Chapter II: Front Matter (2)

אשה שלמדה תורה יש לה שכר אבל אינו כשכר האיש מפני שלא נצטוית , וכל העושה דבר שאינו מצווה עליו לעשותו אין שכרו כשכר המצווה ועושה אלא פחות ממנו ואע׳׳פ שיש לה שכר צוו חכמים שלא ילמד אדם את בתו תורה מפני שרוב הנשים אין דעתן מכוונת להתלמד אלא הן מוציאות דברי תורה לדברִי הבאי מפי עניות דעתן , אמרו חכמים כל המלמד את בתו תורה כאלו למדה תיפלות , בד׳׳א בתורה שבעל פה אבל תורה שבכתב לא ילמד אותה לכתחלה ואם למדה אינו כמלמדה תיפלות ׃

“A woman who learns the law has a reward, but it is not equal to the reward which the man has, _because she is not commanded to do so_: for no one who does anything which he is not commanded to do, receives the same reward as he who is commanded to do it, but a less one. But though the woman has a reward, the wise men have commanded that no man should teach his daughter the law, for this reason, that the majority of women have not got a mind fitted for study, but pervert the words of the law on account of the poverty of their mind. The wise men have said, Every one that teacheth his daughter the law is considered as if he taught her transgression.[3] _But this applies only to the oral law._ As to the written law, he is not to teach her systematically; but if he has taught her, he is not to be considered as having taught her transgression.”

According to this decision, it is absolutely forbidden to teach a woman the oral law; and the teaching of it is looked upon as the teaching of transgression תיפלות. We cannot forbear asking the advocates of the oral law, whether it does not here testify against itself that it is bad. It declares of itself that it is unfit for the perusal and study of the pure female mind, and that it is as corrupting as the teaching of transgression. We ask, then, can such a law be divine? Can it proceed from the God of Israel, who hath said, “Be ye holy, for I am holy?” What a noble testimony to the superiority of the written Word, and to the justice of the Lord Jesus Christ’s opposition to the oral law! The oral law itself says, “He that teacheth his daughter the oral law, is to be considered as if he taught her transgression. He that teacheth her the written law, is not to be so considered.” With such a confession, we fearlessly ask the sons and daughters of Israel, who then was in the right? Jesus of Nazareth, who opposed it, or the scribes and Pharisees who defended it?

But “the wise men” also forbid Israelites to teach women the written law, and declare that women are not bound to learn. For the prohibition they assign two reasons. First, they say that God has commanded them to teach only their sons, in proof of which they refer to Deut. xi. 19, “And ye shall teach them your children.” In the Hebrew it is בניכם “your sons;” and the rabbies infer ולא את בנותיכם, “and not your daughters.”[4] Secondly, they say, as we have seen above, “that the majority of women have not got minds fitted for study,” and in the Talmud[5] this is attempted to be proved from Scripture. “A wise woman once asked R. Eliezer, How it was that after the sin of the golden calf, those who were alike in transgressions did not all die the same death? He replied, A woman’s wisdom is only for the distaff, as it is written, ‘All the women that were wise-hearted did spin with their hands.’” (Exod. xxxv. 25.) We hesitate not to say, that both these reasons are contrary to Scripture. We do not deny that בניכם signifies sons, but we utterly deny the conclusion of the Rabbies, that because the masculine word is used, therefore the women are not included in the command. There is an abundance of instances in which the masculine word בנים is used for children generally, without any allusion to sex. Take for example Exod. xxii. 23 (in the English 24), “And my wrath shall wax hot, and I will kill you with the sword; and your wives shall be widows, and your children בניכם (literally your sons) orphans.” Here again the masculine word is used, so that if the Rabbinical argument be valid in the above case, it will be valid here, and consequently the daughters are excluded from this denunciation, so that the sons were to be orphans, but not the daughters, which is plainly impossible. In the same way we can prove that the daughters of Israel did not wander in the wilderness forty years, for in Numbers xiv. 33, it is said, “And your children ובניכם (literally your sons, and, therefore, according to Talmudic logic, not your daughters) shall wander in the wilderness forty years.” The same logic will also prove that during the three days of miraculous darkness in Egypt, the women of Israel were left in darkness as well as the Egyptians, for it is said all the children of Israel (ולכל בני ישראל, literally the sons of Israel) had light in their dwellings. And thus also it might be proved that not one of the ten commandments is binding upon the women, for the masculine gender is employed throughout. This logic, therefore, is evidently false; and we conclude, on the contrary, that as the women are included in all these passages—as they wandered through the wilderness, and had light in their dwellings—and are bound to keep the ten commandments as well as the men, so also they are included in the command, “Ye shall teach them your children,” and that, therefore, the command of the oral law not to teach women, is contrary to the Word of God. But we are not confined to argument, God has plainly commanded that the women should learn as well as the men. “And Moses commanded them, saying, At the end of every seven years, in the solemnity of the year of release in the Feast of Tabernacles, when all Israel is come to appear before the Lord thy God in the place which he shall choose, thou shalt read this law before all Israel in their hearing. Gather the people together, men _and women_, and children, and thy stranger that is within thy gates, that they may hear, and _that they may learn_ ולמען ילמדו, and fear the Lord your God, and observe to do all the words of this law.” (Deut. xxxi. 10-12.) Here a most beautiful order is observed, and required of women as well as men; hearing—learning—fearing—keeping the words of the law—God wills that that women should fear him and keep his commandments as well as the men; and therefore he wills that they should make use of the same means, that they should hear, and learn all the words of the law. The traditionists have, therefore, in this case plainly made void the law of God. God commands women as well as men to learn the law; the Rabbies say they are exempt from this duty. God commands that the woman should be taught. It is plain, therefore, that the oral law, which contradicts the written law, cannot be from God. The command of God is so plain that it is unnecessary to enter deeply into the second Rabbinical reason for the prohibition to teach women the law. It is evident that God did not think that the poverty of their understanding was any obstacle to their learning his will. Indeed it has pleased Him to show that He is no respecter of persons with regard to male or female, more than with regard to rich or poor. He has not only given them his law, but conferred on women as well as men the gift of prophecy, so that the names of Deborah, Hannah, and Huldah, must ever be remembered amongst the inspired messengers of God. The Rabbies seem to have forgotten that “the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom,” and that this fear may be implanted by God just as easily in the heart of a woman as of a Rabbi. But without inquiring further into their reasons or their motives, suffice it to say, that the oral law in thus robbing women of their right and inheritance in the law of God, and in degrading them to the same category with children and slaves, is opposed to the plain commands of the written law. But not so the New Testament. It exactly agrees with the Old in considering woman as a rational and responsible being, and a candidate for everlasting life. It, therefore, gives one general rule for the education of children, male and female. “Ye fathers, provoke not your children to wrath, but bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord.” (Ephes. vi. 4.) It does indeed prescribe modesty and subjection to the women in the mode or learning, but in so doing it plainly points out their duty to become acquainted with the will of God. “Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.” (1 Tim. ii. 11, 12.)

In these and other passages the woman is placed in the position assigned her in the Old Testament, and not in the very subordinate rank imposed upon her by the oral law. “Women, and slaves (עבדים), and children, are exempt from the study of the law.” But we think that this rule is as false with regard to slaves as to women. Here the oral law says that slaves are not bound to learn. In Hilchoth Avadim, c. viii. 18, we find that they are not to be taught.

אסור לאדם ללמד את עבדו תורה ׃

“It is forbidden to a man to teach his slave the law.” But, alas, the passage of the Word of God which forbids it, is not referred to. It is only an inference from the passage, “Ye shall teach your _sons_;” but is evidently contrary to the whole tenour of the law of Moses. In the first place, the Israelite who had been sold by the tribunal, or who, on account of poverty, had sold himself, was still an Israelite, and did not forfeit, finally, his right to his inheritance in the land; how, then, could he forfeit his right to the law, which Moses gave as “the inheritance of the congregation of Jacob?” The law of Moses expressly provides a day of rest “for the man servant and the maid servant,” that they may not only have rest for their bodies, but may have time to learn the will of God, and provide for that eternity to which they are hastening as well as their masters. Indeed, if meditation on the Word of God was more necessary for one Israelite than another, it was for the Hebrew servant. If he had been guilty of theft, and had been sold by the tribunal, he had special need of instruction in the law of God to lead him to repentance, and to teach him his duty for the future. If he had been guilty of no crime, but had been compelled by poverty to sacrifice his liberty, surely he needed the consolation which the Word of God can supply, to enable him to bear his hard lot with patience, and to prevent him from murmuring. But here the oral law steps in, and actually prohibits his master from teaching him; and instead of encouraging him in his leisure time to turn to the Word of God as his refuge and his comfort, it tells him that he is not bound to study it. Here, again, the New Testament is much more like the law of Moses, which breathes, all through, a spirit of the most tender compassion for those in servitude. Moses commands the Israelites to remember that they had themselves been bondmen in Egypt. The New Testament reminds Christian masters that they have a master in heaven. “Ye masters, do the same things unto them, forbearing threatening: knowing that your master also is in heaven; neither is there respect of persons with him.” (Ephes. vi. 9.) It also plainly teaches that the relation which exists between believing masters and servants is, before God, that of brethren. “And they that have believing masters, let them not despise them, because they are brethren; but rather do them service because they are faithful and beloved, partakers of the benefit.” (1 Tim. vi. 2.) Yea, the New Testament lays down a general principle, the very opposite of that, that “women, and slaves, and children are exempt from the study of the law.” It says, “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female, for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.” (Gal. iii. 28.) It does not dispense men from their relative duties, nor deprive any of their legitimate privileges, but teaches that for all, Jew or Greek, bond or free, male or female, there is but one way of salvation. Very different is the doctrine of the oral law. We have seen that it makes a grand distinction between male and female, bond and free, we need not, therefore, be surprised if it make the line of demarcation broader still between Jew and Greek.

גוי שעסק בתורה חייב מיתה , לא יעסוק אלא בשבע מצוות שלהן בלבד , וכן גוי ששבת אפילו ביום מימות החול , אם עשהו לעצמו כמו שבת חיב מיתה , ואין צריך לומר אם עשה מועד לעצמו , כללו של דבר אין מניחין אותן לחדש דת ולעשות מצוות לעצמן מדעתן , אלא או יהוה גר צדק ויקבל כל המצוות , אל יעמוד בתורתו ולא יוסיף ולא יגרע , ואם עסק בתורה או שבת , או חדש דבר , מכין אותו ועונשין אותו ומודיעין אותו שהוא חייב מיתה על זה אבל אינו נהרג ׃

“A Gentile who employs himself in the law is guilty of death. He is not to employ himself except in the seven commandments that belong to the Gentiles. And thus a Gentile who keeps a Sabbath, though it be on one of the week days—if he make it to himself as a Sabbath, he is guilty of death. It is not necessary to add, if he appoint for himself a festival. The general rule is that they are not permitted to innovate in religion, or to make commandments for themselves out of their own heads. Either let a Gentile become a proselyte of righteousness, and take upon him the whole law: or let him remain in his own law, and neither add nor diminish. But if he employs himself in the law, or keeps a Sabbath, or makes any innovation, he is to be beaten and punished, and informed that he is for this guilty of death—but he is not to be killed.” (Hilchoth Melachim, c. x. 9.) This law is taken from the Talmudical treatise Sanhedrin,[6] where it is followed by an apparently contradictory statement, “that a Gentile who employs himself in the law is as good as a high priest;” but the contradiction is immediately removed by the explanation which there follows, and says, that “law” is to be understood of the seven commandments of the Gentiles. Now we admit liberty of conscience was not understood at the time; and that it would be unjust to expect that the compilers of the oral law (who were ignorant of, or opposed to, the New Testament, where liberty of conscience was first plainly revealed) should be at all elevated above the level of their own times. But making this admission and apology for the men, we cannot help saying that the law itself is bad, and cannot be from God. Religion is a matter between God and man. The heart, the conscience, and the understanding are all alike concerned. Instruction out of God’s Word is, therefore, the only means of producing conviction. Entertaining these sentiments, we endeavour to compare the oral law with the Word of God, and to convince its advocates that they are in error. We do not wish to have the modern Jews confounded with the authors of the system. Very many Jews of the present day are ignorant of its details. Not having time to make the inquiry, they take it for granted, that their forefathers were right in preferring their own system to Christianity, and that they are bound to do the same. But even those who are learned in the oral law, and know its details, are not to be viewed in the same light as the original compilers. They have received the system from their forefathers, and view it through the medium of filial affection and national prejudice. They remember that to the Jews the law was given, and that the Jewish nation has been the original instrument in God’s hand to diffuse light over the world; they have therefore hitherto taken it for granted that they must be right. The narrow prejudices of Christians for ages confirmed them in their views. But now circumstances are different. Christians begin to understand the position in which God has placed the Jewish nation, and to look forward to their restoration to the favour of God as the time of blessing for the whole world. Christians can now honour and estimate the learning, the talent, and the constancy of those very Rabbies whose system they consider as erroneous. Now, then, is the time for the Jews themselves to inquire into those religious opinions, which have been handed down to them, and to compare them with the law and the prophets. We trust that many will admit, that the laws which we have been considering are bad, and therefore cannot be from God. Let them then remember, that the originators of these laws are the men who rejected the claims of the Lord Jesus Christ. If then these men were in error in making these laws, they were in condemning Jesus of Nazareth because he opposed them; and if the laws be bad, the Lord Jesus was right in opposing them. Yea, and where they taught error He and his disciples taught the truth. The Rabbies have taught constraint. Jesus of Nazareth and his disciples have taught that fire is not to be called down from heaven on those who differ from us; that “the servant of God must not strive; but be gentle to all men, apt to teach, patient, in meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God will peradventure give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth.” (2 Tim. ii. 25.)

Footnote 2:

Joreh Deah, sec. 246.

Footnote 3:

Literally, תיפלות. In the translation of this word we follow the
interpretation of the Joreh Deah, which renders it דבר עבירה. This is
obviously not the place to discuss the other opinions of the Rabbies.

Footnote 4:

See Kiddushin, fol. 29, col. 2.

Footnote 5:

Joma., fol. 66, col. 2.

Footnote 6:

Fol. 59, col. 1.

No. IV.
RABBINIC INTOLERANCE TOWARDS OTHER NATIONS.

The Jewish deputies, when asked by Napoleon whether they considered Frenchmen as their brethren, replied in the affirmative, and after quoting the Mosaic laws respecting the stranger said, “To these sentiments of benevolence towards the _stranger_, Moses has added the precept of general love for mankind: ‘_Love thy fellow-creature as thyself_.’”[7] And in the authorized Jewish Catechism used in Bavaria, after the explanation of the moral duties, we find the following question:—“Are these laws and duties, affirmative and negative commandments, binding with respect to a non-Israelite?” ANSWER—“By all means, for the fundamental law of all these duties, ‘_Love thy neighbour as thyself_,’ is expressly laid down by the Holy Scriptures in reference to the non-Israelite, yea, to the heathen, as it is written, ‘And if a stranger sojourn with thee in your land, ye shall not vex him. But the stranger that dwelleth with you shall be unto you as one born amongst you, _and thou shalt love him as thyself_: for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the Lord your God.’” (Levit. xix. 33-35.)[8] These declarations are very explicit, and, as forming part of public documents, highly satisfactory. The representatives of the Jewish people in France, and the teachers of the Jewish youth in Bavaria, declare, that in the scriptural command, “Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself,” neighbour means _fellow-man_, without distinction of nation or religion. Where then did they learn this interpretation? From the Talmud or from the New-Testament? The Jewish deputies say, from the former. On the page cited above they add, “This doctrine is also professed by the Talmud. We are bound, says a Talmudist, to love as brethren all those who observe the _Noachides_,[9] whatever their religious opinions may otherwise be. We are bound to visit their sick, to bury their dead, to assist their poor, like those of Israel. In short, there is no act of humanity which a true Israelite is not bound to perform towards those who observe the _Noachides_.” The Bavarian Catechism is more cautious. It makes no such bold assertion respecting the Talmud. It only intimates that the oral law teaches this doctrine, by subjoining to the passage from Leviticus the same extract from Maimonides, alluded to by the Jewish deputies. The Catechism gives the extract a little more at length, and as follows:—“We are bound in everything to treat the non-Israelite, who sojourns with us, with justice and with love, as we would treat an Israelite. Yea, we are even bound to maintain him, as the Scripture teaches in the words, ‘Thou shalt give it to the stranger that is in thy gates, that he may eat it.’ (Deut. xiv. 21.) Our wise men have commanded us for the good of society, even to visit the sick of the heathen, to bury their dead, and to deal out alms to them: for of our Creator it is said, ‘The Lord is good to all; and his tender mercies are over all his works.’ (Psalm cxlv. 9.) (Maimonid. Hilchoth Melachim, 10, 12.)”

No doubt the passage as here given, both by the French deputies and the Bavarian Catechism, is very plausible; and if it could be found verbatim, either in the Talmud or any of its compendiums, would go far to justify the bold assertion of the former, and the cautious insinuation of the latter. But unfortunately the original passage is very different. In the above citations, it is mutilated in order to suit the purpose of the citers. In the Jad Hachasakah it stands as follows:—

וכן יראה לי שנוהגין עם גרי תושב בדרך ארץ וגמילות חסדים כישראל , שהרי אנו מצווין להחיותן שנאמר לגר אשר בשעריך תתננה ואכלה , וזה שאמרו חכמים אין כופלין להם שלום , בגוים לא בגר תושב , אפילו הגוים צוו חכמים לבקר חוליהם , ולקבור מתיהם עם מתי ישראל , ולפרנס את ענייהם בכלל עניי ישראל , מפני דרכי שלום , הרי נאמר טוב ה׳ לכל ורחמיו על כל מעשיו ונאמר דרכיה דרכי נועם וכל נתיבותיה שלום ׃

“And thus it appears to me, that _the proselytes allowed to sojourn_ are to be treated with the same courtesy and benevolence as the Israelites; for behold, we are commanded to maintain them, as it is written, ‘Thou shalt give it to the stranger (proselyte) that is in thy gates, that he may eat it.’ _As to that saying of our wise men not to return their salute, it refers to the Gentiles, not to the proselyte allowed to sojourn._ But even with regard to the heathen, the wise men have commanded us to visit their sick, and to bury their dead with the dead of Israel, and to feed their poor along with the poor of Israel, FOR THE SAKE OF THE WAYS OF PEACE: for it is written, ‘The Lord is good to all, and his mercies are over all his works;’ and again, ‘Her ways are ways of pleasantness, and all her paths are peace.’” (Prov. iii. 17.) The reader will observe that there are several striking differences between this translation and that of the Bavarian Catechism; and these differences prove that, by the word “neighbour,” the oral law does not understand a fellow-man without any regard to his religious opinions. First, the Bavarian Catechism says, “We are bound in everything to treat the non-Israelite who sojourns with us with justice and with love, and as we would treat an Israelite.” The original says, “And thus _it appears to me_, that _the proselytes allowed to sojourn_ are to be treated with the same courtesy and benevolence as the Israelites.” The Bavarian Catechism translates this passage as it if were the undisputed law of Israel thus to act; whereas Maimonides only offers his own opinion. He says, “It appears to me.” Here the French deputies represent the matter more accurately, by saying, “We are bound, says _a Talmudist_.” Not the Talmud, but a Talmudist. Then, again, the Bavarian Catechism speaks generally of “non-Israelites.” Maimonides speaks of only one particular class, the proselytes who had permission to sojourn in the land of Israel. That we do not misrepresent Maimonides’ meaning, is plain from the words of the Jewish deputies, who also restrict the sense to that one particular class. “We are bound, says a Talmudist, to love as brethren all those who observe the _Noachides_, whatever their religious opinions may otherwise be.” Here, then, on the showing of the Jewish deputies themselves, the Talmud does not teach that all men are to be loved as brethren, but only those who keep the seven commandments of Noah. How, then, are we to regard the idolater and the heathen, who have not embraced these seven commandments, and how are we to treat them? This leads us to notice,

2dly, The important _omission_ made by the Bavarian Catechism. In citing the words of Maimonides, the compilers have omitted the whole sentence, “As to the saying of our wise men not to return their salute, it refers to the Gentiles, not to the proselytes allowed to sojourn.” To this sentence, the French Jewish deputies have also made no allusion; and yet this sentence is found in the very middle of the passage quoted. What goes before and what follows is quoted by both, but both have with one common consent omitted this passage. Now this mere fact of omission is, in itself, sufficient to excite the suspicions of Israelites not acquainted with the oral law. The Jewish deputies in Paris, and the compilers of the Jewish Catechism in Bavaria, had one common object—they wished to prove, or to intimate, that the Talmud teaches us to love as ourselves all our fellow-men, without any respect to religious differences. In order to prove this, they both refer to one and the same passage—and from the middle of that passage they both omit one important sentence. What conclusion will be drawn by any man of common understanding? Just this, that as they both quote one and the same passage, there must be a great scarcity of proof from the Talmud: and that; as they both make the same omission, the sentence omitted must be unfavourable to that proof; and that, therefore, this one passage does not prove that the Talmud teaches any such doctrine. Such is the conclusion to which we are led by considering the facts of the case. An examination of the omitted passage will show that this conclusion is most just—“As to the saying of our wise men, not to return their salute, it refers to the Gentiles, not to the proselytes allowed to sojourn.” Had this passage been inserted in its place, the Bavarian Catechism could not have been translated גרי תושב (sojourning proselytes) “non-Israelites,” for from this passage it appears that these _sojourners_ are different from the “Gentiles,” whose salute is not to be returned. In plain English, this passage restricts “the courtesy and benevolence” to those proselytes who, by taking upon them the seven commandments of Noah, obtained the privilege of sojourning in the land of Israel; and consequently excludes “the Gentiles”—and consequently disproves the assertion that the Talmud teaches us to love as ourselves all our fellow-men without any respect to religious differences. On the contrary, this passage tells us that the salutation of the Gentiles is not to be returned. It prescribes two different lines of conduct to be pursued towards different religionists, and makes the difference of religious persuasion the basis of the rule. But some readers may say, that the difference is very small—that the command “not to return the salute of the Gentiles,” is a mere matter of etiquette—whereas the command to visit the sick of the Gentiles, to bury their dead, and to feed their poor; is a substantial kindness. This we should admit, if the reason assigned for such conduct, “for the sake of the ways of peace,” did not utterly remove all the apparent kindness. And this brings us to:

The third misrepresentation of the Bavarian Catechism. It translates the words מפני דרכי שלום (for the sake of the ways of peace) “for the good of society.” Here, then, there is an evident difference between us. But who is right? We do not ask the Israelite to believe us. Maimonides here refers to another passage of the oral law, where this expression is fully explained, and where the command “not to return the salutation of the Gentiles” is also found. We will give this passage, and then the unlearned can judge for themselves:—

מפרנסין עניי עכו׳׳ם עם עניי ישראל מפני דרכי שלום . ואין ממחין בידי עניי עכו׳׳ם בלקט שכחה ופאה מפני דרכי שלום . ושואלין בשלומם אפי׳ ביום חגם מפני דרכי שלום ואין כופלין להם שלום לעולם , ולא יכנס לביתו של נכרי עכו׳׳ם ביום חגו לתת לו שלום , מצאו בשוק נותן לו שלום בשפה רפה ובכובד ראש , אין כל הדברים האלו אמורים אלא בזמן שגלו ישראל לבין האומות או שיד עכו׳׳ם תקיפה על ישראל אבל בזמן שיד יDראל תקיפה עליהם אסור לנו להניח עכו׳׳ם בינינו , אפילו יושב ישיבת ארעי או עובר ממקום למקום בסחורה לא יעבור בארצנו אלא עד שיקבל עליו שבע מצוות שנצטוו בני נח , שנאמר לא ישבו בארצך אפילו לפי שעה ואם קבל עליו ז׳ מצוות הרי זה גר תושב וכו׳ ׃

“The poor of the idolaters are to be fed with the poor of Israel _for the sake of the ways of peace_. They are also permitted to have part of the gleaning, me forgotten sheaf, and the corner of the field, _for the sake of the ways of peace_. It is also lawful to ask after their health, even on their feast-day, _for the sake of the ways of peace_; but never to return (literally, reiterate) the salutation, nor to enter the house of an idolater on the day of his festival to salute him. If he be met in the street, he is to be saluted in a low tone of voice, and with a heavy head. _But all these things are said only of the time that Israel is in captivity among the nations, or that the hand of the idolaters is strong upon Israel. But when the hand of Israel is strong upon them, we are forbidden to suffer an idolater amongst us, even so much as to sojourn incidentally, or to pass from place to place with merchandize._ He is not to pass through our land until he take upon him the seven commandments given to the children of Noah, for it is said ‘They shall not dwell in thy land,’ (Exod. xxiii. 33,) not even for an hour. But if he take upon himself the seven commandments, then he is a proselyte permitted to sojourn (גר תושב).” Hilchoth Accum, c. x. 5 &c. This is the passage alluded to, and the reader may now judge whether the words, “For the sake of the ways of peace,” can be interpreted as the Bavarian Catechism renders them, “for the good of society.” If so, then “the good of society” is to be consulted only whilst the Jews are in captivity, and the Gentiles have got the power: but as soon as the Jews get the the power, “the good of society” may safely be disregarded. The meaning plainly is, that in the present position of affairs it is advisable to keep the peace between Jews and Gentiles, inasmuch as the Gentiles are at present the strongest. Now, then, it is expedient to visit the sick, and feed the poor, and bury the dead of the Gentiles, for this will promote that object; but when the tables are turned, and the Gentiles are the weakest, there will be no necessity “for the ways of peace,” or, as the Bavarian Catechism has it, “for the good of society.” It is plain, therefore, that the passage cited by the French deputies and the Bavarian Catechism, does not answer the purpose for which it is cited. It does not prove that the Talmud teaches us to love our fellow-men as ourselves, whatever be their religious opinions. On the contrary, it teaches that a wide distinction is to be made between one class of religionists and another: and that if men be idolaters, we are to show them no kindness, except for fear of the consequences that might result from betraying our real sentiments. When, therefore, the Jewish deputies and the compilers of the Bavarian Catechism asserted the true explanation of the Mosaic command, “Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself,” it is plain that they had not learned it from the Talmud, but somewhere else. We hesitate not to say, that they learned it from the New Testament, for there it is taught plainly, repeatedly, and without any reservation. A certain lawyer once asked Jesus of Nazareth, “Who is my neighbour? And Jesus answering, said, A certain man went down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and fell among thieves, which stripped him of his raiment, and wounded him, and departed, leaving him half dead. And by chance there came down a certain priest that way; and when he saw him he passed by on the other side. And likewise a Levite, when he was at the place, came and looked on him, and passed by on the other side. But a certain Samaritan, as he journeyed, came where he was; and when he saw him, he had compassion on him, and went to him, and bound up his wounds, pouring in oil and wine, and set him on his own beast, and brought him to an inn, and took care of him. And on the morrow when he departed, he took out two-pence, and gave them to the host, and said unto him, Take care of him; and whatsoever thou spendest more, when I come again, I will repay thee. Which now of these three, thinkest thou, was neighbour to him that fell among the thieves? And he said, He that showed mercy on him. Then said Jesus unto him, Go thou and do likewise.” (Luke x. 29, &c.) Here then the Lord Jesus Christ teaches us that we are to show kindness even to an idolater, for that even he is included in the class specified by the word “neighbour.” Jesus of Nazareth makes no limitation “for the sake of the ways of peace,” but gives a general command. And he appears to have selected this case of a man lying half dead, in order to contrast it with a similar case supposed in the oral law.

“If a Gentile, and idolater, be seen perishing, or drowning in a river, he is not to be helped out. If he be seen near to death, he is not to be delivered. But to destroy him by active means, or to push him into a pit, or such-like things, is forbidden, as he is not at war with us.”[10] The Lord Jesus does not say that the man who went down from Jerusalem to Jericho was an idolater. He only says, “a certain man.” But he evidently intimates that he was such, for if he had been a Jew, the priest and the Levite would not have passed him without rendering assistance. As he was only an idolater, according to the oral law, the priest and the Levite were not simply not to blame in leaving him to his fate, but were obeying a command. They saw him perishing—near to death. They did not use any violence to accelerate it. They only looked at him, and left him to perish. So far, then, the lawyer who asked the question thought that the priest and Levite were in the right. But then the Lord Jesus introduces a Samaritan, whom the oral law also looks upon as an idolater, and showing how he acted, he appeals to the plain common sense of the questioner, “Which of these three was neighbour to him that fell among thieves?” And the lawyer is compelled to acknowledge, “He that showed mercy.” We make a similar appeal to the advocates of the oral law. We ask, which is, the oral law or the New Testament, the most like the law of God? The oral law forbids you to help a poor dying fellow-creature in his hour of need, because he is an idolater. It commands you to stifle the natural instinct of the human heart, which is indeed the voice of the God of nature—to behold the agonizing struggles, and hear the heartrending cries of a drowning fellow-sinner, and yet when you have it in your power to snatch him from the jaws of death, and from that everlasting destruction which awaits him, to leave him to his fate, without help and without pity. The New Testament, on the contrary, tells you, that though, by his idolatry, he has incurred the wrath of God, yet he is your neighbour—that it is your duty to help him, and by that very help to endeavour to lead him to the truth. Which then agrees with the law of God? We are quite sure that the language of your heart is, the New Testament is right. The oral law is wrong. Your brethren in France and Bavaria have already proclaimed that opinion to the world. In the answer of the Jewish deputies to Napoleon and in the Bavarian Catechism, they have said, “that we are to love our fellow-creature as ourselves,” whatever be his religion. They have thus made an involuntary acknowledgment of the superiority of the New Testament, and of the benefit which it has been to the world. Just suppose, for a moment, that the scribes and Pharisees had succeeded in extirpating the doctrine of Jesus of Nazareth, what would have been the consequence to you and to the world? Had the doctrines of Jesus perished, the oral law would have had an undisturbed and universal domination, for the Karaites have always been few in number, and have never exerted any influence on mankind at large. The Jews in France, Bavaria, as well as in England and elsewhere, would all have known the law only according to the oral interpretation, and consequently would not have understood the command, “Thou shalt love they neighbour as thyself.” They would still have held the fearful doctrine, that a perishing idolater was not to be helped. They would, moreover, have had none but idolaters around them, for all the knowledge of God that prevails amongst us Gentiles comes from Jesus of Nazareth. Jew and Gentile, then, would have lived “hateful and hating each other.” You may think, perhaps, that some mighty spirit would have burst the chains of tradition, and reasserted, the simple truth of God. But such an event is altogether beyond the limits of probability. One of the mightiest intellects that ever dwelt in a tenement of clay was that of Moses, the son of Maimon; a man whose learning and industry were equal to his genius. If ever there was a Jew, who was likely to overcome the prejudices of tradition, it was he. And yet with all his genius and all his opportunities, he never was able to arrive at the true sense of the command which we have just considered. The atrocious passages, which we have above discussed, are all taken from his compendium of the oral law. You are indebted, then, to Jesus of Nazareth for your deliverance from this foul error. With respect to your duty to your neighbour, your own brethren in France and Bavaria confess, that you are right if you follow Jesus of Nazareth, and that you are wrong if you follow those who rejected him. Remember, then, that your duty to your neighbour is half of the whole law of God, and examine whether the Christians, who are confessedly right in the second table of the law do not, also, possess the truth respecting the first.

Footnote 7:

Transactions of Parisian Sanhedrin, p. 178.

Footnote 8:

Lehrbuch der Mosaischen Religion. München, 1826, page 150.

Footnote 9:

We quote the passage as we find it. Noachides is here taken for the
seven commandments of the children of Noah, contrary to the usual
acceptation of the word.

Footnote 10:

Hilchoth Accum, c. x. 1.

No. V.
TALMUDIC INTOLERANCE CONTRASTED WITH THE CHARITY OF THE BIBLE.

Any one who considers the circumstances of the Jewish people after the desolation of the first temple, will be inclined to make great allowances for the spirit of the Rabbinical laws against idolaters. Idolatry was not to them a mere system of religious error. It was the source of all their misfortunes; and idolaters were the destroyers of their country—the desolaters of their temple—and their own most cruel and tyrannical oppressors. Scarcely had they emerged from the horrors of the Babylonish captivity, when they were exposed to the insults and outrages as well as the persecutions of Antiochus; and hardly had they recovered from the havoc of his fury, before they were overrun by the fierce and haughty Romans, who were at last the executioners of the wrath of the Almighty. They not only saw the abominations of idolatry, but they felt the hard hand of the idolater; no wonder, then, if they hated the man as well as the system. In the Hilchoth Rotzeach there is a law which amply illustrates the misery of their situation, and the habitual treatment which they received from idolaters. According to this law, “It is forbidden to a Jew to be alone with Gentiles, for they are suspected of shedding blood; neither is a Jew to join company with them in the way; if he meet a Gentile, he is to cause him to pass on his right hand (that the Jew, as the commentary says, may be able to defend himself, in case the Gentile should make an attempt on his life); if they be ascending a height, or going down a descent, the Jew is not to be below and the Gentile above him; but the Jew above and the Gentile below, lest he should fall upon him to kill him; neither is he to stoop down before him, lest he should break his skull.” What an affecting picture does this present of the Jews under heathen domination; and who can wonder if such treatment called forth the natural feelings of the human heart, and dictated laws in the same fierce and merciless spirit? We, for our part, are quite ready to admit and to deplore the mighty provocations, which roused the spirit of retaliation in the Rabbies, and consequently, to make all due allowance for the men. But that is not the question before us. We are inquiring whether their religious system, the oral law, is or is not from God, and whether this religious system teaches Jews to love all their fellow-men as themselves? We have shown that the evidence adduced on this point by the French and Bavarian Jews, proves the contrary; and is therefore, nothing to the purpose. But we do not wish to rest the decision upon such limited proof, even though it be strong; we are willing to look at the whole system, and to compare it with the law and the prophets, which we all admit as divine authority. We say, then, that the Talmud not only does not teach us to love all our fellow-men, but that it puts idolaters altogether without the pale of humanity. We have seen already that it forbids its followers to save the life of a perishing idolater. But it goes farther still, and extends this precept even to an idolater’s infant, which knows not its right hand from its left:—

בת ישראל לא תיניק את בנה של נכרית מפני שמגדלת בן לעבודה אל כוכבים ומזלות ולא תילד את הנכרית עכו׳׳ם אבל מילדת היא בשכר משום איבה ׃

“A daughter of Israel shall not suckle the son of a heathen woman, because that would be to bring up a son for idolatry; neither shall she act as midwife to a heathen idolatress. But if she should, it must be for pay, on account of the enmity (that might otherwise be excited)”. (Hilchoth Accum, c. ix. 16.) What is meant by “pay, on account of the enmity,” is fully explained in the following passage, which forbids a Rabbinical physician to cure a sick idolater:—

מכאן אתה למד שאסור לרפאות עובדי כוכבים ומזלות אפילו בשכר ואם היה מתירא מהן או שהיה חושש משום איבה מרפא בשכר אבל בחנם אסור ׃

“Hence thou learnest, that it is forbidden to cure idolaters even for pay. But if (an Israelite) is afraid of them, or is anxious on account of enmity, he may cure them for pay; but to do it gratuitously is forbidden.” Hence the commonest offices of humanity are forbidden. But the Talmud goes further still, and prohibits even the giving of good advice to these outcasts.

ואסור להשיא עצה טובה לגוי או לעבד רשע ... ולא נתנסה דניאל אלא על שהשיא עצה טובה לנבוכדנצר ליתן צדקה , שנאמר להן מלכא מלכי ישפר עלך ׃

“It is forbidden to give good advice to a heathen or to a wicked slave.... Daniel was exposed to danger for no other reason than this, that he advised Nebuchadnezzar to give alms, as it is written, ‘Wherefore, O king, let my counsel be acceptable unto thee.’ (Dan. iv. 23, in English 27.)”[11] A more striking instance of the spirit of the Talmud can hardly be found. Nebuchadnezzar was the benefactor of Daniel, and had elevated him from the situation of a captive to the first dignity of the empire; and Daniel had not refused, but voluntarily taken upon himself the duties and responsibilities of the king’s chief adviser. Under such circumstances, an ordinary reader of the Bible would imagine that Daniel was bound by every tie of gratitude to his benefactor, of duty and fidelity to his sovereign, to give him the best advice in his power. No, says the Talmud. If the man be an idolater, gratitude, duty, and fidelity are out of the question; and because Daniel exercised those godlike graces, he was punished. It appears, at all events, on the Talmud’s own showing, that Daniel was not a Talmudist. These extracts seem sufficient to prove, that the Talmud altogether excludes idolaters from all benefit of the command, “Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.” The system which makes it unlawful to save his life, to cure his sickness, to suckle his child, to help his wife in the hour of nature’s trial, or even to give him good advice, can scarcely be said to teach us to love all our fellow-men, without any regard to religious differences. It may, however, be said, that the passages adduced lead to this conclusion only by inference, and that none of them expressly declares that an idolater is not our neighbour. We shall, therefore, add a few passages where this is plainly taught.

הגונב את הגוי או שגנב נכסי הקדש אינו משלם אלא הקרן בלבד שנאמר ישלם שנים לרעהו , לרעהו ולא להקדש , לרעהו ולא לגוי ׃

“He that steals from a Gentile, or he that steals property _devoted_ to sacred purposes, is only to pay the principal: for it is said, ‘He shall pay double unto _his neighbour_.’ (Exod. xxii. 8, English 9.) To his neighbour, not to devoted property. To his neighbour, and _not to a Gentile_.” (Hilchoth Genevah, c. ii. 1.) The same decision is given with respect to the law found, Levit. v. 20, in English vi. 1, “If a soul sin, and commit a trespass against the Lord, and _lie unto his neighbour_, ... all that about which he has sworn falsely; he shall even restore it in the principal, and shall add the fifth part more thereto.” The oral law says—

הנשבע לגוי משלם את הקרו ואינו חייב בחומש שנאמר וכחש בעמיתו ׃

“He that sweareth to a Gentile must pay the principal, but is not bound to add the fifth part—(why not?) because it is said, ‘and lie unto his neighbour.’” (Hilchoth Gezelah, c. i. 7.) So that the reason here assigned why the Gentile is not to get the fifth part in addition, is, because he is not a neighbour. In like manner, in the 11th chapter of this same treatise, which treats of the restoration of things found, it is expressly commanded to restore whatever belongs to a Jew, because he is a brother; but to keep whatever belongs to an idolater, because he is not a brother.

השבת אבדה לישראל מצות עשה שנאמר השב תשיבם ׃

“To restore to an Israelite anything that he has lost, is an affirmative commandment, for it is said, ‘Thou shalt in any case bring them again unto thy brother.’” (Deut. xxii. 1.)

אבדת גוי עובד ע׳׳ז מותרת שנאמר אבדת אחיך , והמחזירה הרי זה עובר עבירה מפני שהוא מחזיק ידי רשעי עולם , ואם החזירה כדי לקדש את השם שיפארו את ישראל וידעו שהם בעלי אמונה הרי זה משובח ׃

“Anything that a Gentile has lost is lawful, for it is said, ‘With all lost things of _thy brother’s_.’ (Deut. xxii. 3.) And he that restores it transgresses a transgression, for he strengthens the hands of the wicked of the world. But if he restore it in order to sanctify the Name, that they may think well of Israel, and know that they are honest people, this is praiseworthy.” In these passages (and many more might be added if it were necessary) it is plainly taught that an idolatrous Gentile is not to be regarded as “our neighbour,” or our brother. We think, then, that we have fully proved that the Jewish deputies in France, and the compilers of the Jewish Catechism in Bavaria, did not learn their exposition of the command, “Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself,” from the Talmud; neither in the particular passage which they quote, nor from the general principles of the Talmudic system. We have already stated our belief that they learned that exposition from the New Testament, for there it is taught plainly and repeatedly. We quoted, in proof, a parable spoken by the Lord Jesus Christ. We shall now add a few more passages in confirmation.