Targumist has said, in Numbers xxiv. 24, ‘And ships shall come from the
coast of Kittim.’ And this is the same as the Greek monarchy, as I have
explained in the book of Daniel; and there were very few who believed on
the man of whom they made a god. But when Rome believed in the days of
Constantine, who changed the whole religion, and put an image of that
man upon his standard, there were none in the world who observed the new
law except a few Edomites, therefore Rome is called the kingdom of
Edom.” (Comment. on Gen. xxix.) We do not now stop to refute the false
statements which Aben Ezra here makes. Every one that knows anything of
history, knows that in less than a century after the time of Jesus of
Nazareth, the Christian religion had made great progress in the whole
Roman empire, and that the propagation of the new law, as Aben Ezra
calls it, before the time of Constantine, was more rapid and more
extensive than after his conversion. Our business at present is with his
interpretation of the word Edom; he says plainly that Edom and Edomites
mean the Christians. Now let us hear Abarbanel:—
ומזה תדע שלא לבד על ארץ אדום הסמובה לא׳׳י נבא הנביא כ׳׳א גם על האומה
שנסתעפה משם ונתפשטה בכל העולם והיא אומת הנוצרים היום הזה שהם מבני אדום ׃
“From this you may learn that the prophet (Obadiah) did not prophesy
only against the land of Edom, which is in the neighbourhood of the land
of Israel, but also against that people which branches off from thence,
and is spread through the whole world, and that is the people of the
Christians in this our day, for they are of the children of Edom.”
(Comment. on Obadiah.) Here, then, we have Maimonides, Kimchi, Aben
Ezra, and Abarbanel, all giving the same interpretation, and all
asserting that Edom means the Christians. According to this
interpretation, then, the above dreadful imprecations are for the
destruction of the Christians. Is this tolerant or charitable? Is this
in accordance with Moses’ account of the Divine character—“Merciful and
gracious, long-suffering, and abundant in goodness and truth?” Are these
the petitions that poor sinful creatures ought to offer when they
assemble for the worship of the Creator of all flesh? Above all, are
they suitable in an English synagogue, and in the present day? You may
say that Kimchi and those other commentators, lived in the times of
Popery, and that Edom only means the Roman Catholic Christians. But what
will those Jews say who live in Rome itself, and France, and Bavaria,
and other Roman Catholic countries? You may think them in error, so do
we, but we cannot for that pray that God “would satiate the clods with
their blood, manure the earth with their fat, and cause the stench of
their carcases to ascend.” We could not utter such an imprecation
against the cannibals of New Zealand, nor the man-stealers of Africa.
But if you say that you do not offer up these petitions against the
Christians, whether Protestant or Romanist, may we ask against whom then
are they directed? And what are your thoughts when you hear these
petitions read, and join in them in the synagogue? The literal Edom was
destroyed long since; the children of Edom have long since been utterly
lost. Where are their posterity now to be found? The above-named rabbies
say the Romans were descended from Edom, but where is their proof,
either from the Bible or from profane history? But suppose it was so,
how will that prove that the Greeks, the French, the Germans, or the
inhabitants of the British isles are thus descended? The truth is, there
is no historical evidence whatever to give even a colour to this
assertion respecting Rome. The rabbies found dreadful denunciations of
wrath against Edom in the prophets, particularly in Obadiah and the
thirty-fourth of Isaiah, and they thought that Rome and the Christians
deserved such punishment more than any one else; they therefore applied
them to these objects of their antipathy. As far as authentic history
will carry us, the descendants of the Edomites are to be sought for
rather amongst the Jews themselves, than amongst any other people; for
the last that we read of the Edomites is, that they were subdued by John
Hyrcanus, and converted to Judaism at the point of the sword.[18]
Amongst the Jews, then, their descendants have ever since continued, and
strange enough some of them may now be offering in the synagogue these
imprecations against themselves. But, however that be, the prophecies
against Edom do certainly not apply to the Christian religion, which was
not Edomitical, but altogether Jewish in its origin. Jesus of Nazareth
was a Jew, and his apostles and first disciples from a province of Judea
as remote as possible from Edom. And even if the rabbies could prove
that Rome is Edom, still this will have nothing to do with the other
nations who are no wise descended from, or connected with that city or
people.
We are not ignorant of the many prophecies against Edom, but, however
many or severe, they form no justification of these prayers, even if the
rabbies know who is intended. God is a merciful God, as well as a just
Judge, and when he arises to judgment, or when he utters a denunciation
of wrath, we may be sure that he does all in truth and righteousness.
But that furnishes no excuse for the sons of men who presumptuously take
upon themselves to call down God’s wrath by prayer, or to offer
themselves as the executioners of his anger. The Word of God contains
many denunciations of wrath against the Jews, but this does not justify
the nations who have persecuted and oppressed them. What would the Jews
think of us if we collected all the fearful passages in the twenty-sixth
chapter of Leviticus, and the twenty-eight of Deuteronomy, and wove them
into a prayer to call down God’s wrath upon the people of Israel? What
would they say if we appointed this form for the most solemn days, and
for the time of our festivity? Yet this is what the rabbies have done,
and what the oral law prescribes, and therefore we say, that such
teaching is not from God. And we say this, not simply because reason
leads to this conclusion, but because such prayers are directly contrary
to the express command of God. When he sent the Jews into captivity to
Babylon, he did not tell them to pray that “he might pour out his wrath”
upon that city, and much less to “satiate the clods with the blood” of
its inhabitants. On the contrary, he said—
“And seek the peace of the city whither I have caused you to be carried
away captives, and pray unto the Lord for it: for in the peace thereof
shall ye have peace.” (Jerem. xxix. 7.) Now how does this command agree
with the above prayers? Suppose even that the rabbies were right, and
that Edom does mean Rome, how can the Jews there pray for its peace and
for its utter destruction at the same time? Those prayers are utterly
irreconcilable with this command of God, and therefore furnish another
proof of the error as well as the intolerance of the oral law. This was
the object which we had peculiarly in view. We do not wish to burden
every Israelite in London with this intolerance. Many are perhaps
ignorant that such prayers are offered in the synagogue—many overlook
them through inattention, and many others disapprove of them. But in
those who do know and disapprove, it is exceedingly inconsistent to join
in them, or to remain silent. The spirit of these prayers is thus
countenanced, and the intolerance handed down from generation to
generation. Children go to the synagogue, and hear these prayers
offered; they think as it is the language of prayer, of public prayer,
of the prayers of the people of Israel, it must be right. What other
conclusion can they form? Thus they imbibe the same spirit, and thus the
people of Israel are kept in bondage to the intolerance of by-gone
generations. But some will say, We acknowledge that these prayers are
contrary to the Bible. Remember, then, that in making this
acknowledgment, you admit the synagogue—yea, the whole nation of Jews,
has been in error for many centuries. And if the Jewish nation has been
universally mistaken upon so simple, yet essential, a point of religion
as true charity, it is highly probable that they are mistaken on other
points too, especially those that are more difficult and less obvious to
human reason. But above all, remember that whilst the whole system of
the oral law, in its precepts and prayers, has taught you to curse your
enemies, Jesus of Nazareth has taught us to bless. “Ye have heard that
it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy:
but I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do
good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use
you, and persecute you.” (Matt. v. 43, 44.) “Bless them which persecute
you: bless, and curse not.” (Rom. xii. 14.) But some Israelites may
still think that it is unfair to judge the oral law by this one service
to the Passover. Such an one we would remind of the blessing of the
Epicureans, as it is called, which he is bound to say—
בכל תפלה שבכל יום ׃
“in every prayer, every day.” (Hilchoth T’phillah, c. ii. 2.)
ולמלשינים אל תהי תקוה וכל עושי רשעה כרגע יאבדו והזדים מהרה יכרתו ומכניעם
במהרה בימינו . ברוך אתה ה׳ שובר אויבים ומכניע זדים ׃
“O let the slanderers have no hope: all the wicked be annihilated
speedily, and all the tyrants be cut off quickly; humble thou them
quickly in our days. Blessed art thou, O Lord, who destroyed our
enemies.” (Daily Prayers, fol. 36.) Here is the same utter want of
mercy. No desire for their amendment, no prayer for their conversion,
but an invocation of sudden wrath and destruction. And this the
synagogue prescribes, not on its feasts only, but every day; yea, and
every time of prayer is to be marked by the voice of malediction. There
is also another command relating to this daily malediction, which
illustrates still farther the spirit of the oral law.
שליח צבור שטעה ונבהל ולא ידע מהיכן יתחיל ושהה שעה יעמוד אחר תחתיו . ואם
טעה בברכת האפיקורסין אין ממתינין לו אלא מיד יעמוד אחר תחתיו שמא
אפיקורסות נזרקה בו ׃
“If the reader in the synagogue should make a mistake, or be confused
and not know where to begin, and delay for an hour, then let another
rise up in his stead. But if he made the mistake with regard to the
blessing of the Epicureans, he is not to be waited for, but let another
instantly rise up in his stead, for perhaps he is infected with
Epicureanism.” (Ibid. c. x. 3.) According to this law, if the reader go
wrong in invoking a blessing, or offering up an intercessory prayer for
mercy, such a petition may be delayed for a whole hour. But if this
malediction should be the place of his mistake, there is to be no delay
and no postponement. If the reader cannot offer it in time, another is
to rise up immediately, and cry to heaven for a curse.
Footnote 17:
The British Jews of Burton-street Synagogue have expunged from their
prayers the intolerance here complained of.
Footnote 18:
See Jost’s Geschichte, vol. i. 70 and 153.
No. XVII.
RABBINIC LEGENDS IN THE SYNAGOGUE SERVICES.
We have just considered the extraordinary command of the oral law, which
provides, that, if the reader in the synagogue should make a mistake in
reading the prayers, the congregation shall wait for him for an hour:
except the mistake occur in cursing the Epicureans, for then, “He is not
be waited for, but let another instantly rise up in his stead, for he
is, perhaps, infected with Epicureanism.” The special notice of this
case is as honourable to the Jews as it is condemnatory of the oral law.
It would appear from this that such mistakes had occurred. Readers in
the synagogues have sometimes stumbled and stammered when thy came to
this fearful malediction. And truly we are not surprised, if a man of
piety, acquainted with God’s Word, should be overwhelmed in publicly
cursing his fellow-men, and be unable to bring the words of imprecation
over his lips. The care which the Scribes took to legislate for such an
occurrence, implies an honourable testimony to the good feeling of the
nation, though it strongly marks their own intolerance, and forms a
striking contrast to the spirit inculcated in the teaching of Jesus of
Nazareth. When his disciples asked him to teach them to pray, he taught
them a short form; but short as it was, it contained the petition,
“Forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive them that trespass against
us,” and was followed by this admonition, “For if ye forgive men their
trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. But if ye
forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your
trespasses.” (Matt. vi. 14, 15.)
The intolerance which we have noticed, proves sufficiently that the
religious ideas of the oral law have not been drawn from Moses and the
prophets; and this will appear still further from the absurd legends
which are alluded to in the prayers of the synagogue, as if they were
acknowledged verities. In the Liturgy for the feast of Pentecost, which
is now approaching, we find more than one such allusion, to which we
would most earnestly call your attention. And first of all, those
prayers recognise the legend of Leviathan and Behemoth. In the morning
service for that day the Jews repeat the following words:—
מנת דילן דמלקדמין פרש בארמותא . טלולא דלויתן ותור טור רמותא , וחד בחד כי
סביך ועביד קרבותא . בקרנוהי מנגח בהמות ברברבותא . יקרטע נון לקבליה
בציצוי ובגבורתא . מקרב ליה בריה בחרביה ברברבותא . ארסטון לצדיקי יתקן
ושרותא , מסחרין עלי תכי דכדכוד וגומרתא , נגיין קמיהון אפרסמון נהרתא ,
ומתפנקין ורוי בכסי רויתא , חמר מרת דמבראשית נטיר ביה נעותא ׃
Which D. Levi thus translates:—“He will certainly _bestow on_ us the
portion which he hath promised us of old. The sporting of Leviathan with
the ox of the high mountains,[19] when they shall approach each other
and engage in battle. With his horn he thrusts at the mightiest beasts,
but the Leviathan will leap towards him with his fins and great
strength. His Creator will then approach him with his great sword, and
will prepare him for an entertainment (or a banquet) for the righteous;
who will be seated at a table formed of jasper and carbuncle, with a
river of balm flowing before them. When they will delight themselves and
be satiated with the bowls of wine prepared at the creation, and
reserved in the wine-press.” In this portion of the Liturgy of the
synagogue, there is a very plain reference to the battle between
Behemoth and Leviathan. The felicity of the righteous in the world to
come is also described, and a part of it is said to consist of the
banquet which God will prepare for them from the flesh of Leviathan,
when he shall have killed him. It is true that D. Levi has the following
note on this banquet: “All this is to be understood in a figurative
sense, and by no means literally, as several Christian commentators have
done, and thus cast undeserved reproach on the Rabbinical writers.” But
he has neither given us his authority, nor his reasons for this
assertion; nor has he explained the meaning of the figure. We should be
glad to know what ninety-nine out of every hundred Jews understand when
they hear this read in the synagogue. What do they understand by the
name Behemoth? What by Leviathan? What by God’s killing him? What by
preparing him as a banquet for the righteous? But however Jews in the
present day may explain it away, there can be little doubt how the
authors of this hymn and the Jews of old understood it. In the Talmud we
have the following account of these two great beasts:—
אמר רב יהודה אמר רב כל שברא הקב׳׳ה בעולמו זכר ונקבה בראם . אף לויתן נחש
בריח ולויתן נחש עקלתון זכל ונקבה בראם ואלמלא נזקקין זה לזה מהריבן כל
העולם כולו . מה עשה הקב׳׳ה סירס את הזכר והרג את הנקבה ומלחה לצדיקים
לעתיד לבוא שנאמר והרג את התנין אשר בים . ואף בהמות בהררי אלף זכר ונקבה
בראם ואלמלא נזקקין זה לזה מחריבין כל העולם כולו מה עשה הקב׳׳ה סירס הזכר
וצינן הנקבה ושמרה לצדיקים לעתיד לבוא ׃
“R. Judah said, Rav said, Everything that God created in this world he
created male and female. And thus he did with Leviathan the piercing
serpent, and Leviathan the crooked serpent, he created them male and
female. But if they had been united, they would have desolated the
entire world. What, then, did the Holy One do? He took away the strength
of the male Leviathan, and slew the female and salted her for the
righteous for the time to come, for it is said, ‘And he shall slay the
whale (or dragon) that is in the sea.’ (Isaiah xxvii. 1.) In like manner
with regard to Behemoth upon a thousand mountains, he created them male
and female, but if they had been united they would have desolated the
entire world. What then did the Holy One do? He took away the strength
of the male Behemoth, and made the female barren, and preserved her for
the righteous for the time to come.”—(Bava Bathra, fol. 74, col. 2.) In
this narrative there are no marks of allegory. The creation of the world
is not an allegory, but a fact. The creating of living creatures male
and female is another fact. The weakening of the male and the salting of
the female to prevent the desolation of the world, does not look like a
figure. The Jewish commentators certainly take the matter very
seriously, and speak of the creation of Leviathan, not as of an
allegory, but as of a real occurrence. Thus R. Moses, the son of
Nachman, in his commentary on the words, “And God made great whales,”
after describing the great size, adds,—
ורבותינו אמרו כי התנינים הגדולים הוא לויתן ובת זוגו שבראם זכר ונקבה והרג
הנקבה ומלחד לצדיקים לעתיד לבוא . אפשר כי מפני זה לא היה ראוי שיאמר בהם
ויהי כן כי לא עמדו עוד ׃
“And our rabbies have said that ‘the great whales’ mean Leviathan and
his mate, for God created them male and female, but slew the female, and
salted her for the righteous for the time to come: and perhaps this is
the reason why the words, ‘And it was so,’ are not added, for they (the
race of Leviathan) did not continue.” (Com. in Gen. i. 21.) From this it
is evident that the famous rabbi knew nothing of an allegory, for he
makes this legend the reason why certain words used after the other
works of creation are not here applied. In like manner Abarbanel speaks
of this same pair of living creatures as real, and as possibly belonging
to the class of great whales.
ואם כלל הכתוב השרץ והדגה כאחד יאמר הכתוב שברא השם בהם מינים מתחלפים כי
יש מהם תנינים גדולים וכמו שאמרו בפרק הספינה אמר רבה בר בר חנא זמנא חדא
הוה קא אזלינא בספינתא וחזינא לההיא כוורא דיתבא ליה חלתא על גביה וקרח
אגמא עלויה . סברינא די יבשתא היא וסלקינן ויתבינן ובשלינן הם גביה דכוורא
ואיתהפיך ואי לא דהוה ספינתא מקרבא לון הוה מטבע . וכיוצא בזה יספרו גם
היום יורדי הים באניות . ואולי לויתן ובת זוגו שזכרו רבותינו מאלה היו עם
היות שהפילוסופים מבני עמנו ייחסו לאותה הגדה ענינים עמוקים מהחכמה ואין
צורך להם במקום הזה ׃
“But if the Scripture class creeping things and fish together, then this
verse tells us that God created various species, for some of them are
great whales, as is said in the 5th chapter of Bava Bathra, ‘Rabbah Bar
Bar Channa says, Once upon a time we were sailing in a ship, and we saw
that fish upon whose back the sand remains and rushes grow; we thought
it was terra firma, and landed, and remained there and cooked. But when
the fish’s back grew warm, he turned round, and if the ship had not been
at hand we must have been drowned.’ They that go down to the sea in
ships in the present time tell similar stories: and perhaps the
Leviathan and his mate, mentioned by our rabbies, belonged to this
species. However, the philosophers of the children of our people
attribute to this chapter matter deeper than philosophy, but which we do
not want in this place.” (Com. in Gen. i. 21.) It is true that Abarbanel
here distinctly admits the existence of mysteries in that chapter of the
Talmud. But it is equally plain, that he considered the Leviathan,
mentioned by the rabbies, not as an allegory, but a real creation; and
therefore assigned it to the same class as the wonderful fish seen by
Bar Bar Channa, unless we take his words as a sly insinuation, that the
story of Leviathan is about as true as that narrated by the veracious
rabbi.
These two great rabbies, then, did not take the legend of Leviathan
figuratively; and we might add some other similar testimonies, but that
Behemoth also claims a share of our attention, and an inquiry into his
nature will contribute evidence to the same effect, that this legend was
not taken figuratively but literally. In the first place, D. Levi
himself refers us to Job xl. 15, and there we read, “Behold now
Behemoth, which I made with thee; he eateth grass like an ox.” Here
there certainly is no allegory. The words speak of a living creature,
and so they are interpreted by all the Jewish commentators, whom we have
an opportunity of consulting. Ralbag says—
בהמות הוא בעל חיים שמו כן ׃
“Behemoth is an animal, that is his name.” (Com. in loc.) Aben Esra, on
the words, “Behold now Behemoth, which I made with thee,” says—
בהמות שם בהמה גדולה אין בישוב גדולה ממנה וטעם עמך לפי שהיתה ביבשה כי
באחרית יזכור הלויתן שהוא בים ויש אומרים כי טעם עמך שהבהמות נולדו ביום
אחד עם אדם הראשון וזה דרך דרש ׃
“_Behemoth_ is the name of a great beast. In the habitable world there
is not a greater than it. The reason why the words ‘_with thee_’ are
added, is, that it is a land animal, and at the end he mentions
Leviathan, which is an animal of the sea. But some say the meaning of
‘with thee’ is, that the beasts were created on the same day with the
first Adam; but this interpretation is after the manner of a drash.”
(Aben Esra in loc.) This passage not only gives Aben Esra’s opinion as
to the real existence of Behemoth, but shows that other commentators, to
whom he alludes, were of the same mind. Rashi not only asserts the
existence, but says plainly, בהמות מוכן לעתיד, “Behemoth, that is
prepared for the time to come.” And again, in his commentary on Psalm l.
10, he takes the words בהמות בהררי אלף, which we translate, “The cattle
upon a thousand hills,” as referring to “Behemoth upon a thousand
hills,” and says—
הוא המתוקן לסעודת העתיד שהוא רועה אלף הרים ליום וכל יום ויום צומחים ׃
“This is he that is prepared for the banquet of the time to come, for he
eats up the produce of a thousand hills in one day, and every day they
grow again.” The context of these words evidently show that Rashi, the
most popular, and the most read of all the Jewish commentators, looked
for a real, not an allegorical, feast upon the flesh of the Leviathan
and Behemoth. The preceding and following words speak not of
allegorical, but of real cattle and fowls. According to Rashi, the whole
passage would read thus:—“I will take no bullock out of thy house, nor
he-goats out of thy folds. For every beast of the forest is mine, and
Behemoth upon a thousand hills. I know all the fowls of the mountain,”
&c. Here, then, Behemoth is introduced amongst real animals all fit for
food, so that it is impossible to take it figuratively. This animal is
also suitable in size for so great an entertainment; he consumes the
produce of a thousand mountains every day. This was also the opinion of
Jonathan, for in his Targum on the fiftieth Psalm he has paraphrased the
tenth verse as follows:—
ארום דילי כל חיות חורשא ועתדת לצדיקיא בגן עדן בעיריא דכין ותור בר דרעי
בכל יומא בטורין אלפא ׃
“For every beast of the wood is mine, and I have prepared for the
righteous in Paradise pure cattle, and the wild ox, that feeds every day
upon a thousand mountains.” All these testimonies (and many more might
be added) plainly prove, that the Jews, in times past, looked for a real
and substantial feast upon Leviathan and Behemoth; and when we remember
that the commentary of Rashi is the first that is put into the hands of
the Jewish youth all over the world, and that it is generally regarded
as almost, if not altogether, inspired, it is easy to conclude what is
the opinion of the great majority of Jews, even in the present day, as
to this entertainment. Maimonides, indeed, denies that there will be any
eating and drinking in the world to come. He says—
העולם הבא אין בו גוף וגויה אלא נפשות הצדיקים בלבד בלא גוף כמלאכי השרת .
הואיל ואין בו גויות אין בו לא אכילה ולא שתיה ׃
“In the world to come there is neither body nor corporeality, but only
the souls of the righteous without a body, like the ministering angels.
So neither is there eating and drinking.” (Hilchoth T’shuvah, c. viii.
2.) But this is a solitary opinion, as is evident from the note on the
passage by Abraham ben Dior, who says—
דברי האיש הזה בעיני קרובים למי שאומר אין תחיית המתים לגופות אלא נשמות
בלבד וחיי ראשי לא היה דעת חז׳׳ל על זה ׃