the bread is unlawful, lest this should lead to further transgression,
and it should be eaten with meat. It is also unlawful to smear the oven
with the tail of a sheep; and if it be done, all the bread is unlawful,
lest milk should be eaten with it. But, if some change be made in the
form of the bread whereby it may be recognized, so as that neither meat
nor milk should be eaten with it, then it is lawful.” (Hilchoth
Maakhaloth Asuroth, c. ix. 22.) We do not wish to persuade the Jews
either to knead dough with milk, or to smear an oven with the tail of a
sheep, but when we remember all the poverty and want that is in the
world, we cannot help asking, What is there so sinful in either of the
above actions, as to make such bread unlawful for the use of God’s
people? Has God forbidden it? or has he so strictly prohibited the use
of meat and milk together, as to make this excess of caution necessary?
Neither the one nor the other. The law of God as given by Moses, allows
the use of meat and milk together. It forbids only one particular case,
the boiling of a kid in its mother’s milk: and to this the rabbies have,
without any authority, added all these other commands, and thus burdened
the conscience, and made religion an intricate and difficult science
intelligible only to the learned, and not always to them. What wisdom is
there in forbidding what God did not think necessary to forbid? What
wisdom is there in neglecting or disregarding the revealed will of God,
and giving up the conscience to the guidance of weak and fallible men
like ourselves? But above all, what wisdom is there in oppressing and
tormenting the poor? The oral law says—
מי שאכל גבינה או חלב תחלה מותר לאכול אחריו בשר מיד .
מי שאכל בשר בתחלה בין בשר בהמה בין בשר עוף לא יאכל אחריו חלב עד שיהיה
ביניהם כדי שיעור סעודה אחרת והוא כמו שש שעות מפני הבשר שבין השינים שאינו
סר בקינוח ׃
“He that eats cheese or milk first, may eat meat immediately after.
“He that eats meat first, whether it be the meat of a beast or of a
fowl, must not eat milk after it, until the regular time between two
meals, that is six hours, shall have elapsed; because of the meat which
remains between the teeth, and which is not got out by wiping.” (Ibid.,
26, 28.) Now in the case of the rich or the affluent, who can procure a
good and sufficient meal of meat, and can therefore wait for six hours,
this may be no great hardship, though even in that case, we must protest
against the unauthorized burden imposed upon the conscience; but when
applied to the needy and the destitute, this law becomes an intolerable
yoke. Just suppose the father of a starving family who goes forth to beg
assistance from the charitable. He receives a small portion of meat, and
hastens back to divide it with his wife and children. They partake of
the relief, but it is not sufficient to supply their wants. He therefore
goes forth again, and some friend of the poor gives him some milk or
cheese, he brings it home with thankfulness, but dare not touch it
himself nor give it to his children—they have already fasted many an
hour—they are still weak with hunger—a little of the milk or the cheese
would recruit exhausted nature—the children cry and entreat for six
hours more, for though God allows this food, rabbies have forbidden it.
Is there wisdom in this? Is God honoured by such a religion, which
counts his permission as nothing, and exalts the authority of the
rabbies above that of God himself? And may we not ask the some question
of the following law?
האוכל גבינת הגוים או חלב שחלבו גוי ואין הישראל רואהו מכין אותו מכת מרדות
, והחמאה מקצת הגאונים התירוה שהרי לא גזרו על חחמאה וחלב טמא אינו עומד
ומקצת הגאונים אסרוה מפני צחצוח חלב שישאר בה ׃
“He that eats Gentile cheese, or milk which a Gentile has milked, but
the Israelite did not see him, is to be flogged with the flogging of
rebellion. But, as to the butter, some of the Gaons have pronounced it
lawful, because there is no express decision about it, and because
unclean milk will not set. Others of the Gaons, on the contrary, have
pronounced it unlawful, on account of the small drops of milk which
remain in it.” (Joreh Deah, 115.) Here we have the same total want of
consideration for the poor, and the same fierce and cruel spirit. Just
suppose, again, the case of a destitute Jewish family, where the father
is laid on a bed of sickness, and unable to earn daily bread for his
children. The mother, weary with tending the sick couch of her husband,
and her heart half-broken with the children’s cry for bread, goes to
solicit help from the almoners of the synagogue. She obtains eighteen
pence per month, but finds that on this small sum it is impossible for a
family to subsist; she then goes to individuals of her nation, and gets
what she can, but still not sufficient to the wants of her children, and
of her sick husband. In her distress, she goes to some Christian
neighbours, who give her some milk and cheese. The pangs of hunger, and
the affections of a wife and mother overcome her superstition, she
carries this bounty home and partakes of it along with her husband and
children. Has, she thereby committed a sin; has she violated any one
precept of the Mosaic law; has she blasphemed the name of her God? Let
reason, let the Law and the Prophets answer, and they will say, No: she
has done her duty. But what does the oral law say? It says, that she has
committed a dreadful sin. And what is to be her punishment, and that of
her husband and children? Flogging—the flogging of rebellion. If the
oral law had power, it would lead them forth to the place of execution,
and there inflict stripes without number and without mercy. The
bystanders, and those attracted by the cries would ask, What dreadful
crime has this family committed? and the answer would be, To save
themselves from starvation they dared to eat Gentile cheese and milk.
Gentiles would ask again, What, is this the law? Does Judaism teach that
so innocent an action is to be punished with such severity? and being
answered in the affirmative, would go away exclaiming, “What a merciful
religion! Surely this great nation is a wise and understanding people!”
No: they would retire in horror, thanking God that they are not Jews,
and that God has preserved them from so dreadful a delusion, and from
such iniquitous cruelty. What, then, do our Jewish readers think of this
law, and the religion of which it is a part? It is certain that there
are multitudes of Jews in this city who live in the constant violation
of this command; who constantly use milk supplied by Gentiles, and yet
pretend to profess Judaism as their religion. Let all such ask
themselves, by what authority they transgress a command sanctioned by so
severe a punishment. Is it because they think it irrational, or
unwarranted by the law of Moses? if so, they attack at once the
authority of the whole system of Judaism. If the oral low can be proved
to be absurd, or unjust, or cruel, in any one particular, its value as a
divine tradition is utterly destroyed. Let them, then, be consistent; if
they reject Judaism, let them say so, let them not pretend to have the
Jewish religion, when they have it not. Let them honestly confess that
their reason, directed by Scripture, has led them to reject it; and let
them fulfil the consequent duty of endeavouring to deliver their poor
brethren from a bondage so cruel. They must know that these laws about
milk and butter, and the art of slaughtering, cut off many a poor Jew
from the last refuge of the destitute—the poor-house. Many a one who is
now starving with his family, would be glad to have the relief which the
parish provides, but he dare not accept of it. Either his conscience,
perverted by these rabbinical statutes, will not permit him, or he is
afraid of his brethren, who would think that in going into such an
asylum he had renounced his God. Those who use Gentile milk without
scruple, will have much to answer for, if they suffer such oppression
and such superstition to continue. It is a vain excuse for any one to
say, “What can I do?” Any one individual, however weak and
uninfluential, has it in his power by God’s blessing, to deliver the
poor. Let him continually protest against such superstition, let him
reason with his brethren. Let him determine to take no rest, until the
yoke is torn from the necks of his nation. He will ultimately prevail.
He will be the instrument in God’s hand, of offering a greater
deliverance than that from Egypt, inasmuch as the emancipation of the
soul is of more importance than that of the body. In this respect,
amongst others, Jesus of Nazareth has done more than Moses. If he had
not arisen, the oral law would have been universal, and the world have
continued either sunk in idolatry or slaves to a cruel superstition. The
cruelty of a religion, which commands a man to be flogged for eating
that which God permits, is not to be disputed; the prohibition of
Gentile bread furnishes another instance of similar inhumanity.
יש דברים שאסרו חכמים אע׳׳פ שאין להם עיקר מן התורה כמו פת של גוים אפילו
אפאו לו ישראל והשלקות שמבשלין הגוים ואסרו לשתות במסיבתן אפילו שאר משקין
שאין בהן משום חשש יין נסך וכל אלו דברים אסרו משום חתנות וכו׳ ׃
“There are some things which the wise men have pronounced unlawful,
although they have no foundation for the prohibition in the law, as
bread of the Gentiles, even though an Israelite should have baked it for
him—and cooked victuals, which the Gentiles have cooked. They have also
pronounced it unlawful to drink at a Gentile table, even those drinks of
which there can be no suspicion that wine of libation is mixed with
them. And they pronounced these things unlawful to prevent the
possibility of intermarriage,” &c. (Ibid. 112.) There are many remarks
suggested by this passage, but at present we limit ourselves to the
prohibition of Gentile bread. It is here confessed that there is no
foundation for it in the law of Moses, and that therefore the rabbies
have no authority for the prohibition; and yet a very little
consideration is sufficient to show that great inconvenience may arise.
For instance, if a poor Jew is travelling in this country, exhausts his
stock of money, and goes to a farm-house to ask relief, he cannot accept
any meat—he is not to drink any milk on pain of a flogging. Suppose,
then, that the people offer him some home-baked bread, even this is
forbidden:—
פת של בעל הבית אסורה לעולם ׃
“Bread baked by a private house-keeper is eternally forbidden.” The poor
man, therefore, may starve. But the inhumanity appears still more in the
discussion of the question, whether and when it is lawful to eat baker’s
bread. The rabbies are divided. Some allow it, because the rule is—
מי שהתענה ג׳ ימים מותר בפת של גוים משום חיי נפש וברוב מקומות גליותנו אין
פלטר ישראל מצוי והוה כאלו התענה ג׳ ימים , ויש אוסרין אותו אלא א׳׳כ התענה
ג׳ ימים ממש ׃
“He that has fasted three days may lawfully eat Gentile bread, and as in
many places of our captivity there is no Israelite baker, this case is
considered parallel to that of him who has fasted three days. But there
are others who say that it is unlawful, unless he has fasted three days,
in the strictest sense of the word.” (Ibid.) One would think that, in a
case of doubt, men that had the fear of God would naturally incline to
the side of mercy; but here we find teachers of religion forbidding what
God has allowed, unless the victim of poverty has first endured the
torment of starvation for three days; and in one case actually
determining that a fellow-creature shall die of hunger, rather than
suffer their unauthorized traditions to be broken. If a Gentile
Government should seize on a number of unfortunate Israelites guilty of
no crime, and shut them up in a prison, and then leave them to die of
starvation, what just indignation would be excited! Every man would
protest against such wanton cruelty, and yet this is just what modern
Judaism has done. By forbidding Gentile meat, milk, cheese, and bread,
it has consigned hundreds to starvation. There are at this moment
numbers of individuals, if not families, pining away in want, whose
wants could be relieved, if the oral law did not interpose its iron
front, and pronounce starvation lawful, and help from Gentiles unlawful;
and yet their brethren, who pride themselves upon their benevolence and
humanity, leave them to perish, and suffer the system to remain that it
may be a curse to coming generations. It is truly astonishing to see the
indifference of those who pride themselves upon their emancipation from
superstition, and who themselves eat Gentile bread, and milk, and
cheese, and perhaps meat, without any scruple. It is more astonishing
still, how the nation at large suffers itself to be deluded by men who
do not agree amongst themselves as to what the law really is. We saw
above, that the greatest of the rabbies, even the Gaons themselves,
differ as to the lawfulness of Gentile butter;—here we see that they
cannot agree as to the lawfulness of Gentile bakers’ bread. How is it,
then, that the Jews cannot see that their present religion of the oral
law is altogether one of uncertainty and that, therefore, there is no
dependence upon it? Here they eat freely, even the strictest, of Gentile
bread; but yet, according to some of their greatest men, they are
thereby committing a deadly sin. These wise men humanely say, that it is
necessary first to fast for three days. Now of what use is an oral law
that cannot even tell us certainly what sort of bread it is unlawful to
eat? The Rabbinist boast is, that the oral law teaches them the true
meaning of the written law, and thus saves them from all doubtful
disputation. But how can that be true, when the oral law has not yet
settled when it is lawful to eat Gentile bread? If the rabbies cannot
agree on so simple a matter, what trust can be placed in them in
difficult questions? The Jews cannot even tell, by the help of their
religion, whether they are not committing a sin, and leading their
children to commit a sin, when they give them a piece of bread and
butter. How, then, can they be satisfied with a religion where the
simplest concerns of life are still a matter of doubt and disputation;
and especially where the poor are made to suffer the greatest hardships,
whilst, by keeping to Moses and the prophets, they might find relief?
But, above all, how can they believe that a religion is divine, or its
authors good and pious men, when an innocent action, nay, the fulfilment
of a natural duty, is punished with flogging? There is no punishment of
which the oral law is so fond; and it would be a curious and interesting
employment to furnish a list of all the offences to which it is annexed.
Perhaps in nothing does the Talmud differ more from the New Testament.
The New Testament has not, in any one case, prescribed so cruel a
punishment. The Talmud and all its compendiums prescribe it on the most
trifling occasion. The maxim of the New Testament is that of the Old
also, “I will have mercy, not sacrifice.” Now, if the practice of mercy
be more agreeable in the eyes of God, than even those ceremonial rites
which he himself ordained, with what pleasure can he contemplate the
religion of the oral law, which punishes, even what God has allowed,
with unmeasured cruelty? Aben Ezra supposed that this command, “Not to
seethe a kid in its mother’s milk,” was given in order to prevent
cruelty even to the brute creation; if this be true, how does God regard
the perversion of his mercy, which pretends to keep this command, to
spare the brute creation, by dooming hundreds of mankind to starvation,
and by flogging those who endeavour to escape from their misery by
eating what he has nowhere forbidden? If God has compassion upon the
beasts that perish, what can he think of those teachers of religion who
talk with such composure of a fellow-creature’s fasting for three days
before he may eat bread sold by a Gentile baker, and who absolutely
decide that it is his duty to die, rather than partake of bread baked by
a private individual who is not a Jew? We appeal to the good sense of
every Israelite to answer these questions. Is it not evident that the
God of mercy must view with indignation, those teachers who thus
misrepresent the nature of revealed religion, and who cause his holy
name to be blasphemed amongst the ignorant? But if those men are guilty,
a portion of their guilt rests upon all those who aid and abet in
upholding the system. There can be but little excuse for those who have
the Law and the Prophets in their hands, and who therefore ought to
know, that the cruelty of the oral law is as contrary to the character
of God, as light is to darkness. And there is no excuse at all for those
Israelites who themselves despise these Rabbinical laws, and yet by
their silence and indifference leave their brethren still in misery.
They are answerable for all the dishonour done to God; for all the
misery inflicted upon man; and for all the contempt heaped upon the
wisdom of Israel.
No. LIV.
GENTILE WINE.
The Jews of the present day have got one religion—the Christians have
got another. It is much to be desired that all the sons of men should
have the one true religion, but, as this is not likely to be the case
for some little time longer, it becomes those who differ to examine the
nature and grounds of their differences. Whatever Jews may think upon
the subject, Christians feel themselves bound to inquire whether they
have really erred so grievously as modern Judaism asserts. The oral law
brings no less a charge against them than this, That they are guilty of
idolatry, and therefore in a worse state than even the Mahometans.
כל גוי שאינו עובד עכו׳׳ם כגון אלו הישמעאכים יינן אסור בשתיה ומותר בהנאה
, וכן הורו כל הגאונים , אבל הנוצרים עובדי עכו׳׳ם הם וסתם יינם אסור בהנאה
׃
“As to those Gentiles who, like the Ishmaelites, are not idolaters,
their wine is unlawful to drink, but is lawful for purposes of profit,
as is taught by all the Gaons; but Christians are idolaters, and their
wine, even such as has not been used as wine of libation, is unlawful
even for purposes of profit.” (Hilchoth Maakhaloth Asuroth, c. xi. 7.)
These words are very plain, and are confirmed by the practice of
Rabbinists in every part of the world, who abstain as carefully from the
wine belonging to Christians, as their forefathers would have done from
the idolatrous libation of the Canaanites. Jews, therefore cannot be
astonished if we examine with care a religion that brings against us so
grave an accusation, and endeavour to defend ourselves against the
charge. We might ask them, whether they behold in our churches any of
the emblems of idolatry. We might refer them to the ten commandments
written up in the most holy place of our sacred edifices. We might quote
from the New Testament many warnings against idolatry as plain and as
solemn as any to be found in the law of Moses; but there is a previous
question to be considered, and that is, What is the character of that
system, which witnesses against us? Is it worthy of credit—can its
testimony be depended upon? If the oral law be really from God, and if
its teachers should appear as faithful depositories of Divine truth,
their testimony would have great weight. But if the rabbies be detected
as daring corrupters of Divine revelation, and their religion be proved
to be a perversion of the law of Moses, then this charge must fall to
the ground as unworthy of all credit; and this is what we assert. We
have already given many reasons in support of this assertion, and now
add some more which we find in the laws about יין נסך, “wine of
libation,” which laws appear to us to be not only unwarranted additions,
but unmerciful, uncharitable, and irrational.
We do not mean to deny that it is utterly unlawful to partake of wine
that has been consecrated to idols; on the contrary, we would assert
this as zealously as any Israelite. Concerning things offered to idols,
the New Testament says, “The things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they
sacrifice to devils, and not to God: and I would not that ye should have
fellowship with devils. Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord, and the cup
of devils.” (1 Cor. x. 20, 21.) Let not therefore any Israelite think
that we wish to defend what is contrary both to the Old and New
Testament. But though fully convinced of the unlawfulness of drinking
wine or anything else consecrated to the service of idolatry, we confess
that we cannot see why it is unlawful to make use of wine not
consecrated to idolatry, simply because it belongs to, or has been
touched by, a Gentile; and yet this is the rabbinic law:—
יין הגוים שאין אנו יודעים אם נתנסך או לא נתנסך והוא הנקרא סתם יינם אסור
בהנאה כמו יין שנתנסך ודבר זה מגזירת הסופרים הוא והשותה מסתם יינם רביעית
מכין אותו מכת מרדות , וכל יין שיגע בו הגוי הרי זה אסור שמא נסך אותו
שמחשבת הגוי לעכו׳׳ם הא למדת שיין ישראל שנגע בו הגוי דינו כסתם יינם שהוא
אסור בהנאה ׃
“Wine belonging to Gentiles, of which we do not know whether it has been
consecrated or not, and what is called _common Gentile wine_, is
unlawful even to make a profit of, just like wine that has been
consecrated; and this is by the decree of the scribes. Whosoever drinks
so much as one quarter measure of this common Gentile wine is to be
flogged with the flogging of rebellion. All wine also which a Gentile
touches is unlawful because he may have consecrated it, for the thought
of a Gentile is to idolatry. Hence thou hast learned, that concerning
wine belonging to an Israelite which a Gentile has touched, the law is
the same as in the case of common Gentile wine, which is unlawful even
to make a profit of.” (Ibid., 3, 4.) Now in this law we have first the
unauthorized additions of the rabbies. We have already granted, that
wine, and everything else, consecrated to the service of idols is
unlawful, but with this the rabbies are not content. They forbid wine
that was made by, or ever in the possession of, a Gentile, or even if a
Gentile has touched it, and that not only to drink it, but to make any
use of it, or to sell it, or to be in any way employed about it, so as
to make any profit by it.
והחמירו חכמים בסתם יינם להיות דמיו אסורין כדמי יין שנתנסך לעכו׳׳ם לפיכך
גוי ששכר את ישראל לעשות עמו ביין שכרו אסור , וכן השוכר את החמור להביא
עליו יין או ששכר ספינה להביא בה יין שכרן אסור , אם מעות נתנו לו ישליכון
לים המלח , ואם נתנו לו בשכרו כסות או כלים או פירות בו , שכר לגוי חמור
לרכוב עליו והניח עליו לוגין של יין שכרו מותר ׃