להתנבאות בכל דור ודור קבלו מהר סיני שכן משה אומר להם לישראל כי את אשר
ישנו פה עמנו עומד היום ואת אשר איננו פה עמנו היום , עמנו עומד היום אין
כתיב כאן אלא איננו עמנו היום אלו הנשמות העתידות להבראות שאין בהן ממש שלא
נאמרה בהן עמידה שאע׳׳פ שלא הין באותה שעה כל אחד ואחד קבל את שלו וכן הוא
אומר משא דבר ה׳ אל ישראל ביד מלאכי , בימי מלאכי לא נאמר אלא ביד מלאכי
שכבר היתה הנבואה בידו מהר סיני ועד אותה שעה לא נתנה לו רשות להתנבאות ,
וכן ישעיה אומר מעת היותה שם אני , אמר ישעיה מיום שנתנה תורה בסיני שם
הייתי וקבלתי את הנבואה הזאת אלא ועתה ה׳ אלהים שלחני ורוחו עד עכשיו לא
נתן לי רשות להתנבאות , ולא כל הנביאים בלבד קבלו מסיני נבואתן אלא אף
החכמים העומדים בכל דור ודור כל אחד ואחד קבל את שלו מסיני וכן הוא אומר את
הדברים האלה דבר ה׳ אל כל קהלכם ׃
“‘And God spake all these words, saying.’ (Exod. xx. 1.) R. Isaac says,
that all those things, which the prophets were to prophesy in every
generation, they received from Mount Sinai, for so Moses says to Israel,
‘But with him that standeth here with us this day, and also with him
that is not here with us this day.’ (Deut. xxix. 15.) Here in the latter
clause, it is not said, ‘That _standeth_ with us this day,’ but ‘With
him that _is not_ here with us this day.’ These are the souls that were
to be created, who had no corporeal existence, and of whom therefore it
could not be said they _stood_ there. But although they did not exist in
that hour, every one of them received his own, and so it is written,
‘The burden of the Word of the Lord to Israel in the hand of Malachi.’
(Mai. i. 1.) Here it is not said in the days of Malachi, but in the hand
of Malachi, for this prophecy had been long since in his hand, even from
Mount Sinai: but up to that time permission had not been given him to
prophesy. In like manner Isaiah says, ‘From the time that it was, there
am I.’ (Isaiah xlviii. 16.) Isaiah means to say, From the day that the
law was given there was I, and I received this prophecy, only ‘Now the
Lord God and His Spirit hath sent me;’ that is, until then permission
had not been given him to prophesy. But it was not the prophets only who
received their prophecy from Sinai, but also the wise men in every
generation, each one of them received his own from Sinai, and so it is
said, ‘These words the Lord spake unto all your congregation.’ (Deut. v.
22.)” (Shemoth Rabba Parashah, 28.) The object of this fable is very
plain, it is to clothe the rabbies with infallible authority. It is here
asserted that the rabbies of every generation were all present at the
giving of the law, and each received immediately from Sinai those legal
decisions and doctrines which he was to communicate to the world, and
consequently every thing, that a rabbi teaches, is infallibly right and
true, and as authoritative as the words of Moses and the prophets, for
“God spake all these words,” as this legend interprets this verse. The
rabbies of every generation are included, so that, according to this
tradition the wise men of Israel, even in this degenerate time, still
deliver infallible instructions which they received more than three
thousand years ago from the mouth of God himself. But this fable avers
too much. If all Israel was present at Sinai, and each individual,
whether prophet, or rabbi, or layman, received the law at that time,
what use was there in the transmission from father to son, from the time
of Moses down to us? Nay, more, what use is there in teaching at all,
for every man then received his own? Nay, further, what use is the
written law, for if every man was taught at Sinai, there is no need for
him to read and learn now? But this is a matter which every Israelite
can decide for himself. Let him ask himself, how much he remembers of
this wonderful event in his existence, his presentation at Sinai, and
his reception of the law from the Lord himself. The Scripture proofs
which are here given are evidently nothing to the purpose. The first
proof is, “God spake all these words, saying.” (Exod. xx. 1.) But every
one who will take the trouble of reading the chapter will see, that “all
these words” cannot apply to the prophecies, nor to the decisions of the
rabbies, but to the ten commandments and to them only. So far from
delivering all the decisions and comments since taught by the rabbies,
God spake only the ten commandments to the people, and when they heard
these, “they said unto Moses, Speak thou with us and we will hear; but
let not God speak with us, lest we die.” (Verse 19.) To say, therefore,
that God’s speaking “all these words” includes the whole oral law and
all the rabbinical comments, is gross perversion of the text, and direct
contradiction of Moses’ account.
The next and most usual verse adduced to prove this fable is Deut. xxix.
14, 15, where it is said, “Neither with you only do I make this covenant
and oath; but with him that standeth here with us this day, before the
Lord our God, and also with him that is not here with us this day.” But
this verse plainly proves the contrary, that the other generations of
Israel were there in no sense whatever. The Hebrew words are as strong
as they can be.
ואת אשר איננו פה עמנו היום ׃
Those with whom the covenant is made are divided into two classes, “Him
that standeth here,” and “Him that is not here.” If the word standeth
had been repeated, if the verse said, “With him that standeth here, and
with him that standeth not here,” there might have been some colour for
this fable: the rabbies might have urged that though the unborn
generations did not stand there, they stood somewhere else; but the
present wording of the verse utterly excludes all possibility of
existence, either corporeal or incorporeal. “With him that is not here,
איננו” shows that they were there in no sense.
The proof taken from Malachi, “The burden of the word of the Lord to
Israel in the hand of Malachi,” is nonsense. Every one, that knows
anything of Hebrew, knows that ביד signifies “by,” “by means of.” But
even taken literally, it will not prove that Malachi was at Sinai; there
is nothing in the words to inform us when Malachi received the prophecy.
The proof from Isaiah is more unhappy still. The whole context shows
that it is God who speaks in that verse, and not the prophet. Indeed we
might ask, if Isaiah had already received all his prophecies at Sinai,
what was the use of the vision of the Lord sitting upon his throne, and
the commission which is there given? (Isai. vi.) And so we might ask
concerning most of the prophets. The case of Samuel is here particularly
worthy of consideration. According to the above tradition cited in the
Jewish prayers, Samuel had been at Sinai, and there received all that he
was to deliver during his sublunary existence. And yet when the word of
the Lord came to him, he did not recognise the Divine call, and three
times went to Eli, and it was Eli who at last told him that it was God.
Now how is this written history to be reconciled with the above
tradition? The tradition says that Samuel had heard the voice of God at
Sinai, that there all the prophetic words which he was ever to deliver
were made known to him, and yet the Bible says, “Now Samuel did not yet
know the Lord, neither was the word of the Lord yet revealed unto him.”
(1 Sam. iii. 7.)
The last proof, taken from Deut. v. 22, if considered in its context,
also proves the contrary. The tradition quotes only a part of the verse,
“These words the Lord spake unto all your congregations;” but if you
read on you will find, “And he added no more,” which words plainly limit
the first sentence to the ten commandments. This tradition, then, as
being contrary to Scripture, to the law of Moses, is a falsehood, and is
therefore unworthy of a place in the prayers of that people, whom God
selected from all the nations of the earth to be his witnesses, and the
depositories of his truth. But this tradition is objectionable not only
as a fable, though that is a very strong objection to any thing proposed
as an article of faith, but on account of the purpose which it was
intended to serve. It was invented for the purpose of strengthening the
spiritual tyranny of the Scribes and Pharisees over the minds of the
people. It is not therefore merely an erroneous interpretation of
Scripture, nor the dream of a fanatic imagination, but the deliberate
invention of men who knew what they were about, and had an object which
they were endeavouring to compass, and for the attainment of which they
did not stick at deliberate falsehood. They were, however, too wise to
confine all the advantages of this appearance at Sinai to themselves;
they asserted that the whole people of Israel obtained an advantage
which makes them superior to all other nations. The prayer which we have
quoted above alludes to this, when it says, “There was no blemish in
them, for they were all entirely perfect.” This sentence rather puzzles
an ordinary reader of the Bible, who thinks of the conduct and character
of Israel as there described; the Talmud, however, helps us to
understand this eulogy:—
מפני מה גוים מזוהמין שלא עמדו על הר סיני שבשעה שבא הנחש על חוה הטיל בה
זוהמא , ישראל שעמדו על הר סיני פסקה זוהמתן גוים שלא עמדו על הר סיני לא
פסקה זוהמתן , אמר ליה רב אחא בריה דובא לרב אשי גרים מאי אמר ליה אע׳׳ג
דאינהו לא הוו מזליהו הוה , דכתיב את אשר ישנו פה עמנו עומד היום לפני ה׳
אלהינו ואת אשר איננו פה וגו׳ ׃
“Why are the Gentiles defiled? Because they did not stand upon Mount
Sinai, for in the hour that the serpent came to Eve, he communicated a
defilement, which was taken away from Israel when they stood on Mount
Sinai: but the defilement of the Gentiles was not removed, as they did
not stand on Sinai. Rav Acha, the son of Rabba, said to Rav Ashai, how,
then, does it fare with proselytes? He replied, although they went not
there, their good fortune (or star) was there, as it is written, ‘With
him that standeth here with us this day, before the Lord our God, and
also with him that is not here with us this day.’ (Deut. xxix. 15.)”
(Shabbath. fol. 145, col. 2, at the bottom of the page.) The commentary
on this passage quotes still further particulars from Siphri, and says—
כל שעמדו על הר סיני נתקדשו ונטהרו , ונתרפאו מכל מום ואף עורים ופסחים
שהיו בישראל כדתניא בספרי ׃
“All that stood on Mount Sinai were sanctified and purified, and were
healed from every blemish, even the blind and the lame that then
happened to be in Israel, as is taught in Siphri.” In this part of the
fable the inventors of the oral law endeavour to flatter the vanity of
the Israelites, and thus to engage their affections in behalf of that
tradition which was to secure their own power. The Scribes understood
well the deceitfulness of the human heart, and knew that men love to
hear and are ready to believe any thing that tends to their own
personal aggrandizement. But in thus flattering the people, they were
turning their backs upon that example which Moses set them; and
contradicting the whole current of Scripture testimony. Moses and the
prophets, as the servants of God, told the people of their sins and
their evil deeds, that they might repent and be saved. Their object
was not to secure popular favour, nor to advance their own selfish
purposes; they therefore could afford to be honest and to speak truth.
The inventors of the oral law, on the contrary, were endeavouring to
erect a fabric of personal honour and power: they were therefore
obliged to address themselves to the weak side of the human heart; and
in doing so, were compelled to run counter to the plainest
declarations of God’s Word. All men and every nation like to be told
that they are superior to the rest of the world, and are distinguished
by moral endowments from the mass of mankind. The inventors of the
oral law, therefore, told Israel that they were far elevated above all
other nations, for they had been cleansed at Sinai from that innate
defilement which still contaminates all the rest of the children of
men. But is this true—is this what Moses and the prophets say? Moses
says, “Understand, therefore, that the Lord thy God giveth thee not
this good land to possess it for thy righteousness: for thou art a
stiff-necked people.” “Ye have been rebellious against the Lord from
the day that I knew you.” (Deut. ix. 6, 24.) Isaiah says of Israel,
“From the sole of the foot even unto the head there is no soundness in
it, but wounds, and bruises, and putrifying sores.” “Ah! sinful
nation!—a people laden with iniquity; a seed of evil-doers—children
that are corrupters.” (Isaiah i. 4-6.) And again he says, “Woe is me,
for I am undone: because I am a man of unclean lips, and I dwell in
the midst of a people of unclean lips.” (Isaiah vi. 5.) Jeremiah says,
“Can the Ethiopian change his skin and the leopard his spots? Then may
ye also do good that are accustomed to do evil.” (Jer. xiii. 23.) And
again, “All these nations are uncircumcised, and all the house of
Israel are uncircumcised in the heart.” (Jer. ix. 26.) The Lord
himself says to Ezekiel, “Son of man, I send thee to the children of
Israel, to a rebellious nation that hath rebelled against me: they and
their fathers have transgressed against me to this very day. For they
are impudent children and stiff-hearted.” (Ezek. ii. 3, 4.) And again,
“Thou art not sent to a people of a strange speech and of an hard
language, but to the house of Israel: not to many people of a strange
speech and of an hard language, whose words thou canst not understand;
surely had I sent thee to them, they would have hearkened unto thee.
But the house of Israel will not hearken unto thee: for they will not
hearken unto me; for all the house of Israel are impudent and
hard-hearted.” (Ezek. iii. 4, 7, &c.) We do not quote these passages
to show that the Gentiles have a more favoured constitution of moral
nature. Far from it; in reading these accounts given by the prophets,
we recognise the features of our own picture. Far be it from us to
glory; we cite these passages to show you how miserably your oral law
endeavours to blind and delude you by flattering your vanity. It tells
you that you have been purged from every stain; Moses and the prophets
teach you the truth—that you are just like the other sons of men, and
have no moral superiority or advantage whatever. We wish to point out
to you how the system of rabbinism is diametrically opposed to Moses
and the prophets, and above all, to impress upon you that the authors
of this oral law are not worthy or your confidence, for they have, for
their own private interests, invented narratives and doctrines which
contradict that Word of God, which ought to be Israel’s glory. We wish
to show you how certain principles of evil pervade every part of that
system, not even excepting those prayers which are offered up in the
public worship of God. There these fables also occur, and we ask every
Israelite who loves the law of Moses or hopes in the promises of God
by the prophets, how he can conscientiously stand by in the synagogue
and hear the words of Moses and the prophets openly contradicted? How
can he remain silent when the reader declares of Israel that there is
no blemish in them, for they are all entirely perfect, when he knows
and feels that he and all his brethren are just as frail, as sinful,
and as imperfect as the other sons of men? How can they expect the
return of God’s favour to their nation so long as these fictions are
made a part of public worship? Moses teaches very different doctrine.
He says, “If they shall confess their iniquity, and the iniquity of
their fathers, with their trespass which they have trespassed against
me, and that also they have walked contrary unto me; and that I also
have walked contrary unto them, and have brought them into the land of
their enemies: if then their uncircumcised hearts be humbled, and they
then accept of the punishment of their iniquity: then will I remember
my covenant with Jacob, and also my covenant with Isaac, and also my
covenant with Abraham will I remember: and I will remember the land.”
(Levit. xxvi. 40-42.) Here Moses makes a conviction and acknowledgment
of guilt, an indispensable preliminary to the return of God’s favour
to the nation. Israel must feel that, so far from being cleansed from
all impurity, their heart is uncircumcised, and this uncircumcised
heart must be humbled; but how is this possible, so long as the oral
law and the prayers of the synagogue teach that the Israelites are the
most righteous of mankind, because they received the law, which the
other nations rejected—and the most pure, or rather the only pure, of
mankind, inasmuch as they were cleansed from every taint at Sinai?
These doctrines harden the heart against true humility, prevent true
repentance, and thereby retard the happiness and the glory of Israel.
No. XXI.
LEGENDS IN THE PRAYERS FOR PENTECOST.
If Moses or the prophets had any where recorded, that God had, along
with the written law also given an oral law, our duty would then be to
find out where it is: and to inquire whether that oral law, which now
forms the keystone of modern Judaism, is the one which was given by God.
But neither Moses nor any other prophet has said one word on the
subject. The words הורה שבעל פה “oral law” are no where to be found in
the Bible, nor is there any mention of the thing itself. If the Bible
had plainly alluded to the existence of the thing, we should not quarrel
about the name, which might have been invented for the sake of brevity
and convenience. But it is remarkable that when Moses commanded the law
to be read publicly in the ears of all the people, he says not a
syllable about the oral explanation, which if it existed must at least
have been of equal importance; and still more so that the succeeding
prophets should have observed such a profound silence about that, which
now constitutes the main substance of Israel’s religion, and is the key
to the observances and prayers of the synagogue. This silence is in
itself suspicious, and compels us to examine the evidence of its
transmission. The first step here is to ascertain the character of the
witnesses, who say that they received the oral law from their fathers
and transmitted it to their posterity. If it appear that, in their
general testimony, they were disinterested and truth-loving persons, who
have never been convicted of distorting truth for their private
advantage, nor of receiving and circulating fables as authentic history,
their testimony in this particular matter will be of considerable value.
But if it can be proved that either from a deliberate desire to deceive,
or from an incapacity to weigh evidence and to distinguish between fact
and fiction, they have transmitted a huge mass of foolish fables as
authentic history, then their testimony is worth nothing, and the story
of an oral law having no other evidence must be classed amongst the
other fables which have come down to us on their authority. That the
account of the giving and transmission of the oral law rests solely and
exclusively on the testimony of the rabbies is clear from the account
itself, as it is found in the Jad Hachasaka.
כל המצוות שנתנו לו למשה בסיני בפירושן נתנו שנאמר ואתנה לך את לוחות האבן
והתורה והמצוה , תורה זו תורה שבכתב , והמצוה זו פירושה , וצונו לעשות
התורה על פי המצוה . ומצוה זו היא הנקראת תורה שבע׳׳פ ׃
“All the commandments which were given to Moses were given with their
explanation, for it is said, ‘I will give thee the tables of stone and
the law and the commandment.’ (Exod. xxiv. 12.) ‘The law,’ this is the
written law, ‘And the commandment,’ this is the explanation thereof. And
he has commanded to fulfil ‘the law’ according to ‘the commandment.’ And
the commandment is that which is called _The oral law_.” Truly the
rabbies must have been hard set when they chose this passage to prove
the existence of an oral law. The keen and clear mind of the sagacious
Rambam evidently felt the difficulty; he, therefore, to give some
plausibility to the proof, omitted the concluding part of the sentence
which he quotes from the Bible. He says, “As it is written ‘I will give
thee tables of stone and the law and the commandment,’” and there he
stops, but let every Israelite open his Pentateuch and read the
remainder, and he will find the whole sentence to be this, “I will give
thee tables of stone, and the law and the commandment which _I have
written_, to teach them.” Not one word here about an oral law, but about
that which God had written. It is true that the passage of the Talmud
from which Rambam derived this doctrine gives the whole passage, but it
appears from the process of abbreviation which he has applied, as if he
were ashamed of the explanation there given and thought it more prudent
to omit it. But as it is one of the main passages which support the
doctrine of an oral law, it must be considered.
ואמר ר׳ לוי בר חמא אמר ר׳ שמעון בן לקיש מאי דכתיב ואתנה לך את לוחות האבן
והתורה והמצוה אשר כתבתי להורותם , לוחות אלו עשרת הדברות תורה זו מקרא
והמצוה זר משנה אשר כתבתי אלו נביאים וכתובים להורותם זו גמרא מלמד שכולם
נתנו למשה מסיני ׃
“R. Levi bar Chama says, R. Simon ben Lakish says, what is that that is
written ‘I will give thee tables of stone, and the law and the
commandment which I have written to teach them?’ ‘_The tables_’ are the
ten commandments. ‘_The law_’ is the written law. ‘The commandment’ is
the Mishna. ‘Which I have written’ means the prophets and sacred
writings. ‘To teach them’ means the Gemara. It teaches us that they were
all given to Moses from Sinai.” (Berachoth, fol. 5, col. 1.) Can any man
of common understanding receive this interpretation, which throws all
grammar and context to the winds, and gravely asserts that not only the
law and its explanation, but the prophets and the whole Talmud, were
given to Moses at Sinai? Will he give up his own reason and the word of
the living God to the authority of R. Simon ben Lakish? There cannot
possibly be any argument which would prove the falsehood of the
narrative concerning the oral law so completely as this interpretation,
which is regarded as one of its main foundations. The words of Moses
which are here perverted plainly speak of that which God had written. “I
will give thee tables of stone, and the law and the commandment which I
have written to teach them.” Did God write the oral law, and give it to
Moses? What became of it then? If it was written, how did it become
oral? These words “Which I have written,” have sadly puzzled the
rabbinical commentators, who know not how to reconcile the plain and
obvious sense of the words, with that interpretation which had been
already put upon them in the Talmud. Rashi seemed to think that the
difficulty might be got over by saying—
כל שש מאות ושלש עשרה מצוות בכלל עשרת הדברית הן ׃
“All the six hundred and thirteen commandments are comprehended in the
ten commandments.” (Com. in Exod. xxiv. 12.) But this, though true in
one sense, will not obviate the difficulty. God promises to give Moses
the law and the commandment which he had written. If the oral law had
not been written, it was not included. Saadiah Gaon, as quoted by Aben
Ezra, proposes another solution:—
אמר הגאון כי אשר כתבתי דבוק עם לוחות האבן לא עם התורה והמצוה כי השם לא
כתב רק עשרה הדברים ׃
“The Gaon says that the words, ‘_Which I have written_,’ are to be
connected with ‘_The tables of stone_,’ and not with ‘_The law and the
commandment_,’ for God wrote only the ten words.” But unfortunately
Moses has so connected them, and we have no warrant for reversing his
order. Aben Ezra himself, after giving the Talmudic exposition, gives it
as his own opinion, that these words refer to the ten commandments. He
says—
ולפי דעתי כי התורה הדבור הראשון והחמישי והמצוה השמונה הדברים ׃