Gambar halaman
PDF
ePub
[ocr errors]

oral law errs at the very foundation. It has
chosen the Hebrew words to stand for
almsgiving,"
," whereas its true signification
is "righteousness," as may be easily proved
by reference to passages where it cannot pos-
sibly signify "almsgiving," as for instance-

giving," whereas it plainly signifies "righte ousness. A religion guilty of such crror cannot be from God. It is for the Jews, then, to consider whether they will persist in upholding the truth of a system which opposes the doctrines of Moses and the prophets, and perverts the Word of God. The great boast

וצדקה תהיה לנו כי נשמור לעשות את כל המצוה

of the Jews is, that they are faithful to Moses | הזאת לפני יהוה כאשר צונו:

"And it shall be our righteousness (not our almsgiving), if we observe to do all these commandments before the Lord our God as he hath commanded us." (Deut. vi. 25.) Here cannot possibly signify almsgiving. And again,

והאמין ביהוה ויחשבה לו צדקה :

"And he believed in the Lord; and he counted it to him for righteousness (not for almsgiving.)" (Gen. xv. 6.) And again,

לך אדני הצדקה ולנו בושת הפנים

and to the religion of Moses; but this boast is vain so long as they profess Judaism. If Moses were to rise from the dead, and get the oral law into his hands, he would not be able to recognise it as the religion which he left to Israel. And, as to the commands about almsgiving, he would not be able even to translate them, for in his time signified righteousness.

The Prophet Isaiah would feel equal astonishment if he were to return and learn, that "O Lord, righteousness belongeth unto the oral law quoted him as an authority for thee, but unto us confusion of face" (Dan. the assertion, that Zion is to be redeemed, not ix. 7), where it is impossible to say that with righteousness, but with almsgiving. And "Almsgiving belongeth unto the Lord." we doubt not that both Moses and Isaiah The oral law is therefore guilty of perverting would protest as earnestly as we do against a the meaning of one of the plainest and most doctrine based upon perversion. But it is excommonly repeated words in the Bible, and of traordinary, if the Rabbinists really believe course of thereby giving an erroneous sense to their own doctrine, that Israel can be delivered the passages where it occurs. Thus it says, from captivity by almsgiving, that they should as we have seen above, "that by almsgiving set any bounds to their liberality, or ever stop the throne of Israel is established and the law giving, until the desired redemption be effected. of truth standeth," and it proves this asserIf their doctrine be true, then all that they so tion by referring to a verse of Isaiah, where earnestly pray for, is entirely in their own the word s occurs, and which signifies power. They know the means, and they pos"by righteousness shalt thou be established," sess the means of terminating this long capbut which it perverts to mean "by alms- tivity. They need only to give a sufficiency giving thou shalt be established." Here then of alms, and, according to the oral law, even the oral law is plainly convicted of falsifying Zion itself shall be delivered. How extraorthe Word of God, and perverting its meaning dinary then, that they should have suffered so in order to serve its own purposes and favour many centuries of misery to pass over their its own false doctrine. To teach false doc-heads, and left their brethren to endure such trine is bad enough, but to pervert the plain sense of Scripture is a great deal worse. Either charge, if proved, would be sufficient to prove that the oral law is a false religion, but here both charges are proved together. The oral law here teaches that almsgiving can do that which it cannot do, namely, bribe God to have mercy; and it supports its false doctrine by interpreting to signify "alms

calamities, when liberality in almsgiving could have put a period to all their sorrows. We think too highly of Israel's charity to suppose for a moment that they would hesitate to make the sacrifice, if they were persuaded of its efficacy. We must therefore infer, that they do not believe in the doctrine, and ask them, why do they profess a religion in which they do not believe?

London: Sold at the London Society's Office, 16, Exeter-hall, Strand; by James Duncan, Paternosterrow; and B. Wertheim, 57, Aldersgate-street. This publication may be had by applying at No. 5, No. 7, or No. 13, Palestine-place, Bethnal-green.

עמדו על דרכים וראו ושאלו לנתבות עולם • ירמיה ו' טז'

NUMBER 40.]

"THE OLD PATHS."-JER. vi. 16.

FRIDAY, OCTOBER 14, 1836.

THE great test of a man's faith in, and love to, his religion, is his practice. If a man live in open and perpetual transgression of its commands, no profession can satisfy us that he is in earnest, or that he really believes what his creed confesses. Now let the advocates of the oral law examine themselves by this test. They profess to believe in, and to love the law of Moses; and their great boast is, that Moses is their master, and that they are his disciples, but do they prove the reality of their faith by their obedience? They sometimes tax Christians with inconsistency in professing to believe in Moses, and yet in neglecting the observance of certain ceremonial observances; but are they themselves more careful and less guilty in this matter? We do not mean to allude to the weightier matters of the law, love to God and man that is a question for the conscience, not a subject for controversy, but we refer to some mere external matters, easy of observance, and open to the cognizance of every man. Moses and the prophets have commanded that the priests, the Levites, , should be the teachers of the law, and that from them the people should

[PRICE ONE-PENNY.

and clean; and that ye may teach the chil
dren of Israel all the statutes which the Lord
hath spoken unto them by the hand of Moses."
Here the nature of the priest's office is clearly
defined. It is, in the first place, to go into the
tabernacle of the congregation, and there to
serve before the Lord: and secondly, to in-
struct the children of Israel in the difference
between holy and profane, clean and unclean,
and especially to teach the children of Israel
ALL THE STATUTES," which the Lord
had given to Moses. The commission is not
only very comprehensive, but very exclusive.
If the priests were to teach "all the statutes,"
there is no room left for rabbies, or Chacha-
mim, or any other description of teacher. The
priests are the only divinely-accredited reli-
gious teachers in Israel.

66

If this passage stood alone, it would be quite sufficient to establish the doctrine; but it does not. Moses was particularly anxious to impress upon the Israelites the nature of the priestly office, and therefore repeats the instruction again and again. Thus in the law respecting a dead body found lying in a field, after commanding that the elders and judges should come forth, he adds

ונגשו הכהנים בני לוי כי בם בחר יהוה אלהיך | learn. Moses does not say one word about לשרתו ולברך בשם יהוה ועל פיהם יהיה כל ריב וכל | but restricts the חכמים,rabbies or wise men

נגע !

office of teaching to the priests, the Levites: now, do the modern Jews obey Moses in this respect? Who are their teachers of religion, and from whom do they learn? Are the priests and the Levites, the teachers of Israel, as Moses commanded, or are they taught by their rabbies and Chachamim, of whom Moses does not say one syllable?

We assert, that Moses has commanded that the priests, the Levites, should be the religious teachers in Israel, and in proof we refer to the words of Moses himself. In the tenth chapter of ", Leviticus, he thus writes:

"And the priests the sons of Levi shall
come near: for them the Lord thy God hath
chosen to minister unto him, and to bless in
the name of the Lord; and by their word
shall every controversy and every stroke be
tried." (Deut. xxi. 5.) One should have
thought that the elders and judges were
enough in such a case.
But not so. God
had determined that the priests were to teach
Israel" all his statutes,
"and therefore com-
mands that they should be present in this
case, that they should give the decision.

Again, when Moses was about to part from

וידבר יהוה אל אהרן לאמר : יין ושכר אל תשת

.Israel, and to leave them his dying benedic | אתה ובניך אתך בבאכם אל אהל מועד ולא תמותו tion, he was directed by the spirit of prophecy | חקת עולם לדורותיכם: ולהבדיל בין הקודש ובין החול ,to impress upon them the same great truth | ובין הטמא ובין הטהור : ולהורות את בני ישראל את .and in the most solemn manner | כל החקים אשר דבר יהוה אלהים ביד משה : וללוי אמר תמיך ואוריך לאיש חסידך אשר נסיתו | And tlie Lord spake unto Aaron, saying » במסה תריבהו על מי מריבה : האומר לאביו ולאמו | Do not drink wine nor strong drink, thou nor לא ראיתיו ואת אחיו לא הכיר ואת בניו לא ידע כי | -thy sons with thee, when ye go into the taber שמרו אמרתך ובריתך ינצרו : יורו משפטיך ליעקב | nacle of the congregation, lest ye die : it shall ותורתך לישראל וגו' :

be a statute for ever throughout your genera-
tions: And that ye may put difference be- "And of Levi he said, Let thy Thummim
tween holy and unholy, and between unclean and thy Urim be with thy Holy One, whom

thou didst prove at Massah, and with whom thou didst strive at the waters of Meribah : who said unto his father and to his mother, I have not seen him; neither did he acknowledge his brethren, nor knew his own children for they have observed thy word, and kept thy covenant. They shall teach Jacob thy judgments, and Israel thy law." (Deut. xxxiii. 8-10.) And as this doctrine forms a part of Moses' last words, so also it is found in the last prophetic message which God vouchsafed to Israel. Malachi, the last of the prophets, reminds Israel

עושים מצות שנצטוו בה, וה"בה ברחמיו מברך את ישר' כחפצו :

"A priest who has none of these disqualifications for the lifting up of hands, even though he be not learned, nor accurate in the commandments; and although his companions make a mock of him, or his dealings should not be righteous, still he is to lift up his hands [to bless], and is not to be prevented, for this is an affirmative precept binding upon every priest, who is otherwise quali fied; and we must not say to a wicked man, Away, thou wicked man, be thou disqualified from keeping the commandments. Do not

כי שפתי כהן ישמרו ועת ותורה יבקשו מפיהו כי

ask, saying, What profit can there be in the | מלאך יהוה צבאות הוא :

"That the priest's lips should keep knowledge, and they should seek the law at his mouth: for he is the messenger of the Lord of Hosts" (Mal. ii. 7): so that if there be any one thing more plain than another in the Old Testament it is this, that the sons of Levi are the divinely-appointed religious teachers of Israel, and that it is the duty of all Israelites to seek instruction from them.

It cannot be said that the priests are not now well known, and that on this account these commands have lost their force; for those who believe in the oral law, profess to know the family of Levi, and in the synagogue, at the reading of the law, the priest and the Levite are called up in a certain order.

blessing of this simple fellow ? for the re-
ceiving of the blessing does not depend upon
the priests, but upon the Holy One, blessed
be He, for it is said, They shall put my
name upon the children of Israel, and I will
bless them.' The priests perform the duty
commanded them, and God, in his mercy,
blesses Israel according to his pleasure."
(Ibid. c. xv. 6.) The existence, then, of the
priests, and their continued obligation to per-
form such official duties as are now possible,
are fully acknowledged, yea, it is even as-
serted that a wicked priest is by no means to
be prevented from doing his duty: it has also
been plainly proved, from the words of Moses
and the prophets, that it is the duty of the
priests to teach, and of the Israelites to be
taught by them: and no man can deny that

בכל קריאה וקריאה מאלו כהן קורא ראשון ואחריו the performance of this duty is possible. The | לוי ואחריו ישראל • ומנהג פשוט הוא היום שאפילו destruction of the temple has prevented the | כהן עם הארץ קודם לקרות לפני חכם גדול ישראל •

priest from sacrificing, but it has made no
difference with regard to the possibility of
teaching: it is, therefore, a fair question to
propose to those who boast in their obedience
to the law of Moses, How is this Mosaic
command respecting the teaching of the law

"At every time of reading, the priest reads first, and after him the Levite, and after him the Israelite. And the simple custom of the present time is, that a priest, even though he be an unlearned man (amhaaretz), takes precedence in reading before the most learned, who is only an Israelite." (Hilchoth T'phil-fulfilled? Are the priests the Levites the relah, c. xii. 18.) And as the priests are thus supposed to be known, so the oral law expressly maintains that they still retain their priestly office, and are bound to discharge the duties of it, so far as is possible, in the captivity: and therefore requires them to bless the people as Moses commanded. Indeed the firm conviction of the Talmudists on this subject is strikingly exhibited in their assertion, that a priest, although unlearned, or even notoriously wicked, is still not exempted from his obligation to perform this duty.

ligious teachers in all Jewish congregations ?
or have they been excluded from the office as-
signed to them by Moses? and is it occupied
by others to whom Moses did not give it ?
Every Jew must answer that this command
of Moses is utterly disregarded that the
office of the priesthood, as established by
Moses, has now scarcely the shadow of an
existence amongst the Jews-that the rabbies,
Chachamim, and the Melamm'dim are uni-
versally the religious teachers-and that hun-
dreds, if not thousands, of the priests are left
in utter obscurity, and not a few in destitu-

"They respected not the persons of the

כהן שלא היה לו דבר מכל אלה המונעין נשיאות

-tion. Jeremiah complained of the heathen | כפים אע"פ שאינו חכם ואינו מדקדק במצות או

פני הכהנים לא נשאו :

שהיו חבריו מרננים אחריו או שלא היה משאו ומתנו בצדק הרי זה נושא את כפיו ואין מונעין אותו - לפי

-priests " (Lam. iv. 16); but it is equally ap | שזו מצו' עשה על כל כהן וכהן שראוי לנשיאו' כפים .plicable to the adherents of the oral law | ואין אומר לאדם רשע הוסף רשע והמנע מן המצות : ואל תתמה ותאמר ומה תועיל ברכת הדיוט זה •

Here and there a son of Levi may be a rabbi,

and then he has the honour attached to the | שאין קבול הברכה תלוי בכחני' אלא בהק"בה שנא' rabbinical office; but the Mosaic institution of | ושמו את שמי על בני ישראל ואני אברכם • הכהנים

[ocr errors]

the priesthood, as the appointed order of religious teachers to Israel, is utterly disregarded. Moses declares, as we have seen above, that it is the priest's office "to distinguish between holy and unholy, and between clean and unclean;" but if a Jew has got a new, a question or a difficulty, it is to the rabbi that he goes to get the decision. Moses says that the priests are appointed by God "to teach Israel all the statutes which the Lord hath spoken to them;" but now men are made rabbies and Melamm'dim who do not pretend to be of the family of Levi: and there are congre. gations even where there is no Levite nor priest at all, and where, therefore, this command is utterly despised. But the worst feature in this disobedience is, that it is systematic. It is not one of the casualties of the captivity, but it is the deliberate aim of the

Torah., c. ii.) When we see them enforce this commandment of their own with such zeal and severity, and yet appear so careless and negligent about the command of Moses, we justly infer that this neglect was inten tional, and that the object was to exalt themselves, and to depress that office which God himself had ordained. And this inference is abundantly confirmed by 17 m, the numerous and minute laws respecting the honour due to a rabbi, whilst the respect due to the family of Levi is almost entirely disre garded, and his office evidently depreciated below that of the former. As, for instance, in establishing the order in which captives are to be redeemed, the oral law says the priest is to be redeemed before the Levite, and the Levite before the Israelite, but then adds

במה דברים אמורים בשהיו שניהם שוין בחכמה אבל אם היה כהן גדול עם הארץ וממזר תלמיד חכם -oral law to degrade the priesthood, as estab

ת"ח קודם :

lished by Moses, and to set up above it ano ther office, that of rabbi, of which Moses does not say one word. The oral law, instead of deprecating the possibility of an Israelite congregation existing without a priest a son of Levi, quietly lays down the law for doing without them. When prescribing the order in which persons are to be called up to the reading of the law, it says→→→

אין שם כהן עולה ישראל ולא יעלה אחריו לוי כלל

"If there be no priest there, then an Israelite is to go up, but no Levite is to follow him." (Ibid., c. xii. 19.) And again,

ואם אין להם כהן כלל כשיגיע שליח צבור לשים

[ocr errors]

"But if the congregation has no priest at all, when the reader comes to that part of the prayers he is to say," &c. (Ibid., c. xv. 10.) Now if the oral law were anxious to maintain the institution of Moses it could make no such supposition. On the contrary it would urge upon every congregation the indispensable necessity of having a priest of the family of Levi. The supposition shows that its authors cared but little about the commands of Moses, for where there is no priest it is plainly impossible for the people to obey that often-repeated precept to learn the law from the sons of Levi. And yet the authors of the oral law, who care so little for this commandment of Moses about the priests, command the appointment of Melamm'dim, or schoolmasters, under pain of utter destruction.

"In what case does this hold good? In case that they were both equal in wisdom. But if the high priest be an unlearned man, and an illegitimate child be the disciple of a wise man (chacham), the latter is to have the precedence." (Hilchoth Matt'noth Aniim, c. viii. 17.) Here the office of the priesthood and even of the high priesthood itself is put below that of the rabbi or chacham, and the intention of the rabbinists to exalt themselves, and their utter disregard for the law of Moses and his commandments, is especially apparent. The high priest was the chief person in the whole Mosaic dispensation. Without him the blood of the offering could not be carried into the holy of holies on the day of atone. ment, and yet the oral law says, that if he and an illegitimate child, that is, the least honoured person in Israel, be both in cap. tivity, and the latter be the disciple of a rabbi, he is to be redeemed first. It is needless to add any further proof of the fact that the command of Moses, respecting the family of Levi, is systematically and intentionally transgressed by the authors and adherents of the oral law. The priests, the Levites, have been thrust out of that office which God gave them, and others have been made the religious teachers of Israel who have no right at all to this appointment. How then can the modern Jews pretend to be zealous for the law of Moses? They are living in plain and systematic violation of one of his plainest com

מושיבין מלמדי תינוקות בכל מדינה ומדינה ובכל mands. It will not do to say that the office | פלך ופלך ובכל עיר ועיר וכל עיר שאין בה תינוקות של of rabbi is also of divine appointment. An | בית רבן מחרימין את אנשי העיר עד שמושיבון assertion which nullifies a Mosaic institution | מלמדי תינוקות ואם עוד לא הושיבו מחרימין את העיר :

"Teachers of children are to be established in every province and district and city. And every city in which there are not schoolchildren the men of that city are to be visited with the Cherem, and if they still neglect, the city itself is to be devoted." (Hilch. Talm.

must have the most unexceptionable evidence. Its proof must be at least as clear as the original appointment. To persuade any real lover of the Mosaic law that the rabbies have a right to thrust out the family of Levi from their office, and to take it upon themselves,

the express declaration of God is absolutely necessary. And if the rabbies could prove, which they cannot, that they are the lawful teachers of Israel, it would necessarily follow that the Mosaic law has been changed, and then one of the chief dogmas of modern Judaism, the immutability of the Mosaic law, is entirely overthrown. When Moses gave the law the priests were the religious teachers of Israel. Since the dominion of the oral law, not the priests, but the rabbies have been the teachers. Here then is an important, yea, an organic change in the Mosaic constitution. This change then is either unlawful or lawful. If it be unlawful, then the rabbies have no right to be the teachers of Israel. If it be lawful, then to change and alter the Mosaic law is lawful, and then modern Judaism, which teaches that there can be no change, is false. This is the only alternative which modern Jews can adopt, they must either maintain the immutability of the law at the expense of the rabbinic office, or they must assert the legitimacy of the rabbinic office at the expense of the law. In either case the oral law is convicted of teaching falsehood; and in neither case can the modern Jews make a boast of loyalty to the law of Moses. They charge Christians with disregarding and transgressing the Mosaic law, but let them point out, even in the practice of Gentile Christians, any one apparent transgression more heinous than the expulsion of the family of Levi from the office to which Moses appointed them. The fact is notorious. This family is everywhere neglected and in obscurity, struggling with the cares and business of the world, instead of Occupying the station given to them by Moses. Let all the lovers of modern Judaism consider this fact, and then ask them selves how they can pretend to be keeping the law of Moses? Let them remember that they have themselves made a change in the law by appointing rabbies instead of the priests, and that, if they defend this change, they teach the very same doctrine which they blame in Gentile Christians, namely, the mutability and abrogation of the Mosaic law. Of course we do not mean to dictate to Israel in this matter. If they are conscientiously persuaded that the institutions of Moses have been abrogated, they can then consistently maintain the appointment of rabbies, but let

Let

them give up their common, though mistaken, argument against Christianity. But if they believe what they so commonly profess, that the law of Moses is not, and cannot be abrogated, then let them act consistently, renounce the oral law, and restore the family of Levi to the office from which modern Judaism has excluded them for so many centuries. To follow the oral law, and at the same time to obey the written law of Moses in this matter, is plainly impossible. The oral law is for the rabbies and the Chachamim-the words of Moses are for the family of Levi. The Jews may, and of course will, choose as they think best; but, if they determine upon maintaining the rabbinical system, let them not pretend to be followers of Moses. them honestly confess that they do not like Moses and his laws, and that they prefer the new and modern religion of the rabbies. The subject is important to all Israel, but especially so to the sons of Levi themselves. God gave them the important charge of instructing the house of Israel in his laws, are they then at liberty to resign their sacred office into the hands of others? Has God dispensed them from obedience to his command? If so, what obligation rests upon them to bless the people? By lifting up their hands and blessing the people, they confess that their office still continues; and, if so, the obligation to perform all its duties continues also. Either the law of Moses is abrogated, or the priests are still the appointed religious teachers of Israel.

The priests have the same alternative as the people, i. e. either to assert the rights and perform the duties of their priestly office, or honestly to acknowledge that they do not believe in Moses, nor care for his religion, but that their religion is that of the rabbies. The responsibility is however much heavier on the family of Levi than on Israelites of another tribe. To the sons of Levi, God committed the honourable office of instructing Israel. They have been set as the watchmen in Israel, and are therefore answerable, not only for their own neglect, but for the error and destruction of the people. It is then high time for them to remember their duty and the zeal of their forefathers in extirpating error, and to show themselves worthy of their high origin, and of their divine appointment, by opposing the errors of the oral law.

London :-Sold at the London Society's Office, 16, Exeter-hall, Strand; by James Duncan, Paternosterrow; and B. Wertheim, 57, Aldersgate-street. This publication may be had by applying at No. 5, No. 7, or No. 13, Palestine-place, Bethnal-green; also at No. 10, New-street, Bishopsgate-street.

« SebelumnyaLanjutkan »