expiation for all my sins, iniquities, and transgressions, wherein I
have sinned, offended, and transgressed against thee, from the day of my
existence.” These two doctrines are plainly contrary the one to the
other. If death be an atonement for all sins, then, when it is once
suffered, all these sins are forgiven, and there is no need of further
punishment in hell for twelve months. But if this further punishment be
inflicted, then the death of the individual is not an atonement for his
sins. The Jew may choose which of these hopes he pleases; but whichever
he may assert to be true, the other is necessarily false; and if one be
false, then the oral law teaches falsehood, and cannot be depended upon
with respect to the other. There is, then, in these two statements, a
glaring inconsistency, which makes them both suspicious in themselves:
and the Word of God is as opposed to this last statement, as to the
former. The Bible represents death as a consequence and punishment of
Adam’s sin, not as an atonement: and hence it is that infants die, who
have never committed actual sin, and do not need an atonement on that
account. Death is, therefore, a punishment, and that which is a
punishment can never be an atonement. The dying Jew, then, if he be a
reasonable man, has no hope that can yield him peace and consolation in
that solemn hour. He prays that his death may atone for his sins, and
yet believes the very contrary—that he is going down to the place of the
damned, and that his son will have to undertake the work of his
redemption. How any thoughtful man, especially how any Israelite who has
read the Law and the Prophets, can be content with such a religion, we
cannot comprehend. The very essence of religion, the very consideration
that gives it any value, is the comfort which it affords to the
departing sinner. If it cannot soothe, support, and comfort him in the
hour of death, it is not worth the having. The Christian faith is very
different, and, in our opinion, far more in accordance with the Old
Testament. We believe, in the first place, that there is a full and
perfect pardon for all sins by the atonement of the Messiah, so that the
sinner who dies in repentance and faith, is delivered from all
punishment and other consequences of sin, and enters at once into the
abodes of the blessed, there to await the morning of the resurrection.
The Old Testament promised that Messiah should bear our sins. The New
Testament tells us that He has borne them, and that therefore we can
“now be justified from all things from which we could not be justified
by the law of Moses.” (Acts xiii. 38, 39.) It tells us that “God made
Him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the
righteousness of God in him” (2 Cor. v. 21); and “that if any man sin,
we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus, the Messiah, the Righteous;
and he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also
for the sins of the whole world.” (1 John ii. 1, 2.) We believe,
therefore, that Messiah has borne all that we ought to have borne, as
the prophet says—
מוסר שלומנו עליו ובחבורתו נרפא לנו ׃
“The chastisement of our peace was upon him, and with his stripes we are
healed,” (Isaiah liii. 5,) and that now we are delivered. There is no
twelvemonth of torment awaiting those whom Messiah has redeemed, neither
do we trust in our own death as a possible atonement. Our hope is firmly
fixed, and, therefore, though sinners, we can die in peace, resting on
the salvation which God himself has wrought, in no fear of the torments
of the damned, but humbly expecting, for the Messiah’s sake, to be
admitted into the mansions of the blessed. Resting on this hope, the
Christian can say, “To me to live is Christ, and to die is gain.”
(Philip, i. 21.) He can look forward from death to the glorious
consummation, as St. Paul did, who, when the hour of his martyrdom
approached, was enabled to say, “I am now ready to be offered, and the
time of my departure is at hand. I have fought a good fight; I have
finished my course; I have kept the faith: henceforth there is laid up
for me a crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous Judge,
shall give me at that day; and not to me only, but unto all them also
that love his appearing.” The Christian expects after death not to spend
twelve dreary months in hell, “For we know that if our earthly house of
this tabernacle were dissolved, we have a building of God, an house not
made with hands, eternal in the heavens. For in this we groan, earnestly
desiring to be clothed upon with our house which is from heaven: if so
be, that being clothed, we shall not be found naked. For we that are in
this tabernacle do groan, being burdened: not for that we would be
unclothed, but clothed upon, that mortality might be swallowed up of
life.” (2 Cor. v. 1-4.) Such is the hope which Christianity holds out,
and it is hardly necessary to prove that it is more satisfactory, and
more calculated to convey peace to the conscience of a dying believer,
than the dread prospect, of twelve months’ sojourn in the place of
torment. This in itself proves, that Christianity is greatly superior to
Judaism, and even affords a presumption that Christianity is true.
Reason tells us, that if God has given a revelation at all, that
revelation must contain the way of obtaining pardon for sins, and be
able to administer consolation to the dying. In this respect Judaism
fails. It promises forgiveness and justification to a thousand
ceremonial observances, but in the hour of man’s extremity, it tells him
that there is no way of pardon, but that he must go down into torment,
and expiate his sins by actual suffering. This system cannot, therefore,
be of God. Christianity, on the contrary, has the first great essential
in religion; it informs man how he can obtain forgiveness, and tells him
how to die in peace; and the system of pardon and consolation which it
proposes, is in exact accordance with the doctrine of Moses and the
prophets. Moses promises pardon to an atoning sacrifice. Isaiah says,
that Messiah is to be the true atonement; and Christianity rests upon
these two principles. The Jew himself must admit, that our hope has at
least a strong appearance of truth, and that we have the letter of the
Old Testament in our favour. We have, therefore, more reason to trust to
Christianity, than he has for resting on Judaism, which has not even a
semblance of proof, and is as far from the letter as from the spirit of
the Old Testament. We would earnestly request of every Jew to consider
what is his hope in death, and what is his prospect after it? Can he be
content with that which Judaism offers? Can he be happy in the prospect
of twelve months’ torment? Or, can the repetition of Kaddish afford him
any hope of liberation from that place, whither his sins have brought
him?
He cannot pretend to have any warrant from Scripture. Where does Moses
tell a Jewish child to say Kaddish for his deceased parent, or that the
saying of it will deliver the soul from the grasp of Divine justice? And
reason does not offer a greater measure of consolation. Reason says
plainly, either that the deceased is guilty or not guilty; either,
therefore, justice demands that he should be punished or delivered. In
the one case the prayer is unavailing, in the other unnecessary. Reason
says that God either pardons or punishes; but that there is no middle
way. Judaism then offers a hope equally unwarranted by reason and
Scripture, and thus, forsaking a poor sinner in the hour of his
extremity, is not worthy of the profession of any one who uses his
reason, or reveres the Word of God.
No. XXXIX.
ALMSGIVING.
The object of our late numbers has been to point out the inconsistency
and precariousness of the various hopes, which the oral law holds out to
its advocates, and the consequent inadequacy of a religion which leaves
its professors without a reasonable hope of eternal happiness. In the
course of our observations, the subject of almsgiving twice presented
itself prominently to our notice; first, as a means of compensating for
the sins and omissions of the past year; and secondly, as a means of
promoting the repose of departed souls; from which it appears that the
oral law considers this duty as most important and beneficial both to
the living and the dead. The object of the present paper shall therefore
be, to inquire into the rabbinic doctrine of almsgiving, and to compare
it with the law and the prophets. The duty and extent of almsgiving are
thus defined:—
מצות עשה ליתן צדקה לעניי ישראל כפי מה שראוי לעני אם היתה יד הנותן משגת ,
שנאמר פתח תפתח את ידך לו , ונאמר והחזקת בו גר ותושב וחי עמך ונאמר וחי
אחיך עמך , וכל הרואה עני מבקש והעלים עיניו ממנו ולא נתן לו צדקה עבר בלא
תעשה שנאמר לא תאמץ את לבבך תקפוץ את ידך מאחיך האביון ; לפי מה שיחסר העני
אתה מצווה ליתן לו , אם אין לו כסות מכסים אותו , אם אין לו כלי בית קונין
לו , אם אין לו אשה משיאין אותו , ואם היתה אשה משיאין אותה לאיש , אפילו
היה דרכו של זה העני לרכוב על הסוס ועבד רץ לפניו והעני ירד מנכסיו קונין
לו סוס לרכוב עליו ועבד לרוץ לפניו שנאמר די מחסורו אשר יחסר לו , מצווה
אתה להשלים חסרונו , ואין אתה מצווה להצשירו . יתום שבא להשיאו אשה ,
שוכרין לו בית ומציעים לו מטה וכל כלי תשמישו ואחר כך משיאין לו אשה , בא
העני ושאל די מחסורו ואין יד הנותן משגת נותנין לו כפי השגת ידו וכמה עד
חמישית נכסיו מצוה מן המובחר ואחד מעשרה בנכסיו בינוני , פחות מכ עין רעה ׃
“It is an affirmative precept to give alms to the poor of Israel,
according as the poor have need, if in the power of the giver; for it is
said, ‘Thou shalt open thine hand wide to him’ (Deut. xv. 8); and again,
‘Thou shalt relieve him, a proselyte[34] or a sojourner, that he may
live with thee;’ and again, ‘That thy brother may live with thee.’ (Lev.
xxv. 35, 36.) Whosoever sees a poor man begging, and shuts his eyes
against him, and does not give him alms, transgresses a negative
precept: for it is said, ‘Thou shalt not harden thine heart nor shut
thine hand from thy poor brother.’ (Deut. xv. 7.) According as the poor
hath need, thou art commanded to give. If he has no clothing, he is to
be clothed; if he has no furniture, it is to be bought for him; if he
has no wife, he is to be helped to marry one; if a woman, she is to be
assisted in getting a husband: yea, if it had been the poor man’s custom
to ride upon a horse, and to have a servant running before him—but he is
now come down in the world,—it is a duty to buy him a horse to ride, and
a servant to run before him, for it is said, ‘Sufficient for his need,
in that which he wanteth’ (Deut. xv. 8); and thou art commanded
perfectly to relieve his want, but not to make him rich. If an orphan
apply for assistance in order to marry, it is a duty to hire a house for
him, and to provide all necessary furniture, and afterwards to help him
to marry. If a poor man come and ask for relief, and the giver has not
as much as he wants, he ought to give what his means afford. How much?
He that gives a fifth of his property fulfils the commandment well. He
that gives one part in ten fulfils it in a middling manner. He that
gives less must be regarded as a person with an evil eye.” (Hilchoth
Matt’noth Aniim, cvii. 1-5.) In this definition of the nature and extent
of the duty of almsgiving, there is much that is good and worthy of our
admiration, especially in this selfish and money-loving age, when
poverty is regarded, if not punished, as a crime, and the poor are, by
many, considered as unworthy of all domestic comfort. Without binding
ourselves to the approval of all the details here specified, we must
acknowledge, that the spirit of this passage is agreeable to the idea of
true charity, and, if universally acted upon, would do more for the
happiness of mankind than some theories now afloat. But though ready to
admire and to acknowledge the general beauty and excellence of this
passage, we must also remark that the main feature of charity is, by the
rabbinical system, excluded. God commands that this help should extend
beyond the narrow limits of selfishness and nationality, to “the
stranger and the sojourner,” but the oral law neutralizes the
mercifulness of God’s commandment by making the word stranger signify a
proselyte to Judaism. The original Hebrew word גר (_Ger_) plainly means
a stranger, as may be seen in the words of Moses—
ואהבתם את הגר כי גרים הייתם בארץ מצרים ׃
“Love ye therefore the stranger; for ye were strangers in the land of
Egypt.” (Deut. x. 19.) It is certain that the Israelites were not
proselytes, but strangers; this word, _Ger_, therefore, signifies
stranger, not proselyte; and yet the oral law says that no one can be a
_Ger_ without sacrifice, circumcision, and baptism, or now, that there
is no temple, without the two last requisites:—
ובזמן הזה שאין שם קרבן צריך מילה וטבילה וכשיבנה בית המקדש יביא קרבן , גר
שמל טבל או טבל ולא אינו גר עד שימול ויטבול ׃
“At the present time when there is no sacrifice, circumcision and
baptism are necessary, and when the temple is rebuilt, he must bring a
sacrifice. A _Ger_ who is circumcised but not baptized, or baptized but
not circumcised, is not a _Ger_, until he be both baptized and
circumcised. (Hilchoth Issure Biah, c. xiii. 5, 6.)” This rabbinical
definition of what is meant by _Ger_, restricts the exercise of charity
within a much narrower limit than that prescribed by God, and does, in
fact, destroy one of the most beautiful features of the Mosaic law,
namely, the merciful provision which it makes for the relief of the
stranger. The law of Moses has the spirit of its divine Author. He calls
himself “a jealous God,” and it may well be called a jealous law,
watching carefully over every departure from truth, and punishing it
rigorously: and yet, like God himself, this just jealousy is tempered
with mercy, and beams with love. The oral law, on the contrary, is an
envious and vindictive code, and its zeal degenerates into
narrow-hearted bigotry. It would not only punish the idolater, but
exclude every stranger from the pale of charity, unless he be a
proselyte; and an Israelite too, if he had in any wise dared to
transgress the rabbinical commands. A remarkable instance of this
hatred, to those whom it considers apostates, occurs in these laws
respecting almsgiving. The oral law says, that the most meritorious
exercise of charity is, the ransoming of captives:—
פדיון שבוים קרדם לפרנסת עניים ולכסותם , ואין לך מצוה גדולה כפדיון שבוים
׃
“The ransoming of captives goes before the feeding and clothing of the
poor, and there is no commandment so great as this.” (Hilchoth Matt’noth
Aniim, c. 8.) And yet if a brother Israelite should deviate from the
rabbinical commands, the oral law makes it unlawful to ransom him, at
the same time that it enjoins the ransom of a slave if he be a
proselyte:
עבד שנשבה הואיל שטבל לשם עבדות וקבל עליו מצוות פודין אותו כישראל שנשבה ,
ושבוי שהמיר אפילו למצוה אחת כגון שהיה אוכל נבלה להכעיס וכיוצא בזה אסור
לפדותו ׃
“A slave who is in captivity because he has received the baptism of
slaves, and taken upon himself the commandments, is to be redeemed. But
as to a captive who has altered even one commandment, if for instance he
has eaten forbidden food in order to vex, it is forbidden to ransom such
an one.” (Ibid.) Thus the oral law forbids all compassion even to an
Israelite, if he is not of the rabbinic religion. The conduct which it
prescribes towards poor Gentiles, “for the sake of the ways of peace,”
מפני דרכי שלום, we have considered long since; but the prohibition to
receive alms of the Gentiles, deserves notice here, as it furnishes
another proof of the contracted views of the rabbies, and the falsehood
of the oral law:—
אסור לישראל ליטול צדקה מן הגוים בפרהסיא ואם אינו יכול לחיות בצדקה של
ישראל ואינו יכול ליטלה מן הגוים בצנעה הרי זה מותר , ומלך או שר מן הגוים
ששלח ממון לישראל לצדקה אין מחזיריו אותו משום שלום מלכות אלא נוטלין ממנו
וינתן לעניי גוים בסתר כדי שלא ישמע המלך ׃
“It is unlawful for an Israelite to receive alms from the Gentiles
openly. But if he cannot live by the alms of Israel, and cannot receive
it from the Gentiles privately, then it is lawful. If a king or prince
of the Gentiles sends money to Israel as alms, it is not to be returned,
on account of the peace of the kingdom. On the contrary, it is to be
received, but it is to be given to the poor of the Gentiles privately,
so that the king may not hear of it.” (Ibid.) Here the oral law
endeavours to pervert that kindly feeling which should exist between all
the families of man, and spurns a demonstration even of love, because it
comes from a man of a different religion. At the same time its authors
had not the moral courage to do this openly and honestly, and if need
be, suffer for conscience sake. They command that the proffered alms
should be taken from the king, as if they intended to devote it to the
object for which he gave it, and then privately to apply it to a totally
different purpose. This want of good faith shows abundantly that the
oral law does not come from the God of truth. The narrow bigotry of the
system thus neutralizes all the individual trials of excellence which
the oral law contains. They appear beautiful only when viewed apart from
their context; but the moment we view them in relation to the other
parts of Rabbinism, their beauty is gone. Thus the duty and extent of
almsgiving, as prescribed by the oral law, at first sight appears
admirable; but the narrow spirit of bigotry by which it is
circumscribed, totally destroys its moral value in the sight of God and
man. Almsgiving is lovely only when it is the offspring of charity. God
looks not at the mere outward act of giving money, but at the heart, and
if there be no love there, almsgiving is valueless in his sight. And how
can any one pretend that there is a grain of true God-like charity in a
system which turns stranger into proselyte, prohibits to help a brother
because he is not of our own religious sentiments, and refuses even to
receive a kindness from one of a different religion? Just contrast this
with the Christian doctrine, “Love your enemies, bless them that curse
you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully
use you, and persecute you; that ye may be the children of your Father
which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the
good, and sendeth rain on the just and the unjust. For if ye love them
which love you, what reward have ye? Do not even the publicans the same?
And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? Do not
even the publicans so? Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father
which is in heaven is perfect.” (Matt. v. 44-48.)
But the oral law not only perverts and falsifies the true doctrine
concerning charity, but also misleads its followers by teaching them to
think that almsgiving is a peculiarly meritorious act, and will atone
for other transgressions. Thus it is said—
הייבין אנו להזהר במצות צדקה יותר מכל מצות עשה , שהצדקה סימן לצדיק זרע
אברהם אבינו שנאמר כי ידעתיו למען אשר יצוה את בניו לעשות צדקה , ואין כסא
ישראל מתכונן ודת אמת עומדת אלא בצדקה שנאמר בצדקה תכונני , קאין ישראל
נגאלין אלא בצדקה שנאמר ציון במשפט יפדה ושביה בצדקה ׃
“We are bound to be more careful respecting this commandment of alms
than about any other of all the affirmative precepts, for almsgiving is
a characteristic of the righteous seed of our father Abraham, as it is
said, ‘I know him that he will command his children to do alms.’ (Gen.
xviii. 19.) By almsgiving alone it is that the throne of Israel is
established, and that the law of truth standeth, for it is said, ‘by
alms (literally in righteousness) thou shalt be established.’ (Isaiah
liv. 14.) By alms alone it is that Israel shall be delivered, for it is
said ‘Zion shall be redeemed with judgment, and her converts with alms
(righteousness).’” (Isaiah l. 27.) (Ibid. c. x. 1.) According to this
doctrine, the man who gives alms has the merit of upholding truth in the
world and helping to deliver Israel from captivity. But the following
passage tells us that it will deliver from the punishment which he
deserves, and which is already impending over his head:—
הצדקה דוחה את הגזירות הקשות וברעב תציל ממות כמו שאירע לצרפית ׃
“Almsgiving annuls the evil decrees, and in famine it delivers from
death, as happened to the widow of Sarepta.” (Joreh Deah, 347.) And
hence it is that, as we have seen, at the approach of the New Year the
Rabbinists practise almsgiving abundantly, and also, that the survivors
offer for the repose of the souls of their debased relations. The
tendency of this doctrine is obviously pernicious, for it encourages men
to persist in sin, under the idea that almsgiving will compensate for
all other deficiencies. The doctrine itself is positively false. Where
does the law of Moses say that almsgiving can purchase forgiveness?
Moses requires obedience to all the commandments, and he enjoins the
practice of charity to the poor, but he denounces wrath against all
transgression. The doctrine of Moses is not that obedience to one
command will compensate for disobedience to another, but that
disobedience to one command will make obedience to others of none
effect. The doctrine that the giving of money to the poor can change the
course of God’s judgment, or alter this sentence, is very little short
of blasphemy: for it represents him as an unjust judge who can be
bribed, whose severity can be bought off, and whose favour can be
purchased with money. A more degrading view of the Divine character can
scarcely be imagined. Such conduct in a human judge would stamp him with
infamy, and cannot possibly be true of Him who is a God of truth and
justice. This one feature of rabbinic religion is sufficient to prove
that it is the invention of men, and of men too without any very exalted
notion of justice and equity.
Besides, this view or almsgiving takes away all the virtue of obedience
and love to God, and turns it into a mere mercenary transaction. The
great beauty of almsgiving is that it proceeds from love to God and man,
and that its motives be mercy and obedience. But the man, who gives alms
in order to atone for other transgressions, or to avert the punishment
which he deserves, is not performing an act either of obedience or
charity, he is simply making a purchase and driving a bargain which is
much to his advantage. He has got money, and with that money he can buy
a house, or a horse, or deliverance from punishment. It is, therefore, a
simple question of interest. He considers which will be the most
profitable investment of his money, and if he decide that deliverance
from God’s wrath is the most advantageous, he lays it out in almsgiving.
Obedience, or love to God or man, is here altogether out of the
question. Can any one, who has got the law and the prophets in his
hands, imagine that such a doctrine can come from God? or can any
reasonable being suppose, that escape from God’s wrath, or the enjoyment
of his favour depends not upon man’s moral worth, but upon his ability
to give alms: in a word, that his salvation depends not upon the state
of his heart, but the laying out of his money? This one doctrine, if
thoroughly believed and acted upon, would overturn the whole law of
Moses, and offer life not to the obedient, but to the moneyed.
In this doctrine of almsgiving, however, the oral law errs at the very
foundation. It has chosen the Hebrew word צדקה to stand for
“almsgiving,” whereas its true signification is “righteousness,” as may
be easily proved by reference to passages where it cannot possibly
signify “almsgiving,” as for instance—
וצדקה תהיה לנו כי נשמור לעשות את כל המצוה הזאת לפני ה׳ אלהינו כאשר צונו
׃
“And it shall be our _righteousness_ (not our almsgiving), if we observe
to do all these commandments before the Lord our God as he hath
commanded us.” (Deut. vi. 25.) Here צדקה cannot possibly signify
almsgiving. And again,
והאמין בה׳ ויחשבה לו צדקה ׃
“And he believed in the Lord; and he counted it to him for righteousness
(not for almsgiving).” (Gen. xv. 6.) And again,
לך אדני הצדקה ולנו בושת הפנים ׃