whose name is Levi, and let him write the word Levi backwards. If this
cannot be done, get a layman, and let him write the following words
backwards:—‘Ana pipi Shila bar Sumki;’[23] or let him write these words,
‘Taam dli bemi keseph, taam li bemi paggan;’[24] or let him take a root
of grass, and the cord of an old bed, and paper and saffron, and the red
part of the inside of a palm tree, and let him burn them together, and
let him take some wool, and twist two threads, and let him dip them in
vinegar, and then roll them in the ashes, and put them into his nose. Or
let him look out for a small stream of water that flows from east to
west, and let him go and stand with one leg on each side of it, and let
him take with his right hand some mud from under his left foot, and with
his left hand from under his right foot, and let him twist two threads
of wool, and dip them in the mud, and put them into his nostrils. Or let
him be placed under a spout, and let water be brought and poured upon
him, and let them say, ‘As this water ceases to flow, so let the blood
of M., the son of the woman N., also cease.’” (Gittin, fol. 69, col. 1.)
Now we ask any Jew of common sense, whether this passage savours most of
wisdom or folly? Vinegar and water may be very useful in such a case, or
even mud, if used in sufficient quantity, might stop up the nose, and
therefore stop the bleeding too, but what manner of benefit can proceed
from the word Levi written backwards, or from those words which Rashi
pronounces to be magical? Why is the mud of water flowing from east to
west more efficacious, and why is it to be taken with the right hand
from under the left foot, and with the left hand from under the right
foot? Plainly because the authors of this passage thought there was some
charm or magic power, and their minds were so overpowered by
superstition, as to lead them to disregard the plain words of Moses
forbidding all magic. It cannot be pretended that this is a rare case,
the Talmud abounds in such remedies, all equally wise. For instance,
take the following mode of treatment for the scratch or bite of a mad
dog:—
תנו רבנן חמשה דברים נאמרו בכלב שוטה פיו פתוח ורירו נוטף ואזניו סרוחות
וזנבו מונח לו על ירכותיו ומהלך בצדי דרכים ויש אומרים אף נובח ואין קולו
נשמע , ממאי הוי רב אמר נשים כשפניות משחקות בו , ושמואל אמר רוח רעה שורה
עליו , מאי בינייהו איכא בינייהו למקטליה בדבר הנזרק תניא כותיה דשמואל
כשהורגין אותו אין הורגין אותו אלא בדבר הנזרק דחייף ביה מסתכן דנכית ליה
מיית דחייף ביה מסתכן מאי תקנתיה נישלח מאניה ונירהוט תב הונא בריה דרב
יהושע חף ביה חד מינייהו בשוקא שלחינהו למאניה ורהיט אמר קיימתי בעצמי
והחכמה תחיה בעליה דנכית ליה מאית מאי תקנתיה אמר אביי ניתי משכא דאפא
דדיכרא וניכתוב עליה אנא פלניא בר פלניתא אמשכא דאפא דדיכרא כתיבנא עלך
כנתי כנתי קלירוס ואמרו לה קנדי קנדי קלורוס יה יה ה׳ צבאות אמן אמן סלה
ונשלחינהו למאניא ולקברינהו בי קברי עד תריסר ירחי שתא ונפקינהו ונקלינהו
בתנורא ונבדרינהו לקטמיה אפרשת דרכים והנך תריסר ירחי שתא כי שתי מיא לא
לשתי אלא בגובתא דנחשא דלמא חזי בבואיה דשידא וליסתכן כי הא דאבא בר מרתא
הוא אבא בר מניומי עבדי ליה אימיה גובתא דדהבא ׃
“The rabbies have handed down the tradition, that there are five things
to be observed of a mad dog: his mouth is open, his saliva flows, his
ears hang down, his tail is between his legs, and he goes by the sides
of the ways. Some say also, that he barks, but his voice is not heard.
What is the cause of his madness? Rav says, it proceeds from this, that
the witches are making their sport with him. Samuel says, it is an evil
spirit that rests upon him. What is the difference? The difference is
this, that in the latter case he is to be killed by some missile weapon.
The tradition[25] agrees with Samuel, for it says, In killing him no
other mode is to be used but the casting of some missile weapon. If a
mad dog scratch any one, he is in danger; but if he bite him he will
die. In case of a scratch there is danger; what then is the remedy? Let
the man cast off his clothes and run away. Rav Huna, the son of Rav
Joshua, was once scratched in the street by one of them; he immediately
cast off his clothes and ran away. He also says, I fulfilled in myself
those words, ‘Wisdom giveth life to them that have it.’ (Eccles. vii.
12.) In case of a bite, the man will die; what then is the remedy? Abai
says, He must take the skin of a male adder, and write upon it these
words, ‘I, M., the son of the woman N., upon the skin of a male adder, I
write against thee, Kanti, Kanti, Klirus.’ Some say, ‘Kandi, Kandi,
Klurus, Jah, Jah, Lord of Hosts, Amen, Amen, Selah.’ Let him also cast
off his clothes, and bury them in the grave-yard for twelve months of
the year; then let him take them up and burn them in an oven, and let
him scatter the ashes at the parting of the roads. But during these
twelve months of the year, when he drinks water, let him drink out of
nothing but a brass tube, lest he should see the phantom-form of the
demon and be endangered. This was tried by Abba, the son of Martha, who
is the same as Abba, the son of Manjumi. His mother made a golden tube
for him.” (Joma, fol. 83, col. 1.) This is a very plain case of the use
of an amulet and of magic, but whether it be a proof of profound wisdom
we leave to the judgment of the reader. What good can the poor man get
from certain words written on the skin of a male adder? or from first
burying and then burning his clothes, and scattering the ashes on the
cross-roads? It cannot be pretended that this is medical treatment, and
still less that it is the treatment commanded by the Word of God. If it
had pleased God to command all this, we should not only submit, but
gladly recommend this recipe in every similar case. To God Almighty no
man can prescribe. He chooses what means he pleases, and may do so
because his omnipotence can render them effectual. He healed the
Israelites bitten by the fiery serpents by the sight of the brazen
image, and he cured Naaman’s leprosy by bathing in the waters of Jordan.
Whatever then be the means which He prescribes, our highest wisdom is to
make use of them. But as he has not prescribed the means recommended by
the Talmud, but forbidden them in his general prohibition of magic, we
must say that the man who uses them has bid adieu to all true wisdom. No
wonder, then, if his own inventions are stamped with folly. But what
will our readers think of the cause of the canine madness here assigned?
“Rav says, It proceeds from the witches who are making their sport with
him. Samuel says, It is an evil spirit that rests upon him.” Rav
believed, then, that God, whose mercies are over all his works, allows
wicked women to torment his creatures, and to inflict upon them a
dreadful malady to make sport for themselves. Is this wise, is it
according to Scripture? This is the doctrine of the oral law; and if
Jesus of Nazareth had not protested against it, and taught a true
doctrine by asserting the truth of Scripture, this would be the
universal doctrine and practice of the Jews. Whoever believes the
Talmud, must believe in this and all the other follies which it
contains. Whoever rejects these things, confesses that the Talmud
contains what is false and foolish, and thereby shakes or rather
overthrows its authority. Some person will perhaps say that similar
superstitions and follies have been found amongst Christians. We grant
that this has been the case wherever Christians have departed from the
written Word of God, but can anything similar be found in the New
Testament? That book is our standard of Christianity. As you say that
the oral law is of divine authority, we say that the New Testament is of
divine authority. We point out to you these follies, not in individual
Jews, but in your book of authority. If you would make out a parallel
case, you must do the same. But you cannot. The New Testament has
nothing of the kind; and it is for you to explain how this happens that
the New Testament, which you believe to be false, is entirely free from
every thing of the kind.
Further, we ask every right-minded Israelite, whether he is not shocked
at that profanation of the reverend and holy names of God which is here
not only countenanced but prescribed. What can a devout Jew think either
of the man or the book that tells us to write the names,
יה יה יהוה צבאות ׃
“Jah, Jah, the Lord of Hosts,” by the side of such nonsense as Kanti,
Kanti, Klurus? Would he say that this is consistent with true religion?
And yet this profane use of the name of God for magical purposes, is not
rare in the Talmud. The following is another instance:—
אמר רבה אשתעו לי נחותי ימא , האי גלא דמטבע לספינה מיתחזי כי צוציתא דנורא
חיוורתא ברישא ומחינן ליה באלוותא דחקיק עליה אהיה אשר אהיה יה ה׳ צבאות
אמן אמן סלה ונייח אמר רבה אשתעו לי נחותי ימא בין גלא לגלא תלת מאה פרסי
זמנא חדא הוה אזלינן באורחא ודלינן גלא עד דחזינן בי מרבעתא דכוכבא זוטא
והויא בי מבזר ארבעין גריוי בזרא דחרדלא , ואי דלינן טפי מקלינן מהבלי ,
ורמי ליה גלא קלא לחברתה חברתי שבקת מידי בעלמא דלא שטפתיה דניתי אנא
ונאבדיה א׳׳ל הזי גבורתא דמריך מלא חוטא חלא ולא עברי שנאמר האותי לא תיראו
נאום ה׳ אם מפני לא תחילו אשר שמתי חול גבול לים חק עולם ולא יעברנהו ׃
“Rabbah says, They that go down to the sea have told me, that when a
wave is going to overwhelm a ship, sparks of white light are seen on its
head. But if we strike it with a staff on which are graved the words, ‘I
am that I am, Jah, Lord of Hosts, Amen, Amen, Selah,’ it subsides. They
that go down to the sea have told me, that the distance between one wave
and another, is three hundred miles. It happened once that we were
making a voyage, and we raised a wave until we saw the resting-place of
the least of all the stars. It was large enough to sow forty bushels of
mustard seed, and if we had raised it more we should have been burned by
the vapour of the star. One wave raised its voice and called to its
companion, O, companion, hast thou left anything in the world that thou
hast not overflowed? Come, and let us destroy it. It replied, Come and
see the power of thy Lord. I could not overpass the sand even a
hair’s-breadth, for it is written, ‘Fear ye not me? saith the Lord: will
ye not tremble at my presence, which have placed the sand for the bound
of the sea, by a perpetual decree that it cannot pass it?’ (Jer. v.
22.)” (Bava Bathra, fol. 73, col. 1.) Here is the same profanation of
the peculiar and holy names of God: it is to be engraved on a staff
either to lay or to raise the waves. But besides the profanity, just
consider the folly of this whole story. In the first place, it ascribes
to men, no matter whether they are good or wicked, absolute power over
the waves of the sea. Anybody can engrave those names of God upon a
staff, anybody can use the staff to strike the sea, and thus a wicked
man, without either faith, fear, or love of God, may make and use an
instrument which almost invests him with omnipotence. Is it possible
that any son of Israel can be so credulous as to believe such manifest
absurdity? But this story reminds us again of the utter disregard of
truth which characterises the Talmud. Here we are told that, by power of
this magic staff, a wave was raised so high as to enable those
travellers to see the resting-place of the smallest of all the stars,
and that so distinctly, too, as to be able to make a good guess at its
measure. The slightest knowledge of modern astronomy is sufficient to
show not only the improbability, but the utter impossibility of anything
of the kind. The least of the stars visible to the naked eye is at an
almost immeasurable distance from the earth, so as to make it perfectly
ludicrous to talk of a wave being raised to such a height. All the water
on the face of the globe would be far from sufficient for the formation
of one such wave. But the Talmud intimates that they had the power of
raising it still higher, and were prevented only by the fear of being
scorched. But the Talmud is not satisfied with these wonders, it goes on
to describe a conversation between two waves. The commentator, who
evidently believed every word of the story, suggest that this
conversation was carried on by the angels presiding over the waves.
ורמי ליה גלא נתן קולו כלומר צעק כדוגמא תהום אל תהום קורא , ושמא מלאכים
הממונים עליהם הם ׃
“The wave lifted up his voice, that is, it cried, and so we find, ‘Deep
calleth unto deep.’ And perhaps this means the angels who were set over
them.” The commentator, it appears, had no doubt of the truth of the
story, and how should he have, if he believed in the Divine authority of
the Talmud? But we ask our readers do they believe this story—and if
they do not, why not? Because it is too absurd, and too far beyond the
bounds of possibility. Can, then, a book that swarms with similar
accounts be from God? By what means did all these things about magic,
astrology, amulets, magical cures, and staves, get into the Talmud? No
doubt they were put in by the authors. Either, then, the authors
believed in all these things, or they did not. If they did not believe
in them, then they were evidently bad men, who deliberately wrote
falsehood. But if they did believe these things, then, though not guilty
of wilful falsehood, they were credulous, superstitious persons, who had
no clear idea of the religion of Moses and the prophets; and in either
case they are most unsafe guides in religion. It is for the Jews of the
present day to consider whether they will still adhere to a system that
involves the belief of so many incredibilities and sanctions the
profanation of the names of God for the purposes of magic. Eighteen
centuries are surely long enough to have remained in such thick
darkness. Those who have been brought up in such a system ought now, at
least, to arise and ask what have they and their forefathers been about
all this while? And how it is that the New Testament, which they have
rejected, is entirely free from such deformities? Something has been
decidedly wrong, or the chosen people of God could not have remained so
long in captivity, unheeded and unhelped by the Holy One of Israel. An
exhibition of the doctrines of the oral law explains the cause. Israel
has departed from the religion of Moses, and pertinaciously adhered to a
system compounded of human inventions, and idolatrous heathenism. They
call Moses their master, and say that the oral law is derived from him,
but if we may from the work, form a conjecture about the author, it is
much more probably a tradition from the magicians of Egypt or the witch
of Endor. And if it had been handed down as such—if the Israelites had
presented the Talmud to the world and their posterity as part of the
heavy yoke of Egypt, we should not have been astonished at the
universality of its reception. But that Israel should ever have been so
far imposed upon, as to believe that Moses or the prophets ever had
anything to do with the oral law appears almost inexplicable. However
unwilling one may be to apply to fellow-sinners any prophecy that
contains a denunciation of God’s wrath, one cannot help asking, was it
of this that the prophet said, “The Lord hath poured out upon you the
spirit of deep sleep, and hath closed your eyes; the prophets and your
rulers the seers hath he covered. And the vision of all is become unto
you as the words of a book that is sealed, which men deliver to one that
is learned, saying, read this, I pray thee; and he saith, I cannot, for
it is sealed: and the book is delivered to him that is not learned,
saying, Read this, I pray thee, and he saith, I am not learned.” (Isaiah
xxix. 10-12.) This question is, however, far more important to Israel
than to us, and to them we leave the answer. Some will still persist in
the assertion that this heathenish compound is the highest wisdom. The
great majority of the nation is devoted to the Talmud, which is still
the cistern whence the synagogues endeavour to draw the waters of life.
The multitude does it in ignorance, they are, therefore, not so
culpable. But there are many that know better, what then is the reason
that they do not strain every nerve to deliver their brethren? These few
do not suffer the oral law to interfere either with their business or
their convenience. They profane the Sabbath, eat Gentile food, carry on
their business on feasts and festivals. If they do all this on
principle, why not protest against error? Is it because they are
indifferent to the welfare of their brethren? If indifference be the
only fruit of this intellectual progress, instead of rising above, they
have sunk below superstition itself.
Footnote 23:
The only explanation which Rashi gives of these words is לחש הוא “It
is a charm.”
Footnote 24:
Literally, לחש הוא “It is a charm.”—Rashi.
Footnote 25:
The Bareitha.
No. XXVI.
CHARMS CONTINUED.
If men would only employ in religion a little of that common sense and
earnestness, which they find so necessary for the affairs of this life,
they would by God’s blessing soon arrive at the truth. For example, if
the father of a family should find, that by following the advice of a
physician, sickness and death were constant guests, he would soon look
out for another; and he would be much quickened in his measures, if this
physician’s counsel had produced the same results in the house of his
father and his grandfather. He would not think it any shame, under such
circumstances, to change his father’s physician for another; on the
contrary, he would think, and most men would agree with him, that it
would be both a sin and a shame to retain him. Now let Israel make the
application to their spiritual physicians, the Scribes, Pharisees, and
Rabbies. For many centuries they have punctually followed their advice,
and the consequence has been one misfortune after another, and centuries
of exile from the land which God gave to their fathers; the very
contrary of that which God has promised. God has said, if the Jews will
obey the religion of Moses, that they shall be restored to their land.
“It shall come to pass ... if thou shalt return unto the Lord thy God,
and shalt obey his voice according to all that I command thee this day,
thou and thy children, with all thy heart and with all thy soul; that
then the Lord thy God will turn thy captivity, and have compassion upon
thee, and will return and gather thee from all nations,” &c. (Deut. xxx.
2, 3.) The Jews have obeyed the commands of the rabbies, and have not
been gathered; what is the conclusion? Either that God’s promise has
failed, which is impossible, or that the religion of the rabbies is not
the religion of Moses. Such is the inevitable conclusion from the words
of Moses and the facts of the case; let it then lead the sufferers to
examine the religion which they have hitherto professed. A very little
examination will convince any reasonable man, that it is a fearful
corruption of divine truth, a compilation made by men who professed to
be astrologers and magicians. Let not the Jews think that our opinion is
the result of prejudice. It has been deliberately formed on evidence
furnished by the oral law itself. If we are wrong, let the rabbies prove
the contrary. Let them, for example, explain the following law of modern
Judaism.
מי שנשכו עקרב או נחש מותר ללחוש אל מקום הנשיכה ואפילו בשבת כדי לישב דעתו
ולחזק לבו אף על פי שאין הדבר מועיל כלום הואיל ומסוכן הוא התירו לו כדי
שלא תטרף דעתו עליו ׃
“If any person be bitten by a scorpion or a serpent, it is lawful to
charm the place of the bite, even on the Sabbath-day, in order to quiet
his mind, and to encourage his heart, although it is a thing utterly
profitless. Because the man is in danger, they have pronounced this
lawful for him that his mind may not be distracted.” (Hilchoth Accum. c.
xi. 11.) Here the rabbies have allowed what God has absolutely
forbidden. The men who profess such reverence for the Sabbath allow it
to be profaned by magic, which is one of the works of the devil. Rambam,
whose words we have just quoted, felt that it was both wicked and
foolish, and has therefore endeavoured to furnish an excuse, saying that
it is of no use, and is only allowed to quiet the mind of the sufferer.
But that does not alter the unlawfulness. Besides, what sort of opinion
could Rambam and the rabbies have had of the Jews, when they say that
magic is permitted in order to quiet their minds? They evidently
supposed that the Jews were a weak and superstitious people, who
believed so firmly in charms, that the use of them would quiet the mind;
and so ignorant or careless about God’s commandments, that they could be
comforted by their transgressions. The excuse, therefore, only makes the
case worse. It takes for granted that the professors of the oral law are
ignorant and superstitious; and then to quiet their minds allows the
transgression of the law of Moses, and that on the Sabbath-day. But this
excuse is altogether Rambam’s invention. The original passage in the
Talmud says nothing about quieting the man’s mind, it simply says—
ולוחשין לחישת נחשים ועקרבים בשבת ׃
“It is lawful to charm serpents and scorpions on the Sabbath-day.”
(Sanhedrin, fol. 101, col. 1.) And Rashi’s commentary on the passage—
בשביל שלא יזיקו ׃
“That they may not do injury.” This man, then, who spent his life in the
study of the Talmud, knew nothing of Rambam’s apology. He plainly
believed that by charming serpents on the Sabbath, they might be
prevented from doing harm, and that on this account, and not for the
purpose of quieting the mind, they were permitted so to do. This was
also the opinion of that famous expounder of Jewish law, the Baal Turim,
for after quoting Rambam’s words, he adds:—
מי שרודפים אחריו נחש או עקרב מותר להבר ללחש כדי שלא יזיקוהו כתב הרמב׳׳ם
הלוחש על המכה והקורא פסוק מן התורה וכן הקורא על התינוק שלא יבעת או מניח
ס׳׳ת או תפילין על הקטן לא די להם שהם בכלל חברים ומנחשים אלא שהם בכלל
הכופרים בתורה שעושין דברי תורה רפואת הגוף ואינן אלא רפואת הנפש ור׳׳י
פירש דוקא בלוחש על המכה ומזכיר שם שמים ורוקק אותו הוא שאין לו חלק לעולם
הבא אבל אם אינו רוקק לא חמיר כולי האי ומיהו איסורא איכא בלוחש פסוק על
המכה אפילו בלא רקיקה ובלא הזכרת שם שמים , ואם יש כו סכנת נפשות הכל מותר
ומותר לקרוא פסוק פהגן כגון בלילה על מטתו ׃
“If any person be pursued by a serpent or a scorpion, it is lawful to
charm it to prevent it from doing injury. Rambam has written, He that
charms a wound, or reads a verse from the law (as a charm), and also he
that reads over an infant that it may not be afraid, or who lays a roll
of the law or phylacteries upon a child, are not only to be accounted as
one of the charmers and magicians, but as of the deniers of the law, for
they use the words of the law as medicine for the body, whereas it is
only a medicine for the soul. R. Isaac says absolutely, that he who
charms a wound, mentioning at the same time the name of God and
spitting, is the charmer of whom it is said that he has no share in the
world to come: but if he does not spit, the matter is not so grave. It
is, however, forbidden to use a verse as a charm over a wound, even
though there will be no spitting nor mentioning the name of God. _But if
life be in danger, every thing is lawful_; and it is lawful to read a
verse as a defence, for instance at night in bed.” (Joreh Deah. § 179.)
From this it is pretty plain that the charming of serpents was allowed,
not as Rambam says to quiet the mind of him that had been bitten, but to
prevent injury, for it is allowed before the man is bitten at all, if he
be only pursued by a serpent or a scorpion. But what a picture does this
whole passage give us of the religious state of the Rabbinic Jews, both
rabbies and people. Here you have the people described, not by
Christians, but by the rabbies themselves, as sunk in the depths of
superstition, using a sepher torah, a roll of the law, or phylacteries
as a sort of charm for the benefit of children, and you have the rabbies
forbidding this at one time, but allowing what is equally forbidden by
God, to charm serpents: and, in case of danger, declaring that “Every
thing is lawful,” that is, allowing them to do what will make them,
according to Rambam’s opinion, charmers, magicians, and deniers of the
law. And this is the Jewish religion, and this is what the Jews have
gained by rejecting Christianity. We, poor Gentiles, who cannot trace
our pedigree to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, should be ashamed of such
follies. And if such wicked heathenish practices were to be found in our
religious books, we would not let an hour pass over until we had lifted
up our voice and protested against them, and should use every lawful
means to deliver our children from such ungodliness and error.
We have now given quotations from the two great digests of Jewish law on
the subject of using charms, but it is worth while to consider the
context of the original passage, upon which these laws are based, as
that will prove that the Talmud has not been misrepresented by its
compilers.
תנו רבנן סכין וממשמשין בבני מעיין בשבת ולוחשין לחישת נחשים ועקרבים בשבת
ומעבירין כלי על גב העין בשבת אמר רבן שמעון בן גמליאל במה דברים אמורים
בכלי הניטל אבל בכלי שאינו ניטל אסור ואין שואלין בדבר שדים בשבת ר׳ יוסי
אומר אף בחול אסור אמר רב הונא אין הלכה כר׳ יוסי ואף ר׳ יוסי לא אמרה אלא
משום סכנה כי הא דרב יצחק בר יוסף דאיבלע בארזא ואתעביד ליה ניסא פקע ארזא
ופלטיה ׃