light of the sun, the common property of all who will only open their
eyes, and gaze upon the gift of God. It is not a religion for the rich
or the studious only, but is equally open to the understanding and the
hearts of the poor and unlearned. And therefore the Bible describes the
heavenly wisdom thus—“She standeth in the top of high places, by the way
in the places of the paths; she crieth at the gates at the entry of the
city, at the coming in at the doors: Unto you, O men, I call; and my
voice is to the sons of man. O ye simple, understand wisdom; and, ye
fools, be of an understanding heart.” (Prov. viii. 2-5.) And so God
invites men of every class by the mouth of the prophet—“Ho, every one
that thirsteth, come ye to the waters, and he that hath no money; come
ye, buy and eat; yea, come, buy wine and milk without money and without
price.” (Isa. lv. 1.) Every religion of man’s making, presents, on the
contrary, peculiar advantages to the rich and the learned. It offers
salvation either as the purchase of almsgiving, or as the reward of
religious study, or it makes religion so difficult and intricate as to
put it out of the poor labouring man’s power to acquire any competent
knowledge of its requirements. And any system that does so must
necessarily be false. Religion is as necessary to the soul as daylight
is to the corporeal eye, and it would be a hard case, indeed, if the
poor, who want it most, should be excluded from the possibility of
acquiring its consolations; or if, in the day of judgment, the man who
devotes his life to books should have a better chance, than he who
labours hard to get an honest living for himself and his family; yet
this is the case with the labouring classes of the Jews. The religion of
the oral law has so perplexed even the simplest commandments, that an
unlearned man has no chance of being able to keep them. If nothing more
were required for salvation than the rabbinic sanctification of the
Sabbath-day the majority of the Jewish people must despair of attaining
it; for the accurate knowledge of the innumerable precepts and
distinctions, which is indispensable to obedience, requires time and
study, which no labouring man can bestow. And we are convinced that a
considerable portion of the Jewish population of this city live in
continual profanation of the Sabbath-day, if the rabbinic explanations
be true. Either they move something which they ought not to move, or
they carry something which they ought not to carry; and, if they do it
wilfully, render themselves liable to the utmost severity of the law.
For instance, the rabbies have determined that in one place it is lawful
to move or carry certain things on the Sabbath-day, but in another place
the very some act is unlawful, and calls down extreme punishment. They
distinguish between these places thus—
ארבע רשויות לשבת , רשות היחיד ורשות הרבים כרמלית ומקום פטור , רשות היחיד
הוא המקום המוקף מחיצות גבוהות עשרה ויש בו ארבעה טפחים על ארבעה ואפילו אם
יש בו כמה מילין אם מוקף לדירה ודלתותיו נעולות בלילה הוי רשות היחיד ,
ודיר וסהר וחצר . וכן חריץ עמוק עשרה ורחב ד׳ על ד׳ או יותר וכן תל גבוה י׳
ורחב ארבעה על ארבעה , וכותלים המקיפין רשות היחיד על גביהן וחוריהן רשות
היחיד , ואויר רשות היחיד הוא רשות היחיד עד לרקיע ואפילו כלי אם גבוה י׳
ורחב ד׳ על ד׳ כגון תיבה או כוורת או מגדל הוי רשות היחיד , ורשות היחיד
הוא רחובות ושווקים הרחבים י׳ אמה על י׳ אמה ומפולשים משער לשער וששים רבוא
עוברין בו , וכל דבר שהוא ברשות הרבים ואינו גבוה ג׳ טפחים חשוב כקרקע והוא
רשות הרבים אפילו קוצים או צואה שאין רבים דורסין עליהם , ואם הוא גבוה ג׳
ומג׳ עד ט׳ ולא ט׳ בכלל אם הוא רחב ד׳ על ד׳ הוי כרמלית פחות מכאן הוי מקום
פטור ׃
In reference to the Sabbath, places are distinguished into four sorts of
jurisdiction. 1st, the private jurisdiction; 2d, the public
jurisdiction; 3d, the place called Karmelith; 4th, the place which is
free.
By a _private jurisdiction_ is meant a place surrounded by walls, ten
handbreadths high, and in which there is a space of four handbreadths by
four. But even though it should contain many miles, if it be inclosed
for habitation, and its gates be bolted at night, it is a private
jurisdiction. A lodging-place, an inclosed space, and a court, are
considered as in the same class. And thus, also, a pit which is ten
handbreadths deep, and whose breadth is four by four, or more; and a
raised place which is ten handbreadths high, and whose breadth is four
by four. The top of the walls, also, by which a private jurisdiction is
surrounded, and the openings in them, are considered as private
jurisdiction. The air of a private jurisdiction, up to the firmament, is
also considered; and even a vessel like a chest, if it be ten
handbreadths high, and in breadth four by four. A hollow vessel, or a
tower, is also considered as a private jurisdiction.
The term _public jurisdiction_ includes roads and streets, if their
breadth be sixteen ells by sixteen, and they be open from gate to gate,
and six hundred thousand persons pass thereon. And everything in a
public jurisdiction, which is not three handbreadths high, is reckoned
as the ground, and is public jurisdiction: even thorns and filth upon
which the public does not tread.
But if it be from three to nine handbreadths high, but not nine
entirely, and its breadth be four by four, it is called a _Karmelith_.
“If it be less, it is called a _free place_.” (Orach Chaiim, 344.)
Now it may well be doubted, concerning many Jews in this city, whether
they are acquainted with even this portion of the Sabbath laws, but it
is quite certain that they are ignorant of the innumerable modes of
possible transgression which arise from these distinctions; for the oral
law then goes on to define what is lawful concerning each. In a public
jurisdiction he may move anything four ells:—
כל אדם יש לו ד׳ אמות ברשות הרבים שיכול לטלטל בהם ׃
“Every man has got four ells within which he may move things.” Or, as
Rambam expresses it—
רשות היחיד ומקים פטור מותר לטלטל בכולן אפילו היה אורך כל אחת משתיהן כמה
מילין מטלטל בכולה , אבל רשות הרבים והכרמלית אין מטלטלין בהן אלא בארבע
אמות ׃
“In a private jurisdiction, and in a free place it is lawful to move
things the whole length of the place, even though the length of each
should be many miles. But in a public jurisdiction or a Karmelith things
may not be moved more than four ells.” (Hilchoth Shabbath, c. xxiv. 11.)
Now, it may well be asked, upon what passage of the law of Moses these
distinctions are grounded, and what there is in a public jurisdiction
which converts an act lawful in a private jurisdiction, into a sin to be
expiated only by stoning the offender? For instance, in a private
jurisdiction a man may carry certain matters for miles without violating
the Sabbath commands, but if he venture out into a public jurisdiction
with a pocket-handkerchief or a snuff-box, or a half-crown in his
pocket, and carry it only five ells, he is guilty of death; and if the
Talmudists held the reigns of power, would be led out as soon as the
Sabbath was over, and stoned. Reason revolts against such doctrine, the
act is the very same in both cases, and is therefore in both cases a
sin, or in both cases lawful. Humanity shudders at the thought of
stoning a man for carrying a pocket-handkerchief, and the Bible teaches
us that a religion, teaching such inexorable and wanton cruelty, cannot
be from God. It is true that at present the power of Christianity
protects Israelites from such harsh treatment; but wherever the Talmud
has any degree of influence, Israel groans under its bondage. Many a
time have we seen Jews with their pocket-handkerchief tied round their
knee like a garter, for this is lawful, though to carry it in his pocket
would be a grave and capital offence. And we once knew an Israelite who
was taking a walk on the Sabbath-day, and being addressed by a Gentile
beggar, put his hand into his pocket and gave the poor man a small coin.
He was observed by some Talmudists, who immediately attacked him for his
profanation of the Sabbath. Afraid of losing his character, and being at
that time more anxious for the praise of man than that which cometh of
God, he defended himself by saying, that he had unintentionally taken
out the money in his pocket, but had remembered it when addressed by the
beggar, and therefore took the opportunity of getting rid of that which
it was not lawful to carry. The Talmudists were satisfied, and their
wrath changed into profound admiration for his piety. These cases
exemplify the practical working of the rabbinic system. It burdens the
consciences of the sincere, and makes the unscrupulous hypocrites. It
may be replied that such things could not happen in England, and that
here the Jews are too enlightened to observe such distinctions. But
every one who makes this reply condemns modern Judaism as a religion
unfit for the observation of the enlightened, and if he be a
conscientious man, should protest against doctrines which he believes to
be false, and laws which he abhors as cruel. These Sabbatic laws are a
part, an essential part, of modern Judaism. There is not any part of the
oral law upon which Talmudists lay more stress. The man, therefore, who
does not observe them has changed his religion. He has got a new faith,
as really, as if he had been baptized and professed Christianity. Every
Israelite who carries a pocket-handkerchief in his pocket through the
streets of London on the Sabbath-day, has apostatized from that Jewish
religion, which has been professed for near two thousand years, and
practically declares that the religion of the synagogue is false. How
then can he, without hypocrisy, profess to believe in the religion of
the Jews? or how can he, as an honest man, uphold a system which he
regards as false, and which would have him executed as a criminal if it
had the power? If such persons, who live in the habitual transgression
of all the Sabbatic laws, have any regard for truth and for Divine
revelation, they should openly declare their sentiments, announce to the
world that they have forsaken the religion of their fathers, and assert
that religion which they regard as true. The blindest and most bigoted
Talmudist is a far more respectable man, and more acceptable in the
sight of God, than he who pretends to profess a religion in which he
does not believe, and whose precepts he regards as fanatical and
superstitious.
But to return. From the above laws it appears that it is a sin to carry
anything in a public jurisdiction a distance of more than four ells. But
suppose, then, that there was something which the Talmudists might find
it convenient or desirable to move to a greater distance, is there no
provision to effect its conveyance? Yes. These scrupulous persons, who
would stone a man to death for carrying anything five ells, have an
expedient for conveying it a hundred miles if necessary:—
לגיכך מותר לאדם לעקור החפץ מרשות הרבים ולתנו לחברו שאצלו בתוך ד׳ אמותיו
וחברו לחברו שאצלו אפילו ק׳ מילין אע׳׳פ שהחפץ הולך כמה מילין ברשות הרבים
שכל אחד לא יטלטלנו אלא בתוך ד׳ אמותיו ׃
“Therefore it is lawful for a man to move a matter from the public
jurisdiction, and to give it to his neighbour, who is within a distance
of four ells; and his neighbour to his neighbour again, and so on, even
for a hundred miles. For although the thing itself go many miles, each
person has only moved it his four ells.” (Orach Chaiim, 348.) We have
often heard of the wonderful effects of division of labour, but never
knew before that it could convert a capital offence into an innocent
employment. Surely it is not necessary to prove that if it be unlawful
for one person to do a particular act, it is equally unlawful for a
hundred persons to combine for its performance. This law really has more
the appearance of a caricature devised by some enemy of the oral law,
than the grave decision of religious men in a matter of life and death.
But if we examine a little further, we shall find that it is unlawful to
move this same thing, whatever it be, from one jurisdiction to another,
though that other be close at hand:—
כשם שאסור לטלטל בכל הכרמלית אסור להוציא ממנה לרשות היחיד או לרשות הרבים
או להכניס לכרמלית מרשות היחיד או מרשות הרבים , ואם הוציא או הכניס פטור ׃
“As it is unlawful to move anything in the place called Karmelith, so it
is unlawful to carry anything out of it into a public or private
jurisdiction, or, _vice versa_, to introduce anything from either of
these into the Karmelith. But if any one does either he is not guilty,”
that is, he is only to get a flogging, but not to be stoned. An
unlearned man who had already seen something conveyed by the above
expedient, might easily be led to commit an offence of this kind. His
untutored mind might not perceive why the one should be sinful, if the
other was lawful; but such an assertion of common sense would draw down
certain chastisement. At all events, he might be tempted to put his head
from one jurisdiction into another, especially if he was standing in the
street, and was offered a drink by a friend in a house, he might put his
head into the window and take what was offered, but would soon find, to
his cost, that he had broken one of the Sabbatic laws:—
לא יעמוד אדם ברשות היחיד ויוציא ראשו לרשות הרבים וישתה שם או איפכא אלא
אם כן יכניס ראשו ורובו למקים שהוא שותה דכיון שהוא צריך לאלו המים אנו
חוששין שמא יביאם אליו אבל מותר לעמוד ברשות היחיד או ברשות הרבים ולשתות
בכרמלית ׃
“A man may not stand in a private jurisdiction, and put forth his head
into a public jurisdiction, and then drink, or vice versa. But if he
does so, let him introduce his head and most of his body into the place
in which he drinks, for as he wants the water, we fear lest he should
take it to himself (into the place where he is standing). But it is
lawful to stand in a private or public jurisdiction and drink in that
which is called Karmelith. (Orach Chaiim, 349.) It is evident that no
unlearned man can stand a fair chance with laws like these. He could not
hope even to escape corporal punishment. But if the accurate observance
of such laws was the condition of salvation, he would have reason to
despair. The most honest desire to yield obedience and the utmost
exertion of his understanding will not help him, nor compensate for his
ignorance. If, for instance, he should conclude, because it is unlawful
for himself to have his head in one jurisdiction and his body in another
whilst he is drinking, that it would be equally unlawful for cattle in
the same predicament to get food, he would be mistaken:—
בהמה שהיתה רובה בחוץ וראשה בפנים אובסין אותה ׃
“A beast that has got most of its body outside, and its head inside, may
be fed.” And if he should take this as the general rule of his conduct,
he would be mistaken again, for long-necked animals form an exception:—
ובגמל עד שיהא ראשו ורובו בפנים הואיל וצוארו ארוך ׃
“But in the ease of the camel, he must have his head and most of his
body inside, because his neck is long.” (Hilchoth Shabbath, c. xxv. 1.)
And so with endless cases which arise from this one distinction of
places into four classes. Judaism is in all its parts a religion for the
studious, and for them only. For an unlearned man to keep the Sabbath,
as the oral law requirers, is absolutely impossible. And after all, what
good does it bestow upon those who spend their life in the study? Does
it improve the heart, or open more abundant views of the Divine mercy,
or fill the soul with love to man? That it sharpens the wit and
subtlety, we do not doubt, but that is but small profit to man in
general. The criminal law of any country will do the same, and in truth
the oral law is very little more than the rabbinical criminal code. Its
great subject is guilty and not guilty. And even in this it does not
address itself to the conscience, and lead a man to consider the
workings of the heart and the wanderings of the thought, and shew him
sin at its fountain-head. It is a mere dry detail of external
observances, as may be seen from the numerous specimens adduced in these
papers, and as might be shown more fully by translating the whole. If
real devout feeling and improvement of the heart in the fear of God and
the love of man be true religion, we might expect it, if anywhere, in
the Sabbath laws. The Sabbath is that holy day which God has set apart
to raise men’s thoughts from earth to heaven. It is that period of
earned relaxation on which even the poor and the unlearned may lay aside
their worldly cares and occupations, and meditate upon the love and will
of God, and that eternity to which he is hastening. In the laws, then,
respecting the observance of this day, we might naturally expect the
spirit of devotion to be manifested; but in the oral law we look in vain
for anything of the kind. Its directions about the Sabbath are one
continued dry detail of external observances, which to a conscientious
man acquainted with them, must constitute a load upon his conscience,
sufficient to make the Sabbath the most unhappy day of all the seven.
But as to the poor and labouring classes, who have no time for study, it
is impossible that they should know, and much more that they should
keep, all that is necessary for the right observation of the rabbinic
Sabbath. If, therefore, the oral law were true, the poor must lose a
large portion of the blessings, and even be in danger of perdition. Nay,
if it be true, then we must believe that God has given a religion
impossible to be observed by the poor, and offering great advantages to
the rich and learned, that is that He is a respecter of persons, though
Moses and the prophets teach the contrary. But we would ask our readers,
what use is it to them to profess a religion of which they can never
attain a competent knowledge? We venture to affirm that the majority of
Israelites do not know enough of the oral law to help them to keep the
Sabbath, much less to observe the six hundred and thirteen commandments;
can it be said, then, that they possess a religion with which they are
not even acquainted? If the knowledge and practice of the oral law be
necessary to constitute a true Jew, ninety-nine out of every hundred
must give up their claims to the Jewish name. But then what is to become
of the Jewesses, who are not even obligated to learn? Every rabbi will
be willing to confess that the women at least are ignorant of the oral
law. Can they then have a portion in the world to come? If the knowledge
and practice of the oral law be necessary to salvation, they cannot. But
if they can be saved without it, then it follows that God has given a
law, the knowledge of which is not necessary to salvation. Let every Jew
ask himself this question, Am I acquainted with all the precepts of the
oral law? If not, can I be saved without this knowledge? If I cannot,
then the Jewish religion is one which makes it impossible for the poor
to be saved. If I can, then the Jewish religion is of no real use, for I
can be saved even without knowing it. Such a religion cannot be from
God. His religion is necessary to be known by every man, woman, and
child in the world, and the knowledge of it is just as easy to be
acquired by the poor and unlearned as by the rich and studious. Let then
the poor and the unlearned consider the folly of professing a religion,
with which they can never hope to become acquainted, and let them return
to the religion of Moses and the prophets, which, by the help of the God
of Israel, every one can understand, at least so far as is necessary to
salvation. The Bible, like everything that has God for its author, has
beauties discoverable by the eye of the poor, at the same time that it
has perfections to exercise the observation and skill of the most
learned. And this holy book is the heritage of Israel, which the oral
law can never be. The oral law may be the heritage and religion of the
rabbies who know it, but it has no more to do with the religion of those
who know it not, than the laws of the Chinese. The great majority of the
Jewish people might just as well call themselves followers of Confucius.
No man can be said to believe in doctrines which he does not know, and
can never hope to know: and this is the case with nine-tenths of the
oral law.
No. XXXI.
RABBINIC EXCOMMUNICATION.
It is a fact, that the religion of the oral law has hitherto done but
little to promote the temporal welfare of the Jewish people, and it is
equally certain that, if supreme, it would destroy the happiness both of
Jews add Gentiles. Its endless definitions would necessarily produce
transgression. Its severity and readiness in excommunication would be
the source of constant trouble to individuals and families, and the
sanguinary spirit of its criminal code would make the Jews a nation of
mourners. Indeed, we seriously doubt, whether any, but a few fanatics,
wish to see the oral law vested with supreme power, and ruling over the
lives and properties of the Jewish nation. Every reflecting Israelite
must know that the Sanhedrin, wielding the absolute power ascribed to it
in the rabbinic traditions, would be the most oppressive tribunal that
ever lorded it over the consciences of men. But we must remember that it
would not be with the Sanhedrin and other tribunals alone, that the
Israelites would have to do. Every rabbi, and every disciple of a wise
man, would have the right of excommunicating any one who offended them.
After determining that the tribunals can and ought in certain cases to
excommunicate, the oral law adds—
וכן החכם עצמו מנדה לכבודו לעם הארץ שהקפיד בו ואין צריך לא עדים ולא התראה
, ואין מתירין לו עד שירצה את החכם , ואם מת החכם באין שלשה ומתירין לו .
ואם רצה החכם למחול לו ולא לנדהו הרשות בידו ׃
“And in like manner the wise man himself may, on account of his honour,
excommunicate an unlearned man who has treated him with contumely, and
there is no need of witnesses nor admonition. And the excommunicate
person is not to be absolved until he appease the wise man. But if the
wise man die, three persons come and absolve him. If, however, the wise
man wish to pardon, and not excommunicate him, the power is in his own
hand.” (Hilchoth Talmud Torah, c. vi. 12.) From this law we see that the
restoration of rabbinic power would be the most oppressive system of
government ever devised. Every learned man would be a petty tyrant,
constituting both judge and jury in his own person, and able, at his own
caprice, to inflict a severe punishment. The most absolute aristocracy
of the feudal times never dared to assume or exercise a power so
monstrous and so oppressive. No priesthood, even in the darkest times,
ever claimed such personal authority as is here given to every
individual rabbi. It is true that he may, if he please, forgive the
unfortunate offender, but it is much to be feared that such absolute
power would in most cases be too strong a temptation to the frail sons
of men. And at all events the principle is utterly inconsistent with
wise legislation, and most dangerous to the liberty of the poor and
unlearned; for the reader will observe that it is only an unlearned man,
an “am-haaretz,” who may be dealt with in this summary manner. And this
is another proof that the religion of the oral law is a religion devised
for the advantage of the rich and learned, but regardless of the
spiritual and temporal welfare of the lower classes. For the learned and
the great the law is very different:—
חכם זקן בחכמה וכן נשיא או אב ב׳׳ד שסרח אין מנדין אותו בפרהסיא לעקלם אלא
אם כן עשה כירבעם בן נבט וחביריו אבל כשחטא שאר חטאות מלקין אותו בצנעה
שנאמר וכשלת היום וכשל גם נביא עמך לילה אע׳׳פ שכשל כסהו בלילה , ואומרים
לו הכבד ושב בביתך וכן כל ת׳׳ח שנתחייב נידוי אסור לב׳׳ד לקפוץ ולנדותו
במהרה ׃
“A wise man, old in wisdom, or a prince, or a president of a tribunal,
who has sinned, is never to be excommunicated publicly, unless he have
done as Jeroboam, the son of Nebat, and his companions. But when he
commits other sins, he is to be flogged in private. For it is said,
‘Therefore shalt thou fall in the day, and the prophet also shall fall
with thee in the night,’ (Hos. iv. 5,) _i.e._, although he fall, cover
him as it were with the night. And they say to him, ‘Honour thyself, and
abide in thy house.’ (2 Kings xiv. 10.) In like manner, when a disciple
of a wise man makes himself guilty of excommunication, it is unlawful
for the tribunal to be too quick, and to excommunicate him hastily.”
(Ibid. c. vii. 1.) The rabbies have endeavoured to justify this
different legislation for the learned and unlearned by a verse of the
Bible, but their interpretation of that verse is quite erroneous. When
God says, “Therefore shalt thou fall in the day, and the prophet shall
also fall with thee in the night,” he is not speaking of the learned and
unlearned, nor of the different way in which their sins were to be
punished, but of the destruction which was coming upon Israel, as may be
seen in Kimchi’s Commentary. He interprets the verse thus—
וכשלת היום אמר כנגד ישראל בעבור מעשיך תכשל ותפול , היום ר׳׳ל חזמן הזה
בקרוב תבוא מפלתך , וכן וחרה אפי בו ביום ההוא , ביום ההוא שורש ישי
והדומים להם , ענינם עת וזמן , וכשל גם נביא עמך לילה נביא שקר המתעה אותך
יכשל עמך כמו האדם נכשל בלילה בחשכה וכן תרגם יונתן ׃