wine, and have pronounced its price to be unlawful, as that of wine
which has been consecrated to idolatry; therefore, if a Gentile have an
Israelite to labour with him, in any thing concerning wine, his wages
are unlawful. In like manner, if he hire an ass, or a ship, to carry
wine, the hire thereof is unlawful: and if it be given to him in money,
he is to throw it into the salt sea. But if the hire be given him in
clothes, or vessels, or fruits, he is to burn them, and to bury their
ashes, that no profit may arise therefrom. But if an Israelite has hired
an ass to a Gentile to ride upon, and he lays upon it bottles of wine,
then the hire thereof is lawful.” (Ibid., c. xiii. 15, &c.) For all this
there is no authority whatever in the law of Moses,—it is a pure
invention of the rabbies, who had but little respect for the Divine law,
and no consideration at all for the necessities of man. It is evident
that these additions must, in many cases, become so many impediments in
the way of earning a subsistence. The proprietor of a ship, or the owner
of cattle, is cut off from one source of employment and profit. Now,
even in the case of the rich, though they may feel it less, this is an
unjustifiable severity; but in the case of the poor, it becomes a most
cruel oppression. In the wine-countries, for example, a poor Jew might
perchance find employment with some of the growers of that article; but
the rabbies have declared that honest industry, in a matter which God
has nowhere forbidden, is unlawful, and the fruits of it so abominable,
as to be fit only for destruction. In this city, also, many examples of
the absurdity and cruelty of this law might be found. Suppose that a
Christian wine-merchant should wish to employ some one or more of those
numerous Israelites, who are destitute of the means of earning a
livelihood, and should therefore offer him a situation, either in his
cellar or his counting-house, the rabbies say that he dare not accept of
it: and that it is more pleasing in the sight of God that the man should
go about idle, and that his family should starve, than that he should
labour honestly, and do what God has permitted. Who is there, except the
rabbies themselves, who does not see that such a decision is irrational,
oppressive, and unmerciful, not now to speak of its injustice to
Christian nations, by classing them with the idolaters of Canaan? But
take another case, suppose that some Christian, finding a Jewish family
in deep distress, some of the members perhaps recovering from sickness,
to whom a little wine might be beneficial, gives them a bottle of wine,
What are they to do with it? May they make use of it to strengthen their
exhausted frames? The rabbies answer, No. May they sell it, and with the
money purchase food, or some other necessary of life? The rabbies
answer, No. What then are they to do with it? The rabbies answer,
Destroy it; destroy what would recruit your fainting bodies—what would
purchase bread for your starving children—destroy what might perhaps
save your life, simply because we have forbidden it; and it is more
important that our unauthorized laws should be preserved inviolate, than
that you should be comforted or strengthened or relieved in your misery.
This is the mercy of Judaism. But we have not done yet. Suppose that the
mother of the family should begin to reason, and say, This wine would
preserve my poor child’s life; a little of it would strengthen me, and
enable me to tend the sick bed with more alacrity; God has nowhere
forbidden it. She accordingly administers to her child, and partakes
herself, when some rabbinic zealot enters and perceives what she has
done. Now suppose that the ministers of the oral law had the liberty to
follow out all its enactments, what would be the consequence? The poor
woman would be summoned before a בית דין, a tribunal; the oral law would
be opened, and her sentence be, The flogging of rebellion, as we have
cited above. Is this merciful, is it just, is it rational? Is there
anything like it in the New Testament, or in the religion of Jesus of
Nazareth? The oral law says that we are idolaters, but is it worthy of
credit? Can any reasonable man place confidence in the teaching of those
who are so senseless as to forbid a perishing fellow-creature to make
use of proffered relief, and so merciless as to flog him with the
flogging of rebellion, if he regards God’s permission more than their
prohibition? But it is not only absurdity and cruelty, which here are to
be noticed, there is also a certain measure of that cleverness which we
have remarked on former occasions, which provides for the transgression
of the law and the retaining of the merit of keeping it. The above
extract says, “If an Israelite has hired an ass to a Gentile to ride
upon, and he lays upon it bottles of wine, then the hire thereof is
lawful;” and on this principle the owner of a ship or a wagon may let
either generally for the transport of merchandize, and provided the word
_wine_ is not mentioned, the Gentile may transport his wine, and the Jew
lawfully receive and use his money, though if the word _wine_ had been
mentioned, the money would have been so unlawful, that it ought not even
be given to relieve the wants of the poor, but thrown into the salt sea.
Here the rabbies betray their own insincerity, and their unbelief in
their own enactments, by their determination to evade their severity,
whenever it interfered with their own interests. But even if there were
no cruelty, no contempt for the law of God, and no evasion, the effect
of multiplying such observances is to lead away the mind from the
weightier matters of religion. The ignorant think, even whilst they are
violating the ten commandments, that, if they abstain from Gentile wine,
they are fulfilling a most meritorious duty, and making compensation for
their other transgressions. Indeed the rabbies themselves are not free
from this effect, if we may judge by the following passage:—
זונה גויה במסיבה של ישראל היין מותר מפני שאימתה עליה ולא תגע אבל זונה
ישראלית במסיבת גוים יינה שלפניה בכליה אסור מפני שהם נוגעין שלא מדעתה ׃
“If a Gentile harlot be at an entertainment of Israelites, the wine is
lawful, for their fear is upon her, so that she would not touch it. But
if an Israelite harlot be at an entertainment of Gentiles, her wine that
is before her in her own vessel is unlawful, because they may touch it
without her knowledge.” (Ibid., c. xii. 26.) Now if men or women are so
wicked as to be found in such circumstances, in the open disregard of
God’s law, is it not deceiving them to tell them, or to lead them to
suppose, that there can be any merit in any mere ceremonial observance,
even though it should have been ordained by God himself: and is it not
straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel, to forbid a poor perishing
Jew to taste wine touched by a Gentile, and to allow it to those who are
feasting with a harlot? Perhaps some one will reply that it is on
account of the idolatry of the Gentile; but we have seen in the first
extract given in this paper, that if wine be touched even by a Gentile
who is not an idolater, it is unlawful for a Jew to drink it; so that to
be a Gentile at all is in the eyes of the rabbies a greater degradation
and of more contaminating influence, than to be guilty of gross
immorality. Now we appeal to the good sense of every Israelite, whether
this is not to exalt vice, and to degrade humanity? God chose a people
to himself, Israel is that people; we honour them as such: but, is that
any reason why Israel should trample upon the ties of our common
humanity, and look upon the touch even of a Gentile who fears God, as so
defiling that it makes wine unfit for the use of a Jew? How are peace
and charity ever to prevail between Jews and Gentiles, so long as this
is looked upon as religion? Yea, and how is true religion and true fear
of God ever to prevail amongst the mass of the Jewish community, so long
as they are taught that Israelites guilty of immorality are more holy
than a Gentile who fears God, and that sin is not so dreadful as
uncircumcision? The object of such commands was plainly to prevent all
social and friendly intercourse between Jews and Gentiles under any
circumstances, and to build up an eternal wall of separation between
them. This is very different from that national and official distinction
instituted by God himself. The object of God’s choice was not to put an
end to the practice of love and charity between the Jews and all the
other nations of the earth, but to cement the bonds of affection. He
made Israel the depository of his oracles, that they might communicate
the truth to other nations, and that thus the nations should feel
gratitude for the benefit conferred, and the Israelites feel that
affection for the nations, which a teacher naturally feels for those
who, by his instrumentality, have forsaken error and embraced the truth.
The oral law prevents the fulfilment of the Divine law, and cuts asunder
also these ties of amity and peace. It makes it impossible for Israel to
communicate any blessing, and for the Gentiles to receive any blessing
at their hands, and goes far towards throwing suspicion on the Divine
law. If there were no other medium of communication, than the rabbies,
between the Divine law and the world, the worship of Jupiter and Bacchus
and all the other heathen deities would still prevail. How could the
nations ever have been converted by those who taught them, in the first
place, that God is such a respecter of persons, as to think immorality
in a Jew less contaminating than the mere external touch of a pious
Gentile? Reason revolts at such profane absurdity, and therefore if God
had had no better messengers and representatives of his truth, idolatry
would still continue. Some may reply, idolatry does still continue, such
at least is the sentence of the oral law, and, though grieved that any
should be so blind as to bring such a charge against Christianity, we
are by no means angry or offended at it. If the Jews still believe in
their own religion, and therefore think that Christians are idolaters,
it is their bounden duty to say so. But then we ask in reply, if
Christianity be idolatry, how is it that its doctrine is more pure, more
merciful, more charitable, and more rational than that of the oral law?
Christianity has no ceremonial laws to be observed by those who feast
together with harlots—Christianity nowhere sentences the poor to
flogging, because they partake of what God allows—Christianity nowhere
represents God as an unjust and impartial judge, who looks not at moral
good and evil, but at a man’s nation. Christianity teaches that true
religion is that of the heart—that at the day of judgment mercilessness
will obtain no mercy, and that God is the God of the spirits of all
flesh. Let then the lovers of the oral law account for this fact, that
Christianity, which they call idolatry, teaches a doctrine that
glorifies God and benefits all men; whilst Judaism, which they say is
the truth, teaches a doctrine dishonouring to God, oppressive to the
Jews, and degrading to all other nations. Some Jews will reply, that
Christians are not idolaters; then we ask such persons how they can
pretend to profess Judaism, which has asserted the contrary for so many
centuries, and also acted upon this principle, prohibiting all
intercourse, as much as Moses did in the land of Canaan? Either
Christianity is idolatry, or Judaism is false; there is no alternative.
Every Jew, therefore, who asserts that Christians are not idolaters,
pronounces of Judaism that it is false. Let all such persons then deal
honestly, let them renounce what they do not believe; and let them
denounce to their brethren what they think it necessary to disavow
before Christians. They are bound to do this, not only to renounce the
injustice with which the oral law treats Christians, but to take away
the cruel and oppressive yoke which bows down their brethren the Jews.
If Christianity be not idolatry, then all the laws concerning יין נסך,
“wine of libation,” are utterly out of place in this country. Then poor
Jews may accept of Christian bounty, and the offices of kindliness and
charity may be practised between Jew and Christian. Those Jews therefore
who profess to believe that Christians are not idolaters, are bound, by
their obligations both to Jews and Christians, to protest against the
oral law, and publicly to disavow all belief in it. So long as they do
not make such a public disavowal, their professions of love and charity
and respect for the religion of Christians must be looked upon as hollow
and insincere. So long as they make such professions, contrary to the
oral law, and yet frequent the worship of the synagogue, which asserts
the divinity of the oral law, they must be regarded either as persons
who have motives for professing what they do not feel, or who want moral
courage to renounce what they disapprove. These remarks apply
particularly to those Israelites who have practically forsaken Judaism,
who associate with Christians, eat Gentile food, and drink Gentile wine,
and some of whom perhaps even deal in it as an article of merchandize.
Such persons, though Israelites by nation, are not Jews by religion, at
least according to that sense in which the word Jew has been used both
by Israel and Gentile nations for the last two thousand years. Such
persons cannot pretend to be professors of the Jewish persuasion. Any
one who is in the habit of drinking Gentile wine has practically
forsaken Judaism, just as much as if he had assumed the turban and
professed himself a Mahometan. It becomes such persons especially to
make a stand against the oral law, and to declare publicly what their
religion is, and whether they have any fixed principles at all. They
cannot be regarded as Christians, for they have not been baptized; they
cannot, say that they are Jews, for they have forsaken Judaism; they
cannot assert that they have the religion of Moses, for unless that
religion be found amongst Christians, it does not exist. There is no
body of religionists to be found in this country who profess themselves
Mosaists. In the synagogue the oral law is professed; in the Church
Christianity is professed; but where is the place of worship frequented
by those who have forsaken Judaism without embracing Christianity? Such
persons appear in a light that is not at all advantageous to their
principles. In private they profess to abhor the intolerance of the oral
law, they violate its precepts, and yet on the occasion of the great
Jewish fasts and festivals they are to be seen in the synagogue joining
in the worship, and observing the rites of the oral law. What then are
we to believe concerning such persons? Are they indifferentists, who
have no religion at all? or are they secret admirers of the oral law,
who, for worldly purposes, deny it when occasion suits, and conform to
it when the conscience is uneasy? We are far from pronouncing them
either one or the other, but simply propose these questions for their
own consideration, remind them of the equivocal light in which they
appear, and would give them advice similar to that of Elijah to their
forefathers. If the oral law be true religion, profess and practise it.
If the oral law be erroneous, superstitious, and uncharitable, renounce
it openly and honestly.
No. LV.
MOURNING FOR THE DEAD.
Modern Judaism, or the religion of the Jews, as it is professed by the
majority of the nation scattered through the world, confessedly consists
of two parts. The first is composed of those laws which are מן התורה,
_i.e._, which are either really found in the written law, or are
supposed to be based upon some passage of it. The second, of those laws
which are מדברי הסופרים “of the words of the scribes,” and which are,
therefore, mere human institutions. Concerning those that were given by
God, we readily grant that they can be changed or abrogated only by God
himself. But respecting the latter, both reason and Scripture concur in
assuring us, that what human authority has ordained, a similar human
authority may also abrogate. We grant that so long as the Jewish polity
remained, and the scribes were magistrates, their ordinances, so far as
they were not contrary to the Word of God, were binding upon the Jews:
but even then those ordinances were not immutable. They might have been
repealed by the scribes and magistrates who succeeded them. And even
then, whenever they stood in opposition to the Word of God, it was the
bounden duty of the Jews to refuse obedience. For what reason, then do
the Jews of the present day still pay the same homage to the words of
the scribes that they do to the Word of God? The scribes are not now the
civil magistrates of the countries where the Jews reside; their words,
therefore, carry with them no authority whatever. The Jews are now in
different circumstances—are subject to other magistrates and lawgivers.
The magisterial sanction, which the words of the scribes had before the
dispersion, has long since been lost; but God nowhere commands the Jews
in England to obey laws made by the civil magistrates of Palestine two
thousand years ago. There is not a shadow of obligation remaining; and
therefore the Jews of the present day have a full right to examine into
their tendency and effects, and if they should be found injurious or
unsuitable to present circumstances, to reject them. If the words of the
scribes be not obligatory by virtue of Divine authority, the only
imaginable reason for observing them is the supposition that they are
conducive to the welfare and happiness of Israel, but if it can be shown
that this supposition is false, then both reason and religion would
suggest the wisdom of rejecting them. We have already shown of several
such laws that they are alike noxious to man and dishonouring to God,
and think now to exhibit a similar result with regard to the _laws
concerning mourners for the dead_. Of many of these it is confessed that
they are not of God, but simply ordinances of the scribes: thus, of the
command to mourn seven days, it is acknowledged, that it is not to be
found in the law:—
ואין אבלות מן התורה אלא ביום ראשון בלבד שהוא יום המיתה ויום הקבורה אבל
שאר השבעה ימים אינו דין תורה ׃
“The only mourning commanded in the law is that on the first day, which
is the day of the death and of the burial. But that of the rest of the
seven days is not an ordinance of the law.” (Hilchoth Avel., c. i. 1.)
And thus with regard to the various things from which the mourner is to
abstain during those seven days, it is acknowledged expressly that the
command is altogether an ordinance of the scribes:—
אלו הדברים שהאבל אסור בהן ביום הראשון מן התורה ובשאר ימים מדבריהם אסור
לספר ולכבס ולרחוץ ולסוך ולשמש מטתו ולנעול את הסנדל ולעשות מלאכה ולקרות
בדברי תורה ולזקוף את המטה ולפרוע את ראשו ולשאול שלום הכל ׃
“These are the things which the mourner is prohibited from doing,
according to the law, on the first day, but according to the words of
the scribes on the remaining days—shaving, washing the clothes, bathing,
anointing, duty of marriage, putting on shoes, working, reading in the
words of the law, elevating the chair, uncovering the head, asking after
the peace of any one.” (Ibid., c. v.) As therefore the rabbies
themselves do not pretend that abstinence from these things during those
days of mourning is required in the law; and it is further a matter of
fact, that this abstinence is not inculcated by the laws of the land, it
naturally becomes a question, Why then do the Jews now observe these
rites? Are they conducive to the happiness and welfare of Israel? We
might doubt respecting several of them, but one is so obviously
oppressive to the poor as to be almost beyond controversy; we mean the
prohibition to work during the seven days’ mourning. We do not mean to
deny, that when death enters a family, it is a providential call to
humiliation and serious reflection, and that therefore those who can
should withdraw for a while from their every-day occupation, and seek by
prayer and penitence to have the affliction turned into a blessing. But
to require of those who have not food for themselves or their families
to embitter their cup of sorrow by adding the pangs of hunger, is to act
the part of an inconsiderate and merciless tyrant, and this is what the
oral law does. It says—
כל שלשה ימים הראשונים אסור בעשיית מלאכה , אפילו היה עני המתפרנס מן הצדקה
, מכאן ואילך אם היה עני עושה בצנעה בתוך ביתו ׃
“All the first three days it is unlawful to work, even though the man
should be so poor as to live on alms. But after that, if he be poor, he
may work privately in his own house.” Thus, all those whose business
lies out of doors, and who are obliged to wander about in order to get a
livelihood, are completely cut off from the possibility of supplying the
wants of their family. The law was evidently made under very different
circumstances from those in which the Jewish people are now found. It
presupposes that every one has got some trade or occupation whereby he
can earn his bread at home, but this is not the case at present. A large
proportion of the people, in every part of the world, now get a living
by frequenting the public resorts of men: to forbid these, then, from
going forth to their work, is equivalent to forbidding them to eat
during seven days. Why then should Israel be bound by these laws, which
even, according to the confession of the rabbies, have no Divine
authority, and are now only oppressive to the poor?
But it is not merely of inconsideration for the poor that the oral law
is guilty: we have more than once remarked the proud contempt with which
it treats the poor and the unlearned, and are sorry to find it even in
the laws concerning the last sad offices to humanity:—
עיר שיש בה שני מתים כאחד מוציאין הראשין ואחר כך מוציאין השני , חכם
ותלמיד חכם מוציאין החכם , תלמיד חכם ועם הארץ מוציאין תלמיד חכם ׃
“If there be two persons dead in a city at once, he that died first, is
first to be carried forth to burial, and then the second. But if one of
them be a wise man, and the other the disciple of a wise man, the wise
man is to have the precedency. If one be the disciple of a wise man and
the other an unlearned one (amhaaretz), the disciple of the wise man is
to be carried forth first.” (Joreh Deah, 354.) We do not here object to
the practical result, but to the spirit of the law. God has ordained
different ranks and grades of society, and wills, therefore, that honour
should be given to whom honour is due, and the common course of the
world brings men and things to their level. But the doctors of the oral
law were determined not to leave their posthumous honour to the natural
course of events, but whilst they lived, took the matter into their own
hands, and decreed that the honour paid them in life should also be
rendered to their poor bodies after death; and that no plebeian or
unlearned person should take precedency, even in the last sad memento of
human frailty. After death there is but little difference between the
learned and the unlearned, and the real difference is made, not by their
previous learning or ignorance, but by their moral worth. An unlearned
man may be, and often is, far more beloved by man, and far more pleasing
in the sight of God, than the most learned, and therefore, when death
has destroyed the imaginary distinctions of time, if religion makes any
difference between the dead, it surely ought to make it according to
that estimate, which is eternal. But the religion of the oral law cannot
forget worldly distinction, even in the solemn moment of death, and
therefore commands, that as the unlearned man, no matter what his moral
worth may have been, has been despised in his life, he should still bear
the marks of dishonour even in his death and burial. But the homage
which the oral law pays to wealth and mere worldly distinction, is still
more apparent in its commands respecting the measure of lamentation to
be dealt out to the deceased. It says, on this subject—
בני עשירים כבני חכמים , בני חכמים כבני מלכים לענין שבח מעשיהם ׃
“The sons of the rich are to be regarded as the sons of the wise men;
and the sons of the wise men as the sons of kings, with regard to
praising their deeds.” (Ibid., 344.) Here there is no concealment. The
learned makers of the oral law choose to have their children honoured
with the honours of royalty, and show that, however highly they might
prize their learning, they had a due estimate of the value of wealth;
and that however they might despise the unlearned, their contempt might
be moderated, if the object of it was only rich. In the world we are not
astonished at the inordinate homage paid to wealth, but when the
teachers of religion bow down before the golden idol, and assign to mere
wealth an honour which they refuse to the piety and moral worth of the
poor, we cannot help doubting the purity of their professed principles,
and questioning the truth of their religious system. The main object of
religion should be to raise men above the delusive appearances of this
present world—to teach men to look beyond the distinctions of rank, and
wealth, and learning, to that eternal distinction which the righteous
Judge will make according to man’s deeds. And if there be one season
more than another where religion ought to disregard the principles and
customs of the world, it is with respect to the hour of death and
burial. But here the oral law still maintains its love for wealth and
worldly distinction, and its haughty contempt for ignorance, poverty,
and humbleness of station. If any additional proof is still necessary,
it is found in the forms prescribed on the death of slaves:—
העבדים והשפחות אין עומדין עליהן בשורה ואין אומרים עליהן ברכת אבלים ולא
תנחומי אבלים אלא כשם שאומרין לאדם אל שורו וחמורו שמת המקום ימלא תסרונך
כך אומר על עבדו ושפחתו שמתו ׃