Learning TensorFlow js Powerful

Machine Learning in JavaScript 1st

Edition Gant Laborde
Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://ebookmeta.com/product/learning-tensorflow-js-powerful-machine-learning-in-ja
vascript-1st-edition-gant-laborde-2/
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...

Learning TensorFlow.js: Powerful Machine Learning in

JavaScript 1st Edition Gant Laborde

https://ebookmeta.com/product/learning-tensorflow-js-powerful-
machine-learning-in-javascript-1st-edition-gant-laborde/

Learning TensorFlow.js Gant Laborde

https://ebookmeta.com/product/learning-tensorflow-js-gant-
laborde/

Learn TensorFlow 2.0: Implement Machine Learning and

Deep Learning Models with Python 1st Edition Pramod
Singh

https://ebookmeta.com/product/learn-tensorflow-2-0-implement-
machine-learning-and-deep-learning-models-with-python-1st-
edition-pramod-singh/

State-of-the-Art Deep Learning Models in TensorFlow:

Modern Machine Learning in the Google Colab Ecosystem
1st Edition David Paper

https://ebookmeta.com/product/state-of-the-art-deep-learning-
models-in-tensorflow-modern-machine-learning-in-the-google-colab-
ecosystem-1st-edition-david-paper/
Practical Machine Learning in JavaScript: TensorFlow.js
for Web Developers 1st Edition Charlie Gerard

https://ebookmeta.com/product/practical-machine-learning-in-
javascript-tensorflow-js-for-web-developers-1st-edition-charlie-
gerard/

Practical Machine Learning in JavaScript: TensorFlow.js

for Web Developers 1st Edition Charlie Gerard

https://ebookmeta.com/product/practical-machine-learning-in-
javascript-tensorflow-js-for-web-developers-1st-edition-charlie-
gerard-2/

TensorFlow 2 Pocket Reference: Building and Deploying

Machine Learning Models 1st Edition Kc Tung

https://ebookmeta.com/product/tensorflow-2-pocket-reference-
building-and-deploying-machine-learning-models-1st-edition-kc-
tung/

Artificial Neural Networks with TensorFlow 2 ANN

Architecture Machine Learning Projects Poornachandra
Sarang

https://ebookmeta.com/product/artificial-neural-networks-with-
tensorflow-2-ann-architecture-machine-learning-projects-
poornachandra-sarang/

Learning JavaScript Data Structures and Algorithms

Write complex and powerful JavaScript code using the
latest ECMAScript 3rd Edition Loiane Groner

https://ebookmeta.com/product/learning-javascript-data-
structures-and-algorithms-write-complex-and-powerful-javascript-
code-using-the-latest-ecmascript-3rd-edition-loiane-groner/
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
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 every where 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
themselves 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 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. Let 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 some 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.
 No. XLI.
RABBINIC IDEAS OF THE DEITY.

It is an indisputable fact, that the modern Jews have entirely cast off
the laws of Moses respecting the priests of the family of Levi, and
have chosen and appointed to themselves other teachers, of whom
Moses says nothing. What the cause was of such extraordinary
conduct in those who profess a great zeal for the law of Moses, we
do not now profess to inquire; but we think that every Jew ought to
have a very good reason for thus wilfully, systematically, and
continually transgressing the commandments of God. He ought, at
the very least, to be able to show that the doctrines of these new
teachers are far superior to those of the religious teachers appointed
by Moses; and that the superabundant excellence and wisdom of
rabbinic teaching does, at least, justify the change which they have
made in the Mosaic law. We have had occasion in these papers to
consider the nature of the new doctrine chosen instead of the law of
Moses, and to us it certainly appears that “The Old Paths” were
better. To-day we propose to illustrate the rabbinic notions of the
Deity, and do not intend by any means to select the most
objectionable representations contained in the rabbinical writings,
but shall confine ourselves to a few well-known passages, which are
intended to explain to us the mode in which God spends his time.
Concerning the day, the rabbies say that it is spent in the following
manner:—
, ‫ שלש הראשונות הקב׳׳ה יושב ועוסק בתורה‬, ‫שתים עשרה שעות הוי היום‬
‫ עומד‬, ‫ כיון שרואה שנתחייב העולם כליה‬, ‫שניות יושב ודן את כל העולם כולו‬
‫ מקרני‬, ‫ שלישיות יושב וזן את כל העולם כולו‬, ‫מכסא הדין ויושב על כסא הרחמים‬
‫ שנאמר לויתן זה יצרת‬, ‫ רביעיות יושב ומשחק עם לויתן‬, ‫ראמים עד ביצי כינים‬
‫לשחק בו וכו׳ ׃‬
“The day has twelve hours. The first three, the Holy One, blessed be
He, sits and occupies himself in the law. The second, he sits and
judges the whole world. When he perceives that the world deserves
utter destruction, He stands up from the throne of judgment, and sits
on the throne of mercy. The third, he sits, and feeds all the world,
from the horns of the unicorns to the eggs of the vermin. In the
fourth, he sits and plays with Leviathan, for it is said (Psalm civ. 26)
‘The Leviathan whom thou hast formed to play therewith.’” (Avodah
Zarah, fol. iii., col. 2.) In another place we have an account of the
manner in which the night is spent:—
‫ר׳ אליעזר אומר שלש משמרות הוי הלילה ועל כל משמר ומשמר יושב הקב׳׳ה‬
‫ושואג כארי שנאמר ה׳ ממרום ישאג ממעו קדשו יתן קולו שאוג ישאג על נוהו ׃‬
“Rabbi Eliezer says, The night has three watches, and at every
watch, the Holy One, blessed be He, sits and roars like a lion, for it is
said, ‘The Lord shall roar from on high, and utter his voice from his
holy habitation: roaring he shall roar upon his habitation.’” (Jer. xxv.
30.) And again, a little lower down, the same assertion is made in the
name of two other rabbies, and the cause of God’s roaring assigned:
—
‫אמר רב יצחק בר שמואל משמיה דרב שלש משמרות הוי הלילה ועל כל משמר‬
‫ומשמר יושב הקב׳׳ה ושואג כארי ואומר אוי שחרבתי את ביתי ושרפתי את היכלי‬
‫והגליתי את בני לבין אומות העולם ׃‬
“Rabbi Isaac, the son of Samuel, says, in the name of Rav, The night
has three watches, and at every watch, the Holy One, blessed be
He, sits and roars like a lion, and says, Woe is me that I have laid
desolate my house, and burned my sanctuary, and sent my children
into captivity amongst the nations of the world.” (Berachoth, fol. iii.,
col. 1.) Now we ask every reasonable man whether this is a
representation worthy of the Creator of heaven and earth? We are
told here, first, that God is like a man in observing day and night—
that he has set times for different employments, and a time for
amusement. We are told, secondly, that instead of comprehending
all things past, present, and to come, at all times, and instead of
upholding all things by the continual fiat of his omnipotent rule, that
he is obliged to consider each thing in succession; and that, like a
poor frail child of man, He can do only one thing at a time. And
thirdly, we are here informed, that the Divine Being sits all night, and
mourns like a child, over an act which he rashly committed, but now
wishes to have undone. Is this a fit representation of Deity, or is it
awful blasphemy? How different is the description given by Moses
—“Lord, thou hast been our dwelling-place in all generations. Before
the mountains were brought forth, or ever thou hadst formed the
earth and the world, even from everlasting to everlasting, thou art
God. A thousand years in thy sight are but as yesterday when it is
past, and as a watch in the night” (Ps. xc. 1-4); and again, that other
beautiful passage of the Psalmist, “Of old thou hast laid the
foundations of the earth; and the heavens are the work of thy hands.
They shall perish, but thou shalt endure; yea all of them shall wax
old like a garment: and as a vesture shalt thou change them, and
they shall be changed; but thou art the same, and thy years shall
have no end.” (Ps. cii. 25-27.) In both these passages,
unchangeableness, entire freedom from all vicissitude and
succession, is presented to our view as the prominent feature in the
character of Deity. Whereas, the God whom the rabbies describe, is
a being subject to the same alterations as ourselves, and liable to
change, in its worst form, that is, to that change of will which ensues
on disappointed expectations. They say, that their God destroyed his
temple and sent his children into captivity, and that now he is very
sorry for it, and vents the bitterness of his grief in lamentations
compared to the roaring of a lion. Such a deity is no more like the
God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, than Jeroboam’s calves. He may
not be a graven image, but he is nevertheless an idol, not indeed of
gold or silver, but of the imagination. Nothing can be more different
than the Being described by the rabbies, and that God declared in
Moses and the Prophets. And yet on this very point, where the oral
law errs so grievously, Christianity maintains the truth. The New
Testament declares unto us the same Being revealed in the Old. It
says, “Every good gift, and every perfect gift is from above, and
cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no
variableness, neither shadow of turning.” (James i. 17.)
But the rabbies falsely ascribe to God not only variableness, but
imperfect knowledge also. They say, that He spends a fourth part of
the day in the study of the law. Now either God knows the law, or he
does not. If he does know the law, then study is useless; and if he
does not, then his knowledge is imperfect, and either supposition is
altogether unworthy of the Deity. Indeed it is very difficult to argue
against a doctrine so monstrous, or to show the full absurdity where
the subject is so grave and sacred. But we put it to the good sense
of every Israelite, and ask him whether he can believe that the God
of knowledge studies in his own law? Is not such an assertion a
blasphemous falsehood, and does it not show that those who made
it were themselves utterly devoid of all true knowledge of God?
Some persons endeavour to excuse this blasphemy by saying that
the words are not to be taken literally, and that the rabbies employed
oriental figures. But this will not save the credit of the oral law; for if
we admit the figure, we cannot excuse the blasphemy contained in
the assertion, that God studies the law one fourth of every day. No
man that has any reverence for his Creator would venture to use
such language, not even in the way of a parable. It proves in every
case that those rabbies were totally devoid of that reverence which is
due to God, and therefore most unfit teachers of religion. But, further,
if these passages be figurative, what is the real sense? What is
meant by studying in the law, or playing with Leviathan, or uttering
complaints at the beginning of every watch in the night; or what is
intended by ascribing to God one sort of employment in the day and
the other in the night? It is not enough to say that these are all
figures conveying the most profound wisdom; this assertion must be
proved by showing what this wisdom is. Let the Rabbinists explain
these figures satisfactorily, and they will then have some chance of
being believed, though even that would not amount to a proof, that
the authors of these passages intended that they should be
understood mystically. It is a certain fact that many of the rabbies
have understood these and similar passages literally. In the
commentary on the assertion, “That in the second three hours God
sits and judges the world,” we are told, that some believed this so
firmly as to think that on this very account the additional form of
prayer, called ‫מוסף‬, was prescribed:—
‫יש אומרים כי לכך תקנו בקדושת מודף לומר ממקומו הוא יפן כי סתם מוסף‬
‫בשניות בא ואז הוא יושב ודן ואנו מתפללין שיפנה מכסא דין לשבת בכסא רחמים‬
‫׃‬
“Some say, that on this account the words ‘Let him turn from his
place,’ have been appointed in the sanctification of the Musaph, for
this part of the prayer generally occurs in the second three hours,
when he is sitting in judgment, and that we pray that he may turn
from the throne of judgment, and sit on the throne of mercy.” Those
who held this opinion plainly thought, that the hours were literal
hours, and that the distribution of the day into four different
employments was not figurative, but real. These persons, therefore,
believed that God studies in the law, that he plays with Leviathan,
and observes the distinction of day and night. And it must be
confessed that, if they believed in the Talmud, they had good reason
for this literal interpretation, as the corresponding passage,
respecting God’s roaring like a lion at every watch of the night,
cannot be explained figuratively, if it be taken in connexion with its
context. The context contains a discussion about real, not figurative
night-watches. The question proposed by the Mishna is, Until what
hour of the night is it lawful to perform the evening-reading of the
Sh’mah Israel (Hear, O Israel)? R. Eliezer says, It is lawful until the
end of the first watch. The Gemara then considers what the rabbi
could mean by this definition—
‫מה קסבר ר׳ אליעזר אי קסבר ג׳ משמרות הוי הלילה לימא עד ארבע שעות ואי‬
‫ לעולם קסבר שלש‬, ‫קסבר ארבע משמרות הוי הִל לה לימא עד שלש שעות‬
‫משמרות הוי הלילה והא קא משמע לן איכא משמרות ברקיעא ואיכא משמרות‬
‫בארעא דתניא וכו׳ ׃‬
“What did R. Eliezer mean? If he meant that the night had three
watches, he ought to have said until the fourth hour: but if he meant
that the night has four watches, he ought to have said until the third
hour. There can be no doubt that he meant that the night has three
watches, and intended to say, that there are watches in heaven and
watches upon earth, for the Bareitha says, &c.”——And then follows
the passage, saying, that in each watch God roars like a lion. It
cannot, then, be pretended that the night-watches here are figurative
or mystical. It is expressly said that there are the same watches in
heaven and earth, and the whole question is about the real
distribution of time. The following context is equally unequivocal. R.
Eliezer, immediately after saying that in each watch God roars like a
lion, goes on to give the signs whereby each watch may be
recognised even in the dark:—
‫ שלישית תינוק‬, ‫ שנייה כלבים צועקים‬, ‫קסימן לדבר משמרה ראשונה חמור נוער‬
‫יונק משדי אמו ואשה מספרת עם בעלה ׃‬
“The sign of the thing is—In the first watch the ass brays; in the
second watch the dogs bark; in the third watch the infant sucks at its
mother’s breast, and the wife talks with her husband.” This is plain
matter-of-fact way of speaking, and proves, beyond a doubt, that the
whole passage is to be taken literally. And if any doubt at all
remained, it is entirely removed, a little lower down on the page, by
an anecdote told by the veracious R. Jose. He says, that he once
went into one of the ruins of Jerusalem to pray, and that whilst he
was engaged in prayer, the prophet Elijah came to the entrance of
the ruin, and very civilly waited for him until he had concluded, when
they had some conversation together.
Amongst other particulars, R. Jose relates as follows:—
‫ואמר לי בני מה קול שמעת בחורבה זו לאמרתי לו שמעתי בת קול שמנהמת‬
‫כיונה ואומרת אוי שחרבתי את ביתי ושרפתי את היכלי והגליתי את בני לבין‬
‫ אלא בכל יום ויום‬, ‫האומות ואמר לי חייך וחיי ראשך לא שעה זר בלבד אורת כך‬
‫ אלא בשעה שישראל נכנסין לבתי כנסיות‬, ‫ ולא זו בלבד‬, ‫שלש פעמים אומרת כך‬
‫ולבתי מדרשות ועונין אמן יהא שמא רבא מברך הקב׳׳ה מנענע ראשו ואומר אשרי‬
‫המלך שמקלסין אותו בביתו כך מה לו לאב שהגלה את בניו ׃‬
“And he (Elias) said to me, What sort of a voice didst thou hear in the
ruin? I said to him, I heard a Bath Kol cooing like a dove, and saying,
Woe is me that I have desolated my house, and burnt my sanctuary,
and sent my children into captivity amongst the nations. And he said
unto me, As thou livest, and thy head liveth, it is not at this hour only,
but three times every day the voice says these words. And not only
so, but when the Israelites enter the synagogues, and the houses of
study, and say, ‘Amen, may his great name be blessed,’ the Holy
One, blessed be He, shakes his head, and says, Blessed is the King
who is praised in his house; but what profit has the father who sends
his children into captivity,” &c. Here we have the testimony of R.
Jose to the truth of the fact, that God does thus complain in the
manner described above, and we have the Prophet Elijah swearing
that this happens three times every day. It is plain, therefore, that the
authors of the Talmud knew of no mystical interpretation and
intended none. It was their simple belief that God observed the three
watches of the night, and at the beginning of each roared like a lion.
And if this passage must be taken literally, why should the other
passage respecting the distribution and employments of the day be
taken figuratively? The literal interpretation of the one furnishes a
strong argument for the literal interpretation of the other. And it is
certainly of no use to ascribe a mystical sense to the one, whilst the
other is interpreted literally. The advocates of the oral law gain
nothing by it, for the one is not more absurd nor more unworthy of
the Deity than the other. Nothing can exceed the folly of representing
God as observing the night-watches, and roaring like a lion for grief,
because he sent Israel into captivity. Nothing can be more
blasphemous than the assertion that God does not foresee the
results of his own actions, and that he is afterwards obliged to sit
down and mourn over what he has done. This one passage, which
cannot be explained away, is quite sufficient to show that the rabbies
were utterly ignorant of the nature of God; and that, however they
might be acquainted with the letter of the Law and the Prophets, they
knew nothing of the real meaning of their writings. This one excess
of folly and absurdity entirely overthrows all the claims and
pretensions of the oral law in which it is found.
But there is another feature in the passage which we cannot pass
without notice, and that is, the total disregard of truth which it
manifests. R. Jose’s story is evidently a barefaced and wilful lie,
unless we say, that when he went into the ruin to pray, he fell asleep,
and dreamed that he heard the Bath Kol and had this conversation
with Elijah; but either supposition will equally destroy the credit of the
Talmud. If it be a lie, it is one of the most profane and wicked lies that
can be imagined. We have here a professed teacher of the law
telling not only a falsehood about his intercourse with Elijah, but
daring falsely to assert that he heard the voice of God mourning over
the ruins of the temple. The most profane and wicked lie that can be
devised is that which introduces God himself, and trifles with the
sacred character of the Deity. If this story be a lie, it oversets the
Talmud and the Talmudical religion at once. A religion built upon
falsehoods, must itself be necessarily false. But if the other
supposition be adopted, that R. Jose mistook a dream for a reality,
what shall we say of a religion whose teachers tell their dreams as
sacred truths? And what shall we say of the compilers of the Talmud,
who were unable to detect the folly and profanity of this narrative,
and actually inserted it in their oral law as an undoubted fact? This
supposition may save R. Jose from the unhappy character of a liar,
but it will not do much towards proving the truth of the oral law; for
there it is not given as a dream, but as a fact. R. Jose was silly
enough to tell his dream as a reality; and the rabbies to whom he
told it were silly enough to believe; and the most learned men of the
Rabbinists at that time were silly enough to embody it in their
collection of holy and undoubted traditions. We do not mean to
ascribe any peculiar degree of folly to the rabbies. Persons calling
themselves Christians have been just as foolish, have believed
stories just as absurd, and have handed them down as religious
truths. But then, we do not receive these legends as a part and
parcel of our religion. We are as free to say of them, as of the
Talmudic fables, that they are wicked falsehoods. But the modern
Jews tell us that the Talmud is a divine book—that it contains their
religion, and that without it Moses and the Prophets are unintelligible;
and therefore we point out these fables as plain proofs of the
falsehood of such an assertion. We wish to direct the Jewish
attention to that system which they have called their religion for the
last eighteen hundred years, and which they have preferred to
Christianity. We desire that they should consider what they have
gained, by expelling the family of Levi from the teacher’s office and
choosing the rabbies as their religious guides. We ask every Israelite
of common sense, whether R. Jose and his companions are
trustworthy leaders in the way to salvation; and whether they are still
prepared to follow the religion of a man who can only be acquitted of
being a liar by admitting that he is a dreamer? Or, whether they still
choose to worship the Deity proclaimed by the rabbies—a Deity
subject to succession of time—imperfect in knowledge so as to
require daily study—requiring amusement, and therefore playing for
three hours every day with Leviathan—and liable to disappointment,
so as to be obliged to spend the night, in mourning over one of his
most deliberate and solemn acts?
We are sure that every Israelite would be sadly offended at being
told, that he does not worship the God of his fathers, but a strange
god, invented by the imagination of the rabbles; and yet, if he
worship the god of the Talmud, it is nothing but the truth. The god of
the Talmud is certainly not the God of the Bible. Israelites are often
shocked at the folly and wickedness of those whom they see falling
down before stocks and stones; and yet, if they receive the oral law,
and believe an a Deity who plays with Leviathan, &c., the object of
their worship is not a whit more rational. They are just as guilty of
idolatry, and the only way in which they can clear themselves from
the charge is, by rejecting the oral law, and forsaking that
superstition which the rabbies have palmed off upon them as the
religion of their fathers. It is a most deplorable and melancholy sight
to behold that nation, which once was the sole depository of truth,
enslaved by a system so senseless; but it is more melancholy still to
think, that there is not one among her sons who has the moral
courage to denounce its falsehood, and to vindicate the truth as
taught by Moses. The priests, the sons of Levi, were once zealous
for the honour of God, and united with Moses in destroying the
golden calf; but where are they now, and where is their zeal? Alas!
they too, are found amongst the worshippers of the Talmudical deity,
and uphold the system which has expelled them from their holy
office.
 No. XLII.
TITLE OF RABBI.

That the people, at present scattered over the whole world, and
known by the name of Jews, are descendants of the chosen people
of God, we freely admit. That the Old Testament contains prophecies
of their future return to the God and the land of their fathers, and
their subsequent happiness and glory, we firmly believe: but, that the
religion which they at present profess is the religion of Moses, we
confidently deny. Modern Judaism has not retained the doctrines of
Moses; no not even with respect to the fundamental article of
religion, the nature of God. Our last number showed how widely the
rabbies have departed from the Scripture representation of the divine
character, and the number preceding proved that the Jews haw not
retained even the outward form of the Mosaic edifice. Indeed we
know not any problem more difficult of solution than, to assign a
reason, why the rabbinic Jews profess any respect at all for Moses,
when they have rejected both the form and the substance of his
teaching. If they boldly denied his authority, or asserted that the
Mosaic law was long since abrogated, and the rabbinic precepts
given in its stead, we could, at least, give them credit for
consistency; but at present we cannot possibly divine their motives
for professing attachment to the lawgiver of their forefathers. Their
conduct for ages would appear to indicate a fixed determination to
get rid and keep clear of every thing Mosaic, and that for the mere
purpose of having something else; for no one can pretend, that the
new law and the new teachers, that they have chosen, can lay any
claim to superior excellence or antiquity. Of the value of the rabbinic
teaching we have given many proofs; and now think of examining a
little the novelty of the rabbinic order. It is certain that the word, rabbi,
does not occur in the law of Moses nor the prophets; it is, therefore,
clearly not Mosaic. This one fact does in itself go far to shake the
authority of modern Judaism and the oral law. There we cannot go a
step without hearing of the rabbies—Rabbi Eliezer said this, and
Rabbi Bar Bar Chanah said that. The whole oral law is made up of
the sayings of the rabbies, and yet neither their name nor their order
was so much as known to Moses our master. The other favourite
appellation of the Talmudic doctors ‫ חכם‬Chacham, or wise man,
does indeed occur, and it appears from the prophets, that there were
some even in their time who laid exclusive claim to that epithet, but
unfortunately the prophets bring against them the very same charge,
which we prefer against their successors, namely, that they had
forsaken the law of Moses:—
‫איכה תאמרו חכמים אנחנו ותורת ה׳ אתנו אכן הנה לשקר עשה עט שקר סופרים‬
‫ הובישו חכמים חתו וילכדו הנה בדבר ה׳ מאסו וחכמת מה להם ׃‬,
“How do ye say, We are wise (Chachamim) and the law of the Lord
is with us? Lo, certainly in vain made he it; the pen of the scribes is
in vain. The wise men (Chachamim) are ashamed. They are
dismayed and taken: lo, they have rejected the word of the Lord: and
what wisdom is in them?” (Jer. viii. 8, 9.) The rabbies will scarcely
acknowledge that they have succeeded these persons in their office,
and yet if they give up such passages as these, they must abdicate
all claim to antiquity. Indeed some of them plainly acknowledge that
the rabbies are a new order of men, and that the word rabbi was not
heard of until less than a century before the destruction of the
second temple. Thus the Baal Aruch says—
‫והדורות הראשונים שהיו גדולים מאוד לא היו צריכין לרברבם לא ברבן ולא ברבי‬
‫ולא ברב לא לחכמי בבל ולא לחכמי ארץ ישראל שהרי הלל עלה מבבל ולא‬
‫ לא עלה עזרא‬, ‫ ובנביאים היו חשובים שאמר חגי הנביא‬, ‫נאמרה רבנות בשמו‬
‫ ואין מרברבין אותן עם הזכרת שמותיהן ולא שמענו כי התחילו זו אלא‬, ‫מבבל‬
‫בנשיאים מרבן גמליאל הזקן ורבי שמעון בנו שנהרג בחרבן בית שני ורבן יוחנו בן‬
‫זכעי כולן נשיאים ואף רבי התחיל מסמוכים מאותה שעה צדוק ורבי אליעזר בן‬
‫יעקב ופשט הדבר מתלמידי ר׳ יוחנן בן זכאי ולהלן ׃‬
“The first generations, which were very great, did not require the
titles of Rabban, or Rabbi, or Rav, wherewith to honour the wise men
of Babylon, or the wise men of the land of Israel; for behold Hillel
went, up from Babylon, but the title of Rabbi is not added to his
name. There were honourable persons amongst the prophets, for it
is said, ‘Haggai the prophet’—‘Ezra did not go up from Babylon’—
and at the mention of their names the title of Rabbi is not added:
neither have we heard that this was begun until the princes Rabban
Gamaliel the elder, and Rabban Simon his son, who was killed at the
destruction of the second temple, and Rabban Johannan ben
Zakkai, who were all princes. Rabbi also began with those who were
promoted at the same time, Zadok and R. Eliezer, the son of Jacob,
and the thing spread from the disciples of Rabban Johannan ben
Zakkai onwards.” (Aruch in ‫ )אביי‬We need not wonder, then, that
Moses knows nothing of rabbies, for here is a plain confession, that
the name was never heard of until a few years before the last
dispersion. It may, however, be said, that the office itself existed,
though the name did not, and this is in fact asserted by Rambam,
when he says:—
‫ וכן השבעים‬, ‫ומשה רבנו סמך יהושע ביד שנאמר ויסמוך את ידיו עליו ויצוהו‬
, ‫זקנים משה רבנו סמכם ושרתה עליהן שכינה ואותן הזקנים סמכו לאחרים‬
‫ ונמצאו הסמוכין איש מפי איש עד בית דינו של יהושע ועד בית‬, ‫ואחרים לאחרים‬
‫דינו של משה רבינו ׃‬
“Moses our master promoted Joshua with his hands; for it is said,
‘and he laid his hands upon him, and gave him a charge.’ (Numb.
xxvii. 23.) And in like manner with regard to the seventy elders,
Moses our master promoted them, and the Shechinah rested upon
them; and these elders promote others, and they again others; and
thus we have a succession of promoted persons, until the council of
Joshua, and until the council of Moses our master.” (Hilchoth
Sanhedrin, iv. 1.) And so he tells us that—
‫ודוד המלך סמך שלשים אלף ביום אחד ׃‬
“King David promoted thirty thousand persons in one day.” According
to this statement, it would appear that there had been always a class
of persons qualified to be teachers and judges, and a pretty
numerous class too, from the time of Moses; but it is very
extraordinary that their office should have continued fifteen hundred
years without a name, and that the nation should never have felt the
inconvenience, nor remedied it until the last few years of their
existence; and it is more extraordinary still that so large and
important a body should never once be mentioned in the law or the
prophets. The land must perfectly have swarmed with them. Thirty
thousand would have been a large proportion to the population of the
land of Israel; but David made this number in one day; and we
cannot suppose that he exerted his right only once in his life, nor that
all the other doctors neglected the duty of raising up disciples; and
the oral law tells us that before the time of Hillel every one thus
promoted had the right of promoting others:—
‫ וחכמים חלקו כבוד להלל הזקן‬, ‫בראשונה היה כל מי שנסמך סומך לתלמידיו‬
‫והתקינו שלא יהא אדם נסמך אלא ברשות הנשיא וכו׳ ׃‬
“At first every promoted person could promote his disciples; but the
wise men gave the honour to Hillel the elder, and ordained that no
man should promote except by permission of the prince (the Nasi).”
According to this, the number must have been very great; and yet
that they should have continued so long without a name, and without
any mention whatever by any of the inspired writers, is perfectly
incredible. But there are in the account itself various particulars
which excite suspicion. David’s extensive work of promotion in one
day entirely exceeds the limits of probability, no matter how the
promotion took place, whether by laying on of hands, or by
command, or by letter: for if we grant that he devoted the entire four-
and-twenty hours of that day to the work, still, in order to make up
the number of thirty thousand, it will be necessary to believe that he
promoted at the rate of twelve hundred and fifty an hour, or twenty in
every minute. One such notorious untruth discredits the whole
account in which it is found. But, farther, the admission that the right
of conferring the dignity of doctor was taken from those who had
possessed it, and restricted to those who obtained permission from
the prince, shows that the ordinance of promotion was not derived
from Moses, but was an invention of men. If it had been of Moses,
the wise men could have had no authority to take it away, neither is it
at all likely that the numerous possessors of the right, and least of
all, the disciples of Shammai, would have quietly resigned it. We
must suppose either that the wise men altered an ordinance of
Moses, and thereby committed a great sin, or that the ordinance of
promotion was a mere human invention. By the latter supposition the
whole story of the continued existence of this class of doctors is
given up; and by the former supposition the charge of disregard for
the law of Moses is fixed upon the wise men, and the value of their
testimony taken away. Lastly, the account of the manner of
promotion is at variance with the above-quoted assertion of the Baal
Aruch. The oral law, says that the doctors were promoted in the
following manner:—
‫ אלא שקורין לו רבי ואומרים לו הרי אתה‬, ‫לא שיסמכו את ידיהם על ראש הזקן‬
‫סמוך ויש לך רשות לדון אפילו דיני קנסות ׃‬
“They not only laid their hands upon the head of the elder, but also
saluted him with the title, Rabbi, and said to him, Behold thou art
prompted, and hast authority to judge, even in cases of mulct.” Here
the conferring the title of Rabbi is made an integral part of the act of
promotion, whereas the Baal Aruch says that the title of Rabbi was
not in use until after the time of Hillel. The assertion, therefore, that
the office of Rabbi existed without the name, even from the time of
Moses, is not only unsupported by any proof from the inspired
writings, but is inconsistent with other assertions of the rabbies
themselves; and is, besides, found very close to a palpable untruth,
and is therefore unworthy of credit. Thus the antiquity of the rabbinic
office is destroyed, and appears to be a comparatively new
invention: so that those who profess the religion of the rabbies
cannot pretend to have the religion of Moses or of their forefathers,
but that of a new set of teachers, who did not arise until a very few
years before the destruction of the second temple. One of the
common objections of modern Jews against Christianity is, its
novelty. They say that we have got a new religion, whereas they
have the ancient religion; that we follow a new teacher, but that they
follow Moses. The foregoing examination shows how little ground
they have for such a boast. If novelty be a valid objection, they must
confess that the religion of the rabbies is false. If the distance of time
that elapsed between Moses and Jesus of Nazareth constitute a fair
ground of objection, it is as valid against the rabbies as against the
Lord Jesus. Nay, if supposed novelty be the reason why they reject
Christianity, they must now reject the religion of the rabbies, and
embrace that of Christ. We have proved that the religion of the
rabbies is a novelty, and every one knows that one peculiar feature
in the teaching of Jesus of Nazareth was, that he opposed the
rabbinic doctrines, that is, he opposed novelty: this opposition,
therefore, is presumptive evidence that the Lord Jesus retained the
ancient religion, and has on that very account a claim upon all those
who profess to venerate antiquity. At all events the charge of novelty
can be as fairly urged against Rabbinism as against Christianity, and
every Jew who urges it, is, if he be in earnest about truth, bound to
compare Christianity with the law and the prophets, in order to
ascertain whether it be a new religion or not. One thing is certain,
that the ordinances of no religion can be farther from the Mosaic
appointment than those of Rabbinism. The Rabbinists have rejected
the religious teachers appointed by Moses, and have chosen others,
who cannot pretend even to any degree of antiquity; and not only so,
but even when the possibility of having regularly appointed rabbies
ceased, they preferred those, who in fact have no authority at all, to
those teachers appointed in the law. The oral law makes promotion
necessary to the exercise of the rabbinical office, and limits the
ceremony of promotion by two conditions, first, that it be conferred
with the consent of the ‫נשיא‬, as we have seen above, and, secondly,
that it be performed in the land of Israel:—
‫ אפילו‬, ‫אין סומכין זקנים בחוצה לארץ ואע׳׳פ שאלו הסומכין נסמכו בארץ ישראל‬
‫היו הסומכין בארץ והנסמך בחוץ לארץ אין סומכין ׃‬
“Elders are not promoted anywhere, except in the land of Israel;
even although the promoters should have been promoted there
themselves. Yea, though the persons conferring the promotion be in
the land, if the person to be promoted be outside the land, the
promotion is not to take place.” Now it is plain that these conditions
cannot be fulfilled. The great majority of the present rabbies have
never been in the land of Israel; and even if they had been, there has
not been a ‫ נשיא‬prince for many a century. For centuries, therefore,
there has not been a rabbi promoted to the office as the oral law
requires; and yet the Jews, rather than have the priests, the sons of
Levi, still keep up the shadow of the rabbinical office. A more
determined opposition to the institutions of Moses cannot be
imagined. First, the Jewish people rejected the ordinance of Moses,
and devised an order of teachers of their own, limited by certain
conditions. Then God, in great mercy, made the fulfilment of those
conditions impossible. He took away the prince, he drove them out of
the land of Israel, to give them, as it were, an opportunity, yea, to
compel them to return to his own appointment: but in vain. Although
the Jews cannot fulfil the conditions of their own devising, and could
fulfil God’s appointment, they refuse the latter, and have invented
something newer still, and that is, an order of religious teachers, who
have not even the qualifications required by the oral law. Truly this is
to transgress, for the mere sake of transgressing. How, then, can the
Jews pretend to be disciples of Moses, or assert that the Mosaic law
is unchangeable? Now, for near two thousand years they have lived
in disobedience to one of Moses’ simplest commandments, and
have changed one of the essential institutions of the law. The most
superficial reader of the writings of Moses must see, that a charge of
prime importance was assigned to the family of Levi, not only as
respected the ministration in the temple, but also with regard to the
instruction of the people. God in His providence has deprived them
of the former. The Jews themselves, by rejecting the commands of
Moses, have taken away the latter office, and thus have destroyed
not only the interior, but actually demolished the external form of the
Mosaic edifice. It is, therefore, as we have said, a most difficult
problem to account for the profession which modern Jews make of
zeal for the law of Moses, and one which well deserves the
consideration of the Jews themselves. Why should they profess to
be disciples of Moses, when they openly trample upon his
commands, and reject both the substance and the form of his
religion? If they really believe that obedience to the law of Moses is
necessary to salvation, they ought instantly to reinstate the family of
Levi in their office. But if they prefer the new religion of the rabbies to
the old religion of Moses, then they ought honestly to say so; and not
go on halting between two opinions. And they ought to do this, not
merely to avoid the charge of inconsistency before men, but to
satisfy their own consciences before God. How can any man
reasonably hope to be saved by a religion whose commands he
constantly transgresses, and never intends to obey? And yet this is
exactly the case with the Rabbinists with regard to the law of Moses.
There have been attempts at reform amongst the Jews, but we have
never heard of any who intended to restore the family of Levi to their
office; and yet, without this, there is no return to the Mosaic
institutions.
A disciple of the rabbies may perhaps think, that he can retort this
argument upon the Christians, and say that Jesus of Nazareth was
not of the tribe of Levi. Certainly he was not; but as the Messiah, the
prophets foretold that he was to be of the tribe of Judah: and as the
Messiah, promised and appointed of God, he has a right to the
obedience of all, both Jew and Gentile. If he had been only an
ordinary prophet, he would have had a divine right to teach the
people and to require their obedience; for, besides the priests, God
also appointed prophets, but to the prophetic office the rabbies do
not lay claim. The Lord Jesus, on the contrary, claimed not only the
prophetic character, but asserted that he was the Messiah, and
proved the truth of his claims by exhibiting miraculous powers, and
especially by his resurrection from the dead. As a prophet, therefore,
and above all, as the Messiah, his teaching in no wise interfered with
the office of the priests: and his conduct, as recorded in the New
Testament, shows that, though in determined and constant
opposition to the Pharisees, the advocates of the oral law, he never
lifted up his voice against the office of the priesthood. On the
contrary, when occasion offered, he showed a scrupulous regard for
the commandments of Moses respecting the priests; as for instance
when he healed the leper, he “said onto him, See thou tell no man;
but go thy way, show thyself to the priests, and offer the gift that
Moses commanded, for a testimony unto them.” (Matt. viii. 4.) And
this conduct is perfectly conformable to one professed object of the
Lord Jesus, which was to vindicate the authority of the law against
the unauthorized additions of men. He professed himself the
defender of the Mosaic law, and opposed the whole system of the
Rabbinists, on the professed ground that they made it void by their
traditions. The objections, therefore, which we have brought against
the oral law, as overturning the institutions of Moses, cannot be