The Oral Law of the Jews Without Foundation
‘But however the Jews may seem to agree with us, in regard to the Canon of the Old Testament, this concord relates only to the written law; for, they obstinately persist in maintaining, that besides the law which was engraven on tables of stone; and the other precepts, and ordinances, which were communicated to Moses, and were ordered to be written, God gave unto him, another Law explanatory of the first, which he was commanded not to commit to writing, but to deliver down by oral tradition.
The account which the Jewish doctors give of the first communication and subsequent delivery of this law, is found in the Talmud. It is there stated, that during the whole day, while Moses continued on the mount, he was learning the written law, but at night he was occupied in receiving the oral law.
“When Moses descended from the mount, they say, that he first called Aaron into his tent, and communicated to him all that he had learned of this oral law, then he placeil him on his i-ia;ht hand; next he called in Eliezer and Ithamar, the sons of Aaron, and repeated the whole to them; on which ‘.licy also took their seal, the one on his right hand, the other on his left. After this the seventy elders entered, and received the saaie instruction, as Aaron and his sons. And finally, the same cominunicatiou was made to the whole multitude of people. Then Moses arose and departed, and Aaron who had now heard the whole, four times, repeated what he had learned, and also withdrew. In the same manner, Eliezer and Ithamar, each in turn, went over the same yround, and departed. And finalh’, the seventy elders repeated the whole to the people; every one of whom delivered what he had heard, to his neis:hbour. Thus, according to Maimonidks, was the oral law first ajiven.
And the Jewish account of its transmission to posterity, is no less particular. They pretend, that JMoses, when forty years had elapsed from the time of the Israelites leaving Egypt, called all the people, and telling them that his end drew near, requested,that if any of them had forgotten aught of what he had delivered to them, they should repair to him, and he would repeat to them anew what they niiglit have forgotten. And they tell us, that from the first day of the eleventh month, to the sixth day of the twelfth, he was occupied in nothing else, than repeating antl explaining the law to the people.
lOS
But, in a special manner, he committed this law to Joshua, by whom it was communicated, shortly before his death, to Phineas, the son of Eliezer; by Phineas, to Eli; by Eli, to Samuel; by Samuel, to David, and Ahijah; by Ahijah, to Elijah; by Elijah, to Elisha; by Elisha, to Jehoiada; by Jehoiada, to Zechariah; by Zechariah, to Hosca; by Hosea, to Amos; by Amos, to Isaiah; by Isaiah, to Micah; by Micah, to Joel; by Joel, to Nahum; by Nahum, to Habbakuk; by Habbakuk, to Zephaniah; by Zephaniah, to Jeremiah; by Je’ remiah, to Baruch; by Baruch, to Ezra, the president of the ^reat synag02;ue. By Ezra, this law was delivered to the hih priest, Jaddua; by Jaddua, to Antigonus; by Antig;onus, to Joseph son of John, and Joseph son of Jehezer; by these to Aristftbulus, and Joshua the son of Perechiah; by them toJudah son of Tiboeus,and Simeon son of Satah. Thence to Shemaiah — To Hillel — To Simeon his son; supposed to have been the same who took our Saviour in his arms, in the temple, when brought thither to be presented by his parents. FromSimeun, it passed to Gamaliel, the preceptor, as is supposed, of Paul. Then to Sineoi his son; and finally, to the son of Simeon, Jui-ah Hakka-DOSH, by whom it was committed to writing.
But, although, the above lisi brings down an unbroken succession, from Moses to Judah the Holy, yet to render the tradition still more certain, the Jewish doctors inform us, that this oral law, was also committed, in a special manner, to the hih priests; and handed down, through iheir line, until! it was committed to writing.
Judah Hakkadosh was the president of the Academy at Tiberias, and was held in great reputation for his sanctity, from which circumstance, he received his surnsime,fIakkado.^h,the Holy The temple being now desolate, and the nation scattered abroad, it was feared, lest the traditionary law might be lost; therefore it was resolved, to preserve it by committing it to writing. Judah the Holy, who lived about the middle of the second century, undertook this work, and digested all the traditions he could collect, in six books, each consisting of several tracts. The whole number is Sixty three. But these tracts are again subdivided, into numerous chapters. This is the famous MisHNA of the Jews. When finished it was received by the nation with the highest respect and coafidence; and their doctors began, forthwith, to compose commentaries, on every part of it. These comments are called the Geaiaka, or the COMPLETION; and the Mishna and Gemara, together, form the Talmud. But as this work of commenting on the text of the Mishna was pursued,not only in Judea,but in Babylonia, where a large number of Jews resided; hence it came to pass, that two Talmuds were formed; the one called, the Jerusalem Talmud, the other, the BajsYLgMsa Talmud. In both these; the iVIxsuyA; * 2 committefl to writing by Judah, is the text; but the commentaries are widely different. The former was completed before the close of the third century of the Christian era; the latter, was not completed until towards the close of the fifth century. The Babylonish Talmud is much the largest of the two; for while that of Jerusalem has been printed in one folio volume, this fills twelve folios. This last is also held, in much higher esteem, by the Jews; and indeed it comprehends, all the learning and religion of that people, since they have been cast off” for iheir unbelief and rejection of the true Messiah.
Maimonides has given an excellent digest, of
all the laws and institutions, enjoined in this great work.
The Jews place fully as much faith in the Talmud, as they do in the Bible. Indeed, it is held in much greater esteem, and the reading of it is much more encouraged. It is a saying of one of their most esteemed Rabbies, “That the oral law is the foundation of the written; nor can the written law be expounded, but by the oral.” Agreeably to this, in their confession, called, the golden altar, it is said, “It is impossible for us to stand upon the foundation of our holy law, which is the written law, unless it be by the oral law, which is the exposition thereof.” *In the Talmud it is writen, “Thit tog ve attention to th study of the Bible is some virtue; but he who pays attention to the study ol* the Mishna, possesses a virtue which shall receive a reward; and he who occupies himself in reading the Gemara, has a virtue, than which, there is none more excellent.” Nay, they go to the impious length of saying, “That he who is employed in the study of the Bible and nothing else, does but waste his time.” They maintain, that if the declarations of this oral law be ever so inconsistent with reason and common sense, they must be received with implicit faith, “You must not depart from them,” says Rabbi Sol. Jarchi, “if they should assert that your right hand is your left; or your left your right. “And in the Talmud it is taught,” That, to sin against the words of the scribes, is far more grievous than to sin against the words of the Law.” “My son attend raiher to the words of the scribes, than to the words of the Law.” “The text Oi’the liible is like water, but the Mishna is like wine;” with many other similar comp.ii iaons.
Without the oral law, they assert, that the written law remains in perfect darkness: for, say they, “There are many things in Scripture, which are contradictory, and which can in no way be recoiicileti, but by the oral law, which Moses received in Mount Sinai.” In conformity with these sentiments, is the conduct of the Jews, until this day. Their«learned men spend almost all their time, in p’.ring over the Talmud; and he, among them, who knows must ui the coniunts of this monstrous larrago of lies and nonsense, is esteemed the most learned man. In consequence of their implicit faith in this oral law, it becomes almost useless to reason with the Jews out of the Scriptures of the Old Testament. It is a matter of real importance, therefore, to show, that this whole fabric rests on a sandy foundation; and to dfemonstrate, that there is no evidence, whatsoever, that any such law was ever given to Moses, on Sinai. To this subject, therefore, I would now solicit the attention of the reader.
Here then, let it be observed, that we have no controversy with the Jews concerning the written law, Moral, Ceremonial, or Political: nor do we deny that Moes received from God on Mount Sinai, some explication of the written law. But what we maintain, is, that this exposition did not form a second distinct law; that it was not the same as the oral law of the Jews, contained in the Talmud; that it was not received by Moses in a distinct form from the writien law, and attended with a prohibition to commit it to writing.
In support of these positions, we solicit the attention of the impartial reader, to the following arguments: —
1. There is not the slis;htest mention of any such law in all the sacred records; neither of its original communication to Moses, nor of its transmission to posterity, in the way ptetendcd by the Jews. Now, we ask, is it probable, that if such a law had
US
been given, there should never have been any Iiint of the matter, nor the least reference to it, in the whole Bible? Certainly, this total silence of Soriptnic is very little favourable to the doctrine of an oral law. Maimonides, does indeed, pretend to find a reference to it, in Exodus xxix, 12. I will give you saith the. Lord,, a law, and common dment; by the first of these he understands, the written law, and by the last, the oral. But if he had only attended to the words next ensuin;, lie would never have adduced this text in confiim:ni’jn of an oral law; luhich I have written (hut thou mayest teach them. And we know that it is very common to express the written law by both these terms, as well as by several others of the same import. Now if no record exists of such a law having; been given to JNIoses, huw can we, at this late period, be satisfied of the fact? If it was never heard of for more than two thousand years afterwards, what evidence is thrre that it ever existed.
2. Again, we know, that in the time of king Josiah, the written law which had been lost, was found again. How great wjs the consterna’i )n of the pious king and his court, on this occasion! How memorable the history of this flict! But u hat became of the oral law, during this period.’’ Is it reasonable to think, that this would remain uninjured through successive ages of idolatry, when the written law was so entirely rfjeoli-d? If they had iorgoiien wlial was in their wriuen law, would.
they be likely to retain that which was oral? If the written law was lost, would the traditionary law be preserved? And if this was at any time lost, how could it be recovered? Not from the written law, for this does not contain it; not from the memory of man, for the supposition is, that it was thence obhterated. If then, this law, by any chance, was once lost, it is manifest, that it could never be recovered, but by divine revelation. And when we survey the history of the Jews, is it conceivable, that such a body of law, as that contained in the Talmud, immensely larger than the written law, could have been preserved entire, through so many generations, merely by oral communication? The Jews, indeed, amuse us with a able, on this subject. They tell us that while the Israelites mourned on account of the death of Moses, they forgot three thousand of these traditions, which were recovered by the ingenuity of Othniel the son of Kenaz. This is ridiculous enough. What a heap of traditions must that have been, from which three thousand could be lost at once? And how profound the genius of Othniel, which was able to bring to light such a multitude of precepts, after they had been completely forgotten? But the proof of this fact is more ludicrous still. It is derived from Joshua xv. 16, 17. nd Caleb said, he that smiteth Kirjath-Sepher, and taketh it, to him loill I irive Achsuh my daughter to wife, t/ind Othniel the soil of Kenaz, the brother of Caleb, took H: and he gave hint Jiehsah his ({(inshtcr to wife.
The iinleiirin’tl reader slutuld be informed that Kirjath-Sepher, means, the cittf nf tfie book.
Kilt, who retr.ined the oral law safely preserved in his memory, during the I0112; reign of INIanasseh; and during the reign of Amon, and of Josiah? AVhere was (hat law, during the seventy years captivity, in Babylon? Have we not a word to inform us of the fate of this law, in all the histories of those times? What, is there not a hint concerning the preservation of a deposit so precious, as this law is pretended to be? We must say again, that this continued silence of Scripture, through a period of so many hundreds of years, speaks liille in favour of the unwritten law.
3. The Jews agiun inform us, that this law was prohibited to be written; but whence do they derive the proof of this assertion? Let the evidence, if there be any, be produced. Must we have recourse to the oral law itself, for testimony? Be it so. But why then is it now written, and has been, for more than fifteen hundred years.’ In the Talmud, it is said, <’ The words of the written law, it is not lawful for you to commit to oral tradition; nor the words of the oral law to writing.” And Sol. Jar-HCi says, ‘’ Neither is it lawful to write the oral law.” Now we say, there was a law containing such a prohibition, or there was not. If the former, then the Talmudisls liavc transgressed a positive lie
precept of this law, in committing it to writing; if the latter, then their Talmud and their Rabbies speak falsely. Let them choose, in this dilemma.
4. But it can be proved, that whatever laws Moses received from God, the same he was commanded to write. It is said, tdnd Moses came and told the people all the words of the Lord. — Jind Mo- es wrote all the words of the Lord.
And again, it is said, Jlnd the Lord said to Moses, write these loords, for according to these tvords, have I made a covenant with you and with Israel. And it is worthy of particular observation, that wherever the people are called upon to obey the law of the Lord, no mention is made of any other than the written law. Thus Moses, lhen his end approached, made a speech unto the people; after which it is added. And Moses wrote this law and delivered it unto the priests the sons of Levi, which bare the ark of the covenant of the Lord, and unto all the elders of Israel. And Moses commanded tJiem 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 shall read it before all Israel in their hearing.
Here, observe, there is no mention of any other
* Exod. xxiv. 3, 4. xxxiv. 27, 28. Deut. xxxi. 9, 24, but the written law. There is no direction to repeat the oral law, at this time of leisure; but surely it was more necessary to command the people to do this, if there had been such a law, than to hear the written law which they might read from time to time.
In the time of Ahaz, the sacred historian informs us, That the Lord testified against Israel and against Judah, by ail the prophets, and by all the seers, saying, turn ye from your evil way Sf and keep my commandments and my statutesy according to all the law which I commanded your fathers, and which I sent luito you by my servants the prophets.
Now it is very manifest, that the law which they are reproved for breaking, was the written law; for in the same chapter, we have the Ibilowing exhortation; nd the statutes, and the ordinances, and the law, and the commandments which he WKOTE for you, ye shall observe to do for evermore.
The prophets continually refer the people to the law and to the testimony, and declare, if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.
When Jchoshaphit set about reforming and instructing th’pLople,and seton foot an important mission, consisting of princes and levites, to teach them,
2 Kings xvii. 13, 37.
lis
they confined themselves to what was written in the Scriptures, And they taught in Judah, and had the book of the laiu of the Lord with them, and toent about through all the cities ofJudah, and taught the people.
So also Ezra, when he instructed the people, who had returned from Babylon, made use of no other than the written law; Jind Ezra the priest brought the law before the congregation, both of men and women, and all that could hear with understanding. — And he read therein before the street, that was before the lo at e.r gate, from the morning until m,id-day, before the men and the tvomen, and those that could understand: and the ears of all the people were attentive unto the hook of Me law — And Ezra stood upon a pulpit of wood, which they had made for the jnirpose; — And Ezra opened the book in sight of all the people, and when he ojiened it, all the people stood up. And the priests and the Levites caused the people to understand the law; — And they read in the book, in the laio of God distinctly, and gave the sense, and caused the peojyle to understand the reading.
5. Besides, the written law is pronounced to be
perfect, so that nothing need, or could be added to
it, therefore the oral law was superfluous. The
luiv of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.
Ye shall not add unto the word which I command
2 Chron. xvii. 9. Neh. viii. 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8. Psalm xix. 8. Deut. iv. 1, 2.
f/ou,neither shall yc diminish ought from it, thai ye may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which F com.mand you.
It is not a valid objection which they bring against this argument, that Christians add the gospel to the law; for this is not, properly speaking, a new law. The gospel is a promise of grace and salvation. The precepts of the law are, indeed, specially employed in the gospel, to a purpose for which they w( re not originally intended: but the gospel, in whatever light it may be viewed, is committed to writing, and no part of it left to depend on oial tradition.
6. In the numerous exhortations and injunction of Almighty God, recorded in the Old Testament, there is not an instance of any one being commanded to do any thing, not contained in the written law, which proves, that, either there was no other law in existence, or that obedience to it was not required; and if obedience was not required, then, certainly, there was no law.*
Moreover, many of the .Tews,thcmselves,ooncur with us. in rejecting the oral law. The chief advocates of traditions were the Pharis-es, who arose out of Iho schools of Ilillc’l and Sliammai, that lived after the times of the Maccabees. On this. subject,
* It would be tedious to refer to all the texts in which commands and exhortations arc {riven, but the reader may consult the folIowin<r: Dcut. x. 12, 1:1. xi. 32. xxviii. 1. XXX. 20. xxix 9, 20. xxxi. 4,5, ‘lr,. Jo.?h. i. 7. xxiii. 0. 2King8 xiv. r.. 2 Chroji.xxv. 4. xxx. 1«.
we have the testimony of Jerome, who says, “Shammai and Hillel, from whom arose the Scribes and Pharisees, not long before the birth of Christ; the first of whom was called the dissipator, and the last, profane; because, by their traditions, they destroyed the law of God.”* But on this point, the Sadducees were opposed to the Pharisees, and according to Josephus, rejected all traditions, adhering to the Scriptures alone. With them agreed the Samaritans, and Essenes. The Karaites also, received the written word, and reiected all traditions; although, in other respects, they did not agree with the Sadducees. And in consequence of this, they are hated and reviled by the other Jews, so that it is not without great difficulty that they will receive a Karaite into one of their synagogues. Of this sect, there are still some remainino-, in Poland, Russia, Turkey, and Africa. It now remains to mention the arguments by which the Jews attempt to establish their oral law. These shall be taken from Manasseh bkn Israel, t one of their most learned and liberal men. He argues from the necessity of an oral law,to explain many parts of the written law. To confirm this opinion, he adduces several examples, as Exodus xii. 2. This month, shall be unto you the beginning- of months, it shall be the first month of the year. On this text he remarks, «’That the name of the month is not mentioned. It is not
* In Jesa viii. I Condi. In Exod.
said, whether I lie months were lunar or solar, “both of which were in ancient use; and yet without knowinjj; this, the precept could not be observ- ed. The same ditiiculty occurs, in regard to the other annual feasts.”
Another example is taken from Lev. xi. 13, where it is commandetl, that unclean birds shall not be eaten, and yet we are not furnished with any criteria, by which to distinguish the clean from the unclean, as in the case of beasts. A third example is from Exod. xxi. 29, Let no man go out o, his place on the seventh day, and yet we are not informed, whether he was forbidden to leave his house, his court, his city, or his suburbs. So, in Lev. xxi 1^, the priest is forbidden to go out of the Sanctuari/, and no time is limited, hut we know that the residence of the priests was without the precincts of the tcmj)le, and that they strved there, in rotation.”
‘’Again, in Lxod. xx. 10, all work is prohibited on thf sabbath, but circumcision is commanded to be performed on theeiglitii day; and ii is no where declared, whether this rile should be deferred, when the eighth day occui-red on the sabbath. The same dlfllCllly t-xists in r«:gard to the sl;iyin“- of the pasch.i: laitd), which was coiilined by the law to thefjui teenth day oi the month, an<l we are no wh ri! intVirmtd wha was to be dofie, when this was the sa )biiir’ “1 i Dent. xxiv. we have •, any law a reJaung to marriage, buL we are ilo where L 2 informed what ronstitutcd a legal marriase,’^ ‘’lu the feast of the Tabernacles, beautiful branches of trees are directed t) be used, but the species of tree is not mentioned. And in the Feast of Weeks, it is commanded, that on the fiftieth day, theivavesheaf should be offered from their habitations; but where it should be offered, is not said. And, finally, amon prohibited marriages, the wife of an uncle is never mentioned.”
In these, and many other instances, the learned Jew observes, that the law could only be understood by such oral tradition, as he supposes accompanied the written law.
Now,in answer to these things, we observe, first, in the general, that however many difficulties may be started respecting the precise meaning of many parts of the law, these can never prove the existence of an oral law. The decision on these points might have been left to the discretion of the worshippers, or to the common sense of the people. Besides, many things may appear obscure to us, which were not so to the ancient Israelites; so that they might have needed no oral law to explain them.
Again, it is one thing to expound a law, and another to add something to it: but the oral law for which they plead, is not a mere exposition, but an additional law.
It is one thing to avail ourselves of traditions to ‘interpret a law, and another to receive them as divine, and absolutely necessary. We do not deny, that nnny things may be pcrfornr-d accordiiii; to ancient custom, or the traditions of proocdinu; ‘Ji;r:s, in things indiflerent; but uc do deny, that these can be considered as divine, or nccessnrv.
lput particularly, wo answer, that the alleged difficulty about the name of the month, has no existence, for it can be very well ascertained fr )ni the circumstances of the case; and in Exod. xiii. the month is named. The civil year of the Jeu’s began with the month Tisri, hut the Ecclesiastical, with Abib. Therein, in fact, no grca’er difTicuity here, than in any other case, wjiere the ciiTumstance of time is mentioned. There was no need of understanding the method of reducing solar and lunar years into one another, to decide this matter. And if the Talmud be examined on this point, where the oral law is supposed to be now contained, there will be found there, no satisfactory method of computing time. And, indeed, the Talmudic doctors are so far from being agreed on this subject, that any thing else may be found sooner, thsn a law regulating tins matter, in the Talmud.
And in regard to the unclean binls, why w:is it necessary ti have criteria to distinguish themp since a catalogue of them is given in the very passage to which reference is made. And I would ask, does the pretended oral law contain any such criteria to direct in this case? Nothing less. The difficulty about the people leaving their place on the sabbath, and the priests leaving the temple, is really too trifling; to require any serious consideration. And as to what should be done when the day of circumcising a child, oi’ of killing the passover happened on the Sabbath, it is a point easily decided. These positive institutions ought to have been observed, on whatever day they occurred.
The question respecting matrimony, should rather provoke a smile, than a serious answer; for who is ignorant, what constitutes a lawful marriage? Or who would suppose that the ceremonies attendant on this transaction ought to be prescribed by the law of God; or, that another law was requisite for the purpose. As well might our learned Jew, insist on the necessitj’ of an Oral Law, t-o teach us how we should eat, drink, and perform our daily work.
If the law prescribed heautifnl branches of trees, to be used in the Feast ot Tabt.rnaclrs. what need wa< there of ju oral law, to teach a ly thing more. If such branches were nse’l,it was of course indifferent, whether they were of this or that species.
Eq’ia’lv futile are the other ariiuments of the author, ml ne>’d not be answ; ;• d in detatl.
It appears, therefore, that thove is no evidence, thatO”d ever L^ave any law t’> Moses, distinct from that which is witb-n in the Pfniateuch. And there is good reason to believe, that vhc vari us Invs found in th’! Mi-hna, wer- n ;ver ree. iv •. fiOai God, nor derived by tradition from iVioses; but were traditions of the Fathers, such as were in use in the time of our Saviour, who severely reprehends the Scribes and Pharisees, for settjng aside, and rendering of no effect, the word of God, by their unauthorized traditions.
The internal evidence is itself sufficient to convince us, that the laws of the Talmud are human inventions, and not divine institutions; except,that those circumstances of divine worship which were left to the aiscrttion of the iyeople, and which were regulated by custom, may be often found preserved ill this immense work.