and rub the stomach (of a sick man) on the Sabbath, also to charm
serpents and scorpions on the Sabbath: also to pass an instrument across
the eye on the Sabbath. R. Simeon, the son of Gamaliel, says, that this
only applies to an instrument which may be moved,[26] but with one that
may not be moved, it is unlawful. But it is unlawful on the Sabbath to
make inquiry of demons. R. Jose says, this is also unlawful on
week-days. Rav Huna says, the decision is not according to R. Jose: and
R. Jose himself said this only on account of danger, for that is what
occurred in the case of R. Isaac, the son of Joseph, who was swallowed
up in a cedar tree, but a miracle was wrought for him—the cedar opened
and cast him out.” (Sanhedrin, fol. 101, col. 1.) We have here, first,
the charming of serpents; we ask, then, could the Talmudic doctors
really believe in such folly or allow such wickedness on the Sabbath? Is
there any misunderstanding, or does the context show, that they were men
of that superstitious turn of mind to justify this idea? The context is
all of a piece, for after permitting the charming of serpents, it goes
on to discuss the lawfulness of asking counsel of demons, and here Rashi
shall explain what this means:—
בדבר שדים שכן עושין כשאובדין שום דבר שואלין במעשה שדים והם מגּידים להם
ואסור לעשות בשבת משום ממצוא חפציך ׃
“To make inquiry of demons, is what they do when any thing is lost. They
make inquiry by the work of demons, and they tell them, and this is
forbidden on the Sabbath, on account of the words, ‘Not finding thine
own pleasure.’ (Isaiah lviii. 13.)” This is plainly a magical operation,
but yet the rabbies do not say that it is unlawful because it is
magical, but because it would be attending to one’s own concerns. In
like manner, they say, it is unlawful on week-days, only on account of
the danger. And an instance is given in Rabbi Isaac of what might
happen; and here, again, we ask counsel of Rashi, in order to understand
what Rabbi Isaac was about. This commentator tells us:—
היה שואל במעשה שדים ובקש השד להזיקו ונעשה לו נס ובלעו הארז ׃
“He was asking counsel, by means of a demoniacal operation, and the
demon sought to do him an injury, but a miracle was wrought for him, and
a cedar tree swallowed him.” Such, then, is the context, those men who
permit the charming of serpents, also teach the doctrine of asking
advice of demons, and give us a practical example in one of their
friends. There can, therefore, be no mistake; the one feature of their
religious system exactly agrees with the other: and the authors of the
oral law represent themselves as patrons and practisers of charms and
magic, and therefore to every lover of the Mosaic law, as unwise and
ungodly men. It is, however, curious to see how they endeavoured to
quiet their own conscience, and that of the people, in a matter so
evidently repugnant to the plain words of Scripture. They pretended,
that there was a holy sort of magic in the practical Cabbala, which men
might learn, and then perform the greatest miracles.
אי בעו צדיקי ברו עלמא שנאמר כי עונותיכם היו מבדילים וגו׳ רבא ברא גברא
שדריה לקמיה דר׳ זירא הוה קא משתעי בהדיה ולא הוה קא מהדר ליה אמר ליה מן
חבריא את הדר לעפריך רב חנינא ורב אושעיא הוו יתבי כל מעלי שבתא ועסקו בספר
יצירה ומיברו להו עיגלא תילתא ואכלי ליה ׃
“If the righteous wished, they might create the world, for it is
written, ‘But your sins separate, &c.’ Rabba created a man, and sent him
to Rabbi Zira. He spoke with him, but when the other did not answer him,
he said, Thou art from the magicians, return to thy dust. Rav Chanina
and Rav Oshaia used to sit every Sabbath eve and study the book of
Jetzirah, and then created for themselves a three-years-old calf, and
ate it.” (Sanhedrin, fol. 65, col. 2.) The second miracle is here
ascribed to the study of a certain book. In Rashi the first miracle
performed by Rabba is ascribed to the same source.
ברא גברא ע׳׳י ספר יצירה שמלמדו צרוף אותיות של שם ׃
“He created the man by means of the book of Jetzirah, for it taught him
the combination of the letters of the name of God.” According to this
account, these rabbies were much greater men than Moses or any of the
prophets, for in the whole Old Testament there is not one such miracle
recorded. Moses never created any thing, neither did he perform any of
his miracles without the help of God. Either the Lord immediately
commanded him, or he sought the Lord’s help. But these rabbies acquired
the power of omnipotence by studying a particular book, and exercised it
either for their amusement or their profit. Rabba created a man, and
sent him to Rabbi Zira, not as it appears to do any good, or to glorify
God, but simply to show his power, or to act a little bit of waggery;
and the other two created a fat calf for themselves every Sabbath eve,
that they might have a good dinner. The difference between these
miracles and those recorded in Scripture is obvious. The Scripture
miracles are either for the glory of God, or the good of man. The
rabbinical miracles are altogether for the glory of man, and the
gratification of self. Moses smote the rock, and supplied all Israel
with water. The rabbies create a calf, and eat it themselves. No doubt
there were many poor people in Israel at the time of Rabbies Oshaia and
Chanina, who would have been very glad of a calf for their Sabbath
dinner, why did they not create a calf or two for them? This selfish
falsehood betrays itself, and bears on its front its own condemnation.
The whole doctrine of the combination of the letters in the name of God
is a pure invention of men, whose minds have been debased by
superstition. There is not a word about it in the whole Bible, and it is
derogatory to the honour of God, who is the only Creator.
The whole Talmudic doctrine of magic does, however, explain the reason
why the Scribes and Pharisees were so little moved by the real miracles
of Jesus of Nazareth and his disciples. Their minds were fully possessed
with faith in the power of cabalistic magic, they therefore were
insensible to the real displays of divine power. They were in the same
state of mind as Pharaoh and his magicians, who looked on the miracles
of Moses as a mere proof of magical skill, and hardened their hearts.
Even when they confessed “This is the finger of God,” they were not
converted. Pharaoh still persisted in his resistance. And so it was with
the Scribes and Pharisees. When the Lord had raised Lazarus from the
dead, “then gathered the chief priests and the Pharisees in council, and
said, What do we? for this man doeth many miracles.” They acknowledged
the fact of the miracles, but did not receive their evidence, for they
believed that the study of the book of Jetzirah would enable them to do
greater. No miracle, therefore, could convince them. But besides this,
their hearts were corrupt, and they had apostatized from the law of
Moses; they therefore did not love the truth. They had turned aside to
charms and magic, and asking counsel of demons; and when men do this,
the understanding becomes darkened, so that it is rendered impervious to
the light. Their unbelief, therefore, becomes an evidence to the truth
of Christianity. If such transgressors of the law of Moses, and such
unblushing relaters of falsehood had believed, it would have cast a
shade of suspicion over the whole Gospel history. If the men, who say
that Rabba created a man, and the two other worthies created a calf
every week, had appeared as witnesses for the truth of Christianity, the
miracles of the Gospel would have appeared in one category with these
most absurd fictions. But when such men appear as the enemies and
persecutors of Jesus, it testifies that He was not one of them, and that
as they were bad men, and loved a false system, his doctrine must
necessarily have had something good in it, or they would not have
opposed it.
But this doctrine explains still more clearly the cause of God’s wrath
against Israel. The Jews boast that since the Babylonian captivity, they
have been free from idolatry, but this is not true. They have not made
images, that is, they have avoided the form, but they have retained all
the substance of idolatrous heathenism. The man who charms a serpent is
an idolater, and the religion which permits it is idolatrous and
heathenish. The man who asks counsel of demons is an idolater of the
worst class, for he does homage to unclean spirits. He turns his back
upon the allwise God, who ought to be the counsellor of all his
children, and by making demons his advisers, makes them his gods, and
yet this is also allowed in the religion of the rabbies if it can be
done without danger. Those Jews, therefore, who believe in the oral
law—that is, all Jews who make use of the synagogue prayers, have
departed from the law and the God of Moses, and have chosen for
themselves the doctrines and the gods of the rabbies. How then can God
have compassion upon them and gather them? The thing is impossible,
until they utterly renounce all these delusions, confess their sin in
having followed them so long, and “return and seek the Lord their God
and David their king.” A long trial has been made of the rabbinical
medicine, and it has altogether failed. Wherever the religion of the
oral law has been or is predominant, its sway has been marked by the
misery of the people. And the first dawn of a happier day has appeared
only since the time that a part of the nation burst the fetters of
rabbinic superstition. Compare the state of the German Jews with that of
their brethren in Turkey or on the coast of Morocco. Some of the former
have abandoned the oral law, and the latter still cling to it with a
bigoted devotion; and yet the former have had a blessing in the
improvement of their temporal and intellectual condition, and the latter
still remain in mental and corporeal slavery. The mere renunciation of
Rabbinism has produced these beneficial effects, and if the Jews of
Europe go on from the renunciation of error to the attainment of truth,
that is, if they return to the religion of Moses and the prophets, the
promises of God will be fulfilled, and the nation will be restored to
the land of their fathers.
The Rabbinic Jews comfort themselves with the idea, that they cannot
have this world and the world to come too; but they confound two things
which are perfectly distinct, God’s mode of dealing with individuals,
and his mode of dealing with nations. Individuals have not only an
existence in time, but for eternity. Worldly misfortune to an individual
is, therefore, no proof of God’s displeasure, because the world is only
a part, and that the smallest part, of his existence. But the case of
nations is different. They exist only in time, and therefore the rewards
and punishments must be temporal, and so God has uniformly promised to
the Jewish people temporal prosperity, in case of national obedience,
and temporal calamity in the former case. Whenever, therefore, we see
Israel exiled from their land and scattered among the nations, we must
infer, if Moses has spoken the truth, that it is because they have
departed from the God of their fathers.
Footnote 26:
Such as a key, a ring, or a knife.—Rashi.
No. XXVII.
SABBATIC LAWS.
How little the oral law has hitherto done to promote the peace and
happiness of Israel, we considered in our last number. It may, however,
be replied, that it has not had a fair trial, and that the failure is to
be attributed rather to the people than to the law. This possible reply
naturally leads us to think, what then would be the state of Israel and
of the world at large, if the oral law were universally and exactly
observed, and its disciples had supreme dominion in the world? Suppose
that all the kingdoms of the world were melted into one vast and
universal monarchy, and the sceptre swayed by a devout and learned
rabbi, and all the magisterial offices filled by able and zealous
Talmudists, would the world be happy? This is a fair question, and well
deserves consideration, for there can be no doubt that true religion was
intended by its Divine Author to promote the happiness of his
creatures:—
דוכיה דרכי נועם וכל נתיבוביה שלום ׃
“Her ways are ways of pleasantness, and all her paths are peace.” (Prov.
iii. 17.) And that not of a few, but of all without exception.
הלא אב אחד לכלנו , הלא אל אחד בראנו ׃
“Have we not all one father? Hath not one God created us?” (Mal. ii.
10.) That religion, therefore, cannot be of God, which would make the
greatest portion of his creatures miserable, and confer happiness on a
very limited number. The religion that came from heaven, wherever it
exists, must contain the elements of happiness for all nations, and
include all the families of man. It must exclude none but the wilfully
and obstinately wicked, who carry the torments of hell in their own
bosom, and would be necessarily unhappy even in heaven itself. A
religion, whose principles, if triumphant, would effect so desirable a
consummation, must be true. The question is, whether modern Judaism, if
it had full and free scope for the realization of all its principles,
would bear such blessed fruit? Our late inquiries about amulets and
magic led us to consider some of the laws about the Sabbath-day, and as
when true religion prevails, this ought to be the happiest day of the
week, the laws respecting it shall furnish materials for our answer.
That a rabbinical Sabbath would be the happiest day in the week we much
doubt, for, in the first place, to keep the rabbinical Sabbath aright,
it is necessary to be perfectly acquainted with all the laws relating to
it, which are very many and very intricate, occupying even in Rambam’s
compendium, including the notes, above one hundred and seventy folio
pages.[27] That any conscientious man can be happy with such a load of
law about his neck appears impossible. He must be in continual fear and
trembling lest he should through forgetfulness or inadvertence be guilty
of transgression, and the continued watchfulness and anxiety would be
more intolerable than the hardest labour. But if Rabbinism wielded the
supreme power, he would have to dread the most severe and immediate
punishment:—
שביתה בשביעי ממלאכה מצות עשה שנאמר וביום השביעי תשבות , וכל העושה בו
מלאכה ביטל מצות עשה ועבר על לא תעשה שנאמר לא תעשה כל מלאכה , ומהו חייב
על עשיית מלאכה אם עשה ברצונו בזדון חייב כרת ואם היה שם עדים והתראה נסקל
ואם עשה בשגגה חייב קרבן הטאת קבועה ׃
“To rest on the seventh day from work is an affirmative precept, for it
is said, ‘On the seventh day thou shalt rest.’ Whosoever, therefore,
does any work, annuls an affirmative, and transgresses a negative
precept, for it is said, ‘Thou shalt do no manner of work.’ What is
meant by being guilty on account of doing work? If it be done
voluntarily and presumptuously, the meaning is, that he is liable to
excision, and if there were witnesses and a warning, he is to be stoned.
If he did it in error, he must bring a certain sin-offering.” (Hilchoth
Shabbath, c. i. 1.) This sounds something like the law of Moses, but is
in reality far more severe. The whole force depends upon the meaning of
the word “work,” and the rabbinical sense would entirely destroy the
peace of society. If, for instance, a poor man could not afford to have
his Sabbath lamp burn all day, and should extinguish it to save the oil;
or if a humane man should see burning coals in some place likely to do
injury to others, and should extinguish them, they would both be guilty,
and if some zealous Talmudists happened to be present, and first
remonstrated with them on the unlawfulness of the act, they would both
be tried, found guilty, and stoned to death:—
כל העושה מלאכה בשבת אע׳׳פ שאינו צריך לגופה של מלאכה חייב עליה , כיצד הרי
שכבה את הנר מפני שהוא צריך לשמן או לפתילה כדי שלא יאבד או כדי שלא ישרף
או כדי שלא יבקע חרס של נר מפני שהכבוי מלאכה והרי נתכוון לכבות ואע׳׳פ
שאין צריך לגוף הכבוי ולא כבה אלא מפני השמן או מפני החרס או מפני הפתילה
הרי זה חייב , וכן המעביר את הקוץ ד׳ אמות ברה׳׳ר או המכבה את הגחלת כדי
שלא יזוקו בו רבים חייב ואע׳׳פ שאינו צריך לגוף הכבוי או לגוף חהעברה אלא
להרחיק ההיזק הרי זה חייב וכן כל כיוצא בזה ׃
“Whosoever does any work on the Sabbath, even though he does not do it
for the sake of the work itself, is nevertheless guilty. How so? If, for
instance, a man extinguishes a lamp, because he wants the oil or the
wick, and wishes that it should not waste, nor be burned, or that the
earthenware part of the lamp should not be cracked; inasmuch as the
extinguishing is work, and his intention was to extinguish it: although
the mere act of extinguishing it was not the ultimate object, but on the
contrary, the saving of the oil or the wick, or the earthen lamp, he is,
nevertheless, guilty. And in like manner, whosoever, removes thorns a
distance of four ells in a public place, or whosoever extinguishes coals
to prevent the public from being injured, is guilty: although the
ultimate object was not the extinguishing nor the moving, but he simply
intended to prevent the injury, he is guilty, and so in all similar
cases.” (Ibid.) If this were the law of the land, and the executive were
in the hands of Talmudistic zealots, the peace of the world would be at
an end. The poor man could not be happy, when he saw his little property
wasting; and the humane man would either be made miserable at the
thought of being able to prevent much injury, and yet not doing it, or
would have to expose himself to the danger of a cruel and ignominious
death. We know enough of the general character of the Jewish nation to
believe that there are amongst them those who would brave the danger,
whose generous hearts would rise above personal considerations, but how
dreadful would be the consequences! A man of a tender heart, the father
of a family, would be induced, by the best of feelings, to save his
fellow-men from injury. He would return to his family, and tell them how
God had given him an opportunity of doing good. The family worthy of
such a father would rejoice to hear the information, but the sequel of
his story would turn their joy into mourning. He would have to tell them
that ignominious death would be the consequence, and that because he
dared to do an act of charity, and to love his brother as himself, the
morrow would see his wife a widow and his children orphans. But suppose,
that when he performed the act, he had been attended by two of his sons,
now grown up, and zealots for the oral law—that they had warned him, and
then became his accusers, as they must, if firm believers in Talmudic
religion, he would have the additional pangs of seeing his own flesh and
blood as the foremost of his executioners. This one law would clothe the
world with mourning, and make the light of the Sabbath sun the curse of
mankind. Though men might be found at first to brave the danger, the
course of time and the inflexible severity of the law would soon
annihilate all generous feeling. Children would be trained up with the
idea that humanity is not a Sabbath virtue, and the constant resistance
of the tender feelings would harden the heart, and mankind in time
become totally insensible on week-days as well as Sabbath-days; and thus
the enforcement of this one law would produce universal selfishness, and
this would certainly not promote the happiness of the world. But take
another case of a man, who leaves his home on the Friday morning to go a
short distance into the country, intending to return before the
commencement of the Sabbath; he meets with an accident, and breaks a
limb; on the Sabbath he is sufficiently restored to think of the anxiety
of his family, and writes a short note to inform them of his state, this
act of common love and kindness would cost him his life; nay, if he had
only begun the letter, and then overcome by fear or weakness, had left
it unfinished, a rabbinic tribunal would condemn him to be stoned.
כל המתכוון לעשות מלאכה בשבת והתחיל בה ועשה כשיעור חייב אע׳׳פ שלא השלים
כל המלאכה שנתכוון להשלימה , כיצד הרי שנתכוון לכתוב אגרת או שטר בשבת אין
אומרים לא יתחייב זה עד שישלים חפצו ויכתות כל השטר או כל האגרת אלא
משיכתוב שתי אותיות חייב ׃
“Whosoever intends to do any work on the Sabbath, and begins it, and
does a certain measure, is guilty, although he does not finish all that
he intended. How so? Suppose he intended to write a letter, or a
contract on the Sabbath, it is not to be thought that he will not be
guilty until he finish his business, and write the whole contract or the
whole letter. On the contrary, as soon as he shall have written two
letters (of the alphabet) he is guilty.” (Ibid.) And consequently, if it
can be proved, must be stoned. Every one’s daily experience will tell
them of the many similar cases where a letter may be necessary for the
peace or well-being of an individual or a family, and where the delay of
a day would be a serious injury. If rabbinism held the reins of power,
the anxiety, the sorrow, the injury must all be endured; the Sabbath-day
must be made a burden and a curse, instead of a blessing, or life itself
must be exposed to danger. But this would not be the only misery. These
sanguinary laws would, as religious laws, bind the consciences of the
weak and superstitious. A man’s domestics, or his children, or even his
wife, would become spies over all his Sabbath doings, and the denouncers
of every transgression; and thus domestic confidence, without which not
even the shadow of happiness can exist, would be destroyed, and a man’s
foes would be those of his own household. Much has lately been thought
and said about the sanguinary nature of the laws of England, but the
laws of Draco himself were merciful when compared with the religious
enactments of the rabbies. Draco only sentenced to death men convicted
of a crime. The oral law condemns to stoning the man, woman, or child
who will venture to write two letters of the alphabet, or even who will
extinguish fire to prevent a public injury. Nay, in some cases, where it
actually pronounces a man innocent, it nevertheless commands him to be
flogged.
נתכוון ללקוט תאנים שחורות וליקט לבנות או שנתכוון ללקוט תאנים ואחר כך
ענבים ונהפך הדבר וליקט הענבים בתחלה ואח׳׳כ תאנים פטור אע׳׳פ שליקט כל מה
שחשב הואיל ולא ליקט כסדר שחשב פטור שבלא כוונה עשה שלא אסרה התורה אלא
מלאכת מחשבת ׃
“If a man intended to gather black figs, but gathered white figs, or if
he intended to gather figs and afterwards grapes, but the matter has
been inverted, and he gathered the grapes first, and afterwards the
figs, he is not guilty. Although he have gathered all that he thought of
gathering, yet, because he did not gather them in the intended order, he
is not guilty, for he did what was unintentional, and the law forbids
only intentional work.” (Ibid.) We pass by the manifest absurdity of
this decision, which is, however, sufficient to prove that this law is
not of God, because it is more important to consider what is to be done
with a man not guilty. The law of England, or any other civilized
country, would say, of course, that he is to go free; but not so the
oral law, it commands that the man should be flogged.
וכל מקום שנאמר שהעושה דבר זה פטור , הרי זה פטור מן הכרת ומן הסקילה ומן
הקרבן אבל אסור לעשות אותו דבר בשבת ואיסורו מדברי סופרים והוא הרחקה מן
המלאכה והעושה אותו בזדון מכין אותו מכות מרדות ׃
“Wherever it is said, he that doeth anything is not guilty, the meaning
is, that he is not liable to excision, nor stoning, nor a sacrifice, but
that thing is unlawful to be done, and the prohibition is of the words
of the Scribes, and is intended as a removal from the possibility of
work: and he that does it presumptuously, is to be flogged with the
flogging of rebellion.” (Ibid.) Here, then, we have a whole class of
crimes which the oral law itself allows are no crimes according to the
law of Moses, but which it thinks fit to punish with that dreadful and
degrading infliction. Are the professors of this traditional religion
really acquainted with its ordinances? or can any man believe that a
religion which, if it had full scope and power, would become the torment
of the human race, can emanate from God?