sits and occupies himself in the law. The second, he sits and judges the
whole world. When he perceives that the world deserves utter
destruction, He stands up from the throne of judgment, and sits on the
throne of mercy. The third, he sits, and feeds all the world, from the
horns of the unicorns to the eggs of the vermin. In the fourth, he sits
and plays with Leviathan, for it is said (Psalm civ. 26) ‘The Leviathan
whom thou hast formed to play therewith.’” (Avodah Zarah, fol. iii.,
col. 2.) In another place we have an account of the manner in which the
night is spent:—
ר׳ אליעזר אומר שלש משמרות הוי הלילה ועל כל משמר ומשמר יושב הקב׳׳ה ושואג
כארי שנאמר ה׳ ממרום ישאג ממעו קדשו יתן קולו שאוג ישאג על נוהו ׃
“Rabbi Eliezer says, The night has three watches, and at every watch,
the Holy One, blessed be He, sits and roars like a lion, for it is said,
‘The Lord shall roar from on high, and utter his voice from his holy
habitation: roaring he shall roar upon his habitation.’” (Jer. xxv. 30.)
And again, a little lower down, the same assertion is made in the name
of two other rabbies, and the cause of God’s roaring assigned:—
אמר רב יצחק בר שמואל משמיה דרב שלש משמרות הוי הלילה ועל כל משמר ומשמר
יושב הקב׳׳ה ושואג כארי ואומר אוי שחרבתי את ביתי ושרפתי את היכלי והגליתי
את בני לבין אומות העולם ׃
“Rabbi Isaac, the son of Samuel, says, in the name of Rav, The night has
three watches, and at every watch, the Holy One, blessed be He, sits and
roars like a lion, and says, Woe is me that I have laid desolate my
house, and burned my sanctuary, and sent my children into captivity
amongst the nations of the world.” (Berachoth, fol. iii., col. 1.) Now
we ask every reasonable man whether this is a representation worthy of
the Creator of heaven and earth? We are told here, first, that God is
like a man in observing day and night—that he has set times for
different employments, and a time for amusement. We are told, secondly,
that instead of comprehending all things past, present, and to come, at
all times, and instead of upholding all things by the continual fiat of
his omnipotent rule, that he is obliged to consider each thing in
succession; and that, like a poor frail child of man, He can do only one
thing at a time. And thirdly, we are here informed, that the Divine
Being sits all night, and mourns like a child, over an act which he
rashly committed, but now wishes to have undone. Is this a fit
representation of Deity, or is it awful blasphemy? How different is the
description given by Moses—“Lord, thou hast been our dwelling-place in
all generations. Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever thou
hadst formed the earth and the world, even from everlasting to
everlasting, thou art God. A thousand years in thy sight are but as
yesterday when it is past, and as a watch in the night” (Ps. xc. 1-4);
and again, that other beautiful passage of the Psalmist, “Of old thou
hast laid the foundations of the earth; and the heavens are the work of
thy hands. They shall perish, but thou shalt endure; yea all of them
shall wax old like a garment: and as a vesture shalt thou change them,
and they shall be changed; but thou art the same, and thy years shall
have no end.” (Ps. cii. 25-27.) In both these passages,
unchangeableness, entire freedom from all vicissitude and succession, is
presented to our view as the prominent feature in the character of
Deity. Whereas, the God whom the rabbies describe, is a being subject to
the same alterations as ourselves, and liable to change, in its worst
form, that is, to that change of will which ensues on disappointed
expectations. They say, that their God destroyed his temple and sent his
children into captivity, and that now he is very sorry for it, and vents
the bitterness of his grief in lamentations compared to the roaring of a
lion. Such a deity is no more like the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob,
than Jeroboam’s calves. He may not be a graven image, but he is
nevertheless an idol, not indeed of gold or silver, but of the
imagination. Nothing can be more different than the Being described by
the rabbies, and that God declared in Moses and the Prophets. And yet on
this very point, where the oral law errs so grievously, Christianity
maintains the truth. The New Testament declares unto us the same Being
revealed in the Old. It says, “Every good gift, and every perfect gift
is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is
no variableness, neither shadow of turning.” (James i. 17.)
But the rabbies falsely ascribe to God not only variableness, but
imperfect knowledge also. They say, that He spends a fourth part of the
day in the study of the law. Now either God knows the law, or he does
not. If he does know the law, then study is useless; and if he does not,
then his knowledge is imperfect, and either supposition is altogether
unworthy of the Deity. Indeed it is very difficult to argue against a
doctrine so monstrous, or to show the full absurdity where the subject
is so grave and sacred. But we put it to the good sense of every
Israelite, and ask him whether he can believe that the God of knowledge
studies in his own law? Is not such an assertion a blasphemous
falsehood, and does it not show that those who made it were themselves
utterly devoid of all true knowledge of God? Some persons endeavour to
excuse this blasphemy by saying that the words are not to be taken
literally, and that the rabbies employed oriental figures. But this will
not save the credit of the oral law; for if we admit the figure, we
cannot excuse the blasphemy contained in the assertion, that God studies
the law one fourth of every day. No man that has any reverence for his
Creator would venture to use such language, not even in the way of a
parable. It proves in every case that those rabbies were totally devoid
of that reverence which is due to God, and therefore most unfit teachers
of religion. But, further, if these passages be figurative, what is the
real sense? What is meant by studying in the law, or playing with
Leviathan, or uttering complaints at the beginning of every watch in the
night; or what is intended by ascribing to God one sort of employment in
the day and the other in the night? It is not enough to say that these
are all figures conveying the most profound wisdom; this assertion must
be proved by showing what this wisdom is. Let the Rabbinists explain
these figures satisfactorily, and they will then have some chance of
being believed, though even that would not amount to a proof, that the
authors of these passages intended that they should be understood
mystically. It is a certain fact that many of the rabbies have
understood these and similar passages literally. In the commentary on
the assertion, “That in the second three hours God sits and judges the
world,” we are told, that some believed this so firmly as to think that
on this very account the additional form of prayer, called מוסף, was
prescribed:—
יש אומרים כי לכך תקנו בקדושת מודף לומר ממקומו הוא יפן כי סתם מוסף בשניות
בא ואז הוא יושב ודן ואנו מתפללין שיפנה מכסא דין לשבת בכסא רחמים ׃
“Some say, that on this account the words ‘Let him turn from his place,’
have been appointed in the sanctification of the Musaph, for this part
of the prayer generally occurs in the second three hours, when he is
sitting in judgment, and that we pray that he may turn from the throne
of judgment, and sit on the throne of mercy.” Those who held this
opinion plainly thought, that the hours were literal hours, and that the
distribution of the day into four different employments was not
figurative, but real. These persons, therefore, believed that God
studies in the law, that he plays with Leviathan, and observes the
distinction of day and night. And it must be confessed that, if they
believed in the Talmud, they had good reason for this literal
interpretation, as the corresponding passage, respecting God’s roaring
like a lion at every watch of the night, cannot be explained
figuratively, if it be taken in connexion with its context. The context
contains a discussion about real, not figurative night-watches. The
question proposed by the Mishna is, Until what hour of the night is it
lawful to perform the evening-reading of the Sh’mah Israel (Hear, O
Israel)? R. Eliezer says, It is lawful until the end of the first watch.
The Gemara then considers what the rabbi could mean by this definition—
מה קסבר ר׳ אליעזר אי קסבר ג׳ משמרות הוי הלילה לימא עד ארבע שעות ואי קסבר
ארבע משמרות הוי הלִלה לימא עד שלש שעות , לעולם קסבר שלש משמרות הוי הלילה
והא קא משמע לן איכא משמרות ברקיעא ואיכא משמרות בארעא דתניא וכו׳ ׃
“What did R. Eliezer mean? If he meant that the night had three watches,
he ought to have said until the fourth hour: but if he meant that the
night has four watches, he ought to have said until the third hour.
There can be no doubt that he meant that the night has three watches,
and intended to say, that there are watches in heaven and watches upon
earth, for the Bareitha says, &c.”——And then follows the passage,
saying, that in each watch God roars like a lion. It cannot, then, be
pretended that the night-watches here are figurative or mystical. It is
expressly said that there are the same watches in heaven and earth, and
the whole question is about the real distribution of time. The following
context is equally unequivocal. R. Eliezer, immediately after saying
that in each watch God roars like a lion, goes on to give the signs
whereby each watch may be recognised even in the dark:—
קסימן לדבר משמרה ראשונה חמור נוער , שנייה כלבים צועקים , שלישית תינוק
יונק משדי אמו ואשה מספרת עם בעלה ׃
“The sign of the thing is—In the first watch the ass brays; in the
second watch the dogs bark; in the third watch the infant sucks at its
mother’s breast, and the wife talks with her husband.” This is plain
matter-of-fact way of speaking, and proves, beyond a doubt, that the
whole passage is to be taken literally. And if any doubt at all
remained, it is entirely removed, a little lower down on the page, by an
anecdote told by the veracious R. Jose. He says, that he once went into
one of the ruins of Jerusalem to pray, and that whilst he was engaged in
prayer, the prophet Elijah came to the entrance of the ruin, and very
civilly waited for him until he had concluded, when they had some
conversation together.
Amongst other particulars, R. Jose relates as follows:—
ואמר לי בני מה קול שמעת בחורבה זו לאמרתי לו שמעתי בת קול שמנהמת כיונה
ואומרת אוי שחרבתי את ביתי ושרפתי את היכלי והגליתי את בני לבין האומות
ואמר לי חייך וחיי ראשך לא שעה זר בלבד אורת כך , אלא בכל יום ויום שלש
פעמים אומרת כך , ולא זו בלבד , אלא בשעה שישראל נכנסין לבתי כנסיות ולבתי
מדרשות ועונין אמן יהא שמא רבא מברך הקב׳׳ה מנענע ראשו ואומר אשרי המלך
שמקלסין אותו בביתו כך מה לו לאב שהגלה את בניו ׃
“And he (Elias) said to me, What sort of a voice didst thou hear in the
ruin? I said to him, I heard a Bath Kol cooing like a dove, and saying,
Woe is me that I have desolated my house, and burnt my sanctuary, and
sent my children into captivity amongst the nations. And he said unto
me, As thou livest, and thy head liveth, it is not at this hour only,
but three times every day the voice says these words. And not only so,
but when the Israelites enter the synagogues, and the houses of study,
and say, ‘Amen, may his great name be blessed,’ the Holy One, blessed be
He, shakes his head, and says, Blessed is the King who is praised in his
house; but what profit has the father who sends his children into
captivity,” &c. Here we have the testimony of R. Jose to the truth of
the fact, that God does thus complain in the manner described above, and
we have the Prophet Elijah swearing that this happens three times every
day. It is plain, therefore, that the authors of the Talmud knew of no
mystical interpretation and intended none. It was their simple belief
that God observed the three watches of the night, and at the beginning
of each roared like a lion. And if this passage must be taken literally,
why should the other passage respecting the distribution and employments
of the day be taken figuratively? The literal interpretation of the one
furnishes a strong argument for the literal interpretation of the other.
And it is certainly of no use to ascribe a mystical sense to the one,
whilst the other is interpreted literally. The advocates of the oral law
gain nothing by it, for the one is not more absurd nor more unworthy of
the Deity than the other. Nothing can exceed the folly of representing
God as observing the night-watches, and roaring like a lion for grief,
because he sent Israel into captivity. Nothing can be more blasphemous
than the assertion that God does not foresee the results of his own
actions, and that he is afterwards obliged to sit down and mourn over
what he has done. This one passage, which cannot be explained away, is
quite sufficient to show that the rabbies were utterly ignorant of the
nature of God; and that, however they might be acquainted with the
letter of the Law and the Prophets, they knew nothing of the real
meaning of their writings. This one excess of folly and absurdity
entirely overthrows all the claims and pretensions of the oral law in
which it is found.
But there is another feature in the passage which we cannot pass without
notice, and that is, the total disregard of truth which it manifests. R.
Jose’s story is evidently a barefaced and wilful lie, unless we say,
that when he went into the ruin to pray, he fell asleep, and dreamed
that he heard the Bath Kol and had this conversation with Elijah; but
either supposition will equally destroy the credit of the Talmud. If it
be a lie, it is one of the most profane and wicked lies that can be
imagined. We have here a professed teacher of the law telling not only a
falsehood about his intercourse with Elijah, but daring falsely to
assert that he heard the voice of God mourning over the ruins of the
temple. The most profane and wicked lie that can be devised is that
which introduces God himself, and trifles with the sacred character of
the Deity. If this story be a lie, it oversets the Talmud and the
Talmudical religion at once. A religion built upon falsehoods, must
itself be necessarily false. But if the other supposition be adopted,
that R. Jose mistook a dream for a reality, what shall we say of a
religion whose teachers tell their dreams as sacred truths? And what
shall we say of the compilers of the Talmud, who were unable to detect
the folly and profanity of this narrative, and actually inserted it in
their oral law as an undoubted fact? This supposition may save R. Jose
from the unhappy character of a liar, but it will not do much towards
proving the truth of the oral law; for there it is not given as a dream,
but as a fact. R. Jose was silly enough to tell his dream as a reality;
and the rabbies to whom he told it were silly enough to believe; and the
most learned men of the Rabbinists at that time were silly enough to
embody it in their collection of holy and undoubted traditions. We do
not mean to ascribe any peculiar degree of folly to the rabbies. Persons
calling themselves Christians have been just as foolish, have believed
stories just as absurd, and have handed them down as religious truths.
But then, we do not receive these legends as a part and parcel of our
religion. We are as free to say of them, as of the Talmudic fables, that
they are wicked falsehoods. But the modern Jews tell us that the Talmud
is a divine book—that it contains their religion, and that without it
Moses and the Prophets are unintelligible; and therefore we point out
these fables as plain proofs of the falsehood of such an assertion. We
wish to direct the Jewish attention to that system which they have
called their religion for the last eighteen hundred years, and which
they have preferred to Christianity. We desire that they should consider
what they have gained, by expelling the family of Levi from the
teacher’s office and choosing the rabbies as their religious guides. We
ask every Israelite of common sense, whether R. Jose and his companions
are trustworthy leaders in the way to salvation; and whether they are
still prepared to follow the religion of a man who can only be acquitted
of being a liar by admitting that he is a dreamer? Or, whether they
still choose to worship the Deity proclaimed by the rabbies—a Deity
subject to succession of time—imperfect in knowledge so as to require
daily study—requiring amusement, and therefore playing for three hours
every day with Leviathan—and liable to disappointment, so as to be
obliged to spend the night, in mourning over one of his most deliberate
and solemn acts?
We are sure that every Israelite would be sadly offended at being told,
that he does not worship the God of his fathers, but a strange god,
invented by the imagination of the rabbles; and yet, if he worship the
god of the Talmud, it is nothing but the truth. The god of the Talmud is
certainly not the God of the Bible. Israelites are often shocked at the
folly and wickedness of those whom they see falling down before stocks
and stones; and yet, if they receive the oral law, and believe an a
Deity who plays with Leviathan, &c., the object of their worship is not
a whit more rational. They are just as guilty of idolatry, and the only
way in which they can clear themselves from the charge is, by rejecting
the oral law, and forsaking that superstition which the rabbies have
palmed off upon them as the religion of their fathers. It is a most
deplorable and melancholy sight to behold that nation, which once was
the sole depository of truth, enslaved by a system so senseless; but it
is more melancholy still to think, that there is not one among her sons
who has the moral courage to denounce its falsehood, and to vindicate
the truth as taught by Moses. The priests, the sons of Levi, were once
zealous for the honour of God, and united with Moses in destroying the
golden calf; but where are they now, and where is their zeal? Alas! they
too, are found amongst the worshippers of the Talmudical deity, and
uphold the system which has expelled them from their holy office.
No. XLII.
TITLE OF RABBI.
That the people, at present scattered over the whole world, and known by
the name of Jews, are descendants of the chosen people of God, we freely
admit. That the Old Testament contains prophecies of their future return
to the God and the land of their fathers, and their subsequent happiness
and glory, we firmly believe: but, that the religion which they at
present profess is the religion of Moses, we confidently deny. Modern
Judaism has not retained the doctrines of Moses; no not even with
respect to the fundamental article of religion, the nature of God. Our
last number showed how widely the rabbies have departed from the
Scripture representation of the divine character, and the number
preceding proved that the Jews haw not retained even the outward form of
the Mosaic edifice. Indeed we know not any problem more difficult of
solution than, to assign a reason, why the rabbinic Jews profess any
respect at all for Moses, when they have rejected both the form and the
substance of his teaching. If they boldly denied his authority, or
asserted that the Mosaic law was long since abrogated, and the rabbinic
precepts given in its stead, we could, at least, give them credit for
consistency; but at present we cannot possibly divine their motives for
professing attachment to the lawgiver of their forefathers. Their
conduct for ages would appear to indicate a fixed determination to get
rid and keep clear of every thing Mosaic, and that for the mere purpose
of having something else; for no one can pretend, that the new law and
the new teachers, that they have chosen, can lay any claim to superior
excellence or antiquity. Of the value of the rabbinic teaching we have
given many proofs; and now think of examining a little the _novelty_ of
the rabbinic order. It is certain that the word, rabbi, does not occur
in the law of Moses nor the prophets; it is, therefore, clearly not
Mosaic. This one fact does in itself go far to shake the authority of
modern Judaism and the oral law. There we cannot go a step without
hearing of the rabbies—Rabbi Eliezer said this, and Rabbi Bar Bar Chanah
said that. The whole oral law is made up of the sayings of the rabbies,
and yet neither their name nor their order was so much as known to Moses
our master. The other favourite appellation of the Talmudic doctors חכם
_Chacham_, or wise man, does indeed occur, and it appears from the
prophets, that there were some even in their time who laid exclusive
claim to that epithet, but unfortunately the prophets bring against them
the very same charge, which we prefer against their successors, namely,
that they had forsaken the law of Moses:—
איכה תאמרו חכמים אנחנו ותורת ה׳ אתנו אכן הנה לשקר עשה עט שקר סופרים ,
הובישו חכמים חתו וילכדו הנה בדבר ה׳ מאסו וחכמת מה להם ׃
“How do ye say, We are wise (Chachamim) and the law of the Lord is with
us? Lo, certainly in vain made he it; the pen of the scribes is in vain.
The wise men (Chachamim) are ashamed. They are dismayed and taken: lo,
_they have rejected the word of the Lord_: and what wisdom is in them?”
(Jer. viii. 8, 9.) The rabbies will scarcely acknowledge that they have
succeeded these persons in their office, and yet if they give up such
passages as these, they must abdicate all claim to antiquity. Indeed
some of them plainly acknowledge that the rabbies are a new order of
men, and that the word rabbi was not heard of until less than a century
before the destruction of the second temple. Thus the Baal Aruch says—
והדורות הראשונים שהיו גדולים מאוד לא היו צריכין לרברבם לא ברבן ולא ברבי
ולא ברב לא לחכמי בבל ולא לחכמי ארץ ישראל שהרי הלל עלה מבבל ולא נאמרה
רבנות בשמו , ובנביאים היו חשובים שאמר חגי הנביא , לא עלה עזרא מבבל ,
ואין מרברבין אותן עם הזכרת שמותיהן ולא שמענו כי התחילו זו אלא בנשיאים
מרבן גמליאל הזקן ורבי שמעון בנו שנהרג בחרבן בית שני ורבן יוחנו בן זכעי
כולן נשיאים ואף רבי התחיל מסמוכים מאותה שעה צדוק ורבי אליעזר בן יעקב
ופשט הדבר מתלמידי ר׳ יוחנן בן זכאי ולהלן ׃
“The first generations, which were very great, did not require the
titles of Rabban, or Rabbi, or Rav, wherewith to honour the wise men of
Babylon, or the wise men of the land of Israel; for behold Hillel went,
up from Babylon, but the title of Rabbi is not added to his name. There
were honourable persons amongst the prophets, for it is said, ‘Haggai
the prophet’—‘Ezra did not go up from Babylon’—and at the mention of
their names the title of Rabbi is not added: neither have we heard that
this was begun until the princes Rabban Gamaliel the elder, and Rabban
Simon his son, who was killed at the destruction of the second temple,
and Rabban Johannan ben Zakkai, who were all princes. Rabbi also began
with those who were promoted at the same time, Zadok and R. Eliezer, the
son of Jacob, and the thing spread from the disciples of Rabban Johannan
ben Zakkai onwards.” (Aruch in אביי) We need not wonder, then, that
Moses knows nothing of rabbies, for here is a plain confession, that the
name was never heard of until a few years before the last dispersion. It
may, however, be said, that the office itself existed, though the name
did not, and this is in fact asserted by Rambam, when he says:—
ומשה רבנו סמך יהושע ביד שנאמר ויסמוך את ידיו עליו ויצוהו , וכן השבעים
זקנים משה רבנו סמכם ושרתה עליהן שכינה ואותן הזקנים סמכו לאחרים , ואחרים
לאחרים , ונמצאו הסמוכין איש מפי איש עד בית דינו של יהושע ועד בית דינו של
משה רבינו ׃
“Moses our master promoted Joshua with his hands; for it is said, ‘and
he laid his hands upon him, and gave him a charge.’ (Numb. xxvii. 23.)
And in like manner with regard to the seventy elders, Moses our master
promoted them, and the Shechinah rested upon them; and these elders
promote others, and they again others; and thus we have a succession of
promoted persons, until the council of Joshua, and until the council of
Moses our master.” (Hilchoth Sanhedrin, iv. 1.) And so he tells us that—
ודוד המלך סמך שלשים אלף ביום אחד ׃