then will his name be pronounced as it is written: when the other half
will complete the word; his dominion also will be greatly exalted, and
his throne be completely established; when he shall smite the
descendants of Esau, and take vengeance on his enemies.” (Ibid. fol.
214.) But these are sufficient to show that Edom is the great object of
antipathy, and of course the great question is, whom do the Jews
understand by Edom? Let the most famous of their rabbies instruct us in
this matter, and first let us hear Maimonides:—
אדומים עובדי עכו׳׳ם הם ויום ראשון הוא יום אידם לפיכך אסור לשאת ולתת עמהם
בא׳׳י יום חמישי ויום ששי שבכל שבת ושבת ואצ׳׳ל יום ראשון עצמו שהוא אסור
בכל מקום ׃
“The Edomites are idolaters, and the first day of the week is the day of
their festival; therefore it is forbidden to have commerce with them in
the land of Israel, on the fifth and sixth day of every week. It is not
necessary to say that the first day itself is every where unlawful.”
(Hilchoth Accum. c. ix. 4.) There is but one class of religionists who
observe the first day of the week as sacred. Now let us hear Kimchi. In
his commentary on Joel iii. 19, “Egypt shall be a desolation, and Edom
shall be a desolate wilderness, for the violence against the children of
Judah, because they have shed innocent blood in their land:” he says,
זכד מצרים בעבור ישמעאלים ואבור מלכות רומי , ואלה שתי האומות הנה הגוברות
זה ימים רבים ותהיינה עד עת הגאולה והיא חיותא רביעאה במראות דניאל ...
ואמר זה בעבור כי מלכות רומי רובם אדומים ואעפ׳׳י שנתערבו בהם עמים רבים
כמו שנתערבו גם כן במלכות ישמעאלים נקראים על העיקר ׃
“The prophet mentions Egypt and Edom: Egypt, on account of the Turks,
and Edom, on account of the Roman empire; and these two have now had
dominion for a long time, and will continue until the redemption. This
is the fourth beast in the visions of Daniel.... And this is said,
because the majority of the Roman empire is composed of Edomites. For
although many other nations are mixed among them, as is also the case
with the Turkish empire, they are called after the root.” Kimchi then
fixes Edom upon the Roman empire, in which he evidently includes the
Greek empire, for he wrote in the 12th century, long before the
Constantinopolitan dynasty was overturned. Aben Esra gives a similar
interpretation on the blessing of Esau.
ורומי שהגלתנו היא מזרע כתים וכן אומר המתרגם וצים מיד כתים והיא מלכות יון
בעצמו כאשר פירשתי בספר דניאל והיו אנשים מתי מספר שהאמיו באיש ששמוהו אלוה
וכאשר האמינה רומי בימי קונסטאנטין שחדש כל הדת ושם על דגלו צורת האיש ,
ולא היו בעולם שישמרו התורה החדשה חוץ מאדומים מעטים על כן נקראה רומי
מלכות אדום ׃