nations.” (Numb, xxiii. 9.) We know it and believe it, and are therefore
fully convinced, that all the wit and power of man will never be able to
effect what some so ardently desire, an amalgamation with the nations
where Israel is dispersed. We have no desire to contravene the declared
will of God, and to degrade Israel from their position as a holy nation
to the rank of an inconsiderable religious sect. But still we might urge
against the oral law, that it goes beyond God’s intention by producing
an unfriendly separation and an estrangement between man and man, which
is injurious to the welfare of both Jew and Gentile; we leave this,
however, to the consideration of those Israelites who feel, or profess
to feel, a love and affection for all men; and content ourselves at
present with the indubitable fact, that the laws concerning slaughtering
are most oppressive to the poor and enslaving to the minds of all. It is
not merely the bodily grievance of starvation to which we now allude,
though that is wicked and vexatious to the last degree, and should
therefore not be tolerated for a moment by the humane and the merciful.
There is something that is worse than any bodily suffering, and that is,
to be tempted to do violence to conscience by professing what we do not
believe, or by congealing our real sentiments. And yet in many a Jewish
congregation this is frequently the case. It pleases God to give to the
poor the power of reasoning as well as to the rich, and thus some of
this class are occasionally led to see the absurdity of the oral law,
and to detest those inventions which doom them and their families to
starvation, but yet they would not dare either to avow or to act upon
their conviction. To eat any ether than rabbinical food would at once
cut them off from the bounty of the synagogue, and from the sympathy of
its worshippers. To express their convictions would be sufficient to
have them numbered with the profane and ungodly, and therefore they
conceal their real sentiments, and pretend to be what they are not, that
they may not deprive their families of the little assistance which an
apparent conformity to rabbinic usages may procure. Here then is another
and more unequivocal badge of slavery. The oral law deprives the poor
entirely of liberty of conscience. He not only must not eat, he must not
think, at least he must not express a thought, no, nor even a doubt,
about that system which is the cause of his misery. It is true, that
those who profess or suppress religious sentiments merely to serve their
temporal interests, are either very weak or very guilty. But we must
make some allowance for the infirmity of human nature, and especially in
the case of a poor man, who has no bread for his children, and whose
mind has been debased from his youth by such bondage. It is to the
system that we are to impute these debasing effects. It not only
torments the body, but degrades the mind; and, therefore, every
Israelite who loves and respects liberty of conscience, should endeavour
to procure it for his brethren. According to the law of the land they
have it. They are free to worship and serve God as they think most
agreeable to his will; but the oral law steps in between, and deprives
them of the benefit. The Jewish poor dare not serve God according to
their conscience, nor even express the convictions of their heart. All
the legislators in Christendom could not set them free. The duty as well
as the possibility of delivering them from this bondage rests with their
brethren. But they, alas! whatever the motive, decline the glorious
task.
No. LII.
LAWS CONCERNING MEAT WITH MILK.
It is recorded of the Cutheans and those other nations whom the King of
Assyria placed as colonists at Samaria, that they endeavoured to combine
the service of the true God with the worship of idols. “So these nations
feared the Lord, and served their craven images, both their children and
their children’s children: as did their fathers, so do they unto this
day.” (2 Kings xvii. 41.) Every one can see that this conduct was as
foolish as it was wicked. It was wicked to dishonour the true God by
associating him with them that were no gods; and it was foolish to
imagine that God could be pleased with a partial homage and a divided
heart. Total idolatry would have been more reasonable and less offensive
to the Divine Being, for he, whom we acknowledge as God, must
necessarily have the whole of our fear, our love, and our obedience. And
yet there is perhaps a way of serving God more unreasonable still, and
that is by giving to sinful and fallible men the honour that is due to
God alone. The Cutheans falsely thought that God was one amongst many;
and if they worshipped the many, it was under the impression that they
were really gods. But suppose a nation to acknowledge the one true God,
and then to fix upon a certain number of men to be honoured and served
with the same degree of reverence and obedience; none can doubt that
this nation would be far more irrational than that of the Cutheans,
inasmuch as to pay Divine honours to a number of our fellow-men is more
extravagant still than to worship a plurality of imaginary deities. Some
may think that such a degree of absurdity is impossible, but fact shows
that it is not only possible, but that it has actually occurred. When
men exalt the inventions of their teachers to a level with the known and
acknowledged laws of God, and make obedience to these inventions an
essential part of their religion, they confer upon men the highest
degree of honour and of service that can be rendered to God. The
unreserved submission of the heart and conscience to the will of God is
the highest act of worship, and when it is given to the will of men, in
that degree men are made gods. Whether these remarks apply to those who
make the הלכות בשר בחלה , _i.e._, “The constitutions concerning meat in
milk” a part of their religion, it is for the adherents of the oral law
to inquire.
The general principle of these constitutions is thus expressed—
בשר בחלב אסור לבשלו ואסור לאכלו מן התורה ואסור בהנאה וקוברין אותו ואפרו
אסור כאפר כל הנקברין , ומי שיבשל משניהם כזית כאחד לוקה שנאמר לא תבשל גדי
בחלב אמו , וכן האוכל כזית משניהם מהבשר והחלב שנתבשלו כאחד לוקה ואע׳׳פ
שלא בשל ׃
“It is unlawful to boil meat in milk—according to the law, it is also
unlawful to eat it; it is likewise unlawful to make any profit by it,
and it is to be buried. Its ashes are also unlawful, like the ashes of
other things that are buried. Whosoever boils together a quantity of
these two things, equal to an olive, is to be flogged, for it is said,
‘Thou shalt not seethe a kid in its mothers milk.’ (Exod. xxiii. 19.) In
like manner, he that eats a quantity of the flesh and the milk, which
have been boiled together, amounting in value to an olive, is to be
flogged, even though be did not boil them.” (Hilchoth Maakhaloth
Asuroth, c. ix. i.) Here the oral law determines generally, that it is
unlawful to boil meat in milk, or to make any use of meat so boiled, and
sentences the transgressor to a severe and degrading corporal
punishment, and yet this determination is altogether an invention of
men, for which there is not the slightest authority in the Word of God.
The prohibition of Moses is confined to one single case, which is
exactly defined: “Thou shalt not seethe a kid in its mother’s milk,” but
there the prohibition ends, for the specification of one particular
shows that that alone is intended, and necessarily excludes all others.
To give some colour to the unwarranted extension, it is asserted that
וגדי הוא כולל ולד השור ולד השה ולד העז עד שיפרוט ויאמר גדי עזים ׃
“Kid includes the young of kine, of sheep, and of goats, so that to
particularize, the word goat is added as ‘a kid of the goats.’” And so
Rashi also affirms in his commentary. Aben Ezra, however, has saved us
the trouble of giving a refutation of our own, for he says—
ואיננו כן כי גדי לא יקרא רק שהוא מהעזים ובלשון ערבי הוא גדי ולא יאמר על
מין אחר , רק יש הפרש בין גדי ובין גדי עזים כי גדי גדול מגדי עזים כי
עודנו צריך היותו עם העזים וככה שעיר ושעיר עזים וחכמים קבלו שלא יאכלו
ישראל בשר בחלב ׃
“This is not so, for nothing is called kid except the young of the
goats; and in Arabic the word has the same signification, and is never
applied to any other species. But there is a difference between _kid_
and _kid of the goats_, for the former is larger, and it is necessary
for the latter still to be with the goats; and the same thing is true of
שעיר, which is used in the same way. It is by tradition that the wise
men received, that Israel should not eat meat in milk.” (Comment. in
Exod. xxiii. 19.) Thus Aben Ezra, himself a most learned rabbi,
confesses that the words of the written law restrict the prohibition to
one particular case, and that the rest is mere matter of tradition. Of
course if it could be proved that this tradition came from God through
Moses, it would be equivalent to the written law, but there is no
attempt to prove anything of the kind. The authors of the oral law
calculated throughout upon the blind credulity of their followers, and
therefore here, as elsewhere, there is an entire absence of proof.
Indeed, the tradition itself bears the plain mark of forgery. How can
any one possibly believe that, if God meant to forbid meat and milk
entirely, he should first express himself incorrectly, and then leave
the correction of the error to uncertain tradition? If the command had
only been once noticed, it would have been hard to believe such a thing;
but when we remember that this command is thrice repeated, in Exod.
xxiii. 19, xxxiv. 26, and Deut. xiv. 21, it is plainly incredible.
Thrice is the command written, and thrice it is restricted to one
particular case, and yet the rabbies have dared to make unauthorized
additions of their own, and their followers to this day exalt them to a
level with the laws of God. It cannot be replied that the rabbies would
not commit such wickedness as this, for every one who knows anything of
the oral law, knows that a great proportion of it consists merely of the
_words of the Scribes_, acknowledged as such, and distinguished by that
name from the supposed traditions from Sinai. Thus in the constitutions
before us, it is plainly confessed that the written law allows the flesh
of wild animals and of fowl in milk, and yet the rabbies forbid it:—
וכן בשר חיה ועוף בין בחלב חיה בין בחלב בהמה אינו אסור באכילה מן התורה
לפיכך מותר לבשלו וםותר בהנאה , ואסור באכילה מדברי סופרים כדי שלא יפשטו
העם ויבואו לידי איסור בשר בחלב של תורה ויאכלו בשר בהמה טהורה בחלב בהמה
טהורה שהרי אין משמעות הכתוב אלא גדי בחלב אמו ממש לפיכך אסרו כל בשר בחלב
׃
“And thus the flesh of a wild animal or of fowl, whether in the milk of
a wild or tame animal, is not forbidden as food by the written law, and
therefore it is lawful to boil it, and to profit by it. But according to
the words of the scribes, it is unlawful to eat it, lest the people
should go farther, and be led into a transgression of the written law,
and eat the flesh of a clean beast in the milk of a clean beast: for the
letter of the written law refers only to a kid in its mother’s milk in
the strictest sense; therefore the wise men have forbidden all meat in
milk.” In this there is no equivocation, but a simple confession that
the rabbies have taken upon themselves to forbid what God has allowed;
and have, without ceremony or scruple, made great additions to his law.
It matters little what the motive was, the conduct itself is in the
highest degree presumptuous. The pretence, that these additions were
made only for the purpose of keeping the people far removed from sin,
will not serve as a ground of justification. If God had desired such
precautionary measures, as being either necessary or beneficial, he
would have prescribed them himself. If he did not prescribe them, and
the rabbies themselves confess that he did not, but that they are the
words of the scribes, then they can be neither necessary nor beneficial,
unless we can believe what it would be blasphemy to assert, that is,
that God’s law was imperfect until it was mended by the scribes. It is
truly astonishing that men professing respect for the law of Moses
should treat it with such indignity, and still more so that those who
appear so anxious to avoid transgression, should themselves
systematically transgress that plain command.
לא תוסיפו על הדבר אשר אנכי מצוה אתכם ׃
“Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you.” (Deut. iv. 2.) But
the most extraordinary thing of all is, that the modern Jews should
pride themselves on the purity of their faith, and think that they only
of all the nations serve the true God and him only, when they are in
truth serving the authors of the oral law, and dividing their religious
obedience between God and the rabbies. If the rabbinic additions were
specimens of profound wisdom in legislation, or had a tendency to
promote either the moral or temporal welfare of mankind, there would be
some excuse, but what shall we say of those who transgress a plain
command for the sake of such an addition as the following:—
הבשר לבדו מותר והחלב לבדו מותר ובהתערב שניהם ע׳׳י בישול יאסרו שניהם ,
במה דברים אמורים שנתבשלו שניהם ביחד או שנפל חם לתוך חם או צונן לתוך חם
אבל אם נפל אחד משניהם והוא חם לתוך השני והוא צונן קולף הבשר כולו שנגע בו
החלב ואוכל השאר ואם נפל צונן לתוך צונו מדיח החתיכה ואוכלה ׃
“The flesh by itself is lawful, and the milk by itself is lawful, but as
soon they are mixed together by means of boiling (or cooking) they both
become unlawful. In what cases does this hold? When both are boiled
together, or when one being hot falls into the other also being hot, or
when one, cold, falls into the other hot. But if one of them being hot
falls upon the second being cold, then all that part of the meat which
was touched by the milk is to be peeled off, and the remainder may be
eaten. But if one in a cold state falls upon the other also cold, then
that piece is to be washed, and after that may be eaten.” (Hilchoth
Maakhaloth Asuroth, c. ix. 17.) We have, in the first place, an
unwarranted extension of the divine command. God has simply forbidden to
seethe a kid in its mother’s milk. The rabbies first extend this to the
young of kine, and sheep. Then they advance another step and forbid the
boiling or cooking of any sort of meat in milk, and now we have seen
another advance still, whereby even any mixture of flesh and milk is
strictly forbidden. Thus the rabbies aim at universal dominion, and are
satisfied with nothing short of an entire subjugation of the heart and
conscience. Other tyrants must rest satisfied with the enslavement of
the body, but cannot touch the thought. The authors of the oral law
attack the liberty of thought, and intrude even into the kitchens of
their victims. They are determined that their followers shall not eat
excepting as they please, and boldly invade the prerogative of God
himself, by forbidding the food which he provides for his people. But
this extract presents, in the second place, an outrage on common sense.
If milk and meat each be lawful by itself, how can the mixture make them
unlawful? Whatever God forbids is unlawful, no matter whether we
understand the reason or not. But here the rabbies themselves
acknowledge that God has not forbidden this mixture; but that the
prohibition is entirely their own invention. We are therefore bound to
use our senses, if God has given us any, and to ask a reason why. Then,
again, why should that which is lawful when cold, be made unlawful by
being hot? It may be said, that this is a matter of little importance.
In itself it is; but as a burden on the consciences of men, it is of the
very highest importance, and as a cheat upon the ignorant it is more
important still. In many countries, these and similar inventions
constitute the whole religion of the ignorant, and especially of the
women. The oral law affirms that it is not necessary to teach women the
law of God, but it is almost a matter of life and death that they should
know these rabbinic laws about meat and milk. If a woman is unable to
read the Word of God, and is as ignorant as a heathen, of God’s will,
the rabbies think that is a trifle. But if a woman were, through
ignorance to serve up meat with any admixture of milk, the whole family
would be in an uproar, and the rabbi himself would have to be consulted
about a remedy for so dreadful a calamity. The consequence is, that with
the mass of the uneducated, accuracy in these observances passes for
piety, and these poor beings hope that they are going straight to
heaven, when they are utterly devoid or ignorant of that holiness,
truth, and purity, which are the first essentials for admission into the
presence of God. Thus the oral law destroys the souls of multitudes, but
others will have to answer for their blood. All who uphold the system
must share in the responsibility. The rabbies who teach, the learned
Jews who aid and abet, the priests and Levites to whom God has committed
the pastorship of his people, but who neglect their sacred office, all
will have to answer for the souls of the lost. But most of all those who
know that these things are wrong, who themselves eat meat and milk, and
laugh at rabbinic superstition, and yet are insensible to the miseries
of their poor and ignorant brethren. Every one practically acquainted
with the working of these laws, knows not only that they beget a false
notion of religion, but that they are also a torment in this life. In
domestic and culinary economy, accidents will happen. Meat may fall into
milk, or milk into a pot of meat. Misery and vexation are the
consequence, and if the unfortunate woman to whom the accident has
happened cannot get satisfaction at home, she must go to the rabbi to
inquire what is to be done. For instance—
בשר שנפל לתוך החלב , או חלב שנפל לתוך הבשר ונתבשל עמו שיעורו בנותן טעם ,
כיצד חתיכה של בשר שנפלה לקדירה רותחת של חלב , טועם הגוי את הקדרה אם אמר
שיש בה טעם בשר אסורה ואם לאו מותרת ואותה חתיכה אסורה , בד׳׳א שקדם והוציא
את החתיכה קודם שתפלוט חלב שבלעה , אבל אם לא סלק משערים אותה בששים מפני
שהחלב שנבלע בה ונאסר יצא ונתערב עם שאר החלב ׃
“With respect to meat which falls into milk, or milk that falls into the
midst of meat, the measure is, if it give a taste? How so? If a peace of
meat fall into a boiling pot of milk, a Gentile is to taste the contents
of the pot: and if he says that it has a taste of meat, then it is
unlawful. But if it has not the taste of meat, then the milk is lawful,
but that piece of meat is unlawful. In what cases does this hold? In
case that the piece of meat has been taken out, before it has emitted
the milk which it has sucked in. But if it has not been taken out, then
a calculation must be made whether its proportion to the whole is as one
to sixty; because the milk that was sucked in, and had become unlawful,
has been emitted and has mixed with the rest of the milk.” (Ibid.) Now,
in the most tolerable case, that is, if the owner of the milk can afford
to lose it and the meat too, there is, first, an unnecessary
inconvenience and vexation, which no man has a right to inflict upon
another. But there is, secondly, and what is of far more consequence, a
great sin in wasting good and wholesome, and, according to the written
law, lawful food. If the milk tastes of meat, then the milk and the meat
are rendered not only unlawful but perfectly useless. How then can the
Jews expect peace and plenty, when their oral law teaches them to
despise and cast from them with disdain God’s blessings? But suppose
that the owner of the milk and the meat is a poor man, and that he has
laid out his hard and scanty earnings to provide food for his family, an
accident of this kind will leave them destitute. Their last hope of
support is taken away, and they may die of hunger. If they go to the
rabbies, and urge the necessity of the case—plead that they have no
more—reason that if meat by itself is lawful, that milk is also
lawful—that the law of Moses no where forbids this food—the teachers of
the oral law will answer, that their traditions cannot be broken; and
the poor people must learn that to eat food permitted and given by God
is a sin, but to die of starvation is lawful. How can men with any of
the feelings of humanity believe that such a law is from God?—how can
men of any common sense suffer the consciences and the bodies of the
poor and ignorant to be thus tormented? Above all, how can a nation that
prides itself on the purity of its faith yield an idolatrous obedience
to cruel and oppressive laws invented by men? It is a vain boast for
them to say that they have no images—the oral law and its enactments
constitute a whole host of idols. It is an unfounded triumph which they
celebrate over the worshippers of Moloch. The oral law is a deity as
fierce and as bloody, and to it are daily immolated the souls and bodies
of the poor and ignorant. Any homage rendered to falsehood, or to
cruelty, is idolatrous; and every thinking man must admit, that the
worship of the oral law is of this character. To the Rabbinists
themselves we would say, Just think whether it be possible that God
would have given a law so oppressive, or whether he can have any
pleasure in the obedience which is rendered at the expense of mercy? To
those who reject the oral law we would say, You have a duty to perform
from which nothing can exempt you—and that is, to rest neither day nor
night until Israel is delivered from this idolatrous worship of men, and
set free from a yoke so oppressive to body and soul. We grant that
Christians have also a duty, and in these papers we endeavour to
discharge our share of it. But the duty incumbent upon Israelites is
tenfold more imperative. The ties of flesh and blood—their office as a
kingdom of priests—the mercy of God in giving them the law as their
inheritance—all increase their responsibility and add to the weight of
obligation. It would be a shame for Israel to be silent when even the
Gentiles cry out for the restoration of the religion of Moses and the
prophets. Israelites may have peculiar difficulties. They may be united
in commercial relations or by family ties with those who are in bondage
to the oral law. They may fear the injury of their worldly
prospects—they may dread the frown of relatives and friends. This was
also the case of Abraham, when he determined to renounce the false gods
of his fathers, and to worship the true God alone; and every one who
determines by God’s help to follow and assert the truth, must make up
his mind to love it even more than life itself. But can a son of Abraham
hesitate? Will he forfeit the smile of God to escape the frown of
friends? Nay, if his friends are still in error, is this not a double
motive to urge him forward in the overthrow of that error? Must he not
he doubly anxious to deliver his father, his mother, his brothers and
his sisters from such bondage? The first attempt may be difficult—the
immediate results may be unpleasant; but if for God’s sake he asserts
God’s truth, he shall have God’s blessing, and at last find peace even
amongst those who are now offended. As long as the present state of
things continues, Israel can never be restored to their ancient
position. God in mercy keeps them in dispersion, to prevent the triumph
of the oral law. But when is this state of misery to cease? There must
be a beginning. Some one follower of Moses must be zealous enough and
bold enough to attack the strong holds of superstition, and to rouse his
brethren to a sense of their condition—some one who not only professes
to be a follower of Moses, but who has imbibed his spirit, and whose
trust is in the God of his fathers.
No. LIII.
RABBINISM OPPRESSIVE TO THE POOR.
When God gave Israel the law, by the hand of Moses, he also gave them
several tests, whereby they might at all times try themselves, and know
to a certainty whether they were really obedient or not—and whether the
laws, to which they yielded obedience, were really the laws given by
Moses. One of these tests is found in the following words:—“Behold, I
have taught you statutes and judgments, even as the Lord my God
commanded me, that ye should do so in the land whither ye go to possess
it. Keep, therefore, and do them; for this is your wisdom and your
understanding in the sight of the nations, which shall hear all these
statutes, and say, Surely this great nation is a wise and understanding
people.” (Deut. iv. 5.) By the help of these words, Israel may know at
any time whether they are really keeping the laws of Moses. They have
only to consult their own experience, and determine whether they are
honoured by all nations on account of their wisdom. Moses promises that
a reputation for wisdom, and the honour that accompanies it, shall be
the reward of obedience. If therefore the Jews at this present time are
obedient, this promise must be in daily fulfilment. But, if they are not
honoured and respected for their wisdom, then we must conclude, that
they are deficient in obedience, and further, that the laws to which
they are at present so devoted are not the laws of Moses. Now it is a
certain fact, that admiration for the wisdom of Israel has not been the
prevailing sentiment amongst the nations of the world for the last two
thousand years. The Jewish people has been most deplorably underrated.
Their genius and their literature have been ignorantly undervalued, and
the folly of the authors of the oral law has been unjustly visited upon
each and every individual of the nation. We grant the injustice and the
impiety of such hasty judgments, but cannot deny the fact, and the fact
proves that the laws to which Israel now yields obedience are not the
laws of Moses. They now obey the commands of the oral law, and the
nations have heard of the statutes thereof, but no one says, “Surely
this great nation is a wise and understanding people.” Some may,
perhaps, ascribe this to prejudice, and no doubt there are cases where
prejudice has much to do with the decision, but this is not our case.
Our prepossessions are all in favour of the Jews, and yet we cannot help
questioning the wisdom of those, who make such laws as the following a
part of their religion:—
אין לשין העיסה בחלב ואם לש כל הפת אסורה מפני הרגל עבירה שמא יאכל בה בשר
, ואין טשין את התנור באליה ואם טש כל הפת אסורה עד שיסיק את התנור שמא
יאכל בה חלב , ואם שינה בצורת הפת עד שתהיה נכרת כדי שלא יאכל בה לא בשר
ולא חלב הרי זה מותר ׃