our other arguments against the authority of the Sanhedrin and the oral
law, and were willing to rest this question on the testimony of the
rabbies themselves, the defectiveness, inconsistency, and falsehood
manifested in that testimony, would be sufficient to throw discredit on
all their claims. They have not only no proof from Scripture, but are
not able themselves to find in tradition an unbroken chain of testimony.
They fail at the very outset. After producing two links, they leave a
chasm of above two hundred years unaccounted for. When they take it up
again, they are convicted of gross falsehood in asserting that men
lived, after the deluge, to the age of five hundred years: and are not
able even to make out a story that will agree with the oral law itself.
The most favourable ground, then, that can be taken for the defence of
the oral law proves untenable. But if to this we add the arguments
contained in the former papers, and remember that the Sanhedrin is in
direct opposition to the law of Moses, is never mentioned in any of the
sacred books, nor heard of until the Greek language was spoken in the
land of Israel, every support is taken from the oral law, and it sinks
down to the level of a mere imposture, of which the Jewish people have
been the dupes and the victims. How long they will remain so, it is for
themselves to consider. The times of blind faith, such as modern Judaism
requires, are gone by; the Jews can therefore no longer remain the blind
followers of the superstitious and ambitious rabbies. Either they must
honestly confess that they and their fathers have been deceived for the
last eighteen hundred years, and earnestly set about seeking that truth
which they lost; or they most be content to be regarded either as
interested upholders of error, or reckless despisers of truth. No one,
who at all knows the nation, will ever believe that they are so weak in
understanding as to be unable, under present circumstances, to detect
the clumsy pretensions of the oral law. Some Jews may, indeed, still
obstinately refuse to investigate the evidences of their paternal
religion, and persist in professing Judaism simply because their fathers
did so before them: but such persons must be content to acknowledge that
their faith is not that of a rational being, or that their religion will
not stand the test of reason. All who will take the trouble to
investigate, must, if they be honest men, make up their minds to
renounce the religion of the rabbies. There is not any one argument,
either of internal or external evidence, in its behalf, on which a man
of ordinary understanding can rest for a moment. The only shadow of a
basis on which to support the oral law is the doctrine of the Sanhedrin,
but this, as we have seen, disappears so soon as we approach the
illusion. Instead of giving authority to the other parts of the oral
law, the doctrine of a Sanhedrin appears one of the most objectionable
of its many errors, for it bears upon its front the stamp of selfishness
and ambition. It was an invention of men, who aimed not only at a
spiritual dominion, but also at a secular despotism. The Sanhedrin was
merely the engine whereby the rabbies hoped to get all the power, both
of Church and State, into their own hands, and thereby distinguishes the
rabbinical religion in the most striking manner from that of Jesus of
Nazareth. Christianity contains no apparatus for securing to its
teachers the dominion of the world; and therefore the professing
followers of Christ, when they aimed at worldly power, were first
obliged to invent an oral law of their own. Jesus of Nazareth seeks
nothing but the dominion of truth. “When he perceived that they would
come and take him by force, to make him a king, he departed again into a
mountain himself alone.” (John vi. 15.) His doctrine was, “My kingdom is
not of this world.” And in like manner he taught his disciples not to
seek after worldly power. “Ye know that they which are accounted to rule
over the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and their great ones
exercise authority upon them. But so shall it not be among you: but
whosoever will be great among you, shall be your minister: and whosoever
will be chiefest, shall be servant of all. For even the Son of man came
not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a
ransom for many.” (Mark x. 42-45.) Jesus and his apostles are perfectly
free man the suspicion of making religion subservient to the promotion
of ambitious schemes. The teachers of the oral law had, and even now
have a temptation to uphold its doctrines, because they make them the
absolute rulers of the Jewish people, and this tendency is a strong
ground of suspicion. When God sent Moses, he preserved him from all
similar imputation, for though he possessed the supreme power during his
life, his claims were attested by miracles which could not be denied:
and at his decease his children were chief neither in Church nor State.
The priesthood remained in the family of Aaron, and the chief magistracy
fell to the lot of Joshua. Thus disinterestedness distinguished the
characters of Moses and Jesus from those of the rabbies. The doctrine of
the Sanhedrin reveals but too plainly the motives by which the authors
of the oral law were actuated. Of course we do not mean to ascribe the
same motives to all the advocates of the oral law in the present day.
Those motives are necessarily confined to those times when Judaism can
be realized, and cannot, therefore, be called forth until there is a
prospect of restoring the rabbinic polity. Our object is not to condemn
the modern Jews, but to open their eyes to a true view of that system by
which they have been so long deluded. And if they should ask us, Where,
then, is the truth to be found? we reply, in Moses and the prophets. For
though we are Christians, we firmly believe that true faith in the Old
Testament must terminate in Christianity. The only real obstacle in the
way of a Jew’s receiving Jesus as the Messiah, is the prejudice, that
his fathers, who rejected him, must have been in the right; and this
obstacle we are endeavouring to remove. We have already made it appear
that they were in the wrong; and our late papers have removed the
strongest objection that they urge, namely, that the sentence of the
Sanhedrin was decisive against his claims. We have shown that the
Sanhedrin was altogether an unlawful tribunal, not established by Moses,
but, as its name intimates, by the Greeks, and modelled by artful and
ambitious men for their own purposes: and as the tribunal was unlawful,
so was the sentence. Indeed the fact that the Lord Jesus Christ was
condemned by an unlawful tribunal is a testimony in his favour. It shows
that he disapproved of and opposed their unlawful doings. Jesus was not
condemned by the friends of Moses, but by his enemies. The religion of
Christ was persecuted, not by those who conscientiously kept Moses’
commands, but by those who had first defaced every feature of Mosaism.
The men who condemned the Lord Jesus were the tyrannical usurpers of an
authority which Moses had given to others; and if Moses himself had
appeared amongst them, and asserted the rights of the priests and
Levites against the rabbies, they would just as readily have crucified
him as the Lord Jesus Christ. The Jews, therefore, of the present day,
who approve the condemnation of Jesus, unite with the enemies of Moses;
but those who are lovers of the Mosaic law must approve the efforts of
Jesus to deliver it from the corruptions or wicked and ambitious men. An
unlawful tribunal condemned him for doing what every true Jew must
acknowledge to be right. Whether, then, they acknowledge him as the
Messiah, or not, they must confess that he died a martyr to his zeal for
the law of Moses, and are, therefore, bound to re-consider his claims.
Jesus was put to death, not because he violated the Mosaic precepts, but
because he reproved others for their transgressions—not because he
endeavoured to overturn the religion of Moses, but because he resolutely
defended its truth against those who were introducing a new religion
upon its ruins.
No. XLVI.
CONTEMPT FOR THE FEMALE CHARACTER.
Modern Judaism, or the religion of the oral law, cannot bear the
slightest investigation. Its existence depends altogether upon a blind
faith. As long as a man is willing to deliver up his understanding into
the hands of the rabbies, and at their bidding believe that his right
hand is his left, as they require; so long he may be a zealous professor
of Judaism. But, the moment that he begins to think and to reason, and
to compare his traditional faith with the doctrines of Moses and the
prophets, he must begin to doubt, and if he really has a love for the
law of God, he must ultimately renounce that superstition which caused
the destruction of the temple and all the subsequent calamities of his
people, and still enslaves the greatest portion of his nation. It
matters not at which point he views it—its theoretic principles and its
practical effects equally condemn it, and prove that it is so far from
being a revelation from God, that it is not even the work of good or
wise men. The doctrine of the Sanhedrin, which we lately considered,
exhibits it as a spiritual despotism the most intolerable; but the utter
contempt with which it looks down upon the female portion of mankind
makes it to this hour a positive curse to the daughters of Israel, and
proves that it does not proceed from Him who created male and female,
and pronounced a blessing upon the one as well as the other. One of the
prominent characteristics in every false religion is the degradation of
womankind. The Mahometan imposture debases women to the level of the
brute creation. Judaism places them in the same category with slaves. In
Mahometan countries, women are deprived of all culture of head and
heart. Rabbinism, as we saw in No. 3, pronounces that fathers are exempt
from all obligation to teach their daughters the law of the lord: but we
must proceed to consider fully _the estimate which Rabbinism teaches the
Jews to form of their daughters, their sisters, their mothers, and even
the wife of their bosom_: and in doing this we shall not go to the
opinions of the ignorant, the vicious, or the superstitious, but to the
standard books of the nation. It is not possible to produce in English
much of the slanderous assertions contained in the Talmud; many are too
bad for translation, but still enough can be brought forward to prove
satisfactorily that the rabbies look upon womankind with contempt. It is
generally agreed that Rambam, or Maimonides, was one of the most learned
and enlightened of the rabbies, and yet the contempt which he felt for
the female head and heart appears very plainly in the following
passage:—
אל יאמר אדם הריני עושה מצוות התורה ועוסק בחכמתה כדי שאקבל כל הברכות
הכתובות בה או כדי שאזכה לחיי העולם הבא , ואפרוש םן העבירות שהזהירה תורה
מהן כדי שאנצל מן הקללות הכתובות בתורה או כדי שלא אכרת מחיי העולם הבא ,
אין ראוי לעבוד השם על הדרך הזה , שעובד על דרך זה הוא עובד מיראה ואיננה
מעלת הנביאים ולא מעלת החכמים , ואין עובדין ה׳ על דרך זה אלא עמי הארץ
והנשים והקטנים שמחנכין אותן לעבוד מיראה עד שתרבה דעתן ויעבדו מאהבה ׃
“Let not any man say, Behold I perform the commandments of the law, and
study in its wisdom, in order to obtain the blessings written therein,
or to be worthy of the life of the world to come: and I abstain from the
transgressions against which it warns, in order to be delivered from the
curses written in the law, or that I may not be cut off from eternal
life. It is not right to serve God in this way, for he that serves thus,
serves from fear, and that is not the degree to which the prophets and
wise men attained. No one serves God in this way, except unlearned men
(Amharatzin), women, and children, whom they accustom to serve from
fear, until their understanding increases, so that they may serve from
love.” (Hilchoth T’shuvah, c. x. 1.) Here Maimonides sinks women down to
the level of children, and even classes their moral and intellectual
faculties with those of the despised _Amharatzin_. We saw in No. 1 that
an _amhaaretz_ is of so little value, that his life is not considered
more precious than that of a fish, and such it appears was Rambam’s
estimate of the value of a woman. This most learned rabbi considered it
impossible for a woman to love God or to serve him aright; and when he
wished to warn the Jews against serving God in an erroneous manner, he
actually tells them not to serve Him as the women do. A more debasing
imputation cannot be cast upon a human being than this, that he is
physically incapable of loving God or serving Him aright. If he had
asserted that since the fall of Adam, the whole human race is far gone
from original righteousness, and that therefore the love of God is not
in them, he would have said what is asserted in Scripture: but the
opinion that women, that is, one half of the human species, have a
physical incapacity to love and serve God; and that we are to regard
them as a sort of finger-post for pointing out error, or a notorious
example of that irreligion which we are to avoid, is to blaspheme the
Creator, and to hold up the whole female sex to the universal scorn of
their sons, their brothers, and their husbands. It may be said, in
palliation of so foul a libel, that Rambam lived amongst Mahometans, and
that he insensibly imbibed the opinions of the followers of the false
prophet. Now it is most true that he could never have learned this
sentiment from Christians. The New Testament does not teach us to look
upon women as Amharatzin, but to regard them as rational and responsible
beings, capable of doing God the same acceptable service as men, liable
to the same awful judgment, and partakers of the same blessed hope. This
apology, if true, would only serve to excuse Rambam: it would not defend
the sentiment itself, but on the contrary, stamp it as Mahometan. It is
not true, however, that Rambam imbibed this notion from intercourse with
Mahometans: he learned it in the oral law, which has such a low opinion
of women as to pronounce their testimony invalid.
עשרה מיני פסלות הם , כל מי שנמצא בו אחד מהן הרי הוא פסול לעדות , ואלו הן
הנשים , והעבדים , והקטנים , והשוטים , והחרשים , והסומים , והרשעים ,
והבזויין , והקרותים והנוגעין בעדותן , הרי אלו עשרה ׃
“There are ten sorts of disqualification, and every one in whom any one
of them is found, he is disqualified from giving evidence; and these are
they—women, slaves, children, idiots, deaf persons, the blind, the
wicked, the despised, relations, and those interested in their
testimony—behold these are ten.” (Hilchoth Eduth., c. ix. 1.) Now, it
will be observed that these ten classes may be reduced to two—those who
are disqualified by physical or intellectual infirmity, as children,
idiots, deaf and blind persons; and secondly, those whose moral
integrity is exposed to suspicion, as slaves, wicked and despised
persons, relations, and those who have an interest in the cause. To one
of these two classes women must belong: they are disqualified either
because of incapacity, or because their moral feeling may not be
trusted, and in either case are treated with a most unmerited contempt.
It is true, that the rabbies endeavour to prove that the law of Moses
excludes women from giving testimony, saying—
נשים פסולות לעדות מן התורה שנאמר על פי שנים עדים לשון זכר ולא לשון נקבה
׃
“Women are disqualified by the law from giving testimony, for it is
said, ‘At the mouth of two witnesses,’ where the word witness is of the
masculine, not the feminine gender;” but this proof is altogether
inconclusive; on the same principle it might be proved that women might
break all the ten commandments, for they are all given in the masculine
gender. Indeed it is self-evident that God could not have given a law so
absurd. There are thousands of cases, where, if women could not give
evidence, all the ends of justice would be defeated. Take, for instance,
the famous judgment of Solomon, where the two women laid claim each to
the living child. In this case there could be no testimony but that of
the women themselves, and Solomon did not send them away because they
were women. Take also the case of Boaz and Ruth. When Boaz wished to
marry Ruth, it was necessary first to redeem the inheritance, and for
this it was absolutely necessary to prove that Ruth was the wife of
Naomi’s son. But there was no testimony but that of the women
themselves. Elimelech, Chilion, and Mahlon, were all dead, and the
marriage had taken place in a foreign land, yet we do not read of any
difficulties being raised. Boaz himself, Naomi’s kinsman, and the elders
of Israel, appear all to have been perfectly satisfied. The
disqualification of women, therefore, was not ordained by Moses, but is
the invention of the rabbies, and shows that the rabbies had so low an
opinion of the intellect or the integrity of women, as to think either
that women are so half-witted as not to be fit to give testimony, or so
dishonest as not to be trusted in the testimony which they may give.
But this degradation of the female character is not confined to the
rabbinic courts of law. They have dared to carry it even into the house
of God, and to make it prominent in the public worship of the Creator.
The oral law has ordained that no public worship, nor indeed many
religious solemnities, can be performed, unless there be ten persons
present, but from this number it has carefully excluded the women,
determining that—
ואלו העשרה צריך שיהיו כולם בני חורין וגדולים שהביאו ב׳ שערות ׃
“It is necessary that all these ten be free and adult men.” (Orach
Chaiim, 55.) So that if there should be ten thousand women in the
synagogue, they are counted as nobody, and unless there be ten men there
can be no service. Hence it is that the daughters of Israel are never
suffered to appear as participators in the worship of God, but are
compelled to look on from a distance, as if they had neither part nor
lot in the matter. Now what reason is there why women should not be
regarded as worshippers? Are they not rational beings? are they not
creatures of God? are they not heirs of immortality just as well as the
men? Will they not join in the praises of the redeemed in Paradise; or
is the Mahometan doctrine true, that women have no souls? Certainly,
when one looks at the Jewish synagogue, one would think so. Before
marriage the women never go there at all, and after marriage how seldom.
On the Barbary coast they hardly ever go, and in Poland how common is
it, whilst the men are in the synagogue at prayer, to see their wives
outside loitering and chatting, as if the public worship of God was no
concern of theirs. Even in this country the attendance of females is not
at all equal to that of the men. How contrary is this state of things to
the command of God in the Psalms, “Both young men and maidens; old men
and children; let them praise the name of the Lord.” (Psalm cxlviii. 12,
13.) And again, “Let every thing that hath breath praise the Lord.”
(Psalm cl. 6.) How different is the condition of the Jewish females
under the oral law, from that described by Moses:—“When Miriam, the
prophetess, the sister of Aaron, took a timbrel in her hand; and all the
women went out after her, with timbrels and with dances. And Miriam
answered them, Sing ye to the Lord, for he hath triumphed gloriously.”
(Exod. xi. 21.) Then the women were permitted to unite in the noblest
work that can engage the soul of human beings, the praises of our God.
But now they are shut out, according to the ordinance of the
rabbies—they are not reckoned amongst God’s worshippers, and if ten
thousand of them should go to the synagogue, unless there should also be
a sufficient number of men, a disciple of the rabbies would count them
as nobody, and not think it worth his while to read prayers for them. A
law like this cannot possibly proceed from God, He makes no such
difference between male and female.
לא בגבותת הסוס יחפץ לא בשוקי האיש ירצה ׃
“He delighteth not in the strength of the horse; he taketh not pleasure
in the legs of a man.” (Ps. cxlvii. 10.) “The sacrifices of God are a
broken spirit; a broken and contrite heart, O God, thou wilt not
despise” (Ps. li. 17); no matter whether it be male or female.
But the oral law is not content with degrading women by refusing to
number them as a part of the congregation, it actually prescribes a form
of daily prayer expressive of their contempt. Every day the men say—
ברוך אתה ה׳ אלהינו מלך העולם שלא עשני אשה ׃
“Blessed art thou, O Lord, our God! king of the universe, who hath not
made me a woman.” Whilst the women are directed to say—
ברוך אתה ה׳ אלהינו מלך העולם שעשני כרצונו ׃
“Blessed art thou, O Lord our God! King of the universe, who hath made
me according to his will.” (Daily Prayers, p. 6.) The proud benediction
of the men is founded altogether on the oral law, which promises rewards
not to the state of the heart, but to the external operation of keeping
God’s commands, and as many of them cannot be kept by the women,
intimates that the men will have a greater reward. This prayer, or
rather thanksgiving, refers especially to the study of the law, from
which they suppose the woman to be dispensed, and for which they expect
no small reward in the world to come, and upon which they pride
themselves, particularly in this present life. The man who remembers the
day of judgment, when the secrets of all hearts shall be revealed, or
bears in mind that the distinction of sex, like the difference of rank
or office or nationality, is only for this world, will find but little
reason for offering up any such thanksgiving. He knows that God will
render to every human being, not according to sex, but according to
deeds; and feeling that all, both male and female, are sinners, will see
that such arrogance is unbecoming at all times, and particularly odious
at the moment when he comes to ask pardon of Him “who spieth out all our
ways.” Instead of despising others, under the pretence of thanking God,
the truly devout man will be much more ready to take up the language of
David, and say—“Enter not into judgment with thy servant, O Lord; for in
thy sight shall no man living be justified.”
It appears, from these quotations, that Maimonides did not learn his
contempt for womankind from the Mahometans, but from the oral law and
the prayers of the synagogue. Modern Judaism disqualifies a woman from
giving evidence, shuts her out from the study of God’s Word, excludes
her from the number of his worshippers, and even in its prayers to God
pronounces her as nothing better than a heathen, or a slave: for in the
preceding benedictions, the man says first—“Blessed art thou, O God,
&c., who hath not made me a heathen;” then, “Blessed art thou, &c., who
hath not made me a slave;” and, finally, “Blessed art thou, &c. who hath
not made me a woman.” Now we ask every Jew and Jewess, into whose hands
this book may fall, whether a religion which teaches one-half of the
human race to despise and degrade the other half, can possibly come from
God? or whether it is not the invention of narrow-minded and
vain-glorious men? Even reason itself would tell us that God can never
teach us to despise the works of his own hands, and still less to hold
up the mother who bore us, or the companion who has shared all our joys
and sorrows, to the scorn of a privileged class of human beings. And yet
this is what the oral law does, and thereby shows that it does not
proceed from Him who inspired Moses and the prophets. The writings of
the Old Testament furnish no warrant for female degradation. They
commence by telling us that the woman as well as the man was formed in
the image of God, and that though woman was first led into
transgression, yet that she should have the honour of giving birth to
him who should bruise the serpent’s head. (Gen. iii. 15.) They tell us
farther, that when God was pleased to give the commandments from Sinai,
that he exacted of all children to honour the mother as well as the
father—“Honour thy father and thy mother.” But how is it possible for
any one to honour his mother who despises her as an inferior being, does
not look upon her as fit to give evidence in a court of law, and even
makes it a matter of public thanksgiving that he is not like her? Surely
such an one is much more like him of whom it is said—
כסיל אדם בוזה ׃
“A foolish man despiseth his mother.” (Prov. xv. 20.) The oral law is,
in this respect, altogether inconsistent with the law of God. The former
tells fathers to leave their daughters without any religious education,
and the latter supposes that they have been so well taught as to be able
to teach their sons. Thus Solomon says, more than once, “My son, keep
thy father’s commandment, and forsake not the law of thy mother,” תורת
אמך. (Prov. vi. 20.) But how is it possible for those Jewish mothers, in
Poland or Africa for instance, who cannot even read themselves, to teach
their sons? or, even suppose they could read, how can a son believe in
his mother’s instruction, when the oral law tells him that she is not
qualified to give testimony? But the Bible does not teach us merely to
have a respect for our own mother, but shows as generally that God is no
respecter of persons, and that he bestows his gifts upon all. It
presents to our view many women, as Sarah, Rebecca, Miriam, Deborah, and
Hannah, as examples of piety, and informs us that in the time of
salvation, he will pour out his Spirit upon all flesh, without any
distinction of sex or nation. “And it shall come to pass afterward, that
I will pour out my spirit upon all flesh; and your sons and your
daughters shall prophesy.” (Joel iii. 1. In the English Bible, ii. 28.)
Yea, as if to mock the rabbies and the oral law, God adds, that it shall
be given even to the male and female slaves.
וגם על הצבדים ואל השפחות בימים ההמה אשפוך את רוחי ׃
“Yea, even upon the servants and handmaids, in those days, will I pour
out my spirit.” The two classes of human beings whom, next to the
_Amharatzin_, the oral law treats with the most indignity, are women and
slaves: but God’s thoughts are not like the rabbies’ thoughts, and he,
therefore, graciously stands forth as the vindicator of the oppressed,
and promises even to these classes the gift of prophecy. Here again,
then, we see that “as far as the east is from the west,” so different is
God’s law from the present religion of the Jewish people. The religion
of the rabbies is a grinding tyranny, oppressive to the Gentiles, to
slaves, yea, and to all unlearned Jews, and that does not even spare the
wives, the mothers, and the daughters of Israel. Wherever the oral law
can have its full sway, as in Mahometan countries, the women are left
totally destitute of learning and religion—they are not even taught to
read. In not one of those countries is a school for female children to
be found. It is only in Christian lands that the daughters of Israel get
any education, or ever attain to anything like that station which God
destined them to fill. Wherever the light of Christianity shines,
however feeble, it ameliorates the condition of the female portion of
the Jewish nation, and compels even the disciples of Rabbinism to take a
little more care of their souls and their intellects. Jewish females are
therefore deeply indebted to the doctrines of Jesus of Nazareth. If he
had not risen up against the oral law, they would be universally classed
with slaves, idiots, and Amharatzin. He has delivered them from this
degradation. Let them then consider the religion of Jesus, and the
religion which the rabbies have taught them, and then let them decide
which is most beneficial to their temporal and eternal welfare. The
religion that comes from God must be beneficial to all his rational
creatures. A religion that oppresses or disdains any one class, and
deprives them of religious instruction, cannot come from him.
No. XLVII.
POLYGAMY.