face” (Dan. ix. 7), where it is impossible to say that “Almsgiving
belongeth unto the Lord.” The oral law is therefore guilty of perverting
the meaning of one of the plainest and most commonly repeated words in
the Bible, and of course of thereby giving an erroneous sense to the
passage where it occurs. Thus it says, as we have seen above, “that by
almsgiving the throne of Israel is established and the law of truth
standeth,” and it proves this assertion by referring to a verse of
Isaiah, where the word צדקה occurs, and which signifies “by
righteousness shalt thou be established,” but which it perverts to mean
“by almsgiving thou shalt be established.” Here then the oral law is
plainly convicted of falsifying the Word of God, and perverting its
meaning in order to serve its own purposes and favour its own false
doctrine. To teach false doctrine is bad enough, but to pervert the
plain sense of Scripture is a great deal worse. Either charge, if
proved, would be sufficient to prove that the oral law is a false
religion, but here both charges are proved together. The oral law here
teaches that almsgiving can do that which it cannot do, namely, bribe
God to have mercy; and it supports its false doctrine by interpreting
צדקה to signify “almsgiving,” whereas it plainly signifies
“righteousness.” A religion guilty of such error cannot be from God. It
is for the Jews, then, to consider whether they will persist in
upholding the truth of a system which opposes the doctrines of Moses and
the prophets, and perverts the Word of God. The great boast of the Jews
is, that they are faithful to Moses and to the religion of Moses: but
this boast is vain so long as they profess Judaism. If Moses were to
rise from the dead, and get the oral law into his hands, he would not be
able to recognise it as the religion which he left to Israel. And, as to
the commands about almsgiving, he would not be able even to translate
them, for in his time צדקה signified righteousness.
The prophet Isaiah would feel equal astonishment if he were to return
and learn, that the oral law quoted him as an authority for the
assertion, that Zion is to be redeemed, not with righteousness, but with
almsgiving. And we doubt not that both Moses and Isaiah would protest as
earnestly as we do against a doctrine based upon perversion. But it is
extraordinary, if the Rabbinists really believe their own doctrine, that
Israel can be delivered from captivity by almsgiving, that they should
set any bounds to their liberality, or ever stop giving, until the
desired redemption be effected. If their doctrine be true, then all that
they so earnestly pray for, is entirely in their own power. They know
the means, and they possess the means of terminating this long
captivity. They need only to give a sufficiency of alms, and, according
to the oral law, even Zion itself shall be delivered. How extraordinary
then, that they should have suffered so many centuries of misery to pass
over their heads, and left their brethren to endure such calamities,
when liberality in almsgiving could have put a period to all their
sorrows. We think too highly of Israel’s charity to suppose for a moment
that they would hesitate to make the sacrifice, if they were persuaded
of its efficacy. We must therefore infer, that they do not believe in
the doctrine, and ask them, why do they profess a religion in which they
do not believe?
Footnote 34:
Literally, “a stranger.”
No. XL.
PRIESTS AND LEVITES.
The great test of a man’s faith in, and love to, his religion is his
practice. If a man live in open and perpetual transgression of its
commands, no profession can satisfy us that he is in earnest, or that he
really believes what his creed confesses. Now let the advocates of the
oral law examine themselves by this test. They profess to believe in,
and to love the law of Moses; and their great boast is, that Moses is
their master, and that they are his disciples, but do they prove the
reality of their faith by their obedience? They sometimes tax Christians
with inconsistency in professing to believe in Moses, and yet in
neglecting the observance of certain ceremonial observances; but are
they themselves more careful and less guilty in this matter? We do not
mean to allude to the weightier matters of the law, love to God and man:
that is a question for the conscience, not a subject for controversy,
but we refer to some mere external matters, easy of observance, and open
to the cognisance of every man. Moses and the prophets have commanded
that the priests, the Levites, הכהנים הלוים, should be the teachers of
the law, and that from them the people should learn. Moses does not say
one word about rabbies or wise men, חכמים, but restricts the office of
teaching to the priests, the Levites: now, do the modern Jews obey Moses
in this respect? Who are their teachers of religion, and from whom do
they learn? Are the priests and the Levites the teachers of Israel, as
Moses commanded, or are they taught by their rabbies and Chachamim, of
whom Moses does not say one syllable?
We assert, that Moses has commanded that the priests, the Levites,
should be the religious teachers in Israel, and in proof we refer to the
words of Moses himself. In the tenth chapter of ויקרא, Leviticus, he
thus writes:—
וידבר ה׳ אל אחרן לאמר . יין ושכר אל תשת אתה ובניך אתך בבאכם אל אהל מועד
ולא תמותו חקה עולם לדורותיכם . ולהבדיל בין הקודש ובין ההול ובין הטמא
ובין הטהור . ולהורות את בני ושראל את כל החקים אשר דבר ה׳ אליהם ביד משה ׃
“And the Lord spake unto Aaron, saying, Do not drink wine nor strong
drink, thou nor thy sons with thee, when ye go into the tabernacle of
the congregation, lest ye die: it shall be a statute for ever throughout
your generations: and that ye may put difference between holy and
unholy, and between unclean and clean; and that ye may teach the
children of Israel all the statutes which the Lord hath spoken unto them
by the hand of Moses.” Here the nature of the priest’s office is clearly
defined. It is, in the first place, to go into the tabernacle of the
congregation, and there to serve before the Lord: and secondly to
instruct the children of Israel in the difference between holy and
profane, clean and unclean, and especially to teach the children of
Israel “ALL THE STATUTES,” which the Lord had given to Moses. The
commission is not only very comprehensive, but very exclusive. If the
priests were to teach “all the statutes,” there is no room left for
rabbies, or Chachamim, or any other description of teacher, the priests
are the only divinely-accredited religious teachers in Israel.
If this passage stood alone, it would be quite sufficient to establish
the doctrine; but it does not. Moses was particularly anxious to impress
upon the Israelites the nature of the priestly office, and therefore
repeats the instruction again and again. Thus in the law respecting a
dead body found lying in a field, after commanding that the elders and
judges should come forth, he adds—
ונגשו הכהנים בני לוי כי בם בחר ה׳ אלהיך לשרתו ולברך בשם ה׳ ועל פיהם יהיה
כל ריב וכל ננע ׃
“And the priests, the sons of Levi, shall come near: for them the Lord
thy God hath chosen to minister unto him, and to bless in the name of
the Lord: and by their word shall every controversy and every stroke be
tried.” (Deut. xxi. 5.) One should have thought that the elders and
judges were enough in such a case. But not so. God had determined that
the priests were to teach Israel “all his statutes,” and therefore
commands that they should be present in this case, that they should give
the decision.
Again, when Moses was about to part from Israel, and to leave them his
dying benediction, he was directed by the spirit of prophecy to impress
upon them the same great truth, and in the most solemn manner:—
וללוי אמר תמיך ואוריך לאיש חסידך אשר נסיתו במסה תריבהו על מי מריבה ,
האומר לאביו ולאמו לא ראיתיו ואת אחיו לא הכיו ואת בניו לא ידע כי שמרו
אמרתך ובריתך ינצרו . יורו משפטיך ליעקב תורתך לישראל וגו׳ ׃
“And of Levi he said, Let thy Thummim and thy Urim be with thy Holy One,
whom thou didst prove at Massah, and with whom thou didst strive at the
waters of Meribah: who said unto his father and mother, I have not seen
him; neither did he acknowledge his brethren, nor knew his own children:
for they have observed thy word, and kept thy covenant. _They shall
teach Jacob thy judgments, and Israel thy law._” (Deut. xxxiii. 8-10.)
And as this doctrine forms a part of Moses’ last words, so also it is
found in the last prophetic message which God vouchsafed to Israel.
Malachi, the last of the prophets, reminds Israel—
כי שפתי כהן ישמרו דעת ותורה יבקשו מפיהו כי מלאך ה׳ צבאות הוא ׃
“That the priest’s lips should keep knowledge, and they should seek the
law at his mouth: for he is the messenger of the Lord of hosts” (Mal.
ii. 7): so that if there be any one thing more plain than another in the
Old Testament it is this, that the sons of Levi are the
divinely-appointed religious teachers of Israel, and that it is the duty
of all Israelites to seek instruction from them.
It cannot be said that the priests are not now well known, and that on
this account these commands have lost their force; for those who believe
in the oral law, profess to know the family of Levi, and in the
synagogue, at the reading of the law, the priest and the Levite are
called up in a certain order:
בכל קריאה וקריאה מאלו כהן קורא ראשון ואחריו לוי ואחריו ישראל , ומנהג
פשוט הוא היום בישראל שאפילו כהן עם הארץ קודם לקרות לפני חכם גדול ישראל ׃
“At every time of reading the priest reads first, and after him the
Levite, and after him the Israelite. And the simple custom of the
present time is, that a priest, even though he be an unlearned man
(amhaaretz), takes precedence in reading before the most learned, who is
only an Israelite.” (Hilchoth T’phillah, c. xii. 18.) And as the priests
are thus supposed to be known, so the oral law expressly maintains that
they still retain their priestly office, and are bound to discharge the
duties of it, so far as is possible, in the captivity: and therefore
requires them to bless the people as Moses commanded. Indeed the firm
conviction of the Talmudists on this subject is strikingly exhibited in
their assertion, that a priest, although unlearned, or even notoriously
wicked, is still not exempted from his obligation to perform this duty:—
כהן שלא היה לו דבר מכל אלה המונעין נשיאת כפים אע׳׳פ שאינו חכם ואינו
מדקדק במצוות או שהיה חבריו מרננים אחריו או שלא היה משאו ומתנו בצדק הרי
זה נושא את כפיו ואין מונאין אותו , לפי שזו מצות עשה על כל כהן וכהן שראוי
לנשיאת כפים ואין אומרים לאדם רשע הוסף רשע והמנע מן המצוות , ואל תתמה
ותאמר מה תועיל ברכת הדיוט זה , שאין קבול הברכה תלוי בכהנים אלא בהקב׳׳ה
שנאמר ושמו את שמי על בני ושראל ואני אברכם , הכהנים עושים מצוה שנצטוו בה
והקב׳׳ה ברחמיו מברך את ישראל כחפצו ׃
“A priest who has none of these disqualifications for the lifting up of
hands, even though he be not learned, nor accurate in the commandments;
and although his companions make a mock of him, or his dealings should
not be righteous, still he is to lift up his hands [to bless], and is
not to be prevented, for this is an affirmative precept binding upon
every priest, who is otherwise qualified; and we must not say to a
wicked man, Away, thou wicked man, be thou disqualified from keeping the
commandments. Do not ask, saying, What profit can there be in the
blessing of this simple fellow? for the receiving of the blessing does
not depend upon the priests, but upon the Holy One, blessed be He, for
it is said, ‘They shall put my name upon the children of Israel, and I
will bless them.’ The priests perform the duty commanded them, and God,
in his mercy, blesses Israel according to his pleasure.” (Ibid. c. xv.
6.) The existence, then, of the priests, and their continued obligation
to perform such official duties as are now possible, are fully
acknowledged, yea, it is even asserted that a wicked priest is by no
means to be prevented from doing his duty: it has also been plainly
proved, from the words of Moses and the prophets, that it is the duty of
the priests to teach, and of the Israelites to be taught by them: and no
man can deny that the performance of this duty is possible. The
destruction of the temple has prevented the priest from sacrificing, but
it has made no difference with regard to the possibility of teaching: it
is, therefore, a fair question to propose, to those who boast in their
obedience to the law of Moses, _How is this Mosaic command respecting
the teaching of the law fulfilled?_ Are the priests, the Levites, the
religious teachers in all Jewish congregations? or have they been
excluded from the office assigned to them by Moses? and is it occupied
by others to whom Moses did not give it? Every Jew must answer that this
command of Moses is utterly disregarded—that the office of the
priesthood, as established by Moses, has now scarcely the shadow of an
existence amongst the Jews—that the rabbies, Chachamim, and the
Melamm’dim are universally the religious teachers—and that hundreds, if
not thousands, of the priests are left in utter obscurity, and not a few
in destitution. Jeremiah complained of the heathen—
פני כהנים לא נשאו ׃
“They respected not the persons of the priests” (Lam. iv. 16); but it is
equally applicable to the adherents of the oral law. Here and there a
son of Levi may be a rabbi, and then he has the honour attached to the
rabbinical office; but the Mosaic institution of the priesthood, as the
appointed order of religious, teachers to Israel is utterly disregarded.
Moses declares, as we have seen above, that it is the priest’s office
“to distinguish between holy and unholy, and between clean and unclean;”
but if a Jew has got a שאלה, a question or a difficulty, it is to the
rabbi that he goes to get the decision. Moses says that the priests are
appointed by God “to teach Israel all the statutes which the Lord hath
spoken to them;” but now men are made rabbies and Melamm’dim who do not
pretend to be of the family of Levi: and there are congregations even
where there is no Levite nor priest at all, and where, therefore, this
command is utterly despised. But the worst feature in this disobedience
is, that it is systematic. It is not one of the casualties of the
captivity, but it is the deliberate aim of the oral law to degrade the
priesthood, as established by Moses, and to set up above it another
office, that of rabbi, of which Moses does not say one word. The oral
law, instead of deprecating the possibility of an Israelite congregation
existing without a priest a son of Levi, quietly layeth down the law for
doing without them. When prescribing the order in which persons are to
be called up to the reading of the law, it says—
אין שם כהן עולה ישראל ולא יעלה אחריו לוי כלל ׃
“If there be no priest there, then an Israelite is to go up, but no
Levite is to follow him.” (Ibid., c. xii. 19.) And again,
ואם אין להם כהן כלל כשיגיע שליח צבור לשים שלום וכו׳ ׃
“But if the congregation has no priest at all, when the reader comes to
that part of the prayers he is to say,” &c. (Ibid., c. xv. 10.) Now if
the oral law were anxious to maintain the institution of Moses it could
make no such supposition. On the contrary it would urge upon every
congregation the indispensable necessity of having a priest or the
family of Levi. The supposition shows that its authors cared but little
about the commands of Moses, for where there is no priest it is plainly
impossible for the people to obey that often-repeated precept to learn
the law from the sons of Levi. And yet the authors of the oral law, who
care so little for this commandment of Moses about the priests, command
the appointment of Melamm’dim, or schoolmasters, wider pain of utter
destruction—
מושיבין מלמדי תינוקות בכל מדינה ומדינה ובכל פלך ופלך ובכל עיר ועיר , וכל
עיר שאין בה תינוקות של בית רבן מחרימין את אנשי העיר יד שמושיבין מלמדי
תינוקות ואם עוד לא הושיבו מחרימין את הציר ׃
“Teachers of children are to be established in every province and
district and city. And every city in which there are not school children
the men of that city are to be visited with the Cherem, and if they
still neglect, the city itself is to be devoted.” (Hilch. Talm. Torah,
c. ii.) When we see them enforce this commandment of their own with such
zeal and severity, and yet appear so careless and negligent about the
commandment of Moses, we justly infer that this neglect was intentional,
and that the object was to exalt themselves, and to depress that office
which God himself had ordained, And this inference is abundantly
confirmed by הלכות כבוד רבו, the numerous and minute laws respecting the
honour due to a rabbi, whilst the respect due to the family of Levi is
almost entirely disregarded, and his office evidently depreciated below
that of the former. As, for instance, in establishing the order in which
captives are to be redeemed, the oral law says the priest is to be
redeemed before the Levite, and the Levite before the Israelite, but
then adds—
במה דברים אמורים כשהיו שניהם שוין בחכמה , אבל אם היה כהן גדול עם הארץ
וממזר תלמיד חכם תלמיד חכם קודם ׃
“In what case does this hold good? In case that they were both equal in
wisdom. But if the high priest be an unlearned man, and an illegitimate
child be the disciple of a wise man (chacham), the latter is to have the
precedence.” (Hilchoth Matt’noth Aniim, c. viii. 17.) Here the office of
the priesthood and even of the high priesthood itself is put below that
of the rabbi or chacham, and the intention of the Rabbinists to exalt
themselves, and their utter disregard for the law of Moses and his
commandments, is especially apparent. The high priest was the chief
person in the whole Mosaic dispensation. Without him the blood of the
offering could not be carried into the holy of holies on the Day of
Atonement, and yet the oral law says, that if he and an illegitimate
child, that is, the least honoured person in Israel, be both in
captivity, and the latter be the disciple of a rabbi, he is to be
redeemed first. It is needless to add any further proof of the fact that
the command of Moses, respecting the family of Levi, is systematically
and intentionally transgressed by the authors and adherents of the oral
law. The priests, the Levites, have been thrust out of that office which
God gave them, and others have been made the religious teachers of
Israel who have no right at all to this appointment. How then can the
modern Jews pretend to be zealous for the law of Moses? They are living
in plain and systematic violation of one of his plainest commands. It
will not do to say that the office of rabbi is also of divine
appointment. An assertion which nullities a Mosaic institution must have
the most unexceptionable evidence. Its proof must be at least as clear
as the original appointment. To persuade any real lover of the Mosaic
law that the rabbies have a right to thrust out the family of Levi from
their office, and to take it upon themselves, the express declaration of
God is absolutely necessary. And if the rabbies could prove, which they
cannot, that they are the lawful teachers of Israel, it would
necessarily follow that the Mosaic law has been changed, and then one of
the chief dogmas of modern Judaism, the immutability of the Mosaic law,
is entirely overthrown. When Moses gave the law the priests were the
religious teachers of Israel. Since the dominion of the oral law, not
the priests, but the rabbies have been the teachers. Here then is an
important, yea, an organic change in the Mosaic constitution. This
change then is either unlawful or lawful. If it be unlawful, then the
rabbies have no right to be the teachers of Israel. If it be lawful,
then to change and alter the Mosaic law is lawful, and then modern
Judaism, which teaches that there can be no change, is false. This is
the only alternative which modern Jews can adopt,—they must either
maintain the immutability of the law at the expense of the rabbinic
office, or they must assert the legitimacy of the rabbinic office at the
expense of the law. In either case the oral law is convicted of teaching
falsehood; and in neither case can the modern Jews make a boast of
loyalty to the law of Moses. They charge Christians with disregarding
and transgressing the Mosaic law, but let them point out, even in the
practice of Gentile Christians, any one apparent transgression more
heinous than the expulsion of the family of Levi from the office to
which Moses appointed them. The fact is notorious. This family is every
where neglected and in obscurity, struggling with the cares and business
of the world, instead of occupying the station given to them by Moses.
Let all the lovers of modern Judaism consider this fact, and then ask
themselves how they can pretend to be keeping the law of Moses? Let them
remember that they have themselves made a change in the law by
appointing rabbies instead of the priests, and that, if they defend this
change, they teach the very same doctrine which they blame in Gentile
Christians, namely, the mutability and abrogation of the Mosaic law. Of
course we do not mean to dictate to Israel in this matter. If they are
conscientiously persuaded that the institutions of Moses have been
abrogated, they can then consistently maintain the appointment of
rabbies, but let them give up their common, though mistaken, argument
against Christianity. But if they believe what they so commonly profess,
that the law of Moses is not, and cannot be abrogated, then let them act
consistently, renounce the oral law, and restore the family of Levi to
the office from which modern Judaism has excluded them for so many
centuries. To follow the oral law, and at the same time to obey the
written law of Moses in this matter, is plainly impossible. The oral law
is for the rabbies and the Chachamim—the words of Moses are for the
family of Levi. The Jews may, and of course will, choose as they think
best; but, if they determine upon maintaining the rabbinical system, let
them not pretend to be followers of Moses. Let them honestly confess
that they do not like Moses and his laws, and that they prefer the new
and modern religion of the rabbies. The subject is important to all
Israel, but especially so to the sons of Levi themselves. God gave them
the important charge of instructing the house of Israel in his laws, are
they then at liberty to resign their sacred office into the hands of
others? Has God dispensed them from obedience to his command? If so,
what obligation rests upon them to bless the people? By lifting up their
hands and blessing the people, they confess that their office still
continues; and, if so, the obligation to perform all its duties
continues also. Either the law of Moses is abrogated, or the priests are
still the appointed religious teachers of Israel.
The priests have the some alternative as the people, i.e., either to
assert the rights and perform the duties of their priestly office, or
honestly to acknowledge that they do not believe in Moses, nor care for
his religion, but that their religion is that of the rabbies. The
responsibility is however much heavier on the family of Levi than on
Israelites of another tribe. To the sons of Levi, God committed the
honourable office of instructing Israel. They have been set as the
watchmen in Israel, and are therefore answerable, not only for their own
neglect, but for the error and destruction of the people. It is then
high time for them to remember their duty and the zeal of their
forefathers in extirpating error, and to show themselves worthy of their
high origin, and of their divine appointment, by opposing the errors of
the oral law.
No. XLI.
RABBINIC IDEAS OF THE DEITY.
It is an indisputable fact, that the modern Jews have entirely cast off
the laws of Moses respecting the priests of the family of Levi, and have
chosen and appointed to themselves other teachers, of whom Moses says
nothing. What the cause was of such extraordinary conduct in those who
profess a great zeal for the law of Moses, we do not now profess to
inquire; but we think that every Jew ought to have a very good reason
for thus wilfully, systematically, and continually transgressing the
commandments of God. He ought, at the very least, to be able to show
that the doctrines of these new teachers are far superior to those of
the religious teachers appointed by Moses; and that the superabundant
excellence and wisdom of rabbinic teaching does, at least, justify the
change which they have made in the Mosaic law. We have had occasion in
these papers to consider the nature of the new doctrine chosen instead
of the law of Moses, and to us it certainly appears that “The Old Paths”
were better. To-day we propose to illustrate the rabbinic notions of the
Deity, and do not intend by any means to select the most objectionable
representations contained in the rabbinical writings, but shall confine
ourselves to a few well-known passages, which are intended to explain to
us the mode in which God spends his time. Concerning the day, the
rabbies say that it is spent in the following manner:—
שתים עשרה שעות הוי היום , שלש הראשונות הקב׳׳ה יושב ועוסק בתורה , שניות
יושב ודן את כל העולם כולו , כיון שרואה שנתחייב העולם כליה , עומד מכסא
הדין ויושב על כסא הרחמים , שלישיות יושב וזן את כל העולם כולו , מקרני
ראמים עד ביצי כינים , רביעיות יושב ומשחק עם לויתן , שנאמר לויתן זה יצרת
לשחק בו וכו׳ ׃