understand that God does not speak contradictions. No one will believe
that the profane sentiment of R. Akiva, That a man may divorce his wife
as soon as he finds another who pleases him better, can proceed from the
God of holiness and justice. It is true that his opinion is not the law;
but the opinion of Hillel, which is the law, is not a whit better. It
pronounces that if a woman only spoil the broth she may be divorced: now
this interpretation or the words of Moses is plainly contrary to the
grammatical sense: עֶרְוַת is in Regimen (סמיכה) and joined to דָּבָר by
a munach, and can therefore by no means be separated from it so as to
signify “Either uncleanness or some other matter.” The words of Moses,
the points, and the accents, all decide that there is only one cause for
which a man may put away his wife. Hillel and his successors have
wilfully passed by the plain sense of the Hebrew words, in their
eagerness to obtain a facility for putting away their wives. They were
not ignorant of the right sense, for that was plainly asserted by
Shamai, but were determined to get rid of it; and such was the state of
the Jews at the time, that they had influence enough to turn their false
interpretation into law; and such has been the state of the Jews ever
since, that it continues law to this very hour. A rabbinical Jew may,
according to his religious tenets, turn away his wife, the mother of his
children, on a pretext that would hardly justify the dismissal of a
servant. He may rudely tear asunder the sacred ties of conjugal
affection, and separate between mother and children, if the unhappy
woman should only make a mistake in her cookery. One of the worst
charges brought against the slave-dealers was, that they had no respect
either for maternal or filial affection; that they separated between
mother and children. The very same accusation can be brought against
modern Judaism, which legitimatizes the very same disregard for the
feelings of a mother. Can, then, such a religion, which thus daringly
snaps the ties of nature, be from God? Is it possible that God should
thus expose one half of his rational creatures to the caprice and the
tyranny of those who ought to be their defenders and protectors from
every insult and every harm? If the same right were given to women,
though the laws would be most contrary to the divine institution of
marriage, it would at least have the appearance of justice; but this is
denied. The oral law says,—
אם לא תמצא חן בעיניו , מלמד שאינו מגרש אלא ברצונו ואם נתגרשה שלא ברצונו
אינה מגורשת , אבל האשה מתגרשת ברצונה ושלא ברצונה ׃
“The words, ‘If she find no favour in his eyes,’ teach, that the husband
does not divorce except voluntarily; and if the woman be divorced
against his will, she is not divorced. But the woman is divorced with or
without her will.” (Jad Hachazakah Hilchoth, Gerushin, c. 1, 2.)
According to this doctrine the happiness of the wife and the children is
absolutely vested in the power of the man; and in any paroxysm of
ill-humour, he may make them both unhappy for life; he may turn the
mother out of her home, drive her forth like a criminal from the bosom
of her family, and introduce a stranger. Who does not see that this is a
power unfit to be trusted to the hands of any man or any people? We do
not mean to impute anything peculiar to the Jews; we believe that as to
their natural propensities, humours, and caprices, all men are much
alike, and that therefore none ought to have the power of thus lightly
breaking up the domestic constitution. It is no answer to this to say,
that in this country divorce is not so lightly practised. Thanks to the
power of Christian principle and the existence of Christian laws, it
cannot be. But every one, who has had much opportunity of seeing
rabbinical Jews, knows that divorce is practised amongst them with a
facility and frequency that is astonishing. But this is not the
question; we are not examining Jewish manners, but the modern Jewish
religion; and if divorce had never been practised, we should still
pronounce of the oral law, which inculcates such principles, that it
cannot be from God; and of its authors that they were bad men, or they
would never have thus trifled with God’s most holy institution. The
truth is, that the rabbies were altogether ignorant of the nature of
marriage as God established it. They not only allow divorce on the most
trifling pretext, but they sanction the practice of marrying for a given
length of time, and, when that time is expired, of dissolving the
marriage by divorce:—
לא ישא אדם אשה ודעתו לגרשה , ואם הודיעה בתחלה שהוא נושא אותה לימים מותר
׃
“A man must not marry a woman with the intention of divorcing her; but,
if he previously inform her that he is going to marry her for a season,
it is lawful.” (Hilchoth Gittin in Even Haezer, 1.) Now how contrary is
such doctrine to the express words of Scripture. “This is bone of my
bones, and flesh of my flesh. Therefore shall a man leave his father and
his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife; and they shall be one
flesh.” (Gen. ii. 23.) Here Adam, in his state of innocence, pronounces
that the tie of marriage is more sacred and more binding, than even that
which exists between parent and child. A man may, and for his wife’s
sake shall, forsake father and mother, but should no more think of
separating from his wife, than from his own bones and flesh. Who would
lightly think of parting with a limb, or a portion of his body? Urgent,
indeed, must be the necessity that will induce a man to permit the
separation of a portion of himself, and equally urgent should be the
cause that should move a man to part with her who is bone of his bones,
and flesh of his flesh. Such is the Mosaic doctrine of the marriage
obligation; but so little did the rabbies understand it, that they
permit a man to marry for a week, a month, or a year; and when that
season is expired, to tear asunder the sacred ties, and that without any
cause whatever. But the evident evil that must result from the rabbinic
doctrine of divorce is still more apparent from the first sentence of
the passage last quoted—“A man must not marry a woman with the intention
of divorcing her.” These words show the direct tendency of the doctrine.
When power is given to a man to turn out his wife when he likes, a
temptation is at once held out to the evil-disposed to marry with the
express intention of divorcing. The rabbies, therefore, find it
necessary to forbid it; but is it likely that this prohibition will have
much force in the eyes of a man who is wicked enough to form the
intention? And suppose a wicked man does form the intention, and execute
it, what remedy had the poor injured woman? Thus the oral law leaves the
daughters of Israel completely at the mercy of the unprincipled, and
places them beyond this possibility of obtaining justice.
But the cruelty and total want of feeling which the oral law displays
and teaches, with regard to women, appears still more plainly from the
following extract:—
מי שנתחרשה אשתו הרי זה מגרשה בגט ותהיה מגורשת , אבל אם נשתטת אינו מוציאה
עד שתבריא , ודבר זה תקנת חכמים הוא , כדי שלא תהיה הפקר לפרוצין שהרי אינה
יכולה לשמור את עצמה ; לפיכך מניחה ונושא אחרת ומאכילה ומשקה משלה ; ואין
מחייבין אותו בשאר כסות ועונה , שאין כח בבן דעת לדור עם השוטים בבית אחד ,
ואינו חייב לרפאותה ולא לפדותה , ואם גרשה הרי זו מגורשת ומוציאה מביתו
ואינו חייב לחזור ולהטפל בה ׃
“If a man’s wife should become deaf and dumb, he gives her a bill of
divorce, and she is divorced. But if she become insane, he is not to
send her forth until she is recovered: and this thing is an ordinance of
the wise men, that she should not become a prey to the immodest, because
she is not able to take care of herself. The husband therefore, leaves
her where she is, and marries another, and gives her meat and drink out
of her own property. But he is not to be compelled to give her food and
raiment, and duty of marriage, for it is not in the power of a sane
person to dwell in one house with the insane. Neither is he obligated to
have her cured, nor to ransom her. But if he should divorce her, then
she is divorced, and is to be put out of his house: and he is not
obligated to return and take any trouble about her.” (Hilchoth Gerushin,
x. 23.) Principles more contrary to God’s Word, and to the common
feelings of humanity, were never inculcated under the name of religion.
We have been astonished at the cruelty with which the oral law treats
Gentiles—we have been horrified at the coolness with which it speaks of
splitting open an _Amhaaretz_—but here it surpasses itself, and
out-herods Herod. A man accustomed to judge of his duty by the words of
Moses and the prophets, or even to follow toe dictates of
unsophisticated nature, would conclude that, as he is at all times bound
to love and cherish his wife, the obligation is doubly imperative in
case of sickness, but especially so when that sorest calamity with which
human frailty is visited, insanity, attacks the partner of his life.
Then it is that the man, who has one spark of the fear of God or of the
love of man, will show all his tenderness, watch over the sufferer with
all care and anxiety, and if necessary, devote all his worldly goods to
minister to her recovery. No, says the oral law, when the wife of your
bosom most requires your attention, then marry another: give her neither
food nor raiment, and, if you please, cast her out of your house, and
leave her to her fate. The most charitable conclusion would be, to
suppose that the men who uttered such sentiments under the mask of
religion, were themselves insane. But what are we to think of Israel,
that for eighteen hundred years they have been unable to detect so
manifest an imposture? And what are we to think of Israel at present,
that they sit still and suffer their children to be deluded, by being
taught that this most atrocious system of inhumanity, is that pure and
holy religion which the God of Israel revealed to Moses? Let not any
Israelite mistake us. We do not mean to charge such wickedness upon
them. The Providence of God has in a measure delivered them from such an
odious yoke. The influence of Christianity has successfully counteracted
the full development of these anti-human principles. We only mean to
direct their attention to the nature of that religion to which they have
adhered so long; and to induce them to consider what would be the state
of the world, if Jesus of Nazareth had not arisen to protest against
such gross corruptions, and to assert the truth. Just suppose that the
traditions had triumphed. The universal law would then be, that men
might divorce their wives when they please, and in the time of their
calamity cast them forth into the streets. All the bonds of natural
affection would be rent asunder. Conjugal affection would cease, filial
duty be unknown—no son would honour his mother, for how could a son
honour the unhappy being whom his religion pronounces unworthy either of
succour or compassion in the time of her utmost need? If such principles
had attained dominion, mankind would have been turned into a race of
fiends, and this earth have become a hell. What, then, has stopped all
this misery? Christianity, and Christianity alone. It teaches very
different principles. When a Christian man is married, the vow which he
is required to make is this—“Wilt thou have this woman to thy wedded
wife, to live together after God’s ordinance in the holy estate of
matrimony? Wilt thou love her, comfort her, honour, and keep her in
sickness and in health; and, forsaking all other, keep thee only unto
her, so long as ye both shall live?” This is the doctrine of the New
Testament. The Pharisees asked the Lord Jesus, “Is it lawful for a man
to put away his wife for every cause? And he answered and said unto
them, Have ye not read, that He which made them at the beginning made
them male and female, and said, For this cause shall a man leave father
and mother, and shall cleave to his wife; and they twain shall be one
flesh? Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore
God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.” (Matt. xix. 3-7.) In
like manner, Paul teaches, “So ought men to love their wives as their
own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself.” (Ephes. v. 28.) And
Peter teaches in the same spirit, “Likewise, ye husbands, dwell with
them according to knowledge, giving honour unto the wife, as unto the
weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life; that
your prayers be not hindered.” (1 Peter iii. 7.)
Let any unprejudiced, yea, or any prejudiced, man, if he have only the
use of his senses, compare these two doctrines, and say which is most
agreeable to the will and character of God, as revealed in the Old
Testament—and, which is most calculated to promote the happiness of the
human race. The combination of mercy and justice forms a striking
feature in the revealed character of God, but is there either justice or
mercy in the laws which we have just considered? The happiness of the
human race depends, in a more than ordinary measure, upon the right
organization of the family relations: but how can there be any such
thing as domestic order or peace, so long as the mother is looked upon
as belonging to an inferior caste, whom it is permitted at any moment,
even in the most afflictive of all visitations, to outlaw, and drive
forth from the family circle? The uncontrolled dominion of the oral law
would practically annihilate all the sympathies and consolations of the
domestic constitution. The husband could not love the wife whom his
religion teaches to despise, and forbids to pity. The wife could not
love the husband, whom she must suspect not only of being destitute of
affection, but devoid of pity; and from whom she could only expect
divorce and expulsion in the hour of calamity. The son would learn to
despise his mother, whom his religion marks out as a fit object for
contempt, and a suitable victim for the exercise of cruelty. The mother,
cast out by her own partner, would not even have the consolation of
being pitied by her own children. A false religion would have taught
them that this unnatural conduct was only obedience to the Divine will.
The principles of Christianity, on the contrary, produce and protect all
that domestic happiness which distinguishes Christian countries from the
rest of the world; and in which Jews participate. The influence of
Christianity has prevented that misery of which we have given but a
faint outline. Can, then, the Jews deny that Christianity has been, and
is, to them a blessing? or that it is, in its principles and effects,
more agreeable to the character of God, and more productive of human
happiness, and therefore more excellent and more true than modern
Judaism.
No. XLIX.
RABBINIC LAWS CONCERNING MEAT.
Conscientious adherence to the dictates of true religion is one of the
noblest traits that can adorn the human character, and this trait has
appeared in its most vivid light in not a few of the Israelite nation.
Elijah the prophet, for instance, is a bright example of religious
constancy. At a time when all Israel had forsaken the true God, and
zealously professed a false religion, neither the allurements of
self-interest, nor the power of universal example, nor the natural
desire of self-preservation, could draw him aside from the paths of
truth and righteousness. Daniel and his three friends in Babylon exhibit
the same unwavering firmness in the assertion of truth. The Royal
dainties could not prevail upon them to partake of food offered to
idols. The fiery furnace could not terrify Hananiah, Mishael, and
Azariah, to commit idolatry; the lions’ den possessed no terrors that
could move Daniel to omit the worship of his God. But as constancy for
the truth ennobles and adorns, in the very same degree an obstinate
perseverance in error diminishes from man’s moral or intellectual value.
It shows either that his moral perception is so blunted as to be unable
to discern between truth and error, or his moral taste so perverted as
not to care for the difference—or that there is some intellectual
deficiency which renders the moral powers inoperative. It leads to the
suspicion that there is something wrong either with the head or the
heart. There is, however, a class of persons, who persevere in error,
not because the head is weak, or the heart sick, but because they have
never fairly beheld the light of truth. They have grown up in a mist of
error, and circumstances have prevented them from emerging into a purer
atmosphere. To this class, we would hope, the professors of modern
Judaism belong. That they have been for centuries in error is certain.
Many incontestable proofs of this have been already advanced; _The
rabbinic laws concerning_ שחיטה, _or the slaughtering of animals_, will
add another link to the chain of evidence. The Rabbinists have an idea
that wherever they may be wrong, in this doctrine they are infallibly in
the right; and yet, if the force of education did not afford some aid,
it would be impossible to imagine how they can be deceived by a doctrine
so manifestly false, and so entirely devoid of Scriptural foundation. In
the first place, the slaughtering of beasts is, like eating, of
every-day and universal concernment—a matter that affects the poor and
unlearned as much as the studious; and yet the rabbinic rules are so
many and so intricate that either a man must be learned himself, or
employ a man of competent learning, to perform this business; or, he
must, in spite of himself, turn Pythagorean and renounce the use of
animal food. The oral law gives the following outline of what is to be
understood by the word שחיטה or _slaughtering_:—
זביחה זו האמורה בתורה סתם צרך לפרש אותה ולידע באי זה מקום םן הבהמה
שוחטין , וכמה שיעור השחיטה , ובאיזה דבר שוחטין ומתי שוחטין והיכן שוחטין
וכיצד שוחטין , ומה הן הדברים המפסידין את השחיטה ומי הוא השוחט , ועל כל
הדברים האלה צונו בתורה ואמר וזבחת מבקרך וכו׳ כאשר צותיך ואכלת בשעריך
וכו׳ ׃
“It is absolutely necessary to explain the killing (or slaughtering
mentioned in the law), and to know, in what part of the beast one
slaughters—what is the measure of the slaughtering—with what implement
one slaughters—when—where—and how one slaughters—what things they are
which invalidate the act of slaughtering—and who is permitted to
slaughter. Concerning all these things, He has commanded us in the law
where it is said, ‘Then thou shalt kill of thy herd and of thy flock,
which the Lord hath given thee, as I have commanded thee, and thou shalt
eat in thy gates whatsoever thy soul lusteth after!’ (Deut. xii. 21.)”
(Jad Hachazakah, Hilchoth Shechitah, c. i. 4.) Here we have at once a
list of eight particulars, which must first be known, but then most of
these again require a long and learned explanation; for instance the
first is thus defined:—
ואיזה הוא מקום שחיטה בקנה משפוי כובע ולמטה עד ראש כנף הריאה כשתמשוך
הבהמה צוארה לרעות זה הוא מקום השחיטה בקנה , וכל שכנגד המקוא הזה מבחוץ
נקרא צואר , אנסה הבהמה עצמה ומשכה צוארה הרבה או שאינס השוחט את הסימנין
ומשכן למעלה ושחט במקום שחיטה בצואר , ונמצאת השחיטה בקנה או בושט שלא
במקום שחיטה הרי זה ספק נבלה ׃
“On what part of the animal is the slaughtering to be effected? On the
wind-pipe, from the edge of the uvula downwards as far as the top or the
extremity of the lungs, as these parts are situated when the beast
stretches out its neck to feed: this is the place of the slaughtering in
the wind-pipe; and all the part outside which answers to this place, is
called the neck. If the beast forces itself and stretches out its neck
much, or if the slaughterer has forced the sinews, and drawn them
upwards, and he slaughters at the right part of the neck, but afterwards
it is found that the wind-pipe or the œsophagus is not cut at the right
place, then it is a doubtful case of carrion.” (Ibid. 7.) In like
manner, the _measure of the slaughtering_ is accurately defined, and
must be as accurately attended to, or else the slaughtering must be
considered unlawful, and then it becomes unlawful for the Rabbinists to
eat it. But the most care is required in examining the knife, which may
be of any material that will cut, on condition that there be no gap in
it:—
אבל אם היה כמו תלם בחודו של דבר ששוחטין בו ואפילו היה התלם קטן ביותר
שחיטתו פסולה ׃
“But if there be anything like a furrow in the edge of the implement
wherewith the slaughtering is effected, even though the furrow be the
least possible, the slaughtering is unlawful.” The slaughterer is
therefore required to examine the knife before and after the act; for if
a gap be found in it after the slaughtering, it is doubtful whether the
beast is not be considered carrion:—
לפיכך השוחט בהמות רבות או עופות רבות צריך לבדוק בין כל אחת ואחת שאם לא
בדק ובדק אחרונה ונמצאת סכין פגומה הרי הכל ספק נבלות ואפילו הראשונה ׃
“Therefore he that has to slaughter many beasts or many fowls, must
examine the knife after each; for if he does not, but examines at the
end, and the knife is found to have a gap, then all are to be considered
as doubtful carrion, even the first.” (Ibid. 24.) From these few
particulars, it appears that great care, and not a little study and
practice, are required in order to slaughter an animal for food
according to the oral law, and that it is very easy, by mistake or want
of knowledge, to make the meat unfit for rabbinic eating: but then,
besides all this, there are the five circumstances which invalidate the
slaughtering altogether:—
חמשה דברים מפסידים את השחיטה ועיקר הלכות שחיטה להזהר בכל אחת מהן ואלו הן
שהיית דרסה חלדה הגרמה ועיקר ׃
“There are five things which invalidate the slaughtering: and the most
important thing respecting the constitutions of slaughtering is, to
attend to each one of them, and these are they—1st, If the person makes
a stop of a certain length before the act is completed. 2d, If the
throat be cut at a single blow, as with a sword. 3d, If the knife enters
too deep, and is hidden. 4th, When the knife slips up or down from the
right place. 5th, When the wind-pipe or œsophagus is torn and comes out,
before the act is completed.” (Ibid. c. iii.) These five essentials of
rabbinic slaughtering lead again to endless questions and definitions;
so that, putting all together, it is much to be doubted whether a beast
ever was, or ever will be, rightly slaughtered according to the oral
law. And yet these things, of which there is not the slightest mention
in the Mosaic law, are tied like a heavy burden about the necks of the
poor and ignorant, and are most oppressive to their bodies and their
souls. The rich may not, perhaps, feel the oppression, but the poor sigh
and groan under the load; and no man considers their sorrow, or
stretches out a hand to help them. In the first place, the intricacy of
the act always makes rabbinic meat a great deal dearer than other meat,
so that the poor man and his family, who can at any time, or under any
circumstances, afford to buy but little food, are compelled by the oral
law to do with still less, and in many cases to do without it
altogether. Let any one visit the haunts of the poor Jews in this city,
or enter their abodes, and he will find many a wretched family pining
away for want of proper food; and yet it is too dear to procure a
sufficiency; and if any benevolent Christian should wish to assist them,
offer them some of his own, or give them a ticket to some of those
institutions which distribute meat to the poor, the starving family
would not dare to accept it, even if their conscience allowed them, or
if they did, would inevitably draw down upon themselves a storm of
persecution, and be treated as if they had committed the greatest
crimes: yea, if the oral law had power, the poor starving creatures,
that had partaken of Christian bounty, would be flogged for satisfying
the wants of nature:—
נכרי ששחט אע׳׳פ ששחט בפני ישראל בסכין יפה ואפילו היה קטן שחיטתו נבלה
ולוקה על אכילתה מן התורה שנאמר , וקרא לך ואכלת מזבחו ׃
“If a Gentile slaughters, even though he does it in the presence of an
Israelite, with a proper knife, his slaughtering is carrion; and he that
eats of it is to be flogged according to the written law, for it is
said, ‘And one call thee, and thou eat of his sacrifice.’ (Exod. xxxiv.
15.)” Yea, the oral law goes so far as to extend this rule even to the
case of a Gentile who is not an idolater:—
וגדר גדול גדרו בדבר שאפילו גוי שאינו עובד ע׳׳ז שחיטתו נבלה ׃