commandment; and ‘_The commandment_’ to the other eight.” (Aben Ezra,
Com. in loc.) This is about the truth. God gave Moses the law and the
commandment which he had written; but as Saadiah admits, God wrote only
the ten words, therefore the ten words are the same as “the law and the
commandments.” Some will say there is tautology here, that when God
says, “I will give thee tables of stone,” he means the ten commandments,
and that therefore the additional promise “of the law and the
commandment” is only an unnecessary repetition. But this is not true. By
“tables of stone,” God meant tables of stone. He might have given to
Moses the ten commandments without giving him stone tables, or he might
have given him the tables of stone without giving him the ten words; but
as he intended to give him both, He says, “I will give thee tables of
stone, and the law, and the commandment.” Neither is there any
difficulty in the circumstance that these ten words are called both “law
and commandment.” Inasmuch as they were a revelation of God’s will, they
are justly denominated “law,” תורה; and as they were proposed as a rule
of life, obedience to which was required, they are entitled, המצוה “The
commandment.” The simple meaning, therefore, is, that God promises to
give the ten commandments which he had written. Every thing else, and
therefore the oral law, is excluded. This passage, therefore, gives no
support to the doctrine that Moses received an oral as well as a written
law on Mount Sinai. Indeed, the desperate perversion to which this text
has been subjected, throws discredit upon the whole; and the necessity
for such perversion shows that there was no plain text in the writings
of Moses, to which the inventors of the oral law could appeal.
The authority, then of the oral law must rest altogether upon the
character of those witnesses who handed it down. But this is a very
sandy foundation, for we have already seen that these men were guilty of
inventing or propagating the most absurd fables; their testimony,
therefore, is of no value. This has been proved abundantly already; but
there is one story for which we had not room in our last number, and
which, as being immediately connected with the giving of the law, must
now be considered. Like the others, it comes before us authenticated by
its introduction into the prayers of the synagogue, in which the
following plain allusion is made:—
ויקרא לציר ולמרומו העלו , ובינו לבין עם שלישי עלו , והעמידו ונגש אל
ערפלו , ופנים בפנים דבר לו , וקרנים מידו לו , ידודון ידודון רעשו למולו ,
ודברו לפני צור ואמרו לו , מה אנוש כי תגדלו , ומה תחשבהו למקומנו להעלו ,
קנין שעשועים להנחיל לו ׃
“When he called the messenger (Moses) and made him ascend to heaven, and
appointed him as the third person between him and his people, and caused
him to approach and stand in the thick darkness, and spake to him face
to face, and rays streamed from his hand to him, the angels were moved,
and rushed towards him; and in the presence of the Creator they spake,
saying thus to him, What is man that thou shouldest exalt him? and
wherefore make such an account of him as to bring him up to our place
and cause him to inherit the delightful possession (the law)?”
(Pentecost Prayers, fol. 88.) Here it is plainly said, that the angels
remonstrated with God at the favour shown to Moses. This circumstance is
not to be found in the writings of Moses, but it is recorded in the
Talmud, and the particulars are thus given:—
בשעה שעלה משה למרום אמרו מלאכי השרת לפני הקב׳׳ה רבונו של עולם מה לילוד
אשה בינינו , אמר להם לקבל תורה בא , אמרו לפניו חמדה גנוזה שגנוזה לך מששת
ימי בראשית תשע מאות ושבעים וארבעה דורות קודם שנברא העולם אתה מבקש ליתנה
לבשר ודם , מה אנוש כי תזכרנו ובן אדם כי תפקדנו ה׳ אדונינו מה אדיר שמך
בכל הארץ אשר תנה הודך על השמים , אמר לו הקב׳׳ה למשה חזור להן תשובה אמר
לפניו רבונו של עולם מתיירא אני שמא ישרפוני בהבל שבפיהם , אמר לו אחוז
בכסא כבודי וחזור להן תשובה שנאמר מאחז פני כסא פרשז עליו עננו ואמר ר׳
נחום מלמד שפירש שדי מזיו שכינתו ועננו עליו אמר לפניו רבונו של עולם תורה
שאתה נותן לי מה כתיב בה אנכי ה׳ אלהיך אשר הוצאתיך מארץ מצרים אמר להם
למצרים ירדתם לפרעה השתעבדתם תורה למה תהא לכם , שוב מה כתיב בה לא יהיה לך
אלהים אחרים בין ערלים אלם שרויין שעובדין ע׳׳ז שוב מה כתיב בה זכור את יום
השבת לקדשו כלום אתם עושין מלאכה שאתם צריכין שבות , שוב מה כתיב בה לא תשא
משא ומתן יש ביניכם שוב מה כתיב בה כבד את אביך ואת אמך אב ואם יש לכם שוב
מה כתיב בה לא תרצח לא תנאף לא תגנוב קנאה יש ביניכם יצר הרע יש ביניכם מיד
הודו לו להקב׳׳ה ׃
“In the hour when Moses ascended up on high, the ministering angels said
before God, O Lord of the world, what business has he that is born of a
woman amongst us? He replied, He is come to receive the law. They
answered, This most desirable treasure, which has been treasured up from
the six days of creation, six hundred and seventy-four generations
before the world was created, dost thou now wish to give it to flesh and
blood—what is man that thou art mindful of him, and the son of man that
thou visitest him? O Lord, our Lord, how excellent is thy name in all
the earth, who hast set thy glory above the heavens. The Holy One said
to Moses, Give them an answer. He replied, O Lord of the world, I am
afraid, lest they burn me with the breath of their mouth. He said, Lay
hold on the throne of my glory and give them an answer, for it is said,
‘He that holdeth the face of his throne, he spreadeth his cloud over
him.’ (Job xxvi. 8, 9.) Rabbi Nahum says, This teaches us that the
Almighty spread some of the glory of the Shechinah and his cloud over
him. He then said, Lord of the world, what is written in the law that
thou art about to give me? ‘I am the Lord thy God that brought thee out
of Egypt.’ He then said, Did ye ever go down into Egypt and serve
Pharaoh—why, then, should ye have the law? Again, what is written
therein? ‘Thou shalt have none other God.’ He then asked them, Do ye
then dwell amongst the uncircumcised, that ye should commit idolatry?
Again, what is written? ‘Remember the Sabbath-day to sanctify it.’ Do
ye, then, do any work, so as to need rest? Again, what is written? ‘Thou
shalt not take the name of the Lord,’ &c. Have ye, then, any business
that would lead to this sin? Again, what is written? ‘Honour thy father
and mother.’ Have ye, then, got any father and mother? Again, what is
written? ‘Thou shalt not kill, thou shalt not commit adultery, thou
shalt not steal.’ Have ye, then, got envy or the leading principle that
would lead to these sins? Immediately they praised the Holy One, blessed
be He,” &c. (Shabbath, fol. 88, col. 2, &c.) It is not necessary to
prove that this account is a fiction. The absurdity of the whole scene
is too palpable. To what purpose should the angels wish for the law of
Moses, or be envious of men to whom it was given? Is it possible that
the spirits that minister before the throne of God, were not able to see
the unsuitableness of the law for them, until Moses pointed it out to
their consideration? We think that if this scene had ever taken place,
Moses might have given them other passages of the law much more to the
purpose; but it is plainly a fable invented by the designing, and
propagated by the credulous. These two stories then, that Moses received
the oral law, and that he disputed with the angels in heaven, come to us
upon one authority; they are both circumstances in one event; and the
fabulousness of the one takes away all credit from the other. The oral
law rests solely upon the testimony of its transmitters, but here these
persons are convicted of transmitting palpable falsehood: their
testimony to the oral law is therefore useless, and the whole fabric of
tradition falls. This one fable is sufficient, but the readers will
remember that this is only one of a considerable number selected from
the Jewish Prayer-book. To extract all similar stories from the Talmud
would be to make some folio volumes. The Prayer-book, however, gives
enough to invalidate the testimony of the Scribes and Pharisees, and to
incapacitate them for ever from appearing as witnesses. Perhaps some one
will say, But they are also the witnesses for the written law, and
therefore, if we reject their testimony, we must give up the written law
also. But this is not so. For _that_ we have other testimony—we have
that of the Jewish nation, of which the Scribes and Pharisees were at
first only an inconsiderable portion. We have the testimony of Jesus and
his disciples, the great opposers of the oral law. We have the testimony
of the predictions, which we behold still accomplishing. We have the
whole internal evidence, so that if there never had been Pharisees, the
evidence for the written law would be just as valid. As it is, the
contrast which the written law presents, when compared with the oral
law, furnishes in itself a strong evidence of its truth and
authenticity. The written law is simple, sober, dignified. The oral law
is multifarious, extravagant, absurd. The oral law is poison—the written
law is the antidote. The oral law is a counterfeit, which proves the
existence of the genuine coin. Men who receive both on the sole
authority of the rabbies may, when they find the falsehood of the one,
reject the other also, but this can never be the case with those who
calmly compare and weigh the two in the balance of right reason.
We now dismiss these Talmudic fables for the present. We have proved by
instances that the oral law abounds with such. We have proved by
extracts from the Prayers of the synagogue, that these fables form a
part of the faith of all rabbinical Jews. We have, therefore, proved
that the inventors of these fables attained their object. They have
succeeded in deceiving the great majority of their countrymen. It is for
the Jews of the present day to consider whether these extravagant
fictions are still to be handed down to unborn generations—still to
appear as a reproach upon Israel’s understanding—still to disfigure and
dishonour the public worship of the chosen people. Former generations
may have handed them down in ignorance, and be therefore partly
excusable. But in the present day there is a large body of Jews here in
England who are fully convinced that these legends are false: it is the
duty, the sacred duly, of all such to protest against their further
propagation. If they do not, they make themselves accomplices in the
guilt of those who invented them, and responsible for all the injury,
temporal and spiritual, which the propagation of such error may inflict
upon their brethren and their posterity. But whatever course they may
pursue, the existence of these fables shows that the oral law itself is
altogether an invention of men, and proves that Jesus of Nazareth
conferred a great and substantial benefit on the nation and on mankind,
by vindicating and preserving for us the unadulterated truth of God’s
written Word.
These fables prove further, that there is neither weight nor value in
the sentence which these men pronounce against the Lord Jesus Christ. It
is the sentence of those who did not scruple to falsify and pervert the
law of God; it is the testimony given by the notorious inventors and
propagators of fables, and cannot be received by any one competent to
weigh evidence. Fables of any kind will invalidate testimony, but
religious fables utterly incapacitate their inventors and propagators
from being admitted as witnesses at all. The man who will venture to
tamper with sacred history, either by adding to, or diminishing from,
its records, clearly shows that he has lost all reverence for truth, and
all sense of the divine character, as a vindicator of truth and a
punisher of falsehood. The man who trifles with sacred facts, cannot be
regarded as a witness at all in those which he considers profane or
common. When, therefore, the Talmudists, or the wise men of his time,
bear witness against Jesus of Nazareth, whom they hated, we must
remember that they have been convicted of false witness again and again
in the case of Moses, whom they professed to love. Their testimony is
therefore a nullity, and if we wish to examine the claims of Jesus of
Nazareth, we must look elsewhere for the data which are to form the
basis of our judgment.
No. XXII.
RABBINIC MAGIC.
Modern Judaism is the religion of the oral law. The dogmas, rites,
ceremonies, and prayers, all rest upon its authority. If, therefore, the
oral law can be proved to be an invention of men, the whole fabric of
modern Judaism crumbles into dust. It then follows that the Jews have
been more than eighteen centuries the disciples of error, and that, if
they now desire to believe and profess the true religion, revealed by
God to their forefathers, they must renounce their present Talmudic
system, and return to the law and the prophets. But the oral law is a
human invention. It has been proved, on the authority of the Jewish
Prayer-book, that it abounds with the most absurd fables, which cannot
be the Word of God, but are evidently and obviously the invention of
man. It appears, therefore, that the Jewish nation has been for
centuries deluded by the traditions of the Scribes and Pharisees—that
they have been utterly mistaken in their faith, taking the fictions of
men for the truth of God—and have thereby sunk from the honourable
position, in which God placed them as depositories of the truth, to the
unenviable situation of the credulous and superstitious. Such is the
result of an inquiry into the contents of prayers of the synagogue. An
examination of the traditional commandments will show in like manner,
that the oral law is every where inseparably mingled with fables, which
throw discredit upon the whole. One of the most important parts of the
oral law is that which relates to the constitution of the great tribunal
the Sanhedrin, for, as is asserted, that council fixed the authority of
all traditions, and even examined into the claims, and decided upon the
divine mission of the prophets. If it appear, therefore, that the oral
law teaches what is manifestly fabulous with respect to that tribunal,
the main pillar of tradition is taken away. Now without entering into
the whole subject at present, the following specimen will show what
degree of credit can be given to the traditional accounts respecting
it:—
אמר ר׳ יוחנן אין מושיבין בסנהדרין אלא בעלי קומה ובעלי חכמה ובעלי מראה
ובעלי זקנה ובעלי כשפים ויודעים בשבעים לשון שלא תהא סנהדרין שומעת מפי
התורגמן ׃
“Rabbi Johannan says, none were allowed to sit in the Sanhedrin, who
were not men of stature, men of wisdom, men of good appearance, aged,
skilled in magic, and acquainted with the seventy languages, so that the
Sanhedrin might not be obliged to hear through an interpreter.”
(Sanhedrin, fol. 17, col. 1.) In this short extract there are several
fables—first, that all the members of the Sanhedrin should be skilled in
magic, or magicians, is plainly contrary to the express command of God,
who says, “There shall not be found among you any one that maketh his
son or his daughter to pass through the fire, or that useth divination,
or an observer of times, or an enchanter, or a witch מכשף—for all that
do these things are an abomination unto the Lord: and because of these
abominations the Lord thy God doth drive them out from before thee.”
(Deut. xviii. 10-12.) This command of God makes no exception in favour
of the members of the Sanhedrin. It absolutely forbids any such in
Israel for any purpose. The commentary indeed tells us, that this
magical skill was required in self-defence.
להמית מכשפים הבוטחים בכשפיהם להנצל מידי בית דין ׃
“In order to kill the magicians who trusted in their magical arts to
deliver them out of the hands of the tribunal.” But this explanation
does not mend the matter. Magic is a thing absolutely unlawful and
expressly forbidden by God. It was therefore unlawful either to learn or
to practise it, even for the purpose of killing a magician. If the plea
of self-defence or necessity made it lawful for the Sanhedrin to learn
magic, the same argument would justify it doubly in the case of the
people, who were more likely to be the objects of the magician’s
attacks; for surely these persons would be careful to avoid all contact
with the members of the Sanhedrin, whom they knew to be more than a
match for them in the black art. According to this method of arguing all
Israel might have been skilled in magic, though the law requires that
not one such person should be found among them. Either then this account
is absolutely false, or the members of the Sanhedrin were bad men, who
learned what was expressly forbidden by the law of God; and in either
case, the Talmudic accounts of this tribunal are unworthy of credit.
But it may well be doubted whether the members of this great council
confined their magical exercitations to the killing of magicians. We
find elsewhere, if the Talmud speak truth, that the rabbies at least
made other magical experiments, and have even recorded the means which
they employed, for the benefit of posterity.
אבא בנימן אומר אלמלא נתנה רשות לעין לראות אין כל ברית יכולה לעמוד מפני
המזיקין אמר אביי אינהו נפישי מינן וקימי עלן כי כסלא לאוגיא , אמר רב הונא
כל חד וחד מינן אלפי משמאליה ורבבתא מימיניה אמר רבא האי דוחקא דהוה בכלה
מיניהו הוי הני ברכי דשלהי מיניהו , הני מאני דרבנן דבלי מחופיה דידהו הני
כרעי דמנקפא מיניהו האי מאן דבעי למדע להו ליתי קיטמא נהילא ונהדר אפורייה
ובצפרא חזי כי כרעי דתרנגולא האי מאן דבעי למחזינהו ליתי שליתא דשונרא
אוכמתא בר אוכמתא בוכרתא בת בוכרתא ולקליה בנורא ולשחקיה ולימליה עיניה
מיניה וחזי להו ולשדייה בגובתא דפרזלא ולחתמיה בגושפנקא דפרזלא דילמא גנבי
מיניה ולחתום פומיה כי היכי דלא ליתזק רב ביבי בר אביי עבד הכי ואתזק בעי
רבנן רחמי עליה ואתסי ׃
“Abba Benjamin says, if permission had been given to see them, no
creature could stand before the hurtful demons. Abbai says, They are
more than we, and stand against us like the trench round the garden-bed.
Rav Huna says, Every one of us has a thousand on his left hand, and ten
thousand on his right hand. Rabba says, The want of room at the sermon
is caused by them—the wearing out of the rabbies’ clothes is caused by
their rubbing against them—the bruised legs are caused by them.
Whosoever wishes to ascertain their existence, let him take ashes that
have been passed through a sieve, and let him strew his bed, and in the
morning he will see the marks of a cock’s claws. Whosoever wishes to see
them, let him take the interior covering of a black cat, the daughter of
a first-born black cat, which is also the daughter of a first-born, and
let him burn it in the fire, and pulverise it, and let him then fill his
eyes with it, and he will see them. But let him pour the powder into an
iron tube, and seal it with an iron signet, lest they should steal any
of it, and let him also seal up the mouth thereof, that no injury may
arise. Rav Bibi bar Abbai did thus, and received an injury. But the
rabbies prayed for mercy upon him, and he was cured.” (Berachoth, fol.
6, col. 1.) Here, then, is magic for the people, and all Israel is
instructed in the means to see demons. It is not for us to decide
whether those, who might use these means, would ever see men again, but
this is certain, that the oral law here gives a magical recipe to those
who are not members of the Sanhedrin, sets before us one of the Talmudic
doctors as an example, and moreover encourages to do as he did, by
holding out the possibility of a miraculous cure, if any injury should
arise. If, then, this story be true, the oral law permits magic, which
the law of God forbids; if it be false, then the oral law is convicted
of another monstrous falsehood, and is altogether unworthy of credit.
How long will the people of Israel suffer themselves to be deluded by a
system, of which the striking characteristic is, that it has no regard
for truth? The Jews object against Jesus of Nazareth, that he leads them
away from the law of Moses, but where does he, or his disciples,
inculcate the study of magic, or prescribe rules for facilitating
intercourse with demons, contrary to the express command of God? Just
suppose that this whole extract, instead of being found in the Talmud,
had formed a portion of the New Testament, how would the Jews have
laughed at this prescription for its folly, and argued against its
wickedness, how triumphantly would they have shown that a law that
teaches and encourages magic could not have been given by God? The
existence of one such passage would have been sufficient, in their eyes,
to condemn the whole Christian system. Let, then, the Jews deal with the
oral law in the same way. Let them judge it and its fables by an appeal
to Moses and the prophets. But let them remember that in this, as in
many other instances, the New Testament agrees with the law of Moses,
whilst the oral law differs from both. The New Testament classes
witchcraft along with idolatry, and other sins which exclude from the
joys of eternal life. “The works of the flesh are manifest, which are
these: adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, _witchcraft_,
hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies,
envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like; of the which
I tell you before, as I have also told you in times past, that they
which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.” (Galat. v.
19-21.) In this case, then, where the oral law leads you away from the
doctrine of Moses, the religion of Jesus of Nazareth brings you back
again.
This is, however, not the only fable contained in that short law
concerning the members of the Sanhedrin. We are told, besides, that no
one was allowed to sit in that council “unless he understood the seventy
tongues.” Now we would ask every disciple of the oral law calmly to
consider this statement, and then say what he thinks of its veracity.
Did he ever hear or know of scholars in the present times acquainted
with seventy languages, and that so perfectly as to be able to converse
with and examine witnesses, and form a judgment upon their evidence,
without the aid of an interpreter? Surely, the study of languages is as
much cultivated in the present day as it was then, and there are at
least as many facilities for their acquisition. The system of grammar is
now fully developed. The art of printing has made it easy to obtain
foreign books. Lexicons and other apparatus may be procured, and yet,
with all these facilities, we much doubt whether there be, in the whole
world, one single person possessing that knowledge of languages here
ascribed to every individual member of the Sanhedrin. According to the
oral law, there always had been, in Israel, seventy-one such persons at
least, but probably more; for as a member died, or became superannuated,
another was found ready to succeed him. But the wonder is here made
still more wonderful, for there were not only seventy-one persons
acquainted with seventy languages, but those persons were also
acquainted, as Rambam tells us, with medicine, astronomy, and all the
existing systems of idolatry, and moreover skilled in magic. And,
besides all this, all these persons were fine handsome fellows, “Men of
stature, men of good appearance.” Is this credible—can all Israel, or
all the world, furnish one such person at present, handsome or ugly,
tall or short? or can there be found amongst that intelligent people the
Jews, one man, woman, or child, so silly as to believe so manifest a
falsehood? We can tell them that their great rabbi, Rambam, did not
believe it, and therefore in his Compendium took the liberty of altering
this Talmudic statement. Instead of seventy languages, he says simply—
ושידעו ברוב הלשונות ׃
“And that they should be acquainted with most languages.” It was too
much for him. Being a learned man himself, he knew the impossibility of
such universal knowledge; and he therefore softened down the Talmudic
hyperbole to the limits of what he considered possibility. This is not
merely our conclusion from Rambam’s alteration, the commentator has
expressly said the same:—
וכתב רבינו יודעין ברוב הלשונות משום דדבר זר להמצא מי שידע בכל ע׳ לשון ׃
“Our rabbi has written, ‘Acquainted with most languages,’ because it is
a rarity to find a person acquainted with all the seventy languages.”
(Hilchoth Sanhedrin, c. 2.) Rambam himself, then, is here a witness
against the fabulous exaggerations of the Talmud.
But perhaps some one will say, that seventy is only a round number to
signify many, that we must not, therefore, be too strict in its
exposition. This subterfuge, however, will not serve here. The authors
of the Talmud said seventy, because they believed that, by giving this
number, they included all the languages in the world. They believed that
there were seventy nations, and therefore they said seventy languages.
This article of Jewish faith is found everywhere in the Talmud, and in
the commentaries, as for instance—
אמר ר׳ יוחנן מאי דכתיב יתן אומר המבשרות צבא רב כל דבור ודבור שיצא מפי
הגבורה נחלק לשבעים לשונות ׃