row, nor to say the benediction of the mourners, nor the consolations of
the mourners; but, as one says, to a man whose ox or ass is dead, God
replace your loss, so one is to say, in the case of a male or female
slave who has died.” (Ibid., 377.) Volumes could not so clearly set
forth the genius of Judaism, and the spirit of its authors, as this one
short law. It exhibits the founders of Judaism, not only as void of all
true religious sentiment, but absolutely dead to all the natural
feelings of humanity. If mourners of any description require sympathy
and respect, surely they are the mourning family of a slave, for,
excepting crime, there is not anything that can aggravate the bitterness
of death more than slavery. Here religion should pour in its oil and
wine, and as it alleviated the miseries of life, diminish from the pangs
of death. At such an hour, religion should assert the liberty of the
soul, and remind the children of pride, that in the life after death the
distinction of master and slave is unknown; that there eternal and
spiritual liberty awaits all the children of God, whatever their outward
condition here. At such an hour, religion should especially console the
survivors with the hope, that there is another and better state of
existence, where the slave and the freeman are equally regarded, and
dealt with according to one eternal rule of justice. But the religion of
the oral law, on the contrary, carries the degradation of slavery even
down to the grave, and helps it to survive the period of bondage. It
ordains that the usual religious rites should not be observed, and
places the slave on the same level with the brute that perisheth. It
prescribes no consolation for the slave’s afflicted family, but ordains
that his master should receive the same words of comfort, as if he had
lost an ox or ass. The death of the slave is looked upon as nothing; it
is only for the slave-owner’s loss that the oral law has any
consideration. The fact of his having been a human being, an inheritor
of God’s image, and an heir of everlasting life, is entirely overlooked
by the rabbies. He was a slave, and they think, therefore, that as he
was treated like a beast whilst he lived, he may be buried like a beast
now that he is dead. If these slaves had been Gentiles, it would not
have been surprising that the oral law should treat them with such
little ceremony. But we must remember that all such slaves were
compelled to become proselytes to Judaism. They were, therefore,
co-religionists with their masters; but even this could not procure them
the respect due to human beings. Because the providence of God had made
them slaves, the oral law endeavoured to turn them into beasts. We are
sure that many Jews of the present day will revolt with horror from such
a doctrine; and acknowledge that it is a libel upon religion. They will
be ready to confess, that the poor slave is a fellow-creature, and an
expectant of life eternal; but let such persons stop to consider whence
they have derived these sentiments, so much more just, more merciful,
and more worthy of religion, than those expressed in the oral law. That
they have not derived them from Judaism is clear. May they not, then, be
indebted for them to the influence and atmosphere of Christianity in
which they live? Certain it is, that the New Testament contains very
different principles, respecting the treatment of slaves, from those
which we have discovered in the oral law. But, further, would it not be
well for those who disapprove these rabbinic principles, to ask
themselves why they profess the rabbinic religion? If it be true that a
slave is something better than an ox or an ass, Judaism, which classes
them altogether, must be false: and the men who made such laws, must be
confessed to be very unfit teachers of religion. Nay more, Judaism must
be acknowledged as a religion most unfit to promote the happiness of the
human race. If Judaism should prevail again, and, as its advocates
expect, prevail universally, slavery would also prevail in the same
degree: slaves would again be compelled to become proselytes, and again
be treated as beasts. Such is the great consummation, the regeneration
that Judaism promises the world. We therefore ask every Jewish reader,
Whether he can pray for such a state of things, and whether he wishes to
be thus enabled to degrade and trample upon his fellow-sinners? If he
does not, there must be something wrong in the religious system which he
professes—and if he only detects this one error, or acknowledges only
this one falsehood respecting the classification of slaves with oxen and
asses, it is sufficient to shake the whole rabbinic fabric: and if he
has any concern for the honour of the Jewish nation, he will endeavour
to deliver them from such a foul imputation upon their mercy and their
humanity.
But there is one point more in these laws respecting mourners, which it
is necessary to notice. The oral law forbids the mourner, as we have
seen above, to read in the words of the law for seven days:—
אבל אסור לקרות בתורה ונביאים וכתובים , ואסור לשנות במשנה תלמוד הלכות
ואגדות ׃
“The mourner is forbidden to read in the law, the prophets, and the
Hagiographa: it is also forbidden to study in the Mishna, Talmud,
Constitutions, and Agadoth.” That a mourner would have no great loss in
not being allowed to study in the oral law, we can readily believe; but
why should he be prohibited from going to the great fountain of
consolation—the revealed Word of God? If there be one season of life
more fit than another for studying the Word of God, surely it is when
death has entered a family, and reminded all its inmates that the wages
of sin is death. If a husband or wife be left to mourn over the
bereavement of a beloved partner, what consolation can be equal to that
which they find in God’s promise of a world where there is neither
sorrow nor death, and where those who meet shall never part again? If
children be left to mourn over the removal of their parents, whither
should they flee for consolation rather than to that Word which tells
them of him who is the father of the fatherless? Every reasonable person
will think also that, when the heart is softened by the paternal
chastisement, then is a peculiarly appropriate season for learning his
precepts and taking heed to his exhortations—and yet the oral law, with
a sort of most perverse ingenuity, has just selected that period of
human life, in which the consolations of God’s Word are most necessary
and its instruction likely to be of most use, to forbid the reading of
it altogether. And here, the rabbies have not scrupled to set aside the
plain command of God. God says of his law, “Thou shalt meditate therein
day and night and makes no exception for the seven days of mourning for
the dead.” In describing the character of the righteous he says, “His
delight is in the law of the Lord, and in his law doth he meditate day
and night and pronounces a blessing upon such a character.” But the
rabbies, in contempt both of the command and of the promised blessing,
forbid the already afflicted mourner to obey the command and to seek the
blessing. Even when the scribes and rabbies were in the plenitude of
their power as civil magistrates in the land of Israel, obedience to
such a command would have been unlawful, as implying disobedience to the
command of God. The law of God and the law of man are here plainly in
collision; the former commanding Israel to study in his law day and
night; the latter prohibiting all study for the seven days of the
mourning; but whenever these two authorities are opposed, no rational
being can doubt that it is Israel’s duty to obey God rather than man.
But, in the present day, when the oral law is not the law of the land,
when, therefore, the ordinances of the scribes have no authority
whatever, it is impossible to conceive why Israel should obey this
prohibition, unless they wish, by some public act, to exhibit their
determination to transgress the laws or God. Every one who abstains from
the study of God’s Word for seven days, plainly disobeys the Divine
command as given by Moses and the prophets; how then can the Jews of the
present day deceive themselves by supposing that they have the religion
of Moses? The main difference between Heathenism and the religion of
Moses is, that the latter gives a revelation of God’s will to guide us
in difficulty and to comfort us in affliction. The main difference
between a Heathen and a Jewish mourner ought to be, that the Jew flees
for consolation to God and his Word, whilst the Heathen indulges in
sorrow as those that have no hope. The oral law, however, breaks down
with this distinction, and reduces the Jew to the level of the Heathen,
by robbing him in his hour of need of God’s promises, and commanding him
to abstain for seven days from all study of God’s Word. These laws
respecting mourning, then, as being oppressive to the poor, insulting to
the unlearned, degrading to humanity, and contrary to the express
precepts of the Divine law, have no intrinsic merit to commend them to
Israel, and no claim upon their obedience.
No. LVI.
DISPENSATION FROM AN OATH.
A religion which is plainly contrary to any of the Divine attributes,
must necessarily be false. For instance, God is a holy God: a religion,
therefore, which would promote unholiness could not have the Holy One of
Israel for its author. God is also a merciful and a just God: a
religion, therefore, which is characterized by cruelty or injustice,
cannot proceed from him; and for this reason, amongst others, we believe
that the religion of the oral law cannot be that true religion which God
gave to Moses and the prophets. The oral law is most unjust in its laws
respecting Gentiles, slaves, and unlearned men, and most unmerciful in
very many of its enactments. But if there be one attribute more than
another, which is distinctive of the true God, it is truth. In the
prophecies of Jeremiah, He is even identified with truth, as it is
said:—
וה׳ אלהים אמת ׃
“The Lord God is Truth.” (Jer. x. 10.) And in that prediction, which he
put into the mouth of Balaam, he says, that it is by this attribute that
he is distinguished from the sons of men. “God is not a man that he
should lie; neither the son of man that he should repent: hath he said,
and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it
good?” (Numbers xxiii. 19.) Men may be wicked enough to promise what
they do not intend to perform, or after promising, may change their
mind, and refuse to fulfil their engagements; but God is too holy to
deceive wilfully, or to alter what has proceeded out of his mouth. A
religion, therefore, which in any wise tends to lessen our reverence for
truth, or encourages men to alter a solemn engagement, or, what is still
worse, teaches how to absolve from oaths, cannot proceed from the God of
truth; and this is what the oral law does in certain cases. We do not
mean to accuse it of teaching, as the religion of Rome does, that
dispensation may be had from every kind of oath. On the contrary, the
rabbies assume the power of dispensation only in the case of שבועות
בטוי, “rash oaths;” but we mean to assert, that even that assumption is
contrary to the Word of God, and injurious to the cause of truth; and,
therefore, sufficient to overthrow the credit of the oral law as a
religion given by God. The doctrine itself is as follows:—
מי שנשבע שבועת בטוי ונחם על שבועתו וראה שהוא מצטער אם קיים שבועה זו
ונהפכה דעתו לדעת אחרת , או שנולד לו דבר שלא היה בדעתו בשעת השבועה וניחם
בגללו הרי זה נשאל להכם אחד או לשלשה הדיוטות במקים שאי שם חכם ומתירין לו
שבועתו , ויהיה מותר לעשות דבר שנשבע שלא לעשותו או שלא לעשות דבר שנשבע
לעשותו וזה הוא הנקרא היתר שבועות , ודבר זה אין לו עיקר כלל בתורה שבכתב ,
אלא כך למדו ממשה רבינו מפי הקבלה שזה הכתוב לא יחל דברו שלא יחלל הוא
בעצמו דרך קלות ראש בשאט נפש כענין שנאמר וחללת את שם אלהיך אבל אם נחם
וחזר בו חכם מתיר לו ׃
“If any man swear a rash oath, and afterwards repent of it, because he
sees that if he keep this oath it will cause him grief, and therefore
changes his mind; or if something should occur to him which was not in
his mind at the time when he swore, and he repent on that account;
behold, a person, in such circumstances, is to ask one wise man (rabbi),
or three common men in any place where there is not a wise man, and they
absolve him from his oath; and then it will be lawful to do a thing
which he had sworn not to do, or to leave undone a thing which he had
sworn to do: and this is what is called absolution from oaths. _This
matter has no foundation whatever in the written law_, but it has been
learned from Moses, our master, by oral tradition, that the Scripture,
‘He shall not profane his word,’ (Numbers xxx. 3, in the English Bible
2,) means, that a man shall not himself profane his word in a way of
levity and with a contemptuous mind, according as it is written,
‘Neither shalt thou profane the name of thy God’ (Levit. xix. 12); but
if a man repent and change his mind, a wise man is to absolve him.”
(Hilchoth Sh’vuoth, c. vi. 1, 2.) Here it is plainly taught, that if a
man has reason to fear any personal inconvenience, or even if he changes
his mind, he may escape from the most solemn obligation that can be laid
upon the consciences of men; and that, after appealing to God in
confirmation of his declaration to do or to leave undone some particular
action, one or more of his fellow-sinners can remit his duty to his
Creator, and give him a license to do the very contrary of that which he
had promised before and unto God, that he would do. Now let every
Israelite reader first consult his own reason, and reflect whether this
doctrine is agreeable to the character of God, as set forth in the
Scripture. The God of the Bible is a God of eternal and immutable truth.
One of his peculiar characteristics, that he keepeth covenant and mercy.
A man, therefore, who breaks his word, and still more so, a man who
breaks an oath, is unlike God. Is it probable, then, that God would give
a religion with a special provision for making men unlike himself?
Again, God is a God of knowledge, and therefore knows that the children
of men are in a great degree the children of habit; he knows also that
by habit the evil propensities are strengthened, and that there is in
men a strong propensity to shrink from their word, if it cause any
trouble or damage: is it likely, then, that God would give a law
directly tending to strengthen that evil propensity by forming a habit
of breaking one’s word, even under the solemn circumstances of an oath?
Reason decides that such a law cannot proceed from the God of Israel.
Has it then any support in the written Word of God? It would be strange,
indeed, if the Word of God should contain anything contrary to reason.
As revealing the nature of Him who is incomprehensible, it may contain
things above our reason: but that in giving laws for man it should give
him license to do what his reason tells him is directly opposed to the
character of God, is altogether incredible. The rabbies, themselves,
however, do not endeavour to justify the doctrine by a reference to
Scripture. They say in plain terms, “_This matter has no foundation
whatever in the written law_,” and thus acknowledge that it is
altogether a matter of tradition, the argument against it, therefore,
becomes doubly strong. Every one knows, that a story loses nothing by
passing through many mouths, but that in the course of its progress it
gets so many additions, and undergoes so many changes as at last to be
scarcely recognisable. This circumstance makes all oral tradition
uncertain and unsatisfactory, but is particularly suspicious when it
appears, not only opposed to the Scripture character of God, but also
favourable to the evil propensities of man. If it had exacted a more
scrupulous regard to truth and a willing submission to hardship and
inconvenience for the sake of truth, then, as opposing the principles of
self-interest, it would have been less suspicious; but when it actually
tells men that to do what may save them from worldly trouble or personal
disadvantage is a Divine institution, one cannot help suspecting that it
is an invention of men, who found it convenient occasionally to escape
from the obligation of an oath. But after all, the great arbiter must be
the written Word of God. The rabbies say, That it has been learned from
Moses by oral tradition, that the words, “He shall not profane his
word,” mean that a man shall not himself profane his word in a way of
levity, but that he shall go to a wise man and get absolution; let us
then read the whole verse from which those words are taken:—
איש כי ידור נדר לה׳ או השבע שבועה לאסר אסר על נפשו לא יחל דברו ככל היוצא
מפיו יעשה ׃
“If a man vow a vow unto the Lord, or swear an oath to bind his soul
with a bond, he shall not break his word, he shall do according to all
that proceedeth out of his mouth.” Now let any man of common sense and
honesty say, whether if it had been God’s intention to forbid all
absolution from oaths, He could have employed words more to the purpose
than these; or whether the plain simple grammatical meaning is not
directly opposed to the rabbinic doctrine? God says, If a man swear, he
shall not profane his word. The rabbies say, he may profane his word. To
prevent all mistake, God further adds, “He shall do according to all
that proceeds out of his mouth.” The rabbies say, he need not do what
proceeds out of his mouth; and yet they have the face to tell us, that
their doctrine is from Moses, and is the traditional interpretation of
words which signify the very reverse of what they say. It is only
wonderful that they should have referred to this verse at all, and the
fact can only be accounted for by the supposition that this verse was
too plain to be got over, and therefore they thought it best to take the
bull by the horns, by selecting this very verse as the basis of their
interpretation. That this verse in its grammatical construction is
directly opposed to the oral law no one can doubt, for it forbids what
the rabbies allow, and commands what the rabbies forbid. But the
opposition is not found in this verse only. The other verse to which the
rabbies also allude is equally plain against it. The words, “Ye shall
not swear by my name falsely, neither shalt thou profane the name of thy
God. I am the LORD,” plainly forbid that absolution from oaths which the
rabbies teach not only as lawful, but as of Divine authority. We know
that the rabbies make a distinction between שבועת שקר a false oath and a
שבועת בטוי rash oath; but the distinction, as made by them is unfounded.
A rash oath, according to their doctrine, is an oath concerning
something which it is possible and lawful for a man to do or to leave
undone; for as soon as it interferes with the fulfilment of a Divine
command, it belongs to that class of oaths which they call שבועות שוא
vain oaths. If, therefore, a man swears to do what is both lawful and
possible for him to do, and afterwards draws back and does it not, what
man in his senses can doubt, that that individual, no matter what the
pretext for not keeping the oath, is guilty of having sworn falsely?
What is it to swear falsely, if voluntarily to refuse to do what a man
had previously sworn to do, constitute not that sin? A sinful falsehood
is a wilful departure from truth; here there is that wilful departure:
who, then, will dare to affirm, that such conduct is not contrary to the
express command of God? Rabbinists sometimes say, that though the oral
law sometimes commands more than is commanded in the Scriptures, it
never allows what God has forbidden; but here we have a plain example of
the contrary. Here the oral law allows false swearing, which God has
positively forbidden. The doctrine of absolution from oaths teaches men
to transgress three מטות לא תעשה negative precepts. The man who swears
to do anything and then does it not, because he has got absolution,
violates, first, the negative precept, “He shall not profane his word;”
he violates, secondly, the negative precept, “Ye shall not swear by my
name falsely;” and, lastly, he violates a negative precept more
important than either of the others; and that is, “Neither shalt thou
profane the name of thy God.” Any man, pretending to religion, who
should act upon these principles, first swear and then obtain absolution
from his oath, would expose his religion to the contempt and indignation
of all honest men, and thereby do all that in him lies to profane the
name of his God. Let, then, every Israelite who thinks that the negative
precepts are more important than the affirmative, remember, that in this
one instance the oral law teaches him to violate three such precepts;
and let him reflect further, that the upholding such a law as this is to
profane the name of the God of Israel before those who are ignorant of
the Scripture.
But the rabbinical doctrine does not stop at prospective absolution, it
goes so far as to absolve from the guilt of perjury actually committed:—
מי שנשבע שבועת בטוי להבא ושקר בשבועתו , כגון שנשבע שלא יאכל פת זו ואכלה
, ואחר שאכלה קודם שיביא קרבנו אם היה שוגג , או קודם שילקה אם היה מזיד ,
נחם ונשאל לחכם והתירה לו הרי זה פטור מן הקרבן או מן המלקות , ולא עוד אלא
אפילו כפתוהו ללקות ונשאל והתירו לו קודם שיתחילו להלקותו הרי זה פגור ׃